Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Omniscience and quantum mechanics
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Wiccan_Child" data-source="post: 55270984" data-attributes="member: 104966"><p><strong>2 of 2</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't see why that's an issue. God never gave me a choice about what I believe the colour of the sky to be, and I don't seem to be any worse for wear because of it. I don't think God <em>should</em> convince me of his existence. Rather, I don't think I can be fairly punished for disbelieving in God, least of all by him, when he steadfastly refuses to demonstrate his existence. If God wants me to believe in him, he's welcome to make his existence known. If he doesn't, then I guess it doesn't matter whether I do or not.</p><p></p><p>As you say, I can readily observe the existence of other people. Descartes' demon aside, that is proof enough for me. Is God incapable of doing the same? Is he unwilling, or indifferent, or reluctant? I consider the appeal to free will to be bunk, since I don't consider irrefutable proof to be a violation of free will, nor do I consider free will to be all that important. Mathematics have irrefutible proof; I cannot in all intellectual honesty deny that 1 + 1 = 2. Has my free will been violated? Am I an unthinking automaton?</p><p></p><p>In other words, why is it so important for God to hide his existence from us? And even if it is, why would he then turn around and say "Oh, by the way, you need to believe I exist if you don't want to suffer forever"? Admittedly I'm focussing more on Christianity with that latter point, but it's an interesting complication to the whole fiasco: not only does God refuse to prove he exists, <em>he demands we believe in him anyway</em>.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Indeed. But that alone is again not enough to prove either one is write. The author's intent doesn't affect its veracity. I don't doubt the author of Romans 1 wasn't intending to write fiction, but that doesn't prove the text to be at all true.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I disagree. The Bible talks of Egypt, Israel, the Hebrews, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, King Herod, King David, King Solomon, etc. All of these things are mundane and not immediately spiritual: Egypt is just a place, Herod was just a person. The Bible weaves them into stories involving spiritual things, sure, but they themselves are quite well evidenced. There is no doubt that there really were Pharaohs, just as the Bible describes, but there is considerable doubt as to whether the Red Sea was parted by the hand of God (or staff of Moses).</p><p></p><p>So the Bible talks of a great many mundane things, most of which have been independently corroborated by contemporary documentation, archaeological evidence, etc. But what strikes me is that the <em>spiritual</em> things, the mana from heaven and so on, aren't corroborated by the evidence.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'll consider any and all evidence put before me as objectively and sceptically as my squishy brain will allow. But I can't guarentee that I'll be instantly swayed to a different point of view. It's rare nowadays I see or hear a new argument for God, and I've studied and discussed the previous at length for the entire time I've been at CF.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, it was just something I thought someone might claim as an alternative to empiricism.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I would argue that the scientific method alone would have been sufficient. As for the video, Craig lists logic, Descartes' Demon, morality, aesthetics, and, bemusingly, scientific theories, as five examples of rational beliefs that cannot be scientifically justified. I'll go through them in reverse order:</p><p></p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Scientific theories are scientifically justified. I don't know how else to say that. Craig claims that the foundational assumption of relativistic mechanics - the consistency of the speed of light in all inertial frames - demonstrates that science is founded upon unjustified assumptions. Well, no: scientists make these assumptions, draw predictions from them, and then go out and test them. Lo and behold, the predictions hold. eventually, we might prove them wrong and have to come up with a better theory.<br /> I might point out that this is in stark contrast to religion; religion makes dogmatic proclamations of truth and then refuses to budge. There's a reason we have 13,000+ Christian denominations, rather than a single, malleable church.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The aesthetic value of something is a human abstraction, a nebulous concept used to refer to a great many things. We can't scientifically deduce the aesthetic value of things because things don't have an intrinsic aesthetic value: it's all in our heads. Indeed, if we knew enough about a person's brain, we could probably predict what they consider to be aesthetic.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Morality follows much the same as aesthetics. It's not that it's a rational truth beyond scientific inquiry, it's an ill-defined abstraction. If it's relativist and/or subjective, then there's nothing for science to deduce: morality doesn't exist. If it's absolutist and/or objectivist, then there are hard and fast rules that science can deduce: "Murder is wrong", if objectively true, is a statement known to science.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Descartes' Demon is a genuine philosophical problem, and Craig's treatment of it is sloppy. One can either see there being a total lack of evidence, in which case there is no rational stance either way, or one can see there being an abundance of evidence, in which case science itself tells us that the Demon probably doesn't exist.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Craig got this one right: logic is beyond the purview of science. But this is a nuance of the definition of science: it's a methodological acquisition of knowledge about the world we live in. The truth of logic is not empirically justified as empiricism presupposes it. We know logic is true because it's self-evident, because it cannot be any other way.</li> </ol><p>In writing that, I've refined another of my beliefs. Science is a subset of rational and logical thought. Since science is the logic and rationale of the physical world, non-scientific logic and rationale would involve things wholly separate from the physical world. Logic governs the world, but is not specific to the world. Science is descriptive, extending empiricism with logic. Logic itself is prescriptive, telling us what <em>can</em> be, not what <em>is</em>.</p><p></p><p>And don't worry if none of that makes sense <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/kawaii.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="^_^" title="Kawaii ^_^" data-shortname="^_^" />.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The 'evidences' I made up are notably non-existent; there are no flaming words, there is no unified religion, etc.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The book gets better as you read it. In his <em>The Greatest Show on Earth</em>, my beef with the first chapter was his talk of 'theorum' and 'theorem'. That bored me to tears. The rest is very good, though.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I've seen Dawkins debate, and I find him to be far more clear and precise than Hitchens. He is blunt and to the point, and there's nothing I love more than succinctness. His objective to debating is more to do with his reluctance to legitimise the Creationist position. By engaging in a one-on-one debate, the audience sees the two positions as being scientifically on par, when they're not. And that's all the Creationist wants: to be seen as being on par with science. If it can do that, it can infiltrate schools as science.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Wiccan_Child, post: 55270984, member: 104966"] [B]2 of 2[/B] I don't see why that's an issue. God never gave me a choice about what I believe the colour of the sky to be, and I don't seem to be any worse for wear because of it. I don't think God [I]should[/I] convince me of his existence. Rather, I don't think I can be fairly punished for disbelieving in God, least of all by him, when he steadfastly refuses to demonstrate his existence. If God wants me to believe in him, he's welcome to make his existence known. If he doesn't, then I guess it doesn't matter whether I do or not. As you say, I can readily observe the existence of other people. Descartes' demon aside, that is proof enough for me. Is God incapable of doing the same? Is he unwilling, or indifferent, or reluctant? I consider the appeal to free will to be bunk, since I don't consider irrefutable proof to be a violation of free will, nor do I consider free will to be all that important. Mathematics have irrefutible proof; I cannot in all intellectual honesty deny that 1 + 1 = 2. Has my free will been violated? Am I an unthinking automaton? In other words, why is it so important for God to hide his existence from us? And even if it is, why would he then turn around and say "Oh, by the way, you need to believe I exist if you don't want to suffer forever"? Admittedly I'm focussing more on Christianity with that latter point, but it's an interesting complication to the whole fiasco: not only does God refuse to prove he exists, [I]he demands we believe in him anyway[/I]. Indeed. But that alone is again not enough to prove either one is write. The author's intent doesn't affect its veracity. I don't doubt the author of Romans 1 wasn't intending to write fiction, but that doesn't prove the text to be at all true. I disagree. The Bible talks of Egypt, Israel, the Hebrews, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, King Herod, King David, King Solomon, etc. All of these things are mundane and not immediately spiritual: Egypt is just a place, Herod was just a person. The Bible weaves them into stories involving spiritual things, sure, but they themselves are quite well evidenced. There is no doubt that there really were Pharaohs, just as the Bible describes, but there is considerable doubt as to whether the Red Sea was parted by the hand of God (or staff of Moses). So the Bible talks of a great many mundane things, most of which have been independently corroborated by contemporary documentation, archaeological evidence, etc. But what strikes me is that the [I]spiritual[/I] things, the mana from heaven and so on, aren't corroborated by the evidence. I'll consider any and all evidence put before me as objectively and sceptically as my squishy brain will allow. But I can't guarentee that I'll be instantly swayed to a different point of view. It's rare nowadays I see or hear a new argument for God, and I've studied and discussed the previous at length for the entire time I've been at CF. No, it was just something I thought someone might claim as an alternative to empiricism. I would argue that the scientific method alone would have been sufficient. As for the video, Craig lists logic, Descartes' Demon, morality, aesthetics, and, bemusingly, scientific theories, as five examples of rational beliefs that cannot be scientifically justified. I'll go through them in reverse order: [LIST=1] [*]Scientific theories are scientifically justified. I don't know how else to say that. Craig claims that the foundational assumption of relativistic mechanics - the consistency of the speed of light in all inertial frames - demonstrates that science is founded upon unjustified assumptions. Well, no: scientists make these assumptions, draw predictions from them, and then go out and test them. Lo and behold, the predictions hold. eventually, we might prove them wrong and have to come up with a better theory. I might point out that this is in stark contrast to religion; religion makes dogmatic proclamations of truth and then refuses to budge. There's a reason we have 13,000+ Christian denominations, rather than a single, malleable church. [*]The aesthetic value of something is a human abstraction, a nebulous concept used to refer to a great many things. We can't scientifically deduce the aesthetic value of things because things don't have an intrinsic aesthetic value: it's all in our heads. Indeed, if we knew enough about a person's brain, we could probably predict what they consider to be aesthetic. [*]Morality follows much the same as aesthetics. It's not that it's a rational truth beyond scientific inquiry, it's an ill-defined abstraction. If it's relativist and/or subjective, then there's nothing for science to deduce: morality doesn't exist. If it's absolutist and/or objectivist, then there are hard and fast rules that science can deduce: "Murder is wrong", if objectively true, is a statement known to science. [*]Descartes' Demon is a genuine philosophical problem, and Craig's treatment of it is sloppy. One can either see there being a total lack of evidence, in which case there is no rational stance either way, or one can see there being an abundance of evidence, in which case science itself tells us that the Demon probably doesn't exist. [*]Craig got this one right: logic is beyond the purview of science. But this is a nuance of the definition of science: it's a methodological acquisition of knowledge about the world we live in. The truth of logic is not empirically justified as empiricism presupposes it. We know logic is true because it's self-evident, because it cannot be any other way. [/LIST] In writing that, I've refined another of my beliefs. Science is a subset of rational and logical thought. Since science is the logic and rationale of the physical world, non-scientific logic and rationale would involve things wholly separate from the physical world. Logic governs the world, but is not specific to the world. Science is descriptive, extending empiricism with logic. Logic itself is prescriptive, telling us what [I]can[/I] be, not what [I]is[/I]. And don't worry if none of that makes sense ^_^. The 'evidences' I made up are notably non-existent; there are no flaming words, there is no unified religion, etc. The book gets better as you read it. In his [I]The Greatest Show on Earth[/I], my beef with the first chapter was his talk of 'theorum' and 'theorem'. That bored me to tears. The rest is very good, though. I've seen Dawkins debate, and I find him to be far more clear and precise than Hitchens. He is blunt and to the point, and there's nothing I love more than succinctness. His objective to debating is more to do with his reluctance to legitimise the Creationist position. By engaging in a one-on-one debate, the audience sees the two positions as being scientifically on par, when they're not. And that's all the Creationist wants: to be seen as being on par with science. If it can do that, it can infiltrate schools as science. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Omniscience and quantum mechanics
Top
Bottom