A Christian Framework

[Wololo]

Hello! The time has come for me to outline the philosophy that underlies my Christian beliefs. This is not something I have come up with on my own. For me it was convergent. I was heading in this direction and happened to stumble across some theologians whose work has helped me to better understand what I was thinking. I have several people that have informed this set of beliefs, but I will not mention them until we've gotten into the discussion (for a few different reasons). I do have some people as sources though, and will reveal them when the time comes. Unless you're well read in theology, you may not know of them though.

 

There are two different worldviews and frameworks I'm going to show you. One of them is mine, and the other is a common postmodern perspective that is grounded in materialism that some atheists believe. You will surely have questions, and objections, but at the very least you'll have an understanding of why I believe what I do, and you'll see how my worldview fits together. All of this starts with a discussion about semantics, and "the glue that holds the world together."

 

We begin with a controversial statement like "Marriage is the union between a man and a woman." If we understand the general thrust of postmodernism, we see this statement as fundamentally contingent. What makes "marriage" mean "the union between man and woman" is the fact that our dictionaries define it this way. There is no "essence" of marriage or natural law that defines it this way. It's an arbitrary act of will that the word means what it does. We decide it. The piece of "glue" is merely an act of will. This would allow us to logically conclude that meaning is relative. If words like "marriage" can mean anything, we find ourselves worrying because if a word can mean anything, we can't reliably talk about the world. The world is no longer stable and reliable.

This is the core of why a Nietzschean "will-to-power" appears to be necessary. It's all about forcing the glue to stick. Words do have a determinate meaning, and therefore retain influence in our lives, because their meanings are enforced by an exercise of power. A blow must be struck. Of course, one blow isn't enough, so there needs to be constant reinforcement. We hold our world together through a perpetual battle against the tendency of our ways of talking and thinking to disperse into alternative possibilities. We're constantly having to defend "identity" against difference. Meaning has to be fixed and certain, and the way we accomplish that is through violence.

 

So if we return to our initial definition, we see that the reason marriage is defined as it is, is because of an exercise in power. If a blow was struck one way, it can be struck in the other. This primeval violence is underneath everything about our existence and a hierarchy of power develops. This perspective is what underlies modern atheistic philosophy, at least as I have seen recently. Foucault and Derrida are good starting points if you want check it out...oh...and Nietzsche of course.

 

I see all of that as quite unnecessary. It ends up descending into nihilism, and that's a dark path.

 

Instead, I provide a counter to that worldview, which I believe falls apart if you press it too far. We have neoplatonic metaphysics as the same glue that holds the world together. Essentially, something can be what it is, like an identity, meaning, or perhaps person, and at the same time depend on or reach out toward something else. Something is real only so far as its dependence and...fecundity. The value of my moral acts, or the meaning of this post, are...you could say...as emanting from and returning to the One.

 

What matters is that the universe is a realm of different beings and events that are knit together not against each other, but in a harmonious order toward a greater purpose. The glue is sticky, but it never truly dries. To put it as simply as possible, rather than a violence and will-to-power being necessary, instead we have peace and harmony, where everything works together for a greater purpose. Instead of the meaning of "marriage" being arbitrary, it is but a piece of the greater puzzle...a part in the grand purpose.

 

This is of course when we hit the metaphorical 'crunch time' with this framework. I'm already talking about a greater purpose, peace and harmony, and even worse, actual meaning.

 

I know that Plato is not very close to your heart like he is to mine, but the direction of my thinking tends toward him instead of toward Aristotle. That's the second thing I want address here actually, and things will start to fit together.

 

Plato argued that nonphysical things exist in "the realm of ideas". This includes things like love, justice, and of course...numbers, whereas Aristotle was more along the lines of everything being purely physical. Instead of the realm of ideas, I propose that God is the originator of all ideas...the originator of everything. Everything in existence is derived from him in some manner, and can be traced back to him. This brings us back to the critical argument concerning physical vs. nonphysical.

 

I have asked this in another thread. How do we make distinctions between different configurations of matter? I have no qualms about a nonphysical mind existing and making these distinctions. Materialists do though. The issue is that they can never tell me what makes these distinctions. If you say it's the eyes when you see...okay, what part of the eyes? I'll go with you down to the smallest part of matter if necessary, and we will end up empty handed.

 

So if we were to have nonphysical concepts, then it would lend credence to my beliefs. The entire framework would fall into place. I don't have the time or room to go into the implications of the system of beliefs I outlined above in this post, but the discussion could head in that direction.

 

This is why everyone I've ever discussed this with has had to draw the line at physical vs. nonphysical, because if they allow it to go further, God becomes quite plausible. If there are nonphysical concepts, then they need to originate from something and need to exist somewhere. If we were to concede that the human nonphysical mind is the originator of these concepts, then we would need to establish where we got them from, and where our mind comes from. All of this would have to be traced back to a beginning.

 

I made a few assertions earlier in the post about a greater purpose, and peace and harmony. In order to understand this, we have to view things in layers. (Kind of like the up-and-coming Systems Theory.) The violence and conflict and battle that goes on at this level differs from the perspective at the top. If you could see everything from a position outside the universe (if you can wrap your head around that one. Hard to imagine being outside it) then you would see that everything throughout time works in harmony for a singular purpose. The good and the bad all work in the same direction. The conflict is all superficial. It all depends on which layer you're in and what your perspective is. Can I prove that this purpose exists? No. That's why this is philosophy and science. With my current level of understanding and education, this is more an exercise in coherence theory than it is a solid framework, however it does address a lot of the issues that materialism runs into.

 

It's late, so I'm going to post this, and wait for your responses. I feel this is just a little bit disorganized, but if you ask thoughtful questions, I should be able to fit things together better.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

I read your post and am no clearer as to what you are talking about.

[midniterider]

Hello! The time has come for me to outline the philosophy that underlies my Christian beliefs. This is not something I have come up with on my own. For me it was convergent. I was heading in this direction and happened to stumble across some theologians whose work has helped me to better understand what I was thinking. I have several people that have informed this set of beliefs, but I will not mention them until we've gotten into the discussion (for a few different reasons). I do have some people as sources though, and will reveal them when the time comes. Unless you're well read in theology, you may not know of them though.

 

There are two different worldviews and frameworks I'm going to show you. One of them is mine, and the other is a common postmodern perspective that is grounded in materialism that some atheists believe. You will surely have questions, and objections, but at the very least you'll have an understanding of why I believe what I do, and you'll see how my worldview fits together. All of this starts with a discussion about semantics, and "the glue that holds the world together."

 

We begin with a controversial statement like "Marriage is the union between a man and a woman." If we understand the general thrust of postmodernism, we see this statement as fundamentally contingent. What makes "marriage" mean "the union between man and woman" is the fact that our dictionaries define it this way. There is no "essence" of marriage or natural law that defines it this way. It's an arbitrary act of will that the word means what it does. We decide it. The piece of "glue" is merely an act of will. This would allow us to logically conclude that meaning is relative. If words like "marriage" can mean anything, we find ourselves worrying because if a word can mean anything, we can't reliably talk about the world. The world is no longer stable and reliable.

This is the core of why a Nietzschean "will-to-power" appears to be necessary. It's all about forcing the glue to stick. Words do have a determinate meaning, and therefore retain influence in our lives, because their meanings are enforced by an exercise of power. A blow must be struck. Of course, one blow isn't enough, so there needs to be constant reinforcement. We hold our world together through a perpetual battle against the tendency of our ways of talking and thinking to disperse into alternative possibilities. We're constantly having to defend "identity" against difference. Meaning has to be fixed and certain, and the way we accomplish that is through violence.

 

So if we return to our initial definition, we see that the reason marriage is defined as it is, is because of an exercise in power. If a blow was struck one way, it can be struck in the other. This primeval violence is underneath everything about our existence and a hierarchy of power develops. This perspective is what underlies modern atheistic philosophy, at least as I have seen recently. Foucault and Derrida are good starting points if you want check it out...oh...and Nietzsche of course.

 

I see all of that as quite unnecessary. It ends up descending into nihilism, and that's a dark path.

 

Instead, I provide a counter to that worldview, which I believe falls apart if you press it too far. We have neoplatonic metaphysics as the same glue that holds the world together. Essentially, something can be what it is, like an identity, meaning, or perhaps person, and at the same time depend on or reach out toward something else. Something is real only so far as its dependence and...fecundity. The value of my moral acts, or the meaning of this post, are...you could say...as emanting from and returning to the One.

 

What matters is that the universe is a realm of different beings and events that are knit together not against each other, but in a harmonious order toward a greater purpose. The glue is sticky, but it never truly dries. To put it as simply as possible, rather than a violence and will-to-power being necessary, instead we have peace and harmony, where everything works together for a greater purpose. Instead of the meaning of "marriage" being arbitrary, it is but a piece of the greater puzzle...a part in the grand purpose.

 

This is of course when we hit the metaphorical 'crunch time' with this framework. I'm already talking about a greater purpose, peace and harmony, and even worse, actual meaning.

 

I know that Plato is not very close to your heart like he is to mine, but the direction of my thinking tends toward him instead of toward Aristotle. That's the second thing I want address here actually, and things will start to fit together.

 

Plato argued that nonphysical things exist in "the realm of ideas". This includes things like love, justice, and of course...numbers, whereas Aristotle was more along the lines of everything being purely physical. Instead of the realm of ideas, I propose that God is the originator of all ideas...the originator of everything. Everything in existence is derived from him in some manner, and can be traced back to him. This brings us back to the critical argument concerning physical vs. nonphysical.

 

I have asked this in another thread. How do we make distinctions between different configurations of matter? I have no qualms about a nonphysical mind existing and making these distinctions. Materialists do though. The issue is that they can never tell me what makes these distinctions. If you say it's the eyes when you see...okay, what part of the eyes? I'll go with you down to the smallest part of matter if necessary, and we will end up empty handed.

 

So if we were to have nonphysical concepts, then it would lend credence to my beliefs. The entire framework would fall into place. I don't have the time or room to go into the implications of the system of beliefs I outlined above in this post, but the discussion could head in that direction.

 

This is why everyone I've ever discussed this with has had to draw the line at physical vs. nonphysical, because if they allow it to go further, God becomes quite plausible. If there are nonphysical concepts, then they need to originate from something and need to exist somewhere. If we were to concede that the human nonphysical mind is the originator of these concepts, then we would need to establish where we got them from, and where our mind comes from. All of this would have to be traced back to a beginning.

 

I made a few assertions earlier in the post about a greater purpose, and peace and harmony. In order to understand this, we have to view things in layers. (Kind of like the up-and-coming Systems Theory.) The violence and conflict and battle that goes on at this level differs from the perspective at the top. If you could see everything from a position outside the universe (if you can wrap your head around that one. Hard to imagine being outside it) then you would see that everything throughout time works in harmony for a singular purpose. The good and the bad all work in the same direction. The conflict is all superficial. It all depends on which layer you're in and what your perspective is. Can I prove that this purpose exists? No. That's why this is philosophy and science. With my current level of understanding and education, this is more an exercise in coherence theory than it is a solid framework, however it does address a lot of the issues that materialism runs into.

 

It's late, so I'm going to post this, and wait for your responses. I feel this is just a little bit disorganized, but if you ask thoughtful questions, I should be able to fit things together better.

 

That reminds me of this:

 

[thereisnoperfect]

Here's my understanding of it:

1) Wololo doesn't like postmodern thought, and also doesn't fully understand it, since he thinks it inevitably leads to nihilism. (It doesn't.) 

2) Wololo doesn't appear to understand the social construction of knowledge, or if he does, he distrusts it. 

3) Wololo has constructed meaning for himself by combining selected ideas from Plato with trust in a "way beyond us" kind of god. This is the only part of his talk that really comes near any flavor of christianity so far. And that's cool--we construct meaning. But he doesn't want it to be a meaning he constructed, he wants it to be a meaning that really does exist Out There. And he's made uncomfortable by the thought that there might be no such Meaning Out There.

 

In part 2, we'll probably get why for Wololo, these big ideas lead to his particular flavor of christianity. 

 

So far, there's nothing to debate here--just empty claims based on speculation. When Wololo says "Plato argues for" he actually means "Plato posits..." There is no evidence of ideal forms, and they are not necessary to explain anything in the physical world. Further, dependence on those ideal forms, in my experience and the experience of many others, is destructive or at the very least counter-productive, as they lead to measuring this world--the world we do, for sure, have--against impossible standards and being continually disappointed.

 

Wololo, if all of this makes you happy, then good for you. It's not really going to be something shockingly new and compelling that's going to open eyes around here. And honestly, you lost any serious chance of persuading me when in the other thread you claimed that monarchy would be better than democracy. Yeah, our democracy is broken. It still stomps the hell out of any monarchy the world has ever seen. When we treat whole groups of people badly, it gets reported on and protested against and ultimately litigated in court. In a monarchy, those people just get silenced, disappeared, or killed. So if that, and the above, are examples of both the quality of your thought and the products of that thinking process--then you can keep it. It offers me nothing of value, and it's actively dangerous to other people--especially the weakest, most at-risk populations. Hey, aren't those the ones that Christians are supposed to be MOST concerned about?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

This really is nothing more than the Prime Mover argument with a fresh coat of paint.  However we all know ex nihilo nihil fit.  So, Wololo, whence cometh thy god?

[Wololo]

Actually...this is not just me, these ideas were not made up by me. I did say I have a few sources, but that I'm not going to reveal them quite yet (to avoid Google abuse). There are some highly educated people that have wrestled with these ideas for longer than I have. I'll let you know who they are when we get further down the road.

 

Here's my understanding of it:

1) Wololo doesn't like postmodern thought, and also doesn't fully understand it, since he thinks it inevitably leads to nihilism. (It doesn't.) 

2) Wololo doesn't appear to understand the social construction of knowledge, or if he does, he distrusts it. 

3) Wololo has constructed meaning for himself by combining selected ideas from Plato with trust in a "way beyond us" kind of god. This is the only part of his talk that really comes near any flavor of christianity so far. And that's cool--we construct meaning. But he doesn't want it to be a meaning he constructed, he wants it to be a meaning that really does exist Out There. And he's made uncomfortable by the thought that there might be no such Meaning Out There.

 

In part 2, we'll probably get why for Wololo, these big ideas lead to his particular flavor of christianity. 

 

So far, there's nothing to debate here--just empty claims based on speculation. When Wololo says "Plato argues for" he actually means "Plato posits..." There is no evidence of ideal forms, and they are not necessary to explain anything in the physical world. Further, dependence on those ideal forms, in my experience and the experience of many others, is destructive or at the very least counter-productive, as they lead to measuring this world--the world we do, for sure, have--against impossible standards and being continually disappointed.

 

Wololo, if all of this makes you happy, then good for you. It's not really going to be something shockingly new and compelling that's going to open eyes around here. And honestly, you lost any serious chance of persuading me when in the other thread you claimed that monarchy would be better than democracy. Yeah, our democracy is broken. It still stomps the hell out of any monarchy the world has ever seen. When we treat whole groups of people badly, it gets reported on and protested against and ultimately litigated in court. In a monarchy, those people just get silenced, disappeared, or killed. So if that, and the above, are examples of both the quality of your thought and the products of that thinking process--then you can keep it. It offers me nothing of value, and it's actively dangerous to other people--especially the weakest, most at-risk populations. Hey, aren't those the ones that Christians are supposed to be MOST concerned about?

 

1) Mmm...so I would be interested to know where you believe meaning comes from. Much of postmodern thinking is nihilistic, however it does depend on who you're reading. Rather than condescension, perhaps you could explain why you believe it does not descend to nihilism.

2) I use a combination of correspondence theory and coherence theory. There is a foundation of knowledge that is based on our correspondence with the universe and everything in it, and once we have enough pieces and a few hints, we can construct a reasonable theory that fits the pieces together. I know full well how the acquisition of knowledge works at broader level. Don't play games with me.

3) Ah, but if only that were the case. That's why I love science.  Let me address one more thing here though before I dive into some science...

 

This really is nothing more than the Prime Mover argument with a fresh coat of paint.  However we all know ex nihilo nihil fit.  So, Wololo, whence cometh thy god?

 

This is not creation ex nihilo, which was originally a response to the steady state argument (and such). Fortunately, science has assisted us in leaving that one mostly behind. I'm quite comfortable with a beginning and a Big Bang at that beginning.

 

At the beginning, just the smallest fraction of a moment after creation, there was an infinitely dense singularity containing everything that exists in the universe right now. Along with being infinitely dense, according to the second law of thermodynamics, it would have to be completely and 100% orderly as well. We're not quite going into where this came from just yet, but for now we have a singularity (which according to the current Big Bang theory is where we started.) Immediately, this singularity began to expand, and its density became finite. Here's the issue though. It was completely uniform. Had the universe remained this way, we would have had a uniform soup for a universe. Not so interesting. Instead, we had differential cooling, and entropy (according to recent findings I've outlined in another thread {I think it was another thread} this may have been caused in part by gravity, entropy, and/or uneven expansion.) Differential cooling was a lifesaver and allowed for the existence of matter as we know it.

 

Why is this important? Well if we trace it back to the very beginning, we have something supremely ordered. This is not creation ex nihilo, it is creation out of God. That is to say that everything in existence was not created out of nothing, but out of God (who we would understand to be infinite). We have limits to what we can know about God, but based on the evidence in the universe, he would have to be outside the universe (to be the creator of it), he would be infinite, and he would have to be the epitome of order...just for starters. Creation ex nihilo is not a very stable and comfortable position for anyone. I laugh at the idea that everything just magically sprang into existence. As far as I can see, the only thing outside the universe would be God. Nothing else can really be inferred. We can infer a creator, but that's about the extent of it.

 

So while none of the evidence is necessarily evidence exclusively for God, much of it lends itself very well to the concept. It makes a good foundation. Most of the science I concern myself with is what was happening at the very beginning of the universe, because most of what happens after that is not really as relevant.

 

What created God? That's not a valid question. Time only exists where there is mass, and if God is outside the universe, he is not bound by time because he wouldn't necessarily have mass. I have no evidence that he does or could.

 

The implications of this business of creation out of God himself are broad and far reaching, and I've touched on one thing in particular...that being that God is not supernatural as in he is more than the natural, but instead that he is the perfection of the natural. If everything is created of him, that means that the moment it left him, it lost its perfection. Entropy would take its effect on the order, and it would turn into chaos. Interestingly enough, entropy is necessary for anything to exist at all (because as far as I know, differential cooling was caused at least in part by entropy.) So a return to God would be a return to what is perfectly natural. All concepts and ideas could be traced back to him as well, as they are the framework for everything in existence. Math and logic would be traced back to God, as they were the foundational bricks he would have used (metaphorically speaking). More elaboration on that point would be necessary, but I'm about to head off to work.

[Orbit]

Wololo, why are you here? Do you think you're going to re-covert people? Or are you having your own doubts? There's really no motive in between.

[florduh]

Why do you want us to understand your current philosophy/guesses about Everything^TM?

[sdelsolray]

Wololo aka Mr. Mere Assertion™ speaks.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Wololo, you have failed to understand my question.  The entire phrase ex nihilo nihil fit should be taken into consideration; it means "out of nothing, nothing comes".  My question was not one of ex nihilo creation.  My question was: Whence cometh thy god?  You assert that god is infinite; but have no evidence, empirical or otherwise, to support this claim.  In essence, you would have me to believe that god came from nothing; yet you go to great lengths to explain how the universe did not come from nothing in order to avoid falling into the very trap into which you fall by simply asserting that "gawd's jist ahways biyun thar." 

 

Again, you are simply giving the Prime Mover argument a fresh coat of paint.  You can take everything back to the Prime Mover; yet you can't explain how that Prime Mover came to be, or whether there was a Pre-Prime Mover that put the Prime Mover into place.  Instead, you rest your entire case on the phrase, "Some things just have to be accepted by faith."  Well, actually, no they don't.  You can call me a materialist or an Aristotleophile, I don't care; but you will never convince me that faith is a sound world-view upon which to build my life. 

 

Consider this, what if what Hindus place their faith in is closer to the truth than what you've placed your faith in?  Would you, then, be so proud at having arrived at conclusions that are completely erroneous because the underlying foundation of faith upon which you built your world-view was fundamentally flawed?

 

I'm beginning to echo some of the same questions others have recently asked.  Why, exactly, are you here?  What on earth could possibly make you think that your religion/philosophy brain-fuck would be of any interest to people on an ex-christian website?  You claim you are not here to evangelize; but, as I've already pointed out to you, your actions would speak otherwise. 

 

If you need help and support for your own deconversion, just be honest and say so; we'll be glad to gather around you.  If not, why not find a religious or philosophical website to share your views on?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Why do you want us to understand your current philosophy/guesses about Everything^TM?

 

Incidentally, Wololo, if you were as well-read as I, you'd already know that the answer to Everything^TM is "42". 

[RipVanWinkle]

To tell the truth, I really don't understand what you are talking about. Whatever it is, will you please explain how your philosophy fits in with the stories of god in the OT. That's something tangible we understand. How does your philosophy explain or justify the various genocides god directed in the OT? How does it justify any of the atrocities described in the OT which were either done by or directed by god.  bill

[TheRedneckProfessor]

To tell the truth, I really don't understand what you are talking about. Whatever it is, will you please explain how your philosophy fits in with the stories of god in the OT. That's something tangible we understand. How does your philosophy explain or justify the various genocides god directed in the OT? How does it justify any of the atrocities described in the OT which were either done by or directed by god.  bill

Here comes the "historical context" bovine excrement again.  Y'all pull on your Wellingtons; it's liable to get deep. 

[midniterider]

Wololo, why are you here? Do you think you're going to re-covert people? Or are you having your own doubts? There's really no motive in between.

 

To try to get us to believe in Jesus via pseudo-science. There's a lot of sciency people here. He wants to tap that. Get those lost scientific souls back for Jebus!!!

[midniterider]

Why do you want us to understand your current philosophy/guesses about Everything^TM?

 

Cuz Jesus wants him to make disciples of all nations....etc etc.

[midniterider]

2) I use a combination of correspondence theory and coherence theory. There is a foundation of knowledge that is based on our correspondence with the universe and everything in it, and once we have enough pieces and a few hints, we can construct a reasonable theory that fits the pieces together. I know full well how the acquisition of knowledge works at broader level. Don't play games with me.

 

Hey, everyone, don't fuck with this guy. :-) He knows full well how the acquisition of knowledge works at broader level(s). He is heavily armed with word salad so watch your step, bitches.

 

3) Ah, but if only that were the case. That's why I love science.  Let me address one more thing here though before I dive into some science...

 

I can't wait to hear the science behind Jesus.

[bornagainathiest]

(snip)

 

This really is nothing more than the Prime Mover argument with a fresh coat of paint.  However we all know ex nihilo nihil fit.  So, Wololo, whence cometh thy god?

 

This is not creation ex nihilo, which was originally a response to the steady state argument (and such). Fortunately, science has assisted us in leaving that one mostly behind. I'm quite comfortable with a beginning and a Big Bang at that beginning.

 

At the beginning, just the smallest fraction of a moment after creation, there was an infinitely dense singularity containing everything that exists in the universe right now. Along with being infinitely dense, according to the second law of thermodynamics, it would have to be completely and 100% orderly as well. We're not quite going into where this came from just yet, but for now we have a singularity (which according to the current Big Bang theory is where we started.) Immediately, this singularity began to expand, and its density became finite. Here's the issue though. It was completely uniform. Had the universe remained this way, we would have had a uniform soup for a universe. Not so interesting. Instead, we had differential cooling, and entropy (according to recent findings I've outlined in another thread {I think it was another thread} this may have been caused in part by gravity, entropy, and/or uneven expansion.) Differential cooling was a lifesaver and allowed for the existence of matter as we know it.

 

(snip)

 

Wololo, re: the sentence highlighted in red...

 

How do you know this?

 

You state this as if it were a fact... is it?

 

What kind of singularity are you referring to?

 

What can you tell me about the decay of the Inflaton?

 

When the universe was a quantum-sized entity, which would have been dominant - Quantum effects or Einsteinian relativity?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[MerryG]

Actually...this is not just me, these ideas were not made up by me. I did say I have a few sources, but that I'm not going to reveal them quite yet (to avoid Google abuse). There are some highly educated people that have wrestled with these ideas for longer than I have. I'll let you know who they are when we get further down the road.

 

 

 

Yes, we all know that "highly educated people" never make mistakes or never simply make stuff up.

 

And of course, we all know that keeping the identities of "highly educated" sources is the key to effective argument. And we know that anyone who wants actually to check the sources is committing "Google abuse."

 

 

 

What created God? That's not a valid question. Time only exists where there is mass, and if God is outside the universe, he is not bound by time because he wouldn't necessarily have mass. I have no evidence that he does or could.

