Guest Valk0010 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 I am not saying anything about the reliability 1 Corinthian 15. I think paul wrote it. I saying you have to assume innerrancy, to see a passage that vague on what exactly they saw automatically means a appeared jesus like that of matthew mark luke and john. And if we don't know enough about the crowds, then how can you say god did it. I agree with neon, about the skeptcism bit. They were god believing jews, what would be considered a sign of god then, would be consider nothing today. Different views about jesus, by people who believed in him. That would be the apostles. Paul would have been aware enough of christianity that such a fanatical jew like paul was, the turmoil (which people like gerd ludeman reference to) would make it possible for, what would account to pretty much a nervous breakdown. http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/visionorigin.html#4 I would say lnc your biased against the natural. What is your evidence that god did it is even more likely then we don't know based off our very little facts. I don't think of my view as a bias. I would treat the miracle claims of ancient books the same as say a claim of a alien abduction or the time I could swear I saw a ghost. I assume nature is uniform just like the scientific method. If we don't see the blind being cured by mud, or the dead coming back today, outside of some bias towards the supernatural can we say for certainty that it happened back then. Do you trust the miracle claims of other texts? The book of mormon for example has people that signed there named to say they witnessed the truth of the book. And what do most historian do when they examine ancient texts who account to the supernatural. They do one or both of the following. They say its unprovable, or attribute it to legend. I would say the gospels are not exempt from something like that. I am not calling god a wizard outside of hyperbole. I am saying this with certainty, one who says god did it is the most rational answer has no right to say that things like hallucinations no matter how unlikely are. I know you disagree with people like ehrmans view of what the historical jesus is, my views are similar to people like him. Apocalyptic prophet, that sort of thing, that became the son of god(which is applied to people who aren't divine if you wanna know). That is where the cognitive dissonance would happen. This is a urban legend, but this will make my reference to cults make a bit more sense. Charles mansion supposedly levitated a bus over a lake. Now the people who followed mansion are a cult. Miracles, followers with extreme devotion. See the connection. There is more reasons why I think of jesus followers as a cult. There would have been many different nonmiraclous reasons that people would have found good in following jesus. Natural vs supernatural if there is uncertainty guess what most historians would go with. Natural. My main reasoning for considering miracle accounts of ancient times as embellishment is because miracles as far as we can see don't happen today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Some people doubted they saw jesus when he showed up after dying. Matthew 28:10-20 (New International Version, ©2010) 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.” The Guards’ Report 11 While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. 12 When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, 13 telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ 14 If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.” 15 So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day. The Great Commission 16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 Is LNC seriously claiming most historians believe that 1 Corinthians 15 is a historically accurate account of the resurrection? I'm sorry but just no. And Thomas was not a skeptic in any sense of the word. Nobody in the ancient world was a skeptic. Everyone in the ancient world believed in God and miracles. And seriously, considering the fact that the gospels are heersay evidence, not written by apostles, or people close to the apostles, we are basing are religion on one person's testimony and a bunch of tradition. Not exactly something, to bet your life on I would think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted January 28, 2011 Share Posted January 28, 2011 For what was accepted as miracles in the ancient world would have been a trip to the nuthouse and mental illness and legend if it happened today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 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 Why do we have to assume inerrancy to believe that this account is historically accurate? It seems that you doubt it due to a materialistic or anti-supernatural bias. However, to materialism is not a default position, one must prove that materialism is true and that the supernatural could not be true, otherwise, why should anyone accept that as an argument against the account? And sorry, I have never said anything about a wizard, so that argument is a red herring. You also seem to want to argue for and against the argument for delusion. You say it is not a full answer, but give no evidence that it is even a partial answer, but simply assume it to be the case. I would like to actually have you present evidence that it is possible in this case rather than just slipping it in as if it were established. Argue the case that cognitive dissonance reduction applies here, I don't see it fitting in this case. Jesus said that the Kingdom would come because he brought it in himself (Matt.12:28; Luke 10:9; 17:21; . Where do you find evidence that anyone who saw the risen Jesus doubted? Thomas doubted until he saw the rise Jesus, then he believed. I see no evidence for your claim, however, The bodily appearance of the risen Jesus is recorded in some of the earliest writings (1 Cor. 15), so your claim of embellishment seems a bit odd as the preaching of the risen Jesus can be traced back to within 24 months of the resurrection (in the creed within 1 Cor. 15). Why would a bodily risen Jesus have not appeared in the Gospel accounts? How do you know that miracles cannot happen? What is your evidence? LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Look at posts 179 and 180 lnc, some of the questions of 183 you brought up are addressed there to my satisfaction, and it seems you didn't read that far. Bodily right, does paul say appeared or appeared bodily. If it just says appeared, then what appearances. I think its wrong to make that assumption it was bodily, in 1 Corinthians. For the 100's time i am saying your assuming innerrancy to say just because the gospels say it was bodily that paul believed it was bodily. You have to provide some evidence to say paul without explicitly saying meant bodily for every single appearance he talks about. I know you never said anything about a wizard but it isn't a red herring, its rhetoric describing a point. Your saying the natural is unlikely yet you say god did it, god being the wizard. If I am going to have such a hard time getting across to you what I want to say, i don't want to beat my head against the wall trying to have this discussion. And just a nickpick point. Who says a non bodily jesus couldn't have risen? After all we don't know exactly what the resurrected body looks like, this is considering of course things like the seed plant arguement that paul made. What evidence do you have to say, that paul meant or believed one thing, and then the gospels believed the same, afterall that part of corithans is dated to the 50's. Early markian texts, have a very undetailed documentation of the resurrected jesus worse yet written in the 70's. Who says doctrine couldn't have changed. I know this will wash over you like water, but its good questions nonetheless. My evidence for cognitive dissonce, simple, its based in how I don't believe the disciples believed originally in christ being divine. Look at how jesus says god is greater then him, or how he said the world was going to come to end in the disciples lifetimes, even things like leave the dead for the dead, make more sense if jesus was originally attempting to be a prophet for the quickly coming end of the age. That is some reasons for that claim. And with that, I don't think it was expected for him to die, hence to dissonance. Hallucination, I doubt, that the disciples even saw a bodily jesus as depicted in the gospels. Those gospels stories contradict is one reason I doubt there more then embellishment. Paul for example never says anything about how he is difference then the apostles even in knowing jesus, outside of things like untimely born which can be taken to mean the timing of pauls conversion. Mythology, Jesus died in 30 ad, mark was written at 70, even if the truth was somehow secured by mnemonics or memory enhancement that is no security especially considering the credulity of the time, and also how even know we react to claims of the paranormal of any sort and how beliefs can change and develop. I would say, with that and more we get a picture of what is understood. A thing I would actually prefer to debate in regards to this(because I would be on a better footing debating a person that has a degree is apologetics from what I have been told and), because its actually more important, is miracles even possible or are they so unlikely there not even worth consideration. Because if that is true, any search of the historical jesus or divine jesus is moot. No miracles no resurrection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Did you ever reply to Hans/Oroborus' and my inquiry regarding if they were aware of the resurrection from the OT. Would they have been familiar with these stories, and would they have understood them as real happenings? In case I haven't yet done so, let me now answer this. The Jews would have known of a general resurrection at the end of time, but not of individual resurrections beforehand. If you look at the story of the raising of Lazarus (not a resurrection like Jesus', but more of a resuscitation of a dead person as Lazarus, unlike Jesus would die again) he said to Martha, Lazarus' brother, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” Martha, like every other Jew, understood that the resurrection happened in the last day (end of time). Lazarus' raising was to point to a different idea, but it didn't really sink in as they were all surprised by Jesus' resurrection from the dead. The people that Elijah and Elisha raised would have been similar to that of Lazarus in that those people died again. The same would be the case of those that Peter and Paul raised in the accounts in Acts. These would be more like a resuscitation of a dead person rather than a resurrection like Jesus' (even though they might have been called resurrections). Let me know if that makes sense. LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 30, 2011 Share Posted January 30, 2011 Sorry to butt in here, but your response didn't make sense to me. You have to explain it better and provide a bit more evidence to support your claim. In case I haven't yet done so, let me now answer this. The Jews would have known of a general resurrection at the end of time, but not of individual resurrections beforehand. You're making the assumption that they didn't believe in the resurrection stories in the Old Testament or believed them according to your interpretation. If you look at the story of the raising of Lazarus (not a resurrection like Jesus', but more of a resuscitation of a dead person as Lazarus, unlike Jesus would die again) he said to Martha, Lazarus' brother, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” Are you saying that when Jesus was resurrected, they mysteriously knew that Jesus was resurrected for eternal and divine life (like Asclepius or Aristeas of Proconnesus) and not just a reanimation of their dead body. What about Moses? Or Enoch (I think it was), who pleased God and was taken up before his time (at age of 300)? And wasn't Elijah taken up into the sky without dying? I guess the Jews didn't believe their book literally, like Christians do today. The Greeks had several myths about people being resurrected and receiving eternal life, and the Christians knew about these stories. Greek philosophy was known because we have the writings of Philo, for instance, or Jystin Marty making the argument “when we say … Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus.” Martha, like every other Jew, understood that the resurrection happened in the last day (end of time). Lazarus' raising was to point to a different idea, but it didn't really sink in as they were all surprised by Jesus' resurrection from the dead. You are assuming you know Martha's thoughts and beliefs. The people that Elijah and Elisha raised would have been similar to that of Lazarus in that those people died again. How the heck do you know? I'm quite certain that the myth is that they didn't die. Is there a Bible verse claiming they died? Didn't even Paul admit Enoch went to heaven without dying? (I have a vague memory he does, but I could be wrong.) The same would be the case of those that Peter and Paul raised in the accounts in Acts. These would be more like a resuscitation of a dead person rather than a resurrection like Jesus' (even though they might have been called resurrections). And how do you know that? And how did they know the difference? And how did they not know what many others knew about the Greek myths, which a large number of people still believed in during that time. If you want to focus on answering only one question, focus on Enoch. Tell me how he died or why the Jews didn't believe it to be a true story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted January 30, 2011 Author Share Posted January 30, 2011 It seems that you doubt it due to a materialistic or anti-supernatural bias. However, to materialism is not a default position, one must prove that materialism is true and that the supernatural could not be true, otherwise, why should anyone accept that as an argument against the account? I think you have it backwards. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. To claim that a crucified Jewish man was raised from the dead on the third day is an extraordinary claim and it's your job to back it up with extraordinary evidence. It is logically impossible to prove a negative and we're not the ones making the assertive claim, you are, so it's your job to prove it. Even the bible says that Christians should always be prepared to give a reason for the hope they have. It doesn't say skeptics should always have a reason, it says Christians should. I see no evidence for your claim, however, The bodily appearance of the risen Jesus is recorded in some of the earliest writings (1 Cor. 15), so your claim of embellishment seems a bit odd as the preaching of the risen Jesus can be traced back to within 24 months of the resurrection (in the creed within 1 Cor. 15). Why would a bodily risen Jesus have not appeared in the Gospel accounts? How do you know that miracles cannot happen? What is your evidence? LNC Where in 1 Corinthians 15 does it ever say Paul wrote that letter 24 months after the resurrection of Jesus? I've read that entire chapter and I fail to see where that it is ever stated anywhere in that passage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centauri Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 ...The bodily appearance of the risen Jesus is recorded in some of the earliest writings (1 Cor. 15), so your claim of embellishment seems a bit odd as the preaching of the risen Jesus can be traced back to within 24 months of the resurrection (in the creed within 1 Cor. 15). Embellishment can occur only hours and days after an event. Pfc. Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman are two examples of soldiers whose exploits were embellished very quickly. In their cases the embellishments were created by official government agencies. The legend of Hitler escaping Berlin in 1945 and fleeing to South America arose quickly as well. Paul never saw the bodily resurrected Jesus but did see visions, and he claimed that he learned his information from no man but from the visions. In any case, the creed isn't validated by sources outside the cult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 It seems that you doubt it due to a materialistic or anti-supernatural bias. However, to materialism is not a default position, one must prove that materialism is true and that the supernatural could not be true, otherwise, why should anyone accept that as an argument against the account? I think you have it backwards. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. To claim that a crucified Jewish man was raised from the dead on the third day is an extraordinary claim and it's your job to back it up with extraordinary evidence. It is logically impossible to prove a negative and we're not the ones making the assertive claim, you are, so it's your job to prove it. Even the bible says that Christians should always be prepared to give a reason for the hope they have. It doesn't say skeptics should always have a reason, it says Christians should. I see no evidence for your claim, however, The bodily appearance of the risen Jesus is recorded in some of the earliest writings (1 Cor. 15), so your claim of embellishment seems a bit odd as the preaching of the risen Jesus can be traced back to within 24 months of the resurrection (in the creed within 1 Cor. 15). Why would a bodily risen Jesus have not appeared in the Gospel accounts? How do you know that miracles cannot happen? What is your evidence? LNC Where in 1 Corinthians 15 does it ever say Paul wrote that letter 24 months after the resurrection of Jesus? I've read that entire chapter and I fail to see where that it is ever stated anywhere in that passage. Following neon's thinking, which I agree with. I am saying I am not convinced based off the evidence that the supernatural explanation is the right one. I still mull over my head what specifically is the right non supernatural explanation personally. I could write a book saying what actually happened, but that would be pointless. I am just simply not convinced it proves that supernatural things occurred. About the Corinthians bit, the best I can gather, which is really just assumption on apologist parts. Well people say that paul got his information about things like the resurrection from the apostles themselves according to Galatians. How specifically they date back the creed to 24 months I don't know know the specifics, never though it to matter, but the Galatians part I do know to be said by apologists. Still waiting for you to address 179 and 180 lnc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 ...The bodily appearance of the risen Jesus is recorded in some of the earliest writings (1 Cor. 15), so your claim of embellishment seems a bit odd as the preaching of the risen Jesus can be traced back to within 24 months of the resurrection (in the creed within 1 Cor. 15). Embellishment can occur only hours and days after an event. Pfc. Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman are two examples of soldiers whose exploits were embellished very quickly. In their cases the embellishments were created by official government agencies. The legend of Hitler escaping Berlin in 1945 and fleeing to South America arose quickly as well. Paul never saw the bodily resurrected Jesus but did see visions, and he claimed that he learned his information from no man but from the visions. In any case, the creed isn't validated by sources outside the cult. This is going to sound stupid, but what he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 See my later post, wherein you stated I was veering the conversation wildly in directions that were not pertinent to the conversation. Trying to control the debate and what we are discussing is attempting to wrest control of the conversation so that you can inject your own opinions without allowing the conversation to naturally progress of it's own accord. I'm still not sure why that would be a case of ad hominem or misrepresentation as you claimed. I don't believe I was trying to wrest control, only keep the conversation on topic. These conversations tend to flow all over the map, so if I try to control that a bit so that we at least deal with the main post topic, I'm not sure that that is being controlling. I don't know how you come up with your probabilities. It would seem that you would need to know a lot more to make such a determination. For example, what is the mass of the universe? What is the ratio of mass to gravity? Does the universe operate according to the same laws as ours? These are but a few questions that would need to be answered before any such calculation could be made. In other words, you are making blind speculations here. http://arxiv.org/PS_...0807.3697v1.pdf While you talk past me, I speculated that universes containing stars are potentially life supporting universes right? I believe that if you will consult a book like Paul Davies Cosmic Jackpot, you will find all of your questions answered. In regard to the article you cited, what point exactly were you trying to make with it? I find it to be too speculative to be making any point for your case, but maybe you can let me know what you saw in it. As to your last question, sure, there may potentially be life supporting stars, but not necessarily so. The existence of stars and planets does not guarantee that any be life supporting. http://arxiv.org/PS_...4/0604027v1.pdf And how do you come to your conclusions without falling back to presuppositional arguments? Have you even considered how outlandish your statements are? You are exceeding the bounds of sanity by saying that they all occurred because your "definition" of a god magically popped them in to existence. Is it god or turtles all the way down? Also, see earlier article. Let's hypothetically say, that the universe was fine-tuned by a deity. Myself and many others have asked, which deity than? Is it your classical "philosophical" deity? Really? Why? OK, again I will ask what point you are trying to make by again posting the link to this paper? I have made no presuppositional arguments to make the case for fine-tuning. The case is not widely disputed, in fact. The only question is what accounts for the apparent fine-tuning. You only consider this possibility to be outlandish because you have a priori, ruled out the possibility for the existence of anything beyond the material world. However, you have given no basis for this belief, so to call the opposing view "outlandish" and "exceeding the bounds of sanity" is simply hand waving, it is not to be confused with an actual argument for your view. I am arguing that fine-tuning cannot be accounted for by law or chance, I haven't made a case beyond that yet. You first say in your post that you don't believe that God could be responsible for the fine-tuning, now you want to argue what God is like. Why don't we stick to the discussion of whether the universe truly is fine tuned before jumping on. Dude, seriously you are talking past me at this point. You are assuming nothing exists, sure philosophically even scientifically we can debate this topic on end for hours. How do you define nothing? But if you, LNC, define it, it is still something because you are attaching meaning to it. Nothing is used as an indefinite pronoun, which of course means something! Would you define consciousness as nothing as opposed to the brute existence of a tree, which has more "being"? Does the First Law of Thermodynamics apply to a non-closed system because the system has yet to be set? Yes, I am familiar with Roger Penrose, thank you. Is it possible that during the big bang, black holes the size of a nucleus popped into existence due to the quantum foam? The interesting thing is that the tinier a black hole, the more powerfully space-time is distorted around it and distortions in space-time allude to the existence of strong gravitational fields. Hawking has shown that gravitational fields surrounding such a hole would give enough energy to the quantum foam to coerce the particles into real existence. Calculations show that in the big bang the initial extreme conditions would also have been enough to create real particles out of the gravitational energy of the rapidly expanding universe. I think you have confused what I have been saying. I believe that the universe had a beginning and that absent of the universe matter, space, and time did not exist. Nothing is defined as non-being. Your logic is flawed. If you are saying that simply by assigning a name to an absence it becomes a reality, then you should become a theist, because God exists. How do I know? Based upon your reasoning, I have named him, therefore, he exists. BTW, I define both consciousness as something as well as a tree. One is a visible reality the other is not, but both are real and we can see the effects of both. I don't believe that simply because we can see something it has more being. I cannot see a quark, but it doesn't mean that it has less being than an atom or a molecule or a rock. You can postulate the idea of black holes popping into existence from quantum foam, but you still have to explain the existence of the quantum foam, you cannot simply assume its existence. The same goes for gravitational fields and gravity in general, you cannot simply posit its existence as a brute fact, it requires an explanation as well. That is the major criticism of Hawking's and Mlodinow's book, they simply assume the existence of gravity and energy, they don't explain their existence. Why should we assume their existence? LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted February 1, 2011 Author Share Posted February 1, 2011 So what is your point, LNC? That scientists have faith in gravity like you have faith in God? You don't need to have "faith" in gravity. If you don't believe in it, you can drop a set of dumbbells off the top of a building and see if they fall or not. If the dumbbells fall to to the ground, gravity is real. If the dumbbells float in the air, then gravity isn't real. No faith required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted February 1, 2011 Share Posted February 1, 2011 I'm still not sure why that would be a case of ad hominem or misrepresentation as you claimed. I don't believe I was trying to wrest control, only keep the conversation on topic. These conversations tend to flow all over the map, so if I try to control that a bit so that we at least deal with the main post topic, I'm not sure that that is being controlling. If you don't see it then I can't show you. I believe that if you will consult a book like Paul Davies Cosmic Jackpot, you will find all of your questions answered. In regard to the article you cited, what point exactly were you trying to make with it? I find it to be too speculative to be making any point for your case, but maybe you can let me know what you saw in it. As to your last question, sure, there may potentially be life supporting stars, but not necessarily so. The existence of stars and planets does not guarantee that any be life supporting. Yes, I am familiar with Paul Davies. Too speculative huh? "I find your book too speculative," there now I have dismissed Cosmic Jackpot! Not really, I actually read his earlier book "The Mind of God" so I will read this book, though from the numerous interviews I have read of him I don't exactly see how you and him agree... No LNC, the paper itself is not far too speculative, one of the essential and most important ingredients to a life supporting universe is(are) stars. They provide a source of energy and also are the source of the chemical building blocks of life, without stars there would be no life. What this paper is showing is that the chances of a life-forming universe or rather one with stars is 1/4 at the outset of the universe. The physical constants needed for stars to form are not nearly as strict as we would assume. Paul Davies is an interesting character by the way, I really like his take on the Wheeler Principle (Participatory Universe) and how it related to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in that we don't have to go backwards in time for a cause. Meaning, as we observe reality, the reality is changed not only in the future, but in the past as well, this is a facet within the Fine Anthropic Principle. If I remember correctly, he argues that there are a vast amount of quantum histories or pasts that could have led up to where we are now, but as we observe them now we make selections of these histories, which by definition lead to our existence. He also extends this selection of quantum histories to the laws of physics as well meaning we observe these laws and by observing we choose certain histories that give rise to our reality, an emergent set of laws really that are not set at the big bang but become more refined as the universe ages. OK, again I will ask what point you are trying to make by again posting the link to this paper? I have made no presuppositional arguments to make the case for fine-tuning. The case is not widely disputed, in fact. The only question is what accounts for the apparent fine-tuning. You only consider this possibility to be outlandish because you have a priori, ruled out the possibility for the existence of anything beyond the material world. However, you have given no basis for this belief, so to call the opposing view "outlandish" and "exceeding the bounds of sanity" is simply hand waving, it is not to be confused with an actual argument for your view. I am arguing that fine-tuning cannot be accounted for by law or chance, I haven't made a case beyond that yet. You first say in your post that you don't believe that God could be responsible for the fine-tuning, now you want to argue what God is like. Why don't we stick to the discussion of whether the universe truly is fine tuned before jumping on. This paper, or these papers? You realize there are two correct? Again, this is a paper done by actual scientists who are showing that the physical constants are not nearly as "set" or fine-tuned rather and that by tweaking them we are still able to come up with universes remarkably similar to our own. Presuppositional - meaning you are assuming or coming from a bias to bolster your own world-view that there is a God. A Priori - And you have ruled in favor of their being something