How is the Bible the Word of God?

[1robin]

I was talking of spontaneous symmetry breaking and quantum mechanics, and how 50% of QM interpretations are still deterministic (as yourself claimed).

Spontaneous in the context used implied non-deterministic at least the way I understood it.

What do you mean, in this context, with things that have no exceptions?

Cause and effect have no known exceptions, for example.

 

[viole]

I did not name the aim of the sacrifice, but every one of those Christ died to provide in the ultimate sense. There really is no argument possible of the type your making. You can argue that Christ did not die for X, you cannot suggest that if he did die for X that X is not the greatest possible thing to sacrifice one's self for. None of those are event remotely comparable to the eternal sanctification and forgiveness of all men. AS a famous civil war general said you certainty have a remarkable capacity for trivializing the momentous and complicating the obvious. Christ was the most precious sacrifice possible and what he purchased the most valuable of all. There is not a even a theoretically greater or more benevolent action.

Yes, he can, and only he could, in the context in which this took place. To take a herring and see if it makes the best saw to cut down the mightiest tree in the forest is not the proper context to evaluate the fish within. Our laws are the ultimate arbiter of nothing.

Christ is the best possible role model, a perfect one. I did not say every single way he is the opposite of our ways. In this case they are very similar. We both consider self sacrifice the greatest possible good.

Could be. But it is indeed easy to self sacrifice oneselves when we know we have a death expectancy of three days

Big deal.

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

For the fourth time. He is an expert on testimony and evidence.

Not on biblical evidence.

He is credible.

Not in any aspect of biblical studies.

You are not the one who determines the credibility of a scholar

He is not a scholar.



I asked you TO PROVIDE CREDIBLE SOURCES

 

[outhouse]

Greenleaf's credentials are what determines his credibility

He has ZERO biblical education.

He was ZERO historical education.


He is not credible, and ONLY provided hearsay.

 

[outhouse]

That is it, I am out.

No your running, because you have no credible sources to provide.

 

[outhouse]

You obviously know little about this subject but are emotionally committed to a position that you can back up

Really?


Are you not the one who has no biblical or historical education what so ever?


What university did you study the NT?

What university did you study Paul?

What university did you study historical methods?

 

[1robin]

The models used by Vilenkin are

1) general theory of relativity. The classical version, no QM.
2) inflationary physics

So Vilenkin did not use multiverse or any infinities as his model. Therefor he weighs the same as a duck and is not operating in fantasy land. These are not certainties but they are both consistent with the evidence.

We can go through the mathematicl deduction and the premises if you want. I hope you agree that it is, like all theorems, a mathematical deduction based on some premises.

Do you agree on those premises as being a correct representation of reality?

Why can't we just go look at the pictorial models themselves? Let someone else do all this work.

See this link:
shape of the universe - Google Search
You will find a thousand models for the universe. The first thing you should notice is they are not all the same because apparently no one can agree on them, the second is that they come in two major types toridial or spherical. The cylindrical models are cross sections of the whole.

Oh dear, I meant Gaussian flat, of course. The measure of flatness that it is used in relativistic cosmology, obviously.

Chapter 3: Section 8: Part 3: Gaussian Curvature

I knew what you were saying, I just don't know what that has to do with the universes physical shape, and at this point I can't even remember why it's shape mattered. Shapes have boundaries and are not infinite anyway.

Dear not existing entity. Who am I talking to?

What Do You Mean, The Universe Is Flat?, Part 1 | Degrees of Freedom, Scientific American Blog Network

Sure about that math degree of yours?

I did not say I had a PhD. Gauss was only covered in my electrical engineering classes, never mentioned in my math classes. I asked one PhD, one guy with a masters, and another with two and they all came to the same conclusion. Your confusing models with reality. These are convenient tools using by mathematicians and are not representative of physical reality.

My computer keeps locking up. Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Well, since we do not know whether the Universe is finite or infinite, your obsession of it being finite might indicate that you have some sort of bias or knowledge nobody else possesses.

I think the one who agrees with the evidence the norm and the one who thinks there are natural infinites despite having no evidence the obsessed.

Nope. i am just asking whether you have some external evidence or links that show that our current popular models entail a finite universe.

I think it is the one who says the stick has no end who has the burden here not the one who says it does have an end. Besides I ask for your evidence first so no burden shirking.

I hope I will not have to wait as long as your alleged evidence of life not originating from a common ancestor.

You mean you have an endless regression of life coming from live ancestors as well? Is anything in the universe you live in not infinite?

 

[1robin]

My interest in Chesterton quotes approximates zero, obviously. If we are in quoting mode, let me please know.

I am reading Chesterton at the moment. If you lack interest I think that says more about you than him, he is very interesting, but I won't quote him then.

My question to you is, again: do you have some physolophical evidence, outside of Mr. Chesterton, that compatibilism rules out the general applicability of determinism? Do they think that intentational agencies trascend the basic laws of physics in any substantial way?

