Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

HeKS is on a Roll

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In comments to my last post HeKS absolutely lays waste to two materialists who are trying to punch way above their weight.  First, Pindi spews out the million-times-rebutted claim that there is “no evidence” for the existence of God.

Pindi: And its not that I don’t want to believe in something that is god-like and personal. I just don’t see any evidence for it.

HeKS responds (not placed in quote box; all that follows is his unless noted otherwise):

Oh God, it’s the “there just isn’t any evidence” canard again.

I don’t know how atheists can even make this claim with a straight face anymore.

Here is a sampling of a few lines of evidence strongly pointing to God’s existence:

– The origin of the universe (including its matter, energy, space and physical laws) in the finite past

– The fine-tuning of the physical laws and initial conditions of the universe in a way that allows for the existence of intelligent life

– The fine-tuning of the universe for discoverability

– The fine-tuning of our solar system and planet for both life and discoverability

– The origin of life, which is roughly the equivalent of the origin of biological information

– Various events in the history of life that seem to show a large-scale influx of biological information that cannot be accounted for by any proposed mechanism of biological evolution that we are aware of. (Best explained by reference to God when taken in light of preceding items)

– Various other events in history that seem best explained by divine intervention and that would not be expected on naturalism or materialism (such as evidence supporting the resurrection of Christ).

– The apparent existence of objective moral values and duties, which people can’t seem to avoid invoking even while denying their existence (i.e. sneaking it in the back door after booting it out the front door)

– Various aspects of the mind, including the apparent existence of free will, the apparent existence of a rational consciousness capable of accurately perceiving external events and reasoning on them in a reliable way, the ability to have subjective experiences, and the ability to have thoughts that are about things.

These facts, conditions and states of affairs make God’s existence more likely than it would otherwise be in their absence or if they were different than they are, thus they constitute evidence for God’s existence.

If you want to say you’re not personally convinced and wouldn’t be unless God performed some miracle in front of your eyes for the sake of personally convincing you, fine. You’re entitled to your selective hyperskepticism. But stop claiming that there just isn’t any evidence for God’s existence. If you don’t want to accept God’s existence then it’s time to put on your bib and gobble up the multiverse. Bon appetit.

[Barry:  Then rvb8 weighs in:]

 all of the things HeKS listed, except for the starting point of the universe have competing, and better theorised natural answers.

HeKS responds:

My claim was that there is evidence for God’s existence. My claim was not that there is absolute proof for God’s existence or that God is the only conceivable explanation for the things listed. As such, this comment from you would be completely irrelevant to my point even if it were true. But then, it’s not true. And, in fact, it’s untrue on both counts, in that not all of the items in my list have competing “theorized natural answers”, and where they do, those competing natural answers are typically worse, not better.

Consider the list again…

– The origin of the universe (including its matter, energy, space and physical laws) in the finite past

You didn’t try to assert that there was a better competing naturalistic theory for this, so I won’t spend time on it. Suffice it to say that Krauss’ idea of a universe from “nothing”, in which “nothing” is the quantum vacuum, assumes the prior existence of all the things to be explained and doesn’t answer the philosophical issues involved.

– The fine-tuning of the physical laws and initial conditions of the universe in a way that allows for the existence of intelligent life

– The fine-tuning of the universe for discoverability

– The fine-tuning of our solar system and planet for both life and discoverability

In response to these you said:

HeKS uses ‘fine tuning’ three times and roles his eyes at the ‘lack of evidence for God’argument.

Actually, these three list items mention fine-tuning four times, because they are referring to four different categories of fine-tuning.

The fine-tuning of the laws of physics and initial conditions of the universe are a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for life to be even possible anywhere in the universe.

The fine-tuning of our solar system and planet for the existence of intelligent life, which includes a few hundred factors, is also necessary, but would be useless and in many cases impossible without the fine-tuning of the universe itself.

The fine-tuning of the universe for discoverability refers to the fact that the values of the laws of physics fall into an even more narrow range than the already inconceivably narrow range necessary for life, but instead fit within the subset of that life-permitting range that also allows the universe to be scientifically discoverable to intelligent beings.

This, however, would be useless if our own planet and solar system were not also fine-tuned in terms of their position and composition so as to also be conducive to scientific discovery

Now, in order to account for the fine tuning of the laws of physics and initial conditions of the universe, some appeal to a staggeringly expansive multiverse birthing off child universes in which the values are randomly determined, which they try to derive from some undetermined hypothetical connection between the purely theoretical concept of chaotic inflation and the much-maligned string theory, which is also purely theoretical.

It would take an unimaginable number of universes with randomly determined values to have a 51% chance of getting a universe that falls into the life-permitting range of our universe. But that would just be the beginning, because then you have all the other factors needed to make intelligent life possible at the level of the planet and solar system, all of which the atheist requires to have occurred by chance. The number of additional universes required to also get all these factors at the right values would dwarf the already unimaginably large collection of universes that have to be postulated just to explain the fine-tuning of the universe itself. And what reason do we have to postulate such a massive collective? Only that we need the probabilistic resources to explain the seemingly designed qualities of the cosmos by reference to chance alone.

But in addition to all of the problems that could be raised with the multiverse idea, we have another problem that is presented by the fine-tuning of both the universe and our planet and solar system for discoverability, which is that the characteristic of discoverability is not necessary for life and so it cannot be accounted for by reference to an observer selection effect at either the cosmic or the planetary scale. Were we just a random member of a multiverse, we would have no reason to expect that in addition to being in an incredibly unlikely universe that is capable of sustaining intelligent life, we would also be in an even more unlikely universe that is conducive to scientific discovery. So the multiverse doesn’t offer an alternative naturalistic explanation for this fine-tuning, unless we just want to throw our hands up and say that the multiverse explains literally every conceivable state of affairs as being the product of chance alone, destroying the foundation of science in the process.

