[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] When should we change our reasoning / beliefs?

[Davian]

I have been given no good reason to think that The Holy Spirit is not incontrovertible. Until I have a good reason to change my views on the matter, my views shall remain the same.

Have you not admitted that you cannot demonstrate that these "spirit" experiences are more than simply imagined?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is incorrect. Mathematical proofs indicate that if this multiverse did indeed exist it too would be precluded from being past eternal.

The below is taken from: http://www.technologyreview.com/vie...prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/

The conclusion is inescapable. “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal,” say Mithani and Vilenkin.

Since the observational evidence is that our universe is expanding, then it must also have been born in the past. A profound conclusion (albeit the same one that lead to the idea of the big bang in the first place).

This is true. The proof refers to a subset of multiverses I call metaverses - single-continuum universes that are cyclical or involve eternal inflation. It doesn't address multiverse models where a meta-continuum produces self-contained 'bubble' universes (there are different arguments about them).

As is often the case in these mathematical proofs of the implications of hypothetical models, there is a rebuttal of Mithani and Vilenkin's paper, from no less a figure than Leonard Susskind, who briefly uses thermodynamics and statistics to show that, while they are correct to conclude a beginning - if their premises are valid (there is some debate), "... in any kind of inflating cosmology the odds strongly (infinitely) favor the beginning to be so far in the past that it is effectively at minus infinity. More precisely, given any [time]T the probability is unity that the beginning was more than T time-units ago."

Basically, he shows that the beginning proved by Mithani and Vilenkin must be infinitely long ago...

I suggest that the jury is still out on this one.

Note: the writer of the article in Technology Review makes an error at the end of the article of confusing the observed expansion of the universe we see with the inflation of the metaverse models being discussed. All multiverse models must obviously account for the expansion of the observable universe, but not all those models are themselves inflationary, and of those that are, not all explain the expansion of the observable universe in terms of their own inflation.

Nevertheless, it may be that at some point the consensus arrives at a multiverse model that requires a beginning that is not infinitely distant (as per Susskind's argument). In this situation, the project will begin anew, with further hypotheses about how the multiverse could have emerged from some preceding state. I think it's unlikely that a God concept will emerge from whatever mathematical synthesis of quantum field theory and General Relativity it will take to peer that deep into creation, but I'm not a cosmologist of the present, let alone a hypothetical future.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Humans have nearly as many cells within their bodies belonging to microbes as they do actual "human" cells.

As I understand it, there are more microbial cells on and in the average human body than there are human cells... Given that the majority of these microbial cells are necessary to your long term survival, it could be said that you exist more for their benefit than they for yours...

 

[Chriliman]

Based on what you stated in this thread, there is no reason to be concerned about Satan, correct?

Before I answer this let me point out that you again are trying to use my beliefs to support your own unjustified non-belief.

I am not concerned about satan deceiving me because I know Jesus. You on the other hand should be concerned because you don't know Jesus.

Again I'm not preaching I'm merely stating my beliefs which unfortunately you'll try to use to support your non-belief.

 

[bhsmte]

Before I answer this let me point out that you again are trying to use my beliefs to support your own unjustified non-belief.

I am not concerned about satan deceiving me because I know Jesus. You on the other hand should be concerned because you don't know Jesus.

Again I'm not preaching I'm merely stating my beliefs which unfortunately you'll try to use to support your non-belief.

I don't believe in Satan, so I am not concerned.

I was asking you. So you are not concerned with Satan, based on your posts in the thread, correct?

 

[Chriliman]

I don't believe in Satan, so I am not concerned.

I was asking you. So you are not concerned with Satan, based on your posts in the thread, correct?

As I said I'm not concerned about him deceiving me because I have the power of Christ in me, but I am concerned about him deceiving you. I think the fact that I'm here trying to explain my reasons for my beliefs so exhaustively is evidence enough of my concern for you. The only reason I'm capable of this is because Christ lives in me and gives me strength to persevere through all things.

 

[bhsmte]

As I said I'm not concerned about him deceiving me because I have the power of Christ in me, but I am concerned about him deceiving you. I think the fact that I'm here trying to explain my reasons for my beliefs so exhaustively is evidence enough of my concern for you. The only reason I'm capable of this is because Christ lives in me and gives me strength to persevere through all things.

Well, you can be concerned if you want to be.

 

[Chriliman]

Well, you can be concerned if you want to be.

Ultimately, I know you've heard the truth and I have hope that you'll know to turn to Jesus when you have no one else to turn to. It's this hope that eleviates my concerns. Otherwise I'd be a frantic mess thinking everyone is going to hell. Thankfully God is gracious and patient

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If he really died, then that alone is good reason to think that those reports were false.

Why?

Well, because people who die are dead, and death is the permanent cessation of vital bodily functions.

None of the aforementioned people had their death and resurrection prophesied hundreds of years before they were born, nor is it recorded that any of them performed a ministry of exorcisms and miracles. None of them preached to and consoled the poor and needy. Nor did any of them make the proclamation that in themselves the kingdom of God had come.

No, my examples were modern Western figures, and modern Western sentiment wouldn't accept such claims (mostly).

But prophesies and claims of god-like characters who worked miracles, conquered death, and were revered by their followers are common throughout documented history, and in many cultures. There is also a long tradition of retrospectively adopting or fitting prophesies to popular figures, reinterpreting historical prophesies to make them a better fit, and even inventing prophesies after their supposed fulfillment.

Claims of supposedly God-like or messianic figures who perform miracles, fulfill prophesies, and live on after death are not unknown even today - ask the average North Korean about Kim Jong Il (there are other examples less unsavoury). Fortunately, the ubiquity of smartphones and social media have made this kind of thing much more difficult to sustain.

None of them were crucified under Pontius Pilate and none of them were reported to having been seen alive afterwards.

As above, messiah figures resurrected after death at the hands of some enemy are not uncommon historically.

None of them are worshiped as God incarnate by billions of people to this day etc. etc.

Well yes; if the truth is purely a question of the number of believers, then the beliefs of Christians determine reality. I find that absurd, but maybe it makes sense to you.

The socio-historical context in which the claims are made makes Jesus' case unique.

Every claimed prophet or messiah figure had a unique socio-historical context if you look closely enough.

Those who claimed to be followers of Jesus built the - currently - most popular religion of modern times around him; but inevitably, one religion is likely to be more successful than the others in any particular time frame or geographical context.

 

[nomadictheist]

You can have a problem with that or not, as you choose. I don't have a problem with it at all - it's special pleading so can be rejected out of hand. Pretty much all the rest of your argument falls at that point.

"I have a problem with the idea that drawing random chance out over periods of millions of years makes it no longer random." So would I if that is what I said - but it isn't.

"I would prefer to believe in a God who is unfathomable to our minds because of His absolute power, knowledge, love, goodness" That is a very strange mindset. You want to believe something that is unfathomable. I find that just weird. As far as the goodness goes - well, I've read the Bible.

"How does it not represent order that the radioactive decay occurs at a rate that is measurably orderly?" - Because it's not possible to determine which atom within the radioactive substance will decay. Only that the half life decay will occur over a certain time frame. The actual decaying atom is chaotic.

"And actually, you say "no such witness exists" because it is only recorded by "one person," but there are actually 5 separate accounts of at least 12 people seeing Him after His resurrection, even if there is only one written record of the thousands of others. And we have the ongoing witness of the church that came about as a result of the word that was spread by these thousands of witnesses." No - there is the unknown author of Mark's account, copied and embellished by the unknown authors of the other Gospels. Even there, no original exists only edited copies. That's it. If that was the source material for any other belief system you'd laugh at it.

Do you know what a symbiotic relationship is? Yes I do - what's the point?

"The way cells are copied and replicated is also very orderly" Except when it goes wrong - eg cancer.

It has been shown many times that DNA mutations - upon which the entire theories of abiogenesis and evolution of all beings from single celled organisms are constructed - are completely random. And overwhelmingly negative Abiogenesis concerns how biology evolved from chemistry - DNA mutations don't come into it so that's false. Many mutations bring about negative consequences that's true - but so what? Only the positive mutations will likely survive to begat (a Biblicial word there) further offspring. Only the positive ones will last. It doesn't matter if 1,000 are negative and only one is positive, that's all it takes.

I'm still wondering how you ruled out those inter-dimensional aliens.

I'm sorry. I didn't realize that the attributes of God (eternal) aren't allowed in arguing. By God's very nature He is immortal and eternal. It doesn't matter what you label it. It's just as valid a claim for the origin of God as any claim you can come up with for the origin of the universe.

Just because which atom will decay is impossible to predict (at least for us) doesn't make it entirely chaotic. There is chaos, yes, but there's order within that chaos. If it were truly absolutely chaotic there would be no way to tell which atom will decay and no way to predict how long the overall decay would take.

A symbiotic relationship requires two different parts for either to survive. So in order for symbiotic relationships to work, the two organisms would've had to "evolve" together in just they way they live now. The chances of that happening through the work of random mutation are so minuscule that it would be equally rational to claim that the whole process of "evolution" could occur in less than 2,000 years.

As far as the gospels, you choose to believe that the other gospels copied the account of Mark's gospel because otherwise the similar accounts would be more evidence of their truth. That's not a fact.

If you could show any examples of these "positive mutations" you claim producing a more advanced species, perhaps you would have an argument. Then again, who's to say the positive ones will last anyway? Unless they give the mutated organism an extreme advantage and occur in more than one living organism at a time the chances of their survival beyond a single generation are extremely remote. That entire line of reasoning (that only the positive ones will last) is based entirely upon the idea that this must be how all life evolved. There is no empirical evidence that "positive mutations" actually occur (despite thousands of experiments on insects), let alone survive to create new and improved species.

In fact, there's very strong evidence that negative mutations continue from generation to generation. That's why many issues (from things as innocuous as baldness to things as serious as heart disease) have been shown to be passed on genetically. At the rate that these "positive mutations" would supposedly occur, enough negative mutations would be seen that the species would entirely die out before a positive one got the chance to occur - let alone survive.

And keeping the "non-mutated lines" pure wouldn't work for that either, since studies also show that the more closely related you are to a sexual partner the more likely your offspring are to be born with mutations (particularly negative ones).

Also, when the copying of a cell goes wrong, it's still orderly. It's still the same process. It's just that there are errors. It's called death, and is a result of man choosing to defy God in the first place and choosing evil over God.

It's funny, superstitious people believed in abiogenesis before Pasteur disproved it. Now superstitious people believe in it again, but they add millions of years to the equation and say that makes it rational.

As far as the "aliens," even if they did exist, they still had to come from somewhere. At some point, either something or someone always existed or something came from nothing.

 

[bhsmte]

Ultimately, I know you've heard the truth and I have hope that you'll know to turn to Jesus when you have no one else to turn to. It's this hope that eleviates my concerns. Otherwise I'd be a frantic mess thinking everyone is going to hell. Thankfully God is gracious and patient

Like I said, have whatever concerns and or hope, you wish to.

 

[Davian]

It may have been a conclusion at some point, but at this point it's a premise.

As I said, I have my reasons for believing that God is real. It's a premise for me at this point, but I know that you have a different interpretation of the same facts that led me to believe that in the first place. I believe God exists because I believe that God is a better explanation for all the order and structure in the universe and in earth's ecosystem than random chance. You have a differing opinion.

Indeed. I don't think it was random chance either.

Perhaps I should restructure the premise slightly: the premise that most believers work from is that God creating order and structure from chaos makes more sense than the alternative - random chance creating order out of Chaos.

Why would an allegedly all-powerful, all-knowing god-thing need to create a world that "make sense" to us? We could be living on the surface of the Sun, could we not? Or can "God" not do that?

Atheists work from the premise

Atheism is only theological position on the existence of deities. It is not a worldview.

that random chance creating order out of chaos makes more sense than God creating order out of chaos.

So where did this god come from?

So regardless of your conclusion, there's still a premise that you accept before drawing your final conclusions about God. But once you've drawn your conclusion, it becomes part of your premise for approaching any evidence pointing to God's existence.

Do not assume that the religionist's approach of working backwards from a conclusion applies to everyone. Can you read minds?

For example, you staunchly deny the witness of the thousands who saw Jesus after His resurrection, and those who watched His ascension to heaven, which would certainly be strong evidence.

Bible stores are not "strong evidence".

Your denial

My disbelief. I am simply not convinced.

has no merit

Disbelief is not a truth statement. It requires no defence.

except for your predetermined idea (premise) that God is, in fact, not real and the Bible is just a story written to try to convince people that He is. Your view (that God does not exist) determines your analysis of the evidence.

Can you read minds?

The same is true of science. Where a creationist (which I would call anybody who believes that God created the world) looks at the universe, the earth, and all the order and structure in it and sees this as evidence of God's handiwork,

Which "God"? The god that allegedly walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing? What about the evidence that the Earth, and the process of life, goes back billions of years?

an atheist looks at the same structure and order and sees it as evidence of the amazing effects of random chance.

Or, they don't.

The analysis of the evidence is predetermined by a premise (perhaps once a conclusion) that it makes more sense to believe that random chance resulted in all this order and structure than that God exists and created it.

Allow me to have higher standards than "makes sense". It "makes sense" to believe that the Earth hangs motionless in space while the cosmos rotates around it.

Rotating Stars

• Davian
• May 26, 2014

Australian Astronomical Observatory

 

[Davian]

When you say "your "inner witness"" as if we're fabricating some unfounded truth based on our imaginations, this is not the case.

Demonstrate that you are not simply imagining it.

 

[Davian]

...
I've found the people most skeptical about God are those who don't want to believe in Him. <snip straw-man>

Why would I not want for there to be more to human existence that this relatively brief biological stint on Earth?

 

[Davian]

Ultimately, I know you've heard the truth

I have heard your religious opinion.

and I have hope that you'll know to turn to Jesus when you have no one else to turn to. It's this hope that eleviates my concerns.

The religious do tend to prey on the down and out, I have observed

Otherwise I'd be a frantic mess thinking everyone is going to hell. Thankfully God is gracious and patient

Indeed, all of those people going to hell for reasons beyond their control. Such a gracious and patient god you have there.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

 

[nomadictheist]

Why would I not want for there to be more to human existence that this relatively brief biological stint on Earth?

That's a good question. Have you given much thought to it?

It may "make sense" that the earth hangs in space and everything revolves around it until you hear the other viewpoint that makes more sense based on the laws of gravity and centripetal force, but that doesn't mean that it makes absolute sense.

So what is your higher standard than "makes sense?" The entire purpose of using "reason" is to "make sense" of something. My higher standard than "makes sense" is God. I guess yours must be darwinism?

You keep saying that you don't believe this is all a result of random chance, but if you don't believe in God or a god (an intelligent higher power that designed this) then at the very least the rules of nature are so by random chance. I believe that things like gravity, light, darkness, molecular bonding, etc. are there because God created the universe that way. Your viewpoint can only say that they're that way by chance. The "natural order" of things is something you accept as not random because you've lived with it your whole life, but the reality is that the "natural order" of things could be very different and you'd have no idea that what we experience now could exist.

Of course, there is the option of believing that the universe is god, but then you would be a pantheist, which you've said you're not.

But, as I said from the beginning, I'm not going to convince you. I know that. You will categorically reject any evidence that points toward God as being too flimsy, fabricated, or embellished to make a point. It's amazing how being mistaken can so accurately predict behavior...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

The answer is known. It is proven that any universe which is on average in a state of expansion could not have been past infinite.

If you believe that science "proves" anything, you don't understand the first thing about science...

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If you can explain to me how meaningful truth is if its restricted to finite space and finite time in a way that actually makes sense and does not contradict what is understood to be true then I'll consider your understanding to be superior to mine.

I'll answer your question if you answer this question first:

What is the sound that blue tastes?

 

[quatona]

I'll answer your question if you answer this question first:

What is the sound that blue tastes?

That one might at least make sense to a synaesthesist.

 

[Davian]

That's a good question. Have you given much thought to it?

Indeed. But I think that if there's something you really want to believe, that is what you should consider most critically.

It may "make sense" that the earth hangs in space and everything revolves around it until you hear the other viewpoint that makes more sense based on the laws of gravity and centripetal force, but that doesn't mean that it makes absolute sense.

I do not know what you mean by "absolute sense". Does atomic theory make "absolute sense"? Quantum mechanics? Inflation theory?

So what is your higher standard than "makes sense?" The entire purpose of using "reason" is to "make sense" of something.

Mainstream science works for me. I try to keep up a layman's level of understanding of mainstream science, particularly cosmology and modern theory of mind.

My higher standard than "makes sense" is God.

Drawing on your earlier post, that would mean that your "higher standard" is [undefined]. Is your "God" incompatible with mainstream science?

I guess yours must be darwinism?

No. Do you know what year this is?

You keep saying that you don't believe this is all a result of random chance, but if you don't believe in God or a god (an intelligent higher power that designed this) then at the very least the rules of nature are so by random chance.

Or, the rules of nature are just a brute fact. Or, they are there for a reason that we have yet to discover.

I believe that things like gravity, light, darkness, molecular bonding, etc. are there because God created the universe that way.

That's nice. Why do you believe that?

Your viewpoint can only say that they're that way by chance.

Or, it doesn't. Did you not get fresh batteries for that mind-reading hat of yours?

Mind-Reading Hat

• Davian
• Jul 30, 2015

The "natural order" of things is something you accept as not random because you've lived with it your whole life, but the reality is that the "natural order" of things could be very different and you'd have no idea that what we experience now could exist.

The weak anthropic principle is a tautology.

Of course, there is the option of believing that the universe is god, but then you would be a pantheist, which you've said you're not.

But, as I said from the beginning, I'm not going to convince you. I know that.

Why are you here?

You will categorically reject any evidence that points toward God as being too flimsy, fabricated, or embellished to make a point.

Particularly if you are limited to presenting evidence that is flimsy, fabricated, or embellished to make a point. Have you tried presenting robust evidence, in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis?

It's amazing how being mistaken can so accurately predict behavior...

You came in here with nothing, expecting nothing, and accomplishing nothing. This amazes you?