I recently heard the explanation (from an ID viewpoint) that the purpose of viruses is further the human intellect by forcing us do deal with them; i.e medical facilities, research...

I thought their purpose was to kill homosexuals. I think that's what The 700 Club said and God writes their scripts.

steve wrote:

galanter wrote:And non-believers should be reminded that they have no legitimate claim to certainty, and their world view is also somewhat faith based as well. Rationality only confers finite wisdom.

I think you are wrong about non-believers' "faith."

It requires no faith to fail to hold a belief. It requires faith to actively hold such a belief. As has been noted before, agnosticism is a kind of atheism. It also requires no faith.

To play with the language this way, to say that my lack of a faith is a kind of faith, is a trick I run into all the time with people whose arguments are not convincing in one matter or another. They say, "well, you choose to not do this thing, and that's a choice too." No, it isn't. It is nothing. To actively do something, whether it is believe in God or to suck dicks for quarters, is to make a choice in its favor. To fail to do something is, by definition, not doing it, whether or not one does something else. I might not have considered sucking dicks for quarters, and as such have made no choice in the matter. I just haven't done it.

You're right, Mr. Albini. Your lack of faith is not a faith. It is rather an antifaith. I'm not implying any antagonistic feelings in saying that though since I am a Christian. I'm just stating a fact according to what you have said.

You are wrong when you say that choosing not to do something is not a choice and is rather nothing-at-all. If one has not considered an action, then obviously there is no activity and thus no choice going on. But if one has considered an action, regardless of what the choice regarding the action may be, de facto there IS a choice and thus an activity there. To choose to act or not act is an act of volition. It is apparent to me that you have considered the existence of God and chosen not to accept it.

steve wrote:My fundamental problem with the God's existence debate is that it supposes that there is some special value in considering whether or not something so utterly un-knowable (and to my mind, indefensible as any form of reasoned construction) should get special consideration as to its possibility or likelyhood.

I think that the existence of God can be shown by demonstrating what God is NOT, since God is "Pure Act" and thus our minds cannot form a concept of Him. The human mind cannot form a concept of "IS", but God "IS". He's above, NOT below, purely human intellection. This, however, is the intersection between metaphysics and faith: God is pure act: "IS"......and the name He gives to Moses in Exodus 3:14 is "I AM WHO AM". This is an overlap of reason and revelation.

Of course I don't know that there is no God. Of course. I also don't know with any certainty that there isn't someone in Red China wearing his own Electrical Audio jumpsuit, sitting in the lounge of his own recording studio typing these same words as I type them. There is simply no reason for me to believe that it is so, and to spend the time it takes to consider it seems foolish and unproductive. The only reason anyone considers a God is that those who have actively assumed the mantle of faith keep raising the issue. It is their argument that I am answering, not my own.

Yes people of faith do raise the issue of God and faith, you are right.......some do not always do it in the most prudent or thoughtful way, but that is a forgivable faux paus most of the time. You are right. But ultimately a person must find God himself in his heart. Sure that's vague and nebulous sounding.....yeah I know, but it's true and it is reality.

The fact that they alone keep the "debate" alive is enough for me to brand them as desperate and delusional. I see it as an indulgence that agnostics like yourself feel obliged to pamper them with considering these ridiculous notions, and this kind of babying can get us as a race nowhere.

Agnosticism IS an impossible position.....but where are we as race going, do you think, or at least where ought we be going?

It weakens intellectual rigor to have to keep making these qualifications to the patently true as an appeasement, and it then becomes leverage for the theists to assert some sort of intellectual parity with people grounded in reality. They question "reality," and "truth," and the quest for advancement in many arenas stagnates.

A theist does not question the sheer, point-blank facts of reality and truth. They are axiomatic.

I think that the existence of God can be shown by demonstrating what God is NOT, since God is "Pure Act" and thus our minds cannot form a concept of Him. The human mind cannot form a concept of "IS", but God "IS". He's above, NOT below, purely human intellection. This, however, is the intersection between metaphysics and faith: God is pure act: "IS"......and the name He gives to Moses in Exodus 3:14 is "I AM WHO AM". This is an overlap of reason and revelation.

So now, let me understand, with Matthew around we get to talk specifically about the Christian God? The God of the Bible, and ..all that? Okay, just testing the parameters.

*rolls up sleeves*
The argument of negative attributes is a very common one, especially amongst (my favourite) medeival theologians. The three attributes of God - omnesience, omnipresence, omnipotence - are postulated as negatives. Instead of all-knowing, we have a God who is without ignorance. Instead of all-present, we have a God not conceptually definable in space and time. Instead of omnipotence, we have a God without limits.
But this tells us nothing, especially when we are asked to believe in God. All this ineffability leads is to a path where the Christian must say his knowledge does not come from reason - the traditional means of acquiring knowledge through sensory perception and verification - but faith, which is an entirely different means of acquiring knowledge.

There is absolutely no REASON or rationality for one to believe in a God. There is only faith, which is by it's very nature irrational.

Now, this is entirely supported...by the Christian's own scriptures. Here's a TON where the message is, very plainly - "Reason and intellect is not the way to understand/know God".

I Corinthians 3:18-20
Do not deceive yourselves. If anyone of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a fool so that he may become wise. For the wisdom of the world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written:
He catches the wise in their craftiness. [Job 5:13]
and again:
The Lord knows that the thought of the wise are futile. [Psalms 94:11]

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy...

I Corinthians 1:26-27
Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise.

I Corinthians 1:18-25
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate. [Isaiah 29:14]

Luke 10:21
At that same hour Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe ... Greeks look for wisdom, but ... the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.


Far from

A theist does not question the sheer, point-blank facts of reality and truth. They are axiomatic.

we see the theists in scripture completely disregarding the sheer, point-blank facts of reality and encouraging their followers to do the same.

matthew wrote:I think that the existence of God can be shown by demonstrating what God is NOT, since God is "Pure Act" and thus our minds cannot form a concept of Him. The human mind cannot form a concept of "IS", but God "IS". He's above, NOT below, purely human intellection. This, however, is the intersection between metaphysics and faith: God is pure act: "IS"......and the name He gives to Moses in Exodus 3:14 is "I AM WHO AM". This is an overlap of reason and revelation.

This is a strange double bill: "The Half-Baked Heideggers" opening for "The Half-Baked Tillichs".

I would not see either one of these bands.

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

matthew wrote:I think that the existence of God can be shown by demonstrating what God is NOT, since God is "Pure Act" and thus our minds cannot form a concept of Him. The human mind cannot form a concept of "IS", but God "IS". He's above, NOT below, purely human intellection. This, however, is the intersection between metaphysics and faith: God is pure act: "IS"......and the name He gives to Moses in Exodus 3:14 is "I AM WHO AM". This is an overlap of reason and revelation.

This is a strange double bill: "The Half-Baked Heideggers" opening for "The Half-Baked Tillichs".

I would not see either one of these bands.

Very Funny!

matthew wrote:Very Funny!

matthew, thanks for the compliment!

I have to say that I am impressed by your grasp of biblical Hebrew as demonstrated by your "I AM WHO I AM" comment above. Therefore, please tell us more about how the biblical authors used the unpronouncebale biblical word for God (i.e., "YHWH") as an elaborate pun relating to the biblical Hebrew verb for "to be" or "to exist".

Bonus points for working that explanation into a discussion of the name "Jeremiah".

That should nail down your point.

M_a_x wrote:

I think that the existence of God can be shown by demonstrating what God is NOT, since God is "Pure Act" and thus our minds cannot form a concept of Him. The human mind cannot form a concept of "IS", but God "IS". He's above, NOT below, purely human intellection. This, however, is the intersection between metaphysics and faith: God is pure act: "IS"......and the name He gives to Moses in Exodus 3:14 is "I AM WHO AM". This is an overlap of reason and revelation.

So now, let me understand, with Matthew around we get to talk specifically about the Christian God? The God of the Bible, and ..all that? Okay, just testing the parameters.

*rolls up sleeves*
The argument of negative attributes is a very common one, especially amongst (my favourite) medeival theologians. The three attributes of God - omnesience, omnipresence, omnipotence - are postulated as negatives. Instead of all-knowing, we have a God who is without ignorance. Instead of all-present, we have a God not conceptually definable in space and time. Instead of omnipotence, we have a God without limits.
But this tells us nothing, especially when we are asked to believe in God. All this ineffability leads is to a path where the Christian must say his knowledge does not come from reason - the traditional means of acquiring knowledge through sensory perception and verification - but faith, which is an entirely different means of acquiring knowledge.

There is absolutely no REASON or rationality for one to believe in a God. There is only faith, which is by it's very nature irrational.

No, faith is neither subrational nor irrational, but superrational. It informs and contains human reason.

Now, this is entirely supported...by the Christian's own scriptures. Here's a TON where the message is, very plainly - "Reason and intellect is not the way to understand/know God".

Reason ALONE cannot come to know God. Reason enlightened by faith can lead us towards Him. We need God to know God, and that is why Christ came into the world- because he is both God and Man: He shows us The Father......read John's Gospel.

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

matthew wrote:Very Funny!

matthew, thanks for the compliment!

I have to say that I am impressed by your grasp of biblical Hebrew as demonstrated by your "I AM WHO I AM" comment above. Therefore, please tell us more about how the biblical authors used the unpronouncebale biblical word for God (i.e., "YHWH") as an elaborate pun relating to the biblical Hebrew verb for "to be" or "to exist".

Bonus points for working that explanation into a discussion of the name "Jeremiah".

That should nail down your point.

Awesome!.....you get it........seriously.....thanks Weissenberger....just try not to pander too much even though you are the moderator.


It is a pun.....I'm being dead serious.

The man gets it!