This is the eighteenth chapter in the series My List: Believe the Bible? Read why I started this list in About Me.
Let’s take a look at the theology of the Holy Trinity. One god as a father, son and holy spirit … all at the same time.
We’ll start with Yahweh.
Yahweh (God) is, has alway been and will always be. He created the entire universe and everything in it. He is all knowing and all seeing and his kingdom will never end.
This makes sense within the monotheistic religion of Judaism. Yahweh is the only god who is all-powerful and responsible for everything.
Then comes Jesus.
He was God’s only son, sent to be slaughtered for the sin of mankind. This part of the story is already confusing considering the Bible describes all people as God’s children. But because God artificially inseminated a virgin woman, he is the paternal father of Jesus. When God created Adam, the first man, he apparently didn’t qualify as God’s only son because he used dirt instead of a virgin.
So Jesus is God’s son … right?
The Bible tells us Jesus is literally God in the flesh. In other words, he was Yahweh in a man’s body. One god in two different forms … at the same time. This means Yahweh was somehow the father of himself. Which also raises the question why Jesus prayed to himself, begging himself to not require himself to be crucified as a blood payment for sin to appease himself and save the world from the wrath of himself.
Did your eyes go crossed yet? The theology of the Holy Trinity is completely ludicrous. If Jesus was God, he couldn’t die. A god that has always been and will always be cannot die. Not for one day, not for three days.
Jesus was also tempted by Satan and greatly feared his impending death. The one who created Satan was tempted by him? And the creator of the universe and king of heaven feared death? Seriously?
Trinitarian theology fails miserably. God required blood to atone for sin. So he incarnated himself as a man, remained anonymous for thirty years, hung out with 12 guys for three years and then pretended to die for three days. The Holy Spirit form of God was then sent to care for the people of earth for 2,000+ years until the man form of God (Jesus) comes down on a cloud riding in a chariot to vengefully nuke everyone.
By the way, these three forms of God also love you very much and need your money. Any questions?
Tags: God, Bible, Jesus, Christian, Theology, Scripture, Christ, Holy Spirit, Trinity, Son, Virgin, Yahweh, Begotten, Gospel, Trinitarian
January 29, 2010 at 1:06 am |
Yeah I have to agree the whole trinity thing is a bit confusing once you do a little thinking about it. I have never understood why blood would need to be spilled to allow people into heaven. I doubt that most people who believe this have really thought this though. I have really noticed how most christians either really under think their belief or they add so much to what the bible says it no longer means the same as it did.
January 29, 2010 at 8:59 am |
theBEattitude wrote:
“One god in two different forms … at the same time.”
Are you saying God couldn’t accomplish this?
January 29, 2010 at 10:57 am |
I would say that the real question you need to ask yourself is why would a being of such power actually need to do this? It wouldn’t matter if he could but the why needs explaining. If he can do anything why does he need to kill himself to allow you into heaven?
January 29, 2010 at 12:00 pm |
Yes. It’s kind of hard to accomplish a trinitarian presence when you’re imaginary.
January 30, 2010 at 2:30 am |
Oh, I know full well God has more than one form. He’s the Buddha. He’s Sai Baba. He’s everyone whose ever claimed he was God, or the wisest man on earth.
Technically, that makes everything and everyone right.
So the real question is, what’s with the disagreement? Why do the various scriptures always claim their religion is right, and everyone else is wrong?
And that’s why there’s a problem with God having multiple forms, and descriptions.
I agree with you, and I don’t blame God for that. I blame man’s understanding of God… and I absolutely distrust anyone who claims to have the right answer, or anyone trying to prove that an intangible answer is wrong.
(Yes, I do so myself, but only out of a morbid fascination into the workings of people who are so faithful, they even let it override some modicum of respect for others.)
January 31, 2010 at 4:37 pm |
You should check out Dinner with a Perfect Stranger by David Gregory. It’s a fictional story with these types of questions.
February 1, 2010 at 7:54 am
Well, it’s a nice recommendation, but remember, that ain’t the Bible. That’s a story with some philosophy thrown in. Even if the God in the book were somewhat tolerant, is that the real God?
I don’t know either. It’s just a work of fiction, starring God as one of the characters.
Thanks for the recommendation.
February 1, 2010 at 8:05 am
*** begging pardon. That’s Jesus, not God. >_>’
February 2, 2010 at 11:46 am |
So God is incapable of communicating in a way that will not be misunderstood? Doesn’t seem too powerful to me.
January 29, 2010 at 9:24 am |
Not all christians suscribe to the trinity theology. Jehova’s witnesses have a strong case to defend otherwise. Jesus is just the son of god and that’s it. They only reverence jehova and a bunch of old guys from Brooklyn, NY.
January 29, 2010 at 9:49 am |
The phrase Holy Trinity doesn’t even exist in the bible. This is not an issue of what the bible says…it’s an issue of how man changes and adds to the bible and preaches about it in order to benefit themselves. God may love them, but it is man who says god needs their money.
BEattitude: I challenge you to post about the Holy Prepuce and the history behind that. Oh how I’d love to read the comments people leave about that.
January 29, 2010 at 12:12 pm |
baconsbud wrote:
“why would a being of such power actually need to do this?”
Where did the Bible say God needed anything?
He didn’t NEED to create us.
And He didn’t NEED to save us.
It’s something He CHOSE to do, but there was nothing to compel or force Him to do anything.
January 29, 2010 at 12:40 pm |
Oh damn and here I thought you had read the bible. He needed sacrifices in the OT. He needs worshipers. He needs attention or he gets cranky. He is like a two or three year old kid when it comes to needs, his are all that matter not the needs of others. No wonder the world is so far behind where it could be.
January 29, 2010 at 12:16 pm |
ezrider67 wrote:
“The phrase Holy Trinity doesn’t even exist in the bible.”
Neither does the phrase “Atlantic Ocean” exist in the Bible. That doesn’t mean it didn’t exist.
What’s your point?
Holy Trinity is a term that is used to try to describe the manner in which God has dealt with man in three ways, as Father, as Son, as Spirit.
btw the phrase ‘amazing grace’ isn’t in the Bible either. So what?
January 29, 2010 at 3:22 pm |
Things that did exist in the Bible:
A talking snake, a talking donkey and a mountain high enough to view all the nations of the world (flat earth). These were believed to be Truth. But that doesn’t mean it is.
I do agree with you on your point of the Trinity. The term is not biblical, but the idea is. Although it depends on which part of the Bible you read. Consistency isn’t the Bible’s strong suit.
January 29, 2010 at 4:50 pm |
Satan is referred to as ‘the serpent’ but it’s not at all certain that a ‘literal snake’ is referred to.
Jesus also called the Pharisees ‘vipers’ although He certainly didn’t think they were literally members of a reptilian species.
It’s a figure of speech, and we use them today similarly.
January 30, 2010 at 2:22 am
So in the end, the book is a figure of speech, and should not be taken as history, and none of the events really happened.
If the holy books are just a figure of speech, it’s no different from a Superman comic, and what Christianity is technically doing, is reading such a comic, and expecting the hero to turn up in the time of their greatest need. Or choose not to, because he’s got his own life. <_<
As I said before, figures of speech are a dangerous thing, and you're technically not giving the words in the book any extra weight if you claim such.
That today we use figures of speech similarly is a problem of society. How disappointing it is that religion seeks to encourage it instead of solving it…
January 30, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Um, Genesis 3:14 -
You may want to re-read Genesis, because you have it quite backwards, Joe. The serpent is never referred to as Satan.
January 29, 2010 at 8:03 pm |
BeAttitude,
“This part of the story is already confusing considering the Bible describes all people as God’s children.”
-Where in the Old Testament, before Jesus, did someone refer to God as their Father?
Galatians 4:4-6
(4) But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, coming into being out of a woman, having come under Law,
(5) that He might redeem those under Law, so that we might receive the adoption of sons.
(6) And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
“But because God artificially inseminated a virgin woman, he is the paternal father of Jesus. When God created Adam, the first man, he apparently didn’t qualify as God’s only son because he used dirt instead of a virgin.”
-One was of this world, the other was of another world.
