|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 20, 2008 11:25:06 GMT -8
Mo wrote:
Chris replied:
Guys, I think this makes a good discussion on it's own. So I'm starting one. More later.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 20, 2008 12:08:57 GMT -8
My point was that acknowledging that God places significance on humans is not necessarily a sign of arrogance.
In this psalm, David is acknowledging humans to be the cosmic amoebas we are, but glorifying God for extending His love so low, and indeed, crowning him [mankind] with "glory and honor".
That's a sign of humility, not arrogance IMO. It's all about God doing something benevolent, not man having anything inherently special about him.
I think it might be arrogance if you start with the premise that man merely invented the revelations that lead him to believe in his significance in the universe. I think that may Dawkins' whole point in his (and by extension Moritz's) statement there. But that, of course, is begging the question (which Dawkins has a bad habit of doing quite frequently IMO).
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Dec 22, 2008 10:13:31 GMT -8
I think everybody (especially believers) should be more careful with begging-the-question-accusations. After all, the premise that God exists is yet to be proven. Hence every conclusion built on the premise that he exists is begging the question...
But now that we are talking about begging the question, it has to be pointed out, that not Dawkins is begging the question but David:
Yes, IF God exists and IF he has created the entire universe and mankind, and IF he is personal, and IF he is Yahweh and IF he is indeed accompanying every living thing and constantly listening to the same worries and the same problems of billions and billions of humans over and over again 24/7 for thousands of years, then we can talk about David's view. But we are far from there.
I'm gonna leave Dawkins out of it and speak for myself here. I'm not presuming people made up their revelations. But what's the worth of your personal revelation for me? You've been made to know it's true and I've been made to know it's not true. So where are we now? I don't even want to start with all the Muslim revelations I came across in the last couple of weeks. Personal revelations - and this is not supposed to be arrogant but rather careful - are worthless for a universal approach of ascertaining the truth. Objectivity, reliability, validity and intersubjective verifyability are the classic quality criteria. Personal revelation doesn't fulfill any of these. The entire Christian belief is built upon untestable, unverifyable and unfalsifyable pretensions. You've had your revelation, fine, believe whatever you like. But since I can't know whether your revelation was real or merely a product of your imagination and whether your interpretation of your revelation is accurate, I can't take it into consideration.
It has nothing to do with begging the question, au contraire, it's sticking to the facts. And from where I stand and what I can see the facts tell me, that it is very unlikely that the creator of the universe would really have nothing better to do than to care about the "poky little 'sins'" of humanity. Even if we admit that there is nothing special about us*, to believe that God has created the entire universe around us and that we are the crown of the creation** implies that we are important enough for the creator to care 24/7 for our vulgar and decadent ways. To think the creator of the universe is so fond of you that he is friends with you implies that you think you are worthy of being his friend. You can throw yourself into the dust and cry out: "I'm unworthy, I'm unworthy, I'm an amoeba", but the truth is, you believe that God thinks different about it. I think theres no getting around the arrogance of that.
*Whether we are special or not is relative. For the entire universe, I believe, we are even less then amoebas. But we must be pretty impressive for ... birds!?
** the use of the word crown, as a symbol for the dignity, power and dominion of a king couldn't be less high-handed!
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 22, 2008 18:19:11 GMT -8
I take it for granted that in discussion between atheists and Christians, for example, there has to be a whole lot of temporary begging of the question because the topic is so huge. I mean, hey look how much we've written here and we're still just scratching the surface. The point is that we have to look at each bit one at a time and as the bits come together establish an overall case. It's good to point out the parts that don't feel established, but good luck any of us trying to make any quick point without assuming some prerequisite propositions. I agree with you here Mo. I put very little stock in personal unverifiable revelation as a persuader to others. But this just simply isn't true: For instance, Christian belief is built on the existence of a man named Jesus, which is testable, verifiable within commonly accepted bounds, and considerably falsifiable. I could go on, but I just think you should rein that comment in a bit. I wouldn't even use that sentence of atheism or Islam. Lastly, I have some thoughts on the topic at hand, of course, but I'll have to come back when I have some more time (you know, I'm just too busy all snowed in  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 22, 2008 21:34:01 GMT -8
Elswhere in our previous discussions I've argued quite extensively that if there is an omnipotent, omniscient God (which you are assuming for the sake of your above argument), then, having no limitations of focus or interest and no time/ space obstacles, it is much more logical that He would be infinitely interested in absolutely everything that exists than for him to not care or be indifferent about anything. I know I wish I could be focused on and enjoy everything all at once- even carpet lint, if I had absolutely no limitations.
