The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not evidence of God

[Magical Wand]

Ok you make **** up if it makes you feel better

Thanks for your time. Bye.

 

[John D. Brey]

I would say the opposite is true. My theological views are largely influenced by science and philosophy.

. . . We should be able to get in some really good conversations since we're completely antithetical regarding our epistemological orientations.

For me science and philosophy are the waterboys for my theology. They're mere servants. Theology, the scripture, or I should say the true author of scripture, is the master.



John

 

[Magical Wand]

. . . We should be able to get in some really good conversations since we're completely antithetical regarding our epistemological orientations.

Yeah, I think so.

For me science and philosophy are the waterboys for my theology. They're mere servants. Theology, the scripture, or I should say the true author of scripture, is the master.

So, the problem I see is that I start with what is axiomatic and you (think you) start with scripture (which is not axiomatic; non-basic). I start with what is self-evidently true to me and others, e.g., sense-perception and reason (which inevitably lead to science and evidentialism). I don't start assuming the truth of scripture or revelation since that would be arbitrary and chancy.

Philosopher John DePoe made this point very clearly:

"Starting with theology is problematic... because there are many different and incompatible theological traditions vying for our allegiance. Why adopt Reformed Christian theology rather than Shi’ite Muslim theology or Theravada Buddhism...? Without good epistemic principles to evaluate the truthful integrity of religious worldviews, intellectual judgments about which theology (or atheology) are justified must be decided by nonrational factors. To the contrary, I believe that it is important to apply sound epistemic principles logically prior to theology precisely because decisions of this importance ought to be decided by truth-indicative standards. If the knowledge and application of these standards are unavailable until one has already accepted [the] correct theology..., then acquiring true theology... is at best a product of luck." (Debating Christian Religious Epistemology, pp. 18-19, 166)​

And, indeed, the fact is that we all start with basic self-evident truths as philosopher Paul Boghossian explained:

“Yes, the Cardinal consults his Bible to find out what to believe about the heavens, rather than using the telescope; but he doesn’t divine what the Bible itself contains, but rather reads it using his eyes. Nor does he check it every hour to make sure that it still says the same, but rather relies on induction to predict that it will say the same tomorrow as it does today. And, finally, he uses deductive logic to deduce what it implies about the make-up of the heavens. For many ordinary propositions, then – propositions about what J. L. Austin called ‘‘medium-sized specimens of dry goods’’ – Bellarmine uses exactly the same epistemic system we use.” (Fear of Knowledge, pp. 103-104)​

John DePoe agrees:

"General epistemic principles, like those that prescribe when justified beliefs or knowledge follows from a reliance on different doxastic sources such as sense perception, memory... and rational intuition, are utilized in the discovery of theological truths. When reading the Bible, for instance, to learn theological truths about humans’ covenantal relationship to God, one must exercise epistemic principles regarding sense perception, memory... and rational intuition. With bad epistemic principles, a person’s theological investigations will almost certainly go astray. ... Placing theology categorically before epistemology may sound pious; however, it is not feasible." (Debating Christian Religious Epistemology, pp. 166, 168)​

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[John D. Brey]

Yeah, I think so.

So, the problem I see is that I start with what is axiomatic and you (think you) start with scripture (which is not axiomatic; non-basic). I start with what is self-evidently true to me and others, e.g., sense-perception and reason (which inevitably lead to science and evidentialism). I don't start assuming the truth of scripture or revelation since that would be arbitrary and chancy.

