Tuesday, March 08, 2011

Another argument for atheism- the argument from explanatory vacuity

A redated post.

1) If Billy Graham were to fall ill, many Christians all over the world would pray for his recovery.
2) If Billy were to recover, they would all praise God and credit him with the healing.
3) If Billy were to die, they would say that it was not God’s will for Billy to recover.
4) But if God can be used to explain why something occurs but also why something does not occur, then it really does not explain it at all.
5) But if this is so, the appeal to God explains nothing.
6) If God explains nothing, then we should simply deny God’s existence.
7) Therefore, we should believe that God does not exist.

304 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 304 of 304
BenYachov said...

@BDK

Now that I finally got those little monsters of mine to bed I can answer you my friend.

Let's do the easy stuff first.

>At any rate, reading the Hebrew Bible without pre-existing biases, it is clear the god was personal.

I reply: Except assuming A Priori the anthropomorphism ascribed to God in the texts are to be taken unequivocally and literalistic-ally is itself a pre-existing bias. The only neutral view is to not interpret it either way. In which case one should turn to how other Jewish teachers interpreted it.

According to the wiki on the Jewish view of God "God is non-physical, non-corporeal, and eternal. A corollary belief is that God is utterly unlike man, and can in no way be considered anthropomorphic, as stated in Maimonides' Thirteen Principles of Faith. All statements in the Hebrew Bible and in rabbinic literature which use anthropomorphism are held to be linguistic conceits or metaphors, as it would otherwise be impossible to talk about God at all."

Now if God is held to be anthropomorphic then the burden of proof is on the Theistic Personalist to produce Jewish teachers contemporary or prior to at least Philo who say so plainly.

BenYachov said...

>If you want to find what the Jews thought of God in the Hebrew Bible, read the Hebrew Bible, not Aquinas or Philo.

I maintain that still begs the question & it assumes the Bible is perspicuous and meant to be the sole source of religious knowledge. If that is the case then where does the Hebrew Bible itself teach this assumption of yours? It doesn't. Thus how are we to believe it?

Still even Classic Theistic Protestants like Geisler who believes those two Reformation novelties says the charge brought by NeoTheists(his term for TP's) that Classic Theism is based on Greek philosophy can be turned back on the Neotheists. Their interpretation is based on Process Philosophy and someone like Feser & or Davies would add Post enlightenment new philosophy. Geisler says you can't do biblical exegesis and systematic theology without philosophy.

BenYachov said...

Thus the use of philosophy to interpret scripture should not be an issue. The issue is are you using a true philosophy. Because if all truth is one then logically one could use true philosophy to interpret a true religious text.

Still on the level of Providence. If the Theistic Personalist view was the original then why has it gone extinct till it was rediscovered post 16th century? Where have it's defenders been prior to that?

BenYachov said...

Now some hard stuff.

>Philo was a platonist who tried to integrate Judaism with his greek philosophy. My understanding (limited as it is) is that this was not very well received by many Jews. Wikipedia, for what it's worth, says, "His work was not widely accepted."

The wiki says His work was not widely accepted. "The sophists of literalness," as he calls them[1], "opened their eyes superciliously" when he explained to them the marvels of his exegesis.

I looked up the note which was a reference to De Somniis(i.e. On Dreams), i.16-17 it seems to be an extended allegorical commentary on Exodus 22:26-27"If you ever take your neighbor's cloak as a pledge, you are to return it to him before the sun sets,or that is his only covering; it is his cloak for his body. What else shall he sleep in? And it shall come about that when he cries out to Me, I will hear him, for I am gracious.". Philo as per usual interprets Biblical references to the Sun as allegorical references to God. He also condemns sophists who mock this scripture by saying"Why would God care about something so trivial as a cloak". He goes on to explain the literal an practical value of the Command as well as it's spiritual mystical significance.

BenYachov said...

Here is a quote from the passage

"For restoration takes place with respect to the property of other persons, but pledges belong rather to those who have lent on them than to those who have borrowed on them. Moreover, do you not perceive that the law has not enjoined the debtor, who has received back his garment that it may serve as bed-clothes, to bring it back again to his creditor at the return of daylight? (1.101) And, indeed, if the exact propriety of the language be considered, even the most stupid person may see that there is something additional meant beyond what is formally expressed. For the injunction rather resembles a maxim than a recommendation. For, if a person had been giving a recommendation, he would have said: "Give back to your debtor, at the approach of evening, the garment which has been pledged to you, if it be the only garment that he is possessed of, that he may have something with which to cover himself at night." But one who was laying down a maxim would speak thus; as indeed the law does here, "For it is his garment, the only covering of his nakedness, in which he will lie down to sleep."

XVII. (1.102) These things then, and other things of the same kind, may be urged in reply to those assertors of the literal sense of a passage; and who superciliously reject all other explanations. We will now, in accordance with the usual laws of allegorical speaking, say what is becoming with respect to these subjects......"

It seems to me Philo is merely saying the literal is not the only interpretation of this particular passage.

IlĂ­on said...

"Gets amazing when people want to read only to label and never to think about the position of the other."

Indeed, it does. It's almost as amazing as those who choose, for whatever "noble" rationalization, to not see the phenomenon occurring right in front of their nones.

BenYachov said...

Thus I judge even thought some of Philo's allegory might have been spurned by those who insisted on a literal understand (such as taking the Sun as merely the Sun and not a metaphor for God) I see nothing in his text to indicate the teachers of his time condemned him for holding a classic view of God.

It seems even the Talmud reflects the Classic View QUOTE"The rabbis, following the style of the Bible, frequently spoke of God as though He were a person. They ascribe to Him bodily attributes. It is clear however, on the basis of their own declarations, that these "corporeal" references to God were often intended only to make vivid the sense of His existence and activity. All such references are to be taken as figurative expressions. Even the story of God's revelation at Sinai is taken in the Talmud by one teacher in a figurative way. "Moses never ascended to heaven," declared Rabbi Jose and "God never descended on earth." The Biblical narrative is to be taken as a poetic elaboration of the doctrine that God was the inspiration for the truths which Israel pledged itself to uphold at Sinai. It must not be taken literally.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/wott/wott06.htm

BenYachov said...

From the same essay "Gamaliel explained the reality of God by analogy to the soul whose specific abode we do not know and of which we have no direct concrete experience. That, however, does not make it unreal.5

God's ultimate essence must elude human comprehension. We may, however, see manifestations of divine activity throughout creation."

BenYachov said...

Of course BDK you don't believe there is a God of any type. But even under that rubric you still need positive historical evidence the Hebrews really understood the anthropomorphic references to God literally and unequivocally.

Was God's anger like unto human anger? Or was it merely His will to Justice? It seems to me even human anger comes about because of an outrage over some injustice. Strip that of the emotional passion you have pure anger not passion.

You wrote:
>Perhaps it turns out it is a platonic form, and this was cryptically embedded there as metaphor and such for people to decode hundreds of years later.

I would simply say the Bible was never meant to be alone in understanding God's nature. Even some Sola Scriptura types have said as much.

Cheers friend.

BenYachov said...

>But your original claim that the Catholics are the ones to go to seems false.

I fail to see why? The New Testament Church merely succeeds the Old Testament Church in authority and receives, transmits and authentically develops her doctrines for today.

anyway I am going to snack watch some tv then go to bed.

Cheers again.

Papalinton said...

Hi Ben
"Philo could hardly be said to have believed in the Old Man in sky or Disembodied Uber-Human Mind. The Rabbis of the Talmud the same. The name of God was YHWH "I AM"(i.e. I exist, I have being) a rather strange name for a God considering the anthropomorphic tenancies of semitic paganism who made their godlings mere personifications of natural forces while believing the Universe came about uncaused from mindless Chaos."

Ben, you have lifted this from somewhere and have not referenced or attributed it in the discussion. I have recently read it.