Not at all. It doesn't necessarily require a high view of humanity, just a realistically high view of the potential of an unlimited deity.
Moving on for now, I find it interesting that in one breath our sins our "poky and little" and in the next we're "vulgar and decadent". But beside that, humans care a great deal about right and wrong. In fact, as far as we know, we are the only ones in the universe who have this capacity (this does seem to be a "special" attribute of humans). If there is a creator, He created us this way. And if there is an omnipotent, omnipresent Creator it makes sense that there is a continuity with how He created us and what He also cares about.
Whether you believe we are the most advanced life in the universe or not doesn't change the fact that we can see degrees of complexity among life forms. And if God is the most complex being in existence, than the more complex a life form gets, the more "like" God it must be.
I'd like to deal with this stuff before going on to a discussion of evidence in favor of universe being created for us ;D
Lastly, and this is a small side point, it's also bugging me that you're calling it arrogance in the first place. If there is no God, why is it arrogant to believe that we're special. It might be wrong that we're special, but why is it arrogant? Who is being offended by it? The cosmos?
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Dec 23, 2008 15:21:04 GMT -8
But this just simply isn't true: For instance, Christian belief is built on the existence of a man named Jesus, which is testable, verifiable within commonly accepted bounds, and considerably falsifiable.  the mere existence of a man named Jesus is not the crux*. The core of Christian belief is the resurrection of that person, which is supposed to proove that he was indeed the incarnated God. Perhaps you'd be so kind to verify the event of the resurrection for me?? *Whether this specific person really existed is not waterproof fact even if many Christian like to sell it that way. As a historian I'm sure you know that. However, as I have said before several times the mere existence of that man doesn't imply that the traits which are attributed to him are true. Hence I'm not even interested in fussing about his existence. I'm willing to assume he existed. I could go on, but I just think you should rein that comment in a bit. I wouldn't even use that sentence of atheism or Islam. 1. Look, the point is that faith is called faith precisely because of what I've said. If the claims of Christianity about the nature of God and the resurrection of the Christ were verifiable and falsifiable we would be speaking of fact and not of faith. 2. Let me be so bold and say what you wouldn't say: the same goes for Islam and dogmatic atheism** **where atheism is defined as the belief in the nonexistence of God, it becomes a belief of it's own. This kind of atheism does exist but it's not mine. My atheism is an absence of belief in deities. That's a different story. Many people tend to confuse this. Elswhere in our previous discussions I've argued quite extensively (...) extensively doesn't equal convincingly  (...) that if there is an omnipotent, omniscient God (which you are assuming for the sake of your above argument) (...) Hold it a second. Omnipotence and omniscience are traits you are arbitrarily adding right now. I've only been speaking of the creator of the universe so far. A creator that has the possibility to listen and care, yes, but that doesn't equal omnipotence. (...) then, having no limitations of focus or interest and no time/ space obstacles, it is much more logical that He would be infinitely interested in absolutely everything that exists than for him to not care or be indifferent about anything. 1. His freedom of time/ space obtacles and other limitations is your personal add-on. 2. That it would be logical for him to care about everything is simply your subjective opinion. I don't see why it should be unlogical for the creator not to care. Example: humans are creative designers too. I'm sure you've created some stuff already that has interested you for a while and which you have forgotten by now. We are not compelled by the rules of logic to care about everything we've created. Perhaps you would care about carpet lint if you could. But I wouldn't and I don't see why God would considering all the interesting stuff that is going on in the universe. To can doesn't mean to have to. Your conclusion is invalid. Not at all. It doesn't necessarily require a high view of humanity, just a realistically high view of the potential of an unlimited deity. Reread what I've said and take a moment to think about it. It's quite simple. friendship exceeds mere interest in somebody. Friendship and love imply relation. The thought that the creator of the entire universe wants relation with you must mean he thinks you are worth it and if he thinks it, who are you to say you're not? I find it interesting that in one breath our sins our "poky and little" and in the next we're "vulgar and decadent". Why? as far as we know, we are the only ones in the universe who have this capacity (this does seem to be a "special" attribute of humans). as far as we know... but we don't really know much about the universe, do we? If there is a creator, He created us this way. And if there is an omnipotent, omnipresent Creator it makes sense that there is a continuity with how He created us and what He also cares about. 