Thief
Rogue Theologian
I suspect the items mentioned were influenced by Something Greater.
Otherwise, we might still be that animal created on Day Six.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The "something can't come from nothing" argument
- Thread starter Big_TJ
- Start date
I suspect the items mentioned were influenced by Something Greater.
Otherwise, we might still be that animal created on Day Six.
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
Oh, certainly; but we have a better chance of abandoning the pious excuses for aggression offered by religion than the acquisitiveness that truly drives it; and every little helps...
In other words, you have nothing but bluster to back up your claim. The vast majority of Americans are still Christians: if the indicators of US moral decline you listed in your previous post are real, they have occurred in what remains an overwhelmingly Christian country.
No, I'm really not. This whole merry exchange was kicked off by your comment
... and my aim has been to show that there is in fact no correlation between secularisation and moral decline: in fact nations (and states within nations) with higher levels of religious belief and observance score more poorly
on a range of moral indicators than those that are predominantly secular. I make no speculation about cause.
Wow, from Sex in the City to Stalinist purges in three sentences. You are excelling yourself.
I've always thought Dostoevsky got that exactly backwards. When you believe that god exists and that you are doing his will: that's when all things become permissible, whether it's starting a crusade or bombing an abortion clinic.
Last edited:
No, you weren't. Not believing in a certain state of affairs does not entail the belief in the impossibility of such state of affairs. I could believe that it might occur in a possible world, not necessarily this one.
I don't believe in God either, that does not entail that I believe that He is impossible, with the possible exception of the Christian God, lol. The same with leprechauns, (holy) spirits, and things of the sort.
You have to be more careful to apply the right semantics to what you read. For the sake of not misinterpreting what I say.
Yes, because thousands years ago the Universe was still in a state of increasing entropy, wasn't it? And scholars are usually macroscopic objects living in a macroscopic world, so, it is obvious that they, like us, perceive things moving in a certain direction of time and things causing other things, independently of their understanding of thermodynamics.
Try in a Universe in thermal equilibrium or at microscopic level.
I really don't see why. Each object is perfectly explained/caused by its predecessor and there are no circular explanations. Ergo, all objects have an explanation.
So, unless you point me to a logical contradiction, I claim that there is a possible Universe with this structure. Not necessarily this one, obviously.
So, delegating the alleged absurdity to my intuition will not take you anywhere, because I believe you are the only one that sees a logical absurdity.
You could that as well, easily. If you really studied mathematics.
Nope. You are just equivocating between me believing state of affairs X and me believing logical impossibility of state of affairs X. Maybe my image is blurred because you confuse the two things, apparently.
It should not be difficult to see the difference, though. If you really read a lot of philosophy
But I am curious now: do you really believe that if something cannot or does not happen, for nomological reasons, in this Universe, then it cannot possibly happen in any other Universe?
The fact that you confused what I really said, makes me suspect that this is what you believe, but I might be wrong.
Yes, God bye, lol
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
It would not matter if every theological excuse was removed from the equation (as if that was possible anyway) man's greed would still lust after their neighbors possession and instead of religion patriotism (the last refuge of the scoundrel), invented personal injury, and racial superiority (which by the way evolution perfectly justifies) would be appealed to as they always have. Not to mention that one of (if not the greatest) checks on greed has been theology. So your getting rid of the medicine at the same time you get rid of one of the excuses.
Men have been taking others lands and riches long before Christianity existed and far away from where it is practiced as long as we have existed. Changing the paint on a rusted wreck won't make it a Ferrari.
Demanding I list every secular person who contributed to the secular moral decline was bluster to begin with and irrelevant. If secularism takes hold and very soon morals are in the toilet it does not matter which secular persons caused it. So I answered your request just as it deserved.
What began the conversation is irrelevant to what the data demonstrates. I was looking at moral decline in general which follows absolutely the secular slant in this country. You cherry picked warfare and related it to something it has very little relationship to. The former is statistically valid, the latter is not. Statistics are very tricky things to use.
I have researched the US in detail and am familiar with a few of the details involved. Several factors make your claims unimpressive.
1. You confuse coincidence with causal agent. Using God is with us when we wish to take another's land is not a cause, Greed is. Using it because it happens to be popular at the time is a coincidence. Not that Christianity does not have enough to answer for, but your introducing things it have far more to do with our failures than our faith. You have a lot of work to do to properly evaluate the data you use.
