345 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

Aside from this, you state the teleological argument has been refuted, how?

Order or "fine-tuning" that we observe does not imply an orderer or tuner. To argue that it does would be to affirm the consequent, a classical logical fallacy. It implies only that processes exist that are non-random, such as laws governing evolution or the four fundamental forces.
Teleological arguers would point out that the laws themselves are the order they originally pointed to, but to suggest that an orderer or tuner is the cause of such laws coming into place is illogical. This owes to the fact that to do so is to attempt to solve complexity by inserting more complexity. Since any creator had to be as complicated or more complicated than the universe in preposition for arranging it. This also leads to an infinite regress, since any originator of the creator we supposed had to be as complicated or more complicated than said creator in order to bring that creator into existence, ad infinitum.

As the parable illustrates, and we know from our knowledge and perspective beyond that of the islanders, the design of the cell phone did predict other humans beside the islanders. Therefore, the witch doctor was right deducting design predicted a designer. The laws governing evolution and the four fundamental forces do not contradict this and do not explain away the fingerprint of design by an intelligent designer. A "less complexity argument," can lead one to a false conclusion if the answer is actually more complex. This is not illogical.

An infinite regress is impossible and therefore there must be a beginning. If there is a beginning then one view is God, who is of a different nature, caused it. I don’t have time to develop the logic for a finite regress, right now, but you seem to agree with me on this point. I will come back to this point with you later.

[drus]

all things considered, agnosticism is the most intelligent stance a person can take on this subject. the assertion of the 'strong atheist' who says "i know there is no god" is patently absurd, as is the blind unreasoned belief in any organized religious institution.

[Cameron]

Aside from this, you state the teleological argument has been refuted, how?

Order or "fine-tuning" that we observe does not imply an orderer or tuner. To argue that it does would be to affirm the consequent, a classical logical fallacy. It implies only that processes exist that are non-random, such as laws governing evolution or the four fundamental forces.
Teleological arguers would point out that the laws themselves are the order they originally pointed to, but to suggest that an orderer or tuner is the cause of such laws coming into place is illogical. This owes to the fact that to do so is to attempt to solve complexity by inserting more complexity. Since any creator had to be as complicated or more complicated than the universe in preposition for arranging it. This also leads to an infinite regress, since any originator of the creator we supposed had to be as complicated or more complicated than said creator in order to bring that creator into existence, ad infinitum.

As the parable illustrates, and we know from our knowledge and perspective beyond that of the islanders, the design of the cell phone did predict other humans beside the islanders. Therefore, the witch doctor was right deducting design predicted a designer. The laws governing evolution and the four fundamental forces do not contradict this and do not explain away the fingerprint of design by an intelligent designer. A "less complexity argument," can lead one to a false conclusion if the answer is actually more complex. This is not illogical.

An infinite regress is impossible and therefore there must be a beginning. If there is a beginning then one view is God, who is of a different nature, caused it. I don't have time to develop the logic for a finite regress, right now, but you seem to agree with me on this point. I will come back to this point with you later.

The witch doctor would have been correct in that case, but that does not mean he can conclude the same for the broader case, that is conclude everything that seems designed is actually designed by an intelligent agent. Evolution shows that systems can develop complex seemingly designed structures out of a seemingly mindless process. Similarly many crystalline formations develop out of physical interactions with no designer involved(in the process). Given simple rules, complex seemingly designed structure can in some cases emerge without some agent guiding the process along, self-organization and increases in complexity emerging out of the simple rule-following parts of the system.

If one samples from the set of possible simple rules, in some abstract systems some of them yield seemingly complex outcomes. That is simple rules, once given, yield complexity with no designer involved. Now one would have to suggest that no system can ever follow rule-like behavior without an intelligent agent setting the system to follow said rules, and there is no evidence for this. If rule-like behavior occurs spontaneously, or atemporally, then in some subset of systems complex seemingly designed structure will emerge without a designer.

Does someone have to write, think or utter "A kite fell on mars." for that particular combination to exist as one of the possible combination of letters? Does one have to state some rule for it to exist as a possibility? Does someone have to run and arrive at a particular state of a simulation for that state to exist, abstractly, as one of the combinations of information that comprises the possible states arrived at following some rules? And if it exists abstractly, in an atemporal eternal way, what would that mean with regards to the inhabitants of said simulated world?

[AdamSummerfield]

As the parable illustrates, and we know from our knowledge and perspective beyond that of the islanders, the design of the cell phone did predict other humans beside the islanders.

Your example doesn't accurately portray a sound analogy of the laws we observe in the universe. You took an object clearly designed - it emanated human voices. Those who use portraits as an example are also guilty of this. The universe does not resemble anything human.

the witch doctor was right deducting design predicted a designer. The laws governing evolution and the four fundamental forces do not contradict this and do not explain away the fingerprint of design by an intelligent designer.

You are affirming the consequent. You assume that there is an intellect responsible for the arbitration of the laws we see in place in the universe. Non sequitur. There is no indication as to where these laws ultimately came from. The only thing they point to is themselves.
Things become more complicated when we start adding extra layers to the cosmos such as the multiverse, which I assert the existence of, but that's for another post.

A "less complexity argument," can lead one to a false conclusion if the answer is actually more complex. This is not illogical.

The principle of parsimony can only be appealed to when evidence is limited. You must not assume the state of affairs is more complex than you have to. If the answer is more complex than our reasoning, comprising the principle of parsimony, leads us to believe, we will realise it then, when the evidence surfaces. But by asserting the existence of an intellect, you are violating Hanlon's Razor, making your hypothesis more complex than is logical.

An infinite regress is impossible and therefore there must be a beginning.

An infinite regress is impossible? So you must admit that God is also impossible, or, does God have a birthday?
There must be a beginning? What came before that beginning? What caused the first cause? You're not proposing a violation of causality are you?

If there is a beginning then one view is God, who is of a different nature, caused it.

Well such a solution would be illogical since that would violate causality. But I have a suspicion that you're going to say that's okay. God can violate causality, God an be excused from logic... Here's a video by AdamDavis here on ImmInst on illogical defining God as escaping causality:

[chrwe]

I still insist that all these arguments are based on some sort of belief, either "there must be a god" or "there mustn`t be a god", whereas all we know is

a) we exist - we get born, we live, we die in a setting determined by natural laws most of which we think we have identified - everything we see exists (or at least our brains tell us that there is stimuli coming in allowing for the deduction that things exist and there is a feeling of "self" about ourselves)

b) it is very improbable that a stable universe evolved from nothing with the precision it did GIVEN THE CURRENT STATE OF SCIENCE (and i am not talking about the evolution of mankind, I am talking about a stable universe unfolding from the big bang the way it did with the stability it did and i am only assuming Penrose`s calculation of improbability, not his conclusions)

c) it is therefore extremely likely that we are completely unaware yet of a lot of factors that determine our existence, the universe`s existence and the beginning and end of both

d) the brain has - despite anything some state - not been analyzed 100%, neither has the concept of "self" nor "consciousness" and there are still a few riddles unsolved that are pretty large - and yes, it has been proven that our memory and our personality is immediately affected by the physical structure of our brains - but there are riddles ("reappearing" from dementia and Alzheimer despite the fact that should not happen, neural changes following an exercise of "will" and following conversations with others, feelings changing our brain structure (and vice versa), conscious changeing of brain activity that some are capable of, placebo/nocebo effect and some stuff like NDE`s (specialy the coherent structure of these dreams)) - all of which leads me to the conclusion that there is a lot to discover yet and i cannot claim to say I know everything about our consciousness

e) this unawareness means we must remain agnostic about all possible causes, of which "intelligent design" is one which is at the moment no more or less plausible than "many worlds" imo.

I wonder why many people feel so threatened by true agnosticism. Is it really so bad that we still have to accept that there are a lot of riddles to be solved yet? On the contrary, I cant imagine living in a world where we "know it all".

As to my individual personality, I believe there is a 90% probability based on the facts as we know them to be that I really want SENS or, at least, cryonics, to succeed because with a 90% probability the brain is 100% what "we" are and "we" are lost forever upon death. I am still allowing for 10% not because of moonshine but because of the very real fact that science does NOT yet know everything. That`s what agnosticism is about.

With the universe, we know even less.

[shadowhawk]

For now those wishing a re-introduction of the classical philosophical debates about
God I recommend a fantastic book by philosopher David Conway. The review below does not do it justice and he believes you can reason the existence of god by reason alone. He is Aristotelean. He like Flew comes as close as I’ve seen. I cite this source because the discussions here have a limit on how much information can be covered. I am happy to do it but have limited time.

'Many will be sympathetic to David Conway's theme, that of the loss of wisdom in our era and, more specifically, the repudiation by philosophy of its ancient goal of seeking and communicating wisdom. The Rediscovery of Wisdom is a distinctive and valuable contribution to philosophy, which deserves careful consideration.' - Anthony O'Hear, Professor of Philosophy, University of Bradford 'David Conway has taken a bold and unusual step in his book on philosophic wisdom. Briefly, what he seeks to do is to bring God back into the picture. Conway's target is the secularism and militant atheism that has, he says, become de rigeur for the western intellectual. Whether you agree with Conway's defence of philosophical theism or not, this is a thought-provoking book, likely to appeal to the reflective reader, disturbed by the prevailing secularising traditions of both empiricism and fashionable postmodernism. It deserves to be taken seriously.' - Brenda Almond, Professor of Philosophy, University of Hull 'It takes real courage and determination to attack new orthodoxies. This is what David Conway has set out to do in The Rediscovery of Wisdom. His clearly expressed argument is that philosophy has declined as it has moved away from its traditional aims of describing the ultimate nature of reality and the meaning of life. Adopting Conway's perspective we can see why so much contemporary philosophy seems trivial. The Rediscovery of Wisdom is a welcome and timely challenge. It deserves to be widely read - and thought about.' - John Haldane, Professor of Philosophy, University of St Andrews 'In The Rediscovery of Wisdom, David Conway puts forward a bold and original thesis which deserves careful consideration from all interested in the relationship between philosophy and religion.' - Professor Hyam and Cynthia Maccoby

The Rediscovery of Wisdom: From Here to Antiquity in Quest of "Sophia"
http://www.amazon.co...A...8950&sr=1-3

As far as the design argument is concerned, here are some good sources of those who argue the design found in the cosmos are evidence for a creating intelligence. If I don’t cover something,I am sure you can find answers below.

http://www.arn.org
http://www.discovery.org/csc/
http://www.reasons.org/
http://www.evolutionnews.org/
http://telicthoughts...r-id-revisited/
http://www.ideacente...brary_books.php
http://www.thewonderoftheworld.com/
http://www.designinference.com/
http://www.qsmithwmu.com/
http://philofreligio...com/alston.html
http://www.discovery.org/
http://www.intelligentdesign.org/
http://www.newworlde...elligent_design
http://www.iscid.org/
http://www.origins.o...n/pjohnson.html
http://www.sciohio.org/start.htm
http://www.uncommondescent.com/
http://www.talkorigi.../faqs/behe.html
http://www.lehigh.ed...culty/behe.html
http://www.discovery...eBlogPosts=true

http://www.denverseminary.edu/
http://www.epsociety.org/
http://www.societyof...ilosophers.com/
http://www.leaderu.c...raig/index.html
http://www.dineshdsouza.com/
http://www.leaderu.com/

This has not adresed all the issues raised during the last day but I will get to them when I can.

[shadowhawk]

QUOTE (shadowhawk @ May 25 2010, 11:59 PM) *
As the parable illustrates, and we know from our knowledge and perspective beyond that of the islanders, the design of the cell phone did predict other humans beside the islanders.

Your example doesn't accurately portray a sound analogy of the laws we observe in the universe. You took an object clearly designed - it emanated human voices. Those who use portraits as an example are also guilty of this. The universe does not resemble anything human.

Humans are part of the universe. There is intelligence and design in the universe. Look in the mirror.

QUOTE (shadowhawk @ May 25 2010, 11:59 PM) *
the witch doctor was right deducting design predicted a designer. The laws governing evolution and the four fundamental forces do not contradict this and do not explain away the fingerprint of design by an intelligent designer.

You are affirming the consequent. You assume that there is an intellect responsible for the arbitration of the laws we see in place in the universe. Non sequitur. There is no indication as to where these laws ultimately came from. The only thing they point to is themselves.

“Who wrote the laws of nature,” Antony Flew asks in his book, “There is a God.” He feels this is an argument from the order found in the universe. Where did these laws come from? Where did life come from and contrary to what you have said, certain big aspects of the evidence are human. You may read Flew's arguments for yourself. (Pgs 95-112) http://www.amazon.co...-...0804&sr=1-1
Read also Catholic Scott Hahn on this point as he takes on Dawkins. http://www.amazon.co...-...0804&sr=1-1

Things become more complicated when we start adding extra layers to the cosmos such as the multiverse, which I assert the existence of, but that's for another post.

Multi universe which does not answer any issue that I have raised, but certainly adds complexity. So many things are like this. I wonder how http://en.wikipedia....i/Occam's_razor Occams razor applies to this?

QUOTE (shadowhawk @ May 25 2010, 11:59 PM) *
A "less complexity argument," can lead one to a false conclusion if the answer is actually more complex. This is not illogical.

The principle of parsimony can only be appealed to when evidence is limited. You must not assume the state of affairs is more complex than you have to. If the answer is more complex than our reasoning, comprising the principle of parsimony, leads us to believe, we will realise it then, when the evidence surfaces. But by asserting the existence of an intellect, you are violating Hanlon's Razor, making your hypothesis more complex than is logical.

I agree generally with this complexity rule, but the way you have expressed it has some problems when you use an axe to preform brain surgery. I can think of all kinds of things that have turned out more complex than thought.

QUOTE (shadowhawk @ May 25 2010, 11:59 PM) *
An infinite regress is impossible and therefore there must be a beginning.

An infinite regress is impossible? So you must admit that God is also impossible, or, does God have a birthday?

Hardly, only the physical universe and everything has a cause and effect “birthday.” The cosmos does not have an infinite regress. Neither does God who is of a different nature than the physical cosmos.

There must be a beginning? What came before that beginning? What caused the first cause? You're not proposing a violation of causality are you?

God was before the "beginning," a word which referrers to an aspect of the physical cosmos.

QUOTE (shadowhawk @ May 25 2010, 11:59 PM) *
If there is a beginning then one view is God, who is of a different nature, caused it.

Well such a solution would be illogical since that would violate causality. But I have a suspicion that you're going to say that's okay. God can violate causality, God an be excused from logic... Here's a video by AdamDavis here on ImmInst on illogical defining God as escaping causality:

It would only violate things of a caused nature. God is not caused.

[Cameron]

The problem I would say is not with discussing the idea of there being a God. The problem lies in trying to tie it down with the primitive beliefs of some ancient group of people. I can see some amazonian tribesman who got an education arguing for the possibility of God and then tying that down to the God or Gods of his tribe. Even if one's open to the possibility of God existing, it is a whole nother leap to jump and conclude "God is, ergo religion X is right and that's the God being described". The latter leap is unjustified, and obviously each religion will arrive at a different conclusion.

Being open or agnostic is an understandable position with regards to an Abstract idea of God, but being agnostic with regards to Odin? Zeus? RA? Viracocha? The flying spaghetti monster? We can go on the list with religions that are quite popular, and some quite old. IMHO, One cannot really defend being agnostic with regards to the countless gods in the many works of fiction that man has created, even if there are people who take them to be nonfiction, at least with regards to being directly involved in this particular universe.

Yahweh then said to Moses, 'Leave, move on from here, but I myself shall not be going with you or I might annihilate you at any moment, for you are an obstinate people.'-link

'Yahweh, Yahweh, God of tenderness and compassion, slow to anger, rich in faithful love, forgiving sin, yet letting nothing go unchecked, punishing the children and grandchildren for the parent's fault to the third and fourth generation!'-link

Those are just some examples of the nonsense that is found in the Old Testament.

Once again, I honestly cannot see the point of an Omnipotent being's means of forgiving a few lowly apes being a weird sacrificial deicide ritual(turning into some random carpenter and allowing others to murder him.), in the end not even a real sacrifice as the story says there's resurrection. Why not simply you know forgive and presto. Is it some sort of strange moral lesson that has really nothing to do with forgiveness? Was he really not omnipotent and had to resort to such convoluted measures to be able to forgive? Was it on a whim?

It is difficult to conceive that infinite intelligence, knowledge, benevolence, wisdom, and power would lead to the above statements. It is much more plausible that these are arbitrary creations from primitive men who have no real connection to the divine. I mean if you threw me the works of many of the ancients, and asked me which seemed divinely inspired, I'd say: "Plato's works are closer to being divinely inspired than all the BS that actually became the foundation of many a religion."

[chrwe]

No, I am sure talking about being Agnostic about a "higher" consciousness (or several) that have different things "to do" in this universe than we have and that would, from our point of view, be regarded as "God(s)"

as to the actual ideas you are talking about, these quite obviously the ideas of humankind personified - perhaps (something to be agnostic about) after some humans had the occasional brush with such higher consciousness and of course understanding nothing since the communication areas do not match

[Reno]

I'm more deist then than anything else. I think of God as a force of nature guiding events toward a common goal. I don't really think of God as good or evil. I try and think of him as more or less a force of nature.

I know some might call that a fairytale, but until I can disprove a creator it's as good a theory as any. Everything is here, so there has to be a reason for something being created from nothing. I try to base my religious philosophy on sort of a working theory. I consider a likely possibility until i see a solid event to disprove it. I can't believe in the heaven or hell no more than i can believe in santa clause. Babies die moments after birth, and killers and rapist walk the streets. Thousands of people die of starvation, while politicians golf on bribes and fly around the world on leeched tax dollars. I've just about come to the conclusion that there is no good or evil. Hopefully, there is only a singular purpose to this existence beyond just a meaningless depressing idea of chance.

Edited by Reno, 27 May 2010 - 08:03 PM.

[chris w]

I'm more deist then than anything else. I think of God as a force of nature guiding events toward a common goal. I don't really think of God as good or evil. I try and think of him as more or less a force of nature.

One could argue that it's not entirely deism in that case - if he's guiding, then there is some form of Providence working in the Universe, so it would be theistic. And to us this common final goal would either be beneficial or not, so words "good" and "evil" could still be applied here somehow I guess.

Edited by chris w, 27 May 2010 - 08:54 PM.

[shadowhawk]

[quote name='Cameron' date='May 26 2010, 08:15 PM' post='410317']
The problem I would say is not with discussing the idea of there being a God. The problem lies in trying to tie it down with the primitive beliefs of some ancient group of people. I can see some amazonian tribesman who got an education arguing for the possibility of God and then tying that down to the God or Gods of his tribe. Even if one's open to the possibility of God existing, it is a whole nother leap to jump and conclude "God is, ergo religion X is right and that's the God being described". The latter leap is unjustified, and obviously each religion will arrive at a different conclusion.

I agree with you. A later problem, after we have decided whether we believe in a God (s) or not, is what kind of God(s) is there evidence of? This is another big but later, problem. It seems if I read you right, that no one, besides you or who are living with you time wise, could possibly know about God because they re older or perhaps ancient. Ancient is a term compared not with something like geology, but say your life span. By the way, the parable was just a story showing despite evidence from design some, in this case the majority of islanders, did not believe. (Atheists who are ignorant or is it just Theists?) Do you have some age in history, where we become enlightened enough to consider what kind of god is there?

Being open or agnostic is an understandable position with regards to an Abstract idea of God, but being agnostic with regards to Odin? Zeus? RA? Viracocha? The flying spaghetti monster? We can go on the list with religions that are quite popular, and some quite old. IMHO, One cannot really defend being agnostic with regards to the countless gods in the many works of fiction that man has created, even if there are people who take them to be nonfiction, at least with regards to being directly involved in this particular universe.

Saying, "I don't know," is different than saying, "I can't know." I often say, Science (to its credit) is almost always wrong. Science being a process not a position, is not wrong because it itself, was not proven, by the Scientific Method, to be the only way to seek truth. Study the philosophy of science to see just how divided scientists are on methods. It so far, is inadequate as a method or process, to explore things like spirit. Scientist David Chalmers is exploring areas like this with his "consciousness" "mind," studies.

http://www.amazon.co...c...8390&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.co...yhuc__sim_01_01
http://www.amazon.co...yhuc__sim_01_01

Chalmers is no Christian but I suppose you dismiss him because he often cites classical sources that predate Christianity. If you don't think there is no intelligent consciousness in the cosmos, look in the mirror. There are many studying in this field.

We differ, even before the evidence is in, whether one can know God, especially those who lived in the past .

QUOTE
Yahweh then said to Moses, 'Leave, move on from here, but I myself shall not be going with you or I might annihilate you at any moment, for you are an obstinate people.'-link

'Yahweh, Yahweh, God of tenderness and compassion, slow to anger, rich in faithful love, forgiving sin, yet letting nothing go unchecked, punishing the children and grandchildren for the parent's fault to the third and fourth generation!'-link

Those are just some examples of the nonsense that is found in the Old Testament.

Imagine, you are with Moses. When God said this, you replied, "Nonsense." And you know better because you live in 2010, that God is not tender, compassionate, slow to anger, faithful, forgiving. At the same time crack babies will not suffer from the sins of their parents nor anyone else suffer if they have a deviant parent of any kind. "Nonsense," you tell Moses. You know better. There are thousands of examples I could use beside a crack mother where the sins of the parents screw up the offspring.

There are many things that are hard to understand in the Old Testament but since you are seperated from the event and time makes people ignorant, perhaps it works both ways.

Once again, I honestly cannot see the point of an Omnipotent being's means of forgiving a few lowly apes being a weird sacrificial deicide ritual(turning into some random carpenter and allowing others to murder him.), in the end not even a real sacrifice as the story says there's resurrection. Why not simply you know forgive and presto. Is it some sort of strange moral lesson that has really nothing to do with forgiveness? Was he really not omnipotent and had to resort to such convoluted measures to be able to forgive? Was it on a whim?

If everyone is a lowly ape, everyone is forgiven for acting like one. If you are God, (though a lowly ape) just say "presto." I wait your pronouncement and am sure it won't be "weird," nor "strange." If not, maybe there is more to it than that and you don't have a clue, even though it is 2010!. Maybe you aren't in a position to judge God. He is beyond you as you point out below.

It is difficult to conceive that infinite intelligence, knowledge, benevolence, wisdom, and power would lead to the above statements. It is much more plausible that these are arbitrary creations from primitive men who have no real connection to the divine. I mean if you threw me the works of many of the ancients, and asked me which seemed divinely inspired, I'd say: "Plato's works are closer to being divinely inspired than all the BS that actually became the foundation of many a religion."

Don't feel bad that you have a problem conceiving "infinite intelligence, knowledge, benevolence, wifedom and power. How could you? And how could such a God ever have the ability to connect with natives? So you think maybe Plato? I like Plato, (427-347 BC) he influenced many of the early Christians and Jews. (Neo-Platonism) Maybe there is hope.

http://www.amazon.co.../ref=pd_sim_b_2
http://www.amazon.co.../ref=pd_sim_b_5
http://www.amazon.com/End-Christianity-Finding-Good-World/dp/0805427430/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274997386&sr=1-1

Edited by shadowhawk, 27 May 2010 - 09:59 PM.

[shadowhawk]

I'm more deist then than anything else. I think of God as a force of nature guiding events toward a common goal. I don't really think of God as good or evil. I try and think of him as more or less a force of nature.

I know some might call that a fairytale, but until I can disprove a creator it's as good a theory as any. Everything is here, so there has to be a reason for something being created from nothing. I try to base my religious philosophy on sort of a working theory. I consider a likely possibility until i see a solid event to disprove it. I can't believe in the heaven or hell no more than i can believe in santa clause. Babies die moments after birth, and killers and rapist walk the streets. Thousands of people die of starvation, while politicians golf on bribes and fly around the world on leeched tax dollars. I've just about come to the conclusion that there is no good or evil. Hopefully, there is only a singular purpose to this existence beyond just a meaningless depressing idea of chance.

It is true, this is a form of Theism. By the way, there was a real Santa Clause.

God is good and here are three books that are helpful on this point.

http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/0805427430
http://www.amazon.co.../ref=pd_sim_b_1
http://www.amazon.co.../ref=pd_sim_b_5

[AdamSummerfield]

There is intelligence and design in the universe.

There are only non-random processes in the universe. They point only to themselves.

Where did these laws come from? Where did life come from and contrary to what you have said, certain big aspects of the evidence are human.

Where did where the laws came from, come from?
What aspects are human?

Multi universe which does not answer any issue that I have raised,

It answers many issues. Specifically, its existence would mean that we should not expect our universe not to be a certain way.

but certainly adds complexity.

Principle of parsimony. An increase in the complexity of a solution is permitted if evidence for such a complexity increase is given.

I wonder how Occams razor applies to this?

When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects

In terms of evidence, the increase in complexity given in the "God" and "Multiverse" solutions aren't equal.

I can think of all kinds of things that have turned out more complex than thought.

Re-read my statement:

If the answer is more complex than our reasoning, comprising the principle of parsimony, leads us to believe, we will realise it then, when the evidence surfaces.

Neither does God who is of a different nature than the physical cosmos.
God was before the "beginning," a word which referrers to an aspect of the physical cosmos.
It would only violate things of a caused nature. God is not caused.

Precisely as I predicted, you are proposing that God is excused from logic. Logic is to be applied to all areas of enquiry.

[shadowhawk]

[quote name='AdamSummerfield' date='May 27 2010, 03:22 PM' post='410503']
Shadowhawk
There is intelligence and design in the universe.

There are only non-random processes in the universe. They point only to themselves.
Is this a faith statement? How do you know what they point to?

QUOTE (shadowhawk @ May 27 2010, 03:03 AM) *
Where did these laws come from? Where did life come from and contrary to what you have said, certain big aspects of the evidence are human.

Where did where the laws came from, come from?
What aspects are human?

Antony Flew argues that design from order is one argument for the existence of God which He finds compelling. I have cited this earlier and do not want to rewrite his book here. (Pgs 95-112)
http://www.amazon.co...-...6108&sr=1-1

First he argues from the question of the origin of the laws of nature and second from the origin of life and reproduction.

By the term Law Of Nature He refers to symmetry or regularity in nature. These Laws are mathematically precise, universal and tied tegether in such a way that they affect one another. Einstein called them reason incarnate. How did nature come to be so packaged that it calls into questions of intelligence and design? Science is full of such questions. (Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, Maxwell etc. etc.) The intelligence has been called the mind of God. The ground of being has been referred to as the thought of God. Why is there something rather than nothing or why is it that we exist? Why does the something act the way it does? (Laws) How can you describe the cosmos requiring intelligence of the describer, if it has nothing in common with intelligence. Can you really describe something unintelligible. Nature is of such a nature that it has been described as having intelligent thought as its ground?

I have a very large Indian collection and tens of thousands of stone artifacts. I have found most of them myself. When I am in the field what am I looking for? The marks of intelligence. Every artifact shows the intelligence, work and design of man. How do I know this stone is different than that one? Design, even though I do not see the designer. Rational laws that require Man to explain, are evident.

Why does something f the nature of the cosmos, with its intelligent laws exist? The answer is God. Check out the DNA code which raises many questions of intelligence.

Flew spends some time discussing Einstein and Dawkins who falsely claimed Einstein was an atheist. He wasn't but I will leave it up; to you to read it.

Quantum scientists are also cited by Flew as raising questions such as above. (Planck, Heiksenberg, Schrodinger, Dirac) and other scientists are cited. (Pgs103)-107) Very interesting.
Who wrote the laws? (Pg 107)
Even Atheists accept that there is a law like order in nature that at least in part comprehensible to our intelligence. There is a knowable nature to everything and something accepted by faith. Science would be impossible without it.. Scientists accept essentially a theological world view. There is no evidence the universe is logically necessary according to Flew.

Where do the laws come from?
Why is it that we have these laws and not some others?
Why do we have a set of laws that drive featureless gases to life, consciousness and intelligence?

Answers to these questions point to deeper purpose and design and are intelligible.

If you accept laws, then something must impose them on nature. That enforcer and purpose is God. (Pg 110)

origin of life and reproduction later.

QUOTE (shadowhawk @ May 27 2010, 03:03 AM) *
Multi universe which does not answer any issue that I have raised,

It answers many issues. Specifically, its existence would mean that we should not expect our universe not to be a certain way.

Why not, it is?


QUOTE (shadowhawk @ May 27 2010, 03:03 AM) *
but certainly adds complexity.

Principle of parsimony. An increase in the complexity of a solution is permitted if evidence for such a complexity increase is given.

And if evidence waits discovery?


QUOTE (shadowhawk @ May 27 2010, 03:03 AM) *
I wonder how Occams razor applies to this?

QUOTE (Wikipedia) *
When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects

In terms of evidence, the increase in complexity given in the "God" and "Multiverse" solutions aren't equal.

So is it God or a multi universe? Apples or oranges?


QUOTE (shadowhawk @ May 27 2010, 03:03 AM) *
I can think of all kinds of things that have turned out more complex than thought.

Re-read my statement:

What new meaning do you want me to take from it?

QUOTE (AdamSummerfield) *
If the answer is more complex than our reasoning, comprising the principle of parsimony, leads us to believe, we will realise it then, when the evidence surfaces.



QUOTE (shadowhawk @ May 27 2010, 03:03 AM) *
Neither does God who is of a different nature than the physical cosmos.
God was before the "beginning," a word which referrers to an aspect of the physical cosmos.
It would only violate things of a caused nature. God is not caused.

Precisely as I predicted, you are proposing that God is excused from logic. Logic is to be applied to all areas of enquiry.

If God is of a different, uncaused nature, than it is not illogical or wrong. To illustrate, if you are asked to describe a blue wall and I predict you will say it is blue. You will say it is blue. Then I clam you are illogical because I predicted it. This is called a nonsense statement. I predict you will say the world is round and if you do you are illogical. Is it?

Edited by shadowhawk, 28 May 2010 - 03:25 AM.

[AdamSummerfield]

Is this a faith statement? How do you know what they point to?

Something's existence is usually a good reason to believe something exists. That is the manner in which they point to themselves.
It's interesting that you ask me how I know what they point to (nothing other than themselves), while you assert that they point to some arranger or creator.

These Laws are mathematically precise, universal and tied tegether in such a way that they affect one another...

[large monologue on how complexity implies design]

... Why does something f the nature of the cosmos, with its intelligent laws exist? The answer is God.

Complexity does not imply design; there are examples of systems that are non-random or ordered simply because it is following natural physical processes, for example diamonds or snowflakes. To insert a sentient intellect into the situation is to greatly, greatly increase the superfluity of your argument.

There is no evidence the universe is logically necessary according to Flew.

It's important to note that absence of arbitration is impossible, but generally, yes, that is the conundrum of existence. Why should anything, including God, exist? There is no answer, such is the nature of existence (see the video I posted at 2:06).

Why is it that we have these laws and not some others?

This is a question Adam raised in the video I posted (at 3:15). It is a question not answered by the theistic position but is answered by the multiverse solution.

Why do we have a set of laws that drive featureless gases to life, consciousness and intelligence?

Multitude of universes. We should not expect our universe not to be a certain way.

If you accept laws, then something must impose them on nature. That enforcer and purpose is God.

It is more parsimonious to assume that such laws were "imposed" by other, previously operating laws.

Why not, it is?

That sentence confused me so I will read it as "Why not?".
Multitude of universes... If I fire one arrow into a target range blindfolded, I am unlikely to be successful. However if I fire a billion arrows into the field blindfolded, I am almost certain to hit a target, if not all of them.

And if evidence waits discovery?

We accept the most fitting, logical and parsimonious solution.

So is it God or a multi universe? Apples or oranges?

I said that they are not equal. The multiverse solution has at least some evidence, while the God solution is a collection of unsupported dogmatic assertions. The solution answering the most questions and with the most evidence while making the fewest assumptions shall be chosen!

What new meaning do you want me to take from it?

Merely that you had repeated what I had said.

If God is of a different, uncaused nature, than it is not illogical or wrong.

If it is un-caused, it is illogical and wrong.

I'll leave you be here.

[dustinw]

After reading the entire thread, my take is that both sides present arguments that are quite good. It seems obvious that something is happening that we don't have all the facts about, that by some mechanism the universe either always was or came into being. We simply don't have the information yet (and perhaps never will). Perhaps there is a supernatural force outside of causation that always was and wrote the laws of nature, something we may call god. How one makes the jump from that statement to claiming that He is the God of the Bible is beyond me.

Edited by dustinw, 28 May 2010 - 06:00 PM.

[shadowhawk]

[quote name='AdamSummerfield' date='May 27 2010, 09:49 PM' post='410544']
QUOTE (shadowhawk @ May 28 2010, 04:17 AM) *
Is this a faith statement? How do you know what they point to?

Something's existence is usually a good reason to believe something exists. That is the manner in which they point to themselves.

What is existence? Can things you can’t see have existence? Radio waves, before there were instruments to detect them, did they exist? How about the laws of nature before they were discovered? I agree something existence is a good reason to believe even though this statement is woefully inadequate and circular in its logic. That is but a weak reason I believe in God.

It's interesting that you ask me how I know what they point to (nothing other than themselves), while you assert that they point to some arranger or creator.

You are a person of faith.

QUOTE (shadowhawk @ May 28 2010, 04:17 AM) *
These Laws are mathematically precise, universal and tied tegether in such a way that they affect one another...

[large monologue on how complexity implies design]

... Why does something f the nature of the cosmos, with its intelligent laws exist? The answer is God.

Complexity does not imply design; there are examples of systems that are non-random or ordered simply because it is following natural physical processes, for example diamonds or snowflakes. To insert a sentient intellect into the situation is to greatly, greatly increase the superfluity of your argument.

My illustration of design and the marks of intelligence in Indian stone work, works just like this. If we were like the islanders, without first hand knowledge of Indians, we would be just as blind as they were with the cell phone. Understanding complexity and its connection to intelligence makes diamonds and snowflakes, with their rules and laws a object of wonderment and faith. Complexity can imply design and your statement that it doesn’t is your “no god,” faith statement.

QUOTE (shadowhawk @ May 28 2010, 04:17 AM) *
Why do we have a set of laws that drive featureless gases to life, consciousness and intelligence?

Multitude of universes. We should not expect our universe not to be a certain way.

I think the sane questions can be asked of a Multitude of Universes, if they exist. Such a universe is not anti Theist.

QUOTE (shadowhawk @ May 28 2010, 04:17 AM) *
If you accept laws, then something must impose them on nature. That enforcer and purpose is God.

It is more parsimonious to assume that such laws were "imposed" by other, previously operating laws.

Another faith statement.

QUOTE (shadowhawk @ May 28 2010, 04:17 AM) *
If God is of a different, uncaused nature, than it is not illogical or wrong.

If it is un-caused, it is illogical and wrong.

So your faith statement is everything that exists has to be caused? And how did you prove that?

[shadowhawk]

After reading the entire thread, my take is that both sides present arguments that are quite good. It seems obvious that something is happening that we don't have all the facts about, that by some mechanism the universe either always was or came into being. We simply don't have the information yet (and perhaps never will). Perhaps there is a supernatural force outside of causation that always was and wrote the laws of nature, something we may call god. How one makes the jump from that statement to claiming that He is the God of the Bible is beyond me.

Nice summary. If one becomes like Antony Flew, a theist, the next question would be, "What kind of a God is there and is there any thing special about God's relationship with humans?" No matter where you go with that, it will be a leap but not without your mind. One hopes it is not completely beyond us.

http://www.amazon.co...r...6476&sr=1-1

Edited by shadowhawk, 28 May 2010 - 08:04 PM.

[Cameron]

This is another big but later, problem. It seems if I read you right, that no one, besides you or who are living with you time wise, could possibly know about God because they re older or perhaps ancient. Ancient is a term compared not with something like geology, but say your life span.

I don't mean to say ancients can't happen upon truths, I could've also simply said primitive people, and again primitive people too can happen upon truths. It just so happens that the so-called witnesses we've are both primitive and ancient, though it is true that both these descriptions do not mean it is impossible for them to happen upon truth.

Still this does affect their ability as witnesses, as the lack of knowledge of the workings of the world and being in the dark about what goes on elsewhere, keeps their minds more open to all sort of speculation and pseudo-scientific explanations.

There are some religions that claim their divinely inspired texts contain many truths of this world, truths that were later found out through scientific experiments. Obviously if primitive man were to come upon truths in diverse fields with no experiment having been carried at the time from which he could gain such knowledge, it would be suggestive of their being some truth to his texts. But again even the claims of these religions have to be examined carefully to ensure that it is not merely post-fact reinterpretation that is yielding a connection to the truth.

In sum as I said previously we've no reason to believe random witnesses from any age who make extraordinary claims without any real evidence. Would you believe a random bum claiming all sort of extraordinary things without evidence? No, right? Now make this bum ancient? Does that add any more validity to his claims? No, right? Make him a primitive man, does that add validity? No, right? Make it so that a lot of people believe it[like say scientology], does that add validity? No, right? That in sum is what practically all religions offer to an open mind, the claims of some random witness(es) that happened to have built a following, and when you see it as I've presented it here, you see why it does not make sense to take seriously belief [X] without evidence.

We differ, even before the evidence is in, whether one can know God, especially those who lived in the past .

The problem lies in their anthropomorphizing of God to be some jealous human-like being who is easily angered and roams around[note: isn't he supposed to be omnipresent?]. Then putting all sort of nonsense into his mouth. If their books look like nonsense cobbled up by primitive uneducated minds, then why jump to the idea that it is divine in nature? We know that primitive ancient people all over the world came up with fictitious ridiculous extraordinary claims of gods, creation, and the workings of the universe.... being ignorant and having an imagination, sometimes hallucinogens allowed them to craft nice tales out of thin air. Why should any one of these beliefs be given more validity than the rest, especially without any convincing evidence?

At the same time crack babies will not suffer from the sins of their parents nor anyone else suffer if they have a deviant parent of any kind. "Nonsense," you tell Moses. You know better. There are thousands of examples I could use beside a crack mother where the sins of the parents screw up the offspring.

to the third and fourth generation! [personal note: ... third, and fourth generation and being the result of god's punishment, not his always alluded inaction]

Maybe you aren't in a position to judge God. He is beyond you as you point out below.

