Shadow thread 2 – addressing general criticisms

Hey again, Shadow

Not meaning to be vindictive here – just critical, in the “Simon Cowell” sense. If you’re in any way offended, I’m sorry in advance (it’s just that there are a LOT of holes). Also, if you want an explanation of each point, I’ll be happy to give them to you:

From Comment #1:

The concept of a God or god-form is not necessarily an absolute, but a conjuration.

You’re already starting off on the wrong foot: God is the embodiment of the absolute.

In monotheistic or even polytheistic religions, there is a common thread that remains constant. The god is respresented in a fashion that is favorable to the followers of that god.

No. Look at the OT in the book of Kings for a rebuttal.

Considering that any text detailing history or storylines of good acts or prophetic vision are written by the hand of man, we must conclude that god, in whatever form presented, must fulfil the standards that man puts to it.

This already moves into pulling out your own rug of coherency: what about your own hand?

In the example of God being all good, there is no evidence to support an “absolute good”.

This is arguably false. Evidence: Jesus

In order for something to be “right”, there must be an opposite, yet equally weighted “wrong”.

False assumption. This plagiarizes from the Buddhistic yin-yang concept (cite your sources), essentially treating it as absolute. No such rule exists.

Nothing, not even a god, can be a form of “absolute good”, due to the fact that his existence alone must have a negative effect on even molecular particles.

“Negative” in this second quote has an entirely different meaning. You’re “negative” on the coherency scale so far…

Comment #2:

…allow me to tell a short story.

I once got into a religious debate with a very devout christian over the existence of god. The arguement, on his part, was that creation itself was all the evidence that was needed.

That the world and all the things in it justified the base of belief.

I disagree with his premise, then. The creation is subject to interpretive criticism.

My arguement was more simplified. One cannot debate the existence of god because the very principle of god is a faith based principle.

It is not determined by facts or evidence. In order to believe in something, one must have “faith” that the god or goddess exists.

This is inaccurate. Rewind a couple of thousand years to the time of the OT during the time of the Israelites in the desert/Egypt. It was an empirical claim that ended up being handed down generationally, which by the time of the Enlightenment, turned into a rational one. This was partially due to the withdrawal of God from our plane of existence through excessive sin.

I told him that I could not prove him wrong, to which of course, a smug smile began to cross his face,…

Shame on him… this isn’t the way a Christian should act.

…however, I also said that he could not prove his arguement either, because neither of us would know until we died. Until then, we could only believe our respective beliefs.

So no synthesis was achieved.

Granted, I agree with your assessment, however, you can no more disprove the existence of god anymore than I can prove the existence of god. Not I would want to. I’m a pagan, personally, and while my faith in my gods are strong, I choose to test those beliefs with the very arguements that are designed to disprove them. By challenging them and coming through it mentally and emotionally, I affirm my own beliefs all the more.

Your methodology bears similarities to mine. Now for the test of coherency (see bottom of post)…

In the end, it comes down to what one “chooses” to believe. Christians choose to believe in god with many flaws that they choose not see, despite all the glaring omissions and contradictory flaws that flow through the pages of their tome.

If you start with the assumption that the Bible is wrong, you’ll probably end up proving yourself. The conclusion is different if you’re willing to assume it’s right.

I choose to believe what I think is the right path, though I would never force upon anyone that assertion.

Neither should any Christian. History, obviously, testifies differently – but that still doesn’t take away from Jesus serving as his own witness.

P.S. The religions of the world share a common bond that you may find interesting. see if you can find it. I was quite surprised when I found it.

And that is…? And what do you classify as being a “religion”?

Tangent: Jesus makes an absolute claim – that he is God, Salvation, and Eternal Life.

And in regards to your comment, all religions are not incorrect, but misinterpreted. The “facts” are presented, but it is the mind and natural tendencies of that person that dictate the formed opinion of those facts.

Meaning revisionism. The “facts” you refer to I’m assuming are a priori Biblical assertions (e.g., the nature of God, etc.).

Here’s a question: do you believe in pantheism?

And a sidenote: you might want to read through A Defense of Absolute Truth.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s