"...but intelligent people believe in God" Analysis, Discussion, and Debate

[Polymath257]

You're saying that there's a solution to Zeno's dichotomy paradox that is settled science, with infinitely divisible space-time being no barrier to settling that paradox?

Yes. Thta is exactly what I am saying. ALL of the Zeno paradoxes are easily solved with simple algebra.

Also, I believe that any cosmological concept that can be proven by math, can also be translated into the written word. Further, both are subject to error, either through error outright, or the error of being incomplete (e.g. Newtonian physics).

Yes, but notevery idea that can be stated in words can be translated into math becayse of internal inconsistencies. Yes, both are subject to error, but the math at least showsinternal consistency, whereby language doesn't guarantee that.

 

[bobhikes]

You need to get out more. Actually, not even that;Have you looked around these boards lately at the wide range of mutually exclusive beliefs people have?

And this isn't even close to one of the crazier places on the web vis a vis crazy beliefs. The comeback flat Earth is making boggles the mind.

Name anything, and someone believes it.

Actually you should have followed the context and the video. Ridiculous claims comes from the Video. Your post of all the weird beliefs we have support my original post.

First off it makes no statement what the ridiculous claim is so they are open to imply anything they want without being able to challenge it.

Assuming the ridiculous claim is God they are missing the fact that God is an evolutionary advance in Humans and no matter what will always exist. Religion on the other hand is Human made probably starting when we went from nomads to communities.

Either way they make no scientific claims or facts to support or reject anything. If what they say is true you should be able to program people to believe anything is truth. That surely does seem to be the case other than God what other ridiculous claims exist.

As you say there are to many ridiculous claims to even make a valid scientific or philosophical statement.

 

[Polymath257]

All rational arguments are not emperical.

Be careful with quantifiers there. It should read:

Not all rational arguments are empirical.

The way you stated it would say that no empirical argument is rational.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

All rational arguments are not emperical.

This one of the most accurate statements in this thread. Thanks for the wise observation.

Add-on.......Seeing post #223 I read it as saying not all rational arguments are empirical, meaning a truth etc can be vetted without empirical evidence.

; {>

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Perhaps, but perhaps there are also ways to find out. One can look, for example, at the claims made by one religion or another, compare those claims to observations right here in the world, and see if they actually stand up -- WITHOUT the need for complex and unprovable apologetics that make claims to what nobody knows anything about to prove that "it isn't what it really looks like." Mostly, it really IS what it really looks like. An uncomfortably large percentage of the claims that Christians have made to me over the past 69 years about what their deity does and wants bear quite literally zero resemblance to the world that both they and I live in.

Of course, one way past that is to try to imagine that this isn't "the real world," but that fantasy is kind of hard to demonstrate when -- sadly -- here we all are anyway.

And do you know, I disagree with you that "religion embraces...eternity." Any religion that begins with "In the beginning...." couldn't possibly do that. Eternity doesn't have a beginning.

Evangelicalhumanist (and other nonbelievers I may have offended) In my prior post related to this matter I was a little abusive due to my own weakness, and I apologist to you personally for that abrasiveness.

God bless our forum~ Define 'spiritual person'. To avoid confusion I want to define how I use spiritual person in this reply. The way I use it is not 100% accurate, anyway when I say 'spiritual person' I mean a person who believes that supernatural events are real as well as God etc being 'real'.


As you already know you and I see the world, actually reality differently. It's no secret that spiritually* oriented and the other side of the coin who are mostly atheists and some agnostics who believe only the material world exists. They also have different methods to define reality and use different 'moral scales' to determine absolute right and wrong than a spiritual person. So I disagree with your view on apologetic as well if you are speaking about apologetic with educational muster (At least one PhD) and other intellectual assets to teach the masses like myself why its rational and logical to believe an creator exists. Of course they also must possess unquestionable spiritual assets as well. The apologetics I am speaking about the William Craigs of the world . That said I do not agree with many other apologetics such as some of the well meaning young earth types, even though I respect their level of faith.

Your statement where you brush off as fantasy that many spiritual people including most native Americans etc would say this material existence is not the true world shows the crux of the problem in our understanding each other. Those who think its silly to say this existence is only an 'illusion' while criticizing the religious who feel otherwise is one huge reason atheists can not understand why Christianity and other religions haven't changed the world more for the good! Its difficult to put my thoughts into words but what I am trying to say is the fact that we Christians work for the next world by attempting to make this one better are facing an uphill battle when we have two views of reality.

