Jesus Christ proof: Richard Dawkins in shock ‘archaeological evidence’ claim over Messiah

[saor]

The notion that "is" somehow grasps the world is ultimately a theological assertion. You're effectively saying that you can have "is" while denying the reality of "isness", which is to say that you don't appreciate what Nietzsche meant when he, the self-styled anti-Christian, said that he fears we shall never be rid of God while we yet believe in grammar.

If I'm to say anything about "is", it would be:

There's math I don't understand. I hardly grok quantum theory. There's levels of reality that move further and further away from my intuitions and ability to understand and describe. My feeling is that whatever gave rise to reality is even further away from description and intuition than is quantum theory. It would be absurd for me to be unable to grok Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, but to them claim some knowledge about the thing that gave rise to Heisenbergs uncertainty principle (or at least the phenomena it attempts to describe).

My certainty drops off a cliff with many things in life, especially so with deeper descriptions of reality. Whatever gave rise to reality seems so infinitely far down the cliff that attempts to describe it or suss it out via intuition seems absurd. So absurd that when someone proclaims their description to be pointing in the right direction, that description occupies the same space as does Santa and Tooth Fairies.

"Is" and "Isness" are essentially meaningless to beings who can't even grok the contents of their own reality, let alone that which gave rise to their reality.

 

[Ponderer]

If I'm to say anything about "is", it would be:

There's math I don't understand. I hardly grok quantum theory. There's levels of reality that move further and further away from my intuitions and ability to understand and describe. My feeling is that whatever gave rise to reality is even further away from description and intuition than is quantum theory. It would be absurd for me to be unable to grok Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, but to them claim some knowledge about the thing that gave rise to Heisenbergs uncertainty principle (or at least the phenomena it attempts to describe).

My certainty drops off a cliff with many things in life, especially so with deeper descriptions of reality. Whatever gave rise to reality seems so infinitely far down the cliff that attempts to describe it or suss it out via intuition seems absurd. So absurd that when someone proclaims their description to be pointing in the right direction, that description occupies the same space as does Santa and Tooth Fairies.

"Is" and "Isness" are essentially meaningless to beings who can't even grok the contents of their own reality, let alone that which gave rise to their reality.

Yeah - I can relate to your description of what happens when you realise just how little we know.
The uncertainty of things, all the while trying to make sense of it all - the frustration that answers inevitably lead to more questions.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

If I'm to say anything about "is", it would be:

There's math I don't understand. I hardly grok quantum theory. There's levels of reality that move further and further away from my intuitions and ability to understand and describe. My feeling is that whatever gave rise to reality is even further away from description and intuition than is quantum theory. It would be absurd for me to be unable to grok Heisenbergs uncertainty principle, but to them claim some knowledge about the thing that gave rise to Heisenbergs uncertainty principle (or at least the phenomena it attempts to describe).

My certainty drops off a cliff with many things in life, especially so with deeper descriptions of reality. Whatever gave rise to reality seems so infinitely far down the cliff that attempts to describe it or suss it out via intuition seems absurd. So absurd that when someone proclaims their description to be pointing in the right direction, that description occupies the same space as does Santa and Tooth Fairies.

"Is" and "Isness" are essentially meaningless to beings who can't even grok the contents of their own reality, let alone that which gave rise to their reality.

Well, if is and isness are meaningless, then I would suggest to you that the concept of reality must be similarly meaningless, and indeed, language as a whole must be meaningless, because apparently it cannot even be used by the likes of you to say that something "is".

 

[saor]

Well, if is and isness are meaningless, then I would suggest to you that the concept of reality must be similarly meaningless, and indeed, language as a whole must be meaningless, because apparently it cannot even be used by the likes of you to say that something "is".

Language is important as it allows us to have this discussion and probe reality. But even language fails to properly describe something like quantum theory or love. So how does one use a tool (language) that's already inadequate to describe our own reality to describe that which gave rise to our reality?

There's surely limits to our descriptions and the language we use to describe. And we're already hitting those limits in our early forays into understanding the fabric of space & time. I know I'm repeating this point but...If we're already hitting those limits within our own reality, how does the thing that gave rise to our reality magically become more accessible to intuition & description than the things we're failing to describe within our own reality?

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Language is important as it allows us to have this discussion and probe reality. But even language fails to properly describe something like quantum theory or love. So how does one use a tool (language) that's already inadequate to describe our own reality to describe that which gave rise to our reality?

There's surely limits to our descriptions and the language we use to describe. And we're already hitting those limits in our early forays into understanding the fabric of space & time. I know I'm repeating this point but...If we're already hitting those limits within our reality, how does the thing that gave rise to our reality magically become more describable and accessible to intuition & description than the things we're failing to describe within our own reality?

Because your concept of Santa Claus and all the other concepts you have are constructed out of language. If you think it is meaningful to talk about the existence or non-existence of Santa Claus, then you are acting as if language actually can describe reality. From this perspective, a theist is merely someone who wishes to avoid commiting a performating contradition, as God is merely a referent to the condition of possibility of rational understanding as such when described as the Ground of Being.

 

[saor]

God is merely a referent to the condition of possibility of rational understanding as such when described as the Ground of Being.

Except we're not usually talking about lukewarm abstract Gods here. The theist is quite specific about their flavor of God - like one who made a garden and sent floods and had his son die on a cross etc. This cartoonish deity is primarily what is being denied by the atheist and being regarded as equivalent to Santa by the atheist. If you're just talking about God as a placeholder for the unknown prime mover then ja ok, that's a different quibble.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Except we're not usually talking about lukewarm abstract Gods here. The theist is quite specific about their flavor of God - like one who made a garden and sent floods and had his son die on a cross etc. This cartoonish deity is primarily what is being denied by the atheist and being regarded as equivalent to Santa by the atheist. If you're just talking about God as a placeholder for the unknown prime mover then ja ok, that's a different quibble.

I mean, if you want to attack the Christian God because of contradictions in the account etc, that's one thing. But that's not how you phrased yourself to begin with.

Actually, this video was released today, a lot of the commentary is imo on-topic to this discussion, so you might find it interesting:

It's not obvious what kind of story we're trying to have civilisation tell.

 

[saor]

I mean, if you want to attack the Christian God because of contradictions in the account etc, that's one thing. But that's not how you phrased yourself to begin with.

I didn't mean to single out Christianity for any particular reason. I started this to give an account for why the atheist position seems coherent. Some of the responses to my post seemed to paint a picture of God as a generic placeholder for That Which Is, which is not really what the atheist is denying the existence of. I brought up Christianity only as an example of the kind of thing the atheist denies the existence of.

 

[noxibox]

Religion doesn't provide purpose for those who don't buy into whatever stories the religion is selling. It's just another human invention. The existence of a god does not inherently provide purpose. You still need to make something up. So you can think it through yourself and come up with something or you can just buy whatever the nearest religion is peddling.

The distinction is that God is presumably the explanation for the universe.

A thing for which we use the term god is one possible explanation. It isn't the only possibility nor does it provide support for any religion.

You have the problem of accounting for how it is that words can actually address reality in the first place. Long story short, God is the classical answer.

It might be a possible answer, but is not the only answer. Still provides no support for any religion even if it were the answer. But it isn't the only possible answer.

No God, no unification in science, either.

Same applies here.

Ground of being - Conservapedia

www.conservapedia.com

And the same applies again.

I don't agree with classical theism, but without it(or something similar) philosophical realism becomes unjustifiable, which is why atheists typically end up sawing off the branch they're sitting on. I can deny the reality of Santa Claus without doing this; can you say the same regarding denying the reality of the first principle?

Yes, because this first principle does not inherently have to be any sort of being. And it most definitely does not have to be anything in any way like what is portrayed in religions.

The false/flawed logic be: Because Santa isn't real , GOD is therefore also not real.
Its a false equivalence.

It isn't claimed the one follows the other.

Not every/all beliefs are true - its true that its a belief, but that belief does not make it (that belief) true.
Whatever is, is - whatever you believe to be true/false has nothing to do with what is.
Just because not every/all beliefs are true does not mean that no beliefs are true.
Just because Santa isn't real does not mean that GOD is therefore also not real.

Right which means that just because you believe gods are real doesn't make it so.

 

[rietrot]

Except we're not usually talking about lukewarm abstract Gods here. The theist is quite specific about their flavor of God - like one who made a garden and sent floods and had his son die on a cross etc. This cartoonish deity is primarily what is being denied by the atheist and being regarded as equivalent to Santa by the atheist. If you're just talking about God as a placeholder for the unknown prime mover then ja ok, that's a different quibble.

Santa Claus - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Since when is Santa not real?
It's based on a real historical person.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

I didn't mean to single out Christianity for any particular reason. I started this to give an account for why the atheist position seems coherent. Some of the responses to my post seemed to paint a picture of God as a generic placeholder for That Which Is, which is not really what the atheist is denying the existence of. I brought up Christianity only as an example of the kind of thing the atheist denies the existence of.

Any atheist who denies the validity of metaphysical conversations is an atheist who would deny this kind of thing. They're the bread and butter variety of youtube atheist. Maybe I'm unfairly painting all atheists by that brush because of my disproportionate exposure to the youtube variety, but such brands of atheism are fair game when it comes to their incoherence.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Religion doesn't provide purpose for those who don't buy into whatever stories the religion is selling. It's just another human invention. The existence of a god does not inherently provide purpose. You still need to make something up. So you can think it through yourself and come up with something or you can just buy whatever the nearest religion is peddling.

Ok, purpose is auto-poetic, thus we have license to characterise our purpose as we will, and religion is a human universal with respect to the way we express our auto-poetic purpose in life. What's the problem?

A thing for which we use the term god is one possible explanation. It isn't the only possibility nor does it provide support for any religion.

But you've just provided the support for religion.

It might be a possible answer, but is not the only answer. Still provides no support for any religion even if it were the answer. But it isn't the only possible answer.

Right, so throw away science and everything related to Western civilisation, because there's no support for it and it isn't the only possible answer...

Same applies here.

And the same applies again.

Frankly, I suspect you even understand what it is that you're responding to.

Yes, because this first principle does not inherently have to be any sort of being. And it most definitely does not have to be anything in any way like what is portrayed in religions.

Ok, since this first principle is not "is", because it isn't a being, what would you like to replace it with? Which alternative concept aside from existence are you going to use to ground your worldview? And why do you even care whether or not God exists?

 

[saor]

Any atheist who denies the validity of metaphysical conversations is an atheist who would deny this kind of thing. They're the bread and butter variety of youtube atheist. Maybe I'm unfairly painting all atheists by that brush because of my disproportionate exposure to the youtube variety, but such brands of atheism are fair game when it comes to their incoherence.

Sure, let's drop the talk of religion and deities and have a metaphysical conversation .

You seem to be doing this thing where you're saying that deities of religion are equivalent to notions like "Is" and "The Ground of All Being", and when someone rejects the religious deity, they're by extension rejecting metaphysics. I would suggest again that this is the false dichotomy you're presenting: The conflation of metaphysics and religion. And you've just done it in your post above where you've made a generalisation about atheists & their stance toward metaphysics based upon their stance toward religion and deities.

Imagine we were beings who lived in a lake with a river that fed it. The theist position might be that when God cries the river begins to flow. But just because they're attempting to say something about the source of the river, doesn't automatically grant what they're saying the status of being more worthy of consideration than any other fiction. Pointing at the mystery isn't equivalent to saying anything valid about the mystery, and the atheist is simply rejecting all the confident theistic pointing.

To be clear, I'm not trying to say anything particular about metaphysics or the mystery of being here. Only that religion and Gods are what atheist is denying.

 

[Ponderer]

Right which means that just because you believe gods are real doesn't make it so.

It also means that just because you believe gods are not real doesn't make it so.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Sure, let's drop the talk of religion and deities and have a metaphysical conversation .

You seem to be doing this thing where you're saying that deities of religion are equivalent to notions like "Is" and "The Ground of All Being", and when someone rejects the religious deity, they're by extension rejecting metaphysics. I would suggest again that this is the false dichotomy you're presenting: The conflation of metaphysics and religion. And you've just done it in your post above where you've made a generalisation about atheists & their stance toward metaphysics based upon their stance toward religion and deities.

Did you watch the video I posted?

Imagine we were beings who lived in a lake with a river that fed it. The theist position might be that when God cries the river begins to flow. But just because they're attempting to say something about the source of the river, doesn't automatically grant what they're saying the status of being more worthy of consideration than any other fiction. Pointing at the mystery isn't equivalent to saying anything valid about the mystery, and the atheist is simply rejecting all the confident theistic pointing.

Why do atheists not accept the ontological argument for God? (Indeed, I don't accept the ontological argument for God either, but work with me here.)

Classical theism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Classical theism is a form of theism in which God is characterized as the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being, in contrast to other conceptions such as pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, deism and process theism.
Classical theism is a form of monotheism. Whereas most monotheists agree that God is, at minimum, all-knowing, all-powerful, and completely good,[1] classical theism asserts that God is both immanent (encompassing or manifested in the material world) and simultaneously transcendent (independent of the material universe); simple, and having such attributes as immutability, impassibility, and timelessness.[2] A key concept in classical theism is that "created beings" (ie, material phenomena, whether sentient biological organisms or insentient matter) are dependent for their existence on the one supreme divine Being. Also, although God is wholly transcendent, he not only creates the material universe but also acts upon the material universe in imposing (or organizing) a Higher Order upon that material reality. This order was called by the ancient Greeks logos.
Classical theism is associated with the tradition of writers like Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, St. Anselm, Maimonides, Averroes and Thomas Aquinas.[2] Since the advent of the scientific revolution in the seventeenth century the principal of divine immanence as a central doctrine of classical theism (as traditionally held by all three of the major Abrahamic religions) began to be replaced among progressive thinkers with the notion that although God had created the universe in the beginning he subsequently left the universe to run according to fixed laws of nature. A common metaphor for this idea in the seventeenth century was that of the clockwork universe. This theological doctrine was known as deism and gradually became the default view of many of the influential thinkers of the eighteenth century enlightenment.
Among modern day theologians and philosophers of religion classical theism has appeared in a number of variants. For example, there are, today, philosophers like Alvin Plantinga (who rejects divine simplicity), Richard Swinburne (who rejects divine timelessness) and William Lane Craig (who rejects both divine simplicity and timelessness),[3] [4] who can be viewed as theistic personalists. Philosophers like David Bentley Hart have defended traditional classical theism in recent times.
Classical theism was almost universal among Christian theologians prior to the twentieth century. However, some of its recent critics argue that it is taken from pre-Christian philosophers and incompatible with the occasions in the Bible that describe God as emotional or changing.

My bold. Classical theism is inherently metaphysical.

To be clear, I'm not trying to say anything particular about metaphysics or the mystery of being here. Only that religion and Gods are what atheist is denying.

But to deny the Christian god is to say something particular about metaphysics...

 

[saor]

Did you watch the video I posted?

No. Post a quote if it's something relevant. I'm here to chat with you, not watch 2hrs of stuff.

Why do atheists not accept the ontological argument for God? (Indeed, I don't accept the ontological argument for God either, but work with me here.)

I don't think our intuitions about what gave rise to reality extend beyond the boundary of our reality. The more defined the concept of God becomes, the less bearing it feels it has on anything. Like those beings in the lake who might believe the river is the source of all life, the thing they point at and call God - if they could step above the lake they would see the river is part of a natural process that extends into the horizon to include things they have no concepts for like climate and evaporation and rain.

And our reality might similarly be part of an unfolding that extends infinitely into the horizon. Pointing at that which gave rise to our reality and calling it God seems as arbitrary a thing to point at as those beings pointing at the river.

It's a game of odds, I guess.

The odds seem higher that 'That Which Is' is beyond our reach and description; that it's something so different to anything we can imagine and extends so infinitely that as soon as anyone attempts to say anything about it and those ideas become rigid as religions that the atheist balks. The odds lie in the direction of mystery and the unknowable.

Which doesn't render anything meaningless. Our reality is abundant in whatever meaning we choose to create; is ripe for exploration & adventure. Not knowing what gave rise to all of this doesn't drain any meaning from all of this.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

No. Post a quote if it's something relevant. I'm here to chat with you, not watch 2hrs of stuff.

Tom Holland explains in parts of it how secularism is a Christian invention, there's multiple clips of him in that video where he lays it out the profound impact Christianity has had on human psychology. The video also completely trashes Steven Pinker's attempt to give an account for humanism along secular lines. Which is to say that I think that if you had watched the video, you wouldn't be quite so cavalier with your suggestion that I'm creating a false dichotomy.

I don't think our intuitions about what gave rise to reality extend beyond the boundary of our reality. The more defined the concept of God becomes, the less bearing it feels it has on anything. Like those beings in the lake who might believe the river is the source of all life, the thing they point at and call God - if they could step above the lake they would see the river is part of a natural process that extends into the horizon to include things they have no concepts for like climate and evaporation and rain.

We still have to have a view of reality that we can account for in order to frame out interactions in the world in a meaningful fashion. Whether our intuitions are good or bad in this regard, they're basically all we've got.

And our reality might similarly be part of an unfolding that extends infinitely into the horizon. Pointing at that which gave rise to our reality and calling it God, is as arbitrary a thing to point at as those being pointing at the river.

Sure, but infinite regresses are frowned upon if you're playing the explanation game.

The odds seem higher that 'That Which Is' is beyond our reach and description; that it's something so different to anything we can imagine and extends so infinitely that as soon as anyone attempts to say anything about it, and especially when those ideas become rigidly religius that the atheist balks. The odds like in the direction of mystery and the unknowable.

Ok, but then why should reality itself be any more explicable by us? On this view, our words are poetic, not reasonable.

Which doesn't render anything meaningless. Our reality is abundant in whatever meaning we choose to create; is ripe for exploration & adventure. Not knowing what gave rise to all this doesn't change any of this.

You don't get institutions like civilisation without codified behaviour. If you're not trying to ground your code in (the ground of) reality itself, then what are you basing it on?

 

[noxibox]

And our reality might similarly be part of an unfolding that extends infinitely into the horizon. Pointing at that which gave rise to our reality and calling it God seems as arbitrary a thing to point at as those beings pointing at the river.

Indeed the origin of reality could simply be nothing. Nothing would mean also the absence of any rules or constraints meaning that nothing could turn into something.

Ok, purpose is auto-poetic, thus we have license to characterise our purpose as we will, and religion is a human universal with respect to the way we express our auto-poetic purpose in life. What's the problem?

Good so we've established that all religions are essentially equal in the correctness of their asserted theistic personalities.

But you've just provided the support for religion.

Which specific religion, and only that single religion, does the existence of some first being provide proof?

Right, so throw away science and everything related to Western civilisation, because there's no support for it and it isn't the only possible answer

They're based on their practical application. You've not yet presented any practical application for a first cause being. So it exists, then what? Other than as a matter of academic philosophical interest what does it tell me about what is right and what is wrong? It doesn't unless I pick a religion and make the unfounded assumption that somehow that religion's founders had the inside track.

Ok, since this first principle is not "is", because it isn't a being, what would you like to replace it with? Which alternative concept aside from existence are you going to use to ground your worldview?

I have never needed to base my worldview on the origin of the physical world. If it came from nothing or from some being makes no practical difference to me. I still have to figure out life. The existence of some first being doesn't help me in any way. It is an assumption that the being is a necessary precondition for the apparently ordered reality. Or anything else for that matter.

And why do you even care whether or not God exists?

I'm not attached to it or any other explanation.

You don't get institutions like civilisation without codified behaviour. If you're not trying to ground your code in (the ground of) reality itself, then what are you basing it on?

The codified behaviour isn't dependent on the origin of our reality. Yes, I am aware that some people make the argument that it is dependent.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Good so we've established that all religions are essentially equal in the correctness of their asserted theistic personalities.

Equally true, maybe. Equally good, not so much.

Which specific religion, and only that single religion, does the existence of some first being provide proof?

It's not necessary to provide proof since we already have the license to fashion whatever we may.

They're based on their practical application. You've not yet presented any practical application for a first cause being. So it exists, then what? Other than as a matter of academic philosophical interest what does it tell me about what is right and what is wrong? It doesn't unless I pick a religion and make the unfounded assumption that somehow that religion's founders had the inside track.

On the contrary, I did. I told you that this postulation makes the idea of unification plausible. That is, that the account of all of creation can be made one.

I have never needed to base my worldview on the origin of the physical world. If it came from nothing or from some being makes no practical difference to me. I still have to figure out life. The existence of some first being doesn't help me in any way. It is an assumption that the being is a necessary precondition for the apparently ordered reality. Or anything else for that matter.

If you use language without thinking about the implications behind the notion that language has aptness, that would be your problem, not mine.

I'm not attached to it or any other explanation.

If you weren't attached to any explanation, then why do you attempt to criticise those who have apparently attached themselves to an explanation you apparently dislike?

The codified behaviour isn't dependent on the origin of our reality. Yes, I am aware that some people make the argument that it is dependent.

So then answer the question: what is it dependent on?

 

[saor]

We still have to have a view of reality that we can account for in order to frame out interactions in the world in a meaningful fashion.

I disagree with the top-down approach to meaning. I believe it arises locally and spreads outward. The ultimate nature of reality or whatever process gave rise to reality is a moot contributor to our creative endeavour of weaving meaning. A seed growing into a tree doesn't need to understand nuclear fusion in order to thrive and be happy, and similarly we don't need to understand ultimate origins in order to thrive and be happy. Meaning can be a local and collaborative construct, not something we attempt to derive from out there or in response to our guesses about what's out there.

Sure, but infinite regresses are frowned upon if you're playing the explanation game.

I'm not playing that game so having domains in which I admit perpetual ignorance is fine with me.

Ok, but then why should reality itself be any more explicable by us? On this view, our words are poetic, not reasonable.

Our descriptions are baby steps at understanding things around us. Will they ever be complete descriptions? I don't know. But like a child we wiggle our fingers and pay attention to what's happening around us, and our universe is what we're born into and a part of so...I'm more confident in our ability to make attempts at describing what's around us than whats beyond us.