'Knowledge' of Existence

[Silmarien]

I'm not sure. At the very least I lean in the direction that we have more evidence for the coupling of being and intelligibility than for the "no obligation" theory. (But we're threading the needle through an asteroid field of theories of mind and truth...)

Yeah, it's tricky, since all of our evidence already depends upon the assumption of intelligibility, but I think it's the tiniest of leaps of faith. Especially with the success of modern science.

You'll see me playing devil's advocate, though, since intellectual conversion for me has involved periodic demolition phases. I build, I tear down, I put back up, I tear down again... I stabilize a bit more each time, but if I slip into the Christian existentialism now, I'm not sure what's going to happen. I might get virulently anti-rational for a couple months before settling in again.

I'm not familiar with it and I can't find a preview. That said, Pieper is generally solid and faithful to the scholastic tradition, and he might fit your tastes due to his ability to dialogue with the contemporary and continental traditions.

Great, good to know!

 

[zippy2006]

You'll see me playing devil's advocate, though, since intellectual conversion for me has involved periodic demolition phases. I build, I tear down, I put back up, I tear down again... I stabilize a bit more each time, but if I slip into the Christian existentialism now, I'm not sure what's going to happen. I might get virulently anti-rational for a couple months before settling in again.

Thou art He who gently breaks about our heads what we build, so that we can see the sky--therefore I have no complaint.

-Eichendorff

 

[gaara4158]

I want to thank you for responding to my two posts, I also want to thank you for being cordial in doing so. I didn't have a chance to respond as quickly as I would have liked, we have busy weekends around here.

No worries at all! Our back and forth has expanded into a multi-post monstrosity and getting to it all can be very time-consuming. I am taking some time to read over everything and I’ll try and pare it all down to the essentials in my response for both of our sakes. You’re a trooper!

 

[devolved]

Because all the separate elements of my position have been demonstrated to exist, and yours haven't. We know evolution happens, we know minds exist, we know matter exists. We don't know God exists. Demonstrate that your god exists, then we can pit your god-hypothesis against my evolution-hypothesis. Until then, I'm just going to keep telling you your hypothesis is worthless. It has no explanatory power.

Scientific theories are about constructing the vision of reality in a way that allows us to coherently describe and predict events.

God is not a scientific hypothesis. God is a philosophical concept that you can either accept or reject in context of coherent (or incoherent) model that it structures.

Hence, God hypothesis is not in the same category as evolution hypothesis... so your demands for comparable demonstration is misplaced.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, I agree that it is obvious from the text that what Paul states in Romans 1 is of great importance to him and thereby to us, but where I'm sure I differ with you in its importance comes into play with how we wach might conceptualize the actual referent to which Paul though his statements were pointing.

At the point where you say that the evidence is cohesive and coherent, I very much agree, but at the same time I'm not sure we can say that it is MORE cohesive and coherent than any other paradigm.

To save time, I'll just provide a link to a discussion that I had just over 2 years ago which only went about two dozen posts before we all seemed to sputter out of anything further to say on the topic. You might want to read through it OR, if you don't have the patience for that, then maybe just look at the meat of it which is at post #20, #22 (which are both my posts) and then post #23 by a guy named alexandriaisburning (who I don't think is posting here on CF any longer). So, maybe have a look at this, that way I don't have to retype all of that original inquiry I had.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/yes-god-is-comprehensible.7961693/

Just a little f.y.i.: the thread above was the point at which I was really beginning to ponder if there was (or is) some answer we could have that would give us insight into what "exactly" it was that Paul was actually referring to and which supposedly "all people" are to understand by God's demonstration of "His invisible qualities." Since, then, I've been doing further research and have come across a few things that have given me additional ideas to think about.

Just know that in my suggesting to you that there are additional things to think about, I'm not trying to pull you away from your present interpretive views about Romans 1, but rather to adjust my focal point to see if we can hone the clarity of the hermeneutical horizon and bring Paul's referents into sharper focus. So, if you're up to it, briefly read those post in the thread I've provided above, and I'll think you see what my beginning point is in the hermeneutical contexts I've been wrestling with that may or may not help today's proponents of I.D.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, I agree that it is obvious from the text that what Paul states in Romans 1 is of great importance to him and thereby to us, but where I'm sure I differ with you in its importance comes into play with how we wach might conceptualize the actual referent to which Paul though his statements were pointing.

At the point where you say that the evidence is cohesive and coherent, I very much agree, but at the same time I'm not sure we can say that it is MORE cohesive and coherent than any other paradigm.

I guess you would have to present something you feel is equal to or more than the Christian worldview, but I am unaware of any I feel to be more cohesive and coherent that reflects reality as well as does it does.

To save time, I'll just provide a link to a discussion that I had just over 2 years ago which only went about two dozen posts before we all seemed to sputter out of anything further to say on the topic. You might want to read through it OR, if you don't have the patience for that, then maybe just look at the meat of it which is at post #20, #22 (which are both my posts) and then post #23 by a guy named alexandriaisburning (who I don't think is posting here on CF any longer). So, maybe have a look at this, that way I don't have to retype all of that original inquiry I had.

https://www.christianforums.com/threads/yes-god-is-comprehensible.7961693/

Just a little f.y.i.: the thread above was the point at which I was really beginning to ponder if there was (or is) some answer we could have that would give us insight into what "exactly" it was that Paul was actually referring to and which supposedly "all people" are to understand by God's demonstration of "His invisible qualities." Since, then, I've been doing further research and have come across a few things that have given me additional ideas to think about.

Just know that in my suggesting to you that there are additional things to think about, I'm not trying to pull you away from your present interpretive views about Romans 1, but rather to adjust my focal point to see if we can hone the clarity of the hermeneutical horizon and bring Paul's referents into sharper focus. So, if you're up to it, briefly read those post in the thread I've provided above, and I'll think you see what my beginning point is in the hermeneutical contexts I've been wrestling with that may or may not help today's proponents of I.D.

Have you considered Psalm 19:1-6 in connection to Paul's Romans 1?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I guess you would have to present something you feel is equal to or more than the Christian worldview, but I am unaware of any I feel to be more cohesive and coherent that reflects reality as well as does it does.

....there is the materialist, atheistic worldview. It does make a lot of sense....................from a certain emotionally driven point of view.

Have you considered Psalm 19:1-6 in connection to Paul's Romans 1?

Yes, I have. And it is these kinds of verses to which I'm referring when I reflect upon the epistemological reading/research I've done over the past few years. So, I do think your suggestion here is relevant. However, what I don't think we can assume is that the writer(s) of the Psalms, and thereby most likely Paul in his reference in Romans chapter 1, really had anything in mind that would infer or incorporate what we think we find today (whether pro or con) as we look out at the vast stretches of the Void of the Universe, looking for clues, and spotting all of the galactic material that floats therein, as well as the intricate biological insights we now have or even the considerations that are pronounced and entangled (pun) within issues pertaining to Quantum Physics.

So, I'm just trying to say that, maybe too often, Christians try to employ Romans chapter 1 to assert way more than what Paul or the other Biblical writers could have imagined. And so, when we look out upon the Cosmos, in Carl Sagan or Neil deGrasse Tyson style, we won't necessarily "see" something that obviously points to God as Creator. This doesn't mean we can't see something that we think or feel 'counts' as being epistemologically generative to our faith, but it does mean we probably shouldn't rely too much on appropriating Romans 1 for a guilt laden application upon unbelievers.

 

[gaara4158]

You are claiming that all other paradigms must be taken on faith, but then you make the faith claim that you suspect that physical processes are sufficient to produce rational beings even if you don't know how. You experience rationality so rationality produced by physical processes are sufficient. This is circular. Rationality proves rationality arises by physical processes. You are also begging the question. You then go on and say that materialism is the only way to find a solution for consciousness, when consciousness can not be shown to be a material element. Thoughts are conceptual.

I have to ask, do you think that the Laws of Logic are absolute, necessary and universal laws that we must obey to have rational thought?

The strength I see in materialism is that it doesn't require us to believe in any specific unseen variable, especially one whose existence could not be empirically or logically demonstrated. Its weakness is, as you have recognized, that it does not soundly provide an account for the peculiar experience of consciousness. However, I find this weakness to be a lesser one than that of a paradigm that does require belief in something that cannot be empirically or logically demonstrated, and uses that to solve certain conundrums of philosophy and science. Either one is going to end up justifying itself circularly, but mine is the more conservative option. This applies to every point you’ve brought up in support of Christianity, ie design, intelligibility of the universe, fine tuning, etc. You may have an elegant and desirable solution to the questions of the universe, but it has no advantage over an incomplete, nontheistic worldview if it can't be demonstrated to be true.

