|
Post by neodawson on Jun 7, 2012 17:13:24 GMT
I was just glancing over R. Joseph Hoffman's opening arguments in his debate with Richard Swinburne. rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/hoffmann-v-swinburne-is-there-a-god/He makes an intriguing argument about how God's existence should be proven through historical argumentation, and on these grounds it can be reasonably argued that god does not exist. He seems to dismiss the notion that God is transcendent outside of history as mere adoption of Greek philosophy which has nothing to do with the Bible. I've noticed that issues of historicity within religious discussion usually centers on Jesus(God the Son), but not necessarily God the Father. A preliminary thought of mine is that whilst God does act within history, and certain evidence can be given for this(written records in scriptures and personal accounts of miralces among others), I don't think you can as easily sidestep the issue that God by nature is still operating primarily outside history as Hoffman attempts to do here. And then a few issues related to theistic personalism are raised, and how the nature of God is to be understood - which I'm not best equipped at the moment to address. Any thoughts from the rest of you? I'd be very interested in hearing.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 7, 2012 22:48:06 GMT
It was an interesting and slightly different (in tone and content) argument, but (to me) what it gained in being pleasantly readable and urbane it lost in rigour and being convincing.
1. I disagree with him that "there is no difference between a God who does not exist and a God about whom nothing can be known", assuming he means "known by us in our lives and history" (which is what he is talking about). Suppose, for example, that a deistic God exists, leaves us alone, but will judge us at the end of life for how we have lived. We could never know him in this life, but his existence would still be important.
2. "History" includes everything from the beginning of the big nag onwards (at least). I still think the cosmological and fine-tuning arguments are convincing supports to my belief in Jesus, so I think God is known in that portion of history.
3. Almost all critics of God focus on the OT, whereas I am a christian and I start with the NT. (I actually think we ought to publish Bibles with the NT first, so that is where people start reading, and the OT should be like an appendix). Not all stories are about real persons, he says, quite truthfully, but historically we can believe Jesus was an actual person. And he taught that current views of God, obtained from the OT and elsewhere, needed updating. So we can perhaps agree with Hoffman that the God he sees in the OT is false, but still believe the God revealed by Jesus is true.
4. He also distinguishes between the God of the Bible and the God of philosophy, but again I think it is a false dichotomy. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide his followers into all truth, inferring that he hadn't given them "all truth". Perhaps, sometimes, dare I say it, the philosophers are revealing more of that truth?
I thought it was quite ineffective as part of a debate, but perhaps that is because I don't understand the subtleties. I read an insightful review once of a debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens, which said that Craig won the debate with his superior logic, but Hitchens won the crowd with his humour. Perhaps it will be the same here, but otherwise, even though I'm not impressed with Swinburne, I think he will do better than Hoffman.
|
|
|
Post by neodawson on Jun 7, 2012 23:57:24 GMT
It was an interesting and slightly different (in tone and content) argument, but (to me) what it gained in being pleasantly readable and urbane it lost in rigour and being convincing. 1. I disagree with him that "there is no difference between a God who does not exist and a God about whom nothing can be known", assuming he means "known by us in our lives and history" (which is what he is talking about). Suppose, for example, that a deistic God exists, leaves us alone, but will judge us at the end of life for how we have lived. We could never know him in this life, but his existence would still be important. 2. "History" includes everything from the beginning of the big nag onwards (at least). I still think the cosmological and fine-tuning arguments are convincing supports to my belief in Jesus, so I think God is known in that portion of history. 3. Almost all critics of God focus on the OT, whereas I am a christian and I start with the NT. (I actually think we ought to publish Bibles with the NT first, so that is where people start reading, and the OT should be like an appendix). Not all stories are about real persons, he says, quite truthfully, but historically we can believe Jesus was an actual person. And he taught that current views of God, obtained from the OT and elsewhere, needed updating. So we can perhaps agree with Hoffman that the God he sees in the OT is false, but still believe the God revealed by Jesus is true. 4. He also distinguishes between the God of the Bible and the God of philosophy, but again I think it is a false dichotomy. Jesus said the Holy Spirit would guide his followers into all truth, inferring that he hadn't given them "all truth". Perhaps, sometimes, dare I say it, the philosophers are revealing more of that truth? I thought it was quite ineffective as part of a debate, but perhaps that is because I don't understand the subtleties. I read an insightful review once of a debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens, which said that Craig won the debate with his superior logic, but Hitchens won the crowd with his humour. Perhaps it will be the same here, but otherwise, even though I'm not impressed with Swinburne, I think he will do better than Hoffman. Wonderful thoughts, and thank you for your response. I agree that ultimately Hoffman's arguments are unconvincing, but I wanted to hear what others here said. I do agree that Hoffman's arguments only work when you dismiss and disregard so much of the Christian tradition or the tradition of natural theology altogether. Hoffman mentioned elsewhere on his blog that he argued that Swinburne had to establish which god he was talking about in order to establish he exists. Well natural theology is mostly about establishing there is a god, not necessarily which god it is, which would be domain of Revealed Theology going by the Thomist distinction between the two( www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/nattheol.html). Be interesting to read the rest of the debate. Supposedly Swinburne lost, which would be related to the whole "winning the debate but losing the audience" you mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by himself on Jun 8, 2012 19:28:42 GMT
mere adoption of Greek philosophy which has nothing to do with the Bible.
Ah, those Bible-thumpers.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 9, 2012 1:13:53 GMT
Hoffman mentioned elsewhere on his blog that he argued that Swinburne had to establish which god he was talking about in order to establish he exists. I think an interesting question, which I haven't seen discussed (though doubtless it has been) is when are two beings the same or different. Consider the following: 1. If I say person x is not very friendly, but my wife says person x is quite friendly, are we talking about the same person? 2. What if I say Barack Obama is a Muslim not born in America, whereas you say of course he's not Muslim and of course he was born in Hawaii, are we talking about the same person? 3. Or if I say I know Bill Smith well, and have known him for 50 years, even before he lost his legs in a car accident, but you say you know Bill Smith and he's only 25 years old and is a champion runner, are we talking about the same person? 4. So, if I say God is the eternal creator of the universe and the "Father" of Jesus, whereas a Muslim says, yes he is the eternal creator, but not the father of Jesus and Mohammed is his prophet, are we talking about the same God? It is surely clear that the differences in #1 are subjective, and we are indeed talking about the same person, and that the same is probably true of #2. But in #3, we are surely talking about different people who happen to have the same name. So when we get to #4, which is it? Surely there is no clear rule to define which, but I think we would generally agree that it depends on (1) how much of the descriptions of the two uses of the word "God" are common, (2) how important are the parts of the descriptions not in common, (3) how sensible it is to think that there could be two "Gods", and probably a few other criteria I haven't thought of. On this basis, I reckon the Jewish, Christian and Muslim "Gods" are the same God, understood differently, whereas the Hindu gods are different altogether. So I think Hoffman is probably wrong, but there is no clear answer. If Swinburne wants to establish that a powerful creator God exists, he uses one set of arguments, but if he wants to establish the christian God exists, he needs to use extra arguments.
|
|
|
Post by neodawson on Jun 9, 2012 2:26:38 GMT
Hoffman mentioned elsewhere on his blog that he argued that Swinburne had to establish which god he was talking about in order to establish he exists. I think an interesting question, which I haven't seen discussed (though doubtless it has been) is when are two beings the same or different. Consider the following: 1. If I say person x is not very friendly, but my wife says person x is quite friendly, are we talking about the same person? 2. What if I say Barack Obama is a Muslim not born in America, whereas you say of course he's not Muslim and of course he was born in Hawaii, are we talking about the same person? 3. Or if I say I know Bill Smith well, and have known him for 50 years, even before he lost his legs in a car accident, but you say you know Bill Smith and he's only 25 years old and is a champion runner, are we talking about the same person? 4. So, if I say God is the eternal creator of the universe and the "Father" of Jesus, whereas a Muslim says, yes he is the eternal creator, but not the father of Jesus and Mohammed is his prophet, are we talking about the same God? It is surely clear that the differences in #1 are subjective, and we are indeed talking about the same person, and that the same is probably true of #2. But in #3, we are surely talking about different people who happen to have the same name. So when we get to #4, which is it? Surely there is no clear rule to define which, but I think we would generally agree that it depends on (1) how much of the descriptions of the two uses of the word "God" are common, (2) how important are the parts of the descriptions not in common, (3) how sensible it is to think that there could be two "Gods", and probably a few other criteria I haven't thought of. On this basis, I reckon the Jewish, Christian and Muslim "Gods" are the same God, understood differently, whereas the Hindu gods are different altogether. So I think Hoffman is probably wrong, but there is no clear answer. If Swinburne wants to establish that a powerful creator God exists, he uses one set of arguments, but if he wants to establish the christian God exists, he needs to use extra arguments. Interesting thoughts, wish I was in the best mood to contemplate all this. However to insist on which god at the beginning is putting the cart before the horse. Once you've established there is a god or first cause, then you can proceed further and address questions about which manifestation of god we're talking about here. Again I;m just going by the standard Natural Theology procedure here, since it's based on what all rational men know(rational here defined in the Classical sense). I'll try to add more thoughts later when I'm better able to.
|
|
|
Post by neodawson on Jun 9, 2012 2:53:38 GMT
I don't know how much this addresses specific arguments of Hoffman, but I think it sheds light on issued to God's "historical" existence(in constrast to ontological essence):
A more Islamic perspective, but he admits the parallels to traditional Christian theology.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Jun 9, 2012 6:02:48 GMT
2. "History" includes everything from the beginning of the big nag onwards (at least). I still think the cosmological and fine-tuning arguments are convincing supports to my belief in Jesus, so I think God is known in that portion of history.Unklee, I must admit to being a bit tossed as to how you can progress from fine tuning arguments to Jesus. Seems a stretch to me. I think that it is more likely that you worked from the platform of faith in Jesus first.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 10, 2012 1:17:56 GMT
2. "History" includes everything from the beginning of the big nag onwards (at least). I still think the cosmological and fine-tuning arguments are convincing supports to my belief in Jesus, so I think God is known in that portion of history.Unklee, I must admit to being a bit tossed as to how you can progress from fine tuning arguments to Jesus. Seems a stretch to me. I think that it is more likely that you worked from the platform of faith in Jesus first. Yes, you are right. I said "support" deliberately. I believe in Jesus and one of the supports for that belief is that the God Jesus revealed to us is consistent with the God who is demonstrated by the cosmological and fine-tuning argunents.
|
|
|
Post by himself on Jun 10, 2012 17:27:19 GMT
<i>...which god...</i>
I can see where he rejects the use of Greek philosophy. He evidently envisions "gods" as being superbeings of some sort, possibly wearing Spandex costumes, one or more of whom qualifies as a "supreme" being. But the God of the Jews, Christians, and muslims is simply not that sort of thing, not "a being among other beings," or a member of a genus labeled "gods." Rather, he is deduced as a being of pure actuality, and logically there can be only one such. For if there were two, one must have some attribute or power the other lacks. Perhaps one is here and the other is there. But then the one that is actually here is only potentially there and would not be purely actual, a contradiction. QED.
|
|
|
Post by neodawson on Jun 11, 2012 0:47:52 GMT
<i>...which god...</i> I can see where he rejects the use of Greek philosophy. He evidently envisions "gods" as being superbeings of some sort, possibly wearing Spandex costumes, one or more of whom qualifies as a "supreme" being. But the God of the Jews, Christians, and muslims is simply not that sort of thing, not "a being among other beings," or a member of a genus labeled "gods." Rather, he is deduced as a being of pure actuality, and logically there can be only one such. For if there were two, one must have some attribute or power the other lacks. Perhaps one is here and the other is there. But then the one that is actually here is only potentially there and would not be purely actual, a contradiction. QED. That's true, and Nasr in the video above notes how God(in Islam at least) is both the supreme being but also beyond being itself. If this is the case, then by default the criteria Hoffman sets for evidence would be limited indeed, and then proceeds to argue that because of this limited evidence there's no real reason to assert God's existence.
|
|
|
Post by chavoux on Jul 8, 2015 15:17:19 GMT
A similar argument (and still one of the best I have read) was made by Dr. Jaco Gericke (www.chavoux.com/god.html). A number of observations: 1. While this kind of argument cannot disprove the existence of a god, it can in theory disprove the existence of the Christian God. However the opposite is actually stronger: if the existence of the biblical God can be shown (probably impossible to proof, though) as acting in history, it automatically constitutes evidence for His existence (and against atheism). 2. I do think that the historicity of Jesus is easier to show than Old Testament history and therefore a better starting point for historical evidence for God's existence. But theologically (and obviously chronologically) the Old Testament should be first. Without the law, the gospel, indeed the very title "Christ" (Anointed), doesn't make sense. There can be no fulfillment without promise. 3. Because of both the points above, I see no reason to start with natural theology if the historicity of the biblical God can be shown. 4. Since according to the biblical viewpoint God is in control of all history (I.e. there is no history where He is not in some sense involved - but see the divine council idea of Heiser), it is going to be almost impossible to show His actions in history (compared to what control?). If the resurrection of Jesus with relatively strong historical support (e.g. 4 written gospel accounts within the same century of which at least 2 are independent as well as testimony from letters) and the appeal to best explanation is insufficient for many scholars, it is going to be even more difficult to show the historicity of the Old Testament. K.A. Kitchen (Reliability of the Old Testament) has done the best job in this regard to date IMHO. The problem is that even if an event described in the Bible can be shown to really have happened (possible for most of the Old Testament, I think) it still doesn't show that the biblical God was involved at all. All it can do, is to remove the atheist argument that the Bible is mythical or unreliable historically. 5. IMHO the only possible argument for the existence of God from His actions in history, would be via prophecy. This would both differentiate the God of Israel from any other hypothetical god and provide evidence that He actually is in control of history and therefore is the living God. 6. The issue that I see is that it is going to be easy to counter Old Testament prophecy with the claim that is was written after the fact. The only possible exception would be Messianic prophecies that were fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth or after Him, since have actual OT manuscripts from before His birth. 7. Against the objection that the life of Jesus was rewritten to fit the prophecies, I woukd counter that He did not fit any of the contemporary expectations for the Messiah (not even that of His own disciples), but turned out to be a combination of what was seen as contradicting prophecies (i.e. more than one Messiah) before. To suppose that unsophisticated fishermen could create such a character seems very unlikely (if not impossible).
|
|