Philosopher John DePoe made this point very clearly: "Starting with theology is problematic... because there are many different and incompatible theological traditions vying for our allegiance. Why adopt Reformed Christian theology rather than Shi’ite Muslim theology or Theravada Buddhism...? Without good epistemic principles to evaluate the truthful integrity of religious worldviews, intellectual judgments about which theology (or atheology) are justified must be decided by nonrational factors. To the contrary, I believe that it is important to apply sound epistemic principles logically prior to theology precisely because decisions of this importance ought to be decided by truth-indicative standards. If the knowledge and application of these standards are unavailable until one has already accepted [the] correct theology..., then acquiring true theology... is at best a product of luck." (Debating Christian Religious Epistemology, pp. 18-19, 166)

And, indeed, the fact is that we all start with basic self-evident truths as philosopher Paul Boghossian explained: “Yes, the Cardinal consults his Bible to find out what to believe about the heavens, rather than using the telescope; but he doesn’t divine what the Bible itself contains, but rather reads it using his eyes. Nor does he check it every hour to make sure that it still says the same, but rather relies on induction to predict that it will say the same tomorrow as it does today. And, finally, he uses deductive logic to deduce what it implies about the make-up of the heavens. For many ordinary propositions, then – propositions about what J. L. Austin called ‘‘medium-sized specimens of dry goods’’ – Bellarmine uses exactly the same epistemic system we use.” (Fear of Knowledge, pp. 103-104)

John DePoe agrees: "General epistemic principles, like those that prescribe when justified beliefs or knowledge follows from a reliance on different doxastic sources such as sense perception, memory... and rational intuition, are utilized in the discovery of theological truths. When reading the Bible, for instance, to learn theological truths about humans’ covenantal relationship to God, one must exercise epistemic principles regarding sense perception, memory... and rational intuition. With bad epistemic principles, a person’s theological investigations will almost certainly go astray. ... Placing theology categorically before epistemology may sound pious; however, it is not feasible." (Debating Christian Religious Epistemology, pp. 166, 168)

What are your thoughts on this?

I would first give a first-hand account of my earliest memories of such thing. As a very young child I was on the road to a very bad existence since, almost like in the movie, The Matrix, I believed I sensed something was terribly amiss in my empirical observations of the world where I found myself. It was all screwed up. Something I couldn't put a finger on was false through and through.

Then one day at about eleven-years old, I heard a traveling evangelist's call to Christ. Emotions I'd never experience welled up inside me. I felt like a drowning man, or boy, who had just grasped a hand of salvation reaching down into the water at just the right time.

I realized at that very moment that my conversion experience was most certainly not rational, reasonable, or subject to my empirical, rational, mind. I honestly realized that I was being called to completely reorient my epistemology, with Christ as the prism for what is true or false, rather than using my natural, empirical, and or rational, prism.

I realized that the choice I was making that day was to deny my own natural, biological, means of perception, in light of a more trustworthy source of truth: pure, unwavering, faith in God's grace.

I realized that if ever, in my life, I fell back on empiricism, rationalism, or natural human reasoning (as the forefront of thoughtful orientation), I would be betraying the great gift given me that day.

That was almost fifty-years ago and I have never betrayed the belief I acquired at the moment of my conversion, i.e., that Christ is the only true prism through which truth comes. For me, to trust empiricism, rationalism, or the natural way the brain functions, is to betray the greatest gift of God.



John

 

[Magical Wand]

I would first give a first-hand account of my earliest memories of such thing. As a very young child I was on the road to a very bad existence since, almost like in the movie, The Matrix, I believed I sensed something was terribly amiss in my empirical observations of the world where I found myself. It was all screwed up. Something I couldn't put a finger on was false through and through.

Then one day at about eleven-years old, I heard a traveling evangelist's call to Christ. Emotions I'd never experience welled up inside me. I felt like a drowning man, or boy, who had just grasped a hand of salvation reaching down into the water at just the right time.

I realized at that very moment that my conversion experience was most certainly not rational, reasonable, or subject to my empirical, rational, mind. I honestly realized that I was being called to completely reorient my epistemology with Christ as the prism for what is true or false, rather than using my natural, empirical, and or rational, prism.

I realized that the choice I was making that day was to deny my own natural, biological, means of perception, in light of a more trustworthy source of truth: pure, unwavering, faith in God's grace.

I realized that if ever, in my life, I fell back on empiricism, rationalism, or natural human reasoning (as the forefront of thoughtful orientation), I would be betraying the great gift given me that day.

That was almost fifty-years ago and I have never betrayed the belief I acquired at the moment of my conversion, i.e., that Christ is the only true prism through which truth comes. To trust empiricism, rationalism, or the natural way the brain functions, is to betray the greatest gift of God.



John

Even if you believe to have had a personal experience with the divine, you still use reason and sense-perception to read and interpret the Bible in order to know what God wants from you. I can prove that to you. Suppose some passage in the Bible said, "It is wrong to commit murder always." Okay, fine. It is clear it said you shouldn't commit murder. However, suppose in the next passage it says, "It is not wrong to commit murder always." Surely you would scratch your head and start thinking there is something wrong there. Why? Because you're using the law of non-contradiction; one of the pillars of reason.

Or suppose the Bible said something that contradicts your sense-perception. For example, suppose it said, "In actuality, nothing else exists but you and God. No other humans exist; only you." No doubt you would again scratch your head and start looking for other interpretations of the passage since it is self-evident to you that other people clearly exist. So, you're appealing to other axiom.

Indeed, you can't even communicate your theological views without appealing to reason. Imagine if you stop using the law of non-contradiction. You would tell me, "Hey, truth only comes from Christ." Then in the next sentence you would say, "But the truth doesn't come from Christ." Then I ask you, "What? Does it come from Christ or not?" and you reply, "No! It doesn't. But it does."

Surely you would think a person like that is crazy. Why? Because you use the law of non-contradiction, which is part of reason.

Finally, evidentialism is essential. If I say to you "The Bible allows adultery in many passages." You wouldn't just accept whatever I say without checking. Rather, you would go verify in your Bible to see if what I say is true. You see what you're doing? You're looking for evidence that can justify my assertions. That's evidentialism. Part of reason.

 

[Magical Wand]

Even if you believe to have had a personal experience with the divine, you still use reason and sense-perception to read and interpret the Bible in order to know what God wants from you. I can prove that to you. Suppose some passage in the Bible said, "It is wrong to commit murder always." Okay, fine. It is clear it said you shouldn't commit murder. However, suppose in the next passage it says, "It is not wrong to commit murder always." Surely you would scratch your head and start thinking there is something wrong there. Why? Because you're using the law of non-contradiction; one of the pillars of reason.

Or suppose the Bible said something that contradicts your sense-perception. For example, suppose it said, "In actuality, nothing else exists but you and God. No other humans exist; only you." No doubt you would again scratch your head and start looking for other interpretations of the passage since it is self-evident to you that other people clearly exist. So, you're appealing to other axiom.

Indeed, you can't even communicate your theological views without appealing to reason. Imagine if you stop using the law of non-contradiction. You would tell me, "Hey, truth only comes from Christ." Then in the next sentence you would say, "But the truth doesn't come from Christ." Then I ask you, "What? Does it come from Christ or not?" and you reply, "No! It doesn't. But it does."

Surely you would think a person like that is crazy. Why? Because you use the law of non-contradiction, which is part of reason.

Finally, evidentialism is essential. If I say to you "The Bible allows adultery in many passages." You wouldn't just accept whatever I say without checking. Rather, you would go verify in your Bible to see if what I say is true. You see what you're doing? You're looking for evidence that can justify my assertions. That's evidentialism. Part of reason.

My view is similar to Galileo's,

"I do not think... that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use..."​

 

[John D. Brey]

Even if you believe to have had a personal experience with the divine, you still use reason and sense-perception to read and interpret the Bible in order to know what God wants from you. I can prove that to you. Suppose some passage in the Bible said, "It is wrong to commit murder always." Okay, fine. It is clear it said you shouldn't commit murder. However, suppose in the next passage it says, "It is not wrong to commit murder always." Surely you would scratch your head and start thinking there is something wrong there. Why? Because you're using the law of non-contradiction; one of the pillars of reason.

Or suppose the Bible said something that contradicts your sense-perception. For example, suppose it said, "In actuality, nothing else exists but you and God. No other humans exist; only you." No doubt you would again scratch your head and start looking for other interpretations of the passage since it is self-evident to you that other people clearly exist. So, you're appealing to other axiom.

Indeed, you can't even communicate your theological views without appealing to reason. Imagine if you stop using the law of non-contradiction. You would tell me, "Hey, truth only comes from Christ." Then in the next sentence you would say, "But the truth doesn't come from Christ." Then I ask you, "What? Does it come from Christ or not?" and you reply, "No! It doesn't. But it does."

Surely you would think a person like that is crazy. Why? Because you use the law of non-contradiction, which is part of reason.

Finally, evidentialism is essential. If I say to you "The Bible allows adultery in many passages." You wouldn't just accept whatever I say without checking. Rather, you would go verify in your Bible to see if what I say is true. You see what you're doing? You're looking for evidence that can justify my assertions. That's evidentialism. Part of reason.

It's just the sort of logic you're describing above that made me desire a reasonable answer to what you're pointing out.

And so when one day I happened upon Karl Popper explaining the fallacy of inductive logic, I nearly jumped through the skylight in the library. I realized that Popper's clear and irrefutable, to my mind, dissecting of the fallacy of inductive logic, was the first step in answering your retort.

Over the next year or so I read every book Popper wrote, and then moved on to Wittgenstein, Derrida, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Plato, and half a dozen others. After digesting all of that, I became convince I had no fear of the arguments you just presented, such that I moved on to the Zohar, Jewish mysticism, and concepts that are only truly available to a mind freed from the concerns your legitimate points address.

From my point of view, until a mind legitimately conquers the concerns your points address, it's tethered to empiricism and rationalism, and can't even perceive the higher things of theology until it's able to rise above the fallacy of inductive logic, as contained, partly, in slavery to empiricism and rationalism.



John

 

[Magical Wand]

It's just the sort of logic you're describing above that made me desire a reasonable answer to what you're pointing out.

And so when one day I happened upon Karl Popper explaining the fallacy of inductive logic, I nearly jumped through the skylight in the library. I realized that Popper's clear and irrefutable, to my mind, dissecting of the fallacy of inductive logic, was the first step in answering your retort.

Over the next year or so I read every book Popper wrote, and then moved on to Wittgenstein, Derrida, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Plato, and half a dozen others. After digesting all of that, I became convince I had no fear of the arguments you just presented, such that I moved on to the Zohar, Jewish mysticism, and concepts that are only truly available to a mind freed from the concerns your legitimate points address.

Popper didn't refute inductive reasoning. Induction is perfectly well and fine; it can be justified by deductive logic without problem (for example, philosopher Paul Draper argued for this). Moreover, Wittgenstein would also agree with me here. In fact, what I said about axioms was defended by him in his book On Certainty. Regarding Derrida, he was despicable human being who (as philosopher Anthony Kenny explained) abandoned philosophy for sophistry (indeed, he is celebrated by relativists and post-modernists who hate truth). And Plato was a great allied of truth and logic who fought Protagoras, the relativist, enemy of truth. Regarding Kierkegaard, there is a nice refutation of his fideistic non-sense by philosopher Michael Martin in one of his books; I recommend reading it.

Now, you said your mind were freed from logic, but again, you're using logic right now to communicate that (which you also use to interpret the Bible). So, you're contradicting yourself here.

 

[rational experiences]

Science as man theists on earth always said God theories are told only by humans as humans the inventor as science stories whilst living on earth.

Thesis for a machine reaction.

We have particles on earth body god as
Dusts. Science has his man thesis human thought from the dusts as particles.

Coercive liars.

To quote mother womb space and radiation mass as not empty space he says as mass. The position not any thing to do with earth existing.

Earth as God is natural mass first. His thesis cosmos never included earth naturally existing as his God. Stone.

Thesis mass conversion into burning fusion equals no planet. Beginning statement.

Reason..
Natural light and sun thesis presence is first.

Earths natural light is just gas burning yet it involves a stone planet with its heavens.

Not in his beginning thesis all space conditions.

So his brother said science claiming life on earth was instantly created said theism was not about God dusts beginnings was an absolute liar.

As earth in a thesis never even existed in the thesis itself.

Why he said a satanist theist lied.

