Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Will President Dutarte have to resign? Mathematician Euler offered an equation taken as proof of God

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Leonhard Euler.jpg
Leonhard Euler, 1753/Jakob Emanuel Handmann

Recently, Philippines president Rodrigo Dutarte threatened to resign if anyone could prove that God exists. It turns out that the great mathematician Leonhard Euler (1707–1783) offered a proof of the existence of God.

Today, Euler is considered one of the greatest mathematicians of all time. His interests covered almost all aspects of mathematics, from geometry to calculus to trigonometry to algebra to number theory, as well as optics, astronomy, cartography, mechanics, weights and measures and even the theory of music.

Much of the notation used by mathematicians today – including e, i, f(x), ∑, and the use of a, b and c as constants and x, y and z as unknowns – was either created, popularized or standardized by Euler. His efforts to standardize these and other symbols (including π and the trigonometric functions) helped to internationalize mathematics and to encourage collaboration on problems. More.

Here’s Identity, often taken as a proof of God:

Euler’s identity is an equality found in mathematics that has been compared to a Shakespearean sonnet and described as “the most beautiful equation.” It is a special case of a foundational equation in complex arithmetic called Euler’s Formula, which the late great physicist Richard Feynman called in his lectures “our jewel” and “the most remarkable formula in mathematics.”

In an interview with the BBC, Prof David Percy of the Institute of Mathematics and its Applications said Euler’s Identity was “a real classic and you can do no better than that … It is simple to look at and yet incredibly profound, it comprises the five most important mathematical constants.”

Some of Euler’s other thoughts about God, offered by a friend, cited by Adam Drozdek, “Leonhard Euler as an Apologist,” Theologische Zeitschrift 66 (2010) pp. 62-82:

He wrote in his Examen d’une controverse sur la loi de refraction des rayons, 1753, that

if other arguments for the existence of God make no impression on the spirit of Atheists, just the consideration of the structure of the eye should convince them about the existence of the supremely wise and powerful Being, in comparison with which the highest wisdom of man is reduced to nothing.

He talks about the human eye in his Letters:

Vision «is without a doubt the most wonderful thing which the human spirit could fathom.» The little that we know about the operation of the eye «is more than sufficient to convince us of the Omnipotence and infinite wisdom of the Creator; and its wonders
should enrapture our spirit to more pure adoration of the supreme being. We discover in the structure of eyes perfections which the most intelligentspirit could never thoroughly examine and the most skilful artist could never construct a machine of such a kind» (Letters 41). Although Euler raised the issue of God’s wisdom, indirectly he also addressed the problem of the existence of God: the eye is a witness of a supremely wise creator who only can be God. Euler was convinced that God «has surely followed in his works the simplest route» and thus the eye cannot be reproduced by a simpler device(Letters 43). Today, the intelligent design proponents use the concept of an irreducible complexity which, as it can be seen, would be endorsed by Euler:

“the eye is complex but it cannot be made any simpler since removing but one element from its construction would render the eye unworkable. Therefore, all the elements of the eye must have been put together at the same time to enable the proper execution of its function.” This is the proof of the existence of God from design, which is the first proof used in European philosophy, namely by Socrates, and was a proof frequently used in the age of Euler, frequently under the name of physicotheology.

And the more we know about the eye, the more complex it is.

But President Duarte may have other stuff to read…

President Rodrigo Roa Duterte 2017.jpg
See also: Philippines president claims he’ll resign if anyone can prove God exists. But leaves himself a fine-tuning loophole.

Comments
jerry
So we can disagree on just what ID is but it makes no difference. Just call it something like IR for Intelligent Reasoning.
On a personal level, I agree. I have used ID as a series of arguments, but I also use ID within the context of my own Christian faith, using logic and common sense, as you said. But that's really not what ID is supposed to be, strictly speaking. ID was designed for one very narrow purpose - to try to get the concept of Design into mainstream science. That's it. That's why Dembski does all of that complex math and ID researchers try to get scientific papers published. The only thing ID can talk about is whatever can be observed and measured. An infinite multiverse is absurd for reasons you gave. Even "one more" universe is absurd. Our universe does not have edges where something else can exist outside of it. The universe is all matter, time, space - it is The physical universe. That means one. A "second universe" of physical matter and the constants we find - would be part of Our universe. A second universe would be totally imaginary. Science could never observe it. By definition, if science can observe it, then it is part of our universe. So, even "one more universe" is just imaginary. It can't be science.Silver Asiatic
July 23, 2018
July
07
Jul
23
23
2018
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
Secondly, even if we assume for sake argument that a multiverse exists, does it really solve the problem? I would argue that it does not.
Indeed. It makes it worse. Now, instead of one universe to explain, you have an uncountable number of universes to explain. Andrewasauber
July 23, 2018
July
07
Jul
23
23
2018
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
even if we assume for sake argument that a multiverse exists, does it really solve the problem?
In other words all the anti-ID people have is an emotional attachment to a world view. However, emotions are much stronger than logic for most people. Certainly it is true for religion just as it is obviously true for atheism or any form of anti-religion. It is also true for politics as we see in our present world. It is certainly true in love. I have often said the most interesting thing in the ID debate is not the evidence but the behavior of the people and what they will do to justify their beliefs. So an interesting social psychology thesis is that people associate based on their emotional beliefs which then attracts the opposite beliefs. A imperfect physical analogy may be that the electro magnetic force vs gravity. The electro magnetic force is thousands of times stronger than gravity. So are emotions like the electro magnetic force and reason like gravity. Gravity is all around us and seems to rule our world until the electro magnetic force appears somehow and then dominates. Or maybe it is the strong force and not the electro magnetic force that is the better analogy. This is just pondering to explain the illogic of the anti-ID people.jerry
July 23, 2018
July
07
Jul
23
23
2018
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
[Here is something I’ve posted before which I think is worth repeating here.] In 2007 while making observations at the Keck observatory in Hawaii, Sandra Faber, a professor of astronomy at the University of California, Santa Cruz, told science writer Anil Ananthaswamy,
“that there were only two possible explanations for fine-tuning. ‘One is that there is a God and that God made it that way…’ But for Faber, an atheist, divine intervention is not the answer. “The only other approach that makes any sense is to argue that there really is an infinite, or a very big, ensemble of universes out there and we are in one,” she said. This ensemble would be the multiverse. In a multiverse, the laws of physics and the values of physical parameters like dark energy would be different in each universe, each the outcome of some random pull on the cosmic slot machine. We just happened to luck into a universe that is conducive to life. After all, if our corner of the multiverse were hostile to life, Faber and I wouldn’t be around to ponder these questions under stars.”
Other atheists agree that God counts as a rational explanation. In a debate with Christian philosopher William Lane Craig, California Institute of Technology physicist, Sean Carrol said, “I’m very happy to admit right off the bat – [that God fine-tuning the universe] is the best argument that the theists have when it comes to cosmology.” However, Carroll then deftly takes away with the left hand what he had just offered with his right. “I am by no means convinced that there is a fine-tuning problem,” he told Craig. Oh? Is Carrol speaking for everyone? Is an airy wave of the hand all that is needed to solve the fine tuning as a problem. Other prominent physicists and astrophysicists would disagree--- among them Sir Martin Rees, Paul Davies, Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, Max Tegmark, Andrei Linde and Alexander Vilenkin to name a few. All these men, as far as I know, reject traditional theism. Nevertheless, they see fine-tuning as being a real problem in need of an explanation. For the theist fine tuning is a problem that has an easy answer. For us an eternally existing transcendent mind (God) is a sufficient explanation for the universe’s fine tuning. What is the non-theists explanation? The most popular, at the present, is the one given by Faber, an ensemble of universes—the so-called multiverse. Popular or not there are several major problems with the multiverse hypothesis. First, no one knows if any other universes besides our own exists. Neither does anyone have any idea how to detect another universe. Furthermore, even if we were able to detect another universe, how would we ever be able to prove there was a sufficiently large number of other universes to solve the fine tuning problem? Secondly, even if we assume for sake argument that a multiverse exists, does it really solve the problem? I would argue that it does not. An appeal to the multiverse is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to chance.john_a_designer
July 22, 2018
July
07
Jul
22
22
2018
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
But those are not ID arguments. They’re arguments against infinite regress, or infinite potential which are philosophical. ID can take no credit for those and make no contribution.
If someone posits a physical phenomenon then it can be analyzed with logic. Once someone posits a multi-verse, then probability can be let loose. If the multi-verse is finite, then probability will eliminate it as an explanation for our universe. If the multi-verse is infinite, then it must encompass all possibilities and probability and logic will specify what are the possibilities including my absurd scenarios. Just think of the multi-verse as the universe of absurdities. As for what is ID call it ID or call it common sense. I always held that ID was just part of basic reasoning/logic about causes. Probability and logic are the main tools of ID applied to evidence and science. So the typical objections to it are absurd. One of the greatest enemies to the acceptance of ID is the ID people make it too complicated. For example, trying to fit Demski's mathematics into it just makes it obscure and invites all the trolls with their nit objections. So we can disagree on just what ID is but it makes no difference. Just call it something like IR for Intelligent Reasoning. Remember ID is based on probability applied to science and evidence as to cause. While using logic, its conclusions are not certain. Consider my opinions on the existence of God. I maintain He doesn't want it to be certain.jerry
July 22, 2018
July
07
Jul
22
22
2018
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT
JAD:
However, invoking the multiverse does provide the naturalist/materialist an easy escape hatch by which they can avoid the implications of an intelligently designed universe.
Or it just multiplies their problems. They cannot account for one (uni)verse, but it's somehow easier to account for many? Really? Can/ will someone explain that to me?ET
July 22, 2018
July
07
Jul
22
22
2018
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
JAD True. There is much more evidence for the existence of God than of the multiverse. The MV is an escape hatch. It's like positing alien directed panspermia of earth to explain biological evidence of intelligent design - which materialists could do that also if they realized that evolution does not work.Silver Asiatic
July 22, 2018
July
07
Jul
22
22
2018
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
SA @ 68, However, invoking the multiverse does provide the naturalist/materialist an easy escape hatch by which they can avoid the implications of an intelligently designed universe. Never mind the nasty unspoken fact that in doing so they posit presuppositions that must be accepted on the basis of faith.john_a_designer
July 22, 2018
July
07
Jul
22
22
2018
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
ID is limited to what can be observed. A multiverse posits worlds outside of the universe and therefore inaccessible to scientific observation. We can use logic to show that infinite universes are contradictory and irrational.Silver Asiatic
July 22, 2018
July
07
Jul
22
22
2018
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
jerry Regarding arguments against the multiverse - yes, exactly, it can be shown to be absurd. But those are not ID arguments. They're arguments against infinite regress, or infinite potential which are philosophical. ID can take no credit for those and make no contribution. ID only has physical evidence to work with. Once you get to the multiverse, none of the physical sciences can work on the problem. It all moves to philosophy, reason, logic, abstractions. Even mathematics does not work (contra DaveS' arguments). An infinite state, which is required for a multiverse theory, cannot in principle be bounded and therefore cannot be fully analyzed.Silver Asiatic
July 22, 2018
July
07
Jul
22
22
2018
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
jerry,
So you are postulating that these incredibly intelligent entities are bounded in some way. It’s a conjecture but my guess if that were so they would conspire to find a way around the bounding. Is there some physical (does that term make sense) or other type of law bounding them from above? Who/What imposed this bounding? But maybe the bounding level if it exists is such that they can still say “Let there be light” in English.
All I know is that this bounding is a mathematical possibility. Whether it's realistic on not, I have no idea. I will add that even if we set aside this bounding objection, your argument seems to show only that there in a multiverse there would exist an infinite collection of beings of arbitrarily high finite intelligence. For example, we could have a sequence b_1, b_2, b_3, ..., of beings where b_{i + 1} is twice as intelligent as b_i for each i >= 1. I don't immediately see any logical problems with that.daveS
July 22, 2018
July
07
Jul
22
22
2018
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
Jerry, if DS thinks there is a continuum in possible degrees of intelligence, even a finite range could have infinitely many distinct values. I think the pivotal matter would be, can we rank intelligence. Then, we can point to the issue of possible, intelligent beings and then to that of a maximally intelligent being. (For argument, on was it Ari's what rocks dream of, we can assign intelligence zero to a handy rock, defining a minimum.) A maximally intelligent being would be connected to a maximally great and necessary being. KFkairosfocus
July 22, 2018
July
07
Jul
22
22
2018
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT
Furthermore, there could be infinitely many distinct levels of intelligence, but the set of levels of intelligence could be bounded above.
So you are postulating that these incredibly intelligent entities may be bounded in some way. It's a conjecture but my guess if that were so they would conspire to find a way around the bounding. Is there some physical (does that term make sense) or other type of law bounding them from above? Who/What imposed this bounding? But maybe the bounding level if it exists is such that they can still say "Let there be light" in English. I suggest all read Issac Asimov's short story, the "Last Question" for some fun thoughts on this. Asimov was an atheist. http://www.multivax.com/last_question.html There is always some hypothetical that could be imposed no matter how illogical it is. But people's self worth are often based on illogic. Sites like UD are useful because they facilitate unmasking events.jerry
July 22, 2018
July
07
Jul
22
22
2018
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abLATf6Q9Lskairosfocus
July 22, 2018
July
07
Jul
22
22
2018
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
F/N 2: The Philippines President's challenge pivots on the concept of proof. As in, what degree of warrant constitutes reasonable, relevant and adequate reason to conclude that the God of ethical theism (and beyond, of the Judaeo-Christian faith tradition) credibly is? In an era of scientism, evolutionary materialism and selective hyperskepticism, that is a pivotal matter. Especially, given that post Godel, we know that not even Mathematics can provide utterly certain, guaranteed coherent frames of knowledge for domains comparably complex to Arithmetic. Similarly, science can provide provisional support for the empirical reliability of theories, but not proof beyond reasonable, responsible doubt. Where, also, it can be shown that claims or implications that science delimits knowledge or at least serious knowledge are philosophical or ideological impositions and collapse in self-referential incoherence as a direct result. Such notions also run afoul of the failure of demarcation arguments: there are no methods of investigation, analysis and reasoning that apply across the span of the generally accepted sciences which are unique to said domain and produce a body of uniquely reliable or credible knowledge. Sound methods of inductive and deductive reasoning, observation, description and classification, analysis, mathematical modelling, record and chain of custody etc are common across domains of interest, and there is far too much diversity across the sciences once one moves beyond the school level to impose a one size fits all method or definition. Worse, to do science, one crucially needs mathematics (and these days its extension in computing) which is precisely not an empirical science, but instead an abstract, introspective field of study that addresses the logic of structure and quantity, creating model logic worlds that often intersect powerfully with empirical domains of endeavour. So, we must be very careful in handling warrant in addressing the reality of God. In that context, we need to ponder who are doing the warranting, and how we may do so with any confidence. That is, we ourselves, and especially our inner introspective lives as reasonable, responsible, morally governed creatures are a major part of the evidence to hand. For, in order to be free to reason and in order for us to have the credibility to be trusted in alleged conclusions, we must rise far above the level of blindly mechanical and/or stochastic, gigo-limited computational substrates blindly grinding out whatever their inputs and stored data will lead to given the causal chains imposed by hardware organisation, noise, signals and software. Such devices are at best calculating up to the limits of noise, inputs and flaws, they are not free enough to reason rationally and responsibly under the binding moral government of duties of care to truth, sound and prudent reasoning, justice etc. Where, for certain, a purely material world governed by blind mechanical necessity and equally blind chance allegedly evolving purposelessly from hydrogen to humans simply cannot account for us. That is why, long ago now, J B S Haldane observed:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” ["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. (NB: DI Fellow, Nancy Pearcey brings this right up to date (HT: ENV) in a current book, Finding Truth.)]
So, we look for reasonable, responsible warrant for world roots adequate to account for a domain spanning hydrogen to humans, and know that it is not credibly a wholly material order. There must be room for mind, moral government and the human spirit. Where, too, we must adequately account for the one and the many, including good vs. evil. Cutting to the chase scene, we are looking for a grand. worldviews level inference to the best explanation of a world that spans from hydrogen to humans. The candidate to beat is: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and of the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. That is, it is a reasonable and responsible view to hold to ethical theism. In that context, we can account for ourselves as created to be in the image of God, able to sufficiently sense, understand and act into the world responsibly and freely. Where also, it then makes excellent sense to see a world that is full of signs of design of the cosmos, and of the world of biological life. Where also moral government and significant, responsible, rational freedom make sense as endowments by our creator. Further to this, the history of C1 Palestine on the further track record of the history of the Hebraic nation and of its prophetic tradition will make it clear that the Judaeo-Christian tradition is also reasonable and responsible. But, in the end, God is personal and persons are known in relationship. That is why the testimony of millions in light of the above and onward is further evidence that should not be lightly discarded. And, the principle here is that humble, penitent, even tentatively trusting prayer and stumbling in the way of the good, true, pure and loving will open up a world of encounter with God that is such that one may justly claim to know God. In the end, Mr President, the challenge is intensely personal. KFkairosfocus
July 22, 2018
July
07
Jul
22
22
2018
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
jerry, If I may jump in, I don't believe this is true:
If there is an infinite number of universes, there will be a subset also infinite in number that develops intelligent entities. Then one could rank the infinite number of universes with intelligent entities by the level of intelligence present in each universe. This would lead to a ranking with no limit on the scope of the intelligence as one goes higher up the rankings.
Even supposing that there are infinitely many universes with intelligent entities, that doesn't mean there must be infinitely many distinct levels of intelligence. Furthermore, there could be infinitely many distinct levels of intelligence, but the set of levels of intelligence could be bounded above.daveS
July 21, 2018
July
07
Jul
21
21
2018
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
Cosmological ID cannot refute multiverse
But it can make the multiverse an absurd concept. From a previous comment I made a few years ago
The only argument that has any traction is that the multi-verse is infinite. If it is not infinite then the actual finite number will always come up short in the fine tuning argument. If the multi-verse is infinite then all possibilities are possible including the one we live in. Two absurd implications of this are First, there must be an infinite number of universes that include each one of us leading our lives so that at every nano second a different path could arise and a different universe. For example, I missed a foul shot in high school that prevented us from making the playoffs. Not only is there an infinite number of universes where I miss the foul shot but there are an infinite number of universes where I make it and an infinite number of universes where I go on to become an All American basketball player. What a world!! Second, even more absurd, there are an infinite number of universes where the Judeo-Christian God arises. Here is an argument I have made beore on this.
If an infinite number of universes are postulated, then this leads to an entity of infinite intelligence. Why? If there is an infinite number of universes, there will be a subset also infinite in number that develops intelligent entities. Then one could rank the infinite number of universes with intelligent entities by the level of intelligence present in each universe. This would lead to a ranking with no limit on the scope of the intelligence as one goes higher up the rankings. Then jokingly I made the comment that an infinite subset of these intelligent entities would say “Let there be light.” And to make even more fun out of this absurdity, I said an infinite subset of that would say it in English. An infinite number of universes is self contradicting. So we have to be left with some finite number but for every finite number we postulate, why wouldn’t there be just one more. What is to prevent it? Is there a cap on the number of universes?
One absurdity after another. The techniques of calculus are finally becoming handy.
The argument of the multi-verse is infinitely absurd.
jerry
July 21, 2018
July
07
Jul
21
21
2018
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PDT
F/N: Let me begin to pick up a bit. Worldviews first. I have long observed (echoing many others) that if an argument or conclusion A is challenged, it leads to B that supports it in some way. In turn B leads to C and so forth. This forces three alternatives: impossible infinite regress [we are finite and error-prone], question-begging circularity, finitely remote first plausibles defining a faith point at the core of a worldview. The first being impossible, the real issue is circularity and thus how start-points are warranted or at least made plausible. I follow others in arguing that comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power are key factors. I also see that crooked yardsticks used as standards for straightness, accuracy and uprightness would lock out what is genuinely so. Therefore, plumbline, self-evident truths are key tests for worldview start-points; never mind, that such cannot suffice to frame a worldview. For instance, Josiah Royce's error exists is undeniably true and thus warranted to be known to undeniable certainty. This decisively undermines many ideological commitments and views in our day. Such as, views that deny that we can know beyond the inner life of conscious ideas, perceptions and opinions. Or, those that would turn truth and knowledge into relativised opinion, e.g. "your/my truth is . . . " Likewise, we can consider it undeniable that we are morally governed, starting with duties of care to truth, sound reasoning, etc. If we deny such, we instantly imply grand delusion and radically undermine the credibility of responsible rationality. Amorality and nihilism crouch at the door. This already frames our worldview core challenge: we must account for a world inhabited by responsible, rational, morally governed, significantly free creatures -- us. And denying or implying denial of that status directly undermines the point of a discussion. With might and/or manipulation make right nihilism crouching at the door. Okay, a first step. KFkairosfocus
July 21, 2018
July
07
Jul
21
21
2018
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT
SA, Aristotle seemed to be all over the place. KFkairosfocus
July 21, 2018
July
07
Jul
21
21
2018
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
KF Would you agree that Aristotle was a Deist?Silver Asiatic
July 21, 2018
July
07
Jul
21
21
2018
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
jerry
If one follows the physical evidence for God, one will get as far as Deism because there seems to be little concrete evidence for anything further than the construction of various coherent initial conditions which is what ID is about.
Fully agreed. ID only gets barely to Deism. In fact, we might even argue that ID doesn't even get that far - biological ID can be explained by alien intervention. Cosmological ID cannot refute multiverse. Arguments about an infinite regression are not ID, not physical science - they are philosophical.
This is where Ben Franklin essentially ended up who was one of the most conscientious thinkers in the last 300 years. But Ben had a weakness for the ladies.
Very interesting point -yes. Franklin got as far as Deism - just using physical evidence and some basic philosophy. In my opinion, moral failings like lust, blind the mind to the more subtle connections needed to go from basic evidence, to more complex that leads to Theism. But Theism requires more faith - and moral failings like a weakness for the ladies, will block the soul from having that kind of faith. Cleanness of heart gives a vision to truths.Silver Asiatic
July 21, 2018
July
07
Jul
21
21
2018
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
jerry
I never said that. I said there is evidence but not overwhelming evidence. At least I tried to. And I maintain that is “good.” Because if there were overwhelming evidence there would be no value in assenting to the existence of God. And we would live in a very different world.
Yes, you did say that. I was referring to your statement about no evidence on the efficacy of prayer: But there is no evidence that prayer leads to God’s intervention.
So what value is believing that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. The answer is None.
I fully agree. God created the world so that there was sufficient evidence, but not hard, 100% proof. That means, we can use reason and logic, but eventually we have to make a leap of faith - then even after that, we have to trust. We don't need faith or trust to know that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
Proof of God always get my interest for the reasons stated./blockquote> Yes, when we talk about Proof of God, we run the risk of making this a mathematical formula. We can use logic to arrive at a reasonable idea. The evidence is strong. It seems impossible to deny the existence of God, but there is always a way to do it - however weak that foundation is. Eventually, some faith is needed. The reason for that, along with your idea that life would be boring without it - faith gives life drama, risk, importance. We actually make a very important decision to follow God. No decision is needed to believe that the sun will rise. It's the same in human relationships - we have to learn to trust. God created the world like that for the reasons given.
Silver Asiatic
July 21, 2018
July
07
Jul
21
21
2018
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Jerry, the issue is the balance of duty to truth and the power of persuasion. From Aristotle in The Rhetoric, Book I Ch 2, we see pathos, ethos, logos as levers of persuasion, and then right there the remark that the judgements we make when we are pained and hostile are very different from those made when we are pleased and friendly. Perhaps later today into the morrow, I will try to speak to the actual substantial issue. I can summarise that we must have worldviews that are rooted in finitely remote faith points and which must be compared on their difficulties on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power. IMHO there is adequate warrant that we can know (common, weak sense of sufficient warrant to be credibly true thus an object of responsible, reliable belief and action -- not even Math post Godel is utterly provable) that the God of ethical theism is the most credible explanation of our world, one including morally governed, responsibly and rationally free creatures such as we are. I would suggest that, further, the history of Jesus of Nazareth points to the fundamental truth of historic, apostolic, C1 Christian faith. KFkairosfocus
July 21, 2018
July
07
Jul
21
21
2018
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
Hans Rosling
Failing to recognize the name, I had to look him up. I remember seeing a famous and informative TED talk he presented. I didn't realize he had passed already.daveS
July 21, 2018
July
07
Jul
21
21
2018
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, You and I are talking about two different phenomena, evidence and hardened hearts. The OP was on a proof of God. Both evidence and hardened hearts are in operation in the world on this topic and on a lot else such as politics and economics. The hardened hearts might better be described as emotional hearts. People's emotions drive what they will accept as truth and then only begrudgingly will they accept the obvious if it disagrees with their feelings which must be protected. Hans Rosling pointed out that the more educated one is, the more likely one is ignorant of the world around us and that many of our beliefs are based on unsubstantiated feelings. He was pointing to poverty and the rapid rise out of it in the last 200 years. But I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Rosling was an atheist which would be ironic given his focus on evidence. If one follows the physical evidence for God, one will get as far as Deism because there seems to be little concrete evidence for anything further than the construction of various coherent initial conditions which is what ID is about. This is where Ben Franklin essentially ended up who was one of the most conscientious thinkers in the last 300 years. But Ben had a weakness for the ladies. There is little to point to in science except human nature on how to behave and why. For that, one has to look elsewhere.jerry
July 21, 2018
July
07
Jul
21
21
2018
06:09 AM
6
06
09
AM
PDT
F/N: Taking a leaf from BA77's book, scripture:
Eph 4:17 So this I say, and solemnly affirm together with the Lord [as in His presence], that you must no longer live as the [unbelieving] Gentiles live, in the futility of their minds [and in the foolishness and emptiness of their souls], 18 for their [moral] understanding is darkened and their reasoning is clouded; [they are] alienated and self-banished from the life of God [with no share in it; this is] because of the [willful] ignorance and spiritual blindness that is [deep-seated] within them, because of the hardness and insensitivity of their heart. 19 And they, [the ungodly in their spiritual apathy], having become callous and unfeeling, have given themselves over [as prey] to unbridled sensuality, eagerly craving the practice of every kind of impurity [that their desires may demand]. 20 But you did not learn Christ in this way! 21 If in fact you have [really] heard Him and have been taught by Him, just as truth is in Jesus [revealed in His life and personified in Him], 22 that, regarding your previous way of life, you put off your old self [completely discard your former nature], which is being corrupted through deceitful desires, 23 and be continually renewed in the spirit of your mind [having a fresh, untarnished mental and spiritual attitude], 24 and put on the new self [the regenerated and renewed nature], created in God’s image, [godlike] in the righteousness and holiness of the truth [living in a way that expresses to God your gratitude for your salvation]. 25 Therefore, rejecting all falsehood [whether lying, defrauding, telling half-truths, spreading rumors, any such as these], speak truth each one with his neighbor, for we are all parts of one another [and we are all parts of the body of Christ]. 26 Be angry [at sin—at immorality, at injustice, at ungodly behavior], yet do not sin; do not let your anger [cause you shame, nor allow it to] last until the sun goes down. 27 And do not give the devil an opportunity [to lead you into sin by holding a grudge, or nurturing anger, or harboring resentment, or cultivating bitterness]. 28 The thief [who has become a believer] must no longer steal, but instead he must work hard [making an honest living], producing that which is good with his own hands, so that he will have something to share with those in need. 29 Do not let unwholesome [foul, profane, worthless, vulgar] words ever come out of your mouth, but only such speech as is good for building up others, according to the need and the occasion, so that it will be a blessing to those who hear [you speak]. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God [but seek to please Him], by whom you were sealed and marked [branded as God’s own] for the day of redemption [the final deliverance from the consequences of sin]. 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor [perpetual animosity, resentment, strife, fault-finding] and slander be put away from you, along with every kind of malice [all spitefulness, verbal abuse, malevolence]. 32 Be kind and helpful to one another, tender-hearted [compassionate, understanding], forgiving one another [readily and freely], just as God in Christ also forgave [c]you. [AMP]
The resonances should be clear enough. KFkairosfocus
July 21, 2018
July
07
Jul
21
21
2018
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT
This seems to be an early version (not as fleshed out as my memory tells me): https://www.thefullwiki.org/Metanoiakairosfocus
July 21, 2018
July
07
Jul
21
21
2018
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT
H'mm: went looking for Metanoia. Wiki used to have an excellent general article, now gone. What's left is thin gruel in an article on a rhetorical device and a suspiciously narrow discussion on theology that only hints of the two sisters kairos and metanoia. On the way, I am astonished that after over 400 years, it is not seen that usage in KJV etc of "repent[ance]" has expanded that word's meaning through infusing the riches of metanoia and of kairos through translation. As, once happened to the Greek word, theos. My best rendering on reflection is that we here deal with: deeply motivated and fundamentally positive transformation of attitude, mindset, frame and trajectory and habits of thought (thus agenda for action) leading to -- it is the motivating antecedent -- permanent, radical change of path of life; often involving profound sorrow over and seeking forgiveness and cleansing from one's former trajectory of thought and life. This article speaks: https://www.americamagazine.org/issue/463/columns/metanoia KF PS: How many times have I seen the golden few good, refreshing articles at Wikipedia gradually turned into thin gruel! I particularly recall a former discussion of the meaning of to lie.kairosfocus
July 21, 2018
July
07
Jul
21
21
2018
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT
Folks, after years of discussions, I have reached the conclusion that -- beyond a threshold -- it is seldom a matter of evidence. Attitudes to evidence and to others involved, yes. Ideologies, worldviews and assumptions, yes. Perceptions so coloured and perceived interests, yes. Agendas, yes. Distorting emotions, rage and the hardened or distracted heart, yes. Partyline and socio-political or socio-cultural identification (as opposed to core identity as a being), yes. Deleterious, blinding influences such as adherence to or being a fellow traveller with evolutionary materialistic scientism, yes. Influences of self-referentially incoherent frames of thought [such as the just named], yes. Turnabout projection to deflect and suppress cognitive dissonance, yes. Benumbing and blinding effect of so hardening the heart, yes. Adopying a crooked yardstick as standard of straightness, accuracy and uprightness, yes. Compounding such by dismissing plumbline, self-evident truths, yes. And more. The problem, in short, is to recognise when your system of thinking and reasoning has become materially corrupted and being willing to take up the painful toil of metanoia. KF PS: Just this week, I had a discussion with someone so pervaded by radical relativism, that holding up 3 fingers and 2 fingers separately then joining to make a 5, ||| + || --> ||||| met with dismissal. That is how bad it can get. And these are the people making decisions about our future, starting with voting and moving up to influencing or sitting at the conference table with the fancy touchscreen whiteboard and fancier multimedia projector. Our civilisation is in deep trouble, and has got a suicidal mindset, like lemmings were made into an icon of. (Real lemmings seem smarter than that. But, people . . . ? History stands in devastating witness. But then, history that is inconvenient will be conveniently forgotten or dismissed -- and don't you dare try to remind us differently.)kairosfocus
July 21, 2018
July
07
Jul
21
21
2018
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT
where you said that there was “no evidence”
I never said that. I said there is evidence but not overwhelming evidence. At least I tried to. And I maintain that is "good." Because if there were overwhelming evidence there would be no value in assenting to the existence of God. And we would live in a very different world. I relayed this story a few times on this site but few if any understood its implications. I once shared an office with a Jewish adjunct while teaching. We got to discussing religion and he said there is no faith without doubt. There is no value in believing something without doubt. Doubt is necessary for belief to be meaningful. So what value is believing that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. The answer is None. It is a topic that few understand let alone consider and I occasionally bring it up. I rarely come here any more but occasionally check in to see if anything is interesting. Proof of God always get my interest for the reasons stated.jerry
July 20, 2018
July
07
Jul
20
20
2018
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply