Is it Fair to Incarcerate Christians for their Belief?

[psychoslice]

I wouldn't wish eternal torment on anyone, it's an evil thing to do.

And it doesn't exist which makes it worse.

 

[metis]

I thought you bailed on this debate. Debate or not, it is fine with me but please decide.

I am time-challenged lately and will be for a while longer.

God being coequal with nature is pantheism, it is also needlessly redundant, and hopelessly incoherent.

Well, so "incoherent" that a guy like Einstein can't see through it?

Einstein didn't even know what Einstein believed about God. He was a breathing theological contradiction.

I have about half a dozen books on Einstein's take on religion, and you couldn't be more wrong. Maybe do some serious reading on this before making such absurd statements.

He is eternal thus requiring no cause and he existed causally prior to nature and so explains the universe. Spinoza and Einstein need to stay in the realms of knowledge they are qualified for.

You continue to conflate belief with facts, which no serious scientist would ever do. Nor do I see that you are any more qualified than either of them in theology. Matter of fact, much less so since you seemingly cannot separate fact from belief. And I certainly cannot see you being more qualified than Einstein when it comes to science that strongly relates to what we're talking about. Einstein certainly didn't walk on water, especially since we now know that his belief in the Steady-State Theory is not correct.

For actual natural infinites (your right) there is not enough evidence to believe in them, pretty much zero.

If there is no such thing as "infinity", iyo, then you concept of "God" logically becomes impossible.

Also, you still avoid the question as to exactly what objective evidence can you present that posits one deity creating all? Why couldn't it be two or more colluding together? Why not none? You have offered nothing.

Again, math works, and infinity is involved in math. And before dismissing "infinity" as being illogical when it comes to cosmology, which is a patently absurd conclusion, you actually might want to check this out: Infinity - Wikipedia [scroll down to "Cosmology"]

Again, I do not know what caused this universe/multiverse largely because I don't conflate beliefs and facts, and there's simply not enough facts to draw any conclusions on the cause(s).

 

[1robin]

I am time-challenged lately and will be for a while longer.

Ok.

Well, so "incoherent" that a guy like Einstein can't see through it?

Why do people transfer the credibility people have in one area into another they were ill trained in. Einstein was a good scientist, but he was a theological schizophrenic. I will give you another example for comparison. Dawkins (probably a gifted biologist) wrote a book against God's existence. His core argument was called the worst argument against God's existence in the history of western thought by those trained in philosophy. Scientists need to be taken seriously about science not theology.

I have about half a dozen books on Einstein's take on religion, and you couldn't be more wrong. Maybe do some serious reading on this before making such absurd statements.

Other than relativity and the photoelectric effect Einstein is best known for being a theological chameleon. I have seen him on lists of the greatest scientists who believed in God and on lists of the greatest secular scientists. I used to use him to respond to claims that faith and science do not mix well, only to be told over and over that he was secular.

You continue to conflate belief with facts, which no serious scientist would ever do. Nor do I see that you are any more qualified than either of them in theology. Matter of fact, much less so since you seemingly cannot separate fact from belief. And I certainly cannot see you being more qualified than Einstein when it comes to science that strongly relates to what we're talking about. Einstein certainly didn't walk on water, especially since we now know that his belief in the Steady-State Theory is not correct.

Once you explain why what Einstein believed theologically is relevant, I will treat it as such. It's like me saying Newton was a Christian therefore Christianity was true.

What I said had nothing to do with science. It was theology, philosophy, and / or metaphysics.

If there is no such thing as "infinity", iyo, then you concept of "God" logically becomes impossible.

Please be as careful when reading as I am when posting. I specifically said that both actual natural infinites are unknown and probably impossible, and that spiritual concepts can be potentially infinite. I have said that same thing over and over and over, and I think I have pointed that out at least 3 times. It's like two sentences, how many times do I have to keep posting them?

Also, you still avoid the question as to exactly what objective evidence can you present that posits one deity creating all? Why couldn't it be two or more colluding together? Why not none? You have offered nothing.

I do not remember you ever asking that specific question. Please give me the number of the post where you did so.

Again, math works, and infinity is involved in math. And before dismissing "infinity" as being illogical when it comes to cosmology, which is a patently absurd conclusion, you actually might want to check this out: Infinity - Wikipedia [scroll down to "Cosmology"]

I know math works, I paid about $70,000 to learn how it works. I was actually going to posit some of the primary equations that use infinity (even one from Einstein) serves as the point that things may approach but never reach. Have you ever had a calculus class? If not, look up the fundamental definition of a limit. I however got side tracked laughing at what you told me to read. I will reply to it instead. This is what you wanted me to read:

The first published proposal that the universe is infinite came from Thomas Digges in 1576.[18] Eight years later, in 1584, the Italian philosopher and astronomer Giordano Bruno proposed an unbounded universe in On the Infinite Universe and Worlds: "Innumerable suns exist; innumerable earths revolve around these suns in a manner similar to the way the seven planets revolve around our sun. Living beings inhabit these worlds."[19]

We have learned more about cosmology in the past 50 years than the previous 5000 combined. Lets see what they said a couple of decades ago instead 500 years ago.

But in 2003, a team including Vilenkin and Guth considered what eternal inflation would mean for the Hubble constant, which describes mathematically the expansion of the universe. They found that the equations didn’t work (Physical Review Letters, DOI: 10.1103/physrevlett.90.151301). “You can’t construct a space-time with this property,” says Vilenkin. It turns out that the constant has a lower limit that prevents inflation in both time directions. “It can’t possibly be eternal in the past,” says Vilenkin. “There must be some kind of boundary.”
Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent

Keep in mind I believe that Bord, Guth, and Vilenkin are all secular and their robust conclusions were announced at Steven Hawking's birthday. Or refer to Hubble or BBT.

How does an expansion from a point about 15 billion years ago, traveling at a finite speed, produce an infinitely large universe?

Cosmologists have long sought to discover whether infinity exists in our physical universe: Are there an infinite number of stars? Does the universe have infinite volume? Does space "go on forever"? This is an open question of cosmology. The question of being infinite is logically separate from the question of having boundaries. The two-dimensional surface of the Earth, for example, is finite, yet has no edge. By travelling in a straight line with respect to the Earth's curvature one will eventually return to the exact spot one started from. The universe, at least in principle, might have a similar topology. If so, one might eventually return to one's starting point after travelling in a straight line through the universe for long enough.[20]

Most of that was made up of questions. It has been a long search, so long it is still going on. So far zero infinites known.

The curvature of the universe can be measured through multipole moments in the spectrum of the cosmic background radiation. As to date, analysis of the radiation patterns recorded by the WMAP spacecraft hints that the universe has a flat topology. This would be consistent with an infinite physical universe.[21][22][23]

So they measured the curve and found it was flat?

Infinite? Flat?

Infinite? Flat?

the universe - Google Search:

However, the universe could be finite, even if its curvature is flat. An easy way to understand this is to consider two-dimensional examples, such as video games where items that leave one edge of the screen reappear on the other. The topology of such games is toroidal and the geometry is flat. Many possible bounded, flat possibilities also exist for three-dimensional space.[24]

So it is both curved and flat, and either finite or infinite? Thanks science.

Science is measuring things, you can't measure infinity, it is a philosophic concept not a scientific concept.

The concept of infinity also extends to the multiverse hypothesis, which, when explained by astrophysicists such as Michio Kaku, posits that there are an infinite number and variety of universes

And here we have the last refuge for a potential infinite. Some want to find an actual natural infinite so bad they will literally invent a fantasy land with no connection to reality. There is no evidence what so ever for any universe except for the finite one we live in. Even if they existed by definition we will never know it, and even if they did exist and we could know it, is there any reason to think they would make infinites any more possible. That isn't science, it's bad science fiction.

Again, I do not know what caused this universe/multiverse largely because I don't conflate beliefs and facts, and there's simply not enough facts to draw any conclusions on the cause(s).

The philosophical principles concerning cause and effect, sufficient causation, and sufficient explanation are not beliefs. They are principles which there is no known exception to and which pass every test ever run. Using those principles and / or logical laws we inescapably conclude that the cause of the universe is timeless, space less, immaterial, unimaginably intelligent, unimaginably powerful, personal, etc...... I find that despite bronze age men not even knowing what the questions were, answered them all perfectly in their description of Yahweh. That much is as certain as anything can be. However it is faith that I believe that the God the Hebrews described and the creator of the universe are the same being. That conclusion is sound and logical but not a certainty.

 

[metis]

Einstein was a good scientist, but he was a theological schizophrenic.

If "schizophrenic" means that he was not certain about certain things, then I also am a "schizophrenic". Einstein was a scientist, and we simply do not jump to conclusions without supporting evidence. However, theists generally do.

I specifically said that both actual natural infinites are unknown and probably impossible, and that spiritual concepts can be potentially infinite.

You're making quite an assumption here, namely that there's some sort of magical wall between the two.

How does an expansion from a point about 15 billion years ago, traveling at a finite speed, produce an infinitely large universe?

That was explained in the link I provided you.

Science is measuring things, you can't measure infinity, it is a philosophic concept not a scientific concept.

False-- it's a scientific hypothesis that a great many scientists feel is likely.

OTOH, your constant assertion that God created our universe/multiverse is not a scientific hypothesis since there simply is no objective evidence to support it or even give any indication that it might be possible. A scientific hypothesis is not some sort of guess based on 0 evidence.

Since there is no where else to go with this that I can see, I'll make this my last post and give you the last word unless you have a question that hasn't been yet covered.

Take care.

 

[1robin]

In a sense, I do not either. There is not such an objective thing as time.

Time is probably the most confusing natural issue there is. I don't know what it is, all I can say is what it probably isn't. Space time probably isn't infinite, probably isn't physical, probably isn't tenseless, etc...

Could be. But the track record is on my side. How many times have naturalistic explanations been replaced by God? What about the other way round?

I believe and you admitted there probably have been more supernatural reasons given for natural events that natural explanations. I believe they were mostly wrong but historically mythical explanations may be the most plentiful. If Yahweh is primary and nature derivative I would expect to find exactly what we have. The mistakes occur when God shaped pieces are force fit into natural gaps or when unknown natural pieces are force fit into God shaped gaps. I do not find a single thing lacking for my faith to be consistent, but I do see all kinds of things lacking if the natural is all there is.

Can you make sense of causation without a pre-existng time going into one direction? Ergo, outside an Universe that is not in thermodynamical equlibrium?

Thermodynamics applies once you have a universe, spiritual things do not obey natural laws. I would say that space time did not exist before the universe but some other kind of time may have. Craig says it this way, God is causally prior to creation but not chronologically previous to it. Space-time alone is vexing enough.

I would be thrilled to see how. Do you have a definition of causality that does not require that?

To add to the above, there was no universe (no natural), prior to creation for thermodynamics to describe or act on. Space less, timeless, immaterial spiritual entity are not bound by any natural laws. Angels don't decay, God does not lose heat over "time", "heaven" does not tend towards disorder.

Maybe that is the problem. Laymen do not understand modal logic, in general. They react much better to primitive things like Kalam.

I didn't say I know nothing about Leibniz, I said I do not remember mentioning him. They are two different things, Leibniz is focused on everything that exists having an explanation, and the Kalam on that everything that begins to exist has a cause. I use both.

I am afraid not. But how is that relevant?

It isn't. I have a real world problem I can't find a solution to, thought you might know something about it.

Whatever. I don't think Nothing can exist. By definition. It smells like a reification fallacy. For if coukd exist, it would be something.

Correct, nothing does not exist. It is the absence of existence. No space, no time, no matter, no-thing.

Well, then give me a not physical definition that we can submit to rational analysis.

Spiritual power. Since we are pathetically finite, there are bound to be things about a supernatural infinite being which are not describable. The church has considered these things mysteries. The Quantum was operating just fine before we knew it even existed or had 10 contradictory formats to quantify it. Why are white holes, dark matter, and multi universes mysterious but perfectly plausible, but God isn't?

Again, spacetime cannot have a beginning. Nothing can have a beginning without time, by definition. And spacetime is something that does not change, also by definition. You can have expansion of space in time, sort of, but the whole spacetime is unchanging. The past is still there, and the future is already there. All the rest would violate the concept of timespace as we know it since 100 years.

How many times must I post this? There are hundreds of different version but I use this one because it is emphatic and because it's authors are secular.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

Vilenkin may have scaled mount Everest of theoretical cosmology, but your on top of Olympus Mons.

Since "come" requires time too, your argument is moot.

Exactly how much time does it require to begin, and how do you know?

Yes, same thing with time. Except that nothing began to exist. You seem to think that space and time are too very different things that can exist independently from each other. They are not.

In my statement immediately before this, I said everything you need space, time, and matter to begin at the same instant. You can change that to space-time and matter but you can't change their need to all begin together.

Inflationary cosmology is theoretical physics. So, your dislike for theoretical physics seem to be subjected to confirmation bias. By the way, it also entails eternal creation of bubbles creating new Universes all the "time. Even your hero Vilenkin wrote a book about this consequence of that theory. Let me guess, this latter part is too theoretical for your taste

He is not my hero, he is just emphatic. He also created the second most accepted cosmological model in history. Inflationary cosmology is the continental shelf of theoretical physics, not the Mariana's trench. Of coarse doing physics on thing no one can access, see, or have any evidence for is the deep end of theoretical science. You can measure background radiation of our universe, no one would ever be able to measure anything about other universes even if they actually existed. You went from the Mariana's trench, to Olympus Mons, now you have left all known reality completely. You will swallow a natural camel but choke on a spiritual gnat.

Why? If St. Augustine managed to deduce that time has also been created, why the omission? I doubt Augustine was a space man talking to space men. Were those stone age men really so stupid that they could not understand something found out a bit later? I doubt it. Much more likely that they did not imagine that. Which gives more credence to the theory that God had nothing to do with those verses.

I didn't mention anyone. I said stone age men to space age men, Augustine was neither. I also didn't say that about space time. I said the description of God would have to be intelligible to stone age men and still hold up to space age investigation. Since billions of believer from Adam to Astronauts have been men of faith, success. Regardless, you need to quote specific claims concerning specific verses.

Because of Constantine, I guess. Historical contingencies. By the way, the majority of people living today do not gamble their soul on the Bible's claim, either.

Because of God, Adam, Noah, Moses, David, Solomon, Christ, Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Constantine, Augustine, Aquinas, Newton, Craig, even me, and the billions in between. What you said was equivalent to the pyramids exist because of a hammer. I was not comparing the bible to all other beliefs combine, because that is not what you said. You equated the Bible with the Odyssey, so that is what I compared.

Yet, it says water existed before the stars. So, even if it contains some archeological truths, that shows that the authors knew geography better than cosmology. The former being much easier to attain in ancient ages.

I just told you this is one of those scriptures I have never understood, and if you want we can drop most everything else and investigate it. You chose to instead mention it again.

Simple. Ask them whether a semiconductor electron hole is the presence or absence of something.

Before I do, do the holes contain air, plasma, or are they true vacuums? I am confused, you said above that nothing can't exist, now your saying it can, and you know exactly where. What is your position? How can you claim to know about bubble universes, semiconductor electron holes, but nothing about HDMI to composite conversions? That's like saying you can't build a box but you can construct the space shuttle. The PhD is out today but once you define what you claim about electron holes I will ask the guy with the masters in electronic engineering.

Sure. I cannot possibly tell you the trajectory followed by each particle in my bath tub when I flush the water, either. Or how the whirl will develop. Nobody can, even though it is perfectly deterministic. But I can tell you where they all land, purely on the basis of some conservation law.

But you could describe a finite path of a single water molecule, heck I can even post the equations for that kind of physics myself. So do likewise for any single finite choice anyone has ever made.

You did not find them under the table. You, or someone before you, made them up. Like that Thor puzzle made up by my ancestors. Made up pieces always fit.

Not if they are made up 5000 years before anyone knew a hole even existed. How did Moses create specific and multifaceted puzzle pieces, that would fit perfectly into puzzles assembled thousands of years later missing those specifically shaped pieces.

i know what the Bible says. But if you attack homosexuality using secular arguments, then it is logical that you give me secular arguments about my scenario. If you do not have any, then homosexuality is not wrong per se, at least from a secular point of view.

Note only is it illogical, but it is not possible for me to make up arguments to apply to all possible subgroups within homosexuality.

I don't care how minuscle it is, if it is (it is not). My question is in principle. Are you against promiscuous male homosexuality, or against homosexuality in general? I think you are only against the former, at least from a secular point of view. And since I assume you are against promiscuous sex in general, I am not sure what your secular arguments against homosexuality reduce to.

Ciao

- viole

Theologically I am against homosexuality, secularly I am against promiscuity across the board but the fallout is far more acute concerning homosexuality. BTW considering a behavior bad is not to claim to be sinless. I actually do many things I would admit are bad or immoral. The entrance examine for Christianity is moral failure. I know of no other group composed exclusively by people who fail to measure up to it's own standards. Maybe alcoholics anonymous or rehab comes close.

 

[1robin]

If you call perfection postulating oxygen before stars, or inspiring texts that make people confused about the "age" of the Universe by several orders of magnitude, then....well.

Verses please.

Then I propose that you replace "died for our sins" with "tortured for our sins". For death lastng three days and two nights followed by a return in glory as the ruler of the Universe does not impress anyone. Or it shouldn't.

You got it wrong in two ways. Physical death: Definition. Death is defined as the cessation of all vital functions of the body including the heartbeat, brain activity (including the brain stem), and breathing.
Definition. Death is defined as the cessation of all vital functions of the body including the heartbeat, brain activity (including the brain stem), and breathing.

It says nothing about eternity or about life being restarted. However this is not the primary death Christ suffered in our place.

Christ did not save us from physical death (we all still physically die). Christ saved us from the second death which is infinitely worse. I thought you said you knew the bible. The second death is absolute separation from God and things associated with God like existence, life, love, contentment, peace, etc..... I think that means the souls of the damned are annihilated. I can back all this up with scripture but it is debatable.

It is you who raised: we won also because we killed more people than they. So, you raised a good example. The Greek lost the war, even if they killed more people than the Spartans. No matter what happened to their civilization, they lost that war.

