Three Powerful Books

[_honorentheos]

Why I gave that question a 50 is I don't see evidence for the God of the Old Testament or New Testament in the universe. The world described in the Bible seems to be very much of it's time. The Old Testament was a story of a people among many people who grappled with trying to explain the world they saw, borrowed stories from around them to do so and made them their own, and struggled to understand how they were both Gods chosen people while being a pawn in the geopolitical landscape of the Near East and Mediterranean.

The New Testament is similarly a narrative the picked up the story of the chosen people being subjected to Roman rule, and it's hardly compelling as evidence that Jesus was any of the things Christianity claims he was.

Looking at the universe, it seems safe to say humanity is not a primary focus of the cosmos as a whole. The vast majority of it is in hospitable to humankind and our existence is a blip on the time scale of the universe.

But there's a lot we don't know and we are imperfect instruments for perceiving reality comprehensively. We are pretty bad at it, actually. The scientific method, mathematics, and the technology we've devloped have allowed us to make huge strides but really, we are just limited by our biology and may never figure out many critical fundamental qualities and laws that govern the universe. So, could the idea of a god be feasible? Sure. I'm agnostic about that. I don't know how one rules it out completely without being overconfident. But is that the god of the Bible? Very, very unlikely.

You want to discuss the evidence for and against the God of the Bible?

[_Themis]

We have to deal with #1 first...

I'm not trying to stop you from doing this. Quite the opposite.

MG Neither am I, but I would note that when it comes to Mormonism, one can just focus on #3. 1 and 2 are not dependent on #3 being true. They can be true while 3 false. I considered 1-4 all true when looking at the evidences regarding Mormon truth claims.

[_mentalgymnast]

We have to deal with #1 first...

I'm not trying to stop you from doing this. Quite the opposite.

I’ve already invested the time explaining why this isn’t going to go anywhere. Juggernaut.

I suppose you could have a back and forth public conversation with yourself and demonstrate how it might pan out in a mock up conversation.

It might take a bit of work and tax your creativity a bit. See how it goes. I’d really like to see if you can do it. I think it would be impossible. That’s why I’m very hesitant to even hop on board. Give it a go. Get the conversation going.

Oxford Debate. Take both sides. Show how it can be done. I’m doubtful. Surprise me. You might be able to teach me something.

Regards,
MG

[_Morley]

You might be able to teach me something.

And you might teach us something. As I see it, you have nothing to lose by engaging him, MG.

[_Morley]

I’ve already invested the time explaining why this isn’t going to go anywhere. Juggernaut.

Excuse my ignorance. What do you mean by 'Juggernaut,' in this context?

[_Lemmie]

If you don’t mind, please let honor respond without your meddling. You tend to throw things off track without actually engaging in the discussion.

I’d like to leave my post intact without your interference. If honor has a problem responding to my post...as is...let him be the one to say so. He doesn’t need a nanny.

Please bow out unless you can add something substantive to the discussion.

Lol. That’s not how discussions work, mentalgymnast.

Actually, that is not what Corbridge says:


He includes 3 and 4 as primary questions, he doesn’t say 2, and then 3 and 4 rely on 1.

But honor already pointed that out

Thank you, Lemmie.

It’s rather obvious that #’s 2,3, and 4 rely on #1.

We may find ourselves locked into a juggernaut at the outset. If so, I’m not going there.

We have to deal with #1 first and the questions I’ve asked.

I take it by this you are no longer basing your argument on Corbridge’s position then?

If that is the case, what exactly is the “juggernaut” you see yourself locked into? Your use of that phrase is not clear.

ETA: I see Morley has asked the same question about your second use of that term.

[_mentalgymnast]

I’ve already invested the time explaining why this isn’t going to go anywhere. Juggernaut.

Excuse my ignorance. What do you mean by 'Juggernaut,' in this context?

A force, an idea, or a system of beliefs that overcomes opposition — especially if it does so ruthlessly — is called a “juggernaut.”

We are at an impasse because honor has the upper hand as it relates to the nature of the argument, which I’ve explained earlier. The secular offense is ruthlessly oppositional to theism. Typically there are no holds barred. I’m not willing to get in that kind of a scrap when it comes to defending my belief in God, knowing that I am at a distinct disadvantage as I try to explain to a materialist what is often the unexplainable in a strictly materialistic sense.

Scriptures, non-starter. Witnesses, non-starter. Spirit/Holy Ghost, non-starter. We actually speak a language that might as well be foreign to each other. The language of the Spirit is no longer part of his ‘working’ vocabulary as it once was. We have very little, if any, common ground to begin with.

He knows that and I know that.

So thanks but no thanks.

I think it would be interesting to see if he could create a ‘mock’ debate between two parties representing him and me and see if it goes anywhere...but I think the likelihood is negligible.

Say something along the like of the Screwtape Letters.

#1 has to be ‘in place’ before #’s 2,3,or 4 ( Corbridge) can really go anywhere. God or no God. If that’s NOT the case then roll em’ Screwtape. Entertain and enlighten us us. Otherwise, let it go. What’s the point in being ruthless in pursuing this direction/goal unless you believe it’s scoring points for a win by default?

I can’t prove to you (I assume you’re reading this post, honor) that there’s a creator God...so the rest of the ‘purple list’ is a waste of time. Get us through number one and we could go from there...

Good luck. If you think that it’s within the bounds of possibility for me to throw ‘good evidence’ at you, then give it a go. Show us how that conversation would look. At least start it out so that it can move into or dovetail with #’s 2,3,and 4 (using Corbridge’s primary questions). I think you’ll run into an impasse.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

I suppose you could have a back and forth public conversation with yourself and demonstrate how it might pan out in a mock up conversation.

Hi honor, I hear you are attempting to discuss the probability that there is a god.

Hey honor, yeah I am. I previously asserted this was so likely to be true that it is unimaginable to me that evidence could exist that changes that belief. But the support for this isn't something I can share.

Wow, that's interesting given I also noticed you had no problem evaluating evidence regarding the reliability of the New Testament or LDS history and recognizing that the probability a statement is justified hinges on the quality of the evidence supporting it. What's the difference?

Well, I guess I can't tell you since what I hold to as supporting this belief at such a high degree of certitude is something you have to experience for yourself so it's not the same as discussing whether or not Joseph Smith lied to Emma. I can't give you the experience for being me and knowing what I know though the means of experiencing god, spiritually.

Ok. So I have to experience what you've experienced to be able to claim a degree of certitude that you claim. What if I used to feel the same way and it turned out my more recent experiences proved to me I was wrong to understand those experiences in that way? What if my experience of prior belief and my more recent experience of realizing the LDS mythology of God is a fabrication is of a kind with your experience and evidence? Meaning what if I asserted if you experienced everything I've experienced you would realize the ideas you held about God up to then were illusions built on accepting myths and cultural biases? I mean, if your evidence is your experience and my evidence is my experience, they balance out, right? In which case, it seems the only honest response is it's possible but by no means probable let alone certain.

You know, honor, I'm trying to be honest and consistent in how I use evidence and assert a statement is justified to believe so I agree and change my response.

[_mentalgymnast]

Honor, if there’s anything that needs editing in your previous post, would you take care of that?

Thanks,
MG

[_Physics Guy]

We actually speak a language that might as well be foreign to each other. The language of the Spirit is no longer part of his ‘working’ vocabulary as it once was. We have very little, if any, common ground to begin with.

There are theories, quite apart from religious debates in particular, that barriers to communication can be insurmountable. When sufficient context is not already shared it cannot be conveyed; language constrains thought; whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

I'm skeptical in general of that. I think it's an argument from poverty of imagination: I can't think of a clear way to say this so it must be inexpressible. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is considered discredited by most linguists, I believe.

In particular the idea that "we just can't usefully talk about this" seems inconsistent to me as a Christian view. It sounds like saying, "The kingdom of God is far away from you." That's not what Jesus preached.