The NT Application of the Canaanite Conquest

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] An obvious objection to this has been pointed out to you time and time and time again. I am not sure why you fail to grasp this basic point, but I will refresh your memory yet again: nobody, excepting those who already theistically think the same as you, thinks that the Christic redemptive "choice" you outline exists. Do you just not understand that ...[text shortened]...
It only means it is not logically rigorous according to typical academic debating standards.

That's no better than your first go-round. In your first go-round, you tried to establish culpability through a choice that no atheist has reason to think exists in the first place. Now, you are trying to establish culpability through appeal to contents of a book that no atheist has reason to take seriously. At any rate, the idea that atheists are morally culpable for lack of belief in the existence of "a Creator with eternal power and divine characteristics" is notionally confused at best, since such belief is not a simple choice-based affair. You could make a case that atheists are doing something wrong from an epistemic perspective if you could show that there exists good evidence for such belief to which they are not appropriately responsive. But that depends on your bringing evidence to the table.

Originally posted by LemonJello

In your first go-round, you tried to establish culpability through a choice that no atheist has reason to think exists in the first place.

I think by saying one is an atheist one has made a choice concerning something very important - whether God is or nothing brought everything into existence.

I really think for a season, and it may be a life long season, a choice has been made. The flag of rejecting God has been unfurled.

I believe this amounts to holding down the truth in unrighteousness. This is a effort of will, a force of will power to silence an intuitive matter in the conscience in favor of a preference that God not be.

Atheist who argue that no choice has been made and no position has been taken up, I think, are engaging in wishful thinking ie. "the default position is to be without suspicion that God is."

Something brought all things into existence.
Or nothing brought all things into existence.

Choosing which of these is more likely, is a choice people make.
This is a start.

Now, you are trying to establish culpability through appeal to contents of a book that no atheist has reason to take seriously.

That the things which exist, the things which are created prompt the human conscience to realize a Source of unlimited power must have brought it into being, does not really require a book.

The "book" of modern science tells us that probably the universe had a beginning. Any multi-universe or any other exotic arrangement or world assemble, consensus agrees, has to have had a beginning.

The Atheist may not take the Bible seriously as to believing anything there. But how can he ignore the book of nature?

Furthermore I think you confuse "take seriously" with believe. Bertrand Russell, Voltaire, Anthony Flew may not have believed the Bible. But I think they took it seriously enough that they mustered the full force of their intellects to show it could not be right.

The latter of these world class atheists, Anthony Flew, though no Christian, did finally decide that intelligent design had to be evidenced by the latter discoveries of molecular biology and the DNA molecule. He had to move from an atheist position to some kind of deist belief in a Creator.

Granted, the other two men may have "held down" the intuitively evident until the day they died. So I would not dare say that denial could not be life long.

At any rate, the idea that atheists are morally culpable for lack of belief in the existence of "a Creator with eternal power and divine characteristics" is notionally confused at best, since such belief is not a simple choice-based affair.

That nothing brought everything into existence is more notionally confusing.

Unless you cling an eternal physical universe, you have to account for the source of its coming into existence. God is not a notionally confused belief.
"Which God?" may be a question. But somebody bigger than you and I, should not be hard to assume, unless for some reason you just find that too undesirable. That revulsion could be for other reasons.

You could make a case that atheists are doing something wrong from an epistemic perspective if you could show that there exists good evidence for such belief to which they are not appropriately responsive. But that depends on your bringing evidence to the table.

Of the two alternatives:

1.) Nothing brought about the creation of the universe

2.) Something or Someone brought about the creation of the universe

The latter makes more sense.

After that is digested for awhile, and it may be along while I think

1.) If God were to appear as a human being telling us so Jesus Christ of the New Testament would be the best candidate.

2.) If God were to appear as a human telling us so, someone else would be the best candidate.

I think #1 is the more likely.

Some may say if God, God never appeared in this way.
But you have to work hard to explain away, most of all, Jesus.

And if #1 is the more likely, the words of such a Man, I would think I HAVE to do something with. They are hard to just ignore in apathy.

Now this is very personal matter. And it is a matter that may develop over many many years. But some things one just has to deal with in their hearts at some time.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] An obvious objection to this has been pointed out to you time and time and time again. I am not sure why you fail to grasp this basic point, but I will refresh your memory yet again: nobody, excepting those who already theistically think the same as you, thinks that the Christic redemptive "choice" you outline exists. Do you just not understand that ...[text shortened]...
It only means it is not logically rigorous according to typical academic debating standards.

He's not asking you to stop believing in the truth of the Gospels, he's asking you why someone who doesn't believe in the truth of the Gospels should do at an epistemological level. If the Gospels are true then it would be in their interests to do so, but that doesn't show that the Gospels are true. You need to think about how to sell this to atheists, and "You're going to go to Hell" just doesn't cut it. Neither will arguments from "authority", you have to show that the Gospels are true before we'll accept their authority.

It's like Dasa trying to convince you to become a Krishna, he just goes on about how old the Vedas and talks about "false religions" he doesn't engage anyone - without giving anyone a reason to think his version of theism is any more "true" than anyone else's.

Originally posted by sonship

In your first go-round, you tried to establish culpability through a choice that no atheist has reason to think exists in the first place.

I think by saying one is an atheist one has made a choice concerning something very important - whether God is or nothing brought everything into existence.

I really think for a season, and i ...[text shortened]... op over many many years. But some things one just has to deal with in their hearts at some time.

Of the two alternatives:

1.) Nothing brought about the creation of the universe

2.) Something or Someone brought about the creation of the universe

The latter makes more sense.

I disagree with this statement. Why does it make more sense that there is a creator than the universe came into existence spontaneously?

Aside from which there is some uncertainty about whether there was anything (material) before the Big Bang. There are various models of cyclic universes around, that it was the start of all things is not absolutely certain, it's not clear that it's possible to investigate that problem empirically.

Originally posted by DeepThought

I disagree with this statement. Why does it make more sense that there is a creator than the universe came into existence spontaneously?

If it came into existence spontaneously, then it brought itself into existence. But if it brought itself into existence then it existed before it existed. And that is impossible.

So something other than the universe had to be the cause for it coming into existence.

That is something beyond time and space and energy and matter and all that IS the universe.

The first words of the revelation of the Bible tell us - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1)

Originally posted by sonship

In your first go-round, you tried to establish culpability through a choice that no atheist has reason to think exists in the first place.

I think by saying one is an atheist one has made a choice concerning something very important - whether God is or nothing brought everything into existence.

I really think for a season, and i ...[text shortened]... op over many many years. But some things one just has to deal with in their hearts at some time.

I think by saying one is an atheist one has made a choice concerning something very important - whether God is or nothing brought everything into existence.

Then you're confused. To say that one is an atheist is to report that one does not hold the belief that a god (or gods) exists. That's just reporting a fact, not making a choice, let alone a choice "concerning something very important". Further, "God is or nothing brought everything into existence" is a false dichotomy.

I really think for a season, and it may be a life long season, a choice has been made. The flag of rejecting God has been unfurled.

Then you're confused again. There are a few ways in which you could intend 'reject' here. In the first sense, for S to reject X is for S to think X picks out an actual thing (i.e., has a referent) and for S to stand in some attitude of opposition to that thing. This sense cannot properly apply to a case where S = atheist & X = God because atheists do not think 'God' has a referent. Atheists do not think God exists, remember? In a second sense, for S to reject X is for S to refuse to engage or study the topic of X. This is presumably not the sense you mean, since you are knowingly addressing atheists who are ready and willing to address the topic. In a third sense, for S to reject X is for S to refuse to believe, or refuse to accept some truth regarding X. This is the sense you have in mind, I'll wager. You're claiming that deep down I have some intuitive knowledge that God exists and yet I refuse to accept this, which manifests as my atheism, right? If that's right, then you are not only presumptuous and rude, but also perhaps just out-and-out ineducable. I've explained to you numerous times on this forum that my position that your God does not exist was forged through honest studies and examination of the matter and is based on several rational arguments (the evidential problem of evil, the problem of ignorance, the Euthyphro dilemma, the problem of action, etc) that I have presented and defended on this forum for years. What chutzpah for you to simply ignore all these argumentative offerings and to state that my position is just based on willful refusal to accept the knowledge that your position is correct. How about I just return the favor and ignore whatever arguments you have and pronounce that your theism is just based on wishful thinking, predicated on egotism and emotional neediness to feel somehow special in the cosmic order of things? How would you like that? Let's agree that we can do without these lame, meritless accusations, and let's stick to the facts: we should stick to presenting evidential considerations for and against. Do you actually have any for your view?

