Extreme and Massive Spoilers

the flaw is quite simple: it is only Avery's arrogance that destroys him if the Wind has the right to force him to make the choice. They certainly have the power to destroy him, but that doesn't mean they have the right (might does not make right). They haven't proven they have this right, and they even admit that they won't. They just assume that they have it--one could easily see this as hubris of their own. Hence, it is never addressed that it could be their arrogance that they are beyond humans that leads to his end.

Even if they are beyond humans, if they truly are superior, and if the One is all-powerful, then surely he/she/it/they would be capable of "dumbing the explanation down" to a human level. And what is the point of not doing so? Just so that a human must have faith? What is the point? Why deal with a rational and logical being on an irrational basis?

Okay! There's lots and lots of pieces here. So we'll try to pull this apart and see where this goes.

The discussion of rights gets very tricky once you step outside a document that we all agree that we're willing to abide by (i.e. The Constitution). The President in the first Intermission recognizes this when he mutters, "What human rights exist in a rule by God?" Our own Declaration of Independence establishes a context for the discussion of rights when it says "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".

Given that is it the Wind I am somewhat loathed to speak for them but...my guess is that the Wind would very much say that they are endowed by their Creator with certainly rights and among those rights is the right to contend with humans as they instructed by their Creator. That's where they would contend that they derive the right to present Avery with a choice at a specific point in time. (Although, I find nothing in SWR that ways that they "forced" him to make the choice. That's Avery's words. Unless you have a way to make a person's neurons fire in a specific sequence...*no one* can force another person to do anything! Hmmm...of course, the Wind might have that technology...[cue suspenseful music here and show trailer for book 2!])

As for the second paragraph, "Why deal with a rational and logical being on an irrational basis?" I think the Wind would content that humans are not nearly as rational and logical as they like to delude themselves into believing. Even if the Wind did attempt to "dumb down the explanation" there would always be some humans who would reinterprete everything that was said so that it would fit with the world view that those humans had chosen to embrace So, the Wind has two options: A.) Offer a lot of explanations that are just going to be ignored or B.) Save themselves the time and arrive at the same outcome.

If you review, I think you'll find that the Wind in some cases is very methodical in its explanations and at other times it is not. That's their choice and it's a choice they make for their own purposes which they choose--at times--not to reveal.

To label this a "flaw" presupposes that you have all the knowledge necessary to judge the Wind's actions as correct or incorrect. I think we would be hard-pressed as humans (living on this little dust-ball of a planet, circling a mediocre star, slung off at the "unfashionable west end" of the Milky Way) to make the claim of having that much knowledge.

Which really...is one of the major themes of the book, isn't it?

Have I missed something here? Am I not understanding your point? ;-)

The many parts fracture; here it goes:

Well, if you don't like the word 'right', feel free to place it with "legitimacy". How does one know that the One has the legitimacy that is claimed? [To wit, Revelations predicts many "false messiahs"] All that is demonstrated is that the Wind and the One have the power, but not legitimacy. Now, I'm not specifying how they might show this, just that they don't. [However, to address this issue before it becomes one: if, once again, they are indeed all powerful, a demonstration which absolutely positively defies every natural explanation should be child's play to create and execute]. To the contrary, they merely assume they have it and ask others to accept this.

my guess is that the Wind would very much say that they are endowed by their Creator with certainly rights and among those rights is the right to contend with humans as they instructed by their Creator

And that would be skirting the issue, since there is no guarantee that their Creator has the legitimacy to grant them those rights.

On the issue of whether or not Avery was forced, to make a choice, I generally agree that you can't force someone to physically do anything... but can force them into making a decision: if I say to you do this or die, I am forcing you to make a choice: if you don't do the thing, you die; if you do it, then you don't; either way you've decided something.

the Wind would content that humans are not nearly as rational and logical as they like to delude themselves into believing

And what evidence is there for that, and how does that address the issue? First, humanity invented logic and reason and while some individuals may not abide by it, overall you'll always be able to find some that are. Second, saying that people aren't logical and rational in every arena, doesn't answer why they can't be logical in this one nor does it negate the fact that they can be logical here. So why demand irrationality from an entity perfectly capable of being logical? What is to be gained from forcing illogical actions?

