tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post3922453979159911835..comments2024-03-27T00:26:19.644+00:00Comments on Rosa Rubicondior: C.S.Lewis, You Cannot Be Serious! 3Rosa Rubicondiorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-56605508943157093812013-09-23T09:54:41.753+01:002013-09-23T09:54:41.753+01:00addendum: Sorry the auto correct wrote 'emphat...addendum: Sorry the auto correct wrote 'emphatic' where it should say: 'empathic or charitable'jtveghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641232376365836153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-67862481169840549462013-09-23T07:27:44.858+01:002013-09-23T07:27:44.858+01:00There probably aren't any objective morals. Ho...There probably aren't any objective morals. How does the bible teach morality anyway? Anything we see as moral in the bible existed in societies long before the bible was written, eg. 'the golden rule.' Also there's many things in the bible we find quite immoral, eg. slavery, stoning people to death for trivial matters etc. If this is supposed to be derived from God's nature then that's a God I want nothing to do with. Human nature is also subjective. One person could be emphatic or charitable whereas someone else could care less, without being immoral.jtveghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07641232376365836153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-63644329415852353722013-07-12T04:15:00.688+01:002013-07-12T04:15:00.688+01:00"Evolutionism"? Old comment, I know, bu..."Evolutionism"? Old comment, I know, but I couldn't resist.<br /><br />Evolutionism is not a thing any more than "gravityism" or "entropyism". Of course Ryan is trying to equate the belief in evolution with a belief in creation, but this is a false equivalence. Evolution is science. Evolutionism, if such a thing existed, would be the belief in a scientific theory. This has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe. But even then the claim that a "past, unobservable event" requires speculation and is outside the realm of science its ludicrous. <br /><br />The one thing this commenter gets right is that not all claims can have scientific proof. The vast majority of these claims can not have scientific proof because they are not true and therefore can not be proven. The fact that a claim can not be proven is not actually an argument in favor of believing it. It is a concession to why it likely should not be believed.<br /><br />Some true things are unprovable. That does not mean that all unprovable things are true.<br /><br />When faced with two competing possibilities, one which has an overwhelming amount of evidence and which further study has only tended towards confirmation (for example evolution or theories about the life cycle of stars), and the other which has no observable basis in fact and is nothing but sheer speculation, logic dictates that the possibility with the supporting evidence should be chosen over the arbitrarily speculative one.<br /><br />Dialectical Materialisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17608958131345122214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-80921142013005064602012-08-23T16:10:23.312+01:002012-08-23T16:10:23.312+01:00I didn't say they became sacred. But you are ...I didn't say they became sacred. But you are attacking the person, trying to get people to hate him as much as you do. You misrepresent his arguments making him look like a fool and make yourself look good. Now, are you afraid of my question?Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-41871228080357833242012-08-14T08:33:35.708+01:002012-08-14T08:33:35.708+01:00Ryan
Here's what you actually said, as people...Ryan<br /><br />Here's what you actually said, as people can see for themselves: <i>"I do think it's pretty low to "destroy" a dead man's arguments..."</i>.<br /><br />Don't you think it's a bit soon to try denying it yet a while?<br /><br />Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-17588760664053058682012-08-14T03:12:59.032+01:002012-08-14T03:12:59.032+01:00That is not what I said actually. I would apprecia...That is not what I said actually. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't put words in my mouth.Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-34876881133623859152012-08-02T09:47:44.448+01:002012-08-02T09:47:44.448+01:00It's relatively simple to show that there is n...It's relatively simple to show that there is no objective morality; that morality is contextual and has changed through history.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-68204369135155716112012-08-02T09:44:38.150+01:002012-08-02T09:44:38.150+01:00So when people are dead their opinions became sacr...So when people are dead their opinions became sacred, eh?<br /><br />Does this apply to all dead people or just the ones whose opinions you would like not to be challenged?Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-9994934140128210652012-08-02T02:09:49.081+01:002012-08-02T02:09:49.081+01:00The far easier solution is to deny objective moral...The far easier solution is to deny objective morality — pace Ayers, Sartre, Camus, Hume, Dawkins, Hitchens, Russell, Nietzsche, Blackmore, Churchland, Ruse etc. etc. Oh, and John Gray — have a read of "Straw Dogs".<br /><br />"Theism posits unprovable things about god. Humanism posits unprovable things about human beings."Samnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-87434919430421048302012-07-24T21:02:12.131+01:002012-07-24T21:02:12.131+01:00But....if you really want me to adress your questi...But....if you really want me to adress your question I will. First, that is a false dichotomy. Just thought I'd point that out. I wouldn't really say he was either. He was a smart man who had a lot of good theories. I do think it's pretty low to "destroy" a dead man's arguments since he cannot defend them and no one else can truly, 100% know his meaning. I think you'd have a lot more trouble debating the man himself than writing a one sided blog post about something he said. I think he was right on in a lot of his thinking, but I won't say he was perfect. He was still human and humans make mistakes, he would even admit that. I hope you would too. Even so, I don't believe for a minute that he was a charlatan, out to decieve the people. That clearly goes against everything he embodied. Is that a sufficient answer? Would you be kind enough now to grace my question with an answer?Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-2402143849736345782012-07-24T19:08:49.067+01:002012-07-24T19:08:49.067+01:00Your question had nothing to do with what i said t...Your question had nothing to do with what i said to you and it was changing the subject. I was merely pointing out that you didnt answer hia original question. I see no point in trying to talk to you when you are just making personal attacks and writing me off.Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-19425064566075334522012-07-24T18:04:03.124+01:002012-07-24T18:04:03.124+01:00Oops! You 'forgot' to answer my question....Oops! You 'forgot' to answer my question.<br /><br />Wouldn't want people to think you're a hypocrite too...Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-63936114819385895202012-07-24T16:03:56.549+01:002012-07-24T16:03:56.549+01:00First of all, I know you did not say God's exi...First of all, I know you did not say God's existence was disproven, that post was in response to Ignostic Morgan who said "God cannot exist!" Second of all, evidence for God is all around us, our very existence points to a higher power. I know you will disagree with me on this. Lastly, you are wrong that I "lose no matter what." For one, it isn't about me and my winning or losing, it's about God and His ultimate plan WILL be carried out. But answer me this, assume for a momment Christianity is right. What would that mean for you?Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-37227832864642889562012-07-24T08:30:48.226+01:002012-07-24T08:30:48.226+01:00Ryan
> Like Lewis himself said, if I am wrong ...Ryan<br /><br />> Like Lewis himself said, if I am wrong about Christianity, it is of no importance, but if I am right, it is of infinite importance.<<br /><br />I'm afraid if you play Pascal's Wager, you lose, no matter what. See <a href="http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/favourite-fallacies-pascals-blunder.html" rel="nofollow">'Favourite Fallacies - Pascal's Blunder'</a>.<br /><br />It's because you've committed the logical fallacy of assuming <i>a priori</i> that which you set out to prove. One might have expected a supposedly great intellect like Lewis to have worked that one out for himself. <br /><br />So, what's your opinion? Was Lewis not the intellectual giant Christians like to imagine, or was he a charlatan?Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-89112404854479474492012-07-24T08:17:16.906+01:002012-07-24T08:17:16.906+01:00>It is a bold claim that there is no evidence f...>It is a bold claim that there is no evidence for God,<<br /><br />You could always prove it false by producing some. It would of course make you instantly world-famous, almost certainly earn you a saint-hood, would ensure you became one of history's great figures up there with Paul, Mohammed and Genghis Khan. And it would, naturally, bring about world peace by uniting us all in one religion with you high amongst it's leadership.<br /><br />why has no one thought to do so, and more particularly, why have you not done so, please?<br /><br />>and even bolder to claim that His existence is disproven. <<br /><br />Indeed. which is why I have never done so.<br /><br />>What is your proof of this?<<br /><br />The question now is why you are making a false implicit claim that I have ever said I have such proof, and of course why you have tried to divest yourself of the burden of proof by the morally bankrupt tactic of trying to shift the burden onto me. See <a href="http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/shifting-burden.html" rel="nofollow">'Shifting The Burden'</a>.<br /><br />Can we take it that you believe the commandment not to bear false witness is either nonsense, or doesn't apply to you?<br /><br />The evidence (note evidence, not proof) that there is no god is of course the complete absence of any evidence for one, just as the evidence that there is not a hippo in your loft is the complete absence of evidence for one. It's how normal people in normal life know that something isn't there. See <a href="http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/shifting-burden.html" rel="nofollow">'Why Did The Believer Cross The Road?'</a>.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-47945227459518293612012-07-24T02:56:19.162+01:002012-07-24T02:56:19.162+01:00It is a bold claim that there is no evidence for G...It is a bold claim that there is no evidence for God, and even bolder to claim that His existence is disproven. What is your proof of this? Also can I ask a somewhat personal question? Why do you find it so important to "enlighten" me(or anyone) to the "fact" that there is no God? Why do you care if I believe there is a God? Certainly you are not worried about my well-being or that I should die needlessly for Him. If you are, don't be; you are wasting time and empathy. What does it matter if I die a few years before you when we are just going to die and cease from existence? I assume that's what you believe will happen when we die, if not, I would be interested to know what you do believe. Like Lewis himself said, if I am wrong about Christianity, it is of no importance, but if I am right, it is of infinite importance.Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-70030555192881496642012-07-24T01:02:30.248+01:002012-07-24T01:02:30.248+01:00God obviously speaks with a forked tongue-all th...God obviously speaks with a forked tongue-all the sects having different ethics! That tongue also applies to the sects themselves and their scriptures as Theodore Drange notes with his argument from unbelief, in its corollary about having a single scripture and a single revelation for a single religion instead of all the forked tongue nonsense!<br /> Google the Coyne-Mayr-Lamberth the teleonomic argument that notes that science finds no divine intent, which applies to all arguments with intent, finding that He has no referents as the Divine Miracle Monger, the Divine Designer, Creator and so forth and having incoherent, contradictory attributes, He cannot exist.Therefore, not by dogma or a priori, but by analysis, we rationalists can proudly proclaim that God cannot exist! Therefore, we don't have to traverse the Metaverse nor have to have omniscience ourselves!<br /> God is therefore that circle that theologians never will square! He is needlessly redundant, despite Alister Earl McGrath, and has no relevance anymore than demons and gremlins as any kind of explanation. He ranks with the perpetual motion machine!<br /> He is just a theistic obscurantism, that Supreme Mystery, surrounded by still other mysteries, ostensibly as the Ultimate Explanation, the Efficient,Primary Cause and the Sufficient Reason, but in reality just that bombastic reification of the arguments from personal incredulity and from ignorance!Theism reflects the superstitious mind that ever wants assurance for her credulity!<br /> Ryan, that's poppycock! Circumstantial evidence in the way of serum, fossils , biogeography and so forth eviscerates your love of ignorance!Take the blinders off to ponder the evidence for evolution and against cretinism = creationism @ Talk Origins and Talk Reason.Your God is an empty term for incorrigible credulity! Without evidence for His very existence, you would die needlessly were you a martyr as did all those martyrs, some by the hands of their co-coreligionists!<br /> Yes, I rock! I am however a fallibilist resting as Fr. Griggs in his Socratic ignorance and naturalist humility!Ignostic Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697923350781112334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-72034178248985994832012-07-23T03:58:37.984+01:002012-07-23T03:58:37.984+01:00Rosa, could you explain your definition of "C...Rosa, could you explain your definition of "Christian God" to me? I also would like to point out that Christianity does not claim to be based on science. Creationism is not science just as evolutionism is not. The beginning of the universe is a past, unnobservable event, therefore speculation on it is outside of the realm of science. Not all claims can have scientific proof.Ryannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-34003131305545879202012-07-23T03:35:45.993+01:002012-07-23T03:35:45.993+01:00That may be true for some, but it is only because ...That may be true for some, but it is only because the creationist wouldn't be aware of the falacies and rebuttles to Rosa's argument. The truth of creation doesn't rest on one person's argument, it rests pn ultimate, objective truth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-53105036605175535932012-07-23T03:20:14.011+01:002012-07-23T03:20:14.011+01:00Yes, that does explain it better. The reason I did...Yes, that does explain it better. The reason I didn't want to address it before was that I wasn't completely sure what you were trying to propose. Now I think I have a better grasp of it.<br /><br />When you further explained your model, however, I just got the notion that you're excluding the possibility of God because you've already excluded Him from the equation. Your hypothesis works in its own way, but it still doesn't explain an origin to the objective morals that nearly all cultures share. Whereas my theory does explain that, and then can be coupled with memetic evolution to explain the diversions away from certain objective morals.<br /><br />I'm just saying memetic evolution hypothesis doesn't necessarily exclude the idea of a God, just as the general theory of evolution doesn't necessarily exclude the idea of a God. Actually the memetic evolution of morality follows the Christian model of original sin and man's Fall pretty well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-7463656239205761082012-07-21T13:35:08.899+01:002012-07-21T13:35:08.899+01:00>I'm not sure I understand your Amazonian t...>I'm not sure I understand your Amazonian tribe model, so I don't really want to touch that. Maybe you could elaborate on it for me?<<br /><br />You don't want to touch that but you want me to elaborate on it, eh?<br /><br />Moving on...<br /><br />If your desired morals come from a god model is correct, you would expect a newly discovered tribe of Amazonians to have the same morals as you do.<br /><br />They do not, though they have some basic principles in common.<br /><br />The evidence of observation is that human morals and ethics, like living species, which have certain basic things in common yet differ in details, are the product of an evolutionary process. This is reinforced by an even cursory reading of history, where we find the human morals and ethics, like living things, also change over time, and are not the fixed and immutable things they would be if they were handed down from a supernatural being.<br /><br />Your 'God did it!' notion not only fails to explain the observable facts - normally regarded as fatal for any scientific idea and why it doesn't even rate the term 'hypothesis' - but, when it makes a prediction, is falsified by it.<br /><br />The memetic evolution hypothesis, on the other hand, not only explains the observable facts (which is why it's a hypothesis) but the predictions we can make with it are confirmed by observation.<br /><br />Honest people, when faced with a choice between a falsified notion and a confirmed hypothesis, will go with the confirmed hypothesis and so will not need to perform the mental gymnastics necessary to continue to believe (or pretend to believe) the falsified notion.<br /><br />Perhaps this explains the 'Amazon tribe model', and also your difficulty with it.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-82581996336319424302012-07-21T02:44:16.656+01:002012-07-21T02:44:16.656+01:00Well, I don't think it's a waste of time. ...Well, I don't think it's a waste of time. If anything it's a useful exercise that will hopefully keep my mind sharp and not let it go to waste. I just like talking about philosophy and logic.<br /><br />And Rosa, it embarrasses us all the time. And often we find that when we look back on what we have said we have a little shame and regret. So I'm sorry if anything I have said has been too sarcastic or seemed like a personal attack. Those really shouldn't have a place here, so I'll try to keep my comments more to the point.<br /><br />I'm not sure I understand your Amazonian tribe model, so I don't really want to touch that. Maybe you could elaborate on it for me? (I think A would be correct, B would certainly be correct, and C would most likely be correct, but I'm not sure where I'm supposed to go after that.)<br /><br />As for the "Christian model" not lining up, I think your argument is just slightly off. I read your post on Xeno's Paradox, and it was interesting. However, in relating the moral argument to Christianity, you say that Christian nations/groups/peoples should exhibit the exact morality that they profess. I can't think of any single person who can do that at all times. So when you put that into the larger picture, how could a nation be moral? I don't think it's logical to expect "Christian" nations to behave the way their morals say they should, because obviously they don't. In fact, when you say Christian nations often behaved worse than other nations (which is unfortunately at times true) these were times when the "Christian nations" were going directly against the morality that they professed to uphold or they were twisting it for personal/national gain.<br /><br />Personally, I find morality and ethics to be subjects both difficult to define and difficult to theorize about. (I have not studied the memetic evolution argument, could you direct me to a post on that subject? Thanks.) But my personal belief, though I'm sure it could be flawed, is that there is an objective morality. I believe there are some parts of morality that every people group on Earth can agree on, even if we have diverged to the point where we disagree on many other points. I think it is important to point out the separation between "objective morality" and "morals and ethics" since Lewis is only speaking of the former.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-65100216231648945042012-07-19T09:02:03.382+01:002012-07-19T09:02:03.382+01:00Yep.
Are you not able to answer it in a coherent ...Yep.<br /><br />Are you not able to answer it in a coherent way?Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-43659274927992178972012-07-19T08:59:52.618+01:002012-07-19T08:59:52.618+01:00Incidentally, does it never embarrass you having t...Incidentally, does it never embarrass you having to be abusive and so 'un-Christian' in order to defend Christianity, just because you have no evidence, logic or reason you can use?Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-52753838648471075272012-07-19T08:57:53.722+01:002012-07-19T08:57:53.722+01:00Er... no. My premise is that there is no evidence ...Er... no. My premise is that there is no evidence for any god.<br /><br />Of course, you could prove me wrong in an instant, if you have any evidence for one.<br /><br />Why don't you do so? Here's how to do it - <a href="http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/proving-creationism-should-be-so-simple.html" rel="nofollow">Proving Your God Should Be Simple</a>. In your own time...Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.com