Indeed. I essentially made this same request of Mr. Roemer in an earlier post. Either he missed it or he’s avoiding it.
Mr. Roemer, as far as I can see, you have yet to define “free will” or explain why it necessarily cannot be defined. You’ve also failed to explain how the cosmological argument for a creator of existence necessarily leads to the conclusion that this creator of existence must be the God of the Bible. Finally, I’ll once again point out that you seem to be engaging in circular reasoning – that is, assuming the very thing (the truth of the God of the Bible) that you’re trying to prove.
You can prove that an infinite being (God) exists in two senses: 1) It is a formal result in metaphysics. 2) As a criticism of people who either don’t know the proof or pretend they don’t know it.
In metaphysics, we don’t define free will, except to say it means humans possess a center of action. In metaphysics, a being that changes is composed of substance and accident; a being that is a member of a class or category of being is composed of form (soul) and matter (body); and a finite being is composed of essence and existence. God is a pure act of existence.
In metaphysics, we also don’t define reason and causality and we assume the universe is intelligible*.* What exactly are the logical flaws in the proof? It is certainly fallacious to talk about a “prime mover.” The proof is based on the idea that finite beings exist and a finite being needs a cause. Is this the non sequitur? If you doubt that a finite being needs a cause, what about a being that begins to exist at some point in time?
The reasons I believe that God sent the prophets and inspired the authors of the Bible and the Koran are 1) the historical Jesus, 2) proof of God’s existence (such as it is), and 3) the bad reasons people give for not believing.
At this point, I’m going to have to ask you what you mean by “metaphysics”.
Well, why not?
With all due respect, all I see here are a number of unconnected assertions. Can you please explain how they relate to one another?
Why aren’t “reason” and “causality” defined? If they’re not defined, how can they even be used in discourse (metaphysical or otherwise)?
Are you taking it as a premise that finite beings need causes? That is to say, are you defining “finite being” such that causality is implied there? How are you defining “being” in general?
I’ll address each in turn:
Do you know whether Jesus existed?
You’re equivocating here over the definition of “God”. Either “God” means “infinite being” or it means “the Biblical entity otherwise known as Yahweh or Elohim”.
You still haven’t explained to me where government gets its “power” over people, or even what you mean by “power”. I’m most interested in hearing from you on these two things.
In metaphysics, we also don’t define reason and causality and we assume the universe is intelligible. What exactly are the logical flaws in the proof? It is certainly fallacious to talk about a “prime mover.” The proof is based on the idea that finite beings exist and a finite being needs a cause. Is this the non sequitur? If you doubt that a finite being needs a cause, what about a being that begins to exist at some point in time?
As Autolykos said, why don’t you define reason and causality, and how do you use them in any discourse then? I mean, you’re obviously claiming to use the well known concepts of reason and cause in your arguements. Yet you refuse to define them?
Also, the non-sequitur you’re presenting that I’m taking issue with is not the existance of God, but your assertions that because you posit that the universe requires this “infinite being”, therefore that being is the God of the Bible, that it communicates with you, etc. The question of the existance of the divine is another matter that could easily take up the whole thread itself.
The reasons I believe that God sent the prophets and inspired the authors of the Bible and the Koran are 1) the historical Jesus, 2) proof of God’s existence (such as it is), and 3) the bad reasons people give for not believing.
1.) Historical Jesus: We have scant records of a man who claimed or was proclaimed to be a prophet, and some “witness” accounts from his buddies about him coming back from the dead. We also have twenty centuries worth of obfuscation as various committees and kings twisted the stories to thier own ends. Why do you believe these stories to be true? What is the corroborating evidence?
2.) Proof of God’s existance: Total non sequitur here. You’re basically saying, “I believe the prophets were divinely inspired because God exists”. One does not follow the other.
3.) Bad reasons people give for not believing: So what? This is purely arguement from ignorance. “I assume that the God of the Bible exists, and because nobody can prove me wrong to my satisfaction, he therefore exists!”
Seems like you guys should start a theists vs atheists thread.
Not so sure about this, as his theology seems to be at the core of his arguement. Here’s his thesis:
“My theory is that defining liberalism and conservatism in terms of concern for property rights is no longer relevant. This is my definition of liberalism: According to the Bible and the Koran, our purpose in life is to serve God in this world and be with him in the world to come. There are many who don’t believe this, but they keep their negative response to revelation to themselves and give religion to their children. They have the maturity to realize they are deprived of the gift of faith and a meaningful life. A liberal, however, thinks that believing in the Bible is “unenlightened.” Liberals think of themselves as being intellectually superior to people of faith. This lack of integrity and immaturity makes them prone to political fanaticism.”
It’s really hard to tell, since he refuses to define many of his terms, and seems to be stuck in the usual “liberal vs. conservative” usage mindset. Actually, honestly it’s hard to tell exactly what his point is.
The historical Jesus was a Jewish prophet who preached the coming of the kingdom of God. He was an exorcist and a healer, rose from the dead, and saved mankind for meaning. The same sources that said he was a Jewish prophet say he was an exorcist and a healer. These stories are historical truths.
What I believe and am summoning you to believe is that Jesus is alive in a new life with God and that if you follow Jesus the same thing can happen to you. I am not claiming it is a logical deduction. Faith is both a decision and a gift from God. Liberals/humanists/atheists are not people who don’t believe. Liberals/humanists/atheists are people who think faith in the Bible and the Koran is irrational.
If people who didn’t believe gave good reasons for not believing, it would be an obstacle to faith. How could I tell that they were wrong and I was right? Maybe they have better judgment, a better understanding of history, and a deeper understanding of the proof of God’s existence than I have.
Mr. Roemer, with all due respect, I can only take your latest post to imply that you’re giving up entirely on intellectual honesty in this thread. If that is indeed the case, then I won’t engage you any further.
LogisticEarth has shown that he doesn’t understand or know the cosmological proof of God’s existence. He should understand the proof by now. There is a chance now he will reconsider the historical events in our salvation history and get a meaningful life.
It shows a lack of understanding of economics to not understand the limitations of economics. Murray Rothbard’s understanding of economics was limited in this regard. I’m thinking of his analysis to the effect that on an island with two people, utility is maximized if both persons cooperate. What is the point of talking about islands if you are not stating what you will do if stranded on an island with another person. Rothbard was saying he would not make that person his slave. This is irrational. A rational person would say it depends on the circumstances. Whether or not Rothbard had irrational ideas about religion, I don’t know.
Rothbard was saying he would not make that person his slave. This is irrational. A rational person would say it depends on the circumstances. Whether or not Rothbard had irrational ideas about religion, I don’t know.
And we’ll just say slavery is nothing but a legal term, all that really matters is if you interact in someway and not kill eachother / function in complete isolation. It is not your judgment of “good” or “bad”, “free” or “unfree” (what ever any of those terms mean) that is the issue, but whether or not that person serves any use to you in any way.
>LogisticEarth has shown that he doesn’t understand or know the cosmological proof of God’s existence
I’m not familiar with that proof, but tell me, is it capable of proving that there is one God and not multiple or zero Gods?
>He was an exorcist and a healer, rose from the dead
There are a lot of possible explanations for this.
For example, he may have been an extraterrestrial with advanced technology.
More likely, we’re living in a computer simulation. A gltich in the simulation isn’t that big of a deal to accept. It could be one of the programmers or administrators monkeying around for all I know. See this paper from Oxford:
The gist is this: if your descendants are likely to grow powerful enough to run many ancestor-simulations, how do you know you aren’t living in an ancestor-simulation right now?
LogisticEarth has shown that he doesn’t understand or know the cosmological proof of God’s existence. He should understand the proof by now. There is a chance now he will reconsider the historical events in our salvation history and get a meaningful life.
Riigggghhhttttt. Point out anywhere where I denied the possibility of a god. Please, do so. It would be odd since I consider myself somewhat of an agnostic/ignostic. What I have been argueing against, instead, is your assertation that a cosmological god is the same as the Biblical God, that this God gives life meaning, and that “liberals” are lacking this meaning and are therefore open to political fanaticism to fill some divine gap. The idea that “the universe had to come from somewhere, and that force is God” is old hat to me. I have considered it and found it lacking for making any absolute conclusions. That said it is still a respectable position to hold. The line is crossed, however, when you try to extent that logic to theologies like Christianity, Islam, etc.
On a personal note, I hope that you can overcome your narrow-mindedness when it comes to what constitutes a “meaningful life”. Personally, abandoning the dogmas of religion helped me achieve a much more solid feeling of fufilment, and a connection to fellow humans. We should be working towards making our existance the best it possibly can be for ourselves, our children, and on down the line into history. This, in my view, means less time and effort spent on supporting priests and building churches and mosques, and more time spent supporting reseachers and doctors, and building factories, hospitals, and universities. Stop worrying about what awaits your in the afterlife that may or may not exist, and start worrying about the welfare of your fellow humans. Isn’t that what the better parts of Christianity teach anyway? Just cast off the mysticism.
That’s really all I have to say to you as you’re not responding to my questions in any substantiative way.
What is the goal of continuing the debate then? To convert him to atheism? Do you naively assume he hasn’t already heard the arguments?
Hey, no harm in giving it the old college try. I always find it worthwhile to engage people, and I also don’t think assertations as bold as David’s go unchallenged if only for the audience’s sake. He’s being pretty obtuse though, so I’ll only waste so much of my time, ha.
Since finite beings exist, there must exist at least one infinite being. Further reasoning leads to the idea that there can be only one infinite being.
The followers of Jesus swore up and down that he was alive. This is an historical fact. There is no need in history to come up with explanations. The resurrection of Jesus is just one of many reasons to believe that Jesus is alive in a new life with God. Another reason is that Jesus saved mankind for meaning.
What meaning does life have it it is not to serve God in this world and be with him in the next? Self-realiztion? “Making our existence the best” is very vague because we have to decide what is best. It is not as well-defined as obeying the Ten Commandments and storing up treasures in heaven.
I like to think helping starving children in Africa by endorsing and supporting markets is a descent meaning for life. Self sacrificing Christian’s do nothing to promote God in a positive fashion. I’ve heard so many sermons of impoverishment from the pulpit, all in the name of “Living for God”, it’s disturbing.
Why not learn economics and see how you can offer a real positive benefit to Man. Become a producer, a creator. Employ the tools that have been given to you so that we can know that they were not given in vain. Living by examples means doing, not talking your head off, begging, and pleading with those around you to agree with your reasoning. Which is, as a theist, inherently illogical. Actions speak louder then words, no? Talk is cheap, and almost every theist around the globe is ready to jump on the talking bandwagon explaining why their beliefs are more correct.
Why not move beyond the childs play, become a Man that would make God proud. Become a true servent of society. Join into the fellowship of those around you via the promotion of voluntaryrism, markets, and peace.
This coming from theist to theist. What your doing right now is fruitless. It benefits no one. Your not going to get any extra goodies from God when you die, for attempting to convert atheists who have already made their decision. A decision which of coarse is theirs to make.
I didn’t see any attempts by David to actually convert anyone- sounds more like he just feels very strongly about his position. Sounds like a turnoff to some but people who come to atheism have usually put all sorts of thought into it so its always a heated discussion. My personal idea regarding faith is that its not about blind belief- but more the willingness to try.