|
Aiko Aiko
Registered: 05/13/05
Posts: 6,417
Loc: Lazy River Road
Last seen: 1 hour, 45 minutes
|
In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God]
#17608024 - 01/25/13 10:16 AM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
This is NOT my words but I find it a provocative read none the less. Since I dont have explicit permission to share it, I will not include the authors name.
In the Defense of Incomplete Proof, Or, Magicians and Christianity.
It has long been acknowledged by the best philosophers of our generation that an omnipotent and benevolent God is consistent with the idea of a world that contains evil only insofar as the world’s evil is caused by its inhabitants, that is to say, only insofar as this deity grants the inhabitants of the world free will. In fact, I would venture so far as to say that the idea of evil itself is contingent upon the idea of free will – let us for a moment examine “nature,” in the sense of the Earth’s proceedings when she is untroubled by mankind. Some philosophers would argue that wild beasts have agency, and perhaps they do, but if indeed they do it is only in the mildest sense of the word. A shark, for instance, can no more become a pacifist than become a potato. Given, then, that the wild beasts are not free to consider or moderate their actions in any real sense, it become absurd to describe nature as evil. Dangerous, yes. Harsh, certainly. Perhaps even cruel, but evil? Evil is the provenance of man. Clearly, a being is only capable of evil to the extent to which it has free will. Now, what sort of creator gives his creations free will? Two sorts, I would imagine. The god of Aristotle, of course, gives his creations free will because he simply does not care. Having set things in motion, he is finished with us. He may watch us, he may find some amusement in our petty concerns, but he certainly does not love us. In fact, the presupposition of free will is completely unnecessary for the god of Aristotle, for, having abolished the requirement that the creator be all-loving, we find it perfectly trivial to lay all the world’s woes at his feet. He certainly doesn’t care. Now, on the other hand, the idea of an all-loving god, the idea of a revelatory god (for, as we shall see, the two are almost inextricably linked), does, in fact, require that we have free will, as an element of the same ontological fact as the one which dictates that we cannot, in fact, have free will.
“What’s that?” I hear you cry. “An all-loving god requires that we have free will, but makes it impossible that we have free will?” Well, yes and no. An all-loving god will, by the mere fact that he loves us all, want to reveal himself to us. He will want us to see his divine nature, he will want us to understand that he loves us (for what love can bear to be misunderstood?), and he will want us to love him in return. And yet, simply by revealing himself to us, he will have robbed us of our free will. What man could claim to truly make a free choice with perfect knowledge of the consequences that await each? Who could freely choose an eternity of hell? Only the deranged. And so we see that I have neatly disproved the idea of an all-loving god. Or have I? For, you see, we now come to the “and no.” of my “yes and no.” A god could not provide coercive proof of his existence without robbing us of our volition, yet his loving nature would demand that he reveal himself to us. So, what is left? Why, non-coercive evidence, of course! Non-coercive evidence would be that evidence which is not sufficient proof that it would be irrational to deny the evidenced truth, but sufficient proof that it would not be irrational to accept this truth. To speak more plainly, it is evidence that can (but should not be) explained away.
Of course, to leave the realm of pure and toothless thought and actually take a bite out of the world, as it were, one must show that one’s musings actually at some moment flirt with reality. Should we fail to do so, we find ourselves declawed and neutered, as clever as we may be. We are almost at that moment, but first, a thought experiment. How could a god prove his divinity? He could of course simply make his creations believe, but let us pretend that he wants to preserve their free will, to an extent. Let us say that he chooses instead to reveal himself through actions in the world at large. How would he do this? Clearly, by doing things only a god could do. But what if, and this is where it gets tricky, what if he decides that he wants to leave his creatures free to accept or reject him as they see fit? He could, I suppose, dial things back a bit. But that is not workable at all! Should his feats enter the realm of the humanly possible, there is no one who will believe that his feats were divine at all; should his actions be clearly divine, there is no one who will not. And so, what does our camera-shy deity do? Why, he allows others to perform similar wonders, of course. If he is to perform miracles without permanently and irrevocably squelching all skepticism, he cannot be the only one to do so.