2. In many of the modern secular nations it was not secularism that produced the standard of living but resources, economic twists of fate, and democracy instead of monarchy.
4. Secularism is a moral net loss. It absolutely eradicates any objective foundation for morality at all. That can't possibly improve morality. It in many cases no longer even recognizes what morality even is.
5. Christianity on the other hand doctrinally condemns what you blame it for. A book that prohibits murder, rape, torture, etc... can't possibly cause more of it. You cannot blame a thing for it's abuse. You do not evaluate a teacher by the students who do not show up, do not listen, and do not do as instructed.
6. You cannot find a single verse in the entire bible that would justify anything you have mentioned.
It is a sad tale not a brilliant creation. Unfortunately picking on secularism leaves me with far more targets than I can prioritize and I wind up with shotgun effect.
1. That is completely wrong. If God exists the actual fact of whether we were serving God (righteousness and moral truth) will inevitably come to light and perfect justice will be served. Hitler will not escape his fate through death, Stalin will have to account for his actions, the absolute truth will be known in every case and everyone is perfectly accountable to moral fact. We both have to accept religion's misuse but only in my view is the truth actually ever known and perfect justice served, only on your view do Hitler's and Martyrs for moral truth (which does not even exist at al in yours) suffer the same fate. So no, with God all things are not permissible.
2. On your view there is no objective moral truth to line up with or defy at all. There are only societal conventions to be out of fashion with. No one is actually evil nor ultimately held accountable because there is no source of objective moral truth and no one to hold anyone accountable ultimately.
3. Only on your view is the moral insanity that allows a person to condemn the blowing up of an abortion clinic (which I would condemn) and be fine with the hundreds of lives taken in that clinic (which you do not condemn).
Not only was what he said true it is logically flawless if no God exists.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Since the only evidence we have is that cause and effect exist in this world and this world is all there is then the only method available to deny it exists in infinite regression is that it is logically impossible. If you hold that view but deny it's premise you are involved in preference and speculation. However since this is the only world we know exists (or probably ever will) then "possible worlds" are not a meaningful inclusion. Regardless what is motivating you we both agree infinite regression of causation does not apply to our world and our world is all we know of. Excluding fantasy land, we are on the same page in effect.
There are philosophical principles (with no known exceptions) which rule out infinite regression but not God.
Even with your qualifications our view on infinite regression are the same concerning what we know exists and so are practically identical. That is all I am interested in. I do not care how you got here, but as best I can tell you agree that infinite egressions of causes does not explain the one world we know exists. I am not writing a paper on your beliefs and why you believe them but only establishing common ground in a context to get somewhere. That context includes only one world and so whether you consider it possible in another is not relevant.
Well it depends on who you talk to whether entropy has always been increasing (as usual). You missed the point. I was saying thermodynamics did not drive cause and effect conclusions. Cause and effect were derived from observation and the principle they all obey without exception.
Find one first and then it may be worth doing. In addition to a non-theist always using the most unreliable and ambiguous parts of science exclusively to contend with God I have noticed their position includes that belief that anything not theoretically impossible is a persuasive argument. It isn't. We have no thermally equalized universe and cause and effect applies to microscopic entities the same as macroscopic ones.
Nope, all the object arrangements have an explanation. Not one object in the universe has an explanation of it's beginning to exist if God is ruled out before hand. The big bang is an explanation of how what was has operated since then (plus choice) but it is not an explanation of it's self.
Since you can invent almost any possible universe without having the slightest reason to think it exists I have no need to do so. I speak within a context, the context is the universe we actually know exists. The fantasies you can invent are infinite and meaningless until they are proven to exist. That is a fantasy of the gaps argument. In fact it is even worse.
What I stated is a principle in philosophy which has no known exception. Which is why I knew you would not produce one but bail out of the question. I did not invent it, I found it to have existed as long as philosophical thought has. It has also been shown to be true as far back as you can go. I tried to make it easy and suggest you could invent a thought exercise but I guess you could not.
My degree says I studied mathematics, it was not a consolation prize for spending ten years and $100,000 on something I almost never have to use.
I am not, because I do not care what your motivations are. I just care about your conclusion and this universe. The discussion is about God not your premise'. The only known universe suggest/necessitates a God like first cause.
I have never read nor seen your rational in any philosophical debate or book. However it is not important since about this world we have the same position. It does not contain a known explanation of it's self.It should not be difficult to see the difference, though. If you really read a lot of philosophy
That never really enters my mind because speculative hypotheticals make pathetic arguments. You have gone from unknowable scientific speculation to metaphysical contrivance. I do not have to account for things until they are found to exist. The desperation in your position is evident.
Fantasy universes are not part of the furniture of reality to me. We know of one universe that does not contain it's own explanation. Increasing the number of universe is irresponsible and desperate but with each one philosophers conclude makes God even more likely, so even though your going in a direction that helps my case I will not follow because I like to limit speculation.
It is remarkable at the speculative links you must go to in order to have a rebuttal. Every single claim you make lies firmly on the least unknowable parts of science. The concept of God and the claims in the bible are so outrageous that it would seem you could make far simpler and more reliable arguments against it, if actually untrue. My arguments for his existence are certainly based on far more reliable principles than yours. Atheism seem firmly rooted in ambiguity and the shadows.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
How do you master fire? We have created temperatures far hotter than the sun and constantly have wildfires burning our homes down. I doubt chimpanzees have mastered anything.
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
Well, it would have been if I had made any such demand. If you think I did, perhaps you'd point it out to me.
But you have failed at every turn to establish that the entoiletment of morals follows from secularisation. The evidence points the other way.
So you keep saying. But I do nothing but point out the lack of correlation (unless it's a negative one) between secularisation and immorality, on a very wide range of indicators. Of the two of us, you are the one attempting (and failing) to demonstrate a causal link between these two.
There is no objective foundation for morality, and recognising that is no net loss. The evidence is out there - the moral codes of secular societies work just as well as (and often better than) those of more religious societies. And it is how they work that matters, not how they are derived. If it pleases you to believe that a Christian society's condemnation of moral turpitude has an objective base that a secular society's lacks, so be it; secular societies function just as well, and outperform the religious on many counts.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I tried to find the post where the original request was made. I could not and so used my memory alone. If wrong then restate your request and I will point out why I responded the way I did.
I gave you generalizations, specifics, and requested you search for the endless specific statistics I have posted earlier to back up my claim. At most you have offered a few statistics that counter, that concern very limited issues or places. Did you even search for the thousands of statistics I have previously posted? Did you offer even a single rebuttal for the examples I gave here? How in the world is that failure on my part at every turn? I even anticipated your denial of my statistics in favor of yours. Since statistic are so tricky to use I went on the explore why secularism would produce so much moral bankruptcy. I do not recall an objection to this either. You have written an obituary for something that is not even sick.
So you have not countered any of my statistics but have instead put them to another use and claimed failure. My statistics were not to establish cause but to establish the data that needs to be accounted for. I stated very simplistic and timeless principles about foundations, etc... that establish cause. You have not countered them at all to my recollection. Let me supply one as an example.
1. With God the statement that murder is wrong is an absolute objective fact.
2. Without God it isn't and could never be. It is only socially unfashionable and violates no objective truth whatever. It assumes a higher value for something than it can justify.
How is #2 or #1 consistent with anything you have said? I am certainly less likely to commit murder if it is actually wrong and I will be perfectly accountable for depriving another sovereign creature of God of sanctity, value, and a given inheritance to as morally perfect God, than if I am only disobeying a social convention that is not even true to begin with.
You do not exist. Sorry I thought we were declaring to be true whatever was necessary to undermine inconvenient reality. You cannot possibly know what you said was true even if it was and all the evidence is against it being true anyway. There is no evidence that morality has no objective basis out there anywhere. All of it is consistent with it being true.
I will discuss principles with you but until you at least read all those statistics I have posted for months you do not have the knowledge base to discuss moral statistics with me. You did not even reply to the few I gave here, nor do I think you even attempted to find the ones I have previously posted. That is no grounds for a statistical debate.
You refer to evidence "out there" without bothering with the evidence in this forum just from me alone.
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I was discussing natural events derived from the natural world. Does context no longer matter to your side? I was not defending anything supernatural or defendant on anything outside this single natural universe. That is the context for which "the evidence" concerned. It was a comment made in opposition to references to imaginary worlds that cannot be accessed by any means nor have any evidence what ever. That is not true of God, but God was not what was under discussion for my statements.
If I was asked what is in an empty box and I replied there is nothing, you might as well have erased the question about the box, and objected that I am inconsistent by claiming God is something.
Look, I am throwing you a bone here. I am abandoning science to get into philosophy, which I expect you know more than me. When you reject possible worlds semantics, you seem to indicate that you reject modal logic as a philosophical tool, as well. Is that true?
There aren't. And if there are, they are scientific/nomological, not philosophical/logical.
As I said, I am not interested in the current world, but all possible worlds. What I am interested in, is to see where you see a logical (philosophical) contradiction. I am not interested in nomological constraints, yet.
Yeah, observations taken during an increase in entropy. Can you imagine observations during thermal equilibrium?
They don't, because of the underlying symmetries that asymmetries like cause-effects would break. Unless, of course you can tell me what is the cause and what the effect in a photon splitting into two antiparticles. Who caused the particles? And what if I tell you that the two particles caused the photon? Can you tell the difference? How?
If you call relativity unreliable, then well.. Incidentally, you are doing the same, if not more, by postulating the primacy of mind because of some new ageist interpretations of quantum mechanics. Not to speak of the time geodesics incompleteness theorem.
I am not sure what you are saying here.
No. It is called modal logic. A philosophical tool that can be used to see what is logically possible and what is not. I hope you understand the difference between logical and nomological.
And how can my fantasies be infinite, if infinities cannot exist?
I wonder what a philosophical principle without exceptions is. I can only think of analytical statement like "all bachelors are not married", which seems independent from how long philosophical thought has been around.
Well, is you want to discuss the philosophical necessity of causality you can take my example of the photon splitting into particles. What caused the two particles?
I noticed. But I think you should use it, instead of a-critically swallow everything that confirms your belief. Like nonsense stating that infinities cannot be traversed. They can be traversed very easily.
By the way, you love the theorem about finite 0-geodesics in spacetime, I presume. So, you appeal to mathematic results when convenient.
Well it doesn't. If it did, me, and 95% of the members of the academy of science would see it. But they don't, because it is not there.
It is only in the minds of those who need to believe in Jesus, Mohammed, Ganesh or whatever, for reasons which transcend a logical analysis of the facts. Emotions, and cultural background, mainly.
What? You never read about modal logic, nomology and that stuff? Where do you get your philosophical background from? Answers in Genesis?
In my experience, only the desperate accuses others of desperation. I know, circular reasoning, lol.
I can assure you I am not desperate at all. I am actually having fun discussing philosophy with you. The problem is that I am not sure anymore whether your philosophical tools are at least as good as your scientific ones.
I think it should be obvious why you don't follow.
The claims of the Bible are not outrageous. They are ridiculous, and funny if not too many believed in them. A bit like astrology and homeopathy. So, do not think we give them more importance than they deserve.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
I assure you I have read all of your post; I quote only short extracts for brevity's sake. In this case I have to repeat that you have yet to demonstrate that secularism does produce moral bankruptcy, let alone why.
You quoted a long list of statistics that you claimed to be evidence of evidence of moral decline in the US. What you did not do is show that these were in any way related to secularisation; and since 90+% of Americans still profess belief in god this will remain hard for you. (The best you've managed so far is to declare - without supporting evidence- that some unspecified proportion of those responses were less than candid.) The statistics I have linked to have, by contrast, explicitly linked moral criteria to secularism vs religiosity.
Robin, we have danced this particular quadrille several times, and although I have no objection to skipping through the steps again we have led this Evolution/Creation thread astray long enough: whatever our respective views on morality's (lack of) objective basis, they have precious little to do with the origin of the universe and the something-from-nothing argument. If you wish to continue, I am starting a thread for that purpose in General Religious Debates.
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I will take any bones I can get. However modal logic is no help to multiple universes. I happen to watch a debate between 4 scientists yesterday. The fine tuning argument was mentioned and the predictable response was of course the multi-verse fantasy. Unfortunately they were talking to a brilliant professor from Princeton in pure mathematics. By the time he was done they admitted there is no reliable evidence for multiverses anywhere. Not in philosophy, not in science, and not in mathematics (which is the only arena where proof exists). It is not even a scientific or philosophic appeal. It is a preference appeal. The known fact that our universe is astronomically improbable suggest God so clearly that they prefer to leave science and dwell in fantasy rather that allow anything inconvenient no matter how true. I am no philosopher but do have a familiarity with what applies to this context. I know of no principle of modal logic that makes multiverses probable. But I do know someone who had to take modal logic and wrote a thesis in it if I need to reference something. BTW probably the greatest modal logician in history is a Hebrew theist and denies any evidence for multiverses exists. Kripke actually invented most of modal logic's axioms.
It is kind of hard to debate simple declarations especially since they fly in the face of mainstream philosophy. Cause and effect is a principle with no known exceptions and which also has no capacity to disprove God. If you think otherwise please state why instead of just that you do. Find me anything that violates cause and effect.
That is like me saying blue fairies disprove every argument you have as I have arbitrarily defined blue fairies. I would expect you to reply that blue fairies are not an evidence based hypothesis and what has as it's only merit to not be known to be impossible is not an argument. Then I respond with I do not care about reliable evidence and things we know of. I would hope you would laugh me into irrelevance. I do not care about fantasy arguments. We have more than a lifetimes worth of work just discussing what we do know exist.
This universe is not in thermal equilibrium so once again it is hard to imagine things that are not known to exist are persuasive. We have a universe that appears young, to be wound up so to speak, and will not ever return to it's original state. That universe requires of is consistent with a God like explanation. I have no idea what to do with your hypotheticals. Why are you exclusively using the most arbitrary and hypothetical of arguments? Is revelation such a well crafted lie that only appeals to the unknowable can apply?
Believing cause and effect is present does not require that any one person be able to explain how it occurs. I am familiar with your example. I am not educated on it but let me state what those that are say. Even those who use it do not suggest there is a suspension of cause and effect but that identical causes result in two different results. I think they are wrong but even if true that is a whole other type of claim. I would suggest that no cause is ever exactly the same (at least natural causes) and so can appear to be similar but produce differing results. How in the world could anyone who ever lived know that the two causes for these events were identical? Are you suggesting this is a violation of cause and effect?
Relativity at it's core has a reliable basis but the myriad of conclusions derived from it far less so. If we were to have a in-depth and meaningful discussion along the lines you are dealing with we would both need at least a masters in physics that specialized in quantum theory, plus a bachelors in philosophy. Do you not have any arguments in the 95% of the academic field that is reliable and easily evaluated? If your counter claims lie almost exclusively in the theoretical or plain fanciful but leave all of applicable science out just how persuasive do you think it looks. It is as if I claim 2 + 2 = 4 and your saying that differential Boolean calculus shows otherwise. Actually it is worse because differential Boolean calculus and semiotic study is consistent with God and fairly reliable. BTW someone on your side actual said 2 + 2 does not equal 4 as a defense in a scholastic debate. The desperation of the argumentation is evidence it's self. I expect referrals occasionally (and use them myself) to the theoretical but it's use as the foundation of an argument is self defeating.
There is no science that answers any of man-kind's great questions. Origin, agency, destination, morality, purpose are complete inaccessible to science. Take something as mundane as gravity. Science knows precious little about it. No one knows what it is, why it is, what agent makes it lawful. If science is so inept about things in our backyard appealing to other universes is an exercise in futility especially what other universes would demonstrate. The probability of a God existing in every world is increased with every universe you invent. Even an argument for my case if pure speculation is not appealed to by me.
Nothing in modal logic makes another universe more probable that I am aware of. If you ever get past declarations and state why you think it does I will contact my expert co-worker and consider it. I would never ever use the argument that God is logically possible as an argument that he exists. The lack of impossibility is not evidence of anything. BTW those who do understand both relativity and multi-verses better than both of us combined have stated that neither is an argument against tensed time nor fine tuning.
Because your fantasies are not natural entities. I qualified my statement carefully. If you feel free to invent things and use them as counter points then in principle there are a potential infinite number of them. Not that any exist but you have opened the door to potential infinity. Did you know that it is logically possible that a reciprocating engine would refrigerate it's self. Would anyone consider it a likely occurrence? I think the possibility is 1 in 10^80th.
One which lacks no known exception. Like abiogenesis, cause and effect, mathematics, etc.... science is based on the principle of universal lawfulness. We can not measure gravity in even more than .000001% of the universe yet because it is always the same there science has adopted the principle hat gravity works the same everywhere. We can never say never but we can say we have no knowledge of it ever occurring.
Continued below;
1robin
Christian/Baptist
I at least began to take it up. I have heard it used many times but never as an exception to cause and effect. Only as an unknowable and illogical idea concerning non linear results from identical that no one could possibly know were identical. In fact I just heard it taken apart by a scholar in a debate but am drawing a blank currently. Are you suggesting either particle was produced without a cause?
It is remarkable since I work with the latest technology every single day how little I use it. Unless I get into design I do not see that I will ever need anything beyond algebra. I sure wasted a lot of time. I work with rubidium oscillators, weapons systems for fighter aircraft, GPS, SDS, multiplexers, HUDS, FORMCs, 1553s, H009s, aim-7 and 9 etc.... I see it all yet never even need a calculator. If I could go back I would have studied philosophy. However if you give me an example of a mistake I made instead of simply declaring that I have, out there, somewhere, I will ask my boss who is one of the greatest mathematicians you are ever likely to talk with. He is an information specialist who is flow to Germany every year to add to the sum total of mathematical knowledge and has studied with people who work with Hawking and are the undisputed leaders in several fields. No infinite can be traversed, that is not even a logical proposition, and since none are known to exist what so ever how would you possibly know even if true. Scholars as reputable as Lennox (a pure mathematics professor from Princton) have stated this over and over and as of yet I have never heard a scholar regardless of what side they are on even hint they disagreed. What you flippantly declared to be true is one of the most undeniably false (even theoretically) claims I have ever heard of. It is not just wrong, it is impossible it could ever be right. Man you are really out there.
Do you have any idea what is required for a math degree? The above never ever appeared in a single class I took. Let me get you on the same page. I took college algebra, pre-calculus, IPC, calculus I, II, III, IV calculus-based/physics I, II, III, DE, partial DE, discreet math, LA, BA, MVC, etc...and quasi-math like dynamics, circuits, 3 statistics and probability classes, statics, some I am probably forgetting plus a whole range that is non-mathematic. Differential geometry is not required for a math degree (at least a my engineering university) nor relevant to my field of military electronics. I have seen hundreds of professional debates and been to faculty research presentations. I have never heard any of the mention 0-geodesics, the Gaussian curve yes, but not that theorem. I have looked it up but I only get bits of it. Can you explain what it is your implying with these theorems?
Let me also ask what your credentials are? Your dealing with a wide range of advanced subjects that it is extremely doubtful anyone in this forum sufficiently understands, much less the fact they are all in diverse fields. Do you have a graduate in Physics, a masters in mathematics (which requires differential geometry), and a bachelors in philosophy. Unless you do I think this is mostly show.
Scholars in abundance completely disagree with you. There is no known escape from the absolute necessity of a very God like ultimate explanation necessitated by the universes complete lack of one.
Good grief.
1. The academy of science preemptively rules out God as an explanation long before they even begin to investigate.
2. The academy of science only deals with studying natural law. They have nothing whatever to do with the supernatural. You might as well say 95% of the NBA refuses to use a 3 wood to sink three pointers.
3. The entire academy of science is built around scientific foundations created by Christians. We founded most of the fields themselves which these guys work in. We have made most major break-throughs, the modern guys seldom do and instead add the next step by standing on Christian shoulders. If you added in Jewish scientists we have produced almost all the original major abstract scientific thought used in modern times.
Your claim is chronological arrogance and irrelevant anyway.
Christianity is the only major faith adopted by significant numbers in every single nation on earth. It has converted entire empires originally hostile to it, has broken through every border, and has transcended every cultural expectation. Just yesterday I saw a group of Muslims who recounted their story. Many had families that were involved in high Islamic positions that went back generations. They risked death, losing their family, their status, inheritance, etc...... In fact Christianity it's self was began by a handful of men surrounded by hostility and intolerance. They had to risk everything, suffer untold agony, and many lost their lives for their faith. Wishful thinking, cultural bias, or fearing something else is a pathetic explanation for Christian faith. I myself had to partially alienate my father and admit everything I had ever argued in that context for 27years was completely false. I was even fired for it once.
I have spent less than a total of 5 minutes at answers for genesis. I get it from Plantinga, Hume, Nietzsche, Craig, Zacharias (who may have degrees than any of them), Aquinas, Socrates, Plato, Kant, Leibnitz, and on and on. Of course I have read about modal logic, and nomology. I have read Kripke for example. I just have never seen them put to the uses your attempting to. Not by anyone. I have well over a thousand hours of professional debates to recollect and not in a single one are your claims. Even when you mention a claim that was brought up a time or two you put it to another use all together and all of them are in the deep end of each academic field. BTW I showed a proof of your geodesic mathematics to a PhD and the first thing he asked is to what purpose you could be using it in theological debate.What? You never read about modal logic, nomology and that stuff? Where do you get your philosophical background from? Answers in Genesis?
That is a good one. It is like China's recent denunciation of our denouncing Russia.
You spend so much of your time outside the mainstream (at least with your conclusions) that not even the atheists who debate this issue even mention your claims. I have an almost obsession with philosophical debate concerning theology and have watched every video I can possibly find. I actually know when a new one comes out. Just yesterday I was sick and watched over 10 hours of Zacharias, Craig, Plantinga, vs Harris, Shermer, and associated minions that did so badly I doubt I will ever see them again. Have you ever noticed (despite who is ultimately right) how much more professional and prepared the theists are in most debates. On professor of physics struggled so hard to complete sentences I felt sorry for him and turned it off. Anyway I have little interest in biology, philosophy, etc.... except in a theological context. So I have a great understanding of what is traditionally used for that purpose and a sporadic familiarity outside that realm. You do not see to even be familiar with what is used in theological debate. That's fine but your in the wrong place.
I think it very obvious but I doubt you would agree with me. Almost nothing you use (especially in philosophy) is part of the common professional debate arena concerning theology. I am quite sure you have linked it somehow but I am also sure the link is so week that most virtually do not exist in those circles.
This is going to make three posts and not one of them has a significant point from you or me. We are way off the playing field. Continued below;
I want to remind you I asked for your credentials and to ask you a question that is relevant. Without looking it up state the standard oscillation model with the equation/s that is necessary for your geodesic theory mentioned earlier. I asked it in particular because I will know if you looked it up or not. I am just trying to nail down the capability of who I am talking to. Your either brilliant ( I mean savant brilliant only in more than one area), your half way familiar with the concepts you mention but are incorrectly using them because of unfamialrity with the application given context, or your way over your head and trying to bluff it out.
Last edited:
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Of course the dead rising, the hungry being fed from two fish, and a universe being created by a word (this one is looking far more likely these days) is ridiculous. However given the fact the most intelligent men in history have included people who risked death or some other loss to believe it suggests so strongly that the quality of the evidence is so strong. The most critical among histories scholars including people among the very elite in law, evidence, testimony, history, physics, biology, mathematics and ever other subject that is relevant have given their lives to the bibles claims. What is infinitely more ridiculous is not having an ultimate explanation of moral, physical, philosophical, historical, etc explanation that can compete with the bible yet destroying the only possible ultimate hope by inventing fantasies like multi-verses without any evidence what so ever to justify plausible denial. That is truly remarkable.
I will promise you to return to your philosophic and scientific anomalies very soon if you wish, but if you will I want to switch gears and get historic for at least a post or two. I am having to spend hours responding to stuff that in my experience is not considered relevant enough to appear in an atheist's debate material and feel like I am spinning my wheels. I have not even begun to throw my philosophy at you yet because I am trying to half answer you and half steer the conversation to traditional common ground. I want a change of pace for a minute. Deal?
1robin
Christian/Baptist
Oh come on man. I have almost 10,000 posts and am not that interesting. You actually went back and read all my posts which contained links and stats by the hundreds and still think data is on your side? How? I have made this argument over and over with exhaustive data, yet it raises it's ugly head every weak. I can't go through all that stuff every-time. So I am still trying to see if you went back and went through the mountain of data I had already posted. I have not really gotten into the argument yet because we need to be on the same page. I page where I do not have to re-type 20 pages of information every few days. Are you confusing the few tiny examples of data I gave the other day with the mountain I am referring to? There is a disconnect here somewhere.
Your link was only the link to the other days tiny example of the type of data I have previously supplied in copious piles. I knew you did not find them. If you do not wish to search, will you allow me to summarize them since I have no motive to lie about something you could find in minutes and I can't change? I promise it will be accurate and honest. That is the data set which all my arguments will be founded upon and I cannot get into this without at least knowing yore familiar with what I will refer to.
Debate, no debate, anything is fine with me but if you want a debate I need you to familiarize your self with data in such quantities I am not posting it again. I actually posted it at least twice so it should be easily found. It's fine if you do not want to but, I am not digging all that up again, and am not debating data without it. So:
1. You can call the debate off.
2. You can only debate the underlying causes and justifications behind the potential for moral decline concerning atheism or theism.
3. Or you can at least glance over what I refer to and we can begin.
I don't care which and don't blame you for choosing any one of them. This is unorthodox but in this case necessary. I have to repeat myself over every few days to another person on this issue and the data has become so gargantuan that I can't justify posting it so often.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
No, it does not. Strength of belief does not equal strength of evidence, especially when the vast majority of people throughout history have been raised in environments where religious beliefs, myths and ideologies are pervasive of every single level of society, and to not believe them at such a time would not only be considered absurd but actively harmful to the individual. Religion has pervaded throughout so many great minds specifically because it positions itself as unquestionable and not requiring of evidence, and it asserts terrible consequences on those who do not adhere to it. You cannot use its pervasiveness as evidence of its validity and more than I can use the British Empire as evidence that Britain should rule the world.
That is an absurdly ignorant argument.
Last edited:
And what does modal logic and possible worlds semantics have to do with the multiverse? And what makes you think I would use that tool to increase the plausibility of the multiverse? It would be like using a hammer to measure distances.
They are completely unrelated.
And what makes you believe that discovering God from science is inconvenient?
You are thinking we are so stupid to stubbornly refuse what could send me to eternal fire because of some unspecified inconveniences. Sciences like inconvenient things. This is how we proceed.
I am arguing that cause and effect are not generally applicable. See below for my exceptions.
Fine, then forget modal logic. Pity, though. You could use it to provide pretty powerful arguments, for instance the modal version of Leibniz cosmological argument. Much more powerful than things like Kalam, anyway.
I am sure that professional apologists would use them more often if they could. Alas, they have to adapt to the available knowledge and intuitions of their audience.
And what is wrong with blue fairies? I think they are equally valid candidates for being the uncaused cause of the Universe, if any.
Hypothetical? I am stating that time has a polarization only in systems which evolve toward equilibrium. During equilibrium, both directions are equally valid.
No future. No past. Full symmetry.
Philosophers in such worlds would have a problem to say what began to exist and what is the cause and what the effect of anything. Alas, philosophers cannot live in such a world, so it is not surprising that the only possible philosophers think that cause and effects have no exceptions.
I am not saying anything of the sort. Let's make it simple: suppose I show you a movie from my lab where a photon disappears and two particles take hits place. You know that photons can generate two antiparticles and when that happens the result is always the same: two antiparticles.
So, you see something happened. One object disappears and two new objects appear. What is the cause and what is the effect of that?
One possible answer is: the particles are an effect and the photon is their cause. Do you see others?
I wonder why you insist that the conclusions from relativity do not have a solid basis. You are confusing causes with effects
. Relativity is the result of these ''speculative' consequences. Not the other way round. And these "speculative" consequences are just the result of observation.And these observation tells us that there is not such a thing as an objective present. Period. Things that are in your present. are not necessarily in mine. Things that happen at the same time from your point of view, might happen with a time difference from my point of view. And both point of vies are equally valid.
All this can be easily measured. Relativity simply provides a theoretical framework to explain these "counterintuitive" results.
I think you confuse reality with what your intuition tells you.
Oh dear, sometime I have the impression I am talking with a smart person from the 18th century. What do you mean with "we know little about gravity"? I think we know more than you think. Gravity is the result of deformation of 4-dimensional space time. You know. That thing that it is supposed to be my speculation
And I doubt that "Origin, agency, destination, morality, purpose" are outside the scope of science or, more generally, rational inquiry. declaring that they are just sounds like the swan song of so-called spiritual thinking.
Of course not. Because, as I said, possible worlds semantics does not address the ontological status of possible worlds. The only thing it says, in this area, is that actual Universes are also possible, not the other way round, obviously.
I never said that it does increase the likelihood of an actual (physical) multiverse.
I just wanted to check wether you know what modal logic is about and how it is used in philosophy...and theology. I know, naughty girl
Oh thank you. I did not know to possess supernatural faculties; e.g. fantasies.
Yes, of course, symmetry is a powerful tool for the physicist especially when symmetry assumptions are retroactively confirmed by observation.
But, we must always be ready for a black swan because these assumptions do not always work. And they do not always necessarily work because they are synthetic propositions, not analytical.
Incidentally, this is the reason why I label myself "gnostic atheist". Because I make a difference between knowledge and absolute certainty. I assume that if I do not see God because of local lack of evidence in my surroundings, then He is nowhere.
Ciao
- viole
Last edited: