Let's suppose God did....

[Received]

Associated with people like Richard Dawkins...

Well, he is outspoken. Harsh at times. Sometimes wrong.

But arrogant? If you hear him talk, this is a assertion that is untrue.

And he is brilliant!

I am quite honoured to be associated with Richard Dawkins. Or PZ Myers. Or Ophelia Benson. Or Aron Ra... sadly missed on these forums. Or... Or...

There might be atheists that I don't like to be associated with... but this has nothing to do with their atheism. Even atheists can be jerks.

Just like Christians.

A common and uncontroversial stereotype about Christians is that they are all right-bummed holier-than-you autocrats who would like nothing better than stone those evil sinners. Or blathering idiots trying for political power.

But I am sure no one would like to be associated with Christians, would they?

Pfft, Andre Comte-Sponville is the best atheist ever.

(Sorta seriously.)

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I think he feels we should be ashamed for being associated in his mind with outspoken Atheists...

It's an odd idea.

I know what his intentions were, and I feel they were disingenuous, as he then feigns ignorance.

To suggest that it is the atheist position that exemplifies arrogance is the height of irony. Anti/atheist ambassadors such as Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Carrier, Krauss, Shermer, Dillahunty, AronRa, Thunderf00t and PZ, and others who choose to point out the inanity of religions to be characterized as "arrogant" is laughable. I suppose anyone who exercises free speech is arrogant? What should we say of the Pope, Benny Hinn, Ray Comfort, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Joyce Myers, etc?

 

[Elioenai26]

No. I'm presenting a plausible scenario that is excluded by the trilemma.


We judge them on their own merits, or lack thereof. My point is that the trilemma is a false trichotomy, excluding the possibility of a mundane Rabbi who got some things right and some things (such as his divinity) wrong.


Actually, it would be a tautology, which is completely valid (if, in this case, unsound).


The onus falls on those who claim evidence for the miracles exist, not on those who don't.


I did, and your qualifier just obfuscated the issue. Since the divinity of Christ has not been established, you can't use it to establish his divinity (now that would be circular reasoning). Jesus uttered the words, but whether only God could 'rightfully' say them is irrelevant: anyone can say them, whether 'rightfully' or not, so it's illogical to present his utterance of the words as evidence of his divinity.


You're quite welcome. Now will you give up the charade of Lewis' trilemma, and answer my question?

"The possibility exists that Jesus was simply a sane Rabbi who mistakenly concluded that he was the Messiah (look at Harold Camping or the Millerites for how completely rational people can use specious logic to come to very wrong conclusions). He was sane (so he wasn't a lunatic), he was genuine in his beliefs (so he wasn't a liar), but he was ultimately incorrect (so he wasn't lord). What, then, was he?"

If he was neither lunatic, liar, nor lord, then what was he? Lewis' trilemma fails because it cannot account for viable

And I don't see why you were waiting for this "all along"; it's an obvious statement that goes without saying, and harkens back to pretty much everyone's reply to the OP - namely, that evidence for anything can be dismissed with ad hoc explanations, but that not all explanations are of equal weight.

We can add any number of hypotheses to the three to make it a quadrilemma or however many "lemmas" you wish. The question still must be dealt with.

And actually, it is not that difficult at all. We just look at all the evidence and by a process of comparison and elimination we simply get rid of the hypotheses one by one, starting with the weakest and least substantiated.

It also must be remembered that Lewis formulated this argument for a specific kind of person. This person is one who believes that the gospels accurately record Jesus' teachings and views of who He Himself was but denies that Jesus is God incarnate.

In other words, this argument is to be presented to the person that interprets Jesus' words to be His, but instead of believing He is God incarnate, kind of just dismiss Him as one of several religious figures.

If anyone here does not fit this description, the trilemma is not for you.

 

[variant]

I know what his intentions were, and I feel they were disingenuous, as he then feigns ignorance.

To suggest that it is the atheist position that exemplifies arrogance is the height of irony. Anti/atheist ambassadors such as Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Carrier, Krauss, Shermer, Dillahunty, AronRa, Thunderf00t and PZ, and others who choose to point out the inanity of religions to be characterized as "arrogant" is laughable. I suppose anyone who exercises free speech is arrogant? What should we say of the Pope, Benny Hinn, Ray Comfort, Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, Joyce Myers, etc?

Yes using the word arrogant here is similar to C.S. lewis's argument, you have to think that openly and bluntly criticizing religious thought is wrong for the argument to have any force.

Arrogance assumes that they aren't correct in their criticisms, which is as you put it ironic because religious thought is so poorly justified in the first place. Questioning it openly is by no means arrogant on it's face.

These seem to be the scope of all of Elioenai26's arguments, to try and enforce his personal, theological and rational prejudices by simply asserting them as true indirectly.

I have always thought that it was the height of arrogance for a human being to tell me what God thinks and how it operates, especially without giving me a good reason to believe them.

Why the tone of other religious critics should concern the unbeliever is beyond me.

 

[Davian]

That boils down on what evidence are you expecting and/or looking for. The whole absence of evidence is evidence of absence thing just screams argument from ignorance to me. Just because the person doesn't have any evidence doesn't mean the person won't have it in the future, or we simply couldn't find one yet.

It's the same way Carl Sagn famous quote "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" in his book Cosmos, I think.

Reading that quote in context (in the Demon Haunted world) Sagan does compare it to the argument from ignorance, but not in a way that benefits Elio.

What evidence am I expecting and/or looking for? It depends on the claim. As in post #20, it is up to the OP to define what we are looking for, in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis.

500 years ago, if I were positing the existence of dinosaurs, the process would be the same. I would have to define what I mean by 'dinosaur', and present the evidence to support my hypothesis. Asking what others would have expected as evidence for these 'dinosaurs' would have been laughable. Hence the responses gathered by Elio on this thread.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We can add any number of hypotheses to the three to make it a quadrilemma or however many "lemmas" you wish. The question still must be dealt with.

Ah, then you agree that Lewis' trilemma is a false trichotomy. Good.

And actually, it is not that difficult at all. We just look at all the evidence and by a process of comparison and elimination we simply get rid of the hypotheses one by one, starting with the weakest and least substantiated.

Indeed. And in the absence of evidence for miracles, I recommend we start there.

It also must be remembered that Lewis formulated this argument for a specific kind of person. This person is one who believes that the gospels accurately record Jesus' teachings and views of who He Himself was but denies that Jesus is God incarnate.

In other words, this argument is to be presented to the person that interprets Jesus' words to be His, but instead of believing He is God incarnate, kind of just dismiss Him as one of several religious figures.

If anyone here does not fit this description, the trilemma is not for you.

Nevertheless, we can assume those conditions for the sake of argument and continue analysing the trilemma. The numerous other options, which you agree are viable, render the trilemma a false trichotomy, even to the people that Lewis was addressing. So why do you continue to advocate it?

In other words, even when considering the kind of person that Lewis was addressing, there are still at least four options:

1. Lord: Jesus was right
2. Liar: Jesus uttered untruths he knew were wrong
3. Lunatic: Jesus uttered untruths he believed were right due to mental illness
4. Mistaken: Jesus uttered untruths he believed were right due to specious logic

The existence of the fourth possibility defeats Lewis' trilemma, even when we stand in the shoes of the person he is addressing. There are yet more possibilities, of course, but we need only one to demonstrate that the trilemma is a false trichotomy, and therefore doesn't do what Lewis (and you) set out to prove.

 

[Freodin]

The existence of the fourth possibility defeats Lewis' trilemma, even when we stand in the shoes of the person he is addressing. There are yet more possibilities, of course, but we need only one to demonstrate that the trilemma is a false trichotomy, and therefore doesn't do what Lewis (and you) set out to prove.

For example, there would be the option: Jesus did indeed do miracles and did indeed believe he was God, but was in fact an unwilling pawn of Satan trying to undermine the true Jewish faith.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

We can add any number of hypotheses to the three to make it a quadrilemma or however many "lemmas" you wish. The question still must be dealt with.

And actually, it is not that difficult at all. We just look at all the evidence and by a process of comparison and elimination we simply get rid of the hypotheses one by one, starting with the weakest and least substantiated.

It also must be remembered that Lewis formulated this argument for a specific kind of person. This person is one who believes that the gospels accurately record Jesus' teachings and views of who He Himself was but denies that Jesus is God incarnate.

In other words, this argument is to be presented to the person that interprets Jesus' words to be His, but instead of believing He is God incarnate, kind of just dismiss Him as one of several religious figures.

If anyone here does not fit this description, the trilemma is not for you.

Indeed, I'm glad to see you concede that this is a malformed question, then. Perhaps you meant to post it in the "Christian's Only" section? At any rate, at least you are able to recognize it is a false trilemma.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

For example, there would be the option: Jesus did indeed do miracles and did indeed believe he was God, but was in fact an unwilling pawn of Satan trying to undermine the true Jewish faith.

Oooh, I like it

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Oooh, I like it

I guess that would make it Lewis' "pentalemma" question?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I guess that would make it Lewis' "pentalemma" question?

Why am I reminded of this...

THE NEW LLAMA SONG !!!!! - YouTube

 

[Dave Ellis]

For example, there would be the option: Jesus did indeed do miracles and did indeed believe he was God, but was in fact an unwilling pawn of Satan trying to undermine the true Jewish faith.

Except Satan doesn't exist as a physical being in Judaism, the whole lovely concept of eternal torment and hell and all that is a Christian invention. Satan in Judaism is nothing more than someone's natural inclination to misbehave. There's no supernatural connotation to it.

Still, I got a good chuckle out of your idea

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Except Satan doesn't exist as a physical being in Judaism, the whole lovely concept of eternal torment and hell and all that is a Christian invention. Satan in Judaism is nothing more than someone's natural inclination to misbehave. There's no supernatural connotation to it.

Still, I got a good chuckle out of your idea

You mean to tell me all this stuff Christians say about Satan was a lie?

Cue :58

Guy starts to fight with chris pontius (FULL VIDEO) - YouTube

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Why am I reminded of this...

THE NEW LLAMA SONG !!!!! - YouTube

... llama, llama, duck!

 

[Dave Ellis]

You mean to tell me all this stuff Christians say about Satan was a lie?

Cue :58

Guy starts to fight with chris pontius (FULL VIDEO) - YouTube

That's hilarious!

 

[KCfromNC]

Associated with people like Richard Dawkins...

Well, he is outspoken. Harsh at times. Sometimes wrong.

But arrogant? If you hear him talk, this is a assertion that is untrue.

People who have no defense against the content of what people are saying often fabricate lies about them. It gives a good rationalization for dismissing what they say entirely. "X eats babies [in my opinion], so I can reject what his published research shows about common descent". It's kind of a "get out of cognitive dissonance jail" card when their faith it being threatened by an application of reality.

So you'll occasionally see character assassination like this in place of an actual response when a believer gets backed into a corner they can't get out of any other way.

 

[KCfromNC]

I guess that would make it Lewis' "pentalemma" question?

What, and exclude mistranslated, mythology, misunderstood and made up? That should make it a non-lemma, so to speak.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What, and exclude mistranslated, mythology, misunderstood and made up? That should make it a non-lemma, so to speak.

Personally I'm steering clear of those ones. Elioenai26 is referring to Lewis' trilemma, which was only ever meant to convince those who broadly accept the truth of the Bible (Jesus was real, said basically what's recorded in the Bible, etc) but who reject the authenticity of his more supernatural claims. The trilemma itself predates Lewis, but Lewis himself only used it to convince those who believe the Gospels were (broadly) accurate in what was said. So by disputing the authenticity of the Bible, you end up talking about a strawman of Elioenai26's argument.

Moreover, the trilemma can be shown to be a false trichotomy without stepping outside the Lewis' bounds, so there's no need to go down the whole historical inaccuracy route - there's only so many times I can stand the Testimonium Flavianum

 

[Tinker Grey]

So by disputing the authenticity of the Bible, you end up talking about a strawman of Elioenai26's argument.

I disagree. To "strawman" is to misrepresent an argument.

Disputing the authenticity of the Bible is to rejecting an unstated premise of the trilemma.

 

[Christian7PraiseJesus]

I don't believe it, and I don't know why to believe it. I used to believe, and it might be nice if it were true. I often get nostalgic for my former faith, God, and worship, but I don't know why to believe in it. The world doesn't look to me like the God I once loved made it.

"Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I AM the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life."
Jesus's, God's words, John 8:12


"Neither can they die anymore: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he called the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

For He is not the God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto Him."
Jesus's, God's words, Luke 20: 36-38


"How think ye? if a man have a hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth He not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?

And if so be that He find it, verily I say unto you, He rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.

Even so it is not the will of your Father in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish."
Jesus's, God's words, Matthew 18:12-14

I don't see God anymore. I see nature and I see feeling creatures.

"The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is proclaimed to the poor."
Jesus's, God's words, Matthew 11:5

Isaiah 29:18 In that day the deaf will hear the words of the scroll, and out of gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind will see.

Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners,

Isaiah 35:5 Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped.

Isaiah 42:7 to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.


"Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached."
Jesus's, God's words, repeated in Luke 7:22


"But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind"
Jesus's, God's words, Luke 14:13


Matthew 15:30 Great crowds came to him, bringing the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute and many others, and laid them at His feet; and He healed them.

Oh well...

What is the evidence? To be honest I still wonder about the apparent case for the resurrection.

The Roman Catacombs, 600 miles in length dating 30 A.D. to 313 A.D. show early Christians believed in the resurrection and Jesus as central, as God...

For instance...

"
The archaeological examination by robotic camera of an intact first century tomb in Jerusalem has revealed a set of limestone Jewish ossuaries or “bone boxes” that are engraved with a rare Greek inscription and a unique iconographic image that the scholars involved identify as distinctly Christian.


The four-line Greek inscription on one ossuary refers to God “raising up” someone and a carved image found on an adjacent ossuary shows what appears to be a large fish with a human stick figure in its mouth, interpreted by the excavation team to be an image evoking the biblical story of Jonah.

Together, the inscription and the Jonah image testify to early Christian faith in resurrection. The tomb record thus predates the writing of the gospels.

Tabor notes that the epitaph’s complete and final translation is uncertain. The first three lines are clear, but the last line, consisting of three Greek letters, is less sure, yielding several possible translations: “O Divine God, raise up, raise up,” or “The Divine God raises up to the Holy Place,” or “The Divine God raises up from [the dead].

This inscription has something to do with resurrection of the dead, either of the deceased in the ossuary, or perhaps, given the Jonah image nearby, an expression of faith in Jesus’ resurrection,” Tabor said.

The ossuary with the image that Tabor and his team understand to be representing Jonah also has other interesting engravings. These also may be connected to resurrection, Tabor notes. On one side is the tail of a fish disappearing off the edge of the box, as if it is diving into the water. There are small fish images around its border on the front facing, and on the other side is the image of a cross-like gate or entrance—which Tabor interprets as the notion of entering the “bars” of death, which are mentioned in the Jonah story in the Bible.

The findings are detailed in a preliminary scientific report by James D. Tabor, professor and chair of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

The publication of the academic article is concurrent with the publication of a book by Simon & Schuster entitled The Jesus Discovery: The New Archaeological Find That Reveals the Birth of Christianity. The book is co-authored by Professor James Tabor and filmmaker/professor Simcha Jacobovici. A documentary on the discovery will be aired by the Discovery Channel in spring 2012.

The Jesus Discovery | Latest Research on the Jerusalem Talpiot Tombs
"
Interestingly, it looks like (IMO) an early form of the Chi-Rho perhaps, which is also seen in the catacombs. On the Chi-Rho, there is a "P" representing Jesus and the letters for Alpha and Omega. The cross going through it (had to hidden due to persecution by the Roman Empire) looks remarkably similar to the 2nd image above, but the latter Chi-Rho seems to be more deeply formed and developed. Chi Rho, Chrismon, Monogram of Christ, or Labarum -- Early Christian Symbols of the Ancient Church
Alpha and Omega, of course, is referring to Jesus's, God's words, that He is the "Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end" as seen in Revelation. This is in reference to Jesus as God, shown in the flesh as a theophany.

I haven't seen Jesus, and would I believe a man claiming to be God?

You haven't seen Him directly as if walking around today as a human, but He, God, did show Himself to all of humankind. As He had showed Himself to Adam and Eve in the Garden, to Jacob when wrestling with Him "face to face" and to Moses when He showed His back, then ultimately in Jesus. His appearances are rare. Jesus was the final, and ultimate theophany. God showing Himself to all of us.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe the Bible to be from God, so I don't accept what it says as necessarily true.

Jesus's words are from God, as He is God, however. His words were witnessed by many and shown in archeological findings, as in the Roman Catacombs, dating 30 A.D. onward.

Before there was evidence for atoms why should people have believed in them? It would have been more speculation than anything else. It would make more sense to have claimed ignorance than to have made up that atoms existed. If they didn't have that evidence then it doesn't make alot of sense to claim it to be true.

"However, the similarity with modern concepts of science can be confusing when trying to understand where the hypothesis came from. It is obvious that classical atomists would never have had a solid empirical basis for our modern concepts of atoms and molecules. Bertrand Russell states that they just hit on a lucky hypothesis, only recently confirmed by evidence."
Wiki

"How do people really know that atoms exist even though they can't see them?


No one has ever really seen an atom. Humans like to see something before they believe in it. I am sure there are some people who object to that since there have been claims that electron microscopes have imaged atoms. I believe that illuminating an object with electrons, capturing those electrons and recreating an image is also indirect evidence.

This was probably repeated thousands of times before we also learned to write and share information. Then around 400 BC a greek dude named Democritus came up with the idea that something could be cut into it's smallest piece and it would still be the same object. He was also the first person to write the word atom down. For these reasons Democritus was given credit for the idea and the name. Those ancient Greeks became really good at sitting around thinking, but they weren't all that good at building instruments to prove their thoughts and ideas. It took a few thousand years, until just recently when we got good enough at making machines that we could prove Democritus' atom theory. Can you imagine that? He came up with an idea, but it took 2,400 years before anyone figured out that he was right! "http://education.jlab.org/qa/history_03.html

"That depends on exactly what you mean by "discovered."
had a concept of small particles similar to atoms in the 6th millennium BC, and either Democritus or his mentor Leucippus (or possibly both together) independently came up with the idea (and the word "atomos", which is Greek for "uncuttable") in the 5th century BC. However, these were essentially lucky guesses; there was no real scientific basis behind them, so saying these people "discovered" atoms is a pretty big stretch.
The best candidate is probably John Dalton, who in the early 19th century proposed (based this time on experiments) that substances were composed of atoms, and even assigned relative weight values to several types of atom. "

Atoms still have not been seen, and their existence has been proven by Indirect Evidence.

... Cont..