Furthermore, as an explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe, the multiverse is highly ad hoc. Even Andrei Linde, who is responsible for the Chaotic Inflation theory that is sometimes appealed to as a possible means of getting many universes with different physics readily admits that any aspect of the theory leading to universes that have laws and constants with different values is purely speculative and that it’s the fine-tuning itself that gives us any reason to accept the speculation as possibly true.

So the competing naturalistic explanation for fine-tuning is ad hoc and explains either too little to match the explanatory scope of the God Hypothesis, or else it explains too much and undercuts science and rationality. And this in addition to the various other problems with it that have been raised (e.g. Boltzmann Brains, need for the multiverse itself to be fine-tuned, etc.)

– The origin of life, which is roughly the equivalent of the origin of biological information

There’s a better, viable, naturalistic theory in existence? Nope. Uh-uh. I don’t think so. No naturalistic OOL theory seems viable so far. If they’ve made any progress on OOL it is in finding out how much more unlikely it is on naturalism that was initially thought. Might they come up with something viable in the distant future? Perhaps, but as an argument, that’s a cheque that nobody has to cash, and this is a discussion about the actual current state of the evidence and our knowledge, not about undated naturalistic promissory notes.

– Various events in the history of life that seem to show a large-scale influx of biological information that cannot be accounted for by any proposed mechanism of biological evolution that we are aware of. (Best explained by reference to God when taken in light of preceding items)

I’m not even going to bother discussing this one since it gets talked about here all the time.

– Various other events in history that seem best explained by divine intervention and that would not be expected on naturalism or materialism (such as evidence supporting the resurrection of Christ).

The primary competing naturalistic theory is that hundreds of people had shared group visual and auditory hallucinations. That can only be considered a better explanation to someone who has an a priori and unwavering commitment to the non-existence of God and the impossibility of what, to us, appears miraculous.

– The apparent existence of objective moral values and duties, which people can’t seem to avoid invoking even while denying their existence (i.e. sneaking it in the back door after booting it out the front door)

The competing naturalistic theory is that objective moral values and duties do not exist. Verbally denying the existence of something while being unable to personally live as though that thing didn’t exist does not count as offering an alternative explanation for its existence. No viable alternative to God has been found for grounding objective moral values and duties, and yet countless atheists believe and live as though they exist.

– Various aspects of the mind, including the apparent existence of free will, the apparent existence of a rational consciousness capable of accurately perceiving external events and reasoning on them in a reliable way, the ability to have subjective experiences, and the ability to have thoughts that are about things.

And again, the competing naturalistic theory is that these things do not exist. Claiming that we don’t have free will, that there is no subjective observer, and that we cannot have thoughts that are about things and so can’t have rational consciousness capable or accurately perceiving reality or rationally deliberating on evidence is not an alternate naturalistic explanation for any of these things at all, much less a better explanation for their existence than God.

The God creation belief, equally raises the problem of ultimate origins, as does the Big Bang. Your ultimate cause, very sorry, needs a cause. Your ’causeless cause’ tedium is just that unsupported faith.

And yet, prior to the realization that the universe had an absolute beginning in the finite past, atheists were perfectly fine accepting, as a brute fact, the existence of the universe as an uncaused entity that had existedtemporally into an infinite past … and they are constantly trying to return to that view. This is not just the atheistic equivalent of the theist’s uncaused God. It is actually much worse, because even the theist doesn’t posit God as existing temporally through an infinite past.

Fine tuning, is a poor way to describe the natural constants that govern our universe, and if they are so fine tuned why didn’t God make the constants nice round numbers? Was He constrained by something? His own creation perhaps?

What a bizarre argument. The values aren’t fine-tuned because they are astronomically more precise than simple whole numbers? You know, do you, that a super-intellect would only use “nice round numbers”? It’s strange that you think the universe ought to be mathematically describable at all on naturalism.

Also, of course God was constrained by his own creation. It is a simple fact of physical instantiation that starting points constrain end points, that pathways constrain outputs, that present choices constrain downstream options, that functional coherence constrains the relationship between parts. I’m not sure why you would find any of this surprising.

Barry again:  Well done HeKS.

