At Stand to Reason, Tim Barnett reminds us of an argument against fine-tuning of the universe Douglas Adams (1952–2001) offers in one of the Hitchhiker books (he Salmon of Doubt: Hitchhiking the Galaxy One Last Time):
This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!” This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.
Barnett responds:
In the puddle analogy, the puddle—Doug—can exist in any hole. That’s how puddles work. The shape of the hole is irrelevant to the existence of the puddle. If you change the shape of the hole, the shape of the puddle changes, but you always get a puddle.
The problem is, life doesn’t work like that. Life cannot exist in any universe. The evidence from fine-tuning shows that a life-permitting universe is extremely rare. If you change certain conditions of the universe, you cannot get life anywhere in the universe. For instance, slightly increase the mass of the electron or the up quark, and get a universe with nothing but neutrons. No stars. No planets. No chemistry. No life.
Tim Barnett, “Why the Puddle Analogy Fails against Fine-Tuning” at Stand to Reason (April 22, 2021)
It’s a good argument. But in reality, any argument against fine-tuning will be accepted, whether it makes sense or not. It is only the defenders of a rational universe who need to make sense. And that’s not for the other guy; it’s for you.
See also: What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?
That Doug attempts to utilize a simplistic analogy to arm wave away fine-tuning just shows how far away his meat brain is from science.
Andrew
The original fine-tuning argument was derived from the observation that, if the values of certain fundamental physical constants fluctuated by even a small amount from their measured values, this Universe would not exist. As I remember, there was an intriguing Australian TV sci-fi mini-series based on the premise that one of those constants was beginning to change.
The problem is that creationists made the unwarranted leap to the claim that this is evidence that this Universe must have been made especially for us, completely ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of the observed Universe is implacably hostile to human life.
Adams’s “puddle” analogy was simply making that point, that we might be wrong thinking this was all created just for us.
The puddle argument is irrelevant to probablistic arguments around fine tuning and natural selection. That a puddle fits it’s hole is true by definition. The probability is 1. There are no odds to surmount.
To have a liquid fit a puddle, no matter how complex its dimensions, requires only two very simple things:
1-it has to be at least somewhat fluid but the viscosity can vary a lot
2-there has to be gravity sufficient to overcome the viscosity
Contrast this with the fine-tuning requirements for intelligent life:
1-a large number of variables have to be tuned
2-the tuning has to be extremely precise
In other words, the puddle analogy fails miserably as a counterargument.
What are fundamentally childish argument
Life conforms to its environment is the whole message
Here’s one for you the puddle wakes up in the morning “wow the world fits me perfectly it’s so perfect it must be made for me”
Wow that means everybody that the lease and intelligent design is just being Ignorant
And then reality kicks in
And the puddle looks up into the sky and stares at the sun which is is just a few degrees to hot. The puddle is evaporated by the unrelenting sun and Ceases to exist
Guess things had to be just right after all
Folks, once water is in a depression, it will by mechanical necessity flow to fill the shape. So, this is a case of knocking over a strawman. Now consider a puddle in which the water spells out “puddle” in a cursive script, so the letters are joined together. That would be a different story. KF
I think people are reading far too much into this. Adam’s five part trilogy is just an entertaining story of the ridiculous, in the same vein as Monty Python’s Holy Grail or Life of Brian.
He is probably laughing from the grave over the fact that people are taking his little asides in the story as serious arguments.
I think Life of Brian is one of the funniest movies I have ever seen and, yes, Adams’s humor was based in an appreciation of the ridiculous. And for a species of ape to come into existence 13.8 bn years after the Universe was created and immediately assume that the whole thing was created just for them is pretty ridiculous if you think about it.
I loved Life of Brian as well. The part I like the best is when Brian yells to the crowd that they are all individuals, and the crowd responds in unison “We are all individuals.”
AaronS
I had a debate with an atheist once and he brought up the puddle argument. His atheist buddies all loved that Douglas Adams book also. These guys are (supposedly) grown men and they were giggling like little girls about it. Adams is a “genius” – and the puddle argument is “brilliant” etc.
Childish is the right word for it.
I try not to laugh at atheists. I find them to be tragic figures, totally lost with no direction, no purpose — no reason to even mature and work on virtue or have a reason to take responsibility or a higher role. Jordan Peterson has some devastating commentary about that very thing.
Seversky
You describe yourself as a “species of ape” who came from nothing and will end in nothing. There’s not much value there.
But no – you are loved by God, and have received transcendent gifts – spiritually and intellectually. You have infinite value. You’re capable of loving others, making sacrifices and contributing great things – and very capable of finding God, happiness and the fullness of life. You have unspeakable value because you were created in the image of God and called to friendship with Him and to purify your soul, live in virtue and change the world for the better.
The atheist argument against that is that you’re worthless.
Why not try looking at yourself from a different perspective?
SA says, “I try not to laugh at atheists. I find them to be tragic figures, totally lost with no direction, no purpose — no reason to even mature and work on virtue or have a reason to take responsibility or a higher role.”
Over on another thread, WJM wrote, in a discussion about the downside of labelling people, “It’s really hard to understand and properly respond to any individual perspective or argument; it’s much easer to just label them X and trot out all the old arguments against X.”
I then replied, “There are certainly ample examples of this here at times.”
Case in point.
Viola Lee
Just wondering – are you male or female? “Viola” has a female sound to it, but would help to know. Thanks.
SA
Just wondering – why does it matter? Why are labelling individuals so important? Are you suggesting that the opinions of women aren’t as important?
Paige
I try to be respectful of the labels that people give to themselves. So, it’s important to know them.
If people didn’t tell me if they were male or female in these discussions, how would I be able to draw any conclusion about your question?
Yes, I also want to know why it makes a difference, for me or Paige? One of the features, for better or for worse, of internet forums is the anonymity that most posters prefer because, among other reasons, it reduces the number of preconceptions that are brought into a discussion.
Ok, I understand.
As a rule, I don’t argue with women. I was taught that is not what a gentleman should do.
But SA, now that you think it is important, are you male or female? Based on your nom du plume, are you Asian? Japanese? Chinese? Thai? Korean? Indian?
Male – mixture of ethnicities
You both sound like women to me. Viola argues like a woman, and Paige certainly seems like one now.
I’m done with this topic
SA
Well, I just have to ask. How does a woman argue differently than a man? And how does a woman “seem” like a woman on a blog? Are we emotional? Are we “bitchy”? Are women irrational?
Wow!
SA, you write, “Ok, I understand. As a rule, I don’t argue with women. I was taught that is not what a gentleman should do.”
Do you discuss things with women, as opposed to argue? Or do you think that women just don’t belong at the table in intellectual discussions? And what is it about my posts here that makes you think I “argue like a woman.” Perhaps Seversky is a woman? Should you be concerned about that, or, does he argue enough like a man, and has a gender-neutral name, that you aren’t concerned about him?
I’d certainly be interested to hear more.
The viola is a musical instrument, and Lee is a gender-neutral name, so maybe I’m a non-binary viola player? 🙂
VL
Seversky self-identifies as a species of ape who came from nowhere and is ultimately going nowhere.
As I mentioned before, I find that a tragic and sad way to view oneself, but without God who loves us, created us for a good reason and wants us to fulfill a real destiny — that’s really all one can say. Just some chemistry that accidentally formed self-replicating molecules – an assemblage of cells, lucky enough to be descendants of apes. So, that’s pretty good, I guess. Calling oneself “a man” or “a woman” is actually giving more dignity to that view than it deserves. There’s really no personhood there. To say that someone is “a woman” (or a man) is to impart quite a lot of value and significance. But if the worldview holds that the organism came from nothing and will return to nothing – then that term of significance is misplaced.
I don’t accept that view, so I would refer to Seversky as a man. He has the potential to be a very great man in the eyes of God – we never know what changes can take place. The last will be first and the first last. Those we thought to be in some way diminished (by bad philosophy) can rise up to greatness in the Kingdom of Heaven.
That’s what I hope and pray for.
SA, with respect (but most likely, not) that is a bunch of BS. Are the points made by Viola and myself afforded any different worth based of gender? Wasn’t there a recent discussion on the danger of assigning labels to individuals?
Maybe it wasn’t done intentionally, but your statements about gender are extremely offensive given the nature of the discussions. The fact that you are oblivious to this is very informative.
VL
I played the violin, viola and cello in high school. Very challenging instruments.
Paige
I didn’t intend them as such, but I apologize for how it came across.
SA
Apology accepted. But do you realize how you came across?
SA. I have seen other places where you have shown yourself to be a thoughtful and civil participant in discussions, including me even though the subject of gender never came up. But I’m going to object to your statement (and this is really a general irritant to me) that “I didn’t intend them as such, but I apologize for how it came across.”
I don’t see that statement as an apology (a friend of mine once coined, I think, the term notpology) because it basically shifts the blame to the person being offended. Saying simply, “I didn’t intend them as such, but I apologize” would be better.
Umm, that claim is warranted to the Creationists via the Bible. And the fact that the rest of the universe is inhospitable to life (it isn’t) just makes our existence that much more remarkable, to those Creationists.
The Hitchhiker series was brilliant. The quote in the OP is as serious as his flying dolphins How many of you have tried to fly by throwing yourself at the ground and trying to miss? 🙂
The Bug Blatter Beast of Traal is one of my favorites. If it attacks, you put your hands over your eyes, because it is so dumb it thinks that if you can’t see it, it can’t see you! 🙂
Silver Asiatic/17
I neither know nor particularly care whether Viola Lee or Paige are male or female and I was raised to believe that a gentleman treated everyone with due respect, regardless of sex, ethnicity, political ideology or faith.
Seversky: The problem is that creationists made the unwarranted leap to the claim that this is evidence that this Universe must have been made especially for us, completely ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of the observed Universe is implacably hostile to human life.
“Completely ignoring”? Huh? Have you done a poll? I don’t know anyone who ignores that fact that most of universe as we understand it is hostile to life. Life on earth is (apparently) rare and special with a myriad of tightly constrained variables that determine life’s existence.
At any rate, 99% of the Linux kernel has nothing directly to do with the user interface. Does that mean the Linux kernel is irrelevant to the user interface? Of course not. The universe at large can be (partially) considered to be an element generator. Several generations of stars led to an abundance of higher weighted elements to complete what we call the Periodic Table of Elements.
You can learn about that here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIF6X4dGp40
You might want to read Privileged Planet and reconsider whether or not your statement above is a good argument.
https://www.amazon.com/Privileged-Planet-Cosmos-Designed-Discovery/dp/0895260654
Silver Asiatic/11
That depends on who’s doing the valuing.
Isn’t value – like beauty – in the eye of the beholder? An atheist could argue that, if this is the only brief span of life we get, then it should be valued on the basis of that rarity and be lived on that understanding. For Christians, who believe in a much better life after this one, shouldn’t they be moving on from here just as fast as they can?
Some may be so blessed but there are also many whose lives are filled with such hardship and suffering that they are entitled to believe that God’s love is notable by its absence.
Not quite, the atheist position is to ask why should our value or worth only be that which some other being judges us to have? Why not what we think of ourselves?
Karen McMannus/34
So I understand but none of that means that this whole Universe was created just for us.
If we eventually find that we are the only life in this galaxy and nearby galaxies then there would be a case for asking why we are the only life here. Maybe we are special. On the other hand, if we eventually find life on other worlds, even if it’s not very common, then the case for us being a special or favored life-form becomes a lot harder to make.
F/N: Thread is off track and open to the sort of agit prop “woke-ist” stratagems discussed here. I suggest a return to substance. We can take it that the puddle anti-fine tuning argument has failed, hence distractions. Distractions do not answer to the merits on fact and logic. KF
Sev, the point is more basic, without fine tuning starting with Hoyle’s resonance enabling the C & O abundance, we would not have a cosmos that generates the span and relative abundance of elements that are foundational to C-chem, aqueous medium, terrestrial planet, Galactic habitable zone, cell based life. Without that locally fine tuned operating point, we would not be here. Note, our operating point leads to H, He, O and C as first four elements, with N close by in our galaxy: Stars, gateway to the rest of the periodic table, Water, Organic Chem, Proteins. That is yet another suspiciously design-like pattern. KF
The issue about whether Paige or myself is a woman or a man is minor. I am much more bothered by this that SA wrote:
We’ve been discussing worldviews. One of the things I’ve advocated for is making a genuine effort to understand other worldviews, in part in the interest of reducing some of the divisiveness we have in the world. What good is there in just lumping large numbers of people into a group based on a label, and considered them all tragic, lost, etc. What kind of an attitude towards fellow human beings is that?
I am an atheist, but not a materialist, and I find SA’s attitude towards me about that considerably more off-putting than his attitude would be if he knew I was a woman (which he doesn’t, although he thinks I argue like a woman, whatever that means).
I am certainly not lost, with no direction. I am certainly mature in multiple ways, including working on virtue and taking responsibility for what I see are higher roles. On another thread (they have all gotten jumbled together) we discussed the following question: if two people agree about a judgment or action, does it make any difference whether our rationalizations for those actions ae based on different worldviews?
How are we all to live together if people like SA dismiss people like me as he did because I see the world differently than he does, based on a label and with very little knowledge of who I am as a person.
Seversky @36,
To clarify, I wasn’t addressing the “especially for us” claim of creationists, as you put it. I’m addressing what you wrote after the comma: “completely ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of the observed Universe is implacably hostile to human life”, as if this is an argument against the “especially for us” claim. It isn’t. It’s a valid question, but it’s not an argument.
A side note: we don’t know whether all the people here with masculine names are men. Sometimes women, I’ve been told, take masculine names on internet forums on the grounds that they will be taken more seriously, as equals to the men, rather than be subjected to some of the negative stereotypical attitudes towards women and intellectual activity.
Strictly, I think (as a former violist) it should be viewed as a non-musical instrument. To be played by people not good enough to play the violin.
Viola
“maybe I’m a non-binary viola player?”
Maybe, but your certainly XX ie a biological female
Vivid
Viola
. “I am much more bothered by this that SA wrote:
“I try not to laugh at atheists. I find them to be tragic figures, totally lost with no direction, no purpose — no reason to even mature and work on virtue or have a reason to take responsibility or a higher role”
That’s not my perception as well. Honestly I have a great deal of respect for atheists even though I myself am a Christian. If I was not a Christian I would become an atheist. I find that they have very strong arguments.
One of the toughest ones (not thee toughest nor an argument I got from an atheist)for me is why God created man and thus ushered in by that choice the resulting unimaginable atrocities,suffering, etc, what’s the point?
Vivid
Vivid, the ability to think freely, warrant through right reason prudently applied, choose wisely and especially to love [thus, to be virtuous, just, fair, caring, humble, servant-minded etc] depend on opening up a space beyond the dynamic-stochastic and computational. That is, the answer is that the terrible, awesome gift of freedom opens up a world of good but — and, oh, what a but — freedom cannot be free if it is not actually free. Which means, that we are free to abuse, warp, pervert the gifts of freedom. Hence, evil not mere calamity. KF
VL, much more to the point, evolutionary materialistic scientism definitely undermines meaningfulness including genuine vision and purpose. I guess it takes a Provine to put it bluntly, drawing it out of the shadows of throwing the spotlight on Big-S Science:
Heine, the great German writer, saw this even before Darwin wrote, and prophesied . . . with shocking accuracy . . . where the great rebellion against the legacy of the Christian synthesis at the root of our civilisation as we know it, would lead, c 1830:
Much more can be said. For the moment, let us just note that it is not for nothing, from nowhere, with no ideas root that nihilism, sociopathic radicalism, lawless ideologies seeking to domineer, demonic perversities, deep despair and worse haunt our age.
KF
PS: Evolutionary materialistic scientism lies at the heart of modern atheism. Yes there are or can be atheists of other stripes but that is the centre of gravity.
Vividbleau: One of the toughest ones (not thee toughest nor an argument I got from an atheist) for me is why God created man and thus ushered in by that choice the resulting unimaginable atrocities, suffering, etc, what’s the point?
And what conclusion did you come to?
F/N: Regarding, “an atheist, but not a materialist” and “Isn’t value – like beauty – in the eye of the beholder? An atheist could argue that, if this is the only brief span of life we get, then it should be valued on the basis of that rarity and be lived on that understanding” as well as shouldn’t Christians more or less kill themselves.
1: Suicide is self-murder, the ultimate rejection of being made in God’s image and a strong sign of despair rooted in one who cometh but to steal, kill and destroy.
2: Likewise, reckless, self-centred, short-sighted living is the opposite of the Spirit of Christ.
3: Where, this is a world of transformative service, guided by truth and powered by grace.
4: Subjectivity, of course, is not the opposite of objectivity, and our sense of dignity, worth, value and vision all point to sehnsucht, Lewis’ Joy that echoes and points to a world beyond this one. Joy is the very serious business of Heaven.
5: Beauty of course impacts the beholder, but is in fact the capital example of the valuable that has strong objective principles that we may learn to recognise and appreciate. So, no, beauty and value do not lie merely in the eye of the beholder. A theme that extends to ethical value.
6: There is a reason why justice, truth and beauty come together and positively vibrate with and radiate sehnsucht. They point to ultimate fulfillment beyond this age of the soul-test of life.
7: Now, of course, there are non-materialistic forms of atheism, e.g. some forms of Buddhism, some forms of magical worldviews, forms of panpsychism, and the like, some of which pose ideals for moral life. But, nowadays, given the use of negative definitions, disbelief in God is often expressed as skeptical non-belief that shuts the door on evidence that warrants acknowledging God.
8: Atheism, in short — and this is meant to balance the assumption that equates it to the most common form today — is a component of a wider worldview, not the sum of the view in itself. (And nowhere is it seriously held that worldviews are necessarily coherent, factually adequate or explanatorily satisfactory, much less fully thought through by adherents.)
9: I note from Pew:
10] The underlying issue of course is that inescapably, we are morally governed contingent creatures in a world that is contingent and marked by signs of design. Where also, an infinite regress of causal-temporal, thermodynamically connected stages is dubious, pointing to the need for causally adequate necessary being at finite remove as world root. Where, that being has to also be adequate to ground goodness.
11] So, we see that we need a powerful designer of the cosmos of necessary being character [so, eternal], with inherent goodness.
12] There is just one serious candidate to fill that bill, the inherently good and utterly wise creator God, a necessary [so, eternal] and maximally great being. The alternatives have to sacrifice one or more of the requisites and may also fail the test of accounting for or rational, responsible, morally governed freedom.
13] In particular, those inclined to disbelieve in God need to address, cogently, the significance of serious candidacy to necessary being: such is either impossible of being due to incompatibility of requisite core characteristics, or is actual as part of the framework for any world to exist.
14] The God of generic ethical theism as just outlined, further, is obviously close indeed to the God of our civilisation’s foundational, Bible-rooted, Hebraic-Christian tradition. This comes out further as systematic theology is explored.
KF
JVL, you may find 45 above relevant. KF
I find Atheists to be shallow, unscientific thinkers, almost invariably incapable of an honest conversation about ideas they don’t like. They have no commitment to the truth, as their worldview is dedicated to proclaiming truth doesn’t exist. Self-fulfilling bags of meat.
Andrew
Asauber’s comments at 50 are worse than SA’s at 10. This all pertains to the running issue of how are people with different worldviews to live together constructively in a world that is increasingly diverse. One step needs to be to be able to understand the basic common humanity that underlies different worldviews, and to accurately understand how that basic humanity and those worldviews intersect and interact.
People like Asauber are part of the problem: unkind and wrong, both, in respect to people who don’t believe as he does.
“One step needs to be to be able to understand the basic common humanity that underlies different worldviews”
VL,
I understand basic common humanity well enough. This understanding informs my position. You just don’t like what I have to say.
Andrew
It is true that I don’t like what you say, both because it is unkind (bigoted might be a better word), and wrong.
“I don’t like what you say, both because it is unkind (bigoted might be a better word), and wrong.”
VL,
But not untrue, eh? 😉
Andrew
Only to people who cannot think for themselves.
One can have opinions. We all have many. But how many of them approach truth?
There are ways of evaluating whether an opinion has truth value or not.
Can an atheist have any basis for being an atheist? I have never seen anything approaching truth to justify that stance or opinion. To use a common argumentative technique these days
Prove me wrong!
If correct, why is it bigoted or wrong?
I’m not talking about whether atheism is wrong or not. I’m talking about the characterization of atheists as being “shallow, unscientific thinkers, almost invariably incapable of an honest conversation about ideas they don’t like. They have no commitment to the truth, as their worldview is dedicated to proclaiming truth doesn’t exist. Self-fulfilling bags of meat.” [asauber] and ” I find them to be tragic figures, totally lost with no direction, no purpose — no reason to even mature and work on virtue or have a reason to take responsibility or a higher role.” [Silver Asiatic].
Those are the things I am saying are wrong, and an example of why we are so divided over the issue of worldviews rather than able to work constructively with the reality of there being different worldviews.
Those are their opinion based on their (limited) dealing with atheists, Viola. And if what they say is true then how can it be wrong?
Ok. Let’s strip all of the extreme rhetoric. Is some/most of this an accurate description? None?
I’ll definitely go for keeping unscientific. I will add illogical.
To get away from labeling people which seem to be currently verboten, is atheism as a philosophy shallow and unscientific? I just made that claim above.
So are those who endorse atheism being shallow and illogical? Are those who accuse theists (believe there is a creator) being wrong being dishonest? Especially if they endorse atheism.
I’ve found atheism to be an understandable position. I was an atheist for several years. I understand that in many but certainly not all cases, atheism (such as my own) can be largely, at least in part, a reaction to the utterly ridiculous spiritual and religious descriptions of God and the Rube Goldberg metaphysical contraptions (in the case of Christianity, apologetics) built around explaining various aspects of the religion or spirituality in question.
Unfortunately, from my perspective, these kinds of arguments are entirely about and from two sides firmly entrenched in the Christian perspective. Even the atheist’s arguments (for the most part) against God are almost entirely and exclusively about the Abrahamic God, as if that is the only kind of God they have ever considered.
The Christians argue against atheistic materialists whether they exist here or not; the atheists argue against the Abrahamic God as if that argument is an argument against any and every “God.”
But, I don’t think anyone here is being dishonest. I don’t think anyone here is unintelligent. And I have to say, SA, your comments regarding how you view atheists and the gender of commenters made me literally laugh out loud and shake my head in disbelief.
This is one of the reasons I participate here, comments like that. They are a wonder to behold.
Interesting comment. FWIW, my lack of disbelief in “God” and other metaphysical beliefs is not aimed exclusively at Christianity at all, but is rather based on the anthropological view that all religions are cultural narratives developed to explain things we don’t know about, and used as an important core of belief for individual and social stability.
re 54? By “wrong” I mean “untrue”, although it could also mean “not something you should do” in this context.
“all religions are cultural narratives”
VL,
Like that means anything. Please explain how Atheism is not a cultural narrative.
Andrew
F/N: I should note that for every atheist who sees life as rare and precious, there is another who sees it as cheap and expendable. That is the history of atheistical regimes over the past 100 years. KF
“Cultural narratives” means systems of understandings, including stories, statements of beliefs, norms about how to behave, etc. developed in a society and passed on from generation to generation by both explicit teaching and being implicitly embedded in the everyday actions of people.
Atheism just means that none of those are ontologically true. You may be conflating atheism with materialism, which does have aspects of being a cultural narrative. There is nothing perjorative about the phrase “cultural narrative”: human beings make meaning via the narratives we build to make sense of our experience. Making meaning via narratives is a key characteristic of human beings.
VL @61,
How is that not the same kind of generalized, dismissive perspective as Christians classifying the beliefs of everyone who disagrees with them as “atheistic materialists?”
As & VL,
Sadly, this is far too often generally true . . . and not just of some or even many atheists:
Part of that is the moral hazard of being human and drifting along with a culture that has long since dismissed the intellectual virtues. But part of it is being error prone, intellectually limited, morally struggling and too often ill-willed.
We need to find a path to re-awakening to the duties of reason.
As regards the other point:
As regards evolutionary materialistic scientism, hyperskepticism, radical relativism and the like, this is sadly all too close to the mark, as I pointed out in 45. Notice again, Provine:
KF
Again, I will repeat my comment.
If not why not?
VL,
These Things Follow From Atheism
Systems of Understandings = Everything is ultimately the result of chance
Stories = Life Just Happened Accidentally or it Always Was
Statements of Beliefs = Believing There Is No God (that’s a belief)
Norms About How to Behave = Be Nice To Each Other. All Things Being Equal (This one is tricky, because it’s just kind of made up, ie groundless)
Andrew
KF writes, “But part of it is being error prone, intellectually limited, morally struggling and too often ill-willed.”
I’ll have to add that to the list of comments, along with SA’s and asuaber’s, already noted in this thread.
re 68 and 69. The subject here, for me, is not whether atheism is true, or not. The subject is how we see and interact with people with different worldviews. Can we work to understand them and live with them in order to heal some of the divisiveness we have in the world, or do we demonize them and add to that divisiveness?
What I find to be a wonder is that, outside of myself and BA77 (and ET when it comes to … well, er .. ETs,) everyone argues about some things that come up as if there’s no evidence. The nature of our existence. Whether or not an afterlife exists, and what it’s like. I mean, we have actual evidence that answers some of these questions.
Yet, people in all camps argue about these subjects as if no such evidence can even possibly exist from which we can reach a rational, evidence-based conclusion.
I guess most worldviews and perspectives thrive as long as there is sufficient ambiguity. No better way to maintain ambiguity than to ignore the evidence.
VL, you just inadvertently underscored the point. Did you notice that I spoke to the moral hazard of being human and noted that we face a general problem on those lines, across the board? Did you notice, “generally true”? KF
WJM, I started with 500 witnesses not shaken by dungeon, fire, sword and worse. I also pointed to death transition experiences including my own witness. KF
Nonsense. Most consistently ask for evidence of evolution and atheism. None is ever provided.
There is substantial evidence for a creator and that evolution could not have happened unguided. Nothing to contradict this.
From another thread yesterday
Especially since a creator is an important issue of both.
There are basically 2 kinds of people, those who conceive of choice in terms of figuring out the best option, and those who conceive of choice in terms of expression of emotion and personal character.
The first kind are always high, as in stoned out of their skull, on the “best”. It’s just a way of thinking that makes the brain produce psycho-active substances, which makes them high. These people are generally all the same.
The second kind, people who conceive of choice in terms of expression of emotion, there’s a wide variety among them, because they accept freedom is real.
Atheists are generally always the first kind of people. The atheists nitpick a lot on weak atheism vs strong atheism, but really they are just all the same kind of people. They are basically drug addicts, addicted to the psycho active substances the body and brain itself produces.
Fact obsessed people, who are clueless about subjectivity. People who regard what is good and evil as facts, which facts of good and evil they then use to calculate the “best” option with.
Like with Covid. The atheists just calculate an optimal policy, and then as being total fascists, they force the policy, because it is “the best”. Or like Mao with his steel producing drive. He optimized the steel production, simply by destroying perfectly good steel products, melting them down to produce more steel. To optimize a particular factor, in total disregard of all other factors, that is typical of the atheist psychology.
People are always attributing atheists with some kind goal, like to say they do it for power, or wealth. But that is very naive. They are just doing it to get high.
Yes, KF, you did say
I guess you’re saying that you meant to apply that statement to more than atheists, but that’s not particularly clear. Are you just referring to people in general, of all worldviews?
KF:
The problem, KF, is that your worldview cannot incorporate the experiences of countless other such witnesses offering testimony and evidence that contradicts your overall worldview, other than to dismiss them as errors, lies, misconceptions, hallucinations, or some other way that would bring their counterfactual testimony and evidence into agreement with your worldview.
The question is, given the weight of all the evidence, how much of what we think about the evidence is rooted in ideological interpretation? If one takes away the ideological limitations and interpretations, and does not cherry-pick the evidence to favor a particular ideology, the vast bulk of the evidence agrees on certain facts. Those facts are rationally irreconcilable with what I understand about your worldview, and that of most Christians here – and that of anyone who believes there is no such thing as what we call “an afterlife.”
VL, it is a general part of the moral hazard of being human. Humans are prone to err, struggle morally [or worse, have given up!], are too often ill willed etc. That makes that first clipped from AS a general issue, esp in today’s sort of age. KF
IOW, KF, I see your “500” witnesses, and raise you millions of witnesses from every religious and spiritual perspective and background, including atheists and materialists.
WJM, the witness is what it is. For my dad, for example there were two of us present as he said his farewells and went with who had come for him, his Lord. An old friend from student days had an angelic delegation standing by for a considerable time, and spoke to those who were with him about them. I know of delegations involving the others already there. And, I know of many others who were there at such transitions in similar cases and noted the same general pattern of a partial opening of the usual veil between worlds. I don’t need to go down rabbit trails beyond that. KF
PS: I will give this much:
Especially not when those millions of other “rabbit trails” contradict your worldview and the idea that what you and your friends experienced represent some absolute truth about the nature of what everyone will experience in the afterlife.
But, I guess that’s just me. I’m interested in looking at all the evidence, not just that which supports my perspective.
This caught my eye.
WJM states, “KF, I see your “500” witnesses, and raise you millions of witnesses from every religious and spiritual perspective and background, including atheists and materialists.”
And WJM, within your version of Mental Reality Theory (MRT) exactly how do you differentiate which of those worldviews is the true worldview and which ones are false?
