Russell's teapot

[noma]

Assuming this is an accurate characterization, it is still based on a fallacy. Christianity doesn’t say God is “beyond reach.” In fact, Christianity says the opposite, that God is very much within reach, especially due to the Incarnation.

Christianity, or at least Christianity in its Orthodox form, would hold that nothing of the essence of God can be discovered or understood. Only the acts of God can be known, and certain things God’s essence is not.

So some things about God are within reach (the likelihood that He exists, for example), but many things are entirely out of reach, to the point where we cannot even say what God truly is, beyond what He has revealed of Himself in the Scriptures.

But as for finding an atheist or an agnostic who is truly searching, truly open, I would agree it is difficult.

Ribozyme, I think would qualify.

But just because someone is searching, doesn’t mean s/he will find exactly what we want her/him to.

 

[mlchance]

Christianity, or at least Christianity in its Orthodox form, would hold that nothing of the essence of God can be discovered or understood.

…

So some things about God are within reach (the likelihood that He exists, for example), but many things are entirely out of reach, to the point where we cannot even say what God truly is, beyond what He has revealed of Himself in the Scriptures.

You seem to be very close to contradicting yourself. Yes, ultimately, God is Mystery, and anyone who says he understands God is, at best, only fooling himself.

But the fact remains that God is not beyond reach. God reveals himself to us, both through Scripture and Sacred Tradition. God enters into relationship with us through our worship of him, our prayers, the Sacraments, et cetera.

There is a great deal that is known about God – of his acts and his attributes and his will for us – while at the same time there is an inexhaustible realm of what cannot be known about God (at least this side of the Beatific Vision).

Perhaps the important thing to note is this: Bertrand Russell’s teapot so-called argument is just plain silly.

But just because someone is searching, doesn’t mean s/he will find exactly what we want her/him to.

But all who honestly search will find Christ Jesus. It might take them the better parts of their lives, but they’ll get there.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[ribozyme]

But all who honestly search will find Christ Jesus. It might take them the better parts of their lives, but they’ll get there.

– Mark L. Chance.

But you have to acknowledge that there are people who sincerely search for God, and they end up abandoning their faith…

See: iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=72552

I also wrote this in a private correspondence with someone at NYU.

I remember reading some of the testimonies at Internet Infidels Discussion Forum (www.iidb.org) that describe various atheists and agnostics’ transition from their previous belief system (usually a form of Christianity) to atheism/agnosticism. Personally, even as a non-believer, I found these stories sad. I especially recall some accounts in which one was involved in praying constantly but received no answer so they did not retain their faith. I interpreted these stories that if a benevolent God existed, He abandoned those people, even when they sincerely wanted His response. I wondered that if they were exposed to the origin of life literature they might have retained their faith as I believed and I still do that this is a good argument for the existence of God. I doubted that they will retain their faith even under that condition because such arguments for the existence of God does not persuade one that He cares for humanity and they would still become apostates because this argument does not remove any feelings of rejection and abandonment. If such an argument had any effect, I would suppose the apostates would not become atheists, but rather agnostics and deists. Because of these stories and the existence of injustice, have made me skeptical of a benevolent god although this cannot rule out a deistic god. Perhaps a deistic god created life on earth around 3.8-3.5 billion years ago. Of course, one could not meaningfully test such a hypothesis. Also, this brings up the question why would such a god create life and abandon his creation. Not having a satisfactory answer to any of these questions made me agnostic in regards to the origin of life (if I were to pick a naturalistic explanation, it would be metabolism-first) and the existence of god, although I tend to gravitate towards deism and pantheism. We do not reject the theistic explanation of life gleefully; we both wish that there were a god who loves us to the point of dying for us. I do not accept this mainly because of fear of feeling dejected and I must learn how to live without the comfort derived from a strong faith and I will admit I have not accomplished this yet. "

 

[Valke2]

Bertrand Russell tried to disprove Christianity by saying that there there was a large revolving teapot moving between Earth and Mars, but it is too small to be seen by our telescopes and thus no one can prove or disprove it’s existence. He said that this concept only sounds stupid because it has not existed for thousands of years. How can I refute this idea?

buy a stronger telescope and hope for the best. You have to have faith that the teapot is out there before you can see it.

 

[mlchance]

But you have to acknowledge that there are people who sincerely search for God, and they end up abandoning their faith…

No, I don’t. Anyone who sincerely searches for God will eventually find Christ Jesus.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Valke2]

No, I don’t. Anyone who sincerely searches for God will eventually find Christ Jesus.

– Mark L. Chance.

Does that mean that every Jew who has died as a Jew in the last 2,000 years was not sincerely seraching for (or found) God?

 

[ribozyme]

No, I don’t. Anyone who sincerely searches for God will eventually find Christ Jesus.

– Mark L. Chance.

Read the testimony and give me reasons to support your hypothesis that she is not sincere.

 

[mlchance]

Does that mean that every Jew who has died as a Jew in the last 2,000 years was not sincerely seraching for (or found) God?

Did I say that’s what it meant?

Read the testimony and give me reasons to support your hypothesis that she is not sincere.

Did I say that was my “hypothesis”?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Valke2]

Did I say that’s what it meant?

Did I say that was my “hypothesis”?

– Mark L. Chance.

What you said is that you believe everyone who sincerely seeks God will find Jesus Christ. Since Jews do not find Jesus Christ, by and large, it would seem that your post implies that they were not sincerely looking. HOwever, I’ll assume you meant “any christian”

 

[mlchance]

What you said is that you believe everyone who sincerely seeks God will find Jesus Christ. Since Jews do not find Jesus Christ, by and large…

You don’t know that to be a fact. Are you privy to inner life of individual Jews?

HOwever, I’ll assume you meant “any christian”

If that makes you feel better, but that’s not what I meant. I said what I meant. It’s a rather simple statement with no subtexts or hidden agendas.

All who sincerely seek the truth eventually find Christ Jesus.

BTW, just to stay on-topic: Russell’s “teapot” is a silly argument.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Valke2]

You don’t know that to be a fact. Are you privy to inner life of individual Jews?

If that makes you feel better, but that’s not what I meant. I said what I meant. It’s a rather simple statement with no subtexts or hidden agendas.

All who sincerely seek the truth eventually find Christ Jesus.

BTW, just to stay on-topic: Russell’s “teapot” is a silly argument.

– Mark L. Chance.

Ok. Then I stand by my original statement. You are of the opinion that every Jew who died without finding Jesus Christ in the last 2,000 years was not sincerely seeking God.

 

[ribozyme]

Did I say that’s what it meant?

Did I say that was my “hypothesis”?

– Mark L. Chance.

Well, she was a sincere person and she failed to find God, so how do you know she will eventually find God. How come God did not answer her prayers to at least help her retain her faith?

 

[mlchance]

Ok. Then I stand by my original statement. You are of the opinion that every Jew who died without finding Jesus Christ in the last 2,000 years was not sincerely seeking God.

Like I said: If that makes you feel better, go ahead. I can’t stop you from making fallacious assumptions like the one quoted directly above.

So, do you feel better now?

Well, she was a sincere person and she failed to find God, so how do you know she will eventually find God.

How do you know she won’t?

How come God did not answer her prayers to at least help her retain her faith?

How do you God didn’t? How do you know God won’t?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Valke2]

Like I said: If that makes you feel better, go ahead. I can’t stop you from making fallacious assumptions like the one quoted directly above.

So, do you feel better now?

My assumption is the only logical one, assuming you meant what you posted. I pretty much feel the same.

 

[mlchance]

My assumption is the only logical one, assuming you meant what you posted.

Ah, yes, the false solace of an exclusive claim to logic that so often follows a fallacious assumption. IOW, because of limitations in your point of view and/or knowledge, you cannot fathom how I could possibly have meant anything other than what you demand that I’d meant.

As for me, I’ll stick with what the Church teaches (e.g. here).

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[scylla]

Read the testimony and give me reasons to support your hypothesis that she is not sincere.

Wow that was long, I thought it would take me about a minute to read over breakfast. It took about 15 minutes and was pretty interesting.

I agree that the testimony looks sincere, and I believe her. I used to go to Calvary Chapel and agree with her summation of this group.

Now I suggest you read this ribozyme,
lulu.com/content/166102
You can download a few pages for free, but I suggest you spend the 5 bucks and buy it. If you cannot feel free to PM me maybe I can send you a copy.

This book illustrates why she lost her faith. She lost her faith because she was honest. Anybody who is honest would see the contradictions in fundamentalist christianity and would seriously question their faith.
Most of the time people are just told to pray more, study more and the problem is with them. This they endure and keep trying to maintain their faith all the while lying to themselves about it.

So I can relate to her story as once you examine Calvary Chapel you have to abandon it or lie to yourself. I think most people lie to themselves and just put on a facade as they know it is seriously flawed but think it is good enough for them.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Valke2]

Ah, yes, the false solace of an exclusive claim to logic that so often follows a fallacious assumption. IOW, because of limitations in your point of view and/or knowledge, you cannot fathom how I could possibly have meant anything other than what you demand that I’d meant.

As for me, I’ll stick with what the Church teaches (e.g. here).

– Mark L. Chance.

Well, actually, it comes from understanding a sentence. When someone says that they believe that anyone who sincerely seeks God will evenutally find Jesus, then it stands to reason, as I understand the English language, that they believe anyone who has not found Jesus was not sincerely seeking God.

Since the majority of Jews never find Jesus, I believe it is logical to assume that you do not think they were sincerely seeking God. And since you have stated that you did not intend for your comment to be applicable only to Christians, I can’t see how my conclusion is faulty. The cherry on top of this sundae is that you don’t dispute my conclusion.

However, based on the link you gave, it sounds as if your original post was not applicable to Jews. So when you said “anyone…” you mean anyone other than jews?

 

[ribozyme]

Wow that was long, I thought it would take me about a minute to read over breakfast. It took about 15 minutes and was pretty interesting.

I agree that the testimony looks sincere, and I believe her. I used to go to Calvary Chapel and agree with her summation of this group.

Now I suggest you read this ribozyme,
lulu.com/content/166102
You can download a few pages for free, but I suggest you spend the 5 bucks and buy it. If you cannot feel free to PM me maybe I can send you a copy.

This book illustrates why she lost her faith. She lost her faith because she was honest. Anybody who is honest would see the contradictions in fundamentalist christianity and would seriously question their faith.
Most of the time people are just told to pray more, study more and the problem is with them. This they endure and keep trying to maintain their faith all the while lying to themselves about it.

So I can relate to her story as once you examine Calvary Chapel you have to abandon it or lie to yourself. I think most people lie to themselves and just put on a facade as they know it is seriously flawed but think it is good enough for them.

God Bless
Scylla

I thank you for your thoughtful analysis and I agree with it.

I do not like their fundamentalism, and, if I am not mistaken, they advocate young-Earth creationism, which of course, is synonymous with intellectual suicide. But how come she did not find another branch of Christianity. I am sure there are more tolerable sects of Christianity than various fundamentalists sects.

But I am curious though, what should one do instead of praying more and studying more?

 

[mlchance]

…The cherry on top of this sundae is that you don’t dispute my conclusion.

Twice now I’ve stated your assumption is fallacious; therefore, I’ve not bothered to dispute your conclusion as I have simply rejected it out of hand as utterly false. Apparently the subtle nuances of this word “fallacious” have escaped your attention. In the interest of clarity:

fallacious
Function: adjective
1 : embodying a fallacy <a fallacious conclusion>
2 : tending to deceive or mislead : DELUSIVE

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[scylla]

I thank you for your thoughtful analysis and I agree with it.

I do not like their fundamentalism, and, if I am not mistaken, they advocate young-Earth creationism, which of course, is synonymous with intellectual suicide. But how come she did not find another branch of Christianity. I am sure there are more tolerable sects of Christianity than various fundamentalists sects.

But I am curious though, what should one do instead of praying more and studying more?

The reason why she did not find another branch of Christianity coming from Calvary Chapel, generally is because they are taught to study but not question. Though Calvary Chapel is very rigid, most of its adherents don’t feel it is as they really work on a feel good community. So it generally feels good to be there and people don’t notice the tunnel vision as they are the real Christians.

Generally the mentality is to not trust anyone else, and this is drilled into the group so that if someone questions and it gets uncomfortable then it must be from the devil. The thought is, since we are right why should we discuss it? Why cause division?

And the solution is to study the Bible more, read commentaries and pray. You need to focus on your spiritual side if you have doubts. Constantly the focus is on the person and their relationship.

No Calvary Chapel person who has spent much time in that group would trust Catholics for advice or dialogue. Catholics are the absolute worst, Atheists second, Orthodox maybe third if they even acknowledge their existence and then so on. This varies from pastor to pastor but this is my personal experience.

God Bless
Scylla