 

Precisely. You have no evidence.

 

Without evidence, how do you expect to persuade anybody of anything? 

 

You're not only just dressing up the old Prime Mover argument with a new coat of paint, as Prof says. You appear to be dressing Mr. OCD, Mr. Control Freak, stevebennett up with a new, but equally ludicrous, set of arguments.

[Bhim]

To try to get us to believe in Jesus via pseudo-science. There's a lot of sciency people here. He wants to tap that. Get those lost scientific souls back for Jebus!!!

His argument from Big Bang cosmology employs a common Evangelical misconception about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and fails to treat the inflationary model of cosmology. Hopefully I'll have a chance to post more extensively on this later.

[miekko]

[This post is just so I can easily find this thread later on; I think there's some interesting things about Wololo's posts here, and I will get into posting some kind of response later on. This is just so I can keep track of the thread by looking at 'my content'.)

[Wololo]

Wololo, why are you here? Do you think you're going to re-covert people? Or are you having your own doubts? There's really no motive in between.

 

I'm here for discussion. I've made it clear several times that I'm not trying to convert people. Like everyone else, there is a time and place for doubt. To not have doubt is to be dishonest. The reason I'm here though, is just because I like to discuss, regardless of how juvenile people can behave about it. It's also a good way to learn to better articulate my perspective.

 

Wololo, you have failed to understand my question.  The entire phrase ex nihilo nihil fit should be taken into consideration; it means "out of nothing, nothing comes".  My question was not one of ex nihilo creation.  My question was: Whence cometh thy god?  You assert that god is infinite; but have no evidence, empirical or otherwise, to support this claim.  In essence, you would have me to believe that god came from nothing; yet you go to great lengths to explain how the universe did not come from nothing in order to avoid falling into the very trap into which you fall by simply asserting that "gawd's jist ahways biyun thar." 

 

Again, you are simply giving the Prime Mover argument a fresh coat of paint.  You can take everything back to the Prime Mover; yet you can't explain how that Prime Mover came to be, or whether there was a Pre-Prime Mover that put the Prime Mover into place.  Instead, you rest your entire case on the phrase, "Some things just have to be accepted by faith."  Well, actually, no they don't.  You can call me a materialist or an Aristotleophile, I don't care; but you will never convince me that faith is a sound world-view upon which to build my life. 

 

Consider this, what if what Hindus place their faith in is closer to the truth than what you've placed your faith in?  Would you, then, be so proud at having arrived at conclusions that are completely erroneous because the underlying foundation of faith upon which you built your world-view was fundamentally flawed?

 

I'm beginning to echo some of the same questions others have recently asked.  Why, exactly, are you here?  What on earth could possibly make you think that your religion/philosophy brain-fuck would be of any interest to people on an ex-christian website?  You claim you are not here to evangelize; but, as I've already pointed out to you, your actions would speak otherwise. 

 

If you need help and support for your own deconversion, just be honest and say so; we'll be glad to gather around you.  If not, why not find a religious or philosophical website to share your views on?

 

No, not really. That's not what I was explaining. I was trying to explain why God would be infinite, by working backwards from what we have. I also don't know that God has mass, so I assume that he doesn't. There isn't a logical reason he would. Without mass, there is no time, and therefore no beginning. God would always have existed, because he wouldn't be bound by time. No mass = no time. Don't ask me where he came from when there's no time to use as a reference.

 

To tell the truth, I really don't understand what you are talking about. Whatever it is, will you please explain how your philosophy fits in with the stories of god in the OT. That's something tangible we understand. How does your philosophy explain or justify the various genocides god directed in the OT? How does it justify any of the atrocities described in the OT which were either done by or directed by god.  bill

 

I'll come back to this when I have time and I'm not on break. Maybe if people would listen instead of poking fun, they would start to understand where I"m coming from, even if they don't agree.

 

 

To tell the truth, I really don't understand what you are talking about. Whatever it is, will you please explain how your philosophy fits in with the stories of god in the OT. That's something tangible we understand. How does your philosophy explain or justify the various genocides god directed in the OT? How does it justify any of the atrocities described in the OT which were either done by or directed by god.  bill

Here comes the "historical context" bovine excrement again.  Y'all pull on your Wellingtons; it's liable to get deep. 

 

 

Please come back with a valid logical statement.

 

 

Wololo, why are you here? Do you think you're going to re-covert people? Or are you having your own doubts? There's really no motive in between.

 

To try to get us to believe in Jesus via pseudo-science. There's a lot of sciency people here. He wants to tap that. Get those lost scientific souls back for Jebus!!!

 

 

Let's avoid logical fallacies please. You call it pseudo-science. Prove it.

 

 

(snip)

 

This really is nothing more than the Prime Mover argument with a fresh coat of paint.  However we all know ex nihilo nihil fit.  So, Wololo, whence cometh thy god?

 

This is not creation ex nihilo, which was originally a response to the steady state argument (and such). Fortunately, science has assisted us in leaving that one mostly behind. I'm quite comfortable with a beginning and a Big Bang at that beginning.

 

At the beginning, just the smallest fraction of a moment after creation, there was an infinitely dense singularity containing everything that exists in the universe right now. Along with being infinitely dense, according to the second law of thermodynamics, it would have to be completely and 100% orderly as well. We're not quite going into where this came from just yet, but for now we have a singularity (which according to the current Big Bang theory is where we started.) Immediately, this singularity began to expand, and its density became finite. Here's the issue though. It was completely uniform. Had the universe remained this way, we would have had a uniform soup for a universe. Not so interesting. Instead, we had differential cooling, and entropy (according to recent findings I've outlined in another thread {I think it was another thread} this may have been caused in part by gravity, entropy, and/or uneven expansion.) Differential cooling was a lifesaver and allowed for the existence of matter as we know it.

 

(snip)

 

Wololo, re: the sentence highlighted in red...

 

How do you know this?

 

You state this as if it were a fact... is it?

 

What kind of singularity are you referring to?

 

What can you tell me about the decay of the Inflaton?

 

When the universe was a quantum-sized entity, which would have been dominant - Quantum effects or Einsteinian relativity?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Hi, I'll go find some proper sources and come up with a deeper explanation since you seem to know more than the some of the jokers here.

[Wololo]

 

Actually...this is not just me, these ideas were not made up by me. I did say I have a few sources, but that I'm not going to reveal them quite yet (to avoid Google abuse). There are some highly educated people that have wrestled with these ideas for longer than I have. I'll let you know who they are when we get further down the road.

 

 

 

Yes, we all know that "highly educated people" never make mistakes or never simply make stuff up.

 

And of course, we all know that keeping the identities of "highly educated" sources is the key to effective argument. And we know that anyone who wants actually to check the sources is committing "Google abuse."

 

 

 

What created God? That's not a valid question. Time only exists where there is mass, and if God is outside the universe, he is not bound by time because he wouldn't necessarily have mass. I have no evidence that he does or could.

 

Precisely. You have no evidence.

 

Without evidence, how do you expect to persuade anybody of anything? 

 

You're not only just dressing up the old Prime Mover argument with a new coat of paint, as Prof says. You appear to be dressing Mr. OCD, Mr. Control Freak, stevebennett up with a new, but equally ludicrous, set of arguments.

 

 

Thanks for cherry-picking. Let's read that whole context. God doesn't have mass...and I say that because I don't have any reason to believe he does. There's no evidence he does. I have evidence of God, but it's really not empirical. Tell me why empirical evidence is necessary...especially considering that I don't believe in realism or non-realism. Structural realism is the way to go.

[par4dcourse]

God doesn't have mass...and I say that because I don't have any reason to believe he does. There's no evidence he does.

 

I don't believe god exists and I say that because I don't have any reason to believe he does. There's no evidence he does.

[Overcame Faith]

I take it that your framework begins with the existence of a god. Unless you haven't noticed, you will have great difficulty convincing most ExChristians of that. So why don't you just go from there. If we assume there us a god, why is anyone to believe it is the god of the Bible, or perhaps the Bible is not a part of your framework.

[RipVanWinkle]

"I'll come back to this when I have time and I'm not on break. Maybe if people would listen instead of poking fun, they would start to understand where I"m coming from, even if they don't agree."     Wololo

 

 

Just to be clear, I'm not poking fun, at least not yet. But you can poke fun both ways. bill