Home » Archief » Ad Kolkman


[31.10.2007]

Ad Kolkman

roodkapje (45k image)

Ad Kolkman is cartoonist voor onder andere het weekblad Elsevier. Meer op zijn website.

Algemeen, 31.10.2007 @ 08:37

[Home]
 

81 Reacties

op 31 10 2007 at 09:43 schreef Wampie:

Mooi!

op 31 10 2007 at 11:02 schreef Peter Breedveld:

Ja hè? Maakt alle andere commentaar op de antigodslasteringsdiscussie overbodig.

op 31 10 2007 at 16:42 schreef dimitri Hebing:

niks meer aan doen

op 31 10 2007 at 18:57 schreef visarendje:

mijn goeie god, wat een goede cartoon!

op 31 10 2007 at 23:33 schreef Sabian:

Profetisch!

op 01 11 2007 at 10:15 schreef Maurice:

Geweldig! Niet meer aan gummen.

op 01 11 2007 at 14:00 schreef Gerechtigheid.:

Geloof is onzin!

op 01 11 2007 at 14:07 schreef Lagonda:

Geloof je dat echt, ja?

op 01 11 2007 at 15:22 schreef Sabaroth:

Ik geloof in Gerechtigheid

op 01 11 2007 at 21:51 schreef Hansje Castorp:

@Lagonda

ja, grappig hoor. Voor het hele verhaal gaat u hierheen http://proofthatgodexists.org/

op 01 11 2007 at 22:09 schreef Lagonda:

God bewijzen met een website. Nuttig.

op 01 11 2007 at 22:16 schreef Lagonda:

Zeg Hans, ik heb die site nog eens gelezen — maar dat heb jij toch niet nodig, hoop ik?

op 01 11 2007 at 22:30 schreef Hansje Castorp:

Alleen maar om me te wapenen tegen amateurzendelingen. Tegenwoordig begin ik al te lachen als er zo eentje gaat uitleggen hoe logisch hij eigenlijk is.

Lagonda, ik neem aan dat u telkens naar de disneysite verwezen wordt, daar?

op 01 11 2007 at 22:53 schreef Lagonda:

Nee, ik loop vast op het punt dat ik stel dat het seksueel molesteren van jonge kinderen moreel aanvaardbaar is.

op 01 11 2007 at 23:01 schreef Hansje Castorp:

Haha. U kunt ook gewoon zeggen dat absolute morele regels niet bestaan, hooguit universeel geaccepteerde. Maar daar is geen knopje veur, helaas.

op 01 11 2007 at 23:06 schreef Lagonda:

Er ontbreken wel meer knopjes aan die site. Wat een treurnis, als je geloof zo in elkaar steekt. Zou de kerel die dit bedacht heeft dit verhaal nou ook op feestjes tegen wildvreemden proberen af te steken?

op 01 11 2007 at 23:41 schreef Hansje Castorp:

Veel leuker is het om te vertellen dat het je niet uitmaakt of dat (er een) god bestaat. Ze kijken je aan alsof ze een man uit de dood zien opstaan (ze hebben het waarschijnlijk al eens eerder gehoord.)

Vaak verlangen ze zo vurig ernaar om iemand op het rechte pad te brengen dat ze alleen dan stoppen met praten als jij het gesprek stopzet. Verder kun je zo’n beetje alles zeggen en dat is leuk.

op 02 11 2007 at 09:20 schreef Lagonda:

Ook leuk: zeggen dat je ook in God gelooft, maar het verder in alles met ze oneens zijn.

op 03 11 2007 at 13:25 schreef Sye Ten Bruggencate:

@ Lagonda:

Yes, I try to use this logic with EVERYONE I meet, not just at parties, maybe you could tell me what’s wrong with it :-)

op 03 11 2007 at 13:31 schreef Sye Ten Bruggencate:

Thanks for posting the link Hansje!

(I fixed mine :-)

op 03 11 2007 at 15:02 schreef Hansje Castorp:

Ik ben benieuwd waarom u uw antwoord in het engels stelt, Sye, zeker als u Nederlands kennelijk begrijpt. En helemaal aangezien u zich een Nederlandse naam aanmeet en verder hier niemand engels spreekt.

Helaas ben ikzelf nogal vooruitstrevend Nederlander, dus of u in het vervolg ook Nederlands praten wil?

op 03 11 2007 at 15:04 schreef Hansje Castorp:

hm bij nader inzien zit Ten Bruggencate gewoon een beetje te stangen :(

zich schamen doet

op 03 11 2007 at 19:24 schreef Sye Ten Bruggencate:

Well Hansje, I do indeed have a Dutch name, but I was born and raised (and now live) in Canada, and it is from here that I post the site (proofthatgodexists.org). My parents are Dutch and spoke it often at home, so ik kan het verstaan, en spreken, maar alleen heeeeeel slecht typen. I thought since you posted the link to my (english) site, that no one would mind if I wrote in english. (Whenever anyone posts a link to my site it shows up in my traffic-tracker, and since I know some Dutch, I thought I would respond).

You seem to be defending the site quite well in Dutch, so I can leave you to it, but I was looking forward to challenging Lagonda about his worldview.

Ik wou echt dat ik beter Nederlandse kon schrijven, maar helaas, zo is het niet.

Sye (Sije)

op 03 11 2007 at 19:59 schreef Lagonda:

You want to challenge my worldview? Why? It is my own personal worldview, and doesn’t need any challenging from other people, as far as I know.

What is it you want to know about my worldview?

op 03 11 2007 at 20:17 schreef Sye Ten Bruggencate:

"You want to challenge my worldview? Why?"

Because I am commanded to ‘cast down vain reasoning." (2 Corinthians 10:5).

What I want to know about your worldview, is how you account for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic (the basis of all reasoning), and the uniformity of nature (the basis of all science).

Cheers,

Sye

op 03 11 2007 at 20:33 schreef Lagonda:

I don’t account for abstract, invariant laws of logic. No-one does, in fact, because no-one can. Logic is a figment of our limited imagination; it never manages to fully explain the truth, and it never will.

For example, on your site you claim: "An example of a law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states, for instance, that it cannot both be true that my car is in the parking lot and that it is not in the parking lot at the same time, and in the same way."

A hundred years ago, you would have been right about this one. But ever since we gazed at the universe at quantum level, it DOES seem possible your car is, and is not, in the parking lot at the same time. Science is still coping with this conundrum — logic breaks down completely at this point.

Same goes for the uniformity of nature — it has yet to be established that, indeed, nature and its laws behave in uniform and immutable ways. So far, there’s no proof at all that this might really be the case.

And don’t even get me started on the universal nature of moral laws. They don’t even exist. Creation and/or God doesn’t need, or apply, or expect morality.

What’s the hangup with logic anyway, and why would you try to prove God’s existence with it? Absolute logic is always flawed, because all affirmations are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense. And if you repeat this sentence 666 times, you will archieve supreme enlightenment.In some sense.

op 03 11 2007 at 21:01 schreef Lagonda:

That’s a lot of vain reasoning to cast down, wouldn’t you say, Sye?

I’m now off to worship the Self-actualising Divine Consciousness that is currently experiencing itself at a subjective level, which, amongst many other things, has accidentally resulted in this specific permutation of matter and energy that we like to call "our Universe".

op 03 11 2007 at 22:38 schreef Hansje Castorp:

@Sye

Thanks for explaining that, Sye. Its an unusual but intriguing way in which you managed to come here. Still, since you believe that I have been defending your site -or point of view for that matter- I suggest we converse in english from here on.

@Lagonda

Veel plezier met Ten Bruggencate, maar als je iets 666 keer wil lezen om verlichting te bereiken stel ik Chuang Tzu voor:

There’s nothing anywhere which is not "that," and nothing which is not "this." If you rely on "that," you cannot see. But if you rely on understanding, you can know. And so when I say " that arises out of this, and this exists because of that," I’m describing the way "this" and "that" are born of each other. Life if born of death, and death of life. In sufficiency is insufficiency, in insufficiency sufficiency. There is "no that" because of "yes this," and "yes this" because of "no that." But this is not the sage’s way: the sage illuminates all in the light of heaven. Such is the sage’s "yes this."

"This" is "that," and "that" is "this." "That" makes "yes this" and "no that" the same, and "this" makes "yes this" and "no that" the same. So is there a "that" and a "this"? Or is there not a "that" and a "this"? Where "that" and "this" cease to be opposites, you’ll find the hinge of Tao. Keep that hinge at the center of things, and your movements are inexhaustible. Then "yes this" is whole and inexhaustible, and "no that" is whole and inexhaustible. And so the saying: "you can’t beat illumination."

this be a rejection of analytic distinctions. Westerlingen hebben hier moeite mee. Dat is waarschijnlijk ook de reden waarom de wetenschappelijke revolutie en al diens bewapening van en verlichting voor de mens wel in het westen plaatsvond, maar niet in China ;)

Niet vergeten om 666 keer te herhalen he! Als je het iedere dag een keer doet heb je dat binnen twee jaar gehaald. makkie!

op 03 11 2007 at 23:03 schreef Hansje Castorp:

Voor diegenen die geen engels kunnen (dus waarschijnlijk voor niemand die dit lezen komt) even de vertaling. Ook leuk als je moet speechen, misschien.

Er is nergens iets wat niet ‘dit’ is, en niets wat niet ‘dat’ is. Als je afhankelijk blijft van ‘dit’ ben je blind. Maar als je vertrouwd op begrip kun je weten. Dus als ik zeg "Dit komt voort uit dat, en dat bestaat vanwege dit," dan beschrijf ik de manier waarop ‘dat’ en ‘dit’ uit elkaar geboren worden. Leven als geboren uit de dood, en dood van het leven. In toereikendheid bestaat ontoereikendheid, in ontoereikendheid toereikendheid. ‘Niet dit’ bestaat omwille van ‘wel dat,’ en ‘wel dat’ omwille van ‘niet dit.’ Maar dit is niet de weg van de wijze: De wijze verlicht alles in het licht van de hemel. Aldus is het ‘wel dat’ van de wijze.

‘Dat’ is ‘dit,’ en ‘dit’ is ‘dat.’ ‘Dit’ maakt ‘wel dat’ en ‘niet dit’ hetzelfde, en ‘dat’ maakt ‘wel dat’ en ‘niet dit’ hetzelfde. Bestaat er aldan een ‘dit’ en een ‘dat’? Of bestaat er geen ‘dit’ en geen ‘dat’? Daar waar ‘dit’ en ‘dat’ ophouden elkaars tegenpool te zijn vindt je de spil van Tao. Houdt deze spil in het centrum van de dingen, en je bewegingen zullen onvermoeibaar zijn. Dan wordt ‘wel dat’ volledig en onvermoeibaar, en wordt’niet dit’ volledig en onvermoeibaar. Vandaar het gezegde: "je kunt verlichting niet verslaan."

Duiding van het geheel: de wijze is een groot multinationaal bedrijf in Eindhoven, ‘dit’ is een gloeilamp en ‘dat’ is een spaarlamp.

op 03 11 2007 at 23:49 schreef Houriloper:

Lao Tzu zou Tzwang Tzu een pak slaag hebben verkocht (net als hij bij Koeng Foe Tze deed); de tao in woorden gevat is niet de rechte tao.

op 04 11 2007 at 05:35 schreef Sye Ten Bruggencate:

“That’s a lot of vain reasoning to cast down, wouldn’t you say, Sye?”

Indeed it is! But since you deny logic, I can bunch it all together :-) How is it possible for you to know or prove ANYTHING without logic? How can you know what exists, or does not exist, what has been proven, or what has not been proven, what is true in some sense, or what is false in some sense? In what way is absolute logic flawed, certainly not LOGICALLY flawed???

You also deny the uniformity of nature yet proceed with the expectation that nature is uniform with EVERY one of your thoughts or actions. On what basis do you proceed with the expectation that the words you write (or even think) mean the same thing they did 5 seconds ago?

Your post is filled from beginning to end with contradictions. I really don’t need to cast down your vain reasoning, just keep writing, you are doing fine on your own.

(I really wish you had not denied logic, because I would have loved to discuss quantum physics, and your **cough** knowledge of the uncertainty principle).

Cheers,

Sye

op 04 11 2007 at 05:36 schreef Sye Ten Bruggencate:

Hansje, it would appear that your English is FAR better than my Dutch, thanks for your consideration :-)

Sye

op 04 11 2007 at 10:53 schreef Lagonda:

"But since you deny logic"

I don’t deny logic — I said it never will lead to definitive conclusions. Logic has its limits.

"How can you know what exists, or does not exist, what has been proven, or what has not been proven, what is true in some sense, or what is false in some sense?"

I can’t — no-one can. We can hardly speak about "uniformity", "universality" and "immutability" when our existence is a mere blink in eternity, and we have hardly left this planet.

"yet proceed with the expectation that nature is uniform with EVERY one of your thoughts or actions."

No, I don’t.

"On what basis do you proceed with the expectation that the words you write (or even think) mean the same thing they did 5 seconds ago?"

I don’t have this expectation at all.

"Your post is filled from beginning to end with contradictions."

No, it isn’t.

Well, whatever. It doesn’t matter. You’ve found yourself a shining jewel of circular reasoning, and you apparently get instant gratification by polishing it twice a day. That’s why you take the trouble to talk to us, because it enables you to play your 8-step game over and over again, and to prove your self-worth this way. It’s a form of spiritual masturbation. But that’s fine — you’re hardly the only one doing this.

That’s why this world is in this sorry state, by the way — because of self-important sinners prancing about, and trying to prove to the rest of the world how right they are. It’s the trap of the serpent, and you fell for it. I will pray for your salvation.

op 04 11 2007 at 11:55 schreef Hansje Castorp:

@Sye

I have already argued with you elsewhere about your train of logic leading you to divine answers. Rather than crossing swords again on that plane (it turned out to be a fruitless exercise for the both of us) I focus on the significance of your result.

So what if god exists: why should I be bothered? (You see, I live in the information age and expect my surroundings to conform. There are various ways in which god could contact me. He can call me, sms me, msn me, write a website for all to visit. Moreover, most humans have ceased to be nomads like the semite tribes or the arabs, meaning I have a fixed address: I could receive a letter, or he could even visit me in person. One of the gospels mentioned that Jesus was wary of displaying grand miracles for fear that people would worship him as a magician instead of serving god. However, I do believe that if a representative of god came down to the Netherlands and split the North Sea -so that all the illegal immigrants could walk to England rather than suffocating in crowded containers or dodgy dead spaces in cargo ships- I and many dutch people would be much more inclined to believe in god.

And that would show us that god actually cares about having a relation with us. It strikes me as very very inefficient of him to pose the burden of (re)establishing contact on humans. I mean, who again is the omnipresent, omnipotent entity again, and who the shortlived, forgetful and limited human? Surely I can say then that god is irresponsible to us?

To wrap up, the logic towards the existence of god seems futile to me if god should exist. It makes much more sense for god to communicate his existence to us, and he is, by what I have heard about him, fully capable of doing so. Still, I personally don’t notice much of any such effort and it makes me wonder why. In the end I can only assume that god thinks I already live an acceptable life, do not need salvation, and hence don’t need any contacting.

op 04 11 2007 at 12:17 schreef Lagonda:

En zo is dat, dames en heren. Alles is ijdelheid. Wil iemand Gödel er nog bijhalen, of is de boekenkast alweer voldoende afgestoft?

op 04 11 2007 at 12:18 schreef Hansje Castorp:

Gelukkig hebben Chuang Tzu en Lao Tse geen lange tenen (meer.)

op 04 11 2007 at 12:20 schreef Hansje Castorp:

Doet mijn maar Popper.

op 04 11 2007 at 16:01 schreef Lagonda:

Ow dear! I hope he comes back to cast down some more of our vain reasoning. After all, answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit (Proverbs 26:5).

