> you are claiming that our sense of morality comes from god. Now please present your valid peer reviewed scientific evidence to support your claim.
It's not a scientific matter, though you seem to think it is. There's nothing scientific about it. It's a grave mistake to think that science is the proof of everything, or that science is the repository of all true knowledge. While the natural sciences are fantastic disciplines, it's just impossible that all knowledge is scientific. We know it's not. There's philosophy, economics, politics, literature, music, the arts, theology, jurisprudence, linguistics, and even psychology, sociology, and anthropology that are not science. It may even be true that more knowledge is found outside of the sciences than inside them. We are not just limited to inductive reasoning. There is also deductive, abductive, abstract reasoning, and logic.
> You haven't presented any evidence here that your god objectively exists.
Let's start with these. There are more, but these should be enough to verify that belief in God is a rational stance. In reply, I would like to see your arguments (which I assume in your mind are stronger positions)—evidence that God doesn't NOT objectively exist.
I happen to think there are plenty of evidences for the existence of God. Believing in God is a matter of inferring to a reasonable conclusion based on evidence, and not believing in God is a matter of a presuppositional position. My reasoning for the plausibility of the existence of God is based in a number of arguments, outside of supernaturalism, that make sense to me.
I think the cosmological argument makes sense (stated extremely briefly):
1. Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something else already in existence.
2. Then there has to be at least one being that is distinct from and pre-existing all beings that began to exist.
3. Therefore that first being is uncaused, and there is at least one first, uncaused being.
Another form of the cosmological argument also makes sense:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God.
Kalam's cosmological argument may be the strongest form of it:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
To me, the ontological argument also makes sense:
1. If God does not exist, His existence is logically impossible.
2. If God does exist, His existence is logically necessary.
3. Hence either God’s existence is logically impossible or it is logically necessary.
4. If God’s existence is logically impossible, the concept of God is contradictory.
5. The concept of God is not contradictory.
6. Therefore God’s existence is logically necessary.
The teleological argument has some strength to it.
1. Everything that exhibits curious adaptation of means to ends and is such that we know whether or not it was the product of intelligent design, in fact was the product of intelligent design.
2. The universe exhibits curious adaptation of means to ends.
3. Therefore the universe is probably the product of intelligent design.
The analogical argument proposed by Plantinga makes sense:
1. The productions of human contrivance are the products of intelligent design.
2. The universe resembles the productions of human contrivance
3. Therefore probably the universe is a product of intelligent design
4. Therefore probably the author of the universe is an intelligent being.
There's also the axiological argument (the existence of morality): (from Zacharias)
1. We all admit that evil exists in the world.
2. If evil exists, one must assume that good exists in order to know the difference
3. If good exists, one must assume that a moral law exists by which to measure good and evil.
4. If a moral law exists, one must posit an ultimate source of moral law, or at least an objective basis for a moral law.
5. The source of a personal, moral law must also be personal and moral
6. Therefore God must exist.
Here is Moreland’s argument from consciousness:
1. Genuinely nonphysical mental states exist (feelings, thoughts, emotions). (If you deny the existence of mental states, all discourse becomes unintelligible and absurd.)
2. There is an explanation for the existence of mental states, either personal or scientific.
3. Personal explanation is different from natural scientific explanation. Personal explanations intent to account for specific events or results by appealing to a free, moral agent.
4. The explanation is not a natural scientific one, for no naturalistic explanation postulated thus far has been capable of accounting for how the mental can arise from the physical.
a. The uniformity of nature: no amount of restructuring of the primal physical stuff of the universe can produce something as distinct as mental states.
b. The contingency of the mind-body correlation: there seems to be no inherent connection between the mental states to the physical states on which they depend.
c. The causal closure of physical states
d. The inadequacy of evolutionary explanations, because consciousness is not necessary to survival, as any tree will tell you.
5. Therefore, the explanation is a personal one.
6. If the explanation is personal, then it is theistic.
7. Therefore, the explanation is theistic.
The Linguistic Argument
This argument comes from the writings of John Baumgardner and Jeremy Lyon. Its basic premise is that the meaning in language can only come from an intelligent source. The argument goes as follows.
1. Language is effective only if it is endowed with meaning. It can only be understood as we assign meaning to otherwise meaningless sounds or symbols. Not only do individual words have abstract meaning, but also the sequences and combinations of words can yield greater meanings.
2. Meaning is non-material; it is neither matter nor energy. The essence of meaning is entirely distinct from both energy and matter. Therefore linguistic expressions are also non-material. A bodily thing such as a dog is different from the word “dog”.
3. Language demands a non-material source, since it is impossible that the meaning of language has a material cause. Material causes are incapable of generating non-material effects. The laws of chemistry and physics offer no clue whatsoever that matter can assign meaning or otherwise deal with meaning at even the most rudimentary level. Atoms cannot assign meaning to meaningless symbols to form a vocabulary or to give meaning to vocabulary.
a. Mathematics is a language, and math has no material source.
b. The laws of nature themselves are non-material.
4. Language therefore demonstrates that we as humans possess non-material attributes. We not only form language and attribute meaning to it, we even create our own languages (such as computer languages). Our language ability demonstrates that we possess obvious and profound significant non-material capacities within ourselves.
5. Therefore, since material causes cannot account for linguistic phenomena, the most plausible explanation for the linguistic content of DNA is an entity with mental faculties qualitatively similar to our own, but vastly superior.
6. We can reasonably conclude that God exists.
I'm using logical reasoning here. We both know that these arguments don't PROVE the existence of God. What we are after is what is reasonable—reasoning to the best inference given the reality we see around us. And what we see around us is
A universe that had a beginning
A universe and life forms that appear designed
Personality
Transcendent, objective moral truths
Informational data (we have no example of informational date that does not come from an intelligent cause)
Given what we see, God is a reasonable explanation for it, in my opinion. I'm curious what arguments you have that the universe is a closed system, that natural existence (nothing metaphysical) is the only possible mode of existence, and that science explains everything.
So, let's see what you have.
> If you have no evidence, then you have no evidence.
Right. But because you have no evidence doesn't mean (1) it wasn't real, or (2) you didn't see and experience God. Evidence is not always the determiner of truth.
Board index ‹ God
44 posts
• Page 3 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Re: God is not fair by any definition of the word
by jimwalton » Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:10 am
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9110
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: God is not fair by any definition of the word
by TrakeM » Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:05 pm
Philosophy has certain standards. Philosophy seeks to ensure that double standards aren't used and that logic is consistent. Philosophy I have a certain amount of respect for. Economics is judged by real world results. You say a particular policy has a certain result? Let's look at the evidence of the tiems when we've implemented that policy. Politics, literature, music, the arts, jurisprudence, pyshcology and anthropology have all produced very real results. Theology on the other hand doesn't care about evidence and will continue making the claim that god exists no matter the evidence. Theology is the odd man out. Take a look at your theologians. I suspect most of them would tell you that they'd believe in their god even if the evidence doesn't point in that direction.
Ok, let's take this one at the time shall we?
1) cosmological argument:
Why should we conclude that this uncaused being isn't the big bang? No matter what you do you have to break your first statement. Saying that god exists breaks your first statement. Saying the big bang had no cause breaks your first statement. You can state that god exists outside of your material realm but then you have to change your first statement to "whatever that is material begins to exist is caused to exist by something else already in existence." If you want to do that, you still have the problem that you haven't shown that this spiritual realm exists or that it can have things that exist within it that are uncaused. You're just making up something with the properties that you need it to have and then assuming that it exists.
2) another form of the cosmological argument:
You are just asserting that the explanation has to be god. You haven't shown that the explanation must be god. Maybe the universe is a computer simulation from an alternate dimension in which you can have uncaused things being run by magical wizards inside a glass of tea. In my hypothetical the alternate dimension created the glass of tea and the wizards in it and the alternate dimension is uncaused and I claim for no good reason that it can because it's not a material dimension it's a hurerther dimension which I baselessly claim doesn't have to abide by that law. Truth be told though, I don't even need to show that there is definitely another possibility. You would have to show that there definitely isn't another possibility other than your god. Keep in mind, just because someone can't think of another explanation, doesn't mean that there isn't one (though in this case as shown I can come up with another explanation).
3) Kalam's cosmological argument:
Your first statement can't really be true. That has to be an uncaused cause unless you go back forever and somehow never reach an end to things being created by other things. Of course, your idea that god exists is predicated the existense that there is a god that exists and has no cause which violates clause number 1. Of course, you can change it to "everything that is material" but then you just get into the problem above.
4) ontological argument:
The reason for 1 and 2 is that god is defined as the creator of the universe. If he exists he created the universe and is therefore necessary. If he didn't exist then he didn't create the universe and if god didn't create the universe then there can't logically be a god that created the universe. Number 4 says that god's existence isn't logically contradictory but it absolutely is if he didn't create the universe. Hopefully this explains the issue here. It's the usual assuming that god created the universe issue. If he didn't. then his existence is logically impossible and number 4 becomes false. Your number 4 assumes that your god exists but that's what you're trying to prove. You can't assume what you're trying to prove in your proof.
5) The teleological argument:
Life seems to exhibit a curious adaptation of means to ends (survival) but there doesn't seem to be intelligent design there. The bigger issue is with 2. What seems to be the ends that the universe is trying to achieve? The creation of life? Doesn't look like it. Trillions and trillions of planets, most of them probably don't have life. On top of that, most of the universe is a shooting gallery. Add to this that most of the universe is either too cold or too hot for life. I'm not sure what ends the universe is supposed to be attempting to achieve.
6) The analogical argument:
Your 1 here is just an assertion. It could be that it's a result of evolutionary biology and the evidence that we have for this is extraordinary. Evolution and genesis don't add up, by the way. They can't both be true because if man evolved from the same creature that the modern day ape evolved from then we weren't formed by god forming clay into man and then using a rib from that man to make woman.
7) axiological argument:
Here you just assume that there is a such thing as objective morality. You can demand objectively morality exist within the universe, but the universe doesn't care about your demands.
8) Moreland’s argument from consciousness:
We have no evidence that feelings, thoughts, emotions aren't the results of chemicals. If your mind were to be smashed to bits, would you continue to have feelings, thoughts, emotions? There is no evidence to say that you would. I see no reason to think that these things are any less the result of chemicals than the movement of muscles. Yes, feelings, thoughts, emotions exist but I'm not so sure I would classify them as not being the result of chemicals. Your 4 has an issue. Just because we don't know how the mental can arise from the physical doesn't mean there isn't one. Your a is an issue as well. From what we can tell your brain is a restructuring of physical stuff that can produce a mental status. We don't know how that works exactly, but that doesn't mean a naturalistic explanation doesn't exist. Thus, the explanation probably isn't a personal one though may be but definitely isn't assured to be personal. Even if it is personal, that wouldn't mean it would have to be theistic. There's a lot of problems with this one.
9) The Linguistic Argument:
Once again, you are saying that your god would explain something, and then just asserting that this explanation must be the correct one. Also, the idea in your head of a non-material dog, that idea it's self may well be the result of chemicals. I see no reason to think that chemicals can't be the cause of ideas. I see no reason to think that ideas in your head are not the result of the chemicals in your brain.
You need more than logical reasoning if you want to claim objective morality. You can't claim objective morality without showing objectively that your god exists. Your arguments are flawed (most just art with assuming that a god exists). You haven't objectively shown that a god exists, must less your god in particular. You therefore still haven't shown that you have objective morality as what you state as your basis for objective morality is not something you can show as being objectively real.
I cannot prove that there is no tea pot floating around Mars right now. No one can. If I claimed that there was, you'd probably want evidence. Evidence IS how we determine what is and isn't true. If not evidence, how do you want to go about determining what is and isn't true? Just by means of assertion? Randomly chose a book based on what you were raised to believe in and say that that's how we determine truth? No. We use evidence. You can't expect your friends to accept your claim when you have no evidence and you can't expect me to accept your claim when you have no evidence.
Now for what I have: burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the claim. What claim that I have do you want for me to defend? If you make the claim, YOU have to defend it. If I make the claim that a tea pot is floating around mars it's not up to you to prove there isn't. It's up to me to prove that there is.
Ok, let's take this one at the time shall we?
1) cosmological argument:
Why should we conclude that this uncaused being isn't the big bang? No matter what you do you have to break your first statement. Saying that god exists breaks your first statement. Saying the big bang had no cause breaks your first statement. You can state that god exists outside of your material realm but then you have to change your first statement to "whatever that is material begins to exist is caused to exist by something else already in existence." If you want to do that, you still have the problem that you haven't shown that this spiritual realm exists or that it can have things that exist within it that are uncaused. You're just making up something with the properties that you need it to have and then assuming that it exists.