1. If, if, if... 2. Generally speaking: something making sense doesn't equal something being true or fact. 3. IF there is a creator, he created us this way. Okay. But that doesn't mean he did that on purpose. Maybe the creator isn't even aware of our existence. The step from the assumption of the existence of a creator to the traits of omnipotence, omniscience, transcendence, etc. is gigantic and illegitimate without solid evidence (which I still haven't seen here). Remember the Horton thread. In the end all of this universe could be as well the result of a big bang experiment similar to the one those physicians in Switzerland are trying to perform. Maybe the creator has no clue what he has done... There are just too many possibilities. And if God is the most complex being in existence, than the more complex a life form gets, the more "like" God it must be. 1. If, if, if... 2. Even if we are more "like" God than amoebas, it doesn't mean or imply that we are anywhere near a level of complexety that would attract God. Lastly, and this is a small side point, it's also bugging me that you're calling it arrogance in the first place. If there is no God, why is it arrogant to believe that we're special. Oh come on! I myself do think we are special. That's not the point. The arrogance comes with the view that we are the most special thing in the universe, created in the image of the creator. Who is being offended by it? The cosmos?  does that mean its only arrogance if somebody is offended? |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 26, 2008 22:30:36 GMT -8
My point was that even to a skeptic, Christianity is not a religion "made from scratch" like Scientology or Mormonism, or one based almost solely on ideas like Hinduism or Buddhism. Along with Judaism and Islam, it is rooted in real history. There is debate about which details are accruate, etc.., but the beliefs spring from historical events. So I don't think it's fair to say "the entire belief...." The resurrection is a testable historical event for sure, and we've spent some time discussing it here and it deserves more time for sure. The existence of Jesus is a solid historical fact that only psuedo-science attempts to deny. In addition to his mere existence, there are numerous facts about his life that scholars across the board agree on. See this thread: Did Jesus Exist? The Undisputed FactsVerifyable and fasilfying are different from testable. Another way of saying it is that Christianity can't be proven (or disproven), but the evidence for and against it can be weighed, and decisions can be made to accept or deny it based on said evidence. Making a decision on the evidence available, yet without proof, is what Christian faith is. In other words, Chrisitan faith is not completely blind, as I've argued elsewhere. Mo later |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 28, 2008 22:40:18 GMT -8
No it's not. In order to create or be the cause of the universe, he must be outside of it. If outside of it, he is transcendant to it's laws. God, by definition, is the greatest conceivable being from the perspective of our universe.
This paragraph makes me think you're not really listening to what I'm saying. When you say "I'm sure you've created some stuff already that has interested you for a while and which you have forgotten by now" or "I don't see why God would considering all the interesting stuff that is going on in the universe" you are implying that God is finite, as we are- that he can only focus on so many things at once. You're completely putting aside the point that it's precisely because of his omnipresence and omniscience that he would be intimately interested in everything there is.
I think this is the most natural expectation of what an infinite God would be like. I don't even have one doubt that if there is a transcendant God, no thing is insignificant to him.
I predict without doubt that if you were granted God-like powers within short order you would, as well, be intimately interested in everything that is.
I never said that we "attract God" more than amoebas. I was arguing that it's reasonable to expect that the qualities found in the more complex things are closer to the qualities of God himself. As I've said before, I think God must be entirely "attracted" to the entirely of His creation.
Lastly, you think it's arrogant to belief we're special/ created in the image of God. What do you think is the danger of this arrogance?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 28, 2008 22:51:08 GMT -8
The problem with postulating this kind of "finite creator" is that you must ask yourself "who or what created or caused this creator in the first place?". The causes will regress until you come to some absolutely inifite uncaused beginningless being, reality, or singularlity. That is what what we call God.
Don't they teach Aquinas in schools anymore?
|
|
)
the mere existence of a man named Jesus is not the crux*. The core of Christian belief is the resurrection of that person, which is supposed to proove that he was indeed the incarnated God. Perhaps you'd be so kind to verify the event of the resurrection for me?? 
does that mean its only arrogance if somebody is offended?