On the point of the Wind saving time: why do they care about time? Why should they? They are by all prophecies immortal; what should they care how long it'd take?

But even then, the time thing is a ruse: all-powerful, all-knowing entities would know exactly what the humans would do and how they'd respond and be able to come up with arguments that these individuals couldn't misinterpret -- once omniscience is in the equation any excuse on behalf of the omniscient party is feeble at best.

To label this a "flaw" presupposes that you have all the knowledge necessary to judge the Wind's actions as correct or incorrect.
--the chief

Ah, but I am not presupposing that I have the knowledge -- I am pointing out that they are (or at least could be). Hence, the Wind could be arrogantly maintaining this, thus making it their hubris that results in Avery's demise. It is this that is the flaw in their argument; since their stance is only valid provided their claim is true (a claim they admittedly refuse to justify)

Nick!

Wait, wait, wait....it sounds like we are going in circles here.

Fundamentally, what is at issue is your questioning of why the Wind does what it does and what gives them the legitimacy to act they way they do.

Unfortunately, the Wind does not choose to reveal their plans and their purposes. So, you are left to your own predispositions and beliefs to fill in the pieces that the Wind chooses not to supply.

(By the way, this is *exactly* the same discussion that Daniel Michaelson and John Silverman have in the second intermission!)

What we are left with then, is a lack of knowledge. We just don't know. And in the end, it is simply our opinions of the Wind that win out. (Despite whatever rambling we use to attempt to prove it to ourselves. ;-)

Now if you want to say that is is your *opinion* that the Wind's logic may be flawed, that's fine! If you want to question what gives them the legitimacy to do what they do, that's fine! If you want to judge them incoherant and inconsistent, that's fine too! This is NitCentral. Everyone gets a right to their own opinion.

But in your original review, you stated that "Avery was swayed by a flawed argument." And that is what amused me because I've been over this stuff a number of times and there simply isn't enough information to make a categorical statement on it.

I *specifically* built this story to evoke this kind of reaction. By design, there is information missing and the point of the book is that individuals will fill in the gaps out of their belief systems, not out of "evidence" because there are no "facts" to prove this one way or another.

So...individuals of your particular worldview will construct a list of "can't" to prove something: Why can't they do this? Why can't they do that? And if they are this, why can't they behave the way I want them to?

But ultimately, all those "can't"s are just a house of cards because there are no true facts, just opinions.

So it all this boils down to the opening quote...

“To what, then, can I compare the people of this generation? What are they like? They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to each other: ‘We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge and you did not cry.’”

I know that it's frustrating that the Wind doesn't behave like you want them to so that you can render an opinion of them that they are internally coherant. But you can play your flute all day long and THEY AIN'T GONNA DANCE! ;-)

It's just the way it is. And if you wish to say that, in your opinion, that makes them flawed, that's fine. But there is no flaw in their argument when they say, "If you question Our motives, you are doing it from your own pride and belief system because We have not supplied you with enough information for you to render an accurate assessment." Without facts, the only remaining source for rendering judgement is opinion.

Does that make sense?

I understand what your saying, but it is precisely that lack of data that I'm utilizing to point out that the argument is flawed.

Also, that last quote is not what Guardian James Fischer argued. He said that 'The Jacob Response' was the arrogance of man putting himself on the level of the Wind. But my point is that, without any a priori knowledge, there are two possibilities:
1) The Wind are who they say they are, they are beyond Humanity, and therefore it is arrogance to put yourself at their level.
2) The Wind are an alien species, not all-powerful, not all-knowing, merely possessing more technological sophistication. In this case, it is their arrogance in the presumption that they are beyond humans.
Hence, the flaw in their argument is that the Wind takes it as read that they are beyond humans. This is specifically what Guardian Fischer states. But, without any evidence either way, Avery should question this statement, he should point out that it's only his arrogance, if it's not theirs

Nick!

Sorry, sorry, sorry...my schedule has collapsed these last few days and I'm loaded up until tomorrow night but I will be back then! (Busy time of year for my wife and I ;-)

Well, maybe I can take this time to clarify why the argument given by Guardian James Fischer of the Wind is flawed:

Fischer's argument is that Avery's arrogance is keeping him from accepting who the Wind really is, and this would be true if the Wind are who they claim to be. But that's a big, huge, 3 million point font, neon-lettered, "if" since the Wind may not be who they claim to be. And, as the Wind points out, they stubbornly refuse to show that they are. It is this inherent assumption in Fischer's argument that makes it flawed (though it is not unnatural that a member of the Wind would make it).

That is, if I assume, as the Wind does, that they are beyond humanity, then I am being arrogant in placing myself at their level; however, if I assume that they are alien imposters, then I am not being arrogant, but rather they are for claiming to be beyond humanity.

Once establishing that^*, I would then further argue that the nub of the matter is that the Wind says that they are above humanity, will not prove that they are, and then go around claiming humanity is being arrogant for not accepting something they refuse to prove (who, then, is being arrogant?). Also, if someone stands up and says "why?", they kill them off. So, from humanity's perspective, it's easy to see why people might not believe them.

* that is, I am now extrapolating beyond the point where I say the argument is flawed; since I've established that the flaw is the Wind's assumption that they are who they claim to be.

Nick!

Okay...obviously I'm not doing a good job of expressing this because you just keep coming back to the same "flaw".

Let me take another run at trying to pull this apart.

You have just said that the Wind's argument would not be flawed if They are who They say They are. I agree with that!

As long as the slightest possibility exists that They are who They say They are you have already admitted that Their argument isn't flawed. I agree with that too!

In this context, the Wind's refusal to "prove" who They are has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Their argument is flawed because even if the Wind refuses to prove who They are, that doesn't mean They *aren't* who They say They are and as long as They *are* who They say They are then Their argument isn't flawed.

So we should just dispense with this whole "flaw" thing and get on with the important portaion of this discussion:

Why won't the Wind prove who they are?

Let me give you a goofy example.

Let's say that I'm walking along in your home town and I happen by a bookstore and you happen to be there and you're looking at one of my books and I introduce myself to you and you say (for one reason or another),

"You're not Phil Farrand."

"Yes I am!" I reply, pulling out my driver's license. "See here, 'Phil Farrand'"

"But you're not THE Phil Farrand."

"Yes, I am!"

"No you're not."

"My wife is right over there, she'll tell you who I am."

"I don't care who you bring over here. You're not Phil Farrand."

We could go around and around but if you had decided that I wasn't Phil Farrand, I could lay out all the "proof" in the world and in the end you would have to make a decision to accept the "evidence". As long as you had a predisposition to refuse my presentations, it wouldn't matter what evidence I presented, you could find some way to come up with an alternate explanation that would nullify the "evidence".

This is a basic human process. We take the "facts" that we are presented and we filter them through our a priori belief system. And if the evidence shudders our belief system, we reinterpret the "evidence" so that it will fit within our belief system.

Now...there is no greater shudder that is sent through the secular-humanist belief system than the idea that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing God.

So here you have a race of beings that are not only claiming that there is a God, they are also claiming that they are God's consort and have all the rights and authority that would go along with that relationship.

My contention is that the *only* explanation that the secular-humanist would accept in this situation would be that these beings were aliens. No matter what "evidence" was presented, the secular-humanist simply would not allow another explanation.

My sense is that the Wind knows this. And my sense is that the Wind believes that to even play the "prove it" game gives credence to the secular-humanists contention that they deserve to have it proven.

So, the Wind has the same response that Jesus gave the Jewish leadership when they came to Him and demanded that He give them a sign to prove that He was the Messiah.

He refused because He knew that "giving them a sign" wouldn't make any difference.