Comments
This is something I've noticed about anti-theists over the years; they simply cannot admit that evidence for god exists. Note Seversky's reply that there are other, better explanations; even if that was true, that still doesn't mean that the evidence "doesn't count" as evidence for god. Any sane, reasonable person can see this. The idea that evidence cannot be evidence for "an unknown thing" is ridiculous. Scientists often use evidence to propose some kind of hypothetical entity or commodity, then search for additional evidence that would support or contradict the proposed characteristics of that proposed entity. We have multiple lines of convergent evidence from many different avenues of research, experience and thought which indicate the existence of some entity that can reasonable be labeled "god". That doesn't prove god exists, but it is indeed evidence. One of the things I wrote about in my books (not that I recommend them) was what I refer to as an "Identity Matrix", where the various aspects of a person's identity formed a system of thought and behavior from a very deep, almost unalterable core that arranged the perception of all experience according to the nature of that identity. It was (and is) my view that some things are so contradictory to the identity of an individual that they simply cannot perceive/understand that experience; it would be too devastating to the core identity. Illusion/delusion/denialism is manufactured to protect the identity, which simply cannot survive the incorporation of the contradictory experience/information.William J Murray
November 7, 2016
November
11
Nov
7
07
2016
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
@ your #12, BA77, I was amazed Seversky had the temerity to open his mouth, after Harry's brilliant post #3. We just don't seem to be made with a capacity to countenance the possibility of the atheists' invincible ignorance, though we encounter it endlessly.Axel
November 6, 2016
November
11
Nov
6
06
2016
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
Seversky, I don't make arguments for or against any particular god other than to make the case that an agency that could reasonably be referred to as "god" is indicated by various convergent lines of evidence (such as the fine-tuning and big-bang evidence) and logical argument (such as the first cause and moral arguments). Also, I argue that atheism/materialism is simply not a rationally supportable view; it is entirely self-negating and nihilistic. I don't know where my particular views about god are different from Christians because I don't know much about Christianity. I'm unconcerned with historical claims and whether or not they demonstrate Biblical reliability. I have no interest in parsing Biblical (or post-Biblical) claims about miraculous events and whether or not they actually happened. I simply do not care about any of that. The question is, Seversky, can you set aside your templated narrative long enough to internally, critically examine atheism/materialism? Can you set aside ideological commitments long enough to admit that the fine-tuning evidence does in fact suggest a god of some sort, even though it doesn't prove it? Can you let go of whatever anti-Christian animus drives you to throw up Zeus and flying spaghetti monster straw men long enough to actually understand and respond to what is really being argued here? Or, at least carry on a discussion without resorting to your Christian-response template while engaging a non-Christian? Or, are you just incapable of engaging a non-Christian because you don't have any handy, pre-sorted rhetoric available?William J Murray
September 12, 2016
September
09
Sep
12
12
2016
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
Seversky @119:
Quite obviously, atheism can never have the emotional appeal of a religious belief. It cannot offer comfort and support in times of personal crisis or tragedy, it cannot offer hope of life everlasting after this one. …. But then, I never had any expectation that atheism would make me happy, just that it was a more rational position than the faiths of which I was aware. [my emphasis]
Unfortunately, materialism cannot ground rationality. In short, if blind particles in motion are the sole drivers of one’s thoughts, then one cannot be rational. There are, at least, two distinct arguments which point this out: A. The argument from reason. B.The argument from control; based on the consequence argument against compatibilism:
1. If naturalism is true, then determinism is true. 2. If determinism is true, then all our actions and thoughts are consequences of events and laws of nature in the remote past before we were born. 3. We have no control over circumstances that existed in the remote past before we were born, nor do we have any control over the laws of nature. 4. If A causes B, and we have no control over A, and A is sufficient for B, then we have no control over B. Therefore 5. If determinism is true, then we have no control over our own actions and thoughts. Therefore, assuming that rationality requires control, 6. If determinism is true, we are not rational. Next, Van Inwagen, explains that undetermined events (also) fail to ground rationality: “Let us look carefully at the consequences of supposing that human behavior is undetermined … Let us suppose that there is a certain current-pulse that is proceeding along one of the neural pathways in Jane’s brain and that it is about to come to a fork. And let us suppose that if it goes to the left, she will make her confession;, and that if it goes to the right, she will remain silent. And let us suppose that it is undetermined which way the pulse goes when it comes to the fork: even an omniscient being with a complete knowledge of the state of Jane’s brain and a complete knowledge of the laws of physics and unlimited powers of calculation could say no more than: ‘The laws and present state of her brain would allow the pulse to go either way; consequently, no prediction of what the pulse will do when it comes to the fork is possible; it might go to the left, and it might go to the right, and that’s all there is to be said.’ Now let us ask: does Jane have any choice about whether the pulse goes to the left or to the right? If we think about this question for a moment, we shall see that it is very hard to see how she could have any choice about that. …There is no way for her to make it go one way rather than the other. Or, at least, there is no way for her to make it go one way rather than the other and leave the ‘choice’ it makes an undetermined event.” [Van Inwagen]
So, Seversky, materialism offers neither comfort nor hope and it fails to ground rationality.Origenes
September 11, 2016
September
09
Sep
11
11
2016
10:37 PM
10
10
37
PM
PDT
I would add to Seversky's comment that a look at the wikipedia page on monotheism reveals a number of different monotheistic religions (including Hinduism, in that many Hindu's believe there are only different forms of the same god. Perhaps this is a similar concept to the trinity). But there are a range of others with only one god, including within Native American societies. I wonder how many of these are consistent with the evidence and logic.Pindi
September 11, 2016
September
09
Sep
11
11
2016
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT
Seversky,
I do not dispute that people have believed in a range of gods over the millennia and that there are significant differences between, say, the gods of the Greek or Roman pantheons and those of the monotheistic faiths that superseded them. But that does not affect the argument that adherents have believed wholeheartedly in a great number of religions that you and I now believe to be wrong so why should yours be any different?
I think I should briefly clarify my comments with respect to the above statement from you, since I think my original comment could be read as failing to acknowledge something you said. I do acknowledge that you say you recognize there are significant differences between the polytheistic gods and the monotheistic God. However, what you seem to fail to accept, in spite of your words, is that these differences really are significant in a meaningful sense and are not just trivia, but are connected to the potential truth value of these wildly and qualitatively different theistic systems.HeKS
September 11, 2016
September
09
Sep
11
11
2016
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
Seversky, WJM seems to adhere to a generic form of Ethical Monotheism. Judaism, Chritianity and Islam are more specified forms of Ethical Monotheism.
I do not dispute that people have believed in a range of gods over the millennia and that there are significant differences between, say, the gods of the Greek or Roman pantheons and those of the monotheistic faiths that superseded them. But that does not affect the argument that adherents have believed wholeheartedly in a great number of religions that you and I now believe to be wrong so why should yours be any different?
This is where a big part of your reasoning goes wrong. You seem to have this idea that if a god exists, we are left with thousands of essentially equivalent belief systems to choose from and no way to say which of these thousands, if any, might be true. This is not the case. There is very little similarity between Ethical Monotheism and the many various polytheistic belief systems. Theists are of the opinion that logical and philosophical arguments point necessarily to the existence of the God of Ethical Monotheism and that there is now considerable and powerful empirical evidence that is supportive of the premises of these arguments. The empirical evidence has also been acknowledged to be at least highly suggestive of the conclusions of the arguments even by many prominent life-long atheists and agnostics, some of whom have even felt forced by a commitment to intellectual honesty to abandon their atheism on the basis of this evidence, with Antony Flew being a high-profile example. A rational theism based on logic and evidence limits the range of options to only those that fall under the banner of Ethical Monotheism, and so once one decides that the God of Ethical Monotheism exists, there are really not very many options to choose from. Furthermore, even among these options, it's not really a matter of having to choose between complete opposites. Judaism and Christianity are closely related, and the Christian view of Judaism is not so much that it's wrong, per se, but that it is incomplete, missing a central piece of the picture, namely, Jesus. Christians find the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus compelling, and this serves for them as a confirmation of Christianity over Judaism. Islam, on the other hand, elevates another above Jesus, and this is a man who can hardly been seen as Jesus' moral equal, much less his better, nor is there the compelling evidence that serves to verify his claims about himself and his relationship with God. However, even setting aside this last bit about some specific differences between the options, the point is that a rational theism really has only very few options to choose from, and it is not a choice between complete opposites, but between some close similarities that vary on some key issues that are open to historical and moral investigation.HeKS
September 11, 2016
September
09
Sep
11
11
2016
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
William J Murray @ 110
Seversky said:
In the case of belief in a god being evidence for the truth of that belief, people have believed in many gods over the millennia. I assume that you believe that all but one of those faiths was false. I would ask what reason there is for believing your faith is true when all those others were false.
This is kind of statement that lends support to the view that atheists who argue here are more interested in reiterating a narrative than in engaging in true introspective, rational examination of their ideas. I’ve seen many variations of this same rhetorical, irrational “argument” many times, as if it hasn’t been rebutted many, many times.
The argument is restated frequently because, in my view at least, it is a perfectly rational default position. All faiths are making the positive claim that theirs is the one true version. The proper response - the atheist response - is to ask for reasons and evidence why anyone should accept such a claim. In other words, it's a simple burden of proof request. If a faith is unable to meet that burden then there is no reason to accept it. That's the basic idea of atheism. Quite obviously, atheism can never have the emotional appeal of a religious belief. It cannot offer comfort and support in times of personal crisis or tragedy, it cannot offer hope of life everlasting after this one. That's why I don't expect religion to disappear, regardless of what some other atheists hope, for as long human beings are as they are. But then, I never had any expectation that atheism would make me happy, just that it was a more rational position than the faiths of which I was aware.
First, just because people disagree on the nature of a thing doesn’t mean that thing doesn’t exist. Second, Seversky attampts to collect every concept of god together as if they are equivalent concepts; just because various group apply the same general term to many diverse concepts doesn’t mean all those diverse concepts are conceptually equivalent. A being lives in Mount Olympus throwing lightning bolts from the sky is an entirely different concept than a ground of existence, necessary first cause posited to also account for what science agrees is actual actual evidence – the fine tuning evidence. Anyone that tries to draw an equivalence between Zeus-category “gods” and the category of first cause, fine-tuning evidence god is either being intellectually dishonest or are just engaged in parroting rhetoric to support their ideological narrative.
I do not dispute that people have believed in a range of gods over the millennia and that there are significant differences between, say, the gods of the Greek or Roman pantheons and those of the monotheistic faiths that superseded them. But that does not affect the argument that adherents have believed wholeheartedly in a great number of religions that you and I now believe to be wrong so why should yours be any different?
Third, seversky should realize that when maknig a case for X, it is not my job to simultaneously make a case against any other or any previous view of X. That’s absurd. The argument about god here is not about the existence of Zeus or Ra or Shiva.
True, but there are problems with the concept of the Christian God just as there are with the others you mention.
Seversky said:
We don’t know how or why this universe began. We don’t know what, if anything, came before or even if it means anything to talk about what came before the beginning of time. We have an estimate of the improbability of this universe coming into existence as a random event, which can also be viewed as a measure of our ignorance, some people’s intuition that such a highly improbable event could only be the result of intelligent agency and what I would call a longing in many people for this to be evidence for the God they need to exist. Is that evidence for the existence of the Christian God? Not for me.
Again, we see her how Seversky is so committed to his narrative that he utterly fails to rationally examine and respond to the point being made. He is intent on reiterating that there are other ways of looking at the fine-tuning evidence and then attempts to characterize the motivation of those who interpret that evidence favorably towards a god as being the result of some “longing”. He seems to have already forgotten that many, many atheists and notable scientists have admitted that the fine-tuning evidence appears to indicate intelligence. The anti-theistic narrative shared by so many atheists that come here disallow admitting that there is evidence of god, and so it is covered up with terms like “mystery”, “ignorance”, “improbability”, and “manufactured by a religious longing”.