One must be open to many possibilities, but seemingly nonsensical ones like the flying spaghetti monster or many of the things presented in the bible, without evidence and seeming like works of fiction are better taken as that.

Some religious, have said God does not make open miracles or provide evidence because that robs us of our free will, but their beliefs rest on God having done that to the so-called witnesses who're the foundation of their faiths. So even if we assume that it is ok for God to provide evidence to people, it is UNJUST to provide evidence to some and not to others, especially when that evidence would've been the deciding factor in their willingness to accept a particular belief and especially if there's going to be any sort of punishment for choosing not to accept a particular belief.

[MoodyBlue]

I voted "other" because "God/or Gods" might imply individuality. I tend to intuit that preceding everything that exists in form and can therefore be either directly within the reach of conscious awareness or can be conceived of in theory by consciousnes is a formless intelligence which might more properly be called pre-intelligence. Pre-intelligence because it is the source of the intelligence which is able to distinguish between differences and contradictons. It is as close to what is meant by the Great Void in Buddhism without it being absolutely non-existent. I think everything else is either a form of that pre-intelligent metaphysical infinity or somehow beyond what we can comprehend the result of it creating it out of nothing at all.

Alan Watts who was an Anglican Priest himself had the perfect argument against atheism. He said the atheist believes that everything that exists is merely the product of an infinite amount of absolutely blind, absolutely stupid energy which has always existed and due to mathematical chance it is inevitable that at some point within its eternal existence it would end up in some temporary pattern. However, if the atheist were to follow through with their thinking they would have to conclude that they theirselves are nothing other than a special form of stupidity, and that at any moment everything could return to total chaos. I would add to that that if everything is the product of absolutely blind stupid energy (Watts' said that Freud, Darwin, and Hegel all believed that), then that means the one who has that perception technically would not be able to trust their own perception since their own perception itself would be the product of absolute stupidity (so, how are all of you atheists able to both make conclusions and trust them?). To trust in one's perceived intelligent perception would put one in a double bind, because to trust in it would be to trust in its source which is the absolute stupidity. However, to trust in that is to have no trust at all in any intelligence. The existence of any intelligence in the world woud be explained as some sort of unexplainable freakish fluke within nothing other than an infinite amount of absolute stupidity surrounding it spatially as well as preceding it throughout beginningless time or past eternity. Intelligence coming into existence at some point within eternity when there was nothing before it but absolute stupidity seems life an absurd notion and obviously impossible. There would have to have been an intelligence which preceded it which gave rise to it. Something like Matter/energy forms being created out of nothing seems feasible if the intelligence is of a cosmic nature. In fact the matter/energy forms might be the formless intelligence in a form. It could be its creativity with its own self. OF course, if it is truly an original creation it would not have been planned, because anything which is already planned is as though it is already past since it is already known. That leads to the truly great mystery. How can the creator be also surprised by its own creativity. After all it is truly original and has never before been done, so it has no foreknowledge of it.

Edited by moodyblue, 29 May 2010 - 12:44 AM.

[shadowhawk]

[quote name='Cameron' date='May 28 2010, 01:46 PM' post='410648']
QUOTE
This is another big but later, problem. It seems if I read you right, that no one, besides you or who are living with you time wise, could possibly know about God because they re older or perhaps ancient. Ancient is a term compared not with something like geology, but say your life span.

I don't mean to say ancients can't happen upon truths, I could've also simply said primitive people, and again primitive people too can happen upon truths. It just so happens that the so-called witnesses we've are both primitive and ancient, though it is true that both these descriptions do not mean it is impossible for them to happen upon truth.

They more than just happen upon truths. Almost every idea known to humanity was thought by ancient people and history clearly shows that. What is going on today is a development of these ideas and clairfaction of them. Check, out courses at your local university or the source below.

The Teaching Company
http://www.teach12.com/teach12.aspx

Still this does affect their ability as witnesses, as the lack of knowledge of the workings of the world and being in the dark about what goes on elsewhere, keeps their minds more open to all sort of speculation and pseudo-scientific explanations.

Science has a spotted record when it comes to answering problems. Just look at their record.

Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It. Great
http://www.teach12.c...2.aspx?cid=1235

Science is a Sacred Cow. Old but still good.
http://www.amazon.co...n/dp/0525470166

Science is a process not a position
http://amnap.blogspo...near-death.html
Science quotes.
http://www.quotegarden.com/science.html

Limitations of Science
http://www.cod.edu/p...cher/limits.htm
http://www.rbc.org/b...46532&Topic=814
The Limitations of Scientific Truth: Why Science Can't Answer Life's Ultimate Questions
http://www.amazon.co...BC630WXWH6YXM5Q

There are some religions that claim their divinely inspired texts contain many truths of this world, truths that were later found out through scientific experiments. Obviously if primitive man were to come upon truths in diverse fields with no experiment having been carried at the time from which he could gain such knowledge, it would be suggestive of their being some truth to his texts. But again even the claims of these religions have to be examined carefully to ensure that it is not merely post-fact reinterpretation that is yielding a connection to the truth.

OK? Bu the way did they prove the Scientific Method was the only way to discover truth with an experiment? Check out the sources I provided above on the limitations of Science. I like science but not ridiculous clams for it.

In sum as I said previously we've no reason to believe random witnesses from any age who make extraordinary claims without any real evidence. Would you believe a random bum claiming all sort of extraordinary things without evidence? No, right? Now make this bum ancient? Does that add any more validity to his claims? No, right? Make him a primitive man, does that add validity? No, right? Make it so that a lot of people believe it[like say scientology], does that add validity? No, right? So, you are saying all scientology members are "bums?" I am not a member of this church, nor do I believe in it, but this is ridiculous. That in sum is what practically all religions offer to an open mind, the claims of some random witness(es) that happened to have built a following, and when you see it as I've presented it here, you see why it does not make sense to take seriously belief [X] without evidence.

You have just applied this to religious people without evidence. There are non religious who do the same thing and I have no doubt some of them are modern. Many of the great scientists of the world have been and are theists. Check out the history section below source.

Great Scientific Ideas That Changed the World
http://www.teach12.c...2.aspx?cid=1120

QUOTE
We differ, even before the evidence is in, whether one can know God, especially those who lived in the past .

The problem lies in their anthropomorphizing of God to be some jealous human-like being who is easily angered and roams around[note: isn't he supposed to be omnipresent?]. Then putting all sort of nonsense into his mouth. If their books look like nonsense cobbled up by primitive uneducated minds, then why jump to the idea that it is divine in nature? We know that primitive ancient people all over the world came up with fictitious ridiculous extraordinary claims of gods, creation, and the workings of the universe.... being ignorant and having an imagination, sometimes hallucinogens allowed them to craft nice tales out of thin air. Why should any one of these beliefs be given more validity than the rest, especially without any convincing evidence?

What can I say? Where should I begun? We find God coming to us because we don't have the ability to go to him. Since we are human God addresses us in human terms. If God does not address us in terms we can understand, we can't hope to understand God. Let me ask you, is there anything human that you could see reveals something about the deity? Much of this is a baseless accusation, and I don't want to spend time on it.

QUOTE
Maybe you aren't in a position to judge God. He is beyond you as you point out below.

One must be open to many possibilities, but seemingly nonsensical ones like the flying spaghetti monster or many of the things presented in the bible, without evidence and seeming like works of fiction are better taken as that.

Why don't you give a real example?

Some religious, have said God does not make open miracles or provide evidence because that robs us of our free will, but their beliefs rest on God having done that to the so-called witnesses who're the foundation of their faiths. So even if we assume that it is ok for God to provide evidence to people, it is UNJUST to provide evidence to some and not to others, especially when that evidence would've been the deciding factor in their willingness to accept a particular belief and especially if there's going to be any sort of punishment for choosing not to accept a particular belief.

What and who are you talking about?

Edited by shadowhawk, 29 May 2010 - 01:41 AM.

[Cameron]

So, you are saying all scientology members are "bums?" I am not a member of this church, nor do I believe in it, but this is ridiculous.

The example was related to the original witness(es) who're the foundation stone of a religion being but random witness(es), and that they were not different from your average bum in terms of credibility if they do not provide real evidence. This does not imply that the believers themselves are random bums, as that'd be ridiculous, I'm only talking about those who claim to have witnessed the divine while providing no significant proof... scientology for example has many rich and famous members who obviously are not bums.

Why don't you give a real example?

An example of something one might be open minded to or an example of nonsense in the bible[for which I gave a link to a site with plenty of examples]?

What and who are you talking about?

The claim that the reason evidence is tenuous at best due to real evidence compromising free will, is one I heard from many christian individuals as an excuse for the lack of evidence.

Here's some quotes and links too, showing I'm not the only one to have heard this

If there is a god, why won't he just come out of the closet, so to speak, and put to rest all of the debate about his existence? And would a miraculous healing like growing a new limb for an amputee jeopardize a person's faith and belief?

....
The answer to the above questions that I see most often from Christians is: if God did indeed reveal himself in such a way, it would take away our free will.
-link

Is this a good example of Christian circular reasoning? Jesus performed miracles to prove that he was God. He didn't absolutely reveal himself as God because that would take away peoples free will. I.E. If he revealed himself as God by some major undeniable miracle it would destroy the concept of free will to believe in him. Little miracles that proved he was God would not. What the h*ll is that? Have your cake and eat it too?-link

Despite Sagan's ridicule, he has a legitimate point. Why must we read a two-thousand-year-old book and study ancient history for proof of the existence of God? Why isn't the evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible made obvious to everyone, no matter how rebellious or blinded by sin? What we are really asking is, "Are there any reasons for the evidence to appear obscure other than the possibility that the God of the Bible doesn't exist?"-Why Isn't the Evidence Clearer? By John A. Bloom

[note: I couldn't have put it in better words myself, this man got right to the point.]

This is a good link.

Problem #1 as stated above people should eventually be given evidence once they reach the so-called paradoxical 'heaven'.

Problem #2 The foundation of practically all religion is claim of divine knowledge, often through direct exposure which would provide evidence to the original so-called witness(es)

Problem #3 Given #2 it seems that some individuals including disbelievers were given privileged treatment, you know like seeing and putting their hands in a wound to affirm their beliefs and dispel their disbelief[example #1 doubting Thomas]. This preferential treatment constitutes an injustice, if there's any form of punishment for disbelievers who've not been given the same treatment, evidence, etc.

Everyone requires evidence, even those that claim to believe in their religion without it. They require that someone had directly witnessed the divine, they only take the so-called witnesses at their word without requiring further backing up of said evidence. A rational informed person in this day and age requires more than 'faith' in some random witness(es) words as evidence, especially when they make extraordinary claims.

What is more probable that someone is mentally ill or that the voice in their head is truly some supernatural deity speaking directly to them? What is likelier that they witnessed supernatural events, or that they either hallucinated them or made them up? A modern rational and informed person would suspect mental illness, but a primitive man would have no real reason too, to him divine intervention was probably as likely or likelier lacking exposure to the possibility of mental illness. After all the insane were 'possessed by demons or spirits' weren't they, there was no real theory of mental disease.

Edited by Cameron, 29 May 2010 - 06:52 AM.

[shadowhawk]

So, you are saying all scientology members are "bums?" I am not a member of this church, nor do I believe in it, but this is ridiculous.

]

]What and who are you talking about?[/b]

The claim that the reason evidence is tenuous at best due to real evidence compromising free will, is one I heard from many christian individuals as an excuse for the lack of evidence.

So some Christian did not give you any evidence? I wonder why. Do you wonder why?

Here's some quotes and links too, showing I'm not the only one to have heard this

If there is a god, why won't he just come out of the closet, so to speak, and put to rest all of the debate about his existence? And would a miraculous healing like growing a new limb for an amputee jeopardize a person's faith and belief?

Good to know you have company. Maybe God is not in a closit and if you thiknk he is, you will be waiting a long time. And what makes you think you would recognise him if he was in a closet? You must have some idea what He looks like or you might miss Him, being a spirit and all that..
....
The answer to the above questions that I see most often from Christians is: if God did indeed reveal himself in such a way, it would take away our free will.

You know it wouldn't affect free will?

-link

Is this a good example of Christian circular reasoning? Jesus performed miracles to prove that he was God. He didn't absolutely reveal himself as God because that would take away peoples free will. I.E. If he revealed himself as God by some major undeniable miracle it would destroy the concept of free will to believe in him. Little miracles that proved he was God would not. What the h*ll is that? Have your cake and eat it too?-link

Despite Sagan's ridicule, he has a legitimate point. Why must we read a two-thousand-year-old book and study ancient history for proof of the existence of God? Why isn't the evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible made obvious to everyone, no matter how rebellious or blinded by sin? What we are really asking is, "Are there any reasons for the evidence to appear obscure other than the possibility that the God of the Bible doesn't exist?"-Why Isn't the Evidence Clearer? By John A. Bloom

[note: I couldn't have put it in better words myself, this man got right to the point.]

Some believe Jesus did reveal himself as God but that didn't take away free will. I have studied Christianity for a long time and have never come across such an lame argument as this, or in this construct. Whether we have free will or not is a philosophical question, not just a Christian one. Many, including many Christians, do not believe in free will. Do you think you can fly without a plane or some other mechanical device? Do you believe in free will? Fly.

Everyone requires evidence, even those that claim to believe in their religion without it. They require that someone had directly witnessed the divine, they only take the so-called witnesses at their word without requiring further backing up of said evidence. A rational informed person in this day and age requires more than 'faith' in some random witness(es) words as evidence, especially when they make extraordinary claims.

These are issues that are dealt with well in the following book:
Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (PFCW)

http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/0830826947

Description of PFCW

Winner of a 2004 ECPA Gold Medallion Award! Winner of an Award of Excellence in the 2003 Chicago Book Clinic!

* What is real?

* What is truth?

* What can we know?

* What should we believe?

* What should we do and why?

* Is there a God?

* Can we know him?

* Do Christian doctrines make sense?

* Can we believe in God in the face of evil? These are fundamental questions that any thinking person wants answers to. These are questions that philosophy addresses. And the answers we give to these kinds of questions serve as the the foundation stones for consrtucting any kind of worldview. In Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig offer a comprehensive introduction to philosophy from a Christian perspective. In their broad sweep they seek to introduce readers to the principal subdisciplines of philosophy, including epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of science, ethics and philosophy of religion. They do so with characteristic clarity and incisiveness. Arguments are clearly outlined, and rival theories are presented with fairness and accuracy. Philosophy, they contend, aids Christians in the tasks of apologetics, polemics and systematic theology. It reflects our having been made in the image of God, helps us to extend biblical teaching into areas not expressly addressed in Scripture, facilitates the spiritual discipline of study, enhances the boldness and self-image of the Christian community, and is requisite to the essential task of integrating faith and learning. Here is a lively and thorough introduction to philosophy for all who want to know reality. Features & Benefits

* Provides a Christian orientation to the study of philosophy

* Comprehensive

* Introduces all the major areas of philosophical study

* Answers key questions to help readers construct a Christian worldview

* Arguments are clearly outlined; rival theories are presented with fairness and accuracy

* Lively

* Up to date

* Accessibly written

* Shows how philosophy aids apologetics, polemics and systematic theology

* Shows how philosophy helps extend biblical teaching into areas not expressly addressed in Scripture

* Shows how philosophy enhances the boldness and self-image of the Christian community

* Shows how philosophy is necessary for integrating faith and learning

What is more probable that someone is mentally ill or that the voice in their head is truly some supernatural deity speaking directly to them? What is likelier that they witnessed supernatural events, or that they either hallucinated them or made them up? A modern rational and informed person would suspect mental illness, but a primitive man would have no real reason too, to him divine intervention was probably as likely or likelier lacking exposure to the possibility of mental illness. After all the insane were 'possessed by demons or spirits' weren't they, there was no real theory of mental disease.

You got it. You don't believe! That is part of your answer to "Faith?"
Good enough for me.

Edited by shadowhawk, 29 May 2010 - 08:25 PM.

[DukeNukem]

I post about religion everyday on my facebook page (mostly factual/historic stuff -- not opinion stuff -- and mostly stuff most Christian's may not think about). If anyone wants to participate in the often lively (and mostly civil) discussions, do a friend request at:
http://www.facebook.com/Mi11er

If you do a request, let me know you're from ImmInst.

[Cameron]

So some Christian did not give you any evidence? I wonder why. Do you wonder why?

No, that's not the point. The question is not why they themselves can't provide evidence, but why should there be significant difficulty for the average man finding it. The question is why is the evidence out there obscure and tenuous at best, why isn't it crystal clear, solid, and evident. One of the excuses given for this is the above presented excuse. A more plausible explanation as suggested in my previous quote, is the nonexistence of the particular deity involved. If the evidence for a mayan god is obscure and tenuous at best, we suspect it does not exist, if the evidence for zeus, ra, odin, etc is obscure and tenuous at best we suspect they don't exist with regards to this world.

Some believe Jesus did reveal himself as God but that didn't take away free will. I have studied Christianity for a long time and have never come across such an lame argument as this, or in this construct. Whether we have free will or not is a philosophical question, not just a Christian one. Many, including many Christians, do not believe in free will. Do you think you can fly without a plane or some other mechanical device? Do you believe in free will? Fly.

'Revealed' himself through undetectable 'miracles' to modern day people. How about something that would've left evidence that would've withstood the test of time and been clear as day.

As far as one can tell, the amputees and the old cannot and have not ever been healed by faith healers or prophets. These require science to do the work and provide new limbs and ageless bodies. It is intriguing that some prophets claim to be able to resurrect the dead yet fail to cure aging or grow a limb.

You got it. You don't believe! That is part of your answer to "Faith?"
Good enough for me.

A story has to provide adequate reasons for it to be taken as more than mere fiction.

A mentally ill person in the distant past could easily gather a group of followers if they were charismatic enough. After all most in those times tended to take seriously all sort of supernatural explanations and superstitions in the omnipresent absence of real knowledge(even today many buy into all sorts of quackery). I myself have known people who claim there are "Prophets" in their particular cults performing all sorts of supernatural miracles, and they claim to have witnessed things like people shape-shifting into animals. What's more likely that they were a.)hypnotized, b.) drugged with some hallucinogen, c.) are just making it up or d.) Some random cult leader is actually performing supernatural feats under some random tent while asking for lots of money. One of these four options obviously pushes against one's willingness to suspend one's disbelief and is not like the rest.


I like the following quote:

This is all fascinating for a different reason. Some field of inquiry should study how urban legends, religions and the like develop and spread through society.

When I was in junior high, my teacher caught students spreading gossip. To prove how malicious untruths can spread, she ran an experiment. She had 10 students wait outside the classroom. She called 1 student in and told him a long story. A second student was then called in and the first student told the second student the story from memory. This was repeated 10 times. By the 10th student, the class had witnessed the story mutate and evolve beyond all recognition. This was my first real introduction to memetics.

A field of social anthropology should develop to study and publicize this. This explains how frauds and simple misunderstandings can evolve into UFO sightings, major religions and the like.

After the crucifiction, a few of the apostles must've concurently seen Jesus in a dream. By the time the Gospels were written down decades later, and a thousand retellings later, he had appeared in bodily form and shown them his wounds; and had performed all kinds of miracles.

We live in a time when organizations like CSICOP could investigate, and debunk, stories like this yogi who allegedly doesn't eat. When the Shroud of Turin has been carbon dated and proven to be a 14th century hoax; I could go on. Society should have an appreciation of how hearsay entropy (to coin a phrase) can mutate common occurences into the most fantastic stories.-Gus K. acceleratingfuture.com

[magnesium]

Wouldn't the Christian god be considered a malicious psychopath by most people's standards? Constant mind-games. Knowingly allowing (creating?) torture, murder, and all forms of misery.

How could a baby deserve these punishments?

How does one love this god?

Why would god give humans the capacity for such ridiculous credulity?

[Teixeira]

Wouldn't the Christian god be considered a malicious psychopath by most people's standards? Constant mind-games. Knowingly allowing (creating?) torture, murder, and all forms of misery.

How could a baby deserve these punishments?

How does one love this god?

Why would god give humans the capacity for such ridiculous credulity?

It is impossible to demonstrate that God does not exist. So, if somebody believes in God, nobody can say nothing about that, like: you are right or you aren´t!
It is as simple as that. There is one only way to escape this dilema: the demonstration of His existence by God Himself!. So far that didn´t happen (except in the time of Jesus) but nobody can demonstrate that, some day that is not going to happen!

[chris w]

So far that didn´t happen (except in the time of Jesus)

Umm, some proof of that except what was written down 2000 years ago by people who already believed that it happened ? Why do you believe in Jesus and not Mohammad for example ?

Edited by chris w, 31 May 2010 - 07:16 PM.

[DukeNukem]

No, that's not the point. The question is not why they themselves can't provide evidence, but why should there be significant difficulty for the average man finding it. The question is why is the evidence out there obscure and tenuous at best, why isn't it crystal clear, solid, and evident. One of the excuses given for this is the above presented excuse. A more plausible explanation as suggested in my previous quote, is the nonexistence of the particular deity involved. If the evidence for a mayan god is obscure and tenuous at best, we suspect it does not exist, if the evidence for zeus, ra, odin, etc is obscure and tenuous at best we suspect they don't exist with regards to this world.

Faith is the ultimate blinder against reason.

The one way to undo faith is by exposing people to the facts of how religions formed, and Christianity, in particular (the the States, at least). This is why so many pastors are actually in-the-closet atheists. (They remain in their jobs for numerous reasons.) As several of these clergy-people have said: It's hard to graduate from seminary school and remain a believer. They predict that over 10% of all preaching clergy are in fact atheists, because they were taught too much in Seminary school, such as how the Bible was constructed, and revised. And how to gloss over all of the Bible's contradictions and implausibilities. And how to answer difficult questions. Basically, how to teach their followers without saying the wrong things that might open their eyes to the truth.

These clergy also learn where all the ideas of Christianity where "borrowed" from, and how the Rapture and Heaven were post-Jesus additions to the Christian worldview. For example, on Facebook today, I posted:

Jesus never mentioned a rapture. And he never spoke of heaven. Originally, the Kingdom of God was to be on a renewed Earth and occur shortly after Jesus died. But, as time went on and believers starting dying, Paul and later Luke invented the idea of an offsite heaven where dead believers would go for a joyous afterlif...e. This clever addition kept believers happy while waiting longer and longer for Jesus to return.

Original Christians all believed that Jesus would return in their lifetime. So, when a few decades went on and some started dying, this raised an important concern: What will happen to these dead Believers??? Paul stated they would be resurrected upon His return. But, time continued to tick, and a decade after Paul died, Luke was forced to amend things further, because Believers didn't like the idea of being dead and waiting -- "What did death feel like?" they questioned. So, Luke invented the idea that you didn't have wait for Jesus to return, you were taken to His side as soon as you died.

And so Believers were happy. This basically solved the idea of waiting for Jesus to come, because now Believers go straight to Him. This was one of the most important on-the-fly adjustments to Christianity that kept is alive as a viable religion, in the face of competition from other religions that also promised an afterlife.

Do they teach this history in Churches. Hell no. ;-) They need to keep those blinders firmly in place.

Edited by DukeNukem, 01 June 2010 - 02:42 PM.