Ouroboros Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I think I would have to agree with Phanta here. If a spiritual world is not physical, then it would not have to obey physical laws. I'm not talking about physical laws in the sense of the "physical" that exists here. Why could there not be supernatural laws to which heaven and hell would be subject to? I mean, if it is not a natural world, then it seems that natural laws would not apply. What do you think? Yes and no. Think about this, does NO laws at all apply in the spiritual world? How can it be a "world" without some laws to existence in that world? Even if that world is spiritual, wouldn't a spirit be a spirit different from another spirit? If they are, then there's already at least one law of the spirit world that two different spirits are not the same spirit. Right? What about moving? How can there be moving from one place to another place if no place exist? Or do you believe that when you are transformed to a spirit, you're becoming one with the whole spirit world and there's no difference between you and the spirit world? Or let's go this path, do you believe in Jesus's story about the rich man and Lazarus? What kind of existence were they in? What kind of world were they in? Was it a world without rules, laws, or restrictions? Was it only chaos and all things being one? Think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 7, 2011 Author Share Posted January 7, 2011 I don't know of any Christian apologists that argue that logic is not part of God's nature. In fact, I and other apologists argue that logic does not make sense if it is not grounded in God's nature. People do try to use laws of logic to both give evidence for God's existence and to give evidence to prove God doesn't exist, but I've never heard a Christian philosopher or apologist say that using logic is unjustified in that case. If you know of that happening, please point me to that person or his or her arguments. This is the standard response that Christian apologists give when atheists ask if everything needs a creator, who created God. They usually respond by arguing God exists outside the laws of logic and nature which he created but if that's true then you can't use the laws of logic and nature to prove the existence of God either. This is an example of a creationist using this argument http://creation.com/if-god-created-the-universe-then-who-created-god A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’ So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning: 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1 2. The universe has a beginning. 3. Therefore the universe has a cause. It’s important to stress the words in bold type. The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning, as will be shown below. God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time—God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I agree with LNC that we have not (yet) confirmed another earth-like planet somewhere in the universe capable of sustaining earth-like life (what we would call a "class M planet" in Star Trek parlance). Of course we are only now approaching the technology to be able to detect them--the closest we had found the last time I checked (a few months ago?) was an inferno twice the size of earth. Finding any "class M" planets so far would have been like Galileo finding asteroids (sorry for the use of an invented Sci-Fi term here, but that's probably not far off from many people's criteria of "earth-like"). I would, however, check the assumptions that most carry of how "earth-like" a planet must be to sustain life. We've already had our share of surprises simply examining life on earth. There's a lot of cool stuff we have left to discover. I think Neon's parent's pastor's mistake was not in making this observation itself, but in his unspoken assumption that our not having discovered another earth-like planet so far is evidence that the christian god fine-tuned the universe just for us (and therefore exists). It was a flawed attempt to provide supporting evidence to a flawed fine tuning argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShackledNoMore Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 That would be cool. I've always been a Star Trek fan, it would be interesting to see that become reality, although I think there would be a lot of challenges to travelling that fast through a space filled with all kinds of debris. I'm a ST fan too, not a geek trekkie, but I like the show and watched most of them. And I agree about the debris problem. It was something that struck me too a while back. The only way would have to have some shield that would "bump" them off, but it would mean that the field would be in front of the ship, and I can't even begin to imagine the problems it would have with with FTL, relativity, and all that stuff. The faster the ship, the more volatile those little particles become, not to mention the radiation problem. It will be interesting to find out if we can overcome these problems. Very true. For once we agree. Let's savor the moment. Have either of you read Arthur C. Clarke's novel, The Songs of Distant Earth? It tackles this particular issue head on, and how they deal with the problem is pretty central to the book. It's one of the best science fiction novels out there, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Have either of you read Arthur C. Clarke's novel, The Songs of Distant Earth? It tackles this particular issue head on, and how they deal with the problem is pretty central to the book. It's one of the best science fiction novels out there, in my opinion. I have not read that one. It will now be on my to-read list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanta Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Hans, as per usual, thinking about this stuff, for me, is like thinking with mud. My brain is sooooo slow. I reread what you wrote every once in a while to soak it in more and see if I make any