The concept of an afterlife is inhumane and immoral. Belief in the continuation of your "soul" or consciousness after death is wishful thinking. Belief in an afterlife devalues the one life that actually exists: this one.
I deny that God speaks to us today like He did during the Biblical era. So in that sense I agree with the video-clip. However, and this is the funny part, it didn't even refute the authenticity of the fact that God "spoke" to Bush, Ratzinger, et al. All it did was say that we know God doesn't speak to them because of traffic jams, which is outrageously equated to the Katrina incident and 9/11!
Furthermore, the premise "If they heard a perfect, all-knowing voice then their decisions would be perfect and all-knowing" is false and begs the question. How can a verbal voice be all-knowing? And how can a decision be all-knowing too? That's a categorical mistake.
Try as you might to argue for it but the video clip sucked.
Over here on the athiest side of the camp, I have to agree. That was a poor video.
A very ineptly presented argument.
Not citing your references is always a bad sign.
It would have been better to take each of those men who claim to hear god and list some of their bad, imperfect, or evil decisions so we could see that if they do hear god, they're clearly ignoring the guy.
There's a more serious mistake in the assumption that those who hear "a perfect, all-knowing voice" will make "perfect, all-knowing decisions," and as such, presumably perfect, flawless actions than the category error which you note. The "category mistake" is a rather trivial one, simply the use of poorly considered language, which could easily be cleaned up.
Suppose, for instance, they had said something like
If they heard the voice of a perfect, all-knowing being, then their decisions would be perfect, a reflection of their access to the voice of omniscience.
I suppose, nitpicking, you could say that the phrase "voice of omniscience" assumes that a trait has a voice, similarly a category error. But, of course
1. I could say that I was using the phrase metaphorically, or
2. you could eventually clean up the phrase, using more than the ten or so seconds that I spent on it, to eventually eliminate the category error inherant in it.
Still, behind the assumption that those who recieve a perfect revelation will perfectly receive that revelation, there is a much more serious, less trivial mistake, and a mistake which cannot be clean up by some cosmetic touches to the language.
Simply put, as far as I can see, any revelation involves both a giver and a receiver. Even supposing (hypothetically - I'm not here positing my own theory of the divine nature) that the giver of a revelation - in this case, God - is perfect, for that revelation to be perfectly received it must be received by a perfect receiver, and no one firmly within the Christian tradition would claim perfection for themselves.
So, absent the assumption that the human being hearing the voice of God is also a perfect being, it does not follow from
a.) God is perfect, and b.) God's revelation is perfect, that c.) human beings perfectly receive said divine revelation.
Someone who assumes the traditional theistic properties ascribed to God, namely
1. omniscience, and 2. omnipotence
is not by virtue of holding to those assumptions bound to come to the conclusion that the test for divine revelation is in the human reception of said revelation.
Or, as anonymous so wittily put it
... if they do hear god, they're clearly ignoring the guy.
I can tell you from my experience that God does talk to people and He does answer prayer. It's too bad there are so many "posers" out there who make it difficult to believe but in the end it doesn't change the reality that God does in fact exist and wants a relationship with each of us. I wonder how many people who believe this actually asked those questions and received a negative response back from God, or how many people just take the fact that they don't regularly communicate with Him as evidence that He doesn't exist?
Can you ask him a question for me, cause he doesnt seem to wanna talk to me.
Can you ask him why he made animals and people with opposite genders and reproductive organs from the start, even though they were supposed to live forever?
Let me know what he tells you, because if he answers this question for me through you, then I will totally convert on the spot.
If you get it for him, he will convert too. You can win over two atheists at once dude! Youll be a hero! That will get you in to Heaven almost guaranteed! :D
Re: sex organs... probably had something to do with "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth," Gen.1:28. Don't worry, I don't expect you to convert. ;)
So draracle, do you admit humans are fancy animals enhanced by evolution and that humans were not created in image and likeness of God?
Gen 1:27-28 So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.
Aaron Kinney, post 10:55 am, October 10, 2006: so, you don't like that there is diversity in creation - perhaps we ought to whitewash so that your mind won't be disturbed by all the differences??? Also, why doesn't your friend Dawson Bethrick get a good pair of eyeglasses or lasik surgery? That would be a very kind and loving expression of you to buy that for him. Wouldn't want to rob you of your opportunity and blessing of showing love and generosity toward another human - or perhaps you want a God who does everything for you - oops! but you don't believe in God - sorry.
10 comments:
I deny that God speaks to us today like He did during the Biblical era. So in that sense I agree with the video-clip. However, and this is the funny part, it didn't even refute the authenticity of the fact that God "spoke" to Bush, Ratzinger, et al. All it did was say that we know God doesn't speak to them because of traffic jams, which is outrageously equated to the Katrina incident and 9/11!
Furthermore, the premise "If they heard a perfect, all-knowing voice then their decisions would be perfect and all-knowing" is false and begs the question. How can a verbal voice be all-knowing? And how can a decision be all-knowing too? That's a categorical mistake.
Try as you might to argue for it but the video clip sucked.
Over here on the athiest side of the camp, I have to agree. That was a poor video.
A very ineptly presented argument.
Not citing your references is always a bad sign.
It would have been better to take each of those men who claim to hear god and list some of their bad, imperfect, or evil decisions so we could see that if they do hear god, they're clearly ignoring the guy.
Frank Walton,
There's a more serious mistake in the assumption that those who hear "a perfect, all-knowing voice" will make "perfect, all-knowing decisions," and as such, presumably perfect, flawless actions than the category error which you note. The "category mistake" is a rather trivial one, simply the use of poorly considered language, which could easily be cleaned up.
Suppose, for instance, they had said something like
If they heard the voice of a perfect, all-knowing being, then their decisions would be perfect, a reflection of their access to the voice of omniscience.
I suppose, nitpicking, you could say that the phrase "voice of omniscience" assumes that a trait has a voice, similarly a category error. But, of course
1. I could say that I was using the phrase metaphorically, or
2. you could eventually clean up the phrase, using more than the ten or so seconds that I spent on it, to eventually eliminate the category error inherant in it.
Still, behind the assumption that those who recieve a perfect revelation will perfectly receive that revelation, there is a much more serious, less trivial mistake, and a mistake which cannot be clean up by some cosmetic touches to the language.
Simply put, as far as I can see, any revelation involves both a giver and a receiver. Even supposing (hypothetically - I'm not here positing my own theory of the divine nature) that the giver of a revelation - in this case, God - is perfect, for that revelation to be perfectly received it must be received by a perfect receiver, and no one firmly within the Christian tradition would claim perfection for themselves.
So, absent the assumption that the human being hearing the voice of God is also a perfect being, it does not follow from
a.) God is perfect, and
b.) God's revelation is perfect, that
c.) human beings perfectly receive said divine revelation.
Someone who assumes the traditional theistic properties ascribed to God, namely
1. omniscience, and
2. omnipotence
is not by virtue of holding to those assumptions bound to come to the conclusion that the test for divine revelation is in the human reception of said revelation.
Or, as anonymous so wittily put it
... if they do hear god, they're clearly ignoring the guy.
Frank,
Is "sucks" the only negative word you know? You seem to be obsessed with the word. Do you use it more often as an adjective or a verb?
I can tell you from my experience that God does talk to people and He does answer prayer. It's too bad there are so many "posers" out there who make it difficult to believe but in the end it doesn't change the reality that God does in fact exist and wants a relationship with each of us. I wonder how many people who believe this actually asked those questions and received a negative response back from God, or how many people just take the fact that they don't regularly communicate with Him as evidence that He doesn't exist?
Just a thought...
Jake,
Can you ask him a question for me, cause he doesnt seem to wanna talk to me.
Can you ask him why he made animals and people with opposite genders and reproductive organs from the start, even though they were supposed to live forever?
Let me know what he tells you, because if he answers this question for me through you, then I will totally convert on the spot.
Also, can you pray for my good friend Dawson Bethrick to be granted 20/20 vision?
If you get it for him, he will convert too. You can win over two atheists at once dude! Youll be a hero! That will get you in to Heaven almost guaranteed! :D
Re: sex organs... probably had something to do with "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth," Gen.1:28. Don't worry, I don't expect you to convert. ;)
So draracle, do you admit humans are fancy animals enhanced by evolution and that humans were not created in image and likeness of God?
Gen 1:27-28
So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.
God didn't care about overpopulation, did he? Looks like it's a recently coined term.
Aaron Kinney, post 10:55 am, October 10, 2006: so, you don't like that there is diversity in creation - perhaps we ought to whitewash so that your mind won't be disturbed by all the differences??? Also, why doesn't your friend Dawson Bethrick get a good pair of eyeglasses or lasik surgery? That would be a very kind and loving expression of you to buy that for him. Wouldn't want to rob you of your opportunity and blessing of showing love and generosity toward another human - or perhaps you want a God who does everything for you - oops! but you don't believe in God - sorry.
Post a Comment