Response to Tektonics - Part 3

This is a continuation of the debate between myself and J.P. Holding which is being hosted on the TheologyWeb.

CH1:

JPH> That part of God's nature which makes Him unable to do wrong is precisely part of that which cannot be "recreated" in another that has free will.

How do you know this? How do you know that it is not possible for God to be able create another being that has free will and yet never do wrong? You seem to "know" this only because, well, its gotta be true or Christianity falls apart. But there seems to be no good reason to believe this otherwise. For example, it seems quite possible that God could have created us with the free will to choose among multiple good options.

Or, another possibility would seem to be that if God knew ahead of time who would choose Him and who wouldn't, why not only create those that would choose Him? (Yeah, I know this is exactly one of the questions Moreland tried [abysmally] to answer... This question is one of the sub-objections that I recently revised. Bottom line is, I haven't found an answer to this question that I have found reasonable.) I had this same conversation with another Christian, and I used this analogy:

Say God just really hates chocolate ice cream, and anybody that would choose chocolate is immediately sent to hell. So God comes to you and says, "hey, J.P., I've got some ice cream for you, would you like chocolate, or vanilla?" And you say, "thanks God! I think I'll have the vanilla." And God says, "actually, I knew you were going to pick vanilla, and if you were going to pick chocolate, I wouldn't have created you to begin with." You still had the choice, and the fact that He knew which choice you made doesn't mean you made any less of a choice.

JPH> Hmm. God would have to make someone of unlimited power...which requires Him to get unlimited power from somewhere to give away...but He is the only source for it. Can you double infinity?

Well, you can give away half of infinity, and still have infinity left. And you can do that an infinite number of times. For example, assuming God made the universe, and it took X amount of energy, after the work was done, God doesn't have remaining "infinity minus X" energy, He still has infinite left. I gather that you haven't had a lot of math studies. This isn't a "slam", it just seems to be an accurate statement. For me, its been years since I took calculus, and I'm no expert on infinite set theory. But I think I recall the basics.

PJ> Secondly, God could have made us omniscient, but not omnipotent, no?

JPH> I don't think that would be logically possible, either. Omniscience requires transcendence, "above" the space-time continuum, which I'd say is once again something limited to God in terms of nature.

It was my understanding that Satan, the angels, and all other beings in heaven are likewise "above" the space-time continuum. At least I thought this was considered current theology. I gather that you don't hold this view, but I thought it was a fairly common view. I could be wrong. Since you disagree, you could argue that the Bible doesn't specifically say so, so you could say this supposition isn't Biblical. But then, the Bible doesn't directly say that God exists outside of time either. So, it seems that this is all pure speculation and double-talk, and we wouldn't even be talking about it, except that modern understanding of the nature of time and space has made it necessary for the theist to place God into the "above" the space-time continuum realm. But its all just guesswork that isn't very consistent with the Bible.

For example, in the Book of Job, Satan challenges God that the only reason Job is steadfast is because he has been blessed. But Satan says that surely Job would curse God to his face if Job lost all his good fortune. You could try to make the claim that Satan is temporal (like we are) but God isn't. And therefore Satan would not have foreknowledge of what would happen based upon this challenge. But, at the very least, Satan should know that God knows what would happen before it ever happens. And therefore he should have no reason to challenge God. The only way such a challenge could make any sense is if neither God nor Satan could know with certainty what would happen. Challenging someone who you already know is omniscient and omnipotent makes no sense. Therefore, the exchange in Job only makes any sense if both God and Satan are *temporal* and exist *within* our time-space continuum.

Before I put this discussion to rest, I'd like to say that I can't really say with any certainty what an omniscient, omnipotent Being could possibly do, or perhaps might choose to do. As I said earlier, I'm not sure these terms are coherent, but if they are, I'm not certain what exactly is possible for such a Being to want to do or to be able to do. For example, I said that it seems at least possible that God could have made us omniscient but not omnipotent. I can't know for certain that He could have had He wanted to, nor can I know why He might have chosen otherwise if it was possible for Him. The problem is, the theist (you, Strobel, and his experts) regularly make proclamations as to what God could or could not do. For example, you stated that the part of God's nature that cannot be recreated in another being with free will is the part of His nature that prevents Him from doing wrong. This is a very specific limitation that you are placing on God.

My point is, whether you are right or wrong, or if any of my speculations are right or wrong, I can say that from my, admittedly biased perspective, is that the specific set of limitations on God that Christianity must place on God in order for Christianity to "fit" seem rather implausible. And while I can't prove you wrong, since I'm not omniscient myself, it seems to me that it should be my right to say, "ya know, that just doesn't seem very believable." But yet Christianity seems to say that my saying "that just doesn't seem believable" is a terrible crime. This, in a nutshell, is the most significant problem (in my opinion) with Christianity.

JPH> I don't think the problem is smarts in the case. I think the problem here is emotions overruling. But I don't want to get personal, so let me expand. I have yet to find anyone (barring the mentally ill) who could not figure out the basic message of good vs. evil. I don't see that it's that hard. If not, why not?

Well, I don't believe in "good" and "evil" in the Christian sense. I don't believe in "evil" as a force, like "The Dark Side of the Force". Nor do I believe in a being that is the personification of evil, like "Satan". What we humans understand to be "evil," I believe to originate from the question, "what causes harm?" In my opinion, it is our ability to contemplate this question is one of the major things that separates us from the animals. They cannot contemplate that question, but we can. And it is how we answer that question is where we get the concepts of "good" and "evil".

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.

Again, the question arises, "how do you know this?" How do you know this is the best possible system? How do you know a better one isn't possible? I'm reminded once again of the question I asked before, "why didn't God just create the people that He knew would follow him?"

PJ>You are setting yourself up as judge

JPH>I do so under the presumption that years of study have made me qualified to be seated. At this stage I am able to make fair judgments about who is "informed" and who is not. But so be it.

On one hand, I have to confess that you do indeed seem to be well read, and much more knowledgeable than the average Joe on the street, Christian or not. In fact, in many ways, I feel out of my league debating you, for I know I will never be as well read as you. Be that as it may, you are certainly NOT the only person to have spent the majority of your life studying the Gospel. You are certainly NOT the one and only expert. On one hand, I appreciate your honesty in admitting that you have indeed put yourself in the seat of judge of what arguments are "fair" or "informed." On the other hand, such an admission by you seems to prove my point! You have sufficient confidence in your studies to consider yourself able to judge that other people's arguments are "fair" or "informed"--or not. Whilst other people with different opinions, but themselves as well read as you could likewise feel themselves able to judge your arguments and opinions. Which leads me to conclude there simply is no amount of study or reading sufficient to say, "okay, I've read enough, and the Bible definitely says 'X' on the subject of 'Y'"

While I want to try to avoid being personal as much as possible, but I feel it important to say that there are many people in history who have, like yourself, gotten to the point that they think they know exactly what the Bible, and therefore presumably what God says, who then felt they can speak for God. They think they knew how to run society because they have discerned what God wants. You may or may not like being compared to St. Augustine, but I'm reminded of a quote by him, "Women should not be enlightened or educated in any way. They should, in fact, be segregated as they are the cause of hideous and involuntary erections in holy men." I know that you would never say such a thing. But I think the reason you wouldn't say such a thing is not that you have a better understanding of God's word than Augustine, it is because you happen to live in a society that knows such statements are asinine.

Clearly Augustine was intelligent, well read, and well studied in scripture, and that didn't seem to be sufficient to discern what God wants--at least in regards to the issue of "hideous and involuntary erections." So I see no particular reason to conclude you have either--despite your intelligence and research.

History seems to show that what people who think they know what God wants, seem to always say, "God doesn't want things to change." Here's a simple example, when Elvis Presley started to shake his hips, the clergy seemed to all be certain that God found Elvis's hip-shaking "sinful" and surely he was going to hell. Fifty years later, and the average clergyman today has fond memories of The King of Rock 'n Roll! The bottom line is, if anybody has a clue what God wants, then why does "what God wants" change with every generation? The only reasonable conclusion: nobody has a clue what God wants, if He wants anything, if He even exists.

I know this has been a great diversion from our topic at hand, but when you admitted that you had set yourself up as judge, I can't help but think of every other "religious" man who thought they knew what God wanted. And this seems to me to be conclusive proof that nobody knows what God wants!

JPH> Is freedom an "imperfection"? Were the Founders of this country striving for "imperfection"?

1. Is God "free"? You said yourself that God is less free than we are. 2. Is God perfect? I think you'd say yes. 3. Therefore, freedom is imperfect.

CH2:

PJ>Therefore theories involving deceit or mistakes, even if unlikely, are still inherently more likely than being raised from the dead.

JPH> Why? This is simply fallacious: "I/others have not seen such things happen; therefore it did not in this case."

C'mon, you really know this to be true. Say I were to claim that I flapped my arms and flew to the store. And say I even had some witnesses, people that you generally consider trustworthy, saying, "yep, I say Paul flapping his arms and flying to the store." You might concede in such a case that perhaps it is true that I did do so, but you would still find yourself forced to conclude that most likely it did not really happen--and trickery or honest mistakes were more likely to have happened. Similarly with the Resurrection, I cannot prove absolutely that it did not happen, but like flapping arms and flying, a report of being raised from the dead is more likely trickery or honest mistake.

JPH> I would also add that putting it down to a narrow category ("people not known to rise from the dead") tends to stack the deck.

Okay, but if I were to start a religion that required believing that I, the founder, had flapped my arms and flown to the store, I will allow you to say that my religion has "stacked the deck" against itself... <g>

PJ> Why not, ""God is known to work in the lives of people," theoretically speaking?

Your two statements, "people are not known to rise from the dead" and "God is known to work in the lives of people" are very different kinds of statements. The first statement, "people are not known to rise from the dead" is something both you and I generally agree with. You and I both agree that people, as a rule, do not raise from the dead. We also feel we have good scientific evidence to support this contention. You may be correct that a claim "God is known to work in the lives of people" is accepted by many, even most people. But, it is a sufficiently vague claim that simply cannot be confirmed or denied. If you believe that God worked in your life to help you to "X", you cannot prove yourself correct, while I cannot prove it wrong. Therefore, your first statement deals with demonstrable fact, while your second statement deals with vague, untestable claims.

PJ> The problem is, there is no “known data”. All the reports are from highly biased sources.

JPH> Hmm. I consider this to be an all-purpose "throw away" line that merely begs the question that bias affected reportage.

Well, we can't know for certain whether it did or didn't. But, you earlier have relied on your understanding of human nature in some of your arguments. Well, my understanding of human nature is that for some reason, "human nature" tends to want to worship Someone or Something--and tends to exaggerate the powers and capabilities of this Someone or Something.

CH4:

             JPH> 1) It was written no earlier than 150 AD.

I thought scholars placed it as the same timeframe as John, but I could be mistaken.

             JPH> 2) It has obvious Gnostic tendencies that would never have "played" in Jewish Palestine.

I thought one of the Christian arguments was that NONE of the Gospels "should" have "played" in Jewish Palestine, and therefore there must have been something real to it.

             JPH> It does, however, place the burden on those who claim that there is fiction behind the Gospels.

Not when the Gospels make claims that violate natural law. And again, from my previous argument from human nature, it looks an awful lot like fiction.

CH5:

PJ> But my basic point is that the swamp/rapids/stream analogy seems to really say: "Christianity is the one true religion, and nothing else is true--but we gotta come up with some escape hatch because we'd look like fools if we said everybody else was going to hell."

JPH> Isn't that somewhat of an ad hominem and a slam on the character of those who propose it?

Please allow me to rephrase. I believe it is true that in times past, the official church doctrine of many Christian churches had in fact stated that one must be a Christian to be saved. (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this used to be true.) Which, strictly speaking would mean that anybody born before Jesus, or never heard of Jesus, would be just out of luck. Most Christians today recognize this would be unreasonable of God, and therefore have to try as best as possible to guess how salvation would work for these people. But the bottom line is, the Bible just doesn't say. Jesus said that no one comes to the Father except through him. But he was not explicit in exactly for whom he would bring to the Father. If indeed Jesus was the only human being to know exactly how salvation works, for he himself was the one and only source of it, one would think he would have been more clear on how it works! Although I suppose it might be postulated that he wanted to leave it vague, perhaps so that each individual would have to spend their own time contemplating it. But of course this postulation is just more guesswork. The bottom line is, the Bible doesn't say.

PJ> This kind of idea opens the door to questions like, "what if someone heard the Gospel only once, and the preacher who told them the Gospel was a child molester?"

JPH> A very high level of improbability there. Someone though who rejected the Gospel on that basis would be fairly foolish, would they not? Do you reject that your house may be on fire because the fireman reads porno magazines?

As far as "improbability", well, probably not very many people would fit the exact profile of "heard the Gospel only once from a child molesting preacher". But I'd say that it not unlikely that at least a few people would fit that exact profile. But, the more generic profile of, "heard the Gospel not very well, and the source of whatever information they did get seemed to be from suspect individuals" probably fits millions and millions of people. Which leads me back to some of my other comments about how there really isn't any good way to divide people up into "these people get hell" and "these people get heaven".

Strobel discussed the possibility of different levels of punishment in hell, and perhaps different levels of reward in heaven. But ultimately, "the best seat in the house" of hell is presumably distinctly and dramatically worse than the "worst seat in the house" of heaven. In fact it is this disjuncture that is one of the strongest arguments against Christian theology--there just isn't a fair way to divide up people into two groups.

Your reference to the fireman who reads porno mags is an inapt analogy. For one, well, um, I read porno mags, for the, um articles of course. So, it wouldn't bother me much if my fireman did as well. But, regardless of whether I approved of porn or not, I think I can recognize that a fireman should be sufficiently trained in fire. As far as I can tell, most people who are trained in a religion say, 'yep, my religion is right" and certainly they can't all be right.

CH6:

JPH>I'm wise enough to refrain from a strict judgment. But I would say that you have rejected the principle of productivity, on terms other than your own.

You'll notice that in one sentence, you say you are wise enough to refrain from making a "strict judgment", but then immediately proceed to do so! Although I guess you are more or less stuck making such a judgment, based on your religion. But, my point is, it simply is not true that not finding evidence for the existence of God compelling is related to accepting terms other than my own. They are completely unrelated! If God exists, far be it for me to decide what is good and what is evil, I'll defer to Him whatever He wants deferred to Him. I don't have any problem with that. I have not "rejected the principle of productivity on terms other than my own."

PJ> For example, someone that has been a life-long political conservative doesn’t often change their viewpoint to being a political liberal.

JPH> And when it does, is it rational?

??? My guess would be that it generally is. Supposedly, Winston Churchill said, "any man who is under 30 and is not a Liberal has no heart; and any man who is over 30 and not a Conservative has no brains." I don't happen to agree with this statement, as I'm overall fairly liberal--and unfortunately well over 30. But, I can say that I have seen a number of people who seem to fit Churchill's depiction; they were liberal in their younger years, and became conservative over the years. The point being that while drastic changes in points of view don't happen all the time, and usually not overnight, they do happen and are rational.

PJ> Actually, yes. “Zeno’s Paradox” is where each step is infinitely small.

JPH> Yet, there is still a step?

Well, here is a page that describes "Zeno's Paradox":

http://www.shu.edu/html/teaching/math/reals/history/zeno.html

There are actually four similar paradoxes that have survived. The most well known makes any motion at all appear to be impossible. This is because for you to traverse from point A to point B, you first have to reach the midpoint between A and B. And before you can do that, you have to traverse to the midpoint between A and the first midpoint. And since there is an infinite number of midpoints to get to, motion can (seemingly) never start. Zeno's Paradox was never solved mathematically until the 20th century. But, I think we are getting off track. Which, my contention was, if one divides up 'X' amount of punishment, over an infinite amount of time, the punishment per unit time would be either 0, or very near zero. I think this should be apparent even with minimal understanding of mathematics.

JPH> Logic has not dictated this; your experience has dictated this. It cannot be logic because no data has been collected from such situations.

Hoo-boy! I suggest you check your local college or university schedule for a course on logic. (I got an A in logic at the University of Houston, by the way...) Science is about collecting data and making observations. Logic has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with data collection! Here is an example:

A. All green aliens are from Mars.

B. Spaceman Biff is a green alien.

C. Logical conclusion: Spaceman Biff comes from Mars.

The above is foolishness, if there are green aliens, they probably do not come from Mars. But, conclusion C follows logically from premises A and B. To verify A and B would take observation, and likely observation would show premises A and B false. But, that has nothing to do with the fact that C logically follows A and B.

So, back to my understanding of omnipotence, I understand "omnipotence" means that God can indeed do anything that is not a LOGICAL fallacy. Square circles, or round squares are a logical fallacy. I do not need to collect data, checking all circles to be sure none are square to know there are no square circles. Therefore, it is reasonable that God cannot create a square circle, and no data collection is necessary, it follows from the definition.

NOTE: I took your comment about "logic has not dictated this" out of order from your commentary, because I wanted to discuss the idea of logical fallacy first, before covering some of the next material:

PJ> unless you can demonstrate why it is not logically possible for God to be able to create a world of more than ten or so people where everybody is saved, then your argument fails.

JPH> Demonstrate it? By creating my own world? Here's a demonstration: Pack as many people as you can into a room who share exactly the same viewpoint on everything. Can you do it?

No, what I mean is, you need to demonstrate a logical fallacy, such as round squares. As noted, logic has NOTHING to do with observation and testing. What you (and Moreland) seem to be trying to get at is akin to Paul Copan's idea of "feasibility". (I haven't yet written any defense about your "refutation" of my critique of Copan.) In your "refutation," I believe you said you hadn't read Copan's book yet. So, let me explain a bit of what Copan said. Copan conceded that there are things that God apparently cannot do even though there is no logical fallacy to them. He seemed to (almost) concede that shouldn't be possible if God is omnipotent. But then he produced what I feel is merely a "Deus ex Machina" solution. He came up with the idea that perhaps some things are not logically impossible, yet not "feasible" for God to do. The problem is, this makes the word "omnipotent" utterly without any meaning at all. Heck, with that kind of definition, I'm omnipotent, except I just can't do a bunch of stuff that isn't "feasible" for me to do! Therefore, I reject any attempt to try to wiggle out of God not being able to do things that aren't "feasible," unless you are going to admit God isn't omnipotent. You just can't have them both.

So, now, you have to demonstrate LOGICALLY why God cannot create a world with more than X number of people that would all be followers of God, or your (and Moreland's) argument fails. Further, even if you could demonstrate this, you would then have to demonstrate why God could not create billions of earthlike worlds, each with X number of people. Otherwise, your (and Moreland's) argument fails.

CH8:

JPH> That's not so much the point, as that the scenario of, "he'll choose right on #74,675" is not supported by any evidence, and that the mere availability of the prior choices is not an excuse that will "play" in any system of justice, human or divine as a way to demand more. [snip] The catch in that is I, personally, have no idea which of those people might make the choice, so I have to work as though any one of them will, even though some will obviously be those who would never make the choice.

But the problem is, your statement after my [snip] disproves your statement before the snip! Even if you don't know who, you've admitted that you have to have hope that some people will choose right on try 74,675 or you would have no use being an apologist. So, you've just proven me correct.

JPH> I can speak here only from experience and human nature.

Like I did when I noted that people tend to fudge the capabilities of their Deity...

JPH> Surely you do not disagree that people make choices not out of loyalty to an ideal or person, but to keep from getting punished.

Well, do they not do that already, here on Earth, before they die? Aren't some people Christians because they don't want to go to hell?

PJ> 1. One lifetime provides enough opportunities for each person to be certain that if that individual would ever choose God, they will do so within the provided opportunities.

JPH> I mean this one.

Thanks for the clarification, now I can beat you up over it... <g>

PJ> However, option 1 seems illogical. People accept Christ every day. If any of those people that accepted Christ today had died yesterday, they would have had too few opportunities. Therefore logic dictates option 1 could not be true

JPH> The answer moreover is that your person who "died yesterday" has a fate that would be known to God, who simply as needed can "move up" the encounter (speaking theoretically, of course, as if God could be surprised under the Christian paradigm!) that would result in a decision.

Well, let me rephrase the question, if those who chose God today had died yesterday AND NOTHING ELSE WAS CHANGED PRIOR TO THE MOMENT OF DEATH, then they died too early. You are adding into the equation that God would have made sure that didn't happen, somehow. Which I guess I can't prove you wrong. But, then that makes our entire life on Earth rather pointless. God already knows whether or not you would, in any circumstance, choose Him, so why bother making us go through the motions?

PJ> and says they are 100% on the side of a lone gunman is saying that someone else who has spent many hours and concluded otherwise is 100% wrong. This is a position of arrogance.

JPH> The only way to tell is to critically evaluate and see who has done the best job. I see little evidence that those who play both ends are being "honest" as much as using the word "honest" as a baptizing of their attempt not to offend anyone. When closely questioned, I find such people reveal their hands.

Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that if there was a way to provide an unbiased, exact quantitative measure of evidence, the measure of the evidence for the lone gunman/multiple gunmen in the Kennedy assassination is exactly 50/50. That should mean that no matter how much time people spend studying the Kennedy assassination, the "right" answer for an expert on it would be "I have absolutely no idea, it could be one gunman, it could be multiple gunmen." I have to concede that in my contrived scenario, I kind of doubt many people who claim to be "experts" on the assassination would be willing to say, "I have utterly no clue". For one, people who claim to be experts on something are reticent to say, "I have no idea". People would probably find either some of the evidence on one side or the other to be more personally compelling, and pick a side. So, to some degree, I'm basically agreeing with you that being dead-center, 50/50, uncommital isn't very normal for human nature.

But, even so, in my contrived scenario of the evidence of the lone gunman being exactly 50/50, I would expect there would be very many experts on the assassination to say things like, "it's very puzzling, there's good evidence on both sides. I personally find the evidence on the side of 'X' being stronger, but it is still inconclusive". In other words, while I think that few people would be willing to sit dead center, many people would easily be not 0% and not 100%.

So, when you claim, "when closely questioned, I find such people reveal their hands" you may indeed find people moving off center, and picking one side or the other to some degree, but that is still not the same as saying that you have shown them to actually be 0% or 100%. Basically, you are claiming to be doing more mind reading. And, well, you can't read my mind. And while now I'm pretty much at 0% on the issue of Christ, I wasn't always. There were indeed times when I was over 50%, but probably not 100%. And times that I was below 50%, but not yet at my current 0%. And that is simply the truth, like it or not.

But, since I conceded that it is probably true that very few people are exactly dead center 50/50. So you might say that is good enough, if everybody is at least off dead center, then those who are above 50% get heaven and those below 50% get hell. But that basically means that in my "faith quota" analogy the number happens to be 50, and everything else I said about it is correct.

JPH> I was indeed proposing a closer point by point look. But don't feel obliged to do so. I do have the unfair advantage of doing this and nothing else with my time.

Well, lets see how this debate plays out first. I suspect we'll hit a deadlock within a few more rounds. We might then cover other topics, or go our own ways.

Back Home Up Next