And if the evidence shudders our belief system, we reinterpret the "evidence" so that it will fit within our belief system.

I disagree. I find that if the evidence shudders our belief system, we either reinterpret it, so it will fit, or we reinterpret our belief system to fit the evidence.

As for the secular-humanists - say they prove that they are God's consort, and have all the rights and authority. They throw in every piece of evidence, do all these amazing feats, etc. Great! Wonderful! Now it comes back to, are they God's consort, or an alien's consort? They've proven themselves, now they have to prove God (or God can prove God). If they can present empirical proof that all of their claims are valid, the secular-humanists would have no choice but to believe it. (Otherwise, they'd be Scientologists! )

As long as the slightest possibility exists that They are who They say They are you have already admitted that Their argument isn't flawed. I agree with that too!

In this context, the Wind's refusal to "prove" who They are has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Their argument is flawed because even if the Wind refuses to prove who They are, that doesn't mean They *aren't* who They say They are and as long as They *are* who They say They are then Their argument isn't flawed.

Apparently you and I don't agree on what makes an argument flawed. You, the Wind, and myself all agree that Guardian Fischer based his argument on a questionable assumption [one neither proven nor disproven]-- and worse still, he presented his conclusions as fact -- yet you maintain that this isn't a flaw provided the assumption could be true. I do hope you are prepared to accept the consequences of such a position (I say with an evil grin and sparkle in my eyes).

As far the "important portion" is concerned, Machiko rebutted quite nicely. I would only add that anyone ignoring overwhelming empirical evidence is guilty of irrationality -- the most egregious "intellectual crime" -- and something they are quite capable of overcoming.

Furthermore, I'd like to again point out that any all-powerful, all-knowing entity should easily be able to produce an infallible argument.

I'd also like to point out that for a race that seems to pride itself on being above humanity, Fischer sure sounds like a used car salesman to me, using pressure tactics to get Avery to make his choice.

"The time has come. Choose."

Geesh, you just threw all this at him in the last fifteen minutes. Give the guy a chance to sleep on it.

That's just IMNSHO, of course.

Nick! Machiko!

Ya know...I don't think we're going to get this resolved and we're just going to go in circles because both of you believe that there can be empirical proof for the existence of God that would be accepted by the secular humanist.

And it's my contention that no "proof" could ever be offered that could not be reinterpreted. It is also my contention that this reinterpretation occurs almost instantaneously and is--in large part--hidden from the person who is doing the reinterpretation. So he or she doesn't even realize that they are doing it and it all seems very reasonable and "logical" to them. (Although you can't really apply classic logic in this situation because syllogisms rely on the ability to establish the truthfulness of the premises and I think we all agree that there is a knowledge gap here from the human perspective.)

In a nutshell then, your position is that if the Wind is going to hold Avery responsible for his decision then They should "prove" to him that They are who They say They are (just like God shouldn't hold anyone reponsible unless He proves that He exists.)

My position is that the Wind has already told Avery multiple times who They are and he has chosen for his own reasons to ignore what They've said and the Wind is well within Their right to hold him accountable for what They have already communicated--not that the Wind cares whether or not I approve or disapprove of Their actions (just like I believe that God has provided adequate "evidence" that He exists and is a "rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.")

Honestly, I understand that we will NEVER get together on this issue. There is nothing I can say that will convince you to move from your position and there is nothing that you can say that will convince me to move from my position. This discussion has been a part of the human experience for thousands of years so we really shouldn't expect to resolve this.

What this does illustrate, however, (and it's the reason that I've kept this going for as long as I have) is that I accomplished what I set out to accomplish in writing the book: Use a fantastic setting to exam the topic of belief.

And in that...I'm satisfied. ;-)

So...if you want to call it a flaw, that's fine! This is Nitcentral. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. But, I do not--nor will I ever--believe that it can be labelled "flawed" because there is not sufficient information to judge it thus. The best I could offer is that it might be. On the other hand, it might not!

This has been fun...and it's worked out just about the way I expected it too. ;-)

As for Avery and Fischer's statements to him, you have to keep in mind that Fischer is talking to Avery. Avery has had months to make a decision about the Wind but Avery is a boundary-dweller. My sense is that the Wind understands he needs to be nudged.

There's so much to address and I haven't the time right now but I think this is important to point out

And it's my contention that no "proof" could ever be offered that could not be reinterpreted.

This is simply not true and it is irrational to believe this. If the One is All-Knowing and All-Powerful then this entity can do anything. This is inherent in being All-Knowing and All-Powerful. Since this entity can do anything, it/he/she can certainly provide proof that can't be reinterpreted. Failing to be able to do otherwise would be a limiting factor, negating the "all-powerful" description, and thus conclusively demonstrating that The One was certainly not the Son of God.

It is also my contention that this reinterpretation occurs almost instantaneously and is--in large part--hidden from the person who is doing the reinterpretation. So he or she doesn't even realize that they are doing it and it all seems very reasonable and "logical" to them.

This would be irrelevant, since The One, being All-Knowing and All-Powerful, would know this and could account for it with her/his/its all-knowing-ness. Any inability to do so would once again limit the powers and void the "all-knowing and all-powerful" warranty.

This was my point about including omniscient entities.

---

Quote:

My position is that the Wind has already told Avery multiple times who They are and he has chosen for his own reasons to ignore what They've said...

---

You've finally reached a part of the discussion I can comment on. (I have not read the book. Sorry, chief, but you're competing with my new omnibus of the first three Chanur books, by C. J. Cherryh.)

---

Quote:

[T]here can be empirical proof for the existence of God that would be accepted by the secular humanist. . . .

---

Mark, you skipped right over my post didn't you? If God absolutely positively can not convince a secular humanist of his/her/its supernatural powers, then it/she/he is NOT all-knowing and all-powerful (because there exists something that she/it/he can't do) It's very simple. An omniscient and omnipotent entity has absolutely no excuse for not having the capacity to do something.

No, I didn't skip over your post. I'm sorry, am I not clear?

Empiricism cannot include the supernatural.

Therefore, any empirical proof is insufficient to prove the existence of God.

Therefore, there can never be a strictly empirical proof of the existence of God.

God can provide other proofs, and God can go change the definition of "empirical" if He wants to, but under the current definition of empirical, there cannot be an empirical proof of God.

We appear to be arguing right past each other. It is certainly within the power of an omnipotent and omniscient being to do something that can not have a natural explanation; one that no human can come up with any other explanation besides the entity that performed it is omnipotent and omniscient. This would be empirical proof of the supernatural. Testing for the supernatural is not unheard of, and there's at least one million dollars on the line (see JREF One Million Dollar Prize).

Also, when I go to dictionary.com and look up empiricism, it does not state anywhere, at any point, that the supernatural can not be involved.

Greetings All!

I am in the thick of Christmas at the moment and my schedule has collapsed. I probably won't be back until after the holiday season (first week of January). And even then unless I see something substantial that I should respond to I probably will let others take it from here because this is a discussion to which there is no resolution. (And that's the whole point of the book and why I never resolve the true identity of the Wind. ;-)

Have a great holiday!

Phil

P.S. Please understand that my time is at such a premium that unless I see that there is some possibility of arriving at a conclusion, it seems inefficent to me to rehash positions in philosophy that have been established for thousands of years and that have been debated by millions of people of good conscience on both sides of the argument--all without resolution.

I think it is worth making clear why this discussion has no resolution. I have logically and rationally deduced, solely from the principle that God is omnipotent and omniscient, that said entity could prove its/his/her existence by doing something that defied every natural explanation. You, chief, assert that this is not true. Now we have several possibilities:

* My logic is flawed.

I don't believe this to be true, but I am open to the possibility. However, no one has yet pointed out where any flaw may lie, but if they see one please do so.

* My logic is not flawed.

In this case, we are then left with my conclusion logically following from the premise, and any rational and logical being must accept this as true. Now, since the chief maintains that the conclusion must be false we are left with the following choices:

1) The premise is wrong. This would imply that God doesn't have infinite power--something I doubt a believer in God would admit as a possibility. I, on the other hand, am completely open to pursuing this avenue should someone decide this is their position.

2) Logic and reason are flawed and need to be thrown out (at least in discussions involving God).

Given that the chief maintains that God can't prove his/her/its existence, but would likely maintain that this entity is all-powerful and all-knowing, and given that I do not see a flaw in my deduction, I am forced to conclude that the chief requires logic and reason to be abandoned. With this, I can do nothing but agree with the statement that this will never be resolved, but let's make no mistake about why.

Nick!

I have not seen anything here that millions of people of good conscience on both sides of this argument have not spent thousands of years discussing without ever coming to a consensus.

This is the whole point of the book.

As a conclusion to this thread (at least with respect to my involvement unless something dramatic occurs), I would simply add that your "logical and reasonable" argument is based on your definition of what is "all-powerful" and "all-knowing" when in fact, your definition is not the same as my definition for I believe that there are things that God can't do.

Put simply, God cannot behave in a manner that is contrary to His nature. (If you do not understand how the term "all-powerful" can exist simultaneously with "behaving according to His nature", that's for you to resolve. ;-)

Therefore, from my viewpoint, before you can construct an argument where you postulate the non-existence of God based on the fact that He hasn't proved his existence, you must first demonstrate why it would be consistent with God's nature for Him to force you to believe in Him.

If you accept the Bible as a revelation of God's nature, it becomes very easy to understand why God hasn't proved His existence to you. The Bible indicates that those who come to God must believe that He exists and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. (And this I have found to be abundantly true.)

Have a great life and thanks for the discussion!

my logical and rational argument is based on the definition of all-knowing and all-powerful: they mean infinite knowledge and infinite power... feel free to consult any dictionary (except perhaps one you wrote )

I believe that there are things that God can't do
That's wonderful. But it also means that God isn't all-powerful and all-knowing. This would fall under the bit I labeled 1).

Therefore, from my viewpoint, before you can construct an argument where you postulate the non-existence of God based on the fact that He hasn't proved his existence, you must first demonstrate why it would be consistent with God's nature for Him to force you to believe in Him.

I haven't been arguing that God doesn't exist, nor have I been constructing a proof based on lack of proof. In fact, I have never stated that this God must prove His existence. I was merely arguing that any all-powerful and all-knowing God could prove His or Her existence based solely on what it means to have infinite knowledge and power.

However, you are taking the stance that God doesn't have infinite knowledge and power -- which is great as far as I'm concerned because then it is quite possible that God can be on the level of humans (who clearly don't have infinite knowledge and power). Once that step is made, it is quite reasonable to ask "why should we worship something that is potentially no better than we are?"

Also, never did I state that God would force you to believe anything. If this is how you've been reading my posts, you are severely misinterpreting them. I have stated that God should be able to convince or persuade you. And what compelling reason would God have for this? He allegedly loves his creations and wants what is best for them; as a parent He should be trying to convince me -- especially since my immortal soul is allegedly on the line!

The Bible indicates that those who come to God must believe that He exists and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. (And this I have found to be abundantly true.

Again, the bible indicates that this God requires a human being to be irrational. Do you dispute this? Do you argue faith is rational?

Finally, that parenthetical comment indicates you have proof or evidence of these statements that you make. I'd love to hear them!

Nick!

You wouldn't accept anything of the experiences that I have had with regards to my belief in God so it really doesn't profit me at all to share them with you. ;-)

As far as faith and reason go, I happen to believe that they are not mutually exclusive as you seem to be attempting to assert. So before I could answer your question (as to whether or not I believe that the God of the Bible requires irrationality) we would have to have a very long discussion about reason, logic, belief, subjectivity, objectivity and how all those elements interract before my answer would have any meaning to you.

As I said several messages ago, we could continue to attempt to discuss this but we will never get anywhere because millions of people in good faith have discussed these issues for thousands of years and have not come to a conclusion. And that should tell us something about the human condition.

This is the very fabric of the book. I have said that multiple times and it just doesn't seem to penetrate your belief set. But that's okay.

I wish you well. I just don't have the time to keep going around this barn. ;-)

(If we lived closer together, I would be more than happy to sit down with you one-on-one and lay out all the foundations of my belief system and my experience so that you could, hopefully, evaluate them with an open mind in their full context. Unfortunately, this forum simply does not provide that capability. And so we end up just shooting past each other and not really having a conversation and I really, really have other things that I have to work on.)

Happy Nitpicking!

You wouldn't accept anything of the experiences that I have had with regards to my belief in God so it really doesn't profit me at all to share them with you.

That statement may be true, but you made a verifiable statement that I requested you support. If you feel that I won't accept your evidence, then you must suspect that anything you present will fail to withstand scrutiny (perhaps suffering from poor gathering technique or selectiveness).

Just to be clear, you stated, or at least implied, that you have found it abundantly true that those who believe in God are rewarded by Him. This implies a definite distinction; those that do not believe will not be rewarded. I'm sure you have something in mind by the "rewarded by", so that we can suitably define it and test for it. That is, if I randomly select a group of believers in God and a group who do not believe in this God, then, if your statement is correct, I will find that the believers are more "rewarded" than the non-believers. I am confident that I can make the statement that this will not be true, and that statistically there will be no "rewarded" difference among the two groups. I am, however, prepared to have a nice helping of crow if repeated, well-executed studies show otherwise. That is, I suspect you have selectively remembered (and this is not an abnormal thing for humans to do otherwise psychics would be right out of business) those times where people were "rewarded" and forgotten the ones where it was not true.

Regarding reason and irrationality, I'm not sure how to take that statement. I hope I've made my position clear: blind faith in something means that someone believes it regardless of overwhelming evidence against (or for) it. Anyone subscribing to blind faith will ignore evidence, just as the fictional Nick in your bookstore example did. I therefore labeled that fictional Nick irrational, and thus conclude that blind faith requires irrational. Why? Well, with blind faith it logically follows that (overwhelming) contrary evidence will be ignored, and irrationality will follow. This seems fairly straightforward.

Now, maybe you meant you have other definitions of what it is to be 'irrational' and 'logical' so that this reasoning doesn't apply; but unless I'm grossly misrepresenting the common usage, my logic is rock solid and you can't alter the definitions just to suit your needs.

This is the very fabric of the book. I have said that multiple times and it just doesn't seem to penetrate your belief set. But that's okay.

Where, specifically, have I argued that this *isn't* the very fabric of the book? Please provide quotations or point out specific sections in posts

If we lived closer together, I would be more than happy to sit down with you one-on-one and lay out all the foundations of my belief system and my experience so that you could, hopefully, evaluate them with an open mind in their full context

A very generous offer, but unfortunately one not likely to be realized. I should warn, however, that I have and open and critical mind, which I think is an important distinction to make. Having an open mind that will just accept anything that is thrown at it is as useless as having a closed mind.

Finally, I wish to note that it seems the original topic of whether or not there is a flaw remains open, and as of yet I do not see any reasoning that directly disputes my point. I do, however, need to review the (somewhat limited) discussion on that topic.

Nick!

Happy Nitpicking! Other imperatives call.

Phil

Futile as any additions probably are now...

There are two flaws in all of the 'flaw' arguments:
1. A human-centric position that there is some requirement that God 'prove' Himself to us in order for this, that, or the other thing. A king does not have to prove his identity to a peasant in order to make the laws- nor does a parent have to 'prove' their authority before their child is obligated to obey them. The peasant or the child may choose to reject the commands they are given, stating "I don't believe you're who you say you are" or "I don't recognize your authority over me"- but that does not free them from the authority they're under. Therefore, a lack of God's 'proof' does not constitute a lack of accountability, a lessening of His authority, or any change in the relationship or validity of anything He is involved it. It simply means that another human is making a demand based on the assumption that they are 'owed' something from their superior in order to actually make Him superior- an assumption of arrogance, and a 'Jacob response.'

2. That God can really contend with human denial. :-) Of course, I'm kidding. But in all seriousness, while God CAN do anything, He chooses not to violate our free will (a whole different discussion)- thus there is no guarantee that even the most incredible of displays of 'proof' could make it past the simple human capacity for denial. Perhaps there is some merit to the suggestion of omniscience being able to adjust for this factor. Perhaps not; it depends, I'd think, on whether the individual would even be open to the possibility- I think Mmorgan summed it up best- "* If a secular humanist will not accept supernatural proofs, by definition that secular humanist will not ever believe in God, defined as a supernatural being." It also jumps into the somewhat awkward camp of asking for empirical proof of something that is beyond the demander's ability to comprehend... it's like a caveman asking for empirical proof of quantum theory. Even if you could give it to him, what's the point- he won't be able to comprehend it. In this case, you are literally asking for empirical proof of infinity... if that's not a paradox or logical fallacy... it should be. :-) Again, to quote Mmorgan, "I can get empirical evidence all day of whatever but, by definition, God should not be restricted to mere empiricism or He is not God. " Nsetzer, this is not a failing of God- it is a side effect of free will being our inviolable nature- it is a side effect of the nature of our existence. It's not a limit on God than He 'can't' do it- it's a limitation on us- we can still choose to deny it by nature of the existence that God has given us. And the idea of "Can't God create a proof so powerful it can overcome free-will driven denial, and if He can't, isn't it a limitation?" is like the question "Can God create a mountain so heavy He couldn't lift it? If not, isn't it a limitation?" - It's cute semantics, but in reality it's a trick of words and logic, not a valid objection. All of this, however, dovetails back into issue #1- the idea that we are owed proof in the first place. And the idea that we deserve God bending over backwards to create custom-tailored, denial-conquering proof because we demand it is... well, arrogance. I think the chief summed it up nicely-
"Therefore, from my viewpoint, before you can construct an argument where you postulate the non-existence of God based on the fact that He hasn't proved his existence, you must first demonstrate why it would be consistent with God's nature for Him to force you to believe in Him."

" He allegedly loves his creations and wants what is best for them; as a parent He should be trying to convince me -- especially since my immortal soul is allegedly on the line!" - Nsetzer
This is a Straw God argument. :-) This assumes that a non-infinite, non-all-knowing being is capable, from non-omniscient, to predict what an omniscient being should do or why He does it.

"However, you are taking the stance that God doesn't have infinite knowledge and power -- which is great as far as I'm concerned because then it is quite possible that God can be on the level of humans (who clearly don't have infinite knowledge and power). Once that step is made, it is quite reasonable to ask "why should we worship something that is potentially no better than we are?"" - Nsetzer
That statement was never made- you are defining lack of infinite knowledge and power based on a manufactured criteria and ignoring the important proviso of a perfect Being being consistent with His own nature.
Let's postulate, for a moment, that a perfect, infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful, etc. God does exist. Being perfect by definition implies that He "can't" be imperfect. Being all-knowing implies that He "can't" be limited in knowledge. These are things He "can't" do by a trick of the english language. However, this is not a limitation of any kind- it's a semantic trick of speech and grammatical structure. Likewise, God 'can't' be contrary to His own nature- that does not entail a concession of a limitation for God, just another quirk of the language.

"That statement may be true, but you made a verifiable statement that I requested you support. If you feel that I won't accept your evidence, then you must suspect that anything you present will fail to withstand scrutiny (perhaps suffering from poor gathering technique or selectiveness)."
'I don't think you'd accept it' differs from 'I don't believe it would stand up to scrutiny.' The two statements are only equal if the person critiquing is an objective, infallible source of scrutiny. If not, it simply expresses doubt that the critiquer's natural bias can be overcome. :-)