For Nathan and Ned (& any other Christians out ...a question

[Gawen]

Not that there's a chance to get the thread back on track...but...are none of you Christians going to give me 10% of you annual income? I mean, after all, Jesus is your boss and he tells you not to ignore this request. Too ignore this request would mean disobeying an order from the Boss. Most bosses I know would get you in trouble or worse for not obeying.
I can't even get a reply from you, let alone the money. What's your excuse?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Would it be special pleading if I invoke the faith that my worldview reveals existential realities of how the way I experience how things work matches my worldview in profound and phenomenologically immanent ways? Remember that we are all on a epistemic journey that in an axiomatic way imply's: the more that we learn, the more we find the less that we know... I can't get too puffed up on my knowledge as there is always more to be revealed...

It's funny that you know all these high-falutin' words but don't seem to know that the Roman Catholic church pretty much ruled Europe, through puppet monarchies, for 1500 or so years.

You need to study more history and less philosophy.  Much less.

[philosoraptor]

The Ontological Proof of god's existence is not sound. Just because we can conceive of the existence of a thing, does not mean its existence is actual. Similarly, our possessing an idea of a code of good or morality does not mean, automatically, that the code has a reality external to us. We could just as easily have imagined it.

Are there Aristotelian first principles of logic? If the Ontological argument is clear and deductively sound in all ways according to logic then you don't have a sound way to establish your premise in a blanket sense do you?

But the ontological argument ISN'T deductively sound, not by a long shot.  It's a circular argument that commits a bare assertion fallacy by assuming God's existence without providing outside evidence.  This is one of the major reason's why Descartes' argument in the Meditations falls flat.  I find it hard to believe that you didn't already know this, given all the other philosophical points you've brought up.  Of all the proofs for the existence of God, the ontological one is perhaps the least convincing.  Perhaps you have inductive and deductive reasoning confused, but the ontological argument is in no way a good example of deductive reasoning.  I'd recommend reading a little David Hume-he has quite a bit to say about debunking the ontological argument.

[The Black Jester]

In a quick way I will let this youtube video be a partial reply to the sorites of arguments establishing objective good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKv9rMlzfkw

Apologies, I am not able to watch youtube videos at present.  I do note, however, that the summary of the content provided on the page seems to indicate that this is a rebuttal of Social Contract Theory. So is this a rebuttal of a specific non-theistic attempt to establish "objective" morality?  Setting aside the fact that I am not a believer in SCT, nor did I make any claims about SCT, this reply bears no relation to the flaw I pointed out.  You made the following claim:

If there is objective good then there is also objective evil and Satan is real and why we are in the reality we experience all around us in a fallen world.

I pointed out that you are assuming the existence of "objective" good.  I am not doing so.  It is you that must establish this existence to make your claim work.

Also do you have a system and outside objective means to value things?

Do I believe that there are "objective facts" about the universe?  I have never heard a compelling argument to convince me that morality is to be found as an objective fact in the universe.   So, no, I do not.  I believe there are behaviors that are practically advantageous for the flourishing of the species, and thereby of the individual, but I do not make any claim that these behaviors have intrinsic good in and of themselves.

Part of the properly basic belief in God comes out when you have a moral compass and act as if you have any standing to make any moral judgments no matter how clouded by personal subjective opinion.

You seem to presume that you can simply terminate the regression of moral authority in god.  Why?  Where does he get his morals from?  Is some action moral merely because god claims it is, or is it moral because of the properties or effects of the action itself?  If the former, then god's morality is merely arbitrary.  If the latter, there is a standard beyond god that must be appealed to in order to claim that god's sanctions are moral.

Remember that we too often conflate moral ambiguity with the idea that there are no objective morals.

I could just as easily reply that we too often conflate the accident of moral regularity with intentional, objective moral sanction.  It could easily be the case that many groups across cultures have found similar behaviors efficacious for group survival.  And there is as much diversity in the character of moral sanctions as there is similarity.  Why does the diversity of character not take precedent and argue for the idea that there is no moral objectivity?

Secondly, conceptual existence, or existence in the imagination, does not entail actual existence.

let me try to unpack your statements with questions that may imply a means to think for yourself what the answer might be.... Or at least what my answer might be.

Did you come to this conclusion conceptually by using your imagination to construct that sentence? Or is there a way to flesh this out in a materialistic paradigm?

Not sure what you're getting at here.  Did I use my imagination to develop a concept?  Yes.  Was it based on my observations about what relationships hold in the actual world?  Also, yes.  Do I believe thoughts have a material explanation?  On the evidence of Neurobiology, absolutely.  Do I believe that the sentence has an objective existence outside of my very material imagination?  No, that would be absurd.  The sentence itself is only a thing insofar as it is a collection of neurological impulses.  That does not prevent it from bearing a truthful relation to reality.  But that reality is not true because I imagined it.  My imagination can be used to reflect reality, but what actually exists is independant of my imaginings.  I can also imagine a unicorn.  That doesn't in any way mean one exists.  I could also imagine the most perfectly smelly being that ever existed.  That does not mean that this pinnacle of odiferousness exists.  Part of the fallacy of the Ontological Argument is that it presumes existence=perfection.  That is confused.  There are other problems, but philosoraptor has responded to these.

I can not reply fully here but some food for thought would be to ask if you feel you have a moral compass. Do you have a sense of values and what aught to be or a sense of what is just and an injustice. Now proceed to think if your senses are invalid and fully subjective? Meaning do you have some core values and sense of justice that happens to be the same as most everybody else's. More broadly do you recognize that there are certain universal goal posts here? These goal posts do not move but can be discovered or refined over time as we gain more knowledge of God's character and how that character of the person of God is necessarily fleshed out in The Bible (one of the ways God communicates with us).

Yes, I have a moral compass.  It was instilled in me by my parents and my culture.  There are several works describing how such things could have originated from an evolutionary standpoint.  Marc Hauser's "Moral Minds" is a great one.  Again, I do not see any reason to believe that moral values exist intrinsically in the universe.  The universe is indifferent to us, by all indications.  Also, why is the existence of some moral overlap with other cultures proof of the Christian god?  Why is it not proof of Allah?  Or any of the other gods that have been posited?  

I do like when the null hypothesis is mentioned.

Smug much?

Let me ask you if I take the null hypothesis outside of strict methodological science and use it in philosophy to make the null hypothesis null by using the null hypothesis? It seems that I can or at least you commit a composition fallacy if you try to take it 'outside' as it where.

Excuse me?  This paradox you have presented is irrelevant.  I am not moving the null hypothesis outside of science, you are trying to do so with this statement.  That is not it's proper purview.  The null hypothesis is not a piece of deductive reasoning, it is a practice that has been found to be extrememly effective in testing other hypotheses.  It is a method, not a logical law.  It is useful, because otherwise you can simply adopt whatever positive hypothesis you want, before there is any evidence to do so.  I only brought this up because of your attempt below to shift the burden of proof:

If as you assert that Satan and Hell are made up then you have a burden to try and prove this. At-least there should be clues and evidence around that gives you a rational reason to establish this. I wonder if you are familiar with the logical fallacy of special pleading.

I would encourage you to read your statement above, which I have highlighted in bold, again.  What I'm telling you is that we, or certainly I, made no such assertion.  You are entering the conversation asserting the existence of these entities, and then throwing around claims about who should be providing evidence.  I was just gently reminding you that this is not, in fact, how science proceeds.  If you want to enter science's purview and speak of evidence, you must understand that it is you that is positing the hypothesis, and you have the burden of testing it yourself.  Until such time as you have proved your assertions via the scientific method, the null hypothesis stands for the rest of us.  If, as you go on to argue, you are claiming special treatment for your beliefs because they are somehow privileged or unassailable by science, then it still seems to me that it is you committing the fallacy of Special Pleading.\

Would it be special pleading if I invoke the faith that my worldview reveals existential realities of how the way I experience how things work matches my worldview in profound and phenomenologically immanent ways?

Acutally, yes, I think it would, particularly if your "existential realities" are anecdotal and entirely unverifiable.

Remember that we are all on a epistemic journey that in an axiomatic way imply's: the more that we learn, the more we find the less that we know... I can't get too puffed up on my knowledge as there is always more to be revealed...

Thoroughly agree.  I just do not agree that this knowledge still to be revealed has already effectively been revealed in a particular holy book.

Again there are irreducibly different forms of explanation and verification outside of science and a well reasoned and rational individual knows that there even has to be a way to prove or rationally defend atheism if it is to be considered rational. (emphasis mine)

What "irreducibly different forms of explanation and verification" exist and how do you demonstrate them, and by what standard do you measure their truth?  Also, if you have a problem with the null hypothesis as a stance in terms of atheism (the non-existence of divine beings until such time as existence is proved), then how on earth can you doubt the existence of Allah, or Zeus, or any other god?  Do you believe in them as well?

[freeservant]

We often use the Biblical reference of Jesus being Lord of Lords and King of Kings thus as one of the persons of God who is one being in three persons I would say we have a strong basis upon which to make Jesus the Boss of all Bosses.

Very well...

A true Christian would necessary need to have a true relationship with the true God of scripture and have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as helper and guide to the truth.

I am going to assume that you fit the above requirement and ask you one question.
I am asking you to give me 10% of your annual net income (just this year only) as per:
Matthew 5: 42: 'Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.'"
Because the way I see it, your Boss decrees that you do so.

And...

If you are disinclined to acquiesce to my request, you cannot be a True Christian. Or, if you are a True Christian, you are at odds with your boss and would seem to need a change of vocation...*chucklin*

.


Let me present you with this answer: http://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=326

So if the point is the radical and selfless service that characterizes the citizens of his kingdom, this bears on how I responsibly apply Matthew 5:42. When I am giving and lending, am I really serving the person who is in need? Am I acting in their best interest? I would not really be serving them if I just let them indulge their greed or escape the consequences of irresponsible and unrighteous behavior by giving them what is mine.

But whether or not I give financially (which I think this passage calls us to do much more liberally than is our practice), Matthew 5:42 calls me to recognize that I have been made a citizen of heaven and should act with the values of that kingdom as I give myself to others as Jesus gave himself for me.

Now to give you a little TMI: I am currently loosing my contract security post at the end of the month.  I am in a financial crisis already when as a pedestrian was struck by a car 12-14-09 and due to the severe traumatic brain injury I was in the hospital for almost a month. (the bill is around 118k)  If not for the selfless help of members of my Church and my parents I would be homeless.  I may still get to be homeless as Stank of America does not have record of those payments my parents made by phone.

So I have much in my life right now that needs a Higher Power to lead me in the correct ways to manage the above problems not to mention my wife and the Granddaughter we are having to raise.  I am living in Garland, Texas and am willing to help you in some way that does not entail money right now.  I could give of my time and help you with a bible study or some other way that would help you find a path to the Love of the Boss and Savior I have found in Jesus Christ.

Given I should be dead I have a greater reason then ever to selflessly give of my self so let me know how I can help.

Oh and I think I am going to start a new thread to also try and give of my time with an attempt to answer some of the other topics that have arisen in this thread.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So I have much in my life right now that needs a Higher Power to lead me in the correct ways to manage the above problems not to mention my wife and the Granddaughter we are having to raise.

Necessity, the Mother of Invention.

I'm sorry for your misfortunes, and hope things get better for you.

[Gawen]

First, let me say you are the first Orthodox Presbyterian I've talked with in debating Christianity in the last 7 or so years online. What makes that special is that I grew up Orthodox Presbyterian. There are no Presby churches here like the type you and I have experience in. Most are Cumberland Presby.

Secondly, I would like to thank you for responding.

Thirdly, I am sorry to hear of your troubles.

Now to the meat of the subject. I was fine until this part of the source you gave me:

Jesus is speaking about a request for either a gift ("the one who begs") or a loan ("the one who borrows"). In either case, without discriminating, Jesus says that we should give and not refuse the one asking of us. Whether we expect to get paid back or whether we have no hope of being repaid we are to give to those who need.

We must not miss that Jesus is describing radically selfless behavior, the kind that is unnatural to sinners and incomprehensible to the world. The person who lives this way isn't governed by self-interest or self-protection and doesn't plead his legal or personal rights. His life is characterized by lovingly serving others.

This is where it helps to remember the context of Matthew 5:42, the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus is setting before his disciples the ethic of the kingdom of heaven. Just as Jesus has not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, those who by his grace become the true subjects of this kingdom offer up a "greater righteousness" that fulfills anything required under the Mosaic law.

There is so much wrong here.
1) Jesus is speaking about a request for either a gift ("the one who begs") or a loan ("the one who borrows"). In either case, without discriminating, Jesus says that we should give and not refuse the one asking of us. Whether we expect to get paid back or whether we have no hope of being repaid we are to give to those who need. Ok. I'm reading this quite fine. No worries.
2) We must not miss that Jesus is describing radically selfless behavior, the kind that is unnatural to sinners and incomprehensible to the world. This, I submit, is a bald faced lie. I can name quite a few instances of "radically selfless behavior" done by people not of your particular flavour and therefore IS comprehensible to the world. The statement above just sickens me.
3) The person who lives this way isn't governed by self-interest or self-protection and doesn't plead his legal or personal rights. His life is characterized by lovingly serving others. Quite the contrary, the person who DOES live this way, the way Jesus says in Matt 5:42, does indeed live a selfish life, looking out for his/her self-protection and does not lovingly serve others, but himself and an invisible 1/3 part of a god. They live this way because they are self centered and selfish BECAUSE of the chance for an immortal life in heaven with J.
4) Just as Jesus has not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it, those who by his grace become the true subjects of this kingdom offer up a "greater righteousness" that fulfills anything required under the Mosaic law. Wrong. If you wish and in another thread (that you may start), I'll show you how this thinking is defective.

...am willing to help you in some way that does not entail money right now.

I didn't ask for anything other than money. Now...and this will sound awful to just about everyone here....but despite your current financial and physical handicaps, Jesus did not say to give to those who ask unless you're financially destitute, homeless or injured. There are no conditions here simply because "those who by his grace become the true subjects of this kingdom offer up a "greater righteousness" "
Do you agree?
At any rate, I appreciate your offer.

So I have much in my life right now that needs a Higher Power to lead me in the correct ways to manage the above problems

Well, that's what doctors and lawyers and children and critical thinking are for. Of course, I know that if you manage fix fix any of your problems, the kudos go to god. Those problems that aren't fix right away or not at all are shoved off in the "God has plans that I don't know of" bin.

I could give of my time and help you with a bible study...

Thank you for the offer here as well. But my time is quite spread out and proportioned in just that. However, I do not study the bible to get a take on what Jesus or Paul may have said or what ambiguous statement means what. Much of my time is devoted to critical biblical study and history.

..find a path to the Love of the Boss and Savior I have found in Jesus Christ.

Been there...done that. But it just didn't work out. I have to have a boss that will at least pick up the phone and talk to me...ala Charlies Angels. At least I can put a voice to my boss.

...Love of the Boss and Savior I have found in Jesus Christ.

Once again, if you wish to start a thread, I will show you how Jesus simply cannot be a Boss or a Saviour.

Oh and I think I am going to start a new thread to also try and give of my time with an attempt to answer some of the other topics that have arisen in this thread.

Excellent idea.

[freeservant]

First, let me say you are the first Orthodox Presbyterian I've talked with in debating Christianity in the last 7 or so years online. What makes that special is that I grew up Orthodox Presbyterian. There are no Presby churches here like the type you and I have experience in. Most are Cumberland Presby.

Secondly, I would like to thank you for responding.

Thirdly, I am sorry to hear of your troubles.

 

So I have much in my life right now that needs a Higher Power to lead me in the correct ways to manage the above problems

Well, that's what doctors and lawyers and children and critical thinking are for. Of course, I know that if you manage fix fix any of your problems, the kudos go to god. Those problems that aren't fix right away or not at all are shoved off in the "God has plans that I don't know of" bin.

Simple ridicule may be a simple way for you to think you have it all down and know it's all a trick. But unless your are drop dead certain it may be the evidence of a trickster (Satan and his minions) giving you the blank ammunition you think is live.  Good luck with that...

I could give of my time and help you with a bible study...

Thank you for the offer here as well. But my time is quite spread out and proportioned in just that. However, I do not study the bible to get a take on what Jesus or Paul may have said or what ambiguous statement means what. Much of my time is devoted to critical biblical study and history.

Ah the intellectual honesty comes thru loud and clear.  You are being honest in that you want all the biblical ammo you can find to shred the bible with the bible.  Good luck with that as well and how good a job do you think Professor Bart Ehrman is doing?  My criteria of an effective attack on scripture would be when the Theological Seminaries start to close down in droves.  Not to mention the Churches and all the Church based Hospitals and Charities...

..find a path to the Love of the Boss and Savior I have found in Jesus Christ.

Been there...done that. But it just didn't work out. I have to have a boss that will at least pick up the phone and talk to me...ala Charlies Angels. At least I can put a voice to my boss.

This would imply that you have some defeaters that lead you to your current position.  Or is your atheism an act of faith that you are sure you have enough information now.

...Love of the Boss and Savior I have found in Jesus Christ.

Once again, if you wish to start a thread, I will show you how Jesus simply cannot be a Boss or a Savior.

Actualy that is the subject of the original post.  So what are your clues and bits of evidence that gives you assurance that Jesus is not the boss?  I think that would best fit in this current thread.

Oh and I think I am going to start a new thread to also try and give of my time with an attempt to answer some of the other topics that have arisen in this thread.

Excellent idea.

I was more thinking about the Ontological argument and the Moral argument but now I am not sure.  I fear bringing this up but this may be a place for an atheist echo chamber that does not really value anything I have to say other than to tear it down.  In other-words do the members of this happy forum have an atheism that can't be falsified or are your minds still open the the loving and nurturing possibilities?

Here is a good example of the problem I am talking of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jY1gEXYhfIM

and a more clear part two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhX4bYPJcsQ

[Whitney]

I would put forward that no action is ever selfless as the root reason for choosing to act in a seemingly selfless manner is always selfish...that does not however take away from the positive effect those actions have on the world around us.  For instance, I do good because it makes me feel good...that's selfish but it's also beneficial to others.

Of course a christian would have selfish reasons for wanting to avoid hell and even to help others avoid hell...or at least I would hope so.  A christian who ultimately wouldn't personally feel horrible if they thought they could help someone avoid hell but didn't would be a bad person (it would be like thinking you could stop a stray from walking into oncoming traffic yet did nothing).  It just so happens that christian attempts to ferry non-believers away from hell can really annoy the non-believers as there is no oncoming traffic and the nonbelievers see that they are being pushed for no reason  

[Gawen]

So say my wife...*chucklin*

Simple ridicule may be a simple way for you to think you have it all down and know it's all a trick. But unless your are drop dead certain it may be the evidence of a trickster (Satan and his minions) giving you the blank ammunition you think is live.  Good luck with that...

I am not drop dead certain of anything. Proof is for mathematics and liquor. All I require is some sort of evidence of any religion's supernaturalism. We can leave superfluous entities out of the equation for now. Show me your god and I may have to change my world view.

Ah the intellectual honesty comes thru loud and clear.

Thanks

You are being honest in that you want all the biblical ammo you can find to shred the bible with the bible.

All the ammo I need is right there in your manual of life. The biggest problem is getting Christians to read there bibles.

Good luck with that as well and how good a job do you think Professor Bart Ehrman is doing?

Ehrman can hold his own. Quite better than the likes of Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson or Plantinga.

My criteria of an effective attack on scripture would be when the Theological Seminaries start to close down in droves.  Not to mention the Churches and all the Church based Hospitals and Charities...

As long as people wish to be deceived, be self-deceived or remain in some sort of religious delusion, this will never happen.

This would imply that you have some defeaters that lead you to your current position.  Or is your atheism an act of faith that you are sure you have enough information now.

Naw...I was born an atheist...just like you. I've never been through the deconversion process as so many here have. For the second part of your quote, I have no faith whatsoever. I don't believe, I think. I think that there is so little evidence (.000000000000000001) of your position that it renders a wanton belief of that position moot.

Actualy that is the subject of the original post.  So what are your clues and bits of evidence that gives you assurance that Jesus is not the boss?  I think that would best fit in this current thread.

I'll start another soon to devote to it.

I was more thinking about the Ontological argument and the Moral argument but now I am not sure.  I fear bringing this up but this may be a place for an atheist echo chamber that does not really value anything I have to say other than to tear it down.

That would be true. Both of those arguments have been refuted many times over.  

In other-words do the members of this happy forum have an atheism that can't be falsified or are your minds still open the the loving and nurturing possibilities?

Atheism is neither true or false. It is simply a position that a person lacks a belief in god/s

Believe it or not, I, and others here will show you how you have erred...using the bible.

[Gawen]

I would put forward that no action is ever selfless as the root reason for choosing to act in a seemingly selfless manner is always selfish...that does not however take away from the positive effect those actions have on the world around us.  For instance, I do good because it makes me feel good...that's selfish but it's also beneficial to others.

Yes. As do I. And neither of us do it for that elusive train ticket to Heaven.