It appears you disagree that God's existence cannot be logically demonstrated, and the first step in your logical proof is that the LOL are absolute, necessary, and universal laws that we must obey to have rational thought. I agree with this premise in the general sense that we can't be rational without applying the laws of logic, and they are axiomatically true, but this is an analytical proposition. Analytical propositions are all about definitions and relationships between different concepts, not anything that exists concretely in reality. The Laws of Logic are labeled as "true" in the same way that definitions are labeled "true." We have to label them such in order to use them. That doesn't make them true in any sense beyond their utility. Any objection you could have to the LOL not being true would have to appeal to their utility to be at all compelling. So, I don't think you can draw any logical conclusion regarding the existence of God from a pure recognition of the truth of the laws of logic, but I'm all ears.

What empirical testability do you use to determine that the LOL are evolutionary in nature? What empirical testability do you use to determine consciousness is a product of evolutionary processes?

So, we have conclusive evidence that evolution took/takes place. That’s uncontroversial in the scientific community. We observe varying degrees of rational behavior - which we infer is the result of rational thought - in other animals, as the article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy I provided earlier explains. This, paired with the correlation between brain function and cognitive faculties in humans and other animals leads to the inference that consciousness, like any other trait, is evolutionary in origin.

These two subjects actually swallow up a lot of what we’ve been discussing throughout so I’m going to skip past a few paragraphs. Feel free to bring up anything you feel I’ve neglected to address.

I hope you realize that if we are right as we claim, (which we are ), defeating our own human minds to defend our position is as varying as there are human minds; but there will be a time (again if we are right and we are)you will face a God that created the absolute, invariant, and universal LOL and you will know that all your "defeaters" are useless. I know that doesn't probably affect you now, but it will and you will think about how you might have defeated this Christian or that Christian in your discussions but it will be worthless when faced with the God of Creation. This God was intelligent and powerful enough to create a universe with a mathematical structure that we only scratch the surface of with our own human minds. Like I said, right now that might be viewed as foolish to you but I know that I wouldn't want to face God and try to defend myself using the very LOL that He provided and try to convince Him that His existence was absence of logical defeaters.

I used to use a similar kind of “well, it’s your funeral if you don’t believe me” rhetoric when I was a Christian, and looking back it’s become clear to me that this move was less about my concern for my interlocutors and more about my own fear of being persuaded away from the faith that promised eternal life and threatened eternal damnation. I’m not saying that’s the case for you, but your reply evoked a blast from the past for me. For the record, just as I’m discussing it with you, I’m fully prepared to explain to any creator deity why I didn’t have sufficient reason to believe in him/her should the time come.

I think the conceptual aspects of the universe speak to the design in it. Mathematics is a conceptual phenomena that the universe's make up consists of and we as well.

So you’re saying the earmark of design is mathematical structure? How do you determine this? How could you determine the difference between design and nondesign if you can’t identify examples of each?

What calculations determine that life is entirely possible for life to develop on its own?

The most common atomic elements of life happen to be the most common chemically active elements in the universe, and we know where each of them comes from. We have observed that under the right conditions (and in fact the exact conditions believed to have existed on Earth a few billion years ago) the basic amino acid chains required for RNA synthesis are able to form all on their own. This places a naturalistic abiogenesis squarely within the realm of possibility.

Wait, WE don't know that God exists is a false statement. I know that God exists. I can't prove to you that God exists and I don't suggest that I can prove to you God exists because God is the only one that does that. I can show how God is a more reasonable explanation for reality. I can show that there is evidence that supports that worldview. I can show that your position is insufficient to explain reality. Reality gives my position its explanatory power.

I have to ask, how is it you can say you know something when you admit you cannot demonstrate it? To me, demonstrability is a requirement for knowledge of things outside the self.

 

[gaara4158]

Scientific theories are about constructing the vision of reality in a way that allows us to coherently describe and predict events.

God is not a scientific hypothesis. God is a philosophical concept that you can either accept or reject in context of coherent (or incoherent) model that it structures.

Hence, God hypothesis is not in the same category as evolution hypothesis... so your demands for comparable demonstration is misplaced.

Then it has no explanatory power and is therefore useless as an explanation for observed phenomena.

 

[Oncedeceived]

....there is the materialist, atheistic worldview. It does make a lot of sense....................from a certain emotionally driven point of view.

I don't recognize a great deal of explanatory reason for the most important phenomena of the universe and honestly don't find the view to be sensible regardless of whether emotion or clear minded focus motivates its concepts.

Yes, I have. And it is these kinds of verses to which I'm referring when I reflect upon the epistemological reading/research I've done over the past few years. So, I do think your suggestion here is relevant. However, what I don't think we can assume is that the writer(s) of the Psalms, and thereby most likely Paul in his reference in Romans chapter 1, really had anything in mind that would infer or incorporate what we think we find today (whether pro or con) as we look out at the vast stretches of the Void of the Universe, looking for clues, and spotting all of the galactic material that floats therein, as well as the intricate biological insights we now have or even the considerations that are pronounced and entangled (pun) within issues pertaining to Quantum Physics.

In reaching a determination or interpretation of Scripture we rest on a timeless tradition that flows throughout history from the earliest moments of Judaism right through to the birth of Christianity. What we find is a connection that provides vision and illumination in varying degrees and levels in the person and with the Holy Spirit within. Mankind we find when God first interacted with and revealed to those who would deliver the books of the Torah and then the New Testament , were in the days before technology was as it is today, filled with the wonder and vastness of our world. Aided we assume by the Holy Spirit as we read they gave voice to the ways of God in regard to that world. To ask if Paul actually meant what he said in regard to Romans 1, we don't, I feel, look to outward influences but to inward revelation. Would Paul really say that men were without excuse on his own accord? I find that doubtful. Paul was if anything humble and careful.

God declaring His glory in the things that are seen can and are seen from the earliest revelation in the order and wonder that man understood at the time. Time has only presented us with much more insight into that order and our minds are grasping the incredible rationality and intelligence that the universe projects. In my humble opinion, we are peeling back the layers of existence and finding more and more order and intelligence with each and every layer. This, the appearance of design that is being recognized by physicists and cosmologists today is only part and parcel of Romans 1.

So, I'm just trying to say that, maybe too often, Christians try to employ Romans chapter 1 to assert way more than what Paul or the other Biblical writers could have imagined. And so, when we look out upon the Cosmos, in Carl Sagan or Neil deGrasse Tyson style, we won't necessarily "see" something that obviously points to God as Creator. This doesn't mean we can't see something that we think or feel 'counts' as being epistemologically generative to our faith, but it does mean we probably shouldn't rely too much on appropriating Romans 1 for a guilt laden application upon unbelievers.

Perhaps, but I always go with the warning to not add or subtract to or from the Scriptures. The context of that Chapter seem to imply that what is written is what was meant. I could be wrong, but to err on the side of Scripture is for me at least something that will not take a possible warning to unbelievers out of the mix which might lead to God convicting them of their transgression and they being led to believe it was not a literal warning in context. If I am wrong, then all is good. If I am correct in the interpretation, I have not led someone away from a warning towards their dismissing God and finding themselves with no excuse.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't recognize a great deal of explanatory reason for the most important phenomena of the universe and honestly don't find the view to be sensible regardless of whether emotion or clear minded focus motivates its concepts.

Forgive me, Sis, but I'm not sure what you're fully saying here. What do you mean when you say "you don't recognize a great deal of explanatory reason............................"?

In reaching a determination or interpretation of Scripture we rest on a timeless tradition that flows throughout history from the earliest moments of Judaism right through to the birth of Christianity.

Do we? Is there only one book on biblical hermeneutics that is in print and was given by the Church or by various Christians who have felt that they were 'qualified' to write and publish the details of their understanding of how biblical interpretation should proceed?

What we find is a connection that provides vision and illumination in varying degrees and levels in the person and with the Holy Spirit within. Mankind we find when God first interacted with and revealed to those who would deliver the books of the Torah and then the New Testament , were in the days before technology was as it is today, filled with the wonder and vastness of our world.

