Does Good come from God II – Harris vs Lane

_{David L. Hagen

April 8, 2011

Atheism, Creationism, Design inference, Ethics, Evolutionary psychology, Intelligent Design, Neuroscience, Philosophy, Psychology, Religion, Science}

Part 9 of 9 – Harris vs Craig – Does Good Come From God
———————————————
Apologetics 315 has posted the audio link the Full Debate MP3 Audio here (120 min)
———————–

I found the debate a fascinating test of technical debating skills vs red herrings and emotional appeals. (PS please post links to transcripts when available.)

This debate provides an interesting framework within which to examine the ID related question:
Does Information come from an Intelligent Agent?

Harris claimed that the axioms of science are accepted and obvious to everyone and provide the basis for proving there is no god. However, atheists commonly presuppose naturalistic materialism.
How can one scientifically examine if an intelligent agent exists or is causative, if one a priori excludes intelligent agents from possible causes?

I posit that in testing for an intelligent cause, one must presuppose:

1) Intelligent agents exist. (e.g. humans)
2) Intelligent agents can influence nature. (e.g. this post)
3) Some intelligent intervention can be detected. (e.g., forensics)
4) An intelligent agent may be a cause for an observed phenomena.

—————————————————-

April 11 See JonnyB’s follow on post:

Sam Harris Delivers Riveting Oration Championing Deism

Comments

Well, Bruce, what is your answer? Can Jupiter exist and not exist at the same time? Yes? No? Maybe? If you say yes, I will say no more about it, though I reserve the right to bring it up again at a future date. If you say no, I ask that you provide the reason [i.e. the law of identity and the law of the excluded middle rule it out in principle]. Or, you can just say "maybe," meaning that your philosophy just doesn't address problems like this and you prefer to withhold judgment.StephenB_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT}

Bornagain: Please stop attacking my integrity! I was merely using the electron as an example to demonstrate to StephenB that the statement, "Christ cannot both be inside the tomb and outside of it." is not a tautology, which it isn't. The electron, in its uncollapsed state, CAN be said to exist both inside and outside of the atom, if you take the atom to be, say, a small sphere centered at the nucleus with radius equal to the average distance of its outermost shell. You know, you really need to get over this idea that people who don't see the world the way you do are hypocritical or dishonest. There is another possibility: yous is not the only valid way of interpreting reality. I know that is hard for you to swallow, being so certain you are right and all, but it actually is true that intelligent, educated, and knowledgeable people can come to different conclusions regarding the nature of reality than you do. Get used to it.Bruce David_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
05:39 PM
5
05
39
PM
PDT}

Bruce David you state this; 'Note that this property is violated in the subatomic world. Until it is measured, for example, and the wave function collapses, an electron can be said to be both inside its atom and outside it at the same time.' It is not violated for the electron either exist as a 'higher dimensional' wave function or it exists as a 'uncertain' particle. There is no in between state period! For you to try to extrapolate the wave function behavior to a 3-dimensional state to prove your insane philosophy is sheer dishonesty on your part!bornagain77_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

BD: Pardon, but dictionaries do not have the last word on such philosophically highly charged matters. I see why you used "tautology" that way, but there is a lot more there than meets the eye. In particular, there is a crucial distinction that needs to be brought back into focus, between tautologies and self-evident foundational truths. I suggest you read here points 15 - 17 [and in the onward linked] on Adler's remarks on little errors at the beginning and instructive truths, self-evident truths, and tautologies. (Reading onwards will show a way forward on building a sound worldview on first principles of right reason.) In the case of Jupiter, the relevant cluster of self-evident first principle of reality is that A is not non A, that A is A, that we do not have one thing as both A and not-A. These are constraints of reality, understood on our experience of the world and undeniable on pain of absurdity or worse -- hence my bus example earlier. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