Please quote where I said that. I said the word victory looses all meaning if you apply it to the side who looses 20 people for everyone they kill. If your going to split hairs on what a victory entails then start by posting the objective standard for what it means to win a war.

Also, the Greeks won the war even if you consider they lost the battle of Thermopylae. Actually it is more complex, they won the war because they successfully delayed the Persians at Thermopylae. The Spartans went there to sacrifice themselves to gain time. I am going with they won the battle and the war, but it is not straight forward. The Greeks actually won all three wars against the Persian empire.

I have no idea what that objective standard would be but I would think killing 20 of the enemies for every loss you sustain, winning every major battle, and causing the enemy to agree to every term you set is a reasonable standard.

If you contend that the eventual violation of those terms constitutes a victory to become a loss then exactly what time frame must it happen within.

Which was basically my point. Killing more enemies does not entail winning the war.

Ciao

- viole

No, it alone does not determine the victor, but ought to be a factor.

Find or make up a standard before declaring who won or who lost. I have given mine, does it have a flaw?

 

[viole]

Time is probably the most confusing natural issue there is. I don't know what it is, all I can say is what it probably isn't. Space time probably isn't infinite, probably isn't physical, probably isn't tenseless, etc...

Probably it is all of those things. Not completely sure about infinity, although it is likely, but pretty sure it is tenseless, by definition.

I believe and you admitted there probably have been more supernatural reasons given for natural events that natural explanations. I believe they were mostly wrong but historically mythical explanations may be the most plentiful. If Yahweh is primary and nature derivative I would expect to find exactly what we have. The mistakes occur when God shaped pieces are force fit into natural gaps or when unknown natural pieces are force fit into God shaped gaps. I do not find a single thing lacking for my faith to be consistent, but I do see all kinds of things lacking if the natural is all there is.

Yes, we admit to not know. And we admit to not know, because those made up pieces of puzzle tend to be discarded after a while.

Thermodynamics applies once you have a universe, spiritual things do not obey natural laws. I would say that space time did not exist before the universe but some other kind of time may have. Craig says it this way, God is causally prior to creation but not chronologically previous to it. Space-time alone is vexing enough.

Thermodynamics is what gives a direction to time. In the microscopic world, there is no clear time direction. All fundamental equations are time direction invariant.

You will find it easy to say in which direction time is going when you see a movie of an egg smashing to the floor. You will have no idea if I show you a movie about an interaction between particles. You will have no idea what the cause and what the effects are. You will have no idea if the movie is played in reverse or not. And that is why causality makes sense only in a macroscopic environment already in place. And not in thermodynamical equlibrium.

To add to the above, there was no universe (no natural), prior to creation for thermodynamics to describe or act on. Space less, timeless, immaterial spiritual entity are not bound by any natural laws. Angels don't decay, God does not lose heat over "time", "heaven" does not tend towards disorder.

As I said: no macroscopic Universe in thermal disequilibrium, no causality. I think you are borrowing too much from your human intuitions. Intuitions that can exist only in a Universe not in thermal equilibrium.

I didn't say I know nothing about Leibniz, I said I do not remember mentioning him. They are two different things, Leibniz is focused on everything that exists having an explanation, and the Kalam on that everything that begins to exist has a cause. I use both.

The Leibnitz argument, especially in its modal logic form, is vastly more powerful than Kalam. Kalam is probably used by Craig because appeals more obviously to our human intuitions. After all, Craig must adapt to his audience, that is not necessarily used to modal logic.

To tell you the truth, I need one picosecond to find several holes in Kalam , while I have problems to refute modal Leibnitz in a convincing way. At least convincing for me.

However, I am convinced that the PSR entails that there are not contingent things. Not bad per se, but it mostly defuse the whole argument.

It isn't. I have a real world problem I can't find a solution to, thought you might know something about it.

Oh yeah, it is. If you do not find a solution, then just say you do not know. Instead of making up puzzle pieces.

Correct, nothing does not exist. It is the absence of existence. No space, no time, no matter, no-thing.

So, we have an obvious solution to the dilemma: why is there something instead of Nothing? Obvious: Nothing cannot possibly exist.

It would be interesting to plug Nothing into the list of possible worlds in the modal form of Leibnitz, and see what happens.

Spiritual power. Since we are pathetically finite, there are bound to be things about a supernatural infinite being which are not describable. The church has considered these things mysteries. The Quantum was operating just fine before we knew it even existed or had 10 contradictory formats to quantify it. Why are white holes, dark matter, and multi universes mysterious but perfectly plausible, but God isn't?

Spiritual power? We are assuming that these things exist. You are using an assumption to prove the conclusion. No no.

How many times must I post this? There are hundreds of different version but I use this one because it is emphatic and because it's authors are secular.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

He also says there are infinite Universes. He wrote a book about it.

Exactly how much time does it require to begin, and how do you know?

How many times do I have to post this. Beginning is meaningless without a time context.

In my statement immediately before this, I said everything you need space, time, and matter to begin at the same instant. You can change that to space-time and matter but you can't change their need to all begin together.

Again, there is no instant without time. And simultaneity does not exist. Einstein's verdict, I am afraid.

He is not my hero, he is just emphatic. He also created the second most accepted cosmological model in history. Inflationary cosmology is the continental shelf of theoretical physics, not the Mariana's trench. Of coarse doing physics on thing no one can access, see, or have any evidence for is the deep end of theoretical science. You can measure background radiation of our universe, no one would ever be able to measure anything about other universes even if they actually existed. You went from the Mariana's trench, to Olympus Mons, now you have left all known reality completely. You will swallow a natural camel but choke on a spiritual gnat.

I will never choke on spiritual things, because there are no spiritual things. By the way, Vilenkin is an agnostic.

And inflationary cosmology could be wrong. The latest article on Sciam says so. I don't think it is entirely wrong, but it really smells like puzzle pieces, like dark matter and dark energy.

So, I suggest you follow Father Lamaitre wise advice to the pope: do not infer metaphysical conclusions from physical ones.

I didn't mention anyone. I said stone age men to space age men, Augustine was neither. I also didn't say that about space time. I said the description of God would have to be intelligible to stone age men and still hold up to space age investigation. Since billions of believer from Adam to Astronauts have been men of faith, success. Regardless, you need to quote specific claims concerning specific verses.

What verses? I do not see an verse saying that God created time. This is just an inference from some ancient theologians. A brilliant one. Yet, still something that God forgot to mention explicetely.

Because of God, Adam, Noah, Moses, David, Solomon, Christ, Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Constantine, Augustine, Aquinas, Newton, Craig, even me, and the billions in between. What you said was equivalent to the pyramids exist because of a hammer. I was not comparing the bible to all other beliefs combine, because that is not what you said. You equated the Bible with the Odyssey, so that is what I compared.

Well, since the evidence of aupernatural claims on the Bible is close to the evidence of the supernatural claims on the Odyssey, why should I not compare?

I just told you this is one of those scriptures I have never understood, and if you want we can drop most everything else and investigate it. You chose to instead mention it again.

Here is a puzzle piece under the table. The authors made it up because they had no clue qbout the origin of heavy atoms. Obviously. Look how well it fits.

Before I do, do the holes contain air, plasma, or are they true vacuums? I am confused, you said above that nothing can't exist, now your saying it can, and you know exactly where. What is your position? How can you claim to know about bubble universes, semiconductor electron holes, but nothing about HDMI to composite conversions? That's like saying you can't build a box but you can construct the space shuttle. The PhD is out today but once you define what you claim about electron holes I will ask the guy with the masters in electronic engineering.

I just challenged your claim that you can do science with the absense of something.

But you could describe a finite path of a single water molecule, heck I can even post the equations for that kind of physics myself. So do likewise for any single finite choice anyone has ever made.

A single molecule? Nope. I can show you the behavior of a single neuron easily. i want to see the solutions of all molecules, including their orbit in phase space based on precise initial conditions, that can precisely tell me what happend before they sink.

Good luck.

Not if they are made up 5000 years before anyone knew a hole even existed. How did Moses create specific and multifaceted puzzle pieces, that would fit perfectly into puzzles assembled thousands of years later missing those specifically shaped pieces.

Well, not even Thor believed there was a hole. And by the way, there are a lot of puzzles pieces. They all look different.

Note only is it illogical, but it is not possible for me to make up arguments to apply to all possible subgroups within homosexuality.

But that is what you do. You constraint yourself to male promiscous homosexuals. A minority subgroup of all homosexuals.

Theologically I am against homosexuality, secularly I am against promiscuity across the board but the fallout is far more acute concerning homosexuality. BTW considering a behavior bad is not to claim to be sinless. I actually do many things I would admit are bad or immoral. The entrance examine for Christianity is moral failure. I know of no other group composed exclusively by people who fail to measure up to it's own standards. Maybe alcoholics anonymous or rehab comes close.

So, if you lose your faith tomorrow, would you stop being against homosexuals (who are not promiscous)?

Is the reason of your possible discrimination of a certain group of people based uniquely on you believing in a special sort of invisible being?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Verses please.

What? Water before the stars. You know, Genesis. Ergo H2O before the stars. Ergo O before the stars. That nonsense that even you does not understand.

Didn't you know that water is made of oxygen, too?

You got it wrong in two ways. Physical death: Definition. Death is defined as the cessation of all vital functions of the body including the heartbeat, brain activity (including the brain stem), and breathing.
Definition. Death is defined as the cessation of all vital functions of the body including the heartbeat, brain activity (including the brain stem), and breathing.

And? Is it really bad if you recover them after the weekend, and knowing that you will? Is it really so awesome?

What sacrifice is that? How can anyone be impressed by that?

It says nothing about eternity or about life being restarted. However this is not the primary death Christ suffered in our place.

I would love to suffer that same death. A bit of wipping and torture and then come back for all eternity as the Master of the Universe? Anytime. I know people who had a much cruel fate and were not alive and kicking a few days after they died.

Christ did not save us from physical death (we all still physically die). Christ saved us from the second death which is infinitely worse. I thought you said you knew the bible. The second death is absolute separation from God and things associated with God like existence, life, love, contentment, peace, etc..... I think that means the souls of the damned are annihilated. I can back all this up with scripture but it is debatable.

My soul was annihilated billions of years before my birth. I did not suffer such a tremendous inconvenience, as far as I recall.

Please quote where I said that. I said the word victory looses all meaning if you apply it to the side who looses 20 people for everyone they kill. If your going to split hairs on what a victory entails then start by posting the objective standard for what it means to win a war.

Also, the Greeks won the war even if you consider they lost the battle of Thermopylae. Actually it is more complex, they won the war because they successfully delayed the Persians at Thermopylae. The Spartans went there to sacrifice themselves to gain time. I am going with they won the battle and the war, but it is not straight forward. The Greeks actually won all three wars against the Persian empire.

I have no idea what that objective standard would be but I would think killing 20 of the enemies for every loss you sustain, winning every major battle, and causing the enemy to agree to every term you set is a reasonable standard.

If you contend that the eventual violation of those terms constitutes a victory to become a loss then exactly what time frame must it happen within.

No, it alone does not determine the victor, but ought to be a factor.

Find or make up a standard before declaring who won or who lost. I have given mine, does it have a flaw?

Since Vietnam became a communist country overnight. You lost. Even if you lost only one marine, that would have been too much, if we consider the end result.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

If "schizophrenic" means that he was not certain about certain things, then I also am a "schizophrenic". Einstein was a scientist, and we simply do not jump to conclusions without supporting evidence. However, theists generally do.

I meant schizophrenic as in holding contradictory opinions over time about the same subject. I had thought you were an observant Jew for some reason, that is why I kept gawking at many of your claims. I looked and it appears your spiritually unaffiliated, or so you probably think anyway. Anyway, who is we? What scientific degrees did you earn? What patents do you hold? How many of the non-Christian 22% of Nobel's did you win? I have 192 semester hours in science and work in a DOD lab.

Application scientists make many assumptions but they must get it right in the end. However your quoting mostly theoretical science (actually your quoting scientists making philosophical assumptions) and they are the kings of reasoning beyond the evidence.

1. There is no evidence for dark matter.
2. No evidence for any other universes.
3. No known infinite anything.
4. A holographic universe.
5. String theory.
6. 3+ dimensional universes.
7. Tense less time.
............

Despite the fact many of those contradict each other, they are routinely referred to as existing by "you scientists".

You're making quite an assumption here, namely that there's some sort of magical wall between the two.

What? I am implying that natural law governs nature, but does not fully explain reality. You need nature and the supernatural to account for reality.

That was explained in the link I provided you.

Not the part you told me to read, but it does not matter, what you have claimed and I described is logically incoherent.

False-- it's a scientific hypothesis that a great many scientists feel is likely.

Ok then. Show me a single infinitely hot, large, heavy, old, bright, cold, anything? Can't, then how is that scientific instead of irrational faith in the absurd?

OTOH, your constant assertion that God created our universe/multiverse is not a scientific hypothesis since there simply is no objective evidence to support it or even give any indication that it might be possible. A scientific hypothesis is not some sort of guess based on 0 evidence.

Give me any evidence for a single "other" universe.

I specifically said that the cause of nature must transcend nature (be "super" natural), and therefor would be a theological or philosophical issue, not a scientific issue. I know it will be wasted time, but let me quote from one of the greatest philosophers in human history. The Isaac Newton of philosophy, Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica :

The Argument from Efficient Cause:

1. There is an efficient cause for everything; nothing can be the efficient cause of itself.
2. It is not possible to regress to infinity in efficient causes.
3. To take away the cause is to take away the effect.
4. If there be no first cause then there will be no others.
5. Therefore, a First Cause exists (and this is God).

Thomas Aquinas, "The Argument from Efficient Cause"

1. 
   OR:

1 The first way: from motion
The key passages in the presentation of the first argument run as follows:
“It is certain, and evidence to our senses, that some things are in motion. Now whatever is moved is moved by another. ...If that by which it is moved be itself moved, then this also must needs to be moved by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover, seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are moved by the first mover: as the staff moves only because it is moved by the hand. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.”

By ‘moves’ in this passage, Aquinas means ‘changes.’ So the idea is that the fact that things are changing requires the existence of something which changes things but is not itself changed. The argument can be broken down as follows:

1. Whenever something undergoes change, it is caused to do so by something.

2. Nothing can be the cause of its own change, since something cannot have a quality both potentially and actually at the same time.

3. Whenever something changes, this change must have been brought about by something other than that thing. (follows from 1,2)

4. The chain connecting things which change and things which initiate the changes cannot be infinite.

C.
There is a first mover, which initiates change but is not itself changed. (follows from 3,4)

2 The second way: from the nature of efficient cause
A second, formally similar argument relies on general facts about objects coming into existence (rather than objects changing, or acquiring new properties). Aquinas writes:
“There is no case known (neither, indeed, is it possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which would be impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity ...Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.”

This argument may be summarized as follows:

1. Everything which has come to exist has been caused to come to exist.

2. Nothing which has come to exist can be the cause of its own existence.

3. Everything which has come to exist is caused to exist by something other than itself. (follows from 1,2)

4. It is impossible for a chain of causes of this kind to go on to infinity.

C.
There must be a first cause, which causes other things to come into existence but did not itself come into existence. (follows from 3,4)

Aquinas’ first and second ways

Since there is no where else to go with this that I can see, I'll make this my last post and give you the last word unless you have a question that hasn't been yet covered.

Take care.

You are correct. The materialist runs out of material before he has fully explained even the material its self. Fortunately the theologian is not left without a suffecient explanation for reality.

 

[metis]

1. There is no evidence for dark matter.
2. No evidence for any other universes.
3. No known infinite anything.
4. A holographic universe.
5. String theory.
6. 3+ dimensional universes.
7. Tense less time.
............

Despite the fact many of those contradict each other, they are routinely referred to as existing by "you scientists".

Let me just say that your ignorance of how science works is appalling as those items are considered "hypotheses" and are not accepted as facts. There is some basis behind them to indicate they hypothetically could be correct.

With you, it is virtually impossible to have a serious discussion because of your lack of knowledge of scientific techniques, your use of stereotypes, plus your unwillingness to separate your beliefs from real facts.

Plus your narrow-minded approach to religion in general, that has your beliefs supposedly being the only sensible ones, is just so utterly nauseating-- being just a variation of "my daddy is bigger than your daddy". You have shown over and over again that you cannot separate "belief" from "fact", so it is impossible to conduct any serious discussion with one elevates his myopic theology and his twisting of science to the level whereas we all must accept it or we get masses of word-mash back in return.

BTW, I have a graduate degree in science and taught it for 30 years, to answer your question on your previous post. But I'm sure you're so much more intelligent than I or anyone else, including Einstein, as we've seen you so arrogantly post.

We're done.

 

[1robin]

Let me just say that your ignorance of how science works is appalling as those items are considered "hypotheses" and are not accepted as facts. There is some basis behind them to indicate they hypothetically could be correct.

With you, it is virtually impossible to have a serious discussion because of your lack of knowledge of scientific techniques, your use of stereotypes, plus your unwillingness to separate your beliefs from real facts.

Plus your narrow-minded approach to religion in general, that has your beliefs supposedly being the only sensible ones, is just so utterly nauseating-- being just a variation of "my daddy is bigger than your daddy". You have shown over and over again that you cannot separate "belief" from "fact", so it is impossible to conduct any serious discussion with one elevates his myopic theology and his twisting of science to the level whereas we all must accept it or we get masses of word-mash back in return.

BTW, I have a graduate degree in science and taught it for 30 years, to answer your question on your previous post. But I'm sure you're so much more intelligent than I or anyone else, including Einstein, as we've seen you so arrogantly post.

We're done.

Nice to see your not petty or sarcastic. Unless others agree with you, you pick up your toys and go home.

 

[1robin]

Probably it is all of those things. Not completely sure about infinity, although it is likely, but pretty sure it is tenseless, by definition.

I do not have enough time this week to get to you very long posts. I do not debate on weekends, and for some reason my response page only keeps 2 - 3 days worth of my notifications. If I forget to respond to this and your following post on Monday feel free to remind me.