2) another form of the cosmological argument:
You are just asserting that the explanation has to be god. You haven't shown that the explanation must be god. Maybe the universe is a computer simulation from an alternate dimension in which you can have uncaused things being run by magical wizards inside a glass of tea. In my hypothetical the alternate dimension created the glass of tea and the wizards in it and the alternate dimension is uncaused and I claim for no good reason that it can because it's not a material dimension it's a hurerther dimension which I baselessly claim doesn't have to abide by that law. Truth be told though, I don't even need to show that there is definitely another possibility. You would have to show that there definitely isn't another possibility other than your god. Keep in mind, just because someone can't think of another explanation, doesn't mean that there isn't one (though in this case as shown I can come up with another explanation).
3) Kalam's cosmological argument:
Your first statement can't really be true. That has to be an uncaused cause unless you go back forever and somehow never reach an end to things being created by other things. Of course, your idea that god exists is predicated the existense that there is a god that exists and has no cause which violates clause number 1. Of course, you can change it to "everything that is material" but then you just get into the problem above.
4) ontological argument:
The reason for 1 and 2 is that god is defined as the creator of the universe. If he exists he created the universe and is therefore necessary. If he didn't exist then he didn't create the universe and if god didn't create the universe then there can't logically be a god that created the universe. Number 4 says that god's existence isn't logically contradictory but it absolutely is if he didn't create the universe. Hopefully this explains the issue here. It's the usual assuming that god created the universe issue. If he didn't. then his existence is logically impossible and number 4 becomes false. Your number 4 assumes that your god exists but that's what you're trying to prove. You can't assume what you're trying to prove in your proof.
5) The teleological argument:
Life seems to exhibit a curious adaptation of means to ends (survival) but there doesn't seem to be intelligent design there. The bigger issue is with 2. What seems to be the ends that the universe is trying to achieve? The creation of life? Doesn't look like it. Trillions and trillions of planets, most of them probably don't have life. On top of that, most of the universe is a shooting gallery. Add to this that most of the universe is either too cold or too hot for life. I'm not sure what ends the universe is supposed to be attempting to achieve.
6) The analogical argument:
Your 1 here is just an assertion. It could be that it's a result of evolutionary biology and the evidence that we have for this is extraordinary. Evolution and genesis don't add up, by the way. They can't both be true because if man evolved from the same creature that the modern day ape evolved from then we weren't formed by god forming clay into man and then using a rib from that man to make woman.
7) axiological argument:
Here you just assume that there is a such thing as objective morality. You can demand objectively morality exist within the universe, but the universe doesn't care about your demands.
8) Moreland’s argument from consciousness:
We have no evidence that feelings, thoughts, emotions aren't the results of chemicals. If your mind were to be smashed to bits, would you continue to have feelings, thoughts, emotions? There is no evidence to say that you would. I see no reason to think that these things are any less the result of chemicals than the movement of muscles. Yes, feelings, thoughts, emotions exist but I'm not so sure I would classify them as not being the result of chemicals. Your 4 has an issue. Just because we don't know how the mental can arise from the physical doesn't mean there isn't one. Your a is an issue as well. From what we can tell your brain is a restructuring of physical stuff that can produce a mental status. We don't know how that works exactly, but that doesn't mean a naturalistic explanation doesn't exist. Thus, the explanation probably isn't a personal one though may be but definitely isn't assured to be personal. Even if it is personal, that wouldn't mean it would have to be theistic. There's a lot of problems with this one.
9) The Linguistic Argument:
Once again, you are saying that your god would explain something, and then just asserting that this explanation must be the correct one. Also, the idea in your head of a non-material dog, that idea it's self may well be the result of chemicals. I see no reason to think that chemicals can't be the cause of ideas. I see no reason to think that ideas in your head are not the result of the chemicals in your brain.
You need more than logical reasoning if you want to claim objective morality. You can't claim objective morality without showing objectively that your god exists. Your arguments are flawed (most just art with assuming that a god exists). You haven't objectively shown that a god exists, must less your god in particular. You therefore still haven't shown that you have objective morality as what you state as your basis for objective morality is not something you can show as being objectively real.
I cannot prove that there is no tea pot floating around Mars right now. No one can. If I claimed that there was, you'd probably want evidence. Evidence IS how we determine what is and isn't true. If not evidence, how do you want to go about determining what is and isn't true? Just by means of assertion? Randomly chose a book based on what you were raised to believe in and say that that's how we determine truth? No. We use evidence. You can't expect your friends to accept your claim when you have no evidence and you can't expect me to accept your claim when you have no evidence.
Now for what I have: burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the claim. What claim that I have do you want for me to defend? If you make the claim, YOU have to defend it. If I make the claim that a tea pot is floating around mars it's not up to you to prove there isn't. It's up to me to prove that there is.
- TrakeM
Re: God is not fair by any definition of the word
by jimwalton » Sun Jul 02, 2017 3:27 pm
> Theology on the other hand doesn't care about evidence and will continue making the claim that god exists no matter the evidence.
I obviously beg to differ. I care a great deal about evidence. My faith is based on it. And if there weren't evidence for the existence of God, neither I nor theologians would give a rat's tail about it. That's just being honest.
> Cosmological argument
Because everything we know that had a beginning was caused by something else. That's how we know the Big Bang isn't the uncaused being. There had to have been a causal mechanism. Since the laws of physics were not operative, what caused the Big Bang is both outside of science and untraceable by science.
> Saying the big bang had no cause breaks your first statement. You can state that god exists outside of your material realm but then you have to change your first statement to "whatever that is material begins to exist is caused to exist by something else already in existence."
Since God is not material, I don't have the change my first statement. God was already in existence. Materiality is not the only definition of existence, since we know about time, which has no material substance and yet exists. So also thoughts, memories, and intuitions.
> you haven't shown that this spiritual realm exists or that it can have things that exist within it that are uncaused.
The physical realm didn't yet exist, so what we have is most reasonably metaphysical.
> You are just asserting that the explanation has to be god. You haven't shown that the explanation must be god.
I'm saying God is inferring the most reasonable conclusion.
I'm not sure there's value in picking apart your reasoning. First, you haven't stripped down my arguments in the least. Secondly, you haven't presented anything in rebuttal (as I am used to from atheists). All I want you to do is substantiate what you believe. I defended my beliefs with substantiation that is quite logical, and a far stronger argument than anything you have presented. Belief in God is logically reasonable, is more concordant with science, and is more rational than theism. Until you can present substantiation stronger than what I have presented, I will continue in my beliefs. I go for logic, reasoning, and evidence. Unless you have something of substance, I don't see the value in continuing this conversation. You must have a reason for what you believe. That's all I'm asking for.
I obviously beg to differ. I care a great deal about evidence. My faith is based on it. And if there weren't evidence for the existence of God, neither I nor theologians would give a rat's tail about it. That's just being honest.
> Cosmological argument
Because everything we know that had a beginning was caused by something else. That's how we know the Big Bang isn't the uncaused being. There had to have been a causal mechanism. Since the laws of physics were not operative, what caused the Big Bang is both outside of science and untraceable by science.
> Saying the big bang had no cause breaks your first statement. You can state that god exists outside of your material realm but then you have to change your first statement to "whatever that is material begins to exist is caused to exist by something else already in existence."
Since God is not material, I don't have the change my first statement. God was already in existence. Materiality is not the only definition of existence, since we know about time, which has no material substance and yet exists. So also thoughts, memories, and intuitions.
> you haven't shown that this spiritual realm exists or that it can have things that exist within it that are uncaused.
The physical realm didn't yet exist, so what we have is most reasonably metaphysical.
> You are just asserting that the explanation has to be god. You haven't shown that the explanation must be god.
I'm saying God is inferring the most reasonable conclusion.
I'm not sure there's value in picking apart your reasoning. First, you haven't stripped down my arguments in the least. Secondly, you haven't presented anything in rebuttal (as I am used to from atheists). All I want you to do is substantiate what you believe. I defended my beliefs with substantiation that is quite logical, and a far stronger argument than anything you have presented. Belief in God is logically reasonable, is more concordant with science, and is more rational than theism. Until you can present substantiation stronger than what I have presented, I will continue in my beliefs. I go for logic, reasoning, and evidence. Unless you have something of substance, I don't see the value in continuing this conversation. You must have a reason for what you believe. That's all I'm asking for.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9110
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: God is not fair by any definition of the word
by TrakeM » Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:58 pm
No, I'm sorry, but what you believe isn't concordant with science. It's not based on peer reviewed scientific journals. It's about metaphysics which you have yet to show exist. All that you have done is assumed that your god exists and assume that there was metaphysics. That's the problem. You're just assuming that what you believe in exists. That's what all of your supposed rational arguments have been. Take a look at scientists. Very few of them believe in your religion. If your beliefs are so concordant with science, why is it that so few scientists actually believe them? A few do, but 90%+ don't. It doesn't add up.
You want for me to prove that I don't believe in any gods? I don't even know what that would mean to prove that I don't believe in any gods. You're the one making a claim. It's up to you to show that your god exists. Your arguments have been extremely flawed. Each and every one of them starts off with the assumption that metaphysics exists and just says that well, a deity would be an explanation so that must be the explanation. I'm sorry, but that's not how logic, reason or science works. On top of this, you haven't even started to try to make an argument that your particular moral monster of a deity is the one that actually exists rather than any number of other moral monsters of deities that people have imagined over the centuries.
If you want me to defend something, name a claim that I have made that you want me to defend. Is it the claim that I don't believe in any deities? If so, please explain to me what defending that claim would even mean.
Furthermore, please objectively show that your god is true. Keep in mind. You claim you have objective morality. Your claim on that is only true if you can objectively show that your god is real if your god is the basis for your morality.
You want for me to prove that I don't believe in any gods? I don't even know what that would mean to prove that I don't believe in any gods. You're the one making a claim. It's up to you to show that your god exists. Your arguments have been extremely flawed. Each and every one of them starts off with the assumption that metaphysics exists and just says that well, a deity would be an explanation so that must be the explanation. I'm sorry, but that's not how logic, reason or science works. On top of this, you haven't even started to try to make an argument that your particular moral monster of a deity is the one that actually exists rather than any number of other moral monsters of deities that people have imagined over the centuries.
If you want me to defend something, name a claim that I have made that you want me to defend. Is it the claim that I don't believe in any deities? If so, please explain to me what defending that claim would even mean.
Furthermore, please objectively show that your god is true. Keep in mind. You claim you have objective morality. Your claim on that is only true if you can objectively show that your god is real if your god is the basis for your morality.
- TrakeM
Re: God is not fair by any definition of the word
by jimwalton » Mon Jul 03, 2017 2:16 pm
> No, I'm sorry, but what you believe isn't concordant with science. It's not based on peer reviewed scientific journals.
Again you are incorrect. I believe the universe is orderly and predictable. Peer-reviewed scientific journal confirm that. I believe that the universe acts and responds as if there is purposeful cause-and-effect. I believe that the universe is beautiful. I believe that the universe shows regularity. These are all concordant with Christian theology and peer-reviewed science.
> You're just assuming that what you believe in exists.
Again you are incorrect. The evidence comes first, the belief comes after it. And I explained to you in quite lengthy terms the evidence for what I believe. You rejected it, but offered nothing in rebuttal.
> Take a look at scientists. Very few of them believe in your religion.
Again you are incorrect. I'm learning to doubt much of what you say. According to Pew Research (http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/), "According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."
> I don't even know what that would mean to prove that I don't believe in any gods.
I didn't ask you to prove that you don't believe in any gods. Negative proof is pretty much impossible. What I asked you to do is substantiate what you do believe.
> Your arguments have been extremely flawed.
Some of these arguments are centuries or even millennia old. They have been pored over by philosophers and theologians so many times. They are not airtight (they all have loopholes and some weaknesses), but all in all they are worthy arguments that carry weight. And they are far stronger than anything that has been proposed as an alternative.
> Each and every one of them starts off with the assumption that metaphysics exists and just says that well, a deity would be an explanation
This is patently untrue. I'm learning to doubt just about everything you say. The arguments started off with statements like...
- Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something else already in existence
- Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence
- Everything that begins to exist has a cause
- Everything that exhibits curious adaptation of means to ends and is such that we know whether or not it was the product of intelligent design, in fact was the product of intelligent design.
- We all admit that evil exists in the world.
- Genuinely nonphysical mental states exist
- Language is effective only if it is endowed with meaning
You can readily see that I have not begun as you are accusing.
> please objectively show that your god is true.
No one can do this. I can show that this existence is logical, more reasonable than the alternatives, concordant with science, and consistent with experience. But I cannot objectively show that God is true. I can only infer the most reasonable conclusion. As I have firmly established, not everything that falls into the category of knowledge and reason is subject to the objectivity of the scientific method.
Again you are incorrect. I believe the universe is orderly and predictable. Peer-reviewed scientific journal confirm that. I believe that the universe acts and responds as if there is purposeful cause-and-effect. I believe that the universe is beautiful. I believe that the universe shows regularity. These are all concordant with Christian theology and peer-reviewed science.
> You're just assuming that what you believe in exists.
Again you are incorrect. The evidence comes first, the belief comes after it. And I explained to you in quite lengthy terms the evidence for what I believe. You rejected it, but offered nothing in rebuttal.
> Take a look at scientists. Very few of them believe in your religion.
Again you are incorrect. I'm learning to doubt much of what you say. According to Pew Research (http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/), "According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."
> I don't even know what that would mean to prove that I don't believe in any gods.
I didn't ask you to prove that you don't believe in any gods. Negative proof is pretty much impossible. What I asked you to do is substantiate what you do believe.
> Your arguments have been extremely flawed.
Some of these arguments are centuries or even millennia old. They have been pored over by philosophers and theologians so many times. They are not airtight (they all have loopholes and some weaknesses), but all in all they are worthy arguments that carry weight. And they are far stronger than anything that has been proposed as an alternative.
> Each and every one of them starts off with the assumption that metaphysics exists and just says that well, a deity would be an explanation
This is patently untrue. I'm learning to doubt just about everything you say. The arguments started off with statements like...
- Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something else already in existence
- Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence
- Everything that begins to exist has a cause
- Everything that exhibits curious adaptation of means to ends and is such that we know whether or not it was the product of intelligent design, in fact was the product of intelligent design.
- We all admit that evil exists in the world.
- Genuinely nonphysical mental states exist
- Language is effective only if it is endowed with meaning
You can readily see that I have not begun as you are accusing.
> please objectively show that your god is true.
No one can do this. I can show that this existence is logical, more reasonable than the alternatives, concordant with science, and consistent with experience. But I cannot objectively show that God is true. I can only infer the most reasonable conclusion. As I have firmly established, not everything that falls into the category of knowledge and reason is subject to the objectivity of the scientific method.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9110
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: God is not fair by any definition of the word
by TrakeM » Tue Jul 04, 2017 3:54 am
> Again you are incorrect. I believe the universe is orderly and predictable. Peer-reviewed scientific journal confirm that. I believe that the universe acts and responds as if there is purposeful cause-and-effect. I believe that the universe is beautiful. I believe that the universe shows regularity. These are all concordant with Christian theology and peer-reviewed science.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. The fact that your book contains scientific inaccuracies doesn't matter because it's not a science book, but if it gets something right then it's concordant with science? It seems like you are excusing any inaccuracies by saying it's not a science book and then looking at anywhere it lines up and saying it's concordant with science because of that. If we use that logic, all holy books are concordant with science, aren't they? After all, if the holy book is wrong about a scientific claim it makes, you can just say it's not a science book so it doesn't matter or that it's really about revealing god's nature or that god didn't want to be scientifically accurate and then just look for a case where it's correct and say that it's concordant with science. How is it that we can't use your logic to support any other holy book being the word of god? If we can excuse scientific inaccuracies in your holy book because it's not a science book and maybe god just wanted for it to fit in with mans understanding of science at the time, why can't we do that with all the other holy books?
This more than anything is the idea that I find bewildering. If you accept this concept that we can accept scientific inaccuracies and still call it concordant with science because maybe god just wanted scientific inaccuracies or maybe he wanted to be more understandable to the reader or he works in mysterious ways, then how does that logic not get applied to other holy books and justify any inaccuracy just so long as it's not put forward as a science book at the book claims to be the word of god? What makes this a legitimate argument for your religion, but not others?
> Again you are incorrect. I'm learning to doubt much of what you say. According to Pew Research (http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scie ... nd-belief/), "According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."
In order for someone to believe in your religion, they'd have to believe in a god, not just a nebulous universal spirit or higher power. Keep in mind, I said believe in your religion, not believe in something supernatural. Thus, the better number to use would be 33%. Even that though, wouldn't be the right number. After all, I said believe in your religion, not just a god, but your religion specifically. If you look at the section where it breaks out specific religion, you find that only 4% are evangelicals. If you want to claim mainline protestant as also a part of your religion, then the percentage increases to 20% (4% + 16%). Still, not a big number.
> Again you are incorrect. The evidence comes first, the belief comes after it. And I explained to you in quite lengthy terms the evidence for what I believe. You rejected it, but offered nothing in rebuttal.
I pointed out very specifically why I rejected your evidence. I do not claim that there definitely isn't a god. I just don't believe in your claim that there is one. I cannot prove that there exists no tea pot floating around mars right now. That doesn't mean I believe that there is one.
> This is patently untrue. I'm learning to doubt just about everything you say. The arguments started off with statements like...
Maybe I am not explaining myself as well as I thought I was. I didn't mean that specifically the first point was assuming that there is a god, I meant that the argument at some point just assumes that there is a god. For example, take the ontological argument. Statement number 5 (The concept of God is not contradictory) assumes that there is a god. After all, if there isn't a god, then the concept of god is contradictory (assuming we define god as the creator of the universe which is, I assume, the justification for god's necessity). This is how this argument assumes that god exists. The concept of god is contradictory or not dependent upon whether or not god exists (assuming that you define god as the creator of the universe which is how you get 1 and 2). Thus, if you state flatly that it isn't contradictory you have stated flatly that there is a god in step 5 and thus assumed that there is a god in your argument.
> No one can do this. I can show that this existence is logical, more reasonable than the alternatives, concordant with science, and consistent with experience. But I cannot objectively show that God is true. I can only infer the most reasonable conclusion. As I have firmly established, not everything that falls into the category of knowledge and reason is subject to the objectivity of the scientific method.
My point wasn't simply that you can't objectively show that your god exists. My point is that your claim to objective morality is based on the existence of your deity. Therefore, you don't have objective morality unless you can objectively show that your deity exists. You can't objectively show that your deity exists, therefore you don't have objective morality. After all, can you have objective morality based on something that isn't objectively true?
Let me see if I understand you correctly. The fact that your book contains scientific inaccuracies doesn't matter because it's not a science book, but if it gets something right then it's concordant with science? It seems like you are excusing any inaccuracies by saying it's not a science book and then looking at anywhere it lines up and saying it's concordant with science because of that. If we use that logic, all holy books are concordant with science, aren't they? After all, if the holy book is wrong about a scientific claim it makes, you can just say it's not a science book so it doesn't matter or that it's really about revealing god's nature or that god didn't want to be scientifically accurate and then just look for a case where it's correct and say that it's concordant with science. How is it that we can't use your logic to support any other holy book being the word of god? If we can excuse scientific inaccuracies in your holy book because it's not a science book and maybe god just wanted for it to fit in with mans understanding of science at the time, why can't we do that with all the other holy books?
This more than anything is the idea that I find bewildering. If you accept this concept that we can accept scientific inaccuracies and still call it concordant with science because maybe god just wanted scientific inaccuracies or maybe he wanted to be more understandable to the reader or he works in mysterious ways, then how does that logic not get applied to other holy books and justify any inaccuracy just so long as it's not put forward as a science book at the book claims to be the word of god? What makes this a legitimate argument for your religion, but not others?
> Again you are incorrect. I'm learning to doubt much of what you say. According to Pew Research (http://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scie ... nd-belief/), "According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power."
In order for someone to believe in your religion, they'd have to believe in a god, not just a nebulous universal spirit or higher power. Keep in mind, I said believe in your religion, not believe in something supernatural. Thus, the better number to use would be 33%. Even that though, wouldn't be the right number. After all, I said believe in your religion, not just a god, but your religion specifically. If you look at the section where it breaks out specific religion, you find that only 4% are evangelicals. If you want to claim mainline protestant as also a part of your religion, then the percentage increases to 20% (4% + 16%). Still, not a big number.
> Again you are incorrect. The evidence comes first, the belief comes after it. And I explained to you in quite lengthy terms the evidence for what I believe. You rejected it, but offered nothing in rebuttal.
I pointed out very specifically why I rejected your evidence. I do not claim that there definitely isn't a god. I just don't believe in your claim that there is one. I cannot prove that there exists no tea pot floating around mars right now. That doesn't mean I believe that there is one.
> This is patently untrue. I'm learning to doubt just about everything you say. The arguments started off with statements like...
Maybe I am not explaining myself as well as I thought I was. I didn't mean that specifically the first point was assuming that there is a god, I meant that the argument at some point just assumes that there is a god. For example, take the ontological argument. Statement number 5 (The concept of God is not contradictory) assumes that there is a god. After all, if there isn't a god, then the concept of god is contradictory (assuming we define god as the creator of the universe which is, I assume, the justification for god's necessity). This is how this argument assumes that god exists. The concept of god is contradictory or not dependent upon whether or not god exists (assuming that you define god as the creator of the universe which is how you get 1 and 2). Thus, if you state flatly that it isn't contradictory you have stated flatly that there is a god in step 5 and thus assumed that there is a god in your argument.
> No one can do this. I can show that this existence is logical, more reasonable than the alternatives, concordant with science, and consistent with experience. But I cannot objectively show that God is true. I can only infer the most reasonable conclusion. As I have firmly established, not everything that falls into the category of knowledge and reason is subject to the objectivity of the scientific method.
My point wasn't simply that you can't objectively show that your god exists. My point is that your claim to objective morality is based on the existence of your deity. Therefore, you don't have objective morality unless you can objectively show that your deity exists. You can't objectively show that your deity exists, therefore you don't have objective morality. After all, can you have objective morality based on something that isn't objectively true?
- TrakeM
Re: God is not fair by any definition of the word
by jimwalton » Wed Jul 05, 2017 7:41 am
> The fact that your book contains scientific inaccuracies doesn't matter because it's not a science book, but if it gets something right then it's concordant with science? It seems like you are excusing any inaccuracies by saying it's not a science book and then looking at anywhere it lines up and saying it's concordant with science because of that.
Good point, but let me clarify, since that's not what I was claiming. My statement was only a response to yours when you said, "what you believe isn't concordant with science." So what I was saying is that the Bible has old world science in it, accommodating the scientific understandings of the era of its writing. In addition I was saying that what I believe as a Christian is concordant with science (since I don't subscribe to old world science).
> I meant that the argument at some point just assumes that there is a god.
I still don't agree with this, even with your explaining. My propositions sometimes lead to the conclusion that God is a reasonable consequent, and sometimes that the existence of God is the logical conclusion to the question posed. In very few (if any) of the arguments do I just throw God into the mix as an assumption.
> Ontological argument...Statement number 5 (The concept of God is not contradictory) assumes that there is a god.
But it doesn't. It only speaks of the hypothetical concept of God, not an a priori assumption and insertion of the truth of his existence. I don't just pop God in, assuming that he exists for the purpose of making the argument; I pop the notion of his possibility into a logical equation. There's quite a difference.
> My point is that your claim to objective morality is based on the existence of your deity.
My point is that if there is objective morality, there has to be a universal standard. And if there is a universal standard, that standard had to have had a source. And if it had a source, it makes sense that it is a moral source. And then, only then, does God come into the picture, since science (physics, chemistry, biology) are amoral.
> You can't objectively show that your deity exists, therefore you don't have objective morality.
You're right, as I've admitted, but I can show that theism is more probable than atheism, that theism is a rational and logical pursuit, and that the arguments for theism are stronger than the arguments for atheism. And therefore, if I am following the evidence where it leads and inferring the most reasonable conclusion, than theism wins my vote.
Good point, but let me clarify, since that's not what I was claiming. My statement was only a response to yours when you said, "what you believe isn't concordant with science." So what I was saying is that the Bible has old world science in it, accommodating the scientific understandings of the era of its writing. In addition I was saying that what I believe as a Christian is concordant with science (since I don't subscribe to old world science).
> I meant that the argument at some point just assumes that there is a god.
I still don't agree with this, even with your explaining. My propositions sometimes lead to the conclusion that God is a reasonable consequent, and sometimes that the existence of God is the logical conclusion to the question posed. In very few (if any) of the arguments do I just throw God into the mix as an assumption.
> Ontological argument...Statement number 5 (The concept of God is not contradictory) assumes that there is a god.
But it doesn't. It only speaks of the hypothetical concept of God, not an a priori assumption and insertion of the truth of his existence. I don't just pop God in, assuming that he exists for the purpose of making the argument; I pop the notion of his possibility into a logical equation. There's quite a difference.
> My point is that your claim to objective morality is based on the existence of your deity.
My point is that if there is objective morality, there has to be a universal standard. And if there is a universal standard, that standard had to have had a source. And if it had a source, it makes sense that it is a moral source. And then, only then, does God come into the picture, since science (physics, chemistry, biology) are amoral.
> You can't objectively show that your deity exists, therefore you don't have objective morality.
You're right, as I've admitted, but I can show that theism is more probable than atheism, that theism is a rational and logical pursuit, and that the arguments for theism are stronger than the arguments for atheism. And therefore, if I am following the evidence where it leads and inferring the most reasonable conclusion, than theism wins my vote.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9110
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: God is not fair by any definition of the word
by TrakeM » Sat Jul 08, 2017 5:09 pm
> Good point, but let me clarify, since that's not what I was claiming. My statement was only a response to yours when you said, "what you believe isn't concordant with science." So what I was saying is that the Bible has old world science in it, accommodating the scientific understandings of the era of its writing. In addition I was saying that what I believe as a Christian is concordant with science (since I don't subscribe to old world science).
Ok, but the bible isn't concordant with science. I'm not sure it matters to the issue of is the bible the word of god whether or not what you believe in is concordant with science. What matters is if the bible is concordant with science. You can say that it isn't a science book so it doesn't matter when it gets science wrong, but then you'd have to use the same logic with the other holy books when they get science wrong. Also, you then can't count anything about science that the bible gets right as meaningful for supporting it since it isn't a science book. Logical consistency is important. If you use your logic, isn't Harry Potter concordant with science? I mean, sure, it's true that there are no magical wands and horcruxes isn't the way that anything works but it's not a science book so that's not an issue. In the Harry Potter books we see people that come to believe in things only after having seen evidence for them and that's how things work so it's concordant with science.
> But it doesn't. It only speaks of the hypothetical concept of God, not an a priori assumption and insertion of the truth of his existence. I don't just pop God in, assuming that he exists for the purpose of making the argument; I pop the notion of his possibility into a logical equation. There's quite a difference.
Why do you say that "If God does not exist, His existence is logically impossible"? Isn't it because we define god as the creator of the universe? Therefore if he doesn't exist then his existence is logically impossible because if he existed he'd be the explanation for the universe existing if he existed but since he isn't (if he doesn't exist) then he can't exist?
Why do you say that "If God does exist, His existence is logically necessary." isn't it because we define god as the creator of the universe? Therefore if he exists then he is the creator of the universe and therefore must exist because he's the explanation for the universe if he exists?
Why do you say "The concept of God is not contradictory.". It seems to me, it's ONLY not contradictory if he exists. The concept of god being the creator of the universe is only not contradictory if he exists. The concept of god existing is ONLY not contradictory if god exists.
Maybe I am just misunderstanding how you reason that (1) and (2) and (5) are true. If so, explain your reasoning why (1) and (2) and (5) are true.
Ok, but the bible isn't concordant with science. I'm not sure it matters to the issue of is the bible the word of god whether or not what you believe in is concordant with science. What matters is if the bible is concordant with science. You can say that it isn't a science book so it doesn't matter when it gets science wrong, but then you'd have to use the same logic with the other holy books when they get science wrong. Also, you then can't count anything about science that the bible gets right as meaningful for supporting it since it isn't a science book. Logical consistency is important. If you use your logic, isn't Harry Potter concordant with science? I mean, sure, it's true that there are no magical wands and horcruxes isn't the way that anything works but it's not a science book so that's not an issue. In the Harry Potter books we see people that come to believe in things only after having seen evidence for them and that's how things work so it's concordant with science.
> But it doesn't. It only speaks of the hypothetical concept of God, not an a priori assumption and insertion of the truth of his existence. I don't just pop God in, assuming that he exists for the purpose of making the argument; I pop the notion of his possibility into a logical equation. There's quite a difference.
Why do you say that "If God does not exist, His existence is logically impossible"? Isn't it because we define god as the creator of the universe? Therefore if he doesn't exist then his existence is logically impossible because if he existed he'd be the explanation for the universe existing if he existed but since he isn't (if he doesn't exist) then he can't exist?
Why do you say that "If God does exist, His existence is logically necessary." isn't it because we define god as the creator of the universe? Therefore if he exists then he is the creator of the universe and therefore must exist because he's the explanation for the universe if he exists?
Why do you say "The concept of God is not contradictory.". It seems to me, it's ONLY not contradictory if he exists. The concept of god being the creator of the universe is only not contradictory if he exists. The concept of god existing is ONLY not contradictory if god exists.
Maybe I am just misunderstanding how you reason that (1) and (2) and (5) are true. If so, explain your reasoning why (1) and (2) and (5) are true.
- TrakeM
Re: God is not fair by any definition of the word
by jimwalton » Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:39 pm
> Ok, but the bible isn't concordant with science.
The question we have to ask is: What science? Does the Bible have to be concordant with our understanding of science to be accurate? Or does it have to be concordant with science 4,000 years to our future? Or to science in its pure form? You understand, I hope, with quite some debate going on in our present day scientific and philosophical science circles as to whether classical physics or quantum mechanics should be the regulating model of our scientific understanding, we may have yet to be to the core of what science even is and which science is true. So if God were to speak to us today and obliquely make some scientific reference in the process (like when maybe talking about the sun, or about time), what science would you like him to use? If He spoke of relativity before the theories of Einstein, there would be no comprehension. If He spoke to us of QM before the 20th century, people would be staring blankly into space. As I've said before, and you obviously disagree, what makes most sense is to talk to people in the context of their current understanding. After all, He was never teaching science in the Bible, but revealing himself with peripheral references to the natural world. It makes sense that those references would be in the context of people's understanding of the natural world. The authority of the text is not in the peripheral scientific accommodations, but in the revelation of God in the context of time and history. "Concordance" is a bit of a misleading misnomer since God would always accommodate his communication to the language, history, cultural, and science of the person to whom He is communicating himself. He didn't "get the science wrong" to those people. He spoke to their minds in their world in their language. We understand this and understand the accommodative aspects of revelation.
> Why do you say that "If God does not exist, His existence is logically impossible"? Isn't it because we define god as the creator of the universe?
No, I'm not speaking of creation at all, and the definition of God you have put forth is not the definition I'm working off of. For now, for a working definition, supposed I define God as "a supreme supernatural divine being." So what I'm saying is that if there is no such being, then the existence of such a being is logically impossible. As I said, "if God doesn’t really exist, the very concept of God is inconsistent or self-contradictory. His existence doesn’t even make sense."
> Why do you say that "If God does exist, His existence is logically necessary." isn't it because we define god as the creator of the universe?
No, I'm not talking about creation. What I'm saying is that if there really is such a being as GOD, then his existence cannot be contingent on anything. As a supreme supernatural divine being, his existence is necessary and not a matter of belief, opinion, or dependent on other factors.
> Why do you say "The concept of God is not contradictory"?
Because the existence of God is very possible, possibly rational, a reasonable explanation for the world as we see it, and there is a good sense to what is encased in the definition of God. There is no inherent or necessary problem in the existence of a supreme supernatural divine being. The only problems come in how to understand what He is like and how He works, not in his existence. Therefore the concept of God is not contradictory to all that we know. Some, like yourself, believe that the evidence is inadequate, but you yourself said you would believe in God if the evidence came up to your standard of what you consider to be adequate and believable. So the concept of God is not contradictory to the nature of existence.
