Arguments for God

[Thumpalumpacus]

Rather than spending  a lot of time on a discussion that may prove to be fruitless, let me just ask you a question to help clarify your meaning. Where in the Bible does God claim that He will answer prayers?

And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Therefore I say unto you, what things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.  If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.

And in that day ye shall ask me nothing.  Verily, verily I say unto you, whatever ye shall ask the Father in my name, He will give it to you

It's worth noting that these are unequivocal promises of positive granting of prayer, too.

[Parsifal]

Thanks, Thumpalumpacus.  Saved me the trouble.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There's more, too.  I merely picked out the ones that cannot be hedged.

[Parsifal]

Jac, we look forward to hear your reply.

Just some background on me.  I grew up in the house of missionaries, very devout and conservative.  I've met true children of God, struck with cancer, who relied on these texts to be cured believing they will be, and they died.  Of course, I have further examples about unanswered prayer, let me know if you want me to bore you with them.

I have to ask, have you actually ever read the Bible?  During my religious pre-life, I read it several times, and reading the bible was one of the things that made me an atheist.  How can you possibly believe so much violence, bigotry, nonsense, contradictions etc, from a "loving, perfect" God?

[Jac3510]

Ok, I've got a lot to reply to, so LONG POST (not proofread):

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's why it's been put in quotes. I don't know if you were bale to watch the video posted earlier by Dr. Krauss, but nothing, in Quantum Mechanics, has been proven to actually be something, hence my saying "nothing" is not nothing. Yes, it's a paradox. This queer concept seemed illogical to me, too, at first.

I'm aware, which is why I strongly disagree. You know that our understanding of QM is minimal at best. We can make accurate predictions within fields of probability, but we've no idea what we are actually dealing with. If we did, harmonization with Einstein would be simple enough.

The point is that QM doesn't require that nothing produce something. It appears that nothing produces something, which obviously cannot be the case. The very fact that this "nothing" is producing something means that it is something. We need to study it more. The philosophical principle holds, as does, then, the argument I've put forward (as least thus far). I hope you appreciate that to argue that a nothing (which is a contradiction in terms) can produce something is to deny the law of non-contradiction, and in that case, we are forced into absolute and complete skepticism of any and all kinds. Nothing, not even that nothing produces something, can be known.

I'm familiar with the concept of eternity being, not time without end, but the now; time is an illusion, so on. I like it. I agree with it. Yet that doesn't make the concept of time invalid. A Prime Mover, if stable and isolated, will not bring about any new changes; it won't spark the inception of the efficient order chain of causes. Unless it is in its own nature to change, however slightly, it cannot produce anything new, meaning it is not really immune to efficient order, because EO is occurring from within the Prime Mover itself. It's self defeating.

You are assuming that the PM must move from potential creation to actual creation. That is actually self-defeating, because you are assuming that there is potential in the PM, which would render it not really the PM by definition, and that the PM is temporal, which would also render it not really the PM. As we discussed in the simplicity thread, the PM is pure act. To use inappropriately tensed language, but still be the best we can do, we can say that God "has been creating" eternally. From God's perspective, His creation--every temporal moment of it--is eternal with Him. From our perspective, being temporal, we are finite compared to Him.

A final way to think about this: you are assuming that God has all the necessary conditions to create, but that "before" Creation lacked the sufficient condition, being the will to actually go ahead and create. It is, of course, true that an eternal being that meets all necessary conditions but not sufficient conditions will never move to action. The assumption, however, that God lacks the sufficient condition to create is invalid. The condition has been eternally met in Him as He is actus purus.

Not only that but there needs to be empirical evidence, not simply logic. If we can conclude there needs to be a perfect Prime Mover then we have merely determined what we should expect to find. That is still a long way from proving what exactly it is, whether or not it is a deity and especially if that deity should be considered Yahweh.

Don't confuse logic and philosophy, my friend. The two disciplines are most certainly not the same thing. Philosophy employs logic to reach its conclusions, but it also employs linguistics, history, science, and every other discipline under the sun.

Philosophy studies the nature of things. Science studies the behavior of things. The latter requires empirical observation. The former, in light of empirical observation, is able to make more informed conclusions on its subject matter. We cannot say, however, that philosophical statements cannot be true or regarded as true without empirical verification. That is a position called verificationism that has long been recognized as being self-refuting, because the statement, "All statements need empirical verification before they can be known to be true" is itself not subject to empirical verification and therefore cannot be known to be true under its own definition. It is self-defeating.

We can know God exists if each of the premises is accepted and the logic is valid. If you want to deny any of the premises, then feel free. So long, however, as the premises are accepted and the logic is valid, the conclusion is true, in this case, that God exists.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thank you for sharing your work in this way. I appreciate you putting it to audio as well. Alas, as with far too many Americans, I am only proficient (barely) in one language. I looked up entelecheia and energeia in my Cambridge dictionary of Philosophy.

Again, respectfully, I am left with the same problem. Entelecheia is a term coined by a theist many years ago. Aristotle is not labeling something observed, but rather explaining something thought. It's conceivable to me that he wouldn't have even coined the term if he didn't believe in god(s), but that is for another discussion. Regardless of what we call this thing, it is still just the creation of a (brilliant) mind.

Btw, I do reject "seeing'" in the sense that you describe it. I don't believe "seeing" can be separated from that which sees, it only exists as a function of seeing apparati. However, even if one concedes that it could be separated, it would still be limited by the properties of light (that which is observed when seeing), and thus, couldn't properly be called entelecheia because it couldn't reach fulfillment.

Aristotle wasn't really a theist. A deist, perhaps, but not a theist. His "god" was an impersonal force that brought and sustained all in existence. He would have agreed with the first nine statements in my proof. He never took it the rest of the way.

In any case, it really doesn't matter though if an idea comes from a theist or an atheist. The origin of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its truthfulness. To reject something because of its origin is called a genetic fallacy. Outside of that, your statement "regardless of what we call this thing" is the most telling in your post. The fact that we are dealing with a thing is what is important. I will say this again and a thousand times over: I do not care what words we use to describe any of these concepts. Words are just conventional signs for mental constructs that may or may not accurately signify reality. The fact that "the act of seeing" is distinguished from the eye which sees is the important point. The fact that "the act of knowing" is different from the mind which knows is the important point. Aristotle called the act entelecheia (a perfection). We can call it whatever you like. Whatever you call it, it still has being, and that being still has to have efficient causality. That is, that being is still an effect that must be caused, and since all effects find their primary cause in subsistent existence, then whatever you want to call this must have its primary cause in subsistent existence as well.

Next, you are exactly correct that act of seeing cannot be separated from that which sees. That is why it is called entelecheia. Seeing is defined with reference to the eye (or whatever apparatus we are dealing with). It is what the eye does. Yet, again, seeing itself is not the same thing as the eye, so although they are not separated, a logical and philosophical distinction is necessary, namely that both are effects in some sense or another.

Finally, you are confusing the mechanism of seeing with the act of seeing. Bats "see" in a different sense than humans do, and yet the word "see" can be applied analogically to both. If bats were intelligent enough to discuss these things, they would probably object to you using the word "see" for what your eyes do, too. Therefore, what light does isn't important as far seeing goes; it is only important insofar as how the eyeball sees. The very fact that one apparatus may see in one way and another in another way demonstrates further the distinction between the apparatus and the perfection. Seeing, we "see," then, is actually the idea of perceiving the external world. Our perception is limited by our natures. Such a perfection obtained in an unlimited nature of pure being, however, would be unlimited, and this is actually exactly what we would expect. Just suppose with me for a moment that God really does exist as I have defined Him. Suppose He gives existence to everything. Can you see how in giving everything existence He is perceiving everything? Thus, we see that God's "seeing" is infinite; but not only that, it explains His omniscience, for that is how He knows everything. It explains His omnipresence, for if He is causing at present everything, then He is "everywhere." In fact, then, there is no real distinction between God's omniscience, perfect sight, and omnipresence. They are all one and the same attribute considered different ways. And yet isn't that exactly what DS predicts we should find?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Chris (Jac), I showed your Argument from Subsistent Existence to a mucho-smart scientist friend of mine, who also happens to be Christian, and here was his response:

"In a deterministic world where everthing we see is part of a chain of efficient causality, it does make some sort of sense to wonder as Aristote did if all these chains began in one original uncaused cause which is what I think the OP means by a first cause. However in the indeterministic world that is suggested by quantum physics, there are uncaused causes all over the place and chains of efficient causality do not go inevitably lead backward to a single uncaused cause at the beginning (if there is one) but to many at all points of time. This suggests that there is not a single first cause but many and it modifies our speculations about that first uncaused cause (if there is one) because that need only be responsible for infinitesmally little rather than for everything -- i.e. it would not be so god-like at all but just a simple little thing. This by the way would go along with Stephen Hawkings suggestion in "A Brief History of Time" that the first first cause is just a quantum event like all the other "first cause"/quantum events that are happening all the time."

No, I don't really know what he's talking about. I just thought that you might find it interesting.

Before I offer comments on what he is talking about, let me make a point that I think is rather important to our entire discussion. Philosophy is not science, and science is not philosophy. Ultimately, this needs to be a discussion on its own, but stated simply, just because a person is a skilled technician in biology or physics or chemistry or whatever does not mean they understand the philosophical implications of their own field, much less of philosophy generally. This isn't to downplay the value of science in the least. Like all disciplines, it is a tool. When the right tool is used for the right job, it yields the expected results. When the wrong tool is used, however, the results can actually be damaging. You can't do history in the lab. You can't do science historically. By the same token, the questions, tools, and methods of philosophy differ from those of science, so while I appreciate your friend's comments, his authority on science does not transfer to philosophical issues. If he has some time, though, by all means, invite him here and we can discuss things. I would be more than willing

The arguments read as though one is constructing a pyramid of immense accuracy and beauty one carefully placed grain of sand at a time until the only possible conclusion is that at the very point of the pyramid sits God. Resplendent in his perfection of existance. The trouble with what I see here, so far, is that there is one critical thing wrong with the pyramid, it is point down and rests on the existance of God in the first place, for which there is no evidence.

This is incorrect. The argument does rest of the existence of God. Nowhere is that stated or implied until 21. It does assume that there is such a thing as existence, which I assume you disagree with. If there is no such thing as existence, then we are not here to be having this discussion. Descarte, for all of his flaws, proved that flawlessly.

It's rather easy to say something like "the argument assumes God exists." It's quite another to demonstrate it. It is written in full on the first page . . . if I have begged the question, I would be more than happy to drop the argument and move on to others.

I have used the term 'intellectual masturbation' to describe what is going on here, it is mildly derogatory but also very accurate. I'm sure people who engage in this sort of theological debate get immense pleasure from it, I doubt they would do it if they didn't, but because the subject is ethereal and based on the existance of the supernatural the product can only be fruitless. Speculation about speculation is pointless but fun. Speculation followed by experiment is also fun (watch Mythbuters for a very crude example) but requires real world effort. Not that Chris isn't putting in effort, he most definitely is, but in this respect I see it as the sort of effort one puts into riding an exercise bike, the effort isn't really getting us anywhere.

I have called religion institutionalised superstition while the opposite, science, is institutionalised curiosity. Sitting around a camp fire in the middle of the desert with no real idea of how the world works is going to cause speculation about the big questions (such as why did You Bastard fart just as I walked past his arse!) and as humans are an evolved cause and effect machine they are going to want an answer. And at that time there was no possibility of a real answer, so they made shit up as people are want to do in the absence of facts (something we still do today).

So now we are getting a grip on what is really going on, for example evolution. There is no need to invoke a creator anymore. The combined sciences of biology (both taxonomy and genetics), geology and palaeontology have shown how humans came into existance. To deny evolution as the mechanism of production of the biological diversity around us and homo sapiens as part of that biodiversity is simply to deny the scientific method. Darwin was born into a Christian creationist family and set off to discover Gods work. He ended up, after years of soul searching, killing the notion of the biblical creation and thus the voracity of the Bible as an historical document of an worth in describing the mechanisms of creation. Darwin hammered the biggest possible nail into the coffin of God.

In my opinion God is the wishful thinking of people and nothing the Chris has said has, as yet, demonstrated otherwise. But I'm enjoying every word of the debate  :mad:

I am glad you are enjoying the debate. I'm sure you would agree, however, that it is only debate if the one side takes exceptions to specific points of logic or the soundness of certain premises. Pontificating, which is "mildly derogatory but also very accurate," doesn't advance the discussion at all. I am still very open to being shown where the argument is either invalid or unsound. Much obliged

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that raises my question, which is always the same one: where does the possibility, the idea, of god from if not from the human mind?

Maybe a philosopher should come up with a point-by-point argument for just taking the idea of God seriously in the first place.

I don't understand what you are asking for. Where did the idea of gravity come from if not from the human mind? Or the red-shift? Or the George Washington was the first president of the Unite States? Or that 2+2=4? All ideas are fundamentally human. The question is whether or not those ideas accurately describe reality.

God is conceived of as the perfect being, the First Cause of all things. Unless it can be shown that the idea is fundamentally incoherent (and many have tried but none, in my opinion, have succeeded), then the question becomes, "Does this idea accurately reflect reality," which is "Does God exist?" The argument I put forward is a way to prove that it does, that He does.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My 2cts. I find the discussion with Jac very interesting, even though I'm not a philosopher and know very little about philosophy. But the tread leads to nowhere, other than that we will agree with Jac that we disagree.

For me philosophy has always been an experiment in futility, that evolves around a lot of navel staring; an intellectual discussion that is out of touch with "reality". It reminds me of the following joke:

How many philosophers does it take to change a light bulb?

"Hmmm... well there's an interesting question isn't it?"
"Define 'light bulb'..."
"How can you be sure it needs changing?"

There have always been people who denied the validity of philosophy. The irony of the matter is that, just as you have done, they always use philosophy to disprove philosophy. Describing philosophy as a thing, whatever that thing is (in your case, "an intellectual discussion that is out of touch with "reality""), is to do philosophy, as you are ascribing a nature to it. And that is just what philosophy is. The point could further be pressed by asking you what is a discussion, and from that, what is intellectual, and from that, what is an intellectual discussion. I could ask you what reality is and what "reality" is, and what it means to be in touch with or out of touch with reality. To answer those questions, you must use philosophy, because to answer those questions is to do philosophy. You can simply refuse to answer them, but then your statement is nothing more than an unfounded assertion and is no better than the blind faith of the theist who says, "I believe in God because I do! You should, too!"

It's like trying to deny the law of non-contradiction, my friend. To do it, you must use it. You can't deny philosophy, because to do it, you must use it. Far better is to learn to use it properly.

[Jac3510]

Jac, can you explain and/or rephrase 19?  It's a bit confusing to me.  Also, what are the immediate premises it builds upon?

Sure thing:

Therefore, all perfections obtain in subsistent existence.

Notice first of all that this is a conclusion from previous statements, so lets look at the previous:

14. All perfections must have an efficient cause.
15. Therefore, subsistent existence is the primary efficient cause of all perfections.
16. The effect of any efficient cause pre-exists virtually in the efficient cause.
17. Therefore, perfections exist virtually in subsistent existence.
18. A perfection is obtained in being.

(14) simply states that perfections (entelecheia) are effects, and as effects, need causes. See my discussion with HS for more detail on this.
(15) says that, from previous arguments, SE must be the primary efficient cause of all perfections, since SE is the primary efficient cause of all effects.
(16) is plain; effects always follow from the nature of their causes. Fire produces heat, not water. Hammers, since they are hard, produce pain, not flowers, when smashed into my thumb. The effects don't exist in reality, but only potentially when combined with other existing effects. That is what we mean by "virtual." They are there, but not in a really existent sense.
(17) says that all perfections therefore exist at least virtually in SE. That is a necessary result from 15-16.
(18) asserts that a perfection ceases to be virtual, but becomes actual, when in being. The reason my thumb doesn't hurt yet is that "it smashed my thumb" as no being (hopefully!). Once that being exists, the effect is obtained. But since SE is pure being, then all perfections must obtain in pure being.

From this, (19) necessarily follows. All perfections obtain, that is, are not virtual but are real, in SE. We can go forward and qualify this since there are subclasses of perfections. Only simple, unlimited perfections obtain in pure being (i.e., my height is not a true perfection; it is a limited expression of my being; pain is not a true perfection; it is a particular class of the perfection "perception," etc.). The point, however, is that pure perfections such as knowledge, will, personhood, etc., are fully exemplified (analogically) in SE.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/franciscan_studies/v066/66.kluge.html

I don't think you can get to this link. but it talks, in excruciating detail regarding your arguments. i am reading the study, yes it's a philosophical study of another philosophical work :-)

Actually, I have the full text right here in front of me. Scotus is required reading if you want to be able to use and defend this argument correctly, since he basically decided it was his job in life to challenge Aquinas on pretty much everything.

Rather than get into a source war, would you care to boil down the particular arguments/critiques you find persuasive and just make them yourself--for the benefit of the board, of course.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where?  In several places.  Here is one from Mark.  

Mark 11
11:22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.   
11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.   
11:24 Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

There are several similar passages, the gist of which is: pray, believe and you'll receive.

Now, I know many Christians say that the lack of faith leads to the lack of answered prayer (in 99,99999999% (or something like that) of cases, whereas the remainder is impossible to distinguish from things that would any way have happened, like getting better from a cold, or finding a parking space at the mall).  Otherwise, it wasn't part of God's plan.  But the point is, can so many devout christians really lack faith?  And, nowhere in the Bible does the Lord Jesus say "Whatsoever ye desire, when ye pray and believe that ye received them, AND PROVIDED IT IS PART OF MY PLAN, ye shall receive them.

So, either God lied (but the Bible seems to exclude that possibility) or he doesn't exist.  I'm opting for the latter.

Aha. Since you think this proves God lied or doesn't exist, I'm sure you would be willing to see if your view stands under scrutiny, especially since you recognize that Mark was written well after the time of Christ, and the author would have been just as familiar as the difficulty which you site.

Unless he meant something else. In which case, your argument wouldn't hold. So let's see.

What was this promise in connection to. While you look at that, I'll give you a hint--when you answer me this, please be sure to include the connection with the mountain being thown into the sea. The two ideas are extremely important.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Therefore I say unto you, what things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.  If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.

And in that day ye shall ask me nothing.  Verily, verily I say unto you, whatever ye shall ask the Father in my name, He will give it to you

It's worth noting that these are unequivocal promises of positive granting of prayer, too.

"All the apples are red. You can have them."

What does that sentence mean?

On one hand, you could call me an idiot because not all the apples in the world are red. But perhaps I only like green apples. And perhaps we are in the grocery store and we both get to the apple stand at the last time and there are only three left. Then, my sentence make sense. "All" can mean a universal all; it can also mean all within a given set.

Second, suppose in our scenario a third person walks up and pushes you out of the way and takes your tasty red apples. He then looks at you and says, "Hey, he said I could have them!" Your response, of course, would be to say that I wasn't talking to him; I was talking to you. People make a very common and terrible mistake of assuming the Bible was written to them. A very, very great deal of problems would be resolved if people would ask the question, "Who is being addressed?" Just because the Bible uses the word you (and be sure to distinguish between its singular and plural usage, as that makes a very big difference in many texts) doesn't mean it is talking to you personally.

That should get you going in seeing why those passages aren't a problem.

[_7654_]

Ok,
so reading through the argument, even if the argument is true, you end up with a deity that cares nothing about what you or i do... you end up with a deist position, not a theist position. So all your work is still ahead of you, trying to get from a deist position of "there is a god" to Yahweh or Allah.

Now to the interesting parts: :-) you will end up with a material, substantial god. A god you can kick around, and see on radar screens...

As for the perfections segment of the argument, i will care to quote @RosaRubicondior
http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/201 ... ience.html

[Parsifal]

Aha. Since you think this proves God lied or doesn't exist, I'm sure you would be willing to see if your view stands under scrutiny, especially since you recognize that Mark was written well after the time of Christ, and the author would have been just as familiar as the difficulty which you site.

Unless he meant something else. In which case, your argument wouldn't hold. So let's see.

What was this promise in connection to. While you look at that, I'll give you a hint--when you answer me this, please be sure to include the connection with the mountain being thown into the sea. The two ideas are extremely important.

Jac, I'm stumped.  But this is exactly my point.  In order to "believe" you have to take the Bible out of context and "interpret" it.  So, when God says, believe and you'll receive, he didn't actually mean believe and you'll receive.

So, sorry, you will have to explain to me why believing is not receiving.

Oh and yes, quite funny.  Everyone that wrote about Jesus, never met him.  And we're supposed to believe EVERYTHING they wrote, regardless of the contradictions.

[Jac3510]

Ok,
so reading through the argument, even if the argument is true, you end up with a deity that cares nothing about what you or i do... you end up with a deist position, not a theist position. So all your work is still ahead of you, trying to get from a deist position of "there is a god" to Yahweh or Allah.

If all perfections obtain in God, he cannot be deistic.

Now to the interesting parts: :-) you will end up with a material, substantial god. A god you can kick around, and see on radar screens...

A couple of issues here.

1. Any property can only be related to a substance essentially or accidentally. Clearly, being is not an essential property, because if it were, then all essences would exist, including unicorns and my four hundred plus unborn brothers (plus one, to infinity). Being, then, is an accidental property, and that by definition. An accidental property is that which does not change what a thing actually is. Whether or not something exists, it still is what it is. The hundred dollar bill I don't have in my pocket is still a hundred dollar bill, even if it were (that is, even if it had existence).

Now, existence is unique among accidental properties. Most accidental properties are subsequent to substances. You can't talk about a brown thing until you have a thing to be brown. Thus, to use a word picture, most accidental properties are laid on top of a substance. Being, on the other hand, lies under every substance, and not only under every substance, but under every property. "White" has its being just as much as my skin; that my skin is white means that my skin has being and the white that my skin is has its own being.

That is just the nature of being, just as whiteness or any other accidental property has its own nature.

2. What makes you think God would be material? The whole argument is that being itself must exist within itself. It cannot be material. You'll have to demonstrate that to be the case.

As for the perfections segment of the argument, i will care to quote @RosaRubicondior
http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.com/201 ... ience.html

Again, I'll ask that we don't get into source wars. I have absolutely no problem with you using someone else's argument. All arguments are eventually someone else's. I only ask that you make them yourself. Even if I took the time to read all of these links, it isn't fair to ask other members of the board to do the same. I'll respond to any argument you put forward. Please just put them forward yourself rather than saying, "Well this guy says . . . go check it out!"

On that note, are you aware that the first article you linked me to actually is in support of the very principle you claimed it was against? You quoted, ""Historically, this reasoning has found few defenders because, as has variously been pointed out, the claim that in the case of accidentally ordered efficient causes “no change of form is perpetuated save in virtue of something permanent [End Page 233] which is not a part of the succession” is not at all obvious.3 Yet without this premise the argument collapses." The very next sentence says, "In this brief note, I should like to take up the challenge of showing that, given the metaphysical parameters within which Scotus is operating, his claim is indeed valid and that while his argument for the existence of God in the Ordinatio ultimately fails, it does not fail for this reason."

I'm not sure, then, how this resource has any bearing on our discussion other than to point out that there are scholars who agree with me (at least on this point) . . .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jac, I'm stumped.  But this is exactly my point.  In order to "believe" you have to take the Bible out of context and "interpret" it.  So, when God says, believe and you'll receive, he didn't actually mean believe and you'll receive.

So, sorry, you will have to explain to me why believing is not receiving.

Oh and yes, quite funny.  Everyone that wrote about Jesus, never met him.  And we're supposed to believe EVERYTHING they wrote, regardless of the contradictions.

With all due respect, Parsifal, you asked me if I had even bothered reading the Bible, so I'm asking you to explain it to me. You didn't answer my question. There is nothing to be stumped by. What is the context of the statement Jesus made in Mark 11? What had just happened that caused Him to make the statement? What was the theme He was dealing with at that time, and--I'm helping you here, now--how does the context link with and inform His mention of the mountains being moved?

It's a very simple question. If you read the text, you'll find the answer there in black and white (or red and white, depending on your version, I suppose).

I'm trying to help you with your explanation. I'm not going to give you a straight "this is why." Your first post to me gave me very good reason for believing that this is all just a gotcha. I am engaged in serious discussion with serious people on serious issues here. I have found most of the members here to be worthy of the utmost respect for the simple reason that they aren't playing games and are willing to discuss these issues, as am I. That's the foundation of real debate. I'm not interested in preaching or being preached at. So for the time being, this is how we will proceed. If you want to know why those who believe today don't receive when Jesus seems to say that they will, then answer my question. What is the context in which Jesus made this statement? What had just happened that lead to this dialogue, and how does that connect with the idea of moving mountains?

[Parsifal]

Right, Jesus cursed a fig tree for not bearing figs outside of the fig season.

11:13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.

.

Then he cast out them that sold.  The next day they walk past the fig tree, which has died in the meantime, and Peter kindly points this out to the Son of God who then remarks:

11:22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

I'm still lost.  The context does not make it any better for me.  In fact, now it even makes less sense.

I'm also trying a serious debate here, please don't belittle me.  Ad hominem arguments are often used by Christians to attack atheists.  The standard christian counter argument is always: Go look and then you'll understand.  Sorry, I've looked and now I'm even more lost.  Or, to be precise, the Bible is very precise about prayers that will be answered.  I am now even more convinced that when the Bible says that God will answer all prayers, that is what is meant.  There are no exception, provisos, or conditions.  The context here is irrelevant and does not help your argument.

Let me just elucidate, I've read your other arguments, but I'm leaving it up to my colleagues to debate you on them.  However, the God you're describing, is not the God of the Bible.  I can grasp your arguments, and am willing to concede that if such a god is found to exist based upon empirical research, we can talk.  But the God of the Bible he won't be.  I get the impression that you are using your arguments to say: if we can prove this way that a god exists, it must be the God of the Bible.  And that argument falls flat as it is a non sequitur.

[Parsifal]

Jac wrote: I'm trying to help you with your explanation. I'm not going to give you a straight "this is why."

Following in the footsteps of your master?

11:27 And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders,   
11:28 And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?   
11:29 And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things.   
11:30 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.   
11:31 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him?   
11:32 But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.   
11:33 And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.

Why not?  Why answer everything with a counter question?  I thought to get to Jesus you have to become like a child.  What do children do?  They ask questions.

[Jac3510]

Right, Jesus cursed a fig tree for not bearing figs outside of the fig season.

11:13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.

.

Then he cast out them that sold.  The next day they walk past the fig tree, which has died in the meantime, and Peter kindly points this out to the Son of God who then remarks:

11:22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

I'm still lost.  The context does not make it any better for me.  In fact, now it even makes less sense.

I'm also trying a serious debate here, please don't belittle me.  Ad hominem arguments are often used by Christians to attack atheists.  The standard christian counter argument is always: Go look and then you'll understand.  Sorry, I've looked and now I'm even more lost.  Or, to be precise, the Bible is very precise about prayers that will be answered.  I am now even more convinced that when the Bible says that God will answer all prayers, that is what is meant.  There are no exception, provisos, or conditions.  The context here is irrelevant and does not help your argument.

Thank you. Now we are getting somewhere.

The reason is still doesn't make sense, though, is that you missed two key elements. One I explicitly asked you about, and the other you just didn't mention. The latter is that Jesus was responding specifically to Peter's exclamation, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!" Therefore, the point Jesus makes about prayer is expressly tied to that particular miracle. I asked you to tie fig tree to the moving of mountains. You didn't, but I won't patronize you by asking again. The whole idea here is concerning the miraculous. Peter wants to know how Jesus could have accomplished this. Jesus says that anything is possible through faith, even up to the moving of mountains.

Now, this brings us to the salient point that answers your question: can people move mountains? Think about this for a second. If the author of Mark had moved a mountain with his prayer, would he have said, "Look at how powerful I am! I can move mountains!" No. He would have said, "Look how powerful God is. He can move mountains," which is exactly how Jesus opens His answer: "Have faith in God."

The point of the passage is not the power of prayer. It is the power of God. God can do whatever He wants. The point, then, is that we are to trust God (again, "Have faith in God"). The same word "faith" here is the word "believe" in Jesus statement concerning prayer. It fundamentally means "trust." Jesus wasn't telling the disciples how to do miracles. He wasn't telling us how to do miracles. He was tying his lesson on prayer to what had just happened, namely the miraculous. The important thing is to pray and to trust God. It is to rely on Him. To issue Him orders is not to rely on Him. Finally, all of this is set against the background of Jesus doing God's will and not His own (see John 6:38). Christians are, of course, to do the same, which is something that the first readers of Mark would have been perfectly aware of.

So, you tell me, why, according to this passage, if I am convinced that God will just give me a new car if I ask Him, He won't pony up?

Let me just elucidate, I've read your other arguments, but I'm leaving it up to my colleagues to debate you on them.  However, the God you're describing, is not the God of the Bible.  I can grasp your arguments, and am willing to concede that if such a god is found to exist based upon empirical research, we can talk.  But the God of the Bible he won't be.  I get the impression that you are using your arguments to say: if we can prove this way that a god exists, it must be the God of the Bible.  And that argument falls flat as it is a non sequitur.

We're doing natural theology first. Does God exist and what can be known about Him. The Bible is a record of special revelation. It's not hard to go from a full picture of general revelation to the record of special revelation, but we aren't there yet. We will get there, I promise you, in time. But we have to get a full orbed picture of God, first. Proving God exists in and of itself would be a feat on this site. That's all I'm arguing right now. I'll offer links to why we know that He is the same as the biblical God later.

[Jac3510]

Why not?  Why answer everything with a counter question?  I thought to get to Jesus you have to become like a child.  What do children do?  They ask questions.

I've only answered your questions with a counter question, and I've already explained why.

As far as what is going on in that passage, it helps to know something about the shame and honor culture that was Israel in the first century A.D. As that isn't directly a part of this thread, though, I'll leave it at that. If you would like, feel free to start a thread on it, though.

[Thumpalumpacus]

"All the apples are red. You can have them."

What does that sentence mean?

On one hand, you could call me an idiot because not all the apples in the world are red. But perhaps I only like green apples. And perhaps we are in the grocery store and we both get to the apple stand at the last time and there are only three left. Then, my sentence make sense. "All" can mean a universal all; it can also mean all within a given set.

Second, suppose in our scenario a third person walks up and pushes you out of the way and takes your tasty red apples. He then looks at you and says, "Hey, he said I could have them!" Your response, of course, would be to say that I wasn't talking to him; I was talking to you. People make a very common and terrible mistake of assuming the Bible was written to them. A very, very great deal of problems would be resolved if people would ask the question, "Who is being addressed?" Just because the Bible uses the word you (and be sure to distinguish between its singular and plural usage, as that makes a very big difference in many texts) doesn't mean it is talking to you personally.

That should get you going in seeing why those passages aren't a problem.

Actually, what it reveals to me is exactly how much contortion believers must go through in order to explain inconvenient verses.  Not one of those verses mention conditionals (except the requirement to believe, which appears reasonable to me), partial sets, or any other favorite tools of apologetics.  

Furthermore, the imperfection of the message -- the fact that it can be, and is, misinterpreted (which is what you are saying here, and what the existence of the various sects prove as well) -- impeaches the "perfection" argument, anyway.  Certainly a perfect omnipotent being could fashion a perfect message which would not require appeals to apple-colors in order to be understood.

[Parsifal]

A propos the new car, yes, that is a good question.  Why not?  It seems to me you are trying to say that I must have faith in God doing his will.  So, if I don't have faith, God is going to stop performing His will.    Also, you seem to say that God won't cater to our whims.  Good, except that is not what is written in the gospels.  They make it clear that if I ask and believe, I will receive.  It says NOTHING about God's will.  Your arguments are trying to read something into the text that isn't there.  You have to contort the whole passage to fit your own belief, to rationalise why things don't work the way the Bible says they would.

But what about the poor down trodden Christian who has lost his job.  He prays for a job, he looks at Mark 11 and verily believes he will be employed, and yet it doesn't happen.  This isn't a whim.  This is a real need.  God says that he will take care of his followers, yet the reality doesn't bear it out.  Or the Christian who believes God will save her from cancer so she can raise her small children.  This isn't a whim.  I can barely understand your point that we can't command God to give us things we don't need, but he doesn't even give us the things we need when we pray for it.  The bottom line, prayers don't get answered, and your arguments for why they don't, are not supported by scripture, only by "reading" things that aren't there into the text.