beyond the material world - give me an example or a demonstration of something supernatural. I am arguing that "fine-tuning" can be accounted for by law and chance (see earlier papers). My case beyond that is this, if it is found that the universe is or was actually created, how do we arrive at the conclusion that it is your God? If the fine-tuning of the universe cannot be explained, yet, by law or chance than why must we fill this gap of knowledge with God? Doesn't "God" apart from some Deistic impersonal no longer there God, come with a whole heap of logical, moral and supernatural baggage? What is more complicated trying to explain? That perhaps these laws or constants were set in place by chance, as demonstrably, many scientists are showing, or that a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity through unknowable means constructed the universe? This is part of the discussion. As I have tried to show you, a God, by your definition seemingly, is immensely complex in trying to rationalize in the context of our own world. You are essentially forcing a square peg of a God into the round hole. I think you have confused what I have been saying. I believe that the universe had a beginning and that absent of the universe matter, space, and time did not exist. Nothing is defined as non-being. Your logic is flawed. If you are saying that simply by assigning a name to an absence it becomes a reality, then you should become a theist, because God exists. How do I know? Based upon your reasoning, I have named him, therefore, he exists. BTW, I define both consciousness as something as well as a tree. One is a visible reality the other is not, but both are real and we can see the effects of both. I don't believe that simply because we can see something it has more being. I cannot see a quark, but it doesn't mean that it has less being than an atom or a molecule or a rock. Okay, so matter, space and time didn't exist, so, no physical constants are set, why couldn't something pop from nothing since that is a rule based in matter space and time? Not saying that I am essentially arguing that point, it's just something to brainstorm about. "Nothing is defined" therein lies your problem. You can't define it. I can define God, you can define God but IF we are talking about nothing, well that's a little different! Basically, because nothing, is supposed to be...nothing. Using nothing as a noun is in fact fallacious! Now, of course we have to use the word nothing, because we need to define something, but our knowledge of "nothing" isn't exactly based on nothing, but rather a concept of something. And no, if we follow my logic I am not defining things into being. Merely, showing that our definitions and concepts aren't as concrete as we would like to think because it is based on language and faulty concepts. You can postulate the idea of black holes popping into existence from quantum foam, but you still have to explain the existence of the quantum foam, you cannot simply assume its existence. The same goes for gravitational fields and gravity in general, you cannot simply posit its existence as a brute fact, it requires an explanation as well. That is the major criticism of Hawking's and Mlodinow's book, they simply assume the existence of gravity and energy, they don't explain their existence. Why should we assume their existence? And why shouldn't we? The point I am trying to demonstrate here is that there are competing ideas and theories for the origins of the universe, some better than others. I personally think it is the flat-universe balanced energies theory often supported by Lawrence Krauss. The main point, is that these ideas have competition, which drives refinement and progress. Do you think we should stop investigating the origins of the universe if we (you) believe that God gave rise to it? How can we find out if God did in fact create the universe? Can we discover His means and the ways that He went about it? Is there a mathematical equation to show how God created something from nothing? It seems like it would be more difficult to create something from nothing rather than something to be self-generating under the absence of zero influence from outside rules. Time is not outside of the universe, but rather is a part of the universe, so really there wasn't a time before the universe, since the universe is the origin of time itself, so there can't be a "before". Paul Davies - "I want to stay away from a pre-existing cosmic magician who is there within time, for all eternity, and then brings the universe into being as part of a preconceived plan. I think that's just a naive, silly idea that doesn't fit the leanings of most theologians these days and doesn't fit the scientific facts. I don't want that. That's a horrible idea. But I see no reason why there can't be a teleological component in the evolution of the universe, which includes things like meaning and purpose. So instead of appealing to something outside the universe -- a completely unexplained being -- I'm talking about something that emerges within the universe. It's a more natural view. We're trying to construct a picture of the universe which is based thoroughly on science but where there is still room for something like meaning and purpose. So people can see their own individual lives as part of a grand cosmic scheme that has some meaning to it. We're not just, as Steven Weinberg would say, pointless accidents in a universe that has no meaning or purpose. I think we can do better than that." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Death, sex, reproduction, extinction even is a part of the evolutionary process. I don't see it is a problem, the way that I would see it as a problem would be in trying to reconcile the existence of a loving, personal God, why couldn't/wouldn't this God conceive of a better process? You say it is a God who can't act contrary to his nature and is "limited" in acting through the natural order. How is this God any different than a Pantheist view of a God? Would this God be different than Einstein's "God"? Would this God be able to perform miracles if it is limited to working only within the natural order of things? Again, you have not explained why extinction is out of line with a loving God. Why is it loving to preserve every single species that has ever lived? A species is made up of a grouping of individuals and individuals die all the time, so why is the species of some greater value? I said that God is bound by his nature, not by nature in general. You've misunderstood me on that point and it has led you to make false conclusions throughout this post as a result. God is different than a pantheistic view in that he is personal, whereas the pantheistic view sees an impersonal god. Einstein's view of God was deistic, whereas God is active beyond creation, even in that he sent his Son to die for our sins. In light of these clarifications, yes, God is able to perform miracles. I know you refer back to this misunderstood view of God later in this post, but I will refrain from commenting on these further and leave it at the fact that you have misunderstood the biblical view of God and, therefore, have drawn faulty conclusions because of it. And I would argue that your scope is quite narrow by citing your previous statement on the extinction of species within the Christian world-view. The planet is semi-hospitable enough for evolutionary process to take place in order to give rise to the life as we now see it, despite the extinction of mass amounts of species beforehand. Surely, you see the hypocrisy of arguing that previous species died out just so we could have fossil fuels is not a limited world-view? Mass extinction happened so that soccer mom's could drive Escalades? The planet is hospitable to life and our existence is evidence of that fact. Extinction does not mean that the planet is inhospitable to life, just that certain species could not adapt to the changing climate, whereas, other species did. I argued that if we didn't have the death that occurred over the millions of years prior to our existence, we would not have the necessary resources to survive. I said nothing about SUVs. Why would I believe it was through any other process? You have stated that diseases and viruses were the result of the Fall of Man, where did these things originate? Where did the concept of these things come from if there was a deity that created "everything". A deity who acts only in the natural world seems to me to be nothing more than Pantheistic in that, you do not believe that this deity can act contrary to it's natural definition. What is different from this view of a God than from Einstein's view of a "God"? Is this God able to perform miracles which are contrary to the natural processes? Viruses are always evolving and adapting. A virus can be completely harmless in one population and lethal in another. Some viruses are introduced into a population through contact with another species (bird flu, swine flu, HIV, etc.). These viruses were virtually harmless to the host population, however, through human contact with that population, it spread to the human population where it was harmful, and in some cases, deadly. So, it was not as if the virus was created by God as it was to harm humans. In fact, viruses can have beneficial effects as well as harmful effects. HIV has even been used to treat a disease known as Adrenoleukodystrophy (ALD). Still, the Fall has had an effect on humanity. I would like your opinion on why they are non-falsifiable? What makes them non-falsifiable? Is your God testable? 1) Yes, and? 2) Yes, and? 3) No, and? You are basing your morality on what?? A deity whom 4 billion people disagree with you on? Do you base your morality on the Bible? If so, which interpretation? 4) What is consciousness, please define it and show how it interacts with the material through the immaterial? 