I don't rule out the general applicability of determinism because the bible does not. It suggests God is an agent explanation not a mechanism explanation. The supernatural or transcendent would by necessity be the exception not the rule. You said you were a pure determinist and that compatibilist does annihilate, it is no threat to my position.

Did you mean intentional or international? If intentional then I think it better stated that physical laws do not account for intentionality. How a brain can be about something else is a complete mystery and actually an impediment to a pure materialism.

If yes. Where is this evidence?

Where is any evidence that un-intentionality can explain intentionality? It is the one who claims x produces Y that has the burden. The lack of ability does not produce evidence. It was your initial claim that determinism in it's purest sense was true so you must explain how matter which has no will of any kind can produce it, which has no morality can produce it, which has no consciousness can produce it. I did not make a counter claim here that God produced these things just that your claim that nature did is lacking evidence and contradictory. Your trying to shift the burden.

 

[1robin]

Could be. But it is indeed easy to self sacrifice oneselves when we know we have a death expectancy of three days

Big deal.

Ciao

- viole

That was no the true sacrifice. It was being separated from the loving relationship with the father that he had always enjoyed that was the true horror. It was of infinite loss. There is an infinite for you, bet you won't like it in this case despite this single case having the potential for actually being infinite. BTW why agree you ignoring 99% of Christ's moral excellence and obsessed on one act alone? I did not even have his death in mind when I mentioned this. The quotes I made were primarily about his teachings and what they produced not his death and what it meant. His teachings alone have made more moral impact than any other influence in our history despite his only having come 2000 years ago.

 

[1robin]

1. It's none of your business, but I guess I'll answer. Not by the definition you seem to adhere to, but yes, I would consider myself to have been "born again" in the teachings of Christ (and Science, Philosophy, Theology, etc.) through my refacination with them. I do not believe that this is a prerequisite for salvation, as I believe that would be extremely cruel of God. Just think of a young boy growing up in a household that teaches him every day to hate Christianity sice birth. To expect that child to embrace Christianity or be sent to hell is just about the most evil notion I have ever heard of.

Your spiritual world view is the primary business of a theological debate. I have attempted time after time to end any talk of your theological status and you have obsessed upon on. Don't pretend to be coy at this point.

My definition is irrelevant nor has it been the focus of any discussion. It is Christ's criteria that matter. Christ actually said "born from above", which emphatically means that it is an act of God or a supernatural event. Not a product of man's knowledge, so there is no such thing as being philosophically or scientifically born again in the context of Christ's words. You may think that unfair but that is another subject all together.

2. I think that you have a very inaccurate view of Christianity and its requirements, both in defining the term and what must be adhered to in order to be considered Christian. To me, a Christian is simply one who believes that Jesus is divine and tries to follow his teachings.

Well at least we finally have a definition of your faith. Let's take this statement as what your faith is based upon for now.

3. I think it is pretty easy to discern what Jesus did and did not say from historical study and looking at the interests of the early Church. I do know for certain that you and every other human being are in no way more in tune with the will of God, and, as a result, should not consider themselves to be an authority on the subject. The same reasoning goes for the Gospels, which, I believe, must be viewed skeptically.

No you don't know that, even if it was true you have no possible way to know it.

Is that specific enough?

Not really, more like herding cats. All I asked for was a yes or no to three questions. I did not really get either one for any one of them. I was trying to see if getting another poster who was born again as traditionally defined to share their experiences with you would clarify the issue, but I get the impression that anything they would say would do no good so I will not bother with it unless you want to discuss it with them.

 

[1robin]

Not on biblical evidence.



Not in any aspect of biblical studies.



He is not a scholar.



I asked you TO PROVIDE CREDIBLE SOURCES

This is pointless, I gave you a list of the greatest modern bible scholars that have existed with the same conclusions not that Greenleaf lacks anything necessary. Your simply in denial at any cost mode, and that makes for a meaningless debate. This is boring and pointless.

 

[outhouse]

I gave you a list of the greatest modern bible scholars that have existed with the same conclusions not that Greenleaf lacks anything necessary

You listed 4 known biased apologetic scholars, out of thousands of scholars who appose their view.

WHICH does not refute the credible link I provided that shows your in the minority,

Your simply in denial at any cost mode

PROVIDE credible sources!

and that makes for a meaningless debate

because you will not accept what is known, nor will you provide credible sources.

This is boring and pointless

Exactly, you wont even admit your education level. Which I suspect is ZERO.

Burkett, Delbert (2002). An introduction to the New Testament and the origins of Christianity. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-00720-7.

The credible source above states MOST scholars do not find Papias statement true.

Can you refute that??? Since when are 4 scholars most?

 

[outhouse]

Please learn about the gospel of mark

 

[outhouse]

Right around the 14 minute mark, the professor at Yale will tell you the current state of scholars on the authorship of Mark.

Im well assured he as a professor knows more then you do with your lack of credible sources.

 

[viole]

If you lack interest I think that says more about you than him

I seriously hope so.

I don't rule out the general applicability of determinism because the bible does not. It suggests God is an agent explanation not a mechanism explanation. The supernatural or transcendent would by necessity be the exception not the rule. You said you were a pure determinist and that compatibilist does annihilate, it is no threat to my position.

Not exactly what I asked.

Did you mean intentional or international? If intentional then I think it better stated that physical laws do not account for intentionality. How a brain can be about something else is a complete mystery and actually an impediment to a pure materialism.

How could total mysteries be an impediment to anything? Either they are an impediment for any worldview or for none of them.

Where is any evidence that un-intentionality can explain intentionality? It is the one who claims x produces Y that has the burden. The lack of ability does not produce evidence. It was your initial claim that determinism in it's purest sense was true so you must explain how matter which has no will of any kind can produce it, which has no morality can produce it, which has no consciousness can produce it. I did not make a counter claim here that God produced these things just that your claim that nature did is lacking evidence and contradictory. Your trying to shift the burden.

Again, this is not what I asked.

What I asked is a question about a phylophical position: compatibilism.
Does compatibilism entail a violation of determinism in the case of intentional agents or an ultimate non physicalism for things like minds and how they instantiate intent?

The way I read it, does not seem to indicate that. They seem to be fully determinists. Which could explain why some pure naturalists are compatibilists (e.g. Sean Carroll). He actually compares free will to things like temperature and pressure: it does not make sense to say that they do not exists even thought they are macroscopic properties reducible to components which do not possess the same property. This is what I gathered from his article about the subject. Dan Dennett seems to go in the same direction with its intentional stance.

The evidence (about compatibism) I ask from you is required only if you believe that compatibilists hold the position that human minds, or anything else connected to intent, trascend or violate the laws of determinism. In that case, I would like to read the evidence (about compatibilism) you might want to provide.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

Right around the 14 minute mark, the professor at Yale will tell you the current state of scholars on the authorship of Mark.

Im well assured he as a professor knows more then you do with your lack of credible sources.

I have said a hundred times I can't watch videos on this DOD server. It actually did not even come up, it said it was incorrectly encrypted a it deleted it anyway. I have said quite a few times I am no interested in this debate. What's the confusion?

 

[outhouse]

I have said a hundred times I can't watch videos on this DOD server

Sounds like a personal issue.

. I have said quite a few times I am no interested in this debate. What's the confusion?

Don't really care what you think, you post sources not credible, or sources that do not address my post in context. You also post minority apologetic opinions, AS IF all scholars come to that conclusion, which is not true.

You did not refute the first credible source that stated you were in error, AND your not refuting the good professor either.


My post is for those who read and follow threads like this and want the truth. Not for you.

 

[outhouse]

Why do you post the opposite of what a Professor at Yale teaches??????????????

 

[1robin]

I seriously hope so.

Why?

Not exactly what I asked.

Her lately you been asking tings I could not understand the context for. Your questioned assumed something I never claimed nor believe is true. I can't answer a question with an incorrect assumption. I never said freewill or intent rules out determinism as a general principle so I can answer a question that assumes I did.

How could total mysteries be an impediment to anything? Either they are an impediment for any worldview or for none of them.

They are usually impediments to certainty, and do not make good grounds for argumentation. For example I rarely debate the Trinity because if true it is a compete mystery.
BTW by mystery I meant having no way to link X to Y, but to claim X is the result of Y anyway.

Again, this is not what I asked.

What I asked is a question about a phylophical position: compatibilism.
Does compatibilism entail a violation of determinism in the case of intentional agents or an ultimate non physicalism for things like minds and how they instantiate intent?

Your as bad a speller as me. I assume you meant philosophical, and yes it does represent a break with strict determinism. I had already amnswered your question with the actual definition. Here it is again:

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent. Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics.

The way I read it, does not seem to indicate that. They seem to be fully determinists. Which could explain why some pure naturalists are compatibilists (e.g. Sean Carroll). He actually compares free will to things like temperature and pressure: it does not make sense to say that they do not exists even thought they are macroscopic properties reducible to components which do not possess the same property. This is what I gathered from his article about the subject. Dan Dennett seems to go in the same direction with its intentional stance.

Compatibilist is a break with pure determinism but that does not mean every compatibilists would hold that view. I don't know the personal interpretations of all compatibilists, just what compatibilist means.

The evidence (about compatibism) I ask from you is required only if you believe that compatibilists hold the position that human minds, or anything else connected to intent, trascend or violate the laws of determinism. In that case, I would like to read the evidence (about compatibilism) you might want to provide.

The only evidence necessary is to show determinism does not explain all reality. I have given the best possible examples of that, anything additional would be a more complex and less obvious example. The ability of us to actualize desires billions of times a day is the best possible evidence and more than sufficient to show determinism does not govern all reality. I don't think I can provide stronger evidence against anything than that or evidence of any greater amount against a thing. It does not even seem to allow for debate of any kind.

I think it a horrible explanation to suggest that determinism resulted in anyone having a coherent plan to do something like build a house, but it is no explanation at all to suggest determinism was so obliging as to perform the trillions of necessary functions to produce that house, which it never cared about in the first place. A thing cannot have any better or more contradictory evidence than pure determinism. What more can you possibly ask for?