1 Corinthians 15:45-52
(45) And so it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul,” the last Adam was a life-giving Spirit.
(46) But not the spiritual first, but the natural; afterward the spiritual.
(47) The first man was out of earth, earthy; the second Man was the Lord from Heaven.
(48) Such the earthy man, such also the earthy ones. And such the heavenly Man, such also the heavenly ones.
(49) And according as we bore the image of the earthy man, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.
(50) And I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption.
(51) Behold, I speak a mystery to you; we shall not all fall asleep, but we shall all be changed;
(52) in a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet. For a trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed.
“The Bible tells us Jesus is literally God in the flesh. In other words, he was Yahweh in a man’s body. One god in two different forms … at the same time.”
Define time please.
“This means Yahweh was somehow the father of himself.”
Imagine if your words became energy to form matter. God spoke in one sentence to create the universe. This is why we named it uni-verse – one spoken sentence. So yes, God the Father spoke and He named the words His Son, because He gave birth to the words.
John 1:14
(14) And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth.
“Which also raises the question why Jesus prayed to himself, begging himself to not require himself to be crucified as a blood payment for sin to appease himself and save the world from the wrath of himself.”
-I wish I knew why He did this. It would make much more sense for the authors to write Jesus was strong and determined the whole way through, but they didn’t. Many that were called to serve the Father run away at first – they don’t want the duty! This includes Moses and Abraham, the fathers of the law and many nations. Faith is a duty though, not a crutch for happiness. This is why I’m offended when I hear people say I believe in God because I’m too weak to face the world alone. I picked up many more responsibilities when I turned to God – one of them is writing ridiculously long responses to children God cares about!
“Did your eyes go crossed yet? The theology of the Holy Trinity is completely ludicrous. If Jesus was God, he couldn’t die.”
The man of Jesus had to return to the dust.
Genesis 3:19
(19) In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you shall return.
But you’re right, He couldn’t die the second death.
Revelation 1:17-18
(17) And when I saw Him, I fell at His feet as dead. And He laid His right hand upon me, saying to me, Do not fear, I am the First and the Last,
(18) and the Living One, and I became dead, and behold, I am alive for ever and ever, Amen. And I have the keys of hell and of death.
He was very active in the spirit for those three days. This post is already getting lengthy, but I’d be happy to share if someone told me they cared.
Matthew 12:40
(40) For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the huge fish, so the Son of Man shall be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
“Jesus was also tempted by Satan and greatly feared his impending death. The one who created Satan was tempted by him?”
Jesus showed us how Satan works. He twists little words around or takes scriptures out of context to lie. It’s believable because it’s so close to the truth but not. Most people believe money is the root of all evil but the truth is the LOVE of money is the root.
Jesus also showed us how to beat Satan with the armor of God.
Ephesians 6:12-17
(12) For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the world’s rulers, of the darkness of this age, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
(13) Therefore take to yourselves the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
(14) Therefore stand, having your loins girded about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness
(15) and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace.
(16) Above all, take the shield of faith, with which you shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
(17) And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God,
“And the creator of the universe and king of heaven feared death? Seriously?”
When did Jesus fear death or Satan?
“Trinitarian theology fails miserably. God required blood to atone for sin.”
Yes, this is also found in the Old Testament, except the atonement was made by a priest using the best meat. What is more precious than YOUR blood BeAttitude? I promise you’d give up everything before all your blood. It is the most valuable thing in this world to you… or maybe your child’s blood…
“So he incarnated himself as a man, remained anonymous for thirty years, hung out with 12 guys for three years and then pretended to die for three days.”
Have you ever known anyone for three years that you would be willing to give up your whole lifestyle and eventually die for? Even after you saw him crucified by experts (the Romans did not let anyone pretend to die) and you knew he was dead, never able to know what you did or did not do? Why wouldn’t you just continue with your old life before you met him? I mean, you only knew him for three years.
“By the way, these three forms of God also love you very much and need your money. Any questions?”
The rich pastors are embarrassing for me. The love of money truly is the root of all evil, as anyone outside of the church can see. There are unethical, evil, and embarrassing professionals in every occupation: doctors, lawyers, cops, parenthood… This doesn’t bring down their institution, beliefs, or peers though.
I do have a few questions good sir:
Is there anything in evolution you disagree with or is the theory flawless?
Do you have a hard time understanding anything?
What about the physics of dark matter? Can you explain that?
Do you understand women?
How can you be physically present and mentally absent?
How can you be emotionally attached and afraid of intimacy?
What has man truly created?
Your philosophy is this: If I’m incapable of understanding it’s impossible.
Tell us how matter came into existence without showing faith.
Show me how it existed forever without using probabilities.
Tell us how energy became active in the world using your own philosophy.
Explain the structure of matter without using theories.
Rome
January 30, 2010 at 2:16 am |
“Your philosophy is this: If I’m incapable of understanding it’s impossible.”
… er no the answer is I don’t know. Compare that to if I don’t understand it the answer is goddidit.
January 30, 2010 at 2:16 am |
Quick word of caution: he who relies on faith should not try to argue against faith. All types of faith, the scientific ones, the common sense ones, the religious ones, are so similar… that attacking any of them will call the other into question.
It’s a battle that has no real answer, and will never end.
Be warned.
January 30, 2010 at 9:17 am |
Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious belief system that punishes you with eternal torment if you don’t believe it. By definition, a theory is not flawless. That is why it is a theory.
Of course. I’ve never claimed to have all the answers. Which is exactly why I am no longer religious. As soon as a person tells me they have all the answers, they prove their ignorance. It is absolutely irrational to define every unknown of our existence with a primitive storybook.
My philosophy: If something is based in a collection of highly inconsistent, erroneous and absurd texts … it is not worthy of faith.
I’m not the typical atheist. I’m not trying to prove I have all the answers. Only that it is long overdue for humanity to stop worshiping man-made gods.
How are you so sure your version of god is the right one? Just because you can’t explain how matter came into existence, doesn’t mean a Jewish guy from 2,000 years ago was God. I find it willfully ignorant to believe in man-made deities because of our limited understanding of our existence.
You view me as closed minded, but I’m exactly the opposite.
January 31, 2010 at 4:33 pm |
[strong]How are you so sure your version of god is the right one?[/strong]
I wasn’t sure at first. The personal experiences I’ve went through since I became a believer have led me to my conclusion of certainty.
[strong]You view me as closed minded, but I’m exactly the opposite.[/strong]
No sir, nobody with a site open for comments is closed-minded. My only intention was to show you and your readers how much we don’t know about the empirical world. IF God and His realm did exist, there would be limitations on how much we would know about them since they are above our microscopes. The truth is: there is nothing we know everything about.
I also find it ignorant to worship man-made deities. I see worship on American Idol (idols…), Wall Street (where “greed is good”), and Hollywood (where the best liars are paid the most).
[strong]Evolution is a scientific theory, not a religious belief system that punishes you with eternal torment if you don’t believe it. By definition, a theory is not flawless. That is why it is a theory.[/strong]
Good point.
February 1, 2010 at 8:27 am
“I wasn’t sure at first. The personal experiences I’ve went through since I became a believer have led me to my conclusion of certainty.”
Remember, people have had the same experience as you…. in reverse.
“My only intention was to show you and your readers how much we don’t know about the empirical world. IF God and His realm did exist, there would be limitations on how much we would know about them since they are above our microscopes. The truth is: there is nothing we know everything about.”
And that’s why we continue to find out, and not stop at God.
Yes, “we are but mere men and fall short of his glory.”* But thing is, he gave us free will and the ability to think, to discover. You’re now implicitlyh asking people to stop doing that. Why?
(sure, it’s a lot less trouble, and it’s probably some free gift deal. I still have that bridge by the way. “swear to God.”)
If it’s not so bad to live with an unknown, if living with questions unanswered is perfectly fine… why attempt to replace those answers with God, who is himself an unknown?
Why attempt to answer questions this way?
(I’m sure that man and his son has all the answers, thing is, they don’t give ‘em away for free, even to the ones who need them most. Don’t trap them with additional doubts and questions. It’s the last thing they need.)
“I also find it ignorant to worship man-made deities. I see worship on American Idol (idols…), Wall Street (where “greed is good”), and Hollywood (where the best liars are paid the most).”
A. What makes you think an Atheist would be worshipping that trad stuff? Even as a polytheist I don’t even bother watching the tube these days. I do recognize good acting, but that’s it.
B. If you equate the likes of football fans and the paparazzi to the worshipping of a God… then I make this comparison. Say I’m a passive fan. I don’t go all out to attend guy x’s concerts. I listen to his music, but I don’t go all out recommending until I’m asked. I recognize his ability but I don’t go all out announcing it. That should be alright, yeah?
Now let’s say that rock star is God Himself… suddenly, it’s NOT alright. Suddenly I’m unfaithful. <_<
(Heh, I do know that fans of guy X would already scoff at my faithfulness in that case. Mind you, there's plenty of similarities between some of the more ardent fandom and the more irrational of the Flock, so this is all merely a case of Pot. Meet Kettle…)
January 30, 2010 at 1:24 am |
“If Jesus was God, he couldn’t die.”
I think everyone understand that what is meant is that the human body he was in died.
January 30, 2010 at 1:27 am |
The solution to the puzzle is that the original form of Christianity was Chrestianity, i.e. Marcionism. The Father, Son, Holy Ghost were one God against the god of this world, Yahweh. It wasn’t Jesus vs the Father but the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost vs Yahweh.
January 30, 2010 at 8:29 am |
ACPB wrote:
“So in the end, the book is a figure of speech”
No, the books contains various figures of speech. No one has argued that that is its entire content.
ACPB wrote:
“As I said before, figures of speech are a dangerous thing, ”
No they’re not. Unless you refuse to understand them.
January 30, 2010 at 9:19 am |
I only understand that they turn lies and truth both into half-truth.
If you refuse to understand that, I have a bridge to sell you. No really.
Even if half of the book were (doubtfully) true, that still does not make the book believable.
Let’s not talk history. I’m sure you can make the same excuse that it’s all made up.
Name me any official document. Any signed contract. Any law. Anything enforcable, where some of it’s content is a “figure of speech”.
You probably won’t find any… except maybe if you go to a dishonest employer, salesman, criminal, but you’ll be proving my point again if you go that way.
Once again, they’re dangerous. They make truths half truth. They make lies more believable.
Therefore, there is need for VERIFICATION. I’m afraid the Bible fails that on ALL COUNTS, even the parts that are true.
You claim verification from me, and from science.
I claim verification from the Bible… and since you’re defending it, I claim verification from you.
We’re even.
January 30, 2010 at 8:04 pm |
You are attacking modalism – the idea that Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit are just different masks on God – which is regarded as heresy.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism:
“In Christianity, Sabellianism, (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself.”
January 30, 2010 at 9:38 pm |
I committed heresy because a Catholic priest said so in the third century? Who could argue with the infallible opinion of the Catholic church?
January 30, 2010 at 9:52 pm |
LOL. I say stuff like that all the time. Just because the Catholic church was able to merge with the state and kill off all the other sects doesn’t make them right. In fact, it proves that they were the real heretics. Jesus said “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” (John 13:35) The constant pogroms wages by the Catholic church against every other sect of Christianity certainly shows they never were Jesus’ disciples. Where was their love?
January 31, 2010 at 9:32 am |
@Chucky:
vs.
So, the choices are a god acting three different roles, or a god with multiple personality disorder.
Really, some abstract ideas are not worth wasting time considering. Not only do I think religion is rubbish, I think college students should be required to take a course in behavioral science before they can take philosophy. Lean a bit of science, and all the nonsense that’s been preached about how the world works and why people act as they do is revealed as a house of cards.
January 31, 2010 at 5:46 pm |
Your argument rests on a straw man and a semantic confusion.
First the doctrine of the Trinity does not assert that Jesus is the divine person to whom he prayed. It asserts that there is one deity in which there are three persons. The Son prays to the person of the Father.
The term “God” in English can refer to the quality of being deity or a specific person. To say that “Jesus is God” is to say that Jesus has all of the divine qualities per se, but that doesn’t imply that Jesus is the only person who has said qualities.
In the NT, the person of the Father is usually denoted by the Greek, ho theos, the God, since the Father is the source of the other two, whereas theos (deity) is applied to the Son and the Spirit.
As for the death of God, God can’t die if by death you mean an extinguishing of existence, but Christian theology doesn’t think that is true of the deaths of non-divine figures either. There’s nothing apparently contradictory about God experincing what humans do.
As for temptation, that isn’t problematic either since Jesus as a divine person is united to human nature and such operates and acts through and in that human nature. Consequently in Christian theology, Jesus has two powers of choice (wills) and two intellects, each according to each nature (human and divine). So there is nothing problematic about Jesus expericing human weakness in terms of temptation either.
Most of what you write here (and others) has been addressed in some of the more basic writings by Christian philosophers and theologians. these objections aren’t particularly difficult to address. I’d suggest reading something substantial prior to making these kinds of claims.
January 31, 2010 at 7:33 pm |
Describing three gods (or a god and two demigods, if you prefer a divine hierarchy) and calling them one “deity” is like looking into a full stable and calling the occupants “horse.” Semantic confusion indeed.
January 31, 2010 at 8:07 pm |
When a Christian philosopher attempts to justify an absurdity within their own religious belief system, it is far from unbiased explanation. You could give a very intelligent sounding explanation to prove the existence of the Tooth Fairy, but that doesn’t make it valid or rational.
Every religion has explanations to prove the validity of their god. Half of Christian apologetics is essentially, “God’s ways are not our ways.” Which is the default Christian answer when a biblical blemish is too ludicrous for even them to explain with their circular logic.
I was a devoted Christian for 33 years of my life. I have read many books by Christian philosophers and theologians. But I finally reached a point in my life where I woke up and stopped drinking the Christian Kool-Aid. The writings of most theologians read like comical drivel when you remove your rose colored Jesus glasses.
January 31, 2010 at 8:42 pm |
Heidi,
Your analogy depends on a demonstration of a semantic confusion that you have yet to demonstrate. Second, it is a bad analogy in the first place. You are comparing instances of a kind which are plural with the class, whereas I was not doing that but rather differentiating a plurality of persons from a common and share nature. The two cases are not relvantly similar.
January 31, 2010 at 9:04 pm |
Except for the part where multiple beings are indeed plural.
Your pretentious words and vain justifications nonetheless amuse me.
January 31, 2010 at 8:53 pm |
Beatitude,
There are so many confused remarks and misused terms here that it is difficult to know where to start. You assert that the concept is an absurdity without demonstration. In fact, the concept you are attacking as incoherent is not Trinitarianism, but Sabellianism or otherwise known as Monarchian Modalism. Trinitarianism denies that Jesus is the same person to which he prays, so you are attacking a concept that Christians have also historically attacked as absurd. In short, your argument is a straw man.
You seem not to know what bias is. It is not having a commitment to a philosophical view of the world, but rather judging a matter part from or contrary to the rules of evidence and logic. A Christian philosophy articulating and defending a view she agrees with isn’t tantamount to bias.
Furthermore, validity is a property of deductive arguments and not concepts per se so you are misapplying a term here. I think you mean to say that showing that a concept is consistent doesn’t demonstrate its existence and that much is true, but my argument was that you weren’t even attacking a Christian doctrine, but Modalism. You need to get the concept right before you claim it is incoherent. The fact that you can’t even seem to accurately represent the view you think is wrong I think is indicative of the kind of bias you charge others with.
Moreover implying that my articulation is intelligent sounding but false doesn’t amount to a demonstration that I was mistaken. You need to actually show that and not assume it. So far, I haven’t seen any demonstration by way of argument that what I claimed was wrong. In fact, you can verify what I claimed by any standard history of theology or text in the history of ideas, whether written by a Christian academic or non. It won’t matter. Modalism isn’t the same concept as Trinitarianism.
Every worldview has reasons it gives for the beliefs. So what is your worldview and how do you know it is true? Simply rejecting Christianity doesn’t justify your view of reality, you bear the same explanatory and justificatory burdens that a Christian theist does.
You may have devoted 33 years of your life to christianity, but I find it hard to believe that you read anything substantial beyond the pop McDowell type crap. The problems you pose here are so easily dispensed with that anyone at a secular university in the comparitive religions department would be able to dispel them in their first year of undergrad study. If this is the best you can do, then you fall into the typical ignorant fundamentalist who was a Christian because of some silly subjective experience and now you have just changed out the content of your fundamentalism but the shallow thinking remains the same.
January 31, 2010 at 9:37 pm |
My worldview is void of primitive superstition or arrogance that I have all the answers. I do not believe there is a deity up in the clouds because ancient texts tell me so. I also don’t believe science has all of the answers. We learn more every day and I look forward to witness what humanity discovers in my lifetime.
My worldview is one with open eyes, open mind and unwillingness to allow fear of man-made deities to blind my ability to think rationally.
You can believe whatever you want about me if it helps you feel superior in your haughty piety. You tell me I’m ignorant because I don’t believe in primitive fairy tales. And I’m to believe you’re an intellectual genius because you’ve wasted countless hours of your life studying Judea-Christianity?
Whatever gives you kicks and helps you feel righteous and better than everyone else.
January 31, 2010 at 11:27 pm |
And what would be the name of such a worldview? And denoting the worldview you adhere in that way doesn’t amount to a reason to think its true whatever it is. There are lots of ways to explain human learning and so far, you haven’t specified what worldview you have replaced Christian theism with that you take to be superior. So there is nothing here to argue with.
I don’t need to feel superior given really simple objections like the ones you are giving when you can’t even articulate the concept that you are attacking.
Suppose I have wasted my life, I fail to see how that justifies your new worldview. If mine is wrong, that is no reason to think your new one is correct.
For example, why is it immoral to kill small children for fun? Why is there a universe rather than none at all? Or does science tell us the way the universe is or just give us useful procedures that really don’t tell us anything about the world like say math? And how would you go about justifying your belief in the existence of causes since no one has ever observed one?
These are the kinds of “big questions” that every worldview seeks to answer. If you dump Christianity because you judge it to be irrational, fine, but what have you put in its place? Just replacing it won’t get you out of having to give reasonable answers for what you believe now. but so far, you’ve given me nothing but empty rhetoric on what worldview you adhere to now.
February 1, 2010 at 2:24 am
Just a small question for you. How many of his blog post have you read? If this is the only one then you are the one failing to do any type of research. It seems to me you are wanting to have him write a book about what he believes just so you can attack anything he says. You ask the normal types of questions which even you have no real answer for since it does seem your god does enjoy kids being slaughtered.
February 1, 2010 at 7:31 am
Oh look, yet another ‘My Belief Is Better Than Yours” argument.
“If you dump Christianity because you judge it to be irrational, fine, but what have you put in its place? ”
Look at it this way, as long as one’s not thinking of dropping random nukes into any country, starting any wars, cheating any people, being kind for kindness sake, and being understanding for understanding’s sake, and being humble for humility’s sake….
Then there really is no problem, isn’t there? That sure ain’t sinning at all.
(Yes, yes, I’m well prepared for that So What He Doesn’t Believe In God tone. He’s just pretending, yadda yadda. It’s for himself, yadda yadda.)
Let me be frank: you’re passing the wrong message. The accusatory one. The one you should NOT be passing from the get go.
It’s the same one that’s driving people further away.
February 1, 2010 at 9:04 am
Perry-
Your misconception is that I have to replace my previous religious superstition with a new arrogant world belief. My worldview comes from the factual evidence we have today. As we learn more, my view of the world will evolve with every new discovery. I don’t make up fictional stories to explain the unknown.
Some would call me agnostic, others a soft atheist. Using “God in the gaps” is the only reason to believe a all-powerful deity exists. Just because we don’t yet understand something, it doesn’t prove a Jewish guy was God’s son any more than Allah exists. It’s completely irrational.
Even if some sort of supernatural deity exists, I find it asinine to adhere to your primitive description of this deity. A god who is jealous (Exodus 34:14), hates (Malachi 1:3), chooses favorites (Deuteronomy 14:2), likes the smell of burning fat (Leviticus 3:16), slaughters (1 Samuel 6:19), pouts (Exodus 32:9-10), curses (Psalm 47:5), deceives (Jeremiah 4:10) and of course needs time to rest (Genesis 2:2).
Humans belittle the true awe of our universe by defining it with this very fallible man-made god. Your worldview requires faith, because under rational examination it fails miserably.
February 1, 2010 at 9:22 am
Let’s note the point at hand. You claimed that there was an inconsistency with Christian theology because Trinitarianism teaches that Jesus prays t himself. That is not Trinitarianism, but Modalism. So your objection here fails.
Second, if you’d read anything significant at all on the doctrine of the Trinity, you wouldn’t have made this basic mistake.
Third, I don’t need to suppose that you replace one worldview with another “arrogant” one but you do need to replace with another one. The question isn’t whether it is “arrogant” or not, but true.
What constitutes a fact and how facts are interpreted is determined by ones over all worldview and not the other way around. This is so in the empirical sciences which begins with non-empirical philosophical assumptions such as the uniformity of nature for example. The same goes for mathematics in principle, even though mathematics is not an empirical science. So just appealing to facts is of no help to you.
Moreover, factual data has to be connected by logical inferences. Unconnected discrete facts mean nothing until you draw inferences from them as placed in a model or theory. The model explains the facts. So you still need some reasons to explain the kinds of questions I gave. So far, all you’ve given is an expression of your emotional states regarding other beliefs you reject.
In asking for your worldview I wasn’t making an argument that since we explain things we can’t explain things we chalk it up to imaginary figures to fill in the gaps. In asking for your worldview, I am not asking for you to explain the unknown, but the known.
As for the co
ncept of the Christian God and the passages you cite, Christian theology has never taken those to imply that God has changing emotional states, but rather these are analogical predications. So taking them in a literalistic way as you do is exactly the way Christian theology has historically not taken them. So I fail to see how your objection even touches the position you were aiming at.
February 1, 2010 at 9:26 am
Bacon,
I skimmed some of the other ones and they look just as irrational and make basic factual errors just like this one. BUt I don’t need to do that in order for him to be wrong here. The concept he attacks here isn’t the Trinity, since the Trinity says there are three persons, not one who acts three ways. Anyone who’s read jack squat on the concept wouldn’t make that mistake. He’sthe typical ignorant fundy who was intellectually irresponsible in going to a church with pastor jimmy bob who had no serious education probably and then got stuck and then thought about it for a wopping month or so and read really nothing substantial and then left. Its a very common experience. I seriously doubt he picked up some Aquinas or Augustine or any other serious christian thinker.
If you claim that Ihave no answers for a question, thats a claim you bear the burden of proof for. So far, I haven’t seen any proof or demonstration from you to support your own claims.
Just a small question for you. How many of his blog post have you read? If this is the only one then you are the one failing to do any type of research. It seems to me you are wanting to have him write a book about what he believes just so you can attack anything he says. You ask the normal types of questions which even you have no real answer for since it does seem your god does enjoy kids being slaughtered.
February 1, 2010 at 10:14 am
As much as I can’t really argue with you on this count, I’ll have to mention this.
I’ve been told by another branch that the Trinity is indeed 3 beings.
God is the Father.
Jesus is the Son.
The Holy Spirit… hm. That description escapes me at the moment. Sorry, I’m just not one of the flock.
I’m sure you’ll say I’m listening to the wrong folk, tho. But that’s the entire issue, that pulls down your right answer argument.
Yours is not the only explanation existing. Who’s right and who’s wrong?
Only your faith proves you correct. But so do the faiths of others.
There is absolutely no empiricality about it, except for the very bone of contention – which, by the way, exists even amongst the flock.
February 1, 2010 at 4:33 pm
Chicken,
You can go by word of mouth as to what a concept in the history of human thought in fact is or you can check the sources and experts in said field.
Three designations, F,S and HS don’t of themselves imply three beings. Each of those designations as far as the concept of the Trinity is concerned refer to three persons, not three beings. Any text in the field of historical theology or any major creedal statement will bear this out.
So it isn’t a matter of taste as to what the concept is. If someone defines Capitalism as a political ideaology where the government owns and controls the means of production, that person doesn’t know how “Capitalism” has been used historically or in other words, they don’t know what the word means. It doesn’t matter if Capitalism is a pile of ideaological shit or not, they’re just wrong about what the concept is. The same is true here.
As to other supposed explanations, I haven’t given an explanation, but a definition. The definition I gave is what the experts in the field as well as its historical usage have picked out for centuries. Pick any recognized expert in the field if you like, they’ll tell you the same.
Not all propositions are empirically verifiable but that doesn’t imply that there is no way to find out if they are true or not. There is no empirical verification for the existence of numbers or rules of logic for that matter. You’ve never measured one or weighed one or saw one. They have no mass and take up no space, so applying an empirical test to non-spatial objects is a category fallacy. Moreover, the question is conceptual and historical. You can just go fricken look and see how the term has been used and how representative authorities define the word.
February 3, 2010 at 12:11 am
“There is no empirical verification for the existence of numbers or rules of logic for that matter. You’ve never measured one or weighed one or saw one. They have no mass and take up no space, so applying an empirical test to non-spatial objects is a category fallacy.”
This is a bad example.
Christianity tends to use the fact of the intangibility of numerical and statistical data to prove the point that people can believe in intangible things.
Well, they’re right in some respects. I can’t hold a number in my hand. Their rules are so easily fudged to benefit some. But, there are 2 things even this intangible thing called “numbers” have over religion.
1. Numbers do NOT demand that you worship them. Yes, I know life is run by numbers, but take measuring systems for example: we have a metric system in the east, and another system in the west. They can coexist on a single ruler, with true free will given to the user of that ruler as to which system they wish to measure with.
Judging from the responses the “more faithful” have given on this board, I see no such freedom with Christianity, its branches, and offshoots. Each of them demands that you worship and understand God. Worse, some demand that you understand God *THEIR WAY* or you’re condemned.
2. Numbers have a specific set of rules. They can be bent, but you’ll have a pretty hard time breaking them. The simple equation 1+1 = 2 proves this. Even if both objects representing 1 are different, you still get 2 objects, or a combination of 1 object from the 2.
While numbers aren’t infinitely sturdy, and God can indeed break the sturdiness if he wishes, the Book and religion that represents Him is far more inconsistent. Good or Evil, God Will Still Test You. Good or Evil, God will make you suffer or bless you. It’s all according to “the whim of a being we do not know”, nothing is hard and fast.
Even belief in God, supposedly one of faith’s cardinal rules, can be called into question regarding one’s loyalty towards him. Didn’t Pope Benedict once declare non-Catholic Christians “not true Christians”?
At least 1+1 = 2 can be verified, even in a different form called Binary (1+1 = 10). “Faith in God Brings You Closer” can’t, because anyone can accuse anyone of having no faith at all, and go unchallenged.
In religion, 1+1 can be anything, and if you disagree, you are not faithful, and you’re going straight to hell.. even if you believe in 1+1 = 6 with all your heart and all your soul.
In math, 1+1 = 2. I can try to cheat and divide the 1s, but all I get is 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 = 2.0. I can try to multiply, but that would involve adding another 1+1 = 2 into the equation, giving me 2 sets anyway. Not so easy to break now, is it?
Still want me to consult an expert? Fine. Which expert do you wish me to consult with? The Pope? Or your pastor? Or a fanatical believer? Or…. You?
January 31, 2010 at 9:17 pm |
Heidi,
The doctrine of the Trinity doesn’t posit multiple beings, but only one being that is three persons. The problem is that you conflate the categories of being and person. The two are not the same. The is a very rudimentary mistake in philosophical and historical theology.
January 31, 2010 at 10:56 pm |
I love your condescension. Really, I do. Sadly, the dictionary disagrees with your assessment of “being” and “person” as different things. The only place you find such a concept is in the made-up nonsense Christians spout to justify their blatantly inconsistent fairy tales. And of course in the far older pagan concept of the triple goddess as Mother, Maiden and Crone. Hmm… wonder where Christians got that concept.
Anyway, I really don’t know what you’re trying to accomplish here, but you’ve made your point, and proven mine. The Trinity makes no sense. Therefore, there is no point in continuing this conversation.
January 31, 2010 at 11:19 pm |
Heidi,
A common language dictionary is not adequate to define technical terms beyond the range of casual usage. These are technical terms from ancient philosophy, specifically ousia and hypostasis, which are then used in specialized fields such as theology and philosophy. The professional dicitonaries in those fields use the tems as I specified. Consequently, a sophmorish use of Webster here really doesn’t help you.
The doctrine of the trinity isn’t that of three deities and the consensus of modern scholarship has concluded that whatever its origin, it wasn’t pagen henotheism or triads.
If you think you’ve prove your point, where is the proof or demontration? Where is the argument? So far as I can see you’ve nly thrown out some claims with inflamatory phrases for good measure. But there’s really no argument there.
January 31, 2010 at 10:37 pm |
ACPB wrote:
“Once again, they’re dangerous. They make truths half truth. ”
No, they don’t.
A figure of speech is simply an explanatory device.
Explaining or illustrating truth doesn’t make it untrue.
February 1, 2010 at 7:15 am |
Depends on what truth you’re talking about. If you’ve based your truth on something physical, on something PROVEN, on a hard and fast rule (like a math equation) yes, maybe an illustration would help.
But, otherwise, truth is relative. I can tell you God told me the truth, and you wouldn’t believe me, because you’d probably believe a false God told me my truth, and you’ll attempt to prove me wrong.
Know what I’m saying?
That, my friend, was a figure of speech – Also known as an “analogy”.
Observe: I’ve just made a simple half-truth (which I admit, for balance’s sake) slightly more believable.
So how does a figure of speech illustrate the truth again?
February 1, 2010 at 10:12 am |
ACPB wrote:
“truth is relative”
Then we probably shouldn’t believe this statement of yours.
Do you not see the absurdity of an absolute statement that denies the existence of absolutes?
February 1, 2010 at 10:25 am
I see the absurdity. And that’s why I accept it… by denying it. <_<
If we live in an irrational world, far be it for anyone to "lie to themselves" that there is some "modicum of order".
Science may be guilty of this, philosophy is definitely guilty of this, but religion, any of it, is no better.
Religion, too insists there is some order. it not only insists there are rules, it insists that someone is enforcing it, whist ironically playing "Calvinball" with how he does so when their predictions fail. <_<
Well, I'm not completely happy with the conclusion the heavens have shown me, but hey, I wasn't any happier as a person who's left a question in the inboxen of various Gods. No loss here. (They still have yet to get back to me, by the way…)
Y'know, ironically, it could very well be you who rejects and fears absurdity. This could be why you cling on to some form, some person that you cannot see – who is conveniently pictured as a being of order among the chaos.
Well, it's the only way to keep sane in this world… well, to each his own. <_<
January 31, 2010 at 10:44 pm |
Heidi wrote:
“you have it quite backwards, Joe. The serpent is never referred to as Satan.”
You’ve got what I said backwards.
Actually what I said was that Satan was referred to as ‘the serpent’ and that it is not at all certain that a ‘literal serpent’ was even there.
February 1, 2010 at 9:17 am |
Yes, Joe. I can read. Can you? Because apparently the Genesis verse was lost on you. It’s very clearly talking about an animal who will now have to go upon on its belly.
Genesis 3:14
Literal. Serpent. Very clear. Thank you for playing.
“Oh, but it doesn’t really say what it says it says.”
“How do you know that?”
“Well, because I don’t like what it appears to say, so that means it’s just an analogy.”
February 1, 2010 at 10:10 am |
Heidi wrote:
“the Genesis verse was lost on you. It’s very clearly talking about an animal”
I’ve checked quite a few versions, and they all read ‘more than all animals’ or ‘above all animals’, not ‘among all animals’.
Do you mind telling which version you are quoting?
January 31, 2010 at 10:49 pm |
theBEattitude wrote:
“The theology of the Holy Trinity is completely ludicrous. If Jesus was God, he couldn’t die. A god that has always been and will always be cannot die. Not for one day, not for three days.”
The NT clearly says that the body of Jesus (the body that He had temporarily taken on) died, not that He ‘ceased to exist’ for three days.
The Bible teaches that He himself was eternally pre-existent before He took on a body, and is eternally alive after as well.
It was His body that was allowed to suffer and die, and to be raised again.
If you’re gonna argue against the Bible, at least argue against what it really says.
February 1, 2010 at 12:45 pm |
As I said, God pretended to die. Just as you’ve described.
February 1, 2010 at 11:40 am |
theBEattitude wrote:
“These forms are consecutive but never simultaneous. ”
Where in the world did you get this?
February 1, 2010 at 12:39 pm |
I was just messing with him. That is a modalist perspective.
February 2, 2010 at 8:02 am |
Humans have a tough time understanding anything out side of our realm and just what a Creator God can or can not do if one were to exist. As for being able to be 3 expressions of itself I have no problems with, if I a mere mortal can be a daughter,sister,friend, mother, wife, grandma all at the same time and relating to people differently according to who I am to them is not a far stretch of my imagination to believe the Creator can do the same, but better.As for the relationship between Father to Son to Spirit with themselves and all being the same being does not stretch my imagination at all, God is a being in 3 different realms at the same time is no different to my imagination as water steam and ice all being in the same place at the same time it’s all H 2 0 all relating to each other differently, an ice cube, melting produces water, and vapors and yet it is still ice.The Creator is out side of time and not limited by our restraints in this physical realm,there for ‘It’ can be in this realm past present and future all at the same moment because,well, because ‘it’ can. As for the bible, there are different ways of reading it as you well know, and to continually argue from a literalistic perspective is well not at all fair, most Christians in the middle( and they are the majority) see the Bible as some fact, some history, some myth, some allegorical, and some metaphorical,and all spiritually, the trick is to discern when to do so and since Christians are humans too they like all have to do the best they can with what they are able to discern. So there are people who think it is all true and all literal, so what , that does not make it so . But to always try to disprove the bible from that literal frame work , of course you will allways come out on top, but not necessarily right. for what it is worth
blessed be
February 2, 2010 at 8:39 am |
I’ve never claimed to have all the answers. I only question the numerous flaws in Christian theology that obviously display the man-made fiction that it is. You claim that man can’t understand God as he is beyond our understanding. But as a Christian you are to believe ancient Jewish authors that thought the earth was flat and slaves were useful had the utmost authority to teach me about this deity. Men that never met Jesus (a man who may or may not have even existed), but wrote unquestionable “testimony” about him 40-70 years after the supposed events took place.
It’s not the 3 forms that causes the problem. An all-powerful god could likely be in 10 forms if he/she/it wanted to.
The problem comes in trying to rationalize why this god would incarnate himself as a man, for the sole purpose of having himself butchered as a blood sacrifice to himself, to save the world from himself. And as this post alludes to, why would one form of himself pray to himself and ask himself for mercy? It couldn’t possibly be a more illogical theology.
February 2, 2010 at 11:36 pm |
If man cannot understand God, what makes you think you, as a man, have the right answer? What makes you think religion, which is instituted and controlled by man at the behest of God, has the right answer? What makes you think any holy book, which has been edited and transcribed by man, is correct?
February 2, 2010 at 9:12 am |
If any part of any religion were required to be logical. provable, and consistent with observed facts, there would be no religions. What a great thing that would be!
February 2, 2010 at 12:20 pm |
I still say that it’s not much of a god that communicates in ways so susceptible to misinterpretation. One would expect an infinite being to be capable of the relatively small act of communicating in a way that will not be misunderstood, misinterpreted or require long, torturous explanations to seem even vaguely logical.
February 5, 2010 at 10:37 am |
Chicken,
No, it is a perfectly good example. The comparison was not between objects of worship but between real but non-empirical objects. In so far as numbers and God are both non-empirical, an argument that God is not detectable and therefore doesn’t exist will also have to conclude that numbers do not exist as well.
Numbers are a product of sets of axioms and those axioms rest on philosophical concepts like successive iteration. The rest of what you write isn’t even an argument but just rhetoric.
February 5, 2010 at 10:59 am |
Very well. How then should I respond to rhethoric presented as an argument?
If you look down on numbers, know first that religion by itself is no better, and has the same pitfalls that you state.
February 5, 2010 at 11:01 am |
Acolyte, as most theists, entirely missed the point, perhaps because it’s easier to continue to believe if you ignore anything that doesn’t support your delusion.
Numbers CAN be seen. Look at your fingers and count. The effect of numbers can be seen. Four apples are more than two apples.
Nothing about any god can be seen. No effects of any god can be seen or measured.
Your argument is as silly as any religion.
February 5, 2010 at 12:27 pm |
James,
Saying that I am deluded is an assertion and not an argument. Moreover, it is an ad hominem to boot. You need to support your assertions with arguments, that is, if you wish to act rationally.
No, numbers can’t be seen. What you see are representations of concepts on paper. This is why the same concept can be written with different signs or representations in different languages. You have never seen a negative integer or an imaginary number for example. They have no weight, no spatial dimensions and take up no space and they cause nothing.
Second, if numbers are abstract objects or mental entities then they cause nothing and so have no effects.
You assert that nothing about a deity can be seen or none of a deities’ effects, but again, this is bald assertion and not argument. Try again.
February 5, 2010 at 12:42 pm |
Obviously, you cannot distinguish between a simple statement of observed fact and an assertion. The statements you make on here illustrate you delusions ” far above my poor power to add or to detract”
Numbers can’t be seen? What a fool you are. Yes, that is a direct attack on your mentality and intelligence. You cannot see two apples and KNOW that they are TWO apples? Well, maybe you can’t, but any two-year old can.
You are simply trying to distract from real discussion with really absurd statements. There is no god. Show one iota of proof. You are asserting the ridiculous without even attempting to furnish any evidence, and try to escape through obscure, nonsensical arguments. Either put up or shut up. I say it again, Show some proof and STFU.
February 5, 2010 at 12:30 pm |
Chicken,
You misunderstand. You presented rhetoric so the appropriate action would be to reform your actions and present arguments.
I don’t “look down” on numbers, whatever that could possibly mean. I only noted that if the criteria for being real is empirical detectability, then you are going to have to judge apparently real objects like numbers as unreal. But this is absurd and so we can’t judge deities to be unreal on the same basis. If P, then Q, Not Q, therefore not P. Modus Tollens.
Q.E.D.
February 5, 2010 at 12:46 pm |
Then I invite you to be the first to present your case, and your proof.
I shall then likewise present mine.
You directly relate numbers to God. The only thing relating numbers to God is the chapter.
What you’re doing is going A U B when A N B are Mutually Exclusive.
February 5, 2010 at 2:30 pm |
Do you think that there is anywhere a culture that has a different idea from us on the nature of numbers? It is evident that they have been empirically detected; that knowledge of them has persisted without change for a very long time throughout the world and in all circumstances. And people everywhere use this same knowledge of numbers successfully to conduct their everyday business. Numbers are evidently a real property of the real world.
In contrast, there are hundreds of ideas about religion in general and gods in particular, including the null hypothesis (that there are no gods or other supernatural phenomena). Religious ideas differ from one place to another and continue to change. They are of no use in dealing with any kind of natural process and only marginally useful in dealing with other people if those other people happen to have similar ideas. Despite the insistence of religious people that their respective gods are real, the real world takes no notice of those gods.
Even if numbers and religion are both regarded as abstract, it is evident that they are different kinds of abstraction. The abstraction of numbers describes a real property of nature. The many abstractions of religion describe something else whose reality has not been demonstrated.
February 5, 2010 at 3:35 pm |
Verbifex wrote:
“It is evident that they have been empirically detected”
Really? And how was this done?
February 5, 2010 at 8:44 pm
Well, we DO have 2 each of eyes, ears, feet, hands….
And 1 each of nose, head, etc…
Numerical systems started off from exact counts of human body parts. Early measurement systems even used human bodies as a base (which was inaccurate, but you get the picture).
Humans only came to the conclusion of God because they didn’t know how their immediate world came to be.
February 6, 2010 at 12:01 am |
ACPB wrote:
“Humans only came to the conclusion of God because they didn’t know how their immediate world came to be.”
Really? And I suppose you ‘know’ what they did not ‘know’.
Let me guess.
‘Something’ of unknown composition and properties came from ’somewhere’ not in our universe and exploded (or expanded greatly and rapidly) for ‘unknown reasons’.
Yeah I guess you ‘know’. Why did I ever doubt you?
lol
February 6, 2010 at 1:22 am |
Silly mortal. Even as I hinted the answer to you, you decide to continue spouting random nonsensical assumptions, LOL…
“‘Something’ of unknown composition and properties came from ’somewhere’ not in our universe and exploded (or expanded greatly and rapidly) for ‘unknown reasons’.”
God came from God, and exploded for God’s Will.
Yeah, keep thinking that circular diatribe’s the answer. Your POV is simply just replacing the “unknown” with God… it’s also known as “God In The Gaps”.
That’s how humans came to the conclusion of God. They assume “a being like them, only more capable and powerful” created their world, and the universe. It has to be, because humans are the most capable race on the planet (Ha?).
Now the question remains of “what God is”, and that’s how the multitudes of religions and their branches came about. Each of them claims they have the right answer, based on “A more powerful/enlightened/capable/evolved member of us” must have created this world.
In the end, even God wasn’t the answer. It just added another layer of complication to a question that is simply answered by an “I don’t know”.
Hahahahaha, I can’t believe you lot made the world more complicated than it is….
February 6, 2010 at 11:10 pm |
Admit it ACPB, the Big Bang is essentially a supernatural explanation of “how their immediate world came to be” for modern man.
February 7, 2010 at 2:49 am |
Ancient man didn’t know how their bodies work, and assumed that bodies were made of earth, fire, wind and water.
Did not knowing what the human body consisted of mean the human body was supernatural?
February 7, 2010 at 7:46 am
ACPB wrote:
“Did not knowing what the human body consisted of mean the human body was supernatural?”
of course not
The Big Bang is essentially a supernatural explanation because it proposes (as the originator of our physical universe) the existence of something ( a singularity) which is not part of our physical universe and is not subject to the scientific laws which govern our physical universe. It has not and cannot be observed or verified, and is unfalsifiable.
It cannot qualify in any way as a scientific explanation.
February 7, 2010 at 8:07 am
If oyu say “of course not”, then there’s your answer already. You have willfully admitted that lack of knowledge doesn’t imply the supernatural.
Just because we don’t know anything about the origin of the universe, does NOT mean God Did It.
God Did It is but one of the many hypothesis, none of which can be proven, and all of which can be put under scrutiny when the means is finally discovered.
You can continue to assume God Did It if you want, but in the end, that explanation is just about the same as all the others that have been given so far:
It equates to “I don’t know”.
By the way, I don’t think I’ve ever brought science into this argument. In fact, I’ve argued on the basis of philosophy all the way.
Making another assumption aren’t we?
February 7, 2010 at 2:02 pm
The thing we call the “Big Bang” was not supernatural: it is the earliest event for which we have physical evidence. We know there was a Very Large Explosion because we can see its effects: the debris field, background radiation (released energy), etc.
The currently favored hypothesis about what caused that Very Large Explosion to occur is “a singularity” in the distribution of matter and energy, “an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past” (Wikipedia on “Big Bang”). That is not supernatural; it is not “something … which is not part of our physical universe”; nor is it “something … which … is not subject to the scientific laws which govern our physical universe”. It is simply a hypothetical condition of matter and energy about which we know nothing at present.
We do not even know whether this hypothesis is in fact the correct description of the beginning of the Big Bang. As you note, it has not been observed. Rather than an explanation, the hypothesis is a way of organizing thought about and investigation of the problem. If evidence appears which is inconsistent with this hypothesis, a new or modified hypothesis will be needed that is consistent with the new evidence.
You also note that it cannot be observed. Well, that particular singularity cannot be observed since it is long past. Perhaps someday others will be observed and the knowledge gained from those observations will permit comparison with the evidence from the Big Bang and will permit verification that the Big Bang began with a singularity. Maybe some other phenomenon will be observed and its characteristics will match what we see from the Big Bang, allowing a new and better-supported hypothesis. Because it involves matter and energy and because some evidence already exists, a singularity is not in principle unfalsifiable as the cause of the Big Bang; we just do not have the knowledge or tools to test it now.
Beyond all this, we do not know how “an infinite density and temperature” could occur. (I would guess that they were never actually infinite; that the explosion occurred when conditions reached some threshold.) But, as A Chicken points out, the fact that we do not know does not imply that it was supernatural. If we ever find out this information, it will likely teach us something new about the nature of matter and energy under extreme conditions, not about anything supernatural.
February 7, 2010 at 11:34 pm |
ACPB wrote:
“You have willfully admitted that lack of knowledge doesn’t imply the supernatural.”
I never said or implied that it did.
Verbifex wrote:
“it is not “something … which is not part of our physical universe””
If it is said to be the cause of our universe coming into existence, then it should be obvious it could not also have been part of that universe.
How could it be ‘part of’ something which did not yet exist?
February 10, 2010 at 8:13 pm |
OK, the essence of your point is not in the details of Big Bang Theory but in the notion that if what we call “the Universe” was caused, created, or powered by something outside of it, that would imply that it had a supernatural origin. Such reasoning relies on the literal meaning of the name “Universe”, given at a time when less was known about cosmology. It assumes that the thing we call “the Universe” really is “everything that exists in nature”, that it is the largest cosmological unit. But of course, that aint necessarily so.
The Earthlings in the audience will remember that we have made previous mistakes about what is the largest cosmological unit. First it was the World, flat and small. Then the Earth, spherical and bigger. After that, pretty quickly attention turned to the planetary system. But lo, what is this “galaxy” thing yonder; could it not be the full universe? No, no; behold, there is a multitude of them.
So now we have a bigger system, which started with a bang, with matter and energy shooting out in all directions; and we have not seen anything else outside it. We called it “the Universe” before we knew anything about the Big Bang and still call it that because we have not found anything from which to distinguish it; so far, it is everything we know. There is no reason to give it another name.
But that could change. The thing we call “the Universe” eventually might be proven to be not just a lot of stuff moving rapidly in the ordinary way in some small region of a much larger space. It might be shown to have a distinctive unitary structure. We might find that, as a unit, it was caused, created, or powered by something outside of itself. That external causal something would not need to be supernatural; it could be a previously unknown natural process. It would tell us that the thing we call “the Universe” is in fact not “everything that exists in nature” but just another in a series of increasingly large cosmological units. And we would start looking for others like it and trying to understand the physics that governs them.
Then we would have a reason to give another name to the thing we now call “the Universe” (perhaps a “magnaeruption” or a “Big-Bang Unit”), and reserve the name “Universe” for the larger thing that contains it; and thereby not confuse theists until we find evidence of something bigger still.
Members of the various religions, however, will still imagine that the newly identified larger “Universe” was created by God or some other supernatural thing. Non-believers will continue to be content not knowing how it came to be but confident that it has some natural origin and interested in new evidence as it appears.
February 12, 2010 at 11:02 pm |
Verbifex,
No, my point is not mere semantics regarding the word ‘universe’.
It is about the origin of matter.
Either matter is eternal, (i.e. it had no beginning point) or it is not eternal (i.e. it had a beginning point).
Pick your poison, and we can go from there.
Matter…..eternal or not, in your POV?
February 14, 2010 at 2:09 am |
No, my point is not mere semantics regarding the word ‘universe’.
It is about the origin of matter.
I guess this means that you now acknowledge that the Big Bang hypothesis and other hypotheses about how the Universe works do not describe supernatural events. Your real interest is in the larger general question of how the energy & matter of the Universe came into existence.
Either matter is eternal, (i.e. it had no beginning point) or it is not eternal (i.e. it had a beginning point).
I suppose that the eternal hypothesis also envisions that it will have no ending point. And that the finite hypothesis includes the possibility that it might have an ending point.
Also, just to be clear: We have to include energy in the origin question also because, under certain conditions, energy can be converted to matter and vice versa. If we only consider matter, then when energy is converted to matter we might think that matter had appeared from nowhere. Or we might think matter had disappeared when it was converted to energy. So we are talking about the origin of energy & matter.
Then you want to know which I think is true: eternal or not.
This is a well-known paradox and a real dilemma. Neither option can be true. Therefore, they must both be false. The real answer regarding the existence of the Universe must be something else which we have not yet thought of.
Nature has given us many surprises at the small end of the size scale: all those remarkable subatomic particles and forces with their various unexpected properties, and perhaps more to be discovered. It seems to me that we are in the process of discovering surprises at the large end of the scale, too.
So I choose “None of the above”. I have no interest in treating as true either of two false (or, more precisely, unsubstantiated) hypotheses. I would rather wait for cosmologists to find relevant evidence and real answers. But I do not expect any definitive news on this topic in my lifetime.
February 14, 2010 at 7:32 am |
Verbifex,
In an attempt to sound clever, you make a foolish statement.
My question is: matter, eternal or not?
IOW, choose which of these positions you believe to be correct:
1. Matter is eternal.
2. Matter is not eternal.
You said: both are false, which is an absurdity, i.e. if “matter is not eternal” is false, then “matter is eternal” is true.
You would have been better off punting.
You should have taken an agnostic position ” I do not know which is true”.
—————-
Verbifex wrote:
“I guess this means that you now acknowledge that the Big Bang hypothesis and other hypotheses about how the Universe works do not describe supernatural events.”
No. Your guess would directly contradict statements I’ve made to the contrary.
Why would you set up a strawman, assigning to me a position that I’ve specifically opposed?
The Big Bang theory, as currently articulated by its proponents, is a hypothesis which invokes the supernatural to explain the origin of the universe.
It proposes an entity unobserved and unobservable.
Said entity is not subject to the laws which govern our physical universe (i.e. since the entity is said to have created our universe, it cannot be considered ‘part of’ or ’subject to’ it)
By definition, it’s supernatural.
from merriamwebster.com
supernatural
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
The definitions also give examples of possible uses of the term , but is not limited to them .
definition 1 gives a possible example: especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
definition 2 gives a possible example: b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
It is important to note that the examples are subsets of the whole, i.e. if the definition were ONLY that included in the subset, there would be no need to differentiate or qualify the definition with a secondary meaning.
The ‘natural’ realm , (i.e our physical universe, the entire realm of matter), is the only realm to which the scientific method can be properly applied. It is not intended to be used to investigate that which is ’supernatural’.
February 14, 2010 at 11:56 pm |
The Big Bang Theory posits the existence of a large amount of energy and matter packed into a very small space (maybe of zero volume): the same energy and matter which we now see all around us and which includes us. That energy and matter participated in the events that propelled it all radially outward and that energy and matter is the same stuff that we see today. It changed form but is the same stuff. The Big Bang Theory does not say anything about the origin of that initial energy and matter; quoting from Wikipedia on “Big Bang”:
There have been a variety of hypotheses about the Universe. One such hypothesis is that it may be cyclic: that it may expand (as we see now), and later contract under its internal gravity until it reaches the very dense state described as the initial condition of the Big Bang, and then expand again, over and over; and may have done this many times in the past. If this is true, the energy and matter are not from outside the system but are part of the system and the Big Bang just describes the expansion part of the cycle.
As I tried to explain above, the limits of our ability to observe do not limit the extent of physical reality. The stuff we can see might be everything there is, or it might be a small region of a much larger system, or it might be a discrete subsystem of some other physical system. What we currently know does not define the reality. In the present state of our knowledge, there is no way to say whether or not the initial energy and matter described by Big Bang Theory came from outside the ultimate physical system (the “real” Universe, independent of what we know now).
After I pointed all this out before, you shifted to the issue of whether the energy & matter of the Universe are eternal. So I thought that you must have checked with authoritative references on the Big Bang Theory and must have realized that it only describes the mechanics of the transition from the initial state to the current state. Sorry. I should have known that you would not do such a thing.
Still, whatever the size and organization of the ultimate physical system, there remains the question of how it came into existence. But that is the same question that applies generally to any hypothesis about the mechanics of the Universe, for example the Steady State Theory. How did it get started? Has it always existed? Does it always have the same total energy and matter? Etc. But we do not know the answers to questions like this because we do not have any relevant information.
In connection with this, you assert that there are only two possibilities: “1. Matter is eternal. 2. Matter is not eternal.” Then you insist that I have to choose one of them and you ask which I choose. I choose to think for myself. Neither option leads to new information, both simply lead to more questions, and together they constitute a paradox. Therefore, it is apparent that there must be something else. At present we have no clue what that might be, but we might as well keep the possibility in mind so as to recognize relevant information if any appears. I think there are still surprises to be discovered in Nature.
February 11, 2010 at 5:09 am |
Verbifex , in you last paragraph you precisely defined why Theists can never understand facts, logic and especially science. Anything they don’t understand is instantly and automatically assumed to be the work of some god and therefore “proof” that god exists.
If something in science is modified or show to be in error, they grasp it as “evidence” the “science is often wrong about things” failing to understand that it is the scientific method to revise the understanding of the universe (meaning the natural world that comprises all we know and can detect) when new evidence becomes available.
Theists consistently refuse to admit any possibility that even a small part of their beliefs can be wrong, no matter how overwhelming the evidence.
As I have said elsewhere, had the Pharaohs understood the laws of aerodynamics, they could have built gliders and soared the thermals of the Nile Valley. In their ignorance, they would have assumed any flying device was “the work of the gods”. Are theists of today much better?
February 20, 2010 at 12:45 pm |
If you’ll indulge me, first a bit about myself and then my comments about what I’ve read thus far at this site. I was led to this site because we have a daughter and her friend who are atheists and due to have their first child in a few months. My wife and I have grown up as what some in this blog would call sheep (catholics). We of course are concerned about the future and raising of our grandchildren by atheitsts. I’ll certainly acknowledge that being an atheist doesn’t make you a bad person any more than being a “believer” makes you a good person. Our concern is with what value system will our daughter use to raise and teach her child? As “believers” my wife and I must have faith in a “plan” and that it will all work out for the good. But that’s not what I was moved to contribute to this string.
The depth of the debate at this site is a bit staggering. I’m somewhat educated. I have degrees but nothing high powered as you’ll be able to see by my contribution here.
The thing that always runs through my mind when I ponder belief or nonbelief and religious or nonreligious is the overall impact on mankind by both.
Obviously and certainly religion and a belief in God has contributed to and/or caused heinous acts and atrocities througout history. But, what about the good that’s been done throughout history because of a belief in God and/or religion, that is the concept of loving one another. Along with the countless killed, slaughtered, or maimmed – what about the clothed, fed, sheltered, and just plain comforted by the simple concept of hope. The nature of humanity is that bad exists and always will, but good is possible, and what brings the good to being? Without a belief in God and/or religion what would have driven mankind to do any good at all? I would think that the worst aspects of the Roman empire was an example of the brutality that could exist at any given time. Same could be said about the Nazis (yes, I know many of them considered themselves good Christians).
Based on this string, I suppose to bring any credibility to my comments we would need a tremendous scale on which we could weigh all the good and bad that has been done throughout history (evidence) – but what about the good to be done or just the hope of good being done in the future – how to measure that?
“Dear God, I believe. Help me with my doubt and disbelief.”
As I presently see it, and my experience to this point has led me to believe that at any given time we may doubt our faith, at times a little and at times a lot – but faith is a choice, isn’t it? As I read earlier in the string – what do we really know?
So do we believe in fairy tales or mislead people that we do in order to do good or have the hope of doing good – maybe fake it till you make it? I believe that occurs in many professions all the time – doubts occur but the desire to believe they can make a difference keeps the individual going, e.g. teachers, law enforcement, social workers, health care workers, etc.