Forget the church, follow the man

[Arioch]

@wynn --

Unlike you, however, it's also quite clear that my understanding on these subjects, while far from complete, is at least substantial.

Perhaps the person you should be asking this question(why don't you stop until you have understanding?) is not me but the person you look at in the mirror.

 

[Grumpy]

Arioch

For example, if you hand me a box and tell me that there's a cat in it I can prove that there isn't in numerous ways. If I shake the box and it turns out to be empty then I have conclusively proven that there isn't a cat in that box, alternatively I could simply open it and see that there is no cat in there, again proving a negative.

I would point out that you have not proven a negative, you have disproved a positive statement, IE "There is a cat in the box". You have not proven that there are no cats, nor boxes. And you have not proven that cats can not exist in boxes as there are many more boxes and lots of cats, plus I've seen many cats in boxes on LOLcats. You have shown that there is no cat currently occupying that particular box at that particular point in time(as the positive statement asserted). Which has been the point of much of the conversation in this whole thread. When the cat in question becomes the Cheshire cat, you could not possibly prove the cats current habitation either way unless a toothy smile starts showing up. The answer to your "There is no cat in this box" would be "He's the Cheshire cat and he's invisible and doesn't weigh anything."

This is the same regression atheists deal with on the question of god, god becomes a Cheshire cat. The invisible pink dragon in the garage is just a secular parody that illustrates that problem. That's why the question "What do atheists think is meant by "know god"" is unanswerable until the theist asking the question specifies what "god" and what "know" means.

Grumpy

 

[Yazata]

The way I see it, the pressing issue in these discussions about God and God's existence is the private and public relevance of a person's knowledge claim in the social context the person lives in.

I guess that I place a lot less emphasis on social context than you do. For me, it's primarily a question of correspondence -- does the word 'God' correspond to any being that has existence outside the confines of human mythology and imagination?

Social context isn't irrelevant to that, since most of us derive our concept of 'God' and our ideas about what the word means from our surrounding culture. But my main focus is the correspondence between the word, whatever cultural meaning it bears, and the thing that it supposedly refers to.

In a monocultural, monoreligious society, making a knowledge claim about God is an ordinary and desirable phenomenon (and the more in line with the accepted religious doctrine the claim is, the less there is any request to support it scripturally/doctrinally/in any other way).

Sure. I agree with that.

That same claim, but spoken by someone living in a multicultural, multireligious society, will be treated differently by the people living in said society. Quite likely, the person will be criticized, and also requested to provide arguments to convince anyone who has expressed doubts about said knowledge claim.

That's one of the problems inherent in the whole idea of multiculturalism. Beliefs and actions that would seemingly be natural and intuitively obvious in a mono-cultural environment, become problematic in a multi-cultural environment where the underlying cultural agreements that explain and justify cultural expectations no longer exist. Occasions for misunderstanding and disagreement multiply and become everyday occurrances.

This can be a never ending process with serious negative effects is the maker of the claim isn't able to control the impression other people have of him.

The typical response around here (I live in a highly multicultural environment, my next door neighbors are Polish immigrants, the family directly across the street are Sikhs...) is that people become a lot more private. People in my neighborhood rarely speak to each other and never socialize. We don't even typically know each other's names. In my parents day, when our neighborhood was monocultural white-Anglo, everyone knew everyone's name and people threw parties and invited the neighborhood. People's neighbors were simultaneously their friends. That doesn't happen any more. People still have friends, but the friends often live some distance away and share some social connection that individuals are able to select. In a way, California has become lots of little separate cultural worlds kind of geographically superimposed atop one another, tolerating each other (sometimes unhappily) but not fully and freely interacting.

This way, living in a multicultural, multireligious society brings on justificatory and practical social challenges that people otherwise do not face.

Unless people kind of retreat into their shells.

But like I said - living in a multicultural, multireligious society brings on justificatory and practical social challenges that people otherwise do not face. And I think that underlying many discussions and debates about God (and negative feelings in them) are precisely people's efforts to maintain, on the one hand, faithfulness to what one believes to be true, as well as, on the other hand, a good reputation.

Here on Sciforums it's probably exacerbated by the fact that so many of our participants seem to be teenagers and young twenty-somethings. It's also exacerbated by the electronic medium and by the fact that all of us post invisibly and anonymously. Sometimes posting here is a lot like playing a video-game. Just shoot all the enemy 'theists' that pop up and score as many points as possible.

 

[Syne]

It was pointed out that one can prove a thing's nonexistence if one can show it to be self-contradictory.

I conceded that that was true. The simple concept of omnipotence is self-contradictory, therefore it is, in some circumstances, possible to show the nonexistence of something.

...

I am not saying anything about whether that means he might exist; I am simply pointing out that, in principle, theists have a stronger argument than atheists. Theists can be vindicated; atheists cannot.

Omnipotence isn't self-contradictory. The omnipotence paradox simply uses a logical impossibility to try to show omnipotence impossible. Only omnipotence defined to allow for the logically impossible is self-contradictory, and such a definition obviously has no meaning.

I agree that atheism cannot possibly be verified, while theism potentially could.

However given that a god is both not needed as an explanation for anything and not demonstrable I feel fine with leaving on the wayside until it's either demonstrated or needed.

There's quite a lot we don't yet have satisfactory explanations of. We can't really concede that it's not needed as an explanation until all phenomenon is fully explained. Otherwise this constitutes a "science of the gaps" which is not supported by the limitations we currently expect science to have.

 

[wynn]

I guess that I place a lot less emphasis on social context than you do. For me, it's primarily a question of correspondence -- does the word 'God' correspond to any being that has existence outside the confines of human mythology and imagination?

Social context isn't irrelevant to that, since most of us derive our concept of 'God' and our ideas about what the word means from our surrounding culture. But my main focus is the correspondence between the word, whatever cultural meaning it bears, and the thing that it supposedly refers to.

I think it would be great to be able to see that correspondence for oneself - but how?

Epistemic autonomy is a much desired ability, but it is one that seems impossible for humans to obtain.

I'm afraid we are epistemically dependent, whether we like it or not.

That's one of the problems inherent in the whole idea of multiculturalism. Beliefs and actions that would seemingly be natural and intuitively obvious in a mono-cultural environment, become problematic in a multi-cultural environment where the underlying cultural agreements that explain and justify cultural expectations no longer exist. Occasions for misunderstanding and disagreement multiply and become everyday occurrances.

Exactly.

The typical response around here (I live in a highly multicultural environment, my next door neighbors are Polish immigrants, the family directly across the street are Sikhs...) is that people become a lot more private.

And privacy is something one needs to cultivate, it doesn't just come naturally.

Unless people kind of retreat into their shells.

But by that, they risk the stigma of being loners, suspected of sociopathy ...

 

[Rav]

Sometimes posting here is a lot like playing a video-game. Just shoot all the enemy 'theists' that pop up and score as many points as possible.

Thanks for the laugh. That really cracked me up

 

[Syne]

For example, if you hand me a box and tell me that there's a cat in it I can prove that there isn't in numerous ways.

This example is not analogous to proving a god doesn't exist. You know the bounds of the box and are able to search it exhaustively. Neither of these are true of the universe.

 

[Yazata]

No, I think Grumpy was saying that the "omnipotent being creating a rock so heavy even he cannot lift" is itself a contradictory argument, so you had nothing to concede.

I can't speak to what Grumpy meant. But your response seems to correspond to philosophical theology's most common response to the omnipotence consistency problem.

That idea is that 'a task too difficult for an omnipotent being to perform' isn't a logical possibility, and a being's inability to perform logically impossible tasks doesn't count against that being's omnipotence.

That has one obvious theological difficulty, which is that it makes logic prior to God. It means that God is himself bound by and limited by logic, while traditional theology typically wants to say that God is the author and creator of logic. But that's another issue.

I'm still not sure how well the traditional theological response works even if we assume logic's priority.

Statement 1. 'Being X is capable of creating some task that's too difficult for being X to perform'.

That statement in itself doesn't seem to imply any contradictions. It seems to be unproblematically true for every human substitution-instance of X.