Father said an earth thesis is from a cold mineral metal particle. Theory all alchemical changes to own a metal to build said machine.

Would prove your thesis about metals and resource fake.

If you theoried correctly beginning with Alchemy.

 

[John D. Brey]

My view is similar to Galileo's,

"I do not think... that the same God who has given us our senses, reason, and intelligence wished us to abandon their use..."​

I would say the God who gave us mules did so so that they could carry loads more in line with their utilitarian value. In that way we're freed to do things more in line with the grace God gave us by elevating us above asses.

For me, empiricism, rationalism, reason, and such, are more valuable than mules. But not as valuable as faith-perception. Which is to say I wouldn't want to do without them. But I would hope they never approach me like Balaam's *** and start telling me which way to turn.

I'd like to think I weigh down the donkeys of reason, rationality, and empirical perception, with heavier weight than any of my peers. Heck, I've broken a back or two and had to get reinforcements more than once. . . In my arrogant assessment of myself, I've never bent down to pick up and carry the weights I feel should be carried by reason, rationality, and empiricism.



John

 

[Magical Wand]

For me, empiricism, rationalism, reason, and such, are more valuable than mules. But not as valuable as faith-perception

What does "faith-perception" even mean?

 

[John D. Brey]

Popper didn't refute inductive reasoning. Induction is perfectly well and fine; .

He thinks he did. And he thinks it's the most important thing he ever did. And I concur.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

What does "faith-perception" even mean?

I've quoted the so-called thinker Daniel Dennett finally admitting that the human mind is free from the constraints of the laws of physics that bind all other entities we know of in the cosmos.

It's that ability --- which Roger Penrose has written about ----that I would attribute to "faith-perception"; the Godelian ability of the human mind to transcend its meager, or not so meager, biological architecture.

Limiting a human mind to reason, rationality, and empiricism, is just not cool. It's like telling Albert Einstein he can only share such ideas as he can get Arnold Schwarzenegger to express clearly. Kaalifournya.



John

 

[Magical Wand]

I've quoted the so-called thinker Daniel Dennett finally admitting that the human mind is free from the constraints of the laws of physics that bind all other entities we know of in the cosmos.

It's that ability --- which Roger Penrose has written about ----that I would attribute to "faith-perception"; the Godelian ability of the human mind to transcend its meager, or not so meager, biological architecture.

Limiting a human mind to reason, rationality, and empiricism, is just not cool. It's like telling Albert Einstein he can only share such ideas as he can get Arnold Schwarzenegger to express clearly. Kaalifournya.



John

I don't think this conversation is being fruitful. I presented many arguments here and you didn't address any of them.

 

[rational experiences]

Virtual man reality the human science argument.

His God is science. Why man in science says God owns his science as science the state plus his man statements. His God is science says a man human.

God in natural laws earth are it's heavens as natural light gas burning voided constant.

Science said earth owned it's own immaculate gases that were sacrificed. Natural light. Burning going out only.

Water oxygen our life don't burn.

His presence. Man in science.

A day is only a human experience on earth.

Counting is humans science God as said by humans.

Said by day six his man theist science self man of God was destroyed. Removed bodily out of DNA for doing evil.

New man and new DNA now existed. Taught. God lesson. Man was wrong in science.

As man of gods science confess of Sion. Began in format...

Dusts.
Earth particle dusts of God.
Fused. Notice not fusion. Fused.

Fission.

Sion. I knew. I did it. An unholy act of fusion in fission.

Fish H was used as the terrestrial magnetism symbolism.

Fish created by multiples manifested in life being sacrificed.

Earths terrestrial changed. Every body changed.

In real life real fish when talking reality and not secret symbolism said fish irradiated in water fed the multitude of humans starving.

As burning bush ground attack on nature had already removed food supply.

Science used secret Symbolism as its ego status was proven our destroyer. What egotists do when they are wrong.

Fish in fis Sion no H terrestrial magnetism.

Just one of the many satanic science lies.

 

[rational experiences]

I don't think this conversation is being fruitful. I presented many arguments here and you didn't address any of them.

Fruit symbolism in science says the scientist knew....sines were known sine signals that already owned natural presence. By shape. Symbolic.

If you attacked life by changing the sine then you confessed that gods sine signals were changed by satanic science. Theists who did not listen to gods earth advice about fission that told you not to copy said act.

You told everyone as a man you ignored his earth advice about the evils of fission in God to cause change to tree of life support and did it anyway.

If God produced fig shaped sines or apple shaped sines what are they not when not present theist?

The answer would be I own no idea what it changed into.

 

[Brian2]

Infinite time is a consequence of the several hypothesis of a multiverse

Who says infinite time is impossible, you, and your qualifications to say that are?

Wrong, infinite time would say everything and anything can happen

I'm just the kid who shouts that the king has no clothes.

 

[John D. Brey]

I don't think this conversation is being fruitful. I presented many arguments here and you didn't address any of them.

I think our disagreement over the validity of induction is a real hurdle. If inductive thinking is valid, as you seem to believe it is, then I don't know how I could disagree with your conclusions. Rather than debating you, I'd be applauding you.

On the other hand, if inductive inferences are illusions, as I and Popper believe to be the case, then there might be a fly in the ointment of your (along with the rest of humanity) epistemological development and understanding concerning the growth of knowledge.

There is no inductive method which could lead to the fundamental concepts of physics. Failure to understand this fact constituted the basic philosophical error of so many investigators of the nineteenth century. . . Logical thinking is necessarily deductive; it is based upon hypothetical concepts and axioms. How can we hope to choose the latter in such a manner as to justify us in expecting success as a consequence . . .?

Physics constitutes a logical system of thought which is in a state of evolution, and whose basis cannot be obtained through distillation by any inductive method from the experience lived through, but which can only be attained by free invention. . . .

And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments of the individuals; they are there, that is as something living, without its being necessary to find justification for their existence. They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation, through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly. . . The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given too us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition.

Albert Einstein.
​

John

 

[ChristineM]

I'm just the kid who shouts that the king has no clothes.

Shouting 'evidence is nice other wise all you have is guess' is also pretty cool

 

[John D. Brey]

Popper didn't refute inductive reasoning. Induction is perfectly well and fine; it can be justified by deductive logic without problem (for example, philosopher Paul Draper argued for this).

The problem is that no repetition of observations or occurrences demands that a mind react, or question the observation or occurrence, in a new or novel way (the latter being a requirement of scientific advance). The latter, so-called deduction, as I quoted Einstein to say, is more or less a miracle. It can't be explained logically, how, or why, a mind devises the interpretations and strategies it tries to use to make use, or explain, observations or occurrences.

The problem is magnified by the fact that the observances themselves are there, as they are, by reason of the fact that the genetic, or biological, organs of perception, are not themselves subject to induction. For instance, there was no law that could be inductively acquired or understood that told genes that if they evolved into a round eye with a lens then the color yellow, and the shape of a triangle, could be used to get one up on competition.

There is no color yellow. The experience of that quality is, in Einstein's parlance, a miracle of nature. It's not inductively acquired. It's a deductive manifestation free from any logical, rational, lawful, requirement that exists outside of the evolution of the gene.

In a lecture where Noam Chomsky was saying pretty much the same thing one of the students held up his hand and asked Chomsky whether this argument that induction is an illusion might lend too much weight to religious persons who can then say God did it? He followed up asking how Chomsky could imply that the growth of knowledge has no inductive means to be dissected and understood since that would leave the key to how knowledge advances dangling forever?

Chomsky response was (per usual) brilliant. He asked the student if he was a theist (did he believe in God)? The student said no, he believed in science. Chomsky asked him if he thought science was God? He said no. Chomsky said that the idea that a two-legged mammal evolved from sea sludge should have a right to understand how everything, or anything, works, sounded as theological as anything he'd ever heard. He said it seems theological to assume man is the measure of all things and thus able to peer into all things.

When the student ended by asking Chomsky if he was ok with the idea that the answer to these questions might never be known, Chomsky responded that he didn't see that he had a choice in the matter.



John