connections. Did I ever mention I dropped out of hs physics? I took baby hs chem... Science is hard for my brain. It's not you, it's me. Thanks for your patience. P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Hans, as per usual, thinking about this stuff, for me, is like thinking with mud. My brain is sooooo slow. I reread what you wrote every once in a while to soak it in more and see if I make any connections. Did I ever mention I dropped out of hs physics? I took baby hs chem... Science is hard for my brain. It's not you, it's me. Thanks for your patience. P My argument has nothing to do with any specifics of physics, science, or math, it's just a matter of looking at it from a reasonable standpoint. Paul talks about the the dead will have a new body, a glorified body (or something like that), in the new world. The spiritual world is supposedly a world, not just a nothingness. A world with beings, whatever kind they might be, must have some kind of laws of the world. If it doesn't, then it's completely lawless. No laws. No rules. Nothing that guides or holds that world together. And lawless, or without order, would also be against what the Bible says. So the spiritual world must, according to the Bible, have some kind of laws of the world. And I'm not talking about our physical laws. The laws in the spirit world can be completely different from ours, but there must be some laws that holds it together. My original claim was that the spiritual world supposedly does have different laws than our world, and that's my point. If the laws of the spiritual world are perfect, yet different from our worlds, then it must mean that a world doesn't have to be like ours, but a world could very well be different from ours. My problem is when our world is described as perfect. It's not perfect because the spiritual world is supposedly "more" perfect. It's bad grammar. Our world can be good or almost perfect, but not the "best" perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanta Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 Hans, as per usual, thinking about this stuff, for me, is like thinking with mud. My brain is sooooo slow. I reread what you wrote every once in a while to soak it in more and see if I make any connections. Did I ever mention I dropped out of hs physics? I took baby hs chem... Science is hard for my brain. It's not you, it's me. Thanks for your patience. P My argument has nothing to do with any specifics of physics, science, or math, it's just a matter of looking at it from a reasonable standpoint. Paul talks about the the dead will have a new body, a glorified body (or something like that), in the new world. The spiritual world is supposedly a world, not just a nothingness. A world with beings, whatever kind they might be, must have some kind of laws of the world. If it doesn't, then it's completely lawless. No laws. No rules. Nothing that guides or holds that world together. And lawless, or without order, would also be against what the Bible says. So the spiritual world must, according to the Bible, have some kind of laws of the world. And I'm not talking about our physical laws. The laws in the spirit world can be completely different from ours, but there must be some laws that holds it together. My original claim was that the spiritual world supposedly does have different laws than our world, and that's my point. If the laws of the spiritual world are perfect, yet different from our worlds, then it must mean that a world doesn't have to be like ours, but a world could very well be different from ours. My problem is when our world is described as perfect. It's not perfect because the spiritual world is supposedly "more" perfect. It's bad grammar. Our world can be good or almost perfect, but not the "best" perfect. Ahhh, I gotcha now. I've only heard that it is just perfect for biological life. Without the qualifier, I get what you are saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 I've only heard that it is just perfect for biological life. Without the qualifier, I get what you are saying. Most of the Universe is not perfect for biological life. It's not perfect for biological life in black holes, or in space between stars or galaxies, and it's definitely not so good to life in the center of the sun. Only our planet is perfect for biological life of the kind that we know of and exists on this planet. (Can you spot the tautology?) What you're thinking of is the argument that Earth is at a "perfect" distance from the Sun, etc. But the whole universe is said to be fine tuned in the sense that just one of the universal constants could be different with a fraction and the whole universe would collapse. So it's more than just perfect for life, it's perfect for being what it is (and that would be to state the obvious). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pratt Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 thought we will have new bodies. flesh and blood? no? in my father's house, there are many mansions, if not, I will go there and prepare one for you? physical house? preferably with a swimming pool? a hell of fire where fire quenches not,,,, definitely a physical place. so there should be a physical place somewhere, maybe need his spoken word again and wa la,,,,,,,, there it is. a perfect world but then again, what are the mansions for since everybody will be worshipping him night and day, night and day, no need any other words, just hallelujah all the way,,,,,,,,, come to think of it..........ok better go hell and make friends there........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 7, 2011 Share Posted January 7, 2011 And is Hell perfect in any sense? Is it perfect for burning bodies and torturing souls? God spent some extra time to perfect the mechanics of a hellish spiritual world. It didn't create itself and Satan doesn't have that power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Yes and no. Think about this, does NO laws at all apply in the spiritual world? How can it be a "world" without some laws to existence in that world? Even if that world is spiritual, wouldn't a spirit be a spirit different from another spirit? If they are, then there's already at least one law of the spirit world that two different spirits are not the same spirit. Right? What about moving? How can there be moving from one place to another place if no place exist? Or do you believe that when you are transformed to a spirit, you're becoming one with the whole spirit world and there's no difference between you and the spirit world? Or let's go this path, do you believe in Jesus's story about the rich man and Lazarus? What kind of existence were they in? What kind of world were they in? Was it a world without rules, laws, or restrictions? Was it only chaos and all things being one? Think about it. These are good points of discussion. However, I would still think that locality in the spiritual realm would be different than that in the natural/physical realm. For example, the question could be asked, where is heaven? I don't think we could point to a location and say that "this is where heaven is." I think that locality is a different concept in the spiritual realm. But that bears some more thinking on my part. Good questions. LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 ]This is the standard response that Christian apologists give when atheists ask if everything needs a creator, who created God. They usually respond by arguing God exists outside the laws of logic and nature which he created but if that's true then you can't use the laws of logic and nature to prove the existence of God either. This is an example of a creationist using this argument http://creation.com/...who-created-god Again, there is no one who argues that everything needs a creator, only created things need a creator. God, by definition (not mine, but the historical definition) is an uncreated being, a necessary being. What you are arguing for is an infinite chain of causal events, which leads to logical absurdities. There has to be, as Aquinas and others have argued, an ultimate necessary starting point to created effects. Now, if you want to show me how a series of effects can continue back in the past without a necessary starting point without leading to the absurdities that exist with that explanation, then please be my guest. The other option is that effects just popped into existence uncaused at some point in the past, which also is problematic. I don't argue that God exists outside the laws of logic, rather as I mentioned, I argue that God is the grounding for the existence of logic. However, I still haven't seen you show me an example of someone who argues that God exists outside the laws of logic. I would be interested in knowing to whom you are referring. The quote that you provided does not give evidence to that effect. In fact, that quote is logically consistent. So again, please let me know who holds the view that God exists outside of logic. LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 These are good points of discussion. However, I would still think that locality in the spiritual realm would be different than that in the natural/physical realm. For example, the question could be asked, where is heaven? I don't think we could point to a location and say that "this is where heaven is." I think that locality is a different concept in the spiritual realm. But that bears some more thinking on my part. Good questions. Yes, I can accept the idea of a non-locality in the spiritual world. However, there must be some world-laws, even though they would be different than our world's. That's the idea I'm presenting. Just think of that supposedly God is not a God of chaos, but of order. A world without any rules or laws how things work, would be only chaos. Thanks for understanding my view. It's so rare that I'm not sure what to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 I think Neon's parent's pastor's mistake was not in making this observation itself, but in his unspoken assumption that our not having discovered another earth-like planet so far is evidence that the christian god fine-tuned the universe just for us (and therefore exists). It was a flawed attempt to provide supporting evidence to a flawed fine tuning argument. Whether or not we find any other planets capable of sustaining life is irrelevant to the fact that the universe is fine tuned and that Earth is in a unique habitable zone. In fact, let's just focus on the life-sustaining nature of the universe rather than the zone in which Earth lies. Based upon the conditions of the universe we know that fine tuning is present. Read a book like Paul Davies' Cosmic Jackpot and you will realize just how finely tuned the universe is to be life-sustaining. Neon's pastor is correct in the fact that we have no evidence of any other planet that is life-sustaining; however, that alone is not all of the evidence we have for fine-tuning. LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Have either of you read Arthur C. Clarke's novel, The Songs of Distant Earth? It tackles this particular issue head on, and how they deal with the problem is pretty central to the book. It's one of the best science fiction novels out there, in my opinion. I haven't read it, what does he propose? LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Most of the Universe is not perfect for biological life. It's not perfect for biological life in black holes, or in space between stars or galaxies, and it's definitely not so good to life in the center of the sun. Only our planet is perfect for biological life of the kind that we know of and exists on this planet. (Can you spot the tautology?) What you're thinking of is the argument that Earth is at a "perfect" distance from the Sun, etc. But the whole universe is said to be fine tuned in the sense that just one of the universal constants could be different with a fraction and the whole universe would collapse. So it's more than just perfect for life, it's perfect for being what it is (and that would be to state the obvious). Well said. LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 thought we will have new bodies. flesh and blood? no? in my father's house, there are many mansions, if not, I will go there and prepare one for you? physical house? preferably with a swimming pool? a hell of fire where fire quenches not,,,, definitely a physical place. so there should be a physical place somewhere, maybe need his spoken word again and wa la,,,,,,,, there it is. a perfect world but then again, what are the mansions for since everybody will be worshipping him night and day, night and day, no need any other words, just hallelujah all the way,,,,,,,,, come to think of it..........ok better go hell and make friends there........ I believe that Jesus was speaking metaphorically in these two cases (mansions and fire). For one thing, Jesus isn't building physical mansions (or better, rooms), nor will there be bodies to burn in hell as people go to hell in a spiritual sense, not in a physical sense. The bodies remain in the grave and decay, but the person goes to hell or heaven. In the case of followers of Christ, they will be reunited with a body in the future and there will be a new heaven and new earth (Rev. 21-22), but Jesus is not building that now, that will happen when the present heaven and earth pass away. It is important to read the Bible in context so that these parts are read and interpreted correctly. Regarding going to hell because one's friends are there, the Bible describes hell as a place of torment and outer darkness (Matt. 8, 22 & 25) so, there will be no parties or reunions, contrary to what the Far Side used to portray. LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Well said. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 These are good points of discussion. However, I would still think that locality in the spiritual realm would be different than that in the natural/physical realm. For example, the question could be asked, where is heaven? I don't think we could point to a location and say that "this is where heaven is." I think that locality is a different concept in the spiritual realm. But that bears some more thinking on my part. Good questions. Yes, I can accept the idea of a non-locality in the spiritual world. However, there must be some world-laws, even though they would be different than our world's. That's the idea I'm presenting. Just think of that supposedly God is not a God of chaos, but of order. A world without any rules or laws how things work, would be only chaos. Thanks for understanding my view. It's so rare that I'm not sure what to do with it. I would agree with how you presented it here. We've got to stop agreeing like this, people are starting to talk... LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 I would agree with that. I thought so, considering that it's Biblical. Basically what I was trying to say earlier, to tie my view together a bit, our Universe, Heaven, and even Hell would be fine tuned for being what they are. Each one having their own structure, perfect to create the conditions for them to exist. That's why I feel the "our universe is perfect" argument to be a little "off beat," so to speak. The argument isn't perfect itself because with a God being able to create any kind of world, and every world could be different, the particular conditions for a specific world doesn't prove that they are the perfect conditions for supposedly the human existence (physical and spiritual). After all, Heaven would be a better place than this world. Or put it this way, "fine tuned," sure, but "perfect," well, maybe not. At least not if Heaven exists. The word itself is a bit misleading. (I know. Occasionally, I'm picky with words.) oops. I responded and you edited your post. I would agree with how you presented it here. We've got to stop agreeing like this, people are starting to talk... I know. I'm almost scared to say anything more because I don't want to ruin the rare moment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 ]This is the standard response that Christian apologists give when atheists ask if everything needs a creator, who created God. They usually respond by arguing God exists outside the laws of logic and nature which he created but if that's true then you can't use the laws of logic and nature to prove the existence of God either. This is an example of a creationist using this argument http://creation.com/...who-created-god Again, there is no one who argues that everything needs a creator, only created things need a creator. God, by definition (not mine, but the historical definition) is an uncreated being, a necessary being. What you are arguing for is an infinite chain of causal events, which leads to logical absurdities. There has to be, as Aquinas and others have argued, an ultimate necessary starting point to created effects. Now, if you want to show me how a series of effects can continue back in the past without a necessary starting point without leading to the absurdities that exist with that explanation, then please be my guest. The other option is that effects just popped into existence uncaused at some point in the past, which also is problematic. I don't argue that God exists outside the laws of logic, rather as I mentioned, I argue that God is the grounding for the existence of logic. However, I still haven't seen you show me an example of someone who argues that God exists outside the laws of logic. I would be interested in knowing to whom you are referring. The quote that you provided does not give evidence to that effect. In fact, that quote is logically consistent. So again, please let me know who holds the view that God exists outside of logic. LNC A couple questions and comments. If god is the originator of logic and somehow can change it, ground it whatever, how does his mind operate? If its not by logic then we can't can't understand anything he says or does at all. Right? Even the bible would be moot if that is the case. We would have no concept of reality even dealing with handed out divine revelation. If god has always been, does that means he created himself, or he decided what his mind will be? What says he is perfect then, if there is some absolute, him right, by fiat? To hell with any logical or moral absolutes then I guess. The earth would be a sims game. I thought self caused causes don't work? So he grounds logic right, to does that mean there is some absolutes he doesn't abide by that he has toss out that we don't seem to know about? After all what is there to ground if there is only just certain logical absolutes. Or is there a pool he just picks from. So what do you mean by grounds logic? Thought he can't go against a absolute without contradiction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Whether or not we find any other planets capable of sustaining life is irrelevant to the fact that the universe is fine tuned and that Earth is in a unique habitable zone. In fact, let's just focus on the life-sustaining nature of the universe rather than the zone in which Earth lies. Based upon the conditions of the universe we know that fine tuning is present. Read a book like Paul Davies' Cosmic Jackpot and you will realize just how finely tuned the universe is to be life-sustaining. Neon's pastor is correct in the fact that we have no evidence of any other planet that is life-sustaining; however, that alone is not all of the evidence we have for fine-tuning. LNC The Fine-Tuning argument of course falls apart once we realize that we do not live in a hospitable environment. The multitude of natural disasters aside an account must be made of disease, or the fact that if I fall more than 10m or am submerged in water for more than 10 minutes I will probably die. Yes, the Earth is a wonderful, padded room designed for life. Take me above 8,000 meters and I will slowly suffocate to death. Go 2,000 meters underground and I will die. Few areas of the Earth are actually habitable. 78% of the Earth is covered in seawater. Kevin Costner with gills aside, no one would last long living in that environment. So of the remaining 22% of the Earth how much of it is hospitable? Roughly, 15% and that's a liberal number. Fluctuating oxygen levels, solar energy, a brightening sun, diminishing tidal drag, or any number of galactic catastrophes are just a few of the many random things that could change the Earth from it's current form back to one that is uninhabitable. Your view is based off the Earth as it is today and not the inhospitable to us Earth that was around before. Looking around at the space around us doesn't give much comfort either. I encourage you to try living in a vacuum. If you could survive long enough, eventually cosmic radiation or the horrible coldness of the shade would kill you off. 99.9999 continues on for awhile....% of the universe is uninhabitable to us. Stars are fundamental to the beginnings of life since they produce energy and the necessary higher elements required for a universe that could give rise to life. Initial conditions aside a universe that has stars is one that is inherently geared towards eventually producing life. We are adapted to the universe, the universe is not adapted around us. Fine-Tuning is yet another head of the "god of the gaps" argument, wherein if something cannot yet be explained by science, well golly gee Gawd musta done it. You would think our universe were fine-tuned for life, it would conceivably be the best universe that life could live in, yet it is not. The "accident" by which we find ourselves here should not be bogged down by an egocentric and narcissistic view that the entire universe in all of it's coldness, harshness and beauty is actually made for us. That the entire universe, with colliding galaxies, dying stars, disintegrating planets and mysterious black holes is fine-tuned just so an evolved ape could look up a it does not do it justice. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted January 9, 2011 Super Moderator Share Posted January 9, 2011 BrotherJosh +1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 I thought so, considering that it's Biblical. Basically what I was trying to say earlier, to tie my view together a bit, our Universe, Heaven, and even Hell would be fine tuned for being what they are. Each one having their own structure, perfect to create the conditions for them to exist. That's why I feel the "our universe is perfect" argument to be a little "off beat," so to speak. The argument isn't perfect itself because with a God being able to create any kind of world, and every world could be different, the particular conditions for a specific world doesn't prove that they are the perfect conditions for supposedly the human existence (physical and spiritual). After all, Heaven would be a better place than this world. Or put it this way, "fine tuned," sure, but "perfect," well, maybe not. At least not if Heaven exists. The word itself is a bit misleading. (I know. Occasionally, I'm picky with words.) oops. I responded and you edited your post. I would say that we can argue that the universe is fine-tuned without arguing that it is perfect. I don't argue that it is perfect, I only argue that it is finely tuned for the existence of the conditions for life, even higher life forms like ourselves. Those conditions could have been different and slight changes in many of those conditions would have not only prevented life, but as you have argued in another post, would lead to either the collapse of the universe or the universe flying apart. There is no law to explain the necessity of these conditions, which means they could have been otherwise. That is the dilemma that we must explain - why are they the way that they are? I know. I'm almost scared to say anything more because I don't want to ruin the rare moment! Hopefully, I haven't spoiled the fun with my response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts