Fourth Response To Jensen
Jensen has merged all of our conversation onto one page. I prefer to keep each entry separate, so that is how I shall continue. I am no responding to his comments indicated as "Jensen9":
Jensen9: There is a broader sense of the word 'equivocation' than Doland is here using. It is not only the commonly known informal logical fallacy. I didn't intend to say that he was being deceptive or unintentionally misusing words to give an argument and I apologize if I gave that impression.
Okay, fair enough
Jensen9: Here is where Doland begs the question. What grounds does he have to say that there is no way for God to make a person, to program a person, so they do what is not programmed in? Why can't a person be made so that the self is the entity that chooses with no prior causal factors or programming to determine that choice?
First, could you answer my question about a terminator, could God create a computer program that wouldn’t do exactly as God knew it would do in every situation? Yes or no?
Second, explain exactly how anybody makes any choice that is made with “no prior causal factors”? Take for a simple example of say I were to go to a restaurant and was offered some choices to drink: water, coke, tea, coffee or gasoline. Do I make that choice with “no prior causal factors”? Please…
Right off the bat, I would decline the gasoline, as I know it is deadly. And I had no say in the fact that gasoline is deadly to me. So I this is not a viable choice.
Next, I despise coffee. Why is that? Did I take a swig of coffee one day and say, “hmm, should I like this or not?” No. Whenever I get a taste of coffee, I go, “gads that’s terrible!” It is an immediate negative reaction. So, while some people might choose coffee, I certainly wouldn’t.
I do have a sweet tooth, so, I do often pick Coke. On the other hand, I know too much is bad for me. I didn’t choose the fact that too much Coke is bad for me; it is just a fact beyond my control. Further, if I didn’t have this knowledge, if I was somehow under the impression that Coke was a health drink, I’d probably pick it every time. The fact that I have a sweet tooth, I didn’t choose either, humans have a taste for sweets, as we are primarily herbivorous creatures and fruits are good for us. So, the factors involved in why I may choose or not choose Coke are out of my control.
Next up, tea. And tea is good for you, though green tea is much better than common black tea. And I like my tea too sweet, which is also bad. So, again, many factors involved in this choice are also beyond my control.
Then there is water. That is good for you. Though it doesn’t satisfy sweet tooth. Still, I do sometimes just drink plain water.
So, of the choices I was presented, the only choices I would consider would be Coke, tea or water. So, why might I choose one over the other? Maybe I just might be tired of one, like I may have had a lot of Coke already that day. So I want something else. Why do humans get tired of the same thing? That’s a biological impulse to endeavor to get us to consume a variety of foods. I didn’t choose that either. It’s the way humans are.
So we see that vast amounts of the factors involved in choosing among these choices are beyond my control. Yet, sure, you would be correct in saying that all these factors do not in total explain why I might pick the specific choice I make. I agree. But, the fact that I can’t list every single factor involved in that choice does NOT prove there is some “free will” or soul involved. It doesn’t even imply that, as far as I can see. It just means that I don’t know every causal factor involved.
This perhaps was excessively verbose. I was just endeavoring to make clear that it is just ludicrous to propose that choices are ever made with “no prior causal factors”. Every choice has causal factors. Otherwise it would be pure random.
Jensen9: (Responding to my question, “ What is the fundamental difference, besides complexity, to human personality and a computer program?”) The difference is that the programming is not all that we are. We are also able to choose without the programming determining our choices.
You keep making this claim without evidence. And in fact, is contrary to the evidence. I presented some of this contrarian evidence, by referring you to the article by Keith Augustine: “The Case Against Immortality” http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/immortality.html
As much as you might find distaste to the idea, the evidence very much points to that we ARE just the product of our biology. I have evidence to support that claim, you have a counter-claim with zero evidence. I accept claims that have evidence, you accept claims that you like and don’t care if you have no evidence.
Jensen9: As a simple headache can keep one from clear thinking, so a change in one's brain can affect one morally as well. Good people become violent with certain mental damage or drug usage (e.g., "angel dust," or phencyclidine). Some people have lost their entire religious orientation with a lobotomy, for example. There is no problem in seeing that just as one may be unable to function rationally with loss of the some part or function of a physical brain, so one may be unable to properly function morally or spiritually as well. God does not hold one responsible under such conditions. One needs at least sufficient rational abilities, moral awareness, and capacities to freely choose in order to be responsible both morally and spiritually.
You did NOT answer the question. The question was: “how is your "soul" knocked out of kilter by not having a few micrograms of lithium?” The operative word in the question is ‘HOW’. Remember YOUR claim that we make choices “with no prior causal factors”. You essentially have just conceded your entire argument. I win. You made a claim about there being no prior causal factors, and claimed our choices are not a product of our biology, and then conceded they indeed are! So, you loose.
I suppose you would probably try to say not so fast, that you conceded that biology is part, but not all. But, what part is it NOT? Take language. We know where in the brain language is stored. If those areas of the brain are damaged, we have impaired language abilities. Or how about morality? I presented evidence that simply not getting enough lithium impairs moral choices of violence. So, what exactly is the part ourselves that is NOT our biology? What part of human thought is not a part of our biology?
And you need to do more than merely assert something, you need to DEMONSTRATE it. I realize that is a concept that just blows the theist mind. Actual evidence is just beyond your ken. But, that is what you need to produce if you expect to be taken seriously by someone that is not already taken in by your mind virus of religion.
And by the way, what exactly is your evidence that God doesn’t hold you responsible if you have biochemical reasons for your actions? Where does God say, “I will send you to hell for all eternity, unless you had inadequate dietary intake of lithium, and in that case, you are forgiven.” Where does it say anything like that?
If anything, I’d say it says very nearly the opposite. For example, in the book of Exodus, Moses is on the mountain getting the tablets, and some of the people have given up hope, and made a golden idol and started to pray and dance to it. So Moses has 3,000 people slaughtered:
Exodus 32:27-29 NIV: Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' "The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."
In verse 33, God says that whoever sinned against him is blotted out of his book. That says the 3,000 were killed and damned forever. Period. Nothing about “oh, except for those that didn’t get enough Lithium, I’m leaving those in my book”.
And, are you going to seriously try to tell me that Moses’ strap-on sword-fest where he praises his people for killing their own “sons and brothers,” saying they are blessed as being more of God’s “goodness”? That is more of your equivocation on the word “good”. It’s not good, you know it is not good, so, please, stop lying to me.
My point being, of course, is that your theological claim that God doesn’t condemn people if their biology is out of whack isn’t supported anywhere in the Bible. You just pull it out of your ass since you want your God to be fair. Your God is NOT fair, and you just can’t pull theology out of your ass to make it all better. It doesn’t work that way.
And, by the way, the movie The Ten Commandments changes this to where the people are not merely dancing to an idol, they are planning a human sacrifice. If the Bible is so perfect, why did they have to change it for the movie? Even the makers of the movie couldn’t really stomach what he Bible actually says and so they had to gloss over it. I’m beginning to think all theists are just plain liars.
Finally, for this topic, if you were correct that God does indeed forgive people if their biology is out of whack, then He’d have to forgive EVERYBODY because EVERYBODY has imperfect nutrition and biology. NOBODY is perfect biologically.
Jensen9: I'm sure Doland will again ignore my argument and merely say I'm speaking nonsense.
I gather that you think you have said something coherent. I’ve read your paragraph about timeless and changeless several times over and I just can’t make any sense of it. T'is true that I indeed suspect it is complete nonsense, and equivocation, but, I guess I can’t say for sure since I haven’t any idea what you are saying.
You referenced arguments about actual vs potential or theoretical infinity. I’ve heard some of that before, I just don’t know the math enough to comment. I will plead ignorance on this point.
Jensen9: And I've shown that we do not need time for creation. A timeless, changeless choice for time to begin can give rise to the first change. But it has timelessly happened.
You’ve done no such thing, you’ve made an assertion, an illogical assertion, you haven’t ‘shown’ anything! Don’t you see that to make a choice requires CHANGE. As an entity transitions from not having made a choice to having made a choice, that is CHANGE and TIME.
Jensen9: And I've repeatedly argued that this is not true. And Doland has not responded to my argument. It is logically impossible to attain the greater good without allowing suffering. Thus God is constrained.
Please demonstrate this alleged logical impossibility.
Jensen9: So you think Hitchens would jump at the offer of eternal life if he thought it was true? You've been in the congregation of the fundamentalist atheists. You should know that there are people like Hitchens who have their own various reasons to so hate any idea of God that they wouldn't care in the least what God offers them.
Okay, I concede I was wrong, there are people that say that they wouldn’t accept God’s offer even if it was true. Yet, I guess I wonder, would they really? It is easy to say you wouldn’t so long as the possibility seems nil. But, I guess I’ll concede the point. That said, I still think MOST people would take the offer if they really thought it was true.
Jensen9: People are not condemned for what they know but for what they choose. The person who says, "God, I want to know if you are there. I'll give you all that you ask of me, all that you deserve from me, if you let me know," will find out.
I’ve done all that, please read my autobiographical info on my site.
http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/other_stuff/PaulJacobsen.htm
Jensen9: The Bible claims that we need to seek God with all of our heart and will. If one can barely get beyond a begrudging, "Okay, God, if you're there I might accept you if you give me a good explanation for all my questions, but you've gotta do some pretty good talking,"
What, specifically, is inherently wrong with disbelieving something before getting good answers? Basically you are saying that you really need to have a strong desire to believe before even beginning. What if a Mormon said to you that you need to really want to believe Mormonism before God will reveal to you the truth of Mormonism? Would you sign up for that? No.
Essentially you are making rational thought and reasonable skepticism as an evil boogieman. And yet you would employ the same rational thought and skepticism to anybody else’s fantastical claims. You just make an exception for YOUR God.
Jensen9: To claim that omnipotence requires being able to do the logically impossible is to attack a straw man.
I accept that most Christians see omnipotence the way you describe. Okay, fine. But, you just don’t realize that makes your God hypothesis superfluous. By your account, there are things about reality that can be no other way and not even God can change that. Therefore there are attributes of reality that are INDPENDENT from God and do not require a God. But those attributes of reality are sufficient to explain reality, therefore obviating any need for a God at all.
Jensen9: we need God for anything to exist.
Why? God himself is an exemption from this rule, as God doesn’t need another God to create him. Bottom line is, “something” exists without explanation, it just does. Either it is God, or it is reality itself. But since you have already conceded that there are attributes of reality that not even God can change, then, it might as well just be reality that exists without explanation.
Jensen9: No! There is absolutely no reason for Mark to mention that he wrote this gospel. He just handed it over to the people who were asking for these memoirs. They know who he is; they know he was with Peter copying down all these stories; they're the ones who were asking for these stories and teachings in writing; that's all Mark would have thought to be needed.
And how do you know any of that? How do you know that there were people asking for the memoirs? How do you know that he “just handed it over” to these people? You are just pulling more shit outa your ass. You don’t know any of this, its just pure guesswork.
Jensen9: Papias is significant at this point only because we do not today have any of the earlier written statements recording that and how Mark got this from Peter: Papias' words are the earliest witness still existing.
In other words, you just conceded you have no evidence, we don’t have the earlier statements. And, if I recall correctly, we don’t even actually have Papias’ words on the subject either, we have Esubius’ who quoted from Papias. And Esubius elsewhere criticized Papias as being unreliable in his view! (Correct me if I’m wrong on this, this is what I recall on the issue.)
Jensen9: If we have an account written 25 to 35 years after the death of the main character when other eyewitnesses were still around who could be consulted, and if we know that main character taught a very high ethic espousing (at least) honesty and truthfulness, and if this account is from someone who claims to be one of the closest followers of that main character, and if this follower had been repeating these same stories about Jesus ever since Jesus died and rose from the dead, then, no, we should think that no embellishment was involved.
Answer me a simple question: how many people claim to be close followers of Jesus but actually embellish or are otherwise not completely truthful? Lots right? So, you are refuted.
Since I happen to believe the story was actually intended to be read as fiction, there would be no witnesses to consult because it was intended to be fiction! Now, I concede I can’t prove that. But, it is really in your court to prove your side. You need to prove that there were witnesses to be consulted, for example.
And by the way, society then wasn’t exactly like society today. People didn’t have newspapers, TV, internet. Who do you think was really going to spend the time investigating every claim of every religion? For the most part, non believers didn’t do this because they were doing things like trying to live. Your average Roman citizen didn’t have the time to go chasing every claim of every religion. And believers didn’t because they had “faith”.
Jensen9: If any of the gospels were partly or largely or entirely fictional accounts, why do they lack the features that we would expect of fictional accounts?
You mean like people getting out of their graves and walking around? Or reports of things with no witnesses at all? Or mentions of virgin birth that couldn’t possibly be validated even if it did happen? OF COURSE there are OBVIOUSLY FICTIONAL elements!
Jensen9: If Peter or any of the other apostles wrote or dictated these fictions, why did they paint themselves as such failures and fools?
BECAUSE THE APOSTLES ARE FICTIONAL TOO! Or at least, that is my best guess. It’s a tried and true plot device of a fictional moral story for the characters to be “failures and fools” so that the audience can learn from the failures and foolishness of the characters. Isn’t that obvious?
Jensen9: Would someone make up a story about the savior of the world being humiliated, mocked, whipped and dying a slave's death, a death on a cross?
Richard Carrier addresses this at length. See this page:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/crucified.html
James Holding asks: "Who on earth would believe a religion centered on a crucified man?" Well, the Sumerians perhaps. One of their top goddesses, Inanna (the Babylonian Ishtar, Goddess of Love and "Queen of Heaven"), was stripped naked and crucified, yet rose again and, triumphant, condemned to Hell her lover, the shepherd-god Dumuzi (the Babylonian Tammuz). This became the center of a major Sumerian sacred story, preserved in clay tablets dating over a thousand years before Christ. The corresponding religion, which we now know included the worship of a crucified Inanna, is mentioned by Ezekiel as having achieved some popularity within Jerusalem itself by the 6th century B.C. The "women weeping for Tammuz" at the north gate of the Jewish temple (Ezekiel 8:14) we now know were weeping because Inanna had condemned him to Hell, after herself being crucified and resurrected. So the influence of this religious story and its potent, apparently compelling allure upon pre-Christian Judaism is in evidence.
Even so, my point is not that the Christians got the idea of a crucified god from early Inanna cult. There may have been some direct or indirect influence we cannot trace. We can't rule that out--the idea of worshipping a crucified deity did predate Christianity and had entered Jewish society within Palestine. But we don't know any more than that. Rather, my point is that we have here a clear example of many people worshipping a crucified god. Therefore, as a matter of principle--unless Holding wants to claim that Inanna really was resurrected--it appears that people would worship a false crucified god.
Basically, Jensen, to be blunt, you are just woefully ignorant of how and why religions get created, and haven’t a clue about other religions of the time and period of Christianity. Read a little. Start with that article by Carrier.
Jensen9: But Papias said how he had access to this information. To deny this as good evidence for his claims is to apply skeptical standards to the gospels that no historian would apply to any other historical document
Take a look at this book at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Greek-Roman-Historians-Information-Misinformation/dp/0415117704/ref=sr_1_2
It’s a purely secular work, about secular Roman historians. The author argues that at times, Josephus and other Roman historians distorted their histories for an agenda. I’m not going to argue for or against his hypothesis. I’m simply pointing out that yes, all historians apply criticism to all sources and consider all sources to be potentially false by either accident or intent. This is INDEED how history works! Deal with it.
Jensen9: Papias just said that Peter spoke according to the needs of his hearers and Mark wrote it down (obviously only when it involved Jesus' teachings or events of Jesus' life). He likely wrote it down in the evening after he had helped Peter with his speaking engagements for each day. He could have even taken notes while Peter was talking and this could have been going on since Mark first started traveling with Peter.
First, you are accepting that Papias was 100% correct, without any evidence other than taking Papias’ word. Or rather, I believe you are taking Esubias’ word on Papias’ word. And then, based on assuming Papias is 100% correct, totally making stuff up about when it was written down. Look, I grow weary of you just pulling shit out of your ass.
Jensen9: My you can fight hard for such a small gain in ground. Suppose the expulsion of the Jews from Rome had nothing to do with the Christians, what would that do to my argument? It would mean that I could still claim there were a large number of Christians in Rome fifteen years later (see my previous sentence).
I can’t figure out which “previous sentence” of yours proved large numbers of Christians in Rome, unless you refer to the part in Acts. How come no other historian took note of the Christians? None.
Jensen9: Of these numerous secular and biblical scholars, he says, "the near-unanimous identification of him [Chrestus] with Christ has made the answer to this question possibly too settled.
Don’t give me the fallacy ad populum, give me the evidence.
Jensen9: "Suetonius followed whatever source attracted him, without caring much whether it was reliable or not." “Just because no one today thinks Jesus was in Rome in 49 does not mean Suetonius couldn't have thought such a thing.”
So, let me get this straight. You find Seutonius to be unreliable, was wrong about Jesus being Rome, misspelled Chirstus, and yet you say it is “probable” that he was talking about Jesus and this is good evidence of Christianity. WHAT DRUGS ARE YOU ON? You’ve said that everything Seutonius has said about the incident is wrong, and yet this is your evidence?
Jensen9: I've also claimed that we do have the testimony of enemies of Jesus that he rose from the dead.
You have no such thing. You have claims that there was such testimony. That is NOT the same thing.
Jensen9: Then why did he so often fail to mention sources and, as Howatson relates, appear to many times care little about reliability? Mentioning sources is not always necessary if you know your sources are good and find no conflict in their accounts. Just naming your sources does not make you a better historian than someone who does not.
What you are saying is, even the best historians of the time were not always great. And Carrier agrees with this. And this is why we do indeed often doubt reports by secular historians on secular events. And if you don’t think that naming sources is important, try taking a class at a local community college and see how far you get when you turn in papers without sources. Is there nothing so stupid that you won’t say it?
Jensen9: Notice the biased claims Carrier makes against the gospel writers he would not dream of stating concerning his secular historians. And yet he praises his historians simply because some of the time, some of them cite their sources and explain their reasoning for us.
Bzzt wrong! He does indeed criticize secular historians. I simply didn’t quote far enough down. If you read the entire article, you will find Carrier agreeing with you to some degree. Here is what he says:
“And yet Suetonius is notoriously regarded by modern historians as an often-unreliable gossip-monger. Therefore, a fortiori, we have every reason to expect Luke was no better, and probably worse, when it came to critical acumen.”
You think you got Carrier by the proverbial balls, and can expose him for being a totally biased secularist buying into everything every secularist has ever said. When in reality, you show your own bias against Carrier for the charge is totally false and you base it purely on reading some few snippets of what he has written. It is your own bias you expose, not Carrier’s.
The way history actually works is to be skeptical of all claims. As George W. Bush might say, historical research is hard work, you need to stay the course and keep making progress. Historians don’t buy into third hand reports, and then pull shit out of their asses to fit a preconceived idea like you do.
Jensen indicates he added to his section on natural vs. supernatural explanations, so I will respond to some of that.
Jensen5: And what does it matter that God could "cover up" reality? This is irrelevant.
No, its not "irrelevant". And it is just not God that could cover up reality. Or, at least, once you start to allow supernatural explanations, then you can't just assume only God. Like how do you know that when you open your Bible, that the words you are reading aren't just some satanic delusion to get you to believe a lie? Once you allow supernatural explanations, you have no basis to assume something isn't supernatural even if it appears natural. You assume your senses give you accurate information about the world, even if they are imperfect and do not give you perfect information. You still assume the information is reasonably accurate and can be depended on. But you have no basis for that unless you assume apriori that there are no supernatural agents interferring.
Jensen5: I think, for example, following from the former, we can assume that God cannot do evil, and, following from the latter, that it is very intuitively likely that God cannot do evil.
Jensen9: There is a broader sense of the word 'equivocation' than Doland is here using. It is not only the commonly known informal logical fallacy. I didn't intend to say that he was being deceptive or unintentionally misusing words to give an argument and I apologize if I gave that impression.
Okay, fair enough
Jensen9: Here is where Doland begs the question. What grounds does he have to say that there is no way for God to make a person, to program a person, so they do what is not programmed in? Why can't a person be made so that the self is the entity that chooses with no prior causal factors or programming to determine that choice?
First, could you answer my question about a terminator, could God create a computer program that wouldn’t do exactly as God knew it would do in every situation? Yes or no?
Second, explain exactly how anybody makes any choice that is made with “no prior causal factors”? Take for a simple example of say I were to go to a restaurant and was offered some choices to drink: water, coke, tea, coffee or gasoline. Do I make that choice with “no prior causal factors”? Please…
Right off the bat, I would decline the gasoline, as I know it is deadly. And I had no say in the fact that gasoline is deadly to me. So I this is not a viable choice.
Next, I despise coffee. Why is that? Did I take a swig of coffee one day and say, “hmm, should I like this or not?” No. Whenever I get a taste of coffee, I go, “gads that’s terrible!” It is an immediate negative reaction. So, while some people might choose coffee, I certainly wouldn’t.
I do have a sweet tooth, so, I do often pick Coke. On the other hand, I know too much is bad for me. I didn’t choose the fact that too much Coke is bad for me; it is just a fact beyond my control. Further, if I didn’t have this knowledge, if I was somehow under the impression that Coke was a health drink, I’d probably pick it every time. The fact that I have a sweet tooth, I didn’t choose either, humans have a taste for sweets, as we are primarily herbivorous creatures and fruits are good for us. So, the factors involved in why I may choose or not choose Coke are out of my control.
Next up, tea. And tea is good for you, though green tea is much better than common black tea. And I like my tea too sweet, which is also bad. So, again, many factors involved in this choice are also beyond my control.
Then there is water. That is good for you. Though it doesn’t satisfy sweet tooth. Still, I do sometimes just drink plain water.
So, of the choices I was presented, the only choices I would consider would be Coke, tea or water. So, why might I choose one over the other? Maybe I just might be tired of one, like I may have had a lot of Coke already that day. So I want something else. Why do humans get tired of the same thing? That’s a biological impulse to endeavor to get us to consume a variety of foods. I didn’t choose that either. It’s the way humans are.
So we see that vast amounts of the factors involved in choosing among these choices are beyond my control. Yet, sure, you would be correct in saying that all these factors do not in total explain why I might pick the specific choice I make. I agree. But, the fact that I can’t list every single factor involved in that choice does NOT prove there is some “free will” or soul involved. It doesn’t even imply that, as far as I can see. It just means that I don’t know every causal factor involved.
This perhaps was excessively verbose. I was just endeavoring to make clear that it is just ludicrous to propose that choices are ever made with “no prior causal factors”. Every choice has causal factors. Otherwise it would be pure random.
Jensen9: (Responding to my question, “ What is the fundamental difference, besides complexity, to human personality and a computer program?”) The difference is that the programming is not all that we are. We are also able to choose without the programming determining our choices.
You keep making this claim without evidence. And in fact, is contrary to the evidence. I presented some of this contrarian evidence, by referring you to the article by Keith Augustine: “The Case Against Immortality” http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustine/immortality.html
As much as you might find distaste to the idea, the evidence very much points to that we ARE just the product of our biology. I have evidence to support that claim, you have a counter-claim with zero evidence. I accept claims that have evidence, you accept claims that you like and don’t care if you have no evidence.
Jensen9: As a simple headache can keep one from clear thinking, so a change in one's brain can affect one morally as well. Good people become violent with certain mental damage or drug usage (e.g., "angel dust," or phencyclidine). Some people have lost their entire religious orientation with a lobotomy, for example. There is no problem in seeing that just as one may be unable to function rationally with loss of the some part or function of a physical brain, so one may be unable to properly function morally or spiritually as well. God does not hold one responsible under such conditions. One needs at least sufficient rational abilities, moral awareness, and capacities to freely choose in order to be responsible both morally and spiritually.
You did NOT answer the question. The question was: “how is your "soul" knocked out of kilter by not having a few micrograms of lithium?” The operative word in the question is ‘HOW’. Remember YOUR claim that we make choices “with no prior causal factors”. You essentially have just conceded your entire argument. I win. You made a claim about there being no prior causal factors, and claimed our choices are not a product of our biology, and then conceded they indeed are! So, you loose.
I suppose you would probably try to say not so fast, that you conceded that biology is part, but not all. But, what part is it NOT? Take language. We know where in the brain language is stored. If those areas of the brain are damaged, we have impaired language abilities. Or how about morality? I presented evidence that simply not getting enough lithium impairs moral choices of violence. So, what exactly is the part ourselves that is NOT our biology? What part of human thought is not a part of our biology?
And you need to do more than merely assert something, you need to DEMONSTRATE it. I realize that is a concept that just blows the theist mind. Actual evidence is just beyond your ken. But, that is what you need to produce if you expect to be taken seriously by someone that is not already taken in by your mind virus of religion.
And by the way, what exactly is your evidence that God doesn’t hold you responsible if you have biochemical reasons for your actions? Where does God say, “I will send you to hell for all eternity, unless you had inadequate dietary intake of lithium, and in that case, you are forgiven.” Where does it say anything like that?
If anything, I’d say it says very nearly the opposite. For example, in the book of Exodus, Moses is on the mountain getting the tablets, and some of the people have given up hope, and made a golden idol and started to pray and dance to it. So Moses has 3,000 people slaughtered:
Exodus 32:27-29 NIV: Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' "The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."
In verse 33, God says that whoever sinned against him is blotted out of his book. That says the 3,000 were killed and damned forever. Period. Nothing about “oh, except for those that didn’t get enough Lithium, I’m leaving those in my book”.
And, are you going to seriously try to tell me that Moses’ strap-on sword-fest where he praises his people for killing their own “sons and brothers,” saying they are blessed as being more of God’s “goodness”? That is more of your equivocation on the word “good”. It’s not good, you know it is not good, so, please, stop lying to me.
My point being, of course, is that your theological claim that God doesn’t condemn people if their biology is out of whack isn’t supported anywhere in the Bible. You just pull it out of your ass since you want your God to be fair. Your God is NOT fair, and you just can’t pull theology out of your ass to make it all better. It doesn’t work that way.
And, by the way, the movie The Ten Commandments changes this to where the people are not merely dancing to an idol, they are planning a human sacrifice. If the Bible is so perfect, why did they have to change it for the movie? Even the makers of the movie couldn’t really stomach what he Bible actually says and so they had to gloss over it. I’m beginning to think all theists are just plain liars.
Finally, for this topic, if you were correct that God does indeed forgive people if their biology is out of whack, then He’d have to forgive EVERYBODY because EVERYBODY has imperfect nutrition and biology. NOBODY is perfect biologically.
Jensen9: I'm sure Doland will again ignore my argument and merely say I'm speaking nonsense.
I gather that you think you have said something coherent. I’ve read your paragraph about timeless and changeless several times over and I just can’t make any sense of it. T'is true that I indeed suspect it is complete nonsense, and equivocation, but, I guess I can’t say for sure since I haven’t any idea what you are saying.
You referenced arguments about actual vs potential or theoretical infinity. I’ve heard some of that before, I just don’t know the math enough to comment. I will plead ignorance on this point.
Jensen9: And I've shown that we do not need time for creation. A timeless, changeless choice for time to begin can give rise to the first change. But it has timelessly happened.
You’ve done no such thing, you’ve made an assertion, an illogical assertion, you haven’t ‘shown’ anything! Don’t you see that to make a choice requires CHANGE. As an entity transitions from not having made a choice to having made a choice, that is CHANGE and TIME.
Jensen9: And I've repeatedly argued that this is not true. And Doland has not responded to my argument. It is logically impossible to attain the greater good without allowing suffering. Thus God is constrained.
Please demonstrate this alleged logical impossibility.
Jensen9: So you think Hitchens would jump at the offer of eternal life if he thought it was true? You've been in the congregation of the fundamentalist atheists. You should know that there are people like Hitchens who have their own various reasons to so hate any idea of God that they wouldn't care in the least what God offers them.
Okay, I concede I was wrong, there are people that say that they wouldn’t accept God’s offer even if it was true. Yet, I guess I wonder, would they really? It is easy to say you wouldn’t so long as the possibility seems nil. But, I guess I’ll concede the point. That said, I still think MOST people would take the offer if they really thought it was true.
Jensen9: People are not condemned for what they know but for what they choose. The person who says, "God, I want to know if you are there. I'll give you all that you ask of me, all that you deserve from me, if you let me know," will find out.
I’ve done all that, please read my autobiographical info on my site.
http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/other_stuff/PaulJacobsen.htm
Jensen9: The Bible claims that we need to seek God with all of our heart and will. If one can barely get beyond a begrudging, "Okay, God, if you're there I might accept you if you give me a good explanation for all my questions, but you've gotta do some pretty good talking,"
What, specifically, is inherently wrong with disbelieving something before getting good answers? Basically you are saying that you really need to have a strong desire to believe before even beginning. What if a Mormon said to you that you need to really want to believe Mormonism before God will reveal to you the truth of Mormonism? Would you sign up for that? No.
Essentially you are making rational thought and reasonable skepticism as an evil boogieman. And yet you would employ the same rational thought and skepticism to anybody else’s fantastical claims. You just make an exception for YOUR God.
Jensen9: To claim that omnipotence requires being able to do the logically impossible is to attack a straw man.
I accept that most Christians see omnipotence the way you describe. Okay, fine. But, you just don’t realize that makes your God hypothesis superfluous. By your account, there are things about reality that can be no other way and not even God can change that. Therefore there are attributes of reality that are INDPENDENT from God and do not require a God. But those attributes of reality are sufficient to explain reality, therefore obviating any need for a God at all.
Jensen9: we need God for anything to exist.
Why? God himself is an exemption from this rule, as God doesn’t need another God to create him. Bottom line is, “something” exists without explanation, it just does. Either it is God, or it is reality itself. But since you have already conceded that there are attributes of reality that not even God can change, then, it might as well just be reality that exists without explanation.
Jensen9: No! There is absolutely no reason for Mark to mention that he wrote this gospel. He just handed it over to the people who were asking for these memoirs. They know who he is; they know he was with Peter copying down all these stories; they're the ones who were asking for these stories and teachings in writing; that's all Mark would have thought to be needed.
And how do you know any of that? How do you know that there were people asking for the memoirs? How do you know that he “just handed it over” to these people? You are just pulling more shit outa your ass. You don’t know any of this, its just pure guesswork.
Jensen9: Papias is significant at this point only because we do not today have any of the earlier written statements recording that and how Mark got this from Peter: Papias' words are the earliest witness still existing.
In other words, you just conceded you have no evidence, we don’t have the earlier statements. And, if I recall correctly, we don’t even actually have Papias’ words on the subject either, we have Esubius’ who quoted from Papias. And Esubius elsewhere criticized Papias as being unreliable in his view! (Correct me if I’m wrong on this, this is what I recall on the issue.)
Jensen9: If we have an account written 25 to 35 years after the death of the main character when other eyewitnesses were still around who could be consulted, and if we know that main character taught a very high ethic espousing (at least) honesty and truthfulness, and if this account is from someone who claims to be one of the closest followers of that main character, and if this follower had been repeating these same stories about Jesus ever since Jesus died and rose from the dead, then, no, we should think that no embellishment was involved.
Answer me a simple question: how many people claim to be close followers of Jesus but actually embellish or are otherwise not completely truthful? Lots right? So, you are refuted.
Since I happen to believe the story was actually intended to be read as fiction, there would be no witnesses to consult because it was intended to be fiction! Now, I concede I can’t prove that. But, it is really in your court to prove your side. You need to prove that there were witnesses to be consulted, for example.
And by the way, society then wasn’t exactly like society today. People didn’t have newspapers, TV, internet. Who do you think was really going to spend the time investigating every claim of every religion? For the most part, non believers didn’t do this because they were doing things like trying to live. Your average Roman citizen didn’t have the time to go chasing every claim of every religion. And believers didn’t because they had “faith”.
Jensen9: If any of the gospels were partly or largely or entirely fictional accounts, why do they lack the features that we would expect of fictional accounts?
You mean like people getting out of their graves and walking around? Or reports of things with no witnesses at all? Or mentions of virgin birth that couldn’t possibly be validated even if it did happen? OF COURSE there are OBVIOUSLY FICTIONAL elements!
Jensen9: If Peter or any of the other apostles wrote or dictated these fictions, why did they paint themselves as such failures and fools?
BECAUSE THE APOSTLES ARE FICTIONAL TOO! Or at least, that is my best guess. It’s a tried and true plot device of a fictional moral story for the characters to be “failures and fools” so that the audience can learn from the failures and foolishness of the characters. Isn’t that obvious?
Jensen9: Would someone make up a story about the savior of the world being humiliated, mocked, whipped and dying a slave's death, a death on a cross?
Richard Carrier addresses this at length. See this page:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/crucified.html
James Holding asks: "Who on earth would believe a religion centered on a crucified man?" Well, the Sumerians perhaps. One of their top goddesses, Inanna (the Babylonian Ishtar, Goddess of Love and "Queen of Heaven"), was stripped naked and crucified, yet rose again and, triumphant, condemned to Hell her lover, the shepherd-god Dumuzi (the Babylonian Tammuz). This became the center of a major Sumerian sacred story, preserved in clay tablets dating over a thousand years before Christ. The corresponding religion, which we now know included the worship of a crucified Inanna, is mentioned by Ezekiel as having achieved some popularity within Jerusalem itself by the 6th century B.C. The "women weeping for Tammuz" at the north gate of the Jewish temple (Ezekiel 8:14) we now know were weeping because Inanna had condemned him to Hell, after herself being crucified and resurrected. So the influence of this religious story and its potent, apparently compelling allure upon pre-Christian Judaism is in evidence.
Even so, my point is not that the Christians got the idea of a crucified god from early Inanna cult. There may have been some direct or indirect influence we cannot trace. We can't rule that out--the idea of worshipping a crucified deity did predate Christianity and had entered Jewish society within Palestine. But we don't know any more than that. Rather, my point is that we have here a clear example of many people worshipping a crucified god. Therefore, as a matter of principle--unless Holding wants to claim that Inanna really was resurrected--it appears that people would worship a false crucified god.
Basically, Jensen, to be blunt, you are just woefully ignorant of how and why religions get created, and haven’t a clue about other religions of the time and period of Christianity. Read a little. Start with that article by Carrier.
Jensen9: But Papias said how he had access to this information. To deny this as good evidence for his claims is to apply skeptical standards to the gospels that no historian would apply to any other historical document
Take a look at this book at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Greek-Roman-Historians-Information-Misinformation/dp/0415117704/ref=sr_1_2
It’s a purely secular work, about secular Roman historians. The author argues that at times, Josephus and other Roman historians distorted their histories for an agenda. I’m not going to argue for or against his hypothesis. I’m simply pointing out that yes, all historians apply criticism to all sources and consider all sources to be potentially false by either accident or intent. This is INDEED how history works! Deal with it.
Jensen9: Papias just said that Peter spoke according to the needs of his hearers and Mark wrote it down (obviously only when it involved Jesus' teachings or events of Jesus' life). He likely wrote it down in the evening after he had helped Peter with his speaking engagements for each day. He could have even taken notes while Peter was talking and this could have been going on since Mark first started traveling with Peter.
First, you are accepting that Papias was 100% correct, without any evidence other than taking Papias’ word. Or rather, I believe you are taking Esubias’ word on Papias’ word. And then, based on assuming Papias is 100% correct, totally making stuff up about when it was written down. Look, I grow weary of you just pulling shit out of your ass.
Jensen9: My you can fight hard for such a small gain in ground. Suppose the expulsion of the Jews from Rome had nothing to do with the Christians, what would that do to my argument? It would mean that I could still claim there were a large number of Christians in Rome fifteen years later (see my previous sentence).
I can’t figure out which “previous sentence” of yours proved large numbers of Christians in Rome, unless you refer to the part in Acts. How come no other historian took note of the Christians? None.
Jensen9: Of these numerous secular and biblical scholars, he says, "the near-unanimous identification of him [Chrestus] with Christ has made the answer to this question possibly too settled.
Don’t give me the fallacy ad populum, give me the evidence.
Jensen9: "Suetonius followed whatever source attracted him, without caring much whether it was reliable or not." “Just because no one today thinks Jesus was in Rome in 49 does not mean Suetonius couldn't have thought such a thing.”
So, let me get this straight. You find Seutonius to be unreliable, was wrong about Jesus being Rome, misspelled Chirstus, and yet you say it is “probable” that he was talking about Jesus and this is good evidence of Christianity. WHAT DRUGS ARE YOU ON? You’ve said that everything Seutonius has said about the incident is wrong, and yet this is your evidence?
Jensen9: I've also claimed that we do have the testimony of enemies of Jesus that he rose from the dead.
You have no such thing. You have claims that there was such testimony. That is NOT the same thing.
Jensen9: Then why did he so often fail to mention sources and, as Howatson relates, appear to many times care little about reliability? Mentioning sources is not always necessary if you know your sources are good and find no conflict in their accounts. Just naming your sources does not make you a better historian than someone who does not.
What you are saying is, even the best historians of the time were not always great. And Carrier agrees with this. And this is why we do indeed often doubt reports by secular historians on secular events. And if you don’t think that naming sources is important, try taking a class at a local community college and see how far you get when you turn in papers without sources. Is there nothing so stupid that you won’t say it?
Jensen9: Notice the biased claims Carrier makes against the gospel writers he would not dream of stating concerning his secular historians. And yet he praises his historians simply because some of the time, some of them cite their sources and explain their reasoning for us.
Bzzt wrong! He does indeed criticize secular historians. I simply didn’t quote far enough down. If you read the entire article, you will find Carrier agreeing with you to some degree. Here is what he says:
“And yet Suetonius is notoriously regarded by modern historians as an often-unreliable gossip-monger. Therefore, a fortiori, we have every reason to expect Luke was no better, and probably worse, when it came to critical acumen.”
You think you got Carrier by the proverbial balls, and can expose him for being a totally biased secularist buying into everything every secularist has ever said. When in reality, you show your own bias against Carrier for the charge is totally false and you base it purely on reading some few snippets of what he has written. It is your own bias you expose, not Carrier’s.
The way history actually works is to be skeptical of all claims. As George W. Bush might say, historical research is hard work, you need to stay the course and keep making progress. Historians don’t buy into third hand reports, and then pull shit out of their asses to fit a preconceived idea like you do.
Jensen indicates he added to his section on natural vs. supernatural explanations, so I will respond to some of that.
Jensen5: And what does it matter that God could "cover up" reality? This is irrelevant.
No, its not "irrelevant". And it is just not God that could cover up reality. Or, at least, once you start to allow supernatural explanations, then you can't just assume only God. Like how do you know that when you open your Bible, that the words you are reading aren't just some satanic delusion to get you to believe a lie? Once you allow supernatural explanations, you have no basis to assume something isn't supernatural even if it appears natural. You assume your senses give you accurate information about the world, even if they are imperfect and do not give you perfect information. You still assume the information is reasonably accurate and can be depended on. But you have no basis for that unless you assume apriori that there are no supernatural agents interferring.
Jensen5: I think, for example, following from the former, we can assume that God cannot do evil, and, following from the latter, that it is very intuitively likely that God cannot do evil.
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. —Isaiah 45:7
|
Yeah, I know other translations use words like "disaster", "calamity" or "woe" instead of evil. But the Hebrew word is 'ra' and it is indeed used in the Bible to mean moral evil:
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/little-known-bible-verses-v-god-creates-evil.html:
The Bible also says that God deceives:
1 Kings 22:20-23 And the LORD said, "Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?" One suggested this, and another that. Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, "I will entice him." "By what means?" the LORD asked. "I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets," he said. "You will succeed in enticing him," said the LORD. "Go and do it." So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you.
Jensen5: I've shown that it is to be expected that miracles would be rare in history.
No, once again you have made a CLAIM, you haven't shown anything. You said that God would want us to be able to distinguish between a miracle or not and therefore they would be rare. Did God tell you this? No, you just made it up. Who are you to say when or where God would or would not do miracles? Did he authorize you to speak for him? And why shouldn't Satan be doing dastardly supernatural feats continuously? Again, YOU HAVE NO BASIS for saying when or where miracles would happen, you just know that if they happened all the time then your religion is false, so, you have to come up with an ad-hoc excuse to claim otherwise.
Jensen5: Also, it seems to me unacceptable to say that God creates by just saying it and there it is. That is certainly the summary statement of what happens but it's not the entirety. If that were all there were too it, it would be more like magic than divine creation. Rather, God speaks and processes are set into motion that bring about the desired event or entity.
Ah, that's the crux isn't it, it sure sounds like PFM (pure fucking magic) doesn't it? How is it any less magical if God speaks a process into action rather than just speak a universe into being? It is STILL just PFM. It is EXACTLY the same, it just makes you feel like it is less PFM.
I initially ended this with a diatribe about how Jensen proves that he is the enemy of humanity; that his arguments prove the necessity to fight against his ilk. Of course he could say that he is just the product of his biology as I am. And as much as his thought processes annoy me, his thought processes are indeed, near as I can tell, just a part of his biology. I understand the desire to believe in free will. I really want to blame him for his free will coming up with really lame arguments, that is, if he actually had free will for me to blame!
http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/01/little-known-bible-verses-v-god-creates-evil.html:
- In Genesis 2:17, God instructs Adam and Eve not to eat from "the tree of good and ra". The tree of good and disaster? The tree of good and calamity? Clearly not: it is the tree of good and evil.
- In Genesis 6:5, God resolves to destroy humankind in the great flood because "the wickedness (ra) of man was great in the earth".
- In Genesis 13:13, the men of Sodom were "wicked (ra) and sinners before the Lord exceedingly".
- In Deuteronomy 1:35, a furious God threatens the Israelites, "Surely there shall not one of these men of this evil (ra) generation see that good land, which I sware to give unto your fathers."
- In Judges 2:11, "the children of Israel did evil (ra) in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim".
- In 1 Kings 16:30, the wicked king Ahab (husband of the infamous Jezebel) "did evil (ra) in the sight of the Lord above all that were before him".
The Bible also says that God deceives:
1 Kings 22:20-23 And the LORD said, "Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?" One suggested this, and another that. Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the LORD and said, "I will entice him." "By what means?" the LORD asked. "I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouths of all his prophets," he said. "You will succeed in enticing him," said the LORD. "Go and do it." So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you.
Jensen5: I've shown that it is to be expected that miracles would be rare in history.
No, once again you have made a CLAIM, you haven't shown anything. You said that God would want us to be able to distinguish between a miracle or not and therefore they would be rare. Did God tell you this? No, you just made it up. Who are you to say when or where God would or would not do miracles? Did he authorize you to speak for him? And why shouldn't Satan be doing dastardly supernatural feats continuously? Again, YOU HAVE NO BASIS for saying when or where miracles would happen, you just know that if they happened all the time then your religion is false, so, you have to come up with an ad-hoc excuse to claim otherwise.
Jensen5: Also, it seems to me unacceptable to say that God creates by just saying it and there it is. That is certainly the summary statement of what happens but it's not the entirety. If that were all there were too it, it would be more like magic than divine creation. Rather, God speaks and processes are set into motion that bring about the desired event or entity.
Ah, that's the crux isn't it, it sure sounds like PFM (pure fucking magic) doesn't it? How is it any less magical if God speaks a process into action rather than just speak a universe into being? It is STILL just PFM. It is EXACTLY the same, it just makes you feel like it is less PFM.
I initially ended this with a diatribe about how Jensen proves that he is the enemy of humanity; that his arguments prove the necessity to fight against his ilk. Of course he could say that he is just the product of his biology as I am. And as much as his thought processes annoy me, his thought processes are indeed, near as I can tell, just a part of his biology. I understand the desire to believe in free will. I really want to blame him for his free will coming up with really lame arguments, that is, if he actually had free will for me to blame!