QI: First, the terminology is mine but -- as is explicitly pointed out in the introduction by direct citation -- the concept is Simon Greenleaf of Harvard Law School, a key founding father of the modern theory of evidence. Let me excerpt from His Testimony of the Evangelists:
[26] . . . It should be observed that the subject of inquiry [i.e. evidence relating to the credibility of the New Testament accounts] is a matter of fact, and not of abstract mathematical proof. The latter alone is susceptible of that high degree of proof, usually termed demonstration, which excludes the possibility of error . . . In the ordinary affairs of life we do not require nor expect demonstrative evidence, because it is inconsistent with the nature of matters of fact, and to insist on its production would be unreasonable and absurd . . . The error of the skeptic [what I have termed descriptively selective hyperskepticism] consists in pretending or supposing that there is a difference in the nature of things to be proved; and in demanding demonstrative evidence concerning things which are not susceptible of any other than moral evidence alone, and of which the utmost that can be said is, that there is no reasonable doubt about their truth . . . . [27] . . . . In proceeding to weigh the evidence of any proposition of fact, the previous [prior] question to be determined is, when may it be said to be proved? The answer to this question is furnished by another rule of municipal law, which may be thus stated:
A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence.
By competent evidence, is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence, is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt. . . . . If, therefore, the subject is a problem in mathematics, its truth is to be shown by the certainty of demonstrative evidence. [which post Godel 'ent so certain no more] But if it is a question of fact in human affairs, nothing more than moral evidence can be required, for this is the best evidence which, from the nature of the case, is attainable. Now as the facts, stated in Scripture History, are not of the former kind, but are cognizable by the senses, they may be said to be proved when they are established by that kind and degree of evidence which, as we have just observed, would, in the affairs of human life, satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man. [Testimony, Sections 26, 27, emphases added.]
Second, the applicability is plain, if you had followed the links. I suggest you work your way through especially Section B, in light of Section F. (Sections C, D, E and G are also quite relevant but more remotely.) Topics in Section B (and linked onwards from the TOC) include:
B] Key case: Authenticity and the C1 NT (vs the C2 Gnostic "Gospels") --> Historicity of the NT and the gospel as summarised in 1 Cor 15:1 - 11 --> On alleged contradictions in the Passion narratives [onward link] --> Paul's AD 55 summary and record of the AD 30's testimony to the gospel --> On the C18 Deist skeptical theories [onward link] --> The minimal facts argument and appeal to the serious inquirer --> On the "pagan copycat" claim and the "parallel" myths on allegedly dying and rising pagan gods [onward links] --> On Afrocentrism and related issues concerning Egypt, the Patriarchs, Moses and the Exodus [onward links] --> The Morison challenge
GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PDT}

StephenB "My point is that you didn’t call it a tautology." Well, it actually isn't a tautology. It is based on a presumed property of matter in the macroscopic world that it cannot be in two places at the same time. Note that this property is violated in the subatomic world. Until it is measured, for example, and the wave function collapses, an electron can be said to be both inside its atom and outside it at the same time. The tautological formulation would be, "It cannot be true that Christ is inside his tomb and Christ is not inside his tomb." This is a different statement, because if he were somehow both inside and outside of the tomb, like the electron with respect to the atom, the tautology would still be true, but your formulation, "Christ cannot both inside the tomb and outside the tomb," would be false.Bruce David_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

---QuiteID: "I say, in the words of the Catholic priest, “The Bible is true, and some of it happened.” The official position of the Catholic Church is that everything the Gospel writers reported, happened. If you have found a Catholic priest who thinks otherwise, send him to the Vatical II documents. --"Matthew seems to be writing midrash, and Luke (who admits to dependence on others) is doing the best he can with sources." Midrash is simply a commentary or interpretation on biblical tests. It doesn’t invent new stories, treat them as historical facts, or function as fictional narratives without a text.StephenB_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT}

[If you mean that Christ’s earthly body cannot both be inside his tomb and outside of it at the same moment in time, then yes, I agree]. ---"What’s your point?" My point is that you didn't call it a tautology. The same principle which allows you to say WITHOUT QUALIFICATION that Christ's earthly body cannot exist both inside the tomb and outside the tomb is exactly the same principle that should have give you the good sense to say without qualification that Jupiter cannot exist and not exist at the same time. I just had to keep the examples coming until you would finally confess it in some form.StephenB_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