5) the existence of evil is one of the strongest arguments against the existence of God, refute it. And don't say I haven't "defined" it and dodge yet another question, you know what the problem is. Refute the existence of natural evil, of gratuitous evil and the concept of evil itself, from whence does it come if a deity created "everything"? Non-falsifiable theories are those that, no matter how much evidence is given contrary to the theory, the adherent will attribute "just so" stories to try to justify the theory. Here is an example, global warming. When it is warm, we are told it is because of global warming. When it is cold and snowy, like it is today where I live, it is attributed to global warming. When it is dry, wet, mild, stormy, even when there are riots in the Middle East, it is blamed on global warming. It doesn't matter what the evidence is, global warming is the culprit. That is basically a non-falsifiable theory. Even when the scientists were caught fudging the numbers and burying data, it was not falsified. I believe some other scientific "sacred cows" are like this, but I won't name any more names for now. 1) So, which is it, do you believe the universe always existed, or did it pop into existence uncaused? What is your evidence for either? 2) You believe that life originated from natural processes? Evidence? 3) Do you not believe that morality is objectively grounded or that it simply cannot be grounded apart from a transcendent deity? I do ground my morality in God, which is the only way that I believe it can be objectively grounded. I don't believe morality is subjective in nature, nor do I believe that you do, ultimately. I don't know that 4 billion people disagree with me, from where did you get that statistic? However, even if they did, truth is not a popularity contest - we don't decide what is true based upon nose counts. I believe there is only one correct interpretation of the Bible and I strive to understand it as it was intended to be understood by the authors. 4) Consciousness consists of the mental properties that we hold which allow us to have first-person perspective, thoughts that are of or about other things, feelsing and sensations, etc. Mental properties are not reducible to physical properties, they are of a different nature. It interacts with the material in that when I have a thought to type this post and the words are formed in my mind, they are then translated to this post via my fingers typing them on my computer keyboard. I have thought about what I am going to type while my computer never has thoughts about what I have entered into it. It never considers the truthfulness of what I have typed or the color of a rose or the smell of an ocean breeze. It never thinks about its past or worries about its future. There is no enduring self to my computer or any other purely material thing. 5) The fact is that you have not defined the specific argument from evil that you would like for me to address. Would it be the logical argument from evil? That is answered in that man has free will to choose and that free will allows man to choose to love or to hate. God created man to have a love relationship, but man also had the potential to hate and he exercised that potential to make it an actuality. But, maybe you are speaking about the evidential problem of evil. However, that argument requires a person to be able to see into the future to determine that the amount of evil that God allows now will have no positive effects in the future. In other words, to determine the probabilities one must know all of the background information; however, not having the ability to see into the future eliminates a key piece of background information that makes the argument fall apart. Did you have any other arguments? Perhaps the issue of natural evil? That has also been addressed through the Fall in that that event introduced occurrences of evil that God did not desire for the world, but were the consequences of man's rebellion. However, let me know if you have any other specific issues you would like to deal with in more detail. Sorry, that I didn't give detailed answers, but you didn't give a detailed question. Talk about dodging the issue! Is your God omnipotent or omnipotent enough to act only within the natural world? What are the characteristics of God? Is he loving, or is he a jealous God? Is he omniscient or is he only able to judge the future actions of humans? Is he immutable or is he able to change? To what "peripheral" issues do you allude? If you can't decide on "peripheral" issues, how will you find a definition on specifics? See earlier post on logical fallacies of God, which you dismissed by saying I was "angry" at God and leading the conversation down various paths beyond the topic. I don't consider given a somewhat vague answer to a vague question dodging the issue. Maybe it means that you need to be more detailed in your question. God can be both loving and jealous for his creation at the same time. I think the problem is that we misunderstand the use of the term jealousy, because we filter it through our selfish and sinful grid of understanding. God's jealousy for his creation is such that he desires what is best for us and we choose often choose what is worst. The problem is that we confuse jealousy with envy and they are not the same. We also have the simple view that jealousy is always connected to a romantic relationship, and that is not always the case. The word jealous stems from the word zealous and one of Merriam Webster's definitions is vigilant in guarding a possession, which accurately expresses what jealousy means in relation to God with his creation. You have set up a number of false dichotomies. God is both omniscient and able to judge past, present, and future actions of humans. He is immutable in his nature, but can change his mind on issues. You were the one who asked the question, not me, so it is not me who is defining the issues of concern. I looked back on my earlier posts and don't see where I ever said that you were "angry" at God. Could you point me to that post? I would consider science our best method of obtaining knowledge based on it's results, do you have a better method of obtaining knowledge? Prove that it isn't. Philosophy and all of it's corresponding fields are able to obtain knowledge certainly, but often times lead to abstract thought experiments. Do these lead to truths in and of themselves or do they expose the path to truth by exposing paradoxes and revealing a truth beyond the stated truth? How do you know that science is the best method for obtaining knowledge? Do you have a scientific test to prove that? Science found its roots from philosophy and was for a long time considered a branch of philosophy. I personally wish that scientists still studied philosophy as they did in the beginning. I think it would lead to fewer fallacious theories and beliefs. An example is your request for me to prove a negative, that is generally considered to be a philosophical no-no. Would you consider logic to be an abstract thought experiment? Could science be done without logic? The fact is that without philosophy and logic, science would not exist as a discipline. And there are debates that you can go on and watch on YouTube that debate God's existence. See previous post on logical fallacies, but wait, I thought I was leading the conversation down so many different paths? So I answer you, and now you say I haven't answered you! Talk about a non-answer! It is difficult to have a debate with you if you constantly shift the focus of the debate, and then try to refocus it on a previous topic that I have already posited queries about. Reframing the entire debate seems to be your modus operandi where you attempt to bring the conversation back to your own purview and take the conversation back past the handful of posts, leaving us in a circular conversation, where you will respond that I have baseless and unfounded claims. Really, LNC? This is the way you argue? God of the gaps - is there a natural explanation for the origins of the universe or a supernatural one? Why is there a supernatural one? If every other mystery in the universe so far has been found to have a natural explanation it would seem you have shrinking gap. But of course, you would say that God only acts within natural processes, well what differentiates your god from a Pantheistic god? Can't I say God is everything contained within the natural order of things? But will you begin tacking on various attributes that you can't prove? "There is a gap" in our understanding of something, therefore a supernatural occurence or reason must be inserted. Why is your explanation better than a natural one? Your limited, naturalistic God does not actually seem that different than from a Pantheist God. Why is your God separate from nature if it can only act within nature? If it can act outside of nature, why didn't it create outside of nature? I have a hard time following your line of thinking as you make these vague claims, don't read my posts closely and then make false claims. For example, in my post to which you were responding, I said, " There are debates that you can watch on YouTube that are based upon whether God exists." You then begin your response by saying the exact same thing as if I had never said it. Are you actually reading my posts before you reply? It might be easier to conduct this exchange if you would do so. Also, I haven't shifted the debate, I have simply been responding to your queries, so if there is shifting going on, you are the reason for that. I don't know of a natural explanation for the existence of the natural world. Nor, logically, do I know that there could be one. I thing cannot be the cause of its own coming into existence. That is a logically fallacious concept (see Leibniz). If the cause of the natural world could not be natural, then what options does that leave us? Has every mystery of the universe been found to have a natural cause? I don't think that is the case (see consciousness, intentionality, the self, qualia, etc.) Also, explaining the parts does not necessarily explain the whole (that would be the fallacy of composition). The rest of your post has already been addressed, so I won't repeat myself. Needless to say, that if a natural explanation is insufficient, we should be open to other options. You have given no reason to believe that the natural world is all that exists, so we should be open to supernatural explanations as well. LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Yes, we do that with God as well; however, philosophically, we have to make other assumptions as well and then test them. Perfection, omnipotence, omniscience, etc. How? We look to the philosophers Plato who had the idea that the form was the perfect essence of the material object. We can also look to Anselm, who developed the ontological argument. This argument has many forms which also point us to the existence of a perfect being, God. The other attributes flow from these arguments. LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Remember, Sybaris said that the definition you quoted was speculation, and you said it was a definition instead. In this definition, you set about to propose certain qualities. If we really observe and agree upon god's characteristics too, then what is a definition can you provide for him based on observation, as opposed to as opposed to making an a priori assumption that god has certain qualities and creating your definition from those assertions? Where has god, and some of his qualities been observed? Based on this observation, how does god look, smell, behave, react? Characteristics for God that we can glean from observation include: personal (from the origin of the universe and the existence of personal beings), powerful (from the magnitude of the universe), wise (from the intricacy of the universe), loving and good (from the fact that we have not been annihilated due to our rebellion and the fact that Jesus came to take our sins upon him and to die in our place so that we could be redeemed). I'm sure there are others, but these just come off the top of my head. I also alluded to the ontological argument which can get us to perfection in every sense, but this is inferred from the argument rather than directly observed from effects. As for your last question, you have committed a category error as the spiritual cannot be seen or smelled, but we can see how God behaves and reacts from the above observations. LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 I would like to know this, as well. Do you believe we have tested god's perfection, omnipotence, and omniscience? Do you believe someone has confirmed these qualities by testing them? If so, describe the test(s) performed and the results that lead you to your conclusions. I believe that we have seen God's perfect love on display through the sending of his son to die on the cross at the hands of his sinful and rebellious creation so that we could be redeemed from our own sinful rebellion. Jesus also displayed omniscience while on earth. God has also revealed future events to his prophets that came to pass. Jesus foretold his own death and resurrection. As for omnipotence, the origin and sustaining of the universe and Jesus' resurrection come to mind. LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LNC Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Of course, if we actually where able to make good observations, we wouldn't have 1000's of different religions. Why does that logically follow? People reject ideas all the time that are pretty plane. There are holocaust deniers today despite the overwhelming evidence that it happened. There were Jesus deniers in his days who saw miracles happen before their vary eyes (Judas being the most obvious and blatant). LNC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted February 2, 2011 Author Share Posted February 2, 2011 5) The fact is that you have not defined the specific argument from evil that you would like for me to address. Would it be the logical argument from evil? That is answered in that man has free will to choose and that free will allows man to choose to love or to hate. How is freewill compatible with an all-knowing god? However, that argument requires a person to be able to see into the future to determine that the amount of evil that God allows now will have no positive effects in the future.So God allows a child to be raped by a pedophile priest because some good might come out of being raped? Characteristics for God that we can glean from observation include: personal (from the origin of the universe and the existence of personal beingsHuman life didn't come into existence until millions of years after the big bang. How is that a personal origin? wise (from the intricacy of the universe)So why did God create wisdom teeth that you're just going to have have removed later on and serve no purpose? loving and good (from the fact that we have not been annihilated due to our rebellion and the fact that Jesus came to take our sins upon him and to die in our place so that we could be redeemed). How is God loving and good for commanding the Israelites to stone people for eating shrimp and wearing clothes made from mixed fabrics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valk0010 Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Of course, if we actually where able to make good observations, we wouldn't have 1000's of different religions. Why does that logically follow? People reject ideas all the time that are pretty plane. There are holocaust deniers today despite the overwhelming evidence that it happened. There were Jesus deniers in his days who saw miracles happen before their vary eyes (Judas being the most obvious and blatant). LNC I am saying, if we had some better sense then just making it up adhoc, when dealing with some divine thing we wouldn't have thousands of religions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 LNC Again, you have not explained, why extinction is in line with a loving God? Why did we have numerous divergent species of man, that ultimately ended up becoming extinct? If we follow this logic the species of "man", homo habilis, homo gautengensis, home rudolfensis, homo georgicus, homo neanderthals etc... all died out? So for hundreds of thousands of years “man” went without divine intervention, lived died, suffered without even a thought from heaven? Rather curious I wonder...Isn't a species such as H. Neanderthalensis worth preserving or is it not of some greater value? The world is a harsh place, life, death and ultimately extinction. It is not in tune with a “loving ”creator. I said that God is bound by his nature, not by nature in general. You've misunderstood me on that point and it has led you to make false conclusions throughout this post as a result. God is different than a pantheistic view in that he is personal, whereas the pantheistic view sees an impersonal god. Einstein's view of God was deistic, whereas God is active beyond creation, even in that he sent his Son to die for our sins. In light of these clarifications, yes, God is able to perform miracles. I know you refer back to this misunderstood view of God later in this post, but I will refrain from commenting on these further and leave it at the fact that you have misunderstood the biblical view of God and, therefore, have drawn faulty conclusions because of it. Okay, what is God's nature? Please enumerate what it is. From where did you draw your conclusions of God's nature? Are there different interpretations of God's nature? Perhaps there are different interpretations of God's nature based upon our own subjective experiences and places in time/culture? You argue that God is limited by His nature, from whence do you draw your conclusions? “Jesus dieing for our sins”is a clarification? Really how? How is God active beyond creation? Miracles happen? Give me evidence of a miracle. If I have “misunderstood” God then explain your own view of God and how I have misunderstood “Him”. I've heard it from quite a few people in my life, who all have self refuting claims of what/who God is. You claim to have knowledge of what God is, or who God is, what sets you apart from any other crackpot who comes on this site, or holds a sign on the street corner, claiming to “know” God? If a, your, God is able to interact with nature, despite being “supernatural” exactly how does the supernatural being interact with the natural? How does something apart, or above the natural interact or influence the natural if it is above such a thing? Have instances of supernatural influences been observed interacting with the natural? Apart from this, what separates YOU from any number of people who have a direct "understanding" of God? What makes your interpretation any different? What makes "mine" wrong, despite the fact I am merely stating what is a generic view of God from the Christian world view. If that is not the Christian world view, how and why is it different? The planet is hospitable to life and ourexistence is evidence of that fact. Extinction does not mean that the planet isinhospitable tolife, just that certain species could not adapt to the changingclimate, whereas, other species did. I argued that if we didn't have the deaththat occurred over the millions of years prior to our existence, we would nothave the necessary resources to survive.Isaid nothing about SUVs. No, it actually does mean that our planet is inhospitable to life because most life on this planet has died out. Because,the life as we observe it has occurred does not mean it was a preconceived plan or rather the plan of a celestial deity. Natural processes took place, and humans eventually diverged from our common ancestor. This in no way indicates a benevolent creator etc...Isn't that a rather bio-centric view? Other species died out so that we, humans would have the necessary “resources”to survive? I find that to be a narrow and bio-centric view. Viruses are always evolving and adapting. A virus can becompletely harmless in one population and lethal in another. Some viruses are introduced into a populationthrough contact with another species (bird flu, swine flu, HIV,etc.). These viruses were virtually harmless to the host population, however, through human contact with that population, it spread to the human population where it was harmful, and in some cases, deadly. So, it was not as if the virus was createdby God as it was to harm humans. In fact, viruses can have beneficial effects as well as harmful effects. HIV has even been used to treat a disease known as Adrenoleukodystrophy( ALD). Still, the Fall has had an effect on humanity. Of course, that is how viruses work, however let's get to the “meat” of the argument, from where did the concept of “viruses” come from? If you ascribe it to “sin” well okay, how did “sin” create these viruses? Rather, let's say these viruses are the products of evoutionary processes, they adapt they evolve...Well ,okay what makes them “evil”? If they are the effect of the Fall of Man, what makes viruses wrong? If they are the products of natural processes what makes them“evil”? I of course, say these things are evil within the context of a moral and benevolent God, why would this God allow such things? These concepts and apparatuses had to arise from something...some creator? Yes, HIV has been used to at times cure ALD...however 14.8 children in Africa have lost a parent to AIDS...huh.How, exactly DID the “fall” effect these processes? Can you point to a point in time when these processes shifted? Can you point to a point in time in which evolutionary processes shifted to become more “evil”? Non-falsifiable theories are those that, no matter how much evidenceis given contrary to the theory, the adherent will attribute"just so" stories to try to justifythe theory. Here is an example, global warming. When it is warm, we are told it is because ofglobal warming. When it is cold and snowy, like it istoday where I live, it is attributed to global warming. When it isdry, wet, mild, stormy, even when there are riots in the MiddleEast, it is blamed on global warming. It doesn't matterwhat the evidence is, global warming is the culprit. That is basically a non-falsifiable theory. Even when thescientists were caught fudging the numbers and burying data, it wasnot falsified. I believe some other scientific "sacred cows" are like this, but I won't nameany more names for now. Okay, so somehow we got onto global warming? I thought we were talking about non-falsifiable evidence? I am not talking about global warming, why are you shifting the discussion to this topic? "Let's keep the topic on hand"...is your God non-falsifiable? Here, I am going to control the topic and keep the discussion focused one point, is your God testable, falsifiable and able to be proven by objective evidence? But wait! I thought we were supposed to keep the topic on hand? 1) So, which is it, do you believe the universe always existed, or did it pop into existence uncaused? What is your evidence for either? 2) You believe that life originated from natural processes? Evidence? 3) Do you not believe that morality is objectively grounded or that it simply cannot be grounded apart from a transcendent deity? I do ground my morality in God, which is the only way that I believe it can be objectively grounded. I don't believe morality is subjective in nature, nor do I believe that you do, ultimately. I don'tknow that 4 billion people disagree with me, from where did you getthat statistic? However, even if they did, truth is not apopularity contest - we don't decide what is true based upon nose counts. I believe there is only one correct interpretation of the Bible and I strive to understand it as it was intended to be understood by the authors. 4) Consciousness consists of the mental properties that we hold which allow us to have first-person perspective, thoughts that are of or about otherthings, feelsing and sensations, etc. Mental properties are not reducible to physical properties, they are of a different nature. It interacts with the material in that when I have a thought to type this post and the words are formed in my mind, they are then translated to this post via my fingers typing them on my computer keyboard. I have thought about what I am going to type while my computer never has thoughts about what I have entered into it. It never considers thetruthfulness of what I have typed or the color of a rose or the smell of an ocean breeze. It never thinks about its past or worries about its future. There is no enduring self to my computer or any other purely material thing. 1) I “believe” (though I could be wrong, which is the fun part!) there are many processes or explanations to the “ultimate” cause of the universe and there are many competing theories out there. Either the Universe is flat http://wmap.gsfc.nas.../uni_shape.html resulting in a balance net energy of “nothing” or rather the universe itself is self generating due to a lack of set laws or rules (see Kerr physics) 2) Abiogenesis, Stars, building blocks of life etc... Do you believe a God gave rise to life? Evidence? 3) Nope, well actually 4 Billionpeople do disagree with you, and quite a few number live happy fruitful lives without your ultimate grounding of mortality. You would think without this ultimate grounding they would be engaged in utter depravity! But they aren't. Where do I get this statistic? http://www.adherents..._Adherents.html Anyways, no I don't believe truth is based on a “majority” vote rather that truth is not a monopolized property by you, your religion or your deity. However, morality has been demonstrated to shift. There is a reason you don't burn witches anymore, why is that? Why is drinking okay now? Why is homosexuality viewed in a better light now? What about slavery, women's rights, minority rights, better systems of government, better systems of financial management always shifting, what about as you age (Kohlberg)? Because, we find better ways to govern ourselves, because we find “better” morals. 4) Demonstrate how these things interact with the material. I myself am not true a materialist, however for the sake of argument show howthese “ideas” are able to interact twith the material if they are immaterial. I view the immaterial or these ideas as the Windows or “Apps” of our operating system, whereas the hardware is the brain. Both cannot be separated from each other. Can the mind exist without the material? Can the brain process without the mind, as we see it? Please, demonstrate how mental properties are apart from physical processes. How do they interact with physical processes? 5) The fact is that you have not defined the specific argument from evil that you would like for me to address. Would it be the logical argument from evil? That is answered in that man has free will to choose and that free will allows man to choose to love or to hate. God created man to have a love relationship, but man also had the potential to hate and he exercised that potential to make it an actuality. But, maybe you are speaking about the evidential problem of evil. However,that argument requires a person to be able to see into the future to determine that the amount of evil that God allows now will have no positive effects in the future. In other words, to determine the probabilities one must know all of the background information; however, not having the ability to see into the future eliminates a key piece of background information that makes the argument fall apart. Did you have any other arguments? Perhaps the issue of natural evil? That has also been addressed through the Fall in that that event introduced occurrences of evil that God did not desire for the world, but were the consequences of man's rebellion. However, let me know if you have any other specific issues you would like to deal with in more detail. Sorry, that I didn't give detailed answers but you didn't give a detailed question. Demonstrate how the"Fall" effected the natural. Also, Free-Will is a circular argument, do we have free-will? Is free-will the ultimate goal of God? If so, can the benefits of free-will outweigh the gratuitous amounts of violence we see in this world? If free-will is the ultimate goal of God, do we have free-will in the after life wherein we do not have a choice BUT a compulsion to worship this deity for forever? Whether or not one sees into the future does not negate the existence of that evil, that is a non-argument (keep in mind God CAN see into the future...). Did YOU have any other arguments?... Explain natural evil... there are natural "evils" that occur without a basis in freewill, say a volcano erupting and eradicating an entire city, NOW, can this natural evil be explained in that it was allowed (apart from the so called "fall?"). Because a God who wished to stem the tide of gratuitous violence would wish to stop this wanton death. However, if this death occurred on this massive of a scale, can this mass death be reconciled with your God? If it can, maybe this mass death was a judgment, for if it was allowed, was it deserved? If it was deserved should we refrain from judging those who suffer from natural disasters? If these natural processes are a part or an ingredient to the origins of life, how are they apart from the origins of life, what sets them apart from needing a supernatural influence? If there is a supernatural influence, why couldn't this supernatural influence conceive of a better way to originate or lead to the origins of life? If it couldn't aside from natural laws what makes it different than a pantheistic god? Sorry, that I couldn't give a detailed question, because you couldn't understand the question. I am interested however, in how someone is so readily able to dismiss the arguments of "evil" I wonder myself LNC if you actually consider these arguments, or rather if you search for arguments in favor of your position and then twist them to your own ends. Interesting...very interesting. I don't consider given a somewhat vague answer to a vague questiondodging the issue. Maybe it means that you need to be more detailed in your question. God can be both loving and jealous for his creation at the same time. I think the problem is that we misunderstand the use of the term jealousy, because we filter it through our selfish and sinful grid of understanding. God's jealousy for his creation is such that he desires what is best for us and we choose often choose what is worst. The problem is that we confuse jealousy with envy and they are not the same. We also have the simple view that jealousy is always connected to a romantic relationship, and that is not always the case. The word jealous stems from the word zealous and one of Merriam Webster's definitions is vigilant in guarding a possession, which accurately expresses what jealousy means in relation to God with his creation. Really? Really? That is your answer? To ascribe human characteristics to a God who is not supposed to be anthropomorphic? If I assign "Jealousy" to God it is still saying God cannot be "-Jealousy" You are assigning what would be the personality of God and not the metaphysical existence of God. How exactly is this God guarding His possession if most of it will go to Hell? Seems a rather poor way to guard "It"? You know I actually heard this exact same answer a number of years ago...it still struck me as a non-answer even to this day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrotherJosh Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Part 2.... You have set up a number of false dichotomies. God is both omniscient and able to judge past, present, and future actions of humans. He is immutable in his nature, but can change his mind on issues. You were the on who asked the question, not me, so it is not me who is defining the issues of concern. I looked back on myearlier posts and don't see where I ever said that you were"angry" at God. Could you point me to that post? You seem to have anumber of complaints againstGod" - LNC. Yes, I am angry against your deity. I am rebelling, woe is me. Anyways, really, an omniscient God is compatible with free-will? How does an omniscient creator who creates with the foreknowledge of everything create things and still give them free will if they already have a preconceived plan of action? Okay...moving on, so how does the definition of an immutable nature fit with the ability to change his mind on issues (The Flood, The Fall of Man, Old Covenant etc...?) How does this work exactly? Please, explain. How does an immutable, omniscient God not "see" that he will change His mind on the issue and plan beforehand? Seems, like a God who is playing games...Pleases define "Who" your God is, as according to your own subjective definition. How do you know that science is the best method for obtaining knowledge? Do you have a scientific test to prove that? Science found its roots from philosophy and was for a long time considered a branch of philosophy. I personally wish that scientists still studied philosophy as they did in the beginning. I think it would lead to fewer fallacious theories and beliefs. An example is your request for me to prove a negative, that is generally considered to be a philosophical no-no. Would you consider logic to be an abstract thought experiment? Could science be done without logic? The fact is that without philosophy and logic, science would not exist as a discipline. Nope, I don't, aside from the fact that science has so far provided the best answers so far. Do you have a scientific proof to test it is not so? If, science is not our best tool to observe our reality, please prove that it is not. I am not saying that"science" has the best answers, simply that the method of science has the best tool as of yet to observe, test and draw conclusions of our world. Sure, science couldn't exist without logic, but it is an extenuation of logic based on logical rules based on the observable world. However, philosophy itself leads to many, many fallacious beliefs, is philosophy itself the best way to base our best system of logic and knowledge? Are many philosophical beliefs testable or observable? I have a hard time following your line of thinking as you make these vague claims, don't read my posts closely and then make false claims. For example, in my post to which you were responding, I said, "There are debates that you can watch on YouTube that are based upon whether God exists." You then begin your response by saying the exact same thing as if I had never said it. Are you actually reading my posts before you reply? It might be easier to conduct this exchange if youwould do so. Also, I haven't shifted the debate, I havesimply been responding to your queries, so if there is shifting going on, you are the reason for that. Right... I was merely stating the same "arguments" that you spout back, but in a way that mimics your own, if you don't like it then don't argue that way. I am merely saying there are debates about whether or not God exists, you stated there are debates about God's existence inferring that "God" is a highly debated topic that all people are debating all the time about, specifically your definition of. I have not shifted the debate, in fact I have tried to contribute to the debate in a manner that would lead to a greater efficacy of ideas, but you continually try to reign it back to a realm that you wish to seek control over. Aside from that, you not being able to follow my line of thinking is in fact me basically being sarcastic. I don't know of a natural explanation for the existence of the natural world. Nor, logically, do I know that there could be one. A thing cannot be the cause of its own coming into existence. That is a logically fallacious concept (see Leibniz). If the cause of the natural world could not be natural, then what options does that leave us? Has every mystery of the universe been found to have a natural cause? I don't think that is the case (see consciousness,intentionality, the self, qualia,etc.) Also, explaining the parts does not necessarily explain the whole (that would be the fallacy of composition). The rest of your post has already been addressed, so I won't repeat myself. Needless to say, that if a natural explanation is insufficient, we should be open to other options. You have given no reason to believe that the natural world is all that exists,so we should be open to supernatural explanations as well. Leibnez as in his hotly contested Identity of Indescernbiles? Give evidence of a supernatural. Okay, aside from that a thing can be the cause of it's own existence see me previous posts in regards to the origins ofuniverse. I myself, do not have the monopoly on the knowledge of the origins ofthe universe, however you, have a "monopoly" on the origins of the universein that a "God" gave rise to the universe. There are competing ideas or theories to the origins of "space/time" and they are not reliant on an infinite being who preconceived the plan of this existence. No, there is a natural explanation for this universe see previous posts and articles. The physical constants and rules are not as finely tuned as you cite and could even give rise to life supporting universes even despite these variations in physical laws. However, like I have said, let's say hypothetically that these laws were set in place. Why is it THIS god as you cite, the originator and creator of this universe? What evidence do you cite? How did this creator give rise to this universe? What means did this creator employ in order to give rise to this specific universe? If the life on this planet were the result of evolutionary processes, what part did this creator play? If the natural processes merely played themselves out, why is this creator necessary? If this creator is defined as omniscient,omnipresent, omnipotent, why couldn't it conceive of a better universe? If it couldn't why isn't it a pantheistic god? Has consciousness been observed and tested? Can the consciousness effect the material? How does it do so? Can the consciousness exist without the hardware? You have given no reason to believe that more THAN the natural world exists.Why should I be open to supernatural explanations? How do these supernatural occurrences interact with the natural? If it is supernatural it is above or beyond the natural, how can something like that interact with the natural? Why do intentions need to be inherent in existence? Intentionality is a fallacy in and of itself because it is presuppositional in that it is seeking an answer for a non-given question. Qualia is subjective in that the redness of wine is subjective to my own tastes. I like straight whiskey, my girlfriend hates straight whiskey. My subjective tastes thinks it tastes good, her subjective tastes thinks it tastes bad. See Daniel Dennett's "intuition pumps". The "self" is subjective and bio-centric. I am myself, but what am I myself? Am I the result of chemical processes or something beyond that? If I am something beyond that, how do I define that something that still describes that something in a universal sense? Or should we actualize a sense of "self" in the sense that a knife is sharp, but a soul is not sharp rather it is the knife that is sharp and the soul actuates itself through the rationality of sharpness and achieves it's real world application of sharpness through the knife? It's a rather interesting line of thought with many divergent ideas. "Has every mystery of the universe been found to have a natural cause?" So instead we substitute a supernatural cause instead? Why should we be open to a supernatural cause, if a natural cause has yet to be found? It is the equivalent of primitive man saying, "Well, you know we have yet to find a natural cause for lightning, so we must ascribe a supernatural explanation to it." Really, what separates this line of reasoning from your own? Why shouldn't we expect a natural cause? If everything else ascribed to supernatural influences has been shown to have natural causes why must "other" causes have supernatural origins? Edit: Hey, not trying to argue or anything with this article, but since we are both interested in this stuff I thought you would like it.... http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/11020149-hunt-dark-matter-closes-at-large-hadron-collider.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Yes, we do that with God as well; however, philosophically, we have to make other assumptions as well and then test them. Perfection, omnipotence, omniscience, etc. How? We look to the philosophers Plato who had the idea that the form was the perfect essence of the material object. We can also look to Anselm, who developed the ontological argument. This argument has many forms which also point us to the existence of a perfect being, God. The other attributes flow from these arguments. LNC How is that a test? How do you test the premises of the ontological argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts