Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[Archaeopteryx]

What if there's never a gap that can't be filled with God? What does that say about God? It definitely does not say God must be false. Instead, it says God is an extremely durable concept that has held up very well over the time that humans have had a chance to disprove the concept. That brings up another question: Why are scientists so afraid to fill gaps with God? If God turns out to be false then filling those gaps with God, really doesn't matter.

If God turns out to be true, then what? Aren't we at the mercy of God at that point?

They don't fill those gaps with theology because it doesn't advance our understanding any further than "we don't know."

 

[Chriliman]

This, IMO, is what scares people to death. The idea that we don't know, and may never know, answers to life's deepest questions. That's the attraction of religion, in large part, the fact that they all make up explanations to assuage those fears.

For me, it's not a fear of the unknown, but rather a desire to know the truth about the unknown.

 

[anonymous person]

They don't fill those gaps with theology because it doesn't advance our understanding any further than "we don't know."

I don't equate knowledge with certainty. Do you?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't equate knowledge with certainty. Do you?

No, nor did I imply that.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually, I am quite interested to know how you would answer that question I asked.

As for your claim, sure I would believe that you were convinced of your experience, if you actually were.

Edit: I suppose you should feel that you have answered the question as you read it, and especially for you here now, I ought to be sorry for my quick response. This time, I actually can see that it was not fair to you.

But my question was meant to ask why does it matter that a religious person needs faith? What is it that you seem to think is bad or wrong about that? Surely you wouldn't go on to suggest that because faith is required, or that disbelief is made possible, it necessarily negates the truth of the claim that is being believed?

I never said it was wrong or bad to have faith. If a faith believe is beneficial to a person, that is terrific, hold onto it.

My discussion revolved around you starting to use the term "fact" and stating certain things were "facts", when I didn't believe that to be the case and why people need faith, because established and verifiable facts, are lacking.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[anonymous person]

No, nor did I imply that.

Ahh...thanks for clearing that up. Did you have a question you wanted to ask me?

 

[bhsmte]

Ahh...thanks for clearing that up. Did you have a question you wanted to ask me?

If you read what he actually said, no clearing up would be necessary.

 

[HitchSlap]

For me, it's not a fear of the unknown, but rather a desire to know the truth about the unknown.

Clearly.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I will send them to the church if you want. Just inform them to be on the lookout for a package from Mrs. Redmond.

Very well. I'll first contact them and see if they are willing to be the middle man. Then I will private message you the address.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

While we wait for the shipping and other arrangements, is there an online source that might satisfactorily address these things? If so, we can save you the trouble. If not, I would find that to be troubling.

 

[Davian]

How about not reading it as a loaded question then. If you read this question: do you think it is possible that Adam did exist in the garden of Eden, and between that time and the time that the account was written in the form as we find in Genesis, the information was passed down the generations as the account in Genesis states? I don't see anything loaded about it. We know the account as written in Genesis exists, because we can read it. The question simply is "do you think it is possible that the information transpired from Adam to Moses"? It is not a question of whether it is likely, but only whether it is possible. Then if you think it is possible, or if you think it isn't possible, just tell me why you think so.

Seriously man, I just do not get why you won't do that. It either is possible or it isn't. Do you perceive a trap or something?

Your question is loaded with the presupposition that Adam is not a fictional character, lived in a non-fictional location, passing along an account to another person that you presuppose not to be fictional. You are asking me, can fictional characters pass information along to each other? Yes or no?

I do suspect that you may come back with some laughable demand that I provide reasons for why I consider I consider Adam/Eden/Moses to be fictional, but you would do better to answer this question:

Can Santa accurately communicate the required navigational information to the reindeer, for the purposes of getting to all of the homes needing to be visited in the time allowed? We do know that the presents make it under the requisite trees each Christmas morning.

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, Oi, I just do not have the time to visit all the websites or read all the books members recommend to each other. If anything, I should be off, writing my own books, etc. So, I would appreciate it if you would post your claim and we can go from there. I am guessing you are referring to some sort of online apologetic site or otherwise. I encourage everyone to be careful here. I made an extensive study of major online apologetic websites, from Answers in Genesis to Matt Slick to James Patrick Holding. I also had loads of correspondence with these individuals. I realize these sites can appear very seductive to lay persons. However, to those of us who have been lucky enough to receive an advanced education in theology, science, biblical studies, etc., these sites appear for what they really are: just the unqualified judgments of totally unqualified individuals. Indeed, the whole field of apologetics is flooded by such websites, books, videos, etc.

Now regarding the question you asked about about how do we know you were abducted by aliens or no. Good question. However, it touches only on the surface of the deeper issue here, which, to me at least, is this: How do I know , how can I be sure that my senses have not deceived me into believing I have received an email from you, asking me how I can know whether or not you were abducted by aliens? The senses are deceivers, my friend. Suppose you and I were look out a window. We would both say we saw people walking around out there. Totally bogus claim. The senses have deceived us. The senses can give only a very abstract impression of reality, they cannot connect us to the concrete and the particular. For all we know, we could be looking at automated clothing racks covered with clothing. How do I know I( am not dreaming right now? I have had very vivid dreams. May all this is somehow a result of my being intoxicated. I have been known to overly imbibe, think my senses were in order, and then went stumbling, tripping, etc. How do I know , how can I be sure that you are anything but as figment of my imagination, an illusion implanted in my mind by God, for whatever reason? Berkley and Leibniz would agree with me. No wait. How can I be sure Berkeley and Leibniz are not anything but an illusion implanted in my mind by God. No, wait. How can I be sure that my concept of God implanting illusions in minds is anything but a mere illusion implanted in my mind by my subconscious? God, self, time, space, universe, these are all habitual ways we make sense out of our experience. But we cannot step out of ourselves to make sure these really exist. Best to assume the null hypothesis and claim that since we have no hard evidence God, self, world, time, etc., exist, they are but figments of our imagination that have nothing to do with what's really out there. Bottom line is that all I can be sure of is that I am doubting, thinking. The rest, including even whether I have a body, is all up for grabs. Hence communicating with you is an act of bare speculation on my part5. While I enjoy such whimsy, I've had enough for today, am signing off, will see you tomorrow. No, damnit, wait. Tomorrow? That's a mere figment of my imagination, as time does not exist.

 

[Chriliman]

Your question is loaded with the presupposition that Adam is not a fictional character, lived in a non-fictional location, passing along an account to another person that you presuppose not to be fictional. You are asking me, can fictional characters pass information along to each other? Yes or no?

I do suspect that you may come back with some laughable demand that I provide reasons for why I consider I consider Adam/Eden/Moses to be fictional, but you would do better to answer this question:

Can Santa accurately communicate the required navigational information to the reindeer, for the purposes of getting to all of the homes needing to be visited in the time allowed? We do know that the presents make it under the requisite trees each Christmas morning.

It's a wonder in of itself that you give as much credibility to the Bible accounts as you do to Santa Clause.

Do you really think those of us who believe the bible accounts, are as ignorant as children who believe in Santa Clause?

I definitely wouldn't spend as much time as you do on here, debating with children the truth of Santa Clause. Surely you can agree that the bible accounts are more credible than Santa Clause.

 

[Davian]

It's a wonder in of itself that you give as much credibility to the Bible accounts as you do to Santa Clause.

The purpose of that analogy was not of credibility, but of loading questions with presuppositions.

Do you really think those of us who believe the bible accounts are as ignorant as children who believe in Santa Clause?

Again with the mind-reading fail. The analogies I make with Santa are for the purposes of belief, not religion specifically. Belief in anything, from crop circles to Bigfoot.

Mind-Reading Hat

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

Change your shirt already.

I definitely wouldn't spend as much time as you do on here, debating with children the truth of Santa Clause.

How much time have you seen me spend here debating the "truth of Santa Claus"? And where are these children?

Surely you can agree that the bible accounts are more credible than Santa Clause.

I do not make that comparison, but if you are asking for what personal evidence I have for which to make such a comparison, I can say that as an adult, I have never believed in gods, but I have believed in Santa.

Do you not value personal evidence?

Santa

• Davian
• Jun 5, 2014

 

[oi_antz]

If it was considered fact, why do people need to believe the stories on faith?

Let me see whether I can answer your question better, thanks for clearing this up.

If an event is in the past, it cannot be witnessed in the present, because it has happened. In this way, we cannot witness the Twin Towers collapsing. All we can do is observe records of the eye witnesses who saw it happening, we can observe the monuments, and consider whether the monuments really do commemorate those events. In the case of the Twin Towers, there is video evidence. However, even if it was not captured on video and was only written about, we still would need to believe the record of the event that we are observing. Since we can study video footage and come to be fairly certain that it is not generated, we can come to treat it as quite a strong form of reliable evidence. When it comes to a man's testimony though, we are complicated more by the possibility that the witness is being dishonest, and that the record given by the witness has not accurately conveyed the facts to us due to some communication error. Video footage doesn't have the limitations of miscommunication, but it does have limitations of context (seeing as we cannot observe what happens outside of the viewport).

Applying this to claims of the bible, as we were discussing at this point, Israel having come to regard Moses and the Exodus from Egypt as fact, then obviously they cannot witness the Exodus happening. All they can do is see that they inhabit the region and read the accounts of someone who claims to have witnessed (or summarised the accounts of those who did witness) the events that led to it. Yet, if this myth just pops into existence, there is obviously one day when it doesn't exist and the society believes something about their roots; then the next day they suddenly believe that they have descended from Jacob's captivity in Egypt. My question is about trying to understand how such a myth can just appear and then come to be believed as though it is fact.

The same question was asked toward HitchSlap regarding the proliferation of Christianity.

 

[oi_antz]

Well, Oi, I just do not have the time to visit all the websites or read all the books members recommend to each other. If anything, I should be off, writing my own books, etc. So, I would appreciate it if you would post your claim and we can go from there.

This part pretty such sums it up:

Hebrew scholar Victor Hamilton agreed with Leupold’s assessment of Genesis 2:19 as he also recognized that “it is possible to translate formed as ‘had formed’ ” (1990, p. 176). Keil and Delitzsch stated in the first volume of their highly regarded Old Testament commentary that “our modern style for expressing the same thought [which the Holy Spirit, via Moses, intended to communicate—EL] would be simply this: ‘God brought to Adam the beasts which He had formed’ ” (1996, emp. added). Adding even more credence to this interpretation is the fact that the New International Version (NIV) renders the verb in verse 19, not as simple past tense, but as a pluperfect: “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air” (emp. added). Although Genesis chapters one and two agree even when yatsar is translated simply “formed” (as we will notice in the remainder of this article), it is important to note that the four Hebrew scholars mentioned above and the translators of the NIV, all believe that it could (or should) be rendered “had formed.” And, as Leupold acknowledged, those who deny this possibility do so (at least partly) because of their insistence on making the two chapters disagree.

The main reason that skeptics do not see harmony in the events recorded in the first two chapters of the Bible is because they fail to realize that Genesis 1 and 2 serve different purposes. Chapter one (including 2:1-4) focuses on the order of the creation events; chapter two (actually 2:5-25) simply provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one. Chapter two never was meant to be a chronological regurgitation of chapter one, but instead serves its own unique purpose—i.e., to develop in detail the more important features of the creation account, especially the creation of man and his surroundings.

Tomorrow? That's a mere figment of my imagination, as time does not exist.

This sort of statement really goes against what seems plain and obvious to me.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ahh...thanks for clearing that up. Did you have a question you wanted to ask me?

I had several that you never bothered to address.

 

[oi_antz]

The genealogies don't necessarily indicate historicity

Can you please expand this for me?

Furthermore, one can look at the Epic of Gilgamesh to find analogous longevity.

Do you think that the Epic of Gilgamesh is attempting to achieve the same as the stories in Genesis and Exodus? If so, can you please also show me some quotes from each of those works that will demonstrate your reasoning.

 

[Ana the Ist]

My question is about trying to understand how such a myth can just appear and then come to be believed as though it is fact.

The same question was asked toward HitchSlap regarding the proliferation of Christianity.

You're kidding right? You live in a day and age where the internet is readily available, video, audio, etc. The average person has the ability to investigate the truth of stories better than ever before and you still have belief in things like 911 was an inside job, a second shooter on the grassy knoll, Bigfoot, yeti, chupacabra, and really any number of bad ideas...

Your beliefs rest on the idea that one couldn't possibly pull the wool over the eyes of a 2000-3000 year old Jew?

Really?

 

[oi_antz]

You're kidding right? You live in a day and age where the internet is readily available, video, audio, etc. The average person has the ability to investigate the truth of stories better than ever before and you still have belief in things like 911 was an inside job, a second shooter on the grassy knoll, Bigfoot, yeti, chupacabra, and really any number of bad ideas...

Your beliefs rest on the idea that one couldn't possibly pull the wool over the eyes of a 2000-3000 year old Jew?

Really?

Yes, really. You are describing a particular type of person who enjoys believing that way, whereas I am discussing how an entire society has become convinced, and that society contains many types of people - even those who are studious and thoughtful.