You are frustrated; I know this. I have promised you substance, and I have given you speculation. And yet, to some of you, my speculation may sound familiar. It should call to mind the tale of Moses, who was used by Yahweh to free the Israelites. But that, of course, is not quite the specific bit that should sound familiar. Neither the burning bush nor the parting of the sea is germane to this discussion. What is relevant is a part of the tale that may have raised questions in all of your minds: how did the Pharaoh’s magicians mimic the feats of Moses, who was acting as an instrument of God? It should be obvious: in a way, they are the most important element of this tale. They allowed God’s self-revelation to be non-coercive, and thus, allowed him to reveal himself. Now, it should be readily obvious that the Israelites had a much stronger case to believe in God than we have today. God did not – quite – allow the Pharaoh’s magicians to do what he did; his snake ate theirs, after all. Furthermore, in the end, God won. He saved the Israelites, and led them through the wilderness. These are facts that would tend to make a very strong case for God, and yet, because he allowed himself to be aped, he could preserve our free will.
The case for a god is strong; it has convinced such notables as Albert Einstein, Antony Flew, and Aristotle. Should you care to explore the argument in further depth, I am not your man. I am neither historian nor philosopher. I would instead recommend that you read Antony Flew’s There is a God. The case for a loving, revelatory god may be slightly weaker (it cannot, to my knowledge, be derived directly from reason without consideration for historical evidence), but it is a strong case nonetheless. And, having assumed a loving, revelatory god, I defy you to find one that is truly consistent, that truly preserves the free will of his creations even while revealing himself, better than the God of Abraham.
-------------------- Easily test the dosage of your tabs at home! qtests.org Man says, "God, show me and I will believe." God says, "Believe and I will show you."
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 25 days
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: Aiko Aiko] 3
#17608064 - 01/25/13 10:28 AM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Just a load of fallacies!
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: Aiko Aiko]
#17608065 - 01/25/13 10:28 AM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: MushroomTrip]
#17608602 - 01/25/13 12:12 PM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said: Just a load of phalluses!
--------------------
|
Rahz
Alive Again
Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,300
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: Aiko Aiko]
#17608870 - 01/25/13 12:59 PM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
The mystical story of God seems to provide parallels to our relationship with existence which we can deduce with a degree of experiential confidence. IOW, it is not important whether or not there is a "God", only what the rules of the experience are. After all, that is what the hidden God theory suggests. God doesn't really want us to know he exists, he only wants us to know what he is about. In such a scenario doesn't the question of God become superfluous?
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." - Gilbert Keith Chesterton
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: Rahz]
#17608943 - 01/25/13 01:12 PM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
"God Damn the Pusher Man"
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: Icelander]
#17609015 - 01/25/13 01:25 PM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I prefer 'Magic Carpet Ride'.
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 25 days
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#17609033 - 01/25/13 01:29 PM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:
MushroomTrip said: Just a load of phalluses!
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: MushroomTrip]
#17609224 - 01/25/13 01:58 PM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
You can handle THREE?!
--------------------
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs
Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 3 years, 25 days
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#17609307 - 01/25/13 02:13 PM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Sure, the more the merrier.
-------------------- All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: MushroomTrip]
#17609319 - 01/25/13 02:16 PM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
What was this thread about?
--------------------
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: MushroomTrip]
#17609431 - 01/25/13 02:38 PM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said: Sure, the more the merrier.
OC and I are flying out tonight.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: Icelander]
#17609436 - 01/25/13 02:39 PM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
No sword crossing!
--------------------
|
shaggyp
California Hottboi
Registered: 12/27/12
Posts: 454
Last seen: 1 year, 11 months
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: OrgoneConclusion] 1
#17611328 - 01/25/13 09:27 PM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Trying to prove or disprove God with science or logic is like trying to look at the stars with your butthole.
You can't just raise your asscrack to the sky and go "it doesn't see any stars. They're not there."
And I know it's fallacious to say "Well since we can't measure it, it must exist", but my point is this whole "science vs God" argument is kinda dumb since they aren't mutually exclusive. It's like having a shirt vs pants argument. You can wear both, you can wear one, you can wear neither.
-------------------- Burt Cocaine
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: shaggyp]
#17611830 - 01/25/13 11:32 PM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Science is the pants; maybe even a futuristic jumpsuit.
--------------------
|
shaggyp
California Hottboi
Registered: 12/27/12
Posts: 454
Last seen: 1 year, 11 months
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: OrgoneConclusion]
#17611854 - 01/25/13 11:38 PM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Given the ridiculousness (and obvious socialization) of indecent exposure laws, as well as the tendency of some women to wear skirts or dresses instead of pants...
well you just made a lot of implications and references you may have not considered.
-------------------- Burt Cocaine
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group
Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,441
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: shaggyp]
#17611874 - 01/25/13 11:45 PM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Someone has to push the envelope.
--------------------
|
Mr Person
Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 551
Loc: inner circle of fault
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: shaggyp] 1
#17612118 - 01/26/13 12:38 AM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shaggyp said: Trying to prove or disprove God with science or logic is like trying to look at the stars with your butthole.
You can't just raise your asscrack to the sky and go "it doesn't see any stars. They're not there."
And I know it's fallacious to say "Well since we can't measure it, it must exist", but my point is this whole "science vs God" argument is kinda dumb since they aren't mutually exclusive. It's like having a shirt vs pants argument. You can wear both, you can wear one, you can wear neither.
If only the skeptics actually tried to disprove God, we might have an interesting debate. Instead they hide behind the burden of proof and try to paint even the slightest agnosticism as fanatical and unfounded belief.
|
shaggyp
California Hottboi
Registered: 12/27/12
Posts: 454
Last seen: 1 year, 11 months
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: Mr Person]
#17612250 - 01/26/13 01:09 AM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
What's a more ridiculous assumption:
That something you can't perceive definitely exists
OR
That something you can't perceive definitely does not exist
?
-------------------- Burt Cocaine
|
White Beard
Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 6,325
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: Aiko Aiko]
#17612346 - 01/26/13 01:46 AM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
not bad
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: shaggyp]
#17612451 - 01/26/13 02:33 AM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shaggyp said: What's a more ridiculous assumption:
That something you can't perceive definitely exists
OR
That something you can't perceive definitely does not exist
?
True and you can change definitely to likely with the same result.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Aiko Aiko
Registered: 05/13/05
Posts: 6,417
Loc: Lazy River Road
Last seen: 1 hour, 45 minutes
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: MushroomTrip]
#17616181 - 01/26/13 09:16 PM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said: Just a load of fallacies!
You say a load of fallacies but yet you didn't give 1 example.. please elaborate on said fallacies.
-------------------- Easily test the dosage of your tabs at home! qtests.org Man says, "God, show me and I will believe." God says, "Believe and I will show you."
|
Aiko Aiko
Registered: 05/13/05
Posts: 6,417
Loc: Lazy River Road
Last seen: 1 hour, 45 minutes
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: shaggyp]
#17616322 - 01/26/13 09:44 PM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shaggyp said: Trying to prove or disprove God with science or logic is like trying to look at the stars with your butthole.
You can't just raise your asscrack to the sky and go "it doesn't see any stars. They're not there."
And I know it's fallacious to say "Well since we can't measure it, it must exist", but my point is this whole "science vs God" argument is kinda dumb since they aren't mutually exclusive. It's like having a shirt vs pants argument. You can wear both, you can wear one, you can wear neither.
I would agree in the sense that science in itself can only explain the natural world around us so it must not be expected to explain the super-natural. That being said you also can not expect science to disprove the super natural as well.
-------------------- Easily test the dosage of your tabs at home! qtests.org Man says, "God, show me and I will believe." God says, "Believe and I will show you."
|
Mr.Al
Alphabet soup
Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 5,388
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 2 months, 29 days
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: Aiko Aiko]
#17620726 - 01/27/13 07:55 PM (11 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Just wanted to post in this thread.
|
dustinthewind.13
nuisance
Registered: 01/28/13
Posts: 112
Loc: dead gone forgotten
Last seen: 11 years, 25 days
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: Mr.Al]
#17626295 - 01/28/13 09:23 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond
Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: shaggyp]
#17630191 - 01/29/13 04:44 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
shaggyp said: What's a more ridiculous assumption:
That something you can't perceive definitely exists
OR
That something you can't perceive definitely does not exist
?
But what if I 'feel' it exists ? Feelings can be wrong, that's why I go after them...
|
xFrockx
Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,457
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 12 days, 8 hours
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: Aiko Aiko]
#17630561 - 01/29/13 05:36 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Hey shut the fuck up. Your posts are garbage.
|
Mr.Al
Alphabet soup
Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 5,388
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 2 months, 29 days
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: xFrockx]
#17634597 - 01/30/13 11:34 AM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
xFrockx said: Hey shut the fuck up. Your posts are garbage.
What is Character.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery
Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: xFrockx]
#17634698 - 01/30/13 11:54 AM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
xFrockx said: Hey shut the fuck up. Your posts are garbage.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
xFrockx
Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,457
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 12 days, 8 hours
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: Mr.Al]
#17635784 - 01/30/13 03:27 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I don't know.
|
Mr.Al
Alphabet soup
Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 5,388
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 2 months, 29 days
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: xFrockx]
#17677869 - 01/31/13 05:22 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
xFrockx said: I don't know.
Would you say that Character may effect decisions that you make.
This person would say that the following is a True Statement:
CHARACTER IS WHAT GIVES YOU SUBSTANCE MAN.
Would say that marijuana develops Character because folks obviously take things less personally when they are High.
|
Wise Toad
Registered: 06/08/10
Posts: 2,690
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: Mr.Al]
#17677997 - 01/31/13 05:43 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?
Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: Aiko Aiko]
#17679732 - 01/31/13 06:50 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Aiko Aiko said: I would agree in the sense that science in itself can only explain the natural world around us so it must not be expected to explain the super-natural. That being said you also can not expect science to disprove the super natural as well.
what is the "super-natural"?
-------------------- Kupo said: let's fuel the robots with psilocybin. cez said: everyone should smoke dmt for religion. dustinthewind13 said: euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building. White Beard said: if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.
|
Mr.Al
Alphabet soup
Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 5,388
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 2 months, 29 days
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: blingbling]
#17682193 - 01/31/13 06:57 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
When Character Standards are High the Individual Can See Higher Things.
If you have no Character no one will want to even smoke trees with you.
If a dog pisses on someone with low Character they might gain Virtue.
|
blingbling
what you chicken stew?
Registered: 09/04/10
Posts: 2,987
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: Mr.Al]
#17723303 - 01/31/13 08:22 PM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
-------------------- Kupo said: let's fuel the robots with psilocybin. cez said: everyone should smoke dmt for religion. dustinthewind13 said: euthanasia and prostitution should be legal and located in the same building. White Beard said: if you see the buddha on the road, rape him, then kill him. then rape him again.
|
xFrockx
Registered: 09/17/06
Posts: 10,457
Loc: Northeast
Last seen: 12 days, 8 hours
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: Mr.Al]
#17724914 - 02/01/13 02:42 AM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
"Would you say that Character may effect decisions that you make."
I don't know if character exists in order to effect anything (the word you were looking for there was affect).
"This person would say that the following is a True Statement:
CHARACTER IS WHAT GIVES YOU SUBSTANCE MAN.
Would say that marijuana develops Character because folks obviously take things less personally when they are High. "
I don't think an abstract concept can give substance. Eating gives substance, surely (if one subscribes to the notion of a self and sees people as things). Eat KFC for a month and you'll probably have more substance.
And saying marijuana makes people take things less personally is a joke. Plenty of people don't take things personally when sober, let alone on many of the any other substances one might use.
|
dustinthewind.13
nuisance
Registered: 01/28/13
Posts: 112
Loc: dead gone forgotten
Last seen: 11 years, 25 days
|
Re: In defense of incomplete proof [The existance of God] [Re: blingbling]
#17725455 - 02/01/13 08:45 AM (11 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
blingbling said:
Quote:
Aiko Aiko said: I would agree in the sense that science in itself can only explain the natural world around us so it must not be expected to explain the super-natural. That being said you also can not expect science to disprove the super natural as well.
what is the "super-natural"?
It's a pretty cool show.
|
|