tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post6030629610771166993..comments2024-03-28T15:31:02.860-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Good Reasons For The ResurrectionJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-82031384404959342792018-06-02T17:30:40.326-07:002018-06-02T17:30:40.326-07:00My advice is that your blog would seem much more o...My advice is that your blog would seem much more open to genuine dialogue and overall better at conversations if it was more like a theist version of the Secular Outpost.<br /><br /><b>that's sort of what Im shooting for</b><br /><br /><br />What does the Secular Outpost do? <br /><br />First, it doesn't allow for people such as JBsptfn to post. JB and people like him are abusive to people they disagree wit and they do not seek genuine dialogue. When you delete Skepie's comments, but not JB's comments, you appear biased and not interested in promoting fair dialogue with atheists. The Secular Outpost would get rid of JB, as you'd probably notice by the absence of Kevin K and others since comment moderation went into effect.<br /><br /><b>I don't think that;s fair, Skepie has been banned all over the net, he's a well known troll, JP hardly says anything, Skepie does volumes every time, </b><br /><br />Second, while the Secular Outpost goal is openly to promote the best arguments for naturalism (while tackling the best arguments for theism), it still openly promotes opposing views by means of guest posts, promoting articles by theists, and defending theistic arguments against bad objections. I do not think you necessarily need to openly start promoting atheists, but I think it would be helpful to make atheists think you aren't obviously biased beyond reason, and I think it would be helpful even for your own frame of mind not to surround yourself with just theistic blog links.<br /><br /><b>I've done that plenty of times,I used to debate and let the opponent have the last post,</b><br /><br />Third, the Secular Outpost is good at not assuming theists are their conversational enemies. Very few theists post at the Secular Outpost (since few are philosophically literate enough to do so, and the comment policy limits the normal discourse that most atheists/theists are interested in). However, among the ones who do occasionally post, Luke, Matt M, Victor R, the posts are not met with opposition in each case, and they are not treated as sorts of enemies to be refuted. Ideally, people such as Luke, Matt and Victor posted more often than they do. I think you ought to emulate this since whenever an atheist posts here, whether it be Skepie, Eric, or myself, no regular theist posting here seems to do anything but assume we're trying to argue with you other than times where we're responding to an atheist (such as when I respond to Skepie). I don't like that. It is annoying and frankly a waste of my time to make 5 posts clarifying what I am not saying simply because the theists reading are frantically trying to interpret my post into something they can argue with.<br /><br />1:52 A<br /><br /><br /><b>before you started doing the mod thing I was getting a lot of belligerent insulting stuff my way even thought I was trying to be nice. Still I will always be grateful to Jeff for the kindness he showed me and I have said so n Christian boards, </b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-62960195053191823292018-06-02T17:19:23.444-07:002018-06-02T17:19:23.444-07:00Part of what you are seeing is my nature as a deba...Part of what you are seeing is my nature as a debater. I believe in dialectics. I thin k the dialectical process of debate really does enable truth finding, it always changes us. I don't learn as much from sitting at the feet of the great man taking copious notes saying "please explain that professor doctor" as I do from trying to disprove his arguments. The other guys always says "no you don't understand it's this way,Part of that includes a re defining of his position,So he;s really adjusting for the points you got right, I do it too,the dialectical process moves on. That's how real learning happens. So I do try to argue and I try make the other guy defend not because I'm in a war with an enemy but because that's what makes for real learning.<br /><br /><br /><b>Ryan M</b>Now atheist blogs are usually no better than yours. <br /><br /><b>Me</b> Of course not.<br /><br /><b>Ryan M</b>If you go to Debunking Christianity, the comments are always hostile to theists, even when the theists are being as reasonable as they can be. Further, no one is promoted on the site other than people the Blog host agrees with (Not even other atheists if the atheists disagree with something the blog host says). The agenda of the host and atheists commenting is obvious; vent against theists, denigrate theists, argue with theists, promote atheism.<br /> <br /><b>Me</b> I link to sites I don't agree with, may of he links are from link exchange so they link to me, many are friend's sites,lots of them are not about atheists. <br /><br /><br />Other than JBstfn, none of the few people commenting on your blog are nasty/abusive like the common atheist on the average atheist blog. Despite that, it still seems that you and your fans manage to make every interaction with atheists into a sort of combative experience. <br /><br /><b>I am their fan as well . They are all here because they are all highly intellectual and have a lot to offer in a discussion. JB is one of them he not as you describe, he is one of those, like me, who has been traumatized by the internet war between new atheists and fundamentalists,</b>?<br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-86114102237629205942018-06-02T17:18:30.788-07:002018-06-02T17:18:30.788-07:00Ryan M said...
Joe I think it would be helpful for...Ryan M said...<br />Joe I think it would be helpful for dialoguing with atheists that you do not treat each interaction with an atheist as if they are either arguing against you or dissenting to something you've said. In each past instance where I have tried to explain how an argument works, you have jumped to the conclusion that I am defending the argument (even when I explicitly state I am not). This is surely a symptom of treating atheists as enemies. Even your blog roll, entirely dominated by theist blogs, makes it look like your agenda is nothing but to argue against atheists and promote theists. <br /><br /><b>MY ANSWER>>></b>I'm sure I do that. I have literally experienced symptoms of PTSD since quitting message boards in 2014 when my brother died. Nevertheless, that is unfair for several reasons. First, who do I have to work with imn terms of atheists? The major anesthetists who post here more than any other atheists was "I am Skeptical" believe me I am not the only one who wanted him Gone. When he was insisting that my academic journal was not a real journal even thought it was refereed and indexed he was not only tearing down my accomplishment but another of those "fans" (I like to call them friends) you spoke of who was a proofing editor for that journal,<br /><br />I am honored when you and Eric Sotnak post here. But those are rare times most of the time until the recent ban we had a constant attack of Skpie. I was at one time I was deeply involved in fight a war against the new atheism, it's easy to get sucked into that. But that is not what I'm into now. Many of the people on SOP responded to my posts with belligerence,that was before you became a mod and enforced the ban on personal attacks. I was guilty of answering in kind. Still it's hard to get over it.<br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-78383976937336631282018-06-02T14:20:07.177-07:002018-06-02T14:20:07.177-07:00"I cannot talk much about the bible any longe..."I cannot talk much about the bible any longer."<br /><br />I'm curious. Why is that?Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-27081124086248549202018-06-02T13:56:40.588-07:002018-06-02T13:56:40.588-07:00It could be that my post selection changes that so...It could be that my post selection changes that sorts of comments I'd see, e.g., posts about atheists are likely to grab my attention where as posts about Biblical issues almost certainly will not( despite being in Catholic schools until my early 20s, I cannot talk much about the bible any longer). Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-27618483332825577162018-06-02T11:26:25.107-07:002018-06-02T11:26:25.107-07:00Despite that, it still seems that you and your fan...<i> Despite that, it still seems that you and your fans manage to make every interaction with atheists into a sort of combative experience. </i><br /><br />Are you labeling all of the theists on here as 'fans'? that's funny, cause I've had quite a few disagreements with Joe and I've had friendly, productive convos with atheists. Joe can be combative and hyper-partisan--that's one of the points we clash over. But my experience on here is that respectful disagreements far outnumber combative experiences.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-90698626260179785002018-06-02T11:14:40.645-07:002018-06-02T11:14:40.645-07:00I would question Proposition 1. I think we humans ...I would question Proposition 1. I think we humans can know enough about the nature and character of God to know that he is good and that he is rational, but that doesn't mean that we can know enough about God's reasons for choices to be able to critique them. A child can know enough about the character of her mother to know that her mother is good and loves her and acts in as rational a way as she's able, but the child wouldn't necessarily be able to critique the mother's reasons for her choices. <i>A fortiori</i> an infinite mind.7th Stoogehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11527850994226457613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-4395365134354510882018-06-02T07:49:23.976-07:002018-06-02T07:49:23.976-07:00Ryan most of the assertions you made about what I ...Ryan most of the assertions you made about what I think are wrong, take the big three false things:<br /><br />Proposition 1 - It is the case that if God is a perfectly rational agent, then we can understand and critique God's reasons for making choices. <br /><br /><br /><br /><b>I don't believe that you think that, I think the person who made up the argument Jason or who ever he got it from thinks that. It may be a hidden assumption your thinning but I doubt it because you are pretty aware of your assertions. I think it is an implication of the argument itself. <br /><br />My argument is that doctrines result from values of the community thus any doctrine of a faith coconut has an a priori "good reason" vis, the values of the community or it would not be a doctrine,that is not a guarantee of its truth content, it is a reason to reject the argument.