I like how the girl uses the ontological argument for Satan’s existence: how could we draw Satan if he doesn’t exist?
Likewise, how could we draw the Flying Spaghetti Monster if he didn’t exist? Since we can conceive of such a being, it must exist!
(from BBC’s Outnumbered)
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.
Thomas Nast has provided us with solid proof that he exists.
The problem, of course, is that God and/or Satan isn’t merely an ontological argument but one of effects, of observation. But such facts aren’t relevant when you want to bias yourself and others.
Tell me, have you “seen” sound? No but you have seen its effects. Have you “seen” a thought? No but you have seen its effects articulated in language and other measures. Have you “seen” gravity? No but you have seen its effects. You don’t deny the effects which you you see and indeed give it a name and a prescriptive identity and suddenly with a source of evil you find this method forbidden. Amusing.
Yes, not all ills are due to Satan but many are. And his effects are described both in the Bible and observable in time.
When Jesus and His disciples were walking to Jerusalem just preceding the Crucifixion He began to declare that He would suffer on the cross, be put to death, etc. Peter heard this and emphatically said (paraphrased) “no, I will not let that happen to you” to which Jesus (speaking to Peter) said “get behind me Satan, for you do not have the things of God in mind, but the things of man”.
How is this?? Where does Satan reside? Here’s a hint…the same place Christ does…but its either or, not both. We decide.
We are containers for His presence, He offers us His life (within). The alternative is to be filled with Self knowledge which will keep us wandering in the desert of human reasoning indefinitely.
Christ IN you is the mystery of the ages…Col 1:27
JC
Yea…they both lay claim to you. But one is a gentleman and waits for an invitation, the other, well he just creeps in unnoticed all the while telling you he doesnt really exist.
Put out the vacancy sign Winter…Jesus is at the door (of your inner man)…knocking, knock, knock…anyone home?
Love is His true name.
Its like this…As Christ was born in a stable, and cradled in a manger, so is Christ in man ever born amidst the animals in man. The new-born Savior is ever laid in a cradle between the ox of self-will and the ass of ignorance, in the stable of the animal condition in man; and from thence the king of pride (as Herod), finds his kingdom endangered, and seeks to kill the child, who is to become the ruler of the ‘New Jerusalem’ in man.
Pride is the gate-keeper…who is this man of Pride?? And will you allow him to keep Him…out??
JC
My problem with the ontological argument for god is that when pressed, we actually can’t imagine him.
As soon as you try to describe what he might be like, the discussion degenerates into baseless, non-sensical, contradictory hypotheses that are obviously conjured up on the spot by the god-defender.
LRA…
While I have spoken illustratively numerous times in the past, that last post was actually from the controversial ancient mystic, teutonic philosopher/theosopher Jacob Boehme or Behmen (1575-1625). I didnt know it was gonna cause such a stir, I should have made the quote reference known in the original post.
I find his language most helpful in my own studies and intuitively picturesque.
Holy writ is greatly enriched by symbolism and parabolic language. I think its beautiful, especially the poetry books, psalms, song of solomon, etc.
But to answer your question, no the unregenerate man is singular…or devoid of the spirit within although his/her original design was that of a son/daughter of God yet he possesses that latent potential to step into full sonship at any times should he be quickened. The adversary has “free reign” to deceive, usurp one’s true identity in this singular, unregenerate man.
The regenerate (redeemed) has both the old, inherited (adamic) man within (although he be crucified w/Christ if appropriated) and Christ (spirit man) within and united to his own spirit. He chooses “daily” which man to “live” from be it his soulish (old adamic) man or His spirit (Christ) man within. Hence we “pick up our cross and deny our (old) self daily”. Paul implored us to live in the spirit realm, then we wont do the deeds of the lower nature/crucified self.
As many as are led by the spirit, these are the sons (offspring) of God. Romans 8:14.
The (true) Christian life is a spiritual (internally lived) experience while the religious experience is an external, dead, lifeless existance.
Its really just all about love, His.
Alex, you said:
I would have made this respone directly to thread in which you made the above quote but the system wouldn’t let me.
Reread what Daniel said. You seem to have difficulty recognizing sarcasm.
Interviewer: “Why did you draw Satan?”
Girl: “Calvin’s god made me do it.”
@Daniel Florien
“Alex, I disagree with you. Satan is not behind the ills in our world. It it Thor.”
You mean Loki, Thor’s brother. In Norse mythology Thor is the thunder god and Loki is the god of mischief…..or at leasts that’s what Marvel Comics says.
Alex wrote:
Sound waves, brain activity and gravity are all directly observable. But tell me, have you seen god? Or satan? The effects you are talking about, are they not better explained as the consequences of human behaviour?
The only observable property of god may be that he exists in your brain. That’s what some people call a delusion.
Ontological arguments about God and Satan aside, I think that video was funny as hell. LOL! ;-)
I’ve seen a few other religion-related clips from that TV show and it seems that, if the rest of the show is anything like them (religious or not), the writers are completely brilliant!
Just as an aside to this interesting and enlightening discussion…
Why does this John person insist on signing his initials at the bottom of EVERY POST? Don’t you realise your name comes up anyway above every post? Lolol.
And why, WHY can’t he seem to be able to use the word ‘humanity’ or ‘humankind’ in the place of ‘man’?? Why should I and other feminists have to wince everytime we read something so degrading and excluding of women? Oh that’s right, religion teaches that males are superior and women should keep quiet and know their place. F**K THAT!!!
“If Satan didn’t exist, how would we know how to draw him?” ….same way we know how to draw unicorns. It’s called imagination!
I don’t know what this show is, but it’s HILARIOUS!
Alex, I disagree with you. Satan is not behind the ills in our world. It it Thor.
Can you “see” air? No. Yet it exists.
So does Thor. Not all ills are due to Thor, but many are. They are described in many ancient books.
Presumably there’s a way of differentiating between ills that are due to Satan, and those that are not. What are the diagnostic features of Satanic ills?
We accept that there is evidence for air, sound and thoughts because (despite your straw men) we don’t rely solely on naked-eye visual detection to decide if something exists. And we can probably all agree that bad things happen. But, as you point out, the mere existence of bad things is not sufficient to prove the existence of Satan. So, what evidence do you see in these bad things that makes you believe that Satan is responsible for them?
No I haven’t seen gravity so I guess according to you I can claim that we don’t float into space due to the invisible goblins that hold on to our legs who must exist since I couldn’t have described them if they didn’t. The difference between that and the theory of gravity is that gravity allow us to make testable predictions and then see if they work which they have repeatedly. The same can’t be said about the claim Satan is behind (some) of the bad things that happen in the world. We can give a natural explanations for things like storms,plagues and other disasters that doesn’t require a supernatural intervention so their existence doesn’t prove the existence of Satan and/or god.
The problem, of course, is that God and/or Satan isn’t merely an ontological argument but one of effects, of observation.
Thank you for posting a proactive argument. I will look forward to your responses to the counter arguments you will recieve.
If I understand Daniel’s point it is that your claim of observable effects has to be distinguished from all of the other claims of observable effects concerning supernatural beings down through the ages. How do you propose to do that?
Alex-
Just because you have identified effects (which, btw are contentious in moral philosophy circles) doesn’t mean you have identified a proper cause. We know the effects of gravity and indeed use those effects in order to do all kinds of physics, but we still don’t know the cause.
Likewise, you don’t know the cause of evil either, but you merely SPECULATE that you do.
Provide evidence of an evil agency known as satan who can be observed actually doing evil and maybe, just maybe, you might be on to something.
Otherwise, it make more sense to ascribe evil to the actions of people and to natural disasters (if those can even be defined as evil- again bad and evil are different concepts).
“The problem, of course, is that God and/or Satan isn’t merely an ontological argument but one of effects, of observation. ”
OK Alex, we’ve tried this before, and you have refused to answer, but I will give it another shot.
Can you please provide the evidence you have supporting the idea that god and/or satan cause observable effects to humankind?
Looking forward to your answer.
We can *measure* sound and gravity, and we have pretty clear definitions of what thoughts are. We are actually able to identify thoughts and say “in this living cat’s brain there is neural acticity, and in this dead rock there isn’t”. We got there by systematically testing our environment and pragmatically formulate testable propositions about what we think is happening. And yes, then we tested those ideas like a billion times, and THEN we felt OK with saying things like “this apple will fall because of gravity, that closely approximates to the following formula…”
I take it that by saying that we can see the “effects of Satan”, you mean that there is evil in this world. OK, I guess it’s fine, although a bit shallow, to define the problems in this world as the result of Evil. But you take a giant leap of faith when you claim that this evil is the work of Satan.
I mean, why Satan? Couldn’t it be the work of a malevolent God (scary thought, isn’t it)? Or maybe Thor gets bored with thunder-making? Or maybe we can identify some objective purposes with negative behaviors like greed. Oh I don’t know, maybe as a byproduct of a hostile environment and a billion year old struggle to survive?
If you are going to talk like you’ve identified the effects of Satan, I think a lot of people are *very* interested in your proof. So please explain why you believe Satan and no other entity than Satan could possibly be responsible for whatever you say that his effects on this universe is.
Your response is intemperate. I didn’t say he is responsible for the “ills of the world”. You treat my statement as exclusive, that is lazy. I clearly said not all.
Your argument, however, about Thor is irrelevant to the point you posted. You claim God and Satan are ontological arguments, they are merely that but their effects are presently observable.
Now you can disagree and claim Thor is the cause but then you only argue with yourself and challenge the premise of the very argument of your rejecting Satan and God which would make you either, mad, a fool or suddenly illuminated.
I can’t “see” alex’s hatred or hostility, yet it exists.
I didn’t claim God and Satan are ontological arguments — I claimed that the girl used it in the video to prove the existence of Satan.
Regardless, since your didn’t seem to get my comment, all I did was paraphrase your argument using Thor instead of Satan.
You don’t have such a thing as a sense of humour lying around anywhere, do you Alex?
Far be it for me to speak for Daniel or put words in his mouth, but I have a sneaking feeling that he may be employing Argument-By-Taking-The-Piss. It’s a little-known technique and difficult to spot sometimes, especially by those with closed minds.
THE BIBLE!!!!!!!!!!
And we can probably all agree that bad things happen.
Yeah though how do we define bad things? My first thought is that events universally defined to be bad are things that make it harder to obtain or maintain life, food, shelter and mates. So natural disasters are usually condsidered bad things as are birth defects or theft or murder. The rest of bad things seem to be arbitrary to the culture or the individual.
Well you posted it with the claim “I like how the girl uses the ontological argument”. Now either you have posted it with the hope that by posting a link you can escape with plausible denial which would make you quite insincere or you actually believe she has a point but you don’t since you just said you don’t believe they (God and Satan) are merely ontological arguments. And if you believe she has a point you just argued your own point.
I think you missed my sarcasm. I found it amusing she used the ontological argument because it’s a ridiculous argument. I linked to it because not everyone is familiar with it.
Then I gave an example of the arguments ridiculousness by applying it to the FSM.
That was why I used the word “probably”.
After all, there are the panglossians, who believe that everything is part of god’s plan and therefore (ultimately) good. And there are those who accept the existence of evil, but vehemently deny that something like drowning innocent little babies in a global flood would be wrong, so long as the perpetrator was more powerful than them…
Actually…..considering how God causes those he loves to suffer, how would a Christian determine if his suffering comes from God or from Satan?
but vehemently deny that something like drowning innocent little babies in a global flood would be wrong, so long as the perpetrator was more powerful than them…
LOL. Which nicely ties into my question above. How does a Christian know if the suffering comes from God or Satan?
Is there a “neither” option? From the way you’ve phrased it, I’m assuming not.
So… everyone is either entirely good, or entirely evil? It’s been my experience that most people vary between utterly selfish and totally self-sacrificing (but tending towards the mean), as they find themselves in different circumstances. Does this mean that Jesus and Satan time-share?
Ooo, I know, I know!
They both reside IN THE SKY!
:)
You just proved Daniel’s point, most marvelously.
Switch out “Jesus” with “The horrible potato-man” and you’ll see how insane it sounds to the rest of us. I bet you would disregard me in a heartbeat if _I_ claimed that the horrible potato-man was knocking at the door of _your_ “inner man”.
Seriously, how do people come up with this crap?
John, you’re getting into preacher mode again. Take a deep breath and relax. That kind of jabber doesn’t make sense to us, though we do find it amusing in moderation.
It’s like this… As the Meatball was born in a movie theater, and cradled in a car, so is the Meatball born amidst the pasta of man. The new-born Saline is ever laid in a cradle between the whale of self-will and the ass of gluttony, in the stable of the vegetable condition in man…
That’s as far as I get. You obviously have a better imagination that I do.
John-
Your use of metaphor is fine for me, but do you claim that this metaphor is superior to all the other metaphors for things humans experience, like love? You know, many, many cultures have their myths to personify abstract concepts.
In Native American culture, they believe there are two wolves inside you- a good one and an evil one… and that who you are as a moral agent depends on which wolf you feed.
How is your claim any different or superior to that claim?
I hate to tell you folks this, but the sacred, magic cocunut is the one and only true god. You have to believe in the magic cocunut otherwise the cocunut will not reveal its truth to you.
You forgot the pirates, Martin. Blasphemer!
…otherwise the cocunut will not reveal its truth to you.
If only Jesus’ truth was as tangible and delicious as coconut milk, I might believe again.
Well, obviously. I was merely showing how ridiculous Johns religion was compared to this fictitious one I just made up. Clearly I wouldn’t dare mock the coconut, lest I spend eternity on a pacific island completely devoid of coconut trees.
But this isn’t a temperate zone?
No, no! Blasphemy! We’re all Cthulhu‘s sons.
Satan laughs while he beats you until you’re broken, tortures you, and makes you miserable. God cries big ol’ tears while he beats you until you’re broken, tortures you, and makes you miserable.
Then there’s that little detail where everything that comes from Satan in effect comes from God.
cf. Book of Job.
My response is a little different. I can imagine a pink unicorn but obviously pink unicorns don’t exist. How can I do this?– by recombining catagories that do exist. A pink unicorn is in fact not a simple catagory but a combination of several: pinkness/horned animals/horses/magic. Gods in the Abrahamic tradition are some kind of combination of powerful being/master/parent/creating person that is laid across the tapestry of life lived in dangerous and mysterious circumstances.
It could have been carried by a sparrow…
African or European?
They could have gripped it by the husk!
What is the air speed of a coconut laden sparrow?
What if it was two sparrows?
Bring me….. A SHRUBBERY!!!
Exactly. We can imagine all kinds of things that don’t exist. The ontological argument should have been buried long ago — it’s hard to believe people still use it.
What do you think about my example of the two wolves myth? Is this mythos inferior to your own?
The ancient good vs. evil, devil on one shoulder, angel on the other is only partially representative imo. Two wolves is the same analogy basically.
We have the potential for both (good & evil) but there is no duality in the spirit, no potential for both good & evil, only good.
So, we are taught to “walk in the spirit and we wont carry out the evil potential”.
Not sure how to best answer your question.
JC
Well, I’m just wondering if you believe that people can “walk in the spirit” with out being Christians, per se.
People can certainly “do good” w/o the spirit. We can all live from our humanity within the soulish realm. Soul realm living has all the extremes of good & evil within it, both the highest nobility & the lowest depravities of man are soulish in origin.
The spirit life is where He is the one doing the living within us, its His life after all. Gal 2:20. No duality in the spirit unless the vessel (us) elects of his/her own to “drop down” into the soul realm. There are tier’s, multiple planes of existance…I have lived them all…the spirit realm feels most like my true, intended identity.
JC
So, then, the spiritual beliefs of other peoples (like the Native Americans) is lesser in degree to Christianity?
You look like a fairly young man. The true message & offer of Christ has nothing to do with “religion” in its cultural context. Knowing the true message & offer is really something you should at least want to investigate…for yourself?
Truth is a Person.
JC
Yeah, but he was off his game today.
And by the same token as the girl used in the film – you can draw Satan therefore he exists – Alex wrote about Thor in his post, thereby acknowledging that Thor does, indeed, exist. Hooray! I had long suspected as much, and Alex just proved it.
Alex seems to have bowed out of the discussion, which often happens when people can’t handle logical debate…
It’s pretty simple, Alex. Daniel simply substituted Satan for Thor in your argument, attempting to show you that what you said could “prove” anyone mythical is behind the ills of the world.
Either you’re too dumb to see it, or you choose not to see it. I hope it’s the latter. Either way, it’s a good example of why it’s a waste of time to debate people of faith.
It is, after all, the lowest form of humor.
:)
But so often the funniest!
The lowly shall be exhalted.
No, that’s fart jokes.
THE BIBLE!!!!!!!!
Except we hardly ever get it in moderation, do we? It usually comes in torrents of words that, by themselves and with other words usually make sense; however, when thrown together in such woo-filled fashion, they make no sense whatsoever.
Well, for all it’s badness, it’s still one of the best arguments theists have…
I don’t think Loki and Thor are brothers; Thor is Odin’s and Frigg’s son (normally considered to be their eldest). Loki is the son of Fárbauti and Laufey, and the brother of Helblindi and Býleistr. If someone out there knows more than I remember of Norse mythology (and more than I can glean from Wikipedia), I’d be interested to know if Loki is even remotely related to the rest of the Æsir. I know there’s a theory that he was a Jotunn (giant) rather than a true god, but I have no idea how plausible that is.
So comic books aren’t an accurate source for mythology? I’m shocked and appalled.
Aha, even in the comics he is only an adopted son. From wikipedia “After slaying the giant Laufey, Odin found a small Asgardian-sized child hidden within the primary stronghold of the Frost Giants. The child was Loki, and Laufey kept him hidden from his people due to his shame over his son’s small size. Odin took the boy because he showed strength when Odin slayed his father in combat. and raised him as his son alongside his biological son Thor.”
lol comic books – phone books -coupons whatever works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bays1tdQoZY
So I can stop worshipping the Super Friends?
Problem is Alex will just ignore any thing that you put back to him oh and he has a serious sense of humour failure for anything Christian.
http://www.oibo.org/images/nomorewhiners.jpg
Either way, it’s a good example of why it’s a waste of time to debate people of faith.
I’ve personally had many productive debates and discussions with people of faith, so I’m not sure it’s called for to throw them all out with the bathwater on account of Mr. Guggenheim.
Apparently it’s an improv show; there aren’t any writers.
If that isn’t a metaphor for how the arguments for God are lacking, I don’t know what is. ;)
Well crowed!
When they start measuring and testing Satan, I will read it.
All you can look forward to is either his chickenshit (credit to Ty for that one) disappearance, or his hostile, irrational verbal attacks.
Yes, I managed to watch most of the series (I live in the UK), and it was just like my family.
But make fun of Muslims, and Alex is catching the humor and yukkin’ it up right along with the rest of us!
Ni!!!
And if you don’t comply, I’ll say it again!
Ni!!!
Religion sucks…its oppressive, binding. Christ & religion are polar opposites. Love is the only law. Women are NOT inferior to men. There is no distinction between male and female, all are one in Christ…in love. Love, that’s what its all about….period.
Yes, but according to the new book, Christ binds himself to the old book by saying he is a trinity, and the old book deity has more of a plagues and floods and blood sacrifice thing going on. Not a lot of new book love.
What’s with the mood swings?