Back to the main synopsis:
BDK noted, "Papalinton didn't address the "classical" theistic perspective, mostly a red herring."
My initial points were simply to indicate the intellectual void from which 'classical theism' is derived. It is an amalgam of christian mythology and Hellenistic Greek philosophy, and not as good a fit as believed except with some tyre-levering to pull it into some shape. I also wanted to spotlight that the debate has not been resolved in 2,000-plus years of bickering and counter-bickering. And there are reasons for this. Far from it being resolved, as Ben would wish it so desperately to be [in his mind at least], the nature of this indeterminate debate is itself, a clear and unequivocal proof, a realtime and evincing peek into how lightweight and insubstantial the truth-claims that underscore the 'classical theist' perspective really is. It characterizes a view as primarily one of assertion, a personal preference, solely bound within the perimeter of philosophical exegesis. [cont.]

Papalinton said...

@ Ben [cont. 2]

Historically, 'classical theism' was a product of earlier philosophy bounded within pagan Greek thought. A significant and major element of this Hellenistic period of Greek thought envisaged 'change' as being an imperfection. This perspective was adopted [I say appropriated] by many the 'church fathers' of the very early period in the formation of christian aspirations, such that it almost became synonymous with early church dogma. This view held that, since god is perfect, then he must be above all change, that is, unchanging. Thus was born the doctrine of 'immutability'. The early church fathers posited that, as time is the measurement of change, then god must by 'definition', be above time. For people like Ben, his particular flavour of god experiences the whole of time in a single eternal instant and that for god, everything is eternally simultaneous, just as he is eternally good..

This is where the s@$# hits the fan. This claim is embedded with major flaws.

1. The timeless view of god, as BDK intimated, is one of the fundamental flaws of the argument. It is unimaginable and hard to reconcile the 'classical theistic' god with the general biblical revelation that god acts in time. The OT is literally littered with god acting within specified timeframes. The question is asked, "How can one imagine an action occurring in time unless there is a time “before” the action takes place and a time “after” the action takes place? All actions require sequence, a sequence bound in time. As an example, scholars of far greater intellect than me have noted that when the bible says “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14), this was an action god took. To say the Word became flesh requires that the Word wasn’t always flesh. And indeed, before jesus appeared on the scene, the Word was NOT flesh.

This argument, reputable biblical scholars note, can equally be applied to and is utterly relevant for every 'verb' applied to god and the things he does. Ben, god does things. Therefore he acts in time. No matter how you try to extricate or remove his active participation as catalogued in the bible. Further examples cited are: the flood; god sending a flood can only be understood in the context of there being a time before he sent the flood and a time after he sent the flood. God isn’t eternally sending a flood. Nor is god eternally incarnate in the world. This same illogic does not account for the time before jesus and the time following after jesus. [cont.]

Papalinton said...

@ Ben [cont. 3]


2. From the judeo-christian writings, particularly the NT, it is abundantly clear and understood that all christian thinking about god must be centered on jesus, who alone is the perfect revelation of god’s very being (Heb 1:3). From this perspective alone, how can anyone conclude that god is timeless? From these two, of many such examples, it is clear that jesus is god incarnated in time. He is the Word made flesh in time. Any claim that god is really “above” or beyond time is simply denying jesus as the ultimate revelation of God. In offering this example, proper research-oriented biblical scholars fail to be convinced of the of the verity of the underpinnings of 'classical theism'. It is a lumpy product of trying to meld the works of hellenistic Greek thought with the christian folktale. In point of fact, any such claim that god is really “above” time is to allow hellenistic philosophy to be, on this matter, the ultimate revelation of god.

3. When one adds to this the problematic issue of timelessness, the whole 'classical theism' thesis is exacerbated if it is further granted that god not only acts in time, but that god also acts freely; in other words god possesses self-determination. Ben, would you deny that god is free?

I will not go into the 'relativist theistic' or 'open theism' viewpoint. Suffice it to say, for the vast majority of christians, it seems to them that open theism [personalist theism] captures much more sense than a mechanical, detached sovereign God. Most christians want a god who can show love to and for his creation rather than one who has already written about your whole life, and somehow, you are stuck in that story he wrote whether you like it or not. "Classical theism" simply does not resonate well with a loving God. Most christians want more than just the 'timeless goodness of god', they want a god who they imagine can demonstrate his love in a personal fashion. Yes Ben, you can say that god knows what’s best but there is no room for free will here. 'Classical theism' is predestination writ large, through and through.

I will address the problem of evil as it relates to classical theism in the next comment.

Papalinton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Papalinton said...

The following:
"As an example, scholars of far greater intellect than me have noted that when the bible says “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14), this was an action god took. To say the Word became flesh requires that the Word wasn’t always flesh. And indeed, before jesus appeared on the scene, the Word was NOT flesh.

should read:


As an example, and as it flows into the NT, scholars of far greater intellect than me have noted that when the bible says “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14), this was an action god took. To say the Word became flesh requires that the Word wasn’t always flesh. And indeed, before jesus appeared on the scene, the Word was NOT flesh.

BenYachov said...

>Ben, you have lifted this from somewhere and have not referenced or attributed it in the discussion.

Yet we are suppose to mindlessly believe your blather which you have not referenced or attributed?

Like your some expert in Christian Theology, Philosophy and or history

Sure pal.

Is this guy for real?

Papalinton said...

From Ben Yachov: "Of course BDK you don't believe there is a God of any type. But even under that rubric you still need positive historical evidence the Hebrews really understood the anthropomorphic references to God literally and unequivocally.'

How's that for hubris? Telling BDK even he will find it difficult to find any evidence that did not show 'the Hebrews did not really understand the anthropocentric references to god literally and unequivocally'.
The OT testament IS the Judaic Bible, the Tanakh. And Yachov has the gall to suggest that there is a paucity of evidence for the jews being able to 'correctly' read their own bible.
Only a rabid christian would be endowed with the mindless disrespect and malice to impugn a differing belief system as being unable to be read as the followers who own it are entitled to interpret it.

If the mangled casuistry offered by Ben's comments are indicative of what goes for reasoned discourse by his lickspittle groupies, his contribution is but 'another argument from explanatory vacuity'.

GREV said...

Ben:

I would raise an issue with a seamless transition from a Old Testament Church to a New Testament Church.

Ref -- March 17, 2011 9:27 PM

I think there is more at work but that is an argument for another thread.

Papalinton -- my congratulations some of your arguements are even begining to make some sense.

BenYachov said...

>The timeless view of god, as BDK intimated, is one of the fundamental flaws of the argument. It is unimaginable and hard to reconcile the 'classical theistic' god with the general biblical revelation that god acts in time.

Only if you imagine a "timeless" Theistic Personalist "god" who is a being along side other beings instead of Being Itself. This is not an original argument and it been answered. Geisler addresses it on Page 97 of his book CREATING GOD IN THE IMAGE OF MAN.

Paps the Fundie Atheist like his TP fundie religious counterparts confuses the concept of God as an eternal Actor with His temporal actions. He assumes without proof or logical argument the cause of a temporal event must itself be temporal. What proof do we have this is so? Where is Paps scientific data(since due to his Scientism that is the only evidence he accepts) to back up this claim?

Paps you really have to stop pretending you know what you are talking about. BDK unlike you doesn't try to fake which is why he has my respect & you have my contempt.

BenYachov said...

>The OT testament IS the Judaic Bible, the Tanakh. And Yachov has the gall to suggest that there is a paucity of evidence for the jews being able to 'correctly' read their own bible.

An Atheist who believes in the Reformation doctrine of the perspecuity of Scripture? How cute!

Tell us paps do you also believe in Faith Alone even thought you deny the existence of God?

Scratch a New Atheist find a Fundamentalist.

BenYachov said...

>Papalinton -- my congratulations some of your arguements are even begining to make some sense.

