Jump to content

Joshpantera

Moderator
  • Content Count

    4,038
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    47

Everything posted by Joshpantera

  1. It seems that the OP article is conflating universe with space. Isn't it space which has been observed to be flat? Because space could be flat, infinite and eternal and extend out forever. But a universe is merely some observable region within the context of space. If there's no hard boundary, then it doesn't seem to make very much sense to see a universe as anything more than a larger sized region of star systems in space. Such as the level beyond super clusters of galaxies within the context of a flat space. I'm trying to visualize this issue.
  2. I've heard many of us here argue the same. It's a logical conclusion to force the apologist to look at the OT and then account for where they're trying to go with the apology. It only serves to shine a spot light on their own moral short comings.
  3. First of all, the questions that you're being asked are aimed at trying to get you to think about something further, consider something deeper than you have been. Is that understandable enough? You've questioned a lot of things, but you sort of stop the questioning at some point and just accept these claims at face value. For instance, we're coming from a place of mind where we once thought like you guys are thinking. We weren't thinking critically. We weren't questioning enough. We were just taking too much at face value. And then we identified these problems, eventually, and moved past them into newer ways of thinking, basically. So when people are asking you questions it's aimed at trying to get you to think further. And to possibly see if you can do that or if you are unable to do that. For example, we used to leave the "why did god such and such?" questions alone like you guys are doing. Until we actually locked horns with the hard questions and started seeing the hard answers come into view, something that you guys have yet to accomplish. That's the line of questioning where we've asked you to reconcile the contradictions between the "omni" claims about god. The contradictions are there. They are black and white obvious. The question is to have you try and account for the contradictions, not for us, for YOU. It's not to anyone else's benefit aside from your own. You're the one who's up until now turned a blind eye to these obvious contradictions, and lacked the critical thinking applications that can identify inconsistency within a given belief system. Which red flag the belief system as less than, "true." Internally inconsistent belief's turn into a breaching dam - you the little Dutch Boy trying to plug the holes with his fingers, but unable to plug them all. Let's talk about you having "them stumped." Can you provide an example of you having someone stumped so I can see what you're talking about? What could you have possibly stumped anyone here with?
  4. As to the bubble universes, the diagram suggests a hard boundary. But we've been discussing no hard boundary elsewhere. So is that what the diagram of bubble universes is suggesting or does it only looks as if that is the case?
  5. We would have this image from external a given universe. Looking at all of the nearby universes from the outside. New bubbles continuously forming. The flat appearance in the above, is just an appearance if all universes are bubbles that never actually flatten out. It looks like approaching the spherical earth from space until you get close enough that the sphere starts looking flatter. So bubbles, where a bubble can look flat from one perspective. But for all bubbles to ever get to literally flat, like I said, it seems to follow that they'd all merge into one instead of remaining as individual. I'm curious what the cosmological (standard model) answer to this inquiry can entail.
  6. So what are we looking at with the bubble universe proposal? Obviously for all of the infinite bubbles to each expand to flat and infinite would interfere between individual universes. One would run right into the others with them all literally flat, right? So they'd have to be spherical bubbles which only appear flat from observation within or right near the edge of any given bubble, looking outward. But they couldn't actually be flat, could they? Is that what you were trying to explain with all of the diagrams? I'll reproduce all of the diagrams below.
  7. Prohibited from observing before the CMBR is the only context we've been discussing. This has been an ongoing part of the discussion, the universe prior was opaque. Then on the current page the question has continued in terms of what way science can try and glean something about the origin of the universe outside of direct observation. But the overall idea here is that science hasn't the ability to know for sure whether or not the universe had any fixed beginning, because we're prohibited by the CMBR observational boundary we've been discussing. Science certainly hasn't proven that the universe did have a fixed beginning singularity, which, is what WLC has been falsely claiming since the 90's even though the Hawking - Penrose Singularity theory had already been falsified via data by that time. He's still making the falsified claim now, despite the fact that it was falsified before even took up the argument in the first place. Obviously not, my beliefs state clearly that I do not believe in gods. And theological prohibitions are a different issue entirely.
  8. True or false, does Genesis 1 describe the origin of the planet earth and the correct order in which life came to existence on the planet? This is going to require epistemic truth knowledge from the sciences in order to try and answer. But that seems clear enough. The question is a knowledge based question. How would you work it out? Trying to be fair to everyone, and diplomatic, some might try to say true and false, true in some sense which is obscure and stretches what we mean by the term truth, and false in straight forward ways that are self evidently false by what we generally mean by the term false. An example is where Campbell says that myths are true in certain senses, truth as metaphorical of the human and cosmic mystery. That's not entirely wrong, but it's also not what we mean when asking if a creation myth is true or false. Not what non-believers mean by the question and not what believers mean by the question. Believers are pretty well claiming that their beliefs are ontological truths, period. Even when I've encountered believers who are making subjective arguments, they are usually trying to argue that their subjective experiences or subjective religious content equals ontological, objective truth. LuthAMF said as much in our debate. In any case, I'm interested in seeing how this theory of truth relates to some practical application examples like the above.
  9. We went over this a while back and there are some twists and turns. On the surface, blasphemy of god generally means claiming that you are god, when you aren't god. I would think that blasphemy of the holy spirit would allude to people who claim to be speaking on behalf of the holy spirit, who are not speaking on behalf of the holy spirit. This works out to a plain understanding if blasphemy of god and blasphemy of the holy spirit work out the same general reference. God and holy spirit, whether viewed in triniarian terms or just gods spirit, are pretty much the same thing any which way it's spun. They always boil down to one. Three in one, means one in the end. But people usually interpret it as rejecting the holy spirit, or making fun, and similar examples I've seen posted here. In my church I don't recall anyone taking the way I've taken it above, the same as blaspheming against god by falsely claiming to be god. It could be that blasphemy is not the best translation for the context of the unpardonable sin. I think we explored that last time, but I don't remember what the conclusion was. I'll look back.
  10. There's a lot to read through in the link above. I see the conflict here boiling down to how people perceive in terms of large scale. Those who have difficulty perceiving on the largest of scale, seem to try and tune it all down to something they can wrap their minds around. Those are the people in various cultures (including christianity) who tend to go for the "ex nihilo" type of thinking. It gives them a safe place where their mind can rest. They don't need to thinking any further. It all begins right exactly here! No need to think back any further. Done. End of story. I can see this reflected in various religions and cultures that have gravitated towards "ex nihilo" conclusions. And their arguments are full of problems and holes. You can read through all of the supporting arguments. The other personality types, or thinking types who argue against "ex nihilo" reasoning, do so from a platform of thinking further into the problem despite the possibility of encountering things like infinite regress, past eternal conclusions, and similar lines of thought. They tend to realize that although placing something with a beginning gives us a safe place to just stop and let it go, we can't actually just stop and let it go for all of these reasons. And then lay out all of the reasons. These are deeper thinkers. And the opposing christian arguments against "ex nihilo" tend to reflect deeper thinking than that of where WLC currently stands. Craig simply hasn't thought this through far or deep enough. That's evident and demonstrable from several fronts ranging from theology, philosophy and science. In each case, he hasn't gone far enough. He stopped short. This is a major polemic we have going here against Craig, but what else can be said? It's just that bad. We're not just making it up. We're not just bullying the poor bastard. He's way, way, way off in all of these various disciplines. By way off, I mean launching untenable claims in all of those areas. This problem is much bigger than just a scientific problem.
  11. If or when we're ready for it, I've been reading on WLC's premise. The very premise of accepting "creatio ex nihilo" as biblical requires a lot of assumption on his part. Because it's contested (like the doctrine of the trinity and other contested beliefs) as non-blblical or possibly non-biblical. Craig may be wrong sweeping across the entire board, from theology, to philosophy, and finally to the science. We've been discussing the science. He's just plain wrong for myriad reasons. You've mentioned that you're going to move on and address some religious issues. I've touched on some philosophical issues concerning fixed beginnings. Here's a link for anyone interested in getting up to speed on "creatio ex nihilo" in and of itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo
  12. As would the future of the universe be just speculation by you, me, or anyone else for the same reasons. I generally take all such speculation with a grain of salt.
  13. I agree completely. Even this business about fundamental consciousness can not change your approach from what I understand about it. Axiom 1 stands regardless. We can doubt just about anything except for the brute fact that we exist as experiencing entities of some type. We may be a brain in a vat, or some program in a computer simulation, but by gollies that still makes us some type of existing thing, engaged in the experience and awareness of existing. If consciousness is absolute or some similar claim, Axiom 1 still remains. Axiom 2 stands as well. Just because human perception happens within the brain, doesn't mean that the external world doesn't exist. Modern philosopher Peter Russell goes into this while address the hard problem of consciousness. Whether or not we're perceiving an external reality as it actually is, is questionable. But that we're still perceiving something out there and interpreting that perception within our brains seems very straight forward. This can be explored further, but that's the general idea. Axiom 3 stands in the same way. Whether a simulation, fundamental consciousness, or whatever, the brute facts of existence such as gravity remain. It would just go back to meaning that these brute facts are part of the simulation, part of a fundamental consciousness, etc., etc. The facts are not deniable via these popular alternative ways of trying to view reality. New Age views and religious views would have a hard time trying to counter these axioms with eternal consciousness claims or anything similar. The three axiom's look bullet-proof as far as I can tell.
  14. What would a bubble universe look like, flat or a sphere? What the article doesn't seem to address is how space could be infinite with bubble universes expanding into the infinite space. What is the crisis and why? Wouldn't the CMBR data pointing at a curved universe be in support of eternal inflation? @WalterP
  15. So it's been too confusing for you guys to understand what we're even talking about. I've tried several times to clarify it. I don't understand how you guys could think that we were entertaining the possibility that god exists just by examining the bible's claims ABOUT god, and pointing out the logical contradictions that follow from the bibles claims. All way making clear time and again that we don't believe in god, we're just examining the biblical clams about god. I guess we have to break it down even further, more simple. Every time we ask a question we may need to frame it as such: I don't believe in god or the truth of the bible myself, but you profess to. So please try and answer why *insert logical contradiction here* is ok with you and doesn't throw up any red flags?
  16. Why are you trying to define whom I believe in when you don't have a clue? I don't have a clue that you are a christian, who believes that the bible is true? Are you NOT a christian and do you NOT believe that the bible is true? Let's fine tune your position step by step with two basic, yes or no questions. 1) Are you a christian? 2) Do believe that the bible is true? Exactly, you don't believe in truth. When I said you believe in the god of the bible, you objected. But when I said that we do not believe in god, you said that we don't believe in truth. That seems to suggest that you are saying that because we don't believe in god, therefore we do not believe in truth - meaning that you DO believe in the god of the bible, as a christian, and I was correct from the outset. Unless you believe in some other god, some other religion, and some other religious text which you've never disclosed to us. Just answer the two yes or no questions if you will. Thanks
  17. You still haven't digested this yet? We're 5 pages in. I've personally told on at least three occasions so far that it's irrelevant what we think. We are not accusing god as responsible for sex slaves. We do not believe in god, so how could we think he's responsible if we don't believe he exists? We're pointing out a logical contradiction about YOUR beliefs about a god!!!! 1) YOU believe in the god of the bible, who is given attributes according to the bible. 2) Those attributes include all presence, all knowing, all powerful and all good, among many other attributes. Those four will do for now. 3) These attributes that YOU believe in, because you believe in the god of the bible, cause many contradictions listed throughout the thread. 13 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said: That's all well and good, and possibly even true. We're just asking you to reconcile a logical impossibility. We know it's impossible; but, by all means, keep trying. The topic here is the logical impossibilities that stem from what the bible claims about god.
  18. I just meant the interactions with William here. But that may still be spreading yourself thin. That sounds very interesting. I look forward to seeing where you go with it.
  19. Look back at @Christforums and observe how the interaction devolved. He invited us to his forum. Some of us went. He started out treating us like honored guests. The point was to discuss potential debates. I raised the Genesis 1 debate and started in on christianity as lacking in spiritual scope and depth. He quickly got weird. He announced that we should not speak in public forums anymore. Then went on a tirade of misogyny and assorted narcissism here at our forums. That's what I got for trying to be nice while obliging a request to debate. You can look at LuthAMF too. See how the interactions devolved. Our regular members were mostly of the mind set of screw the guys. They're the same old personalities that we've left behind, so to speak. The same type of jerks who caused people a lot of grief when they were christians. And I agree. We may as well not pursue the idea that we'll be able to keep it friendly with these guys and gals. I still like to at least start out civil and try and remain so, allowing the christians to take the lower ground if they so choose. I was being friendly with Edgarcito. I think I understand his indifference. I'm not mad about it. It just sort of it what it is. All we can do is point out what wrong with it so people have a working example of the back and fourth to read through and consider for themselves. But, I do think I get where you're going about how you choose to argue. Why you don't engage about WLC's religious belief. It's a safe area to argue from. Craig makes claims concerning science, and you show where those scientific claims are untenable. Religion is not brought into it. So subjective interpretations are not brought into it. The same with the fine tuning arguments. They can be addressed purely from a scientific stance, never allowing the apologist to pull you into any subjective religious content during the argument. What I like to do is survey all of the arguments. The ones that are purely scientific as well as the one that delve into beliefs that set forward and then followed through to logical conclusions. Altogether they point at the weaknesses of the christian claims. I only have a problem with the christian claims because they are false claims, evidently false in all of these cases we outline. The scientific and biblical claims.
  20. @TABA Those were good times, weren't they. I remember those threads well. BAA made a very good point on that. With graphic illustration of the point to boot. Concerning the "known universe," verses the potential or larger universe beyond perception. I was looking at it as something like scuba diving or snorkeling. There's always a visual boundary. But it's not the edge of the ocean. It's just your range of visibility relative to your position of observation. It's not identical of course, but it makes for an analogy that most people can understand. We haven't really discussed any of this content since BAA's death. But we should be. This has been a pleasant, 'resurrection' of sorts....
  21. ' Try me. Let's stick with Genesis 1 as the working example. Interpret it as creatively as possible and I will come back at whatever you produce. We can further demonstrate how many ways this can go. Again, you're new and trying to get oriented to the goings on. I get that. It seems that you are trying to make sense out of what you're seeing. And to make sense of it you are under the impression that anyone expects that religiously minded members will be held to account. They rarely, rarely ever are. Not impossible, but it's a long stretch if you expect such a thing. Why do we hammer away at them anyways? As Geezer said, it's pointless really. The only reason for most of the arguments is to try and see how christians will try and respond to a certain argument. What come backs they will attempt. And then how to readily refute whatever it is they try and come up with. Seeing which arguments push them so far into a corner that lashing out is the only option left. The bible false from it's beginning can do that. And they don't care at all for the accusation of being low rung on the world spiritual latter, either. Both arguments are pretty strong with solid citation and explanation behind them. I'm sure there's a lot more. The problem here is that we live in a christian dominant society where these bluffs and blow hards have had the power and authority to bully everyone around for centuries. You know this. I know this. With the internet, those bluffs are becoming increasingly difficult. Regardless of whether or not anyone actually does concede the point, the audience can weight out which arguments seem stronger or weaker to the audience. Audiences of modern, mainly western thinking people. Of course the purely subjective arguments of christians don't stand very tall. That's why they're losing their kids to non-belief. The kids are not stupid these days. They have access to all variety of information and fact checking. And a lot of them do. It's not as easy now to fool people with blow hard bluffing like it once was. Claims are challenged. Not so much accepted at face value. Why care? Because it doesn't sit well with me to let these frauds go unchecked, that's why. I chose to keep the pressure on them. As futile as that may look. Old generations die out, and new generations grow up familiar with newer ways of thinking, basically. Maybe, Walter. I'm not closed to your argument. I'm just trying to understand where you're taking it. You have to keep in mind that we don't care very much about being at an impasse with christians. In fact, when I tried to be nice to some visiting apologist's the whole thing blew up. No one wanted to be nice to them. And they didn't want to be nice to us either. That's just not what we have going on here. That has to factor in to this impasse situation somewhere, doesn't it?
  22. I haven't finished. We're at the beginning still. We have a story that is claimed as true. There's a literal reading. The days are literal. That's exoteric in orientation. We can break all interpretations down to two categories - exoteric / literal and esoteric / symbolic. I examine them both in all of their varieties. What you were trying to respond to was the classic exoteric, or literal interpretation. The surface story line taken at face value. It suggests a six day creation, literally. Contradictions arise immediately. Origen was of the symbolic, mystical, esoteric view of interpretation. This can take on any number of forms. But the story is interpreted as symbolic, not literal. But that comes with it's own problems. Some say that the days are "symbolic" for long epochs of time. So the days are symbolic, but the story is still true in some way. The question is true in what way? The same problems remain. It's true that entire epochs of time were going by before the existence of the sun, moon or stars? Three days means what? Three epochs of time that could be hundred, to thousands, to millions or billions of years? Contradictions arise here, too. The actual order of the creation account is off no matter which direction we take, literal or symbolic. Incorrect, again. Not personal interpretation, mass group interpretation with a formal title of exoteric / literal interpretation. You seem to think this is easier to excuse than it actually is. That wave of the hand dismissal you tried comes from a foundation of taking LF completely out of context. "Now BOTH positions can be supported by scripture so I generally reject your assertion that my beliefs surrounding the revealing of God didn't accord with scripture very well. One of the great things about scripture is that it can be used to support near any belief." Context, Walter. Context. You're stepping out of it in the above. This devils advocate thing is getting you pinned down pretty tight. LF said that the bible makes more than one claim in that specific case of revelation of god. "Both positions can be supported by the bible." And he mentioned that the bible contradicts itself by saying in some places that you can't know but in other places, like the end times, suggesting that you can know. That's what both positions can be supported means. He was of a variety of fundamentalists who believe that they are on the heels of the end times now. Or in the end times now. So they pick and choose the passages that say that you can know according to the end times. All christians, to my knowledge, pick and choose their way through the bible. Conservatives, liberals, exoteric and esoteric thinkers alike. Because the bible self contradicts all over the place. If two people pick one of two sides of a contradiction (like you and LF were doing by example) and stick to one but ignore the other, then both parties are correct in terms of they're believing what the bible says. It says that you can't know, and it says that you can know. So the bible says you can and can not know. Both have a basis in scripture. That's the context. The two creation accounts contradict each other. But what is common to all of these interpretations about both accounts is that none of them work out against knowable, observable reality. We're looking at a self contradiction, which people pick and choose their way through, which, doesn't seem to work out in any actual, real, or correct type of way. And it's claimed and hailed as, "The TRVTH!" It isn't. Not by a long shot. I can just as easily switch gears and look at eastern views, though. I am an advocate of Joseph Campbell's work on world mythology. Let's look at how he framed the situation. In the eastern traditions myths can be read a metaphorical. But metaphorical for what? Let's keep with Genesis 1 because it's simple and easy for a working example of possible interpretation. Campbell said that that myths are not lies, they are true in certain senses. He said, 'true as metaphorical of the human and cosmic mystery.' Origins are actually a mystery, we both understand and admit this. So we could say that a creation myth is metaphorical for the actual mystery of origins. Because origins is a mystery as of yet unknown, so the creation could only be a metaphor pointing us toward an unknown. But that admits that the creation myth doesn't tell us, truthfully, how the world or humanity came to be in any actual, or correct sense. True origins remain mysterious, and we take the creation myth as a metaphor or place holder for the actual mystery, which, the writers have not actually disclosed with their writing. Or we fast forward to the new testament and we could look at the jesus myth and read it in an eastern mythological way as, "The zeal of eternity for incarnation in time. Which involves the breaking up of the one, into the many and accepting the suffering of the world." But these do not help the christian cause, at all. They don't point to the bible being "true" in terms of actually disclosing how the world came to be, or how humanity came to be within the world. We could grasp at straws over and over again, looking for an apologetic way to claim that the bible is "true," and continuously come up short handed. Western minded. Eastern minded. Whatever you prefer. It boils down to the same problem. We're not dealing in terms of actual, correct, rightful truth. These are indirect asides apologetically claimed as "true," which don't finally amount to truth in any meaningful or substantial way with respect to the people who are claiming to have, "The TRVTH!" In the Western tradition, yes. As far as that goes, I even agree with you. But are you happy to think outside of the box? Western, Eastern, it all comes back around to the same issue. Exoteric doesn't work out. Esoteric doesn't work out well either. What else? Considering all of the above, what are you proposing the box is and what are you proposing is outside of that box?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.