</b><br /><br /><br />Proposition 2 - If God exists, then it is not the case that God would have good reason to resurrect Jesus. <br /><br />Proposition 3 - If God exists, then God can make mistakes. <br /><br /><b>I understand you are not defending those,I said that already, I kept making about further elaboration on the issue of God as Rational but I guess it wasn't special enough you just wont respomnd to it so Isit off the beam for what you are into?<br /><br />as for the contingent implications for the various points I think we are on the same page, my whole issue is the original rejection of the argument as subjective stands,</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-84960097953126363632018-06-02T06:08:30.877-07:002018-06-02T06:08:30.877-07:00Ryan,
I hope you don't think I was attacking ...Ryan,<br /><br />I hope you don't think I was attacking you. I didn't even realize you were an atheist. (It doesn't come across in your comments.) I honestly did not (and still do not) understand what you are saying. Despite the humor, I meant it when I said it's me, and not you.Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-85268102305676424692018-06-02T01:52:47.189-07:002018-06-02T01:52:47.189-07:00Joe I think it would be helpful for dialoguing wit...Joe I think it would be helpful for dialoguing with atheists that you do not treat each interaction with an atheist as if they are either arguing against you or dissenting to something you've said. In each past instance where I have tried to explain how an argument works, you have jumped to the conclusion that I am defending the argument (even when I explicitly state I am not). This is surely a symptom of treating atheists as enemies. Even your blog roll, entirely dominated by theist blogs, makes it look like your agenda is nothing but to argue against atheists and promote theists. <br /><br />Now atheist blogs are usually no better than yours. If you go to Debunking Christianity, the comments are always hostile to theists, even when the theists are being as reasonable as they can be. Further, no one is promoted on the site other than people the Blog host agrees with (Not even other atheists if the atheists disagree with something the blog host says). The agenda of the host and atheists commenting is obvious; vent against theists, denigrate theists, argue with theists, promote atheism.<br /><br />Other than JBstfn, none of the few people commenting on your blog are nasty/abusive like the common atheist on the average atheist blog. Despite that, it still seems that you and your fans manage to make every interaction with atheists into a sort of combative experience. <br /><br />My advice is that your blog would seem much more open to genuine dialogue and overall better at conversations if it was more like a theist version of the Secular Outpost. What does the Secular Outpost do? <br /><br />First, it doesn't allow for people such as JBsptfn to post. JB and people like him are abusive to people they disagree wit and they do not seek genuine dialogue. When you delete Skepie's comments, but not JB's comments, you appear biased and not interested in promoting fair dialogue with atheists. The Secular Outpost would get rid of JB, as you'd probably notice by the absence of Kevin K and others since comment moderation went into effect.<br /><br />Second, while the Secular Outpost goal is openly to promote the best arguments for naturalism (while tackling the best arguments for theism), it still openly promotes opposing views by means of guest posts, promoting articles by theists, and defending theistic arguments against bad objections. I do not think you necessarily need to openly start promoting atheists, but I think it would be helpful to make atheists think you aren't obviously biased beyond reason, and I think it would be helpful even for your own frame of mind not to surround yourself with just theistic blog links.<br /><br />Third, the Secular Outpost is good at not assuming theists are their conversational enemies. Very few theists post at the Secular Outpost (since few are philosophically literate enough to do so, and the comment policy limits the normal discourse that most atheists/theists are interested in). However, among the ones who do occasionally post, Luke, Matt M, Victor R, the posts are not met with opposition in each case, and they are not treated as sorts of enemies to be refuted. Ideally, people such as Luke, Matt and Victor posted more often than they do. I think you ought to emulate this since whenever an atheist posts here, whether it be Skepie, Eric, or myself, no regular theist posting here seems to do anything but assume we're trying to argue with you other than times where we're responding to an atheist (such as when I respond to Skepie). I don't like that. It is annoying and frankly a waste of my time to make 5 posts clarifying what I am not saying simply because the theists reading are frantically trying to interpret my post into something they can argue with. Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-91935899028162518302018-06-02T00:52:54.591-07:002018-06-02T00:52:54.591-07:00Joe, so I'm going to list the set of propositi...Joe, so I'm going to list the set of propositions you have falsely believed I am advocating:<br /><br />Proposition 1 - It is the case that if God is a perfectly rational agent, then we can understand and critique God's reasons for making choices. <br /><br />Proposition 2 - If God exists, then it is not the case that God would have good reason to resurrect Jesus. <br /><br />Proposition 3 - If God exists, then God can make mistakes. <br /><br />With respect to proposition 1, I have not defended it anywhere here nor on the Secular Outpost. Further, I made a post a few days ago on the Secular Outpost that people might take a skeptical theist sort of response to Jason's argument (That we are not in an epistemic position to judge whether God has good reason vs not to resurrect Jesus since God is omniscient whereas we are not). <br /><br />With respect to proposition 2, I have not defended it anywhere here nor on the Secular Outpost. Not only is it NOT the case that I have defended proposition 2, but it is not the case that I have said you have NOT provided good reason to think God might have good reason to resurrect Jesus. That is, I have not said your attempts to refute Jason have failed. <br /><br />With respect to proposition 3, I have not defended it anywhere here nor on the Secular Outpost. Rather, I have defended the following proposition:<br /><br />Proposition 4 - If God exists, and God is an agent, and it is not the case that God is a perfectly rational agent, then it is possible that God makes mistakes. <br /><br />Proposition 4 contains four independent sentences. <br /><br />Sentence 1 - God exists<br />Sentence 2 - God is an agent<br />Sentence 3 - God is not a perfectly rational agent<br />Sentence 4 - It is possible that God makes mistakes<br /><br />Proposition 4 says that if sentences 1, 2 and 3 are jointly true, then sentence 4 is true. Care must be taken in understanding this material conditional. Proposition 4 does not say that sentences 1, 2 or 3 are singularly sufficient for sentence 4, but says they are jointly sufficient. Consider for example the following conditional:<br /><br />Conditional 1 - If Tony is a tiger and Tony is a cartoon character, then Tony is the mascot for Frosted Flakes. <br /><br />Conditional 1 contains three sentences:<br /><br />Sentence 1 - Tony is a tiger<br />Sentence 2 - Tony is a cartoon character<br />Sentence 3 - Tony is the mascot for Frosted Flakes<br /><br />Conditional 1 says that if sentences 1 and 2 are jointly true, then sentence 3 is true. Conditional 1 does not say that sentences 1 or 2 are singularly sufficient for sentence 3. If sentence 1 is true but sentence 2 is not, then sentence 3 is NOT true. <br /><br />The importance of this is understanding how material conditionals work when the antecedent contains conjunctions. When a material conditional contains an antecedent composed of a conjunction, typically this means that the contents of the conjunction must be JOINTLY true for the consequent to be true, so no single element of the conjunction on its own is sufficient for the consequent to be true. <br /><br />Understanding the above is necessary to understand that I have not argued that God existing implies God can make mistakes, but rather that God existing AND God being an agent AND God not being a perfectly rational agent IMPLIES God can make mistakes. <br /><br />Again, I defended proposition 4 for the purpose of showing that accepting God is an agent but rejecting that God is a perfectly rational agent is not a wise choice for theists. The point of that was to secure premise 1 in Jason's argument, that God is a perfectly rational agent. <br /><br />Below I will reiterate that I am not defending any of the following:<br /> <br />Claim 1 - If God exists, then it is not the case that God would have had good reason to resurrect Jesus.<br /><br />Claim 2 - If God exists, then it is not the case that God can make mistakes. <br /><br />Claim 3 - If God is a perfectly rational agent, then we can appreciate/know/critique any or at least some of God's desires/purposes/choices.<br /><br />Again, I am not defending, nor have I defended any of claims 1 through 3. There ought to be nothing for you to object to in this post since I AM NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU ON ANYTHING.Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-13233877819313084132018-06-01T14:02:16.555-07:002018-06-01T14:02:16.555-07:00Fifth, instrumental rationality is not the same as...Fifth, instrumental rationality is not the same as rationality in other fields of philosophy. Saying someone is rational in their beliefs is not the same as saying they are rational in their decision making.<br /><br /><b>Since we don't reject p1 the idea of God not being rational does not enter into it. But moreover you have not established that, you have not shown the nature of the kind of rationality we have to accept. you can't prove that you can understand his purpose,</b> <br /><br />Sixth, I have not disputed that one's valuation of what constitutes a "Good reason" for God to bring about the resurrection can change depending on one's faith community. Rather, my purpose has been to clarify the type of "Rationality" used in Jason's argument.<br /><br /><b>you failed to do it because all you have done so far is to impose one community over another based upon an academic trend in modern North Ameirca</b><br /><br />11:25 AJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-71792436086643156352018-06-01T13:55:03.009-07:002018-06-01T13:55:03.009-07:00If giving God the property of rational choice maki...If giving God the property of rational choice making is anthropomorphizing, then so is giving God the property of loving creation.<br /><br /><b>Not that I agree that either is anthropomorphic but neither rational choice nor love on God's part need be understood as ideas we are capable of comprehending or criticizing; they would have some form of kinship or some recognizable aspect that's not the same as knowing all about them.</b><br /><br /> Further, being an optimal choice maker doesn't require schemes/plans for an omnipotent being. One need not scheme about things one knows the answer to. If God wanted to bring about that P, and it is within God's power to bring about that P. then God would infallibly know how to bring about that P. No planning required.<br /><br /><br /><b>yes but don't forget, other than qualify in "good" and "reason" i did not object to any but P3 (and conclusion). I, therefore. just assume that the mistake trajectory does not obtain.I only mention it's impossibility by way of indignation, not argument,.</b><br /><br />Third, you guys should look up decision/game theory. It seems you don't know what "Optimal" not "Rational" mean in decision/game theory contexts. <br /><br /><b>I was introduced to game theory in college debate and as a sociology major,but the line of reasoning that employs that gambit is connected to there rejection of p1 which i don't do so we can play that game another time.</b><br /><br /><br /><br />Fourth, I will clarify God being wrong about the resurrection. <br /><br />1. For any agent x, if x can make mistakes, then for all y, if y is an action of x, then y can be a mistake. <br />2. God is an agent. <br />3. God can make mistakes. <br />4. Having resurrected Jesus is an action of God. <br />5. Therefore, having resurrected Jesus can be a mistake.<br /><br /><br /><b>You have not established a mistake,(remember I don't reject p1 so the mystique trajectory does not obtain.All you have established is that you refuse to consider the inner logic of the community and you think the value judgement of your profession and your community are naturally universal and have to outweigh religious thinking,</b> <br /><br />The point of the above argument was to show the consequence of allowing that God is an agent, God is not a perfectly rational agent, and God can make mistakes.<br /><br /><b>God being possessed of agency and making mistakes are two different things, perfectly rational does not mean God is under the domain of your critique<br /><br />you have yet to offer any desedaerata or other kind of criteria for what makes a good reason for resurrection ,Nor can you establish why my three reasons are not good. <br /><br />in short your decision making paradigm is subjective and relative,culturally bound,</b><br /><br /><br /> No Christian would want to accept line 5, so they'd need to reject one of 1 through 3. <br /><br /><b>what is line 5? I only see 4 lines.</b><br /><br />Rejecting 1 is not plausible, so rejecting 2 or 3 comes the goal.<br /> To be an agent is just to be capable of making choices, so rejecting 2 would be implausible too, thus we're left with 3. The rejection of 3 requires rejecting that it is not the case that God is a perfectly rational agent,<br /><br /><b>wrong all i have to do is show one good reason for the res the whole argument is toast,I gave 3 reasons,you have not given me a basis for rejecting them. In fact you have not answered any of the arguments I made made defending them,<br /><br />your pomposity:The rejection of 3 requires rejecting that it is not the case that God is a perfectly rational agent, God is a rational agent on his own terms snot yours, you have no basis for dispiriting God;s agency or his choices, </b><br /><br /> so to save Christianity from accepting that the resurrection might be a mistake, the Christian must accept that God is a perfectly rational agent. <br /><br /><b>there are worse fates than that</b><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-91116770985360272162018-06-01T13:14:22.846-07:002018-06-01T13:14:22.846-07:00For lack of a better way, people tend to think of,...For lack of a better way, people tend to think of, and talk about, God in personal terms that can include concepts like "rationality" and "agent". But many, when pressed in the way your argument presses, Ryan, might admit(as do a lot of well-known theologians) that these conceptualizations are imperfect, and ultimately Gods "agency" (in any sense that those are comparable to other agents's) is probably only metaphorical/analogical, and even God's "actions" and "decisions" are less than perfectly comparable to time-based, fallible, human ones (and the same is true of "beliefs", "desires," "knowledge" and the other things you mention too...)<br /><br />IOW, "God" cannot ultimately be compared to a "person," not even to a perfect one, except by way of analogy. And, in fact, that seems like a pretty fundamental theological assertion or assumption that the given argument doesn't account for.Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-28305933559322854072018-06-01T12:55:42.615-07:002018-06-01T12:55:42.615-07:00Ryan M said...
First, Joe you have failed to under...Ryan M said...<br />First, Joe you have failed to understand what I wrote about God making mistakes. Similarly, Starhopper has also misunderstood. <br /><br /><br /><br />To clarify, I have not said God can make mistakes. Rather, I am saying something like this:<br /><br />1. For any x, if x is an agent and it is not the case that x is a perfectly rational agent, then it is the case that x can make mistakes. <br />2. God is an agent. <br />3. It is not the case that God is a perfectly rational agent. <br />4. Therefore, it is the case that God can make mistakes. <br /><br /><br /><b>I understand that, you din't get my point: that your whole argument along those lines is irrelevant because it was predicated upon rejecting P1 [you say:"In rejecting premise 1, people would need to concede that God could make mistakes (since if God is not a perfectly rational agent, then God can unwittingly make sub-optimal acts)"] and I don't reject p; I do interpret it in a different light but I don't reject it in principle.* So that line of argumemt is null and void.</b><br /><br />What is the point of the argument? It is not to show that God can make mistakes, but to show that if one accepts that God is an agent at all, then one needs to also accept that God is a perfectly rational agent at pain of accepting that God can make mistakes. So, for theists who accept that God is an agent, they must accept Jason's first premise. <br /><br /><b>Saying that God is a rational agent is not at all the same as saying that we can understand God's purposes and critique his choices. What you really mean by God is rational is that we can understand and therefore criticizer his choices,(ie the logic of his believers), <br />If God is real then his logic exceeds your understanding,So God's rationality in that he has systematic and self assistant ways of understanding that and adhere to his understanding of reason but that does not necessarily mean they adhere to our understanding which is lower down on the totem pole of logic than God's.</b><br /><br />Second, saying God has a plan or scheme is no more anthropomorphizing than what theists do when they claim God is a person, God has desires, God loves humanity, God has beliefs, God has knowledge, etc. <br /><br /><b>O yes it is! That in itself opens up several rifts in modern theology.I am planing a paper on personoalism in process theology and there is a split between Heartshorne and Whithead over that issue,</b><br /><br /><br />Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-62902633713675360302018-06-01T11:48:02.851-07:002018-06-01T11:48:02.851-07:00Whatever. I will freely admit that you have lost m...Whatever. I will freely admit that you have lost me totally. I've read your comment through three times now, and have no idea what you are talking about.<br /><br />I will assume <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uAj4wBIU-8" rel="nofollow">"It's not you, it's me."</a>Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-29041840883877329732018-06-01T11:25:03.869-07:002018-06-01T11:25:03.869-07:00First, Joe you have failed to understand what I wr...First, Joe you have failed to understand what I wrote about God making mistakes. Similarly, Starhopper has also misunderstood. <br /><br />To clarify, I have not said God can make mistakes. Rather, I am saying something like this:<br /><br />1. For any x, if x is an agent and it is not the case that x is a perfectly rational agent, then it is the case that x can make mistakes. <br />2. God is an agent. <br />3. It is not the case that God is a perfectly rational agent. <br />4. Therefore, it is the case that God can make mistakes. <br /><br />What is the point of the argument? It is not to show that God can make mistakes, but to show that if one accepts that God is an agent at all, then one needs to also accept that God is a perfectly rational agent at pain of accepting that God can make mistakes. So, for theists who accept that God is an agent, they must accept Jason's first premise. <br /><br />Second, saying God has a plan or scheme is no more anthropomorphizing than what theists do when they claim God is a person, God has desires, God loves humanity, God has beliefs, God has knowledge, etc. If giving God the property of rational choice making is anthropomorphizing, then so is giving God the property of loving creation. Further, being an optimal choice maker doesn't require schemes/plans for an omnipotent being. One need not scheme about things one knows the answer to. If God wanted to bring about that P, and it is within God's power to bring about that P. then God would infallibly know how to bring about that P. No planning required.<br /><br />Third, you guys should look up decision/game theory. It seems you don't know what "Optimal" not "Rational" mean in decision/game theory contexts. <br /><br />Fourth, I will clarify God being wrong about the resurrection. <br /><br />1. For any agent x, if x can make mistakes, then for all y, if y is an action of x, then y can be a mistake. <br />2. God is an agent. <br />3. God can make mistakes. <br />4. Having resurrected Jesus is an action of God. <br />5. Therefore, having resurrected Jesus can be a mistake. <br /><br />The point of the above argument was to show the consequence of allowing that God is an agent, God is not a perfectly rational agent, and God can make mistakes. No Christian would want to accept line 5, so they'd need to reject one of 1 through 3. Rejecting 1 is not plausible, so rejecting 2 or 3 comes the goal. To be an agent is just to be capable of making choices, so rejecting 2 would be implausible too, thus we're left with 3. The rejection of 3 requires rejecting that it is not the case that God is a perfectly rational agent, so to save Christianity from accepting that the resurrection might be a mistake, the Christian must accept that God is a perfectly rational agent. <br /><br />Fifth, instrumental rationality is not the same as rationality in other fields of philosophy. Saying someone is rational in their beliefs is not the same as saying they are rational in their decision making. <br /><br />Sixth, I have not disputed that one's valuation of what constitutes a "Good reason" for God to bring about the resurrection can change depending on one's faith community. Rather, my purpose has been to clarify the type of "Rationality" used in Jason's argument.Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-14666355961210271622018-06-01T09:48:26.480-07:002018-06-01T09:48:26.480-07:00The idea that God can make mistakes is the very de...The idea that God can make mistakes is the very definition of incoherence. For such to be the case, there would have to exist a higher standard by which God's actions would need to be measured. That would mean that God is not supreme, and therefore not God.<br /><br />I once heard it said during a sermon something like "those things which Jesus stood for". What nonsense! Jesus doesn't "stand for" anything - He IS. He does not say "I stand for the Truth" but rather "I AM the Truth."<br /><br /><b>right on man well said.</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-90293344832622880102018-06-01T09:43:28.291-07:002018-06-01T09:43:28.291-07:00Blogger Mike Gerow said...
Ryan, could it be that ...<br />Blogger Mike Gerow said...<br />Ryan, could it be that the idea of an all-knowing, eternal entity having "plans and schemes" of any kind, optimal or not, rational or not, is itself nonsensical? <br /><br />.... and then the whole concept of "God as rational," in the sense you just described, is an unjustified anthropomorphism.<br /><br /><br /><b>good point Mike, It hints at what I'm trying to say that our concepts of rational and good are so revelation to our understanding,how can huge the ultimate purses of God?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-24751153466733069592018-06-01T09:18:57.374-07:002018-06-01T09:18:57.374-07:00Ryan, could it be that the idea of an all-knowing,...Ryan, could it be that the idea of an all-knowing, eternal entity having "plans and schemes" of any kind, optimal or not, rational or not, is itself nonsensical? <br /><br />.... and then the whole concept of "God as rational," in the sense you just described, is an unjustified anthropomorphism. Mike Gerowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14630695728013930638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-36304200124531548372018-06-01T08:11:12.376-07:002018-06-01T08:11:12.376-07:00The idea that God can make mistakes is the very de...The idea that God can make mistakes is the very definition of incoherence. For such to be the case, there would have to exist a higher standard by which God's actions would need to be measured. That would mean that God is not supreme, and therefore not God.<br /><br />I once heard it said during a sermon something like "those things which Jesus stood for". What nonsense! Jesus doesn't "stand for" anything - <b>He IS</b>. He does not say "I stand for the Truth" but rather "I <b>AM</b> the Truth."Starhopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18350334327301656588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-81026972671145233682018-06-01T07:34:02.356-07:002018-06-01T07:34:02.356-07:00Ryan:
"Rationality" in Jason's argum...<br />Ryan:<br />"Rationality" in Jason's argument is about rational agents with respect to game theory and decision theory. It's really nothing more than saying God would always perform the optimal act relative to God's desires and powers. <br /><br /><b>sure but that is going to be valued differently relative to the faith community. So counts as a "good" reason will differ from the faith community to the outside community.</b><br /><br /><br />In a way, you can use the spirit of Jason's argument to argue something like this:<br /><br />1. If God exists, then God is a perfectly rational agent. <br />2. If God is a perfectly rational agent, then every action by God is an optimal action for God. <br />3. If God resurrected Jesus, then God resurrecting Jesus would be an optimal action for God. <br />4. It is not the case that God resurrecting Jesus would be an optimal action for God. <br />5. Therefore, if God exists, then it is not the case that God resurrected Jesus. <br /><br /><br /><b>that still leaves the notion of "optimal" as relative to the perceiver.</b><br /><br />The sort of "Rationality" here is not the same sort discussed by Kierkegaard, or epistemology in general.<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br /><b>I think SK's take on the rational is very relevant here because the faith community will view the optimal nature differently. Jason discounts the valuation of the reasons as though they are clearly not valid but all three are classical arguments in theology.</b><br /><br />In rejecting premise 1, people would need to concede that God could make mistakes (since if God is not a perfectly rational agent, then God can unwittingly make sub-optimal acts). <br /><br /><b>I only disputed p3 and that's all I need to dispute, p3 is relative and not amenable to logical dispute,.</b><br /><br /><b>why should be ever assume God could be wrong? That is by definition impossible. My argument works just as well if we assume you are wrong or that we are unable to know what is a good reason by God;s standard.</b><br /><br /><br />I don't think it's just "American philosophers" who don't want to admit that God can make mistakes. <br /><br /><br /><b>God cannot make mistakes, logicians can. We can not know what good is relative to God's-purpose. except of course in areas where he spells it out for us,</b><br /><br /><br />Suppose though that we went that route. If we did, then we could say the whole resurrection might be a mistake by God, and that God might have made a further mistake by not clarifying that we don't need to become Christians to become saved. It might seem silly to think such things, but once we say God can make mistakes, it seems we must allow that any action of God whatsoever can be a mistake. <br /><br /><b>I hope you catch the irony that you actually are willing to conditioner God being wrong but it never dawns on you that you might be.<br /><br />compromise the radical shift if p3 is the one we object to</b><br /><br /><br />11:12 PM DeleteJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-73069013381215356092018-06-01T07:04:21.017-07:002018-06-01T07:04:21.017-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-83530495949949045832018-05-31T23:12:02.117-07:002018-05-31T23:12:02.117-07:00"Rationality" in Jason's argument is..."Rationality" in Jason's argument is about rational agents with respect to game theory and decision theory. It's really nothing more than saying God would always perform the optimal act relative to God's desires and powers. In a way, you can use the spirit of Jason's argument to argue something like this:<br /><br />1. If God exists, then God is a perfectly rational agent. <br />2. If God is a perfectly rational agent, then every action by God is an optimal action for God. <br />3. If God resurrected Jesus, then God resurrecting Jesus would be an optimal action for God. <br />4. It is not the case that God resurrecting Jesus would be an optimal action for God. <br />5. Therefore, if God exists, then it is not the case that God resurrected Jesus. <br /><br />The sort of "Rationality" here is not the same sort discussed by Kierkegaard, or epistemology in general. <br /><br />In rejecting premise 1, people would need to concede that God could make mistakes (since if God is not a perfectly rational agent, then God can unwittingly make sub-optimal acts). I don't think it's just "American philosophers" who don't want to admit that God can make mistakes. Suppose though that we went that route. If we did, then we could say the whole resurrection might be a mistake by God, and that God might have made a further mistake by not clarifying that we don't need to become Christians to become saved. It might seem silly to think such things, but once we say God can make mistakes, it seems we must allow that any action of God whatsoever can be a mistake. <br /><br />Ryan Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15738381414795204410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-69178449230042998402018-05-31T21:33:23.341-07:002018-05-31T21:33:23.341-07:001) God is completely rational
Someone influenced ...1) God is completely rational<br /><br />Someone influenced by a Moltmannish "crucified God" kind of image or a "theology of the cross" might instead take issue with this premise.... ie is God (understood in an Xian sense) "completely rational" in the sense of any human's rationality? <br /><br /><b>Or Kierkegaard. good point, these guys are American philosophers, they could never question their concept of the rational,</b><br /><br />IOW, does the resurrection justify the crucifixion as a "strategy?" What would it mean to say an agonizing and humiliating death (for any person) can or can't be justified in some given way? <br /><br />Interesting questions....<br /><br /><b>another good point why have sin, why need forgiveness?</b>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com