I don't deny that one possible explanation for the fine-tuning observation is that some sort of intelligent agent - a superintellect, if you like - was responsible. But, regardless of what we might hope, there is no good reason to assume this superintellect is the Christian or any other monotheistic deity. It might be something very different, something we cannot even imagine yet. And although science is having a hard time finding naturalistic accounts for the Big Bang and what, if anything, came before that may only speak to the paucity of human imagination not that such an account doesn't exist. There is also no denying that faiths have a strong emotional appeal. They are able to meet fundamental human emotional needs in a way that atheism simply can't. It doesn't make them necessarily wrong any more than it makes them right. Just because you have found a system of belief that makes you happy doesn't mean that it is necessarily true.
Seversky’s narrative is also so deeply involved with responding against Christians that he appears to have forgotten that the person he is responding to is not Christian.
Okay, if you say you are not Christian then I accept that. But your beliefs, insofar as you have described them, sound close enough to Christianity that I would be curious to know in what ways your system - shall we call it Murrayism - differs from orthodox Christianity?Seversky
September 11, 2016
September
09
Sep
11
11
2016
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
Pindi, Here is why I know for a fact that life didn't originate on its own. If you continue to believe that it did or could, here is the fist major issue you would have to tackle, IF, AND ONLY IF, YOUR WERE HONEST TO YOURSELF. You may or may not know that enzymes are needed to produce energy (ATP). However, the energy from ATP is ESSENTIAL to make the enzymes. But here is the kicker; DNA is absolutely essential to make enzymes, but enzymes absolutely can’t be made without DNA. It gets worst; Proteins can be made only by a full functioning cell, but a cell can’t be made without proteins... No way... So, please tell me how you got your mind around this issue because I've asked this very question and never received ANY RESPONSE from the so-called the most vocal Darwinists in the world, such as R. Dawkins, PZ. Myers, J. Coyne and many, many more... I even asked L. Moran just to close my list of possible suspects and the so called rising star of Darwinism Nick Mitzke but Mitzke has disappointed me more than others but that was expected... Unfortunately, I have never received any, none, responses. I would like to see your DIRECT OPINION on this issue since you obviously don't have any evidence just like the rest...J-Mac
September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
William J Murray, needless to say, since I quote you quite often, I greatly admire your logic. I also admire the way you follow the logic, and evidence, to the conclusion for God. That you live your life as a Theist because of the practical benefits is, IMHO, also to be admired. I also like the fact that you, a non-Christian, give atheists fits by making them face up to the internal contradictions of their arguments. Yet, despite the benefits of having a non-Christian so ably deconstruct the arguments of atheists on UD, I am with Harry and steveO in stressing the importance of, and hoping that you would turn your talents to, closely examining the claims of Christianity (i.e. G. Habermas - Minimal Facts, L. Strobel - Case for Christ, J. W. Wallace - Cold Case Christianity)
John 14: 1-2 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
Moreover, since you are apt with logic WJM, and as Godel himself pointed out, there is nothing logically inconsistent with God 'playing the role of a person':
The God of the Mathematicians - Goldman Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” - Kurt Gödel - (Gödel, a contemporary and close friend to Einstein, is considered one of the greatest mathematicians/logicians who ever existed) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/08/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
And when one allows God to 'play the role of a person' then an empirically backed reconciliation between Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the quote unquote 'Theory of Everything' readily pops out for us in the resurrection of Christ from death:
(Centrality Concerns) The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Death as the “Theory of Everything” – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uHST2uFPQY&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5&index=4 Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram https://youtu.be/F-TL4QOCiis Special Relativity and General Relativity compared to Heavenly and Hellish Near Death Experiences – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbKELVHcvSI&list=PLtAP1KN7ahia8hmDlCYEKifQ8n65oNpQ5&index=1
Verse:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
bornagain77
September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
Well, Harry, if it helps any, I pray every waking hour, every day in deep gratitude for the life I have now for god to do with me as it wishes and imbue in my mind and thoughts with whatever it deems best. Practically speaking, I've developed this mental habit over the course of years of personal experimentation and this heartfelt, grateful invitation seems to produce the best results.William J Murray
September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
WJM @113
I believe what I believe because of the practical value such beliefs have in generating the kind of life I want to live and being the kind of person I want to be.
To the extent that the person you wanted to be and the actions you took in pursuit of that coincided with objective truth things have worked out well for you. It gets much better when you pursue that which the personification of Truth wants you to be.harry
September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
WJM @113 Thanks for your response. I would very much like to read one day a gifted thinker such as yourself articulate the practical, logical and life-changing implications of a topic such as the resurrection of Jesus. I guess there's no harm in hoping!steveO
September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT
steveO @112: I've never read the New Testament (or the Old, for that matter) nor have I spent much time examining the Christian views that differentiate it from classical theism, so I'm not in a position to offer any opinions about the New Testament one way or another. I find most of the arguments made here by several Christian authors to be very sound arguments, logically speaking, and on many subjects they are pretty much identical to my own. However, as I have said above, I don't hold beliefs based on whether or not I consider them logically sound or whether or not I consider what they refer to to be true. That most of my beliefs can be so argued (logically) is really more or less just a coincidence. I believe what I believe because of the practical value such beliefs have in generating the kind of life I want to live and being the kind of person I want to be. It may be that Christian beliefs would also generate this outcome, but right now I don't have much reason to look into it. Looking over Christians I know, it seems to me that Christianity does a good job of providing a good, satisfying life to its followers, albeit that may not be particularly what they are hoping to accomplish through their beliefs. If one carefully examines the nature of my arguments, they could see this logical pragmatism guiding how I present an argument and what cases I try to make. I don't argue that a proposition is true, but rather that it is logical and practical to believe that it is (act and think as if it is). I don't argue that atheism and subjective morality are factually false, but rather that there are good logical and practical reasons to believe otherwise. That I know of, there is no practical reason nor logical justification for atheism.William J Murray
September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
WJM Thank you for providing so many great posts in this and other threads. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think you wrote elsewhere that you are not a Christian. Is it possible for you share some of the reasons why, in your thinking, you cannot accept the New Testament as truth?steveO
September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
Dionisio, I appreciate the manner and lengths you go to in order to understood what is being said. My beliefs are quite idiosyncratic and I imagine quite open to misinterpretation. This would be the better way of saying what I meant: “Would I rather choose my beliefs according to their apparent proximity to truth, or would I rather choose my beliefs according to their apparent capacity to promote my happiness and satisfaction?“ Up until that point I had thought them to be the same thing. (Also, up until that point I didn't realize I could choose my beliefs.) When I realized my search for "truth" was not gaining me any happiness and satisfaction, but indeed leading me away from it, I realized they were two different questions. At that point I didn't care what was true anymore, I just wanted relief from my existential misery. I realized there was only one kind of belief that could possibly save me from the despair of atheistic nihilism and only one kind of belief that could possibly lay the groundwork for "goodness" being a meaningful value and where a life could have real value which could translate into satisfaction. As Hub (Robert Duvall) said in the movie Secondhand Lions:
Sometimes the things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. That people are basically good; that honor, courage, and virtue mean everything; that power and money, money and power mean nothing; that good always triumphs over evil; and I want you to remember this, that love... true love never dies. You remember that, boy. You remember that. Doesn't matter if it's true or not. You see, a man should believe in those things, because those are the things worth believing in.
I argue that god, free will and objective morality are also things worth believing in, or else none of the rest really matters.William J Murray
September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT
Seversky said:
In the case of belief in a god being evidence for the truth of that belief, people have believed in many gods over the millennia. I assume that you believe that all but one of those faiths was false. I would ask what reason there is for believing your faith is true when all those others were false.
This is kind of statement that lends support to the view that atheists who argue here are more interested in reiterating a narrative than in engaging in true introspective, rational examination of their ideas. I've seen many variations of this same rhetorical, irrational "argument" many times, as if it hasn't been rebutted many, many times. First, just because people disagree on the nature of a thing doesn't mean that thing doesn't exist. Second, Seversky attampts to collect every concept of god together as if they are equivalent concepts; just because various group apply the same general term to many diverse concepts doesn't mean all those diverse concepts are conceptually equivalent. A being lives in Mount Olympus throwing lightning bolts from the sky is an entirely different concept than a ground of existence, necessary first cause posited to also account for what science agrees is actual actual evidence - the fine tuning evidence. Anyone that tries to draw an equivalence between Zeus-category "gods" and the category of first cause, fine-tuning evidence god is either being intellectually dishonest or are just engaged in parroting rhetoric to support their ideological narrative. Third, seversky should realize that when maknig a case for X, it is not my job to simultaneously make a case against any other or any previous view of X. That's absurd. The argument about god here is not about the existence of Zeus or Ra or Shiva. Seversky said:
We don’t know how or why this universe began. We don’t know what, if anything, came before or even if it means anything to talk about what came before the beginning of time. We have an estimate of the improbability of this universe coming into existence as a random event, which can also be viewed as a measure of our ignorance, some people’s intuition that such a highly improbable event could only be the result of intelligent agency and what I would call a longing in many people for this to be evidence for the God they need to exist. Is that evidence for the existence of the Christian God? Not for me.
Again, we see her how Seversky is so committed to his narrative that he utterly fails to rationally examine and respond to the point being made. He is intent on reiterating that there are other ways of looking at the fine-tuning evidence and then attempts to characterize the motivation of those who interpret that evidence favorably towards a god as being the result of some "longing". He seems to have already forgotten that many, many atheists and notable scientists have admitted that the fine-tuning evidence appears to indicate intelligence. The anti-theistic narrative shared by so many atheists that come here disallow admitting that there is evidence of god, and so it is covered up with terms like "mystery", "ignorance", "improbability", and "manufactured by a religious longing". Seversky's narrative is also so deeply involved with responding against Christians that he appears to have forgotten that the person he is responding to is not Christian. Seversky said:
No one is denying that there is a profound mystery about how and why the universe began and the origin of the laws by which it is governed, a mystery which demands an explanation. But acknowledging the mystery and trying to conjecture possible explanations is not the same as saying that the Christian God is the one and only true explanation.
I'm not a Christian, Seversky. I'm not making an argument for a Christian god. Whether or not the evidence indicates the Christian god or not is irrelevant. You keep using the term "mystery" instead of simply admitting that many notable atheist scientists have flatly admitted that the fine-tuning evidence appears to indicate that some kind of intelligence set the universal constants up in a very particular manner. That is what the "mystery" is, Seversky, and why it requires an explanation in the first place - because they appear to have been set by some super-intellect that created the universe. Contrary to your Christianity-entwined narrative, of course the fine-tuning evidence suggests that the constants of the universe were purposesly set by some kind of superintellect or else there would be no mystery that required explanation by atheist scientists. No, it doesn't prove anything, but to claim it doesn't even suggest it is an absurd obeyance to an ideological narrative.William J Murray
September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
WJM, Here's something for you to laugh about, if you want to. :) I want to understand your interesting comments well. Sometimes typographical errors or even missing words go undetected by publishing editors and their proofreading personnel. Then the final reader may encounter problems understanding the text accurately. Fortunately, in most cases the meaning of the affected text remains unchanged. Many times I read text -written by serious thinkers like you, KF and other prolific authors in this blog- very carefully in order to understand the meaning as accurately as I can, but also to enrich my knowledge of the given language (English in this case, but the same approach applies to other languages). Thus I may look for new vocabulary, idiomatic expressions, interesting grammar or semantic structures, etc. in order to improve my poor writing skills. On top of all that, my reading comprehension level is rather low (to say it nicely). It takes me much longer than it would take the average readers to read any text in any language. It's an issue I've had since I've been a student. Definitely it makes the learning process much more difficult and slower. The situation gets even worse in verbal communication, where I don't have the time to process the information at my own pace, but have to respond right away. That's one reason why I prefer the written communication and the videos where I can repeat any segment of the recorded presentations or classes as many times as I may require it. Recently I watched two interesting courses on Systems Biology recorded in video format. One by professor Uri Alon from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel. Another by professor Jeff Gore from MIT in Massachusetts (USA). Had I been physically present in the classrooms when those courses were imparted, I would have missed most of what the professors explained, even assuming the same prior knowledge I had when I watched the recorded classes. However, since I had the videos, I repeated different segments over and over again, so many times, that you would laugh just trying to imagine the scene I'm describing. But that approach allowed me to write down notes and to search for terms before continuing to following segments of the class. Basically I had the professors under my control, repeating anything they said or wrote on the boards as many times as I wanted. Otherwise I could not have done it. All the above said, I should remember that discussion threads, text messages (SMS), online chats, are more tolerant environments for communication, in the sense that many written inaccuracies are acceptable. Hence most of my observations here may not be relevant to most readers. Now, after the above introductory digression, let's go back to your comments. For example, you wrote @98:
“Would I rather be right about what I believed, or would I rather my beliefs make me happy?
Would it be correct to rewrite it this other way too?
“Would I rather be right about what I believed, or would I rather have my beliefs make me happy?"
Or this way?
“Would I rather be right about what I believed, or would I rather let my beliefs make me happy?"
Note the inserted words 'have' or 'let' and the double quote character (") appended after the question mark. Thank you.Dionisio
September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT
Seversky and other atheists why don't you read @52 by William. Notice how following logic we can come to powerful conclusion. Use that as a guidance to build an argument for atheism. Maybe that would turn every theist here into atheist. It's worth a try.Eugen
September 9, 2016
September
09
Sep
9
09
2016
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT
William J Murray @ 69
Seversky said @6:
It’s very simple. It’s no canard. If you want to nitpick, there is evidence that people believe a God exists. That is evidence of belief only. It’s not evidence for the existence of God.
Seversky said @65:
I don’t deny there can be evidence for a hypothesis of God but there are those of us who find the evidence adduced for that hypothesis by believers as less than compelling.
I can’t quite reconcile these two statements. Is there no evidence for the existence of god, or is the evidence that some people point to something you personally find “less than compelling”?
What some people point to as evidence for the existence of the Christian God or any other god I find less than compelling. In the case of belief in a god being evidence for the truth of that belief, people have believed in many gods over the millennia. I assume that you believe that all but one of those faiths was false. I would ask what reason there is for believing your faith is true when all those others were false.
There is nothing in the mystery to suggest intentionality in spite of Hoyle’s – and others – sense that the whole thing looks “rigged”
If there is nothing to suggest it, why then did Hoyle and others see the evidence exactly that way? Why did that evidence convince atheist Anthony Flew that atheism was wrong? Don’t you think that it is just slightly hyperbolic and ideologically obstinant to assert that there is nothing in the fine-tuning evidence that would suggest that the constants and forces of the universe had be purposefully set by a superintellect?
We don't know how or why this universe began. We don't know what, if anything, came before or even if it means anything to talk about what came before the beginning of time. We have an estimate of the improbability of this universe coming into existence as a random event, which can also be viewed as a measure of our ignorance, some people's intuition that such a highly improbable event could only be the result of intelligent agency and what I would call a longing in many people for this to be evidence for the God they need to exist. Is that evidence for the existence of the Christian God? Not for me.
If there is nothing to suggest it, why then did Hoyle and others see the evidence exactly that way? Why did that evidence convince atheist Anthony Flew that atheism was wrong? Don’t you think that it is just slightly hyperbolic and ideologically obstinant to assert that there is nothing in the fine-tuning evidence that would suggest that the constants and forces of the universe had be purposefully set by a superintellect? I mean, if there is nothign to suggest it, why invoke a multiverse to account for that fine-tuning? Why did Hawking essentially write a book expressly to hypothesize a means of getting that fine-tuning without an intentional agency if there was nothing in the evidence that even suggested an intentional agency in the first place?
And it is your contention that Hawking is what, seeing indications where none exist to suggest deliberate fine-tuning to a reasonable person, and so his book was a waste of time because there was nothing there in the first place that warranted some kind of explanation?
No one is denying that there is a profound mystery about how and why the universe began and the origin of the laws by which it is governed, a mystery which demands an explanation. But acknowledging the mystery and trying to conjecture possible explanations is not the same as saying that the Christian God is the one and only true explanation.Seversky
September 8, 2016
September
09
Sep
8
08
2016
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
Simplistic? Admittedly, but... We bought my 3 year old granddaughter (GD) a battery powered standing Elmo toy that blows bubbles, but didn't have the right tool to install the battery, so, my daughter, her mother, put it on a high shelf so it would last at least until we could try it once. My GD saw the toy up high, and said: "Mommy put the toy on the shelf." My son countered: "Maybe it climbed up there itself?", and GD laughed. I pushed the point and asked her how she knew it didn't climb there itself, and she responded something like: "It's not reaaaallll!" So it's obvious to a 3 yr old that things don't "just happen" w/o a cause. Imagine this had been caught on video, I imagine someday, after a "transition" from this world, someone who didn't think there was a creator might be asked why they didn't think so. Prior to their launching into all their sophisticated "logical arguments", they would be shown the video, which would be followed by intense embarrassment and then utter silence. In reality, however, I sense that the embarrassment would be instantaneous upon "transition", and no video required.es58
September 8, 2016
September
09
Sep
8
08
2016
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
William J. Murray and Kairosfocus: Excellent points throughout this thread. Thank you.Truth Will Set You Free
September 8, 2016
September
09
Sep
8
08
2016
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
HeKS @ 28
So, contrary to Seversky’s silly claim that the origin of the universe (along with space, time, matter, energy and the physical laws) only suggests God’s existence to foolish theists, people of all stripes (theist, atheist and agnostic) have recognized the strong theistic implications right from day one and it is for that very reason that it was so strongly opposed for so long and so slowly and grudgingly accepted in spite of the strong confirming evidence (which included but was not limited to the observed expansion).
I'm not denying that scientists and others have been so impressed by these findings that they're prepared to at least consider the possibility that some sort of intelligent agency is behind it all. That's a far cry from believing that the Christian God is that intelligent agent. And there are a lot of scientists and others who don't find that claim persuasive at all.
Attempts by people like Seversky to wave off this scientific finding as irrelevant to the question of God’s existence are silly, transparent and utterly ahistorical. Someone may choose to search for some non-theistic escape hatch or to simply commit to an eternal self-imposed ignorance on the possible cause of the universe’s origin while refusing to consider the implications of our current data and knowledge, but to doggedly assert in the face of the facts and history that it does not count as legitimate evidence that is strongly suggestive of God’s existence is foolhardy and merely serves as an indicator that the person speaking is violently committed to a self-serving atheism-affirming narrative that wants to see religious people as bumbling and gullible faithheads who believe silly things for no reason
Why should anyone who is secure in their faith care in the slightest what science can or cannot prove or that there are those who do not share their beliefs?Seversky
September 8, 2016
September
09
Sep
8
08
2016
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
harry @96 Yes. That's it.Dionisio
September 8, 2016
September
09
Sep
8
08
2016
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
KF @95 Ok. Thank you. I think one of the main proponents of the third way of evolution along with Dr. Shapiro is a Russian scientist with that name Evgeny, though I'm not 100% sure about this.Dionisio
September 8, 2016
September
09
Sep
8
08
2016
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
WJM, Thank you for the insightful comments. I appreciate it.Dionisio
September 8, 2016
September
09
Sep
8
08
2016
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
Thank you WJM.bb
September 8, 2016
September
09
Sep
8
08
2016
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT
Dionisio @92 asks:
believe in god? What’s that? What do you mean by ‘god’? What do you mean by ‘believe’ within this given context?
For me, God = foundation of existence, creator of the universe, source of good/morality/ultimate purpose, source of logic & math, source of free will and consciousness/intelligence, source of love. For me, "believe" means "to think and act as if true".William J Murray
September 8, 2016
September
09
Sep
8
08
2016
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
Dionisio asks @91:
How did you realize it? Did you always want it? Why did you want it? [1] and [2]?
Well, I'm an extremely self-critical person when it comes to examining my own beliefs and assumptions. After spending years as an atheist and following the logic down to sociopathic nihilism (and, unfortunately, spending time actually acting as if atheistic materialism was true), I understood that, even if true, there was simply no reason to be an atheist. If atheism was true, I could believe whatever I wanted to believe and it didn't make any difference at all as long as what I believed was useful. Atheistic beliefs did not make me happy, did not motivate me, and like other atheist philosophers brought me to the point where suicide seemed a good option. For weeks I contemplated my situation philosophically and asked myself, "Would I rather be right about what I believed, or would I rather my beliefs make me happy? I realized I was operating under an assumption that I didn't even know I was operating under; that knowing the truth and being right about what life and existence was about would somehow make me happy or satisfied. However, the supposed "truth" of my atheistic materialism at the time didn't make me happy or satisfied at all; in fact, it made me miserable and empty. So I asked myself, what existential assumptions, if true, would make me happy just to consider them true arguendo? The thought that there is a god worth believing in that created all of this, a meaningful purpose to my existence, a plan our world and our lives serve and that these things are rooted in love and goodness - that idea at that time (and still to this day) overwhelmed me with joy, hope and love. It was at that point I made the decision to believe in god and set upon a path to develop that belief. The apparent effect of that decision on my life ever since is indescribable. I am a completely transformed person living a completely transformed life. So I suppose the reason I wanted it was because I just wanted to be happy and satisfied, and my best prediction at the time (after finding out atheism/materialism wasn't going to provide it) was that a rationally, spiritually and emotionally fulfilling theism was what it was going take to achieve satisfaction and happiness. I had no idea how profound or deep such things could be, though. I chose well.William J Murray
September 8, 2016
September
09
Sep
8
08
2016
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
Dionisio asks @90:
Do you know why [1] and [2]?
I don't know, I can only offer an opinion based on personal experience as an atheist and based on observation. It has been my experience that a certain kind of person is attracted to interaction in venues like this or other such arenas where they can conflict with theists. They are short on logical argument and often long on hyperbole, invective and ridicule. it often appears their real intent is just to snipe or to appear to be "the calm, cool collected one" that scores gotcha points in a passive-aggressive manner. They are demonstrably not committing themselves to any introspective analysis whatsoever as evidenced by their "never make a concession" demeanor. IMO, they do this because they think theists are an easy road upon which they can drive a narrative that strokes a need in them to feel more intelligent than "the masses" whom they probably look down upon with disdain in order to prop up a poor sense of self worth or sense of inferiority. To be fair, I think this psychology drives a majority of people in all walks of life, including many theists, pertaining to all subjects. People find ways to feed narratives to feel good about themselves. They aren't interested in critiquing the beliefs and assumptions that drive the narrative; they're here to defend and support that narrative. Otherwise, they'd be engaging in discussion in a very different way and wouldn't engage in the drive-by snide commentary which you have linked to several times and then refuse to simply admit to it.William J Murray
September 8, 2016
September
09
Sep
8
08
2016
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply