Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

[Randall R. Young]

2) I am not interested in convincing you of anything.

Good, because if you were, you'd be failing at it.

But what exactly are you trying to do? Demonstrate the rampant illogic of your stance?

[stahrwe]

2) I am not interested in convincing you of anything.

Good, because if you were, you'd be failing at it.

But what exactly are you trying to do? Demonstrate the rampant illogic of your stance?

What's illogical?
I suppose you may invoke Circular reasoning
or perhaps Rationalization
Maybe I am illogical because I am Uneducated
Or Deluded
Don't be Evasive

My purpose, engage in good conversations about quality books with good people.

Where's a turtle when you need one?

[Randall R. Young]

If you like acrostics and hidden messages, perhaps you'd enjoy "Gӧdel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid". It won a Pulitzer, so I guess that would qualify it as a quality book.

[Robert Tulip]

What's illogical?
I suppose you may invoke Circular reasoning
or perhaps Rationalization
Maybe I am illogical because I am Uneducated
Or Deluded
Don't be Evasive

Yes. Creationists use circular reasoning and rationalisation, and they are uneducated, deluded and evasive. Taking pride in these crude epithets, through some misunderstanding of Paul's call to be fools for Christ, can only drive people away from Christianity. It may be a way to reinforce an 'us against the world' mentality, but the likely result is that creationism will dwindle and disappear as a doctrine, to be replaced by theology based on reason.

As yet, theology based on reason is exceedingly rare. Even McGrath, whose History of Christian Thought I read and admired, retains a few whopping errors, mainly regarding the whole supernatural delusion of a personal God.

Dawkins' problem is that he has no adequate interlocutor on religion. His fellow scientists tend to be biased and narrow, while most of the religious are plain wrong. Karen Armstrong is the most sensible I have read.

[Randall R. Young]

Robert,

Are you a Process Theology guy?

[Robert Tulip]

I like the process theology of Teilhard, understood as a way of interpreting God through natural cycles, but I am basically atheist, in the sense that I deny all supernatural claims, and say all true statements are natural.

[stahrwe]

If you like acrostics and hidden messages, perhaps you'd enjoy "Gӧdel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid". It won a Pulitzer, so I guess that would qualify it as a quality book.

I actually do like the book. I am a fan of Godel and I like turtles.

[Interbane]

I don't see how, "For any coherence of definition, translates to free will

It doesn't 'translate' to free will. There is a precedent set by the many believers around the world that free will is a necessary component of humanity, and god leaves it alone. Are you telling me that you don't agree with this? You don't think god has any influence obligation to honor our free will?

People had to be less than perfect as only perfect being is God.
Less than perfect allowed for the choice to rebel against perfection.

False. Less than perfect does not lead to the choice to rebel against perfection. That is non-sequitur, a logic fail. Your logic fails here Stahrwe, for the tenth damn time for the same reason. I'm sick of repeating your mistakes back to you. LEARN.

Despite the failure of Adam and Eve, the implication seems to be that we would be better off having never lived.

No, the implication is that if god were real, the universe would look much much different. This universe we live in, it is precisely the type of universe that lacks a god. A couple calories worth of mental effort on your part would see that I'm right.

This truly makes no sense. God is immoral because you don't understand Him?

STOP MISUNDERSTANDING ME. You have no ground to stand on and defend your dignity if you continue like this. Do you realize how simple the things I'm saying are, that you're either unintentionally or purposefully misunderstanding me.

No, I'm NOT saying that god is immoral because I don't understand him. Show me the sentence that makes you arrive at that conclusion. Type it out nice and slow and reread it until you catch my intent, that meaning that went over your head.

Here is what I mean, please read VERY slowly and think about it. God acts in a way that is immoral, as we define it, as we understand it. Either he is truly immoral, or he doesn't exist. If he acts immorally, and you try to justify it by appealing to his unknowability, that does not mean he instead acts morally. What it means is that he is acting by unknown motives in an immoral fashion.

You can't claim to know some things about god, then turn around and claim that you don't know him at all. We have enough pieces of evidence to ascertain that god acted immorally. He set up Adam and Eve to fail, thereby condemning mankind to an eternity of suffering. What that act allows us to know, at minimum, is that god acts immorally, regardless of whatever his unknowable motives turn out to be.


For your other argument, you've given a few variations of it, but each and every one has failed. There is no characteristic of god that prevents him from creating perfectly moral entities. You hoped to shoehorn one characteristic into that role, but were quickly called on it. This is a great rationalization show, to be honest. You're trying many different variations of reasoning, trial and error style, until you find one that is rational and free of contradictions. Then you'll believe it! It doesn't matter that I've shown each one to be wrong, you'll continue rationalizing until you've made up an entirely new book just to supplement the bible in a way that avoids contradiction. That is how fiction writing works. Storybuilding. It has no system of checks and balances with reality to put your bias in check. It's pure wordsmithing, conjecture without verification. Hypothesizing without experimentation. Like attempting to draw the inside of a house by seeing nothing but the outside, then truly believing you are right. There are infinite possible variations of room layouts, but you choose ONE, based on the most biased criteria in the world. You pick one not by looking in the house to see which matches, but by having faith in whichever one doesn't display contradictions.

The point is, if you choose your beliefs based on which avoid contradiction rather than which corresponds to reality, you have no way to know if what you believe is false. There are an infinite number of possible beliefs about our universe which are simultaneously false yet free of contradiction. False beliefs can be, and many are, free of contradiction. Avoiding contradiction does not make your beliefs true. You need to compare them to reality. You say god has a characteristic that allows for no other entity to be morally perfect; prove it or drop it. It's fabrication, pure and simple. It's not even written in your guide to the universe.

[stahrwe]

I don't see how, "For any coherence of definition, translates to free will

It doesn't 'translate' to free will. There is a precedent set by the many believers around the world that free will is a necessary component of humanity, and god leaves it alone. Are you telling me that you don't agree with this? You don't think god has any influence obligation to honor our free will?

Of course we have our own will. You will have to ask Skinner how free it is.

People had to be less than perfect as only perfect being is God.
Less than perfect allowed for the choice to rebel against perfection.

False. Less than perfect does not lead to the choice to rebel against perfection. That is non-sequitur, a logic fail. Your logic fails here Stahrwe, for the tenth damn time for the same reason. I'm sick of repeating your mistakes back to you. LEARN.

Precision dear Watson, precsion. Perhaps you wouldn't be sick if you got things right. I did not say, "...being less than perfect lead to the choice to rebel..."

What I said, and I am copying directly from my above post was, "...less than perfect allowed for the choice to rebel..."

This is not a subtle enough distinction to think that you misquoted me accidentally

Despite the failure of Adam and Eve, the implication seems to be that we would be better off having never lived.

No, the implication is that if god were real, the universe would look much much different. This universe we live in, it is precisely the type of universe that lacks a god. A couple calories worth of mental effort on your part would see that I'm right.

Calories expended:

Possibility #1
God exists.
God forces everyone to behave perfectly.
what does He do with ones who don't?
Destroys them.
Reject this impossible scenario.

Possibility #2
God exists.
God forces everyone to behave perfectly
What does He do with ones who don't?
Nothing.
Evil runs rampant
Reject this God. Logical contradiction.

Possibility #3
God exists.
He allows free will for people to follow Him or not.
His followers are all disease free, proper financially, have perfect families, etc.
Everyone decides to follow Him.
Reject this God. This is not the reality we experience.

Possibility #4
God exists
Everyone is perfect
Everyone is therefore God.
Reject this as contradicts who and what God is.

Possibility #5
God does not exist.
Where did we come from?
No answer possible.

Possibility #6
God exists
Humans have free will
Some choose to follow God some do not.
Humans are not perfect
World is not perfect.
This is the world we experience.

This truly makes no sense. God is immoral because you don't understand Him?

STOP MISUNDERSTANDING ME. You have no ground to stand on and defend your dignity if you continue like this. Do you realize how simple the things I'm saying are, that you're either unintentionally or purposefully misunderstanding me.

No, I'm NOT saying that god is immoral because I don't understand him. Show me the sentence that makes you arrive at that conclusion. Type it out nice and slow and reread it until you catch my intent, that meaning that went over your head.

Here is what I mean, please read VERY slowly and think about it. God acts in a way that is immoral, as we define it, as we understand it. Either he is truly immoral, or he doesn't exist. If he acts immorally, and you try to justify it by appealing to his unknowability, that does not mean he instead acts morally. What it means is that he is acting by unknown motives in an immoral fashion.

You can't claim to know some things about god, then turn around and claim that you don't know him at all. We have enough pieces of evidence to ascertain that god acted immorally. He set up Adam and Eve to fail, thereby condemning mankind to an eternity of suffering. What that act allows us to know, at minimum, is that god acts immorally, regardless of whatever his unknowable motives turn out to be.


For your other argument, you've given a few variations of it, but each and every one has failed. There is no characteristic of god that prevents him from creating perfectly moral entities. You hoped to shoehorn one characteristic into that role, but were quickly called on it. This is a great rationalization show, to be honest. You're trying many different variations of reasoning, trial and error style, until you find one that is rational and free of contradictions. Then you'll believe it! It doesn't matter that I've shown each one to be wrong, you'll continue rationalizing until you've made up an entirely new book just to supplement the bible in a way that avoids contradiction. That is how fiction writing works. Storybuilding. It has no system of checks and balances with reality to put your bias in check. It's pure wordsmithing, conjecture without verification. Hypothesizing without experimentation. Like attempting to draw the inside of a house by seeing nothing but the outside, then truly believing you are right. There are infinite possible variations of room layouts, but you choose ONE, based on the most biased criteria in the world. You pick one not by looking in the house to see which matches, but by having faith in whichever one doesn't display contradictions.

The point is, if you choose your beliefs based on which avoid contradiction rather than which corresponds to reality, you have no way to know if what you believe is false. There are an infinite number of possible beliefs about our universe which are simultaneously false yet free of contradiction. False beliefs can be, and many are, free of contradiction. Avoiding contradiction does not make your beliefs true. You need to compare them to reality. You say god has a characteristic that allows for no other entity to be morally perfect; prove it or drop it. It's fabrication, pure and simple. It's not even written in your guide to the universe.

You said, "If god chose one way to create the garden of eden, he was already altering free will. He was already deciding upon environmental factors that would influence how adam and eve made their choice. He could have chosen entirely different environmental factors, which would have had precisely the opposite effect on their choice to eat the apple. He could have done this without any greater influence on free will than the default.

Logic is totally lacking in this as the only way your claim can be sustained would be if there had only been one tree in the garden or access to all but one tree was impossible (essentially the same thing as only one tree). Once there was more than one accessible free will was in full operation and while every choice may not have been as easy to make, they were all available.

[Randall R. Young]

I think we might need an "un-thank post" button!