StephenB: "—Bruce: 'This is a tautology and tells us nothing about the real world.' So, you will not answer my questions: Can Jupiter also be Saturn? Can Jupiter exist and not exist at the same time? Enough said on that." You can believe that those two propositions represent knowledge about the real world if you wish, but if they do, it's pretty damn trivial. What I mean by knowledge is something like whether Jupiter actually exists, or even more important, God actually exists. You don't get answers to those questions from tautologies!Bruce David_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PDT}

---"So this is the crux or your argument from reason? In your estimation, based on a lot of assumptions such as that the writers of the gospels were actual witnesses to what they reported and not lying, you conclude that it is highly probable that the Bible is accurate?" There are many different arguments for many different questions. I was simply educating you on the author's purposes for using selective history, which you were obviously not aware of. Context, context, context.StephenB_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT}

---Bruce: "This is a tautology and tells us nothing about the real world." So, you will not answer my questions: Can Jupiter also be Saturn? Can Jupiter exist and not exist at the same time? Enough said on that.StephenB_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

StephenB: "On matters of history, we can take only evidence and draw inferences to the best explanation with greater or lesser degrees of probability." So this is the crux or your argument from reason? In your estimation, based on a lot of assumptions such as that the writers of the gospels were actual witnesses to what they reported and not lying, you conclude that it is highly probable that the Bible is accurate? And you expect me or anyone else to change my or their faith on that basis? Give me a break!Bruce David_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

StephenB: "—Bruce: 'The proposition that Jupiter cannot both exist and not exist at the same time is simply a tautology. It does NOT require the knowledge that Jupiter exists to be valid.' If a proposition is valid, it means that it is internally consistent. If a proposition is sound, it means that it reflects truth about the real world. If you begin with a sound assumption, that is, if your assumption about the real world is true, and if you reason validly, you will arrive at a sound conclusion about the real world." What you say is true but totally irrelevant to my statement. What has the process of logical inference from sound assumptions to sound conclusions got to do with whether or not a proposition is a tautology? And if it is a tautology, it requires no knowledge of the world to make it so, and gives us no knowledge about the world, either. ”'The proposition that Jupiter cannot both exist and not exist at the same time is simply a tautology.' No, it isn’t 'simply' a tautology. It is an example of the law of identity. [P cannot also BE not P]. If something has identity, it exists in the real world, as does the planet Jupiter, which cannot also be the planet Saturn." It is not an example of the law of identity; it is, as you correctly stated earlier, an example of the law of the excluded middle ~(P^~P), where P is the proposition, "Jupiter exists". (Note: P in my statement is a proposition; in yours it is an object. So the two logical propositions are quite different.) This is a tautology and tells us nothing about the real world. If these are examples of how you use reason, you aren't going to come any where near truth via THAT route. I'd give it up if I were you. "Do you agree that Christ cannot both be inside his tomb and outside his tomb or don’t you?" If you mean that Christ's earthly body cannot both be inside his tomb and outside of it at the same moment in time, then yes, I agree. What's your point?Bruce David_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

StephenB, I don't say they were lying. I say, in the words of the Catholic priest, "The Bible is true, and some of it happened." Matthew seems to be writing midrash, and Luke (who admits to dependence on others) is doing the best he can with sources.QuiteID_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT}

---Bruce David: "In the Gospels, Luke and Mark tell different stories about the circumstances of Jesus birth." I really can't take time to ask for more precision each time you use an equivocal word like "different" especially since I have already refuted some of your more precise claims about the alleged "contradictions." I have explained why each account is not exactly the same as they other and why some things are left out. I have no intention of going over that again. ---"How do you know that in fact they have simply selected different parts of what actually happened to report? What use of reason allows you to conclude that?" Because they said they were reporting what they saw and heard, and we know that not everyone heard and say what everyone else heard and saw. That is why there were four Gospels and not one. We also know that they were not ONLY writing narratives, but they were gathering raw materials to form specific themes for diverse audiences, Matthew-Jews, Mark-Romans, Luke-Greeks, and John-Christians. That is why the are being selective and that is how I know they were being selective. Are you now going to ask me how I use my reasoning to know they were writing for different audiences or can we move on. --"How do you know that they did not, as QuiteID alleges, actually make up two different stories for their own purposes?" I will give you just a few of the many: Because [a] there is no reason to believe that they were liars,[b] because their independent reports cohere, [c] because their enemies would have exposed their lies if they were liars, and [d] it would be to their disadvantage to die for something they knew to be a lie. ---"I submit that your certainty is a conclusion you draw from your belief, taken on faith, that the Bible, being the Word of God, cannot be self-contradictory." You misunderstand. The law of non-contradiction is not really so much in play here. On matters of history, we can take only evidence and draw inferences to the best explanation with greater or lesser degrees of probability. These are not IF A, THEN B type propositions.StephenB_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

further notes: I find it extremely strange that the enigmatic Euler's identity, Genesis 1:1, and John 1:1, would find such striking correlation to the reality of the universe. In pi we have correlation to the 'sphere of the universe' as revealed by the Cosmic Background radiation, as well pi correlates to the finely-tuned 'geometric flatness' within the 'sphere of the universe' that has now been found. In e we have the fundamental constant that is used for ascertaining exponential growth in math that strongly correlates to the fact that space-time is 'expanding/growing equally' in all places of the universe. In the square root of -1 we have what is termed a 'imaginary number', which was first proposed to help solve equations like x2+ 1 = 0 back in the 17th century, yet now, it is found that the square root of -1 is required to explain the behavior of quantum mechanics in this universe. The correlation of Euler's identity, Genesis 1:1, and John 1:1, to the foundational characteristics of how this universe is constructed and operates, points overwhelmingly to a transcendent Intelligence, with a capital I, which created this universe for a humanity He could directly relate with! It should also be noted that these universal constants, pi, e, and square root -1, were at first thought by many to be completely transcendent of any material basis, to find that these transcendent constants of Euler's identity, Genesis 1:1, and John 1:1 in fact 'govern' material reality, in such a foundational way, telling material reality what shape to be and how to 'grow', should be enough to send shivers down any mathematicians spine. Moreover, pi is required here: General Relativity (Einstein’s Equation) https://docs.google.com/File?id=dc8z67wz_52c9nxpz2h_b and; square root of negative 1 is required here: Quantum Mechanics (Schrödinger’s Equations) https://docs.google.com/File?id=dc8z67wz_51ck47zff3_b e is required here in wave equations, in finding the distribution of prime numbers, in electrical theory, and is also found to be foundational to trigonometry at the bottom of the page here,,, which was referenced earlier,,: http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/img0.gif Also of note; General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are notoriously difficult for mathematicians and physicists to 'unify',,,,, I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe: Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works. The expansion of every 3D point in the universe, and the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe to each point of conscious observation in the universe, is obviously a very interesting congruence in science between the very large (relativity) and the very small (quantum mechanics). A congruence that Physicists, and Mathematicians, seem to be having a extremely difficult time 'unifying' into a 'theory of everything'.(Einstein, Penrose). THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today's physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. "The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common - and what they clash over - is zero.",, "The infinite zero of a black hole -- mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely -- punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.",, "Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge. http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit01_02/edit6_mar02.htm Yet, the unification, into a 'theory of everything', between what is in essence the 'infinite world of Quantum Mechanics' and the 'finite world of the space-time of General Relativity' seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man. Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, though not directly addressing the Zero/Infinity conflict in General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers insight into this 'unification' of the infinite and the finite: The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - Pg.31 William Dembski PhD. Mathematics Excerpt: "In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity." Moreover there actually is physical evidence that lends strong support to the position that the 'Zero/Infinity conflict', we find between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, was successfully dealt with by Christ: The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355 notes; Of note to the zero/infinity conflict; Entropy of the Universe - Hugh Ross - May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe Evolution is a Fact, Just Like Gravity is a Fact! UhOh! Excerpt: The results of this paper suggest gravity arises as an entropic force, once space and time themselves have emerged. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/evolution-is-a-fact-just-like-gravity-is-a-fact-uhoh/bornagain77_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

Besides prophecy, I have another line of evidence that supports the unique 'supernatural watermark' on the Bible that clearly indicates God's 'transcendent signature' on the Bible; First, the following website, and video, has the complete working out of the math of Pi and e in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Greek languages respectively, for Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1: http://www.biblemaths.com/pag03_pie/ Fascinating Bible code - Pi and natural log - Amazing - video (of note: correct exponent for base of Nat Log found in John 1:1 is 10^40, not 10^65 as stated in the video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg9LiiSVae Moreover pi and e are found here in the most 'enigmatic' equation in all of mathematics; 0 = 1 + e ^(i*pi) — Euler God by the Numbers - Connecting the constants Excerpt: The final number comes from theoretical mathematics. It is Euler's (pronounced "Oiler's") number: e*pi*i. This number is equal to -1, so when the formula is written e*pi*i+1 = 0, it connects the five most important constants in mathematics (e, pi, i, 0, and 1) along with three of the most important mathematical operations (addition, multiplication, and exponentiation). These five constants symbolize the four major branches of classical mathematics: arithmetic, represented by 1 and 0; algebra, by i; geometry, by pi; and analysis, by e, the base of the natural log. e*pi*i+1 = 0 has been called "the most famous of all formulas," because, as one textbook says, "It appeals equally to the mystic, the scientist, the philosopher, and the mathematician." http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/march/26.44.html?start=3 (of note; Euler's Number (equation) is more properly called Euler's Identity in math circles.) The ancient Hebrew sages actually believed that not only did God create the heavens and the earth but that He used the 'word of God' (the scriptures) as a template to do it. So finding pi in Genesis 1:1 correct to 4 decimal places, and finding a 'circle' for the Cosmic Background Radiation is very curious; i.e. with the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), the universe is found to actually be a circular sphere which 'coincidentally' corresponds to the circle of pi within Euler's identity and Genesis 1:1: Picture of CMBR https://webspace.utexas.edu/reyesr/SolarSystem/cmbr.jpg Proverbs 8:26-27 While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep, The Known Universe by AMNH – video - (please note the 'centrality' of the Earth in the universe in the video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U As well the universe is found to have a 'flatness' that corresponds to the diameter portion of pi; Did the Universe Hyperinflate? – Hugh Ross – April 2010 Excerpt: Perfect geometric flatness is where the space-time surface of the universe exhibits zero curvature (see figure 3). Two meaningful measurements of the universe’s curvature parameter, ½k, exist. Analysis of the 5-year database from WMAP establishes that -0.0170 < ½k < 0.0068.4 Weak gravitational lensing of distant quasars by intervening galaxies places -0.031 < ½k < 0.009.5 Both measurements confirm the universe indeed manifests zero or very close to zero geometric curvature,,, http://www.reasons.org/did-universe-hyperinflate (of note this flatness of the universe is an extremely finely tuned condition for the universe that could have, in reality, been a multitude of different values than 'flat'): Moreover, in continuing this line of thought, this following video shows that the universe also has a primary characteristic of expanding or growing equally in all places, Every 3D Place Is Center In This Universe – 4D space/time – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3991873/ This 'expansion' of every point in the universe is finely tuned to 1 part in 10^120. This expansion, or grwth, of the universe also 'coincidentally' strongly corresponds to e in Euler's identity as well as in John 1:1, because Base e is the constant that is used in all sorts of equations for finding what the true rates of growth and decay are for any given problem trying to find as such in this universe: Towards the end of the following video, Michael Denton speaks of the square root of negative 1 being necessary to understand the foundational quantum behavior of this universe. The square root of -1 is 'coincidentally' found in Euler's identity: Michael Denton – Mathematical Truths Are Transcendent And Beautiful – Square root of -1 is built into the fabric of reality – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003918" I use to wonder why the square root of negative one was not also in the Bible, and then I found out from this following video that the square root of negative one, is more properly understood as a 'higher dimensional' number which can't be represented as a ordinary number; The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality - Gauss & Riemann - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6199520/bornagain77_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

---QuiteID: "Why should I hold to either of those? The first is simply an article of faith, and the second is highly doubtful given the obvious textual dependence of Matthew and Luke on Mark." It really isn't very complicated. The Gospel writers say explicitly that they were reporting history and telling the truth and you say boldly, and without any good evidence, that they were lying, even to the point of consciously misrepresenting the place of Christ's birth. You have given no good reasons to support such a reckless charge.StephenB_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus, I've read your materials on selective hyperskepticism before, but I don't see how it's applicable here even if I agreed with your coinage (I believe it's yours, yes?). In what sense have I not exerted "the same standard . . . in assessing substantially parallel cases that make claims that one is inclined to accept"?QuiteID_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

---Bruce: "The proposition that Jupiter cannot both exist and not exist at the same time is simply a tautology. It does NOT require the knowledge that Jupiter exists to be valid." If a proposition is valid, it means that it is internally consistent. If a proposition is sound, it means that it reflects truth about the real world. If you begin with a sound assumption, that is, if your assumption about the real world is true, and if you reason validly, you will arrive at a sound conclusion about the real world. ---"The proposition that Jupiter cannot both exist and not exist at the same time is simply a tautology." No, it isn't "simply" a tautology. It is an example of the law of identity. [P cannot also BE not P]. If something has identity, it exists in the real world, as does the planet Jupiter, which cannot also be the planet Saturn. Do you agree that it is impossible for Jupiter to exist and not exist at the same time or don't you? Do you agree that Jupiter cannot also be Saturn or don't you? Do you agree that Christ cannot both be inside his tomb and outside his tomb or don't you? These are questions about the real world for which there is only one reasonable yes or no answer. Can you provide that reasonable yes or no answer? I do not believe you can because I do not believe that you are a reasonable person.StephenB_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus: "As such it is not itself a tautology, a restatement of the same thought in different words, like: a bachelor is an unmarried male." Your definition of "tautology" is too narrow. From the New World Dictionary: "A Tautology is a statement that is always true because of its structure—it requires no assumptions or evidence to determine its truth." From Wikipedia: "a technical notion in formal logic, universal unconditioned truth, always valid." From The Free Dictionary: "An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement 'Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.'" Anyway, what's your point? Was this an ad hominem attack, attempting to discredit me by implying that I don't understand logic? What?Bruce David_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

StephenB (responding to QuiteID): "They are not “telling a story” for their own reasons, they are selecting historical subunits for their own reasons." In the Gospels, Luke and Mark tell different stories about the circumstances of Jesus birth. How do you know that in fact they have simply selected different parts of what actually happened to report? What use of reason allows you to conclude that? How do you know that they did not, as QuiteID alleges, actually make up two different stories for their own purposes? I submit that your certainty is a conclusion you draw from your belief, taken on faith, that the Bible, being the Word of God, cannot be self-contradictory.Bruce David_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

QI: Kindly take a look here and here, and please check your selective hyperskepicism at the door -- it is inevitably self-referentially inconsistent and self-refuting. Gkairosfocus_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT}

BD: Re:The proposition that Jupiter cannot both exist and not exist at the same time is simply a tautology. Actually, it is based on an undeniable, self-evident law of reality stated in words. A law of reality that was so long before we were around to pronounce it. As such it is not itself a tautology, a restatement of the same thought in different words, like: a bachelor is an unmarried male. If you try to act as though a thing A can be real and not real at the same time and place in the same sense etc, e.g that bus onrushing as you try to cross the street, BANG! Bye bye . . . (And that holds in the streets of Lhasa or Calcutta just as much as in those of London or Canberra.) So, let us get first things first, then deal with their implications. In this case, Jupiter cannot both be and not be in the same sense and time etc. My pet dog Jupe, in the first instance, or the planet in the second one, and also the old alleged dweller on Mt Olympus too. He of course, is not -- discounting the odd devil or two playing at being one of the big boys, but that means that he cannot be. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT}

StephenB, you write,
If you hold fast to two general principles you will be in good shape: First, everything that was in every report happened but not everything that happened was in every report. Second, each report was independent from the other.
Why should I hold to either of those? The first is simply an article of faith, and the second is highly doubtful given the obvious textual dependence of Matthew and Luke on Mark.QuiteID_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT}

CY, You ask, "Why are you taking words out of his mouth by saying that he doesn’t mention the resurrection, when he clearly does?" But that's not what I said! I wrote,
The original ending of Mark (Mark 16:8) has an empty tomb but no risen Jesus, who appears in later additions.
Try to read more carefully please.QuiteID_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

StephenB: "You are using the word 'alone' is an an equivocal and misleading way. I can say, in principle, and with certainly, that Jupiter cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and under the same formal circumstances. That is not using 'reason alone' to arrive at truth. It is using reason coupled with the knowledge that Jupiter does, in fact, exist. With that knowledge I can say, with certainly, that Jupiter cannot both exist and not exist because the principle of non-contradiction, as a non-negotiable law of thought, forbids that possibility. You do not accept that law of thought, which means that you are not, and cannot be reasonable." The proposition that Jupiter cannot both exist and not exist at the same time is simply a tautology. It does NOT require the knowledge that Jupiter exists to be valid. But it tells us nothing about the state of the actual world. We are no wiser regarding the existence of Jupiter than we were before we stated it. I say "reason alone" because if by using reason to arrive at truth you mean using reason to draw conclusions from "facts" about the actual world, then those facts (drawn from experience, revelation, intuition, inner knowing, etc.) are exactly what I was talking about when I stated that reason must have something accepted as already true before it can draw any conclusions regarding the nature of reality. But then, as CannuckianYankee correctly points out, the truth of your conclusions will be entirely dependent on the truth of your initial assumptions.Bruce David_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT}

---QuiteID: "Stephen, what matters is that Matthew is telling a story, and Luke is telling a story, and each of them is describing the story for their own reasons." They are not "telling a story" for their own reasons, they are selecting historical subunits for their own reasons. It is not at all the same thing. If you hold fast to two general principles you will be in good shape: First, everything that was in every report happened but not everything that happened was in every report. Second, each report was independent from the other. ---"It seems clear that Jesus was really from Nazareth and that both Matthew and Luke (for different reasons) had Jesus born in Bethlehem because Nazareth was an entirely insignificant little town that never appeared in any records before this." And you think that WE are making stretches? ---"You can make them fit together, if you’re convinced that they must and you’re willing to go round your backside to get to your elbow." Four independent reports telling the same basic story from different vantage points is far more believable than one account, just as four witnesses are better than one-- especially, when the reports often make the reporters look bad. --"I don’t see why that’s important, though. Frankly I don’t think any Jew reading Matthew in the first century would have seen it as historical in any event. It’s clearly midrash, a retelling of ancient stories for a new purpose. That only makes it “wrong” if your faith depends on a literal-minded dogmatism." You forget that Christianity is a historically based religion. If Christ was not foretold, did not perform miracles, did not a perfect life, did not willingly give up his life, and did not rise from the dead--if those things didn't really happen, then Christianity is a farce.StephenB_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT}

"I’m uninterested in telling other people they aren’t Christians." Neither am I. I'm more interested in the people who know they aren't Christians.CannuckianYankee_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT}

"CY, you say it’s an angel, but the text calls him a “young man.” I’ve read Mark many, many times. Have you? If so, why are you putting words in Mark’s mouth?" Why are you taking words out of his mouth by saying that he doesn't mention the resurrection, when he clearly does?CannuckianYankee_{April 13, 2011
April
04
Apr
13
13
2011
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Sam Harris Delivers Riveting Oration Championing Deism

Leave a Reply