Decree by Fiat

[Zhavric]

From The God Delusion...

For better or worse, I attended two days at the Cambridge conference, giving a talk of my own and taking part in the discussion of several other talks. I challenged the theologians to answer the point that a God capable of designing a universe, or anything else, would have to be complex and statistically improbable. The strongest response I heard was that I was brutally foisting a scientific epistemology upon an unwilling theology. Theologians had always defined God as simple. Who was I, a scientist, to dictate to theologians that their God had to be complex? Scientific arguments, such as those I was accustomed to deploying in my own field, were inappropriate since theologians had always maintained God lay outside science.

I did not gain the impression that the theologians who mounted this evasive defense were being willfully dishonest. I think they were sincere. Nevertheless, I was irresistibly reminded of Peter Medawar's comment on Father Teilhard de Chardin's The Phenomenon of Man, in the course of what is possibly the greatest negative book review of all time: "its author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others he has taken great pains to deceive himself". The theologians of my Cambridge encounter were defining themselves into an epistemological Safe Zone where rational argument count not reach them because they had declared by fiat that it could not.

**snip**

... if god really did communicate with humans that fact would emphatically not lie outside science. God comes bursting through from whatever other-worldly domain is his natural abode, crashing through into our world where his message can be intercepted by human brains - and that phenomenon has nothing to do with science? ... a god who is capable of sending intelligible signals to millions of people simultaneously, cannot be, whatever else he might be, simple. Such bandwidth! God may not have a brain made of neurons, or a CPU made of silicon, but if he has the powers attributed to him he must have something far more elaborately and non-randomly constructed then the largest brain or the largest computer we know.

Please read the entire thing, but take a look at the bolded section.

We see a lot of this and not just from theists. There are still a lot of people who want to allow a special set of rules for an invented category called "supernatural". That's a special pleading (a type of logical fallacy).

People want to allow for god(s) because there may be some special place where common sense / reason / logic / evidence doesn't hold. That, itself, is an unsupported claim. And we cannot use unsupported claims to support other unsupported claims.

Topic for discussion: It's time to stop allowing theists, agnostics (and even some atheists) from decreeing by fiat that certain claims are immune to scrutiny.

[Nu Kua]

Do you have a link?

[Cyranothe2nd]

Religion … has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, ‘Here is an idea or a notion that you’re not allowed to say anything bad about; you’re just not. Why not? You’re just not!’ If somebody votes for a party that you don’t agree with, you’re free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says ‘I mustn’t move a light switch on Saturday’, you say, ‘I respect that’.

Why should it be that it’s perfectly legitimate to support the Labour Party or the Conservative Party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows – but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe … no, that’s holy?

... We are used to not challenging religious ideas but it’s very interesting how much of a furore Richard [Dawkins] creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you’re not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn’t be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn’t be.

Douglas Adams

[Zhavric]

Do you have a link?

To the god delusion? It's a book, my friend.

http://books.google.com/books?id=yq1...e+god+delusion

You'll want page 153.

I LOVE GOOGLE.

[Jake99]

As a figuarative or symbolic example of supernatural: Comic or instructional books depict humans who have the best of or most exagerated abilities or sports figures, doctors, engineers etc who are the best at each aspect of competition. Based on the xtraordinary abilities of mankind I would say God is extremely complex however his plan for how mankind fits into this World is rather simple.

Now if one man had all those supernatural abilities and knew how to put all the supernatural abilities of mankind to use for the proper purposes then their is nothing that mankind cannot do within the laws of nature or physics if they stand behind him.

I suggest you look at contest results and then see who fits the description of the real Christ which I say is me.

[Goldmoon]

I suggest you look at contest results and then see who fits the description of the real Christ which I say is me.

Mark 13:5 "See that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name, saying, 'I am He!' and they will lead many astray."

Mark 13:21 "And then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand."

[Godsgifttomankind]

Hello Zhavric and thank-you for sharing,

From The God Delusion...

Some very good questions and a Book well worth reading!

The question of importance here is who's Fiat is it that issued this decree and by what authority was it issued?

We see a lot of this and not just from theists. There are still a lot of people who want to allow a special set of rules for an invented category called "supernatural". That's a special pleading (a type of logical fallacy).

I agree with your pretense, the question of believing in that which defies logic is in fact illogical and while it does present an exciting placebo for those that desire escapism, it does nothing and gives nothing.

People want to allow for god(s) because there may be some special place where common sense / reason / logic / evidence doesn't hold. That, itself, is an unsupported claim. And we cannot use unsupported claims to support other unsupported claims.

This is the greatest challenge when one enters upon the task of proving the existence of God, that of putting an end to that which is illogical and replacing it with that which is clearly definable. Most adherants of "God" do not infact know God for if they really knew God there would not be any need for a decree to not discuss that which really needs to be discussed and presented for all to see!

Topic for discussion: It's time to stop allowing theists, agnostics (and even some atheists) from decreeing by fiat that certain claims are immune to scrutiny.

The world that we live in today is focused upon evidence and the examination of such, it is this very catalyst that allows for the quantification of all that exists and the elimination of that which can not be so, it is this demand for evidence that is the very means by which all will come to understand our creator including those that fail to produce clear evidence and demand adherance based upon faith without evidence.

[Zhavric]

As a figuarative or symbolic example of supernatural: Comic or instructional books depict humans who have the best of or most exagerated abilities or sports figures, doctors, engineers etc who are the best at each aspect of competition. Based on the xtraordinary abilities of mankind I would say God is extremely complex however his plan for how mankind fits into this World is rather simple.

And this has what to do with my op?

Now if one man had all those supernatural abilities and knew how to put all the supernatural abilities of mankind to use for the proper purposes then their is nothing that mankind cannot do within the laws of nature or physics if they stand behind him.

I suggest you look at contest results and then see who fits the description of the real Christ which I say is me.

I'm sorry. Maybe you're not understanding what your role is here.

You have a responsibility as a Christian to engage in these sorts of debates. I post to quite a few message boards and I know many, many Christians who have worked hard (some for years) to do away with the stereotype of Christians as preachy cowards unable to engage in rational discouse without falling off-topic. Were those Christians to read your reply, they'd be facepalming. They'd be considerably disapointed and probably slightly insulted. I say slightly because they're a bit used to (intellectually speaking) getting spat on by Christians like you.

All this is my way of saying that your response is unacceptable. You have not even remotely attempted to address the issue.

To be sure, we're discussing the Christian/theistic habit of defining god into a safe zone. Your reply was to define god into a safe zone. That's terrible.

You really should be ashamed.

If you're not a Christian and trying to make fun of Christians by pretending to be one, then knock it the CENSORED off. I have no patience for a Poe.

[Zhavric]

The question of importance here is who's Fiat is it that issued this decree and by what authority was it issued?

That's not the question at all.

It's quite obvious that it's Christians who are making these unsupported claims. It's all there in black and white. Implying that some god makes it accetpable to support unsupported claims with other unsupported claims is unacceptable.

Most adherants of "God" do not infact know God for if they really knew God there would not be any need for a decree to not discuss that which really needs to be discussed and presented for all to see!

The above quoted text is exactly the sort of nonsense the op exposes. You have made a claim, offered nothing to support it, and are clearly using a set of rules that doesn't apply anywhere else except for this particular brand of sillyness. Where is your support for this? Where is your evidence? Why can't any of you offer anything in support?

The world that we live in today is focused upon evidence and the examination of such, it is this very catalyst that allows for the quantification of all that exists and the elimination of that which can not be so, it is this demand for evidence that is the very means by which all will come to understand our creator...

No. That's absolutely not the case. This is just more of the same. You're declaring (without anything even resembling evidence) that phenomenon X (Seeking evidence) for some reason supports the idea that your god exists. That's a terrible argument. Absolutely horrid.

You guys are going to need to do much better going forward.

[Godsgifttomankind]

Hello Zhavric and thank-you for your vision of clarity,

That's not the question at all.

I can understand that you would not see this as the question but it is a very important question for a Fiat, is a representation of power and authority. To bring forth a decree that disallows evidential examination is an abuse of the very power and authority in question.

It's quite obvious that it's Christians who are making these unsupported claims. It's all there in black and white. Implying that some god makes it accetpable to support unsupported claims with other unsupported claims is unacceptable.

You are completely correct in all that you have stated and it is my intent to present evidence that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God can be understood based upon evidence for He is the greatest of evidence!

The above quoted text is exactly the sort of nonsense the op exposes. You have made a claim, offered nothing to support it, and are clearly using a set of rules that doesn't apply anywhere else except for this particular brand of sillyness. Where is your support for this? Where is your evidence? Why can't any of you offer anything in support?

You are correct that I did make a statement and it is my intent to back it up with just the evidence that you are looking for. My opening remarks were just that opening remarks, the body of evidence is to follow!

No. That's absolutely not the case. This is just more of the same. You're declaring (without anything even resembling evidence) that phenomenon X (Seeking evidence) for some reason supports the idea that your god exists. That's a terrible argument. Absolutely horrid.

You can disagree with my hypothesis, for this is allowed but it is the evidence that is important and needs to be clearly examined and challenged for it's own merits. You will clearly see that I am not asking you to believe based upon a hypothesis alone but upon clearly quantifiable evidence!

You guys are going to need to do much better going forward.

You can clearly count on the doing of that which will be so much the better for all to see! This all is a preliminary statement of intent and as such is only setting the terms of engagement for that which is to follow, as such the next item that needs to be dealt with is that of deciding upon the best field of expertise to present the evidence that you require.

As you have clearly shown that Biblical knowledge is not the language that has any merit to you, we need to understand and focus upon that which does have merit to you.

In the interm I would like to look at the question of logic and say that within the terms of reason and understanding is hidden the very fiber of existence, the very image of creation and the world of being is that of a logical and ordered system. To step beyond anything that is logical and enter into a relationship with that which is unreasonable, is in itself unconscionable and I recommend that if anything seems unreasonable that it is unreasonable and must be rejected for that which is reasonable and it is my intent to show that God is reasonable and anyone that claims that God is unreasonable has placed their faith in nothing!

[Jake99]

And this has what to do with my op?

I'm sorry. Maybe you're not understanding what your role is here.

You have a responsibility as a Christian to engage in these sorts of debates. I post to quite a few message boards and I know many, many Christians who have worked hard (some for years) to do away with the stereotype of Christians as preachy cowards unable to engage in rational discouse without falling off-topic. Were those Christians to read your reply, they'd be facepalming. They'd be considerably disapointed and probably slightly insulted. I say slightly because they're a bit used to (intellectually speaking) getting spat on by Christians like you.

All this is my way of saying that your response is unacceptable. You have not even remotely attempted to address the issue.

To be sure, we're discussing the Christian/theistic habit of defining god into a safe zone. Your reply was to define god into a safe zone. That's terrible.

You really should be ashamed.

If you're not a Christian and trying to make fun of Christians by pretending to be one, then knock it the CENSORED off. I have no patience for a Poe.

The Christians are accustomed to spitting on, mocking, beating and trying to silence Christ. They are also leading the entire planet down damnation road while claiming to be something other than the Anti Christ's.

If you are truely looking for debate on the subject of proving that God exists then my wake is the same ACT that Jesus played out 2,000 years ago ( if Jesus even existed and if he did not then I lived the life of Jesus for the first not the second time, take your pick either way my way is not the way of the Christians and I claim to be Messiah by whatever name you call me.

I cannot define God but I do know how he wants this World managed and I left that miraculus works demonstration carved in stone. I am not associated with any religion or a backer of any nation because all of you are going 180 degrees in the wrong direction led by if not me, Satan himself.

That is a op that can be demonstrated by the bad news that plays on the air everyday since Satan took over this World near the beginning of mankind.

It is time to wake up and stop teaching the lies of religions that have passed through the political greed based society that the wolves in sheeps clothing and the moneychangers and salesman want to continue.

My unemployment rate would be close to 0% and everyone would be properly cared for and rewarded.

I have been here four years in search of a real believer who can debate outside the box and about the big picture where I am focused.

As far as Christians being preachy cowards they are because they do not practice what they preach in any way shape or form. What part of no moneychangers, lines on the map or dividing of Gods land do you not understand? I say you dont understand any of the Bible and the message of the Messiah is extremely simple not complex to the point of confusion as mankind has made it out to be.

If you are other than a coward please repent of your evil ways of Stock Markets, borders and military weaponry immediately. The economy that this World claims to have is the most uneconomical system ever devised and could only come from the directives of those who God stands against by whatever name you call them.


Spitting on, mocking, abusing, threatening Christ and his children is what Obama does every day and he seems to be the leader of this World at the present time. If you agree with Obama or McCain on any point of view then you are in direct opposition to me.

My plan for global rescue is simple, fast and extremely effective like nothing you can even imagine.

The Lord works in strange ways and I left huge amounts of evidence and witnesses in my wake.

[Zhavric]

The Christians are accustomed to spitting on, mocking, beating and trying to silence Christ. They are also leading the entire planet down damnation road while claiming to be something other than the Anti Christ's.

If you are truely looking for debate on the subject of proving that God exists then my wake is the same ACT that Jesus played out 2,000 years ago ( if Jesus even existed and if he did not then I lived the life of Jesus for the first not the second time, take your pick either way my way is not the way of the Christians and I claim to be Messiah by whatever name you call me.

I cannot define God but I do know how he wants this World managed and I left that miraculus works demonstration carved in stone. I am not associated with any religion or a backer of any nation because all of you are going 180 degrees in the wrong direction led by if not me, Satan himself.

That is a op that can be demonstrated by the bad news that plays on the air everyday since Satan took over this World near the beginning of mankind.

It is time to wake up and stop teaching the lies of religions that have passed through the political greed based society that the wolves in sheeps clothing and the moneychangers and salesman want to continue.

My unemployment rate would be close to 0% and everyone would be properly cared for and rewarded.

I have been here four years in search of a real believer who can debate outside the box and about the big picture where I am focused.

As far as Christians being preachy cowards they are because they do not practice what they preach in any way shape or form. What part of no moneychangers, lines on the map or dividing of Gods land do you not understand? I say you dont understand any of the Bible and the message of the Messiah is extremely simple not complex to the point of confusion as mankind has made it out to be.

If you are other than a coward please repent of your evil ways of Stock Markets, borders and military weaponry immediately. The economy that this World claims to have is the most uneconomical system ever devised and could only come from the directives of those who God stands against by whatever name you call them.


Spitting on, mocking, abusing, threatening Christ and his children is what Obama does every day and he seems to be the leader of this World at the present time. If you agree with Obama or McCain on any point of view then you are in direct opposition to me.

My plan for global rescue is simple, fast and extremely effective like nothing you can even imagine.

The Lord works in strange ways and I left huge amounts of evidence and witnesses in my wake.

You are annoying and crazy. Please post less.

Thank you.

[Zhavric]

I can understand that you would not see this as the question but it is a very important question for a Fiat, is a representation of power and authority

No. It's not important. It's just what we refer to unsupported claims worded as definitions for this thread.

You are completely correct in all that you have stated and it is my intent to present evidence that will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God can be understood based upon evidence for He is the greatest of evidence!

I admire your intention, but god is a claim. Not evidence.

In the interm I would like to look at the question of logic and say that within the terms of reason and understanding is hidden the very fiber of existence, the very image of creation and the world of being is that of a logical and ordered system. To step beyond anything that is logical and enter into a relationship with that which is unreasonable, is in itself unconscionable and I recommend that if anything seems unreasonable that it is unreasonable and must be rejected for that which is reasonable and it is my intent to show that God is reasonable and anyone that claims that God is unreasonable has placed their faith in nothing!

And? Where is this argument?

[proffett]

You are annoying and crazy. Please post less.

Thank you.

^^^LOLGASM^^^

Even the n00b around here gets it. <3