It only starts to generate consistency problems when it's conjoined with a second statement using the logical operator 'AND':

Statement 2. 'Being X is an omnipotent being, capable of performing any task'.

Now we are faced with the question of whether any interpretation of 1 and 2 exists, whether any single individual exists that can be substituted for the variable X in both 1 and 2 in other words, that renders the two statements simultaneously true. I think that might turn out to be an empty set.

The theologians want very much to hang onto Statement 2 as an item of doctrine. So they argue that the interpretation of X doesn't have to render Statement 1 true. Statement 1 can be thrown out and dismissed on the grounds that somehow it's logically self-contradictory.

Except that it isn't. It's perfectly fine and implies no contradictions at all, in and of itself. It only generates a contradiction when its conjoined with the second item of theological doctrine, Statement 2.

An argument can then be made that if it's impossible to consistently conjoin Statements 1 and 2, Statement 2 fails for that reason, since inability to conjoin it with any logically consistent task whatsoever falsifies it.

 

[wynn]

I can't speak to what Grumpy meant. But your response seems to correspond to philosophical theology's most common response to the omnipotence consistency problem.

That idea is that 'a task too difficult for an omnipotent being to perform' isn't a logical possibility, and a being's inability to perform logically impossible tasks doesn't count against that being's omnipotence.

That has one obvious theological difficulty, which is that it makes logic prior to God. It means that God is himself bound by and limited by logic, while traditional theology typically wants to say that God is the author and creator of logic. But that's another issue.

I'm still not sure how well the traditional theological response works even if we assume logic's priority.

There is one necessary and inavoidable problem when discussing theology: that humans are doing it.

Per ordinary theological definitions, humans are dependent on God, they are the created. So how could they possibly be in the position to make complete statements about God? They can't.

 

[Arioch]

@Grumpy --

You have not proven that there are no cats, nor boxes.

But I have proven "there is no cat in this box", which is a negative.

@Syne --

There's quite a lot we don't yet have satisfactory explanations of. We can't really concede that it's not needed as an explanation until all phenomenon is fully explained. Otherwise this constitutes a "science of the gaps" which is not supported by the limitations we currently expect science to have.

No, it doesn't. I quite clearly said that I am content to leave god by the wayside until a god is either demonstrated or needed. That is an implicit recognition that a god may be needed as an explanation at a future time, at which point it will be reconsidered because until such a time god is useless to us as an explanation(and very often causes more confusion than just saying "we don't know").

I also left open the clause that if anyone could demonstrate the existence of a god(or many gods) that would also force me to reconsider my position. Hence I covered my bases quite thoroughly.

Neither of these are true of the universe.

"Neither of these are true of the universe yet."

You forgot the yet. It may be that these are parameters that we'll never know, but it's also possible that we will be able to fulfill these conditions at some time.

And my point, that it is possible to prove a negative when parameters are properly defined still stands.

 

[Syne]

That idea is that 'a task too difficult for an omnipotent being to perform' isn't a logical possibility, and a being's inability to perform logically impossible tasks doesn't count against that being's omnipotence.

That has one obvious theological difficulty, which is that it makes logic prior to God. It means that God is himself bound by and limited by logic, while traditional theology typically wants to say that God is the author and creator of logic. But that's another issue.

I'm still not sure how well the traditional theological response works even if we assume logic's priority.

Statement 1. 'Being X is capable of creating some task that's too difficult for being X to perform'.

That statement in itself doesn't seem to imply any contradictions. It seems to be unproblematically true for every human substitution-instance of X.

It only starts to generate consistency problems when it's conjoined with a second statement using the logical operator 'AND':

Statement 2. 'Being X is an omnipotent being, capable of performing any task'.

Now we are faced with the question of whether any interpretation of 1 and 2 exists, whether any single individual exists that can be substituted for the variable X in both 1 and 2 in other words, that renders the two statements simultaneously true. I think that might turn out to be an empty set.

The theologians want very much to hang onto Statement 2 as an item of doctrine. So they argue that the interpretation of X doesn't have to render Statement 1 true. Statement 1 can be thrown out and dismissed on the grounds that somehow it's logically self-contradictory.

Except that it isn't. It's perfectly fine and implies no contradictions at all, in and of itself. It only generates a contradiction when its conjoined with the second item of theological doctrine, Statement 2.

An argument can then be made that if it's impossible to consistently conjoin Statements 1 and 2, Statement 2 fails for that reason, since inability to conjoin it with any logically consistent task whatsoever falsifies it.

Unless we are professing a specific faith, we have no reason to automatically assume a definition for omnipotence espoused by a certain doctrine, which your second statement does, in its unqualified form. Omnipotence literally means all powerful, not infinitely powerful. Thus your second statement should read:

Statement 2. 'Being X is an omnipotent being, capable of performing every task any other being X can perform.'

"Any task" is completely ambiguous. Does it include tasks which do not exist, like lifting a filliloo*? "Power" implies both capacity and opportunity, but there is no opportunity to perform a task which does not exist. Can it even be called a task if it is defined as being incapable of being performed?

If these statements are being evaluated for logical consistency then the second statement should be just as logically and humanly justifiable on its own. IOW, if you can substitute a human for X in 1, so should you be able to in 2, otherwise the two statements are inconsistent just on this grounds, before even addressing omnipotence.

If we are to utilize logic at all, we cannot define things to be illogical from the outset. That is the fallacy of begging the question/assuming the conclusion. That simply presupposes the thing we wish to examine does not logically exist, which voids any argument simply by definition. You just cannot logically justify defining omnipotence in a way which necessitates logical inconsistency. It seems pretty trivial that this is so, especially assuming a priority of logic.

It makes this refutation no better than assuming a non-prior logic, as it uses semantics (the chosen definition of omnipotence) to avoid using logic altogether.


Statement one also seems to suffer from some erroneous assumptions. For example, one might say that a human can construct a car and then be unable to lift that car. This completely ignores how the human constructed the car, implying it cannot be deconstructed and lifted in pieces, as it necessarily was during construction. So more of a choice of semantics.




*Coincidentally, I just made up that word on the spot, but it turns out to be an imaginary bird that flies backwards.

 

[Syne]

@Syne --

No, it doesn't. I quite clearly said that I am content to leave god by the wayside until a god is either demonstrated or needed. That is an implicit recognition that a god may be needed as an explanation at a future time, at which point it will be reconsidered because until such a time god is useless to us as an explanation(and very often causes more confusion than just saying "we don't know").

I also left open the clause that if anyone could demonstrate the existence of a god(or many gods) that would also force me to reconsider my position. Hence I covered my bases quite thoroughly.

Very well. I just disagree that your justification is assumed a "given".

"Neither of these are true of the universe yet."

You forgot the yet. It may be that these are parameters that we'll never know, but it's also possible that we will be able to fulfill these conditions at some time.

That's not a valid assumption according to everything we know of science. Science predicts many of its own limitations, and there are demonstrably things which we cannot have any direct knowledge of. The assumption that we may eventually know all is no more justified than assuming a god is necessary. Might as well flip a coin, as neither is any better supported by fact. (Of course, if we knew all, we'd be gods, affirming both simultaneously.)

And my point, that it is possible to prove a negative when parameters are properly defined still stands.

I was addressing this point as it relates to the existence of a god. Whether the concept of a god is well defined or not means nothing since the bounds of our universe aren't even known. That would be step one in an exhaustive search.

 

[Arioch]

@Syne --

That's not a valid assumption according to everything we know of science.

Alright, so long as you recognize that your statement(the implied assumption that science can't define the boundaries of our universe) isn't a valid assumption either, especially given science's long and well documented history of constantly proving such assumptions false.

I was addressing this point as it relates to the existence of a god. Whether the concept of a god is well defined or not means nothing since the bounds of our universe aren't even known. That would be step one in an exhaustive search.

Hence the next bit of my post where I mentioned absence of evidence which should be there constituting evidence of absence.

 

[Syne]

@Syne --

Alright, so long as you recognize that your statement(the implied assumption that science can't define the boundaries of our universe) isn't a valid assumption either, especially given science's long and well documented history of constantly proving such assumptions false.

That isn't an "implied assumption". Physics predicts its own limitations wrt any possible boundaries of our universe. We cannot physically receive any information beyond our visible horizon. That is a fact. We may very well learn more about accessible phenomena, but there's no reason to believe that we may learn more about the inaccessible.

Hence the next bit of my post where I mentioned absence of evidence which should be there constituting evidence of absence.

By all means, please enumerate what "should be there". If it is actually evident, that is.

 

[Arioch]

@Syne --

We may very well learn more about accessible phenomena, but there's no reason to believe that we may learn more about the inaccessible.

There's also no reason to assume that what is currently inaccessible will forever remain that way. It may be reasonable to say that it will most likely remain that way, but assuming that it will is unreasonable.

By all means, please enumerate what "should be there". If it is actually evident, that is.

That depends entirely on which god or gods we're talking about. For example, deistic gods(such as Spinoza's god) are unfalsifiable, there is no evidence that should be there so any absence is to be expected. Such is not the case for, say, the Abrahamic gods because they all take an active role in shaping and interacting with the world and have pacts of assistance with their respective followers(according to the holy texts anyways), so there should be evidence of this in the world(the fact that there is no such evidence is evidence of the absence of these specific gods).

Again, this can say nothing about gods which haven't been formulated yet or are defined so vaguely as to have no definite traits at all(such as the "god is love" tripe). It can only be used to demonstrate or falsify gods whose parameters have been properly defined.

 

[Syne]

@Syne --

There's also no reason to assume that what is currently inaccessible will forever remain that way. It may be reasonable to say that it will most likely remain that way, but assuming that it will is unreasonable.

Yeah, if you lend science fiction the same credence as actual science, then sure. Why not? But if your blurring the line between reality and imagination, you might as well equally concede the possibility of a god.

It all comes down to an unsupportable and unshakable faith in some indeterminately distant future. Whereas gods have always been an ultimate idealization of man, these two converge.

That depends entirely on which god or gods we're talking about. For example, deistic gods(such as Spinoza's god) are unfalsifiable, there is no evidence that should be there so any absence is to be expected. Such is not the case for, say, the Abrahamic gods because they all take an active role in shaping and interacting with the world and have pacts of assistance with their respective followers(according to the holy texts anyways), so there should be evidence of this in the world(the fact that there is no such evidence is evidence of the absence of these specific gods).

Again, this can say nothing about gods which haven't been formulated yet or are defined so vaguely as to have no definite traits at all(such as the "god is love" tripe). It can only be used to demonstrate or falsify gods whose parameters have been properly defined.

Even the Abrahamic god can be expected to display no obvious evidence. Even in an active role, if free will exists then man is necessarily the only facilitator of that involvement. Pacts of assistance are then carried out by mutual support, which is evidenced.

 

[Arioch]

@Syne --

Yeah, if you lend science fiction the same credence as actual science, then sure. Why not?

Things which were merely science fiction not twenty years ago are reality now, so yeah, why not?

But if your blurring the line between reality and imagination, you might as well equally concede the possibility of a god.

You really expect me to accept that you're reading comprehension is that poor?

See Post 90 where I did concede the possibility of a god, as well as a possibility of the necessity of a god. I also noted the fact that said time is not now, and stated that until such time I'll leave god on the wayside. I don't need a needless and useless(to me) concept clouding up my life.

Even in an active role, if free will exists then man is necessarily the only facilitator of that involvement. Pacts of assistance are then carried out by mutual support, which is evidenced.

Haven't you read the holy texts of the Abrahamic faiths? They quite clearly describe things which can only described as be acts of god(Passover Night anyone?), and Jesus' divine power was manifested many times. If these events are to be taken as even remotely true then god simply cannot be limited to using human interaction.

Your interpretation would, at one time, have been considered a heresy of the highest order. It's so clearly nonscriptural that it's ridiculous.

 

[Syne]

@Syne --

Things which were merely science fiction not twenty years ago are reality now, so yeah, why not?

Sure, we have cellphones and tablets the size of Star Trek, but where are the warp drives, teleportation, etc.? Could it possibly be that some sci-fi ideas are more credible and scientifically viable that others? Heaven forbid we have to use a little reason to differentiate the plausible from the implausible. Any of that starting to sound like the way some people describe belief in a god?

You really expect me to accept that you're reading comprehension is that poor?

See Post 90 where I did concede the possibility of a god, as well as a possibility of the necessity of a god. I also noted the fact that said time is not now, and stated that until such time I'll leave god on the wayside. I don't need a needless and useless(to me) concept clouding up my life.

Oh, I got all that. Perhaps you missed where I specified "equally concede". (Should I also infer poor reading comprehension here?) Maybe I DID miss that one. Could you point it out to me?

Haven't you read the holy texts of the Abrahamic faiths? They quite clearly describe things which can only described as be acts of god(Passover Night anyone?), and Jesus' divine power was manifested many times. If these events are to be taken as even remotely true then god simply cannot be limited to using human interaction.

Your interpretation would, at one time, have been considered a heresy of the highest order. It's so clearly nonscriptural that it's ridiculous.

Hey, if you wish to assume some literal truth value to the entirety of scripture, you're welcome to it. Personally, I think it's foolish, especially when so much of it is expressly allegorical. It couldn't possibly be that, in largely illiterate cultures, such stories were passed on as oral histories, with an expected amount of embellishment over time. Nah, that would be preposterous, right?

Heresy? That's rich, considering the source. Pot, meet kettle, you two have a lot in common. My interpretation is the one taught by Jesus; the one he had to constantly and uselessly correct his disciples on (the erroneous understanding of his followers upon which the church was formed).

So heresy to the church, sure; to scripture, no.

 

[Arioch]

@Syne --

Sure, we have cellphones and tablets the size of Star Trek, but where are the warp drives, teleportation, etc.? Could it possibly be that some sci-fi ideas are more credible and scientifically viable that others? Heaven forbid we have to use a little reason to differentiate the plausible from the implausible. Any of that starting to sound like the way some people describe belief in a god?

Did you miss the invention of a tractor beam of sorts? Or did you intentionally leave it out because it didn't exactly mesh with the image of my argument that you're trying to build?

But, of course some sci-fi are more plausible than others(some of this is explainable by the fact that there are varying degrees of "hardness" to the science in sci-fi writing), from our current perspective. However the perspective of what is plausible and possible in science continues to march ever onward. We've even gone so far as to create synthetic life, something thought impossible even days before it was announced. All I'm saying is that science has a well established track record of accomplishing things people foolishly declare to be impossible.

Oh, I got all that. Perhaps you missed where I specified "equally concede". (Should I also infer poor reading comprehension here?) Maybe I DID miss that one. Could you point it out to me?

Why would I concede equal possibility? Sci-fi has a much better track record of coming true than any religion could ever hope to accomplish. For starters sci-fi at least deals with elements of science, the various flavors of holy texts are often as barren of science as the Sahara is of water.

I've concede the possibility of one or more gods, that's all you're going to get me to do on that front until you theists finally start offering up some evidence.

Hey, if you wish to assume some literal truth value to the entirety of scripture, you're welcome to it.

Some literal truth must be assumed for any christian theology to make the slightest bit of sense. It's not me assuming literal truth, it's the christians who work it into their religion. If they didn't then they would be something along the lines of a Jeffersonian christian, which is barely a christian at all.

Personally, I think it's foolish, especially when so much of it is expressly allegorical.

Well that, and downright false.

It couldn't possibly be that, in largely illiterate cultures, such stories were passed on as oral histories, with an expected amount of embellishment over time. Nah, that would be preposterous, right?

Of course that's what happened! Now quit playing obtuse. Christian theology demands that at least some of the bible be interpreted literally, the teachings of christ are a good example, as is his resurrection. I'm merely pointing out that your beliefs do not mesh with any christian theology I have ever come across(and I've come across hundreds).

Heresy? That's rich, considering the source. Pot, meet kettle, you two have a lot in common.

Oh I'm by far a worse heretic than you are, that's not something I've ever said anything to dispute. However that doesn't make my accusation of heresy any less accurate.

My interpretation is the one taught by Jesus; the one he had to constantly and uselessly correct his disciples on (the erroneous understanding of his followers upon which the church was formed).

So you're saying that Jesus didn't perform miracles or come back from the dead after three(or so) days? Damn, that's quite an unusual thing for you to say.

So heresy to the church, sure; to scripture, no.

Are you seriously saying that, as a christian, you honestly believe that god and Jesus never once performed a miracle?

 

[Syne]

@Syne --

Did you miss the invention of a tractor beam of sorts? Or did you intentionally leave it out because it didn't exactly mesh with the image of my argument that you're trying to build?

But while fictional tractor beams of the kind depicted in Star Trek can ensnare a giant spaceship, this real version works only at the microscopic level. -http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1310771.stm

Hardly a true manifestation of a Star Trek tractor beam. You should notice that the examples I gave held a 1:1 comparison with the fiction. Seems you are the one hunting for things to affirm your argument here, and quite a stretch at that.

But, of course some sci-fi are more plausible than others(some of this is explainable by the fact that there are varying degrees of "hardness" to the science in sci-fi writing), from our current perspective. However the perspective of what is plausible and possible in science continues to march ever onward. We've even gone so far as to create synthetic life, something thought impossible even days before it was announced. All I'm saying is that science has a well established track record of accomplishing things people foolishly declare to be impossible.

Apparently your faith in science is unduly coloring your take on things.

However, the term Synthetic Life is usually associated to the creation of a living system "from scratch", that is from isolated building blocks. This has not yet been achieved. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_life

There's also a major difference between what people, including general public, may declare impossible and what an extensively verified scientific theory may predict of itself.

Why would I concede equal possibility? Sci-fi has a much better track record of coming true than any religion could ever hope to accomplish. For starters sci-fi at least deals with elements of science, the various flavors of holy texts are often as barren of science as the Sahara is of water.

I've concede the possibility of one or more gods, that's all you're going to get me to do on that front until you theists finally start offering up some evidence.

Read more carefully please. I never said you would concede equal possibility, only that you were erroneously trying to criticize my reading comprehension by glossing over what I had actually said. And regardless of your faith in sci-fi, "science of the gaps" is no more presently evidenced than a "god of the gaps", as the science tells us there are limits that cannot be overcome. Perhaps a little more science and a little less sci-fi, huh?

This whole argument is nothing more than reductio ad absurdum. Just because some previously considered limits have been overcome does not itself necessitate that all such limits will.

Some literal truth must be assumed for any christian theology to make the slightest bit of sense. It's not me assuming literal truth, it's the christians who work it into their religion. If they didn't then they would be something along the lines of a Jeffersonian christian, which is barely a christian at all.

And I never said it was all allegory. You seem to be intent on offering black and white thinking, where it must always be all one or all the other. If you're arguing the Christian then you aren't addressing the scripture, nor by extension the religion, only the religious and their interpretation. Which btw is exactly what I'm arguing with you...your seeming acceptance of a particular interpretation.

Well that, and downright false.

How, pray tell, is allegory "downright false"? Allegory makes no literal truth claims and is usually just illustration.

Of course that's what happened! Now quit playing obtuse. Christian theology demands that at least some of the bible be interpreted literally, the teachings of christ are a good example, as is his resurrection. I'm merely pointing out that your beliefs do not mesh with any christian theology I have ever come across(and I've come across hundreds).

Why would you expect the resurrection to be anything more than a ghost tale? Jesus constantly corrected the disciples, to no use, for idolizing him. Is it any wonder that they would find reason to embellish to support their belief? Seems apropos. Just apply a little reason.

So you're saying that Jesus didn't perform miracles or come back from the dead after three(or so) days? Damn, that's quite an unusual thing for you to say.

I'm saying that whatever Jesus did do made a significant enough impact to warrant being passed on and thus embellished. Why is that unusual?

Are you seriously saying that, as a christian, you honestly believe that god and Jesus never once performed a miracle?

You make the erroneous assumption that I am a Christian. Once again, black and white thinking. If someone defends a particular scripture, then surely they must fully ascribe to that doctrine, huh?