Response to Tektonics - Part 5
Sorry for the long delay again. Here is my next response:
JPH> What are the odds that nothing "bad" will EVER be done? That is the real issue.
Well, what are the odds that nobody will ever choose to eat chocolate ice cream, if God doesn't create anybody that would eat chocolate ice cream? 100%. Likewise, the odds of nobody EVER doing anything "bad," if God doesn't create anybody that would do "bad" is 100%. You will no doubt argue that would take away free will. But, as I've already stated, I don't believe it is a requirement that anybody actually do something "bad" for it to be a real choice.
JPH> What are the odds that nothing "bad" will EVER be done? That is the real issue.
Well, what are the odds that nobody will ever choose to eat chocolate ice cream, if God doesn't create anybody that would eat chocolate ice cream? 100%. Likewise, the odds of nobody EVER doing anything "bad," if God doesn't create anybody that would do "bad" is 100%. You will no doubt argue that would take away free will. But, as I've already stated, I don't believe it is a requirement that anybody actually do something "bad" for it to be a real choice.
JPH> You're using the not-happening of particulars to argue for the not- happening of a much broader general.
|
No matter, God is all-powerful, so he should be capable of dealing in the "broader general" sense.
JPH> I've recently had some insights about the matter of infinity as it relates to atonement that seriously changes the way I argue this point and boots infinity out of the picture as a concern. It's now posted here in the Tektonics.org section under "Honor and Pain" and I'd be interested in your response.
|
Okay, I've your article, and Glenn Miller's article that you link to. I found one paragraph of his worth quoting:
In much of traditional orthodoxy, heaven will be populated by a very small minority of the world's population. And, although they will be blessed immeasurably, this doesn't really seem 'heavy enough' to counterbalance the belief that the vast majority of the population is tormented forever in a hell of conscious agony. To make the situation even more grim, this unending torment is often said to be based on events which transpire within a range of a few decades or so of human time. The stakes are incredibly high, and often, it seems these stakes are not even in the awareness of those making them. It is difficult to conceive of any action, decision, or lack thereof, by a mortal being, having that level of impact--and/or "deserving" that severity of repercussion. [Theologians make honest attempts to make 'finite' decisions to reject God, into 'infinite sins' (via rejection of an 'infinite' God) as ways of making sense of the apparent imbalance between cause/effect.]
|
So, Glenn Miller seems to have sympathy for the skeptics position that "traditional orthodoxy" doesn't seem terribly fair, and his reference to theologians making "honest attempts" to reconcile this apparent injustice seems to be essentially an admission that the "honest attempts" ultimately fail. I was quite impressed at his honesty at admitting that there does seem to be a genuine issue here. Yet his paper goes on (and on, and on) and I never saw him present a solution to his conundrum. Maybe I missed it somehow... But, back to your article, you offer the "honor and shame" hypothesis as the solution to this conundrum. But I don't see how this ultimately changes anything. You say this makes "Zeno's Paradox" a moot issue, but to me, all you seem to have done is exchanged one "Zeno's Paradox" for another. Is eternal shaming a fair response to a finite shaming of God? How much shame per unit time is a fair response to shaming God? Or, will you simply alter Miller's depiction of an "honest attempt" by substituting "infinite shame" for his "infinite sin"?
Essentially, as far as I can see "shame" is just a form of "punishment" and I see no particular difference whether God's goal is to "punish" non-believers or to "shame" them. In either case, what is the point of doing so eternally? Normally, when someone tries to "shame" you, the goal is similar to punishment, to make you not want to do the "shameful" act again. But shaming someone for all eternity seems to be just as pointless as punishing them for all eternity.
Essentially, as far as I can see "shame" is just a form of "punishment" and I see no particular difference whether God's goal is to "punish" non-believers or to "shame" them. In either case, what is the point of doing so eternally? Normally, when someone tries to "shame" you, the goal is similar to punishment, to make you not want to do the "shameful" act again. But shaming someone for all eternity seems to be just as pointless as punishing them for all eternity.
JPH> If they are created, they had a beginning point. Thus they must logically have experience of duration.
|
I concede this sounds logical. Possibly it could be argued, but I don't think I could do so adequately, so I will concede the point.
PJ> my understanding is that heaven is NOT within our universe.
JPH> Yes I go along with that. If parallel dimensions are explicable there, why not here?
Well, although I think that other universes may exist, I think "parallel dimensions" are science fiction. People tend to think that there is some linkage of some sort between time in our universe, and time in other dimensions, such as perhaps heaven. For example, people tend to think that if it is 11:00 PM CDT, April 18, 2004, then it must be 11:00 PM CDT, April 18 2004 in heaven. While I can't prove that God didn't make some kind of a time linkage such that would be true, I can say that is not what one would expect based on physics. Physics tells us that time only has relevance within a time-space continuum. As an analogy, say you are under water, 10' deep in the Atlantic Ocean. How deep are you in the Pacific Ocean? The question makes no sense, you aren't any depth in the Pacific Ocean. Likewise, if it is 11:00 PM CDT, April 18, 2004 in our universe, it makes no sense to ask, "what time is it in some other universe?" There is no linkage. So, there should be no linkage between our time and any time in any other time-space continuum. Again, I can concede I can't prove God did not make some sort of linkage, I'm just saying that is not apparent from our understanding of time-space.
PJ> my understanding is that heaven is NOT within our universe.
JPH> Yes I go along with that. If parallel dimensions are explicable there, why not here?
Well, although I think that other universes may exist, I think "parallel dimensions" are science fiction. People tend to think that there is some linkage of some sort between time in our universe, and time in other dimensions, such as perhaps heaven. For example, people tend to think that if it is 11:00 PM CDT, April 18, 2004, then it must be 11:00 PM CDT, April 18 2004 in heaven. While I can't prove that God didn't make some kind of a time linkage such that would be true, I can say that is not what one would expect based on physics. Physics tells us that time only has relevance within a time-space continuum. As an analogy, say you are under water, 10' deep in the Atlantic Ocean. How deep are you in the Pacific Ocean? The question makes no sense, you aren't any depth in the Pacific Ocean. Likewise, if it is 11:00 PM CDT, April 18, 2004 in our universe, it makes no sense to ask, "what time is it in some other universe?" There is no linkage. So, there should be no linkage between our time and any time in any other time-space continuum. Again, I can concede I can't prove God did not make some sort of linkage, I'm just saying that is not apparent from our understanding of time-space.
PJ> I always thought of Satan as being depicted as "diabolical"--of intellect befitting a being intended by God to be His finest creation.
JPH> That view seems derived from an assumption that Satan is the "prince" mentioned in the OT in Ezekiel and Isaiah, which I find completely unfounded. |
Interesting. I have some articles on Satan on my site, including some links to some Christian sites that make similar claims. But I never would have guessed you felt that way. Do you have any articles on your site that express this position? If so, could you give me some links?
JPH> (sorry -- I'm a Trekker and Star Wars is my sworn enemy).
Rather off topic, but I enjoy both and see no point in having to "take sides" in Trek vs. Wars. But, Trek (except for the generally wretched "Voyager") is overall far more intelligent than Wars. But I have hopes that Episode 3 might yet be a worthy Wars. PJ> But, you had earlier made the positive claim that this is the best possible world. JPH> Can you quote me on that? |
Okay, you didn't say exactly that, you did say we have the best possible system. Here is the quote I was thinking of:
JPH> There is a lack of distinction made here between being satisfied with the system as the best one possible, and being satisfied with those who choose to be "deviant" while realizing that this comes of the best of possible options.
|
Also note that you defended, at least in general, Paul Copan's book (although we haven't started debating your defense of that). And Paul Copan does indeed make the claim that this is the best possible world, he knows this as God wouldn't create anything less.
JPH> I would say that this could be the best possible world and that a doubter needs to explain how and why another way is better.
|
Well, presumably heaven is better. So, this couldn't be the best possible world.
PJ> But, it has been fairly common for those who seek political office to believe they know God's plans and desires, and attempt to run society based on it.
JPH>If they did not have God, do you suppose they would contrive some other means? Isn't that what Communism did? |
Well, that is always possible. There are always people who want power, and will either use God, or deny God, depending on which suites their fancy. But I'm not necessarily talking about people who are just out for power. I'm just talking about your Average Joe (A. J.) who wants to see society improve. And when A. J. discusses what he might think is good or bad for society, most of the time he'll be willing to at least consider alternate ideas and points of view--except when A. J. thinks the edict came from God. And in that case, many A. J.'s can be utterly unwilling to consider the possibility that any other point of view can be worth considering. Nobody seems as certain they are correct than those who think that God says they are right. That is just they way it seems to me, I'm afraid I can't prove it.
PJ> Well, gee, if I found the secret to being able to fly by flapping my own arms, that would probably be a valuable skill. I'd think just about everybody would want to know how I did it.
JPH> Heck no. The amount of energy required would make it more a burden than anything else. My first thought would be (if I figured you to be sincere), "So he found a way to fly, but he's gonna die next week of exhaustion." |
Oh, come now. Had I found a way to flap my arms and fly to the store, I might have found a way to generate my own power without excessive strain. And, even if my skill was impractical for regular use (for whatever reason) it could still be an emergency life saver. Similarly, even if my skill was mostly impractical, the physics behind it (how I managed to do the seemingly impossible) might have other applications worth investigating. You seem to be working very hard to avoid conceding that I'm right, you wouldn't believe it.
Now, the usual Christian response (I believe) would be something like, "you're right, I wouldn't believe you, under your own power, flew. Nor would I believe that an ordinary man, under his own power, rose from the dead. But I believe that God has sufficient power to do either. And if God had decided to give you the power to fly, then you could indeed fly. If you gave me reason to believe God might have given you such power, then I would consider the idea." Would you agree with this line of thinking?
Now, the usual Christian response (I believe) would be something like, "you're right, I wouldn't believe you, under your own power, flew. Nor would I believe that an ordinary man, under his own power, rose from the dead. But I believe that God has sufficient power to do either. And if God had decided to give you the power to fly, then you could indeed fly. If you gave me reason to believe God might have given you such power, then I would consider the idea." Would you agree with this line of thinking?
PJ> Like it or not, it is part of the human system of evaluation to include perceived reliability of the source of information when determining whether or not the information itself is reliable or not. That's just the way it is.
JPH> Then your answer is, "I know the process we go through is flawed and that we are responsible for that, but it still makes no difference"? |
Well, there simply is no magic formula for determining truth, or the validity of someone's testimony. There are things that we can do to "put the odds in our favor." For example, it is not totally erroneous for someone to doubt wild claims from someone that has a history of false wild claims. It is always possible that in the specific instance, the person is telling the truth. But that doesn't mean it was off base to have doubted.
JPH> I'd have Phelps kissing the mat pretty quickly, though he'd be too dumb to know it.
Well, that much I'd like to see. I'd like to see a debate with you and Phelps, either Jim or Fred.
JPH> Yes, you have it right. Why is this unlikely when an omniscient being is in the mix?
Well, going back to an argument above, why is it unlikely that nothing bad would ever happen when an omniscient being is in the mix? It is somewhat aggravating when the Christian's God's omniscience/omnipotence seems to come and go at the whim of the apologist.
As to why, to me, it seems unlikely that God would make sure that people would get the "74,676th chance" is simply that it seems that your theology has internal inconsistencies. God isn't capable of using his omniscience/omnipotence to prevent "bad" from happening without interfering in free will, and yet is is capable of making sure you get the 74,676th chance if you need that. Well, it seems to me that He should be able to do both, or neither.
JPH> I'd have Phelps kissing the mat pretty quickly, though he'd be too dumb to know it.
Well, that much I'd like to see. I'd like to see a debate with you and Phelps, either Jim or Fred.
JPH> Yes, you have it right. Why is this unlikely when an omniscient being is in the mix?
Well, going back to an argument above, why is it unlikely that nothing bad would ever happen when an omniscient being is in the mix? It is somewhat aggravating when the Christian's God's omniscience/omnipotence seems to come and go at the whim of the apologist.
As to why, to me, it seems unlikely that God would make sure that people would get the "74,676th chance" is simply that it seems that your theology has internal inconsistencies. God isn't capable of using his omniscience/omnipotence to prevent "bad" from happening without interfering in free will, and yet is is capable of making sure you get the 74,676th chance if you need that. Well, it seems to me that He should be able to do both, or neither.
JPH>I really don't see any possibility of someone going through so many changes that they could not fit them into 50 or 70 years, unless they deliberately ignore the questions (maybe they like TV better?), which is itself a choice.
|
Well, your wording seems to be a concession that there are indeed some people, even if they wasted too much of their first 70 years vegging out when they shouldn't have, nevertheless, conceivably could eventually get bored with TV, ask better questions, and eventually convert. And if God wants people who would eventually choose right no matter how long it takes, then these people should get to live for hundreds of years if necessary.
PJ>And moreover, whether it is the "right" reason or not, you did agree that it can be a motivator. And even if that is the motivator, if someone then chooses Christ, they are still saved, right?
JPH>Saved, but immature. And if they are part of the elect, waiting longer to be saved in order to be a mature believer is a far better option. |
But, you would still be forced to concede that "saved but immature" is still a better option than "not saved", no?
PJ> Any experience God might want me to have, He could implant it into my mind and I would know no difference. Therefore, actually having to go through the motions of doing anything seems pointless.
JPH> Then how is it any less pointless under the "five minutes" ago model in which you really believe you had all the experiences? |
I guess I don't understand your question. Any need to actually go through any experience seems pointless, if God already knows what they will be and can implant them in your head.
Addendum:
I neglected to comment on a few items originally. So I am adding this to my response 5:
I neglected to comment on a few items originally. So I am adding this to my response 5:
JPH> I would say that this could be the best possible world and that a doubter needs to explain how and why another way is better. After all, they are the ones complaining. Even though they lack omniscience. By all means think it possible, but do not argue for it unless you are prepared to substantiate it with a thorough argument.
|
You no doubt have many times addressed the issue of who has the burden of proof of what. Skeptics will generally say the burden of proof lies with the claimant, the theist. And therefore the burden of proof lies with them. Christians will say that skeptics also make claims, and therefore the burden of proof then shifts to them. Such as above, you say that if the skeptic thinks another way is better, "they are the ones complaining" and therefore the burden of proof shifts to the skeptic. Well, that really isn't true. Say for example someone is on trial for murder. And the prosecution produces some evidence, such as maybe blood of the victim in the defendant's car. Then say the defense provides an alternate scenario for how the blood got in the car--perhaps the defense may claim the victim had been in the car at one time, with a cut, and that was unrelated to the murder. The prosecution doesn't get to say, "well, the defense has now offered a claim, and now the burden of proof that the blood was in the car by a cut must be proved by the defense." No, the burden of proof that the blood did not come from the cut is still on the prosecution! The defense merely needs to provide a plausible counter-explanation, not a proof of the counter-explanation, in order to bring about "reasonable doubt".
So, what you tried to do is you worded your phrasing to make it appear that you are not making a positive claim. You appear that you are not making the positive claim that this is the best possible world. You said "I would say this could be the possible world". But then ask me to prove that it is not if I say it isn't. This is rather like saying, "it could be true that George W. Bush is an alien from an alternate dimension, but if someone doubts it, they should be prepared to substantiate it with a thorough argument". And then when I say, "well, its rather difficult to prove he isn't an alien from an alternate dimension." And then you say, "AHA! So you admit that you cannot produce a shred of evidence for your claim that George W. Bush is not from an alternate dimension! This man is making claims and yet admits he can produce no evidence!"
What I'm saying is, you used a word game to make a claim by not making a claim and then say it is up to the doubter to prove it wrong. This is an end-around tactic to attempt to switch burden of proof to me. Well, no, you are still the claimant and the burden of proof still lies with you.
So, what you tried to do is you worded your phrasing to make it appear that you are not making a positive claim. You appear that you are not making the positive claim that this is the best possible world. You said "I would say this could be the possible world". But then ask me to prove that it is not if I say it isn't. This is rather like saying, "it could be true that George W. Bush is an alien from an alternate dimension, but if someone doubts it, they should be prepared to substantiate it with a thorough argument". And then when I say, "well, its rather difficult to prove he isn't an alien from an alternate dimension." And then you say, "AHA! So you admit that you cannot produce a shred of evidence for your claim that George W. Bush is not from an alternate dimension! This man is making claims and yet admits he can produce no evidence!"
What I'm saying is, you used a word game to make a claim by not making a claim and then say it is up to the doubter to prove it wrong. This is an end-around tactic to attempt to switch burden of proof to me. Well, no, you are still the claimant and the burden of proof still lies with you.
PJ> And exactly how much of what Jesus taught do I have to believe? If I think he was an inspirational rabbi, is that good enough? Why or why not?
JPH> Why not? Answer this: Of what efficacy does believing him to be an inspirational rabbi have upon the core "problem" Christianity relates, of personal sin and a distance from God? |
I know that you generally deride Earl Doherty, but his review of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ addresses this question better than I can. His review is a combined review of the movie, which he concedes has high cinematic value; and of the theology it portrays, which (surprise, surprise) he isn't so keen on. But in my opinion, he expresses this quite well in this review:
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/AORPassion.htm
In short, his basic idea is that there doesn't seem to be any rational "efficacy" of the Christian salvation methodology. God is the one that chose what He wanted for the methodology of salvation. He was just as free to chose that a belief Jesus was an inspirational Rabbi was the method of salvation as he was to chose that a belief that Jesus was a prophesized Messiah is the method of salvation.
So to your question, "of what efficacy does believing him to be an inspirational rabbi have upon the core 'problem' Christianity relates[...]?" My answer is, as much efficacy as God chooses it to have. Its his plan.
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/AORPassion.htm
In short, his basic idea is that there doesn't seem to be any rational "efficacy" of the Christian salvation methodology. God is the one that chose what He wanted for the methodology of salvation. He was just as free to chose that a belief Jesus was an inspirational Rabbi was the method of salvation as he was to chose that a belief that Jesus was a prophesized Messiah is the method of salvation.
So to your question, "of what efficacy does believing him to be an inspirational rabbi have upon the core 'problem' Christianity relates[...]?" My answer is, as much efficacy as God chooses it to have. Its his plan.