But on the other hand, do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will also be like him (Proverbs 26:4).

I’m glad the Lord left such clear instructions, wouldn’t you say?

op 04 11 2007 at 17:18 schreef Tjerk:

Is toch volkomen in lijn met jouw idee over logica, Lagonda?

op 04 11 2007 at 19:03 schreef Lagonda:

Ja, helemaal. Maar niet in de lijn van Sye’s logica.

op 04 11 2007 at 19:22 schreef Sye Ten Bruggencate:

I don’t deny logic

Then who wrote this? "Logic is a figment of our limited imagination."

I said it never will lead to definitive conclusions.

Um…”Never” IS a definitive conclusion!!! Hello!

"How can you know what exists, or does not exist, what has been proven, or what has not been proven, what is true in some sense, or what is false in some sense?"

"I can’t — no-one can."

Um… If YOU can’t know, how can you know what anyone else can know???

"On what basis do you proceed with the expectation that the words you write (or even think) mean the same thing they did 5 seconds ago?"

"I don’t have this expectation at all."

Then why did you write those words?

"Your post is filled from beginning to end with contradictions."

No, it isn’t.

I don’t expect you to see them, but hope that others reading this thread do. If you do choose to respond, please attempt to answer my questions.

Cheers,
Sye

op 04 11 2007 at 19:27 schreef Sye Ten Bruggencate:

”Ow dear! I hope he comes back to cast down some more of our vain reasoning. After all, answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit (Proverbs 26:5).

But on the other hand, do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will also be like him (Proverbs 26:4).

I’m glad the Lord left such clear instructions, wouldn’t you say?”

Actually I use these verses in my apologetics class. They make perfect sense to me. Do no answer a fool using his logic (or non-logic), but use the fools non-logic against him. Seems simple to me. (Just scroll up :-)

op 04 11 2007 at 20:01 schreef Lagonda:

Very tiresome, all this, and I knew we would end up add odds this way, because I’ve talked to many a Christian before, and like Hansje pointed out, it has always proven to be a rather pointless exercise.

You deliberately miss the point. I’m saying your proof has no basis, because your basic assumptions are flawed. Your proof start with a big "IF". IF there is a logical, unchangeable, immaterial universe THEN your proof works. Point is, you cannot ever claim your IF to be true. You can only resort to circular reasoning, which is exactly what you do.

Because of our limited understanding, all we are able to see is chaos, and we can only apply "logic" to a tiny fragment of chaos that, in its particular permutation, seems "logical" to us. This is: suitable for projecting our own ideas about what constitutes "logic". But the bigger the area we try to handle, the more chaos and unforseen circumstances creep in, and the more our "logic" fails us.

We are hardly able to apply logic to plan ahead, and the bigger the projects we undertake, the more it becomes evident "logic" is not able to guard us against the fickle and erratic behaviours of Creation. Science, that bastion of ratio, very seldom invokes logic to move ahead succesfully, but instead stumbles from one error to the next, and makes its great discoveries rather by accident. Our ratio is only able to extract logic in hindsight. Ratio is just a rough tool, hardly suitable to explain anything, let alone everything, about this universe. Let alone God.

And then you talk about "immutable universal" laws. No-one can claim the laws of nature are immutable or universal; we merely *suppose* they are, by lack of a bigger perspective. Modern science has been around for a few hundred years, and we have hardly explored our own planet; only when we have studied the entire universe for an eternity can we be certain whether or not laws of nature are immutable and universal. Not before. Any claim about God, and about how He relates to this Universe, are therefore in vain.

Last week, for example, a homely little comet named "Holmes" suddenly turned a million times brighter overnight. Astronomers and astrophysicists where baffled: "defies logic","never seen before" and "should not happen". Ah, but it DID happen! Phenomena like these remind us of our humbling progress on the road of knowledge; it reminds us of how little we know, and how much there is still left to explore. It’s God tweaking our noses: think you got Me? Guess again!

And, what’s more, you accuse me of "vain reasoning", but tell me, Sye, I don’t pretend to know what God is, and how His existence should or can be proven. You, on the other hand, pretend to know *exactly* what God is, what He does and does not include in His system of creation. You pretend to know His motives, His methods, His logic, His thinking, and His nature. You are absolutely dead-sure God is what you think He is. And what’s more, you pretend to be able to hand Him over on a platter of your logic. How vain is that?

So I guess congratulations are in order, Sye! I’ve got to hand it to you: many minds have pondered over this issue, but you’ve done it! You have cracked the code! You have actually managed to talk God into a corner. You are the stone God would not be able to lift. Not even God Himself would be able to escape your logic, making you in fact larger than God. Wow! Why not grab Him by the neck, put Him in a jar, and give Him a nice place on your mantelpiece? Don’t forget to punch some holes in the lid though; you might actually kill Him.

Because that’s what you’re trying to do, Sye. Let’s face it: you’re trying to kill God. You’re trying to kill God by pushing your ridiculous "proof" down other people’s throats. You are trying to deny huge parts of God by denying other people their own ideas about God. You are denying everything God *could* be, by restricting Him to what *you* deem acceptable and true. You are slowly strangling Him, because in order to fight vain disbelievers, you have chosen to be the vainest of them all. Hell, you even took the trouble to put up a website to show the world how right you are.

Because your shivering soul is in bad need of a divine pat on the back, you have deluded yourself into humbly thinking you "are a mere sinner doing God’s work". But in fact, you are one of Satan’s minions, performing dark deeds out of dark motives, and you don’t even realise it. You have taken large bites from the Forbidden Fruit, and are now, like the rest of mankind that is separated from God, absolutely convinced you too possess the knowledge of the difference between Good and Evil.

Open the newspaper, Sye. Everything that’s wrong on this planet is caused by self-righteous fools who think they are ab-so-lu-te-ly right in doing what they’re doing, who cannot hold their worldview to themselves, and who condemn the people that see the world in a different light. They even go look for them on the Internet, in order to fight their little battles. You just add to the suffering, and that’s all you do. Like I said, I will pray for your salvation.

op 04 11 2007 at 20:01 schreef Sye Ten Bruggencate:

@ Hansje

I have already argued with you elsewhere

Reall, cool! Please enlighten me

about your train of logic leading you to divine answers.

Then you have misunderstood my approach, If logic could lead to the divine, then the divine would not be necessary for logic. I do not argue that logic leads to divine answers, I argue that logic cannot be made sense of without the Divine.

Rather than crossing swords again on that plane (it turned out to be a fruitless exercise for the both of us)

I do not consider any argument fruitless, your rejection of the argument could be the fruit that was meant to be produced.

So what if god exists: why should I be bothered?

Because failure to acknowledge Him, destroys knowledge, and leads to an eternal destiny in hell.

(You see, I live in the information age and expect my surroundings to conform. There are various ways in which god could contact me. He can call me, sms me, msn me, write a website for all to visit.

Or He could send some Canadian dude to talk to you :-)

However, I do believe that if a representative of god came down to the Netherlands and split the North Sea -so that all the illegal immigrants could walk to England rather than suffocating in crowded containers or dodgy dead spaces in cargo ships- I and many dutch people would be much more inclined to believe in god.

Then your Biblical knowledge is less than what I had imagined. It was the very people who witnessed Christ’s miracles that had Him crucified.

And that would show us that god actually cares about having a relation with us.

A few problems with this, you look for God in the miraculous, but deny Him in every one of your thoughs and actions. Logic, science, morality, NONE of these could be made sense of without God, yet you use them, and do not acknowledge their only possible source. Furthermore, you put your requirements onto God, which gives YOU the authority, not God.

It strikes me as very very inefficient of him to pose the burden of (re)establishing contact on humans.

You would prefer a God who forced Himself on you???

I mean, who again is the omnipresent, omnipotent entity again, and who the shortlived, forgetful and limited human?

Don’t be so sure about the ‘shortlived’ part. Where you will spend your everlasting destiny is the question.

Surely I can say then that god is irresponsible to us?

Yes, you can say it, but by what standard of morality are you calling God irresponsible? You see, again, this makes YOU God.

To wrap up, the logic towards the existence of god seems futile to me if god should exist. It makes much more sense for god to communicate his existence to us, and he is, by what I have heard about him, fully capable of doing so.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1 18-20)

Still, I personally don’t notice much of any such effort and it makes me wonder why. In the end I can only assume that god thinks I already live an acceptable life, do not need salvation, and hence don’t need any contacting.

I would not recommend proceeding under this pretense. I can guarantee that it will lead to an unpleasant outcome.

Cheers,

Sye

op 04 11 2007 at 20:17 schreef Sye Ten Bruggencate:

How about answering my questions. I can get this diatribe anywhere. I was looking for a rational interchange. Your view on logic is self-refuting, perhaps you recognize this and that is why you are avoiding my questions.

Cheers,

Sye

op 04 11 2007 at 20:40 schreef Sye Ten Bruggencate:

Point is, you cannot ever claim your IF to be true.

“Cannot ever???” How can you not see the circularity of YOUR position? If logic is not absolute, how can you say what “Cannot ever” be done???

Rather than sift through your entire post pointing out the myriad of contradictions, why don’t you answer this: Can anything be known for certain?

You seem to be making a lot of knowledge claims, and I want to know how you can know ANYTHING about ANYTHING.

Any claim about God, and about how He relates to this Universe, are therefore in vain.

I couldn’t resist this one. Isn’t the claim that ‘any claim to know about God, and how he relates to this universe, is in vain,’ ALSO a claim to know something about God and how he relates to this universe?!? You are forgetting the principle concept behind Christianity that ANY claim to knowledge must originate with God, since only an all-knowing being could know ANYTHING. Surely you would agree that an omnipotent, omniscient God could reveal certain things to us so that we could know them for certain?!?

You see, that is the problem with your reasoning. Yo make all sorts of knowledge claims, but cannot back even one of them up. The Christian can back up knowledge claims by deferring to divine revelation. Please either let me know how you can know anything about anything or cease to make any knowledge claims. Oh ya, AND please answer those other questions:-)

Cheers,

Sye

P.S. Interesting how you would deride someone who defers all knowledge claims to God, and present your autonomous arguments as true.

op 04 11 2007 at 20:50 schreef Sye Ten Bruggencate:

I suppose that this should not go unchallenged:

Last week, for example, a homely little comet named "Holmes" suddenly turned a million times brighter overnight. Astronomers and astrophysicists where baffled: "defies logic","never seen before" and "should not happen". Ah, but it DID happen!

So, did any one of those astronomers or astrophysicists conclude that nature is no longer uniform, or logic no longer exists, or are they looking for a rational explanation that fits in with science and logic?

This is not the first time strange phenomenon have taken place, science has never given up on the scientific method, or the laws of logic. If anyone of those scientists has, please post their position here. You see, their very claim that this thing "should not happen," shows there committment to the uniformity of nature.

Cheers,

Sye

op 04 11 2007 at 21:36 schreef Tjerk:

It is funny a christian would find refuge in the idea of moral absolutes. Even if there are, it’s not like one can ever definitively know them.

People used to think human sacrifice is okay, now they don’t anymore; people used to think torture is okay (christians still think it’s okay for God to torment people for all eternity in the flames of hell), now we don’t anymore. People used to think slavery was okay (many places of endorsement in the bible); now they don’t anymore. People used to think genocide was okay (many places in the bible in which God incites to genocide); now we don’t anymore. People used to think keeping women subservient (even the New Testament teaches women ought to be); now we don’t anymore. People used to think homosexuality was a vice; now we don’t anymore.

Regression in morals also happens. In the Old Testament, rules are given for the fair treatment of animals (Deuteronomy 25:4). Then St. Paul argues that the commandment not to restrain oxen from eating the grain they grind cannot pertain to animals, since they’re not important enough, and therefore has to be understood allegorically, as referring to humans (1 Corinthians. 9:9). Descartes claims animals have no soul and therefore are but machines. But Jeremy Bentham, the seventeenth century philosopher, argued that since animals can suffer, their wellbeing is an ethical issue.

As for logic, Jews and Muslims have always held that the Christian notion of God doesn’t make much sense. Christians seem to want it both ways: they want to maintain the monotheïstic idea that God is one, yet at the same time hold on to the thorougly pagan myth of the god-man Jesus Christ, which consequently results in a concept of God which is one, yet three. Please, don’t bother trying to explain to me the highly speculative auxiliary hypotheses trying to keep this God-bundle together; I’m quite familiar with them.

As a Christian who believes in absolute morals, you’re stuck with an omnipotent, allforseeing and beneficient Designer who construed a world in which all life bears flaws and in which just about everything parasites on just about everything else, thus guaranteeing massive suffering. Do you recognize the massive logical inconsistency there?

As a Christian who believes in absolute morals, you’re stuck with a Deity which has no qualms about massacring billions of people just for being annoyed with them (the Flood); killing an entire generation of unborn just to prove a point (the Exodus) and commanding the genocide of several Kananite nations just to create some Lebensraum for the chosen elect. Statesmen get dragged before war tribunals in the civilised world for less. Did I mention the eternal tormen thing already?

So, to make a long story short: if ‘God’ exists, it cannot look remotely like the Christian deity at all.

op 04 11 2007 at 21:43 schreef Lagonda:

Oh dear! A three-in-a-row-eruption of conviction. You’re kinda clutching at straws here, Sye.

Doesn’t it seem a bit, erm, pathetic that you even bother? You only come here to get your point proven again and again. There are six billion people out there, who all have their own particular ideas about the Universe and God. You’re just one of them. Shouldn’t this be a great big hint that maybe, juuuuuust maybe, you could act a little more modest about your own particular opinions, and that maybe, juuuuuuust maybe, you might be, I dunno, wrong?

op 04 11 2007 at 21:59 schreef Lagonda:

"So, to make a long story short: if ‘God’ exists, it cannot look remotely like the Christian deity at all."

Exactly Tjerk. I didn’t even get to the "Universal Morals" bit with Sye, but I can just refer him back to your answer.

This is one of the more treacherous claims of religion (islam makes it too), that God is sorely needed in order to establish a sound "standard" for morality. But that is nonsense. God is not interested in morals, and makes His universe behave in the most atrocious and immoral ways. Morality is *our* little game.

People generally consider the golden rule (do not onto others what you etc. etc.) as a nice standard for morality, and Jesus was one of the advocates of this rule, but, haha, you don’t a God to make this rule work. It is, in fact, a very humanistic rule, because man becomes his own yardstick. The moral basis for the golden rule are our own fears and instincts and preferences. Yes, I prefer to be treated nicely, so I will treat other people in a nice way. Yes, I prefer not to be stolen from, so I won’t steal from other people. Yes, I prefer not to be killed, so I won’t kill other people. I don’t need a God to remind me of this.

op 04 11 2007 at 22:25 schreef Tjerk:

Lagonda: Sye ten Bruggencate means to say, of course, that without God one cannot claim absolute morality, and consequently everything is permitted.

However, in reality and practice it turns out that if there is a God, then everything becomes permissible, as long as you claim divine revelation put you on to it. For instance, which of us would even think of sacrificing our child? But according to the well known legend, Abraham was willing to do so, because God told him to, and the story praises him extensively for his willingnes to obey the divine command, whatever it entails. To this day believers sacrifice their children: the calvinist in refusing shots that prevent them from developing cerebral palsy (we wouldn’t want to meddle with the divine plan now would we?); zionist settlers in instilling in their young a fanatical hatred of Arabs and Christians and de cadres of Hamas (and before that, of the ayatollahs) in sending their children to die as martyrs.

Both the Tora and the Qur’an legitimize, if not incite, the subjugation, expulsion and killing of the unbelievers from the land promised by God. That the New Testament does not didn’t prevent the faithful from bringing Old Testament practice into good use. After all, these savages were only pagan idolworshipers, right. I was informed by a hindu collegue the British killed several billion people in India alone.

The list goes on and on, from the mutilating of genitalia to the fear mongering of children, the persecuting of homosexuals and the burning of witches. In fact, if there’s an absolute morality, which is ultimately backed up by God, there’s no sense in saying the Old Testament laws are abrogated at all.

op 04 11 2007 at 22:29 schreef Hansje Castorp:

@Sye

Thanks for commenting on various points of my post – it gives me the luxury of choice. Concerning the other place, it was 4-ch.net in the /science section. For anonymity’s sake I won’t disclose under which pseudonym I posted there.

When I wrote
However, I do believe that if a representative of god came down to the Netherlands and split the North Sea -so that all the illegal immigrants could walk to England rather than suffocating in crowded containers or dodgy dead spaces in cargo ships- I and many dutch people would be much more inclined to believe in god.

You answered
Then your Biblical knowledge is less than what I had imagined. It was the very people who witnessed Christ’s miracles that had Him crucified.

I would like to specify here that out of all the people who witnessed jesus’s miracles, some wanted him dead while others did not. Hence there were two groups involved, not one, as you suggest. Anyway, if I remember correctly, it was necessary for the christ to die, so that he could die for the sins of mankind – or at least mankind that confesses as christian and lives his life in the light of heaven. (I hope I’m using the correct vernacular here.) Again, I find this an awkward and inefficient procedure.

First of all it strikes me as masochist behaviour to create humans who can sin, when this sin is painful to god. I assume that god still derives more pleasure from his creation than that it hurts him. If not, then I don’t understand why he still bothers keeping this creation in place.

Secondly I wonder why the procedure of taking up our sins in the body of jesus has been the way it is. For an omnipotent god, I presume that it should be possible to think of many solutions. If it were me, i would send a son for every thousand people – that would be an adequate number to still keep personal relations with. And then when one of those sons gets crucified, or decides to take an early pension, simply replace him by another son. I’m just saying, it seems that this is also a solution and it appears to me that with my solution, a lot of confusion about god and his desires for us would be taken away.

Obviously this is a much more paternalising version of the world than we have now, and it raises the question that you mentioned before:
You would prefer a God who forced Himself on you???
this, by the way, was your reaction to
It strikes me as very very inefficient of him to pose the burden of (re)establishing contact on humans.

I would say that, since our afterlife crucially depends on a proper relationship with god now, I can make a simple cost benefit analysis. Right now, we have a life of on average 80 years. After death, we face one extreme of eternal hell, or on the other extreme eternal heaven. compared to eternity after death, the significance of those 80 years now shrinks to point size, and I’ll do whatever it takes to get into heaven.

So yes, please god, force yourself on me, show me that it’s You, then not only will I know that You actually exist, I will also believe that heaven and hell exist, and I will know why it is worth it to subject myself to You.
All that, I don’t know it now, and because You still fail to help me out of this doubt, I remain blissfully ignorant. Without Your guidance, I cannot distinguish between heaven and hell, and I can only believe I already live in it.

And concerning god’s alleged method of contact with me via canadian dudes, it ain’t good enough for me. Let him come to me by himself. On second thought, an easy blonde superbabe persuading me with sexual pleasures will also be acceptable. Canadian dudes however are out of the question.

op 04 11 2007 at 22:47 schreef Hansje Castorp:

@Tjerk
I was informed by a hindu collegue the British killed several billion people in India alone.

lolbroek, check ff wat dat betekent.

op 05 11 2007 at 03:22 schreef Sye Ten Bruggencate:

Indeed, the only way I can know anything is by presupposing the existence of God. My question to you, and to all those who are posting here is: How is it possible for any of you to know anything? Try answering that without begging the question.

Cheers,

Sye

op 05 11 2007 at 03:47 schreef Sye Ten Bruggencate:

@Hansje

Thanks for commenting on various points of my post – it gives me the luxury of choice.

No problem, I will also assume that luxury :-)

Concerning the other place, it was 4-ch.net in the /science section. For anonymity’s sake I won’t disclose under which pseudonym I posted there.

Ah yes, I have some loose ends to tie up there, but have been incredibly busy.

I would like to specify here that out of all the people who witnessed jesus’s miracles, some wanted him dead while others did not. Hence there were two groups involved, not one, as you suggest.

Hansje, my point was not that ALL the people who were responsible for Christ’s crucifixion witnissed His miracles, nor that ALL the people who witnissed Christ’s miracles wanted Him dead. My point was that there were those who witnissed Christ’s miracles and it did not change their hearts, just as anyone who would witness the parting of the North Sea would look for some naturalistic explanation if they were presupposed to disbelief in God.

Anyway, if I remember correctly, it was necessary for the christ to die, so that he could die for the sins of mankind – or at least mankind that confesses as christian and lives his life in the light of heaven. (I hope I’m using the correct vernacular here.) Again, I find this an awkward and inefficient procedure.

Thankfully God does not need your approval :-)

First of all it strikes me as masochist behaviour to create humans who can sin, when this sin is painful to god. I assume that god still derives more pleasure from his creation than that it hurts him. If not, then I don’t understand why he still bothers keeping this creation in place.

I would suspect that it is to give people like you the opportunity to accept Him.

I would say that, since our afterlife crucially depends on a proper relationship with god now, I can make a simple cost benefit analysis. Right now, we have a life of on average 80 years. After death, we face one extreme of eternal hell, or on the other extreme eternal heaven. compared to eternity after death, the significance of those 80 years now shrinks to point size, and I’ll do whatever it takes to get into heaven.

Will you submit to God? Will you confess your sins to Him and repent of your autonomous life? Will you trust in Christ alone for your salvation? I can not judge the sincerity of your statement, but God can. If you’ll do whatever it takes, I have given you a few steps.

Canadian dudes however are out of the question.

There you go again, telling God how He should contact you :-) The answer lies in submitting to God, not in telling Him what to do.

Sye

op 05 11 2007 at 03:53 schreef Sye Ten Bruggencate:

@ Lagonda,

I have asked you nicely and repeatedly how it is possible for you to know anything, yet you keep avoiding my question. Pardon the expression, but if you cannot know anything for certain, than everything you write amounts to verbal diarrhea.

Please back up your knowledge claims, and I will be happy to address them. How is it possible, according to your worldview, for you to know what you claim to know?

Cheers,

Sye

op 05 11 2007 at 04:05 schreef Sye Ten Bruggencate:

@ T jerk

It is funny a christian would find refuge in the idea of moral absolutes. Even if there are, it’s not like one can ever definitively know them.

How do you know this?

People used to think human sacrifice is okay, now they don’t anymore…

What does this have to do with absolute morality??? Just because kindergarten students get the answer wrong to what is 2 + 2, does not mean that there is no correct answer.

”Christian notion of God doesn’t make much sense. Christians seem to want it both ways: they want to maintain the monotheïstic idea that God is one, yet at the same time hold on to the thorougly pagan myth of the god-man Jesus Christ, which consequently results in a concept of God which is one, yet three.” Please, don’t bother trying to explain to me the highly speculative auxiliary hypotheses trying to keep this God-bundle together; I’m quite familiar with them.

Okay, I won’t try to explain it to you, but perhaps you could research the origins of the word “University.” The very basis for advance learning was reconciling “Unity” and “Diversity,” the very thing which Christianity explains in the Trinity, and ‘modern’ thinkers (like you) reject.

As a Christian who believes in absolute morals, you’re stuck with an omnipotent, allforseeing and beneficient Designer who construed a world in which all life bears flaws and in which just about everything parasites on just about everything else, thus guaranteeing massive suffering. Do you recognize the massive logical inconsistency there?

There is none, in order for there to be a logical inconsitency, you would have to able to demonstrate that God COULD NOT have a sufficient reason for the evil in this world. The floor is yours.

So, to make a long story short: if ‘God’ exists, it cannot look remotely like the Christian deity at all.

Certainly not your version anyways :-)

Cheers,

Sye

op 05 11 2007 at 04:06 schreef Sye Ten Bruggencate:

@everyone

I’ve enjoyed interacting with you all. I’m getting ready for a busy week, so will likely be unable to post here. If, however, you keep your posts short and to the point, I’ll see what I can do.

Cheers,

Sye

op 05 11 2007 at 08:55 schreef Lagonda:

@Sye: You like to think using dogma’s, which are absolute beliefs. You define an absolute God, define what He must be, define the infallibility of the scripture, and try to conform the world according to these definitions; this is a top-down approach, and it leads to circular reasoning. If you strip away all the flowers and bells, you basically say: God exists because He exists, and the scripture is right because it is right.

Now, I like to think with catma’s, which are relative meta-beliefs. I came to the conclusion that we have no way of knowing anything for certain. Nothing in this world "is"; things are just what they seem to me at a certain moment. The idiocy of the word "is" haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense.

So I try to piece together what God might be based on the added sum of *every* experience I have on this planet, which is a bottom-up approach. First, the fact that six billion people all have a different idea about the divine, is a clear clue that no-one is right, and that we can safely dodge the whole issue of "religion". You are keen to claim the authority of the Bible. Well, be my guest — but it doesn’t make any sense if you’d spent a day on this planet with your eyes open.

Then the fact that Creation can be a brutal, immoral and unjust place, and that morality is a relative standard anyway, is a clear clue that God does not concern Himself with morals and judgement, so that issue can be dodged as well.

As soon as you let God be source of morality, you’ll get in trouble. The Christian worldview for example, of a loving God who is nothing but just, immediatelty collapses the moment people experience the unjust and unloving consequences of life on this planet — if one of their children dies, for example, or is half a country is wiped away by a tsunami. If a God is the source of morality, then why does He behave in an immoral way? I’ve heard many elaborate explanations for this, but to me it is a clear hint that God is *not* the source of morality, and that if He exists, He must encompass both sides of the coin — the moral and the immoral.

I asked you a question as well: why are you so keen on using logic to prove God? Don’t you trust yourself? Ye of little faith: you either *know* God exists or you don’t. And that’s all there is to it.

op 05 11 2007 at 11:10 schreef Hansje Castorp:

eigenlijk zouden we dit gesprek met moslims voeren…

@lagonda, Catma’s??? Its bad enough you ran your karma over his dogma (after Tjerk nailed it with his truck) and now you’re cuddling this wacko meta-excuse which you can’t even tell if its alive. Schrödingers cat at least was 50/100 dead..

and why catmas… whatever happened to the lamas? Didn’t your mama ever tell you lamas are way cooler than catmas? geezma..

op 05 11 2007 at 11:24 schreef Lagonda:

Well, when it’s raining catma’s and dogma’s, it’s the dogma’s that are in trouble. Catma’s always land on their feet — so they’re very much alive, yes.

op 05 11 2007 at 11:39 schreef Hansje Castorp:

@Lagonda

but all the catmas like my grandma. She is a fossil from the past who believes in properties of dutch culture that our politicians only know from hear-say. Maybe the catmas just like her old gas stove, because its nice and cozy and a lot warma than outside. The catmas don’t have to worry about ‘jan de hollander’ or how to behave. I think she votes Halsema, but I’m not sure.

op 05 11 2007 at 12:26 schreef Tjerk:

Je hebt gelijk Hansje, ik haal ‘billion’ (miljard) en ‘million’ (miljoen) hier door elkaar. Maar het punt blijft hetzelfde.

op 05 11 2007 at 12:59 schreef Conan:

@Sye Ten Bruggencate

Every attempt in your logic is a form of trying to extrapolate the (seeming) contradictio in terminis in the absolute denial of one of your (absolute) statements. Only this pretended contradictio is the result of your own presumptions of absolutism; a classical example of the fallacy "Begging the Question" also known as "petitio principii" or "circulus in probando".

op 05 11 2007 at 13:13 schreef Conan:

@Sye
You have made the lack of logic and the inconsistency in your reasoning more clear than I could ever do.

Indeed, the only way I can know anything is by presupposing the existence of God.

You take an illogical assumption: Absolute Truth (or the existence of God). And based upon this you built your world of would be logic. But your base is still nothing more then an assumption. There is no Absolute Truth; that seems the more clear when live is involved. Looking at death (and taxes) makes even that not correct. But that’s now reason to assume the existence of a God.

It looks like your fear of a world without Absolute Truth, has created your personal need for a God. And because your own lack of believe in your so created God, you try to strengthen yourself and cover your insecurity with attempts to convince other people of your (pretended) convictions.

My question to you, and to all those who are posting here is: How is it possible for any of you to know anything?

To answer your question, I don’t pretend Absolute Knowledge. I don’t need Absolute Knowledge. (I might settle for Absolute Love but that seems even a more difficult matter.)

op 06 11 2007 at 06:48 schreef Tjerk:

Tjerk: "It is funny a christian would find refuge in the idea of moral absolutes. Even if there are, it’s not like one can ever definitively know them."

Sye: "How do you know this?"

Your problem is you don’t differentiate between different kinds of ‘knowing’. I think we can make a pretty fair estimation of the possibility of gaining absolute knowledge of what is morally right and wrong by looking at the evolution of human morality, say the last few thousands of years.

That shows you two or three things:

First of all: what used to be claimed as absolute moral truths is largely discarded today. For instance that it’s okay to hold blacks as slaves, that nature has made women subservient to men, that it’s okay to subdue and massacre ‘inferior’ people. It’s quite probable that matters which we now hols as absolute moral truths will be thought of quite differently in the future. Any appeal to absolute moral truth is therefore meaningless.

Second: the appeal to God as backer of moral positions is also devoid of meaning. The bible itself backs immoral stances by claiming the blessing of God; for instance it tells us God want the Isralites to ethnically cleanse the land of Kanaän from its inhabitants; God wants women to be subservient to men; God wants witches burnt at the stake.

Third: notice from the evolution of morality the extension of kin solidarity to include an ever widening circle of organisms. Withouth kin solidarity programmed in the brain (stealing from, killing, hurting e.g. your own kind makes one feel bad) bands of hominids wouldn’t stand a chance of survival. Morality, and who one includes, boils down to who one identifies and empathize with: foreigners, slaves, animals even. Maybe in the future, even plants. Who knows?

Tjerk: "People used to think human sacrifice is okay, now they don’t anymore…"

Sye: "What does this have to do with absolute morality??? Just because kindergarten students get the answer wrong to what is 2 + 2, does not mean that there is no correct answer."

Your analogy is flawed since you assume to know the ‘right’ answer. Howwever, what is the meaning of ‘absolute morality’ if our morality is ever changing? Notice again the bible itself grounds a number of dubious moral stances in Gods revelation or general managament of things.

Sye on the Trinity: "Okay, I won’t try to explain it to you, but perhaps you could research the origins of the word “University.” The very basis for advance learning was reconciling “Unity” and “Diversity,” the very thing which Christianity explains in the Trinity, and ‘modern’ thinkers (like you) reject."

First of all it’s up to you to show how this relates to the concept of the christian trinity. Second, I’d like you to notice that the ideal of the university has failed: the university has disintegrated in an ever expanding fields of ever specializing knowledge. Even within the same discipline it’s possible for a professor to fail to understand the work his collegue is researching. A uni-versity is only possible as long as people know quite little.

"As a Christian who believes in absolute morals, you’re stuck with an omnipotent, allforseeing and beneficient Designer who construed a world in which all life bears flaws and in which just about everything parasites on just about everything else, thus guaranteeing massive suffering. Do you recognize the massive logical inconsistency there?"

"There is none, in order for there to be a logical inconsitency, you would have to able to demonstrate that God COULD NOT have a sufficient reason for the evil in this world. The floor is yours."

That’s making yourself impervious to criticism by demanding an impossible task, Sye. You might as well say that the burden of proof is on those who say Stalin, Mao and Hitler were evil men to demonstrate that they COULD NOT have sufficient reasons for the destruction of millions of lives they carried out.

After all, even after scrupulously examining 99999 reasons, one might still say God or Stalin – in his wisdom – could have had a reason for doing what he did which we overlook.

Sye: "My question to you, and to all those who are posting here is: How is it possible for any of you to know anything?"

It’s a pragmatical choice, again rooted in biological survival mechanisms. I recieve sensory data through my eyes, ears and skin, and this data seems consistent, allows me to interact with my environment. That makes it reasonable to assume the reality of what I’m interacting with.

Life is utterly devoid of meaning except the meaning we ascribe to it. So is it wrong to hurt a baby: yes, but only because we judge it to be wrong. That judgement seems to me to be far more real than that of God, which, for all we know is a fictitious character.

op 06 11 2007 at 14:21 schreef Hansje Castorp:

@Tjerk

As a Christian who believes in absolute morals, you’re stuck with an omnipotent, allforseeing and beneficient Designer who construed a world in which all life bears flaws and in which just about everything parasites on just about everything else, thus guaranteeing massive suffering. Do you recognize the massive logical inconsistency there?

That seems to me logically inconsistent only if god promised at any time to follow the moral code he designed for humanity. As far as I know, the only promise regarding his longterm behaviour is not to flood the earth again. In the first commandment, god clearly creates distance between himself and humanity by saying "I am the lord your god." In other words his behaviour should not be expected to be similar to what he demands from his creations.
Then he says ‘I will be nice to you if you do what I tell you to do, and you construct laws around what I tell you to do so you wont go against what I told you to do. Because if you don’t I’ll have the clouds piss on your houses and the ants shit on your doorstep. I will have stuff happen to your property and especially to your wives and daughters, imagine SM, but without a ‘safety-word.” (concise OT-interpretation)

And oh boy, did He deliver…. I think the old testament is quite consistent with gods predictions/verdicts and what actually happened (according to the OT – minor detail ;).

So Tjerk, I don’t think there is a logical inconsistency, the only difference is that god doesn’t follow the rules he made for humans.

op 06 11 2007 at 17:44 schreef Tjerk:

Dear Hansje,

be as it may, but in order for us to call God ‘good’, God must actually be good, that is, act according to what is good. And unless the word ‘good’ might mean anything ranging from ‘psychopathological sadism’ to ‘cynical indifference’, it must mean the same thing as in regular use. If not, the term ‘good’ applied to God loses every possible meaning, and then what would be the point in calling God ‘good’?

Now, does it really matter, in terms of pain and suffering whether king Herod kills the babes or God? Does it matter to the victims whether Slobodan Milosevic, the Pasja’s or God ordered their genocide?

The Christian who says God is the guarantee for the reality of moral codes, contradicts himself, unless he drops the Bible as the word of revelation, in which case he ceases to be a Christian in any meaningful sense of the word.

op 06 11 2007 at 23:50 schreef Hansje Castorp:

I don’t know Tjerk. It seems to me that if god is the standardsetter, he can simply say that he is good, and it will be true by divine definition. Surely, that would conflict with the definition of good that goes for the human race, defined over a moral code. However if you keep these two entity types strictly separated, there is no conflict between the two meanings of good. I agree that this line of reasoning is an atrocity to the internal consistency of language, but technically I think it could be done.

The occurence of jesus completely messes up the picture because now we have the dispute whether jesus is god-good, or human-good. Muslims saw this argument and thought it wise to put jesus to profet status and therefore immutably human. The proper classification of the human realm and the god realm was also the theological basis for the schism between the east and west roman empire.

Of course, that doesnt really help either you or Sye. To be honest I’m starting to lose the overview of this debate. As far as I can see, the overall train of thought is that (and now I’m specifically turning back to Sye):

1) IF you want a watertight proof for the existence of god, THEN it is impossible to do so without relying on some absolute truths.

2) Conversely, god can exist in theory IF there are some absolute truths that can be related to him.

3) Knowing this, first we attempt to identify absolute truths. We have found some (supposedly.)

4) Now, a relation to god must be established. Assumption: an absolute fact can not actually exist without some omnipotent being guaranteeing its absoluteness.

5) Since an absolute truth was found, the guarantor must exist: Therefore god exists. QED

I think the scheme I set up is logical, but I’m just not sure if this is Sye’s argument. I would like to ask Sye if you could please look at the scheme and correct it where you see fit (but please keep it in the form of a numbered and successive set of logical steps.) Of course it would be unfair to criticize this scheme before you approve it, Sye, so hopefully you find the time for it soon.

regards,
Hansje

op 07 11 2007 at 15:53 schreef Paardestaart:

Ik geloof dat Paparazzi zou zeggen dat omdat wij God niet kunnen kennen Christus naar beneden is gestuurd, als een soort hint – om te wijzen in welke richting wij het zoeken moeten. Dat brengt je dan inderdaad op het dispute whether jesus is god-good, or human-good maar dat is het hele vraagstuk – anders zou d’r niks aan zijn natuurlijk; als dàt de (hele) oplossing was zou God intellectueel gewoon niet in staat zijn geweest om zijn intelligent design tot een goed einde te brengen

De moeilijkheid is om God te reconstrueren met een menselijke bril, want meer heb je niet gekregen.
Lastig – maar niet onmogelijk.

God is in statu nascendi, zou ik zeggen.

op 07 11 2007 at 15:53 schreef Paardestaart:

Mooie naam – Sye..

op 07 11 2007 at 16:37 schreef Lagonda:

"De moeilijkheid is om God te reconstrueren met een menselijke bril, want meer heb je niet gekregen.
Lastig – maar niet onmogelijk.

God is in statu nascendi, zou ik zeggen. "

En de koelkast met combimagnetron, plus het geheel verzorgde weekend naar een subtropisch zwemparadijs naar keuze gaan naar Paardestaart!

op 07 11 2007 at 16:50 schreef Paardestaart:

Ik ben de Weg, de Waarheid en het Leven..:-)

Maar Paardestaart is wel zonder ‘N’hoor – de tussen-N is een abominatie, zeker in mijn eigenste nick!

op 07 11 2007 at 16:51 schreef Paardestaart:

O – pardon.
Ik mag dan de Weg, de Waarheid en het Leven zijn; ik heb per ongeluk een foutje gemaakt:-)

op 07 11 2007 at 16:57 schreef Lagonda:

Wacht! Laat ik de geheime machten van de Here aanroepen om deze fout ongedaan te maken!

op 07 11 2007 at 16:59 schreef Lagonda:

En weg is-ie! Kijk eens — dat is nog eens andere koek dan over water lopen. En waar heb jij een fout gemaakt, Paardestaart?

op 08 11 2007 at 01:40 schreef Paardestaart:

Dubbelpost – want éigenlijk probeerde ik het plaatsen te stoppen, en iets toe te voegen aan mijn reactie – maar het was al te laat, ook al kwam het schermpje terug.

Goeie sequence Hansje – ik was ook de draad aan het kwijraken!

op 08 11 2007 at 07:41 schreef Lagonda:

En simsalabim, en in de Here een wélbehagen, en weg is-ie! Gaat heen in vrede, mijn kind, en zondig niet meer.

op 08 11 2007 at 20:01 schreef visarendje:

“Mooie naam – Sye..”

Van oorsprong een Friese naam.
Origineel gespeld als Sije.
Zo wordt het ook uitgesproken.

op 11 11 2007 at 03:29 schreef visarendje:

Sye laat wel erg lang op zich wachten.

op 11 11 2007 at 23:52 schreef Hansje Castorp:

Ja waar blijft ie nou? Ik heb me toch flink uit de naad gewerkt om mee te denken, dunkt me. Alles voor niets?

Nieuwe reactie
Naam:
E-mail:
Homepage:
  Afbeelding invoegen
 

 


Home

Archief

 

Become a Patron!
 

Let op: Toelating van reacties en publicatie van opiniestukken van anderen dan de hoofdredacteur zelf betekent geenszins dat hij het met de inhoud ervan eens is.

 

pbgif (88k image)
 

Vermaakt u zich een beetje met deze site? Laat uw waardering blijken met een kleine donatie (grote mag ook!): NL59 RABO 0393 4449 61 (SWIFT BIC RABONL2U) o.v.v. ‘Frontaal Naakt’.

 

pbgif (88k image)
 

(Advertentie)
 

 

pbgif (88k image)
 

Meest gelezen in augustus

O Het stuitende racisme van de Woke-brigade

O Jawel, een jaartje niet op vakantie kunnen is wel degelijk erg

O Verboten de columns van Max Pam racistisch te vinden

O Een ontmoeting in het park

O Wij zijn allemaal dor hout

O Hoe de media hebben gefaald en blijven falen in de corona-crisis

O Rutte wil niet over de oorzaak praten omdat hij de oorzaak is

O Corona is voor sukkels

O Boomers en respect

O Links maakt het Domrechts wel heel erg makkelijk

 

Meest gelezen in het afgelopen decennium

O YouPorn

O Verplicht naakt douchen op school, jongens en meisjes bij elkaar

O Hoi, Jesse Klaver, ik heb geen zin om te boeten voor jouw papatijd

O De koning van het uittrekken van de damesslip

O Het totale en angstwekkende gebrek aan integriteit van de #Metoo-meute

O Ik word vervolgd wegens belediging van een seriebelediger

O Ga je nu Wierd Duk ontslaan, Telegraaf?

O Ik ga naar Japan verhuizen

O Smachten en soppen met Thierry Baudet

O Opbokken met je racistische kinderfeestje

 

pbgif (88k image)
 

CONTACT
Stuur uw loftuitingen en steunbetuigingen naar Frontaal Naakt.

 

NIEUWSBRIEF
Ontvang gratis de Frontaal Naakt nieuwsbrief.

 

pbgif (88k image)
 

BLURBS
“How does it feel to be famous, Peter?” (David Bowie)

“Frontaal Naakt dient een publiek belang” (mr. P.L.C.M. Ficq, politierechter)

네덜란드 매체 프론탈 나크트(Frontaal Naakt)에 따르면, 네덜란드 라 (MT News)

“Ik vind dat je beter schrijft dan Hitler” (Ionica Smeets)

“Literaire Spartacus” (André Holterman)

“Wie verlost me van die vieze vuile tiefuslul?” (Lodewijk Asscher cs)

“Pijnlijk treffend” (Sylvana Simons)

“Echt intelligente mensen zoals Peter Breedveld.” (Candy Dulfer)

“De Kanye West van de Nederlandse journalistiek.” (Aicha Qandisha)

“Vieze gore domme shit” (Tofik Dibi)

“Ik denk dat de geschiedenis zal uitmaken dat Peter Breedveld de Multatuli van deze tijd is.” (Esther Gasseling)

“Nu weet ik het zeker. Jij bent de antichrist.” (Sylvia Witteman)

“Ik ben dol op Peter. Peter moet blijven.” (Sheila Sitalsing)

“Ik vind hem vaak te heftig” (Hans Laroes)

“Schrijver bij wie iedereen verbleekt, weergaloos, dodelijk eerlijk. Om in je broek te piesen, zo grappig. Perfecte billen.” (Hassnae Bouazza)

“Ik moet enorm lachen om alles wat Peter Breedveld roept.” (Naeeda Aurangzeb)

“We kunnen niet zonder jouw geluid in dit land” (Petra Stienen)

“Jij levert toch wel het bewijs dat prachtige columns ook op weblogs (en niet alleen in de oude media) verschijnen.” (Femke Halsema)

“De scherpste online columnist van Nederland” (Francisco van Jole)

“Elk woord van jou is gemeen, dat hoort bij de provocateur en de polemist, nietsontziendheid is een vak” (Nausicaa Marbe)

“Als Peter Breedveld zich kwaad maakt, dan wordt het internet weer een stukje mooier. Wat kan die gast schrijven.” (Hollandse Hufters)

“De kritische en vlijmscherpe blogger Peter Breedveld” (Joop.nl)

“Frontaal Naakt, waar het verzet tegen moslimhaat bijna altijd in libertijnse vorm wordt gegoten.” (Hans Beerekamp – NRC Handelsblad)

“De grootste lul van Nederland” (GeenStijl)

“Verder vermaak ik mij prima bij Peter Breedveld. Een groot schrijver.” (Bert Brussen)

“Landverrader” (Ehsan Jami)

“Voorganger van de Linkse Kerk in Hersteld Verband.” (Carel Brendel)

“You are an icon!” (Dunya Henya)

“De mooie stukken van Peter Breedveld, die op Frontaal Naakt tegen de maatschappelijke stroom in zwemt.” (Sargasso)

‘De website Frontaal Naakt is een toonbeeld van smaak en intellect.’ (Elsevier weekblad)

“Frontaal Gestoord ben je!” (Frits ‘bonnetje’ Huffnagel)

“Jouw blogs maken hongerig Peter. Leeshonger, eethonger, sekshonger, geweldhonger, ik heb het allemaal gekregen na het lezen van Frontaal Naakt.” (Joyce Brekelmans)

‘Fucking goed geschreven en met de vinger op de zere plek van het multicultidebat.’ (jury Dutch Bloggies 2009)

Frontaal Naakt is een buitengewoon intelligent en kunstig geschreven, even confronterend als origineel weblog waar ook de reacties en discussies er vaak toe doen.’ (jury Dutch Bloggies 2008)

‘Intellectuele stukken die mooi zijn geschreven; confronterend, fel en scherp.’ (Revu)

‘Extreem-rechtse website’ (NRC Handelsblad)

‘Peter schrijft hartstochtelijk, natuurlijk beargumenteerd, maar zijn stijl volgt het ritme van zijn hart.’ (Hafid Bouazza) ‘Complimenten voor Frontaal Naakt.

‘Scherpe confrontatie, zelfs als die soms over grenzen van smaak heen gaat, is een essentieel onderdeel van een gezonde democratie.’ (Lousewies van der Laan)

‘De meeste Nederlanders zijn van buitengewoon beschaafde huize, uitzonderingen als Peter Breedveld daargelaten.’ (Anil Ramdas)

‘Peter Breedveld verrast!’ (Nederlandse Moslim Omroep)

‘Breedveld is voor de duvel nog niet bang’ (Jeroen Mirck)

‘Nog een geluk dat er iemand bestaat als Peter Breedveld.’ (Max J. Molovich)

‘Godskolere, ik heb me toch over je gedróómd! Schandalig gewoon.’ (Laurence Blik)

 

pbgif (88k image)
 

 

pbgif (88k image)
 

LINKS

 

 

RSS RSS