Sermon On Fine Tune Argument

[LNC]

I am actually arguing for a fine tuned universe, a fine tuned galaxy, a fine tuned solar system, and then a fine tuned planet. There is ample evidence for each of these being finely tuned. I believe that the planet is hospitable, which is the very reason that we exist on it.

 

Yes, a universe governed by physical constants

 

Yes, I haven't argued otherwise and don't see a problem with stating this.

 

The rest of the universe may not be hospitable to life, but that is irrelevant to our discussion as we are focused on this planet. It doesn't matter that Earth was inhospitable in the past or may be in the future, since we didn't live in the past and won't exist in the future when it becomes inhospitable.

 

A prime example of the egocentrism inherent in this view. It does not matter how we got here (through evolutionary processes) nor the 200,000+ plus years of history of our ancestors.

 

For all we know, our species may kill itself off long before the planet becomes inhospitable. I am not making a God of the gaps argument, I am arguing not from what we don't know, but from what we do know. Those are the issues that must be addressed and that is how and why our universe, galaxy, solar system, and planet exhibit the characteristics that make life possible. You haven't even attempted to address this, yet you assert that this is what i have done. I will look forward to hearing your explanation of the cause and reason for these conditions.

 

No, you are postulating that because we have physical constants in our universe and that this planet is hospitable, just enough for evolution to happen that a God must be responsible for it.

 

First, you haven't even attempted to explain thus far from where these physical constants originated and why they are what they are. That seems to be the issue at hand.

 

You are completely ignoring the problem. An omniscient, omnipotent God would be able to create a planet that would not require geological processes that would end up killing millions of people. Yes, geological processes are a naturally occurring event on this planet, but to try to conceive of a more suitable fine tuned planet created by an omnipotent omniscient God, can't we think of one that does not require natural disasters? Yes, people who unknowingly build their houses near a beach and are then wiped out by a tsunami (2004) are at fault, or maybe it was God's will? Posing a false set of choices does not frame your argument in any better of a light.

 

 

You are completely ignoring the main issue of how and from where the physical laws and constants originated. We see plenty of other planets, stars, and moons that do not have tectonic activity and ...do not have life. Tectonic activity is a key feature of our planet to sustain life, which I have explained before. You can make all of the assumptions that you want, but it still does nothing to explain the physical laws and constants and the fact that they are finely tuned. Again, you are mixing issues by leaping to the problem of evil when we are discussing the fine tuning issue. I would be happy to discuss this issue after we have dealt with the issue at hand.

 

God created the Bubonic plague, smallpox, HIV, cholera or any number of other diseases? I thought God created everything though? If God created man, than an inherent ability to commit sin was already implanted within man from the start. If there were no physical universe before God created it, where did sin, or even the potential for sin come from? Was it there in the non-universe from the start?

 

 

Are you arguing that everything that exists on earth is a special creation of God? So, you don't believe in any form of evolution? I don't believe that God has specially created all that exists. I think that things do exhibit some types of evolution, which explains strains of viruses, bacteria, diseases, etc. These are effects of the Fall of man when he rebelled against God. They were not a part of the original creation. God didn't create man with a sinful nature either. Yes, he created man with free will and that allowed for the potential for sin, but man had no inclination or even need to sin as God had fully provided for them. But, let's get back to the issue of the physical laws, fine tuning, and the origin of these.

 

First of all, you have not watched the videos as they were meant to be posted. They are not meant as an ultimate answer. You are posing an ultimate theory of everything - God. As opposed to competing scientific theories that seek a natural explanation that can be acquired through natural observation. Inserting God into gaps of knowledge is essentially inserting an unknowable supernatural explanation into a natural quandary. A God who "himself" comes with a whole mountain of logical absurdities that cannot be successfully explained away.

 

I had seen these videos before. I watched the whole series of the videos on the different theories of the origin of the universe weeks ago. The fact is that they are trying to get to an ultimate explanation for our universe by looking at various multiverse hypothesis explanations. The problem with natural explanations is that we 1) cannot observe even the full scope of our universe; 2) therefore, cannot observe any level multiverses; 3) can only speculate as to these different hypothesis; and, 4) they cannot even agree among the scientists as to how to interpret the data. The bottom line is that science can only take us so far which is why many, if not all of them, engage in metaphysics. They are all inserting their own metaphysic in the gaps, so it is not only theists who are trying to fill gaps of knowledge. So, whether a scientist fills the gaps with his metaphysical speculation or even mathematical formulas, it is still a problem that we all face ultimate gaps of knowledge that we will never have completely filled in. The question is which theory best fills in all of the gaps coherently, which, I believe, the Christian worldview does best. Those areas are: 1) from where did we come (origins); 2) what is our purpose (meaning); 3) how do we get along (morality); and 4) where do we go from this life (destiny).

 

It's funny to hear this charge from someone who would posit a God, who through supernatural, unknowable means gave rise to the universe as we see it. You have no basis for your beliefs other than through faith. You are putting words in my mouth and stating that science provides ultimate truths. Science is our best tool at attaining our best understanding of the world around us. It is not a Bronze Age belief that is constantly updated to the times it finds itself in in order to save itself from irrelevancy.

 

Science, my friend, does not hold the keys to all knowledge. For example, can you scientifically prove that science is the best tool for attaining the best understanding of the world around us? How would you build that test, scientifically, to prove that claim? What would the lab test look like? The fact is that that is a metaphysical claim and just proves my point that you are practicing scientism, not science.

 

Since when did I disregard any other philosophical field of study? You are putting words in my mouth at this point. We were specifically talking about a fine-tuned universe and now you begin ranting about how I have no underpinnings for my beliefs since I disregard any and all philosophical fields. Good job in assuming my points and getting them completely wrong. I have not seen a valid case for your argument in any way, shape or form. Mental gymnastics I have seen, though. It is an attempt to shoehorn your God into natural processes.

 

There area many logical inconsistencies of your God and why an uncaused cause does not fit because you posit a God that you are agnostic about with window dressings tacked on to appeal to your baser nature to have a supernatural person watching out for you.

Supernatural means beyond or above nature. God is essentially exempt from Natural Laws. God is either the source of Natural Law or the creator of Natural Law. God is able suspend Natural Law through the use of miracles. A God such as this is epistomologically transcendent or basically unknowable. God at this point is defined as being beyond human comprehension. A God at this point who can be known, is inherently contradictory since it contradicts the whole definition of being supernatural. Supernatural tells us what God is not; not a part of the natural universe. This definition does not inform us of what God is. Something supernatural existing outside of the natural is not explained. An “unnatural” or “supernatural” experience is not adequately explained. Characteristics define what an entity can or cannot do. A plant cannot become a car, a car cannot become an acorn, this is the uniformity of nature because of physical constants, even evolution. Things are limited by their characteristics and can only do what they are limited to doing. This lack of randomness gives rise to scientific inquiry and law. A supernatural being therefore, can't act in the natural universe, because it cannot possess specific characteristics that would limit it's actions, by definition making it not supernatural. If a being is to be exempt from Natural Law it must not have any specific characteristics making it indeterminate. This being must exist without a limited nature, which essentially means to exist without a nature. To assign characteristics limits this supernatural being and imposes characteristics on it.

 

 

God is viewed as Unknowable - The universal Christian tenet is that God is beyond human purview and is essentially unknowable.

 

Common attributes of God, almighty, eternal, holy, immortal, immense, ineffable, infinite, invisible, just, loving, merciful, incomprehensible, immutable, patient, perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent .To define the nature of God is to restrict the nature of God. As shown above, characteristics are limitations. These characteristics restrict this supernatural being to a natural being. To say God has a characteristic A is to say God does not possess characteristic -A. It is here that God is assigned Unlimited Attributes, such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. The problem with this is that it is self contradictory. To characterize something is to specify determined qualities and qualities cannot be separated from limitations. This is essentially assigning finite qualities to a defined infinite being. In order to escape agnosticism the Christian must posit assignable characteristics while at the sametime trying to not limit a by definition limitless being. God is often described in negative terms. Invisible – not visible. Ineffable – indescribable. Infinite – not finite. Immaterial – not material. Eternal – not subject to time. Unknowable – not knowable. Inconceivable - not conceivable. Unrestricted – not restricted. Unlimited – not limited. The Omni's – not subject to limits

 

None of these negative claims make a positive claim of what God “is”. The negative definitions presuppose a positive definition, and positive definition (characteristics) are limiting. Loving, Powerful, Wise, Compassionate, Empathetic, Justice, Mercy and Ultimate Knowledge. All of these attributes only describe what would be the personality of God and not the metaphysical existence of God. There is an imbalance between the negative definition and the positive ones that in no way do they begin to explain the actual nature of a supernatural being. To apply the human concept of wisdom to God is inherently self contradictory as well. Knowledge and wisdom are gained through experience, trial and error. In order to gain wisdom, God had to go through the process of trial and error? Or that God is loving, posits the existence of God's emotions, thereby meaning God can be passionate. As we have seen, we do not have to regard rocks as having emotions since they do not have the physical capacity for emotions. This is important because as we have seen, God is described as being supernatural. A term that has a connotation of not being of the physical world. Our emotions are brought on by physical processes, emotions without physical processes, aren't emotions.

 

OK, now you are jumping into epistemology and making completely unfounded claims. I will resist jumping into this discussion right now, as I am resisting jumping into the moral discussion right now. You seem to want to take the conversation in all sorts of directions except the one at hand, the fine tuning of the universe. I have given you plenty of opportunities to address your theory to explain these laws and constants and you have avoided the issue and diverted the conversation. You scream "God of the gaps" yet present no alternative natural explanations. You seem to just have complaints against God, and many of them, rather than explanations from a naturalistic viewpoint.

 

Once you answer the question by giving a plausible naturalistic explanation for the ontology of the laws and constants, I will be happy to discuss morality, epistemology and any other questions and complaints that you have against God, but first things first, let's stick to the topic at hand for now.

 

LNC

[BrotherJosh]

Simply passing off physical laws as brute facts is to appeal to ignorance, you cannot prove this to be the case and it seems to be merely an ad hoc way to avoid a designer.

 

Edit: Just saw you replied...

 

Since you have yet to respond to my earlier reply I have decided to delve further into this statement. I've set aside all the ad hominem and misrepresentations in your post and instead decide to get the focus back on fine-tuning.

 

Stars are luminous massive celestial bodies that are held together by gravity, right? Thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen releases energy and this energy helps provide life sustaining light and energy we now enjoy on Earth. Stars are essential in a life sustaining universe, correct? Stars created almost all of the naturally occurring elements heavier than Helium, another necessary requirement for the development of life. What are the chances that stars would form given random chance not only in other universes but in this one as well? 1 in 4. 25% of the time given random chance at the outset of the formation of this or other universes, stars would form. Even more so if we interpret stars even more broadly. Even if the physical constants are not met for the formation of stars even White Dwarfs or Neutron stars would be able to form, themselves energy sources.

 

So no, to appeal to brute facts is not an appeal to ignorance since the universe and it's physical constants are formed by random chance, and the physical constants that you cite as fine-tuning are able and have been show to hypothetically vary in star sustaining universes, one of the foundational requirements for life formation. The physical constants seen in this universe are in fact brute facts, since they are the result of random chance.

 

How did we get a universe from nothing? If the total energy of the universe is balanced between positive energy (matter, antimatter, photons..) and negative energy (gravity) the resulting net energy of the universe is zero. The universe is essentially nothing, but is balanced between positive energy and negative energy. So what is needed for this universe to form is a small spark of energy, because well, the universe is inflating, right? Quantum fluctuations happen all the time, antiparticles and particles form all the time. Coupled with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle one could potentially see a Quantum Fluctuation that would last long enough in order for that spark to happen.

 

This is of course one of the many theories about how the universe as we know it could form and it's one that I enjoy reading up on. It's an interesting concept and discussion it's shame a lot of the mathematics of it flies over my head though.

[BrotherJosh]

Yes, I haven't argued otherwise and don't see a problem with stating this.

Okay, we agree.

 

The rest of the universe may not be hospitable to life, but that is irrelevant to our discussion as we are focused on this planet. It doesn't matter that Earth was inhospitable in the past or may be in the future, since we didn't live in the past and won't exist in the future when it becomes inhospitable.

 

Still ignores the evolution of our species, and the various other species that died out on this planet. All 99% of them.

 

First, you haven't even attempted to explain thus far from where these physical constants originated and why they are what they are. That seems to be the issue at hand.

 

See later post...

 

You are completely ignoring the main issue of how and from where the physical laws and constants originated. We see plenty of other planets, stars, and moons that do not have tectonic activity and ...do not have life. Tectonic activity is a key feature of our planet to sustain life, which I have explained before. You can make all of the assumptions that you want, but it still does nothing to explain the physical laws and constants and the fact that they are finely tuned. Again, you are mixing issues by leaping to the problem of evil when we are discussing the fine tuning issue. I would be happy to discuss this issue after we have dealt with the issue at hand.

 

The issue at hand is whether or not this planet is truly hospitable to life as we experience it. Is this planet the result of a creator who finely-tuned this planet to be hospitable to all life, or is it a planet that formed with the necessary elements, physical properties, ozone layer and various other requirements for life to evolve?

 

Are you arguing that everything that exists on earth is a special creation of God? So, you don't believe in any form of evolution? I don't believe that God has specially created all that exists. I think that things do exhibit some types of evolution, which explains strains of viruses, bacteria, diseases, etc. These are effects of the Fall of man when he rebelled against God. They were not a part of the original creation. God didn't create man with a sinful nature either. Yes, he created man with free will and that allowed for the potential for sin, but man had no inclination or even need to sin as God had fully provided for them. But, let's get back to the issue of the physical laws, fine tuning, and the origin of these.

 

I could delve in to this but it may derail the conversation. Free will and whatnot is a whole other can of worms.

