Comments on: The Essence of Christianity: Part 1 - Yes, There ARE Club Rules http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/ Conservative group weblog that publishes daily commentary on political events and topics affecting Canada, the United States and the world. Tue, 02 Dec 2008 02:51:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: ThePolitic.com » Politics and Religion: Why Are We Talking Religion? http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/#comment-180582 ThePolitic.com » Politics and Religion: Why Are We Talking Religion? Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:16:54 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/#comment-180582 [...] have wondered why a site called The Politic winds up talking about religion so much. There are very good reasons for this. Firstly, religion drives some of the most [...] [...] have wondered why a site called The Politic winds up talking about religion so much. There are very good reasons for this. Firstly, religion drives some of the most [...]

]]> By: dalton http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/#comment-180566 dalton Tue, 08 Apr 2008 10:23:24 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/#comment-180566 I certainly look forward to the series. However, in the interest of strict accuracy, I must note that you chose to make complexity an issue in your introductory remarks as a proof of God's existence, as well as a suggestion that your prior remarks on complexity had not been rebutted. They were not rebutted because you deferred discussion of them. I accept your assurance that "my day will come." ;) I certainly look forward to the series.

However, in the interest of strict accuracy, I must note that you chose to make complexity an issue in your introductory remarks as a proof of God’s existence, as well as a suggestion that your prior remarks on complexity had not been rebutted. They were not rebutted because you deferred discussion of them.

I accept your assurance that “my day will come.” ;)

]]> By: Matthew http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/#comment-180563 Matthew Tue, 08 Apr 2008 03:19:40 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/#comment-180563 Dalton, not at all. Please remember that you brought evolution into the last discussion and I was kind enough to address it even though it was not the topic of that post. As I noted, this is a series and I have a sequence of topics that I want to cover in a particular order. You'll have your time for evolution (remember that Expelled is out this month, and I hope to have the time to do something then too!). Dalton, not at all. Please remember that you brought evolution into the last discussion and I was kind enough to address it even though it was not the topic of that post. As I noted, this is a series and I have a sequence of topics that I want to cover in a particular order. You’ll have your time for evolution (remember that Expelled is out this month, and I hope to have the time to do something then too!).

]]> By: The Clerkenwell Kid http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/#comment-180562 The Clerkenwell Kid Tue, 08 Apr 2008 00:35:27 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/#comment-180562 Did someone say Matt was putting in a preview button? I'm so there! Did someone say Matt was putting in a preview button? I’m so there!

]]> By: C http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/#comment-180561 C Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:49:15 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/#comment-180561 "I’m going to make a judgment call here and state that no challenger to this premise offered a sufficient explanation for how God could not exist today in a universe as complex or real as ours is" As you've said yourself, God could be dead. The fact that this is speculative in no way precludes the possibility of God being dead. It's an explanation of how God COULD not exist. “I’m going to make a judgment call here and state that no challenger to this premise offered a sufficient explanation for how God could not exist today in a universe as complex or real as ours is”

As you’ve said yourself, God could be dead. The fact that this is speculative in no way precludes the possibility of God being dead. It’s an explanation of how God COULD not exist.

]]> By: CC http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/#comment-180557 CC Mon, 07 Apr 2008 16:34:18 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/#comment-180557 A bit of unsolicited advice, Matthew -- anyone who doesn't know the difference between an "important tenet" and an "important tenant" really shouldn't be waxing philosophical about Christian apologetics. Trust me on this one. P.S. You know what would really improve things around here, Matthew? A preview button. A bit of unsolicited advice, Matthew — anyone who doesn’t know the difference between an “important tenet” and an “important tenant” really shouldn’t be waxing philosophical about Christian apologetics. Trust me on this one.

P.S. You know what would really improve things around here, Matthew? A preview button.

]]> By: C http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/#comment-180552 C Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:17:27 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/#comment-180552 The whole point about providing a proof is that it doesn't allow any other possibilities. It's not a proof if you say it proves A as long as you forget about B, C, or D. "God might’ve existed, but He died" may well be speculative, but it's something that your "proof" allows for. If that's the case, then it can't be a true proof of the existence of God because it allows for other solutions. If you want to try and argue for the continuing existence of God, you want the ontological argument, where you just go ahead and define God into existence, but then I'll start talking about ideal islands, and it'll just get b-o-r-i-n-g. That's the thing. These arguments: they've all been had before. The arguments and counter arguments and counter-counter arguments are all well rehearsed. And in the end, it's only going to boil down to having to believe or not believe in God based on faith alone. The rest is just wasting everyone's time. We may as well be copying a script. Now start defining those entry requirements for Christianity. I want a new argument. The whole point about providing a proof is that it doesn’t allow any other possibilities. It’s not a proof if you say it proves A as long as you forget about B, C, or D. “God might’ve existed, but He died” may well be speculative, but it’s something that your “proof” allows for. If that’s the case, then it can’t be a true proof of the existence of God because it allows for other solutions. If you want to try and argue for the continuing existence of God, you want the ontological argument, where you just go ahead and define God into existence, but then I’ll start talking about ideal islands, and it’ll just get b-o-r-i-n-g. That’s the thing. These arguments: they’ve all been had before. The arguments and counter arguments and counter-counter arguments are all well rehearsed. And in the end, it’s only going to boil down to having to believe or not believe in God based on faith alone. The rest is just wasting everyone’s time. We may as well be copying a script. Now start defining those entry requirements for Christianity. I want a new argument.

]]> By: C http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/#comment-180551 C Mon, 07 Apr 2008 12:31:42 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/#comment-180551 Do we really need the bible to know God though? Those professing to believe in God are sometimes asked why seemingly unjust evens occur on earth, and not just those events caused by humans, but also those caused by nature, such as earthquakes or tidal waves, and that given God's omnipotence this world would seem to represent a severe form of under achievement on the part of God. This question is usually answered with the same reply given by leibniz, that this is the best of all possible worlds. Given that God exists and that this is the best of all possible worlds, there is no longer an "underachiever" problem so much as a "what is God's intent" problem. If God has created a reality to show the maximization of something which God has decided is "best", we could examine those clearly unmaximised values and eliminate them as being against the will of God, leaving only those which are the will of God. This would seem to be a more reliable way of discovering God's will than reading the bible as it would eliminate any faults in translation or transcription which may have accumulated over the years. Given all this, what could be God's will for the world? Why is this world "best"? Do we really need the bible to know God though? Those professing to believe in God are sometimes asked why seemingly unjust evens occur on earth, and not just those events caused by humans, but also those caused by nature, such as earthquakes or tidal waves, and that given God’s omnipotence this world would seem to represent a severe form of under achievement on the part of God. This question is usually answered with the same reply given by leibniz, that this is the best of all possible worlds. Given that God exists and that this is the best of all possible worlds, there is no longer an “underachiever” problem so much as a “what is God’s intent” problem. If God has created a reality to show the maximization of something which God has decided is “best”, we could examine those clearly unmaximised values and eliminate them as being against the will of God, leaving only those which are the will of God. This would seem to be a more reliable way of discovering God’s will than reading the bible as it would eliminate any faults in translation or transcription which may have accumulated over the years. Given all this, what could be God’s will for the world? Why is this world “best”?

]]> By: dalton http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/#comment-180550 dalton Mon, 07 Apr 2008 12:25:41 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/#comment-180550 Okay. Just noting that: - you left the last argument on evolution by promising to return and address the issue of complexity. - you're beginning this discussion by claiming that your opponents failed to rebut your last arguments. It's impossible to rebut an argument when the presenter defers his response, then returns weeks later and claims victory, wouldn't you agree? Okay. Just noting that:
- you left the last argument on evolution by promising to return and address the issue of complexity.
- you’re beginning this discussion by claiming that your opponents failed to rebut your last arguments.

It’s impossible to rebut an argument when the presenter defers his response, then returns weeks later and claims victory, wouldn’t you agree?

]]> By: Matthew http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/#comment-180549 Matthew Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:55:56 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/#comment-180549 Dalton, First I have to point out that I'm going to be far busier with my life from now on so I won't be on here regularly to debate (although you're quite welcome to offer your comments still). I will be getting to evolution, but evolution's existence does not disprove God's existence, but would only suggest that God lied (of course, I don't believe this after and will get to it during a future week). As it stands though, no one was able to disprove God's existence; the only arguments that I saw were yours and KC's which is that *God might've existed, but He died* which is something equally as speculative and also did not address my A* issue. Dalton,

First I have to point out that I’m going to be far busier with my life from now on so I won’t be on here regularly to debate (although you’re quite welcome to offer your comments still). I will be getting to evolution, but evolution’s existence does not disprove God’s existence, but would only suggest that God lied (of course, I don’t believe this after and will get to it during a future week). As it stands though, no one was able to disprove God’s existence; the only arguments that I saw were yours and KC’s which is that *God might’ve existed, but He died* which is something equally as speculative and also did not address my A* issue.

]]> By: dalton http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/#comment-180548 dalton Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:26:30 +0000 http://www.thepolitic.com/archives/2008/04/06/the-essence-of-christianity-part-1-yes-there-are-club-rules/#comment-180548 "I’m going to make a judgment call here and state that no challenger to this premise offered a sufficient explanation for how God could not exist today in a universe as complex or real as ours is." Given that this is the statement that initiates your thesis, it's worth spending a bit of time on. In our last exchange on the issue of complexity, I offered to either summarize or link you to either of two plain language, non-technical essays (the best is Gould's, but there are several others) illustrating the mathematics behind the complexity of evolution. You indicated that you would be addressing that topic at a later date. Is this statement - an assertion that no "challenger" rebutted your previous unfounded assertion - your rebuttal? “I’m going to make a judgment call here and state that no challenger to this premise offered a sufficient explanation for how God could not exist today in a universe as complex or real as ours is.”

Given that this is the statement that initiates your thesis, it’s worth spending a bit of time on.

In our last exchange on the issue of complexity, I offered to either summarize or link you to either of two plain language, non-technical essays (the best is Gould’s, but there are several others) illustrating the mathematics behind the complexity of evolution. You indicated that you would be addressing that topic at a later date.

Is this statement - an assertion that no “challenger” rebutted your previous unfounded assertion - your rebuttal?

]]>