I'm wondering - do your beliefs have a fail state? Can they be falsified? Can something happen where, if it happens, you will then say "My beliefs were in error"?
Here's an example of what I mean. The positive belief "Prayers are answered by God" would have as its affirmation the act of prayers actually being answered by what is presumed to be God.
I currently have the negative belief "Prayers are not answered by God". This belief of mine has, as its affirmation, the act (or should I say non-act?) of prayers of mine and others going unanswered. I get the exact same result as if I were talking to plants or a brick wall.
However, my negative belief could be falsified, by prayers being answered, of it being shown that they are being answered by what is presumed to be God. I once had the positive belief "Prayers are answered by God", but decades of presumed silence on God's part when I prayed led me to a different conclusion and eventually to the negative belief I now have. My once positive belief had a fail state, it was falsifiable.
What about you guys? Do your Christian beliefs have fail states?
A question for Christian apologists
Moderator: Moderators
- rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
A question for Christian apologists
Post #1Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
- rikuoamero
- Under Probation
- Posts: 6707
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
- Been thanked: 4 times
Re: A question for Christian apologists
Post #31[Replying to post 30 by shnarkle]
Can you resolve this seeming conflict between these teachings and what you say here?
A something that "transcends existence" would almost have to be a thing, that exists, wouldn't it? Or are we now talking about things that don't exist?
Does God exist? I don't think you'd answer in the affirmative.
You don't exist, because apparently you are not a thing (whatever a thing is) and (only?) things exist.
Does the computer I am typing this message on exist? Is that a thing?
So you reference the Bible (but not actually quote it) when you said that, but there are instances in the Bible where prayer is taught and encouraged.Most choose to ignore that simple command and instead believe that they can pray to their imagined god or gods which is what you indicated in your original post. That was your first error.
Can you resolve this seeming conflict between these teachings and what you say here?
So when you say this god transcends imagination, are you saying or implying that we humans cannot think about this god, cannot understand it, either in whole or in part?The next error is in supposing that a god that transcends all imagination can be falsified.
This is something you're assuming though, something that is being brought in to the debate via sheer definition of the word. Outside of this definition, you don't have any example of anything being "transcendent", being above existence. You don't even explain what it means to be that.Here again, transcendence can't be falsified primarily due to the fact that if transcendence didn't transcend existence, it wouldn't be transcendent in the first place.
A something that "transcends existence" would almost have to be a thing, that exists, wouldn't it? Or are we now talking about things that don't exist?
That could be what gods are. Nothing.You're essentially asking if there is such a thing as nothing.
I'm not going to argue against this.It's a contradiction. There is only the idea of nothing which corresponds to something. Nothing can't exist.
I sometimes envisage myself as Emperor Palpatine, commanding a Death StarIf we take this idea further, we should note that you have an identity which you undoubtedly cherish, but which isn't actually you at all.
Agree with you here. Ever tell that to the intellectual property people?It isn't even yours as ideas can't actually be owned.
How do you know my avatar isn't actually a photo of my body? What makes you disbelieve that, and go almost as if by sheer default to thinking it's just an image I picked?We all have avatars or "handles" here on this site, but they are no more real than the one's we were given at our birth.
What about if you and I were to sit opposite each other in a Starbucks? What happens then?More importantly, it doesn't establish who you are, and frankly I don't see anyone who has a clue how to prove they exist.
So a thing is a _____ that exists. Please fill in the blank.The fact is that things exist. God is not a thing, and neither am I.
Does God exist? I don't think you'd answer in the affirmative.
You don't exist, because apparently you are not a thing (whatever a thing is) and (only?) things exist.
Does the computer I am typing this message on exist? Is that a thing?
Well, if you mean to tell me that I shouldn't take as granted that a flesh and blood human wrote this response to me (or that you don't take as granted that my response to you is from a flesh and blood human)...I can understand that.What appears on your computer screen is nothing less than the most horrific "bot" from the pit of hell.
Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"
I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead
Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense
Re: A question for Christian apologists
Post #32[Replying to post 30 by shnarkle]
Exactly. By definition, things can't be transcendent. Anything and everything can never be transcendent.
It makes no difference to my argument. You are not a photo either.
That thought never occurred to me, so it's a straw man argument. Again, it makes no difference to me as you are not a picture. More to the point, you aren't what the picture depicts either, whether it be a body, or some lengthy biographical sketch.
something
Yep.
Most choose to ignore that simple command and instead believe that they can pray to their imagined god or gods which is what you indicated in your original post. That was your first error.
Sorry, my bad. I assumed you knew the commandment to refrain from worshipping false gods. I also assumed that you knew what you were walking away from before you walked away from it.So you reference the Bible (but not actually quote it)
Sure, but here again, it isn't taught or encouraged to pray to false gods or idols.when you said that, but there are instances in the Bible where prayer is taught and encouraged.
I just did.Can you resolve this seeming conflict between these teachings and what you say here?
The next error is in supposing that a god that transcends all imagination can be falsified.
I never said any god transcends imagination, but that the word "God" is synonymous with the definition of transcendence. Beyond the definition, there can't be anything to associate with transcendence. By definition, God can't exist, and the bible points this out repeatedly.So when you say this god transcends imagination, are you saying or implying that we humans cannot think about this god, cannot understand it, either in whole or in part?
Here again, transcendence can't be falsified primarily due to the fact that if transcendence didn't transcend existence, it wouldn't be transcendent in the first place.
I didn't know that redefining words could be used as a method of proving one's argument.This is something you're assuming though, something that is being brought in to the debate via sheer definition of the word.
Outside of this definition, you don't have any example of anything being "transcendent",
Exactly. By definition, things can't be transcendent. Anything and everything can never be transcendent.
There can be no explanation as transcendence, by definition transcends existence, therefore transcendence can't exist in the first place. There is quite simply just the definition, or the concept.You don't even explain what it means to be that.
I never claimed anything was transcendent.A something that "transcends existence" would almost have to be a thing, that exists, wouldn't it?
You're the only one making claims to things that don't exist. It is pointless to make the attempt to prove that nothing exists, or doesn't exist. To say that nothing exists is a contradiction in terms while making the claim that nothing doesn't exist is redundant.Or are we now talking about things that don't exist?
You're still contradicting yourself. Nothing, by definition doesn't exist in the first place so gods cannot "be" in the first place. When speaking of nothing, there is no "this", no "be" and no "are". There are no gods other than the word "gods", or as John's introduction states: "In the beginning was the word".That could be what gods are. Nothing.You're essentially asking if there is such a thing as nothing.
More accurately, you're not going to argue against this any further.I'm not going to argue against this.It's a contradiction. There is only the idea of nothing which corresponds to something. Nothing can't exist.
And that is just as legitimate as any other, or more accurately just as much a figment of one's imagination.I sometimes envisage myself as Emperor Palpatine, commanding a Death StarIf we take this idea further, we should note that you have an identity which you undoubtedly cherish, but which isn't actually you at all.
Just the one's who can't afford to defend their intellectual property. Money talks. and is infinitely more real than an idea.Agree with you here. Ever tell that to the intellectual property people?It isn't even yours as ideas can't actually be owned.
How do you know my avatar isn't actually a photo of my body?
It makes no difference to my argument. You are not a photo either.
What makes you disbelieve that, and go almost as if by sheer default to thinking it's just an image I picked?
That thought never occurred to me, so it's a straw man argument. Again, it makes no difference to me as you are not a picture. More to the point, you aren't what the picture depicts either, whether it be a body, or some lengthy biographical sketch.
Nothing happens because you and I are not the bodies we associate our identities with. If you are claiming that you are your body, then you are contradicting yourself as you can not be what you possess, anymore than a demon isn't the body they possess. It is also grammatically incorrect to say that the first person singular verb to be is the genitive of possession.What about if you and I were to sit opposite each other in a Starbucks? What happens then?More importantly, it doesn't establish who you are, and frankly I don't see anyone who has a clue how to prove they exist.
So a thing is a _____ that exists. Please fill in the blank.
something
Nope.Does God exist?
I don't think you'd answer in the affirmative.
Yep.
Yep.You don't exist, because apparently you are not a thing (whatever a thing is) and (only?) things exist.
Yep.Does the computer I am typing this message on exist? Is that a thing?