Even your last paragraph illustrates the above. My religion does embrace eternity because God is eternal ! The verse you reference is speaking of when God was creating the material world. 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'. Before the Big Bang I agree with those cosmologists who feel time was created when the material world was in the nano seconds after the big bang began expanding. In other words there was nothing material in the beginning ( before the big bang banged lol) That was what the verse you referenced meant and there are several mentioned of that phrase in other books of the bible where the universe and mans creation is spoken of in parable. I hope this clears up my prior post where I was a little abusive due to my own weakness and I apologist to you personally for that abrasiveness. (I also copied and posted this at the top of my reply).





; {>

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

de

 

[sayak83]

Be careful with quantifiers there. It should read:

Not all rational arguments are empirical.

The way you stated it would say that no empirical argument is rational.

Thanks for the correction. My English is slipping.

 

[sayak83]

This one of the most accurate statements in this thread. Thanks for the wise observation.

Add-on.......Seeing post #223 I read it as saying not all rational arguments are empirical, meaning a truth etc can be vetted without empirical evidence.

; {>

I meant it the second way. Empirical arguments are a subset of rational arguments.

 

[sayak83]

The problem with the criticism I see here about Christianity in general by members like EHumanists is even if we take their self sourced, sometimes ridiculous claims at face value (which I don't) is that they blame the wrong thing. One big reason Christianity hasn't transformed the world into a much better place are Christians who aren't, at best they are Christians in name only. The Christian religion would make the world a much better place if all Christians actually practiced Christianity. Jesus Christ was a teacher of mankind. I don't blame the religion and teacher but rather the students and even more hating atheists or others who live to harm others. If we would apply a fraction of the teachings of Christ the world would be a paradise. But no we poop in our own back yard and wonder why the world is a cesspool (in many areas). Even considering all the above most major religions especially Christianity has produced far more good than any non religious group throughout history.

God bless our forum ~

There is one problem I see with this analysis. Where in the NT is there any exhortation towards making the world a better place? Both Jesus and Paul sees the powers of the world as irredeemably under the rulership of corruption, sin and Satan and seek to bring the faithful few to repentance and God until the harvest and destruction of the old world comes. The concept of reforming the world is alien to such a theology. It only seek to abide by the laws of the Caesar to get by from day to day till the world is remade. Thus the gospel and Paul has no real message towards reforming the workings of the world, but a message to abandon it and join those who wait and prepare themselves for the new one. Is this not correct overall.? In other words NT does not have the concerns of Confucius or Plato or Aristotle who spent lots of time writing precisely on ethics and politics that can reform the world. Hinduism has Artha-sashtra and dharma-sashtra to tackle the same things. Even Buddha, who favored renunciation, spends a lot of time with Kings and merchants on how to reform their ways of action to properly align with Dhamma. Islam is almost exclusively concerned with this, to much detriment, as 7th century laws cannot work in 21st century. Christianity has no such ambitions, and when it suddenly becomes the faith of Kings and governments, it kind of muddles along, improvising. That way be a good thing over all. But there it is.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The BB go to theory, called the standard hot model still does employ a singularity like point from which our universe expanded. The reason that the standard hot model of the big bang theory is being challenged with multiverses or Hawking's darling theory that eliminates the bang 'singularity' with a near plagiarized lack luster theory of the old rebounding cyclic universe is to eliminate God or an intelligent designer from any theory of universe creation. Hawking has been working on his new and awful theory when the standard BB began to show it was theistic friendly. Its not only Hawking, many atheist cosmologists have been searching for a new theory to replace or modify the standard BB model with a theory that eliminates a starting point, read as creation point and God. They (most atheist cosmologists) are working for a new theory for how the universe beginning to exist IMO for the express reason to eliminate the theistic revelations of the standard BB model.

There is no need to eliminate god from scientific theories because there was never a need to include them.

And there is no scientific theory yielding "theistic revelations," so there is no need or desire to modify theories with religions in mind.

Furthermore, a god doesn't need rules to run a universe, and a universe that runs according to rules doesn't need a god.

Consider a juggler. He doesn't need rules for juggling. He just juggles without any understanding of the force he applies to the balls, the precise description of the movements of his hands and fingers, or the speed between throws, for example. He just juggles without rules because he's an intelligent juggler..

But if he wants an non-intelligent juggler - a mindless, juggling robot to take over for him - he will need to engineer a device wherein all of those parameters are measured and the rules for juggling encoded in the juggler's instructions.

Similarly, a god juggling the planets, moons and other heavenly bodies around their stars wouldn't need Kepler's and Newton's laws. A godless universe is a robot that does.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's rather like that old nostrum, "things always come in threes!" Things don't always come in threes -- when the human who believes that silliness gets to three, he stops counting and say "see!" And when it happens a fourth time, he will start counting from 1 again -- even though it would now appear that at least this thing comes in at least four!

I remember well in June of 2009, we saw just that phenomenon when three famous people died over three days late in the month::

June 23 Ed McMahon
June 25 Farrah Fawcett
June 25 Michael Jackson

We thought that the carnage was over, but then, out of nowhere, on the 28th of June, infomercial celebrity Billy Mays surprised the world and cashed in his chips.

It was just like Billy to throw in one more free.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Yes. Thta is exactly what I am saying. ALL of the Zeno paradoxes are easily solved with simple algebra.

I can't even find where someone claims to show how it is "solved" by calculus. Do you have a source for either? And further, I can't find anyone disproving the finite divisibility of space-time solution--which would not only be a solution, but an intuitively reasonable solution, for which I think there is a significant prejudice against it in some segments of the scientific community. Why? There are several possibilities, but that's for another thread.

Yes, but notevery idea that can be stated in words can be translated into math becayse of internal inconsistencies.

Why would it be a one way connection? And why wouldn't internal consistencies negate any given premise in the first place?

Yes, both are subject to error, but the math at least showsinternal consistency, whereby language doesn't guarantee that.

It doesn't guarantee it, no, of course not. But if inconsistencies exist in either, they can be ferreted out, or they wouldn't be inconsistencies.

There is one problem I see with this analysis. Where in the NT is there any exhortation towards making the world a better place? Both Jesus and Paul sees the powers of the world as irredeemably under the rulership of corruption, sin and Satan and seek to bring the faithful few to repentance and God until the harvest and destruction of the old world comes. The concept of reforming the world is alien to such a theology. It only seek to abide by the laws of the Caesar to get by from day to day till the world is remade. Thus the gospel and Paul has no real message towards reforming the workings of the world, but a message to abandon it and join those who wait and prepare themselves for the new one. Is this not correct overall.? In other words NT does not have the concerns of Confucius or Plato or Aristotle who spent lots of time writing precisely on ethics and politics that can reform the world. Hinduism has Artha-sashtra and dharma-sashtra to tackle the same things. Even Buddha, who favored renunciation, spends a lot of time with Kings and merchants on how to reform their ways of action to properly align with Dhamma. Islam is almost exclusively concerned with this, to much detriment, as 7th century laws cannot work in 21st century. Christianity has no such ambitions, and when it suddenly becomes the faith of Kings and governments, it kind of muddles along, improvising. That way be a good thing over all. But there it is.

Yes, Jesus and John the Baptist both taught the necessity of repentance. But not Paul. His propaganda was that salvation came only through a belief in the salvific death of Jesus, and that we don't have to even try to be good:

But didn’t he earn his right to heaven by all the good things he did? No, for being saved is a gift; if a person could earn it by being good, then it wouldn’t be free—but it is! It is given to those who do not work for it. For God declares sinners to be good in his sight if they have faith in Christ to save them from God’s wrath. --- Romans 4:4 (Living)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

One big reason Christianity hasn't transformed the world into a much better place are Christians who aren't, at best they are Christians in name only. The Christian religion would make the world a much better place if all Christians actually practiced Christianity. Jesus Christ was a teacher of mankind. I don't blame the religion and teacher but rather the students and even more hating atheists or others who live to harm others.

So the failure of Christianity is in part due to atheists, then, is it, but not at all due to the religion or the teacher?

You seem to be saying that if most of the class fails, the teacher is not the problem - the class is? Is that correct?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

There is no need to eliminate god from scientific theories because there was never a need to include them.

And there is no scientific theory yielding "theistic revelations," so there is no need or desire to modify theories with religions in mind.

Furthermore, a god doesn't need rules to run a universe, and a universe that runs according to rules doesn't need a god.

Consider a juggler. He doesn't need rules for juggling. He just juggles without any understanding of the force he applies to the balls, the precise description of the movements of his hands and fingers, or the speed between throws, for example. He just juggles without rules because he's an intelligent juggler..

But if he wants an non-intelligent juggler - a mindless, juggling robot to take over for him - he will need to engineer a device wherein all of those parameters are measured and the rules for juggling encoded in the juggler's instructions.

Similarly, a god juggling the planets, moons and other heavenly bodies around their stars wouldn't need Kepler's and Newton's laws. A godless universe is a robot that does.

Yes, but....a deistic God cannot be ruled out.

 

[Polymath257]

I can't even find where someone claims to show how it is "solved" by calculus. Do you have a source for either? And further, I can't find anyone disproving the finite divisibility of space-time solution--which would not only be a solution, but an intuitively reasonable solution, for which I think there is a significant prejudice against it in some segments of the scientific community. Why? There are several possibilities, but that's for another thread.

The basic mistake for Zeno is thinking there is an inconsistency in going through infinitely many spatial points in a finite amount of time. The point is that there are also an infinite number of temporal points corresponding to those infinitely many spatial points. So, for the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, simple algebra will show when Achilles will catch up. It is found that Zeno's 'stops' are successive approximations for when Achilles does catch up. There are infinitely many 'places' for Achilles to be, but there are also infinitely many 'times'. Together, motion is possible.

A similar analysis holds for the other standard paradoxes. So, the one you brought up (the half-time paradox) just shows that you get half-way in half the time. And the paradoxical part evaporates.

Why would it be a one way connection? And why wouldn't internal consistencies negate any given premise in the first place?

It doesn't guarantee it, no, of course not. But if inconsistencies exist in either, they can be ferreted out, or they wouldn't be inconsistencies.

Yes, but it is *considerably* easier to ferret them out with math than with ordinary language. In fact, often the math won't even let you formulate an inconsistent idea.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I can't even find where someone claims to show how it [Zeno's paradox] is "solved" by calculus. Do you have a source for either?

I think Polymath said algebra

Proof that 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 ... = 1

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yes, but....a deistic God cannot be ruled out.

Agreed.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The basic mistake for Zeno is thinking there is an inconsistency in going through infinitely many spatial points in a finite amount of time. The point is that there are also an infinite number of temporal points corresponding to those infinitely many spatial points. So, for the paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, simple algebra will show when Achilles will catch up. It is found that Zeno's 'stops' are successive approximations for when Achilles does catch up. There are infinitely many 'places' for Achilles to be, but there are also infinitely many 'times'. Together, motion is possible.

A similar analysis holds for the other standard paradoxes. So, the one you brought up (the half-time paradox) just shows that you get half-way in half the time. And the paradoxical part evaporates.

Yes, it evaporates with finite divisibility, the simplest and most elegant solution--which Occam's Razor would favor. But you've only made an assertion that it's wrong. Where's the reputable source with the math? BTW, half-way in half the time would progress both the distance and time to the same inability to reach the goal. It works the same way for a watch reaching the next minute--always half way but never arriving.

es, but it is *considerably* easier to ferret them out with math than with ordinary language. In fact, often the math won't even let you formulate an inconsistent idea.

Yes, it is usually easier to with math, but there are many examples of finding the flaws in an intuitive "Eureka1' moment.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Agreed.

OMG! We need to form a club...two people agreeing, no revelations involved, and most importantly, both are correct as well. Unheard of, unthinkable!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes, it evaporates with finite divisibility, the simplest and most elegant solution--which Occam's Razor would favor. But you've only made an assertion that it's wrong. Where's the reputable source with the math? BTW, half-way in half the time would progress both the distance and time to the same inability to reach the goal. It works the same way for a watch reaching the next minute--always half way but never arriving.

Yes, it is usually easier to with math, but there are many examples of finding the flaws in an intuitive "Eureka1' moment.

Yes, and my personal favourite is simple observation. One can create all the Zeno-like paradoxes that they like (Mount Everest can't be that tall because first it would have be half as tall, plus half and that and half of...and etc.), but one look tells you, "by gum, there's a darn mountain there." You could, if you had to get the glass to your mouth as Zeno suggests Achilles moves -- by halves, quarters, eighths, etc. -- never take even a tiny sip of that beer.

But go ahead and try it -- and while you're enjoying your beer, try to figure out where the flaw is. (Which you've done, by the way. This wasn't aimed at you -- just using your post for support.)