All Blog Comments

AndrewFinden - Julia Gillard confirmed atheist

AndrewFinden — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:23:33 +0000

Presumably you're implying the Humist idea that it's more reasonable to assume that you're either lying or confused? The problem with weighing up evidence in hypotheticals is that the evidence is almost always stacked and changed on a whim ;)

AndrewFinden - Julia Gillard confirmed atheist

AndrewFinden — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:20:55 +0000

No worries.. though I am intrigued: I suppose it could be that your garage is not in this universe, which would only lead me to ask what kind of ride you have! ;)

AndrewFinden - Julia Gillard confirmed atheist

AndrewFinden — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:18:08 +0000

Is it really irrefutable?

I wouldn't say irrefutable, but virtually no serious scholar doubts the existence of Jesus - and for very good reason. In fact the synoptic accounts do fall within the first generation, and eye-witnesses would still have been alive. The earliest extant reference comes from only 20years later, and is almost certainly a creed that dates from earlier, probably from 35AD. That's all perfectly acceptable, if not early, in ancient terms. There's also Josephus, though one of his references has almost certainly been tampered with (the general consensus is that he said something about Jesus, and certainly about his brother James). Tacitus corroborates that Jesus was crucified under Pilate, and then there's the Jewish Talmud. Not to mention the fact that the very existence of the church is virtually inexplicable apart from an historic Jesus. Unfortunately I have to agree that Julius Caesar is not a comparable case - we have extant copies of his own diaries (though the number and dates of the manuscripts for these are far inferior to the NT manuscripts). Julius Caesar is very well attested, but there are many historical figures for whom no such strictly contemporary attestation exists - indeed, for whom lesser and later attestation exists than for Jesus. Were he secular, there would be no doubt - which indicates some obvious goal-shifting. That the NT documents were later collated into a volume we call 'The Bible' and that is revered as a sacred text is basically irrelevant to the issue of the historicity of Jesus - we ought to simply treat them as we would any other ancient document, and apply the same standards of multiple, independent attestation, embarrassing testimony and lack of competing account. F.F. Bruce argues that reliability is a state of mind, so if a writer is reliable in the details we can check then it is very likely they are also reliable in the details we cannot check - someone like Luke, for example has been shown in such checkable details to be reliable. As it stands, we have multiple, independent, early, attestation for Jesus from both canonical and non-canonical sources within the minimum two-generations it takes for an historical hard-core to be wiped out by legendary tendencies (such as we see in the later gnostics). Further, there is embarrassing detail and there is no competing account (when there were those trying to quell the movement, the easiest way would be to point out non-existence were it the case). Indeed, the extant reference to hostile polemic (from the Jewish leaders) only serves to corroborate the empty tomb! There really is no good reason to doubt the existence of Jesus, whatever else you might discount about the accounts and claims. It is very telling indeed that the only people to do so are those who have some kind of ant-theist prejudice and agenda (the agenda is obvious when one proceeds to discount so much textual attestation). It's almost as if they think that by denying his existence it saves the trouble of having to deal with his claims... could there be any truth in that?

Nathan Parsons - Julia Gillard confirmed atheist

Nathan Parsons — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:34:44 +0000

I see your point and I feel that fatigue may have led me away from the point of my analogy. However, I actually said nothing as to whether or not the dragon actually lived outside of the universe, or his nature inside of the universe, but I shall except that I failed to mention it and that I probably should have.

Nathan Parsons - Julia Gillard confirmed atheist

Nathan Parsons — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:28:14 +0000

My hypothetical claim was that I had personally seen the dragon and spoken with it. My account is first hand, and not written down decades later in a form likely not to have been identical to the original events. Further, you claim to have had experiences with God and felt his presence, surely seeing something and talking to it is better than just a feeling?

AndrewFinden - Julia Gillard confirmed atheist

AndrewFinden — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:42:26 +0000

Why can you have Jesus in the universe, and I not the dragon?

Well you weren't comparing the dragon to Jesus - let alone specifically to his physical incarnation.

why must my dragon be limited by what you say that God can and can't do?

I never said it was - but you were making an analogous comparison, were you not? If you want to suggest that your invisble dragon can create the universe whilst residing entirely within a very small part of that universe, go ahead.. doesn't make any sense..feel free to suggest self-lifting bootstraps while you're at it (though in fairness, some naturalist physicists do try that, so you wouldn't be the first ;P )

Jamie Michelle - Julia Gillard confirmed atheist

Jamie Michelle — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:25:28 +0000

Hey Nathan, you can add your dragon to the list that i asked you in this question previously... You say - I could tell you that the invisible pink unicorn loves you, does that mean anything? And I replied ok did the invisible pink unicorn, Santa, tooth fairy, Easter bunny etc exist in real space and time impacting society, seen by heaps of eye witnesses over his 33 year physical life, have his life & death recorded, cause a revolution, bring moral upgrade, have apostles 11 out of 12 were martyred while spreading message to the four corners and wrote epistles, proclaimed he died for our sins, ushered in a new covenant between God and humanity etc among other things?? For your dragon to be competing in the same league you need to explain all of the above away :)...kind regards xx

Nathan Parsons - Julia Gillard confirmed atheist

Nathan Parsons — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 07:28:51 +0000

@AndrewFinden
My mobile won't let of reply to the actual comment, so I will have to post this as a new reply.

It it simple to solve: the dragon is only appearing in this universe. Why can you have Jesus in the universe, and I not the dragon?

Actually, why must my dragon be limited by what you say that God can and can't do?

AndrewFinden - Julia Gillard confirmed atheist

AndrewFinden — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:00:11 +0000

Yes, but that doesn't mean God is physically present - I should perhaps have been more clear (but thanks for picking me up on that!): God's existence is not in the physical universe. As one commentator says about omnipresence: "This is not to say that God's form is spread out so that parts of Him exist in every location. God is spirit; He has no physical form. " I suppose Nathan might suggest that his dragon has no physical form (in which sense is he a dragon then?), though that does lead us to ask how he could see it. You would have as much trouble scientifically locating my spirit which is within the universe (but not physically) because science, by definition, deals with the physical universe - to see such a limit is no insult to it. But it is also no reason to think that only what science can measure is reality - that would be somewhat circular. If you want to suggest that there's no such thing as 'spirit', well, that's a philosophical assumption you're welcome to have, but that I'm not forced to share.

@WatcherMastema - Julia Gillard confirmed atheist

@WatcherMastema — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 16:48:17 +0000

Do you also believe God is omnipresent?

AndrewFinden - Julia Gillard confirmed atheist

AndrewFinden — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:54:10 +0000

My hypothetical claim is ridiculous, but no different to any theological claim. I could even go as far as to say that the dragon has certain powers, and that it created the universe.

Well, not quite. Your invisible dragon is, according to your story, in existence within the universe - which makes one wonder how it could create the universe it resides in.. self-lifting bootstraps anyone? The classical understanding of God, however, is that he exists outside of the universe (which is why science can have nothing to say about his existence in that sense, btw.). I do agree, however, that asking to prove God doesn't exist is invalid - you can only prove a negative when you have complete access to the scope of the claim (e.g. I can prove that there is no money in my wallet) but without having knowledge of the whole universe, let alone, of outside the universe, it is virtually impossible to prove that something doesn't exist there.

AndrewFinden - Eruv, what's that?

AndrewFinden — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:47:36 +0000

No - there is a massive problem right at the heart of your argument. You are claiming your god can only have the powers that are available. He cannot create new ones, or illogical ones (because logic is said to be "in his character").

One can only ever have what is there or what is possible to be there. If all possibilities of something are already all there, then it's logically impossible to create more or a new one.

Please show god is logical, or IS logic.

I've already called your reneging like this.

Then on what basis do you make any of these claims?

As I just said - on his self-revelation! <blockqote>In any case, no matter what the ultimate answers, you can STILL claim they are god's innate nature. You can never BE wrong. How is it that I can answer your objection, and you completely ignore that and make the very same objection in the next sentence? I already explained that I cannot just claim whatever I like as God's nature...

We are told god has many attributes, omnipotence being one of them. We are also told god is logic (or logical). But combining all of these things simply does not work. You cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent, or omniscient and free. Theologians have had 2,000 years to reconcile these issues and so far - zilch.

Clearly you just haven't read very widely! ;) How is there any contradiction in being free to do whatever you will, love whoever you will and know all knowledge? You've yet to show that there is any contradiction in doing all this logically. But at the very least - you've acknowledged some of the assumptions that come with the territory, and even if you think they are in conflict, you must, for the sake of the argument, allow them, and have no grounds to demand they be first demonstrated.

AndrewFinden - Eruv, what's that?

AndrewFinden — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:36:00 +0000

I do not sit by the keyboard waiting for your response. I have a life.

Oh, but you had replied several times - you just failed to answer that question until now ;)

You state that god can claim all the powers available, yet have been unable to demonstrate what they might be (although you have been philosophising over the question).

I don't have to demonstrate what each of those powers might be - I simply need to show logically what kind they may be, and what I've shown is that this is the power to do things that can logically be done. You have yet to show that the power to do that which is not there to be done can exist.

A central question Nathan and I seem to have is "could god create new powers, or create powers which are illogical?" to which you have answered "no" but not provided any real justification for.

I don't think you have asked if God could create 'new' powers - but in any case, if all possible powers are already there, how can one logically create more? In regards to the question of doing the illogical - the answer 'no' is because of God's nature (which you proceeded to then fallaciously renege on allowing assumptions about) and I would say because of the nature of the logical reality we're in.

How many systems of logic have I seen? One, but this is not really the right question.

It is a valid question - and it is your own reasoning: that in order to suppose and propose another reality, one must be able to demonstrate or observe it. Your question supposes that logic could possibly be different, and I'm asking you to show how you know that.

The question is, could a god create another system of logic that works just as well, yet is illogical to this system. This is not really a question anyone can answer, yet you have claimed to know. I want to know how.

No, I didn't claim to know, I too pointed out that it's a meaningless question because, as you put it, we cannot know. We are forced to think within this system of logic, a system which would tell us that any other way is illogical - you're asking if something can be illogical in one reality and logical in another, which is just a nonsense question. I answered several times that even if God could change logical reality, it's meaningless to think about it, and it would be essentially non different from simply changing the definitions. A square-circle in a different logical reality would still be illogical in ours, and would thus, by definition, be something different - a change in definition of what a square and what a circle is. And, as I said, if logic were different we wouldn't be having this discussion, so how is that different from say asking 'what if the universe were different (which you point out is a meaningless question, and that we haven't seen that it can be different) So positing an ability to change the reality of logic is meaningless, and so it remains that the logically impossible is not there to be done, nor then is the power to do it existent. Thus, a non-existent power cannot be said to be lacking from or be a limit to 'all'. To suggest that not being able to make a square-circle means God is not omnipotent is thus logically faulty.

AndrewFinden - Eruv, what's that?

AndrewFinden — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:20:40 +0000

Rather, it all assumes that God is omnipotent - and assumption you allowed for the sake of the discussion. It is a bit rich to then disallow other assumptions that go along with it. As I said, if you're not going to allow the assumptions about the God you are asking about, what's the point in even asking about it?

Nathan_Parsons - Julia Gillard confirmed atheist

Nathan_Parsons — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:31:26 +0000

If you subscribe to honesty you know the answer is NO! :) So this comparison although funny is not on the same level and has no merit what so ever...Much love to you for making me laugh and trying to come up with a valid point :)

I have a valid point. The level of evidence is the same, and yet I cannot make such a claim in any serious sense. That is my point.

Nathan_Parsons - Julia Gillard confirmed atheist

Nathan_Parsons — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:30:08 +0000

You cannot say the same to me. The burden of proof lies with you. You claim that God exists, prove it. You claim that God loves me, prove it. I do not accept your claims due to a lack of evidence; my position does not require evidence which disproves your claim, only a lack of evidence for your claim.

There is an invisible dragon which lives in my garage. The dragon is undetectable to science and cannot be detected using the scientific method, and only I know that it is there. I have seen it, and I have spoken to it, and it told me everything that I know about it.

Who should prove such a claim as I have just create above? Should I prove it because I am making the claim? Should you accept it merely because you cannot disprove my claim? My hypothetical claim is ridiculous, but no different to any theological claim. I could even go as far as to say that the dragon has certain powers, and that it created the universe. I could write a book and claim that the dragon wrote it through me. I could make all manner of claims for which there is no evidence, and yet my claim would be just as valid as any other claim for the existence of a deity.

You say - I could tell you that the invisible pink unicorn loves you, does that mean anything?? Ok did the invisible pink unicorn, Santa, tooth fairy, Easter bunny etc exist in real space and time impacting society, seen by heaps of eye witnesses over his 33 year physical life, have his life & death recorded, cause a revolution, bring moral upgrade, have apostles 11 out 12 were martyred while spreading message to the four corners and wrote epistles, proclaimed he died for our sins, ushered in a new covenant between God and humanity etc among other things??

Did God? What of Mohammed? What of the myriad other theological claims?

askegg - Eruv, what's that?

askegg — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 07:01:55 +0000

In other words, you're saying that my argument is logically sound ...

No - there is a massive problem right at the heart of your argument. You are claiming your god can only have the powers that are available. He cannot create new ones, or illogical ones (because logic is said to be "in his character"). Please show god is logical, or IS logic.

I cannot simply claim 'that is the nature of things' because we are talking about God and how he has revealed himself.

Then on what basis do you make any of these claims? In any case, no matter what the ultimate answers, you can STILL claim they are god's innate nature. You can never BE wrong.

...has revealed to us certain attributes, namely omnipotence, and from there looking at how that might work.

We are told god has many attributes, omnipotence being one of them. We are also told god is logic (or logical). But combining all of these things simply does not work. You cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent, or omniscient and free. Theologians have had 2,000 years to reconcile these issues and so far - zilch.

askegg - Eruv, what's that?

askegg — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:54:43 +0000

I do not sit by the keyboard waiting for your response. I have a life. Here is a summary: You state that god can claim all the powers available, yet have been unable to demonstrate what they might be (although you have been philosophising over the question). A central question Nathan and I seem to have is "could god create new powers, or create powers which are illogical?" to which you have answered "no" but not provided any real justification for. How many systems of logic have I seen? One, but this is not really the right question. The question is, could a god create another system of logic that works just as well, yet is illogical to this system. This is not really a question anyone can answer, yet you have claimed to know. I want to know how.

Jamie Michelle - Julia Gillard confirmed atheist

Jamie Michelle — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:54:35 +0000

If you subscribe to honesty you know the answer is NO! :) So this comparison although funny is not on the same level and has no merit what so ever...Much love to you for making me laugh and trying to come up with a valid point :) You and me were meant to be walking free in harmony and one fine day it's going to happen so lets hold out for something sweeter John 10:10 cheers! with love xx

askegg - Eruv, what's that?

askegg — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 06:49:05 +0000

Of course all this assumes god is logical, which you have still yet to show. Again, simply asserting is as fact does not make it so.