Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I understand that you don't trust the Bible.
So how would you answer my question (quoted below)?
But did you understand my objecting to your reason for trusting it?
Define it however you'd like - just be consistent with it.
... you can't complain if they trust in the power of Shiva ...
I agree, the respect for Einstein isn't garnered by Newton's accomplishments. But, when the medical community as a whole almost universally says "Homoeopathy is bunk", I listen. Why? Because the community, as a whole, carries more weight than any individual doctor.I understand what you're saying. I just happen to disagree. I've worked with a lot of engineers over the years. Just because I trust engineer A doesn't mean that his engineering skills transfer in some way that compels me to trust engineer B. Is starts all over again with each new engineer.
So, with respect to science, I have a profound respect for a long list of big names. But, just because I am awed by what (for example) Newton accomplished did not compel me to be awed by Einstein. Einstein earned that standing in his own right, by his skill, talent, etc. Something that is rather apart from "science".
I agree. But where is this man? Where is the man who consistently and reliably does or predicts things otherwise undo-able or unknowable, that he attributes to divine revelation? Where is the cleric through whom God predicts earthquakes? Where is the vicar through whom God heals amputees? Where is the Pope through whom God delivers the cure for HIV/AIDS?It is different, but not lesser. For one thing there is no starting over. It's the same god yesterday, today, and forever. But also God has always been faithful to his promises. And there is evidence - IMO not at all lacking. Some of it is personal & non-transferable, yes. Some of it is not. With respect to the personal evidence, however, the "witness", the personal reputation of the believers if you will, does play a role.
Again, within engineering the idea of the "go to" guy is widely acknowledged. You trust the opinion of the guy with integrity. I'm not saying the confidence level is 100%, but it's certainly higher than the confidence in the opinion of a liar.
So when, time after time, what some guy says turns out to be reliable, and then he says, "God revealed something to me," it seems overly cynical to immediately jump to the conclusion that he has suddenly lost his grip on reality. If you trust the guy, even if what he says is a little weird, respect demands you give it some consideration.
Still, the OP is asking for the disproof of the idea. No more, no less.I'm simply admitting that I don't know everything. But I do know one thing. That is the distinction. With respect to miracles I at least know one thing. With respect to the idea of something from nothing, I have (ironically) nothing.
I still don't see the logic.Sure, not in and of itself. Maybe I was too poetic. In short, the story is this:
I know God does amazing things.
God says he'll listen to me, and act according to what is best.
I trust him.
Therefore, prayer is worth it.
Hence why analogies like "0 + 0 = 1" misses the pointIIRC B Russel said nothing ought not to be regarded as an object. "There is nothing in the drawer" means not there is some mysterious object "nothing" in the drawer. Rather it means that it is not the case that there is something in the drawer.
Newton's accomplishments don't automatically give Einstein the same respect, but the physics community en masse produce results that earn our confidence.
This is echoed in peer review: one scientist's experimental results aren't automatically trusted, but when vindicated by other scientists and accepted by the community as a whole, they carry more weight.
I agree. But where is this man?
Still, the OP is asking for the disproof of the idea. No more, no less.
Is God doing what's best, or what you want? If he always does what's best, then when is prayer ever worth it (beyond being a way to talk to God)? If God listens and reacts to your prayer, then he's doing something other than his original plan; but as his original plan is 'do what's best', he must therefore be doing something that isn't best.
Your analogy makes some core assumptions that don't apply if we 'had' nothingness. For instance, having a linear timestream, or having an empty variable. These are 'things' which don't exist in nothingness.
'True' randomness doesn't mean there isn't a probability distribution, exactly the opposite it means there is a probability distribution. A roll of a d6 is a mechanical affair with basically one outcome. Genuine randomness, then, is where the roll of the d6 really would be unpredictable - there is some element or aspect of the process that is as-yet undecided, that has no presence in the universe.
1) What does 'immaterial' mean?
2) What does 'physical' mean?
3) How do you know that the 'physical' universe had a beginning?
4) An eternal thing might not have a beginning, but some would argue that means no eternal thing exists.
Agreed. However, the successes vs. failures of science are realtively easy to measure - when did science get it right, and when did science get it wrong? The Greek 'scientists' who discovered the Earth was round - success. The scientists who were fooled by Piltdown Man - failure. Newtonian mechanics - success, barring fringe conditions. Einsteinian mechanics - even more a success. The atomic bomb - a success of theory, a failure of morality.I can agree, but with some clarifications. The more established churches (of which I am a member) have a similar vetting process. But forums such as these prefer to criticize their mistakes (e.g. Galileo) rather than acknowledge their value. I find such duplicity both interesting and frustrating. The scientific vetting process has the same disadvantages, and there are historical examples of it coming to bear.
Well, from my point of view, the explanation is obvious: science is right, or, at least, the beliefs expounded by the scientific community come with a great weight of evidence, and for the most part tend to be coherent across the board (there's basically only one theory of general relativity, for instance).Western society has adopted what I consider an odd idea - that everyone is free to have whatever religious beliefs they like, but not the same freedom to have whatever scientific beliefs they like. IMO it stems from an unstated position that science is "true", so there is only one answer, but religion is an outmoded thought system that doesn't really matter, so I just want to be left alone. I'm speaking in generalities of course. I realize no one will be arrested for promoting a flat earth, and churches can excommunicate non-confessional members. But what I've said seems to be a strong theme of our society.
Stand against what, exactly? The self-correcting nature of science, its single greatest strength and the reason why we can live past 30? The community of experts does exist (I'm not sure why you used quotation marks - are you questioning the existence of PhDs?), and it does give us things like vaccines and nuclear fusion reactors. These things exist - what, exactly, are you disputing?So, for whatever argument you might give (such as peer review), you'll be hard pressed to convince me the same doesn't apply to the church. Likewise, you'll be hard pressed to convince me that the herd mentality never happens in science.
As such, Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. FYI, if you're not familiar with that phrase, it comes from Luther. From time to time the community of "experts" is wrong, and someone needs to stand against it. Of course, when then do, they must be prepared to accept the consequences.
It's interesting that they were decidedly more common before we started keeping accurate records.Rare, aren't they? Where is the next Archimedes, Newton, Einstein (as smart as he is, I don't put Hawking in that class)? They only come along every 1/2 millenia or so. If you take the 10,000 years of civilization and divide that by the number of prophets in the Bible, even that shows them to be a rare breed.
I disagree, and I'm a little insulted that you consider me so close-minded. I don't consider the Testimonium to be historically valid because it smacks more of a 4th-century interpolation than an actual recording by a 1st-century Jew - in other words, I've done the research, and come to a different conclusion from you, and from most historical scholars. I have no problem in believing Jesus existed, I just see no reason to.So, we need to trust in history. But you don't, as per your comments on the Testimonium Flavinium. Even if the recorded miracles were true, you wouldn't believe it (Luke 16:31).
But your reason for why you believe seems to be, "because I trust in God", which seems awfully circular.I try to demonstrate as much integrity as I can so that my witness seems possible, but I'm definitely not Moses. I try my best to explain why science isn't the way. I try my best to explain why I believe. That's all I can do. Baby steps.
No, but again, this thread is for those who assert such disproofs exist. It's a victory, of sorts, that no such disproof exists (faulty analogies notwithstanding).Yeah, I get that now. You're not going to get that proof from me. But I wouldn't do a victory dance about that. I don't think those concessions amount to much.
An interesting idea. So, even from God's point of view, the future's not fixed? Omniscience isn't incompatible with free will, but it seems you're arguing that it is (which is an odd reversal).Because we have free will, the landscape is always changing. Therefore, the best action is always changing. Plus, what is "best" is from God's perspective. Maybe it's best to give me what I ask for so that I learn not to ask for that anymore. That's only one of a thousand reasons why God might do what I ask (Emphasis on might. He's not required to do what I ask, and that can be a valuable part of the conversation as well).
Then you don't know, you just make the a priori assumption that he did, or will do.The next question, then, is "How do you know if he answered?" Because he promised to answer, and I trust that promise.
It seems that a sample size of one is not the best thing to base one's entire life off of. How do you know, for instance, that this one prayer that you know got answered (presumably with a 'yes'), wasn't simply coincidence? Think how many lottery jackpot winners genuinely thank God for their win - isn't it more likely to be a statistical curio, than actual divine intervention every time?Like I said, though, I don't know everything. It's not about me knowing for each specific instance of prayer what his answer was. I know I'm going to miss some of those answers. It's about me knowing that - at least once - he did answer. I only need to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 one time.
Prove to me, if you will, that something can't come from nothing, that true randomness doesn't exist, that an event cannot occur without a cause, that an object can't exist without a beginning.
You may address these four questions individually or en masse. Go!
I disagree. The mathematical concept of zero is that of a number in the set of reals, it is not representative of nothingness. It's like saying that '1/2' and '2/4' are the same thing - they're not. They're numerically equivalent, but they're ultimately different. If I define my experiment to begin at t = 0, I'm not saying it starts at nothingness, or that time is nothingness, or that it starts at no time - I'm saying the counter is as 'zero' on the number line. There's a reason we don't say 't = nothing'.A) 0 is the mathematical representation of nothing. Anything non-zero is something, not nothing because it is non-zero. It is not an analogy, its a symbolic representation of the concept known as "nothing". It is no different than saying that "N-O-T-H-I-N-G" is a symbolic representation of the concept of nothing.
Hence why 'something from nothing' is not a literal and exhaustive description of the idea. It's a symbolic representation, much like '0' is of the number zero. As explained in post #4, the idea isn't one of linear change, it's an 'if then' conditional - if nothingness, then therefore somethingness. The absence of any thing means there's nothing to stop spacetime (or anything else, for that matter), from existing. Thus, it exists.B) You're right about the whole linear time stream thing which makes it even more implausible that something could "come from" nothing. Because "come from" involves a verb and verbs depend on linear time. The idea of "coming from" implies there was a before state and an after state. Which, if linear time does not exist, makes no sense.
No. I'm saying that, if the roll of the dice is truly random, then there are not only unknown forces, but unknowable forces, and thus the sets of AF and KF are not equivalent.This is the exact same problem as above except we can now isolate an event and make it a closed system for the purposes of the thought experiment. For example, with the rolling of the die, you're suggesting that even if we knew all the forces and initial conditions acting on the die (gravity, pressure, initial velocity, etc, etc), there would still be some aspect of the outcome that is unknown. If you allow me to put this in mathematical terms:
let KF=known forces and AF=all forces @t=0 (which is the moment the die is rolled). Now, you've also said that that there is some aspect which is, as yet undecided. In other words, even if AF-KF=0, you're saying that from this 0, the outcome can still be effected.
The arguments aren't the sameI don't believe this is true for two reasons:
1) Same argument as A and B
It manifests whenever it manifests. As you said, t = 0 is an arbitrary label for measuring time, so it has absolutely no effect on the situation. Exactly when the randomness occurs depends on just what's happening. Maybe it happens when the die has fallen - a random jolt of momentum that spins the fallen die to a random face. When we decide to start our stopwatch doesn't really affect that.2) t=0 is arbitrary. At what point do you define t=0? If it is at the initial moment of the roll then there are a certain of set of known (or unknown) forces acting on the object {X1,X2,X3...Xn}. But if we shift t=0 to just a moment before the die settles to its final face, there is still a set of known (or unknown) forces acting on the object {Y1,Y2,Y3,...Yn}. And you can define t=0 anywhere so at what "moment" does this "randomness" manifest itself?
If your argument rests on the definition of 'physical', then you need to define 'physical'. It's perfectly within the bounds of the thread, as you need to justify your two premises rather than simply state them as unarguable facts.Well this just opened up a bunch of things that could fill another thread. I don't want to get into this because I think its too far off topic so I want to restate the challenge you asked which I was trying to address in my first point:
"Prove to me that an object can't exist without a beginning."
For the purposes of this discussion I will say that an "object" is defined as a "physical object".
Premise 1: All evidence at the current time suggests that the physical universe had a beginning
Premise 2: All physical objects exist within the physical universe
Therefore all physical objects have a beginning.
As I want to see it, your concern is moot.Hi
No one can prove anything to anyone else unless they want to see it.
Please, prove it.No thing can come from nothing
Emphasis mine. Please, prove this causal link. How do you know, for instance, that some quantum mechanical facet of my brain, some random atomic phenomenon, doesn't result in true free will? It's a serious consideration, albeit not one I put much stock in.According to Buddha it is Karma, cause and effect which is more complicated than the mind permits us to see. A "proof" is that you did not choose your birth (the colour of your eyes, the location and date), it was caused and from it all your actions began, one after another, some at the same time.
If you'll permit me to go off on a tangent, I've always wondered about something about Buddhism. Buddhists, as far as I'm aware, don't believe in a soul that reincarnates, but in a continuation of the mind. What's actually the difference? Between a soul that moves from body to body, and a mind that, well, moves from body to body?Buddha taught that a way to see this is to realise that you don't have a soul (anatta), that nothing is permanent and everything is constantly changing (anicca).
HelloAs I want to see it, your concern is moot.
1 "No thing can come from nothing."
Please, prove it.
2 "It was caused and from it all your actions began, one after another, some at the same time."
Emphasis mine. Please, prove this causal link. How do you know, for instance, that some quantum mechanical facet of my brain, some random atomic phenomenon, doesn't result in true free will? It's a serious consideration, albeit not one I put much stock in.
3 If you'll permit me to go off on a tangent, I've always wondered about something about Buddhism. Buddhists, as far as I'm aware, don't believe in a soul that reincarnates, but in a continuation of the mind. What's actually the difference? Between a soul that moves from body to body, and a mind that, well, moves from body to body?
There are a number of ideas here, which I'll address separately.Hello
I have divided this into 3 parts as in the quote:
1) The proof has to come from observation. Observation is a method of knowledge (epistemology). We can note that the opposite i.e. "something can come from nothing" cannot be proved either. Why? Because there has to be something there, existing, for something to come into existence.
What determines an existing object or thing? Our knowledge of it.
So a red frog in my room is non-existent for your body-mind-intellect. You cannot see it. You have to either accept my testimony (another method of knowledge) or reject it. I would reject it if I were you.So the only way to arrive at the proof you require is to ensure that it stands to you personally. Everything else will be mere speculation, a magic show where a thing is said to exist but you and I can never 'proove it' because we are not there.
The point is that anything that exists is relevent to something else. A thing cannot exists independently to anything else. To prove that wrong you and I need to use knowledge. To prove it right we need to use knowledge. To prove this very preposition as untrue you and I will need to use knowledge.
The basis of all existence is knowledge. Prove me wrong without using knowledge?
But, why not call this thing a 'soul'? 'Soul' seems to be the most appropriate word for 'the conciousness, the seat of thought and desire, that which persists after death'. Is there some actual reason why Buddhists actively reject the idea of the soul while believing in a continuation of mind, or is it just a semantic blip that occurs when translating Sanskrit ideas of an ancient Indian prince into modern English?3) My understanding is that mind is created, it is dependent on other factors. The factor which keeps the mind (or consciousness) in rebirth is craving. When craving comes to an end the mind will come to end after the last karma "is burnt up". That state is nirvana.
Yes, I think I understand why you don't trust it.
If I brought you a document stating your taxes are going to be raised, and it was signed by President Flinn, that would not be convincing evidence for you that President Flinn existed. By the same token, if it were signed by President Obama it wouldn't be convincing evidence either. You need to have an experience with an object itself before you will be convinced the object exists.
Even more interesting, I can substitute a similar chain for justifying God's existence, but in that case it's rejected.
But, yeah, I understand your objection. IMO the reason is that you haven't had the convincing experience.
And that's more than my opinion. Though phrased in different words, it's the theology of my church.
I'll be clear, though - what isn't part of my theology is that God is ignoring you, has given up on you, or anything of that sort.
OK. The Bible is evidence for God's existence. Voila! Just proved it.
Meh. Don't buy it. (Nor Wiccan's answer either.)
"Evidence" stems from a request that you accept a claim of mine. It is a statement from you about the conditions of your acceptance. Scientists (as well as lawyers and some other professions) try to establish the rules of evidence in advance so there's no equivocation once that evidence is presented. Regardless, if the receiver doesn't agree, there's no way to force acceptance.
Sure I can, and I gave the justification for that in my reply to Wiccan. Just because you accept Obama as President doesn't force you to also accept a fictional Flinn as President.
1. So, when the OP asks for proof, it's asking for a genuine proof. Observation, being insufficient for actual proof, doesn't satisfy the OP. That we've never ourselves observed 'something from nothing', is not proof that it cannot happen.
2. Maybe I've taken your words too literally, but maybe you're arguing that existence really is dependant on knowledge or observation - I secretly hope for the latter, as that would be interesting
3. But, why not call this thing a 'soul'? 'Soul' seems to be the most appropriate word for 'the conciousness, the seat of thought and desire, that which persists after death'. Is there some actual reason why Buddhists actively reject the idea of the soul while believing in a continuation of mind, or is it just a semantic blip that occurs when translating Sanskrit ideas of an ancient Indian prince into modern English?
That is, I still don't see the difference between the soul (which you say doesn't exist) and the mind (which you say does).
Hmm, I don't see it. The proof should stand on its own merits. The proof that "1 + 1 = 2" doesn't depend on me; it works for its own reasons, and it would work if no one was around to appreciate it.Hello
Thanks for a good reply. I am here to refute my own logic too, as it happens, so it helpful for me
Regarding point 1 in the quote above (and the parts which I have removed but feel are related to it). You are looking for a proof which stands independent of you. That is a fact that people over look. That is fine if that is the answer you need, but for anyone to prove something can stand as an independent proof separate to you, then we still need you. If you want to know if something existed before you, then we can look into historic buildings (it might not help you personally).
This is why I said in my first post above "No one can prove anything to anyone else unless they want to see it." This more profound than it may first sound, not wishing to blow my own trumpet, but 'the proof is in the eating'.
So, by extension, something which isn't known, something which no one knows about, cannot exist?Part 2. I am saying existence really is dependent on knowledge (not precisely observation as that is a method of knowledge).
I think I'm starting to understand. The soul is a thing that exists in its own right, independent of anything else, but the mind is always inextricably part of something else (the body, desires, etc). So there can be a continuation of mind without souls. Interesting (assuming I got it right!).Part 3. The word is "anatta" in pali. Sometimes it is translated as "No soul". Really it is "no fixed self". The issue is that most people find the idea of there being no self to imply there is no thing. There is something, but all the parts are co-dependent. Mind is one part of the co-dependent existence. So mind exists as long as there is something else which supports it. A bit like a mathematical equation on a blackboard, if we remove some digits the whole thing changes. The mind is like that, it is a part of the whole thing.
What Buddhists do, in my opinion, is they study the whole system, part by part until they reach the insight that the parts are co-dependent. They can then remove the parts which keep the whole thing together (not literally of course but using the mind). This then results in a new state of being which is not dependent on any of the parts i.e. nirvana.
The mind will die or vanish (or what ever) when the other parts are also removed i.e. craving. But the mind will vanish after the other parts are removed. The reason the mind is reborn is because the parts are still there i.e. craving is still present and it continues.
The body is just flesh and blood. So it is a mistaken view to say "I am the body", a Buddhist would say there is a body, there is a mind, when the body dies the mind continues to take a new body until craving is extinguished.
Say if this isn't clear, because it might be my wording.
1) Hmm, I don't see it. The proof should stand on its own merits. The proof that "1 + 1 = 2" doesn't depend on me; it works for its own reasons, and it would work if no one was around to appreciate it.
2) So, by extension, something which isn't known, something which no one knows about, cannot exist?
3) What about things which no one knows exists, but which we then accidentally discover? Like atoms, before we knew about them, or the Sun before anyone was around to look at it?
4) I think I'm starting to understand. The soul is a thing that exists in its own right, independent of anything else, but the mind is always inextricably part of something else (the body, desires, etc). So there can be a continuation of mind without souls. Interesting (assuming I got it right!).
So does the mind vanish, whilst the soul is eternal?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?