The question we have to ask is: What science? Does the Bible have to be concordant with our understanding of science to be accurate? Or does it have to be concordant with science 4,000 years to our future? Or to science in its pure form? You understand, I hope, with quite some debate going on in our present day scientific and philosophical science circles as to whether classical physics or quantum mechanics should be the regulating model of our scientific understanding, we may have yet to be to the core of what science even is and which science is true. So if God were to speak to us today and obliquely make some scientific reference in the process (like when maybe talking about the sun, or about time), what science would you like him to use? If He spoke of relativity before the theories of Einstein, there would be no comprehension. If He spoke to us of QM before the 20th century, people would be staring blankly into space. As I've said before, and you obviously disagree, what makes most sense is to talk to people in the context of their current understanding. After all, He was never teaching science in the Bible, but revealing himself with peripheral references to the natural world. It makes sense that those references would be in the context of people's understanding of the natural world. The authority of the text is not in the peripheral scientific accommodations, but in the revelation of God in the context of time and history. "Concordance" is a bit of a misleading misnomer since God would always accommodate his communication to the language, history, cultural, and science of the person to whom He is communicating himself. He didn't "get the science wrong" to those people. He spoke to their minds in their world in their language. We understand this and understand the accommodative aspects of revelation.
> Why do you say that "If God does not exist, His existence is logically impossible"? Isn't it because we define god as the creator of the universe?
No, I'm not speaking of creation at all, and the definition of God you have put forth is not the definition I'm working off of. For now, for a working definition, supposed I define God as "a supreme supernatural divine being." So what I'm saying is that if there is no such being, then the existence of such a being is logically impossible. As I said, "if God doesn’t really exist, the very concept of God is inconsistent or self-contradictory. His existence doesn’t even make sense."
> Why do you say that "If God does exist, His existence is logically necessary." isn't it because we define god as the creator of the universe?
No, I'm not talking about creation. What I'm saying is that if there really is such a being as GOD, then his existence cannot be contingent on anything. As a supreme supernatural divine being, his existence is necessary and not a matter of belief, opinion, or dependent on other factors.
> Why do you say "The concept of God is not contradictory"?
Because the existence of God is very possible, possibly rational, a reasonable explanation for the world as we see it, and there is a good sense to what is encased in the definition of God. There is no inherent or necessary problem in the existence of a supreme supernatural divine being. The only problems come in how to understand what He is like and how He works, not in his existence. Therefore the concept of God is not contradictory to all that we know. Some, like yourself, believe that the evidence is inadequate, but you yourself said you would believe in God if the evidence came up to your standard of what you consider to be adequate and believable. So the concept of God is not contradictory to the nature of existence.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9110
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: God is not fair by any definition of the word
by TrakeM » Sun Jul 09, 2017 5:21 pm
>Does the Bible have to be concordant with our understanding of science to be accurate?
We don't know for certain that our understanding of gravity, for example is exactly correct. That does not mean, however, that the idea of Adam and Eve is tenable. It's not.
>So if God were to speak to us today and obliquely make some scientific reference in the process (like when maybe talking about the sun, or about time), what science would you like him to use?
It is possible to write a series of books that would guide people through the discoveries from the ideas of thousands of years ago to today. We know it can be done, because it has been done. We wrote the books! We wrote books as we made the discoveries and as people read the books written by the first person to make these discoveries they tested the claims of those books exactly as those books described them and that's how we got to where we are. That's what I would have him do. Of course, you can say well god just didn't decide to do it that way and instead decided to adopt the false ideas of people of that era and that's not evidence against the Bible because that's just the way god wanted to do things. The problem with this, is that if you want to be logically consistent, don't you then have to do the same for every other holy book? In the end, when you measure the other holy books with the same standard you measure yours, you find that it's concordant with science because we've defined this such that nothing except for a science book can possibly not be concordant with science. You've set the bar so low that all the holy books will easily step over it. Sure, the idea that Mohammad flew to the moon on a winged horse is insane and scientifically untenable whether we can claim certainty about the exact way gravity works or not. However, if we now apply your logic we can easily see how this is completely concordant with science. After all, this was in keeping with people's idea of how physics worked at the time (they had no concept of a vacuum) and besides it's not a science book. Everything that has ever been written or ever will be written that isn't a science book and says it's the word of god is now concordant with science and the words "concordant with science" accordingly, means absolutely nothing.
There is yet another issue. Your whole religion fundamentally depends on this idea of Adam and Eve having really been the first two humans and the snake having really appeared to them and all of the stuff in that story being literally true, doesn't it? After all, what are you referring to when you talk about the fall if not the story of adam and eve? What is the answer for why there are thorns and such if not the consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? The Bible uses it's bad science often times as the basis for other things. In this case, the corner stone upon which the entire bible is based.
We don't know for certain that our understanding of gravity, for example is exactly correct. That does not mean, however, that the idea of Adam and Eve is tenable. It's not.
>So if God were to speak to us today and obliquely make some scientific reference in the process (like when maybe talking about the sun, or about time), what science would you like him to use?
It is possible to write a series of books that would guide people through the discoveries from the ideas of thousands of years ago to today. We know it can be done, because it has been done. We wrote the books! We wrote books as we made the discoveries and as people read the books written by the first person to make these discoveries they tested the claims of those books exactly as those books described them and that's how we got to where we are. That's what I would have him do. Of course, you can say well god just didn't decide to do it that way and instead decided to adopt the false ideas of people of that era and that's not evidence against the Bible because that's just the way god wanted to do things. The problem with this, is that if you want to be logically consistent, don't you then have to do the same for every other holy book? In the end, when you measure the other holy books with the same standard you measure yours, you find that it's concordant with science because we've defined this such that nothing except for a science book can possibly not be concordant with science. You've set the bar so low that all the holy books will easily step over it. Sure, the idea that Mohammad flew to the moon on a winged horse is insane and scientifically untenable whether we can claim certainty about the exact way gravity works or not. However, if we now apply your logic we can easily see how this is completely concordant with science. After all, this was in keeping with people's idea of how physics worked at the time (they had no concept of a vacuum) and besides it's not a science book. Everything that has ever been written or ever will be written that isn't a science book and says it's the word of god is now concordant with science and the words "concordant with science" accordingly, means absolutely nothing.
There is yet another issue. Your whole religion fundamentally depends on this idea of Adam and Eve having really been the first two humans and the snake having really appeared to them and all of the stuff in that story being literally true, doesn't it? After all, what are you referring to when you talk about the fall if not the story of adam and eve? What is the answer for why there are thorns and such if not the consequences of the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? The Bible uses it's bad science often times as the basis for other things. In this case, the corner stone upon which the entire bible is based.
- TrakeM
44 posts
• Page 3 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest