The Theist's Guide to Converting Atheists

[Tom 1]

However, whether or not something has a physical presence is irrelevant to this analogy. The point is, can it be detected at the time the claim of itse existence is being made? Whether it’s a teapot in space or the Christians God, the answer is no, it can’t.

This quote perhaps highlights the misunderstanding best:

Can I show you the sun-orbiting teapot right now? No
Can it's existence be proven in accordance with a set of criteria we can agree on as to what a teapot is, congruent with generally accepted ideas about the material universe? Yes

Can I show you God right now? No
Can God be 'proven' to exist using the same criteria? No

Are there criteria relevant to the idea of who the God of the bible is? Yes
Are those the same type of criteria we would apply to the teapot? No

You then have the option as in other posts of understanding the relevant information etc.

 

[muichimotsu]

This quote perhaps highlights the misunderstanding best:

Can I show you the sun-orbiting teapot right now? No
Can it's existence be proven in accordance with a set of criteria we can agree on as to what a teapot is, congruent with generally accepted ideas about the material universe? Yes

Can I show you God right now? No
Can God be 'proven' to exist using the same criteria? No

Are there criteria relevant to the idea of who the God of the bible is? Yes
Are those the same type of criteria we would apply to the teapot? No

You then have the option as in other posts of understanding the relevant information etc.

So special pleading then? Merely because the example used is mundane enough to be shown to be falsifiable doesn't mean that God is somehow able to dodge responsibility by apologists saying it's fundamentally different than any other fictional thing we could posit (including the Force if we take out the retcon in the prequels of midichlorians and make it more mystical and such)

Why should the god of the bible in particular be seen as the one that we should believe in? Deism seems far more compelling if we're talking a general idea of a creator deity based on rational arguments and use of reasoning instead of special revelation and faith anecdotes

 

[Tom 1]

So special pleading then? Merely because the example used is mundane enough to be shown to be falsifiable doesn't mean that God is somehow able to dodge responsibility by apologists saying it's fundamentally different than any other fictional thing we could posit (including the Force if we take out the retcon in the prequels of midichlorians and make it more mystical and such)

Why should the god of the bible in particular be seen as the one that we should believe in? Deism seems far more compelling if we're talking a general idea of a creator deity based on rational arguments and use of reasoning instead of special revelation and faith anecdotes

Pointing out that a teapot, as defined by being a teapot, and the God of the bible, as defined as being the God of the bible, are different things isn’t really special pleading. What you find compelling or rational depends on any number of things. You can elaborate on that if you like, e.g. based on your understanding of the idea of god or gods what are the rational and reason based arguments you find more compelling than others?

 

[muichimotsu]

Pointing out that a teapot, as defined by being a teapot, and the God of the bible, as defined as being the God of the bible, are different things isn’t really special pleading. What you find compelling or rational depends on any number of things. You can elaborate on that if you like, e.g. based on your understanding of the idea of god or gods what are the rational and reason based arguments you find more compelling than others?

We're not equivocating, we're making an analogy in regards to the teapot, which could be said , like God to be distinct from our normal ideas, because it's special and unique in properties

I'm more ignostic and theological noncognitivist: the idea of a God, by your own admission implicitly in that notion of compelling/rational being relative, is incoherent and goes beyond subjective into nebulous territory where anything transcendent can just be labeled God

When God is a placeholder for filling in gaps, it's basically special pleading in a tweaked format to have the entity in question be beyond investigation and criticism because you've made it ontologically perfect

 

[Tom 1]

We're not equivocating, we're making an analogy in regards to the teapot, which could be said , like God to be distinct from our normal ideas, because it's special and unique in properties

In the original analogy it's a teapot, not a special teapot.

I'm more ignostic and theological noncognitivist: the idea of a God, by your own admission implicitly in that notion of compelling/rational being relative, is incoherent and goes beyond subjective into nebulous territory where anything transcendent can just be labeled God

There's nothing incoherent about the idea of God. The choice for this particular thread would be demonstrating something about God as portrayed in the bible, whether you think anything can be transcendent, and anything transcendent can be labelled 'god' is something else, maybe you can elaborate on what you mean. There's nothing in the idea of the basis for different ideas forming a broader self confirming context for those ideas that implies incoherence. Ideas or descriptions etc are often coherent on their own terms, if those terms are understood.

When God is a placeholder for filling in gaps, it's basically special pleading in a tweaked format to have the entity in question be beyond investigation and criticism because you've made it ontologically perfect

What gaps?
Nope.
No, I didn't.

 

[muichimotsu]

In the original analogy it's a teapot, not a special teapot.

The fundamental point is the unfalsifiability as one qualifies it, but again, you're proving my point that God is an example of special pleading because it's fundamentally unlike anything else, so any comparison becomes fruitless, almost apophatic

There's nothing incoherent about the idea of God. The choice for this particular thread would be demonstrating something about God as portrayed in the bible, whether you think anything can be transcendent, and anything transcendent can be labelled 'god' is something else, maybe you can elaborate on what you mean. There's nothing in the idea of the basis for different ideas forming a broader self confirming context for those ideas that implies incoherence. Ideas or descriptions etc are often coherent on their own terms, if those terms are understood.

Transcendence is its own incoherent notion that ties back into God as one of the common concepts manifesting that inanity of something greater than nature but unable to be remotely qualified beyond exaggerations and hyperbole. Can you demonstrate the transcendent in any manner that doesn't render itself purely subjective and relative in how it is understood by a person?

Self confirming context is dangerously solipsistic, or do you not see the circular reasoning involved with anecdotal witness about supernatural events and how it's fundamentally unreliable in rendering anything about reality beyond experiences?

If you shift the goalposts in terms of coherence of a term, of course you can make any term coherent in the esoteric sense a group understands it, that's still faulty reasoning as to the coherence of the term independent of that

What gaps?
Nope.
No, I didn't.

The gap of human understanding about any topic that gets to that point of being more speculative in nature or not able to be investigated further with current science and technology.

If God is not perfect, then why would it be worth worshipping?

 

[Tom 1]

If you shift the goalposts in terms of coherence of a term, of course you can make any term coherent in the esoteric sense a group understands it, that's still faulty reasoning as to the coherence of the term independent of that

What world view isn’t self-confirming? People can agree on a limited number of facts and ideas, but in terms of some overall understanding or the basis for any belief recourse to principles and arguments that confirm each other is necessary to have any kind of view at all. Whatever terminology you dress it up with doesn’t change that basic reality.

Self confirming context is dangerously solipsistic, or do you not see the circular reasoning involved with anecdotal witness about supernatural events and how it's fundamentally unreliable in rendering anything about reality beyond experiences?

Shift which goalposts? Whatever goalposts your understanding of this issue is based on is a separate issue. A thing is what it is, if a person has an interest in what is to be known about the God of the bible, then the terms/context whatever you want to call it for knowing that are provided by the bible. What often happens, or always happens in my experience, is that people diddle about with pushing some jumble of ideas or impressions they have about the idea, which doesn’t have any useful aim to it that I can see. Entering into a conversation about what a thing is then switching from that thing as defined by its own context and terms (etc) to some random jumble of points about your own ideas seems rather pointless.

 

[Tom 1]

The gap of human understanding about any topic that gets to that point of being more speculative in nature or not able to be investigated further with current science and technology.

If God is not perfect, then why would it be worth worshipping?

This represents a rather primitive notion of what the bible actually teaches about God, or of what the bible is or claims to be. If you have any interest in the topic you’ll need to upgrade your knowledge before you can have any sort of useful conversation about it.

 

[muichimotsu]

What world view isn’t self-confirming? People can agree on a limited number of facts and ideas, but in terms of some overall understanding or the basis for any belief recourse to principles and arguments that confirm each other is necessary to have any kind of view at all. Whatever terminology you dress it up with doesn’t change that basic reality.

You're confusing self confirming with self referential, we necessarily will find things convincing at face value, that isn't a reason to take them as absolutely true, especially when they are not remotely fundamental to a cogent existence (like that the world exists independent of my mind and that there are other people with their own perceptions, otherwise it's hard solipsism)

I never denied foundationalism in some sense, you're suggesting I'm a pure relativist or nihilistm, which I'm not

Shift which goalposts? Whatever goalposts your understanding of this issue is based on is a separate issue. A thing is what it is, if a person has an interest in what is to be known about the God of the bible, then the terms/context whatever you want to call it for knowing that are provided by the bible. What often happens, or always happens in my experience, is that people diddle about with pushing some jumble of ideas or impressions they have about the idea, which doesn’t have any useful aim to it that I can see. Entering into a conversation about what a thing is then switching from that thing as defined by its own context and terms (etc) to some random jumble of points about your own ideas seems rather pointless.

The Bible is not the only source for a notion of God, you're utilizing faulty logic to suggest that the bible's description of God is somehow valid because it describes something that makes sense to people. But the Quran, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib and other monotheistic scriptures would claim to have a description of God as well, why is the Bible compelling except to someone who already simply acknowledges it is accurate without a shred of genuine humility in their knowledge being incomplete

The ideas about a concept are key to actually understanding the thing in any meaningful manner, otherwise you're engaging in postmodern relativism, that any description and understanding of something is equally valid, which also just makes discussion ultimately fruitless in reaching anything remotely resembling intellectual honesty and humility as well as justified knowledge about things rather than mere beliefs

My objection is that your standard of what God is has no real validity and theism is not exclusively the territory of Christians so maybe admit that before you suggest that I have to kowtow to your notions of God rather than my own studies that strongly suggest God is a nebulous term and Christians tend to try and claim some monopoly on the "true God", which is silly

 

[muichimotsu]

This represents a rather primitive notion of what the bible actually teaches about God, or of what the bible is or claims to be. If you have any interest in the topic you’ll need to upgrade your knowledge before you can have any sort of useful conversation about it.

Ah, the condescending tone, that'll help. As if you somehow can have ANY more substantive knowledge on something that is fundamentally subjective in how people approach and understand it, to say nothing of unfalsifiable in the qualities

The Bible doesn't teach anything in itself, it's people's interpretations that are what create teachings, because a text is not absolutely self evident, much as you would want it to be so as not to actually investigate the fundamental problems involved with special revelation and religious scriptures as having some inspiration that a believer can discern and understand with the help of their god

A useful conversation is hardly possible if you're so indoctrinated you can't even entertain the idea that someone isn't going to be convinced by your esoteric arguments about some special understanding you have on the bible rooted in your inspiration by the "Holy Spirit" or the like

 

[Tom 1]

You're confusing self confirming with self referential, we necessarily will find things convincing at face value, that isn't a reason to take them as absolutely true, especially when they are not remotely fundamental to a cogent existence (like that the world exists independent of my mind and that there are other people with their own perceptions, otherwise it's hard solipsism)

I never denied foundationalism in some sense, you're suggesting I'm a pure relativist or nihilistm, which I'm not




The Bible is not the only source for a notion of God, you're utilizing faulty logic to suggest that the bible's description of God is somehow valid because it describes something that makes sense to people. But the Quran, the Sri Guru Granth Sahib and other monotheistic scriptures would claim to have a description of God as well, why is the Bible compelling except to someone who already simply acknowledges it is accurate without a shred of genuine humility in their knowledge being incomplete

The ideas about a concept are key to actually understanding the thing in any meaningful manner, otherwise you're engaging in postmodern relativism, that any description and understanding of something is equally valid, which also just makes discussion ultimately fruitless in reaching anything remotely resembling intellectual honesty and humility as well as justified knowledge about things rather than mere beliefs

My objection is that your standard of what God is has no real validity and theism is not exclusively the territory of Christians so maybe admit that before you suggest that I have to kowtow to your notions of God rather than my own studies that strongly suggest God is a nebulous term and Christians tend to try and claim some monopoly on the "true God", which is silly

This thread is about God as in the bible, having a discussion about one thing as a starting point is a bit more manageable than ‘everything’. I’m not convinced that a pageful of collected notions makes for a useful discussion of anything. Perhaps you could try engaging in the topic rather than posting your assumptions about what other people think?

 

[Tom 1]

Ah, the condescending tone, that'll help. As if you somehow can have ANY more substantive knowledge on something that is fundamentally subjective in how people approach and understand it, to say nothing of unfalsifiable in the qualities

The Bible doesn't teach anything in itself, it's people's interpretations that are what create teachings, because a text is not absolutely self evident, much as you would want it to be so as not to actually investigate the fundamental problems involved with special revelation and religious scriptures as having some inspiration that a believer can discern and understand with the help of their god

A useful conversation is hardly possible if you're so indoctrinated you can't even entertain the idea that someone isn't going to be convinced by your esoteric arguments about some special understanding you have on the bible rooted in your inspiration by the "Holy Spirit" or the like

Do you think you can have a conversation when your starting point is a raft of ready-made assumptions? You appear to just be airing a few general ideas you already have, I’m not sure what your aim is.

 

[Tom 1]

You're confusing self confirming with self referential,

In practice it’s essentially a meaningless distinction. If you like to discuss ideas in the abstract fair enough, in reality though when stripped back to fundamentals everyone has some set of assumptions the rest of their ideas are built on.

 

[muichimotsu]

This thread is about God as in the bible, having a discussion about one thing as a starting point is a bit more manageable than ‘everything’. I’m not convinced that a pageful of collected notions makes for a useful discussion of anything. Perhaps you could try engaging in the topic rather than posting your assumptions about what other people think?

By all means explain what you think and enumerate it in a manner that isn't circular, which is pretty much always been how any apologist tries to do it. Fundamentally, you have to demonstrate the bible's reliability and validity, not assume it in your arguments. And if you go the route of natural theology, there are also problems of assuming particular understandings about cosmology, complexity, etc

But go ahead, suggest to me why I should take theism, or monotheism, seriously, particularly your god in the bible (which you realize is basically just book in Anglicized Latin, right?)

 

[muichimotsu]

In practice it’s essentially a meaningless distinction. If you like to discuss ideas in the abstract fair enough, in reality though when stripped back to fundamentals everyone has some set of assumptions the rest of their ideas are built on.

I don't deny some degree of foundationalism, but one of the foundations I hold is a self correcting worldview that doesn't hold absolutes because they're inflexible, only those objective principles that are consistent and self reflecting, not self referential and circular

 

[muichimotsu]

Do you think you can have a conversation when your starting point is a raft of ready-made assumptions? You appear to just be airing a few general ideas you already have, I’m not sure what your aim is.

If you're speaking in generalities about how your god makes sense, you're not helping the idea of your particular idea is compelling beyond notions that you seem to just have some greater understanding and, from what little you know of me, that I somehow don't understand and thus am not capable of having a discussion on your level. Or am I mistaken in that as well?

 

[Tom 1]

If you're speaking in generalities about how your god makes sense, you're not helping the idea of your particular idea is compelling beyond notions that you seem to just have some greater understanding and, from what little you know of me, that I somehow don't understand and thus am not capable of having a discussion on your level. Or am I mistaken in that as well?

Maybe you could start by reading through the thread? That would give you an idea about what you were responding to. If you can stop making assumptions about what you think I am thinking that would certainly save a lot of time. You can read through the thread and answer some specific points, if you like, or if you have a point you can make that instead.

 

[muichimotsu]

Maybe you could start by reading through the thread? That would give you an idea about what you were responding to. If you can stop making assumptions about what you think I am thinking that would certainly save a lot of time. You can read through the thread and answer some specific points, if you like, or if you have a point you can make that instead.

The point is that theists tend to assume their idea of God is so self evident all they need to do is talk in generalities and move the skeptic to some nominal theism and then to Christianity, but God is demonstrably not a self evident or necessary idea to make sense of the world as we continue to gain more and more understanding of how it works and how it doesn't require the agency we falsely think it does

What is your best method you think remotely would convince most atheists (not all, that's too broad)?

 

[Tom 1]

The point is that theists tend to assume their idea of God is so self evident all they need to do is talk in generalities and move the skeptic to some nominal theism and then to Christianity, but God is demonstrably not a self evident or necessary idea to make sense of the world as we continue to gain more and more understanding of how it works and how it doesn't require the agency we falsely think it does

What is your best method you think remotely would convince most atheists (not all, that's too broad)?

Ok, I see where you're coming from - you have some ideas based on your experience of talking with theists, you assume I think something similar, and you appear to think I have some sort of fetish for collecting methods to explain something to atheists - ok then!

Well, I don't but anyway this thread isn't really about those things, if you wanted to start a thread about it you might get some responses. Assuming you know what someone you have just met thinks isn't a good starting point though, it just leads to a great deal of wasted time before finally getting to any kind of point (if that ever happens).

 

[muichimotsu]

Ok, I see where you're coming from - you have some ideas based on your experience of talking with theists, you assume I think something similar, and you appear to think I have some sort of fetish for collecting methods to explain something to atheists - ok then!

Well, I don't but anyway this thread isn't really about those things, if you wanted to start a thread about it you might get some responses. Assuming you know what someone you have just met thinks isn't a good starting point though, it just leads to a great deal of wasted time before finally getting to any kind of point (if that ever happens).

You could surprise me, I'm not nearly that myopic, online tone is not always so cut and dry as it might be perceived

Do you have an argument you think is really good based on the suggestions in the thread? That's all I'm asking, but if you're going to keep circling back to the bible, then you might want to start with defending that rather than the belief in God as the initial point of contention