 

I had seen these videos before. I watched the whole series of the videos on the different theories of the origin of the universe weeks ago. The fact is that they are trying to get to an ultimate explanation for our universe by looking at various multiverse hypothesis explanations. The problem with natural explanations is that we 1) cannot observe even the full scope of our universe; 2) therefore, cannot observe any level multiverses; 3) can only speculate as to these different hypothesis; and, 4) they cannot even agree among the scientists as to how to interpret the data. The bottom line is that science can only take us so far which is why many, if not all of them, engage in metaphysics. They are all inserting their own metaphysic in the gaps, so it is not only theists who are trying to fill gaps of knowledge. So, whether a scientist fills the gaps with his metaphysical speculation or even mathematical formulas, it is still a problem that we all face ultimate gaps of knowledge that we will never have completely filled in. The question is which theory best fills in all of the gaps coherently, which, I believe, the Christian worldview does best. Those areas are: 1) from where did we come (origins); 2) what is our purpose (meaning); 3) how do we get along (morality); and 4) where do we go from this life (destiny).

 

Good I am glad you have watched them. Speculation is different than positing a non-falsifiable deity. Metaphysically, Christians cannot agree on the exact nature of their deity, so what world-view or version of the Christian deity do we insert? Certainly, many scientists disagree, that is the point of science. To disagree and offer up various explanations that best fit observable data.

 

The Christian world-view cannot agree on: 1) Where we come from; 2) What is our purpose; 3) How do we get along; and 4) Where we are going. The myriad of thoughts and revelations within the Christian world-view become so muddled, divining which one is right based off no ultimate grounding results in the many variations we see today.

 

Science, my friend, does not hold the keys to all knowledge. For example, can you scientifically prove that science is the best tool for attaining the best understanding of the world around us? How would you build that test, scientifically, to prove that claim? What would the lab test look like? The fact is that that is a metaphysical claim and just proves my point that you are practicing scientism, not science.

 

I have not posited that science holds the keys to ALL knowledge, a misrepresentation on your part. Application of the basic Scientific Method is our best tool for obtaining knowledge, if it is not, please demonstrate how it is not.

 

OK, now you are jumping into epistemology and making completely unfounded claims. I will resist jumping into this discussion right now, as I am resisting jumping into the moral discussion right now. You seem to want to take the conversation in all sorts of directions except the one at hand, the fine tuning of the universe. I have given you plenty of opportunities to address your theory to explain these laws and constants and you have avoided the issue and diverted the conversation. You scream "God of the gaps" yet present no alternative natural explanations. You seem to just have complaints against God, and many of them, rather than explanations from a naturalistic viewpoint.

 

Once you answer the question by giving a plausible naturalistic explanation for the ontology of the laws and constants, I will be happy to discuss morality, epistemology and any other questions and complaints that you have against God, but first things first, let's stick to the topic at hand for now.

 

LNC

 

Part of the argument as I stated before was that if we find gaps in knowledge, how do we fill that gap? Do we posit the existence of a non-falsifiable deity, who himself comes with logical fallacies? So you stated, "What are these logical fallacies?" And I responded in kind. And now you respond back saying I am leading the discussion down various paths, when one of the facets of the argument against the fine-tuning of the universe is how the universe as we observe it does not fit in with the generic deity of the Christian world-view. This is not even the specific deity of the Christian world-view or even the specific deity that humans have believed, but rather one with a laundry list of attributes. The Problem of Evil is indeed a facet of the argument for or against the fine-tuning of the universe, because a universe that is "hostile" or contains evil makes us call into question the creative abilities of the deity in question. So basically, I have responded to your posts, and to which you reply that I am not keeping the topic on hand, even though the topic arrived at that point through our own conversation.

 

I would like to hear your alternative supernatural explanation for the universe, if at least to clear the air.

[LNC]

God is by definition an uncreated self-existent being. He had no beginning and has no end. He is a necessary being and the author of a contingent universe, of which we are a part.

 

References please?

 

Here is a quote from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:...........

 

Essentially it's all just speculation.

 

No, it is called definition. Unless we define what God is like, we cannot determine whether he exists.

 

LNC

[florduh]

Unless we define what God is like, we cannot determine whether he exists.

That's rather an odd take!

 

If something exists you observe its characteristics; all agree that's how it looks/smells/behaves/reacts/etc., and that observation is then the definition of the thing. You can't just make up something to have certain qualities and then set about proving it's real.

[Guest Valk0010]

Unless we define what God is like, we cannot determine whether he exists.

That's rather an odd take!

 

If something exists you observe its characteristics; all agree that's how it looks/smells/behaves/reacts/etc., and that observation is then the definition of the thing. You can't just make up something to have certain qualities and then set about proving it's real.

Lnc's method also is biased.