Something brought all things into existence.
Or nothing brought all things into existence.

The option "Something brought all things into existence" is logically impossible. After all, that something, if it exists, would be contained within the set of all things; so if something brought all things into existence, "then it brought itself into existence. But if it brought itself into existence then it existed before it existed. And that is impossible." Any guess where I pulled that quote? Yeah...you need to get your house in order. As it is, I am using your own words to defeat your own position.

That the things which exist, the things which are created prompt the human conscience to realize a Source of unlimited power must have brought it into being, does not really require a book.

If there are things that exist and attest so strongly to the fact that your God exists and created them, then how about simply presenting the argument that shows that? It has to be either some version of teleological argument or some version of cosmological argument. How about simply presenting it? Is that too much to ask of you? What is premise 1?

That nothing brought everything into existence is more notionally confusing.

What's notionally confusing about it? On one interpretation, it is claiming basically that there exists no thing, such that this thing brought everything into existence. That certainly seems right to me, since the denial of that is logically impossible, as already described. Or did you mean it in some other way? If so, then it's going to be a false dichotomy that you presented. You're going to lose this argument either way.

At any rate, there is a bigger point here that you have failed to grasp: no atheist is committed to some positive stance on cosmological origins just in virtue of his or her atheism. That is just not something entailed by atheism.

1.) Nothing brought about the creation of the universe

2.) Something or Someone brought about the creation of the universe

The latter makes more sense.

Sorry, but the "creation of the universe" just sounds question-begging to me. How about I tell you that the following dichotomy is your problem to work out. I leave it up to you to explain your way out of it:

(a) Nothing explains the fact that God does not exist.
(b) Something explains the fact that God does not exist.

If you tell me that it's not a fact that God does not exist, then I will tell you that it is not the case that the universe was created.

Again, and for the last time, if there are considerations related to cosmological origins that suggest that God exists, then just present the actual argument already! Stop beating around the bush.

Originally posted by sonship

I disagree with this statement. Why does it make more sense that there is a creator than the universe came into existence spontaneously?

If it came into existence spontaneously, then it brought itself into existence. But if it brought itself into existence then it existed before it existed. And that is impossible.

So something oth ...[text shortened]... Bible tell us - [b]"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) [/b]

So something other than the universe had to be the cause for it coming into existence.

That is something beyond time and space and energy and matter and all that IS the universe.

Sounds incoherent to me. Under my view, causes and effects are both in the category of events; and events occur in time, not beyond or outside time. Do you care to explain your views on cause/effect whereby causation could be something independent of temporal relations?

Originally posted by sonship

I disagree with this statement. Why does it make more sense that there is a creator than the universe came into existence spontaneously?

If it came into existence spontaneously, then it brought itself into existence. But if it brought itself into existence then it existed before it existed. And that is impossible.

So something oth ...[text shortened]... Bible tell us - [b]"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) [/b]

If it came into existence spontaneously, then it brought itself into existence.

By the way, I forgot to add some clarification here. To say that X came into existence spontaneously, in this context, need not imply that X brought itself into existence. Perhaps DeepThought can clarify, but it could be intended as coming into existence under no explanation. This is not logically impossible, but it does fly in the face of the principle of sufficient reason.

Originally posted by LemonJello

If it came into existence spontaneously, then it brought itself into existence.

By the way, I forgot to add some clarification here. To say that X came into existence spontaneously, in this context, need not imply that X brought itself into existence. Perhaps DeepThought can clarify, but it could be intended as coming into existence u ...[text shortened]... is not logically impossible, but it does fly in the face of the principle of sufficient reason.

I'm a physicist by training (I work as a computer programmer these days), so I tend to think about these things in that way. To me statements like "something can't come out of nothing" when translated into physics jargon is a statement of a conservation law - "Energy is conserved" or "Fermion number is conserved". In fact if those last two statements weren't true then the statement "something can't come out of nothing" wouldn't have any intuitive appeal. Conservation laws in Physics are entailed by symmetries. The relevant one for energy is symmetry under translations in time. That symmetry is not valid at t = 0, for fairly obvious reasons, there isn't a before which is the case at all subsequent times. So there's no particular physics based objection to vast amounts of energy spontaneously appearing at the beginning of time.

In physics there is no particular reason for quantum fluctuations, they just happen. Based on Standard Model physics the universe started as a quantum fluctuation which started to expand. It didn't vanish again due to an inflationary phase. There are various speculative theories where the universe we see is embedded in a higher dimensional space called the bulk. I don't know if that is required to have some sort of "start". The interesting question for me is not material stuff appearing out of nowhere, that just relies on the asymmetry at the start of time, but where the rules come from. How did the laws of physics come about, are they the only ones possible? Are there other universes with different laws?

If you think about something like beta decay where a down quark decays into an up quark, an electron (the beta ray) and an anti-neutrino then other than being energetically allowed there is no particular reason why it happens. It's just it can. I'm therefore going to make a grand claim and state that the principle of sufficient reason doesn't apply to the universe taken as a whole. It's realm of applicability is within a universe and at classical scales, quantum events just happen. At a quantum scale it needs restating in a negative way, so instead of: "Events can only occur if there is sufficient reason for them to." I suggest: "Events can occur spontaneously and without prior cause provided there is no sufficient reason they shouldn't.". By the time you are looking at things at a macroscopic scale there is so much that can't happen it appears as if effects require causes.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'm a physicist by training (I work as a computer programmer these days), so I tend to think about these things in that way. To me statements like "something can't come out of nothing" when translated into physics jargon is a statement of a conservation law - "Energy is conserved" or "Fermion number is conserved". In fact if those last two statements w ...[text shortened]... a macroscopic scale there is so much that can't happen it appears as if effects require causes.

The Principle of Sufficient Reason is really a conspiracy of stochastic systems. Love it! Great post.

Originally posted by sonship
[ Something brought all things into existence.
Or nothing brought all things into existence.

Choosing which of these is more likely, is a choice people make.
This is a start.

A few problems with this.

1. It assumes the universe had a start.

2. It assumes that "start" was initiated by something or nothing.

3. It assumes that people routinely think about these things!

4. It assumes "Don't know" is not a valid answer.

Originally posted by LemonJello

I think by saying one is an atheist one has made a choice concerning something very important - whether God is or nothing brought everything into existence.

Then you're confused. To say that one is an atheist is to report that one does not hold the belief that a god (or gods) exists. That's just reporting a fact, not making a choice, ...[text shortened]... t that God exists, then just present the actual argument already! Stop beating around the bush.

Then you're confused. To say that one is an atheist is to report that one does not hold the belief that a god (or gods) exists.

No confusion here.
While I am not as well versed in philosophy as you, I would say mostly only the new atheists who attempt to modify the definition of atheism to maximize a totally defensive posture with all burden of argumentation on the theist.

My opinion is that if they continue to re-define and re-define atheism they will eventually end up with something like "An atheist is a person who cannot be wrong - by definition."

I am sorry. But I consider this re-defining the term to be a part of what Paul said about "holding down the truth in unrighteousness."

But I'm not going to spend too much time of the definition of Atheism here.

That's just reporting a fact, not making a choice, let alone a choice "concerning something very important". Further, "God is or nothing brought everything into existence" is a false dichotomy.

Aside from the maneuver of re-defining atheism to assure the strongest possible defensive position, I think I did say "Something or Someone" brought everything into existence. I think that leaves room for some other possibility besides theism. You'd have to propose what that might be.

I think it has to be Someone with a WILL to cause and effect - a Living and Deciding Source of power, not to mention wisdom and knowledge of infinite degree.

sonship:
I really think for a season, and it may be a life long season, a choice has been made. The flag of rejecting God has been unfurled.

LJ:

Then you're confused again. There are a few ways in which you could intend 'reject' here. In the first sense, for S to reject X is for S to think X picks out an actual thing (i.e., has a referent) and for S to stand in some attitude of opposition to that thing.

I'll think on it. But it seems you are doing the job of being S rejecting X.
I don't see you having any problem about which "referent" that needs arguments against.

I don't see you having any problem at all adopting an attitude of opposition to God.

This sense cannot properly apply to a case where S = atheist & X = God because atheists do not think 'God' has a referent.

I won't spend a lot of effort here. What you are saying to me is that you do not believe that there is something to not believe in.

I'm sorry. But I take this as an effort to bolster up even further the strength of the opposition to the referent. I think it is a clever latter development of your age old philosophy.

Atheists do not think God exists, remember?

Right. So there IS a referent to oppose. That is the existence of God.

And when atheist's mockingly refer to the Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn there is also there a referent to oppose as to their existence.

In a second sense, for S to reject X is for S to refuse to engage or study the topic of X.

Now that may be idealistically. But to effectively oppose the belief in God I am pretty sure you do do some study which you don't refuse.

To me these moves - "We don't believe something is there to not believe in" or "We do not believe there is anything to oppose" or "There is no referent to be 'A' about, "A- thiest" or "We refuse to study something that should even be studied so as to 'not believe' " etc. are all latter attempts to so rig the discussion to maximize the strength of your un-believing position.

No position is always the easiest position to argue.
You are making it so that no burden of a truth claim whatsoever is upon the atheist.

But all the while, waiting in the wings are plenty of truth claim arguments in favor of atheism.

I cannot help but think of these maneuvers as what the Bible meant by "[H]old down the truth in unrighteousness."

IE. "We are going to hold down the thought of the existence of God by saying there is nothing to study, nothing to not accept, nothing really to disbelieve, or even consider as a alternative to what we say is fact."

In this exchange, I am only going to try to tell you why what is a issue with you may not be one for me.

This is presumably not the sense you mean, since you are knowingly addressing atheists who are ready and willing to address the topic. In a third sense, for S to reject X is for S to refuse to believe, or refuse to accept some truth regarding X.

I'll think about is.
But "God does not exist even probably, because of thus and such" is the atheism I am use to. And after all this special rigging of definitions, that is what I expect.

Skipping down -

... then you are not only presumptuous and rude, but also perhaps just out-and-out ineducable.

I don't mean to be rude.

I've explained to you numerous times on this forum that my position that your God does not exist was forged through honest studies and examination of the matter and is based on several rational arguments (the evidential problem of evil, the problem of ignorance, the Euthyphro dilemma, the problem of action, etc) that I have presented and defended on this forum for years.

And each one of these required you to study something about theism. You didn't arrive at this arsenal by considering that studying God was not even necessary.

You did not amass this arsenal of arguments by believing there was no referrent to object to.

What chutzpah for you to simply ignore all these argumentative offerings and to state that my position is just based on willful refusal to accept the knowledge that your position is correct.

I do not ignore them. I think they should be studied by me. And I do.
Which one of these arguments do you think is your strongest ?

evidential problem of evil?
the problem of ignorance?
the Euthyphro dilemma?
the problem of action?

Which one of these four do you think is the strongest atheist argument.
Or are they not atheist arguments at all?
And if not, what are they?

How about I just return the favor and ignore whatever arguments you have and pronounce that your theism is just based on wishful thinking,

I think you already paid me that favor.
I only hope here to perhaps show you why something a problem to you is not to me.

predicated on egotism and emotional neediness to feel somehow special in the cosmic order of things? How would you like that?

Like I said. I only will hope to say why something is a problem for you but not necessarily for me.

1.) Egotism

No event could be more humbling than me surrending my life to Jesus.
If I want to deal with egotism in ANY form, I do so by confessing "Lord Jesus".

I do not say I have no problems with pride. I do say that experience has taught me that to willfully depend upon Christ - Son of God, deals with egotism. It sets the proper center of the reality where it really is. My ego takes a comfortable and realistic place under the lordship of God in Christ.

Remember now. I am only trying to speak to why what you see as a problem may not be a problem to me.

"It is no longer I that live, but it is Christ that lives in me." to me is a reality on a daily even moment by moment basis. Another Person - the Lord Jesus compounds His life with mine. My ego takes a comfortable place under His headship and incredible love.

2.) Emotional need . There is nothing in itself wrong with emotional need for God. My emotions are a legitimate component of my humanity.

Athiesm can be an emotional crutch just as much as religion. And if Sigmond Freud is wrong and God does exist, the the emotional need for a father figure is not the problem. Rather an emotional need to RID oneself from a father figure is the emotional need of some people.

I can deny God because I want to deny the goodness of God.
I want to deny the goodness of God because I want to be free from the accountability of my non-goodness.

The best way to deny the goodness of God is to deny the existence of God altogether. No God = no goodness of God.

No goodness of God = no controversy between my self rebuking conscience and the righteousness of God. I can shut my conscience up - at least temporarily. I can bribe my concience by doing something ELSE good instead.

The self convicted person may say IE. " Yes, I stole. But to make it up I did this other good thing over here. " Or "Yes, I stole something from this woman in an act of fornication. But this nice thing I did as a bribe to my conscience, the next day. At least I made up for this."

What OUGHT to be and what IS are reduced in conflict if I dispense with God. Of course I also acknowledge that in this life no persfect justice can take place. All human judges are limited and flawed and can actually make errors in judgment.

No God = no goodness of God and no perfect judgment from an infallible mistakeLESS moral judge either. The tension between what OUGHT to be and what in fact IS is smoothed over to a more tolerable degree.

Let's agree that we can do without these lame, meritless accusations,

and let's stick to the facts: we should stick to presenting evidential considerations for and against. Do you actually have any for your view? [/quote]

I agree that it peeves one off to hear that he is, as the Bible would say, "hold[ing] down the truth in unrighteousness".

I contemplate "How would this sound to an atheist? Probably pretty offensive."

But to me, some things true may be offensive, even if temporarily. Some things true may just be offensive ...

But to me, some things true may be offensive, even if temporarily. Some things true may just be offensive always.


I had a friend who offended me when I was far away from God. She told me that I was a "lost sheep."

I RESENTED this a lot. " I am no lost sheep !!" I said to myself. I imagine that I felt then the way some atheist feels hearing that he is holding down the truth in unrighteousness.

Some time latter I discovered that I was indeed a "lost sheep" when I cried out "Take me home, Jesus. I am so tired."

sonship:
Something brought all things into existence.
Or nothing brought all things into existence.

The option "Something brought all things into existence" is logically impossible. After all, that something, if it exists, would be contained within the set of all things; so if something brought all things into existence, "then it brought itself into existence.

Then you should inform physicist Lawrence Kraus. He has spent considerable brain power to prove that the universe came from nothing. You better tell him that this cannot be the case because whatever "nothing" he proposes MUST be a part of the universe.

The "nothing" that the physicist Lawrence Kraus says brought into existence the univese did not because it is part of the universe. This amounts to the universe being eternal.

But if your universe is eternal then why hasn't it run down to a cold, ashy dispersed, energyless, formless, structureless, pitch black, voided ruin eons upon eons ago ?

Do you commit to an eternal universe ?

Originally posted by bbarr
The Principle of Sufficient Reason is really a conspiracy of stochastic systems. Love it! Great post.

You probably love a strawman argument "everything that exists has a cause". But the Principle of Sufficient Reason is that every EFFECT ... has a cause.

Can you indicate an effect anywhere that does not have a cause ?

Originally posted by sonship
I would say mostly only the new atheists [...] attempt to modify the definition of atheism to maximize a totally defensive posture with all burden of argumentation on the theist.

Only if you consider Bertrand Russell to be one of these "new" atheists. He wrote in 1952:

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim. It doesn't really matter if it's a religious claim, or any other, if it can't be verified and is hard to believe, then you can't be too surprised if others don't believe as you do.