This statement about "a connection" (singular) with provision by the Holy Spirit in "varying degrees and levels" (plural) seems a bit vague to me. I mean, how exactly is our asserting that God has interacted with humanity a reflection that obviously 'connects' with the awe and wonder that many individuals have may have felt when looking at our World/Universe?

Aided we assume by the Holy Spirit as we read they gave voice to the ways of God in regard to that world. To ask if Paul actually meant what he said in regard to Romans 1, we don't, I feel, look to outward influences but to inward revelation. Would Paul really say that men were without excuse on his own accord? I find that doubtful. Paul was if anything humble and careful.

Sure. We can read Paul and understand that he says that there is "something" that is revealed by God to all humanity by which they are apparently indicted for their sins. But.........what exactly is this "something"?

God declaring His glory in the things that are seen can and are seen from the earliest revelation in the order and wonder that man understood at the time. Time has only presented us with much more insight into that order and our minds are grasping the incredible rationality and intelligence that the universe projects. In my humble opinion, we are peeling back the layers of existence and finding more and more order and intelligence with each and every layer. This, the appearance of design that is being recognized by physicists and cosmologists today is only part and parcel of Romans 1.

Yes, I can agree with you that through science, we are peeling back the layers of our world, BUT can we just assume that Paul is talking about an act of science as opposed to other sort of epistemic arrangement that only refers to those things on a phenomenal level that people of Paul's time could possibly perceive. I mean, if all it takes is the things that Paul and his generation, or those of still earlier generations, to appeal to by which they perceive this "something" from God, then it seems superfluous and premature to invoke and to imply that there is 'more' that will be needed.

The point is, from my standpoint, it's not clear as to what this particular set of "something" is by which we are all supposed to sense the 'invisible' attributes of God. With that said, on a personal level just as it pertains to myself, I'm with you in that in the full complex of a coherency model of truth and knowledge, it does seem to make sense from the vantage point that you and I share to arrive at the proposition, "God exists!" I also agree with you that with the Bible included in our individually perceived epistemic frameworks, you and I can also share the 'truth' that, indeed, "Jesus is Lord and Savior," even in a way reflecting the New Testament and later summations made by the Church like the Nicene Creed.

So, I'm just not sure we can posit what the "something" is that all people are supposed to "see," but I can agree with you that with the help of the Holy Spirit and God's Providence, some of us can come to see that the New Testament is true.

Perhaps, but I always go with the warning to not add or subtract to or from the Scriptures.

Sure, but subtracting or adding to Scripture can, at times, get confused and ambiguously melded instead with the act of adding or subtracting specific INTERPRETATIONS of what we think we find in the Scriptures. And the whole act that we know have to muddle through in order to disambiguate our interpretive conclusions from what the writers actually meant when they wrote is, to say the least, a very, very difficult thing to do. I'd probably go so far as to say that in our Post-Modern age, it's nearly an impossible thing to do ....................... on merely a human level and humanly speaking.

The context of that Chapter seem to imply that what is written is what was meant. I could be wrong, but to err on the side of Scripture is for me at least something that will not take a possible warning to unbelievers out of the mix which might lead to God convicting them of their transgression and they being led to believe it was not a literal warning in context. If I am wrong, then all is good. If I am correct in the interpretation, I have not led someone away from a warning towards their dismissing God and finding themselves with no excuse.

I respect this. But it could turn out that we're both wrong. Needless to say, I'm still studying various epistemological and interpretive highways and byways that may affect our understanding of what we think we are reading in the Bible and thereby attempting to believe in Christ and by which to live our lives.

Anyway. You've written an honest to goodness post, and as I said, I do respect your position. So, don't think that I'm trying to down it and just replace it with 'mine.' No, I'm simply applying questions to your position, as I expect others to do to 'mine.'

 

[Oncedeceived]

The strength I see in materialism is that it doesn't require us to believe in any specific unseen variable, especially one whose existence could not be empirically or logically demonstrated.

When has materialism empirically or logically demonstrated that the Universe has a material cause? When has materialism empirically or logically demonstrated that living beings arose from non-living matter? When has materialism empirically or logically demonstrated that Intelligence arose from non-intelligent matter? How does materialism empirically or logically demonstrate that the Laws of Logic are products of the human mind?

Your worldview rests on assumptions. You assume that since the universe exists, it must have a materialistic origin. You assume that life exists so it must have its origin from non-living matter. You assume that we are intelligent beings so intelligence must have originated from non-intelligent matter. The Laws of Logic exist so they must exist because human's developed language to express them. However, all of these are not based on anything that can be empirically or logically demonstrated.

The Christian worldview isn't resting on an unseen variable. The Christian who has experienced God, knows of His existence. I am not claiming that is anything at all to the unbeliever. I am only showing the Christian worldview as it relates to the reality of the universe. So as a Christian that has the knowledge that God exists, there are certain things that would be seen in the universe according to the Theology of Christianity. We should see a universe that had a beginning which came from nothing.

Translated into statements about the real universe, I am describing an origin in which space itself comes into existence at the big bang and expands from nothing to form a larger and larger volume. The matter and energy content of the universe likewise originates at or near the beginning, and populates the universe everywhere at all times. Again, I must stress that the speck from which space emerges is not located in anything. It is not an object surrounded by emptiness. It is the origin of space itself, infinitely compressed. Note that the speck does not sit there for an infinite duration. It appears instantaneously from nothing and immediately expands. This is why the question of why it does not collapse to a black hole is irrelevant. Indeed, according to the theory of relativity, there is no possibility of the speck existing through time because time itself begins at this point. Paul Davies.

We should see a universe that is governed by Laws and is uniform, orderly, and intelligible.
I won't provide anything for this since we both agree with this.

We should see God's design in the universe.
“In order to make a universe as big and wonderful as it is, lasting as long as it is—we’re talking fifteen billion years and we’re talking huge distances here—in order for it to be that big, you have to make it perfectly. Otherwise, imperfections would mount up and the universe would either collapse on itself or fly apart, and so it’s actually quite a precise job. And I don’t know if you’ve had discussions with people about how critical it is that the density of the universe come out so close to the density that decides whether it’s going to keep expanding forever or collapse back, but we know it’s within one percent.”

George Smoot in an interview with Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, pp. 168

“If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.”

Milton Rothman
“What Went Before?”
Free Inquiry, vol. 13, no. 1 (Winter, 1992/93), p.12

Context: George Smoot commenting on the discovery by the COBE Science Working Group of the expected “ripples” in the microwave background radiation. He called these fluctuations “the fingerprints from the Maker.” Smoot draws attention not only to the fact that his team had provided more evidence for the creation event, but for a “finely orchestrated” creation event. Stephen Hawking was so impressed with this finding that he called it “the most important discovery of the century, if not of all time.”

Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, p. 177

Now for some that don't have the religious bias.
“The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron …. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”

Stephen Hawking

Paul Davies has moved from promoting atheism to conceding that "the laws [of physics] ... seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design." (Superforce, p. 243) He further testifies, "[There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all ... it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe ... The impression of design is overwhelming." (The Cosmic Blueprint, p. 203)

Paul Davies
Superforce, p. 243
The Cosmic Blueprint, p. 203

The point is that the appearance of design is there. Which is what we should see within the Christian worldview.

We see the Laws of Logic which are invariant, absolute and universal. In Christian theology we are made in the image of God and think His thoughts after Him. You agree that these laws are invariant, absolute and universal. Christianity has a reason for this to be the case.

The universe is comprehensible. In Christian theology, considering we think after God we should be able to understand the universe. Why in a materialistic worldview, would human kind have the ability to understand the universe? What connects man's mind to the comprehensibility of the universe?

We design in the same ways that we find in the natural world. Even before we find them in nature. Like I used before the flagellum motor.

Add to this, we should see Jesus being a person in history that was crucified.

Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome.... Tacitus

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food – but food of an ordinary and innocent kind. Pliny the younger

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy." Babylonian Talmud

he Christians ... worship a man to this day – the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.... [It] was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. Lucian Samosata

Its weakness is, as you have recognized, that it does not soundly provide an account for the peculiar experience of consciousness. However, I find this weakness to be a lesser one than that of a paradigm that does require belief in something that cannot be empirically or logically demonstrated, and uses that to solve certain conundrums of philosophy and science. Either one is going to end up justifying itself circularly, but mine is the more conservative option. This applies to every point you’ve brought up in support of Christianity, ie design, intelligibility of the universe, fine tuning, etc. You may have an elegant and desirable solution to the questions of the universe, but it has no advantage over an incomplete, nontheistic worldview if it can't be demonstrated to be true.

I should have just had this in the above quote. I can demonstrate how the Christian worldview has more likelihood of being true according to what we find in reality vs. materialism. Yes, both suffer circular argumentation, but rather than yours being a more conservative option, yours rests on a foundation of assumption. Why in materialism is there a universe that exists? Why in materialism is the universe intelligible to human kind, why in materialism does the universe appear to be designed, why in materialism is there life, why in materialism is there intelligent life? Why in materialism are there LOL that must be obeyed? Unfortunately, none of these questions can be demonstrated by the materialistic worldview to be answered at all. In fact, reality..i.e that a universe exists which also appears to be designed (no reason from materialism), that there is life yet it must be somehow produced by non-living matter in materialism, intelligence exists but intelligence must arise from non-intelligent matter(in materialism) and LOL which are invariable, absolute and universal must come from variable, non-absolute and individual humans in the materialistic worldview. Materialism doesn't comport with what we find in reality.

It appears you disagree that God's existence cannot be logically demonstrated, and the first step in your logical proof is that the LOL are absolute, necessary, and universal laws that we must obey to have rational thought. I agree with this premise in the general sense that we can't be rational without applying the laws of logic, and they are axiomatically true, but this is an analytical proposition. Analytical propositions are all about definitions and relationships between different concepts, not anything that exists concretely in reality. The Laws of Logic are labeled as "true" in the same way that definitions are labeled "true." We have to label them such in order to use them. That doesn't make them true in any sense beyond their utility. Any objection you could have to the LOL not being true would have to appeal to their utility to be at all compelling. So, I don't think you can draw any logical conclusion regarding the existence of God from a pure recognition of the truth of the laws of logic, but I'm all ears.

So labels make them true? You are stuck in the use of the LOL rather than the origination of them. We don't just decide or accept that we are going to label true as true or define true as the definition of true. True is the reality of truth.

So, we have conclusive evidence that evolution took/takes place. That’s uncontroversial in the scientific community. We observe varying degrees of rational behavior - which we infer is the result of rational thought - in other animals, as the article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy I provided earlier explains. This, paired with the correlation between brain function and cognitive faculties in humans and other animals leads to the inference that consciousness, like any other trait, is evolutionary in origin.

So we observe rational behavior, how does that equate to a full blown consciousness. There is a big gap between other animal species and our own consciousness. There has not been found a correlation between brain function and consciousness in humans let alone any pathway from other animal behaviors to human consciousness. What you are doing again is assuming. You assume that since genetic evolution happens, animals seem to exhibit some behavior that we observe to be rational (although, we have no way of assessing their thoughts) it must be assumed that we evolved consciousness. It doesn't necessarily follow. We don't have a correlation between brain function and consciousness, that is the first assumption. The second is that if evolution is true it must have evolved, the next assumption is that they think like we do, the thoughts we think we observe in other animals have no empirical method to determine what and if they think thoughts the way we think thoughts.

These two subjects actually swallow up a lot of what we’ve been discussing throughout so I’m going to skip past a few paragraphs. Feel free to bring up anything you feel I’ve neglected to address.

No problem.

I used to use a similar kind of “well, it’s your funeral if you don’t believe me” rhetoric when I was a Christian, and looking back it’s become clear to me that this move was less about my concern for my interlocutors and more about my own fear of being persuaded away from the faith that promised eternal life and threatened eternal damnation. I’m not saying that’s the case for you, but your reply evoked a blast from the past for me. For the record, just as I’m discussing it with you, I’m fully prepared to explain to any creator deity why I didn’t have sufficient reason to believe in him/her should the time come.

I understand. Well I say I understand but in fact, I wasn't ever faced with a belief that was passed on to me. I didn't come from a Christian/religious home. So if I didn't know that God exists, I would feel what you feel when told that.

So you’re saying the earmark of design is mathematical structure? How do you determine this? How could you determine the difference between design and nondesign if you can’t identify examples of each?

Is mathematics conceptual?

The most common atomic elements of life happen to be the most common chemically active elements in the universe, and we know where each of them comes from. We have observed that under the right conditions (and in fact the exact conditions believed to have existed on Earth a few billion years ago) the basic amino acid chains required for RNA synthesis are able to form all on their own. This places a naturalistic abiogenesis squarely within the realm of possibility.

This sounds promising and many scientists are proponents of the RNA world hypothesis but most of them are very aware of the problems with it. A problem with the catalytic versatility is even more problematic with the changing temperature of early earth. We then have to look at the hurdles needed to progress from the purely RNA world to a protein/RNA world and then on to living things. For every amino acid that exists in the gene-protein it would take an individual miracle event for each of them to occur.

So possible, perhaps, but once again it isn't as if the RNA replicating itself is sufficient, the limits it has from where that replication begins towards what is necessary for life itself is significant and might be impossible for RNA alone without some co-evolution with proteins. That has not been shown. It might be impossible to be shown. Regardless, evolution is just a process and evolution didn't evolve. The origin of life using the elements of the universe as evidence that life must have evolved is begging the question.

I have to ask, how is it you can say you know something when you admit you cannot demonstrate it? To me, demonstrability is a requirement for knowledge of things outside the self.

What I am trying to show is the Christian worldview comports best with the reality of the universe. The items I've presented support the Christian worldview vs. the materialistic worldview which doesn't comport to reality and is no better in empirical evidence than the Christian worldview.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Forgive me, Sis, but I'm not sure what you're fully saying here. What do you mean when you say "you don't recognize a great deal of explanatory reason............................"?

Do we? Is there only one book on biblical hermeneutics that is in print and was given by the Church or by various Christians who have felt that they were 'qualified' to write and publish the details of their understanding of how biblical interpretation should proceed?

This statement about "a connection" (singular) with provision by the Holy Spirit in "varying degrees and levels" (plural) seems a bit vague to me. I mean, how exactly is our asserting that God has interacted with humanity a reflection that obviously 'connects' with the awe and wonder that many individuals have may have felt when looking at our World/Universe?

Sure. We can read Paul and understand that he says that there is "something" that is revealed by God to all humanity by which they are apparently indicted for their sins. But.........what exactly is this "something"?

Yes, I can agree with you that through science, we are peeling back the layers of our world, BUT can we just assume that Paul is talking about an act of science as opposed to other sort of epistemic arrangement that only refers to those things on a phenomenal level that people of Paul's time could possibly perceive. I mean, if all it takes is the things that Paul and his generation, or those of still earlier generations, to appeal to by which they perceive this "something" from God, then it seems superfluous and premature to invoke and to imply that there is 'more' that will be needed.

The point is, from my standpoint, it's not clear as to what this particular set of "something" is by which we are all supposed to sense the 'invisible' attributes of God. With that said, on a personal level just as it pertains to myself, I'm with you in that in the full complex of a coherency model of truth and knowledge, it does seem to make sense from the vantage point that you and I share to arrive at the proposition, "God exists!" I also agree with you that with the Bible included in our individually perceived epistemic frameworks, you and I can also share the 'truth' that, indeed, "Jesus is Lord and Savior," even in a way reflecting the New Testament and later summations made by the Church like the Nicene Creed.

So, I'm just not sure we can posit what the "something" is that all people are supposed to "see," but I can agree with you that with the help of the Holy Spirit and God's Providence, some of us can come to see that the New Testament is true.

Sure, but subtracting or adding to Scripture can, at times, get confused and ambiguously melded instead with the act of adding or subtracting specific INTERPRETATIONS of what we think we find in the Scriptures. And the whole act that we know have to muddle through in order to disambiguate our interpretive conclusions from what the writers actually meant when they wrote is, to say the least, a very, very difficult thing to do. I'd probably go so far as to say that in our Post-Modern age, it's nearly an impossible thing to do ....................... on merely a human level and humanly speaking.

I respect this. But it could turn out that we're both wrong. Needless to say, I'm still studying various epistemological and interpretive highways and byways that may affect our understanding of what we think we are reading in the Bible and thereby attempting to believe in Christ and by which to live our lives.

Anyway. You've written an honest to goodness post, and as I said, I do respect your position. So, don't think that I'm trying to down it and just replace it with 'mine.' No, I'm simply applying questions to your position, as I expect others to do to 'mine.'

I am going to try to get back to this sometime today, but I have so much to do today!

 

[devolved]

Then it has no explanatory power and is therefore useless as an explanation for observed phenomena.

You are misapplying conceptual frameworks here. It's like saying that a soccer ball has no use in chess. Of course it doesn't. Chess has a different set of rules.

What you are doing is attempting to apply conceptual framework of methodological naturalism to judge a viability of philosophical axiom. It's absurd. It's like claiming that sociology has no explanatory power because we could break down and alternatively explain these sociological relationships using physics. Of course you could, but it wouldn't be an explanation that we generally care about.

Hence, you could keep invoking explanatory power, but it's only viable if you first understand the axiomatic framework in which such explanation exists. A soccer ball can't and will not explain chess strategy. So, please stop bringing a soccer ball to a chess game.

 

[gaara4158]

You are misapplying conceptual frameworks here. It's like saying that a soccer ball has no use in chess. Of course it doesn't. Chess has a different set of rules.

What you are doing is attempting to apply conceptual framework of methodological naturalism to judge a viability of philosophical axiom. It's absurd. It's like claiming that sociology has no explanatory power because we could break down and alternatively explain these sociological relationships using physics. Of course you could, but it wouldn't be an explanation that we generally care about.

Hence, you could keep invoking explanatory power, but it's only viable if you first understand the axiomatic framework in which such explanation exists. A soccer ball can't and will not explain chess strategy. So, please stop bringing a soccer ball to a chess game.

Well, you can say that, but then arguments from design, fine tuning, etc lose all of their bite. Yes, it fits, but so do all manner of other propositions including an undiscovered, purely naturalistic solution. What advantage does your god proposition have?

 

[gaara4158]

When has materialism empirically or logically demonstrated that the Universe has a material cause? When has materialism empirically or logically demonstrated that living beings arose from non-living matter? When has materialism empirically or logically demonstrated that Intelligence arose from non-intelligent matter? How does materialism empirically or logically demonstrate that the Laws of Logic are products of the human mind?

Your worldview rests on assumptions. You assume that since the universe exists, it must have a materialistic origin. You assume that life exists so it must have its origin from non-living matter. You assume that we are intelligent beings so intelligence must have originated from non-intelligent matter. The Laws of Logic exist so they must exist because human's developed language to express them. However, all of these are not based on anything that can be empirically or logically demonstrated.

The Christian worldview isn't resting on an unseen variable. The Christian who has experienced God, knows of His existence. I am not claiming that is anything at all to the unbeliever. I am only showing the Christian worldview as it relates to the reality of the universe. So as a Christian that has the knowledge that God exists, there are certain things that would be seen in the universe according to the Theology of Christianity. We should see a universe that had a beginning which came from nothing.

Materialism, as we're discussing it, refers specifically to the philosophical paradigm that consciousness (as well as everything else) arises purely from the interaction of material components, as opposed to a mind-body dualism which invokes an immaterial soul, or idealism which allows for solipsism or a sort of ubermind grounding all of reality. It is not the role of materialism to demonstrate anything, it is merely a paradigm.

What you might mean to be asking is how can I account for x, y, and z within this paradigm, and as I've already admitted, there are certain philosophical problems for which materialism does not offer a sound solution. And we shouldn't hold our breath for one either, because there's no reason we should expect to be able to unlock all the secrets of the universe if we're not imbued with powers specifically designed to get us there. Unfortunately, as existentially horrific as it is, none of this disqualifies materialism as a candidate model of reality. Mysteries exist in every paradigm. Why not accept the ones at hand for what they are: mysteries?

I do not assume the origin of the universe, life, and consciousness must be material in nature. I just can't empirically identify or demonstrate the existence of anything beyond material, so I only attempt to explain things I observe in terms of material. This is essentially what methodological naturalism is. I don't discount the possibility of the immaterial existing, I just have no way to demonstrate or detect its existence so I keep it out of my explanations of observed phenomena, even if that means I can't explain absolutely everything right away. My worldview isn't built on assumptions, it's built on making the fewest assumptions possible. I side with Hume in his philosophy that the time to believe something is after it has been demonstrated, not before. My position really is far more conservative than you're recognizing.

Your claimed knowledge of God's existence means nothing to me if you cannot demonstrate it, and your ability to retrofit a current scientific model of the origin of the universe into your theistic worldview is not impressive. As I was telling Devolved, all manner of adhoc explanations could fit into the holes left by science's many unanswered questions. If you're going to come out and say, at this point in our lengthy exchange, that the real reason you believe in God is because of some divine revelation and not any of the arguments you're defending, this has been an utter waste of our time. Your response has amounted to a misrepresentation of my position and an appeal to privileged revelation. There's nowhere to go from there.

Translated into statements about the real universe, I am describing an origin in which space itself comes into existence at the big bang and expands from nothing to form a larger and larger volume. The matter and energy content of the universe likewise originates at or near the beginning, and populates the universe everywhere at all times. Again, I must stress that the speck from which space emerges is not located in anything. It is not an object surrounded by emptiness. It is the origin of space itself, infinitely compressed. Note that the speck does not sit there for an infinite duration. It appears instantaneously from nothing and immediately expands. This is why the question of why it does not collapse to a black hole is irrelevant. Indeed, according to the theory of relativity, there is no possibility of the speck existing through time because time itself begins at this point. Paul Davies.

We should see a universe that is governed by Laws and is uniform, orderly, and intelligible.
I won't provide anything for this since we both agree with this.

We should see God's design in the universe.
“In order to make a universe as big and wonderful as it is, lasting as long as it is—we’re talking fifteen billion years and we’re talking huge distances here—in order for it to be that big, you have to make it perfectly. Otherwise, imperfections would mount up and the universe would either collapse on itself or fly apart, and so it’s actually quite a precise job. And I don’t know if you’ve had discussions with people about how critical it is that the density of the universe come out so close to the density that decides whether it’s going to keep expanding forever or collapse back, but we know it’s within one percent.”

George Smoot in an interview with Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, pp. 168

“If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.”

Milton Rothman
“What Went Before?”
Free Inquiry, vol. 13, no. 1 (Winter, 1992/93), p.12

Context: George Smoot commenting on the discovery by the COBE Science Working Group of the expected “ripples” in the microwave background radiation. He called these fluctuations “the fingerprints from the Maker.” Smoot draws attention not only to the fact that his team had provided more evidence for the creation event, but for a “finely orchestrated” creation event. Stephen Hawking was so impressed with this finding that he called it “the most important discovery of the century, if not of all time.”

Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, p. 177

Now for some that don't have the religious bias.
“The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron …. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”

Stephen Hawking

Paul Davies has moved from promoting atheism to conceding that "the laws [of physics] ... seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design." (Superforce, p. 243) He further testifies, "[There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all ... it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe ... The impression of design is overwhelming." (The Cosmic Blueprint, p. 203)

Paul Davies
Superforce, p. 243
The Cosmic Blueprint, p. 203

The point is that the appearance of design is there. Which is what we should see within the Christian worldview.

We've already gone over why it's not remarkable that we find ourselves in the kind of universe that would allow for our existence. Even if you can establish that is is indeed remarkable, that doesn't point to any specific explanation over the rest, Christianity and luck included. Much more importantly, you still haven't explained what constitutes appearance of design, and this is crucial if you're going to make an argument from design. What does a nondesigned universe look like, exactly, and how do you know? It's important you address this because you're trying to demonstrate that this universe is not such a universe, and in order to do that you have to give a specific description of what such a universe looks like and how it differs from this one. Otherwise, you're playing tennis without the net.

We see the Laws of Logic which are invariant, absolute and universal. In Christian theology we are made in the image of God and think His thoughts after Him. You agree that these laws are invariant, absolute and universal. Christianity has a reason for this to be the case.

The universe is comprehensible. In Christian theology, considering we think after God we should be able to understand the universe. Why in a materialistic worldview, would human kind have the ability to understand the universe? What connects man's mind to the comprehensibility of the universe?

It seems oddly arbitrary that you're contrasting Christianity with materialism seeing as it's been pointed out to you that there are Christians who are materialists. But I'll take it to mean a contrast between Christianity and a non-theistic worldview, as I'm sure was your intention. In any case, you cannot trust the laws of logic to output truth any better than someone with a non-theistic justification because if God is behind the laws of logic, then whatever conclusion you reach about God will have been fed to you directly from God. You can conclude that God directs you to truth, but that would only be because that's what God directs you to believe. You don't actually get to cite logic and the intelligibility of the universe as evidence for God's existence any more than the naturalist can cite them against it.

Add to this, we should see Jesus being a person in history that was crucified.

Plenty of religions revolve around real historical figures. None of this is stacking up in a particularly Christian direction.

So labels make them true? You are stuck in the use of the LOL rather than the origination of them. We don't just decide or accept that we are going to label true as true or define true as the definition of true. True is the reality of truth.

What's the difference?

So we observe rational behavior, how does that equate to a full blown consciousness. There is a big gap between other animal species and our own consciousness. There has not been found a correlation between brain function and consciousness in humans let alone any pathway from other animal behaviors to human consciousness. What you are doing again is assuming. You assume that since genetic evolution happens, animals seem to exhibit some behavior that we observe to be rational (although, we have no way of assessing their thoughts) it must be assumed that we evolved consciousness. It doesn't necessarily follow. We don't have a correlation between brain function and consciousness, that is the first assumption. The second is that if evolution is true it must have evolved, the next assumption is that they think like we do, the thoughts we think we observe in other animals have no empirical method to determine what and if they think thoughts the way we think thoughts.

You're moving the goal posts now. You asked me how it could be tested, and I answered. Now you're asking me to prove it? I never said I could do that. I do have to ask what you mean when you say we don't have a correlation between brain function and consciousness, because at face value that is patently false. There is a direct correlation between certain neural activity and different states of consciousness. This isn't an assumption, I have several sources for this: Synchronization of Neural Activity across Cortical Areas Correlates with Conscious Perception
Neural correlates of consciousness - Scholarpedia
What is a Neural Correlate of Consciousness?

I am beginning to suspect that you don't read the articles I provide, because the piece from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explained how we infer certain types of thought in animals, and here you just deny that we have any way of knowing it. Here:
Rationality in other species has been explored in experimental and naturalistic studies. Psychologists have formally tested animals in Chrysippus dog type situations. For example, great apes appear to engage in exclusion reasoning, when they know that one of two opaque containers are baited with food, and are shown that the empty one is empty, they will immediately reach for the second container, without looking inside (Call 2004, 2006; Marsh and Macdonald 2011; Erdőhegyi et al. 2007). There is evidence that monkeys, corvids, and dogs also can, in some cases, choose by exclusion.

Certain naturalistic behaviors also suggest rational thought, given that they appear to be cases of problem solving that rely on cognitive flexibility and learning. Tool use, for example, is a behavior that suggests rational thinking. Because tool use involves finding or constructing an object that is utilized as an extension of the body to achieve a specific goal, tool use involves identifying a problem, considering ways of solving the problem, and realizing that other objects can be used in the manipulation of the situation. Early experimental research on chimpanzee problem solving by the German psychologist Wolfgang Köhler had chimps constructing tools to acquire out-of-reach objects; it was reported that chimpanzees would stack boxes or put together tubes to form a long rod in order to reach bananas hung overhead (Köhler 1925). Given this behavior, Köhler suggested that chimpanzees solve some problems not by trial and error or stimulus-response association, but through a flash of insight. (But see Povinelli (2000) for a critique of the contemporary interpretation of Köhler’s research).

This sounds promising and many scientists are proponents of the RNA world hypothesis but most of them are very aware of the problems with it. A problem with the catalytic versatility is even more problematic with the changing temperature of early earth. We then have to look at the hurdles needed to progress from the purely RNA world to a protein/RNA world and then on to living things. For every amino acid that exists in the gene-protein it would take an individual miracle event for each of them to occur.

So possible, perhaps, but once again it isn't as if the RNA replicating itself is sufficient, the limits it has from where that replication begins towards what is necessary for life itself is significant and might be impossible for RNA alone without some co-evolution with proteins. That has not been shown. It might be impossible to be shown. Regardless, evolution is just a process and evolution didn't evolve. The origin of life using the elements of the universe as evidence that life must have evolved is begging the question.

You're moving the goalposts again. First you asked me how it was even possible, now you're critiquing my response as though it's meant to be proof that it must have happened? This is getting tiresome. I never said I could prove how or that it happened. If I could, I'd have a Nobel prize. I only explained how I believe it to be within the realm of physical possibility. I stand by my answer.

What I am trying to show is the Christian worldview comports best with the reality of the universe. The items I've presented support the Christian worldview vs. the materialistic worldview which doesn't comport to reality and is no better in empirical evidence than the Christian worldview.

Materialism isn't a worldview nor is it contrasted with Christianity. Materialism is a position on one proposition, and that is the primacy of matter over mind. You can say it doesn't comport with reality but you've done nothing to demonstrate that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Forgive me, Sis, but I'm not sure what you're fully saying here. What do you mean when you say "you don't recognize a great deal of explanatory reason............................"?

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I don't find atheistic materialism/naturalism holds much of an explanatory reason for what we find in reality.

Do we? Is there only one book on biblical hermeneutics that is in print and was given by the Church or by various Christians who have felt that they were 'qualified' to write and publish the details of their understanding of how biblical interpretation should proceed?

Qualified in what way exactly?

This statement about "a connection" (singular) with provision by the Holy Spirit in "varying degrees and levels" (plural) seems a bit vague to me. I mean, how exactly is our asserting that God has interacted with humanity a reflection that obviously 'connects' with the awe and wonder that many individuals have may have felt when looking at our World/Universe?

From the earliest Christian they held a certain awareness of the connection of God to the universe. Throughout time we have to understand more and more of the universe and with each discovery the connection to God seems to grow and understanding of the way God created.

Sure. We can read Paul and understand that he says that there is "something" that is revealed by God to all humanity by which they are apparently indicted for their sins. But.........what exactly is this "something"?

Yes, I can agree with you that through science, we are peeling back the layers of our world, BUT can we just assume that Paul is talking about an act of science as opposed to other sort of epistemic arrangement that only refers to those things on a phenomenal level that people of Paul's time could possibly perceive. I mean, if all it takes is the things that Paul and his generation, or those of still earlier generations, to appeal to by which they perceive this "something" from God, then it seems superfluous and premature to invoke and to imply that there is 'more' that will be needed.

The Scriptures are not about one set time and place, prophecy is a large part of the Bible. While it is apparent that the time in which the authors wrote is prominent in the Bible, some of what is said flows to current times. Did Paul's claim present itself to scientific methodology? No. But scientific methodology demonstrates an understanding of the invisible things of God through His creation. IMHO.

The point is, from my standpoint, it's not clear as to what this particular set of "something" is by which we are all supposed to sense the 'invisible' attributes of God. With that said, on a personal level just as it pertains to myself, I'm with you in that in the full complex of a coherency model of truth and knowledge, it does seem to make sense from the vantage point that you and I share to arrive at the proposition, "God exists!" I also agree with you that with the Bible included in our individually perceived epistemic frameworks, you and I can also share the 'truth' that, indeed, "Jesus is Lord and Savior," even in a way reflecting the New Testament and later summations made by the Church like the Nicene Creed.

So, I'm just not sure we can posit what the "something" is that all people are supposed to "see," but I can agree with you that with the help of the Holy Spirit and God's Providence, some of us can come to see that the New Testament is true.

I can understand if you feel that God's model of truth and knowledge is where your life meets with your proposition "God Exists!" Myself and from my standpoint, it is clear that God's creation speaks to us in scientific explorations and methodology. God in my view, created the universe to be comprehensible and humans to have the ability to comprehend it.

Sure, but subtracting or adding to Scripture can, at times, get confused and ambiguously melded instead with the act of adding or subtracting specific INTERPRETATIONS of what we think we find in the Scriptures. And the whole act that we know have to muddle through in order to disambiguate our interpretive conclusions from what the writers actually meant when they wrote is, to say the least, a very, very difficult thing to do. I'd probably go so far as to say that in our Post-Modern age, it's nearly an impossible thing to do ....................... on merely a human level and humanly speaking.

Why is this harder than say the verses that claim that Jesus was crucified and then rose from the dead?

I respect this. But it could turn out that we're both wrong. Needless to say, I'm still studying various epistemological and interpretive highways and byways that may affect our understanding of what we think we are reading in the Bible and thereby attempting to believe in Christ and by which to live our lives.

Well I respect your journey.

Anyway. You've written an honest to goodness post, and as I said, I do respect your position. So, don't think that I'm trying to down it and just replace it with 'mine.' No, I'm simply applying questions to your position, as I expect others to do to 'mine.'

I respect yours, and I always feel questions are our way to new understandings and knowledge.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Materialism, as we're discussing it, refers specifically to the philosophical paradigm that consciousness (as well as everything else) arises purely from the interaction of material components, as opposed to a mind-body dualism which invokes an immaterial soul, or idealism which allows for solipsism or a sort of ubermind grounding all of reality. It is not the role of materialism to demonstrate anything, it is merely a paradigm.

What you might mean to be asking is how can I account for x, y, and z within this paradigm, and as I've already admitted, there are certain philosophical problems for which materialism does not offer a sound solution. And we shouldn't hold our breath for one either, because there's no reason we should expect to be able to unlock all the secrets of the universe if we're not imbued with powers specifically designed to get us there. Unfortunately, as existentially horrific as it is, none of this disqualifies materialism as a candidate model of reality. Mysteries exist in every paradigm. Why not accept the ones at hand for what they are: mysteries?

Did you not say: I find this weakness to be a lesser one than that of a paradigm that does require belief in something that cannot be empirically or logically demonstrated? So now you say materialism is not required to demonstrate anything? That contradicts your own standard.
Doesn't any model of reality need to comport to reality? I believe you believe it should and I most certainly believe it should. As I listed in my last post, those mysteries of which you speak are realities that your paradigm doesn't comport with. The mystery of the origin of the universe, the mystery of life, the mystery of intelligence, the mystery of the LOL. All aspects of reality that your paradigm simply doesn't account for, nor does it follow a logical path. Life from non-life, intelligence from non-intelligent matter and LOL that must be obeyed are all illogical in the fact that we haven't EVER seen life coming from non-life, intelligence arising from non-intelligent matter or changes or variants of the LOL.

I do not assume the origin of the universe, life, and consciousness must be material in nature. I just can't empirically identify or demonstrate the existence of anything beyond material, so I only attempt to explain things I observe in terms of material.

Which consists of what exactly?

This is essentially what methodological naturalism is. I don't discount the possibility of the immaterial existing, I just have no way to demonstrate or detect its existence so I keep it out of my explanations of observed phenomena, even if that means I can't explain absolutely everything right away. My worldview isn't built on assumptions, it's built on making the fewest assumptions possible. I side with Hume in his philosophy that the time to believe something is after it has been demonstrated, not before. My position really is far more conservative than you're recognizing.

How is something demonstrated in your worldview?

Your claimed knowledge of God's existence means nothing to me if you cannot demonstrate it, and your ability to retrofit a current scientific model of the origin of the universe into your theistic worldview is not impressive.

How is it retrofit? We have certain theological necessities that come within our worldview. One is that the universe came from nothing and had a beginning. That was written long before we knew that was the case. In fact, at one time everyone thought the universe was eternal and claimed the Bible was wrong.

As I was telling Devolved, all manner of adhoc explanations could fit into the holes left by science's many unanswered questions. If you're going to come out and say, at this point in our lengthy exchange, that the real reason you believe in God is because of some divine revelation and not any of the arguments you're defending, this has been an utter waste of our time. Your response has amounted to a misrepresentation of my position and an appeal to privileged revelation. There's nowhere to go from there.

Not all manner of ad hoc explanations can be made to fit. Just as in the case of the universe needing a beginning from nothing. The universe appears to be designed, I didn't make this claim from the unknown but from scientific findings. Professional cosmologists, and astrophysicists have claimed this. I don't have to fill an unknown, the measurements and necessities of those with the appearance of intelligent life are all scientifically discovered and known.

I said and have said over and over again, that the Christian worldview is the best explanation for what we find in reality. It is comprehensive, cohesive and reflects what we find in our universe. My revelation is why I am a Christian and not an atheist, but there are reasons that confirm my revelation in the universe and the reality in which we live.

We've already gone over why it's not remarkable that we find ourselves in the kind of universe that would allow for our existence. Even if you can establish that is is indeed remarkable, that doesn't point to any specific explanation over the rest, Christianity and luck included. Much more importantly, you still haven't explained what constitutes appearance of design, and this is crucial if you're going to make an argument from design. What does a nondesigned universe look like, exactly, and how do you know? It's important you address this because you're trying to demonstrate that this universe is not such a universe, and in order to do that you have to give a specific description of what such a universe looks like and how it differs from this one. Otherwise, you're playing tennis without the net.

The fact that it is not remarkable is begging the question. We are here, so here has to be just what we need to be here is not an explanation nor an argument against the fundamental constants that allow for intelligent life to exist here. Luck or chance has been rules out by the extensive research done on the constants and the vast number verses the infinitesimal range that they hold.

You ask what constitutes appearance of design, in the fundamental constants the range is so infinitesimal that if gravity for instance was just a sand particle heavier we would not be here. It goes on with those fine tuned ranges throughout the fundamental constants across the board.

It seems oddly arbitrary that you're contrasting Christianity with materialism seeing as it's been pointed out to you that there are Christians who are materialists. But I'll take it to mean a contrast between Christianity and a non-theistic worldview, as I'm sure was your intention.

Yes.

In any case, you cannot trust the laws of logic to output truth any better than someone with a non-theistic justification because if God is behind the laws of logic, then whatever conclusion you reach about God will have been fed to you directly from God. You can conclude that God directs you to truth, but that would only be because that's what God directs you to believe. You don't actually get to cite logic and the intelligibility of the universe as evidence for God's existence any more than the naturalist can cite them against it.

God has all knowledge, knows all truth. The LOL are not created BY God they are of God's nature and we as created in His image follow His thoughts. We can not not follow the LOL, we both agree. All knowledge comes from the LOL and without them there could be no knowledge. Your worldview can not account for the LOL being necessary for all knowledge, as you couldn't acquire knowledge without them and they couldn't evolve if there were not already in force.

Plenty of religions revolve around real historical figures. None of this is stacking up in a particularly Christian direction.

It goes with my point that the Christian worldview best comports with reality in all aspects of its theology.

What's the difference?

Language doesn't create truth.

You're moving the goal posts now. You asked me how it could be tested, and I answered. Now you're asking me to prove it? I never said I could do that. I do have to ask what you mean when you say we don't have a correlation between brain function and consciousness, because at face value that is patently false. There is a direct correlation between certain neural activity and different states of consciousness. This isn't an assumption, I have several sources for this: Synchronization of Neural Activity across Cortical Areas Correlates with Conscious Perception
Neural correlates of consciousness - Scholarpedia
What is a Neural Correlate of Consciousness?

I agreed with that. We have no part of the brain where we know consciousness resides.

I am beginning to suspect that you don't read the articles I provide, because the piece from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explained how we infer certain types of thought in animals, and here you just deny that we have any way of knowing it. Here:
Rationality in other species has been explored in experimental and naturalistic studies. Psychologists have formally tested animals in Chrysippus dog type situations. For example, great apes appear to engage in exclusion reasoning, when they know that one of two opaque containers are baited with food, and are shown that the empty one is empty, they will immediately reach for the second container, without looking inside (Call 2004, 2006; Marsh and Macdonald 2011; Erdőhegyi et al. 2007). There is evidence that monkeys, corvids, and dogs also can, in some cases, choose by exclusion.

Certain naturalistic behaviors also suggest rational thought, given that they appear to be cases of problem solving that rely on cognitive flexibility and learning. Tool use, for example, is a behavior that suggests rational thinking. Because tool use involves finding or constructing an object that is utilized as an extension of the body to achieve a specific goal, tool use involves identifying a problem, considering ways of solving the problem, and realizing that other objects can be used in the manipulation of the situation. Early experimental research on chimpanzee problem solving by the German psychologist Wolfgang Köhler had chimps constructing tools to acquire out-of-reach objects; it was reported that chimpanzees would stack boxes or put together tubes to form a long rod in order to reach bananas hung overhead (Köhler 1925). Given this behavior, Köhler suggested that chimpanzees solve some problems not by trial and error or stimulus-response association, but through a flash of insight. (But see Povinelli (2000) for a critique of the contemporary interpretation of Köhler’s research).

Nothing here shows that chimps see themselves looking out of their bodies, as a self inside of a body.

You're moving the goalposts again. First you asked me how it was even possible, now you're critiquing my response as though it's meant to be proof that it must have happened? This is getting tiresome. I never said I could prove how or that it happened. If I could, I'd have a Nobel prize. I only explained how I believe it to be within the realm of physical possibility. I stand by my answer.

I concede. I did move the goal post.

Materialism isn't a worldview nor is it contrasted with Christianity. Materialism is a position on one proposition, and that is the primacy of matter over mind. You can say it doesn't comport with reality but you've done nothing to demonstrate that.

I disagree. I think that when a paradigm holds that life comes from non-living matter and we have never demonstrated that, when intelligence comes from non-intelligent matter and we have never demonstrated that it pretty much demonstrates that it doesn't comport to reality. The reality is that life comes from life and intelligence arises from intelligence. That is what we see in our reality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I don't find atheistic materialism/naturalism holds much of an explanatory reason for what we find in reality.

In a certain kind of way, I agree. The caveat to that is that I find that neither science nor Christian theology are able or meant to provide all that we'd like to have to as far as explanatory reasons go. Both areas have limits and/or shortcomings. But, I think this is to be expected, really.

Qualified in what way exactly?

By 'qualifed,' I merely mean that those Christians who have written books on biblical hermeneutics, exegesis and/or other interpretive measures have all generally thought they have something solid to share, even when not everything they write 'jives' with that of each of the other Christian authors. You and I can compare them, be in deciding 'how' we will each interpret the Bible, we either go it alone, or rationally attempt to cull out what we think are the true interpretive principles by which we'll be able to comprehend the contents of the Bible.

From the earliest Christian they held a certain awareness of the connection of God to the universe. Throughout time we have to understand more and more of the universe and with each discovery the connection to God seems to grow and understanding of the way God created.

Sure. I agree. But let's not equivocate between the mindset that of Paul, who leaned on what was most likely the Prophetic Paradigm of his Jewish people, with the mindset of today's modern scientist and as to what he/she values for the sake of "evidence."

The Scriptures are not about one set time and place, prophecy is a large part of the Bible. While it is apparent that the time in which the authors wrote is prominent in the Bible, some of what is said flows to current times. Did Paul's claim present itself to scientific methodology? No. But scientific methodology demonstrates an understanding of the invisible things of God through His creation. IMHO.

On a Christian level, I can partly agree that you and I can look at the Cosmos and 'see' things that impress us and express something to us that we each think are awesome that we think couldn't exist without the hand of a Creator.

In saying this, we have to keep in mind that what Paul was referring to wasn't conceptually as vast as what we now envisage, and he was saying that what he had then was, and should be, enough for those living in his era. But do you think that if all you could know at present was no more than what Paul himself knew at the time he lived that you'd still be "impressed" and fall down on your knees as at least a generic theist before whatever God is, who is? I think it's not so clear that either you or I would do that. Maybe you still would. But maybe you wouldn't.

I can understand if you feel that God's model of truth and knowledge is where your life meets with your proposition "God Exists!" Myself and from my standpoint, it is clear that God's creation speaks to us in scientific explorations and methodology. God in my view, created the universe to be comprehensible and humans to have the ability to comprehend it.

That's fine if you think this, and I won't belittle it or say that it is meaningless, mainly because I think there is some substance to what you say, just not to the extent that you personally may feel it goes. Hence, this difference in extent shows up in the difference between the BioLogos view and that of proponents of Intelligent Design. (And I'm not really knocking Michael Behe or William Dembski, I do they have some interesting things to say, it's just that I'm neither dumping them into 'file 13' nor setting them up on a pedestal.)

Why is this harder than say the verses that claim that Jesus was crucified and then rose from the dead?

Are you referring to what Paul says in Romans 1 in comparison with those texts that pertain to the Resurrection? If so, I think it's doubly hard to grasp what Paul 'means' in Romans 1 as opposed to just understanding a more historical kind of attestation to the living Christ. Why? Because there is another layer of epistemology to be unpacked in Romans 1 whereas a comment that "Jesus rose again from the dead," while complex in itself, can be availed up in more locally historical terms that are terrestrially contextualized rather than in more cosmological/ontological terms. That is, the philosophical matrices that go into the human heuristics and mental evaluations in both claims are of a different construction, even if both in the end lend themselves to a web of Coherence that [may] draw us in to believe the Christian message.

I respect yours, and I always feel questions are our way to new understandings and knowledge.

Yes! ...something we can both fully agree on!

 

[Oncedeceived]

In a certain kind of way, I agree. The caveat to that is that I find that neither science nor Christian theology are able or meant to provide all that we'd like to have to as far as explanatory reasons go. Both areas have limits and/or shortcomings. But, I think this is to be expected, really.

I do agree, we as human beings are limited in both areas.

By 'qualifed,' I merely mean that those Christians who have written books on biblical hermeneutics, exegesis and/or other interpretive measures have all generally thought they have something solid to share, even when not everything they write 'jives' with that of each of the other Christian authors. You and I can compare them, be in deciding 'how' we will each interpret the Bible, we either go it alone, or rationally attempt to cull out what we think are the true interpretive principles by which we'll be able to comprehend the contents of the Bible.

I believe that we are led to certain authors or certain people to give us insight where we may lack some tidbit or morsel of enlightenment which many times leads to a greater understanding of an area we need addressing. Again, I give deference to the Bible on its own.

Sure. I agree. But let's not equivocate between the mindset that of Paul, who leaned on what was most likely the Prophetic Paradigm of his Jewish people, with the mindset of today's modern scientist and as to what he/she values for the sake of "evidence."

I don't believe that Paul had in mind the extent of knowledge we would hold, but I also don't believe that Paul was out there all alone in his message and resting on his own knowledge either.

On a Christian level, I can partly agree that you and I can look at the Cosmos and 'see' things that impress us and express something to us that we each think are awesome that we think couldn't exist without the hand of a Creator.

I genuinely am curious as to where you draw the line in God's hand in Creation of the universe and all we find in it. I don't know if you want to venture there, which is fine if not.

In saying this, we have to keep in mind that what Paul was referring to wasn't conceptually as vast as what we now envisage, and he was saying that what he had then was, and should be, enough for those living in his era. But do you think that if all you could know at present was no more than what Paul himself knew at the time he lived that you'd still be "impressed" and fall down on your knees as at least a generic theist before whatever God is, who is? I think it's not so clear that either you or I would do that. Maybe you still would. But maybe you wouldn't.

We are a very fortunate generation, we can look back into history and see through the 20/20 lens and see what has come to be throughout the span of 2000 years. So, I don't know. God revealed Himself and we would still have that and the interaction of God in our lives but I know that people in that time period were in awe of the world or we wouldn't read it in Psalms and other books that proclaim that wonder. So it is a very good question, one I can't answer with full conviction.

That's fine if you think this, and I won't belittle it or say that it is meaningless, mainly because I think there is some substance to what you say, just not to the extent that you personally may feel it goes. Hence, this difference in extent shows up in the difference between the BioLogos view and that of proponents of Intelligent Design. (And I'm not really knocking Michael Behe or William Dembski, I do they have some interesting things to say, it's just that I'm neither dumping them into 'file 13' nor setting them up on a pedestal.)

Nor do I. I've spoken to Michael Behe through emails and he is a nice guy and I think his work is important but I don't think it is well understood or more correctly is misunderstood. I haven't read much on Dembski so I have nothing to say really about him.

Are you referring to what Paul says in Romans 1 in comparison with those texts that pertain to the Resurrection? If so, I think it's doubly hard to grasp what Paul 'means' in Romans 1 as opposed to just understanding a more historical kind of attestation to the living Christ. Why? Because there is another layer of epistemology to be unpacked in Romans 1 whereas a comment that "Jesus rose again from the dead," while complex in itself, can be availed up in more locally historical terms that are terrestrially contextualized rather than in more cosmological/ontological terms. That is, the philosophical matrices that go into the human heuristics and mental evaluations in both claims are of a different construction, even if both in the end lend themselves to a web of Coherence that [may] draw us in to believe the Christian message.

You have a good point and have articulated it very well.

Yes! ...something we can both fully agree on!

Nice.