I can't fault you for your charity Pastor GREV.

But I respectfully disagree. He hasn't made an intelligent argument yet. Indeed now he is throwing everything he can because I don't think he has the slightest idea how to polemic a Classic Theistic god. All he is going to do is uneqivocate between the TP and Classic views of God & hope nobody noticies.

Papalinton said...

@ Ben Yachov
"The New Testament Church merely succeeds the Old Testament Church in authority and receives, transmits and authentically develops her doctrines for today."

What Apologetical bunkum. The jews who own the Old Testament, have never acknowledged, nor accepted that the NT succeeds the OT, either in authority nor in its authenticity.

The NT is an appended little collection of mythos that sought to attach itself to the Jewish Tanakh to lend a form of vicarious legitimacy to that appended anthology.

And as rightly inferred, the christianities is but an accretion of Hellenistic pagan philosophy, Egyptian, Mesopotamian and jewish mythology wedded to a folkloric christian narrative.

IlĂ­on said...

"For example
Omnipotence. Descartes believed God’s Omnipotence meant God could do contradictory things like make a rock so heavy he could not lift
it.
"

I find that assertion incredibly difficult to believe.

BenYachov said...

As we can see Paps has no answer to my responses so he has to keep changing the subject to cover up his ignorance.

Paps writes:
>The question is asked, "How can one imagine an action occurring in time unless there is a time “before” the action takes place and a time “after” the action takes place? All actions require sequence, a sequence bound in time.

I reply: To cite Dr. Geisler QUOTE"process and neotheist thinkers who use this argument confuse God's attributes and His acts. His acts are in time, but His attributes are beyond time. There is no reason why the Eternal cannot act in the temporal world. Just as all the radii of a circle are many and yet the center from which they come is one, even so God can have multiple acts without being multiple Himself. Just as spokes move faster at the circumference, and not at all in the Absolute Center of a wheel there is nothing logically incoherent about a timeless unmoved God acting and moving a temperal world ."END QUOTE

Fail!

BenYachov said...

>I find that assertion incredibly difficult to believe.

You follow Feser's blog? You didn't read The Last Superstition? It's in there.

Pay attention man!

Doctor Logic said...

Papa,

Just wanted to commend you for your commentary. I don't have the patience to deal with Ben's flood of appeals to authority.

Ben may not like TP, but it's what 99% of Jews and Christians believe. TP, at least, makes familiar sense of terms like "good". But it's fatally flawed because the problem of evil refutes it.

CT, on the other hand, is built on a huge stinking pile of philosophical nonsense. Taking words from familiar human word games and using them out of all meaningful context.

IlĂ­on said...

Blah-blah: "Paps as we have seen has gone the way of Ilion."

What a simply amazing personage.

BenYachov said...

I see a lot of sneering from the Fundie New Atheist crowd but not one logical argument.

I thought you people where suppose to be the rational ones?

BenYachov said...

BDK OTOH has posted some worthy critiques.

But then again he is merely a rational Atheist not a Gnu.

Doctor Logic said...

Ben,

Here's your logical argument.

1) The CT God is not necessary. The Ontological and Cosmological arguments are dead. Yeah, you guys are keen to dispense with conventional human concepts of time and causality, except when you use it as an argument for the existence of your God.

2) God as a theory does not explain what it does not predict. Theism predicts nothing. It's more like a name for a theory we don't have, e.g., The Theory of Everything. Does The Theory of Everything explain anything? No! Not until we are in possession of it. Likewise, God is the name of a theory about what is in God's mind such that if we knew the details, we could explain what we see. Yet we lack that knowledge, so God is merely a name for a theory, and has no explanatory power.

3) There are vastly more ways to design a world than to evolve it. Finding ourselves in an evolved world is extremely strong evidence that a designer God does not exist.

4) There are lots of verified naturalistic theories that explain why the Bible was written, and why people like you believe it. Number one being the near universal tendency of Christians to be superstitious, count the hits and ignore the misses, etc.

Hasta la vista, baby!

BenYachov said...

>Here's your logical argument.

Actually it's your straw-man

caricature of my argument. BDK made a good faith effort to understand my view and respond.

You & Paps did not. So what pray tell is your malfunction?

Still since you can't seem to give up your one size fits all polemic against Theism I don't see how any rational dialog is possible with any Fundamentalist Gnu?

BenYachov said...

BTW Dr so Called Logic FYI I so reject ID it isn't funny.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/03/thomism-versus-design-argument.html

BenYachov said...

OTOH perhaps I misread Dr. non-Logic?

Maybe he is giving me a "logical" argument.

If so that is not an argument that is merely ranting. It's no more than what I expect from any fundie Gnu Atheist or Theist.

BenYachov said...

>I would raise an issue with a seamless transition from a Old Testament Church to a New Testament Church.

Well you are a Protestant and that is your default view. Just as I have my own default views. In theory we could fight it out over at Tribalog or Catholic Answers.

But I have over the years grown bored with contra-Protestant polemics.

I study Atheism these days.

BenYachov said...

Anyway thanks for your impute Pastor GREV. You are good people.

Blue Devil Knight said...

I don't subscribe to sola scriptura. But I also think that the Hebrew Bible is a patchwork of documents written by people from a tribe that were not as sophisticated as to think of that God in nonanthropomorphic terms (or perhaps a certain percentage did, just like nowadays). What is my evidence for that? The documents they used to describe their relationship with the deity are filled with anthropomorphisms.

Now of course I am not a literalist (obviously this entire thread I'm speaking as if I were a Christian), the Bible is filled with stories that are not literally true. Which were intended to be literally true? How can we know that? That Philo was controversial, and had to wake the Jews up from their dogmatic literalism suggests that his was not a mainstream interpretation, that his was not the "original" conception of God, that the conception mutated with him into a new strain that caught on with many, especially those with an affinity for Greek philosophy.

That's my first reaction to all this, anyway.

And again, these are all somewhat irrelevant historical/sociological facts about intellectual history.

I admit all this is technically irrelevant for the CT evil issue.

I dont' even begin to really understand it yet, so am withholding judgmeent. DL and PL seem to know more about it than me.

I agree though that bringing up God working in time/space is not any more compelling with the CT compared to PT. Both seem to have an interaction problem, but frankly I'm not all that impressed by it God is supposed to be omnipotent in each case right so that is a spackle hole where you can throw all these objections.

BenYachov said...

>What is my evidence for that? The documents they used to describe their relationship with the deity are filled with anthropomorphisms.

St Alphonse De Liguris' writings on the virgin Mary use French romantic imagery it doesn't logically follow St Alphonse has literal romantic feelings for the Virgin Mary since that would be both vulgar and blasphemous. I don't dispute the presence of anthropomorphisms. I just need evidence that they where intended to be taken literally. Even if I deny god & presuppose a purely natural origin for the OT. I need this evidence or I must default to the Classic view which is the only existing one surrounding the Scripture.

>Which were intended to be literally true? How can we know that?

Which is an Argument we Catholics use against perspicuity. The Bible is not totally clear. It needs an interpreter with authority.

>That Philo was controversial, and had to wake the Jews up from their dogmatic literalism suggests that his was not a mainstream interpretation, that his was not the "original" conception of God,

If I take all references to the Sun in the Bible as literal references to the Sun in the sky contrary to Philo I fail to see what that has to do with the doctrine of God? I still need evidence Philo's contemporaries rejected his doctrine of God in favor of a Theistic Personalist literal anthropomorphic view as opposed to his allegory regarding literal Laws and events.

>I admit all this is technically irrelevant for the CT evil issue.

Correct! No argument.

(This is why I take your objections seriously even if I don't agree with them! You are trying to understand and you cut to the chase.)

>I dont' even begin to really understand it yet, so am withholding judgmeent.

Wise move. It's doesn't make me right. But it is a rational move.

>DL and PL seem to know more about it than me.

That is a charitable thing to say & as with GREV I can't fault you for it but IMHO it seems to me they don't know squat. They read like Ray Comfort faking knowledge of Evolution equal to that of Richard Dawkins. I can't take either of them seriously.

Maybe we can talk tonight. I really enjoy your insights and challenges.

Peace BDK.

BenYachov said...

>I don't subscribe to sola scriptura. But I also think that the Hebrew Bible is a patchwork of documents written by people from a tribe that were not as sophisticated as to think of that God in nonanthropomorphic terms

Actually I thought you might say something like this so I did think of a response you might enjoy.

But later.

Blue Devil Knight said...

BenYachov: is the CT god omnipotent and omnibenevolent and omniscient? If yes, how do you understand benevolence? Links are fine I know you like to Feser-flect. It it like God instantiating the form of the Good? So in that sense it is just part of his nature rather than a consequence of His "judgment" (this is useful as it can potentially escape the Euthyphro dilemna)?

If you could answer those questions it would help me see where you are coming from with the Evil stuff. Just saying in your view the AfE is logically incoherent or whatever is not very illuminating for me as I don't really understand this conception yet. I do feel I understand Plato's forms well enough to muddle along, and that analogy was helpful and suggestive, but more please. Key link or two? Sorr if they are already in the thread I am pretty much lost in this thread at this point.

BenYachov said...

>Blogger Blue Devil Knight said...
BenYachov: is the CT god omnipotent and omnibenevolent and omniscient? If yes, how do you understand benevolence? Links are fine I know you like to Feser-flect.

I plead guilty as charged.:-) But what I do I so agree with him on this it's not funny.

>Key link or two? Sorr if they are already in the thread I am pretty much lost in this thread at this point.

I was actually going to do that anyway but tonight I make it happen for ya. I will try to do HTML links rather than cut & Paste URL's. Make it look neat.

Later friend & I will share my own thoughts as well so I don't look like a total Feser-droid.:-)

Doctor Logic said...

Later friend & I will share my own thoughts as well so I don't look like a total Feser-droid.:-)

Too late!

GREV said...

Excellent Point Ben:

"Only if you imagine a "timeless" Theistic Personalist "god" who is a being along side other beings instead of Being Itself. This is not an original argument and it been answered. Geisler addresses it on Page 97 of his book CREATING GOD IN THE IMAGE OF MAN."

I believe the late Robertson Davis, novelist, said a great deal when he offered the opinion that sometimes we are removing the mysterium from our dialogue about God.

I do believe the Theistic Personal Idea of God is appealing but tries to fit God into too fine a label where all can be answered about God to our satisfaction.

There is much we can know and there is much that we shall never know and somehow we shall either be satisfied with that or we shall not.

Explore but know that there are limits to our explorations. And why is that somehow something a person must fight against.

How can a finite being understand everything about an infinite being?

Our faith must seek a steadily increasing understanding and we must grow in grace and in knowledge but we must understand that there are limits. Marx once offered the insight that humanity desires to be significant and we know we are not and we do not like that at all.

BenYachov said...

>Too late!

STATEMENT:It is also too late to suck up to me & get on my good side Dr. Non-Logic by complementing me now.

Feser-Droid HK-47 signing off!!!!

Papalinton said...

Classical theism? Personalist theism?

The basis of this argument is not founded on truths, or proofs or evidence. It is a 'Faith' vs 'Faith' battle, an internal battle as to who is to be branded the heretic. Ho Hum!

This is a battle between the old traditionalists trying to hold onto the high ground and authority against those young upstarts who wish to bring the scriptures into a modern context. It's a battle between the conservatives and the progressives. In this context, Geisler is a turncoat, and Feser is a member of the founding Classics Club.

Their differences and squabbles are so obvious as to be like a hit in the forehead with a brick. Just as these differences are reflected in the light of the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds, there are a few problems that need to be pointed out. The major and devastating argument is that most, if not all, of the 'classical' characteristics of god would not be known apart from the Bible. Pagan greek philosophy only provided a vehicle through which christians could make some semblance of sense of their mash of folkloric tradition.

How does one get omniscience, omnipotence, omniscience, eternity, disembodiment (that is, transcendent—above the senses), immutability, and a host of other attributes from naturalism or natural theology? Everything observed in the universe is sensed, sensical, and sensation.

One of the few things on which virtually all philosophers agree is that empiricism does not give certainty, only probability. So, where does the certainty of classical theism come from??? FROM THE BIBLE - sneaking it in without citing the reference, the exact same source for both arguments.
The God that most philosophers reject is this caricature of the Biblical God, the god of one of the philosophers only. Just as 'classical theist' proponents [such as Geisler and Feser] keep bleating that there is no tension between classical theism and the Biblical god, they are right. There is no correspondence at all! [I am indebted to Ed Payne here who not only asks the reasonable question but offers a reflective comment, This forms the basis of my comments.]

[cont.]

Papalinton said...

[Cont.2]


Here it is. Attributes of God in
Christian theology
Aseity
Eternity
Graciousness
Holiness
Immanence
Immutability
Impassibility
Impeccability
Incorporeality
Jealousy
Love
Mission
Omnibenevolence
Omnipotence
Omnipresence
Omniscience
Oneness
Providence
Righteousness
Simplicity
Transcendence
Trinity
Veracity

From out of this mix comes, not evidence or proofs or substantive fact. Rather, this list is used by Apologists to argue for their very personal and self-experiential ideation of what their god looks, smells, feels, and sounds like. It is based on what I term, 'christian evidence', that other form of evidence that is not based in any substantiating format. The struggle for 'finite' creatures such as ourselves to imagine 'infiniteness', is a circular, indiscriminate and highly emotional exercise that seeks at its core to mitigate great chasms of cognitive dissonance. And therein lies its problem. The complexity of the contortions and convolutions theists must go through to make sense of this list is the Achilles' heel of theism. This is a good place to wield Occam's razor. Excise the whole tumor as atheists have done and begin afresh with a more realistic natural picture of the world.

Papalinton said...

A note of clarification:

"Their differences and squabbles are so obvious as to be like a hit in the forehead with a brick. ..."
refers to classical vs personalist, and not Geisler and Feser as it may be interpreted.

BenYachov said...

>It's a battle between the conservatives and the progressives.

Sadly for Paps, Dr. So called Logic and IlĂ­on philosophy seems to be nothing more than politics by other means.

BTW did Paps mention Ockham Razor?

look here.
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/03/razor-boy.html

Bye Paps when you actually make an

BenYachov said...

intelligent argument do look me up.

BenYachov said...

@BDK

Anyway here are the links I posted that explain Classic Theism vs Theistic Personalism.

The first two are from a Feser Fan Site which almost verbatim replicates Feser arguments. It's like a Poor man's TLS. They are basic explanations.

the 3rd link is all the Feser posts on that site.

The rest are from Feser's website.

Enjoy I will post my thoughts later.
Links in next post

BenYachov said...

Didn't mean to put in the last two. Ignore them.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Thanks I'll have a look it will take a while...

BenYachov said...

No problem BDK!

Oh and a shout out to Pastor GREV!

Pray for me Brother. My Great Great Grandfather(i.e. Father's Mother's Mother's Father) was a Methodist Minister.

Cheers to you.

BenYachov said...

@BDK
>BenYachov: is the CT god omnipotent and omnibenevolent and omniscient?

Yes.

>If yes, how do you understand benevolence?

Well I understand His Benevolence to be, by nature, Gratuitous. He did not have to create us. He did not need to create us. Moved by his Divine Intellect & Will, God created us because He wanted us to have the goodness of being. He also provided a way for us to know Him which is Being Itself(I take it you know that story) because it is His nature to move things toward their final perfection. He is good by nature because He is Being Itself but he has no moral obligations to us per say. No moral virtues (thought the goodness that virtue derives, comes from Him). Evolution is good by analogy but of course it would be foolish to say Evolution has moral obligations to us.
One might respond “Well of course not! Evolution is not a person like we are persons!” To which I would respond “Neither is God a person like we are persons”. He is more than a mere person analogous to the way a person is more than a mere animal. The difference is one of quality not mere degree.

>So in that sense it is just part of his nature rather than a consequence of His "judgment" (this is useful as it can potentially escape the Euthyphro dilemna)?

Oh yes indeed read the relevant link titled Euthyphro dilemna. You will be pleasantly surprised.

BenYachov said...

Anyway those are my simple thoughts. One last note on the claim that God as he is Classically know is too impersonal or not relateable. Ironically that is a charge some young man who reviews Brian Davies book THE REALITY OF GOD AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL makes over at Amazon. The comment left at his review is enlightening. Moving on.
After reading Feser, Davies, McCabe, re-reading Helm and Geisler I felt I had too much head knowledge of God and not enough Heart knowledge as they say. So I went back to re-read the spiritual classics of my youth. THE CLOUD OF UNKNOWING, IMITATION OF CHRIST by Kempis, PRACTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF GOD by Brother Lawrence, SACRAMENT OF THE PRESENT MOMENT, the early Philokalia(eastern Christian writers), St Maximos the Confessor, Pseudo-Dionysius and Thomas Merton. To my great shock I found I understood them much better and I noticed the God they related too was the Classic Theistic God! They all used the terminology of Classic Theism and they all understood God in classic terms. It was obvious! So this God can be related too. One may deny Him but one cannot IMHO say He is relatable.
Cheers BDK.

This post fell off the front page of this blog & I am getting bored with it. Naturally if you have any tough questions. I punk out as per usual and refer you to Feser’s blog(OTOH Victor is not slouch). Besides Paps, Non-logic boy & Ilion want to much attention. Like yapping puppies accept without the cute. I am so sick of their bullshit. I’m only flesh and blood for God’s sake.

Anyway cheers & thank you for being a charitable person to me. I think you are better at it than me of course think of how great your charity would be if you had Sacraments fueling it…..Hey I’m just saying!;-)

Cheers friend.

Papalinton said...

Oh Dear!
Yachov has bailed and I haven't yet completed my discourse with him. You can tell the players from the stayers.

I'm sorry you have bailed Ben, because there is much to question and refute in the spiel that purportedly stands as scholarly commentary from you. And I have yet to link your 'classical god' to the problem of endemic evil, both of a social and environmental variety. As your god has foreordained all actions and reactions in advances, and knows about them, as he is omniscient, then he has a direct bearing and responsibility for the outcomes that eventuate.

I will continue to debate the issues and lay down the points as is generally consistent with biblical scholarship [absolutely not to be confused with toadying and unctuous Apologetics, with its premise founded in attempting to shoe-horn the evidence to the proposition] although my opposer has scuttled.

Papalinton said...

Ben
Sorry you have pulled the plug. Might I remind you from a health and personal hygiene perspective, if the 'feser-tering' abscess is not treated in a timely manner, it may poison your mind. I would lance any 'feser-tering' lesion.

GREV said...

"I will continue to debate the issues and lay down the points as is generally consistent with biblical scholarship [absolutely not to be confused with toadying and unctuous Apologetics, with its premise founded in attempting to shoe-horn the evidence to the proposition]"

That is truly funny.

With its premise that Biblical Scholarship that denies so much is somehow objective and free of bias.

Truly, truly funny.

GREV said...

I should add sad also because the person making the comment seems actually to believe it.

Papalinton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Papalinton said...

GREV
"With its premise that Biblical Scholarship that denies so much is somehow objective and free of bias."

The only advances in biblical scholarship have not come via Apologetics and sycophantic musings. Rather it has been advanced through secular biblical scholarship, scholars such as Erhman, Price, Avalos and to some extent, Spong, that have sought to INVESTIGATE the reasons for the myriad contradictions and inconsistencies that fills the pages of the 66 booklets of various writings that constitute the judeo-christian mythos. This approach has far more scholarship, academic rigor and integrity than all the apologetical works that preceded them combined. The principal [and I add, specious] premise of Apologetics is to shoehorn the evidence to the immutable proposition no matter how contorted or convoluted that exercise might be. Indeed, Contemporary Apologetics is just reinterpretation of the reinterpretation of the reinterpretation of the same ol', same ol', for the past couple millennia.

Sheesh

BenYachov said...

> the pages of the 66 booklets of various writings.\

One last parting shot....Catholics correctly believe the Bible has 73 books not 66. The 66 are a post Reformation novelty.

Oh Paps, you are so void of the ravages of basic intelligence.

>I haven't yet completed my discourse with him.

You where not discoursing. You where acting like a jackass & an idiot. You where a High School teacher for 17 years? That explains the low level of academic knowledge and reasoning skills among today's young people.

I OTOH attended Private School. My parents worked hard to pay for it but I know how to learn & think.

Unlike some of us whose brains are on either drug or Dawkins. Like there is a difference.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Here's the key quote from the first link:
"To say that God is good is for the classical theist to say something very different, and something that it is, frankly, not easy to summarize for readers unfamiliar with certain key metaphysical doctrines characteristic of classical, and especially Scholastic, philosophy, such as the doctrine of the convertibility of the transcendentals, the notion of evil as privation, and the principle of proportionate causality."

Where is there a concise, understandable, explication of this? Note the first desiteratum is incompatible with the response being a link to more Feser. I bet these three concepts aren't that hard for a smart sympathetic reader to understand, and that each could be expressed in under 500 words, at least as a first pass. Then 500 more words (at the most) to explain how it connects with the problem of evil.

That must exist somewhere outside of the Feserhole. It is important to the lay memebers of the Church after all, there must be some good exposition of these key ideas.I lose patience with Feser's bloated indulgent house-of-mirrors. I wish you trusted yourself more to just put stuff in your own words instead of pointing at Feser all the time. I'm not asking for oversimplification, but lack of long-winded self-indulgent overexplanation. Get to the point for goodness' sake!

On the CT God: it really seems lifeless, distant, and unlovable, very different from the God I have found in my readings of the Hebrew Bible.

Oh: crowing about private school. Really? That is instant character taint.

Papalinton said...

@ Ben Yachov
"I OTOH attended Private School. My parents worked hard to pay for it but I know how to learn & think."

In other words, your parents bought your high school diploma for you without you having to earn it. I see that all the time. Their parents pay full price for a university place so that their kids can' attend' the university as a full-fee paying 'student' because the kids could not find a place through the usual merit-based selection process.

Nuff said.

Papalinton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BenYachov said...

>I wish you trusted yourself more to just put stuff in your own words instead of pointing at Feser all the time.

I wish I did too. But I don't have that ability at this time. Maybe someday as I learn more. If your interested learning the backround info you can read REAL ESSENTALISM by oderberg or AQUINAS by Feser. It's up to you.

>Where is there a concise, understandable, explication of this?

I thought the first two gave a simple summery. If you want better get Davies' THE REALITY OF GOD AND THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.

>I'm not asking for oversimplification, but lack of long-winded self-indulgent overexplanation. Get to the point for goodness' sake!

I thought it was to the point but I would need a specific example of what was unclear.

>On the CT God: it really seems lifeless, distant, and unlovable, very different from the God I have found in my readings of the Hebrew Bible.

Interesting how we can read the same material & yet come to opposite conclusions.

>Oh: crowing about private school. Really? That is instant character taint.

Nay! It wasn't one of those snooty prep schools whose members where obscenely wealthy. It was an Episcopalian Parochial School that majority of whose members where working class. Salt of the Earth types. They also care more about academics than money. Didn't matter how much you paid them. You failed you where out. College was easy after that.

Papalinton said...

@ Ben Yachov
"One last parting shot....Catholics correctly believe the Bible has 73 books not 66. The 66 are a post Reformation novelty."


These extra 7 books are a collection of uninspired, spurious tales written by various individuals. Called the 'Apocrypha', catholics consider these books as scripture although were never written in the original Hebrew, they were written many years later than the period in which the 39 books of the Tanakh [OT] were written; they were written in Greek and one in Latin. These books were never considered as part of the Hebrew bible by the Jews.

The Council of Trent (1546) was when roman catholics pronounced the following apocryphal books sacred. They asserted that the apocryphal books together with unwritten tradition are of god and are to be received and venerated as the Word of god. So now you have the Bible, the Apocrypha and catholic Tradition as co-equal sources of truth for the catholic. In reality, the Bible is the last source of truth for catholics. Catholic doctrine comes primarily from tradition stuck together with a few Bible names. Notes like this are found throughout the catholic version: "You have to keep the Bible in perspective." Catholics do not believe that the Bible is god's complete revelation for man. [borrowed from http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/apocryph.htm]

The Roman Catholic Apocrypha
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
First and Second Maccabees
Additions to Esther and Daniel

Apocryphal Books rejected by the Catholic Religion:

First and Second Esdras
Prayer of Manasses
Susanna [although some say this is Daniel]

Just as one would expect to find. A bunch of old farts sitting around a table in 1546, voting on what is and isn't 'god's word'. How man-made is that? They were a later shoehorning exercise into the OT, some 1,500 years after the event.

No wonder 'classical theism' is being completely shot through by current biblical scholarship following on from the ground-breaking work of German scholars in the 18th and 19th century.

Feser better fess-up, because he doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to defending 'classical theism'. And as with every amputee that ever lived, we know god won't be giving out any legs to Feser any time soon.

Sheesh

BenYachov said...

Anyway I'm sorry if my attempts at explanation didn't pan out for ya.

But at least my form of the Good explanation gave you some insight. That's something. Maybe in the future I will find a way to explain it better.

Now I have got to go. The boy is being naughty & wife wants me to talk to him.

Cheers!:-)

BenYachov said...

Paps writes.
>The Council of Trent (1546) was when roman catholics pronounced the following apocryphal books sacred.

You read that in your latest issue of Chick Comics did ya?

Actually the Synod of Carthage, Hypo and the Synod at Rome in the 400's recognized those books. There decrees where endorsed by Popes Damacus and Innocent.

The 66 book canon was invented by the Calvinist Council at Westminster.

You just can't get anything right can you Paps? I'm glad I was never your student in High School since I wanted to get into College & I did.

BenYachov said...

@BDK

Ah what the heck. I will give the simple version see if it turns on a light bub.

>Where is there a concise, understandable, explication of this?

Good = Being
Evil = Absence of Being.

God is Being Itself therefore God is Goodness itself. To be Good is to have Being.

I hope this helps. The wife calls.....

Papalinton said...

@ Ben Yachov
"Good = Being
Evil = Absence of Being.

God is Being Itself therefore God is Goodness itself. To be Good is to have Being. "

Being means existing or living, depending on whether you are a god or a lowly mortal respectively. Therefore if one does not have existence or is living, that is, 'absence of being', then one is dead. So by extrapolating your 'Evil = Absence of Being' analogy, evil = dead.

Sheesh

BenYachov said...

My God Paps you actually did say something intelligent!

One minor correction. Non-existence does not equal dead. Since a dead body exists and the soul that inhabited the body exists. OTOH even given your denial of the immortality of the soul dead would not equal non-existence. Lack of Being would.

Wow! There is hope for you.

another correction:
>Being means existing or living, depending on whether you are a god or a lowly mortal respectively.

You really have to read the first link and learn about the Doctrine of Analogy. You can't make an unequivocal comparison between God & creature(unless you meant god in the pagan sense in which case forget I said anything).

Wow! You said something intelligent and really used your intellect! Awesome!

This has been a Blessed day!

BenYachov said...

>So by extrapolating your 'Evil = Absence of Being' analogy, evil = dead.

Scratch that last correction! YOU ARE USING ANALOGY!

I feel faint.....Paps is thinking!

Joy!

BenYachov said...

@BDK

Maybe tomorrow night I will try to tackle "To say that God is good is for the classical theist to say something very different.....etc" in my own words to simplify. Tonight I am going to play MASS EFFECT 2.

But Paps making that last post inspired me make an effort to explain these concepts in my own words.

Wow this had been a great day!

IlĂ­on said...

"The question is whether your view [classic theism] can solve the problem [of evil]."

Actually, the "problem of evil" is childsplay, and it's a childish objection which is actually self-refuting -- the *real* issue to ponder and/or solve is "the problem of good."

You know, questions like -- Where does 'good' come from; or what defines it or distinguishes it from ‘not-good’? Can 'good' be explained and accounted for in terms of atheism/naturalism? And so on.

The answer to the previous question is: not only can 'good' not be explained in terms of atheism/naturalism, its reality is contrary to the whole worldview -- which is why thinking atheists (including those few who attempt to be rationally consistent and intellectually honest) always end up sooner or later denying that ‘good’ (and ‘evil’) refers to anything real. At the same time, the denial itself presupposes the reality of what is denied.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Ilion throws out a red herring. Will anyone bite?

IlĂ­on said...

BDK: "Ben it seems a very impersonal God indeed. I thought God so loved the world and all that. I have trouble stomaching this impersonal God, a loveless platonic form."

Indeed. As best I can tell, this "God of Classical Theism" is no more The Living God than is the view/conception of God that Ben (and Feser) continuously attribute to "those fundies" ... which is to say, to people like me.

God is personal, rather than impersonal; *everything* follows from the personhood of God -- everything about God, and everything about not-God (that is, you and me, and "the world" and morality, etc) is implicated the personhood of God -- and, contrary to the implication of this continuous bleating by some persons about the supposed deficiencies of "Personalist Thesists" (*) embodied human persons do not exhaust the scope of the personal, nor of personhood.


(*) I have in my life encountered exactly one person whom I knew to hold the sort of (odd and irrational) beliefs about God that BenYachov (and Feser) seem to be accusing pretty much everyone who is not a Romanist/papist of believing.

Now, as best I understand Mormonism, a Mormon would also believe that sort of thing … but then, Mormons aren’t Christians -- and for precisely the reason that their “Heavenly Father” *is* just one more being among other beings in “the universe,” no different in principle from Zeus or from you or me. No doubt I have encountered at least one Mormon in my life, but if so, we didn’t discuss theological opinions, and so I didn’t know I was dealing with a Mormon. Perhaps that one person I mentioned was a Mormon (I didn’t ask) who just didn’t make a point of saying that he was.

Papalinton said...

@ Ben Yachov
"Since a dead body exists and the soul that inhabited the body exists."

Tell me how a 'body' exists, Ben, say from an archeological site in Egypt? Or a digging in Mesopotamia?

How does a dead body 'exist'? I'm sure you understand the usual idea that bodies are a product of fertilization and at death decays to its constituent elements, the exact same basic chemical elements that sustained it throughout life.

Ensoulment. of course, is the stuff of the paranormal, that is, the 'abnormal', unnatural ideation of godbotherers. Ensoulment is the primitive, primeval, adherence to ancient superstition, a proposition conjured up by our knowledge-bereft forebears that conveniently filled the gap in understanding of the natural world. End of story.

I am in no doubt Ben, you 'soul' will be the stuff of dirt within a reasonable time after your death. Nobody gets off this planet unless you take off in a spacecraft, of which we are now capable, and should you die in outer space, the planet will be some kilograms/pounds lighter, and that is the only difference that would be noted with a superfine weighing machine. Nothing more. nothing less.

C'mon, Ben, defending the indefensible is akin to flogging a dead horse. You know the writing is on the wall. Come over to the sunny side. No more swill in the brain, no more cognitive dissonance, no more monsters in the night, no more counting the number of angels on a pinhead, no more asinine imagery. It's all there to be had.

Papalinton said...

@ Ben Yachov
"Actually the Synod of Carthage, Hypo and the Synod at Rome in the 400's recognized those books. There decrees where endorsed by Popes Damacus and Innocent.
The 66 book canon was invented by the Calvinist Council at Westminster.
You just can't get anything right can you Paps? I'm glad I was never your student in High School since I wanted to get into College & I did."


1. These were regional councils not authorized to speak for the church as a whole; and

2. the endorsement they gave the Apocrypha was quite different from what the RCC claims.

3. the RCC clearly states the Apocrypha was 'infallibly' declared by the Council of Trent and were considered were canonical from that point.

4. Athanasius, one of the early 'church fathers', clearly declared the canonical Scriptures alone were to be used for determining doctrine, while the apocrypha were sanctioned for reading only. They were never intended nor considered part of the canon. (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," Second Series, vol. IV, St. Athanasius, "Letter 39.7" (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1953), p. 552)

5. Neither jesus nor any of the New Testament writers ever once quoted from the Apocrypha. There are 263 quotations and 370 references to the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them refers to the Apocrypha. End of story.

Ben, any very interesting piece lifted from: http://www.justforcatholics.org/a48.htm
"How then did the apocryphal writings find their way in the Catholic Bible? Early in the second century, the first Latin translations of the Bible were done from the Septuagint (which included the apocrypha). There was a conflict between the great Fathers, Augustine and Jerome, regarding the value of the apocrypha. Augustine accepted them because he used the Septuagint which contained these books and which was popular in North Africa. Jerome was one of the few Fathers who knew both Greek and Hebrew, and he rejected the apocrypha because he knew that those books were not accepted by the Jews and were not part of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Greatly influenced by Augustine, the provincial councils of Hippo and Carthage in the fourth century included the apocrypha as part of the Old Testament canon. However, we must add that contrary to the impression given by Catholic apologists, the apocrypha were not officially recognized by the Catholic church as canonical at Hippo and Carthage. The apocrypha were finally added to the Old Testament by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Moreover the canon approved by Carthage is different from that approved by Trent. The Council of Trent omits the Septuagint First Esdras which had been included by Carthage; while Second Esdras (Ezra and Nehemiah combined in a single book in the Septuagint) were distinguished as two separate books (First Esdras and Second Esdras, also known as Nehemiah)."

A disingenuous believer, a purveyor of half-truths, dishonest and selective a-contextual quoting, sufferer from Feser-poisoning, irresponsible, inept, and plain silly; these are the hallmarks of Ben's contribution to discourse on this thread.

Ben, your contortions, contrivances, convolutions, contradictions and contrapositions are a spectacle to behold.

Sheesh

IlĂ­on said...

BDK: "Ilion throws out a red herring. Will anyone bite?"

BDK exhibits -- yet again -- his trollishness and intellectual dishonesty. Is anyone surprised?

BenYachov said...

>Tell me how a 'body' exists, Ben, say from an archeological site in Egypt? Or a digging in Mesopotamia?

Seriously?

How does the sun exist & how does a Flying Pasta Creature not exist?

You don't get the existence vs non-existence dichotomy?

Seriously?

This is hard for you? Well a clock that is stopped is right at least twice a day. This explains your one lapse into intelligence and your return to your natural state of willed super-stupidity.

You are due at least one more intelligent statement by the clock analogy. I look forward to reading it if and when it appears.

BenYachov said...

off the top of my head

>These were regional councils not authorized to speak for the church as a whole.

Yet they where endorsed by the Pope thus they represent an exercise of the ordinary and universal Church Authority via the Pope universal authority.

>Athanasius, one of the early 'church fathers', clearly declared the canonical Scriptures alone were to be used for determining doctrine.

Actually if you read Athanasius he merely said one should only use scripture when disputing with Arians since they reject Tradition & Nicea.

BenYachov said...

>Neither jesus nor any of the New Testament writers ever once quoted from the Apocrypha.

Nor do they quote Esther, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastics Joshua etc yet the Epistle to the Hebrews does reference events in Maccabees and the Gospel of John makes reference to Jesus celebrating the feast of Dedication(which was first authorized in Maccabees).

>First Esdras which had been included by Carthage; while Second Esdras (Ezra and Nehemiah combined in a single book in the Septuagint) were distinguished as two separate books (First Esdras and Second Esdras, also known as Nehemiah)."

I reply: Ezra and Nehemiah where called 1st & 2nd Esdras in Latin. The apocryphal Esdras where called 3rd & 4rd Esdras(thought the books call themselves 1& 2) by contemporaries in the 4th century.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp

Carthage did not accept the apocryphal 1 Esdras but the canonical 1 Esdras.

BenYachov said...

>Greatly influenced by Augustine, the provincial councils of Hippo and Carthage in the fourth century included the apocrypha as part of the Old Testament canon.

Your unstated assumption that they where using 66 book canons prior to this is unproven. Even Athanasius says plainly the Disputed OT books where being read in the Churches of his time as Scripture.

>A disingenuous believer, a purveyor of half-truths,

Verses Paps an Atheist who merely cuts & Pastes from Protestant Apologetic websites in order to change the subject & avoid making a plausible rational educated criticism of Classic Philosophical theology.

My how desperate.

BenYachov said...

@IlĂ­on

>Indeed. As best I can tell, this "God of Classical Theism" is no more The Living God than is the view/conception of God that Ben (and Feser) continuously attribute to "those fundies" ... which is to say, to people like me.

So what you are saying Ilion is you are a Theistic Personalist and that is why you have been grouchy towards me(that and the fact I am friendly toward BDK whom you can't stand & are also mad at me for not tribally "siding" with you against him).

>The answer to the previous question is: not only can 'good' not be explained in terms of atheism/naturalism, its reality is contrary to the whole worldview

I would most likely agree with certain qualifications. But it is off topic much like Paps cut/paste from Alpha & Omega ministries or Bill Webster or Tribalog. Of course he hasn't made the case for his version of Atheism so one wonders why he is inserting himself in the Catholic & Protestant fight.

>BDK exhibits -- yet again -- his trollishness and intellectual dishonesty. Is anyone surprised?

There are two trolls here & neither is named BDK, GREV or BenYachov.

Do the math.

BenYachov said...

I am now going to stop answering Paps & Ilion.

Neither is interested in serious discussion. Tonight I will post my final response to BDK. Maybe he & I can have another discussion in the near future without the kids yapping at our feet.

Blue Devil Knight said...

LOL Ilion glad to have you back I always found your zingers funny I hope you keep posting.

Incidentally, BanYachov I realize I should cut Feser some slack. He has to spell everything out explicitly partly because he is dealing with creationist-nutjob types so often (i.e., protestant fundamentalists) who are just uncharitable, ungracious, often ignorant interlocutors who will pounce on any apparent gap in what he says.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Most importantly, Ben, how is that game?

I'm playing Medal of Honor now. It is good. Not Modern Warfare good, but decent enough for Gamefly. 7/10

BenYachov said...

>I realize I should cut Feser some slack.

Fair as always.

>He has to spell everything out explicitly partly because he is dealing with creationist-nutjob types so often (i.e., protestant fundamentalists) who are just uncharitable, ungracious, often ignorant interlocutors who will pounce on any apparent gap in what he says.

Yep!

Cheers!

BenYachov said...

>Most importantly, Ben, how is that game?

Mass Effect 2 is Awesome! I finished the main suicide mission!
Lost 3 crew members!

I briefly started to Play ME 1 but grew bored with it. Now my interest is peaked enough to go back to it to hold me over till Christmas & I can ask for ME 3 when it comes out.

I can't recomend it enought. That & Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas.

Now I must go to Mass(not effect the real one it's Sunday).

Blue Devil Knight said...

I think of me Ben to Ilion:
Of course he hasn't made the case for his version of Atheism so one wonders why he is inserting himself in the Catholic & Protestant fight.

I want to understand the different perspectives. The Catholic view is particularly interesting, I was raised Protestant so find all this educational. Plus I appreciate Catholicism for the same reason I like representative democracy rather than direct democracy.

If I'm giving a reductio argument against God (the God of PT anyway), I don't need to believe the premises. That's sort of the point of a reductio, to use your opponent's beliefs against him. Ilion never really understood that.

So even if I don't have a positive theory of morality, that's beside the point. As I said, it's a total red herring in the context of arguing about the problem of evil. But that won't stop Ilion, which is what makes him so entertaining he won't let logic stop him.

And frankly 300 posts in I'm not going to articulate my views on morality.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Elder Scrolls V and Uncharted 3 come out this November.

AWESOME!!! My two favorite franchises.

BenYachov said...

>And frankly 300 posts in I'm not going to articulate my views on morality.

No problem.

>Elder Scrolls V and Uncharted 3 come out this November.

Interesting thought I am more into SciFi, Post-apocalyptic and Zombie survival games. But I have been tempted to try fantasy.....

I have to wait. These days money is tight and I have to wait till prices come down or I might buy a GAME of the Year addition since they always come with the XBOX live downloads.

Cheers.

Papalinton said...

@ Ben Yachov
"Well a clock that is stopped is right at least twice a day."

So, by analogy, you are saying god is only right twice a day, or god is only dead twice a day, or god exists only twice a day, or god is only good twice a day, or god is only non-good twice a day, or a dead body only exists twice a day, or a body only dies twice a day?

Papalinton said...

@ Ben Yachov
"Verses Paps an Atheist who merely cuts & Pastes from Protestant Apologetic websites in order to change the subject & avoid making a plausible rational educated criticism of Classic Philosophical theology."

So really Ben, your beef and anxiety is really directed at the Protestants? And as I am really only a messenger but it's fair game for a catholic like you to kill the messenger. This would be consistent with how catholics treated messengers in the past 2,000 years. They have an established track record for doing away opposition they do not like. I'm thankful, and no thanks to your god, who would do bugger-all, that people like you don't practice the time-honored catholic barbecuing or garroting or racking people any more, as much as your brain is screaming for that to occur.

Hopping away onto your xbox is just another imaginary world for which you are so familiar with its close links to the imaginary world of catholic bunkum. At least BDK, can distinguish the difference between theism and Medal of Honor.

Sheesh

BenYachov said...

Papalinton is just upset because his mom, aunt or whatever bought him a Wii instead of an XBOX or PLAYSTATION and he actually thinks that makes him cool.

BenYachov said...

Sorry to punk out BDK.

>"To say that God is good is for the classical theist to say something very different, and something that it is, frankly, not easy to summarize for readers unfamiliar with certain key metaphysical doctrines characteristic of classical, and especially Scholastic, philosophy, such as the doctrine of the convertibility of the transcendentals, the notion of evil as privation, and the principle of proportionate causality."

>Where is there a concise, understandable, explication of this? Note the first desiteratum is incompatible with the response being a link to more Feser.

So I will use the wiki for the concise, understandable, explication of this.


Metaphysics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism#Metaphysics

Transcendentals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentals

& as a Bonus
THE 24 theses
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism#Thomistic_philosophy

It not lack of confidence in my ability to explain it's I'm growing tired of the topic and I want to move on. Plus the kids drove me nuts today.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Thanks for the links Ben I'll have a look for sure.

Papalinton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Papalinton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Papalinton said...

From Ben Yachov: "Metaphysics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomism#Metaphysics


PapaL

Metaphysics is simply ideation formulated in the brain and mindstate, a mind map, to facilitate discussion on the nature of existence. Any attribution to the existence of a god through metaphysics is extrapolated nonsense. Metaphysics is a systematized study of conjecture formulated in the mind to explain the nature of life and to give it some form of meaning.

Metaphysics can only operate within the mind. There are no physical externalities to the exercise of metaphysics. And in that context what do we end up with? We end up with the four great problems of Metaphysics.

1. That metaphysical content, that is, the concept of thing-in-itself, has no argument or evidence to substantiate it. There is no way of measuring 'reliability' within metaphysics, or what that would mean. Within the empirical world, science is the most reliable tool for measurement. Reliable simply means that it (often) makes accurate predictions and reproducible results. However, the empirical world is a construct of predictions, of expected results, so even the world 'reliable' CAN NOT be used in reference to metaphysics. [cont.]

Papalinton said...

[cont.2]

2. Another great problem of metaphysics is the problem of the *possibility* of metaphysics. It is conceivable (leaving aside possible) that there may be evidence and arguments that metaphysics is possible [philosophically at least], but that we simply have none for specific content, meaning that there is something ineffable that we ineptly express with 'existence' when used metaphysically, but that it still denotes something. For this, no evidence or argument has ever been posited. No philosopher hitherto has seen fit to explore this issue.


3. There are very great doubts whether it is possible to mount an argument or evidence for either of the above problems. This means, the third great problem of metaphysics is that there is no reason to believe that we are able to ever do metaphysics. This means, put simply, that there is no basis on which to assume that either arguments or evidence, respectively, ratio or senses, are capable of providing the sort of information that would qualify as evidence of the possibility of metaphysics. Quite clearly, metaphysical content is not empirical, and there is no evidence or argument to believe that our minds are capable of anything beyond rudimentary problem solving.
 That is, our minds are only capable of actualizing in the physical, natural world through the five senses. All else remains the property and within the bounds of the brain and its concomitant 'meta'-physical ideation.
[cont.]

Papalinton said...

[cont.3]

4. Finally, the problem of linguistics. When one talks of 'reliable', it is a concept rooted in empiricism. There's no reason to believe that in metaphysics, concepts/words from empiricism will still work. Take, for example, the term 'causality'. Within empiricism, it denotes a relationship between two events. Namely, that the occurrence of one event necessitates the other. If event A, then event B. There's no reason to believe that this idea applies to metaphysics. The idea that 'the empirical world must be caused', by example, is assuming that causality applies outside of the empirical world. There is no argument or evidence for this. Put short, it is assumed that a domain-specific concept can be used as domain-general. Again, without evidence, and without argument. [I draw on Jason Roberson for the conception of these points]
[cont.]

Papalinton said...

[cont.4]

So while metaphysics is a wonderfully creative mind exercise, solely construed within the brain, it is a largely a descriptor and a clarifier, that is, a sieve through which like-stuff are categorized in some systematic way. There are many different definitions of metaphysics depending on the field to which it is applied. Generally it means, the science of mental phenomena and of the laws of mind. Although, others would argue that it includes the natural world as well. But while the content of metaphysics may include the natural world, there are simply no discernible physical effects or actual circumstances that can be attributed to a metaphysical cause. any such claim is just bunkum.

Metaphysics by its very nature is much beloved of theologians and Apologists. For them it is a form of legitimation of the 'reality' of the existence of a god[s]. But it is a misconstrued 'reality' gravely mistaking effect with causation.

I would suggest it fair to say, most philosophers would agree that metaphysical claims are not scientific and that contradictory metaphysical positions cannot be tested empirically to determine which is false. For example, materialism and dualism are contradictory but both theories are coherent and consistent with experience, and there is no empirical event that could falsify either theory. Kant was right in saying that although we can never hope to answer our metaphysical questions, we can't help asking them anyway. Metaphysics is a mind game. Nothing more. Nothing less.

BenYachov said...

Paps simply buy your own Xbox 360 & you will have a shot at being cool again & for God's sake don't tell anybody about the Wii.

Enjoy the echo chamber.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 304 of 304   Newer› Newest»