I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
– Stephen F. Roberts
This quote was given in a recent discussion as to why one should embrace atheism or at least agnosticism. Is the monotheist dismissal of polytheism the same as the antheists dismissal of monotheism?
I contend that logically polytheism is bankrupt, while a case can be logically made for monotheism.
Occam’s razor should take care of multiple gods.
The creator of the razor, William of Ockham, a English logician and Franciscan friar, said, “No plurality should be assumed unless it can be proved by reason, or by experience, or by some infallible authority.”
If gods are needed in the universe, unless there is some evidence to the contrary, a singular God is all that is needed. There is no evidence that multiple gods roam supernaturally through our world, therefore belief in a singular God is the most logical next step.
Polytheism can also be dismissed because by nature God would be infinite and there cannot be two infinite beings. To distinguish between the two, they must be somehow different. If they differ is any way, one lacks something which the other possesses. If one lacks something, then that being is by definition not infinite. Therefore, there can only be one infinite Being, furthering the case against polytheism.
The logical case for the existence of an infinite Being is one on which thousands of books have been written. I will not be able to convey all of that information in blog posts, but as a primer to posts to come this week, here are some of the topics that point toward the existence of a God.
The Cosmological Argument that points to a “first cause.” Included in this, is the Islamic view of Kalam.
There is also the Teleological argument (or design argument) which points to the precise order, purpose, design or direction within nature.
Other arguments include the emergence of morality, the moral code, the existence of truth, the existence of intelligence, miracles and many others.
Hopefully, I will be able to delve into these in the coming days to give a brief overview of the logical argument for a monotheistic God.
This quote was given in a recent discussion as to why one should embrace atheism or at least agnosticism. Is the monotheist dismissal of polytheism the same as the atheists dismissal of monotheism?
I contend that logically polytheism is bankrupt, while a case can be logically made for monotheism.
Aaron, you kind of bungled the interpretation of Robert's quote. His quote refers to polytheism AND monotheism. You are an atheist regarding Allah. A Muslim is an atheist regarding the Christian God. Both are monotheistic religions. Both Muslims and Christians are atheists to all other God's but their own. Atheists are Atheists to all Gods. Basically, Atheists believe in one less God than 100's of Gods Christians and Muslims don't believe in.
But don't change the post! I'll defend polytheism when I get back from the movies. You will be surprised how solid the arguments for polytheism vs. monotheism are! It's just a different approach.
Okay, I thought his quote was directed at the fact that Christians, Muslims or Jews do not except hundreds of gods, so why should he accept one god.
Well you have narrowed it down a good bit, which obviously takes a lot longer to explain why the Christian God is the God and not Allah (Jews are, of course, a different story, since Christianity is an extention of Judaism) or any other god that we may imagine or in which we believe.
Okay Aaron, to start this off…
"If you don't believe in the Devil you cannot believe in God."
True or False?
False, the existence of God does not require the devil.
If God is infinite, then He existed before anything else did. Therefore He existed before Satan.
In fact, in the Christian theology (you may already know this) Satan was (is) simply a fallen angel. He is not the equal of God. He is a created being like every other angel and ultimately like us, in the fact that He is created.
If God can exist without Satan, belief in God does not require belief in Satan.
On the flip side, I think that there is plenty of logical evidence for a fallen creature that works evil in this world, but belief in God does not dictate it.
You say "False." So, this means Christians can believe in God, but not the devil, right?
Christians don't believer in Zeus or Hermes. They don't believe in the Titans. And they don't believer in Ouranos, father of the Titans. Here we're all in agreement. But I'm an atheist; I don't go just one step further. I go a few steps further.
It's no surprise that I don't believe in God. Neither should it be a surprise that I don't believe in Jesus, or in the Holy Ghost. Or Satan. I don't believe in Angels like Michael or Gabriel, either. Additionally, I don't believe in demons, whether they have names or not. And unlike my Catholic friends, I don't believe in the Virgin Mary or in her posse of several thousand saints.
By any reasonable definition, these are all "gods". Christianity is supposedly a monotheistic religion, but there's very little to recommend that position, apart from semantics. Is an angel also a god? Not according to Christians. But ultimately there's little difference between a "god" named Hermes, who is created by Zeus, and an "angel" named Gabriel, who is created by Yahweh. Similarly, although I know the Christians at this site are not Catholics, there's hardly any objective difference between a "god" named Hercules, who is granted godhood, and a "saint" named Christopher, who is granted sainthood.
All of these entities, Greek and Christian, are essentially the same. They differ only in terminology, not in nature. They have supernatural powers, they are autonomous, and they are immortal. Whether they are actively worshiped or not is largely irrelevant to what they would be if they actually existed. Which they don't.
Aaron, you wrote:
"If gods are needed in the universe, unless there is some evidence to the contrary, a singular God is all that is needed. There is no evidence that multiple gods roam supernaturally through our world, therefore belief in a singular God is the most logical next step."
Of course I agree that there's no evidence for multiple supernatural entities. There's also no evidence for a singular supernatural entity, but that may be beside the point. If your statement is true, then you may find it difficult to reasonably explain the existence of angels and demons. Multiple, autonomous, supernatural entities are not 'needed' in your supposedly monotheistic religion, but they are undeniably there. How is it really different from a Pantheon?
Cineaste, I would say "Yes" with a caveat. A Christian is one who should believe the Bible, which teaches the existence of Satan. Again, I think there is evidence for Satan's existence, but it is not neccessary to be a Christian.
Stewart, you raise interesting points, but I think your definition of a "god" is a bit too broad. Yes, if you define god as something with supernatural powers, then angels and demons from Christian theology would be "gods." So would the X-men, but that's beside the point.
It's not the fact that angels (or demons) are needed with the universe or even Christian theology, it's just that they are spoken of as being present in the Bible. I honestly would have no problem considering someone a Christian who accepts all the teachings of who Jesus is, but does not consider angels or demons to be part of reality. I would think they are misguided, but would still consider them part of the Christian family.
I think you are right in that there may be little surface difference between the angel Gabriel and the "god" Zeus, but there is one specific, important difference. Gabriel is not said to be the highest form. He is said to be a created being just like humans, that is not the case with Zeus.
I don't define a god simply as having supernatural powers. Zeus of Greek mythology has peers – brothers and sisters with similar powers. He was born of Cronus and Rhea. To qualify as God one has to be infinite and omni-basically everything. You would have to be uncreated and eternal, without peer. That eliminates everything but the "Gods" of the monotheistic religions.
You argument against the granting of sainthood versus godhood is again an interesting one, but one that I am unqualified to argue being that i am not Catholic and do not believe in the doctrine of special "saints." I see scripture as teaching that all who accept Christ are "saints."
There may be similarities between Judeo-Christian theology and the Pantheon, but I would contend that the most captivating stories always are inspired by and contain portions of the truth.
Aaron, I don't disagree with you really. There is an unbridgeable gap between the Greek (or Roman, or Egyptian, etc) concept of a "god", and the Christian concept of "God". But that's the whole point.
By your definition (i.e. "highest form"), Zeus and his buddies are not gods. They, like angels, demons, Satan, and all the patron saints of instant coffee, are just supernatural entities. In other words, if Christianity is not polytheistic (or even henotheistic), then neither is Hellenistic Paganism. If your belief in multiple supernatural beings does not constitute a pantheon of gods, then neither should theirs. Otherwise, the claim of monotheism is without meaning.
I will have to respond next week, but I very much enjoy this discussion and want to continue it. I have an office Christmas party now and will be away from the computer for the weekend.
I would ask though – what is the one "God" of Greek mythology? Christianity has that one God and therefore all the lower beings are not "gods" or on the same level as God. The Greeks had no such god that I am aware of. Again, even Zeus was born into this world.
Stewart! Hey man welcome back. I have not seen you comment here in quite some time. We need more of the reasonable commentary you bring to the table! You actually brought up one of the points I was going to give Aaron. Stewart, in support of your point, the Christian God himself acknowledges that there are other "Gods" (who HE recognizes as Gods).
"I AM THE LORD THY GOD, THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME!"
The other one, which we can't deny, is that Christianity is actually dualism not monotheism. Dualism precludes monotheism. Aaron will abject to the idea Satan is God's opposite because though he is supernatural with great powers, he is not omnipotent, omniscient, etc. However, Satan's nature is the exact opposite of God's (Good vs. Evil: Heaven vs. Hell). "Better to reign in Hell than serve in heaven": Hell is clearly Satan's domain. Also, the bible teaches that Satan does indeed exist. If Satan does not exist, the bible is wrong.
Another point is that God is separate from his creation. This is contrary to Spinoza's view of monotheism where God is everything.
Stewart, it's good to see you here again and I hope you stay for more conversation.
Aaron, that may be semantics again. Does Christianity have "one" god? You would say so, but I wouldn't agree with you, and Roman pagans certainly didn't either. There are three separate, autonomous entities that are equally omnipotent (whatever you suppose that means). And one of them — your favorite, in fact — was also born into this world.
Unless you want to concede that Christianity is polytheistic, your premise must be that Hellenistic Paganism has no gods, just minor supernatural entities, equivalent to your angels, demons, etc. But then you'd be arguing that our Roman and Greek friends weren't polytheists, either. In fact, that would make them all atheists, (though not at all naturalists). And I think we can agree that this doesn't make any sense. Hellenistic Paganism is theism. It's just not your theism. There is no capital-G God in their faith, but that's irrelevant in the context of their culture.
Polytheism is not defined by the lack of a single, all-powerful God. And monotheism is not defined by its presence. These terms are defined by the presence or absence of multiple gods, of any status or power-level. It doesn't make any sense to say that the presence of many supernatural entities in Egyptian mythology is indicative of Polytheism, but the presence of the same sorts of entities in Christian mythology is not.
And personally, I don't care either way. Whether your religion qualifies as monotheism or not doesn't make it any more or less likely to be true. If you can believe in a universe where virgins give birth, and people rise from the dead, then you can almost certainly believe that there are more than one immortal, super-powered entities living among us in some spiritual plane. And, in fact, this is exactly what Christianity teaches. Ultimately there's not much difference.
Thanks Cineaste. I decided not to argue with Seeker anymore, which is why I disappeared. I'm sticking with that resolution still, but I thought I would throw my two-cents into this conversation. As I was telling Sam earlier, Christian polytheism is kind of an interest of mine. And it's virtually an untouched subject.
The Satan issue is, in particular, very revealing. His existence is completely nonsensical. If a billion Christian humans know that God is all-powerful, and that He will defeat Satan, then it stands to reason that Satan himself is also aware of this point. It doesn't seem to bother him, though, does it?
To me, that means one of four things: (1) I'm wrong, and Satan hasn't been let in on this relevant piece of information; (2) The information is wrong (e.g. it's just propaganda from God), and Satan actually is capable of defeating God; (3) Satan doesn't care that he can't win; (4) It's a logical contradiction.
#1 seems unlikely. What possible reason could there be for Satan to not be aware of his own futility? Is God lying to him in order to get him to continue fighting? That idea contains its own problems.
#2 implies that God is not omnipotent, effectively reducing the debate to academics. If God is just a "god", then Christianity isn't worth much as a body of knowledge.
#3 seems as unlikely as #1. Why wouldn't Satan care about his participation in a predetermined battle? He's invariably depicted as being intelligent and clever, yet in this particular case he's apparently just a moron raging against authority.
Obviously I believe #4 is correct. It doesn't matter that omnipotent beings can't have adversaries in any meaningful sense. Christianity is full of similar contradictions-of-motive, and it's OK, because it's mythology.
In any of the other cases, the existence of Satan supports the belief that Christianity is polytheistic (or henotheistic) in nature. And this makes perfect sense, considering it grew out of a region that was historically polytheistic. These sorts of syncretic compromises are not surprising once you get past the idea that it's supposed to make sense. It doesn't make sense, because it's not real. But it sure is interesting.
To me, that means one of four things: (1) I'm wrong, and Satan hasn't been let in on this relevant piece of information; (2) The information is wrong (e.g. it's just propaganda from God), and Satan actually is capable of defeating God; (3) Satan doesn't care that he can't win; (4) It's a logical contradiction.
The closest answer above is #3 – but it's not a matter of will (he doesn't care), but ability (he can't care), because his very nature precludes the ability to do good, and he is so fully corrupt that he must continue to do evil despite the prophesied future.
The real mystery of the gospel is why God allowed all of this mayhem to occur in the first place. The lengthy and convoluted path to salvation seems contrived, if not overly complicated.
Then again, part of seeking the truth is not just asking myself "what makes sense to me" or "what would I prefer to think", but "is it true or not?" Then we need to develop a mature epistemological method, which I would like to study. How do we arrive at "truth" – and in part, we need to answer the question about whether historical, ethical, moral, and/or spiritual truth can be objectively approached. If they are entirely subjective (and I think it is a mix of both), then our method will be a little more, um, slushy ;)
Funny thing is, we can sometimes conclude that something is true, and end up not liking that truth. In that case, we have a choice – we can progress through the stages of grief, or get stuck in them (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance).
If you want to define polytheism so broad as to say any belief system that has more than one supernatural being, then there is basically no monotheistic religions and the words mean nothing. What religion could qualify as monotheistic with such a broad rage for polytheism?
Again, the difference between the Greek, Egyptian and Roman plethora of gods and the Christian theolog of God and angels/demons is one of authority. Greek gods were autonomous over their regions. One god controlled this, another that. They were equals, just over seperate areas. Within Christianity the angels and demons have no authority of their own. Any they have is either given to them or allowed them by God. He is in ultimate control. Which Greek god was in ultimate control? Was there one that told all the gods what to do?
The Trinity is a bit of a different story. I agree that one is hard to comprehend. Christian theologians have been struggling to do so for thousands of years. The only human way that I have been able to ever halfway understand it is two seperate illustrations. One is the fact that water can either be liquid, solid or gas. But then water can only be one at a time, so the illustration is not perfect. A better one is my relationship to my parents, my wife and my sons. All at the same time I am a son, a father and a husband. I never cease being any of those, but at any given moment I am relating to someone specifically as one of those three.
None of these is entirely perfect, but I think you have to allow for some mystery when it comes to God. Anything that is supernatural is by definition going to be above our natural understanding. I can accept that the Trinity is something that is not completely within my grasp. I'm natural. I cannot fully understand the supernatural. Makes sense.
As far as Satan goes, he cannot be the equal or opposite of God because God has already defeated him and removed him from heaven. Both <a href="http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Isaiah+14&version=31" rel="nofollow">Isaiah and <a href="http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults.php?passage1=Revelation+12&version=31" rel="nofollow">Revelation tell the story of Satan's fall. He wanted to be like God, but he could not take the throne. Scripture even gives who is the equal of Satan – it says Michael fought with Lucifer and cast him down from heaven. Angel vs. Angel. Equal vs. Equal.
Also, Cineaste you may oppose everything that President Bush does. You may take the exact opposite opinion of him on every issue, but that does not make you his equal in terms of power. You can disagree with him and "fight" against him on everything, but you do not have the power to make policy decisions like he does. On an even grander scale is God and Satan. The devil may be diametrically opposed to everything that God desires, but that does not give him the status as God's equal.
As to your three conclusions, #3 is most closely the answer. Satan is intelligent, but that did not stop him from trying to over throw God in the first place. Why would he stop now? As with his fall from the beginning, it is a pride issue. Satan wanted to be like God and have people worship him and do his bidding. He tried and failed, so now he does everything he can do to get people to do things his way. It feeds his bruised ego. He may have even deluded himself into thinking he can win the next time. Pride often gets in the way of clear thinking.
It is the same way in many cases. Many seemingly intelligent people often engage themselves in "battle" with people who are much more powerful than they are for a couple reasons 1) they feel wronged and want to do anything to wrong the other person 2) they may have convinced themselves they can win 3) they believe in their cause, in Satan's case – himself.
How does Christianity grow from a polytheistic religion, when it is an extension, if you will, of Judaism? The fact that the early Jewish converts believed Jesus to be God was one of the largest evidences of the truth since that would have been blasphemous on any other occassion to a Jewish person.
Also Cineaste, God commanding people not to worship any other gods is not an admittance of other dieties, it is a command for complete worship. In the old days people made "gods" out of gold, stone or wood. I may make a "god" out of a sports team, a person, a possession. They become my "god." That doesn't mean they are actually a supernatural being, just that I regard them as being worthy of my worship.
Again, I am really enjoying this conversation. Keep it up.
Also Cineaste, God commanding people not to worship any other gods is not an admittance of other dieties, it is a command for complete worship. In the old days people made "gods" out of gold, stone or wood. I may make a "god" out of a sports team, a person, a possession. They become my "god." That doesn't mean they are actually a supernatural being, just that I regard them as being worthy of my worship.
What you are talking about are false "idols and graven images." That's a completely different commandment. God is actually referring to the God's of other religions in the first commandment not a "sports team." Aaron, just reading your post I don't think you have grasped what Stewart is saying. The Bush analogy is wrong on so many levels it's not even funny.
The first and second commands are similar in their application – removing anything from interfering in our relationship to God. Perhaps, I don't get your point, but can you explain to me how the commandment means that there must be other actual "gods" and not just religions that worship other gods.
Cineate, I'm sure that both you and Steward believe I do not grasp your arguments. Unless I come away agreeing with you, I will not have "grasped" your argument. Maybe I have misunderstood him, but explain to me the misundersanding and perhaps I can address that point instead of the misunderstood one.
Also with the Bush analogy, explain to me where I am wrong and maybe I can illustrate it better. My point was that siimply becuase one is in complete disagreement with another that does not mean that they are equal. Of course are humans are "equal," but we do not have the same ability to impact change. In that sense we are unequal. Satan may disagree with everything that God does and says, but this in no way causes him to become God's equal. If you believe otherwise, please show me how being on the opposite sides of issues can cause people to be equal.
That seems to me like Stewarts semantics with polytheism and monotheism. Sure, if you want to change the accepted definitions of polytheism, duallism and monotheism. You can make Christianity fit into any one that you'd like (it depends on what "is" is).
If you want to say that any belief system that has a plurality of supernatural beings is polytheism, then sure Christianity is a polytheistic religion. I would have no problem with that classification.
If you want to say that any belief system that has one supernatural being opposing another, then again Christianity would be a dualistic religion. I have no problem with that classification, either.
But here is the problem, if I go away from this discussion and say that Christianity is a polytheistic or dualistic religion, then virtually everyone I discuss this with is going to take the common understanding of polytheism and dualism and assume that I am saying Christians worship multiple gods and/or that Satan is God's equal.
But again, going by the broad definitions you two have presented for polytheism and dualism, Christianity can fit within those. It does not, however, fit within the common understanding and usage of those two words.
Perhaps, I don't get your point, but can you explain to me how the commandment means that there must be other actual "gods" and not just religions that worship other gods.
Because the command specifically says "I AM THE LORD THY GOD, THOU SHALT HAVE NO OTHER GODS BEFORE ME!" It does not state "religions that worship other gods." It simply states "Gods." I am taking the commandment as it is written while you are interpreting. Your interpretation is, "Other Gods" are "false Gods."
Also with the Bush analogy, explain to me where I am wrong and maybe I can illustrate it better.
Your analogy relates Bush to God and me to Satan. You don't notice a disconnect?
Maybe I have misunderstood him, but explain to me the misundersanding and perhaps I can address that point instead of the misunderstood one.
I think a familiarity with the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza would be helpful in this discussion. This article might help as well.
First, Cineaste, I appreciate that you understood at least where I was coming from on the last post I wrote on ("Atheist Atrocities"). I'll drop that thread though, just wanted to acknowledge that.
Stewart,
I believe this is mostly a semantic game we're playing (most arguments are). If we 'define' a 'god' as some-thing that someone worships, (rather than the 'highest form' definition), then the Greek view is polytheistic and the Christian- monotheistic. mostly super-natural beings are what people worshipped in the past… today it's probably more 'reason' or 'possessions', if it isn't supernatural… but wasn't it Bob Dylan who sang: "You gotta serve somebody" (or something). And that's a good segue into the Satan problem. It's likely something to do with a response to that Bob Dylan quote. People, (anything with a Will), are going to 'follow' something. And Satan would probably best be categorized as a 'rebel' against Authority. To the end. But the orthodox Christian view is something like: 'We don't have the exact reasons why Satan is … But a Christian's 'job' is not to learn more about Satan, but more about God, and become more like Him.' That doesn't mean interesting conversation cannot follow about some things… but ultimately that's guess work. You'd probably say the same thing about God. Well, that's one of the disagreements.
Good thread.
I'm not interested in serving a god or a devil at all. I'm interested in serving the truth and, as far as I can tell, the best way to serve the truth is through critical thinking and reason, both of which are fatal to religion along with its gods and devils.
Hey Louis,
My point was everyone has a god and serves it. Yours is truth, critical thinking and reason. Though why you chose those might be hard to explain. Self-evident? What 'truth'? Where did reason come from? (I'm not saying those are bad things, quite the contrary, I just think you may not have good justification)
I don't think critical thinking and reason are fatal to religion. They are tools we all use to defend our viewpoints/perceptions. Unless you mean something other than 'critical thinking and reason'? Can you show me how they are fatal?
Thanks.
According to some who do not believe in any "god", you cannot "critically think or reason" about anything if you do believe in a "god".
Because obviously, if you think there is something more than what we see with our eyes – you are insane, delusional even.
Unless you are a scientist who believes that there are 4 dimensions, wait 10. Oh wait 11 diminsions. Or maybe there are 15. I am sure they will figure it out someday. But they aren't insane, because they can "prove" it rationally with mathematics. (Or prove something totally different later, on reconsideration of the "evidence")
But I agree with this point:
"People, (anything with a Will), are going to 'follow' something."
That is just how we humans are. Actually that is how we survive as well. Whether we follow our own desires at will, or whether we follow a book that shows us a better way to channel those desires, we follow something. I would even say we have to have a "cause" or something to follow to make us feel important enough to exist.
Aaron and Think are right to point out that this is semantics (I have pointed out the same, above). I think it’s important to remember, however, how important semantics can actually be. It doesn’t matter to me whether Christianity is polytheistic or monotheistic. Apart from the difficulty in remembering all their names, I don’t see any difference between an imaginary god, and a group of imaginary gods. Aaron also doesn’t seem to care whether you label Christianity poly- or monotheistic. In this case, he is more concerned with the meaning, than with the words. Which I agree is the correct position to take regarding a difference of definitions.
So forget about which categories, technically speaking, Christianity and Hellenistic Paganism fall into. It’s not relevant to ask what name your beliefs are given. Instead ask, “What are my beliefs?”
Aaron, in your case I feel very confident in saying that you (and most other Christians) believe in multiple gods. And not in the metaphorical, the-Patriots-are-gods way. You believe in three separate, autonomous, omnipotent entities (Father, Son, Holy Ghost), you believe in Satan, an autonomous entity who exerts influence over humans, you believe in demons who operate in a similar manner to Satan, and you believe in angels such as “Michael” and “Gabriel”, who are also autonomous, and act as messengers and soldiers for the first three gods.
You said, “Within Christianity the angels and demons have no authority of their own. Any they have is either given to them or allowed them by God. He is in ultimate control.”
I keep stressing the word “autonomous”, because it’s critically important. You don’t believe that Angels need any explicit permission to do something. If they did, then Satan would have God’s explicit permission to be doing whatever he does, and he would not be an adversary of any kind. He would be doing God’s bidding. Having said that, an omnipotent, omniscient entity must, by definition, be giving at least implicit permission for absolutely everything that occurs, anywhere. In this sense, as in many, the existence of Satan would be motivationally paradoxical.
I call all of these entities “gods”, because they are essentially indistinguishable from the plural gods of other religions, such as Hellenistic Paganism, or the Pantheon of ancient Egypt. Although you’ve asserted that these other gods had more autonomy than your own, there’s not much evidence to back this up. There is an enormous amount of overlap between the powers and personalities of these ancient deities, as evidenced by their patronage of different cities, and people’s preference for worshipping one over another. Similarly, and angel such as Michael are shown as being the protector of Israel, a patron of warriors. Gabriel is shown as being a great herald.
Outside of the canonical works, the depictions of angels, Jesus, Satan, the Holy Ghost, and the saints are even more colorful and varied. Whether you accept such sources (e.g. writings from early Christian sources, syncretic pagan traditions, medieval literature, etc) as being authoritative is beside the point: they are as signficant a source of contemporary religious belief (including your own) as the Bible itself. For example, I’ll point to your belief in the Trinity, which has only the flimsiest support in the Bible. The dogmas and doctrines that surround this paradoxical belief were established hundreds of years after the last book of the Christian Bible was supposedly written.
At the start of this thread you wrote: Polytheism can also be dismissed because by nature God would be infinite and there cannot be two infinite beings. To distinguish between the two, they must be somehow different. If they differ is any way, one lacks something which the other possesses. If one lacks something, then that being is by definition not infinite. Therefore, there can only be one infinite Being, furthering the case against polytheism.
I don’t understand how you could write something like this, and then start talking about your belief in the Trinity, and defend it’s lack of logic by saying, “You have to allow for some mystery when it comes to God. Anything that is supernatural is by definition going to be above our natural understanding.”
If that’s really true, then your case against polytheism is basically empty. I can just as easily defend the existence of Hindu avatars as you can defend the existence of your three-in-one god. Neither of them is logically sound, but they’re perfectly explainable by attributing the confusion to “mystery”. And that brings me back to the original point of this thread, which was the statement that we, as atheists, take religious skepticism one or more steps further.
I don’t believe in any of these supernatural entities, because there is no reason to believe in them. Believing in Lord Ganesh or the Angel Moroni is patently absurd, but I know many people who believe devoutly in both of them. Believing in Satan, the Holy Ghost, or the archangel Gabriel is no less absurd. They are all indistinguishable from minor Greek gods. The fact that you believe that they were created by, and ultimately are under the control of yet another god does not mitigate this point at all. Most of the minor gods were also created by, and ultimately beholden to a more powerful deity. They were no-less immortal or supernatural due to this fact.
But I don’t believe in any of them. And as the quote makes poetically clear: when you really understand why I don’t believe in Lord Ganesh and Moroni, you will also understand why I don’t believe in Gabriel, Satan, Jesus, and the rest of your gods.
I believe that there are angels. I know there is a devil. I think he doesnt have to do much anymore though because people have done his work for him for so long.
So if you would like to call the devils/angels "gods" go ahead. Paul said God was the "unknown god" to the Athenians, and "… in him we live, and move, and have our being". And he was actually he was quoting the Athenian poets.
I do not think it is irrational to believe in God anymore than I believe in the other universes that I have never/will never see.
I don't know any Christians who believe this. Where do you get this idea, specifically: "You believe in three separate, autonomous, omnipotent entities"? This sounds a lot like "Not only are your beliefs absurd, but they're absurd because I define them for you."
Because the word 'Trinity' isn't in the Bible? You mean these weren't held beliefs until the council of Nicea et al? It's impossible to hold these positions based on Biblical and early Church writings which is why those councils claimed this as the Church's stance against heresies?
There are many reasons people believe something, the fun is finding out which are valid or not. This doesn't mean all are invalid. Another point, as for similarities between gods of other religions, this sounds a lot like CSLewis's idea of 'themes'/'prototypes'/'foreshadowing' to the one true 'myth': The Myth that actually happened. (But that's a long, interesting story for another time)
I understand your extending skepticism "further" (based on piling any belief system in one lump as though they are all the same and have all the same reasons for holding beliefs), it just means either you're right or wrong to do so. But your portrayal of Christian beliefs is wrong, (ie: inaccurate), based on my understanding of my own beliefs and the early church.
I don't want to argue with you, Think. If I'm wrong, as may be the case, tell me why. If you don't believe in three separate, autonomous, omnipotent entities, help me understand what you do believe in. I was once a Christian myself, and I certainly believed in them. I believed in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. I believed that the had their own personalities and minds (i.e. autonomy), and that they were each omnipotent. I also believed, as I suspect you do, that they were all part of the same "godhead". I still understand that belief, I simply don't find it compelling anymore, as I find it about as likely a story as the existence of Lord Ganesh or Shiva.
As for the origins of the Trinity: Although the three components of your trinity are all present in the Christian Bible, they are not presented in any way that defines them the way that, say, Aaron and Seeker put forth. Virtually every reference to the Trinity, including the nature of their essences, their relationship to each other, their individuality or lack-thereof, and their roles in human spirituality, is taken from non-canonical sources. And in the rare cases that it does come from a scriptural source, it's almost always from the Christian Bible. The concept of the Trinity is not only absent in the Hebrew Bible, but it's anathema to Hebrew beliefs. Which is to say that your Patriarchs, from Abraham to Moses, and up to and including the Apostles, almost certainly did not believe in any concept like what you refer to as the Trinity.
I'm not using perjorative words like "absurd", because I'm not interested in insulting you, Aaron, or Seeker. It's not that I find your beliefs absurd. I just don't find them compelling at all. And my point to Aaron, in my previous post, was that his explanation (for why his concept of monotheism is more logical than traditional polytheism) was not valid. He was applying logic in one part of his explanation (multiple gods are an unnecessary complication), but not in another (the Trinity is unexplainable, but that's okay, because religion is allowed to be mysterious). Again, if I'm wrong, let me know why.
Sorry, become a House member not a Senator. Even Easier :)
Cineaste, I realize the metaphor is not exact. It is difficult to have a natural comparrison for something supernatural. Again, my point is that being the opposite in terms of ideology does not make one an equal in terms of power.
No, Satan has no chance of winning in the long run, but he is able to win skirmishes here while God is allowing people to choose Him.
In one sense, yes, Satan is a moron to keep trying, but he was a moron to rebel against God in the first place. Once that happened the die was cast, his lot was set, so now it is his pride (I believe) that causes him to continue. Satan arrogantly thought that he could overthrown God when he was in heaven under the direct authority of God, what would make him think any differently now that he seemingly has power.
As to the "no other gods," there is numerous language in the OT that speaks of other "gods," but none of this means they believe the other god to actual be a deity. In the conversation right now, you are speaking of God, Greek gods, etc. – none of which you believe in. But I can take your language of refering to "gods" and say that you must believe in them because you speak of them. Is that a fair assesment? Of course not. Neither is it correct to try to say that God is speaking of other real deities when he references "gods."
That's a lot like this semantics argument about polytheism and all that, what other word would you perfer God to use? The word "gods" would speak of all the other supposed deities that other people worshipped. Just like with Elijiah when he did challenged the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel. He offered a test to prove whether Jehovah was God or Baal was God. Of course Elijiah believed that Jehovah was the only true God, but he spoke of Baal as a god in terms of the context and the people.
No, Satan has no chance of winning in the long run, but he is able to win skirmishes here while God is allowing people to choose Him.
That's not true either. God is omnipotent and omniscient so any "skirmish" Satan wins God already knows about and is powerful enough to stop. So essentially, God lets him win "skirmishes", whatever you mean by that. Any why would God "let" Satan win anything?
Tell me how Satan does not remind you of Sisyphus? He must be the "Sisyphus of morons" ,forever doomed to a circle of mistakes; stepping on the same rack and having it smack him in the face over and over and over.
As to the "no other gods," there is numerous language in the OT that speaks of other "gods"
What is the difference between "false Gods" and "false idols" then? There are separate commandments for each.
Idols is a physical thing – it can be touched. Gods is a metaphysical thing – it can't be touched. Basically "Worship Me don't worship the seen or the unseen." God's covering all His bases.
The question of God's sovereignty and why He doesn't do this or that, specifically stop Satan or evil, is an age old question that I will never be able to answer fully. Again, thousands of books have been written on the topic. A blog discussion will not begin to cover it all, but I will take a stab at a quick look.
God allows evil choices to happen for several reasons. (I say evil choices, to mean that humans choose to do an evil action, thus following Satan.)
1) He has temporarily held back His power. God wants people to choose to worship Him. He wants followers who love Him and want to serve Him. When He comes and unleashes His full power, there is no longer any choice. I won't have the option of not recognizing Him as God, it will be painfully obvious. His love and desire for a voluntary relationship with us contrains His power, which allows evil.
2) He has the ability to redeem evil choices in the end. You and I have no such power, so we do what we can to prevent evil. God has the power to take evil actions and use them for the ultimate good. His perspective being omni-everything is considerably different from ours. He can recognize the long term good of something while we existing within time may only see the bad. Have you ever went through something bad and hated every minute of it while it was happening, but after the fact you were grateful for that time because it made you a stronger, better person?
3) The existence of evil allows for the existence of higher virtues in humans. If we as humans face no choice, then while we cannot choose evil, we also cannot choose good. We recognize someone as really having achieved something when they overcome obstacles. That is the case with God allowing Satan to run free and humans to choose to sin.
Again, Satan is a moron for rebelling against God, but he is in his position now – every heard of "go down swinging?" You know you are going to loose, but for whatever reason you decide to take as many of them with you as possible. It may be pride. It may be jealousy, anger, bitterness, who knows, all of the above, etc. I don't know why Satan does what he does, but it is not as if we don't see similar actions all the time – people fighting unwinnable "battles" for a host of reasons: belief in the cause, pride, and that whole list again.
Idols is a physical thing – it can be touched.
Good, so this means science and human rational can’t qualify as a “False Idol.” Also, science and human rational can’t qualify as a “False God” because they are not divinities.
Again, Satan is a moron for rebelling against God, but he is in his position now…
Just like Sisyphus. Satan is the Christian Sisyphus.
but it is not as if we don’t see similar actions all the time – people fighting unwinnable “battles” for a host of reasons: belief in the cause, pride, and that whole list again.
Not for an eternity Aaron.
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
– Albert Einstein
Out of all that, you pull those two quotes.
Sure science and rationality can qualify as a god because they are metaphyiscal things. They cannot be touched, are unseen and can be worshipped. If something is seen or unseen it falls under God's command not to worship it.
I have no problem with Satan being compared with a greek God or character from Greek mythology. Of course any example of someone laboring in vain, will be similar to Satan. Ultimately, even though he is able to convince many to not follow God, he is laboring in vain.
It brings me back to a point that I think thinker made earlier in this thread, about C.S. Lewis and his position on mythology. He saw many similiarities between myths around the world and Christianity. To him this merely illustrated that there was a True Myth out there. All of the other myths, while being false, pointed to and allued to the True Myth. Lewis, of course, regarded Christianity as the True Myth.
An event or character being similar to a person of mythology does not disprove the existence of the real event or character. Mythology is often used to illustrate truths, that does not negate the useful of the myth even though it false or the "trueness" of the truth allueded to in the myth.
But I guess back to the question, why does Satan being similar to Sisyphus (or the other way around) mean that Christians must be dualist or polytheist?
Sure science and rationality can qualify as a god because they are metaphyiscal things. They cannot be touched, are unseen and can be worshipped.
You have it backwards. Idol is what you mean. Your definition of Idol as “physical” was wrong. Here is dictionary.com’s complete definition of God. Notice use of the word Idol? That pertains to the “False idols” commandment. In the Ten Commandments, “False Idols” and “False Gods” are separated.
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7. (lowercase) any deified person or object.
8. (often lowercase) Gods, Theater.
a. the upper balcony in a theater.
b. the spectators in this part of the balcony.
–verb (used with object)
9. (lowercase) to regard or treat as a god; deify; idolize.
–interjection
10. (used to express disappointment, disbelief, weariness, frustration, annoyance, or the like): God, do we have to listen to this nonsense?
Even then, who in the world thinks science and rational are actual God’s? God’s have all the answers and deal in absolutes. Science and rational do not.
But I guess back to the question, why does Satan being similar to Sisyphus (or the other way around) mean that Christians must be dualist or polytheist?
It doesn’t. If Satan had a chance of winning it would imply that Satan is God’s equal or near equal, and that would further imply dualism and polytheism. Because Satan has no chance, he is just an impotent spirit like Sisyphus. If Satan actually thinks he can prevail against an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal God then Satan is a moron. Satan is really a rather pathetic being. This is just what Professor Henry Ansgar Kelly said when you attacked his position in your post Satan: The Latest to be Misunderstood.
I will avoid the continued semantics argument over "god" and "idol." I have said my thoughts. You have said yours. Now we are just spinning around with pointless word plays.
I will say that one does not have to think something is a god to worship as such. Many people treat their job as a god, but would not agree if you asked them.
Professor Ansgar did not say Satan was a moron or pathetic. He said that Satan was basically doing the bidding of God by tempting people. He called Satan "a government heavy." That is a big difference from waging a losing battle.
In one case, Satan is on the same side as God, but sometimes goes a little beyond the call of duty. In the other case, Satan is fighting a battle he cannot win against God.
He's not neccesarily "impotent" in that he does have some power, just not close to the same level as God. He is a created angel and as such has powers equal to other angels.
But this is way away from your original question where you asked if you had to believe in Satan to believe in God. Satan is not the important part here, although we can continue to discuss his role. God is the central figure.
I just saw your Einstein quote.
We don't see it for an eternity because we don't live that long.
People carry grudges and battles with them to their graves. There is no indication that they would change or stop.
Besides Satan is going to act in a strictly evil manner, so he is not going to learn from his mistakes and try to do better. His pride won't let him.
I think Satan would qualify as the very definition of insane. He was in the very presence of God and chose to rebel against Him. That has to be insane, but like many evil people that does not prevent him from being intelligent or at least coniving.
I will avoid the continued semantics argument over "god" and "idol." I have said my thoughts. You have said yours.
Well I'll make one more point about this then. You dismiss this as semantics yet the fact remains that there are two separate commandments for "false idols/graven images" and "other Gods." If there is no difference then why two commandments and not one? The Ten Commandments are important to Christians right? So maybe this question should not be so easily dismissed as mere semantics.
Many people treat their job as a god.
None in a divine sense; maybe as a false idol. Who in the world prays to their job to cure a loved one of cancer. No, these prayers are directed to their real God like Allah, Jesus, or Zeus.
Professor Ansgar did not say Satan was a moron or pathetic. He said that Satan was basically doing the bidding of God by tempting people. He called Satan "a government heavy." That is a big difference from waging a losing battle.
Insanity, idiocy and being pathetic are intrinsic to Satan's role as tempter. Satan is the Sisyphus of tempters and government heavies and he is in the employ of God. Being omnipotent, God could end Satan any time he wants with no effort but the truth is, as you said yourself, Satan is doing God's bidding. Satan is working for God. There is no need for a "losing battle" because God can nuke Satan any time he wants. God can unmake Hell any time He wants. But He doesn't for His own reasons and it's clear that He suffers Satan's continued existence, for His own reasons. It's not a "battle" or even a "losing battle" it's a job like Sisyphus. Satan is impotent against God, there is no way around that. If Satan is God's equal or peer in any way, then you have dualism which is the doctrine that there are two independent divine beings or eternal principles, one good and the other evil. Dualism precludes monotheism.
But this is way away from your original question where you asked if you had to believe in Satan to believe in God.
No Aaron, I have stayed on topic and it all ties together neatly. See above.
I think Satan would qualify as the very definition of insane.
I grant you this. Not because he rebelled against God but because of Einsteins definition of insanity.
The Ten Commandments are important and I have explained to you the differences between idols and gods and why that doesn't equate with God saying their are others like me. Countless times in the OT people refered to other "gods," while not saying that they were actually real. Again, you have refered continually to gods and God in this post, yet you maintain you do not believe in them. How can this be, if we take your words as you take God's?
It's time to go home, so I will answer your issues about Satan being employed by God tomorrow.
The Ten Commandments are important and I have explained to you the differences between idols and gods and why that doesn't equate with God saying their are others like me. Countless times in the OT people referred to other "gods," while not saying that they were actually real
Admittedly, I am ignorant when it comes to the nuances of Christian scripture. I ask only to understand. I still don't understand the difference between "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above" and "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
It is clear that there are many images of the Christian God and Jesus in every church. This means that "false idols" or "graven images" can't be just physical as you claimed or else there are violations of the second commandment everywhere! So, when the commandment mentions "image" of God, I can't take it to mean the physical image of God but the metaphorical image of God: like when you mentioned someone who puts her job before God or a humanist who puts people before god or people who put knowledge before God. These things all become a metaphorical image of God to these people right? Not an actual divine, all powerful, all knowing, all seeing, supernatural being but an image. It's obvious to me that these things are not God's or even the "False Gods" or "Other God's" mentioned in the first commandment. The God's mentioned in the 1st commandment refer to Allah, Shiva, Zeus, Baal, Jupiter, Odin, Amon Ra, etc, who are divine beings in the true sense of the word to the religions who actively worship them as such, just like Christians do for their own divine God. I can't see where I have erred but again, I'm ignorant about the nuances of Christian beliefs. Lawanda and Seeker may also be able to shed light on what the difference between the 1st and 2nd commandments if I have erred in what I said above.
Stewart, (I don't know if you'll read this response as it's quite delayed in this thread),
First of all, I don't think the 'answer' about the Trinity is simple. One thing I believe and I don't think it is irrational, is that God is not completely like humans. This means that his Being is not determined by our understanding of what a 'personal' being should be. In a sense then, God can be described as super-personal. (These are not my original thoughts, they are, mostly, I believe, C.S. Lewis). An analogy (always imperfect) can be employed: A 2D person would have difficulty grasping the concept of a cube. The cube is 6 squares (which they understand), but they would either try to think of a cube as 6 squares 'overlapping' (and so in 2d remove each square's distinctness) or think of them as 6 joined squares side by side (removing the unity of a cube). CSLewis: "He contains 'persons' (three of them) while remaining one God, as a cube contains 6 squares while remaining one solid body". I believe our understanding of God to be very similar to this analogy. Our knowledge may be true, if not complete. On another note, I believe that the concept of the Trinity, 3 persons in the 'godhead community', give good explanation of God being love, and how we are all 'built' with this desire for love and community, because we are 'like' God. God, in his being, is a social God, and, one who didn't need to create anything out of 'loneliness'. This raises the nobility of 'Creation'. I think that God's Being, his personal nature, his social nature, give the best explanation of why we are personal, social beings. I'm not sure how this sounds, because I don't think I'm expressing it well.
I would probably agree that the Trinity is not fully explainable, but this doesn't mean the concept is false. I think the concept is compelling in its implications. Especially when opposite the alternative, which, in my mind, has no explanation of things like Personality, Mind, Identity etc. I guess I'm saying i don't find an atheistic belief as compelling. But our finding arguments compelling doesn't make them true or false.
Lastly, the origins of the concept of the Trinity is, I agree, 'tricky'. I don't think the concept is completely avoidable in the Hebrew Scriptures, (such as Genesis 1:26). But the concept would obviously be much more prevalent in scriptures where the people claim the incarnate God is among them. Most of the non-canonical sources are people trying to make sense of this fact glaring them in the face. How is it possible that something anathema to the Apostles has them using language that has Jesus referring to God the Father, and yet has himself equating himself with God. (The leaders of the day wanted to stone him for blasphemy). The Christians thought Jesus was God. The Holy Spirit is equated with God (even in the Hebrew Scriptures). How is this resolved? Special revelation to each person or working out the language and implications to be used in the early Church (non-canonical sources). It's very possible the patriarchs didn't have this concept of God. Even the apostles. But it's also the case that they didn't predict God to come as he did, or do what he did. Now that he had come among them, they either had to reject him as a devil, a lunatic or accept him as God. Like I said, I don't think it's a simple answer. But, to conclude this post, an incomplete understanding of the Trinity should not affect the day-to-day life of a Christian. They will still struggle with sin and strive to live with compassion etc. (The Christian life isn't a simple one either, but that's another topic). I have a question… what is compelling to you? (I'm interested to know).
PS to Cineaste: One of the differences I see (could be wrong) in those 2 Commandments you quoted are that, though they are different aspects of explaining God's sovereignty, one cautions against the Hebrews trying to 'box' God into a created image, the other is more of the uniqueness (holiness) God wanted as his place for the Hebrews.
That's my quick answer. What do you think?
wow. Re-reading that last post of mine makes me dizzy.
Think, does this mean that those commandments are essentially saying the same thing? If so, why didn't God issue just one commandment? If not, then are my explanations accurate: i.e. one commandment pertains to metaphorical images of God and the other pertains to the actual "other Gods" who are worshiped? Hehe I think what you just said is a paraphrase of my contention, just applied to Hebrews. I am completely confused.
haha.. This is getting confusing AND interesting.
I looked up some things: Here's what I found (paraphrasing). Judaism considers Exodus 20:2 a commandment (unlike any Christian tradition), and combines vs 3-6 as one commandment… so it sounds like they lump them together, though not necessarily does that mean the command can't have multiple aspects. Catholic and Protestant tradition considers vs2 as prologue to the ten 'words'. From these latter traditions, what I read, the first command ('no other gods') is about the 'why' of worship and the 2nd command('no graven images') is about the 'how' of worship.
Quote for command 1) "Nothing else or nobody else is to exercise an ultimate claim over or demand an ultimate loyalty from God's people".
command 2) besides talking about literal images vs symbolic images, here's a quote: "To have access to an image of God suggests almost that such a god can be controlled and manipulated. Perhaps we cannot improve on Augustine's definition of idolatry: 'Idolatry is worshiping anything that ought to be used, or using anything that is meant to be worshiped.'"
(references from: http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Pentateuch-Genesis…
How's that?
What your reference says about commandment 1…
"Nothing else or nobody else is to exercise an ultimate claim over or demand an ultimate loyalty from God's people"
What I said about commandment 1…
The God's mentioned in the 1st commandment refer to Allah, Shiva, Zeus, Baal, Jupiter, Odin, Amon Ra, etc, who are divine beings in the true sense of the word to the religions who actively worship them as such, just like Christians do for their own divine God.
What your reference said about commandment 2…
"To have access to an image of God suggests almost that such a god can be controlled and manipulated. Perhaps we cannot improve on Augustine's definition of idolatry: 'Idolatry is worshiping anything that ought to be used, or using anything that is meant to be worshiped.'"
What I said about commandment 2…
It is clear that there are many images of the Christian God and Jesus in every church. This means that "false idols" or "graven images" can't be just physical as you (Aaron) claimed or else there are violations of the second commandment everywhere! So, when the commandment mentions "image" of God, I can't take it to mean the physical image of God but the metaphorical image of God: like when you mentioned someone who puts her job before God or a humanist who puts people before god or people who put knowledge before God. These things all become a metaphorical image of God to these people right? Not an actual divine, all powerful, all knowing, all seeing, supernatural being but an image. It's obvious to me that these things are not God's or even the "False Gods" or "Other God's" mentioned in the first commandment.
Think, it seems to me that your research corroborates with my Contentions. Do you agree? If you do, I think this will be a first :)
Cineaste, I'll agree with you to some extent (how's that for compromise? Friends?)
What you said:
The God's mentioned in the 1st commandment refer to Allah, Shiva, Zeus, Baal, Jupiter, Odin, Amon Ra, etc, who are divine beings in the true sense of the word to the religions who actively worship them as such, just like Christians do for their own divine God.
I agree the first commandment refers to some peoples' concept of those beings, but doesn't limit them to divine beings per se or explicitly suggest that they are actually divine. The point of the first commandment is to not have higher reverence than for Yahweh, come beast, plant, man or god.
commandment 2) I agree with you that many churches etc have images of Jesus. And, I'm not sure that's entirely a good thing, as many people's concept of Jesus is a long haired white guy. I think your talk of the metaphorical images of God is more referencing the first commandment (not the second). As for violation of the 2nd commandment… in a sense, the incarnation of Christ is a violation, (well, except that he wasn't made by men nor was he an image, but the real thing… at least, that's the contention). I think though that this was more a command for Judaism to stay away from the image of God as a means to control what God was like. (As far as church images of Jesus, again, there are plenty of protestant churches that don't really like the idea). But, I think there is a difference between symbol (representative of something (like a flag for America)) and literal image.
we seem to be on the way to making good Talmudic scribes, debating the interpretations of words and scripture… :)
I would note a few things, at this point:
(1) Commandments: The commandments against worship of other gods and against idolatry are clearly not directed only, or even primarily, at the worship of abstract concepts or physical items. People rarely worship the inanimate; when we worship inanimate objects, it is virtually always as a proxy for the supernatural entities which we imagine they represent. There’s no explicit reason to think that the author of the ten commandments (ostensibly Yahweh) was admitting to the existence of other “gods”. That said, the commandments make absolutely no sense unless Yahweh’s potential followers believed that such “gods” actually existed.
So, Aaron: You asked, “How does Christianity grow from a polytheistic religion, when it is an extension, if you will, of Judaism?” And this is the answer. Although Christianity did develop from Judaism, and Judaism is traditionally seen as a monotheistic faith, there’s little debate over the fact that the ancient Jews — as well as every civilization that surrounded them — had a history of polytheism.
Your belief that the commandments are warning against people making metaphorical ‘gods’ out of things like football teams and jobs is, I feel, unsupported by the context that the commandments are delivered in. They’re about actual gods, specifically ones that were contemporary to early Judaism, such as Baal and El, and not about simple inanimate objects or concepts.
(2) The Trinity: Think, I accept your explanation, which is a fairly traditional one, as being plausible. I do not think it’s very likely, however. The concept of the Trinity is not outlandish, nor is it especially bizarre. It’s merely one of the logical paradoxes of Christian belief, and it’s not a particularly hard one to look beyond, as you have already stated you do. But the exception that you make for the Trinity (and for other otherwise unexplainable dogma) is noteworthy to those of us on the outside. It’s a very clear example of you giving your own belief system a pass, in a way that you would not likely allow for other, non-Christian beliefs.
That is to say, if you are willing to allow for one entirely contradictory, logically unexplainable phenomenon, then you have effectively declared that logic and understanding are not requirements for your religion, and the world that it reports to explain. If that is the case — as it unequivocally appears to be in he case of most faiths — then there is little point in having discussions, or even giving much lengthy thought to theological issues.
I really don’t mean that to be insulting, but it’s the only way I can see the issue. If your religion teaches you that there are things that are unexplainable and contradictory, and that you simply need to accept them based on what somebody or some book writes, then I fail to see how you can reasonably criticize any other faith for their own contradictions and logical paradoxes. When you accept “it’s just a mystery” as a viable solution, you deny yourself the ability to discount anything at all.
(3) Villians: The conversation thus far as surrounded Satan, but it is equally applicable to others, particular Judas. These are figures who ostensibly act against the desires of God, but without whom the desires of the very same God would not be possible. It’s meaningless to villify Satan or Judas if their existence is an intentional act of your Lord, as well as being an absolute requirement in the unraveling of his plans.
This is the very same logic that finds Christians calling Jews “Christ killers”, even though their entire religon revolves around Jesus’ execution. His death is (somewhat bizarrely) considered the greatest single act of love in the history of the world, and yet there are Christians who act as if they would rather he’d lived out his years in some rest home on the Galilee. In this particular case I’m inclined to cite simple bigotry as the explanation. That M.O. does not fit the villification of Satan and Judas, however.
Judas, in the same role as the aforementioned Jews, is one of the most universally scorned men in all of European literature. He is the almost the prototype for traitors in our collective culture. It’s difficult to explain our distaste for him, though, when his actions were known and accepted by Jesus himself, and when the result was, by contrast, the most widely adored event, ever. There is hardly a figure more deserving of an apology than Judas Iscariot. Most of Jesus’ apostles are, in terms of character and action, fairly disposable. Judas stands out as one of the most decisively mandatory figures in Christian Bible, but his destiny is (apparently) to be eternally and unfairly spat upon for it.
Similarly, Satan plays the bad-guy role that God has laid out for him, and does so in such a way that the bulk of Christian belief is hard to imagine without his presence. For performing this duty, Christians curse him — probably even more so than Judas — and revile him as a major, or sometimes as the only, source of ‘evil’ in the world.
There aren’t any satisfactory words for how behaviorally inconceivable Satan is. He is portrayed as being intelligent — often far more so than human beings — but yet he doesn’t seem to care that everything he does is ultimately a failure. The best explanation of this I have seen, here, is “he’s going down swinging,” which is the kind of behavior you’d expect from an immature frat boy, not from an immortal, super-intelligent angel.
But put that aside for a moment: Why is he reviled at all? He is doing exactly what God wants him to do. He has to be, because God is omnipotent and omniscient.
Someone, earlier, suggested that God had actually limited his own control over the universe by allowing humanity and Satan the choice to do ‘good’ or ‘evil’. This hypothesis is as paradoxical as the Trinity. If God had given true autonomy to his creations, then it would be meaningless to suggest that He had a plan for them; if such a plan existed, it would entirely contradict the idea of autonomy. Further, accepting this idea of human/angelic free-agency is the equivalent of taking the credit away from God himself.
If Satan chooses to do ‘evil’, then God cannot have planned for it. And if Satan truly has a free will, then he could decide to do ‘good’ starting right now. But there isn’t a Christian alive who honestly believes that any day now Satan might turn over a new leaf. The book of Revelation says that he won’t. But if Satan’s path is already set, and if it’s part of God’s plan, then it’s meaningless to claim that he has any choice in the matter. He’s just a deterministic pinball flying around in God’s tilted table.
And even if you believe that Satan is truly capable of doing ‘good’ or ‘evil’, you cannot avoid the fact that he strangely appears to be doing exactly what God wants him to do. The book of Job is a fine example of this. Satan (though he didn’t have that name at the time) is given permission by God to do unspeakable, torturous things to Job and his family. Fortunately for Job, everything turns out okay in the end. Nobody ever seem to talk about how things went for his family and friends, though. I guess they don’t matter. God didn’t seem to mind, anyway: he gave it his stamp of approval beforehand.
Now imagine this: If Satan exist as you suppose he does, he is almost certainly capable of working out this logic for himself. If he acts the way your religion typically portrays him, he is, himself, an excellent scholar of the Bible, and a master of logic and philosophical contortions. It is inconcievable that he has not considered these very arguments, and understands them perfectly, inside and out. He has read Revelations. He has listened to the same sermons you have, and he’s even been in the presence of God. It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, frankly, that he would behave the way you claim he does. Or, if he did, that God would even consider labeling him an adversary.
None of it makes any sense. It’s all motivationally paradoxical. You can go through your own contortions to fill in the gaps, and make it plausible — and I’ll admit that people like C.S. Lewis have done admirable jobs — but when all is said and done you are left with a lot of patched holes, not the seamless piece of logic that most Christians claim. There is, however, an easy explanation that removes all of those patch-jobs: None of it is real.
As soon as you truly allow for that possibility, the holes disappear. You don’t need to explain any of these paradoxes, or motivational inconsistancies. You don’t have to wonder why the Almight Lord above cares so much about what a bunch of his creations do in their bedrooms. You don’t have to scratch your head and wonder why He didn’t make his “perfect” book a little bit less confusing. All of the problems are immediately gone, and they’re replaced with only one: Where did the Universe come from then?
Admittedly, it’s a stumper. Of course, that problem still existed in Christianity, in the form of “Where did God come from?” but to Christians that’s just another acceptable mystery. Myself, I prefer a single mystery to a whole pile of them. Christianity is plausible, but then so is Hinduism, Islam, Mormonism, Homeopathy, and Feng Shui. They’re all plausible, but once your able to see them as an objective viewer, none of them seems very likely at all.
Damn Stewart it's good to read your articulate posts again . You debate with Aaron, Seeker, et al on a level which I can't because you have that Christian background and they can relate to your scripture arguments more so for it. You don't need to argue with Seeker but 2or3 would suffer a blow to the level of it's discussion if you disappeared again!
Stewart. That’s some serious writing.
I’ll only respond briefly.
1) Commandments:
a) belief in ‘gods’ other than Yahweh, (aside from the writers of the Hebrew scriptures constantly referring to their counterparts as worshipping dead pieces of wood, and I assume they would know better than we), can easily mean belief in supernatural spirits (because belief in the supernatural easily leads to things like angels/demons).
b) If Judaism was polytheistic (do you get this from the idea of their idolatrous habits?) they certainly weren’t supposed to be after Yahweh was done messing with them.
2) The Trinity:
I don’t understand how you accept my explanation as being traditional, plausible, not very likely, and paradoxical. The only thing I can say about paradoxes is they are either: verbal puzzles (resolved by defining better), mystery (missing data), temporary agnosticism (not only apparently self-contradictory but in fact decisively incompatible, held in tension until becomes clear how to adjust view of phenomena, think QED (wave-particle resolution) of light), or a true paradox (flat out self-contradiction: on par with ‘square circle’). Which one was it? I would of course say mystery or temporary agnosticism, with the idea that things will be resolved. I allow for passes of the same sort for non-Christian beliefs. I do not accept the idea that this concept of the Trinity is “entirely contradictory, logically unexplainable phenomenon”. And furthermore, I attempted to explain a few brief ways how I thought it explained the world.
When you say: When you accept “it’s just a mystery” as a viable solution, you deny yourself the ability to discount anything at all.
this applies to yourself too. (Such as the mystery of where the Universe came from). This must mean that I don’t accept mystery as a viable solution (ad infinitum) or your logic is wrong. If your logic is right then you are not holding to the standard be discount my religion. I don’t think my religion teaches things are ‘unexplainable’. Science says… not yet… not yet. I think the same can be used by Religions. Or is this invalid reasoning?
3) Villains:
Judas: “one of the most decisively mandatory figures in the Christian Bible”: This can only be said in hindsight (since we can’t change the past). What it implies is there was no other way for Jesus to be crucified. Betrayal is not highly regarded no matter what the outcome (Tolkien coined the word “Euchatasrophe” to describe the whole event). Acceptance by Jesus does not mean approval of action. I’m not sure what Judas means other than the betrayer of his friend, Jesus. I don’t see how the Judas could be praised. The crucifixion is seen as good not because of something Judas did but because of what Christians claim God did afterward: The Resurrection.
Satan: Satan plays the bad-guy role that God has laid out for him, Most of your arguments here are because you reject free-will if God exists as omnipotent and omniscient. There are many good philosophers who explain how these things can coincide.
But sometimes I think we put too much weight on free-will. Bent rulers make bent lines. If Satan was once in the presence of God, and he determined that he could replace God, and he lost, and he was marred, and he hates God, this doesn’t mean he has no free-will.
If Satan chooses to do ‘evil’, then God cannot have planned for it. Does this mean God cannot have prepared for it or God cannot have willed it? Two very different things.
As for Satan being able to work out the logic: Your arguments are for your sense of implausibility. As you may or may not know, highly intelligent people do VERY crazy things because they let their feelings take over. Hate. Jealousy. These aren’t limited to humans of necessity. In fact they are applied to Satan. Would a highly intelligent being have high levels of crazy hate? Conceivably. Improbable? Maybe. Motivationally paradoxical? No.
As far as ‘patch holes’. I don’t think there’s any ‘better’ explanation that Christianity. With Naturalism/Atheism, you have no free-will (end of story). You have no idea where the world came from, why you should follow any morals, why you have a mind, an identity, or any reason to believe in logic, or inference. No reason Why you care so much about proving Christianity wrong, No recourse but to claim all your emotions, your loves, your dreams, your thoughts, your hopes, are illusions. There are many more problems than ‘Where did the Universe come from?’
“Where did God come from?” is a straw man. What does that even mean? “Outside of time and space, God…” That doesn’t work. If there is a fundamental difference between a creation and a Creator, if causes need at root an uncaused Cause, if eternal, if infinite, means anything at all, it makes the question nonsense. But it answers the stumper for Naturalists.
As far as plausibility and truth of existence is concerned, they are not necessarily highly related.
And finally, no one is an objective viewer. Unless you mean that those outside your system of belief are objective viewers of that belief, in which case, I, as an objective viewer of atheism and/or naturalism, find that it doesn’t seem very plausible OR very likely at all.
Longer than intended… but briefer than should have been.
From my own perspective I am glad that Stewart and think are here to help out Cineaste and myself. You two are always an excellent addition to the discourse here.
Some of my weak explanations have come back to bite me somewhat, I guess I should explain some of them.
Worshipping jobs or sports teams I in no way thought that this was they type of command God was giving the children of Israel when He wrote the Ten Commandments.
I was taking the view of God's Word being "living" or applicapable to today and trying to give illustrations that would resonnate currently.
Of course the "gods" Yahweh was refering to were the gods of the people groups in the promised land. The Israelites tended to stray and believe in other gods, evidenced by their very actions during Moses' stay with God on Mt. Sinai.
For them specifically God was telling them not to worship other Gods and not to make false idols, of which they did both. But they did not always create a physical idol for the false god.
I guess succinctly belief does not equal reality, even if the Israelites believed (on occassion) in other gods that does not neccessitate their existence.
Going down swinging Again trying to express a complex issue in colloquial terms. Think did a good job of discussing that, epsecially the point about highly intelligent, high levels of hate.
I continue to use pride as my main argument. Pride will drive anyone to do crazy things, how much more prideful could a supernatural being be than us humans? Pride makes us believe things about ourselves that we know to be false. Perhaps Satan has talked himself into believing that he can win. Sure he knows the Bible backwards and forwards, but he may think, "maybe, just maybe, I can change things. I am the one who will make God out to be a liar. I will do that." Anyone who is capable of being in God's presence and has pride enough to rebel in that, can convince themselves of anything despite being much more intelligent (coniving) than humans.
I think much of the argument over God wanting Satan or Judas to do this or that, also presupposes that God exists within time. The Christian doctrine is that God is removed from time. He doesn't look forward and backwards to find out what happened or happens – as He said, "I AM."
But again the tug of war between free will and sovereignty is a huge issue that can be debated on countless sides by people much more learned and intelligent than I. I, of course, have thoughts on the issue, but I may do more harm than good, as earlier.
The question of where did the universe come from versus where did God come from is quite a good one in that it leads us to the question of what preexisted?
If the universe is all that there is, it must be eternal because everything that had a beginning had a cause. Can we all agree on that point?
Well what reasons do have to believe in an eternal universe? None, that I know of. In fact we have science and reason that point to the universe having a beginning ("big bang," expanding universe, etc.)
If the universe had a beginning what was the cause, again because for something to have a beginning it had to have a cause? Did it create itself? Is that possible or logical?
The more reasonable answer would point to a Creator that gave the universe its beginning. The Creator would therefore exist outside of natural and could be eternal and without cause.
As think pointed out, the elimination of any supernatural raises many more questions than just where did the universe come from? What about death? What makes a person dead? They have all the same chemicals as before. The consciousness of humans must also be explained in a naturalistic way. Why do we have any self-awareness? Think also raised the point of logic and reason – why and how can we have these things when we are only chemical reactions?
There are numerous questions that I have never seen answered completely from a naturalistic standpoint – that is why as an "objective observer" from the outside I have rejected it.
Every worldview, every philosophy has "holes" in it or at least things which are not fully explained. From my own standpoint and research, Christianity withstands the "holes" test much more so than any other belief system be it religious or materialistic.
Within Christianity, those things which do not seem fully explained do have explanations. They may not be totally developed or understood (by anyone, even and especially those on the "inside"), but they give an avenue to epxlain that as well – the existence of the supernatural which stands beyond our complete understanding.
These are heady topics which I have read and thought about, but often struggle with present clearly and concisely. I hope I have not muddied the water too much.
Hey Aaron,
I think that these issues are great to work through. It is difficult to clearly communicate some of the concepts. I just don't understand where you and seeker and Cineaste etc. get all the time to write on here. I'm going to be trying to cut back because I don't have as much time it seems. That being said, I enjoy the exchange of ideas. Let's all just make sure we clearly see arguments as being double-edged and not just applying to one side or the other (I'm thinking especially of the 'objective viewer' stance).
Thanks.
think, my writing here (unfortunately) comes in bits and pieces. It depends on work and what is going on. Many times I can't do much of anything, even post. Sometimes I can bearly get one post a week up. My work situation is somewhat fluid, so that determines most of it.
I just enjoy seeing all the different perspectives here and the (usual) civil exchange of opposing ideas.
Stop in and comment as often as you can.
I think Stewart’s arguments where not addressed fully and neither were mine. Specifically, Forget Judas, let’s have sympathy for the Devil.
Why revile Satan if he is doing God’s bidding?
If the universe is all that there is, it must be eternal because everything that had a beginning had a cause. Can we all agree on that point?
No, we don't know if the universe is all that there is. There is strong mathematical evidence that we are in a multiverse. Remember my video about the unified theory of gravity? I know Lawanda does :)
In fact we have science and reason that point to the universe having a beginning ("big bang," expanding universe, etc.)
There was a singularity before the big bang and the universe. We don't know if that singularity had a beginning or not.
If the universe had a beginning what was the cause, again because for something to have a beginning it had to have a cause? Did it create itself? Is that possible or logical?
Scientists are working on the cause for the explosion of the singularity. What is not logical is to insert a supernatural cause in place of natural causes. The "God did it" explanation is actually the illogical explanation.
The more reasonable answer would point to a Creator that gave the universe its beginning. The Creator would therefore exist outside of natural and could be eternal and without cause.
Pure wishful thinking. This is known as "The God of the Gaps." Anything that science has not yet explained, the default position for the religious is, "God must have done it." This is quite nonsensical. For example, I believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster who is outside of time and space and it is HE who created everything. Silly, but the Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as valid a "creator" as any.
What about death? What makes a person dead? They have all the same chemicals as before.
Age. Our bodies deteriorate over time.
The consciousness of humans must also be explained in a naturalistic way. Why do we have any self-awareness?
Chimpanzees recognize themselves in a mirror. Is that self-awareness? I could show you a video explaining human consciousness in a naturalistic way but would you watch it?
There are numerous questions that I have never seen answered completely from a naturalistic standpoint – that is why as an "objective observer" from the outside I have rejected it.
That is why you are so ignorant of science. Your default position is, "if I can't understand something then I reject a naturalistic explanation altogether." You explain the unknown with the supernatural instead of the natural. What a pity.
Ann Druyan responds to the comment that science is afraid of the unknown.
Satan is not doing God's bidding. He is actively rebelling against Him. Because God has the ability to destroy Satan at any moment does not negate the treason he has perpetrated.
Allowing someone to continue doing something wrong does not automatically mean that you are approving of or somehow in control of their actions.
As to the multiverse, that merely expands the problem. Where did all of the universes come from? What was the singularity and where did it come from?
How can the "singularity" not have a beginning? Explain to me how something natural can exist outside of nature.
My questions are not from a "God of the gaps" theory. As you say I am ignorant of science, here is where you are ignorant of Christian theology and the reasoning (science) behind the beliefs. I am not saying, we have no explanation for it – therefore God. I am saying that by evaluating all of the evidence out there, a Creator is the most logical answer.
I never said if I couldn't understand it then it must be supernatural. As I said elsewhere I don't completely understand how a DVD works, but I don't pray every time I put a DVD in so that God will make the magic pictures appear again. The whole of the evidence points to a Creator and away from a naturalistic answer.
My point about death is that something "leaves" the body at that moment. At one point everything is going and working and then the next they are dead, even though all the same naturalistic elements are there. What makes the difference?
Think made a good point earlier about things cutting both ways. I think if you read back over some of your posts you will see that you merely insert naturalistic "science" where I say "God." For things that you don't understand or know, you merely have faith that one day naturalistic science will explain it all. That takes just as much faith, if not more, to believe that.
I will post, not today or tomorrow but at some point, about the evidences for a Creator. Things that are not "God of the gaps" but actually evidence that can lead a person to accept a Creator as a logical and reasonable scientific answer to many of the questions raised.
He is actively rebelling against Him.
Satan is incapable of rebelling against an omnipotent, omniscient being. It's like me holding my breath and saying I am rebelling against air. Why revile Satan if he is doing God's bidding?
Where did all of the universes come from? What was the singularity and where did it come from?
Would you like me to refer you to a 45 minute video that explains it?
I am saying that by evaluating all of the evidence out there, a Creator is the most logical answer.
Looking for a supernatural explanation instead of a naturalistic one is illogical.
As I said elsewhere I don't completely understand how a DVD works, but I don't pray every time I put a DVD in so that God will make the magic pictures appear again.
Yet you believe that ultimately God is the creator of the DVD.
My point about death is that something "leaves" the body at that moment. At one point everything is going and working and then the next they are dead, even though all the same naturalistic elements are there. What makes the difference?
A soul? This is more religion not science.
For things that you don't understand or know, you merely have faith that one day naturalistic science will explain it all.
It's the same faith I have that the sun will rise tomorrow. It's based on evidence. Gravity is a scientific theory but I have faith that I won't float out into space tonight. Though gravity has not been fully explained, it's reasonable to believe that if man ever does explain it fully, it will be via science not religion. The belief in a supernatural creator outside of time and space has no evidence.
A few comments Cineaste,
Satan is incapable of rebelling against an omnipotent, omniscient being.
That is a statement of faith. i.e. You believe free-will cannot co-exist with a God of all-power and all-knowledge. I believe it can. If it is possible, it explains that 'rebellion' is a large factor in why the world has 'bad' things. And God is working with (not forcing) people, to do good. If there is no free-will, there is no bad. no good to be worked towards. Nothing wrong with the world.
Looking for a supernatural explanation instead of a naturalistic one is illogical.
I, again, think this is a statement of faith. If we knew nothing supernatural existed, this would be a true statement. Unfortunately, we are not in that position. The statement cannot be backed up by evidence, except by begging the question.
Aaron: For things that you don't understand or know, you merely have faith that one day naturalistic science will explain it all.
Cineaste: It's the same faith I have that the sun will rise tomorrow. It's based on evidence.
I don't think these are the same… One is based on past observation (sun rising) and so not very much 'faith' is required. The other is based on the hope of observation (because currently it is unknown), perhaps based on evidence that points 'in that direction'. But this is the same faith as those who look to God. Hope and faith are very closely related, because in this sense they are related to what has been seen and point to something that has never been seen.
At least, that's how I see it.
It's the same faith I have that the sun will rise tomorrow.
That analogy does not work. You are basing that specific prediction on specific evidence for that thing. Your faith is that, since science has answered some questions, it can and will answer all questions. I think that is what Aaron is calling faith.
Regardless, when we get into epistemological philosophies (how we know what is true or exists), we will all disagree because philosophies are built on assumptions and deal with models that only approximate reality. So when we start our discussions of whether or not logic proves there must be a god, or one god v. many, it gets academic pretty soon and comes down to which camp of assumptions you want to belong to.
There are good arguments for the existence of God, but they won't make anyone believe, though they may help dismantle unbelief.
Yet you believe that ultimately God is the creator of the DVD.
Um…no. I believe that we are created in the image of our Creator and therefore we have the urge to create as well. If you want to say that I believe that God created all the raw materials and the humans who thought of making the DVD player, I suppose you could say that. But that really has nothing to do with my analogy, that I do not automatically equate a lack of understanding to the supernatural.
There are many unknowns out there that I do not attribute to an active role of God. I believe science will find more answers to many of the questions we have now. But I do not believe science will ever find a naturalistic explanation for our existence, because they are going against the evidence, heading in the worng direction.
My point about something leaving was not meant to automatically point to a soul, but merely to consciousness, the mind. All the chemicals are still the same inside our bodies, but something has changed, something has left. That is not a religious statement, that is an observational one.
Looking for a supernatural explanation instead of a naturalistic one is illogical.
You are correct, if we can be 100% sure that there is nothing beyond nature. Are you 100% sure that all you can see is all that there is? Because if not, then allowing for a supernatural explanation is not only not illogical, it is perfectly logical to investigate all possible means.
But of course, to this you will respond with the flippant "Flying Spaghetti Monster" talking point and believe that you have fully explained all that needs to be explained, while no one is asking you to simply believe blindly, but to be open to more than what you currently accept and fully evaluate and investigate the evidence.
Your faith is that, since science has answered some questions, it can and will answer all questions.
No not all questions. Just the empirical ones. The sun coming up in the morning is empirical. Belief in the supernatural is not.
I keep stressing the word "autonomous", because it's critically important. You don't believe that Angels need any explicit permission to do something. If they did, then Satan would have God's explicit permission to be doing whatever he does, and he would not be an adversary of any kind. He would be doing God's bidding. Having said that, an omnipotent, omniscient entity must, by definition, be giving at least implicit permission for absolutely everything that occurs, anywhere. In this sense, as in many, the existence of Satan would be motivationally paradoxical. – Stewart
Why revile Satan if he is doing God's bidding? Satan's job is to be the bad guy.
If you want to say that I believe that God created all the raw materials and the humans who thought of making the DVD player, I suppose you could say that.
That is exactly what I am saying. With this, everything is ultimately supernatural to a religious person. Everything is ultimately natural to the non religious person.
My point about something leaving was not meant to automatically point to a soul, but merely to consciousness, the mind. All the chemicals are still the same inside our bodies, but something has changed, something has left. That is not a religious statement, that is an observational one.
Aaron, that is what death is. Our bodies have deteriorated. The heart stops. Oxygen no longer goes to the brain. The brain dies without oxygen and along with it, consciousness. What you observe is called death. What you believe happens after death is called religion.
Are you 100% sure that all you can see is all that there is? Because if not, then allowing for a supernatural explanation is not only not illogical, it is perfectly logical to investigate all possible means.
I believe in atoms though I can't see them. I believe in Black Holes though I can't see them. I believe in Oregon though I've never been there and can't see Oregon. None of those are supernatural but there is evidence for them. If it turns out that there is no such place as Oregon, no such things as atoms or black holes then I will have to revise my beliefs. I don't believe in Santa Clause, Leprechauns or Gods because there is no evidence for them. If it turns out that there is evidence for them then I would have to revise my beliefs. The religious person hopes for the existence for the supernatural, without evidence, to the point they become deluded that these supernatural beings actually do exist. Whats more, there is nothing anyone can say, no evidence they can provide you, that will cause you to revise your beliefs. Why? Because religion demands the belief in the supernatural. To people who are outside the religious belief bubbles, that is a demand to remain irrational and unreasonable because belief in something without evidence is intrinsically irrational. You are asking me to believe in something blindly like you do. I won't do that. You said you are going to post something about evidence for God. I won't accept religious evidence because that is no evidence at all. If it's really evidence, it will be accepted by science and I would be happy for you when you become rich and famous because you are the first person in human history to prove God exists by backing it up with hard evidence instead of the tired old and fallacious (Bertrand Russell) argument from design. Just remember that it was Cineaste who asked for the evidence in the first place and will be expecting royalties and partial credit for your discovery :)
Stewart's complaint about Satan (and I suppose by proxy yours) is one of free will and omniscience coexisting. You don't believe it can. I believe it can. Neither of has any real evidence for either position because this is purely in a theoretical, metaphysical realm.
I see no reason that humans and angels/demons can have free will and choose to do either good or evil, while at the same time God can be all-powerful and all-knowing. Again knowing about something does not equate to approving of the behavior. Sometimes as a parent, I do not jump in immediately and stop my child from doing something I know to be wrong. That does not mean I approve of, endorse or control their actions, but I choose not to interfer for whatever reason – so they can learn, to teach them a lesson, so they know they can do things on their own, etc.
It is an entirely stretching of the design arugment to say that all things are "created" by God. In Christian theology, only living things and the natural universe was actively created by God. Any invention since then (shoes, swords, bombs, TVs, internet, etc.) was done so by man. God may have given them their brain and the raw materials, but those inventions are completely a natural phenomenon. I don't look for supernatural explanations when they are not there or perfectly explained by natural causes.
By "all that you see," I, of course, meant nature, the universe (or multiverse). This has nothing to do with Oregon or black holes.
The religious person hopes for the existence for the supernatural, without evidence, to the point they become deluded that these supernatural beings actually do exist.
Not for the most part. Most of us have investigated it and come away convinced by the evidence. I constantly question my beliefs and see if I am really right. I did this a lot in college and good bit earlier this year.
No one is asking you to believe in something irrational and unreasonable. If Christianity were that, I wouldn't believe in it.
I will try next week to begin my post in favor of a God. I will not point to any Scripture or any religious holy book for my evidences. But in all liklihood you will not accept it, you have dismissed it already.
The evidence will not "prove" God exists. Just as you cannot disprove it, neither can I prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. That would be the antithesis of God's allowance of free will in our lives. If He is proved 100% then we have no choice and we must believe and follow. I'm not saying this as a cop-out, but I am saying it as an explanation of what I intend to do.
And if I ever write a crtically renouned apologetics book for Christianity, I wll be sure you get a free copy Cineaste. It's the least (honestly) I could do. ;)
If Satan chooses to do 'evil', then God cannot have planned for it. And if Satan truly has a free will, then he could decide to do 'good' starting right now. But there isn't a Christian alive who honestly believes that any day now Satan might turn over a new leaf. The book of Revelation says that he won't. But if Satan's path is already set, and if it's part of God's plan, then it's meaningless to claim that he has any choice in the matter. He's just a deterministic pinball flying around in God's tilted table.
And even if you believe that Satan is truly capable of doing 'good' or 'evil', you cannot avoid the fact that he strangely appears to be doing exactly what God wants him to do. The book of Job is a fine example of this. Satan (though he didn't have that name at the time) is given permission by God to do unspeakable, torturous things to Job and his family. Fortunately for Job, everything turns out okay in the end. Nobody ever seem to talk about how things went for his family and friends, though. I guess they don't matter. God didn't seem to mind, anyway: he gave it his stamp of approval beforehand. – Stewart
P.S. Stewart, check out this video about the Story of Job. It's how I learned of the story of Job. It's only 3:50 minutes long. Very interesting! I didn't know the bible had stories with Satan and God as experimental collaborators.
Sometimes as a parent, I do not jump in immediately and stop my child from doing something I know to be wrong. That does not mean I approve of, endorse or control their actions, but I choose not to interfere for whatever reason – so they can learn, to teach them a lesson, so they know they can do things on their own, etc. – Aaron
You just made a perfect illustration of Stewart's point and you didn't even realize it. Aaargh!
Again its a matter of free will versus omniscience. I assume you don't think the two can coexist. Why is that?
Again its a matter of free will versus omniscience. I assume you don't think the two can coexist. Why is that?
Because…
I keep stressing the word "autonomous", because it's critically important. You don't believe that Angels need any explicit permission to do something. If they did, then Satan would have God's explicit permission to be doing whatever he does, and he would not be an adversary of any kind. He would be doing God's bidding. Having said that, an omnipotent, omniscient entity must, by definition, be giving at least implicit permission for absolutely everything that occurs, anywhere. In this sense, as in many, the existence of Satan would be motivationally paradoxical. – Stewart
and…
There is no need for a "losing battle" because God can nuke Satan any time he wants. God can unmake Hell any time He wants. But He doesn't for His own reasons and it's clear that He suffers Satan's continued existence, for His own reasons. It's not a "battle" or even a "losing battle" it's a job like Sisyphus. Satan is impotent against God, there is no way around that. If Satan is God's equal or peer in any way, then you have dualism which is the doctrine that there are two independent divine beings or eternal principles, one good and the other evil. Dualism precludes monotheism. – Me
Your Father/Child analogy just illustrates Stewart's point.
Does God allow for Satan's existence? Yes. God could destroy Satan (and us) if He so desired.
Does that mean that God must approve of Satan actions? No. God, as I said earlier, is allowing people to choose to worship Him.
This is where the free will part comes in. God has all power and is all knowing. At the same time, God desires an intimate relationship with humans who choose to love Him. He knows that the relationship would not be possible if He overwhelms us with His power. We would be forced to worship. There is no choice when you come face to face with Him. Many will worship, but they will not love.
Does God want our worship? Yes, but He wants our love more. We must be free to choose Him.
Satan chose not to love God. He chose to disobey and rebel. He acts of his own accord with God's allowance, but not approval. I keep saying this, but somehow it keeps getting lost because we jump from God allowing something to happen to Satan must be in the employ of God. Allowance does not equal approval or employment. That was the point of my illustration about a father and child.
God choose not to rule and control the world because of His love for us and desire for a relationship with us. In the Christian theology, eventually God will come and make all right – banishing Satan and taking control. But until then us humans have the ability to choose to worship and love God – that is God's motive and desire and is the explanation behind virtually all of His actions.
He wants to reach out to us in love, in such a way as to not overpower but to woo. Kind of like a proposal. If I asked my wife to marry me while I was holding a gun to her head, she would probably say yes, but it may be out of fear instead of love. God want's out decision to follow Him to be out of voluntary love, not forced obedience.
Perhaps we are not being clear. You allow your kids to do what they do, for your own reasons, without intervening. That gives them free will. By allowing them this freedom, with no intervention, you are implicitly giving them permission to act the way they do, i.e. freely. If God is treating Satan like this, He too is giving Satan permission to act the way he does. God is giving Satan free reign to act just as you give your children free reign to act: you have your own reasons for this, God has his. You have explained why you let your kids act freely. Perhaps God lets Satan have Free Will because he is part of “God’s Plan.” Satan’s role is to be the “bad guy” and Satan does this freely. If Satan does not perform his role with Free Will then he is like Sisyphus.
Now, when you say that Satan is not doing God’s bidding but is actively rebelling against God, this puts Satan in an untenable position of rebelling against an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal all mighty God. Satan’s rebellion is impotent and Satan must know this. All Christians know it. If there was a God, even I would know it. So, Satan would know how futile a rebellion against God is better than anyone, if Satan is not actually insane. So, there is no way around the logical conclusion that if Satan is actually rebelling against God, God for His own reasons, allows the rebellion because God can easily Nuke Satan and unmake Hell otherwise.
Now, if Satan is rebelling because there is actually a chance he could win this means one of two things. Either God is not Omnipotent or Satan is also Omnipotent. If this is the case then you have dualism which is the doctrine that there are two independent divine beings or eternal principles, one good and the other evil. Dualism precludes monotheism. This is a direct response to the thread topic. Is this helpful?
Let's just say it sucks to be Satan. ;)
We have already went over why Satan would rebel against the omnipotent, omniscient God. They may not be reasons you would use yourself, nor would I, but I never said I could read Satan's mind.
Is your contention (let's ignore the dualism or the employed by God "solutions) is that Satan would not both know who God is and rebel against Him?
Also, I never said that God did not allow Satan to exist in rebellion. I said that God did not approve of the decision or employ Him as a "government heavy."
I think you put the argument very well Cineaste.
I specifically like the use of the words 'untenable' and 'insane'. We really can't say what a being like Satan is thinking.
However, I think the Christian doctrine is that Satan 'fell'/'rebelled' because of pride. I suspect Satan (or, Lucifer), to consider usurping God's throne, would be either, as you say, insane, or proud to a degree unimaginable by humans – most likely because he was a being much greater than us, with capabilities/beauty/power, almost inconceivable. (As an aside, I like Tolkien's Creation Myth as portrayed in the Silmarillion…[With Iluvatar (God) and Melkor (Satan)] have you read it?) Still, that doesn't make him an uncreated being, or reasonable. Would it be helpful if we said Satan was unreasonable? It this possible? … I think it is.
And I think Aaron's analogy to parents/children is a good analogy to how approval/will and action and power are related (though of course not exactly the same as God/Satan because it is an analogy etc…)
Lots of folks take it a step further than that.
That does not follow. Infinity can contain an infinite number of infinite beings, which needn’t be distinguishable.
To make the case they try and try.