Fleet mouse gives new meaning to the term "incredulity"

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator:Metacrock

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:
Fleet mouse gives new meaning to the term "incredulity"

Post by Metacrock » Thu Jun 09, 2011 7:07 pm

When Fleet finally tells me his ideas about the big rebuttals that theists just can't accept they are things I easily defeated. I could just as easy argue the same things against him, he just can't accept the truth.

worse, he comes on with an argument that is the ever soul of argument from incredulity. It essentially says "if you argue agaisnt my position you are have to be wrong and that proves you can't accept truth." so if we follow this guide then it means the one who states his argument first must be right and the one who opposes it is wrong.

his op:
Theist resistance to principles of reason

In several recent threads, theists have refused to answer simple questions dealing with principles of reason.

Here, Mathison attempts to demonstrate that in principle, cosmological arguments do not favor one conception of God over another.

Here, HRG attempts to formulate a heuristic that it is reasonable to assume the absence of something for which there is no evidence.

Why is there such resistance to confronting an analysis of the validity of these ideas? Why does this always go in the direction of "here are a bunch of other scarcely related ideas"? It is as if the theist, having leaned many assertions together into a bonfire of faith, mistakes the assertions as supporting each other in principle rather than merely supporting the particular and contingent bonfire of faith that he has constructed. One is simply not allowed to address or critique the individual "logs".

(edit: the restatement of the CA in Mathison's thread is on-topic but does not address the point of the OP - that even if the CA holds together, it doesn't support a specific God)
\

my answer:

Originally Posted by Magritte View Post
In several recent threads, theists have refused to answer simple questions dealing with principles of reason.

Here, Mathison attempts to demonstrate that in principle, cosmological arguments do not favor one conception of God over another.
that is not a problem. It's a none issue and I told you why. There is only one possibly that it could be. whatever is firs cause has to be God, it's a priori.

I keep telling you that you are reckoning the issues on religious traditions wrongly. that's not how you choose a tradition. why don't you listen?

Here, HRG attempts to formulate a heuristic that it is reasonable to assume the absence of something for which there is no evidence.
I beat the ever living fu out of it. you are whining because I argue back and disprove your assertions you think arguing back is some trick that proves we are rong. taht's a bizarre understanding.

Why is there such resistance to confronting an analysis of the validity of these ideas?

because they are wrong and I showed you they are wrong! why would anything think counter arguments are a sign of not being able to face truth. That's ludicrous!

Why does this always go in the direction of "here are a bunch of other scarcely related ideas"? It is as if the theist, having leaned many assertions together into a bonfire of faith, mistakes the assertions as supporting each other in principle rather than merely supporting the particular and contingent bonfire of faith that he has constructed.
man this is like argument from incredulity to the 10th power. you are saying "If you argue back against my assertion that proves you're wrong!" If that's the case then youk have to accept the existence of God when you post here because I was here before you. All my God arguments are the truth and your counter arguments prove that you can't face the truth!
you really expect to get away with pulling this kind of crap?
all of those are arguments I think I beat up on pretty good.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
QuantumTroll
Posts:1073
Joined:Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:54 am
Location:Uppsala, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Fleet mouse gives new meaning to the term "incredulity"

Post by QuantumTroll » Fri Jun 10, 2011 3:51 am

Meta, there's something I'd like you to address. Your position and your entire argument stems from the idea that there is only one possible God, only one correct cosmology/theology/first cause. The entire multitude of faiths, traditions, religions, and mystical experiences stem from one and only one source: your God. This is the basis of your response to Mathison's argument, right? Your position is that the fact that cosmological arguments don't favor one conception of God over another is a non-issue because there is only one possible conception of God — there can be only one first cause.

Whether or not you are correct, I hope you see why people who don't already believe you take issue. The fact is that there are lots of people with all kinds of arguments (not entirely unlike yours) for different faiths. To nonbelievers, you're just one of many people who claims to have a correct theology.

My question is this: Assuming that what you say is true in that there is only one possible God, how come there are so many well-argued and mutually exclusive conceptions of God?

Secondly, I don't think you're really reading Fleet's last comment correctly. He's not saying that you can't argue against his position, but rather that the counter-arguments by theists always seem to be a bundle of loosely connected ideas with arguable relevance. He's criticizing the quality of the rebuttals he's seen, not denying the possibility of a good rebuttal. He's asking for a good, solid rebuttal!

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: Fleet mouse gives new meaning to the term "incredulity"

Post by Metacrock » Fri Jun 10, 2011 5:34 am

QuantumTroll wrote:Meta, there's something I'd like you to address. Your position and your entire argument stems from the idea that there is only one possible God, only one correct cosmology/theology/first cause. The entire multitude of faiths, traditions, religions, and mystical experiences stem from one and only one source: your God. This is the basis of your response to Mathison's argument, right? Your position is that the fact that cosmological arguments don't favor one conception of God over another is a non-issue because there is only one possible conception of God — there can be only one first cause.
Yes but don't confuse that with the concept of God imaged in the Bible (which is actually multiple versions). God is not "my God" but everyone's God. God is not the specific personality in the Bible, that's a place holder. God is no less Krishna or the kami's in Shinto than Jehovah in the Bible. The one grounding point is Jesus, but not the Christian institutions that make up the Christian faith. The historical Jesus is the grounding symbol of the revelation to humanity, but doesn't cancel out the possibility of other traditions.

Whether or not you are correct, I hope ... theology.


Obviously, but the facts indicate they all have the same experiences, all that needs to be done is remove the specific titles. The M scale shows us that the actual experiences and the results of having them are the same.
My question is this: Assuming that what you say is true in that there is only one possible God, how come there are so many well-argued and mutually exclusive conceptions of God?
because we have to filter our experience of God throguh culture in order to speak of it. Mystical experience is beyond understanding, its' apart from word, thought, or image. To speak of it we have to attach it to images in order to understand what it means. That means it's a rough correlation to cultural constructs, and it means it must be filtered through these constructs or we can't comprehend a meaning.

It means that each individual tradition is flavored by the culture that filters it.
Secondly, I don't think you're really reading Fleet's last comment correctly. He's not saying that you can't argue against his position, but rather that the counter-arguments by theists always seem to be a bundle of loosely connected ideas with arguable relevance. He's criticizing the quality of the rebuttals he's seen, not denying the possibility of a good rebuttal. He's asking for a good, solid rebuttal!
yet he doesn't make those ideas explicit to discuss them. I did kick their asses. Let's look at them.

The first one he's talking about is one by Spacemonkey about brute facts. He's saying that God's creation must contain brute facts and that's unavoidable and since that is true there's no basis in necessary being since that concept contains brute facts. I said two major things about that concept:

(a) That this is idea appears in scholastic thought under the heading "accidents."


That means that it's already been dealt with by Aquinas in his formulation of the five proofs. It's not a crippling argument of the necessary/contingency thinking of the God arguments. To that Spacemonkey said basically nothing. What I'm actually saying is that his argument is subsumed in my paradigm. Again he said nothing.

(b) the meaning of brute fact.

In Sm's argument brute fact means aspects of creation or reality that are unexplainable through reference to any other creative agenda, they just "are." An example would be that grass grows up instead of down. Or that dolphins are gray instead of green. That aspect just "turned out that way" so there's no higher reason for it. In my view those are not brute facts, they are "accidents." The difference is for me the brute is any aspect of reality in a world minus God. So in other words, the reason for being without God becomes no reason at all. So the brute fact in my book is a higher order concept. It's n a higher level, that of ontological or metaphysical raison d'etre. It doesn't apply to toe jam or whatever it applies to any and everything existing in a godless world. Since there is not a godless world that kind of brute fact is impossible. Being impossible it can't wreck the concept of necessity.

so we really talking at cross purposes. He never answered that either.

(2) Matheison's idea that there's no specific God that the CA proves.


That's recursive becuase I've already answered in what I first said to you above. He has no rejoinder. If Fleet thinks he has a real answer let's see it?
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
QuantumTroll
Posts:1073
Joined:Sat Feb 09, 2008 5:54 am
Location:Uppsala, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Fleet mouse gives new meaning to the term "incredulity"

Post by QuantumTroll » Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:30 am

Meta, I see exactly the point you're making and I understand why you believe that you're right. I'm not criticizing anything you've said, because I think you're making perfect sense actually. I just want to explain something about this discussion.

The unfortunate thing is that it's other theists who ruin the point you're making. If interfaith dialogue, or even just Christian ecumenism, were able to unify believers and get them to actually join together in celebrating the common ground that you believe and argue for, then you'd have an easier time getting nonbelievers to accept what you're saying. As it is, theists are so divided that your belief seems to be just that – your belief, separate from other beliefs. I said something in my previous post on purpose to get your reaction, that "the entire multitude of faiths, traditions, religions, and mystical experiences stem from one and only one source: your God", because that is unfortunately a valid perspective for anyone who doesn't already share your belief.

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:

Re: Fleet mouse gives new meaning to the term "incredulity"

Post by Metacrock » Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:45 am

QuantumTroll wrote:Meta, I see exactly the point you're making and I understand why you believe that you're right. I'm not criticizing anything you've said, because I think you're making perfect sense actually. I just want to explain something about this discussion.

The unfortunate thing is that it's other theists who ruin the point you're making. If interfaith dialogue, or even just Christian ecumenism, were able to unify believers and get them to actually join together in celebrating the common ground that you believe and argue for, then you'd have an easier time getting nonbelievers to accept what you're saying. As it is, theists are so divided that your belief seems to be just that – your belief, separate from other beliefs. I said something in my previous post on purpose to get your reaction, that "the entire multitude of faiths, traditions, religions, and mystical experiences stem from one and only one source: your God", because that is unfortunately a valid perspective for anyone who doesn't already share your belief.
I can't be responsible for what other people say. I don't blame you for the atheists on carm.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts:1814
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: Fleet mouse gives new meaning to the term "incredulity"

Post by fleetmouse » Fri Jun 10, 2011 7:52 am

Let's take this slowly and carefully.

First, here's Mathison's OP:
Mathison wrote:Meta -

I have three questions for you.

Here's a hypothetical origin story from a hypothetical religion:

IN THE BEGINNING there was nothing but GOATIH, an immortal being. GOATIH spent infinity in silent contemplation until one day he drove himself mad and developed the desire to create. So in his frenzied madness, GOATIH created the world, and the land, and the seas.

But GOATIH was not content, for he was still quite deranged from his infinite solitude. And so, perhaps for a reason, perhaps out of sheer insanity, he created a being of incredible power, a being named TYGWHO.

TYGWHO looked upon his creator and said "My Lord, you have created me!" But GOATIH exclaimed "I have no time for you! I must create! I must!!" and he vanished, off to create another universe, and then another, and then another.

TYGWHO sat in silent contemplation for a long time, for GOATIH had made him very powerful indeed, but not powerful enough to leave a universe. Eventually, desperate for something to do, anything to justify his existence, TYGWHO looked upon the people of the world, and took pity on them, and heard their prayers, and comforted them when they were sick, and taught them right from wrong, and created for them a glorious afterlife within his own incorporeal, immortal being.

My three questions to you are:

1. Who is God in this story - GOATIH or TYGWHO? Who is deserving of worship?

2. Do you have a constructed argument that suggests the superiority of Christianity over Goatihsm?

3. If you could convince an atheist to believe in Goatihsm - would you consider that a victory? Would it be "mission accomplished" as far as you're concerned? Or would you continue to believe that the ex-atheist Goatihist was making a logical error?
Your reply:
Metacrock wrote:that is not a problem. It's a none issue and I told you why. There is only one possibly that it could be. whatever is firs cause has to be God, it's a priori.

I keep telling you that you are reckoning the issues on religious traditions wrongly. that's not how you choose a tradition. why don't you listen?
Now, the problem is that you don't read and consider what people who raise disagreements with your apologetics are actually saying. Their posts become ritual vessels for all the anxiety in your psyche, which you then pour into them; at this point you can no longer read or understand the post, but only what you have projected into it based on what emotions were triggered in you by a few key words. (a good example of this is your misunderstanding of my post that mentioned aliens and Ingmar Bergman)

Mathison is NOT saying that we can use CA -> Goatihism to "choose a tradition". ALL he is saying, and I think I understand him better than you do, is that the CA IN AND OF ITSELF does not point to the existence of a first cause with the qualities of Yahweh any more than it points to a first cause with the qualities of Goatih or Tygwho.

You may have other reasons from other arguments to believe in a deity with the qualities of Yahweh, but that is completely orthogonal to the issues raised in the post, to wit: CA to Yahweh is a non-sequitur, because one can conceive of a God who satisfies the CA but is patently not Yahweh and not compatible with Yahweh. That's all this post is about.

BTW, Diane at Carm considers Mathison's post so disturbing that she deleted the content and wrote in its place:
Post edited per admin: Rule 25 Freedom of Speech:
Your freedom of speech here comes with the responsibility to speak decently within the parameters of the rules.
In other words, by registering you are agreeing not to be vulgar, divisive, insulting, profane, etc. (read all the rules). It helps to try and treat others as you want to be treated. And just as you want people to treat you, treat them in the same way," (Luke 6:31).
You have NO unspoken right to speak in a perverted, offensive, profane, foul, or blasphemous manner. This is a Christian website and you may not post words in mockery of Christian beliefs, or terms offensive in descriptions of our Lord God. You may certainly challenge Christian teaching, but do so respectfully.
We'll discuss HRG's post about borogroves and your response later.

User avatar
fleetmouse
Posts:1814
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:57 am

Re: Fleet mouse gives new meaning to the term "incredulity"

Post by fleetmouse » Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:02 pm

*cricket sounds*

*tumbleweed*

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts:2187
Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location:Tianjin, China

Re: Fleet mouse gives new meaning to the term "incredulity"

Post by mdsimpson92 » Fri Jun 10, 2011 2:36 pm

I will make a response sometime, but right now I have to do yard work.
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts:2187
Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location:Tianjin, China

Re: Fleet mouse gives new meaning to the term "incredulity"

Post by mdsimpson92 » Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:19 pm

fleetmouse wrote:1. Who is God in this story - GOATIH or TYGWHO? Who is deserving of worship?
Hm, I see the point behind this. What is the criteria for being worthy of worship. Is it being the creator, or the revealer of meaning and law. While God is imagined as doing both. Personally I would imagine both would be worthy of reverence, but I would guess the giver of morals and meaning and care would be the more deserving of the two.
However, these imply an emotional need or I guess weakness. Wouldn't God be a meaning unto itself or would God have to make it up.
fleetmouse wrote:2. Do you have a constructed argument that suggests the superiority of Christianity over Goatihsm?
Well, I would have to check there moral systems and ideas on the nature of humanity and meaning ect ect. As to whom has the superior god (which I don't think is really the point behind the question) i would say the Christian God because it (as we proport) that it performed both actions.
fleetmouse wrote:3. If you could convince an atheist to believe in Goatihsm - would you consider that a victory? Would it be "mission accomplished" as far as you're concerned? Or would you continue to believe that the ex-atheist Goatihist was making a logical error?
A bit of a false choice. It would be like converting an atheist to Judaism or Deism. Closer to our ideology and thus would be "better" from our perspective and i would be somewhat pleased with the recognition of the divine, but I would likely prefer that individual to become closer to my opinion on reality. Except for you Fleet, I need you to keep me on my toes lest i become intellectually lazy from being surrounded by people that agree with me. Plus, hell (pun partially inteded) I'm a bit of a universalist anyways. :mrgreen: ;)
Last edited by mdsimpson92 on Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

User avatar
mdsimpson92
Posts:2187
Joined:Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:05 pm
Location:Tianjin, China

Re: Fleet mouse gives new meaning to the term "incredulity"

Post by mdsimpson92 » Fri Jun 10, 2011 4:23 pm

fleetmouse wrote:Mathison is NOT saying that we can use CA -> Goatihism to "choose a tradition". ALL he is saying, and I think I understand him better than you do, is that the CA IN AND OF ITSELF does not point to the existence of a first cause with the qualities of Yahweh any more than it points to a first cause with the qualities of Goatih or Tygwho.

You may have other reasons from other arguments to believe in a deity with the qualities of Yahweh, but that is completely orthogonal to the issues raised in the post, to wit: CA to Yahweh is a non-sequitur, because one can conceive of a God who satisfies the CA but is patently not Yahweh and not compatible with Yahweh. That's all this post is about.
Considering I brought up the problem of identity, I generally agree with you. The Dao would supply the same role as the Transcendental Signifier adn that is generally impersonal. So could Brahman, that is more personal but is Hindu, so could Dharmakaya but I need to read more Buddhism to get that.
Julia: It's all... a dream...
Spike Spiegel: Yeah... just a dream...

Post Reply