Or do you actually believe that they could all be true for each society and/or for each individual? i.e. extreme Relativism?
If I understand your MRT correctly, you give outside empirical evidence little credence so as to differentiate between the worldviews and give each individual’s personal subjective experience maximum weight so as to override any contradictory empirical evidence that has or may come along.
In fact, If I recall correctly, you once told me that outside empirical evidence does not really matter in your theory, (or you said something very similar to that effect).
At that point, when you said that, I just washed my hands of your theory since I knew right then and there that you had left the field of scientific inquiry.
I have discussed your theory very little with you since, and from my brief perusals of your posts since that time, I don’t think you have significantly changed your position in regards to how little weight you give outside empirical evidence to being able to correct any individual’s personal subjective experience.
The only reason I address you now is because you are now claiming that all worldviews, even atheistic materialism, is just as valid as Christianity, (if not even more valid than Christianity)
This is beyond the pale.
For crying out loud, if atheistic materialism is true, even your own MRT cannot be true.
So again, do you actually believe in some form of extreme relativism? Where there really is no objective truth, and all individual, and societal, truths are just as equally valid as all the other ones?
As a Christian, I can, (fairly easily), defend the superiority of my worldview over all the other worldviews by appealing to outside empirical evidence. But if you don’t respect outside empirical evidence, (besides you leaving the field of scientific inquiry), my arguments to you defending the superiority of Christianity would simply be in vain.
So WJM, please clarify exactly where you stand in regards to relativism, i.e. in regards to the belief that there is no objective truth and all subjective truths are equally valid.
Hey, we’ve been distracted from the other distractions! 🙂
Just makes me want to jump into a puddle. 🙂
Nobody believes MRT. Pardon my french :it’s garbage.
My opinion.
Sandy, No need for me to pardon your French. From what little I’ve seen of MRT, It is Garbage.
Translation of “it is garbage”: French – c’est des ordures
How to pronounce c’est des ordures in French
https://translate.google.com/?sl=fr&tl=en&text=c%27est%20des%20ordures&op=translate&hl=en
It’s a troll. And many have fallen for the troll by treating it seriously.
If someone came here and denied gravity, some would expend thousands of words showing that gravity works and experiments used to prove it citing Galileo, Newton and Einstein etc..
WJM is not a troll. He is serious and thoughtful about what he believes, and comments here in part, I think, because it’s a place where he can articulate his beliefs and use the feedback, even if it is strong criticism, to develop his thoughts. I think you do him a disservice to call him a troll.
P.S. WJM does bring up MRT in multiple threads in ways that are perhaps repetitive and don’t further the active discussion, but there are other prominent posters who do likewise, so we can’t single him out for that, I don’t think.
WJM, I think you may find Don Richardson’s Eternity in their hearts interesting as reading. the record he reports may surprise you but is worthwhile. KF
Jerry, it is clear that the puddle argument was decisively answered. See above. KF
Nobody here took the puddle analogy seriously in the first place.
At 7, Paige wrote, “I think people are reading far too much into this. Adam’s five part trilogy is just an entertaining story of the ridiculous, in the same vein as Monty Python’s Holy Grail or Life of Brian.
He is probably laughing from the grave over the fact that people are taking his little asides in the story as serious arguments.”
Then at 10 SA wrote that he tried not to laugh at atheists, and the thread went away from the puddle, never to return.
The fine-tuning claim, for me, raises a question about MRT. If there is only this mental reality, does it exist or was it created just for us or could there be “alien” entities here as well?
BA77: As a Christian, I can, (fairly easily), defend the superiority of my worldview over all the other worldviews by appealing to outside empirical evidence.
A bold claim. Maybe someone should start a thread.
VL, I hear you, however, regrettably, I have seen this raised as an intended objection to fine tuning inferences here at UD. If it has come up here, it is going to come up elsewhere. So, sometimes, there is need to deal with a low substance, high rhetoric/imaginative argument. It is significant that the locus of high contingency, the bed of the puddle is diverted from to highlight the conformation of the fluid to the bed, a matter of mechanical necessity as fluids by definition lack sufficient structure to retain shape under their own weight, hence their tendency to flow and to pond. This actually corresponds to the per aspect form, design inference filter: low contingency is assigned to lawlike necessity (with perhaps some noisiness causing scatter). Then, the default for high contingency is blind chance, i.e. the typical pond bed is shaped into a complex curvature by whatever contingencies happened to be there. However, when we can see a simply describable highly specific complex functional pattern, we properly infer design. For example, years ago first images of Xe atoms on a substrate were circulated. What was the best explanation of the fact that the image just happened to spell out IBM? (No prizes for guessing.) KF
KM & BA77, in reality, there was a link above that addresses the degree of warrant behind the 500 witnesses and I gave samples from the many thousands since who have witnessed death transitions to eternal felicity as was alluded to in Rom 2 as cited. Which text, is far broader than those who have an explicit opportunity to respond to the gospel; the text clearly states the generosity of the grace of God given the degree of light one has or has responsible access to. I would also note that there are in fact millions alive now and multiplied millions across the ages who have experienced a living transformation to eternal life through the gospel per Jn 3:14 – 17 (which has changed the course of civilisation for the good many, many times . . . think of an Aquinas, a Francis, a Wesley, a Finney, a Booth, a Sharpe or a Knibb or a Gordon [Jamaica], a Williams etc), I suspect the three of us are cases in point. My father was the [lay-]preacher in my case, and my second father my counsellor. Both are now in happier estate. The significance of “according to the scriptures,” i.e. prophecy fulfillment by the manifest, death-breaking power of God [cf Isa 52:13 – 53:12 etc, a corpus of 300 predictions fulfilled] as “a more sure word” should also be recognised. All of that said, UD is not a theology and Bible forum, so while occasional exchanges do come up, those who want to explore and debate this subject can readily access many resources only a search click or two away. KF
PS: I think it is appropriate to cite the apostle Peter’s theological will as he faced judicial murder on the false accusation of treasonous arson i.e. insurrection (the more things change, the more they are the same once lawless oligarchy worms its way to power . . . well do I recall a SW radio programme describing the last words of an unjustly condemned Irish priest from the scaffold: beware the wiles of the King’s Attorneys):
F/N: I add regarding the more sure word, this is a second testimony, a more sure word than simple eyewitness testimony: vision of the now fulfilled future, centuries ahead faithfully transmitted through sound chain of custody in scripture worthy of acknowledgement as recording the word of God. KF
Kairosfocus: in reality, there was a link above that addresses the degree of warrant behind the 500 witnesses
Just curious . . . what’s your view on some of the more modern Marian visitations such as The Miracle of the Sun witnessed by tens of thousands of people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
Karen McMannus, a ‘fairly easy’ way to demonstrate the superiority of the Christian worldview over all the other worldviews is simply to note that Christianity has had a tremendously positive impact on the world when compared to the other worldviews.
Surely it is impossible for a false worldview to produce so many tremendously positive results.
Shoot, the fact that the Christian worldview gave us modern science itself should be enough, all by its lonesome, to prove that Christianity is the superior worldview when compared to all the other worldviews.
As Francis Bacon, the founder of the scientific method, himself stated, “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.”
All the other wordlviews simply don’t hold a candle to Christianity in terms of ‘fruits produced’:
JVL, not something I have investigated, I found the case of Juan the Aztec at Guadeloupe interesting. KF
Viola Lee:
Atheists everywhere take is seriously. They still use it.
He is on record that he lies for his own amusement. I’ll call that type of person a troll.
I was not referring to the puddle argument. I am not really sure what the puddle argument is. Please, no one try to explain it.
BA77 @83:
I appreciate the question, but to be clear my interaction with KF on this matter is not about IRT (Idealism Reality Theory, formerly Mental Reality Theory.) It’s about whether or not the Christian perspective of things (generally represented by KF, you and others here) is supported by a rational examination of the evidence. That Christian view is indeed supported by some of the evidence, but one does not get to cherry-pick available evidence to make their case and just ignore or dismiss the rest if they want to reach a sound conclusion about what the evidence indicates.
Under IRT, all possible realities exist as potential (information,) eternally in the mind of God or universal mind. That would mean that members of a particular faith can experience everything that their faith promises to them, be it pearly gates or Valhalla. However, inasmuch as such people believe that their experiences are the only kind of experiences available to anyone anywhere, they would be objectively wrong.
What I told you some time ago is that I personally do not use evidence other than what I personally, empirically experience myself in the formulation of my personal views. I did not use external evidence to arrive at IRT.
Also, I have said that I was not trying to create a model of “true reality,” but rather one that more pragmatically served my goal of maximally enjoying my life. However, how I personally sort and evaluate evidence, and my motivations for creating my model, are irrelevant to the debate about whether or not at least some form of IRT is supported by evidence other people hold as valid, such as the quantum physics experimental results you so often cite.
Personally, yes. My personal beliefs do not require any external (of my experience,) evidential support. It just so happens that IRT (which is part of my personal views) can be supported (beyond supported; it has been demonstrated) using that kind of evidence. IOW, people here could prove some model better than IRT with sound reasoning from such evidence, and I would agree with them that they had done so, just as you did with the evidence for geo-centrism. The reason I can do that is because my personal beliefs are not dependent on any external evidence.
IOW, you or KF can win the argument about the evidence and reasoning, and I will be happy to admit it, but it’s not going to change my personal beliefs. If someone had a sound, evidence-based, or purely logical argument for Christianity or an ERT, I’d be happy to admit it because it’s no skin off my nose whatsoever.
If your intent is to change my personal beliefs, that would the wrong way to go about it. The only way to change my personal beliefs is to convince me that some other perspective is more effective at delivering maximum enjoyment. That would be a very tall order, given the current level of my enjoyment of life and the efficacy of my current model in providing that which I desire.
If your goal is to get me to admit your view “wins” the reasoning and evidence battle, that’s certainly possible. It’s happened here several times.
Not exactly. The evidence shows that the Christian claim of a kind of afterlife exclusivity is objectively wrong from the ERT perspective. I’m arguing this point from the ERT perspective, not the IRT or my personal views. I’m using reasoning from external evidence. When in Rome, and all that.
I’m not sure where this is coming from. I’ve clearly argued and stated that materialism has been scientifically disproved. I only said that atheistic materialists have had experiences of the afterlife, not that their experience of the afterlife validated their materialism.
Of course there is absolute, objective truth. My arguments rely on it. Everyone’s argument relies an that fact and assumption. We both know this.
I respect all evidence in terms of the arguments here and have demonstrated myself being able to admit what the evidence indicates; it’s just not likely going to affect my personal beliefs, because those are working out tremendously well for me.
In the words of Barry Soetero, let me be clear: Under IRT, materialism is objectively false. Substance dualism is objectively false. Thus, any religious or spiritual perspective that necessarily includes substance dualism is objectively false. This puts a burden of ontological origin of exclusivity if one particular reality is the only one we can experience out of all those possible others; how is that exclusivity achieved? IOW, how would the Christian system of reality be the only reality we can experience in an ontologically idealist existence? That other reality information exists; why can we not access it for experience? I’d like to see you make that argument without first assuming that only one particular reality is available.
BTW, “materialism” and “substance dualism” are not possible actual realities under IRT.
KF
The best way to deal with a ridiculous argument is to ignore it.
Do you ever think that some people bring up Adam’s puddle as an argument against fine tuning because they like to laugh at the people who take the argument seriously and try to counter it?
VL,
The claim that religions are merely Cultural Narratives is a Cultural Narrative itself.
You do realize that, don’t you?
Andrew
Yes. We can’t avoid cultural narratives: there are a key component of what human beings are.
Paige, there are people who take it seriously. That’s why the OP took notice. It also inadvertently highlights how the design inference explanatory filter is often misunderstood. That’s why I took time to provide a corrective. Further to this, if fine tuning objectors are raising things like this, that says a bit on the balance on merits. KF
WJM claims,
WJM, a few years back I spent several days researching Near Death Experiences from other non-Judeo Christian cultures, and contrary to popular belief, the Near Death Experiences of those other cultures are marked by a profound lack of pleasant, heavenly, experiences.
Here are some samples of what I found.
Researching Muslim NDEs, on the web at the NDERF home page, I found that there were only a handful of Muslim NDE experiences out of the thousands of NDE’s they have listed on their web site. There was only one really deep Muslim NDE in which there is a reference to “the Light”. Not surprisingly, this NDE occurred to a teenage boy. In the handful of somewhat deep adult Muslim NDEs that I have read about, the Muslim NDES never mentioned “the Light”, “Supreme Being” or a “Being of Light”. If this holds steady for all adult Muslim NDEs, then this will fall into stark contrast to the majority of deep Judeo/Christian NDE testimonies of adults for the western world which mention an indescribably beautiful heavenly paradise.
And WJM, as should be needless to say, these findings contradict your claim.
BA77: Shoot, the fact that the Christian worldview gave us modern science itself should be enough, all by its lonesome, to prove that Christianity is the superior worldview when compared to all the other worldviews.
Hmm, I wonder what those particular Greek philosophers, Jews, Arabs, Hindus, Freemasons, and all the other significant players in the advancement of human mathematics, knowledge and science would say about that. And the “Christian worldview”, whatever it is, was ripped off from the Hebrews, in general, and Philo of Alexandria, in particular.
Most of D. Kennedy’s cherry-picked laundry list could just as well be applied to FreeMasonic philosophy’s and the Royal Society’s influence on the world. It was Deism that was the primary impetus of modern science. Yes, some of the actors were “Christians”, but you might want to closely check out Newton’s, Descart’s and Bacon’s views before you yoke them too tightly with “Christianity.” And all of the moderns were standing on the shoulders of a lot non-Christians with regards to mathematics, logic, and natural science. Unless you think Aristotle was a “Christian.”
Your view is quite simplistic and naive.
BA77,
Perhaps this will help to make sense of what I’m saying about “different realities” vs “objective reality.”
Ontologically speaking, IRT would represent objective reality. However, there are “infinite” sub-realities that can be experienced within IRT by groups of people, or even by individuals, operating under different subconscious programs that access different sets of information. One group might be using a materialist subconscious program that accesses materialism-friendly information; another group might be using a Christian subconscious program accessing Christianity-friendly information, processing it in a Christian-friendly way.
However, IRT claims and predicts that no matter what kind of subconscious “operating system” you are using, or what kind of mental information you are accessing, you cannot escape the objective fact that you are using an operating system and you are accessing a particular set of information and processing it into experiences that meet the parameters and support the operating system or subconscious “reality” program. That objective fact is discoverable in any sub-reality or worldview. It may be extremely difficult to find and recognize and accept, since the operating system produces various cognitive safeguards, like anti-virus, to keep the worldview intact.
The underlying, objective fact of IRT would still be discoverable, just as quantum physics research found when it was essentially trying to salvage some form of materialism or “external reality.” You can easily see the kind of cognitive issues people have with this evidence.
The same would hold true about Christianity or any other religious, spiritual or metaphysical “operating system.” A good rule of thumb is that if your worldview depends on excluding counterfactual evidence, such as the millions of people that have experiences of the afterlife that contradict Christian exclusivity, then you’re protecting ideology and not making a rational case from all pertinent, available evidence.
This is exactly like the quantum theory experiments that show that what is observed/experienced depends on the state of the observer/experiencer. Some observers experience the Christian afterlife. Many experience entirely different afterlives. You’re the one that, like materialists, are insisting that reality is local writ large; you’re claiming that the inherent reality of what exists, the exclusively Christian afterlife (so to speak,) is the reality “out there,” the only thing we can experience.
That’s not what the evidence is. Sure, SOME of the photons land in the Christian strike zone, so to speak, but you’re ignoring all the other photon landing points that show a wave distribution to many different locations. “Local reality” = “particle” = conceptual materialism = Christian afterlife exclusivity.
Christian exclusivity is, thus, essentially a materialist/ERT/”local reality” perspective, unless you can show otherwise by reasoning from all available pertinent evidence or by showing it necessary logically.
to asauber: Actually my calling religions “cultural narratives” is not itself a cultural narrative because it is not a view deeply embedded in the culture. It is indeed a narrative, held by many people in the fields of socialogy, anthropology, comparative religion, and psychology: it is an explanatory framework common within a certain sub-culture of people who study human nature.
“it is not a view deeply embedded in the culture”
VL,
Yes it is. It defines the culture of Progressives who fancy themselves superior to people who have religious beliefs. Without it the Progressive culture would disintegrate. It’s a vital narrative to the life of the Prog Tribe.
Andrew
Karen McMannus,
There a many mistakes in your short post, but to focus on just one mistake.
You mentioned Aristotle,
Actually, the deductive logic that Aristotle used proved to be a major stumbling block in the rise of modern science. A major stumbling block that had to be overcome.
Bacon’s inductive methodology, which he introduced as a check and balance against humanity’s fallen sinful nature(i.e. The Christian belief of original sin),, was a radically different form of ‘bottom up’ reasoning that was, practically speaking, a completely different form of reasoning than the ‘top down’ deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks which had preceded it. A form of reasoning in which people “pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
Again, this new form of ‘bottom up’ inductive reasoning, which lays at the basis of the scientific method itself, was first elucidated and championed by Francis Bacon in 1620 in his book that was entitled Novum Organum. Which is translated as ‘New Method’.
In the title of that book, Bacon is specifically referencing Aristotle’s work Organon, which was, basically, Aristotle’s treatise on logic and syllogism. In other words, Organum was, basically, Aristotle’s treatise on deductive reasoning.
And thus in his book “Novum Organum”, Bacon was specifically and directly championing a entirely new method of inductive reasoning, (where repeated experimentation played a central role in one’s reasoning to a general truth), over and above Aristotle’s deductive form of reasoning, (where one’s apriori assumption of a general truth, (i.e. your major premises), played a central role in one’s reasoning), which had been the dominate form of reasoning that had been around for 2000 years at that time.
And indeed, repeated experimentation, ever since it was first set forth by Francis Bacon, has been the cornerstone of the scientific method. And has indeed been very, very, fruitful for man in gaining accurate knowledge of the universe in that repeated experiments lead to more “exacting, and illuminating”, conclusions than is possible with the quote-unquote, “educated guesses” that follow from Aristotle’s deductive form of reasoning.
Moreover, Francis Bacon was far more Christian in his beliefs than you insinuated in your post.
See, the Religions as Cultural Narratives Narrative that Progs utilize allows them to dismiss rather than investigate. Progs are an intellectually lazy lot.
Andrew
WJM, frankly I have no clue what you are going on about.
I can point to our most powerful theories In science in order to support my belief in Christianity, and you are basically saying it all for not because of your IRT?
Like I said before, as far as I can tell you have completely left the field of empirical science.
It would be kind of hard to call Christianity a cultural narrative. In fact it is just the opposite.
It spread to many different cultures quickly within the first 30 years. That is what Paul and his disciples were about. Others went in different directions with a consistent message that was brand new and did not arise from any other culture. It took a long time to get a hold on large numbers but they were definitely not from the same culture.
In fact the message was very anti the culture of the originators. A lot of the stories in the gospels were about Christ challenging the current way of life of the Jews with their hierarchy.
It had doctrines early on. This happened quickly. Yes, there were stories written down within a short time and then codified. But those stories were from a specific time period that was short and didn’t represent any growing tradition. It was sudden and definitely new.
It was certainly not concentrated in any sense with a narrative/story building out of a particular place or group of people.
Christianity focused on an end point for all people and how best to reach that end point. This was brand new. For the first 100 years or so the movement/religion was not called Christianity but “The Way.”
Jerry,
Indeed. Not all religions are the same. Progs hate that fact. They generate Cultural Narratives to attempt to make it all go away.
Andrew
🙂 You mean millions of people that have experiences of the afterlife that confirm Christian truth. Yes exist life after death,yes there is an immortal soul that survive the flesh(body) ,yes this world is a time of testing for a next level existence.
The “millions of people” even they are not christians are made by the same Christian God and have the same manifestation ,behaviour of their soul .
God will judge every person acording to his knowledge. People which didn’t hear about christianity or lived before Christ will not be judged acording to christian commandments but according with their conscience. People who live after Christ and heard about christianity and ignored or even worse fought against will be judged after christian commandments because they heard about truth but they rejected .
re 118, asauber says, “Not all religions are the same. Progs hate that fact.” Speaking for myself, I don’t “hate” the fact that most Christians believe Christianity is the one true religion. I think that is wrong, and try to explain what my view is. But to think that is hate is to ascribe an intense emotion that just doesn’t apply to how I feel. My guess is that most people who agree with me don’t feel hate about that either.
BA77 @109:
If you’ve done your research, then you know I can post examples of non-Christian positive NDEs. As I said, some of the evidence supports the Christian view. When non-Christians experience the “being of light,” for example, they often interpret them as a significant being in their religion or culture.
Just as problematic, though, is other lines of evidence, such as the evidence for reincarnation; the evidence provided by technological communication with the dead; the evidence that comes from credible evidential mediumship under controlled conditions; and from the practice we refer to as “astral projection” or out-of-body visits with the dead and the afterlife.
Yes, you can cherry-pick the evidence, ignoring or dismissing the counterfactual evidence that is available, but that is all your evidential argument ultimately rests on.
BA77 @116;
I don’t know what you mean by “all for naught” because of my IRT. I’m sure all of that evidential support you have is very meaningful to you. I’m not trying to pry you out of your Christian beliefs. Your Christian heaven awaits your arrival and I am happy that you will see it, and I mean that sincerely.
That’s just not where I want to go.
BTW, BA77,
I’m not challenging your evidence as false or “not evidence;” I’m just saying it doesn’t make the case that the Christian perspective represents some kind of existential monopoly or experiential exclusivity. So, you don’t have to, for example, trot out your Shroud of Turin evidence – I’m accepting all of that evidence arguendo. Plus, I agree with you on the nature of what kind of event was necessary to produce that image.
However, that doesn’t move the exclusivity case forward a single inch.
Actually WJM. I have done quite a bit of research and it is very hard to find any extremely positive NDEs in non-Judeo-Christian cultures.
I went thru all this ‘all NDEs are the same argument’ with a Shirley McClain type New Ager a while back. And, after he did a bit of research, he thought he had me. He presented me a case of a Chinese girl who had an extremely positive NDE. But when I dug into the details of her case, it turned out that she was educated in a British school in Hong Kong and thus she had been heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian influences.
Sure, I bet if you dug around you might find a few positive ones. But my main point in all this is that foreign NDEs, for the vast majority of instances, are very unpleasant when compared to the majority of extremely positive Judeo-Christian NDEs.
WJM stated, “That’s (Heaven is) just not where I want to go.”
LOL, And you got something better? LOL
I suggest you take your troll to another site. To constantly peddle nonsense to a group of 25 people seems small time for a concept that turns the world upside down. It demands a bigger stage. At least 50 people.
Besides being boring.
William J Murray 123,
Your post just underscores my point that empirical evidence is basically useless in countering your personal ‘toy’ model of reality.
I see that the labelling game prevails on this site as well.
WJM mentioned ‘reincarnation’ as a counter argument to the extremely positive Judeo-Christian NDEs, (we’ll leave his claim for ‘astral projection’ to the side for now) 🙂
Might I suggest that the evidence for reincarnation is not nearly as strong as he presupposes it to be? (and certainly not nearly as strong as it is for NDEs)
KM, strictly, the worldview is ethical theism, with forms tied to the main monotheistic traditions; which are related and come out of the Levantine coastal part of the Fertile Crescent. In terms of civilisation, we start with the key river valleys of Mesopotamia and Egypt, which fed into the historical complex of the great inland sea that joins three continents. The issue is that we had a Christian synthesis of the heritage of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome, with Jesus of Nazareth as pivot and Paul of Tarsus the man who quite literally embodied the heritage. There are influences and contributions from all over, e.g. the Hindu decimal, place value system probably first tracing to the abacus. We have partial collapse of empire then gradual resurgence over centuries, with the printing revolution exploiting alphabetic script as key breakthrough. Notice, aleph + beth, ox plus house. Further observe, a Christian German [beyond the limits of the old Empire but part of the renewal of continental empire vision from Charlemagne on] uses a levantine writing invention to print in Latin language, the continentwide language of learning. This fosters the religious, cultural and general ferment that leads to scientific and democratising revolutions. And more. For sure, the Greeks are part of that, though the division with Latin is part of the story . . . I observe the Eastern empire continued to 1453. I recall, here, visiting the grave of a royal Paleologos in
Christ Church[–> cross check says, St Johns], Barbados, in the grounds of the parish church. And yet more. KFKaren McMannus,
I think it is very important for me to point out that I am not denying that other cultures provided ‘tools’ that were very useful, even very essential, for the rise of modern science. What I am claiming is that the other cultures lacked the correct overarching worldview in order for science to take root and flourish.
In his new book, “The Return of the God Hypothesis”, Dr. Stephen Meyer, who has a PhD in the philosophy of science from Cambridge University, listed the necessary Christian presuppositions that lay at founding of modern science as such:
And it is not just Stephen Meyer who is making this claim. Many notable historians of science have also noted that the Christian worldview was necessary for the rise of modern science.
It should also be noted that many lies have been spread, by atheists, that Christianity is at war with science. And that it was ‘enlightenment’ thinking, not Christianity, that gave rise to modern science.
That is a patently false claim.
Here is an excellent site, (maintained by an atheistic historian no less), that debunks many of the myths that atheists have created over the years to falsely portray Christianity as somehow being at war with science instead of being essential for science:
A couple of more thoughts about the puddle analogy —
Regardless of Adams’ intent, many people take it as a strong argument. I think the argument is wrong but it has a great deal of persuasive power. Why is that?
I think the problem is the apparent appropriateness of the metaphor of water. Water fills in gaps and takes the shape of its container. Natural selection allegedly causes life to fit in with its environment. Unfortunately, water serves as a metaphor only for what natural selection is said to accomplish. It does not in any way illustrate the underlying mechanics by which it would do so.
Now, if the issue is fine tuning rather than natural selection — well, I’m on shaky ground with respect to the anthropic principle. However, here again I think we’re dealing with arguments that are designed to deal with probability difficulties. With water filling its container, there are no odds to surmount.
HN42,
Interesting thoughts. Yes, a fallacy (intended or not) is persuasive to a significant number, so we need to learn why we can be vulnerable and how to resist its attractions.
The crude analogy that just as water fills a pond’s depressions, natural selection searches and fills the space of possibilities step by step, is highly insightful of a key failure. What you are doing is inverting the climb the fitness landscape hills model that is so commonly used.
That model fails, as from molecules on up, complex, specific function based on configuration of many components comes in deeply isolated islands in configuration spaces. The problem in actuality is not to climb hills step by step, but to find beach-heads on deeply isolated islands within the time and atomic resources of the solar system or observed cosmos. That is why origin of life in a Darwin’s pond or the like environment runs into an information hurdle and it is why onward origin of body plans becomes such a challenge.
Our sol system [10^57 atoms] or observed cosmos [10^80 atoms], in 10^17 s might generously account for 500 or 1,000 bits of functionally specific, complex organisation and/or information. Just the genetic information for first cell based life requires 100,000 to 1 million+ bits, and body plans require 10 – 100+ million bits. Each additional bit DOUBLES the configuration space from 000 . . . 0 to 111 . . . 1, where as codes, strings, 3-d entities can all be reduced to bit based description languages, discussion on bits is without loss of generality.
So, the baseline assumptions we have all been indoctrinated with on the grand powers of natural selection are fallacious but obviously intoxicating and deeply embedded.
This metaphor then drives our imaginations as we go afield, it is a flawed bur powerful paradigm, so yes we can see how there is a no problem answer that there must be a cosmological fitness landscape that is climbed by some sort of multiverse natural selection where we won the lottery.
Overlooked, lotteries have to be fine tuned to be profitable, enticing and winnable, which isn’t easy. Lotteries are a design-driven system, even as the artificial selection analogy skips over the designing role of the breeder. And, the hard limits that tend to emerge sooner or later as genetic room is used up.
Coming back to fine tuning, the issue is the sheer contingency of laws and parameters as found over centuries and especially in recent decades. Back in the 50’s it was recognised that a nuclear resonance with 4% wiggle room allows creation of the palette of atomic elements that undergird C-chem, aqueous medium, cell based terrestrial planet life. Since then dozens of parameters [and no, the suggestion that they are constrained to be where they are fails on the whole] have emerged, leading to recognising that we are in a cosmos at a deeply isolated island of function in the space of contingent possibilities. Islands of function amidst seas of non function again.
No, we do not need to posit global isolation, as Leslie pointed out in his flies on the wall argument:
Walker and Davies also help us:
No, the pond/puddle analogy falls apart.
KF
BA77 said,
Yes. An afterlife with my friends, family and loved ones, and one that is not presided over by a tyrant demanding my love and worship or else.
As far as evidence concerning positive non-Christian and other-culture NDEs, as well as NDEs that come back with a decidedly non-Christian message:
May Eulitt’s and Her Two Companions Group NDE https://near-death.com/may-eulitt/
She and her two friends had the same very positive experience, but each of them interpreted the experience in terms of their own religious beliefs. The “being of light” was seen by one to be an angel, by the second as his father, by the third as Buddha. The message they all got was that religion, doctrine and creed did not matter.
Sandra Rogers’ Suicide Near-Death Experience https://near-death.com/sandra-rogers-suicide-nde/
Sandra brings a decidedly non-Christian message back from her NDE, among other things,
1. Satan and demons are what you make them. Evil only exists because we fear and think unkind thoughts.
2. There is one God who is worshipped through many different teachings of many different religious faiths.
3. Those organizations, or religions, which claim some singular relationship with God, claim superiority over others, or exclude people for various reasons, go against God’s law that we love one another as we love ourselves.”
Arthur Yensen’s Near-Death Experience https://near-death.com/arthur-yensen/
During his NDE, Arthur was told that in the hereafter, each person lives in the kind of a heaven or hell that he prepared for himself while on Earth.
Arthur: “When I asked what a person should do while on Earth to make it better for him when he dies, he answered, “All you can do is to develop along the lines of unselfish love. People don’t come here because of their good deeds, or because they believe in this or that, but because they fit in and belong.”
From research involving 267 NDErs,
What is interesting is that, as far as I’m aware, not a single NDEr has come back with the message that one must accept Christ to get into Heaven; the virtually unanimous message that comes back regardless of one’s experience is that religion, doctrine, etc., do not matter. What matters in terms of a better “afterlife” experience, is love.
WJM, the use of tyrant and or else speaks, and may explain much. For cause, I continue to note that there is no good reason to wholesale discount the testimony of our senses, and that any scheme of thought that does so is self referential and self defeating. KF
At 111 WJM argues against ‘Christian exclusivity”. And basically argues that all other worldviews are just as equally valid as Christianity is. (I guess only WJM’s own IRT theory escapes the charge of extreme relativism)
First off, in defending ‘Christian exclusivity’, it is important to note that I have not ignored evidence of “millions of people that have experiences of the afterlife that contradict Christian exclusivity”.
In fact, at post 109, just two posts prior to WJM’s false claim that I was ignoring millions of foreign NDE’s, I directly addressed foreign NDE’s and showed how they fall into a pattern that is ‘predicted’ by ‘Christian exclusivity’.
Which is to say that all foreign, non-Judeo Christian, NDE’s fall into a pattern of being negative, to extremely negative, when compared to the extremely positive Judeo-Christian NDEs.
The exceptions to this general rule of NDE’s being unpleasant for foreign NDEs are few and far between. With the rare exceptions generally happening for children, or for people who have had Judeo-Christian influences in their life.
Again, none of this challenges ‘Christian exclusivity’.
WJM claims that there are ‘millions’ of foreign NDEs that challenge ‘Christian exclusivity’. Yet I am the only one who has actually presented any foreign research papers to support my position (post 109) that foreign NDEs fall into a pattern expected by ‘Christian exclusivity”. (I note that WJM’s post at 133 are all studies that were conducted within the confines of a Judeo-Christian culture, and thus his post at 133 does not contradict my claim that foreign NDE’s, (cultures free from cultural Judeo Christian influences), fall into the pattern predicted by ‘Christian exclusivity’)
WJM also claimed that reincarnation challenged ‘Christian exclusivity’. And I noted that his evidence from reincarnation, from a leading reincarnation researcher no less, is found to be wanting,
Thus contrary to WJM’s claim, I have not ‘excluded’ counterfactual evidence against ‘Christian exclusivity’. But I have instead taken it into consideration and have found it to be wanting.
The one place I did not look at counterfactual evidence was with ‘astral projection’. Perhaps I can be forgiven for finding the claim that ‘astral projection’ is a serious threat to ‘Christian exclusivity’ to be a joke.
But hey, I’m still open WJM. Present your scientific evidence for astral projection being a serious threat to “Christian exclusivity’ and we will see if that dog can hunt.
But anyways, to now present the positive evidence for “Christian exclusivity”.
In science we have three theories of the universe that are extremely powerful in that, in so far as experimental verification will allow, we can find no discrepancy between what the mathematical predictions of those theories predict, and what experiments of those predictions show us to be true.
Those three theories are Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity and General Relativity. (Of note: Quantum Electrodynamics, which is also an extremely powerful scientific theory, is a combination of Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity).
It is also important to note that Quantum Mechanics has a irreducible subjective element to it, and that both relativity theories are, basically, objective scientific theories in that a conscious observer is not essential to completing the measurement process in those theories.
Moreover, it is important to note that in joining Quantum Mechanics with Special Relativity, in order to produce Quantum Electrodynamics, that it was necessary for Richard Feynman to ‘brush infinity under the rug’.
In the process of ‘brushing infinity under the rug’, Feynman ended up also brushing quantum measurement itself under the rug. As Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicist Sheldon Lee Glashow stated, “Although quantum field theory is fully compatible with the special theory of relativity, a relativistic treatment of quantum measurement has yet to be formulated.”
Yet ‘measurement’ in quantum mechanics is exactly where the entire enigma of ‘conscious observation’ makes its presence fully known in quantum mechanics,
As the following researcher stated, “It proves that measurement is everything. At the quantum level, reality does not exist if you are not looking at it,”
In short, although ‘brushing infinity under the rug’ has been extremely successful as a scientific theory, (i.e. Quantum Electrodynamics), that ‘brushing infinity under the rug’ still came at the unacceptable cost of brushing the observer himself, i.e. you and me, under the rug.
Obviously, if a theory brushes you and me ‘under the rug’, and since you and me are certainly a very important part of ‘everything’ in our view of things, then the ‘renormalization’ of infinity that led to Quantum Electrodynamics can’t possibly be the correct first step towards the quote unquote ‘theory of everything.’
And yet, if we don’t allow the ‘measurement problem’ to simply be brushed under the rug, and if we insist that quantum mechanics retain its irreducible subjective element, then we find out some VERY interesting things,
Namely that humans themselves are brought into the laws of nature at their most foundational level.
As Steven Weinberg, an atheist himself, states in the following article, In the instrumentalist approach (in quantum mechanics) humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level.,,, the instrumentalist approach turns its back on a vision that became possible after Darwin, of a world governed by impersonal physical laws that control human behavior along with everything else.,,, In quantum mechanics these probabilities do not exist until people choose what to measure,,, Unlike the case of classical physics, a choice must be made,,,
In fact Weinberg, again an atheist, rejected the instrumentalist approach precisely because “humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level” and because it undermined the Darwinian worldview from within. Yet, regardless of how he and other atheists may prefer the world to behave, quantum mechanics itself could care less how atheists prefer the world to behave.
The fact that humans cannot be excluded from quantum mechanics has now been firmly established by Anton Zeilinger and company with the closing of the setting independence and/or ‘free will’ loop hole:
In short, Anton Zeilinger and company have now pushed the ‘free will loophole’ back to 7.8 billion years ago, thereby firmly establishing the ‘common sense’ fact that the free will choices of the experimenter in the quantum experiments are truly free and are not determined by any possible causal influences from the past for at least the last 7.8 billion years, and that the experimenters themselves are therefore shown to be truly free to choose whatever measurement settings in the experiments that he or she may so desire to choose so as to ‘logically’ probe whatever aspect of reality that he or she may be interested in probing.
Moreover allowing free will and/or Agent causality into the laws of physics at their most fundamental level has some fairly profound implications for us personally.
First and foremost, allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics, as the Christian founders of modern science originally envisioned,,,, (Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, and Max Planck, to name a few of the Christian founders),,, and as quantum mechanics itself now empirically demands (with the closing of the free will loophole by Anton Zeilinger and company), rightly allowing the Agent causality of God ‘back’ into physics provides us with a very plausible resolution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’ in that Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides an empirically backed reconciliation, via the Shroud of Turin, between quantum mechanics and general relativity into the much sought after ‘Theory of Everything”.
Thus in conclusion, although WJM may harbor an aversion to ‘Christian exclusivity’, I hold that it is pretty dog gone ‘exclusive’ for Christianity to offer, in my honest opinion, the only realistically viable solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’:
hnorman42,
Just wanted to let you know I appreciate your contributions to this thread. This is one of the reasons why I hang around UD, to read things I wouldn’t think about otherwise.
Andrew
Q; Why would one who is all-good and utterly wise, ever require that free willed creatures love their Eternal Father and their fellow creatures, expressing love in words and deeds, including worship, regular instruction and support to neighbour, especially to the marginalised? (As in, what could Hobbes et al have ever missed?)
A: _____________
KF
Notice what BA77 actually says:
First, when trying to support a claim of Christian exclusivity, what does this matter even if it is true? Why should an atheist or a non-Christian living in a Christian culture have positive NDEs at all? Why do the vast bulk of NDErs come back without messages of Christian exclusivity; in fact most often espousing the opposite?
Second, this claim of “rare” non-Christian culture positive NDEs is just incorrect. For evidence of this:
https://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/non_western_ndes.htm
and
https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799184/m2/1/high_res_d/vol26-no4-249.pdf
Remember, the case that BA77 is trying to make is that of Christian exclusivity, not that the Christian heaven is one of many and varied locations in the afterlife. I’m not challenging that there is evidence that the Christian heaven exists. What the NDE evidence implies is that the afterlife is either interpreted via social/cultural/religious beliefs, or there are actual differing locations, or both – IOW, what this seems to be is a more “macro” version of quantum physics: the state of the observer determining what the observer experiences in their “afterlife” near-death experiences.
Now let’s see how BA77 employs two different standards when he address the evidence for reincarnation:
BA77 said @128:
Note the different standard: “flawless.” The NDE evidence is anything but “flawless” in terms of supporting Christian exclusivity. It’s not only flawed, it’s counterfactual.
Because is it the path to true happiness? Boethius and Jordan Peterson interview?
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/some-thoughts-from-richard-feynman-on-science-and-religion/#comment-729257
BA77 said:
What WJM actually said:
So no, I am not “basically” arguing that “that all other worldviews are just as equally valid as Christianity is.”
Jesus reduced the extremely burdensome Mosaic, and/or Levitical, law of the Old Testament to this,
WJM’s response in shorthand:
WJM’s response is not uncommon. And unfortunately not entirely undeserved. ‘Organized religion’ often comes across as being very dogmatic and not very loving.
But it might interest WJM to know that Jesus’s main enemies were not the ‘sinners’ of his day, but that Jesus’s main enemies were the leaders of ‘organized religion’ of his day.
In fact, it was the leaders of ‘organized religion’ who orchestrated Jesus mock trial and subsequent crucifixion.
And Jesus was nothing less than scathing of the religious leaders of his day for preventing, not enabling, people to enter the kingdom of heaven.
In the same passage, Jesus refers to the religious leaders of his day as “hypocrites’ and “Serpents, brood of vipers!”
Might I be so bold as to suggest that Jesus had a much greater animosity towards ‘organized religion’ than WJM currently has?
The point I am trying to make clear in all this is that Jesus’s message that we ought to, for our own eternal good, love God and love one another is, unfortunately, being lost because many people often view Christianity as WJM currently views Christianity.
Which is to say that many people view Christianity as being more of a ‘organized religion’ rather than being an intimate loving relationship with God the father.
Moreover, of all the religions on earth, I hold that only Christianity forcefully demonstrates the fact that God loves us.
Does any other ‘organized religion’ on the face of earth even come close to the love that God has demonstrated for us through Jesus?
Interesting? Barry Soetero or Barry Soetoro?
The latter is a supposed alias for Barack Obama.
The troll goes on.
Does repeating nonsense often enough make it seem true? Does responding to nonsense give it credibility?
We have actual proof of that proposition here. The answer is most definitely yes!
BA77 @1335,
Let’s assume arguendo that Christianity uniquely predicted all of the scientific knowledge you claim it does. So what? That doesn’t move the case for Christian exclusivity forward an inch; all it means is that Christianity either predicts these things, states them in some format, or provides the mental tools necessary for making these discoveries. How does any of that make the case for Christian existential exclusivity?
You offered up the following quote to support your position on Christian exclusivity of a great afterlife:
I don’t see any message of Christian exclusivity in that testimony.
Here’s a challenge for you to make your case for Christian exclusivity form NDE accounts: Find, cite and provide reference to some “positive” NDE accounts that includes a message or an experience that directly makes a statement in support of Christian exclusivity.
KF@132, please take heed of the comment at 105.
BA77 said:
You are minimizing the “or else” part of my “tyrant” description, by characterizing it as “for our own eternal good.” Unless I’m mistaken, there are severe consequences to “not loving God,” regardless of how much love you have for anyone else. And yes, any being that demands to be loved with all your heart “or else,” is not only a tyrant; they are a horribly abusive tyrant undeserving of love, much less worship.
IMO, many Christians are like anyone in abusive relationships; they think they deserve the abuse and work to please their abuser and make excuses for that abuse. In Christianity, those excuses are called “apologetics.” Ironic, that term, isn’t it?
Let’s compare my version of God vs the Christian version of God:
Christian version of God: “I created you into a particular existential framework without consulting you (obviously.) You have a few years to choose one of two very particular eternal conditions after you die; one immensely pleasant, the other very unenjoyable (or, “non-existence, depending on the particular interpretation.) That choice is: to love me or to not love me. These few years will likely be very, very difficult, confusing, painful, and full of distractions, doubts and temptations leading you to make the wrong choice. Go!” (and so, you are born.)
My version of God (if it could talk like a person, and putting it in a comparative framework:) “Hello, eternal being. You are free to do as you wish, experience whatever you wish, for eternity. You will never be locked into any one particular place, situation or experience; using your free will, you can move anywhere in infinite experiential worlds and states. If you wish, at any time, you may move towards me and feel the unconditional love I have for you that will be beyond anything you’ve ever experienced. You can come and go as you please, we have all of eternity! You are always welcome to come near me and enjoy this love, or move away from me and experience other kinds of things, any other possible thing. It’s all up to you! I have no judgement on anything you do or experience.”
I’ll leave the reader to decide which god is the more loving and better, and which one is better characterized as an abusive tyrant.
We often refer to God as “our Father”. Sticking to that analogy, a good father’s prime role is not to insist on worship and devotion from his children. His role is to provide the necessary teaching and unconditional love so that his children can grow into happy and loving adults. If you want a father image who demands worship at the threat of punishment, move to North Korea.
WJM presents the following sites as evidence that foreign NDE’s are just as positive as the overwhelmingly positive NDEs experienced in Judeo-Christian cultures:
And yet when we look at his sites we find that the billing does not live up to WJM’s hype
In WJM’s first site, Many of the NDEs happen in cultures that are influenced by Judeo-Christian influences (Hong Kong, Korea, Kenya). And many of the NDEs can be classified as being rather mundane to being unpleasant. Perhaps 4 or 5 of the testimonies from his site mention the tunnel and/or the “Being of light’, and are therefore very close to what we hear about in ‘typical Judeo-Christian NDEs,
But even then it is unclear if the people are totally free from Judeo Christian influences and/or what their specific religion actually is. After all, India, and Korea are known to have heavy Judeo Christian influences in different regions of their countries.
The second site, though not as ambiguous as WJM’s first site, is less promising for WJM’s claim that foreign NDE’s are just as pleasant as ‘typical’ Judeo Christian NDEs,
a few quotes from his second site:
Thus from WJM’s own citation, i.e. his second site, it appears that the more clarity we have in examining the exact details of his claim that foreign NDEs are just as pleasant as ‘typical’ heavenly Judeo-Christian NDEs, the more WJM’s claim seems to evaporate into thin air.
Shoot I suggest everyone closely read WJM’s second site, (reading past the author’s own personal bias), and see for themselves that foreign NDE’s don’t hold a candle to ‘typical’ heavenly Judeo-Christian NDEs.
I could not agree with Paige’s succinct comment at 147 more.
BA77
I am not asking you to.
Sorry Paige, I just admire when someone can summarize quickly what usually takes me many more words to do.
WJM states: “Here’s a challenge for you to make your case for Christian exclusivity form NDE accounts: Find, cite and provide reference to some “positive” NDE accounts that includes a message or an experience that directly makes a statement in support of Christian exclusivity.”
Jesus rescued former atheist professor Howard Storm from hell during his NDE
Brain surgeon Eben Alexander, (Harvard), states, “More than ever since my near death experience, I consider myself a Christian -,,, it is an idea that I now believe. Not in a lip-service way. Not in a dress-up-it’s-Easter kind of way. I believe it with all my heart, and all my soul.,,”
Here is Dr. Mary Neal’s encounter with Jesus:
The following book looked at hundreds of similar reports of encountering Jesus during Near Death Experiences.
Paige, part of why this site exists is to provide substantial information, evidence, reference information and analysis. Not everything can or should be reduced to sound bites. In 132, I drew out the fitness landscape issue, set it in the wider context of islands of function, pointed out how the fitness landscape model fails. I then took the analogy to fine tuning and showed why it fails while using two noted experts in classic statements (Walker is an associate). A substantial case has been answered. Necessary and appropriate. KF
PS: Observe this Arxiv paper by Lewis and Barnes https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2104/2104.03381.pdf
BA77
My apologies. I misinterpreted your comment.
KF
That does not answer why some find it necessary to address in great detail why they disagree with Adam’s puddle scenario from his book. People who raise it as an argument against fine tuning are simply trolling for a response, and laughing when they get a response.
When I first read the book I laughed at the puddle aside. Not because I thought that it was a serious argument against fine tuning, but at the stupidity of the puddle. Just as I suspect people are laughing at the people here who are providing a detailed argument against the trolls who raise Adam’s puddle as an argument against fine tuning.
Paige, the comment above responds to HN42, who brings out the underlying issue of fitness landscapes and hill climbing, which is a major argument posed by those who would write the genome out of incrementally filtered noise. This somehow shapes a paradigm which is then wedded to a form of anthropic principle. The issue of deeply isolated islands of complex, configuration based function and blind search challenge is then a relevant response. But then, that was what was already argued and a summary like this– per, show your working — is necessarily significantly weaker than the actual argument. KF
From WJM’s responses, this also caught my eye,
Well first off, besides Christianity providing the correct overarching worldview in order to allow modern science to take root and flourish in Medieval Christian Europe, and besides the fact that the Bible uniquely predicted such small scientific details as, say, the entire universe being created, besides all that, my claim for Christianity goes beyond that. I am claiming that Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides the correct solution for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’.
Now WJM, while I certainly disagree with you that Christianity providing the correct intellectual presuppositions for modern science to take root and flourish, and that the Bible making many unique predictions that have now been confirmed to be true, does not at least “move the case for Christian exclusivity forward an inch”, even you, with your seemingly severe hostility towards Christianity, must honestly admit that Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead providing the correct solution for the quote unquote ‘theory of everything’ would move the case for ‘Christian exclusivity’ forward at least an inch? Shoot, perhaps even an inch and a half? 🙂
And this also happens to be where I see a major failing in your theory (IRT).
You see, in order for a theory to provide a coherent solution for the ‘theory of everything, your theory must be able to deal with the subjective world of quantum mechanics, and with the objective world of relativity.
Yet, if I read your theory correctly, you basically write off the objective world that General Relativity reveals to us as being, basically, inconsequential.
Which is to say that you never really meaningfully deal with trying to unify the objective world of General Relativity with the subjective world of Quantum Mechanics.
This is not a minor failing for any theory that hopes to be the quote unquote ‘theory of everything’, and/or the correct explanation for why reality is the way it is, as I am assuming that you envision your theory as being the correct explanation for why reality is the way it is.
The number one quest in Physics today, for at least the last thirty years, has been to find a way mathematically unify quantum mechanics and general relativity into a ‘theory of everything’.
Thousands of the most brilliant minds in the world today have tried and failed to find a single overarching mathematical framework to unify gravity and quantum mechanics.
And, as I pointed out in the following video, there are very good mathematical reasons for why there will never be a purely mathematical theory of everything.
And there are also very good theoretical reasons for why the two theories will never be unified into a single overarching mathematical framework.
For instance, the entropy associated with general relativity is very destructive, whereas the entropy associated with special relativity is very orderly.
Specifically, in Special Relativity (which can be unified with quantum mechanics via ‘renormalization), we are dealing with the extremely orderly 1 in 10^10^123 entropy that is associated with the creation of the universe, i.e. which is associated with the initial creation of light.
Whereas, in General Relativity we are dealing with the ‘infinitely destructive’ entropy associated with Black Holes.
And another very good theoretical reason why gravity and quantum mechanics will never be unified into a single mathematical theory, (as special relativity and quantum mechanics have been mathematically unified to produce quantum electrodynamics), is because general relativity and special relativity reveal two very different space-time curvatures to us.
The space-time curvature for special relativity happens for an observer who is approaching the speed of light. And the space-time curvature for general relativity happens for an observer falling into a strong gravitational field.
What is interesting about these two very different space-time curvatures in that they reveal two very different timeless ‘eternities’ to us.
The eternity for special relativity is found when a hypothetical observer approaches the speed of light. In this scenario, time, as we understand it, would come to a complete stop for that hypothetical observer as he reached the speed of light.
To grasp the whole concept of time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the very same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into special relativity. Here is a short clip from a video that gives us a look into Einstein’s breakthrough insight.
That time, as we understand it comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, and yet light moves from point A to point B in our universe, and thus light is obviously not ‘frozen within time, has some fairly profound implications.
The only way it is possible for time not to pass for light, and yet for light to move from point A to point B in our universe, is if light is of a higher dimensional value of time than the temporal time we are currently living in. Otherwise light would simply be ‘frozen within time’ to our temporal frame of reference.
And that is exactly what Hermann Minkowski, Einstein’s math professor, found:
One way for us to more easily understand this higher dimensional framework for time that light exists in is to visualize what would happen if a hypothetical observer approached the speed of light.
In the first part of the following video clip, which was made by two Australian University Physics Professors, we find that the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer approaches the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light.
Likewise, as the preceding article also made reference to, Einstein’s General Relativity is also based on a higher dimensional framework.
The following video is very good for illustrating the tunnel curvature that is found for the space-time of gravity in general relativity. Specifically, it is good for visualizing the tunnel curvature that is found at black holes
And also likewise, we also see that General Relativity also has its own timeless eternity associated with it when an observer reaches the event horizon of a black hole. (Of note, the event horizon of a black hole is defined as being the place where the gravitational acceleration of a black hole is equal to the speed of light.)
In short, special relativity and general relativity reveal two VERY different eternities to us, and I hold that to be a very good theoretical reason why the two theories of relativity will never be successfully unified into a single overarching mathematical theory with quantum mechanics.
And now that we have outlined the basics of relativity, this is where it gets really interesting.
We have been taking about Near Death Experiences in this thread. And Near Death Experience happen to corroborate key features that we now know to be true from Special and General Relativity.
In the following video clip, Mickey Robinson gives his Near Death testimony of what it felt like for him to experience a ‘timeless eternity’.
And here are a few more quotes from people who have experienced Near Death, that speak of how their perception of time was radically altered as they were outside of their material body.
As well, Near Death Experiencers also frequently mention going through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension:
In the following video, Barbara Springer gives her testimony as to what it felt like for her to go through the tunnel:
And in the following audio clip, Vicki Noratuk, who has been blind from birth, besides being able to see for the first time during in her life during her Near Death Experience, also gives testimony of going through a tunnel:
And the following people who had a NDE both testify that they firmly believed that they were in a higher dimension that is above this three-dimensional world and that the primary reason that they have a very difficult time explaining what their Near Death Experiences felt like is because we simply don’t currently have the words to properly describe that higher dimension:
That what we now know to be true from special relativity, (namely that it outlines a ‘timeless’, i.e. eternal, dimension that exists above this temporal dimension), would fit hand and glove with the personal testimonies of people who have had a deep heavenly NDEs is, needless to say, powerful evidence that their testimonies are, in fact, true and that they are accurately describing the ‘reality’ of a higher heavenly dimension, that they experienced first hand, and that they say exists above this temporal dimension.
I would even go so far as to say that such corroboration from ‘non-physicists’, who, in all likelihood, know nothing about the intricacies of special relativity, is a complete scientific verification of the overall validity of their personal NDE testimonies.
Moreover, besides heavenly experiences, (and I would be remiss if I did not mention them), there are also hellish experiences that also corroborate what we would expect to see from what we now know to be true about General Relativity.
In the following video clip, former atheist Howard Storm speaks of what eternity felt like for him in the hellish dimension:
And at the 7:00 minute mark of this video, Ron Reagan gives testimony of falling down a ‘tunnel’ towards hell:
And in this following video, Bill Wiese also speaks of ‘tumbling down’ a tunnel in his transition stage to hell:
And in this following video, Paul Ojeda also speaks of ‘falling’ towards hell at a very fast speed:
Again, that these NDEs would corroborate key features that we know to be true from General Relativity is powerful evidence that their experiences were indeed real.
Needless to say, these hellish NDEs OUGHT to be very sobering for anyone who is of a spiritually minded persuasion.
Asauber – I appreciate your contributions as well. I recall that we had an interesting discussion regarding natural selection. You made me rethink some things. I hope to talk about some ideas in a comment soon.
Best.
Paige –
Wikipedia seems to think very highly of the puddle argument. Richard Dawkins seems to extol it in “Lament for Douglas Adams.”
Maybe people shouldn’t take it seriously but they do.
Hi HNorman 42. I looked up Anthropic Principle on Wikipedia, and it made no mention of Adams. There is one sentence about it on the Douglas Adams page. What Wikipedia page did you find that seemed to think highly of it?
Also Dawkins and Adams were good friends. I am a Douglas Adams fan, but not particularly a Dawkins fan. I saw him speak one time and thought his thoughts on religion were simplistic and uninformed.
As to his essay upon Adam’s death. he wrote,
As Sev said in post #2 of this thread, “Adams’s “puddle” analogy was simply making that point that we might be wrong thinking this was all created just for us.” It’s not trying to make some fancy philosophical argument about the fine-tuning of our universe, but rather that it is rather parochial to think that that fine-tuning was just so we, human beings on planet Earth for the last some number of thousands of years could exist: that the whole big universe was made for us.
And, much more importantly, Dawkins wrote this,
Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency is a great book, and much more sophisticated than the Hitchhiker books. I too immediately re-read it after finishing it. I recommend it highly to all Adams fans.
Viola Lee, HN42 might be referring to this page.
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
I have also read Dirk Gently and thoroughly enjoyed it. It would be unfair to compare it to Hitchhiker’s Guide as Hitchhiker’s was first developed as a radio show.
as to:
And yet our best scientific evidence now says that its was. Go Figure!
WJM @146,
I’ll boil it down: whoever believes in an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator who consigns some of Its creations to eternal, I said, ETERNAL, anguish and torment, is mentally ill. (Why not just annihilate their consciousness?) These people can try to justify their god’s actions all their want, but their imaginary god is worse than Hitler. And they worship it. This really goes to the psychology of the people who actually believe in such a monster.
Let’s just call a spade a spade.
Thanks, Paige. I’ve never heard of Simple Wikipedia, but it certainly lives up to its name! 🙂
Glad to hear of someone else who is a Dirk Gently fan: so many iconic ideas in that book. The description of what it would be like to be a ghost is fascinating. And the chapter on the Electric Monk is so good that I’ll just post it all here
By the way, the Hebrew “religion” (starting with First Temple Abraham/Melchizedek framework), even on down to the post-Josiah reform/purge Second Temple Moses/Torah “religion”, knew nothing of this “eternal torment, burning in hell forever” nonsense. That concept was a very late insertion brought back from Babylon/Persia from the captivity Jews and made it’s way into some of the “intertestiment” non-Torah/Prophet writings such as 1 Enoch. 1 Enoch was obviously influential to certain writers in the Christian canon. It’s even quoted by Jude! This “eternal torment” idea is late in the Hebrew/Christian framework, is corrupt (as the Qumran sect asserted with many proofs), and anyone who believes it neither knows the Hebrew “religion”, is duped, or is simply mentally ill and wants to believe in a monster god.
KF: WJM, I started with 500 witnesses not shaken by dungeon, fire, sword and worse. I also pointed to death transition experiences including my own witness. KF
Come on. Could be total fiction. You weren’t there with those “500”. Even modern VIDEO evidence can be completely misleading. And you’re leaning on 2000 year old writings that cannot be objectively verified. Are you insane?
I’m an ex-Mormon. In my life I’ve known 100s of Mormons who believe with 100% unshakeable surety that God has told them that the LDS religion is true. Some of the best people I’ve ever known. And I’ll bet you would think so too. Do you accept their testimony? Yes or no?
I’ve known Oneness Pentecostals who testify to the most awesome miracles you could imagine, healings, raising from the dead, etc. Wonderful sincere people that I know personally. And they claim to know by direct Holy Ghost revelation that the Trinity doctrine is a total lie. Do you accept their testimony? Yes or no?
One of my best friends and mentors in my life, now deceased, was a Jew who became a die hard Hindu and claimed direct absolute knowledge from God that Sathya Sai Baba in India (look him up) was God incarnate. He was one of the best people I ever knew, completely sincere, devout, brilliant intellectually too. Nobody’s fool. Do you accept his testimony? Yes or no?
Hmmm. Karen’s comments are somewhat relevant to my Electric Monk post, and vice versa. And as Dylan said in “High Water”, “You can’t open up your mind, boys, to every conceivable point of view.”
What do we do with all these different beliefs, and the obvious propensity of people to believe all sorts of things, with, as Douglas Adams says of the Electric Monk, “a solid and abiding faith, a great rock against which the world could hurl whatever it would, yet it would not be shaken.”?
KM, that some hyperskeptical theologians ~ 200 years ago got into very bad habits of speculative dismissiveness is no excuse for you to indulge the same today. A little searching will suffice to show that we are talking of record about 25 years after the events of c 30 AD, with an underlying summary within 5 – 8 or fewer years of the event.Where, by c 35 years after the event — the equivalent of what happened in 1986 [which happens to be a momentous year] to now — Nero’s demonic insanity descended. Visions or hallucinations come about through what is in one’s specific mind and 500 do not have a common hallucination. Particularly, in the core group of eating supper with a familiar figure twice in four nights. The miracle is in the interim course of events between the suppers. Going beyond, by now you know UD is not a theology forum, and there are readily accessible sites that address your further concerns. KF
Karen McMannus, at 164, calls people who believe in the reality of hell ‘mentally ill’:
But by what standard is she calling them mentally ill?
Well, she is morally certain that God, if he existed, would never allow people to go to hell.
But she, in calling God ‘imaginary’, has forsaken any objective moral basis from which to make moral judgements. Which is to say, if God is imaginary and does not exist for Karen, then morality itself does not exist either for Karen.
As C.S. Lewis succinctly summed up the moral dilemma for people who deny the reality of God, “A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.”
Without God, Karen simply has no ‘straight moral line’ in which to be able to make moral judgements, and thus her moral argument against God collapses in on itself.
In short, it is a self-refuting argument.
If Karen is going to make a coherent argument against the reality of hell, she needs to use some other type of evidence rather than her own personal moral druthers as to what she personally believes is a morally proper and fitting thing for God to do or to not do.
But, as I have already mentioned at post 157, the evidence from physics, specifically the evidence from General Relativity, supports the physical reality of an infinitely destructive, i.e. hellish, dimension.
As to Karen’s specific claim that Christians are ‘mentally ill’, well, as far as mental health is actually concerned, the scientific evidence itself begs to differ with Karen’s supposedly ‘expert’ mental evaluation of Christians here on UD.
In fact, as far as the scientific evidence itself is concerned, it is atheists who are found to have significantly more mental, and physical, health issues than Christians do.
F/N: I note on focal issues relevant to the OP and to the matters raised by HN42.
I first clip from Lewis and Barnes at Arxiv:
Here, we see the issue that when we exist is dependent on the cosmos being in a position to have suitable materials, energy and environment, i.e. Galactic habitable zone, long lifespan second or third generation high metallicity stars with terrestrial planets. That is, for observations to be made, the cosmos must be observer-permitting. This is termed a weak anthropic principle.
That already begs the onward question, what sort of possible cosmos permits such formation?
In short, the question is not being begged, simply examining the cosmology and its evident contingency, we find that we are at a deeply isolated island of relevant function in the configuration space of framed cosmology. Where, Leslie’s lone fly smacked by a bullet here raises onward questions, regardless of whether other zones on the wall elsewhere might be positively carpeted. (BTW, this leads to the Boltzmann brain fluctuation problem, as it is argued that a rare but possible quantum fluctuation like that, leading to a delusional perception then extinction would be far more common on a quasi-infinite multiverse. The relative statistical weights make it maximally implausible that we would find this sort of world that way.)
We further find:
This does not go on to the functionally specific, complex organisation and/or information necessary to build a living, C-chem, aqueous medium, proteins etc based cell, or onward body plans. It is about what we need to have the materials and environments to have an environment in which 4.6 bn years after sol system formation we can be here with the relevant observations in hand to be having this blog exchange. For, it turns out that our being here as embodied, significantly rational, observing creatures and having in hand a body of relevant astronomy and cosmology is itself a scientifically relevant observation that speaks to cosmological issues.
It turns out to be some very special requisites indeed, once we look at the cosmology we have worked out and explore the significant neighbourhood of possible worlds with similar cosmology.
Fine tuning is real, we need to address it as a significant challenge in itself.
KF
F/N: Having put on the table some relevant considerations, it is possibly helpful to say a few words about minded being and linked logic of being etc. I feel prompted to raise a few points for reflection.
First, while a brain is a composite computational substrate a mind is inherently a unity, it is not capable of being cut up into prior bits that make it into something functional by being configured in a given way. It is simple not composite substance. Which leads to the question, how can such be destroyed? We cannot break it apart, we cannot starve it of energy or materials, we cannot stifle it, bleed it out etc. So, how can a mind, once existing, be destroyed?
We erase memories in computational substrates by over-writing them, a process depending on there being a composite nature. The demand to annihilate seems to imply an ontology that is not consistent with what our own awareness of ourselves as inherently unitary selves is telling us on the difference between brain and mind.
We may be making an error of projecting from one order of being to another, through a sort of implicit materialism. I draw a contrast, by clip:
That should give us pause, there is a gap of conception and vision at work. Once formed, a mind-soul, spiritual being is inherently unified in the core and immortal, though that does not make embodiment an imprisonment of the soul. The disintegration, death or annihilation of an ensouled being, once formed, is a challenge. How, specifically could it be done, without smuggling in assumptions on composite nature built up from assembly that is contingent? (Now, do we see one of the underlying driving factors in materialism? Hence, the contrast, that we have eternity in our hearts.)
In this context, the origin of ensouled, embodied creatures can be seen in this, that such opens up a world of good, the world of mind, love, virtue, creativity, artistry, beauty in that context and more. So, we see the context of the Plantinga free will defense. Soul opens up a qualitative leap in goodness, but freedom is just that, free. Abuse and perversion of capability is an inherent feature of freedom.
And hence the contrast of three republics.
Here, we inhabit the republic of procreation, growth, life, fulfillment of potential. Souls are multiplied, opportunity for good is multiplied. Those who make good use of such have access to the republic of joy. Those who refuse, have their own republic, where they can make what they will of a lifetime of wrenching potential out of its true end. Ironically, the gates of hell are locked from the inside and its fires of mutual frustration and chaos are set by its own denizens. Yes, in hell and in its foretaste, its embryonic form, its caterpillar stage . . . civilisation built on vice and lawless domineering, we have met the enemy, the demonic torturer of souls: it is our very own selves. As we can see a foretaste of in our own civilisation at this time. Irony.
(Did you notice, Australia’s grim warning on the geostrategic challenge of China’s blue ocean breakout and the first target, Taiwan? High kinetic phases of the ongoing WW4, loom even as c 1938 the shadows of full outbreak of war loomed. We have failed to learn from history bought with blood and tears, yet again, through the march of willfully blind stubborn folly.)
Perhaps, some rethinking is in order.
KF
BA77 @147 said:
What “hype?” Those links offer exactly what I said they do; provide more examples of non-Christians in non-Christian countries having positive NDEs to counter your characterization that they are “rare.” Perhaps “rare” is in the eye of the beholder; I’m happy to let the reader decide for themselves. In any event, we agree on the only important aspect of this part of the argument; non-Christians in both Western and non-Western cultures can have paradisaic NDEs and meet figures from their religions as the “being of light” they encounter, and can interpret that “being of light” in other ways. How “rare” one considers this is irrelevant. It only takes one black swan as a counterfactual to prove false the premise “all swans are white.” Christian exclusivity is an “all swans are white” claim.
In your examples from Eben Alexander and Mary Neal, I apparently wasn’t clear in what I asked for. I know that many people experience what you said; either a strengthening of their original religious perspective or adopting one. I’m not asking for cases where their belief is renewed or deepened, or accounts where they adopt Christianity afterward. What I’m looking for is one where the NDEr is told by some figure of authority, such as the “being of light,” during the NDE a message that explicitly verifies Christian exclusivity, such as “only by accepting Christ will you return here to stay for eternity.” Or something along those lines.
I’ve never read such an account; I’d be interested in a cited reference if that has ever occurred, even once. I find it odd even under my own worldview that I’ve never read an NDE account where this message was given the NDEr from the being of light or some other otherworldly “authority figure.”
BA77 said:
I don’t have any hostile attitude towards Christians whatsoever. I love Christians. I respect and admire what Christianity has provided in this world, especially the framework for the country I live in and the freedoms I enjoy. Many people in my family are Christians; I never try to talk them out of it. Why would I? They are happy and enjoy their beliefs and what those views offer them.
If I were to point out that a person seemed to be involved in an abusive relationship with their spouse, does that mean I am “hostile” to that relationship, or that I am hostile to either party involved in the relationship? Most spiritualities and religions (and actually, most societal structures) appear to me to be abusive, taking advantage of authoritative reward and penalty structures most people require psychologically to gain a sense of personal validation in their lives. I’m not hostile to this at all because, from my perspective, people ultimately make all these choices out of their own free will.
That said, your statement above makes it clear that you don’t understand the nature of the case you are attempting to prove: Christian exclusivity. In order to do that, you must, in effect, prove that all swans are white, meaning the only available existential experience anyone can ever have is that which is defined by the Christian perspective. A major part of this is: the only after-death experience anyone can ever have is that which is defined by Christianity.
Even if every NDE, astral projection, or ADC communication fit the Christian narrative, this still would not be sufficient to demonstrate, conclusively, that “all swans are white.” If *all* such evidence did in fact fit the Christian narrative, I’d happily say that the evidence supports the Christian exclusivity narrative.
But, even if 99% of the evidence supported the Christian narrative, “exclusivity” would be disproved, just as the existence of a single black swan disproves the “all swans are white” narrative. Christian exclusivity has been evidentially disproved.
The only recourse the Christian exclusivist has in the face of disconfirming evidence, is to show how such evidence is necessarily in error. This can only be achieved (since disconfirming evidence exists) by showing that the Christian narrative is the only one we can possibly experience, existentially speaking. As far as I can see, the only way to do that is by assuming the conclusion of your inductive, evidence-based argument: God chose to prohibit all other possible existential possibilities, or that God was unable to choose to allow any other existential possibilities.
If you want to take up that effort, feel free.
Look, I’m not saying you do not have good reason to believe what you do; I’m not saying it’s a “bad” belief by any means or that you’re not going to experience what you believe you will experience. I’m not saying there is not an enormous amount of evidence that supports the Christian perspective; there is. However, none of that makes an inch of headway in terms of making the case for Christian experiential, existential exclusivity because we have black swans on table. A billion white swans does not make even a single black swan disappear, and we have more than one black swan on the table. Those black swans change the nature of how you must argue for “exclusivity.”
Uh WJM, your own references, contrary to what you believe, are not conclusive proof for your claim.
Again, your own reference, and you sent reference, itself stated that tunnels to a higher dimension were absent in foreign NDEs,
Not a minor failing for someone claiming that foreign NDEs reflect the heavenly paradise of Christian NDEs
Obviously true and some will treat each belief of which many are nothing more than opinions based on emotions as equivalent. But equally obvious each belief is not equivalent in truth value.
Some beliefs are more justified than others.
One is definitely true while the other may be true. They don’t have the same justification for belief. (I believe one commenter here officially doubts there is a sun so may claim the sun will not rise. Of course that commenter doesn’t really believe what he claims.)
Aside: people eventually reveal themselves by their comments. Some are open and easy to discern while others are very protective of their actual beliefs. The latter usually have little of consequence to offer.
BA77 said:
Since my claim was that those links provided more NDEs to support my claim that foreign NDEs were not as rare as you were implying, I’m happy leaving that up to the reader to decide. Relative “rarity” is largely a subjective perspective. However, as I said, whether or not such experiences are “rare” is irrelevant to the case you are burdened with making.
No, it just said that the tunnel sensation (whether observed or not) as described as a “tunnel” was absent in foreign descriptions of their NDE process. It’s also absent in many non-foreign NDE accounts, but this from the summary of the report:
I’m not sure what you think you’re accomplishing here; NDEs have a wide variety of experiences; I think someone identified 12 major qualities of NDEs; no single experiencer report has had all 12.
I’m not sure why you think foreigners not reporting a “tunnel” experience in those terms helps your exclusivity case. You and I seem to be arguing about two different things. I’m arguing about exclusivity; you seem to be amassing evidence that the average Christian NDE experience is “superior to,” or better that the average foreign NDE, and/or that certain aspects of common NDE experiences are better predicted and explained by Christianity.
These are two entirely different arguments.
What the evidence indicates is that how one experiences an NDE, and what one experiences in an NDE, is largely at least interpreted and described in terms reflecting the culture of the person having the NDE. The base commonality is that the meet other beings and visit another world, as in the case of the three people (previously posted here) that had a group NDE, but interpreted the “being of light” as three different things. Interestingly, they all apparently saw the same architecture of the building they found themselves in, but identified the being differently, even though the being said the same thing to all three.
What appears to be happening is that when one dies, they find themselves in an observer-state dependent environmental situation. Usually, this afterlife environment reflects certain cultural norms or references.
BTW, for those that think this is better explained via some sort of psychology-induced hallucination brought on by stress, fear, trauma. drugs, etc., there has been research conducted to examine these possible explanations and they have been effectively ruled out as what is going on. These experiences do not fit those physical, medical or psychological/experiential profiles; they fit the “reality experience” profile.
All this NDE evidence is 100% predicted by IRT. Of course, by and large, when people die they will find themselves continuing to exist in a familiar environment that reflects their observational state, so to speak.
BA77,
It occurs to me that you might think I’m trying to make the case that all NDEs or afterlife experiences include or are of some form of “paradise.” That’s clearly not the case. As you have pointed out, there afterlife environments that range from being described as “paradise,” to “mediocre,” to “hellish.” Yes, they all apparently exist and can be experienced via NDE, astral projection, astral travel, and death; al those varieties and more have been described by various accounts and by ADC communication.
The few remarks that have been made about the puddle story have not been about all the stuff KF posted this morning. They have been about the idea that all that fine-tuning was specifically created for us.
Sev, at 2: “Adams’s “puddle” analogy was simply making that point that we might be wrong thinking this was all created just for us.”
The Dawkins quote: The puddle story illustrates “the vain conceit that the universe must be somehow preordained for us, because we are so well suited to live in it.”
Even here on Earth, it might turn out that in a million years, or a 100 million, there are rational creatures who have developed the ability to live on this planet without the hatred and divisiveness and destruction that we now experience, and those are the creatures which were intended. In that case, we might be looked back upon as no more than a primitive precursor to those intended beings.
Or, perhaps the universe was created for some life form someplace in the Andromeda galaxy, and all the rest of the life forms in the universe, even if rare (such as us) are just incidental developments with no special significance.
To think this universe was created specifically for us is the point Adams is making fun of
VL, the puddle argument has been used to object to fine tuning in general, and HN42 pointed out a chain of seeming plausibilities that was well worth following up. Dawkins’ strawman caricature is part of the same pattern. First, the design inference on fine tuning is an inference to design [a causal process shaped by intelligence], not to Creator. Second, as for our involvement, we are here, we are asking the questions, we seek explanation of our existence embodied in this cosmos with this cosmology that exhibits the relevant fine tuning. Third, fine tuning points to design as relevant cause of a cosmos like this that enables biospheres like ours with creatures like us. Fourth, the design inference is not creationism, it is empirical reasoning on sign. KF
But KF, how do you respond to my points (and Adams’ and Dawkins’) that, given fine-tuning, there is no reason to believe that we–human beings on earth at this time–are the intended target of such fine tuning? Why not creatures millions of years from now, or creatures in another galaxy?
Again, the puddle story is not about the larger fine-tuning argument: it is about the parochial idea that all that fine-tuning was done specifically for us.
Without the fine tuning there wouldn’t be an “us”. But the fine tuning is not sufficientn to account for us.
VL @182,
Prepare for the textual avalanche.
This just my limited experience, but I’ve been in at least a couple of discussions where the “puddle argument” was used against intelligent design. The essence of the argument was that we’re like the puddle; we see things from our limited perspective, and we interpret them in the way we want to interpret them. Fine tuning, Cambrian explosion, irreducible complexity, etc was dismissed as an interpretation of evidence that could be interpreted in many other ways. Based on those experiences, I think this post is worthwhile. People have and will likely continue to use the puddle argument to dispute intelligent design.
I don’t think intelligent design precludes the design being for somebody else. I would be surprised if we’re more than a minor player in an intelligently designed system. Our purpose in the intelligently designed system may be something we can determine, but I don’t think we’re at that point yet.
WJM, it has occurred to me that you, as of late, spend far more time on UD arguing with Christians than you do arguing with Darwinists and trying to defend ID. In fact, I personally haven’t seen you defend ID against Darwinists in a very long time. You seem far more interested in developing some kind of new ‘one world’ religion with your new IRT. (or whatever abbreviation of the week you are now calling your new theory)
Like Jerry said, perhaps it is time for you to move on to bigger venues, perhaps 50 people, instead of just 25 here at UD, so as to spread your new worldview/religion? It seems much, much, too important for you to keep bottled up here on UD.
(But then again, is your new religion just the same ole New Age religion with your own personal spin put on it?)
But anyways, if you have not noticed, a major part of Christian belief is that Jesus Christ made a way for us to enter heaven. Which is to say that Jesus Christ, through his atoning sacrifice, made a way for finite and sinful man to dwell in a higher, eternal, dimension, in the presence of God almighty who is infinitely holy and just.
That is why the tunnel experience to a higher heavenly dimension is very important to me personally as a Christian.
Again, from YOUR primary study that you cited to me on foreign NDEs, tunnels to a higher heavenly dimension are absent in foreign NDEs,
To quote YOUR study that you cited to me
And as I mentioned in post 157, Near Death Experiencers in Judeo Christian cultures frequently mention going through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension, i.e. to a realm of light and unimaginable beauty.
In the following video, Barbara Springer gives her testimony as to what it felt like for her to go through the tunnel to the higher heavenly dimension
And as I further noted in post 157, that what we now know to be true from special relativity, (namely that it outlines a ‘timeless’, i.e. eternal, dimension that exists above this temporal dimension), would fit hand and glove with the personal testimonies of people who have had a deep heavenly NDEs is, needless to say, powerful evidence that their testimonies are, in fact, true and that they are accurately describing the ‘reality’ of a higher heavenly dimension, that they experienced first hand.
Moreover WJM, that YOUR main study that you cited to me, for foreign NDEs being, basically, equivalent to Judeo-Christian NDEs, denied the existence of tunnels in foreign NDEs is therefore, again, not a minor failing for someone trying to convince a Christian that foreign NDEs are just as ‘heavenly’ as Judeo-Christian NDEs are.
Look at this from my perspective WJM, in your claim that I should accept foreign NDEs as being on par with heavenly Christian NDEs, you are basically asking me to trade my beautiful brand new Ferrari for your pitiful used Yugo.
It just ain’t gonna happen. You can go try and pawn your pitiful Yugo off on someone else. I just ain’t buying it. Not even for a minute.
Already happened at 171 and 172, and I’m sure there will be more. (We ought to have a contest: what is the largest “words in response” to “words in a post” ratio that can be stimulated.) What won’t happen is a short response directly engaging the questions I asked.
ET wins the “what would a succinct answer look like” contest, though.
KF
With respect, most crimes have a statute of limitations of 5 to 7 years, largely due to the known fallibility of eyewitness testimony over time.
And, unless there is something I am not aware of, which is quite possible, the claims of 500 witnesses were not separate attestations by 500 individuals, but an attestation by a very small number of people that there were 500 witnesses.
Nothing in ID said it was done specifically for us. There are several things that indicate life as we know it was a target. But there could be other multiple targets.
The Earth is extremely fine tuned. It does not mean that other systems were not also fine tuned.
Some may interpret it in a narrow way but ID doesn’t.
So why the remark?
Because, Jerry, I was trying to clarify the intent of Adam’s puddle story. It was not aimed at the over-all fine-tuning argument and it was not aimed at ID. It was aimed at the narrow religious idea that the universe was created especially for us.
It’s so narrow I never heard of it. What religion? Anyone can express an opinion and say God did it. But that’s not a religion. Technically it may be called a religious idea but only an irrelevant few. So are the opinions of some to be singled out for the rationale of such nonsense as the puddle argument.
Now the earth I might understand as designed for our type of life.
Jerry asks, “It’s so narrow I never heard of it. What religion?”
Christianity, for one.
Jerry, do you mind if I ask you if you have read the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy?
I’m not aware of it.
Christianity says God created the world/universe, plants and animals. And specifically humans. It does not rule out other creations elsewhere.
Now to be fair knowledge/science till relatively very recently did not understand the world/universe we were created in so did not understand other possibilities.
No. Is it of any value to have read it other than as entertaining.
I believe there was a television show several years ago that my wife snd I watched a few episodes. Or it may have been re-runs.
BA77,
Unfortunately, none of that moves your argument for Christian exclusivity forward, as I previously explained.
Hitchhiker’s Guide was the best 5 book trilogy ever! 😉
Jerry
Only to put the puddle bit in the context of the fact that the entire book was essentially a compilation of absurd scenarios arranged in a very loose plot narrative.
ET
And it probably would have ended up as a 9 part trilogy. Or, as per Adam’s humor, the Hitchhiker’s trilogy trilogy.
As far as I can make out, BA77 (correct me if I’m wrong in some significant way,) you’re arguing that the evidence from the Shroud of Turin reveals that Jesus’ death created a kind of “wormhole” into heaven. Thus, the argument would be that only people who experience the “tunnel” in an NDE are experiencing “heaven,” or the “real” afterlife.
If that’s basically your argument, this is why it doesn’t advance your exclusivity case: it depends on (1)simply asserting that the tunnel experience is the only avenue into the afterlife, and (2) that the Christian afterlife is the only afterlife available to anyone. Even if we accept the SoT evidence and the theory of where it goes and how one can pass through it arguendo, that doesn’t make the case that there are not other avenues into other afterlife realms.
Whatever WJM.
You can keep your pitiful used Yugo. I ain’t buying your ‘old’ new age religion. C’est des ordures!
BA77,
I’ll take that to mean you cannot support the claim of Christian existential exclusivity.
Tell you what WJM, I’ll make a deal with you. If you can convince Seversky that ID is true and have him renounce Darwinian evolution, I will do my damndest to work through your obvious ‘bias against Christianity, in which you have labeled God a “tyrant”, and get you to admit that Christianity is true.
I figure it ought to be a lot easier for you to convince Seversky of the truthfulness of ID than me, or any of the ID regulars here on UD, since Seversky, unlike any of the ID regulars, has been, surprisingly, very receptive to your IRT.
You do that, and have Seversky renounce Darwinian evolution, and I will put the time and effort in that is necessary to try to at least put a dent in your ‘tyranical’ bias against Christianity,,, an extreme bias where you have compared the God of Christianity to Hitler.
Deal?
Hmmm. A part of this triangle is missing:
1. WJM convinces Sev to give up his beliefs
2. Then BA will convince WJM to give up his beliefs.
I seem to be missing the part where BA is open to someone convincing him give up his beliefs?
BA77: But by what standard is she calling them mentally ill?
When people worship the idea of an invisible Creator who does worse things than Hitler, I would say they are mentally ill.
Well, she is morally certain that God, if he existed, would never allow people to go to hell.
Your idea of the Creator has it sending people to eternal anguish when it could just snuff them out. Yeah, people who believe such things are mentally ill.
But she, in calling God ‘imaginary’,
I didn’t call the Creator imaginary. I called your demented imaginary version of a Creator imported from Persia and Babylon.
Paige, We are talking history and eyewitness lifetime record is about as good as you will get, especially for classic times. Were your “standard” applied most classical history of consequence would go poof. It isn’t, for good reason, and we have a good knowledge of much of classical times from good records, in many cases reduced to record several generations later. In short, you indulged in fallacious selective hyperskepticism. For that matter, just in my family, oral history has been well preserved for several generations; just the other day I was looking at parish records on my Great Great Great Grandfather buried in a family burial plot that now has come to this generation’s charge. I also ran across record on the Panama Canal that checks with my Grandfather’s stories told to us in our childhood. I recall visiting an industrial site and having a watchman ask about an uncle who had gone up to the US with him to do war work, who drowned while rescuing people in a lake. In actuality, c 55 AD Paul is writing to people dealing with critics and by saying most eyewitnesses are alive this was invitation to speak with same. KF
PS: Sounder approach to evidence, from Simon Greenleaf:
VL, the matter is simple, the fine tuning issue is evidence of design, and without the setting up of a cosmological operating point that is locally deeply isolated we would not be here. In that context, whatever Adams may have imagined, the puddle argument has been advanced and HN42 drew out a significant facet. I responded to that, and I have particularly excerpted Lewis and Barnes who wrote a book on the subject and thought that responding to puddle objections was worth doing on a well known professional physics preprint site used to foster discussion. KF
Yes, but was it all designed for us, KF? Why not some creature millions of years from now. Or why not for some creature in some other galaxy in some other “locally deeply isolated” position? Any thoughts on that?
VL, designed for us is not a feature of cosmological design inference. That has been pointed out already. Beyond a certain point insistence on a point as though it were material when it is not gives the sort of misleading rhetorical impression long since rightly identified as a strawman fallacy. The issue to be addressed is the attempt by whoever to use puddle type arguments to blunt the force of fine tuning evidence. That has clearly been conceded as a weak argument. The balance on merits is clear. Beyond, HN42 helped us see part of what gave rhetorical traction, so it is appropriate to point out the islands of function issue. That has been done. KF
KF@205, this doesn’t change the fact that we are not dealing with 500 witness accounts, we are dealing with a single account of a claim that there were 500 witnesses.
This isn’t to say that the resurrection didn’t occur, just that saying that there were 500 witness accounts is false.
Karen McMannus, funny that you repeatedly call Christians mentally ill for believing in an infinitely holy and just God, but the scientific evidence itself says that Christians, especially when compared to atheists are doing quite well both mentally and physically.
It’s weird that the scientific facts just don’t line up with your personal subjective opinion?
Why is that?
Moreover, despite what you have falsely envisioned in your imagination. God is the source of all love and does not take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked who refuse to repent.
God is NOT an evil tyrant who takes pleasure in tormenting his victims as you have falsely envisioned Him to be doing in your imagination
No one is sadder than Jesus when people freely choose to reject Him and to be separated from God and all that os good.
God doesn’t send anyone to hell. People send themselves to hell by freely choosing to reject Him.
Bill Weise gives testimony to this fact from his Near Death/Out of Body/ Experience of Hell (40 minute mark)
Again, God does NOT send people to hell. People, by their own volition, choose to separate themselves from God and to therefore separate themselves from all that is good.
As CS Lewis put it.
Karen you asked something to this effect “why does God not just annihilate their souls instead of tormenting them forever?” Well, Annihilationism has been a minority position in the Christian church for a very long time:
And here is a exegesical defense against the doctrine of Annihilationism
Choose for yourself who is making the stronger case
All I can say for sure, not being an expert in Biblical exegesis, is that as far as physics can tell me from general relativity, there is definitely a infinitely destructive “hellish” element to reality. They are called Black Holes:
That there actually is a infinitely destructive element to reality OUGHT to be very sobering for anyone who is of a spiritually minded persuasion!
Myself, I have no desire to have my soul ‘annihilated’ , or to have my soul eternally tormented, and thus I freely, and humbly, accept Jesus’s free offer for forgiveness and eternal life in the kingdom of heaven.
The choice is not even close.
Viola Lee, here’s you chance to change my beliefs.
Prove to me, via scientific evidence, that unguided material processes are capable of producing coded information.
If you can do that with undeniably strong scientific evidence then, not only will you change my beliefs, (or, at the very least, force me into a head long retreat), but you will also win 10 million dollars in the process
Something, (actually many things), tells me that the 10 million dollar prize will never be collected!
One obvious reason is that it simply is impossible for material processes to ever generate something that is immaterial.
It just ain’t never going to happen no matter how much Darwinian materialists may wish it to be so.
Paige, We are dealing with the reality of success of a church founded on a pivotal factual claim tracing to 500 unshakeable witnesses and validated as being summarised within 5 – 8 years (and some would say within 2 – 3) of the events. Paul was citing the official voice of the 500, not creating out of whole cloth on his own capacity, he is very clear on that, as he is on the further force of specific, fulfilled scriptures that had been on record for centuries. Peter, speaking in his own voice a decade later affirms much the same, he is the Cephas identified. Where, that claim was deeply offensive to Jews [cursed is one hung on a tree] and incredulous to the Greeks, who were predisposed to denigrate the body. There has to be an unshakable underlying fact attested by witnesses who could not be broken — by dungeon, fire, sword and worse — to break such a dominant negative attitude, as Morison pointed out so long ago now. That is the context in which Paul could confidently invite his critics to speak with the witnesses. Further to this, four years later, on trial for his life — the plots to kill him were very real — he challenged his judges by calling them to witness to what was “not done in a corner.” Yet further to this, the hyperskeptical attempts of recent centuries to explain away and dismiss the cluster of what are now termed minimal facts [up to a dozen], have foundered decisively. The attempt you echoed, to undermine possibility of historical knowledge and even objective knowledge in general, also reflect the same selective hyperskepticism. I trust that the just linked will at least provide food for thought. KF
Viola and Paige @161 and @162 –
The quote sent by Paige was one I hadn’t seen but it was a good one. This quote (from Simple Wikipedia) actually says that the puddle analogy illustrates the anthropic principle.
The Wikipedia quote that I was talking about – a sentence from the section in the Douglas Adams entry on Adams’ atheism – says that the puddle analogy demonstrates that the fine-tuned universe argument for God is a fallacy.
Dawkins’ description of the analogy kind of matches yours. The distinction is that he doesn’t say the fallacy it refutes involves the universe being prepared “for just us” but rather “for us.”
In comment 131 I made some points about how it is possible for an argument to be bad but still have persuasive power. The puddle analogy is definitely an argument worth engaging.
I’m going to give exact quotes for the foregoing. I’ll just put ellipses where the analogy is either quoted or described.
From Anthropic Principle in “Simple Wikipedia” – “Douglas Adams explains this concept quite well using a puddle as an analogy.” …
From Douglas Adams in Wikipedia – “. . . to demonstrate his view that the fine-tuned argument for God was a fallacy.”
From Dawkins’ “Lament for Douglas Adams” – “To illustrate the vain conceit that the universe must be somehow preordained for us. . .”
as to: “To illustrate the vain conceit that the universe must be somehow preordained for us. . .”
and again, the scientific evidence itself says that that ‘vain conceit’ is true. Go figure!
KF
The official voice of the 500? What does that mean?
Hnorman42: good research. I think people have taken the puddle story to mean a number of different things, and I’m surprised it’s been taken so seriously. I tend to agree with ET: I think those of us who are Hitchhiker fans see it all as great amusing fancy, but not all meant to be serious.
For instance, do you know the answer to the Ultimate Question of life, the universe, and everything? It’s 42! Just like in your name! 🙂
The problem is, no one knows what the actual question is.
BA77: Karen McMannus, funny that you repeatedly call Christians mentally ill…
Um no, not all Christians, just your kind.
Um no, if evolution is random and unguided there is no such thing like mentally ill.
Sandy: Um no, if evolution is random and unguided there is no such thing like mentally ill.
Who’s talking about unguided evolution?
@bornagain77:
How are black holes relevant for souls?
Why not mention the already existing hell on earth?
– Being mentally and physically abused as a child
– Being burnt alive by ISIS
– Being a slave in an North Korean concentration camp
– …
Who would choose freely such a torture? No-one. That’s why no-one is in hell.
You.
What really means the temporary suffering in this world if there is no death of soul ?
Paige, NT scholarship has identified a cluster of creedal statements and/or hymns that are quoted in the NT documents, which reflect not the voice of an individual but that of the community. 1 Cor 15 has one of them, and Paul introduces his citation with a formula that indicates solemn citation. Notice, for example the use of the Aramaic form of the name Jesus gave to Peter [Greek form, anglicised], Cephas, rock. We can draw a rough parallel to the US DoI, 1776. This is not Jefferson or even the drafting committee, it is the founding circle. We have in the 55 AD letter, citation of the official testimony of the 500, with particular emphasis on the leading public witnesses, about 20, who can be identified specifically; the circumstances indicate that Paul acquired the materials by c 35 – 38 AD, and suggest even earlier composition of the solemn summary, perhaps by 32 – 33 AD, on the likely understanding that the crucifixion was Spring 30 AD. We must recognise as well a context of appeal to the prophetic element of the OT, a key point that implies that the concept of Messiah and the substance of the gospel are to be understood theologically as eschatological, cf. esp Isa 52:13 – 53:12, c 700+ BC, which is a key to C1 NT theology and to the Christian view on the Hebraic Scriptures. Of course, it is God who can accurately predict the far future. Notice, too, that while the gospels show that the first witnesses on the timeline were women seeking to further honour the body of yet another murdered prophet of Israel, the summary implicitly recognises the attitude of C1 to the testimony of women and probably also seeks to shield them. The common attempt by objectors to dismiss the record as univocal and dubious is deeply ill informed. KF
Viola @217
I’m a big fan of Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. I’m still trying to master the technique of flight that Adams describes. You have to throw yourself at the ground and miss. But you can’t miss on purpose because that’s not really missing. You have to miss by accident.
One thing that made it hard to answer your question is that although there are satirical elements in Adams’ work it’s basically a very high form of comedy. If it’s all satire then it’s very abstruse indeed.
HN42, you continue to turn up gems of thought:
These sources reflect a community voice of radical secularists who have dominated the online encyclopedia that by the reports on how often it is used, is a yardstick of common secularist thought. Where, of course, Dawkins has been dean of the so called new atheists.
So, the puddle argument is a common misconception, a strawman fallacy used to discredit infrence on evident fine tuning.
The fact that the thread above does not have anyone willing to argue its cogency speaks volumes on its want of substance. The attempts to distance from it speak for themselves.
As for, oh, the fine tuning argument is about a claimed scientific inference to a cosmos prepared just for us or for us, that is readily seen to be a strawman caricature. To start, the issue is an exploration of cosmology [as in astrophysical studies turning on General Relativity, with associated use of Tensor Mathematics and discussion pivoting on the observer equivalence of gravity and accelerated motion] and the first key fine tuning inference was about nucleosynthesis in stars and the abundance of C and O. There is a 4% resonance that promotes that.
The key party, Sir Fred Hoyle, was a lifelong agnostic, not a likely candidate to be doing theology as such.
The wider point is that dozens of parameters and the frame of laws are such that we find our observed cosmos at a locally deeply isolated island of function in the parameter space, setting the atomic and astrophysical basis for c-chem, aqueous medium cell based life on terrestrial planets in galactic habitable zones. Further, the sol system seems to be a rare case given 20+ years of exoplanet research and there is a further pattern that the life permitting island of function is also conducive to astrophysical observations.
These are empirically based explorations, manifestly. Just, they have a surprising result that would be equally interesting for keepers of things large and small among Kzinti, Grey or Green men, Treecats and the like.
KF
PS: Sir Fred in his own voice, for reference. Notice, how he phrases his conclusion, as sharply distinct from puddle analogy strawman caricatures:
In context, at Caltech, c 40 years ago, in a well known remark:
So, out of infinite existential system possibilities, God selects one and excludes all others; God forces me into existence, forces free will on me, forces me into that system by causing me to be born into the family, culture and time period of His choosing; God allows me an insignificantly tiny (relative to the eternal consequences) but unknown length of time, then in some way “informs” me (let’s assume arguendo) at some point in that tiny time-frame that I have two options in that system: one leads to wonderful consequences, the other leads to horrible consequences, both eternal.
Yet, BA77 characterizes the people who wind up in hell (or extinguished from existence) as having, effectively, “made their own choice.”
This is a classic abusive relationship where the victim has convinced themselves that they are at fault for that which is forced on them by their abuser. “It was my own fault, he was very clear what would happen if I didn’t do what pleased him, what he requires for me to show him that I love him. He does these things because he loves me.”
Christianity has formalized a system of justifying this abusive system and call it, fittingly enough, “Apologetics.”
Repurposing a line by Bill Burr: I could wake up from a drunken stupor and come up with a less abusive existential arrangement than that.
Karen McMannus states,
It is interesting to note that KM did not respond to the scientific fact that the scientific evidence itself contradicts Karen’s personal subjective opinion, and indicates Christians are doing quite well mentally and physically, especially when compared to atheists, but that KM instead responded with a blatantly Ad Hominem attack against ‘my kind’ of Christians. Whatever that is suppose to mean.
Ad Hominem is one of the most common logical fallacies around. In fact it is number 1 on the following list of 10 common logical fallacies, (And is also the number 1 reason why people get banned from UD).
I also note that KM did not respond to the rest of my post where I noted that people, via their own volition, are choosing, indeed demanding, to be separated from God.
As many Darwinian atheists on this very site give abundant witness to, some people simply do not want God in their lives ever. Period!
As CS Lewis noted, God will give them their wish. You cannot force someone to love you. That simply is not how love works.
The problem for atheists is that God is the ultimate source of all that is good and beautiful in this world. Thus, to be separated from God is to, in reality, be separated from all that is good and beautiful.
The logic is straight forward and obvious.
Of related note, “The argument from Beauty” for God’s existence is one of my favorite arguments for God’s existence.
Andy Clue states:
Hmm, I seem to recall something in Revelation about a there being a ‘bottomless pit’.
And God is the source of all that hell on earth how exactly? All those ‘hells’ on earth that you mention were brought about be men and are noted by the marked absence of God in those situations.
The fact is that, the more people choose to be separated from God, the more ‘hell on earth’ happens:
AC then states: “Who would choose freely such a torture? No-one. That’s why no-one is in hell.”
And yet, again, as atheists here on UD give abundant evidence to, people freely choose to be separated from God all the time. And thus choose to be separated from all that is good.
That does not leave many options for God. He can either send them to a place that is totally devoid of all His perfect and good attributes, i.e. Hell, or he can completely annihilate their souls. (And there is apparently a healthy debate within Christianity as to if ‘annihilationism’ or eternal torment is true.) ( And myself, as I have already noted, don’t like either of those options and choose Jesus instead. The choice is not even close).
Why are those God’s only options?
@bornagain77:
The atoms of my body will be torn apart, when I fall into a black hole. So again the question: How is that relevant to the soul?? What does a block hole have to do with hell??
Who said he was? I didn’t.
No atheist here has been given this choice yet. Evidenced by the fact, that they are still atheists.
WJM, while this thread is from OP on the puddle argument, it seems there have been a lot of exchanges on theology and philosophy, which requires a lot of background to be properly balanced. I just note a remark above “God forces me into existence, forces free will on me, forces me into that system by causing me to be born into the family, culture and time period of His choosing.” On fair comment, this seems to be more about rhetorical traction pivoting on loaded language than substance. That God as creator creates implies that creation does not pre-exist itself to act before it exists. The gift of freedom enables reasoning, knowledge, love, virtue. That one is influenced by one’s background and that one is procreated by parents work as an enabling not a violation. Some re-thinking through a less acid perspective seems to be in order. KF
Andy Clue states:
the Bible begs to differ,
In fact, I hold that Atheists here on UD in particular, much moreso than any other atheists, have been given ample opportunity to ‘choose’ God. They have literally been spoon fed evidence for God’s amazing handiwork throughout all of creation and yet they still stubbornly refuse the ‘choose’ to believe in God. Indeed, so bad is their bias apparent against God, that they hold to the totally insane counterargument that completely unguided naturalistic processes generated everything around us.
For example, who in their right mind could deny that God is, by far, the best explanation for the human brain rather than unguided material processes? Yet atheists here on UD still ‘choose’ not to honestly admit that God is, by far, the best explanation for our ‘beyond belief’ human brain.
So atheists here on UD have been given ample opportunities to believe in God, but for whatever severely misguided reason, and/or whatever deceptions about God they may harbor in their imaginations, they continually, and stubbornly, refuse, via their own volition, to accept that God is real, much less accept God into their personal lives.
It truly is sad, even tragic.
We can’t even imagine what gloriously wonderful things await us if we accept God into our lives:
KF
What qualifies someone to be a biblical scholar? There are hundreds of people who have studied the Bible and found it to be inconsistent with historical facts, in internally contradictory. Somehow I suspect that you would not consider them to be credible biblical scholars.
The Bible is an amazing document with many valuable teachings, as are documents of other religions. But that doesn’t mean that everything written in it is gospel. 🙂
@bornagain77:
Your description doesn’t include atheists. Atheists are exactly those people who do not clearly see your god’s “invisible” (??) qualities. That’s exactly where the unbelief comes from.
Whether you or some participant on UD gives someone this choice is completely irrelevant. You’re neither god nor his spokesperson. The choice does not depend on a human’s fallible persuasion techniques. The choice comes from god.
It makes me happy that everyone here will experience those gloriously wonderful things. Why would anyone choose not to??
Paige claims the Bible is not historically accurate
Yet, the Bible has, time and time again, been proven to be historically accurate.
For example, one archeologist, not too many years back, discovered King David’s palace solely by following subtle clues that she found in the Bible.
Humorously, a Bible skeptic thought it unfair for her to use the Bible as a guide in her archeological discovery of King David’s palace since, according to him, “she would certainly find that building”,,,::
Supplemental notes:
AC asks “It makes me happy that everyone here will experience those gloriously wonderful things. Why would anyone choose not to (accept God)??”
You have to ask the atheists here on UD whom refuse to accept God despite abundant evidence for His existence. I have no clue. I can’t fathom what would motivate such irrationally hostility towards God.
And I have lost people who were very dear to me throughout my life. But, even though I have been angry at God at such times, and had to work through that, I never thought once of just outright denying his existence altogether. Its unfathomable to me.
KF@231,
If I was not consulted on whether or not I wanted to be involved in any of this, then regardless of what wording or temperament is employed, I was forced into this situation by God. Calling something forced on me without my consent “a gift” is exactly what people suffering under abuse would say. Every choice I make here under that paradigm is under duress, and I should not be held accountable for anything I decide to do here.
Refusing to accept that you have only two choices is not the same thing as choosing one or the other. Nobody is going to choose eternal torment; they may choose not to believe in it, or to not believe in a God that set it up; but that is not the same thing as choosing eternal torment. Especially not under duress.
AC asks:
Black holes are literally bottomless holes that are punched into the space time fabric of this universe.
Such was inconceivable in physics up until a few decades ago. And still today, there is some debate about them.
But the Bible ‘predicted’ a ‘bottomless pit’, that is closely associated with hell, long before such things were discovered by modern science.
That should, at least, raise an eyebrow.
What kind of choice is “Love me or suffer eternal torment” anyway? I mean, talk about being under duress! What kind of love can even be offered in that situation? Who would even WANT someone’s love if you have to threaten “eternal torment” to acquire it?
The Christian God, that’s who.
BA77
Ten seconds on Google turned up an article on the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the Bible.
https://www.news24.com/news24/MyNews24/The-Problem-of-the-Bible-Inaccuracies-contradictions-fallacies-scientific-issues-and-more-20120517
But the inaccuracies and inconsistencies do not bother me. The Bible is a compilation of writings and accounts from many different people. Given the nature of eyewitness testimony, it would be almost a certainty that there would be some errors.
Paige, and I am just as certain that, if you spent just a little more time googling, you will also find a scholarly response to everyone of those supposed inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the Bible.
For instance, Inspiring Philosophy has devoted much time to refuting, in detail, many such claims of supposed Biblical errors and contradictions:
Moreover, the fact that the Bible was written by numerous authors and yet remains unified as a whole in its message is actually an argument that strongly argues for the Bible’s authenticity.
BA77
Yes, I am sure I would. But the question to ask is, are the inaccuracies and inconsistencies that are there for all to see more or less compelling than the twisting and gyrations used by the “scholars” to rationalize their explanations? And, why are these explanations necessary?
I am comfortable with the inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the Bible. They don’t make it any less valuable as a guide in how to lead one’s life. What I am curious about, however, is why some people have the need for it to be a completely accurate depiction of what happened. Only 24% of Christians believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and that doesn’t make them any less Christian, or the Bible any less powerful.
Well Paige, contrary to what you believe, supposed inaccuracies in the New Testament, when examined in detail, often confirm the authenticity of New Testament accounts.
In short, some of these supposed inaccuracies turns the claim that the Bible is inaccurate on its head and shows how some of these supposed inaccuracies are actually proof of its authenticity.
In fact there is an entire, (long neglected), field of apologetics devoted to this area of study. It’s called ‘Undesigned Coincidences”
I don’t care who your Dad is this is an illegal gathering.
https://sadanduseless.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/illegal-gathering.jpg
@bornagain77:
There are two choices: Accept god, or torment.
– No atheist here has chosen god. Surely one of the reasons is that they do not know god.
– Also no atheist here has chosen torment.
No choice has been made. Which is a rational decision. Why would someone make an uninformed choice? (Even though I think even with enough information they will not chose torment 😀 )
They WILL make a decision, when they get to know god and the question is being asked.
It’s unfathomable, to atheists and theists alike. How would that even work!? I’ve been angry at my brother many times. It never occurred to me to deny his existence as a result.
I second WJM comment, which basically sums up my thoughts as well:
Regarding the black hole:
It doesn’t. I die falling from a cliff. I die falling into a black hole. I die when my head gets blown to peaces. How is it relevant to a soul?
AC, again, the Bible disagrees with you. So who am I going to trust, some anonymous, and IMHO unreasonable, blogger on the internet, or the word of God?
Cue Jeopardy music.,,, Ding, ding, ding, I choose to trust the word of God.
Of related interest, I also trust the science to tell me what atheist really believe in their hearts and to show me that they really are suppressing their innate belief in God
Studies establish that the design inference is ‘knee jerk’ inference that is built into everyone, especially including atheists, and that atheists have to mentally work suppressing their “knee jerk” design inference!
@bornagain77:
Already answered in 234:
Jerry@245, thanks for the laugh. This thread was getting far too serious. 🙂 that was Douglas Adam’s worthy.
BA77
If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, why would you need apologetics?
Paige, this is not a theology forum despite the current exchanges, I suggest you go to such to explore those issues, there is enough on our plate here, e.g. with the directly focal matters from the OP. Beyond, I make brief commemts. First, the relevant published research base is there and can be evaluated on technical quality (that starts with original languages competence and associated familiarity with technical studies) and associated worldviews issues. On NT, Lk-Ac provides the historical backbone and it is good. As for self contradictions etc, some years ago I took a look at case study no 1, which at that time was being publicly derided as a hopeless mess where I was living. I was fully prepared to see some irresolvable variations and difficulties as is common with many historical narratives. To my shock, it fit a coherent, instructive timeline instead, leading me to look at the decisive logic. For, where X = x1 + x2 + . . . + xn is claimed to be inconsistent but a reasonable explanation E1 is such that E1 + X is coherent [i.e. forms a possible world], then X is strictly coherent. It is of course possible to create a radical disharmony D1 so D1 + X is incoherent, but that is irrelevant once an E1 does or may exist. I took a lesson from that and from the onward behaviour of the party promoting a Dn in public discussion. You have already been given a link to a 101 on the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth, which you tried to dismiss by applying faulty rules of evidence. More can be said, but it is already clear that the problem lies in the hyperskeptical narratives that have been widely promoted, not the actual reasonable balance. KF
WJM, there was already a response above to your talking point. Your onward response tells us enough, sadly. KF
Paige this will be my last response on this subject since KF’s patience is wearing very thin. But anyways you ask: “If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, why would you need apologetics?,”
Well I don’t hold the Bible to be completely inherent. There are, due to human error, errors in punctuation, errors in plural vs. singular spellings., and such minor errors as that can be found.
But I hold that, by and large, the Bible is amazingly accurate in overall historical reliability. Again, amazingly accurate!
The Dead Sea Scrolls, by themselves, proved that point:
To repeat:
It is easy to forget just how devastating the Dead Sea scrolls were to the supposedly scholarly skeptics of the Bible who, like you, were claiming the Old Testament was full of major errors that rendered it historically untrustworthy.
As well, the New Testament itself suffers from a quote-unquote ’embarrassment of riches’ that it has been, by and large, faithfully transcribed down through the ages:
But anyways back to your question about the necessity of apologetics,,, Biblical apologetics, and/or the defense of the Christian Faith, is necessary because, mainly, people need to know the Bible is reliable and trustworthy in the accounts it records. And also mainly because people need to know that Jesus really did die on a cross and really did rise from the dead, and to therefore know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there really is hope for their own life beyond the grave. i.e. People NEED to know that there is real meaning and purpose for their own lives and that their lives do not end at the grave.
Nihilistic despair is not a minor problem and is found to be the root cause of many mental health issues, i.e. depression, suicidal thoughts, etc.. etc..
As the old hymn says, “because he lives I can face tomorrow.”
Sandy: You.
You’re hallucinating.
BA77: It is interesting to note that KM did not respond to the scientific fact that the scientific evidence itself contradicts Karen’s personal subjective opinion, and indicates Christians are doing quite well mentally and physically, especially when compared to atheists, but that KM instead responded with a blatantly Ad Hominem attack against ‘my kind’ of Christians. Whatever that is suppose to mean.
The kind that believe in a Creator who tortures its creatures forever. A lot of Christians don’t believe that. In fact, a majority in the USA do not. At any rate, I know a lot of mentally ill people who seem to “do just fine” in their lives. A lot of humans “do just fine” with varying degrees of delusion. That’s not a measure of Truth.
WJM: What kind of choice is “Love me or suffer eternal torment” anyway? I mean, talk about being under duress! What kind of love can even be offered in that situation? Who would even WANT someone’s love if you have to threaten “eternal torment” to acquire it? The Christian God, that’s who.
I must correct your understanding a bit. Not all Christians accept this lunacy. The Bible itself only has a few verses in it that may seem to support the notion, in Matthew, one in Mark, and Revelation. The “Old Testament” has no support for it. (Which is why Jews don’t believe in it.) There are good reasons to reject the references in the Gospels as spurious, and Revelation as a whole as spurious. Apostle Paul and the other Apostolic Letters provide no support for it whatsoever. Most Christians in the USA do not accept the eternal torture doctrine. Just FYI.
KM, as I told Paige, KF has expressed his desire that apologetic discussions be taken elsewhere to a Theological/Philosophical site that is more appropriate to the topic So I am cutting off my responses on this topic.
Thank God!
I didn’t know there are a special kind of clowns: clown theologians.
KM said:
You’re right. I know this.
Folks, this thread’s side tracks have been inadvertently further revealing. I can’t say, “illuminating,” as that is a positive term. I think it is no surprise that I have a fairly negative view of where we are heading as a civilisation, i/l/o geostrategic and historical issues feeding long since drummed in scenario-based planning/analysis patterns of thought. Five years ago, I publicly laid out the in brief world trends chart that is currently being far too close to events for me to be happy. What I am seeing here is a lurking nihilism that haunts us and undermines even confidence in knowledge, multiplied by a depth of polarisation that points to ramping up of the ongoing 4th generation civil war in the US and of the wider 4th gen global struggle. Just as Australia takes Anzac Day . . . think, Gallipoli . . . to say gird your loins for the China blue ocean breakout push. At the other end of Asia, the nuke clock just went a lot closer to midnight. The problem is, once one is in a vortex, breakout is harder and harder. There really are slippery slope ratchets. I can only plead to think again, and again. I am not even sure that I can reasonably add, before it is too late. I have a 1914 feeling and a 1940 feeling. KF
KF is perfectly willing make post after post after post and basically turn UD into his personal, ongoing Ted Talk in his attempt to (1) teach people about geo-political threats, (2) his logical and metaphysical arguments about comparative world-views, and (3) moral “First Duties.” But, when the criticism against the Christian concept of God gets a little sharp, then he advises us to find another venue because this isn’t an appropriate venue for such discussions.
In this attempt, he often quotes from the Bible to make his case. All of his arguments, one way or another, lead back to his faith in his version of the Christian God. He admonishes others from that source. Yet, when we get to criticizing one of the major premises behind all of KF’s arguments, suddenly that is off-limits and we are told to take those criticisms elsewhere.
So, I will repeat this: if God created the metaphysical system we live in under the Christian perspective, excluded all other possible experiential lines from access, forced me into existence, forced free will on me, forced me into the system here on Earth without consulting me about any of it, forced me into whatever family, culture, time period and circumstances I was born into, and then finds some way to inform me that my choice is to love Him or face eternal torment (or annihilation) after I die; and that I have an unknown but very tiny amount of time in which to make that decision, then that is without question an abusive, evil, sick entity.
It doesn’t matter if that choice is made crystal clear to me; it is still an inherently abusive system where all decisions are made under extreme duress.
And yes, KM, I know not all Christians believe in that version of God, but it’s not those people we are having this conversation with. When I say “Christian,” I’m referring to the version of the Christian God on the table here.
WJM,
UD is there to serve a community and its interests. That’s right there in the announced theme.
The needs and interests of the community are obviously broader than just the design inference, explanatory filter, specified complexity, irreducible complexity, ool, origin of body plans, origin of mind, fine tuning (so, cosmology) and active information etc.
For, while the focal issue of origins science is obviously central, that is already — just look at the literature — deeply embedded with philosophical, ideological and linked worldviews issues.
The integral philosophy of science issues immediately highlight several core aspects of philosophy, including epistemology, logic and logic of being.
Mathematics and its foundations are also highly relevant, I have noted on the view that this is [the study of] the logic of structure and quantity, which has come up on the implications of claiming a beginning-less quasi-physical, causal-temporal, thermodynamically connected past.
Linked, worldviews have core ideas and notoriously, ideas have consequences; this being through ideological, geostrategic etc impacts, often manifested in current events. We all have an interest in the good health of our civilisation.
Science and general developments are also of relevant interests, to help us understand how to communicate in the evolving world of C21. For example, things connected to the pandemic are exposing issues in epistemology and on science vs policy as well as sound public education vs playing the Big-S Science has settled the matter game (or worse, outright agit prop and manipulation).
Such a broad spectrum also points to the significance of axiological matters on both the aesthetic and ethical sides. This includes ethical foundations of civilisation, governance, law and government.
Where, also, we have seen how the Ciceronian first duties of reason not only frame civil law and government, but also govern our process of reasoning as enconscienced, responsible creatures. A simple illustration is a more or less classic definition of the lie: to lie is to speak with disregard to truth, in hope of profiting from what is said or suggested being taken as true.
It is not a great leap from such to see that even those who would taint and dismiss, brush aside or otherwise object, cannot but appeal to said first duties. Liars, for focal example, are manipulating duty to truth and duty to neighbour, abusing reason and prudence in the process, not to mention suppressing the voice of sound conscience. So, we can readily see that duties to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, so too to fairness and justice etc are inescapable. So, inescapably true, thus self-evident.
Where, for civil law and government, we note that justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Which, of course, lies violate.
Such may be unpalatable, objectionable or even repulsive to many, but that does not trace to the substantial force of the point or to the tone of the argument.
It is fair comment, that such themes and matters are interconnected and highly relevant to the design community and the wider civilisation.
Further, it is also fair comment that this is already a wide span of issues that are typically not discussed together elsewhere. This is therefore a necessary forum at this time.
Where, on matters of Bible, theology and exegesis etc, there is much discussion elsewhere hosted by those holding advanced technical degrees on the subjects. For example, Dr Craig hosts a whole site, Reasonable Faith.
Likewise, part of the basic ideological context the design community faces is a willful, misleading conflation of design theory and Creationism; which (on the part of modern creationism) is in material part about Bible exposition and exegesis. The Creationist view is, that God was there where we were not, at origin. On certain grounds they accept the Bible as substantially his word to us, including on origins. So, on some responsible exegesis, there is a frame of relevant facts that should inform our scientific thinking on origins.
Within that movement there are variations on young vs old earth and cosmos. Sites like Answers in Genesis, Creation dot com, ICR and Reason to Believe etc explore that approach. Sometimes, with highly interesting and informative information.
Design theory does not work on that basis, it is about the empirical investigation of the thematic question, are there reliable observational signs that mark certain entities, structures, processes etc as cases of design as material cause?
This question leads in many directions [such as theory of inventive problem solving and cryptanalysis, with side helpings of statistics and information theory (with linked thermodynamics and issues on dynamic-stochastic systems), also computing] but comes to focus on examining origins of cell based life, the earth/sol system and the observed cosmos.
It also has a different history, tracing particularly to Plato and the like, rather than Moses, Job, David and Paul of Tarsus. Though, in his most consciously philosophical work, Romans, the latter points to there being a valid investigation of the world and its features. Paul, being pioneer of the Christian synthesis of the heritage of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome that is foundational to Western Civilisation as we know it.
The two, in short, are very different though a Christian would argue, in the end compatible.
I do not venture to speak for a Muslim. Some Jews will go along with much of the thinking on evidence of Creator in the world in Rom, though such may differ sharply on the specific exposition of Hebraic Messianism that is argued in Rom and across the NT. As for Hindus who are theistic, again, I defer to someone with the relevant background. Deism is by definition a design oriented view. Theistic evolutionism, near as I can make out, objects that empirical evidence of design is being exaggerated by design thinkers. Further to that, I think their theism insofar as it is a philosophical rather than theological stance, traces to views on logic of being, i.e. ontology.
Given that pattern, I suggest, there is no useful purpose in having discussions here become in major part exchanges on debates on creationism or new atheism’s evil Bible rhetoric or the like.
I believe that is the sort of line that was taken by UD’s leadership a decade or so back, when such issues became a hot focus. I accepted their decision at the time and have seen that there is prudence in it.
Though, some of these issues will naturally come up and it is appropriate to comment in brief and direct attention elsewhere for those interested in technical details.
Where, lastly, I believe you will be able to find above a sufficient note for record on the particular points you have argued.
For simple example, a complaint that one was not consulted [before one existed!] to be given the freedom required for intellectual endeavours, while undertaking just such an endeavour is patently self-referentially incoherent.
Similarly, the problem of evils has been ably addressed at technical level some 1/2 century past by Plantinga et al. Theodicy requires plausibility of premises to the radical objector, often a rhetorically futile task. A coherence based possible worlds free will defence does not. All it requires is to show what I noted to Paige a few comments up:
Plantinga did that.
The logic of coherence just summarised is a general result. Once we do or may possibly have some Ek that
C(Ek + X) –> 1,
i.e. a reasonable coherence check is actually or potentially positive then that there are many cases where
C(Dk + X) –> 0
becomes irrelevant.
What proponents of Dk must show is that Dk is sufficiently established (including, it is a possible world and so is internally coherent as well as being credibly actual) that Dk being in contradiction to X has force. Were Dk internally incoherent it cannot be a possible world. It must be sufficiently complete as a world description, including having plausible dynamics. Further, it needs to pass factual adequacy and explanatory superiority tests. For, to displace Ek candidates, it needs to be credibly actual, not merely possible. In problem of evil context, it must be an anti-theodicy, using premises plausible to all.
Those are pretty strong requisites, and as a rule are not drawn out in detail. Suffice to say, there is no evolutionary materialistic scheme that meets the criteria, and idealistic theories are disputable. Pantheism and panentheism, insofar as they would have an ethically relevant centre of being, are more like ethical theism than they are like antitheistic views.
On the problem of evil, Plantinga et al provided a very good theistic answer that changed the context of discussion.
On the Bible is factually, logically or ethically incoherent (including in its vision of God [and I note for record, here above on your remarks on eternal state]), we can leave it at, there are sufficiently credible experts who have put Ek candidates on the table that no successful Dk is present or in prospect. Which is very different from the rhetorical impact and tone-challenges of this sort of assertion:
Fair comment, that sort of rhetoric says more about those who make, endorse or enable it than it does on substance. Unfortunately, there are many angry, nihilistic people out there who seem to imagine that Bible-believing Christians are — and, again, Dawkins — ignorant, stupid, insane or . . . wicked. Perhaps, we can turn down the intensity of polarisation, but given the ideological conflict and linked low kinetic so far 4th generation civil war in the USA (with heavy agit prop, street theatre, media narrative and lawfare components), I have my doubts.
KF
William J Murray
So, I will repeat this: if God created the metaphysical system we live in under the Christian perspective, excluded all other possible experiential lines from access, forced me into existence, forced free will on me, forced me into the system here on Earth without consulting me about any of it, forced me into whatever family, culture, time period and circumstances I was born into, and then finds some way to inform me that my choice is to love Him or face eternal torment (or annihilation) after I die;
Jesus answer to WJM
Kf,
I was hoping/praying you would not answer. But you just gave the no free will people grounds for proof of their thesis.
But, my prayers were not answered.
PS: One response to Dawkins, https://www.gotquestions.org/God-of-the-Old-Testament.html
Jerry, I think we have a different perspective. From time to time some objections need to be answered and answered substantially. While silence is not consent, there is a place where silence allows claims to seize the default. KF
You are writing to/for yourself and no one else. Nothing wrong with that per se but don’t be under the illusion you are persuading one person.
For you it seems time to time is all the time.
Persuasive writing from Scott Adams
https://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/06/the_day_you_bec.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDwm-UPILuw&t=161s
Aside: I don’t agree with a lot of what Scott Adams writes about but I understand nearly everything he is trying to say.
The problem is, KF, that your entire worldview structure relies entirely on conveniently selecting and interpreting evidence in the face of counterfactuals; and also relies on a convenient uses of different forms of logic to support it when any particular line of logic fails. IMO, you and BA77 do this because you are attempting to stay faithful to an a priori ideological commitment – a particular version of Christianity.
The evidential impact on the theological ID perspective is clear: God has not “chosen” a particular metaphysical (religious/spiritual) existential construct we are all objectively locked into. This is a form of the “all swans are white” logical formula. I need not argue against the “Christian exclusivity” that you have woven together on so many fronts in your arguments on various topics; I only have to point to the black swans that disprove this root of your worldview.
In a prior argument on a different subject, I did this by pointing at a “black swan” counterfactual to your claim that “conscience” is an inherent, necessary feature for all sentient beings: sociopaths. You immediately switched from the logical deduction from premise to a “common human experience” argument. “Common human experience” is not a valid rebuttal to a black swan counterfactual.
The NDE or “afterlife” evidence provides the black swan counterfactuals to the premise that a single existential framework for life after death exists.
The evidential results of quantum experimentation has clearly demonstrated that we do not live in a single existential framework “chosen by God.” Our existential framework is not “set in stone.” Even our past is not “set in stone.” No single, universal consciousness has removed experiential potentials from our grasp. or determined what we can and cannot experience going forward. If that were the case, quantum experimentation would have discovered that local reality states determine our experience. This has been conclusively demonstrated to not be the case. What appears to be designing what we call the physical universe … is us.
I agree with the perspective that unless the ground of being determines it by its nature, one cannot say what is objectively good or evil. Setting aside the counterfactual examples of sociopaths and adopting your own “common human experience” argument, we can easily discover that your religious perspective on God fails.
We’ve used the example of “torturing children for pleasure” as a qualitative indicator that an “objective good” exists. To deny that statement is to deny evil even exists. Here’s an equally indicative example: “love me or suffer eternal torment (or annihilation) after you die. You have an unknown but small amount of time to decide.”
If that is the existential arrangement God chose to exclusively implement, it is (1) not supported by the evidence (existence of black swan counterfactuals) and (2) a situation, even if factual, that is immediately recognizable as evil.
I suggest that if it takes volumes of apologetics, professional theologians, convenient dismissals of evidence and rationalizations involving convenient switches from one form of reasoning to another, that then the problem is your a priori commitment to a particular religious ideology, no matter how much personal empirical evidence and experience you have that supports it.
re 263 and 270. Very clear, concise statements by WJM about what is wrong with the two major posters on this site. KF tried to argue above (as WJM said, when convenient) that apologetics doesn’t belong on this site. And yet the vast majority of the posts (other than News’ regular news dump) are about either ideas that tie to a Christian/theistic world view or about KF’s sky-is-falling obsession with the downfall of civilization. It’s more or less the KF/BA show most of the time, and yet when someone like WJM exposes some of this, he is told to go away.
I think I’ll also point out that the number one bogeyman here is atheism, so critiquing the constant fallback position of theism ought to be a legitimate topic.
Yet, I bet many never read their comments. TLDR. I know I don’t except for cursory looks. And rare occasions I will plow through something. Yet they are often scapegoats for some. That is the more interesting phenomenon.
But I often learn from Kf when he refers to something in an off hand way. Such as TRIZ. I wasn’t aware of the importance of Cicero in the debate on right reasoning. Or the debate on Justified True Belief. He’s a font of knowledge.
So is BA77 on knowledge on science. If I get through one of his laundry lists of points I am usually in agreement and frequently have a new source.
But neither one has learned the art of simplicity which is necessary for clear communication. They both should look at the Scott Adams links above.
Aside: I don’t look to either one of them on religion though we probably agree on a lot. My viewpoint or part of my worldview is that ID is not about a particular religion though it obviously has some religious implications since it very strongly indicates a creator of massive intelligence for our universe. An implication that has never been seriously addressed by anyone who professes disagreement with ID. Of which there are many. Ironic.
Jerry writes, “My viewpoint or part of my worldview is that ID is not about a particular religion though it obviously has some religious implications since it very strongly indicates a creator of massive intelligence for our universe.”
Two points. First, a creator of massive intelligence is an assumption of an anthropomorphized entity of some sort, but that is not the only way to conceive of the source of creativity that underlies or precedes our universe. Second, as we frequently discuss (although KF wants theology to be off the table), it is a further religious assumption that that creative source has any interest in (or even the ability to have such an interest) in specific times, places, or people here on Earth.
There is a very poorly-done meme going around the internet about the philosophy of Spinoza, and about Einstein invoking that philosophy. The famous Einstein quote is,
That is a perfectly good ID position for which much of what KF and BA post is not relevant. Anything past that point brings up specific religious beliefs, and is open to criticism of those beliefs.
WJM & VL, I suggest to you that there is a discipline, Theology, which has done a full discipline’s worth of study. That discipline addresses many technical issues and does so at full bore academic level, closely related to a similar discipline, philosophy. It is deserving of a modicum of respect and recognition. For now, KF
Jerry, I responded to several issues substantially. That stands as record. Later, KF
Someone can hold the position I guess – of some unknown creative source. How is that different from just saying the source is a creator?
But there are other considerations besides the appearance of an extremely complex universe so finely tuned for life that have to be addressed. There is the origin of those other extraordinary events. None of these are specifically religious assumptions/conclusions. They are science conclusions.
However, the more unexplained events one sees, the more it seems there is a purpose. And if there is a purpose, it makes sense to address it and to try to understand it.
ID is about origins. There are more than one that is unexplained.
.
VL at 271,
The #1 bogeyman on UD is not atheism. Atheism is a conclusion, which all humans are free to make. The bogeyman here is the use of deception and dishonesty in the protection of ideological power. These are acts, not conclusions. It is a worthy distinction, given that the use of deception and dishonesty is available to all.
It stands as a documented fact that the proximate cause of biological organization is an encoded system of symbols (a universal correlate of intelligence) just as it was predicted to be. Yet the ID critic maintains that there is no evidence of design in nature. Is it an act of deception among those who know.
Viola Lee
If I understand you correctly, I think that I agree with this. For example, the Christian view of the intelligent agent responsible for life, the universe and everything, is an all knowing, all good, loving being. While this may actually be true, if you leave out the religious preconceptions, couldn’t this intelligent agent be more akin to an idiot savant? A being with off-the-chart skills and abilities in a narrow field.
I remarked above that
It might be interesting to see the different ways ID objectors are dishonest in their objections to ID. The most frequent way is to call ID a religion and immediately associate it with Young Earth Creationism. So obvious a non-sequitur.
I just claimed ID has nothing to do with religion and immediately we get comments on the religious nature of it.
That is not ID so pointing to it is another non-sequitur.
Sounds like Mickey Mouse as the sorcerer’s apprentice in Fantasia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VErKCq1IGIU
Jerry
I was drafting my comment when you posted yours so I didn’t see it until after I posted it.
As the gods of the various religions are candidates for the intelligent agent, refusing to acknowledge this just plays into the hands of ID opponents. I am not suggesting that ID proponents should be lobbying for their own particular view of their God as the intelligent agent, as that would just drag everything into the weeds and result in endless bickering. However, it is important to itemize the various assumptions that ID is based on. Surely the abilities and limitations of the intelligent agent responsible for the design is an important aspect in the detection of design.
Jerry writes,
Tell that to KF. His number one point, which he has posted many times is that the root of reality is an all-knowing, all good, loving being.
That may be true (I will let Kf decide it that is his number one point) but it is not ID nor does it flow from ID.
I happen to believe this but do not depend on ID/science to justify that belief.
I don’t see how that is true. It may be the strategy of those against ID to do so then they can claim ID is religion. I personally have no objection to saying that various religions have used what was seen as design in the universe/world as evidence for a creator and various religions. The Greeks had Zeus. Others have had their various reasons but that is not ID.
The Greek religion, other ancient religions, Christianity and other religions since existed long before the science was available to understand the nature of origins and how unlikely they are. The world seemed magical to them and they were right.
There does not have to be any reason why the same intelligence is responsible for all the designs. There could be one for the universe, another for the origin of life, another for the changes in life forms. At the very minimum the power to create a universe as large as we have and so fine tuned with entities with amazing characteristics requires some creative force with massive abilities.
Now people make assumptions that they are one in the same but there is no reason from ID for this to be so. I have my own personal opinions but nothing in ID says they are the same intelligence, just that they were designed.
I guess you’ve seen too many SF movies and read no books. Also you don’t know the definition of God.
Jerry writes, “There does not have to be any reason why the same intelligence is responsible for all the designs. There could be one for the universe, another for the origin of life, another for the changes in life forms…. Now people make assumptions that they are one in the same but there is no reason from ID for this to be so. I have my own personal opinions but nothing in ID says they are the same intelligence, just that they were designed.”
I think if one is serious about sticking to ID and not bringing religion into as, as BA, KF, sandy and others regularly do, then Jerry’s point is well-taken.
So, both to further that thought, and provide a little historical input, consider this:
Back in 2002, over at the Discussion forum at Dembski’s ISCID site, the poster rbh (now deceased) wrote a lengthy and substantial essay on Multiple Designers Theory, and another poster, Evan, contributed some additional comments, including the idea that animism (one designer per kind) might actually be closer to the truth than monotheism, and that the designers growing and learning and developing their style over time accounts for the progressive change in organisms over the last two billion years or so.
Even if we have direct observable evidence of the Wright brothers intelligently designing a plane, then still on a strictly logical basis there is no evidence of the intelligent designer.
That is because for science the choices of the Wright brothers would just be noted as randomness, and what made their decisions turn out the way they did, is categorically a subjective issue.
Logic dictates that the agency of a choice, can only be identified with a chosen opinion. That is the logical basis of subjectivity, of expressions of what is beautiful, loving and good.
The human souls of the Wright brothers, which did the actual intelligent designing, is just as well without any objective evidence whatsoever, as God is.
We are getting into serious competition for a longest comment. I assume there is no active link.
RBH is Richard B. Hoppe.
I was trying to break the record.
Viola Lee@285. I wore a groove in my iPhone scrolling past this comment. It is reminiscent of scrolling past a BA77 comment. 🙂
🙂 Oh no, I didn’t know that multiple designers of cars,bikes and planes are gods. Good to know.
Atheists lost the plot.
to Paige re 278:
When I wrote, “A creator of massive intelligence is an assumption of an anthropomorphized entity of some sort, but that is not the only way to conceive of the source of creativity that underlies or precedes our universe.”, you replied,
“While this [the Christian God] may actually be true, if you leave out the religious preconceptions, couldn’t this intelligent agent be more akin to an idiot savant? A being with off-the-chart skills and abilities in a narrow field.”
That is not at all what I am suggesting. Rather, several major religions of philosophical perspectives posit a Oneness that is ineffably beyond being thought of in personal terms. The Christian God is an anthropomorphism of our Western conception of personhood: a conscious, thinking mind which then implements its thoughts via action: based on the idea of intelligent agent. However, the One, according to these views, is beyond personhood: the fact that creativity exists does not mean there is a creator. That is, the Western view, while it may be right, is not necessarily so.
Quantum theory, if I dare bring it up and apply it to that which I have no business applying, hints at causal connections that can exists “horizontally”, so to speak, spread out over time and space at a moment, rather than “vertically”, from moment-to-moment, as pre-QM physics supposed. Carl Jung, who was quite interested in Eastern thought, coined the word syncronicity:
That is, the creative power of the world may reside “below the quantum level”, so to speak, where the nature of the One “bubbles up”, so to speak, into the world of our experience through quantum syncronicity.
Just food for thought, as an alternative to think about other than the prevalent theistic views of our culture.
Ooops. I forgot that many people read this on a phone, as I use my computer. I apologize for my long post. I could have condensed it. It’s too late for me to delete it, but an admin can delete it if they like.
To William J. Murray @263:
I understand that you do not accept Christian apologetics as something that is unique and exclusive, but you seem to discount its comprehensive function, which goes much deeper than simply providing evidence for near death experiences. Among other things, Christian apologetics cites historical facts and, metaphysical truths in defense of Christianity, all of which can be easily grasped and confidently asserted.
One good example of the former would be this: Among all those who claim to speak for God, only Jesus Christ can be considered to be credible in that role: First, his existence was foretold in the Old Testament, which provided specific details about the location of his future birth, the nature of his mission, and the circumstances under which he would die. If God wanted us to accept His Son, the least he could do is tell us in advance, which is exactly what he did. Second, he performed other kinds of miracles (physical) and even raised people from the dead. Even his enemies acknowledged these events as facts. Third, his moral doctrine was complete, authoritative, and coherent, explaining the purpose of man’s existence and the means by which it can be realized. Clearly, Jesus Christ has no peers in this sense.. Even if you dismiss the physical miracles, you cannot dismiss the prophetic miracles.
Christ alone claimed to be God and would not have been a moral person if his assertion was not true. So he could not have been simply a “good moral teacher.” What could Muhammed, Confucius, Ramakrishna, or any other religious leader say in the same context other than, “No, I am not God, and no, I was not pre-announced, but I am here anyway — just trust me.” There is no apologetic in that sense outside of Christianity.
The metaphysical arguments for a Christian apologetic are even stronger. The Christian religion begins with a Trinitarian God, which is the logical foundation for everything else that follows. Unity and diversity are both explained as God, in himself, existing as a community of Divine persons. Human relationships reflect these same qualities because, as creatures, they were fashioned in the divine image.
Further, the rational nature of the universe, as observed in the order of creation, reflects the rational nature of Logos, which is Christ; it is God acting in creation, revelation, and redemption. There is no Logos or rational principle found in Pantheism, Islam, Hinduism, or Atheism. At the same time, there is no other way to explain the correspondence between our rational minds and the rational universe except in terms of that same rational principle, that is, through the Christian world view exclusively.
It appears, though, that your real objection to the Christian religion is less about science or metaphysics and more about your perception of ethics and the justice of God. To be more specific, you refer to the Christian God as a tyrant God who demands that we love him “or else,” meaning that if we refuse to respond to Divine love, we will suffer the consequences of eternal torment. As I understand it, you are saying that God is unlovable because he has forced his creatures to make such a choice “under duress,” which I also understand to mean that human free will has been compromised under those circumstances.
The point you seem to miss is that God doesn’t need to “demand” love because his nature, properly understood and described, is already lovable enough to “command” it. Using an analogy, an excellent student shouldn’t need to demand an “A” on his report card if his performance commands it. If, objectively speaking, God’s majesty, power, wisdom, and goodness exist at a level that cannot be appreciated by his creatures, save those who have experienced the “beatific vision,” then that reality must be taken into account. That you cannot imagine or conceive of a lovability that rises to that level doesn’t mean that it isn’t true.. Accordingly, It is unjust and unreasonable to reject a God who loves his creatures enough to create them (out of nothing), visit with them (through his incarnation), suffer for them (through his passion) and die for them (as the ultimate sacrifice). These kinds of loving actions command a loving response.
—WJM: “Nobody is going to choose eternal torment; they may choose not to believe in it, or to not believe in a God that set it up; but that is not the same thing as choosing eternal torment. Especially not under duress.”
Very few, if any, would choose eternal torment directly, but there are many, I think, who choose it indirectly through progressive stages. Even in this life, when cultural barbarians remove faith in God and hope for the future from the minds of children, many of their victims lose the capacity to establish meaningful goals or live a meaningful life. Why would they try to achieve something that doesn’t exist or is out of range for them? Over time, they may feel that the only way to assert their individuality is to stage riots or burn down buildings. They don’t stop to ask the question: Where am I going? They didn’t choose to be lost, but they are, nevertheless, lost. In a similar fashion, I think that many lost souls end up in hell by falling into the pit one step at a time.
Due to their nature, disembodied souls live forever and, if Christianity is true, they will one day be reunited with their risen bodies to face a final judgment. If they must live somewhere or in some state of existence forever, it follows that the quality of their life will be determined by where and with whom they must live. This is a logical consequence of immortality.
WJM: …”if God created the metaphysical system we live in under the Christian perspective, excluded all other possible experiential lines from access, forced me into existence, forced free will on me, forced me into the system here on Earth without consulting me about any of it,…”
Don’t you have to first be brought into existence before you can be consulted?
Don’t you have to first possess free will in order to love?
StephenB
Just a question. Are our souls truly eternal or were they created by God? And if they coexist with God, didn’t we always exist, and didn’t we always have free will?
Viola Lee
I am not sure I understand your point. Doesn’t creativity imply intent? And if there is intent, is there not a creator? Or multiple creators?
Or are you suggesting creativity in the purely physical sense? Such as carbon and high pressure can “create” a diamond?
Paige:
—“Are our souls truly eternal or were they created by God?”
Good question. They were created by God. They are not eternal because they did not always exist. They are immortal because they will exist from now on. They cannot die or disintegrate because, unlike our bodies, they are not made of parts.
—“And if they coexist with God, didn’t we always exist, and didn’t we always have free will?”:
Humans didn’t always exist because they are creatures that the Creator brought into existence. God always had existence but he had to give it to his creatures, just as he had to give them their distinct faculties of intellect and will, which allow them to make free (though with limitations) moral choices.
SB, good to see you. Perhaps, some interlocutors will be more willing to attend to you than they have to me. However, the evidence is, that engagement of substance will be problematic. The gaps in modern education speak, including the logic of being issues you just raised. We are contingent beings, not necessary ones, however the rational soul is an inherent unit and cannot be broken apart, once it exists. However, as it has freedom, it can grow towards its potential or become ever more warped, twisted away from its true ends and so destructively evil; especially if it rejects redemptive light. Hence, our lives as a soul-building opportunity and test and hence also the consequences of our choices. KF
StephenB
How do you know? Both souls and God are immaterial. God does not require a cause. Why do souls need a cause?
Jerry & VL (attn Paige and WJM):
I again write for record/reference. Pardon a few details.
Again, UD is at focus, about the design . . . intelligently directed configuration . . . issue, on the world of life and the physical cosmos, with linked general and cultural issues. All are important as inherently tightly interconnected.
On the design inference, it is clear that the presence of coded algorithms in the living cell is directly a sign of language turned to creation of goal directed procedure. That is decisive though widely unacknowledged or unrecognised. A cosmos fitted to such life, showing fine tuning, on fair comment, suggests a common root.
Next, I have highlighted above, a key argument on worldviews engagement through comparative difficulties, and have thereby addressed the projection of the accusation, chaotic discrediting incoherence, directed at the question of evils/goodness of God and the commonly promoted perception that the Scriptures of the Bible are similarly incoherent:
The question of God comes in here, as a root of reality issue.
God is a serious candidate necessary being, so, to be part of the framework for any possible world. Where, necessary being is eternal, as present in any world, ultimately, an aspect of the root something that is why a world exists. [As in, utter non-being cannot be a source of any world, the debate is to characterise the root.] Serious candidacy is secured by major worldviews turning on God as pivot.
With such a candidate, either there is impossibility of being or actuality. (Try to think of a world without two-ness in it, or where such began or ceases and you will see how NB’s are framework to any world.)
Thus, the point is that a possible world Ek + X involves God, unless God is impossible of being. God, being understood i/l/o the presence of morally governed creatures and the centuries of debates on is and ought that can only be bridged in the root of reality. Thus, we can see a bill of requisites for God as filled by his being the inherently good, utterly wise creator and world root/source/sustainer, a necessary and maximally great being.
There is no incoherence in this concept, indeed maximal greatness is about having what is good and wise in perfect fullness and balance across its dimensions.
Such is a first point for general understanding of reality, but it is not where design theory starts, as an empirical investigation.
As regards scripture, as long as there is or may be a relevant Ek + X, the projection of radical disharmonies Dk + X is of little substantial effect.
KF
F/N: For emphasis, I again note for those suggesting chaotic incoherence:
KF
StephenB:
I have several “real” objections: (1) it has been disproved by science (quantum experimentation results,) (2) it has been experientially, empirically disproved by the existence of counterfactual afterlife experiences; (3) it doesn’t hold up to logical examination, and (4) by its own premise of our capacity to locate what is good, we know it cannot be a good system. It is an immediately recognizable evil system (if one believes in objectively recognizable evil.)
As Paige pointed out: no. We do not have to be “brought into existence” if we have always existed. Being forced into existence within the confines, structure and ruleset of some other being’s particular creation obviously (1) represents a first-order, origin-level violation of my free will and (2) puts me in conditions of duress that functionally render me, my thinking and decisions a product of that coercive system, not expressions of my personal “free will.” Any reasonable person would agree, I cannot be held responsible for things I must choose between when under the threat of eternal torment or existential annihilation.
In regards to God’s supposed inherent lovability only being understood by a certain special kind of “experience,” the counterfactual experiences of countless NDErs, as well as other such “beautific” experiences, undermine the “exclusivity” claim by Christianity. Do you assume I’ve never had such an experience? I and countless others have; we have had our lives utterly transformed by these experiences and they had nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity or Jesus. To my knowledge, after reading hundreds of NDE reports and research reports, there has never been a message delivered to anyone by the “being of light,” even when recognized by the experiencer as Jesus or the Christian God, representing Christian exclusivity. In fact, the bulk of the experiencers bring back a message of complete non-judgmental love that has nothing whatsoever to do with any religion, creed, or particular spiritual belief. Their lives are transformed by this experience.
As far as the evidence you’ve outlined that you believe supports the claim of Christian exclusivity; even if we accept all your evidence arguendo, the uniqueness of such evidence doesn’t logically imply existential exclusivity. That’s a fundamental error of logic. So what if Jesus made that claim, so what if all the prophecies of the Bible came true, so what if miracles occurred, so what if it is 100% historically accurate, etc? None of that even begins to make the case for existential exclusivity, especially in the face of counterfactual experiences and evidence.
The evidence indicates that there is a multi-dimensional experiential construct (for some people here and involving at least one afterlife realm) that is structurally consistent with Christian beliefs (generally speaking.) The evidence indicates that there are many such multidimensional constructs that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Christian construct. I and many people I know, and perhaps millions of people around the world have visited these places. We have a mountain of credible evidence from people living in these “afterlife” worlds. We’ve accomplished many forms of live, two-way communication, including technological means that transmit voice, images and physical objects from their world to ours.
IMO, Christian existential exclusivity has been conclusively disproved empirically, logically and by a rational examination of the available evidence.
SB @297:
You’re making claims of faith; there is no logically necessary reason or evidence that God “created” souls or that God actively “created” anything. Being a necessary “ground of existence” doesn’t mean that “ground” actively or deliberately created anything. You might use the analogy of God being that which provides for the existence of the canvas, paint, painter and the infinite possible paintings that can be produced; but God itself is not creating any particular painting, in any particular location, at any particular time because ground of being God exists as all possible such arrangements.
It is irrational to say God, as ground of being, created something in particular; that requires a particular personality, a particular identity, a particular perspective. Such an entity is not God as ground of being; it is a particular possible being whose existence is allowed for by the ground-of-being God (or whatever you want to call it.) These cannot rationally be said to be qualitatively “the same being.” One is infinite potential; the other is one particular actualized entity with individual, particular qualities (say, “goodness” or being “just”) that makes particular choices based on its particular nature.
I have no problem with doing so as long as long as it isn’t constantly repeating the same thing. In this case it’s not only a repeat but an indecipherable one. At least it’s not overly long.
I love the line
For something that I had no idea what you were saying.
It’s an example of my math professor saying something was intuitively obvious while proving a theorem as 15 PhD students in mathematics were in unison completely bewildered. Maybe it flowed but it was anything but obvious and definitely not intuitive.
I read StephenB’s response at 293. It was beautiful piece of Theological apologetics. Way out of my depth, but still very beautiful for me to read.
In regards to the science at hand though, WJM claimed that “there is no logically necessary reason or evidence that God “created” souls or that God actively “created” anything.”
Scientific evidence from embryogenesis and Big Bang cosmology not withstanding of course:
Verses:
You got me there, BA77. Caught me using the “there is no evidence” line that really should never be used. My bad, my mistake.
Let me make a better statement: we know now that we are not experiencing an actual external world with an actual past comprised of actual states and characteristics that exist independent of personal, conscious observation. The evidence clearly indicates that no “God” actualized a particular “universe,” but rather that all potential “universe” experiences are local to the individual observer. The evidence disproves the narrative that some “God” created any particular universe at any particular point of time in the past with certain qualities. Rather, it indicates that each conscious being is “manifesting” their particular, individual experience of what we call “the universe” out of the potential of all possible experiences.
Re WJM, he still does not recognise that anything that undermines a major faculty of mind, here, perception of the common world we inhabit, is self referential and discrediting. KF
KF,
I was going to write this but stopped
But your reply is short and to the point. Hopefully the troll goes under the bridge never to return. But somehow I doubt it. The troll needs nourishment, replies from others to its inanity.
Paige
—“Why do souls need a cause?”
Because they are creatures. They depend on a self-existent being for their coming into being and for their continued existence. Only a self-existent being can exist without a prior cause and there can only be one self-existent being.
It is false that IRT undermines that major faculty of mind; it only undermines your particular belief about one particular aspect of that faculty of mind: where the information is coming from and how it is being processed into what we call the ‘common world” experience. IRT does not deny that we have common, transpersonal, mutually verifiable sets of experiences that we usually refer to and characterize as “an external world.”
BTW, “external of mind” (universal mind) and “external of self” are two different concepts under IRT. You seem impervious to this distinction. Lots of things exist outside of my self; mutually verifiable things. But, you have been completely uninterested in learning the distinctions between self, experience, the distinction between “internal of self” experiences and “external of self” experiences under IRT.
Unfortunately for you, ERT (external of mind, not “external of self”) has been scientifically disproved. If that fact only leaves you personally with nothing available but self-referential absurdity, that’s your personal problem. It’s not mine.
Souls are not created.
1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
Both God and the soul, belong in category number 1. You cannot actually create love as some kind of artefact. Although phonies like Cher and Jill Biden do make a good show of trying to create love as some kind of material thing.
StephenB
I understand that this is what you believe, but what evidence do you have for this.
Why can there only be one “self-existing” or uncaused being? Does the existence of one preclude others? Is it not possible that souls are also “self-existing” beings, different than God but still uncaused?
—“WJM: As Paige pointed out: no. We do not have to be “brought into existence” if we have always existed.:
Only a self-existent being can exist without being brought into existence. That is a logical truth, not a statement of faith. I don’t think you can have it both ways here. On the one hand, you suggest that we were unjustly brought into existence without being consulted about it. On the other hand, you suggest that we may have always existed in some state without having been forced into it. The fact remains that you cannot be consulted about anything without first being created without your permission. This is basic logic.
—“I cannot be held responsible for things I must choose between when under the threat of eternal torment or existential annihilation.”
Once again, I find no consistency here. On the one hand, you say that the threat of hell places you under duress because it instills in you an unreasonable fear of the Christian God. In truth, though, you are so removed from fear of the Christian God that you dare to call Him an evil tyrant and worse. Excessive fear of the Christian God is followed by a fearless and unqualified indictment against the justice of the Christian God. It just doesn’t add up.
—“In fact, the bulk of the experiencers bring back a message of complete non-judgmental love that has nothing whatsoever to do with any religion, creed, or particular spiritual belief. Their lives are transformed by this experience.”
In most of these cases, I think it is difficult to separate subjective experience from objective reality.
—“As far as the evidence you’ve outlined that you believe supports the claim of Christian exclusivity; even if we accept all your evidence arguendo, the uniqueness of such evidence doesn’t logically imply existential exclusivity.”
“Existential exclusivity” is your gig, not mine. I simply said that Christian apologetics shows that, among all religious leaders, Jesus Christ is, by far, the most credible as a spokesman for God.and that the logic of the universe is best explained by the Christian concept of Logos. This is easy to demonstrate, .
— what if miracles occurred, so what if it is 100% historically accurate, etc? None of that even begins to make the case for existential exclusivity, especially in the face of counterfactual experiences and evidence.
“So what” is not a reasonable response to a verifiable miracle.
—“The evidence indicates that there is a multi-dimensional experiential construct (for some people here and involving at least one afterlife realm) that is structurally consistent with Christian beliefs (generally speaking.)”
This is a premise worth challenging. The term “multi-dimentional experiential construct” is, in my judgement, a badly formed paradigm because it conflates subjective experience with objective reality. As you have made clear, you are searching for a world view that makes you feel comfortable. For my part, I am searching for the truth about objective reality so that I can direct my life accordingly.
Because they are creatures. They depend on a self-existent being for their coming into being and for their continued existence. Only a self-existent being can exist without a prior cause and there can only be one self-existent being.
—Paige: “I understand that this is what you believe, but what evidence do you have for this.”
It isn’t a statement about what I believe. It is a statement about what must logically be true. Another good example of something that must be logically true is that something or someone had to exist eternally. No evidence for this statement is needed. It simply must be the case.
—“Why can there only be one “self-existing” or uncaused being? Does the existence of one preclude others?”
Yes.
—” Is it not possible that souls are also “self-existing” beings, different than God but still uncaused?”
No.
—WJM: “You’re making claims of faith; there is no logically necessary reason or evidence that God “created” souls or that God actively “created” anything.”
No claims about faith. It is a matter of logic. Evidence also plays a role. The physical universe and its inhabitants once didn’t exist. They are contingent; a necessary being had to bring them into existence.”.
—“It is irrational to say God, as ground of being, created something in particular; that requires a particular personality, a particular identity, a particular perspective. Such an entity is not God as ground of being; it is a particular possible being whose existence is allowed for by the ground-of-being God (or whatever you want to call it.) These cannot rationally be said to be qualitatively “the same being.” One is infinite potential; the other is one particular actualized entity with individual, particular qualities (say, “goodness” or being “just”) that makes particular choices based on its particular nature.”
I don’t accept the premise that “ground of being” means what you say it means or that God is the ground of being in that sense.
This is one thing WJM and I agree about. The Oneness I mentioned in 291 is beyond personhood, and is the source of all there is without being any-thing itself.
An atheist can’t find the truth even if thinks about it thousands of years. it’s for example like a driver software for a printer/camera/etc. if you don’t install then PC will never “see ” the printer/camera even it’s connected. Only God have the “driver” and give to whomever He wants.
The height of stupidity is to think you are smarter than God who made your mind. That’s why Bible say about atheists that they are crazy.
SB said:
Yes, on the one hand, if Christianity is true, , then I was forced into existence, etc. On the other hand, if Christianity is not true, and I have always existed, I have not been forced into existence. I hold that all beings are eternally existent.
That’s fine. I don’t accept your premise of “God.” In my view, the Christian “God” is just one of many beings that have established religions/spiritualties (cults) here on Earth and in related astral domains) that serve their own purposes and ends.
It is very clear from the creationist conceptual scheme, that God can only be identified with a CHOSEN personal opinion.
He cannot be identified as fact, forced by the evidence of Him, nor identified forced by the logical conclusion of some philosophical trick about the neccessity of being.
But you can have all kinds of feelings of certitude in regards to the existence of God. Because feelings are welcome for the subjective category, which is the category God is in.
You can reasonably feel as least as sure of God’s existence, as you are sure of prime emotions, like love, fear, joy. And personal character, like courage, kindness, charity.
And God is ofcourse a person, as God is in the creator category, and creators are persons.
Somehow this oneness which is not anything caused the fine tuning of the universe.
Amazing!
314:
SB,
1. I’d like to see you make the logical argument that there cannot be two self-existent beings.
2. What did God create the universe out of?
3. Where did God create the universe?
4. How long did God exist before God created the universe?
5. What are new souls created out of?
StephenB
By what criteria is a soul a creature?
How exactly have you drawn this conclusion? I am not aware of any evidence that suggests that the soul cannot be an uncaused entity.
Again, you are making assertions with no evidence to support it. Maybe if you can explain why there can only be one self-existing being I might better understand your rationale.
StevenB,
You should know that William J Murray is a troll. He espouses that there is no physical world, no eating, drinking or breathing. No keyboard or screen to communicate with others in this world. No electric bills, no people with bodies. Just mental images.
He doesn’t believe any of this but puts on a show to irk others for his enjoyment. The worse thing you can do is respond to his comments as if they are real.
So take all comments by him in this vein. There are others here who help him carry out this charade.
Is not a troll. It’s more critical. He talked openly about his “transcedental experiences” …not with God . We can imagine who was.
First, at 320, Jerry misquoted me when he said, “Somehow this oneness which is not anything caused the fine tuning of the universe.” I had written any-thing, not anything, to emphasize that the Oneness of which I speak (a speculative alternative to a personal God) is beyond categorization and beyond having attributes such as we ascribe to a person. Some branches of Hinduism, Taoism, and the philosophy of Spinoza discuss this difference.
Also, to StephenB: I disagree with Jerry about WJM. I don’t think of WJM as a troll. He is an advocate for a type of idealism somewhat like that of George Berkeley, at least as a start, and seems to find some value in trying to discuss his ideas here.
This is nonsense. He has been around for 14 years or more. He constantly refers to the outside world and claims to live in Texas. He is also on record as not telling the truth. Direct quotes
Anything or any-thing. The comment still stands. Call it what you want. It produced the fine tuning.
By the way the personalization of God is not necessarily a Christian thing since God is supposed to have no parts so personality would not be appropriate for Him. But we have to discuss Him and talk about Him so we invariably use a masculine expression.
Jerry: You should know that William J Murray is a troll. He espouses that there is no physical world, no eating, drinking or breathing.
I must jump in here. Um no, he’s never said anything of the sort. Why don’t you ask some questions, because you obviously don’t understand what he’s saying (which is very close to my own view.) (P.S. I’m not “attacking” you. I generally like your posts and your tone. But, come on, you’ve got a blank spot here. Get some humility.)
Jerry: God is supposed to have no parts
Who says? Aquinas? Your whole ontology might just be FOS. Get some humility.
Oh, wait. We’re not suppose to discuss apologetics on this thread. Somebody start a new one.
Sandy: An atheist can’t find the truth even if thinks about it thousands of years.
Then how can they be “morally” guilty of incorrect beliefs and actions?
Would you whip a dog because he could never think and act like a human?
I did. Never answered. He admits to an external world and has discussed it several times.
All he has demonstrated is that humans have minds with which they perceive the external world. Amazing.
So why the charade? He’s just wasting a lot of time and pixels.
WJM: 1. —“I’d like to see you make the logical argument that there cannot be two self-existent beings.”
To say that a being is self-existent is to say that it contains the principle of existence within itself and that every other form of existence draws from and depends on it. One is the active source of existence and the other is the passive recipient. Obviously, there cannot be two self-evident beings or two ultimate sources of existence.
They are in this state of mind because they previously made immoral decissions that locked them in this pattern.
VL, the oneness and not any thing itself are in mutual contradiction, and of course breach of identity. Identity is the literal root of logic. KF
KM, again, logic of being. God, is a serious candidate necessary being. No being composed of an assembly of independently existing parts [which would be causally antecedent] can be necessary. Composite entities, from cars to our own bodies and much more, are inherently contingent, caused and dependent. I could elaborate on possible worlds, what is impossible of being [e.g. a square circle], possible beings and of these contingent beings and necessary beings but I would doubtless be pounced on rhetorically, in yet another needless tangent . . . as it is clear that there is not a recognition of a need to deal with root issues to properly address. As at now, for cause on evidence above I am not confident that there is a willingness to do that. KF
PS: Logic of Being. . . ontology . . . is philosophy, not theology, and of theology, apologetics on Christian evidences, Bible exegesis and systematics are only a few components. No, you do not get to play rhetorical games by twisting meanings of words to suggest that we are inconsistent. There is an adequate explanation laid out above, which you chose to studiously ignore and now rhetorically twist.
F/N: Above, I pointed out that the ethical theistic understanding is that God is the inherently good, utterly wise, creator, a necessary and maximally great being. Each of these facets draws on and contributes to the others, i.e. each major attribute of God, rightly understood, is a microcosm of his being. God’s goodness and wisdom for example interact with his power, knowledge and skill as creator, and his necessary being implies that he is source of reality, creator of all worlds, holding all worlds together through his power and wisdom. Think here of how and why a properly cut diamond flashes with fire. In particular, maximal greatness can be seen as being all good to the limit where all of his attributes are perfectly balanced. That is profoundly . . . not merely accidentally . . . coherent and the microcosm principle says much the same. And much more . . . KF
Sandy, the idea that there are intellectual virtues and duties seems to be at steep discount, a measure of where we are. Note what has happened repeatedly over past weeks when I pointed out that even objectors to first duties of reason are forced to appeal to same to try to get rhetorical traction for their claims. That is of course inconsistent on their part, but also shows that the first duties are inescapable, so true and self evident. Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence, to sound conscience, to neighbour, to fairness and justice etc. Willful disregard to such duties leads to guilty ignorance that puts false for true, darkness for light [and calls such darkness enlightenment!], evil for good, folly for wisdom and more, leading to marches of suicidal folly. Yes, some kinds of ignorance — based on willful negligence towards or outright refusal to do duty etc — are anything but innocent. KF
KF said:
Rooted in linear-time ERT, this does not apply to certain idealism and non-linear time worldviews. IOW, there are possible worlds this argument does not apply to.
So, under the “eternal,” or “timeless” idealism reality theory, “universal mind” is the “oneness” that is everything. The principle of identity is that which distinguishes between things found in and are comprised of mind. The “oneness” does not violate or prohibit individual identification any more than the house, a river, a tree and a dog in the same painting cannot be successfully identified as different things, even though they are all made of paint and exist on the same canvas.
Now we get to the claim that a being comprised of parts is necessarily contingent and cannot be necessary or self-existent. The idea of something being “contingent” is rooted in an external (of mind) world, linear-time causality perspective. IOW, my keyboard’s existence is contingent; it did not exist in the past, and was caused to “come into existence” at a certain point in time by those causes.
Unfortunately for your worldview, time-linear causality has been disproved via results of the quantum eraser and delayed-choice experiments, among others. What we experience as “reality” is information being selected and processed into experience by state-of-observer consciousness. The only thing that is in a sense “contingent” in this scenario is personal experience; it is contingent on which information is selected, and how it is processed, by the observer. However, that personal experience eternally exists as potential, the existence of the experience is not contingent; the having of the experience by an observer is what is contingent.
The observer is not the information, the processing, or the experience; it is not any particular “state;” it is that which has the experience. The observer is not a body made of parts; it is an ineffable loci of willful consciousness.
Under this model, all of what can possibly exist, exists eternally as information in the form of potential. It necessarily exists. That means the experience of my typing out this response, my location here doing this in my present state, is a potentiality that is eternal. It is not “created” or “contingent” on anything. Everything eternally exists, in fact must exist, because nothing that is possible can escape its existence in potential, which is the root “reality” of how all things fundamentally exist. “Actualized” potential doesn’t remove the potential or change it; it is merely being translated into observational experience by consciousness.
Under this non-time-linear, eternal IRT, every possible thing is necessary and cannot be “erased” or “created.” There are no contingent beings or things. The only place where the idea of “contingency” applies is free will; what one experiences is contingent on their free will choices, and free will = observational direction, or willful observation. IOW, my experience as the observing consciousness is contingent on my free will.
IOW, I am the ongoing director of my experience as I move my attention through potential eternally-available experiences, “actualizing” them by my observation.
The problem with your analysis of “all possible worlds,” KF, is that you’re not actually thinking about “all possible worlds.” You’re only thinking about all possible ERT worlds. Your logical objections to other ERT worlds do not apply to IRT “worlds.”
Don’t feed the troll!
StephenB
I had not heard the term “self-existent” until you mentioned so I looked it up. This is what I found.
All of these definitions seem to have something in common, a reference to other beings and causes. A self-existent being’s existence is independent of external causes. It says nothing about its existence precluding the existence of other self-existent beings.
Again, I don’t see any reason why the soul can not be a self-existent being.
The greatest mystery of all is existence!!
Now, I’ll address one of KF’s consistent objections to IRT; his claim that it is self-referential, and because of that, it is non-credible. IOW, if the only thing you have to check the accuracy of your ruler by is that same ruler, you have no way to determine the accuracy of your ruler.
KF, of course, raises this objection from an ERT perspective: that there must be an objective, independent-of-experience ruler (world) by which we can calibrate our experiential rulers, or else we cannot acquire true knowledge. Setting aside the science which has disproved this notion of an external (of universal mind) objective world, and the self-evident truth that all we actually have to measure our experiences by are our experiences (regardless of where the information for the experience comes from,) we can see how this objection does not apply to IRT.
Under IRT, the fundamental “rulers” used to acquire “true knowledge” about our existence, like logic and math, still exist and are still necessary in the acquisition of true or well-warranted knowledge. Under IRT, however, we recognize that these “objective” rulers are not being used on an “external world,” but are rather are being used to measure and evaluate our experiences – not just because they are “useful,” but because they are necessary for any conscious entity to have any comprehensible experience by which they can direct observational will – in simple terms, unless you have comprehensible experiences that can be turned into knowledge about your experiences, and predict them to some degree, you have no discernable or understandable means of choosing where to direct your observation into “the next sequences” of experience. You can’t make an informed, rational choice.
As we can see, things like logic and math are necessary, fundamental aspects of any sentient, willful observer. Logic and math underlie the process of the selection of information and the processing of that information into experience. This is why the apparent “external world” will always be understandable in terms of logic and math, etc; logic and math (and other such necessary “rulers”) is that which forms and guides what we call “the external world,” which is really, in actuality, not an external world: it is the world of our experiences.
So, “self-referential incoherence” is only a problem if one assumes they have anything other than their own experiences to refer to, compare, identify and discern between, or IOW to have knowledge about. Although logic and math, etc., are universal with respect to all individual experiential perspectives, they are still experiences; we experience them, their efficacy, their necessity as the root rulers of all possible consciously coherent perspectives, as that which provides true knowledge about our experiences.
Thus, under this version of IRT (and, logically speaking, necessarily true regardless of one’s ERT or IRT,) knowledge is always about one’s experiences and obtained by using experiential rulers (logic, math, etc.) in understanding our experiences and making choices going forward to acquire experiences we desire. We cannot, even in theory, obtain knowledge about an “external of mind” world because even under ERT we have no direct access to it to check it against our experience of it.
This explains how “self-reference,” in terms of all things being in mind and being about experiences, is a valid means of gaining true and well-warranted knowledge.
This brings up an interesting question: how can we acquire knowledge that “all possible experiences” or an other experiential reality exists other than our own? That we can acquire them? Isn’t this “the same as” making a claim about an ERT?” IOW, doesn’t the claim that “something else” exists in universal mind other than my personal experience fall under the same hardship as making claims about an external-of-mind world? Isn’t “external of self” the same as “external of mind?”
Maybe I’ll get around to addressing that soon.
Jerry
I don’t think anyone will argue with you on this.
Paige: “Again, I don’t see any reason why the soul can not be a self-existent being.”
It is, nevertheless, the case. While you are doing your research, explore two more terms – “necessary being” and “contingent being.” A self-existent being is also a necessary being and its relationship to all other (contingent) beings is inescapable. A necessary being is one that cannot not exist. It would be present in any universe under any set of conditions. All derivative being is contingent on (depends on) necessary being, meaning that the necessary being confers being on all other contingent beings.
Again, as you study these things, remember that there are established rules of right reason (deductive logic, inductive logic, abductive logic, law of causation, law of non-contradiction, law of identity etc) that define the reasoning process.
Just because WJM crowds hundreds of words into a series of carefully crafted paragraphs doesn’t mean that his ideas are rational or that the way he describes the world is comprehensible — they aren’t and it isn’t.
He is on record as saying that he doesn’t care about what is true or false. In keeping with that point, I would not presume to judge his motives, but I know enough about theology, philosophy, science, and logic to say, without reservation or qualification, that his world view is totally, manifestly, and irredeemably irrational.
WJM, absent a root of reality independent of antecedent causes, we do not have a basis for any possible world, whether conceptual or mental or physically instantiated, concrete or abstract . . . and this includes mathematical logic model worlds. From utter non-being, nothing can come — were there ever such, it would forever obtain; as, what is not . . . in thought or fact or any mode we can imagine . . . can have no causal capability. Utter non being includes, no propositions so no descriptions of how a world is or may be. That a world is, requires independent being at root of reality, the debate is of what nature. Your objection fails from the root. Noted, for record and reference. KF
Jerry, though a prolonged further exchange is not likely to be fruitful at this point, in all fairness WJM has earned regard beyond trollishness. KF
Paige, the dictionaries describe aspects of necessary being, without delving on logic of being or possible worlds etc. Square circles are impossible of being in any world as core characteristics stand in mutual contradiction. Fires are contingent entities requiring fuel, oxidiser [look up Fluorine fires], heat, combustion chain reaction to begin or be sustained. Twoness must exist in any distinct possible world, it neither begins nor can it be turned off, it is part of the fabric for any particular world to exist, i.e. it is necessary and causally independent. (This happens to be part of why a core of Mathematics is absolutely universal, giving that discipline enormous power.) Again, gaps in our education system, here is an introduction. KF
There are not ” intelectual” virtues. When you take the responsibility to teach the truth blood with be shed .Yours. Psysically or as inner suffering in your life. This is the spiritual law which is more precise than any psysical law of the universe.
KF
The other thing I have learned about definitions is that many words and terms define things that do not exist.
Paige, impossible beings do not exist. Possible ones do or might. Necessary beings are the framework of worlds existing. Your dismissive comment, trying to suggest dubiousness fails. It points to gaps in our education. KF
KF
My initial discussion was with StephenB. If you are capable of contributing without being condescending as StephenB has, I welcome your participation. But life is far too short to tolerate people who are not willing to be respectful.
Respectful? We are just molecules in motion.What means to be respectful?
Sandy
Why do you think that we are just molecules in motion?
Paige, kindly look again at your non-substantial original response and what it rhetorically invites or suggests. KF
F/N: To see what our time misses educationally, here is John of Damascus, rated as last of the Fathers, c 700’s AD:
We would adjust language and concepts a bit and would draw on what we have learned or have had to address over the past 1400 years but the underlying reasoning should be familiar. Now.
KF
KF
Obviously you do not know what “condescending” means. If you can ask a question without this attitude, I will respond. But given that you have not been able to do so I will just bow out of this conversation.
Paige,
I will roll the tape on the exchange, which led to my fair comment corrective — not “condescending” — response on substance. The following is after your citation of dictionaries and dismissive remarks regarding logic of being:
The logic of being – possible worlds issue is pivotal, and is not a matter of empty words about things that do not exist that happen to be discussed in dictionaries. These logic of being/ontology issues, instead, provide key tools to help us analyse what is or may be, or what is not and cannot be.
Such, for instance, helps us understand what an eternal being is, or an immortal soul, and why a soul would be immortal. It helps us understand why once a world is, we need something that is independent of cause, as root of worlds. (Our education nowadays focuses on a world of beings that are contingent and caused, even when it deals with things such as twoness, which are necessary and framework to any possible world.)
KF
PS: As we are contingent beings, manifestly, with a definite beginning, and as we are changing beings, we cannot be causally independent beings. The root of reality can be described as a soul, as Plato does in The Laws Bk X, having identified the soul as the life principle manifesting volition. That soul is of a different order from ours. Hence the description/ bill of requisites of what a world source/root being capable of grounding ought [we are morally governed creatures and we can only resolve the IS/OUGHT gap at root level] would be like.
SB said:
I don’t believe I ever said that in the sense that you are portraying it. In fact, I’ve specifically said several times that I care about telling the truth about my views and experiences here in this forum because I enjoy having my true views and experiences held up to scrutiny and criticism.
I think probably what you mean is that I have said that I’m not interested in finding out what is true in terms of some kind of search for final or universal truth. I’m interested in developing a model that works for my purposes; undertaking that enterprise means I care about the truth at least in terms of whether or not the model works. An analogy would be: I’m not interested in whether or not the sun revolves around the Earth or vice-versa, or if Apollo pulls the sun through the sky with his chariot; that doesn’t matter to me. What matters to me is if the sundial works so my wife and I can get to the theater on time. That requires some degree of local discernment between what is true and what is false, and in such instances I care about it.
This is not the same as me saying that I don’t care about what is true or false; I may have used those words, but I’d have to see the context within which I made that statement.
KF said:
That line I put in bold would make sense if I had ever objected to “a root of reality independent of antecedent causes’ or argued for “utter non-being” as the root of reality. I don’t see where I wrote anything that could even remotely be interpreted that way.
WJM,
It seems I will need to address a substantial issue in greater detail than I would prefer. So, there it is, despite what I would prefer.
In 341, you argued,
That should suffice to show why it is relevant to highlight that reality, from its root, is independent of us and our perceptions or notions and arguments. We are contingent creatures who participate in reality antecedent to our existence. You use ruler as a substitute for yardstick, thereby alluding to my concern on warping effects of crooked yardsticks taken as reference standards that systematically warp and frustrate our thought. The issue of warped, error-reinforcing thinking is a sufficiently established challenge that I only need to mention the matter.
You spoke of there MUST be, which clearly points to necessary, world-root being; prime reality that is source of worlds such as we experience. Your clear intent is to undermine confidence in the veridicality of our perceptions and experiences of a common world in which we interact. You use two key assertions to do this, first claiming that science has “disproved” this notion of an external (of universal mind) objective world.
Strawman.
You have brought in a conflation of objectivity as implying utter independence of a “universal mind” and/or an “external . . . objective world.” I have nowhere argued that the world has independence of mind, instead it is credible that it is a design of a mind capable of building a cosmos. Science has provided no disproof of such, but rather fine tuning is a sign of such design. Further to this, what the common world we inhabit is, is clearly independent of our perceptions and ideas, which can be in error. That is, part of your reasoning seeks to undermine that truth is accurate description of states of affairs, whether regarding our in common world or other possible or actual worlds, or for that matter regarding our thoughts or abstracta and principles of logic, mathematics, being etc. Such, in key part are antecedent to science, which builds on them and cannot refute them. Such is before the point that science is about provisional empirical support and reliable generalisation or theorising, not proof.
Next, you proceed to assert: the self-evident truth that all we actually have to measure our experiences by are our experiences.
This is not a self-evident truth, certainly insofar as it seems to be loaded with implicit Kantian ugly gulch thinking regarding a claimed gap between the phenomenal world and that of things in themselves. We are subjects, who have experiences including thoughts and perceptions, memories etc. Some of those thoughts are about reasoning, logical, mathematical etc. In that reasoning we are aware of certain first principles that apply to any distinct possible world, starting with the law of identity, root of logic. As a direct close corollary, we know that no distinct entity x can under the same circumstances also be NOT-x. This allows us to understand truths about all possible worlds, such as that no square circle can exist as required characteristics are mutually contradictory.
So, we experience and perceive, reason, remember, infer, conclude and while these are experiential, they point beyond experiences we have or can have. We cannot ever experience encountering a square circle, but we can know to utter certainty regarding such a candidate being that it cannot be conceived nor can it exist in this or any possible world, worlds that may or may not exist. That clearly goes beyond our experiences.
Beyond, experience is being used loosely and ambiguously.
What is indeed certain is that we are self-evidently, undeniably self-aware or conscious and that it is through that awareness that we perceive, remember so we can focus attention on, express thoughts in words and symbols, consciously argue [there is also sub conscious reasoning] etc. However, as noted, there is much of the subconscious that is in that too. If all that was being said or suggested was that we are conscious and rely on the subconscious, that would be one thing, but clearly that is not the case.
For, you are thinking of universal mind with ourselves as seeming sparks flying off from it as whirling vortices of localised consciousness. (You have denied solipsism.)
Your rejection of “external reality theory” in practical terms is rejection of our objective awareness and knowledge of an in common world independent of our particular consciousness as individuals or as expressing inter-subjective agreement in some circle of reference or other — school of thought, science, ideology, institution, board of editors, technical board of a dictionary, community, worldview adherents etc. In this context, “theory” is a loaded term implying grounds for doubt regarding our perception of that in common world.
Which is exactly the fatal issue.
For, there is no reasonable doubt that we observe, inhabit and interact with that world, e.g. just to type and transmit comments in this thread. The point therefore remains, that you are seeking to break Reidian common sense realism. That is, that though our senses, thoughts and faculties can and do err in detail, on the whole they cannot be in grand doubt or delusion or the basis for our rationality self-referentially discredits and undermines itself.
On the contrary, there is every good reason to reject as hopelessly incoherent any scheme of thought that casts such grand doubt or delusion over any significant faculty of our minds. Which is precisely what your dismissal or grand doubt regarding the objectively warranted, in common world we inhabit and perceive as we interact with it, does.
Self-referential incoherence that undermines credibility of the mind you use to devise M/IRT.
Which is what I have pointed out from the outset when you began to publicly promote your mental reality, idealistic theory of reality. F H Bradley has a point on any scheme that draws anything of significance from the Kantian ugly gulch:
KF
KF said:
This is where understanding what I mean when I say something from the IRT perspective would come in handy. Or, just paying attention and remembering.
I’ve explicitly stated that under IRT the “root reality” exists and is independently existent of any individual experience. I’ve also explicitly stated that what most people refer to as “reality” – the common 4D(including time) physical world is not “root reality.” I don’t think you even believe that the common, 4D physical world is the “root reality” because that would make you something of a physicalist or materialist.
Your clear intent is to undermine confidence in the veridicality of our perceptions and experiences of a common world in which we interact. That is not my intent. I’ll explain you are making a logical error in this interpretation of what I am saying. First:
Veridical: the degree to which an experience, perception, or interpretation accurately represents reality.
The key word in that definition is “reality.” What is “reality?” Reality under ERT and IRT are two different conceptual models. Thus, what we are perceiving and gaining veridical knowledge about via our perceptual experiences are two entirely different things. You are claiming that because, under IRT, one cannot gain veridical knowledge about the reality proposed to exist under ERT, it cannot be veridical knowledge of any reality. Your argument assumes your conclusion that ERT represents actual reality we can gain veridical knowledge about. This is what has been disproved by quantum science experiments; these experiments have demonstrated that the ERT model of reality is false because we have gained veridical knoewledge from our perceptual experiences that clearly demonstrate the IRT nature of reality.
Nope. The common world we inhabit is not independent of our observational perceptions; it is in fact entirely dependent on them. This has been conclusively demonstrated over and over the past 100 years or so, the “common world” not being the same as “root reality.” “Root reality” is, under IRT, independent of any individual’s perception.
Nope. Truth is the accurate description of states of affairs. Unfortunately, your description of the “state of affairs” has been scientifically disproved. That does not mean that there are no truthful, accurate descriptions of states of affairs; it just means your model is in error. Does that sound like me saying there are no truthful statements under IRT about “states of affairs?”
I could go on through the post pointing out your errors, but they’re all basically the same error. To be more clear, let me start by more clearly identifying your model: it’s a dualism reality theory (“external” has proven to be a problematic identifier.) Your error of logic is that you are making objections to IRT from the DRT perspective. It’s not that veridical knowledge about reality cannot be ascertained via perceptual experiences; it’s that that veridical knowledge is about a non-dualistic reality. It’s not that IRT undermines rationality itself; it’s that it undermines the rational structures, inferences, justifications and conclusions under the premise of DRT. IRT doesn’t undermine truth; it doesn’t contradict any self-evident or necessary truths; it doesn’t end science; it doesn’t undermine our ability to sort and categorize our experiences; it is not inconsistent with common world experience; it does not undermine our capacity to interact with each other, verify and predict features and characteristics of the common world. It makes specific, testable truth claims both about the nature of root reality and the nature of “the common world,” which have been experimentally verified.
From what I can ascertain, your real objection is that IRT undermines your world-view belief system, which you are apparently so psychologically embedded within that you think undermining your world-view belief system is an attack on truth itself, knowledge itself, and logic itself. IOW, you are so fully committed to your world-view as actual reality, that any other view must be irrational, come from an “intent” of undermining truth, knowledge and logic; so much so that you don’t even bother asking a single question about it to check to see if your perspective of what IRT says is correct.
When we’re discussing your worldview, I ask you a ton of questions to better understand your view. You ask me literally zero questions.
You are not arguing or debating in good faith. You’re proselytizing and lecturing your worldview, over and over, because you are fully committed to it psychologically; you cannot help but defend it and promote it all times. You can’t even take on someone else’s position arguendo because, as you’ve made clear, there is far too much at stake in your worldview.
You are not debating in good faith, KF; you are only taking the appearance of debate as an opportunity to continually lecture others and chastise them repeatedly … “for the record,” … for not bending the knee to your worldview perspective.
“For the record,” you opened the door to my armchair psyche eval by characterizing my “intent.” ; )
WJM: — “This is not the same as me saying that I don’t care about what is true or false; I may have used those words, but I’d have to see the context within which I made that statement.”
I didn’t suggest that you do not tell the truth. I said that you don’t care about what is true or false. Do I really need to add the words (about reality). The point is that you are willing to build your world view around the way you want things to be even if it is at variance with the way things really are. That is not what intellectual inquiry is supposed to be about.
WJM,
I clip:
Neatly left out, eg just to comment, you interacted with a computer of some kind and took for granted the Internet infrastructure to present it for others to see etc. In short, you are gliding over the massive fact of our experience of and interacting with an in common world. In effect you suggest it is question begging to take it seriously. This is exactly the grand doubt or delusion appeal that leads to self referential undermining of the objectivity of the world.
You appeal to quantum theory, which was created by taking that world and observations seriously. Yes, there is a substructure with dynamics that makes up much of our experience with matter and energy in space and time. It does not make that experience false, dubious or delusional. Understanding why a gas flame is blue does not make the observation that it is there, blazing away, running a bit high under the pot and needs to be adjusted down by reducing fuel flow dubious or false.
As I already noted:
KF
SB @361 said:
No. I build my worldview entirely around something I directly know is the way that thing is: I know what I enjoy and what I do not. I absolutely, directly know I exist; I know that I experience; I know what experiences I enjoy and what experiences I do not. I don’t know for certain how any of that occurs, but I know with certainty those things are occurring. I know logic and math are fundamental to all of this, and fundamental to pursuing enjoyable experiences and avoiding unenjoyable experiences.
It is my view that outside of these (and perhaps a few other things,) I don’t know anything as certainties; everything else is belief (from well-warranted and well-evidenced to pure faith) and opinion. I realized that every single decision I make is rooted in the pursuit of either direct or abstract enjoyment (I made that case elsewhere on this site.) So, I decided to conduct an experiment; what would happen if I just invented an entire worldview, the only goal of which was for it to be as enjoyable as possible, as long as it didn’t violate logic or my actual experience (the only things I had to work with in constructing my worldview model.) IOW, as long as it was valid logically wrt my experiences, I could interpret my experiences any way I wanted.
This resulted in my IRT, which has provided the model for a life that is enjoyable beyond my original capacity to even imagine. Now this appears to me to be tautologically obvious; arrange your thoughts and beliefs in a manner that is enjoyable, seek out that which is enjoyable, and you’ll have more enjoyable ongoing experiences. Well, DUH! Seems completely obvious to me now.
So, how is my worldview not built on “the way things are?” I counter, it is my model that is actually built on “the way things are,” that I am absolutely certain about; what it is not built on are theories and ideas that represent “the way things might be.” It might be that dualism is correct; it might be that objective good and evil exist; it might be that the Christian God is THE God. The evidence presented in science publications might be true and accurate. But, I don’t know those things to be “the way things are.”
So, my model is indeed based entirely on those things I am absolutely certain to be “the way things are:” I exist, I experience, I seek enjoyment in those experiences.
KF said:
I’m not gliding over any of those facts. I’m just not accepting how you believe all that is occurring.
However, I’ve now pointed this out at least a dozen times. You appear to be immune to understanding the difference between accepting a fact and accepting a world-view interpretation of what the facts mean.
WJM, for cause the record stands. KF.
WJM to KF:
“However, I’ve now pointed this out at least a dozen times. You appear to be immune to understanding the difference between accepting a fact and accepting a world-view interpretation of what the facts mean.”
And yet you seem to have placed all your bets on the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which in itself, does not qualify as a fact.
StephenB: his world view is totally, manifestly, and irredeemably irrational.
Ultimately all world views are irrational.
WJM @303: the ground-of-being God (or whatever you want to call it.)
I call it The Root. Some Hindus call it Brahman. Some Buddhists call it The Void. Hassidic Kabbalist Jews call it Ein Sof. My friend Herman from Brooklyn calls it, “Dat Place.” 🙂
The I Ching calls it the Tao.
Karen McMannus: —“Ultimately all world views are irrational.”
Is your world view irrational? If so, then why would you try to enter into a rational discussion with me? Do you have a rational standard for discerning whether or not a world view is irrational? If not, then how would you know? Are you not aware that such a standard exists?
Karen McMannus,
“Ultimately all world views are irrational.”
You equivocated on the word irrational there.
Irrational can mean “contrary to reason.” It can also mean the leap of faith necessary to arrive at unprovable first things. WJM used it in the first sense. You used it in the second.
Barry Arrington: You equivocated on the word irrational there.
Fair enough. Perhaps “non-rational” is a better word choice.
StephenB: Is your world view irrational?
Non-rational is a better term.
If so, then why would you try to enter into a rational discussion with me?
We can have rational dialog on a variety of topics as long as we stick to agreed upon premises.
Do you have a rational standard for discerning whether or not a world view is irrational?
Yeah. Because my worldview also incorporates direct experience, which is not necessarily rational.
For example, your conscious experience of red and blue is non-rational. If it were, you would be able to describe the difference of your conscious experience of red and blue with words. You can’t. Nobody can. It’s a non-rational direct experience.
If not, then how would you know?
Ultimately, I am my own standard.
Are you not aware that such a standard exists?
Where?
StephenB to WJM: the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which in itself, does not qualify as a fact.
True. However, the C.I. is the only interpretation consistent with consciousness/free-will, which is the primary fact of anyone’s existence (assuming everyone is conscious.) Denying the C.I. and its implications would be denying the primary fact of one’s existence. Doesn’t seem like a good choice of worldview to me.
STephenB: Do you have a standard for discerning whether or not a world view is irrational?
Me: Yeah. Because my worldview also incorporates direct experience, which is not necessarily rational.
I misread your question when I answered the first time. Delete previous answer.
My worldview is the product of non-rational/trans-rational, and rational elements as experienced and processed by me. How could it be any different? Ultimately, all worldviews are non-rational because they either rely on non-rational/trans-rational experience and/or assume non-rational ontologies. Consciousness is trans-rational. For example, the conscious experience of color has nothing to do with Reason.
KM, pardon but neither irrational nor non rational are apt for speaking of worldviews on the whole, as both invite or suggest inferences that are self referentially incoherent or even seemingly justifying of arbitrary subjectivism or relativism: none are sound so pick and choose according to taste or fashion. No, that door to the irrational should be shut. No, too, we must not assume that core first plausibles shaping our faith points and presuppositions are inherently the opposite of the rational, instead they are part of the fabric of rationality as neither infinite regress nor question-begging circularity are acceptable. Yes, worldviews do generally bristle with difficulties and some are indeed clearly incoherent [such as evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers]. That said, it is our mindedness that drives having worldviews in the first place that rise above, say, instinctive programming of animals. Such is why the approach of comparative difficulties is valuable and relevant. Indeed, the comparative aspect is key to answering the issue of question-begging. KF
PS: I find that QM is often turned into a platform for much speculation, similar to how relativity was in former days when it was held to justify relativism. By contrast, the Copenhagen position, for example, pivots on the issue that as one approaches a classical limit, the QM result must move towards the well tested classical results. That shows that those results are in fact a reliable baseline and yardstick, empirically established macro scale facts. That sort of context is part of why I have noted that there is no good reason to use quantum, microscale substructure to try to discredit the reality of the familiar, in common world we interact with. WJM still relies on a computer and keyboard or a similar technology to make comments here. Any system of beliefs about the world that seeks to make good sense relies on the credibility of mind, so it is fatally self-referential to cast grand doubts on any major aspect of the mind, freedom to reason, memory, perception of the world, sense of self awareness etc. Yes, there is room for error and correction, but that in itself relies on the underlying credibility. Where also, incoherence is well known to undermine ability to infer soundly as p => q chains from truth to truth reliably but once p is plausibly false, the false leads to both true and false implications. So p=x AND ~x becomes a serious problem as it is necessarily false. Ironically, on dealing with hypotheticals, we often use that property of implication to guide us as to which alternative to choose. For, we can see consequences for p’s that are or may be false depending on our choice, then we select what seems best. Turning back, once we incorporate self referential principles in our views, their coherence becomes a particularly vital question.
WJM, again, for record: my focus is that it is fatal to posit a self-referential, incoherent account of rationality. In that context, we are subjects and are self-aware, exerting reasoning as we ponder, perceive and interact with the in common world. So, discussions about facets of our self-aware rationality are inescapably self referential. As just noted to KM that makes such particularly sensitive to incoherence. That means that views on reality etc that imply or suggest or invite grand doubt or delusion regarding any major faculty, perception, awareness, memory etc — as opposed to particular, “local” errors — undermines the credibility of mind and therefore itself. Grand doubt or suggested delusion regarding the reality and independence from our thoughts of the in common world fall under that concern and stricture. If our self-aware perceptions of the outer in common world are at steep discount on a given scheme, our equally self aware memories, reasonings, arguments etc are also — fatally — at steep discount. At this point, I doubt this will be persuasive to you but it needs to be noted for record. KF
SB said:
I haven’t placed any bets at all on the CI because, if you had bothered to read and understand what I have written, I came to my worldview before I knew anything about the quantum physics experiments.
Furthermore, when I use quantum physics experimental results to support IRT, I’m not using any interpretation of the experimental results; I’m referring to the experimental results themselves because they support IRT. I didn’t say those results can’t be used in support of other models, but that is not the only evidence I use to support my argument.
KM said:
VL said:
When in Rome, and all that.
KF said …
When one becomes so convinced of their interpretation of facts that they mistake their interpretation of the facts for the facts themselves.
Perhaps the comments were turned off in the “The Debate In a Nutshell” post – I can’t find any comments or a place to make them, or I’d put this comment there.
BA77 mentioned the other day that I don’t make arguments supporting ID anymore. This is because I don’t find that argument interesting or enjoyable. The evidence is so overwhelming for ID of life and what we commonly refer to as “the universe” that, at this point, arguing for it is almost like arguing that free will exists. I have better, more enjoyable things to do with my time.
As far as I’m concerned, the existence of ID (specifically, of life and the universe) has been conclusively established. Because of that, the interesting argument, as I see it, is the concept of theistic intelligent design, which is outside of the official purview of ID itself.
Of course, to debate theistic intelligent design, or to even rationally explore what that might mean or entail, some premise about the nature of conditions of “being God” would have to be agreed on or at least accepted arguendo to examine whether or not those qualities would even entail the capacity to “intelligently design” anything, much less implement said design. Is “intelligent design” even the right concept to apply to how this universe and life exist, from the theistic perspective?
What are the essential qualities necessary, not to “recognize” ID (we know those qualities,) but rather to say some entity can engage at all in “intelligent design and implementation?” Are those qualities congruent with the idea of “God” engaging in “intelligent design?”
First, what are the basic qualities necessary for a being to be capable of intelligent design? Let me try to quantify this with the following:
1. The capacity of deliberate will.
2. Conditions that provide for directing that will towards a specific purpose.
3. Conditions that allow for the implementation of that purpose ..
4. ID is always about deliberately changing a current state or condition to a different, preferred state or condition.
By “condition,” I mean both of the designer and the context of the designer, that allow for the capacity to even think about changing some state or aspect of those conditions.
A fundamental aspect of will is that will is always fundamentally about preference. To make an ID choice, one must prefer one thing over another, even if those options are conceptual. This requires the ID to have, at the bare minimum, two or more competing potentials from which one can be chosen to design and implement, even if it is a choice whether or not to take a walk. Ultimately, any choice to change one’s current state or conditions into a different state or condition requires some form of dissatisfaction with the current state or condition, or there would be no impetus to even consider changing them.
This in itself may bring up some problematic issues when it comes to various conceptions of “God.” Was God dissatisfied with it’s state or conditions before it created the universe? Does the idea that God had conditions or states that could be changed via a deliberate creation of the universe conflict with the idea of an immutable God, or a God “not made up of “parts” that can “change?”
Another problem with the theistic ID perspective may be the logistics of the idea of creation itself. If God is the creator of time and space, how was there a time before God created then universe, and after? If God is “eternal” in the time-linear sense, we have the infinite history problem; if God exist in a timeless state, there cannot be a “before” and “after” the creation of this universe from God’s perspective. Also, unless space already existed, where did God create the universe? If God was all there was, what did God make the universe out of?
WJM —“A fundamental aspect of will is that will is always fundamentally about preference. To make an ID choice, one must prefer one thing over another, even if those options are conceptual. This requires the ID to have, at the bare minimum, two or more competing potentials from which one can be chosen to design and implement, even if it is a choice whether or not to take a walk. Ultimately, any choice to change one’s current state or conditions into a different state or condition requires some form of dissatisfaction with the current state or condition, or there would be no impetus to even consider changing them.”
Dissatisfaction with the current state or condition is not the only possible motive for creating the universe. It could be a desire to share something – Divine life, for example. According to the Christian world view, God is a community of loving persons, defined as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Christian world view holds that God wanted to share that love by creating others in his image, creatures who were capable of giving and receiving love through the use of their free fill. Love is effusive and tends to pour itself out in a selfless fashion.
—“Does the idea that God had conditions or states that could be changed via a deliberate creation of the universe conflict with the idea of an immutable God, or a God “not made up of “parts” that can “change?”
To say that God is immutable is to say that his nature and his character do not change. Unlike the Muslim God, for example, God doesn’t change the moral code on a whim. In keeping with that point, God does not have to change his nature to perform a creative act. To respond to your add on point,, God is a pure spirit, which means that he has no “parts that can be changed.”
—“Another problem with the theistic ID perspective may be the logistics of the idea of creation itself. If God is the creator of time and space, how was there a time before God created then universe, and after?”
The Christian answer is that God is “outside” of time. So, you are right, it does become clumsy when people use terms like “before and after” creation without making it clear that they are just paying tribute to the progression of events that took place “after” the creative event when, so to speak, the clock started running, which made such a thing as an “after” possible.
—“Also, unless space already existed, where did God create the universe?”
If God created the space-time-continuum, then it would seem that there was no such thing as where until God created space.
—“If God was all there was, what did God make the universe out of?”
I am sure that you have heard the term “creation ex-nihilo.” Just because something cannot come from nothing doesn’t mean that God cannot create something out of nothing.
Karen McMannus — “All world views are irrational.”
SB: Is your world view irrational?
KM: —“Non-rational is a better term.”
So you don’t think that all world views are irrational as you originally stated? Or do you mean that all world views except yours are irrational, which is merely non-rational.
To say that a world view is rational means that it honors the rules of right reason, which include the law of causality, the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction and the principles of deductive logic, inductive logic, and abductive logic, that it follows evidence where it leads (and no where else), that it doesn’t contain contradictory themes, that it doesn’t attempt to remake the world according to personal preferences, that it cares about and seeks to find the truth about all things insofar as that is possible and, most important, that it recognize the fact that some truths are more important than others and that all truths should be placed in the proper hierarchical order.
So when you said that “all world views are irrational, “you automatically included my world view in that category without even knowing what it is and you excluded your world view on the grounds that “non-rational” is a better term. Further, you did not even bother to define the essence of a rational world view. Do you understand why these things could be a problem?
SB said:
That would be dissatisfaction due to not having other beings to share it with. IOW, God would have had to imagine that other beings could exist that could share in the “Divine Life,” and preferred that over not having such beings to share it with. Otherwise, why would God make that choice, if not when God compared the current situation to an option, was dissatisfied with the current?
This would mean God was dissatisfied with a current state by comparing it to an imagined preferred stated and made the choice to design and create the Universe.
That’s actually what it means. You don’t a free logical absurdity just because “God” is involved. However, if God created the universe, there was not “nothing.” There was God. Unless there was something other than God at the time, there’s only one place the universe can be, and one “material” it can be made of.
However, the bigger issue is that the creation of the universe and a timeless or eternal God appear to me to be irreconcilable, contradictory ideas. You can have one or the other, but not both. Either the universe was not created by God, or God is not eternal or “outside of time.”
StephenB: So you don’t think that all world views are irrational as you originally stated? Or do you mean that all world views except yours are irrational, which is merely non-rational.
I clarified my intent after Barry corrected my usage. Please see my reply to you @375.
when you said that “all world views are [non-rational], “you automatically included my world view in that category without even knowing what it is
I’m pretty sure I know what it is and understand it. It incorporates non-rational/trans-rational elements, does it not? And necessarily does.
To say that a world view is rational means that it honors the rules of right reason, which include the law of causality, the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction and the principles of deductive logic, inductive logic, and abductive logic, that it follows evidence where it leads (and no where else), that it doesn’t contain contradictory themes
All that is fine within spacetime by brains doing Reason. You establish premises and you Reason from them. Non-rational/trans-rational elements are not subject to Reason. The conscious experience of color is non-rational/trans-rational. Timeless Roots are non-rational/trans-rational.
WJM: Either the universe was not created by God, or God is not eternal or “outside of time.”
This is a subject about the trans-rational. Given that, Reason can never grapple with it or “figure it out.” Because of that I don’t see the two as necessarily mutually exclusive. No one gets a free pass by merely invoking “God.” Given my experience, I approach the trans-rational this way: whatever it is, it is absolutely other. (In additional to calling it The Root, I call it the Black Box.) It’s not so much that it is “timeless”, but that the very idea of “time” doesn’t apply at all. It’s neither in time nor timeless. The very idea of time does not apply at all.
This may seem like a distinction without a difference, but one may be able to intuit it if one considers that the conscious experience of color is “timeless.” It is trans-time. The nature of color has nothing at all to do with time. Our own perception of time can be altered using meditation or hallucinogenics such that one can experience “timelessness” of consciousness in a general way, outside of any succession of events. You can still perceive the succession of events, and yet experience that you are “above it all” in a timeless way that is different than a mere negation of time that one may call “timelessness.” It’s utterly divorced from the very concept of time like sound is utterly different than color.
It is not merely “timeless”, it is trans-time. All consciousness exists in a trans-time ontology. It is a positive state, not a negation. More, not less. Our normal experience of time is the actual negation. Like everything else we experience in spacetime, via brains, it is an artificial dumbing down. Many people have experienced this. It is impossible to fully express with words, as with any conscious experience. But, as with many things, words can sometimes trigger a “koan” in people.
Two quotes appropriate to most of what has been said here. Some very obvious exceptions of clarity by mainly one person.
And
KM: —“All that is fine [rules of right reason] within spacetime by brains doing Reason. You establish premises and you Reason from them. Non-rational/trans-rational elements are not subject to Reason. The conscious experience of color is non-rational/trans-rational. Timeless Roots are non-rational/trans-rational.”
A world view is rational if it conforms to reason’s standards. A world view is irrational if it does not. That doesn’t mean that one’s perceptions or experiences are reasonable or unreasonable -they just are what they are – but it does mean that the framework within which you interpret them should make sense and, as close as possible, reflect the truth about the real world – not simply your world. Is there an objective moral law? Does life have a purpose beyond my own personal goals? Do I have free will? What should be my attitude about suffering? What does it mean to love? To whom am I responsible? All the important questions about our life require a well-reasoned world view in order to understand and deal with them and form a rational plan for our life. Otherwise, we enter into a kind of self-centered subjectivism, which is, in itself, irrational. Much that I have read on this blog fall into that sad category.
SB: Dissatisfaction with the current state or condition is not the only possible motive for creating the universe. It could be a desire to share something – Divine life, for example.
WJM: —“That would be dissatisfaction due to not having other beings to share it with. IOW, God would have had to imagine that other beings could exist that could share in the “Divine Life,” and preferred that over not having such beings to share it with. Otherwise, why would God make that choice, if not when God compared the current situation to an option, was dissatisfied with the current?”
Again, the motive would not be dissatisfaction. It would be generosity. As I wrote, love is effusive in the sense that it pours itself out in a selfless way. Operating from a spirit of dissatisfaction would indicate a sense of incompleteness, which would indicate a lack of perfection.
—“If God created the universe, there was not “nothing.” There was God.”
Right.
—“Unless there was something other than God at the time, there’s only one place the universe can be, and one “material” it can be made of.”
God doesn’t need any ready made raw materials to create something from nothing. There is no such thing as place if space has not yet been created.
—“You can have one or the other, but not both. Either the universe was not created by God, or God is not eternal or “outside of time.”
I submit that God must be outside of time in order to create time.
KM said:
If it is “absolutely other,” how is it you know where it fits in your worldview, and how to place it in a sentence describing your worldview? To assign it as being that which is doing anything, or providing anything, means you have identified it at least in general terms.
What I assume you’re referring to when you say “absolutely other” is that you don’t know what it exists as or how it does what it does, but you have at least assigned that it does something significant – even necessary – in your experience, or providing for that experience to occur. In that sense, though, how is it any different from anything else? I don’t know what I am; my own consciousness is ineffable. I don’t know what experience is or how it occurs. I don’t know what other people are or how they exist; i don’t know what anything is or how anything exists.
Logic isn’t about knowing what things are or how they work; it can’t be. As far as I can tell, there’s no way to know those things. Scientific theories don’t explain anything; they are models that describe behaviors of things in our experience. Logic is about accurately describing and predicting experience. Yes, it identifies phenomena we experience, but those are labels. Labels do not tell us what those things are, if they even “are” anything other than “an experience”, they (1) distinguish various aspects of my experience from each other, and (2) are essential in developing a model of how to direct our experiences.
I’m a philosophical pragmatist, so what I’m interested in is generating as successful a model as possible for the purpose of directing my experience towards that which I prefer. So, at least in that limited and narrow sense, everything I label in my worldview as anything is a symbolic referral to a practical use, even if it is “I don’t know what X is, or how it works, but if insert action A into X in a certain way, B occurs.”
It’s like operating a computer. I have no idea how any of it works or what it (ultimately) exists as; all I know is that I do action A and I get result B. Or, my own body; I have no idea how it works; but I do A (intend to raise my arm) and B happens (my arm rises.)
If something doesn’t offer me a rational, practical means of understanding how to direct my experiences at least in a general “Do A, B happens (or is likely to happen,)” the concept is useless to me. So, whatever God or Root or The Black Box is, if it doesn’t provide me even a basic, logically predictable (even if just statistically significant) use, why even talk about it?
Regardless of what “it” actually is, or how “it” actually works, if it isn’t part of a useful model of how to input A and get B, it’s an irrelevant commodity to even consider. Might as well just call it a random output generator.
So, other than just enjoying talking about it, why bring up the conditions of God, or the time, space and material problems inherent in the idea of God “creating” anything? It’s because it leads to and helps me explore what I have found to be a more useful and practical conceptualization of God. This idea not only provides a logically successful framework for inputting A and getting B, it exponentially expands experiential potential by removing conceptual metaphysical constraints such as time, space, and some individual “God” being having arbitrarily generated narrow limits to experience by creating a particular me into a particular “universe.” From these challenging discussions over the years, I’ve “figured out” more useful ways to conceptualize these things.
In my model, time, space, states and conditions are experiences. God did not “create” me or any universe; God is the resource through which I am exploring sequences of experiences out of infinite potential. That’s not my personal claim of fact; that’s what I’ve found to be a very useful model. If I argue it as a truth statement about the nature of reality here and there, that’s because I’m arguing from and for the IRT model.
WJM, the record is there. KF
/ On WJM’s MRT: /
In any situation, the vast majority of possible choices, actions, perspectives and variations makes no sense whatsoever. Only a very small subset of these items make up for rational and/or emotional coherent behavior.
If MRT is true we are most likely to find ourselves in a world where people behave totally unpredictable. The term “dependable” would have no meaning in relationship with persons. There would be no person with even a remotely fixed character. It would be a rare occasion if at a certain moment a person’s behavior would have an emotional or rational connection to his behavior immediately prior to that moment. Almost no one who planned a trip from A to B would reach his destination.
But this is not what we find.
Admittedly at times people do make some pretty irrational inconsistent choices. However, there is an obvious discrepancy between the behavior people exhibit in our world and the lunatic asylum on steroids which is to be expected under MRT.
Jerry, pardon a note that simple for Einstein clearly included the tensor mathematics at the core of General Relativity. He is also on record as saying everything should be as simple as possible but not simpler than that. That is, there is what is simplistic, naive, wayward and prone to reject sound counsel — as the preface to Proverbs warns. Some go beyond into willful obtuseness or worse. A sounder approach is that of comparative difficulties, seeking explanations that are factually adequate, coherent and balanced in explanatory power, neither an ad hoc patch-work that grows as leaks are fixed [think, Ptolemaic system c 1500 on] nor so simplistic that it is forced to play the procrustean bed game. Sometimes the result is at five year old level, sometimes, it is at twelve year old level, sometimes 101 College course level, sometimes full-bore technical. Unfortunately, many of the objections to issues at focus need a significantly technical answer. KF
Origenes said at 393:
Out of the infinite potential behaviors you might experience from another person, what or who do you think is selecting and processing specific behaviors of that person into your experience? Hint: it’s not them.
BTW, I’ve changed the labeling of the theory from MRT (mental reality theory) to IRT (idealism reality theory) for clarification purposes. Any time forward I refer to MRT is just a mistake of habit.
SB,
time as we experience is is connected to thermodynamic energy flows and the constraints implied by the Second Law, aka time’s arrow. Our world is spatial-temporal, causally connected and energy dynamics constrained. It is also governed by lawlike regularities, even randomness follows distribution laws. Causal connectivity points to contingency.
Beyond, given distinct identity of any possible world, we must be able to mark W as different from neighbouring world W’, say W = W’ + A, or, using partitioned sets W = {A|~A} with ~A = W. Thus in W we find a simple unit A, a complex one ~A, so twoness, and the partition is empty, nullity. 0, 1,2. With von Neumann’s construction we can go on to counting numbers N, so the structured quantitative sets, N, Z, Q, R, C, R* etc. Mathematics thus emerges as the substance of the logic of structure and quantity, which we may study through cumulative exploration guided by logic starting with distinct identity; with non contradiction and excluded middle as close corollaries.
Core logic, already, is showing its universal character and so is core mathematics.
With possible worlds as sufficiently complete descriptions as to how this or another actual world is or might be, logic of being is involved (so, possible vs impossible and contingent vs necessary beings etc), and more.
For us, duty to right reason involves acknowledging that, recognising duty to truth, our proneness to error, what can be deductively proved, what can be inductively supported, etc.
I think, gaps in our education system render such things needlessly unfamiliar and even suspicious. That makes us — including the well certificated — unduly vulnerable to ideological and/or agenda driven manipulation through fallacies and propaganda techniques.
KF
PS: One of the things I recently argued turns on a question, what gives arguments persuasive traction and/or brings us to a sense of duty to pay heed?
Where, a further observation is that the arguments of even objectors to such core principles ALSO inescapably appeal to same. Where, thirdly, I was particularly exercised by Cicero in De Legibus as he discusses law as the highest reason noting that moral prudence is a law and conscience [presumably, sound] is a law.
I began to see a pattern.
Once we are rational, responsible, significantly free enough to reason and to warrant conclusions that may justly be termed knowledge — mechanically acting, GIGO-driven computational substrates need not apply — our reasoning is morally governed. Governed by identifiable law built in and coeval with our human nature, though plausibly extending to other similarly rational creatures. So we come to first oughts, the first duties of reason.
Duties, to truth, to right reason, to prudence [including, warrant], to sound conscience, to neighbour of like rational nature, so too to fairness, to justice, etc.
Observe how objectors will inevitably appeal to such duties even as they try to set them aside or evade their force. A familiar pattern emerges, we see inescapability. So, if the duties are inescapable, then they are inescapably first truths, first moral truths at the heart of rationality. So, to, self-evident as the attempt to object instantly frustrates itself. (Of course, that does not mean that . . . being free creatures . . . we cannot defy duty and do what we ought not; just ponder how lying works by exploiting the ability to set up an apparently true but false and damaging narrative.)
What I found interesting is the intensity of objections that arose, even as in case after case, objections implicitly appealed to exactly these first duties. I suspect, the prevalence of relativism, subjectivism and emotivism is involved, especially the failed moral truth claim that there are no moral truths, just values.
His sentence was as simple as you can get. He wrote books and scientific articles for the other audiences but for a typical conversation one has to be simple and get to the essence of an idea quickly..
Nearly everything on this thread and a lot of other threads is gibberish. The only person not writing gibberish here is StephenB.
There are two kinds of gibberish, non-sensical gibberish and incomprehensible gibberish. You excel at the latter. Nearly everyone is mocking you because of your incomprehensible gibberish that is convoluted at best. You write long extremely complicated and hard to follow posts. When criticized you add more incomprehensible things to your ideas.
Your ideas have the great justification in that they tend to reflect the truth no matter how incomprehensible they are. But you should know they are mocking you for your style and lack of clarity.
Every time you respond sto Murray, he laughs that he has gotten you again. He doesn’t believe the nonsense he writes as he constantly contradicts it in his other posts. So know he is baiting you and you are swallowing eagerly.
Yes, simplicity is a necessity for communication and persuasion.
Jerry, there are different audiences and contexts. The general comment was not intended to provide a degree of warrant. I am pointing out what was involved in simplicity, KF
WJM: If it is “absolutely other,” how is it you know where it fits in your worldview, and how to place it in a sentence describing your worldview?
Imprecision in my use of language. I don’t mean “absolutely other” ontologically – after all, I call it, The Root, that is, the Root of everything, including you, me and the lamp post – but rather with regards to spacetime-grounded rational ideas such as time, objectification, relation, even mathematics. “Absolutely other” in the sense that not much can be said about it – perhaps nothing can be said about it – that flows from Reason. So it doesn’t do much good to try to “figure it out” via reason. That is not to say something cannot be known about it, but it comes directly and not via rational thought. For example, conscious experience of color is part of its nature, and color is not known by rational thought.