Determining Reality

[guitarmonster]

Still wondering about my question....

 

[food4thought]

Hey ana, I'm feeling a bit neglected here

Post 136, page 14.

I see you are a bit overwhelmed with the number of responses and the limited time you have here, so if you want to cut out our portion of the discussion, I'd understand.

If that is the case, consider this my parting shot.

My contention is that the scientific worldview is self limiting to what we can observe and empirically test. This is indeed a very useful thing in many areas of life; but when it comes to reality beyond the natural world it is utterly useless. Indeed, many in the scientific community believe that there is nothing BUT the natural world, and that belief is probably comforting to them given their reliance on empiricism. One of the things that has recently cemented this thought in my mind is the way that many physicists are currently defining the universe as "everything that exists"... this is a cute definition that neatly avoids having to answer any questions about what might be outside our universe (they love saying that asking such a thing is an invalid question), since by definition the universe is everything. This reminds me somewhat of a story I once heard about an Eastern Yogi who was asked by a student what the world rested on, "On the back of a great turtle" he replied. The student thought about this for a minute, then asked, "But what is the turtle resting on?"... upset, the Yogi replied "Turtles, it's turtles all the way down!!!"

"It's the universe, it's the universe all the way down!!!" If you sensitize yourself to see this mindset, I think you will find an extraordinary amount of resistance in the scientific community to even the idea that (with few exeptions) anything outside their ability to empirically observe exists. This is useful for scientific research, as the interference of the supernatural would hinder their ability to test hypothesis' in a controled environment. Yet my experience strongly suggests the existence of the supernatural.

I can honestly say I don't know HOW God could exist eternally and cause anything; but have faith that He is eternal, and that He has created the universe because my experience with this God leads me to trust what He says to be true. Ultimately, we must all exercise faith in many things in our lives... by faith we make plans for the future believing we'll be around to fulfill them, by faith we drive through a green light believing that the cross traffic will indeed stop for the red light, by faith we let our children go to school believing that their school won't be shot up by a disturbed youth, and by faith we accept our respective views of where all of this stuff we call the universe ultimately came from. Despite all our trust in the logic and reason of these beliefs, in each one of these instances there is a distinct possibility that our beliefs may prove to be false... this is the essence of faith... in a very real sense, this is part of the bedrock that makes us human.

 

[AlexBP]

I would be far more impressed if you simply realized that arguments from authority and popularity are not indicative of truth.

I've been trying to focus on what is indicative of truth. Previously I asked you this:

When we evaluate the historical reliability of the Gospels, we must do so using the standards that historians use to evaluate the reliability of comparable texts from the ancient world. Do you believe that any texts from the ancient world are historically reliable? If so, what are the titles and authors of the texts that you'd trust, and why do you view them as historically reliable?
​

Once you answer those questions, then we can evaluate the trustworthiness of the Gospels according to the standards that you use to evaluate ancient historical texts. But you haven't answered the questions yet.

 

[AlexBP]

" although it was still legal to use prisoners of war for forced labor. Hence western civilization became the first civilization to abolish slavery for moral reasons."
This brought more than a chuckle. How exactly do you think people were made into slaves in the first place? The overwhelming majority of slaves throughout history began as prisoners of war. This "abolishment of slavery" would barely put a dent in the slave population. What a bunch of humanitarians.

Right now, it is legal to use prisoners of war for forced labor. It says so in the Geneva Convention and in U.N. documents, the standard-bearers for human rights at the present time. Thus, early medieval Christian civilization had the same approach to forced labor as our nation and almost all other nations do today.

It's a historical fact that in ancient Rome and other ancient civilizations, almost all hard labor was slave labor, while in medieval western Europe there was no or virtually no slave labor in the areas where Catholicism was dominant. If you want to dispute this you may do so, but you should probably provide a credible historical source to back yourself up.

" Would you agree with that definition?"
No. I'm perfectly fine with the standard modern dictionary definition everyone else uses.
HUman rights- A right that is believed to belong justifiably to every person.
Under that definition (and that is the commonly accepted definition) the examples I gave were fine for the "concept of human rights"

In that case, the "human rights" that folks had in ancient Babylonia would be considered worthless by today's standards. Since you insist on being pedantic, I'll modify my statement. Early Christian civilization introduced to the world the idea of a body of human rights including the right to live, be free, and hold property.

 

[guitarmonster]

I think it's really difficult for us to either prove or disprove God while trying to do it within the limitations of the world we live in. We are applying things like historical writings and such to something that is not of this world. We can say that either the Bible is accurate, but then you could say that other historical documents from back then show the contrary. Or we could say the Bible is not accurate, then someone could dig up some other historical documents to show the contrary. If they had computers and more accurate systems of storing information like a DMV registry going back that far, it would be way easier to settle this argument. The truth is back then they did not have that, all they had was a pen and paper, as well as their highly limited understanding of the world.

Here is a good example, in the book of Revelation John writes:
Revelation 12:4
His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born.

This verse says that the Devil swings his tail and flings a third of the stars down on the earth. I'm sure that most people know that the sun is a star, hence the stars out there are other suns. If you take a third of the "suns" from space and throw them down on the earth, there aint gonna be no earth left. So why did John write this? He wrote it because he probably saw star like objects falling to the earth, and he probably assumed that they were stars, since that was the most logical thing for him to assume. Of course fast forward to today, we probably know that it means something more closer to a major meteor shower.

For me I just had to make a decision based on my faith, because according to the rules of man, we just can't dig up anything that can prove anything one way or the other beyond a shadow of a doubt. Of course Simon Greenleaf, who was one of the greatest legal minds of his time and was considered an expert at the rules of evidence put the Word of God to the test and was converted as a result. He put the Bible to the test for the purpose of proving it was not true.

I still want to know the answer to this question, I want to know since you are so desperately trying to convince others that God is not real. Can you tell me what benefits I would have by leaving my faith?

If I abandon my faith as a result of what you have taught me, is there anything that will keep me covered if you are wrong? If I die an unbeliever and God tells me I cannot get into Heaven, will I be able to give your name as a reference so I can get a free pass? Basically I want to make the best decision to make sure I am fully covered if I die, what can you recommend to me?

 

[guitarmonster]

Well no answer so I guess I have to assume that there is no benefit to not believing in God, so I'm gonna keep on believing. Even if I am wrong when I die, I will still be alright.

 

[Ana the Ist]

A BA in history doesn't make one an historian. Earl Doherty is a popular writer, not a scholar.
When it comes to history sensational claims sell well in the popular market - hence all the drivel that comes around just before Easter each year.


One historian. Who holds a PhD in history but doesn't seem to work or have worked in an academic post as an historian.


One current author/ filmmaker who has a relevant higher degree. Yes, it is settled.


Fair enough.

LOL I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you would change your criteria once I provided an example.

A few posts ago you said this: "So does that mean you can't find a relevant one?"
After that, you said this: " Can you find one who supports your suggestion"(?)

Well I did, not only is he an expert on ancient history, but he's been published and been in film. I provided another who not only has a history degree but a degree in classical languages and is also an author on the relevant time period. You didn't require me to find a professor and both of these men would fit any modern definition of historian I could find. Here's an example from freedictionary.com historian-noun. A writer, scholar, or student of history. Wikipedia goes on to elaborate that any amateur of history used to qualify as a historian, but in modern times it usually refers to someone with a history degree who either has published writings on the topic or teaches it. Perhaps these men don't fit your arbitrary relative standard, but do you honestly think you can speak for every professor of history in every university of western civilization? It's not as if every one of them has had their personal opinions on the topic made public. In light of what you asked, I've provided more than sufficient evidence that there is debate within the historical community. It may be a minority opinion, but its still valid.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let's look at the difference between if you are right and I am right.

If I am right:
When I die, I get to go to Heaven, hence I protect myself from landing in hell

If I am wrong:
Still didn't go to hell since it didn't exist anyway

So in the two above situations, I would like to know where I am losing out. If you feel so convinced that there is no God, then I would like you to please tell me how I can benefit from dropping my faith. I want to know since us Christians usually sell the perks (going to Heaven, knowing the one true God, etc) of being a Christian, but so far I have not seen one single perk from being an unbeliever.

And yes I know that I did come across with kind of a stereotypical look at both unbelievers and believers. I actually did that to show the level of ignorance that exists in today's congregation. And yeah I do have a pretty bad outlook on most people who call themselves Christians, because at one point I went through some bad things in my life and got to see the really ugly side of some of these people. I'm not going to get into it but I can almost guarantee that If you knew what I knew you would agree that I did experience some pretty terrible things. There are a lot of wolves in sheeps clothing in the church, and I have seen so many people chased away from their faith as a result. I understand that although I follow the one true God, there are many many others who claim his name but are only for themselves, and they stain the church. When I say that I was not able to trust anyone, I am just saying that because I am stating what my reality was years ago, based on the fact that everyone had turned their back on me, well everyone except my unbeliever friend who did step up (good credit for him). Also when I say the word Atheist, I understand that you are the way you are because you base things on evidence. Many people call themselves atheists just because they don't believe in God, which is why I used the term in more of a broad sense.

So with that said and I am very interested in your answer. Please tell me how my life will benefit from shedding my faith and following the ways of Atheism?

Your first question is basically a rewording of Pascal's Wager. If you simply Google that term along with "answer" you'll find a lot of people explaining why its a silly question. The most common answer is this, you've created a false dichotomy. In other words, you're pretending that your beliefs and my beliefs are the only possible answers. You're forgetting that there are hundreds of other religions that are all equally as possible as yours. I would tell you to consider this, you and all those other religions can't all be right, but you can all be wrong.

You're other question about what atheism has to offer over christianity is a bit scary. I was asked a similar question before in another thread, and after answering I was promptly reported for "flaming". If you allow me time to consult with a moderator I'd be glad to answer that question for you. Otherwise, I think I'd have to answer in PM if you just can't wait.

 

[guitarmonster]

Oh they don't allow you to freely share your mind on here?

 

[Ana the Ist]

"I don't know" is a fair enough answer... I suppose we have established that the argument from cause isn't going to help you believe, so this discussion should move on.



I am sure we both know of instances where the more complex answer is actually the correct one. You can respond or not respond as you see fit.



I was actually hoping for a bit more detail here, as the scientific description is varied on singularities. As a matter of fact, the actual definition of a singularity is debatable since there is no consensus on how to define a singularity... in their page discussing space-time singularities, stanford.edu states "... there is no commonly accepted, strict definition of singularity". If the experts can't agree on a thing's definition, debating the validity of the existence of said thing (particularly an eternal one) becomes difficult. Again, respond if you'd like.



Time may indeed have existed before the universe was created... I am unsure of whether the Hebrew word translated eternity necessarilly means without time, but I think it does... but it's nature may have been very different from space-time as we understand it. Then again, since none of us know what eternal existence is really like, perhaps it is possible for an eternal Being to cause something despite all our potential logical problems with causality in such a state... the nature of eternal existence is one of those truth's that exist beyond human ability to fully grasp. We can contemplate it, but cannot measure or experience it; therefore we cannot make empirical conclusions about it. The Bible says that God exists in eternity outside creation, and that He did indeed create the universe. I accept this in faith, the same type of faith you must have to believe in an eternal or magically emerging Big Bang singularity... you may believe that my faith is not logically founded (I would disagree, obviously) and yours is (not enough info from you for me to agree or disagree at this point); but your conclusion, as I understand it, rests equally beyond our ability to empirically test and thus involves a measure of faith. By the way, the definition of faith I use, and I believe most Christians use, is not "belief without evidence", but "belief beyond evidence"; or to put it differently, "belief without PROOF".

Faith | Define Faith at Dictionary.com

Respond if you like.



I meant me and you ourselves, not humanity as a whole, BTW. I mean there is information, such as the exact state of consciousness one would experience without time as we know it or in the absence of time, that we currently CANNOT know... and may never be capable of knowing. Things like what exists outside of space-time, what exists in the curled up dimensions of our space-time, and things humanity already knows that you and I will never have time to learn. This part of our discussion has relevance beyond an argument from cause, so please respond.



Yes, I feel that the constraints on you posting your beliefs are too restrictive, and I am sorry for that even though I think I understand why the site has had to institute that rule to avoid abuses. You can PM or email me if you like.

If you don't mind me asking, how do you determine reality? I can't remember seeing you post this... if you did, please forgive me for not wanting to sift thru the entire thread looking for it.

my apologies for the lateness off this response. I've gotten a lot of posts to respond to and I'm afraid I've taken the lazy route by responding to easier ones first and yours got lost in the mix.

I guess at this point we can skip time and go to your statement about Occam's Razor. I'm not doubting that there possibly are cases where a complex answer turned out to be correct instead of a comparatively simple answer, I just can't for the life of me think of one. CAn you?

It's interesting that you want me to provide a detailed definition of a pre-big bang singularity while admitting science has no consensus on this. While they may disagree on its exact nature/form I do recall there being a consensus that it did in fact exist. If science can make this assertion I don't see why I cannot.

It has always been my understanding that time couldn't be discussed before the universe existed because there would be no way to describe it. Without matter and energy and its ability to change, how could we differentiate between one moment of time and the next? It would be impossible, right? Well not if you put a "player" in that state of existence. Namely, god. If we put god in this pre-universe state of existence we can now describe time as it relates to him. Moreso if we have god actually doing things, ie. "before god did this, after god did that" etc. So, even if you describe god as not made of matter or energy, we still have time. This tends to make me think of time as a concept over a property, but of course, that's only if god exists.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh they don't allow you to freely share your mind on here?

Definitely not. If you look through the forum rules I'm pretty sure there is something against promoting beliefs over Christianity. Also, "flaming" is a very subjective term, and as I said, I've been reported for making the exact kind of statement you're asking me to make. The end result was the thread being closed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hey ana, I'm feeling a bit neglected here

Post 136, page 14.

I see you are a bit overwhelmed with the number of responses and the limited time you have here, so if you want to cut out our portion of the discussion, I'd understand.

If that is the case, consider this my parting shot.

My contention is that the scientific worldview is self limiting to what we can observe and empirically test. This is indeed a very useful thing in many areas of life; but when it comes to reality beyond the natural world it is utterly useless. Indeed, many in the scientific community believe that there is nothing BUT the natural world, and that belief is probably comforting to them given their reliance on empiricism. One of the things that has recently cemented this thought in my mind is the way that many physicists are currently defining the universe as "everything that exists"... this is a cute definition that neatly avoids having to answer any questions about what might be outside our universe (they love saying that asking such a thing is an invalid question), since by definition the universe is everything. This reminds me somewhat of a story I once heard about an Eastern Yogi who was asked by a student what the world rested on, "On the back of a great turtle" he replied. The student thought about this for a minute, then asked, "But what is the turtle resting on?"... upset, the Yogi replied "Turtles, it's turtles all the way down!!!"

"It's the universe, it's the universe all the way down!!!" If you sensitize yourself to see this mindset, I think you will find an extraordinary amount of resistance in the scientific community to even the idea that (with few exeptions) anything outside their ability to empirically observe exists. This is useful for scientific research, as the interference of the supernatural would hinder their ability to test hypothesis' in a controled environment. Yet my experience strongly suggests the existence of the supernatural.

I can honestly say I don't know HOW God could exist eternally and cause anything; but have faith that He is eternal, and that He has created the universe because my experience with this God leads me to trust what He says to be true. Ultimately, we must all exercise faith in many things in our lives... by faith we make plans for the future believing we'll be around to fulfill them, by faith we drive through a green light believing that the cross traffic will indeed stop for the red light, by faith we let our children go to school believing that their school won't be shot up by a disturbed youth, and by faith we accept our respective views of where all of this stuff we call the universe ultimately came from. Despite all our trust in the logic and reason of these beliefs, in each one of these instances there is a distinct possibility that our beliefs may prove to be false... this is the essence of faith... in a very real sense, this is part of the bedrock that makes us human.

Sorry, I meant to add that yes, I believe there are things about reality we don't currently know. Can I say we will never know them? No, I cannot. There seems to me no limit to understanding founded on logic and reason.

" but when it comes to reality beyond the natural world it is utterly useless."

You said this in the above statement. I'm curious as to how you know that a "reality beyond the natural world" exists?

 

[guitarmonster]

I just thought up that off the top of my head, just was looking for a basic answer. I looked at a page on Pascal's Wager and I don't agree with basing your beliefs on that because of the fact that your beliefs would not be faith based, they would be based on you essentially "taking a chance."

I am more interested in why you seem to so desperately want to convince Christians that God is not real. Now I may go places to try to get people to believe in God, because I want to do my part to help lead people to Christ for the sake of their salvation. If you convince a believer to lose his faith and stop believing, what benefit does that person get, and in what way do you feel that you have helped that person?

 

[guitarmonster]

No problem, you can pm me any answer that you don't feel comfortable posting, I don't want you to "upset the apple cart". I also have to say that as a Christian i'm a little disappointed in this site. Free and open speech is one of my hot buttons.

 

[ebia]

LOL I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you would change your criteria once I provided an example.

A few posts ago you said this: "So does that mean you can't find a relevant one?"
After that, you said this: " Can you find one who supports your suggestion"(?)

Well I did, not only is he an expert on ancient history, but he's been published and been in film. I provided another who not only has a history degree but a degree in classical languages and is also an author on the relevant time period. You didn't require me to find a professor and both of these men would fit any modern definition of historian I could find. Here's an example from freedictionary.com historian-noun. A writer, scholar, or student of history. Wikipedia goes on to elaborate that any amateur of history used to qualify as a historian, but in modern times it usually refers to someone with a history degree who either has published writings on the topic or teaches it. Perhaps these men don't fit your arbitrary relative standard, but do you honestly think you can speak for every professor of history in every university of western civilization? It's not as if every one of them has had their personal opinions on the topic made public. In light of what you asked, I've provided more than sufficient evidence that there is debate within the historical community. It may be a minority opinion, but its still valid.

No, evidence of debate would be mainstream academics holding the view, or some mainstream academics saying its a topic for debate, or some plotting of significant ongoing debate in the academic literature.

What you've provided is at the same level as the creationists who drag out a few fringe crackpots to "demonstrate" that there "is a debate in the scientific community".

 

[Ana the Ist]

I just thought up that off the top of my head, just was looking for a basic answer. I looked at a page on Pascal's Wager and I don't agree with basing your beliefs on that because of the fact that your beliefs would not be faith based, they would be based on you essentially "taking a chance."

I am more interested in why you seem to so desperately want to convince Christians that God is not real. Now I may go places to try to get people to believe in God, because I want to do my part to help lead people to Christ for the sake of their salvation. If you convince a believer to lose his faith and stop believing, what benefit does that person get, and in what way do you feel that you have helped that person?

Whoa...have I been desperately trying to convince Christians god is not real? Where was I doing that? Tell me what page and post number and I'll see if I can better explain myself. I certainly wouldn't want to try anything as futile as that.

 

[ebia]

Oh they don't allow you to freely share your mind on here?

No.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, evidence of debate would be mainstream academics holding the view, or some mainstream academics saying its a topic for debate, or some plotting of significant ongoing debate in the academic literature.

What you've provided is at the same level as the creationists who drag out a few fringe crackpots to "demonstrate" that there "is a debate in the scientific community".

This is a silly notion. ANyone who is challenging a deeply held belief that for centuries across dozens of cultures has never been challenged would be considered on the "fringe" or a "crackpot". Some ideas are just ahead of their time. Ever hear of The Jesus Seminar? The one where all the "experts" gathered to decide that Jesus probably never said nor did just about anything he is given credit for in the bible? Well, they're reviving it. Only this time the discussion is a little different.

Scholars to debate if Jesus existed

 

[guitarmonster]

I wasn't accusing you of having an agenda. It just seems that you are so convinced that he does not exist that you are trying to convince us. I might be wrong, it's just how I feel. I'm not insulted in the least at all, I welcome everyone's opinion, and I welcome it uncensored (even though they won't let us).

I just can't deny his existence in the least because of the miracles I have experienced in my life that were a direct result of his power. I have been blessed at being able to see the impossible, many times over. I wish there was a way to project what I have seen into your mind so you could see what I have seen, almost like a "mind share uplink" or something (sounds silly). It's hard to defend faith since we all have faith for different reasons that are personal to us. I'm glad that you are not trying to change people's beliefs, that's a good thing. I can tell you that for me, if I were to have a part in you finding faith in Christ, my reward would simply be knowing that God used me for his work, which is an honor. It's the best reward because a long time ago a man named Joe Lecates gave himself to Christ, and at that moment he had no idea he would walk into a room one day and speak the Word of God to me when I was so lost. I'm not an attorney, if I went into a court of law to defend God's word I would probably lose as a result of just not knowing the basic court procedures. I am not a theologian in the least, never been to Bible college. I can't prove his existence to anyone, I can only pray that God will show me the way and that he will use me for his glory. You can know that he is real, but I'm sorry the only way is to first believe in him. If you will believe in him, and you put his will before yours, he will give you the world. I was saved when I was a teenager and am now 33. I have always trusted in him as my savior, but I have to admit that I did not fully trust in him to take are of me in this life. Just recently I had a revival spark up in my heart, and I started praying way more and reading his word. This whole time I was worrying about my money, my company, etc. I finally learned to completely let go and trust in him completely. All of a sudden this largo marketing company comes out of nowhere and wants to enter into a joint venture with us. My company is a tiny web design firm in New Jersey, which is chock full of plenty of companies way larger than mine. But for some reason they chose me. As I sat with the CEO of this company, he tells me that he chose us because he "got some feeling". We go to do our first deals and at my surprise the CEO says to me that he feels like I should get a larger percentage, after we already finalized our agreement, once again because he "got a feeling, felt like it was the right thing to do." His attorney looked at him like he lost his marbles. Sales have increased ten fold and are on a constant incline. My biggest problem right now is trying to hire more designers fast enough. There are many more details but that right there is the definition of a miracle. You may not believe me, but if you were standing next to me looking at my books, resources, etc, you would think that this is impossible. This did not happen gradually. This happened 2 days after I gave up and turned everything over to him. I can say that with everything I have seen in my life, if I were to tell you I don't think there is a God, you should probably consider having me put under psychiatric care because I would have to be so delusional as to completely alter events in my memory.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I've been trying to focus on what is indicative of truth. Previously I asked you this:

When we evaluate the historical reliability of the Gospels, we must do so using the standards that historians use to evaluate the reliability of comparable texts from the ancient world. Do you believe that any texts from the ancient world are historically reliable? If so, what are the titles and authors of the texts that you'd trust, and why do you view them as historically reliable?
​

Once you answer those questions, then we can evaluate the trustworthiness of the Gospels according to the standards that you use to evaluate ancient historical texts. But you haven't answered the questions yet.

Any one historical text in itself is unreliable. Earlier, someone mentioned Tacitus since he was arguably a reliable historian. However, Tacitus believed Heracules was a real person who did real things. It's not a particular text that becomes reliable, but the events within them that become reliable when they are verified through other sources. The events in the bible don't have this standard.

Take Caeser crossing the Rubicon for example. Caeser himself wrote about this along with his general in The Civil War. No writings from Jesus exist. We have writings from his contemporary and enemy Cicero confirming it happened. We have coins created after the republican civil war related to it, we have mentions of battles, conscriptions, and judgements after the event. Basically a bunch of physical evidence. None of that for the bible. Nearly every historian of the period has written about the crossing of the rubicon.
THey refer to a bunch of witnesses who also gave accounts hostile and friendly. THe final piece of the puzzle is the fact that the history of Rome doesn't make sense if we don't account for this fact. WIthout his army actually moving into Rome its hard to explain how he captured Rome and conscripted men to move against Pompey in Greece. Whereas in the bible, mere belief in the resurrection can account for everything that happened to Christianity afterwards. To say the bible meets the standard of "historical proof" is a poor exaggeration at best.

By comparison, there are other texts like the bible that nobody takes all that seriously. Take for example the 520AD "biography" of Saint Genevive. It was written only 10 years after her death and contains the names of real people and places. It has supposed eyewitnesses to the miracles within. Miracles like: she ordered a cursed tree cut down and monsters sprang forth, she saved eleven capsized ships from sinking with prayer, she cast out demons, she made water and oil appear from nowhere before crowds, she calmed storms, she healed the blind and lame, those who stole from her actually went blind. All this happened around the time it was written about, by a religious man who supposedly regarded lying as a sin.

The interesting part for me is this book has basically the same level of historical reliability as the bible and yet you would probably be hard pressed to find a dozen who believe it happened. How about you AlexBP? Would you call the "biography" of St. Genevive accurate?