[LNC]

Like you I disagree with anybody that says things like there is no law of non contradiction. But I would root logic in a different way then you. Here is a thought to consider and I will just use it as a example. Is black always black. Is is black only because we say it black because we say it or because it is. I would say regardless of a mind, that black thing will always have that feature, but we label it black, so therefore anything with that feature would be called black. And we can see obviously that feature can't be another feature, whatever that feature is. Black can't both be white and black for example. So our perception, which creates logic says, that label on that thing, only applies to that label on that thing and can't apply that label (black) to something that we perceive as completely different yet keep the description black. Logic like math is a formalization of perceived phenomena. Absolutes are thing that are not seen to change, like say non contradiction. Show me how a black feature could actually be the same thing as a white feature, and I will believe that non contradiction is a joke. 1 could be labeled 2, but still be the same thing, regardless of labeling, same with black, black could be called gobble yet still be whatever is labeled black. Does that make sense? I also don't think that is post moderist or somehow relativist, because every homosapien can perceive it the same way, that say isn't biologically incapable in some way like say blind. How could it not be otherwise, well if what we saw every showed otherwise (odds are on not) then that would be blown out of the water, but that would also blow out of the water every observation we have made sense the beginning of time.

 

About god's nature being logical, when then how is he author of the system, and how do we know anything, we are just playing along with some other persons, subjective understanding.

 

God after all does interpret himself right?

 

I would say that your explanation runs into a number of problems. First of all, perception does not create logic, that is a category error. Second, when you say black, of what are you speaking? Wouldn't we have to agree on that definition? But why agree? Maybe my perception tells me something different than yours. Or, maybe my interpretation of black is different than yours. Also, what if I don't agree with you that black can't be white or I define white as black on Tuesdays, and then green on Thursdays, etc.? Why can't I do that if there is no objective standard for logic, color, etc.? What about the word "can't", what if I decide to define that word as you define "can"? You see, when there is no grounding for objective logic, then the rules are what I or you or my group or your group make them out to be.

 

The postmodernist would say that you are stuck in your perspectival narrative and logic could be a part of your narrative that doesn't apply to mine as there are really no universals in this system of thought. So, logic would be included in that. Now, I agree that it would be hard to live in that world, but that, I think points us to a transcendent grounding for logic, as it does for morality. I think that your last set of questions bears that out. There has to be a grounding for logic, for it it is just a convention, then it is not really universal, objective, or absolute. We are just pretending that it is. However, we don't merely pretend that it is objective, we know it is - but that begs the question of how it could be if it was just a set of abstract concepts. I don't think that we believe them to be abstract concepts, but universals and universals have to have a transcendent, immutable grounding. Concepts come from minds and the only immutable, transcendent mind I know of would be God.

 

LNC

[LNC]

God created us in his image in the likeness of his eternal nature, with logic and morality being reflections of that nature within us. So, we can know these things as a result of being created in his image.

If we are created to the likeness of an eternal nature, then why are humans so different and why has the human species changed, both biological, culturally, religious, and scientifically? How can it be eternal and absolute if all of it has changed?

 

I'm not saying that our nature is immutable, that is only true of God. However, we do have eternal natures, I believe. Because of the Fall of man our natures have been corrupted from the way that we were initially created. That is why we are different from what we are intended to be. Jesus came to earth to show us what man was intended to be and to offer the opportunity to be restored to that original nature. The culmination of that restoration won't happen in this life, but in the next; however, the offer is there and the price has been paid by Jesus for our redemption and restoration.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I should have elaborated more earlier. If we say didn't exist, the thing we would call black would still not be the same as the thing we call white, its just that no one would be around to really say there is a difference. Concepts are thoughts based of external factors I think. Meaning the world would be as we know it now if we weren't here and the world effects are concepts.

 

Since it can't be explained by the material world (or not yet) that sounds like the argument from ignorance. And of course all we can prove is also a mind, not necessarily a personal god if your right(I am splitting hairs yes, but its a curious point). As far as I can see there is nothing but the material world, but as far as we can tell if there was a material world then I would have to agree.

 

And minds, do we really wanna have a whole separate debate on that, logic has a lot to do with a mind, but I don't see how bringing up the supposed failures of naturalism to explain conscience and the mind has any real purpose here. Maybe you would like to say why you think otherwise.

 

If minds didn't exist, the things of this world (except for minds) would exist, but concepts would not. Since logic is a concept, if God didn't exist and people didn't then logic wouldn't . If God didn't exist, then logic still wouldn't necessarily be objective in nature. I have elaborated on the color issue in an earlier post, so I won't repeat the point here. Concepts will never be explained by the material world as matter in and of itself cannot have a conceptual nature. It is simply stuff bouncing off other stuff. There is no intrinsic intentionality in matter and without intentionality (the ofness and aboutness of thoughts), then there are no concepts and, therefore, no logic.

 

I think that the issue of consciousness and minds (as well as intentionality) are crucial to the explanation of concepts, of which logic is included. Can you tell me how concepts might exist without minds? Computers don't have thoughts because computers are not intrinsically intentional, so they cannot do anything but process logic according to their programming (derived intentionality). So, they cannot hold concepts, but only process data.

 

Well I guess there should be no atheists then if logic is reflected in god's nature, and we should still be in the bronze age.

 

You forget that there was a Fall and man's nature was corrupted by it. That explains the existence of atheists. I'm not sure why you say that we should still be in the bronze age, what is your reasoning behind that, or were you just being facetious?

 

LNC

[Guest Valk0010]

The problem is, that feature you would name white on Tuesdays green on Saturdays doesn't change, its from a definition sense, retarded to name something different on Tuesday, but the name doesn't change what it actually is. That would be reality, something that is material but doesn't change because of perception. That reality is what logic, regardless of label is based of. If its Thursday and the label changes so what, its just the label changes, not the actually perceived thing. I am also assuming nature is uniform in this, if you want to know. I am also assuming that there is, a reality that is not based in perception and that would exist regardless of our existence.

 

I probably should have been clearer to say, that labels are not important, its what that is being labeled that is. And its what is being labeled (nature) that where logical absolutes come from.

 

If we have no reason to believe it could possibly change, why consider the possibility. Nature is after all understood to be uniform at all times.

[Ouroboros]

I'm not saying that our nature is immutable, that is only true of God. However, we do have eternal natures, I believe.

So you're saying that the phrase "in the image of God" really means "eternal nature," nothing else?

 

So the phrase is kind of a figure of speech, not literally "image," right?

 

Because of the Fall of man our natures have been corrupted from the way that we were initially created. That is why we are different from what we are intended to be. Jesus came to earth to show us what man was intended to be and to offer the opportunity to be restored to that original nature. The culmination of that restoration won't happen in this life, but in the next; however, the offer is there and the price has been paid by Jesus for our redemption and restoration.

So is this a different image of God or the same as the eternal image?

[Guest Valk0010]

 

If minds didn't exist, the things of this world (except for minds) would exist, but concepts would not. Since logic is a concept, if God didn't exist and people didn't then logic wouldn't . If God didn't exist, then logic still wouldn't necessarily be objective in nature. I have elaborated on the color issue in an earlier post, so I won't repeat the point here. Concepts will never be explained by the material world as matter in and of itself cannot have a conceptual nature. It is simply stuff bouncing off other stuff. There is no intrinsic intentionality in matter and without intentionality (the ofness and aboutness of thoughts), then there are no concepts and, therefore, no logic.

So are your talking about logic absolutes, or logic fully, because I would say that all logic is based of absolutes like non contradiction just as a example. I would like to know, if you think there is a difference or not. The absolutes of logic would always exist regardless of our existence. Just because we might not exist doesn't mean things can violate the three logical absolutes. Now all the stuff that we would base of those absolutes would be gone, but not those absolutes.

 

I think that the issue of consciousness and minds (as well as intentionality) are crucial to the explanation of concepts, of which logic is included. Can you tell me how concepts might exist without minds? Computers don't have thoughts because computers are not intrinsically intentional, so they cannot do anything but process logic according to their programming (derived intentionality). So, they cannot hold concepts, but only process data.

I used the word concept, with the assumption of the existence of our minds. Like I said above, logical absolutes would still exist but anything based of that would be lost. I assumed you recognized the difference, maybe you don't based of what your saying, between logic as whole and the absolutes which all of logic is based on. Can I explain how a mind exists from a purely naturalistic perspective. Not really. I do have a problem with the other option, we have no evidence of a mind existing without matter. Seems to me, matter is a necessary part of the equation. How that translates from matter to non matter, I can' really say.

 

I'm not sure why you say that we should still be in the bronze age, what is your reasoning behind that, or were you just being facetious?

 

LNC

We probably could just for the sake of it, drop objective morals and pick that up later. But my point there was, We first hear about god in that era, the laws and regulations of the NT and OT reflect that era. If there was some objective moral divine absolute, then all "moral improvements" like say women liberation or gay rights, or just simply dropping the barbarism would be a sin and therefore wrong. Outside of the rather unintellectual issues with that, which say I or any other atheist would have with that, it begs credulity. Even if we failed and sinned, etc, we still wouldn't be glibly put "more moral then god." Unless moral is at least partially subjective, we wouldn't see moral change from then. Morality would be more consistent at least some level throughout different society and through history itself. Unless you believe we are incapable of any good at all really.

[Neon Genesis]

The question is which theory best fills in all of the gaps coherently, which, I believe, the Christian worldview does best. Those areas are: 1) from where did we come (origins); 2) what is our purpose (meaning); 3) how do we get along (morality); and 4) where do we go from this life (destiny).

 

 

Which Christian worldview? Catholics say that God created the universe through the big bang and evolution and that Genesis is just a fable. Why should I believe your claims over theirs? Gnostics say that the universe was created by an evil false god. Why should I believe your claims over theirs? Which Christian purpose should I believe in? The purpose we're supposed to follow is different by denomination. The End Times Christians say our purpose is to get the Jews back into power in Israel to bring about the Second Coming. Christian Reconstructionists say our purpose is to turn America into a Christian theocracy that should be ruled by Old Testament law. Evangelical Christians say our purpose is to convert the world to their version of Christianity. Liberal Christians say our purpose is to execute social justice through liberation theology views. Which Christian purpose is the correct one and why should I follow your purpose over anyone else's? Christians don't agree with each other on anything in morality. Some Christians say God loves and accepts homosexuals while other Christians say gays should be put to death. Some Christians say abortion is murder while other Christians believe it's a woman's right to choose. Some Christians believe women should be submissive to men and not be allowed to preach or have leadership roles. Other Christians believe that God allows women to preach and support equal rights for women. Some Christians believe Jesus calls Christians to practice non-violent pacifism while other Christians use the bible to justify violence and wars. So which Christian morality should we believe in and why should we believe your morals over any other Christian's? Christians don't agree with each other on what happens when we die. Some Christians say everyone goes to heaven. Others say only true Christians go to heaven. Some Christians say hell is a spiritual separation from God. Others believe hell is a real physical place. Some Christians say hell is only temporary and other Christians say hell is eternal. Which afterlife belief is the correct one and why should I believe your afterlife belief over other Christians'?

[par4dcourse]

Hear hear. Valid point well expressed. Damn fine piece of writing Neon.

[LNC]

I actually don't the disciples were deceived by outside forces(unless jesus counts,which I think does to a certain extent), I would say there simply deluded but that is another debate entirely. I have my own views on that.

 

The problem is that they claim to have seen Jesus after he was crucified. What kind of outside forces could have caused these types of experiences? If they were delude, it still doesn't explain an empty tomb. If they were deluded, it wouldn't likely have taken the form of seeing Jesus risen from the dead as the only resurrection they would know would be the general resurrection at the end of time. It also doesn't explain that many people would have to have had different delusional experiences at different times and in different places, while others would have to have had group delusional experience. Many have studied this claim and have found that it does not have explanatory power and scope to address all the details of what we know of the events. I would be happy to point to you some articles if you're interested.

 

Sure your right on the Muslims part, but you don't get what I mean, iirc they have a devil to, and that is how they would explain how the 12 believed and did what they did, if of course they didn't appeal to some more academic explanation as at least as far as I can gather. I don't honestly know what exact supernatural explanation they would use to say the disciples were deceived into believing what they did and seeing what they did I am not a muslim and I am not satisfied with a overly simplistic answer. But if you prove a supernatural realm exists and its not just the material realm, what they say that is supernatural is far game and has about the same weight as any other miracle claim.

 

You would have to point me to a source on that claim. As far as I know, Muslims don't believe that Jesus died on the cross. The Qur'an states: “They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but they thought they did.” (Quran 4:156) “God lifted him up to His presence. God is Almighty, All-Wise” (Quran 4:157) . Since they don't believe that Jesus really died, they don't believe that the disciples saw a resurrected Jesus. The problem is that many people saw him die on the cross and buried in the tomb. The Muslim has to explain how someone else took Jesus place without anyone noticing. That seems a bit of a stretch.

 

I am just saying, that if you prove there is such a thing as a supernatural, based of things like say the teleological argument or tag, or absolute morals and so on and so forth, you don't automatically prove one particular god on that basis.

 

And if you prove some generic god, what stops one from just forming there own doctrine according to that supposed proof provided by said arguments.

 

You could from that basis, rule out, since you got no reason not to, approaching from that perspective, say the resurrection or the miracles of jesus, or any other religion, for the sake of another religion. Does that make sense because I have a feeling it doesn't?

 

Sure you could find problems with other religions to lnc, just like people find problems with yours. I was just saying that is the simpletons explanation and in a theistic world, that is potentially far game.

 

I would agree with you that no one argument makes the whole case for the God of the Bible (as far as describing his attributes) which is why I tend to present more of a cumulative case for God's existence using many of these arguments to show different aspects of God's nature, traits, and character. I believe that taken together, these arguments do get us to the God of the Bible rather than just a generic manifestation of a god. We then take the revelation revealed by that God to his prophets and apostles and the revelation that Jesus left us with and we get to the specifics of God's plan. Since the various religions of the world are contradictory at their core, they cannot all be true. We then have to take the evidence to lead us to the one that is most consistent with the world around us and the most internally consistent or coherent. I believe that Christianity best addresses and meets those two criteria.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Really? Most people?

 

Didn't you say in a previous post, "the universe"?

 

Do you think you have an earth-centric view on the universe?

 

I'd still like to know what your reference is to the composition of all the other planets in the universe.

 

 

We are talking about whether the Earth is a water rich or water poor planet compared with others in the universe, so we are discussing both.

 

I think that we all have an Earth centric view of the universe since that is where we reside and that is the vantage point from which we view the universe. What would you say your vantage point is?

 

The data is widely available, don't you have access to Google?

 

It can't do anything?

 

Your god you mean?

 

 

Correct. I only know of one God. I explained why in my previous post. God cannot act contrary to his nature; however, that doesn't negate omnipotence as the definition for omnipotence doesn't encompass doing the logically impossible.

 

Do you choose that definition because it fits with what you believe or because you think those philosophers have some special ability? Or?

 

Do people of other religions and cultures accept that definition for their god(s)?

 

If not then would it only be classic in a euro-centric historical perspective?

 

 

I use the classic definition of God. One must define God before one can argue for or against his existence. Did you have another definition you would like to put forward?

 

LNC

 

 

[bdp]

the resurrection of Jesus.

 

 

 

 

is pure fiction and you have never demonstrated it to be other wise.

[bdp]

 

 

 

God didn't create the dangerous objects, man did.

 

your 'god' couldn't come up with a better way to 'redeem' it's 'creation' that doesn't allow, oh, nine year old girls to be gunned down in grocery store parking lots, or babies to be raped live on the internet. YOUR 'god's' fault, every last shitty thing that happens on the planet. Except it's not because your god doesn't exist and you've never shown it to exist.

[bdp]

One must define God before one can argue for or against his existence.

 

This is bullshit, but didn't you also say that 'god' 'exists' in a different space/dimension/whatthefuck ever? We can't know ANYTHING about a 'being' that supposedly exists in a place we can't even demonstrate the existence of, anything you say about 'god' was pulled straight out of someone's ass and is only = 'speculation' is too good a word, it's just idle daydreaming. Pathetic, just pathetic.

[bdp]

the only true knowledge comes through science.

 

Yes, precisely. I'm a type I diabetic who has to inject myself with artificial insulin every day to live. Theologians and philosophers had nothing to do with the creation of artificial insulin, or anything else that has contributed to the betterment of life. Of course true knowledge comes from science because it's testable - your figment of a god can't even be apprehended in a material way. Denial, cognitive dissonance - you're depressing as all hell.

[bdp]

God is not physical and therefore not located anywhere. You can't point to a place on a map and locate God.

 

 

Or know anything about it, or know that it exists. You've never shown that this is not the case. You need to take the 'L' out of your screen name.

[bdp]

If they were delude, it still doesn't explain an empty tomb.

 

Over a quarter of the Lord God Habermas' 'new testament scholars' reject the empty tomb - it is not a historical fact and so we are under no obligation to explain it.

[bdp]

The question is which theory best fills in all of the gaps coherently, which, I believe, the Christian worldview does best.

 

it doesn't - the 'christian worldview' is a nonsensical wish dream.

[bdp]

 

 

I use the classic definition of God. One must define God before one can argue for or against his existence. Did you have another definition you would like to put forward?

 

LNC

 

I do - me.

[Guest Valk0010]

 

 

The problem is that they claim to have seen Jesus after he was crucified. What kind of outside forces could have caused these types of experiences? If they were delude, it still doesn't explain an empty tomb. If they were deluded, it wouldn't likely have taken the form of seeing Jesus risen from the dead as the only resurrection they would know would be the general resurrection at the end of time. It also doesn't explain that many people would have to have had different delusional experiences at different times and in different places, while others would have to have had group delusional experience. Many have studied this claim and have found that it does not have explanatory power and scope to address all the details of what we know of the events. I would be happy to point to you some articles if you're interested.

I would be surprised if you have anything that I haven't heard before in some way or from apologetics. In fact every line you have said here I have heard from xtian apologists. Talking about the appearance to the 500, what counts as a appearance, we would like to say it was a full bodily jesus, but how do we know that without assuming innerrancy and the stories are straight. This is not to say I assume the stories are automatically wrong either I would agree in saying hallucination is unlikely, but as compared to a god miracles, eeehhh someone who says a wizard did it, has no room to talk on likelyhood. Your right being deluded isn't the full answer, I am just saying it contributes to the mentally that would create a heretical view(a resurrected body not dealing with the end times mass resurrection), that is called cognitive dissonance reduction, and its called being a cult. And even if I am wrong there, I would say only then, its confirmation bias, after all jesus said the kingdom of god would come in the disciples lifetimes. Part of the problem i have with trusting the gospels in saying this like there was a bodily appearance that ate with him and things like that, is that everyone who saw him would have known, instead of some doubting like, they did. I think at best the bodily appearances are embellishment and if there was any actual experience of something they called jesus appearing, it wouldn't have been like portrayed in the gospels. A more philosophical problem I have with it, can miracles happen. If miracles can't happen, then arguing the resurrection is pointless.

I will respond with more when i am not so tired.

You would have to point me to a source on that claim. As far as I know, Muslims don't believe that Jesus died on the cross. The Qur'an states: “They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but they thought they did.” (Quran 4:156) “God lifted him up to His presence. God is Almighty, All-Wise” (Quran 4:157)

I stand corrected.