Omniscience and quantum mechanics

[Jesusfreak93]

Isaiah 55:9-10: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

That doesn't really describe them, does it. It just says they're above us, and implies that we don't know them.

Yes, that's it, we don't know God's ways. He is God, and we are man. The jar doesn't question the potter so too should we not question the Lord our Creator. Since God's ways are higher than ours, we really could be wasting our time on trying to understand because until Christians go to Heaven, we won't understand, I don't understand, but I'm not wasting my time trying to find out because God says we can't.

 

[Chesterton]

He tried to save the child, which is a moral act. Had he actually saved the child, his act would be more moral. This can be concluded from either my arbitrary, relativistic moral code, or from evolutionary principles.

I'm not interested in ideas which are admitted to be arbitrary, but how could evolutionary principles assign value to an organism's intent? How can principles (the way things work) care about the way things should work? It takes a conscious mind to care about "should".

Unless I define that as being moral. Who's to say I'm wrong?

The dictionary? Humanity? Who are you to say you're right?

But as you said, there's not traditional morality. Atheists still have their own understanding of what 'morality' means.

Yes they do, and it doesn't mean "good"; it just means doing what we can't help but do. Yet we clearly see that we don't always do as we're instructed by biology -there are criminals. There is great value in tradition; it's the "democracy of the dead": all of our ancestors as a whole voted on the meanings of things, and we shouldn't easily write off as foolish the opinion of humanity.

And this is the type of thing which worries someone like me: atheism eliminates the idea of goodness. Someone like you will seek to discard the traditional idea of "good" in favor of some new understanding of the human condition which will, by definition, be "not good", but rather "useful". But "good" can be performed for its own sake; "useful" cannot. "Useful" must have a goal in mind, and who gets to decide the goal? That's the part where the future gets scary.

(But I still disagree that there's any evidence that my genes are "telling" me to do anything. And there's no evidence that I would or should obey them even if they were.)

And salvation isn't salvation at all if the offer is hidden among false offers. The way I see it is this: I'm in a room with a hundred people. One person says the room is on a boat, the boat is sinking, and I must go with him to the lifeboats. Someone else says that the room is in a plane, and I must put on his parachute. Another person says that the room is actually in a house that's on fire, and I must run with him through the basement exit. There are also people who say that the room is just fine and we're in no danger. And to top it off, most of the people offering salvation () refuse to help me if I accept the help of someone else. The man with the parachute will only help me if I reject the lifeboat-man's offer, for example.

So, while salvation is being offer, it's hidden among the reeds. If God isn't going to make it at least clear what must be done in order to accept salvation, I think I'm justified in called the system decidedly unfair.

You're right it's hidden among reeds/weeds/tares: "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field...like a pearl of great price." Matthew 13:43 But that's not the fault of God, it's the fault of the various weed-growers. Each one of us will sort out the truth, or not.

I disagree that it's the only way, and that it even constitutes a way itself. But in any case, if my thinking is pure biochemistry, I still have my thoughts. Wherever they came from, they're there. I have to work from them. You have to do the same. We cannot know where they came from, not with any certainty.

Our biochemistry produces thoughts and we have to work from them; I agree with that much. Then again it also produce things like sweat and feces.

The claim doesn't depend on scientific knowledge, but it's still a claim that's subject to scientific scrutiny. It's not my fault if it fails science's standards.

I don't understand how it's subject to scientific scrutiny. Do you think the LHC, for example, will demonstrate something metaphysically or religiously significant?

I think that's a rather pessimistic view of the State. Ultimately, it's just made up of people. If the State didn't love people, why do the social services exist?

Yes the State is just people, and that's the reason for pessimism. Social services may sometimes have a basis in an impulse to do good, but there's also the fact that, if you give people stuff, they'll be more likely to vote for you again. Also, people like to be publicly seen to be moral.* It also helps keep the people under control. So the granting of services can also be attributed to power/control, money, vanity/glory, and fear of instability/desire for stability.

* (In America, legislation sometimes gets named after the persons who authored or sponsored it, e.g., "The Smith-Jones Act", so that history will forever record that it was Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones who wanted to do something nice for someone. )

Freedom is paramount, infringement of free will is immoral, suffering is immoral, etc.

That's interesting, because haven't you said you wouldn't mind God infringing on freedom if it would make us happier?

Oh, I'm all for pleasure and hedonism. But I'm also for the pursuit of knowledge. And if I want to continue in that pursuit, I have to remain objective.

It wouldn't hinder your pursuit of knowledge. My point is just that if nothing matters, then nothing matters. It doesn't even matter if you're wrong. But apparently you believe the pursuit of knowledge matters. Why is that? What do you think an increase in knowledge will ultimately achieve?

I disagree. You're describing the ball, not affirming that 'red' exists as a physical object.

The characteristic "red" must exist. A non-human creature may not see them the same way, but those waves of light do exist.

I can understand that we all have a concept of 'bad', but what you've described is moral relativism: what actually constitutes immoral behaviour varies from place to place. A moral objectivist would say that topless women are immoral, and that's that; cultural norms and taboos don't come into it.

I guess I'm not a moral objectivist then. Morality is more art than science. While I consider morality external and supernatural, as I've said, I think it's inaccurate to use the term "objective" to describe it. In the Book of Joshua, Rahab the prostitute hides Joshua's spies and lies about them to the king's men. This is mentioned as a "good work" in the New Testament (Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25), so, obviously, no fundamentalist could call my position unscriptural.

Sure. But if God is three people at once, then those three people must necessarily be each other at once. Identity is reflexive.

Hold on, let me check my orthodox theology...Yep, you're right - the Lord is One.

God's existence. Either it's true (God exists) or it's false (God doesn't exist). The nature of our perception is irrelevant.

I've said human thought is true because of God, so obviously I'd agree with you that God is true. But He's supernatural, not a natural event.

So what, to you, does it mean to be moral? What is the end result of morality?

Morality achieves the "good life", and the good life to a Christian means being the type of being I was created to be: one that loves and obeys its creator, that loves and serves his fellow creatures, that cares for all creation, the dumb animals and the earth itself. Morality consists in being a truer image of God, instead of the mangled image that we naturally are.

Where we'd differ of course, if you're a humanist, is that I don't make earthly life the sole aim of morality. But I believe if we aim for Heaven, we get this world thrown in as a fringe benefit. If enough people strove to be as Christ-like as possible, the world certainly would be improved, even if worldly improvement wasn't the primary aim.

And one thing I always noticed about the Christian ideal, was that it would satisfy claims which were contradictory outside of the Christian context. Within Christianity, the kernel of truth contained in socialism, is perfectly compatible with the kernel of truth contained in capitalism: a man should own what is his, but a man should share with others. The ideals of humanism and science are likewise completely in line with the Christian ideal (and in Europe a few centuries ago, this was actually practiced), so long as the main goals are not subsumed under secondary, separated goals. In other words, one could be a liberal-free enterprise-socialist-humanist-conservative-scientist who follows Christ. The end result of Christian morality would be the same as the cumulative results of all separate moralities.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Don't worry, I'll get around to making my reply one of these days! Watch this space...

 

[Chesterton]

No worries, mate!

(Australian I know, but I don't know the English equivalent. )

 

[heymikey80]

Of course I can. I can define a word to mean whatever I want.


... seriously?

I think you need to take another look at linguistics. A word can mean whatever you want it to mean. I can define anything to mean whatever I want. Ayn Rand defined the word 'axiom' to fit her philosophy, while mathematicians define the word 'axiom' to mean something else.

"take another look at linguistics" -- You're really pontificating that to me?

I think you need to take another look at linguistics. While you can assign a word a meaning, it's not the same as the meaning other people are using. Communication being the outcome of a word's definition, you end up thwarting what's communicated by the word. Therefore: no semantic communication. And thus lingual nonsense.

Requiring one definition ignores the reality potentially behind another meaning. It's a logical fallacy of Equivocation used to suppress the meaning, reality, or descriptions that the other side is using. As a result, it ends up ignoring whatever reality exists that others are trying to communicate, and thus it results in blindness to the argument they're making.

This condition in modern ethics is described in detail in MacIntyre's "After Virtue", Chapter 1. He resolves it by pointing out that meta-ethical properties are not found in the modern view of ethics. That is, ethics doesn't exist because it's been defined-out of modern views of ethics. Modern ethicists have been looking for ethics where it doesn't exist, by definition.

 

[bsd31]

I wonder if it occurred to you that we very likely don't know as much about quantum mechanics as we think we do.

We certainly don't know nearly as much about God as we'd like to think we do.

In other words if we don't know that much about a theory like quantum mechanics why would you try to use it in a discussion about one of the aspects of God?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm not interested in ideas which are admitted to be arbitrary, but how could evolutionary principles assign value to an organism's intent? How can principles (the way things work) care about the way things should work? It takes a conscious mind to care about "should".

I disagree. Selection pressures can exist if there's a benefit to one scenario over another, effectively creating a world that 'should'.

Yes they do, and it doesn't mean "good"; it just means doing what we can't help but do. Yet we clearly see that we don't always do as we're instructed by biology -there are criminals. There is great value in tradition; it's the "democracy of the dead": all of our ancestors as a whole voted on the meanings of things, and we shouldn't easily write off as foolish the opinion of humanity.

And this is the type of thing which worries someone like me: atheism eliminates the idea of goodness. Someone like you will seek to discard the traditional idea of "good" in favor of some new understanding of the human condition which will, by definition, be "not good", but rather "useful". But "good" can be performed for its own sake; "useful" cannot. "Useful" must have a goal in mind, and who gets to decide the goal? That's the part where the future gets scary.

Then you should be more scared of theistic morality: instead of atheists determining what is 'good' based on what is useful to humanity, you have theists determining what is 'good' based on archaic tradition and outmoded stereotypes. You have Jews circumcising their newborn sons, not because of any minor medical benefits it might bring later in life, but because it is deemed 'good' by their religion. You have Muslims bombing buildings and summits because their religion deems it 'good'. You have Christians invading the Holy Land because they have deemed it 'good'.

At least the atheist has the audacity to support his morality with utility, rather than insubstantial emotion.

(But I still disagree that there's any evidence that my genes are "telling" me to do anything. And there's no evidence that I would or should obey them even if they were.)

Are you saying you don't have instincts? Our genetic morality (for want of a better phrase) manifests itself in instinct and gut-feeling.

You're right it's hidden among reeds/weeds/tares: "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field...like a pearl of great price." Matthew 13:43 But that's not the fault of God, it's the fault of the various weed-growers. Each one of us will sort out the truth, or not.

I disagree: if God wants us to find the right 'reed', it is well within his power to do so. He could even do it in such a way that we could still choose whether to pick it or not (for some reason, God seems to like this).

I don't understand how it's subject to scientific scrutiny. Do you think the LHC, for example, will demonstrate something metaphysically or religiously significant?

It may very well do. It may cause all nearby statues of the Virgin Mary to weep blood whenever it's activated; that would be religiously significant, wouldn't it?

Yes the State is just people, and that's the reason for pessimism. Social services may sometimes have a basis in an impulse to do good, but there's also the fact that, if you give people stuff, they'll be more likely to vote for you again. Also, people like to be publicly seen to be moral.* It also helps keep the people under control. So the granting of services can also be attributed to power/control, money, vanity/glory, and fear of instability/desire for stability.

* (In America, legislation sometimes gets named after the persons who authored or sponsored it, e.g., "The Smith-Jones Act", so that history will forever record that it was Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones who wanted to do something nice for someone. )

And it can also be attributed to goodness for goodness' sake.

That's interesting, because haven't you said you wouldn't mind God infringing on freedom if it would make us happier?

If it would eliminate suffering, yes. Infringing on free will may be immoral, but suffering is the greater of the two evils. The paradigm I live by is my pragmatic approach to an imperfect world.

It wouldn't hinder your pursuit of knowledge. My point is just that if nothing matters, then nothing matters. It doesn't even matter if you're wrong. But apparently you believe the pursuit of knowledge matters. Why is that? What do you think an increase in knowledge will ultimately achieve?

A decrease in suffering, an increase in the quality of life, etc. There may be no ultimate goal, but I feel like these are noble goals worth pursuing. They are ends unto themselves.

The characteristic "red" must exist. A non-human creature may not see them the same way, but those waves of light do exist.

The waves of light exist, and you could define the word 'red' to mean those photons, but that isn't what is typically meant by the word. 'Red' is the perception, what we see in our mind's eye. It doesn't exist.

I guess I'm not a moral objectivist then. Morality is more art than science. While I consider morality external and supernatural, as I've said, I think it's inaccurate to use the term "objective" to describe it. In the Book of Joshua, Rahab the prostitute hides Joshua's spies and lies about them to the king's men. This is mentioned as a "good work" in the New Testament (Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25), so, obviously, no fundamentalist could call my position unscriptural.

Even though she bore false witness, breaking one of the Ten Commandments?

Hold on, let me check my orthodox theology...Yep, you're right - the Lord is One.

And, thus, Jesus is the Father, the Holy Ghost is the Father, and the Holy Ghost is Jesus. And they all are God. So what's this trinity business then, if there's only one being at the end of the day?

I've said human thought is true because of God, so obviously I'd agree with you that God is true. But He's supernatural, not a natural event.

What's the difference?

Morality achieves the "good life", and the good life to a Christian means being the type of being I was created to be: one that loves and obeys its creator, that loves and serves his fellow creatures, that cares for all creation, the dumb animals and the earth itself. Morality consists in being a truer image of God, instead of the mangled image that we naturally are.

Where we'd differ of course, if you're a humanist, is that I don't make earthly life the sole aim of morality. But I believe if we aim for Heaven, we get this world thrown in as a fringe benefit. If enough people strove to be as Christ-like as possible, the world certainly would be improved, even if worldly improvement wasn't the primary aim.

And one thing I always noticed about the Christian ideal, was that it would satisfy claims which were contradictory outside of the Christian context. Within Christianity, the kernel of truth contained in socialism, is perfectly compatible with the kernel of truth contained in capitalism: a man should own what is his, but a man should share with others. The ideals of humanism and science are likewise completely in line with the Christian ideal (and in Europe a few centuries ago, this was actually practiced), so long as the main goals are not subsumed under secondary, separated goals. In other words, one could be a liberal-free enterprise-socialist-humanist-conservative-scientist who follows Christ. The end result of Christian morality would be the same as the cumulative results of all separate moralities.

So morality serves to improve this worldly life, and the plethora of moralities achieve this better than any one?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

"take another look at linguistics" -- You're really pontificating that to me?

I think you need to take another look at linguistics. While you can assign a word a meaning, it's not the same as the meaning other people are using. Communication being the outcome of a word's definition, you end up thwarting what's communicated by the word. Therefore: no semantic communication. And thus lingual nonsense.

Nonetheless, language is just mutually agreed upon definitions. You said "Defining a word to mean something it doesn't is the logical fallacy.", implying that there is some objective, written-in-stone, definition of every word. There's not.

Requiring one definition ignores the reality potentially behind another meaning. It's a logical fallacy of Equivocation used to suppress the meaning, reality, or descriptions that the other side is using. As a result, it ends up ignoring whatever reality exists that others are trying to communicate, and thus it results in blindness to the argument they're making.

Equivocation only exists when you acknowledge that a word can have several meanings, and when one side uses this to engage in sophistry. Since I am not equating my definition with yours, and have been quite careful to clarify my terminology (as my on-going discussion with Chesterton shows),I am not committing equivocation.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I wonder if it occurred to you that we very likely don't know as much about quantum mechanics as we think we do.

Perhaps, but what we do know, we know very well. The uncertainty principle is a mathematical result; it will not change with more understanding. At best, the premises that lead to it might be overturned in the future.

We certainly don't know nearly as much about God as we'd like to think we do.

In other words if we don't know that much about a theory like quantum mechanics why would you try to use it in a discussion about one of the aspects of God?

Because if quantum mechanics is right, then the uncertainty principle is also right. And if the uncertainty principle is right, then it makes it very hard to say that God is omniscient.

 

[98cwitr]

still didn't like my "t = 0 and you can't divide by zero" explanation huh?

 

[ephraimanesti]

Because if quantum mechanics is right, then the uncertainty principle is also right. And if the uncertainty principle is right, then it makes it very hard to say that God is omniscient.

MY BROTHER,

The "uncertainty principle" deals with events in time and space.

God is outside of time and space--which are His creations for our benefit.

All events are present to Him in the eternal "NOW".

Therefore, the "uncertainty principle" can be true and God's omniscience true also.

ABBA'S BRAT,
ephraim

 

[Wiccan_Child]

still didn't like my "t = 0 and you can't divide by zero" explanation huh?

That was an explanation?

 

[98cwitr]

not so much an explanation as a theological concept.

 

[ephraimanesti]

That was an explanation?

THAT IT WAS! Glad you recognized it!

ephraim

 

[Chesterton]

I disagree. Selection pressures can exist if there's a benefit to one scenario over another, effectively creating a world that 'should'.

A world that should what?

Then you should be more scared of theistic morality: instead of atheists determining what is 'good' based on what is useful to humanity, you have theists determining what is 'good' based on archaic tradition and outmoded stereotypes. You have Jews circumcising their newborn sons, not because of any minor medical benefits it might bring later in life, but because it is deemed 'good' by their religion. You have Muslims bombing buildings and summits because their religion deems it 'good'. You have Christians invading the Holy Land because they have deemed it 'good'.

At least the atheist has the audacity to support his morality with utility, rather than insubstantial emotion.

I disagree that theists determine what's good based on insubstantial emotion. But, "utility" is an empty word by itself; it only tells me you have some goal in mind, but not what the goal is. You may not want to invade the Holy Land but you may very well want to invade something else.

Are you saying you don't have instincts? Our genetic morality (for want of a better phrase) manifests itself in instinct and gut-feeling.

I have instincts but I still have a freedom of choice over and above the mere instincts. Instincts cannot give orders; "I" have to decide how to act (again, whatever "I" is). And instincts are frequently in conflict: as with saving someone in a burning building, I'll likely have two conflicting insticts - get away from there and preserve myself vs. go in there and help someone.

Or there may be no conflict. Consider a situation like this: you're walking by me on the street, and without noticing it you happen to drop your wallet full of money. Should I return it to you or keep it? We are two organisms who both would benefit from that same money, so I can't see how evolutionary principles would care which set of genes had the money. OTOH morality certainly would dictate that I return to you what is yours.

I disagree: if God wants us to find the right 'reed', it is well within his power to do so. He could even do it in such a way that we could still choose whether to pick it or not (for some reason, God seems to like this).

Well I believe that's what He's done.

It may very well do. It may cause all nearby statues of the Virgin Mary to weep blood whenever it's activated; that would be religiously significant, wouldn't it?

Yes that would be significant, but not a realistic expectation.

And it can also be attributed to goodness for goodness' sake.

Sure, sometimes. But even then, there are trade-offs. Services cost money, and since government doesn't produce or sell anything it has to take the money from someone. Taking from someone against their will is, generally speaking, immoral.

If it would eliminate suffering, yes. Infringing on free will may be immoral, but suffering is the greater of the two evils. The paradigm I live by is my pragmatic approach to an imperfect world.

Okay.

A decrease in suffering, an increase in the quality of life, etc. There may be no ultimate goal, but I feel like these are noble goals worth pursuing. They are ends unto themselves.

We probably have different ideas about what makes for "quality of life".

The waves of light exist, and you could define the word 'red' to mean those photons, but that isn't what is typically meant by the word. 'Red' is the perception, what we see in our mind's eye. It doesn't exist.

So if red light waves appear in the forest, and there's no one there to see them, they don't make any red? Actually I agree with that. But then I'm a Christian, I'm supposed to think more human-centric than you.

OTOH, if you take that line wouldn't you have to say that nothing exists? If I touch a chair with my hand, my nerves will cause in my mind a perception that something's there. Would you say the chair is likewise just in my mind?

Even though she bore false witness, breaking one of the Ten Commandments?

To be specific, we're not to give false witness against our neighbor, it doesn't proscribe giving false witness for our neighbor.

And, thus, Jesus is the Father, the Holy Ghost is the Father, and the Holy Ghost is Jesus. And they all are God. So what's this trinity business then, if there's only one being at the end of the day?

I can only cut and paste about the Trinity business:

The Father is the eternal cause or origin of the Godhead, from whom the Son is begotten eternally and also from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally. The Holy Trinity is three, distinct, divine persons (hypostases), without overlap or modality among them, who share one divine essence (ousia)—uncreated, immaterial and eternal.

It should be noted that the concept of personhood in the Trinity does not match the common Western understanding of "person" as used in the English language—it does not imply an "individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity."[2]p. 185-6. To the ancients, personhood "was in some sense individual, but always in community as well."[2].186 The doctrine states that God is the Triune God, existing as three persons, or in the Greek hypostases,[3] but one being.[4] Each of the persons is understood as having the one identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures.

God is a single God who is both three and one (triune): Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, "one in essence and undivided". The Holy Trinity is three "unconfused" and distinct divine persons, who share one divine essence—uncreated, immaterial and eternal. The essence of God being that which is beyond human comprehesion and can not be defined and or approached by human understanding.

What's the difference?

I think we discussed our ideas about the differences earlier. I'll refer to this partial etymology of nature: "literally, 'birth', from natus 'born', pp. of nasci 'to be born'". God is eternal and so was not born, but this nature we're in was born, so to speak. But I'm sure you know what I'm getting at about the "trueness" of natural things: hydrogen can't be true or false, it can just be. The digestive process can't be true or false, it can just be. Same goes for evolution.

So morality serves to improve this worldly life, and the plethora of moralities achieve this better than any one?

No I wouldn't say that. Just that different schools of thought can have good points and bad points. Some moralities lack balance, they over-emphasize some ideas, and sometimes they have unhelpful baggage attached to them.

 

[bricklayer]

We're always one step behind. We see what was, even if that was a fraction of a second ago. God's knows apart from its being. He authored it all before anything was created. Nothing happens by chance. There is no chance. There is nothing outside of God's sovereignty, nothing He comes to know. God is necessary, everything else is contingent. He knows all of His creation intimately, apart from its being.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

A world that should what?

A world that should be, as opposed to the world that is. It's a bit of a hand-wavey explanation, not to be taken literally. Obviously, selection pressures don't create this ill-defined 'other world'. Selection pressures don't actually exist in any tangible sense; they're emergent phenomena, a statistical product of population dynamics.

I disagree that theists determine what's good based on insubstantial emotion. But, "utility" is an empty word by itself; it only tells me you have some goal in mind, but not what the goal is. You may not want to invade the Holy Land but you may very well want to invade something else.

True, but basing morality on utility (when clearly defined) gives one a subjective, relativistic morality that is general enough to cover all bases. That is, you only have to consider one (admittedly broad) variable when determining the morality of an action: its utility. Generally, 'utility' is taken to be a measure of how much pleasure something creates, and how much suffering it takes away.

I have instincts but I still have a freedom of choice over and above the mere instincts. Instincts cannot give orders; "I" have to decide how to act (again, whatever "I" is). And instincts are frequently in conflict: as with saving someone in a burning building, I'll likely have two conflicting insticts - get away from there and preserve myself vs. go in there and help someone.

Or there may be no conflict. Consider a situation like this: you're walking by me on the street, and without noticing it you happen to drop your wallet full of money. Should I return it to you or keep it? We are two organisms who both would benefit from that same money, so I can't see how evolutionary principles would care which set of genes had the money. OTOH morality certainly would dictate that I return to you what is yours.

Which would engender trust in the society, and that's a pretty useful trait, wouldn't you say? Altruism rarely benefits the individual directly, but if the entire society is altruistic, then you, the individual, do benefit.

I also find it interesting that you say that, even though you have instincts, you still make the final decision. But do you? How confident are you that you actually have free will?

Well I believe that's what He's done.

I'd be surprised if you believed anything else. But from my point of view, no religion stands out.

Yes that would be significant, but not a realistic expectation.

Nonetheless, it is a possibility. But why isn't it realistic? Surely God is capable of such acts? Perhaps the spirit reacts as regularly and predictably as an electron. Would that constitute scientific spirituality?

We probably have different ideas about what makes for "quality of life".

It'd make for boring conversation if we agree on everything . But I think we do agree that an increased in the quality of life (whatever that may mean) is a good thing, yes?

So if red light waves appear in the forest, and there's no one there to see them, they don't make any red? Actually I agree with that. But then I'm a Christian, I'm supposed to think more human-centric than you.

OTOH, if you take that line wouldn't you have to say that nothing exists? If I touch a chair with my hand, my nerves will cause in my mind a perception that something's there. Would you say the chair is likewise just in my mind?

Ah, there's a crucial difference between a chair and the colour red. The chair actually exists, independant of your mind*. But the colour red doesn't have any objective existence; at best, it's a property of something which exists (namely, the photon).

So I can say 'red' doesn't 'exist', because there is no object that we can hold up and say 'This object is known as a Red' in the same way we can hold up a chair and say "This object is known as a Chair". It's a hard distinction to get your head around. I think the terms 'type' and 'token' come into it somewhere...

*I'm fudging somewhat. There are schools of thought that say the world only exists when it is perceived by a mind. Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy, for instance, is so-called because it affirms that the world 'objectively' exists, independent of any mind. But I digress.

To be specific, we're not to give false witness against our neighbor, it doesn't proscribe giving false witness for our neighbor.

Ah, my mistake. My Ancient Hebrew is a little rusty .

I can only cut and paste about the Trinity business:

The Father is the eternal cause or origin of the Godhead, from whom the Son is begotten eternally and also from whom the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally. The Holy Trinity is three, distinct, divine persons (hypostases), without overlap or modality among them, who share one divine essence (ousia)—uncreated, immaterial and eternal.

It should be noted that the concept of personhood in the Trinity does not match the common Western understanding of "person" as used in the English language—it does not imply an "individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity."[2]p. 185-6. To the ancients, personhood "was in some sense individual, but always in community as well."[2].186 The doctrine states that God is the Triune God, existing as three persons, or in the Greek hypostases,[3] but one being.[4] Each of the persons is understood as having the one identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures.

God is a single God who is both three and one (triune): Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, "one in essence and undivided". The Holy Trinity is three "unconfused" and distinct divine persons, who share one divine essence—uncreated, immaterial and eternal. The essence of God being that which is beyond human comprehesion and can not be defined and or approached by human understanding.

Which is all well and good, until you get to the last paragraph: "God is a single God". The text states the trinity is composed of three distinct persons, but also states that they are not individual seats of conciousness. It smacks of cognitive dissonance, of people wanting to have their cake and eat it.

I think we discussed our ideas about the differences earlier. I'll refer to this partial etymology of nature: "literally, 'birth', from natus 'born', pp. of nasci 'to be born'". God is eternal and so was not born, but this nature we're in was born, so to speak. But I'm sure you know what I'm getting at about the "trueness" of natural things: hydrogen can't be true or false, it can just be. The digestive process can't be true or false, it can just be. Same goes for evolution.

An interesting distinction. The Bible says that God created everything that was made (not everything that is), suggesting that there are some things that were never made. That's one way to distinguish between the natural and the supernatural, I guess.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

We're always one step behind. We see what was, even if that was a fraction of a second ago. God's knows apart from its being. He authored it all before anything was created. Nothing happens by chance. There is no chance. There is nothing outside of God's sovereignty, nothing He comes to know. God is necessary, everything else is contingent. He knows all of His creation intimately, apart from its being.

Which suggests that you affirm God's classical omniscience, and thus reject quantum mechanics (which states that, in fact, there is chance). Fair enough.

 

[Chesterton]

Sorry for the delay, but I was granted a forced vacation from CF.

A world that should be, as opposed to the world that is. It's a bit of a hand-wavey explanation, not to be taken literally. Obviously, selection pressures don't create this ill-defined 'other world'. Selection pressures don't actually exist in any tangible sense; they're emergent phenomena, a statistical product of population dynamics.

"Be" and "is" mean the same thing. So...a world that should be what?

True, but basing morality on utility (when clearly defined) gives one a subjective, relativistic morality that is general enough to cover all bases. That is, you only have to consider one (admittedly broad) variable when determining the morality of an action: its utility. Generally, 'utility' is taken to be a measure of how much pleasure something creates, and how much suffering it takes away.

I guess that's the philosophy called hedonism? I don't think it covers all the bases so much as it leaves all bases uncovered, because anything could be moral. You could take away 100% of the suffering in Haiti by taking away all sentient life in Haiti - by genocide.

Which would engender trust in the society, and that's a pretty useful trait, wouldn't you say? Altruism rarely benefits the individual directly, but if the entire society is altruistic, then you, the individual, do benefit.

I'd benefit more from having your money than having your trust. I don't think the lower animals are even capable of trust in the sense we're speaking, or in any sense, and they've been around longer than we have, so no, I don't think trust is necessarily useful to society.

I also find it interesting that you say that, even though you have instincts, you still make the final decision. But do you? How confident are you that you actually have free will?

I'm fairly confident, because I've been a criminal, and could be again if I chose. If I wanted to refute the kind of evolutionary determinism you seem to believe in, I could attempt it through research or writing and lecturing, but I could more effectively do it just by robbing a bank or murdering someone. Crime is the most straightforward repudiation of an alleged biological basis of morality, and the strongest evidence of free will.

I'd be surprised if you believed anything else. But from my point of view, no religion stands out.

To me, there is a person, Jesus Christ, who is outstanding. I think almost everyone perceives him to be outstanding, and that's why he's attacked. I've never heard of a book dedicated to refuting the existence, or denying the words of, Socrates, Confucius or Mohammed.

I won't call atheism a religion, but apparently the explanation of the cosmos provided by atheism does stand out to you. So, what is the explanation provided by atheism, and why does it stand out to you from among other explanations? And if you say atheism is the lack of an explanation, then I'll say (as I have before) that you're actually an agnostic.

Nonetheless, it is a possibility. But why isn't it realistic?

Because God's a living, free agent. You don't push a button or pull a string and compel Him to do something. Besides, God is not without style, and that would not be His style.

Surely God is capable of such acts?

Sure He's capable.

Perhaps the spirit reacts as regularly and predictably as an electron.

Again, God is the Living God. Only dead, mindless things go with the flow, like dead fish and electrons.

Would that constitute scientific spirituality?

Maybe, but we already have superior examples, superior both scientifically and poetically, such as walking on water, multiplying and altering matter, rising from the dead, and all that.

It'd make for boring conversation if we agree on everything . But I think we do agree that an increased in the quality of life (whatever that may mean) is a good thing, yes?

I can't say I agree until I know what I'm being asked to agree with.

Ah, there's a crucial difference between a chair and the colour red. The chair actually exists, independant of your mind*. But the colour red doesn't have any objective existence; at best, it's a property of something which exists (namely, the photon).

So I can say 'red' doesn't 'exist', because there is no object that we can hold up and say 'This object is known as a Red' in the same way we can hold up a chair and say "This object is known as a Chair". It's a hard distinction to get your head around. I think the terms 'type' and 'token' come into it somewhere...

*I'm fudging somewhat. There are schools of thought that say the world only exists when it is perceived by a mind. Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy, for instance, is so-called because it affirms that the world 'objectively' exists, independent of any mind. But I digress.

Are you sure there's a distinction? "Solidness" is also merely a property. The atoms of the chair give the chair its solidness, the same as the photons of light give the light its redness.

Which is all well and good, until you get to the last paragraph: "God is a single God". The text states the trinity is composed of three distinct persons, but also states that they are not individual seats of conciousness. It smacks of cognitive dissonance, of people wanting to have their cake and eat it.

Blame English language. To us, a "person" and an "individual" are the same thing. But the Greeks had a distinction that we don't. (From what I understand, most other ancient peoples were aware of the distinction. That's why we say modern man, or Western man, is "individualistic" where ancient man wasn't.) We say one God in three persons, the Greek said "three hypostases in one ousia". I'm sure that a full understanding of the Greek doesn't make the Trinity easily comprehensible, but I think the juxtaposition of ideas is much less stark.

As an aside, there's an idea many Christians hold, that the unprecedented conquests of Alexander the Great were intended by God to make Greek the lingua franca before the arrival of Christ, because of the Greek language's precision and accuracy. (Of course Alexander also fulfilled an ancient prophecy by demolishing the city of Tyre, which helps bolster the claim.)

But besides, you're a quantum physicist, you have some nerve accusing others of wanting to have their cake and eat it; you want your cats to be alive and dead at the same time. You guys practically invented cognitive dissonance. If reality is as impossibly bizarre as you say it is, I think a Triune God who's responsible for it all is relatively easy to accept.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Sorry for the delay, but I was granted a forced vacation from CF.

Some people have all the luck!

"Be" and "is" mean the same thing. So...a world that should be what?

'Should be' and 'is' aren't the same thing. I'm not saying the world should be any particular way, just that selection pressures favour some traits over others.

I guess that's the philosophy called hedonism? I don't think it covers all the bases so much as it leaves all bases uncovered, because anything could be moral. You could take away 100% of the suffering in Haiti by taking away all sentient life in Haiti - by genocide.

Why would you be opposed to that?

I'd benefit more from having your money than having your trust. I don't think the lower animals are even capable of trust in the sense we're speaking, or in any sense, and they've been around longer than we have, so no, I don't think trust is necessarily useful to society.

I disagree. First, money is relatively new, and is effectively a way of ensuring trust between two parties that would otherwise not trust each other. Second, throughout the animal kingdom, social species trust one another: gorillas trust that nursing females won't kill their young, but they don't trust that other troops won't.

I'm fairly confident, because I've been a criminal, and could be again if I chose. If I wanted to refute the kind of evolutionary determinism you seem to believe in, I could attempt it through research or writing and lecturing, but I could more effectively do it just by robbing a bank or murdering someone. Crime is the most straightforward repudiation of an alleged biological basis of morality, and the strongest evidence of free will.

There are actually strong experimental and theoretical grounds for why crime arises, and why it takes the form it does. Simple lifeforms, both organic and artificial, have been shown to develop complex behaviour including altruism (calling to others when they find food) and deceit (calling to others pretending to have found food; while the others cluster around the fake find, he runs off to where the real food is).
In other words, crime supports the idea that morality is evolved: it is as flawed and imperfect as any evolved system.

As for free will, you say that you could, at any moment, choose to commit a crime. But could you? Just how much control does someone have over their actions? It could just as easily be that free will is illusory, that we merely think we can do whatever we want; in reality, it could be that the actions we take are predetermined. There was a recent experiment that showed our actions are brewing in our brain before we've made a concious decision as to what to do.; while not a succinct disproof of free will, it does show that there is more going on than we thought.

To me, there is a person, Jesus Christ, who is outstanding. I think almost everyone perceives him to be outstanding, and that's why he's attacked. I've never heard of a book dedicated to refuting the existence, or denying the words of, Socrates, Confucius or Mohammed.

In a Christian country, that's not surprising. But go to India or Tibet, and you'll notice that religious criticism is not as heavy on Christianity as it is on the local, popular religions. Christianity is attacked the way it is because it is ubiquitous and, until recently, seen as a privileged and untouchable behemoth that was only noticed when contrasted with something else (e.g., atheism).

It's like politics. In the US, you can't move for talk of Democratic or Republican politics. In the UK, there is untold attention constantly devoted to the three main parties, but virtually nothing on anything else, especially foreign politics (with the exception of the US). Does that mean Obama is outstanding? No, it just means he's the figurehead of a very large, very objectionable machine. Likewise, criticism of Jesus isn't because he's necessarily outstanding, but because he's a figurehead (much like the Pope and Catholicism, or Chairman Mao and North Korea - not that I'm saying the two are alike ).

I won't call atheism a religion, but apparently the explanation of the cosmos provided by atheism does stand out to you. So, what is the explanation provided by atheism, and why does it stand out to you from among other explanations? And if you say atheism is the lack of an explanation, then I'll say (as I have before) that you're actually an agnostic.

I think I've already conceded that I am (by your definition of the term) an agnostic. While there's no explanation provided by atheism (or agnosticism) per se, atheists almost unanimously believe in the Big Bang theory.

But then again, the Big Bang theory isn't actually a theory of origins...

Because God's a living, free agent. You don't push a button or pull a string and compel Him to do something. Besides, God is not without style, and that would not be His style.

We're suffering because he wants to look cool? God doesn't heal those prayed for because he might be seen as predictable? That doesn't sound like a loving god to me.

Sure He's capable.

Then why doesn't he? Why doesn't he swoop down and heal people?

Again, God is the Living God. Only dead, mindless things go with the flow, like dead fish and electrons.

And God-forbid he should lose style. Nevermind that people are dying.

Maybe, but we already have superior examples, superior both scientifically and poetically, such as walking on water, multiplying and altering matter, rising from the dead, and all that.

But those are, by Christianity's own admission, one off events that occur in violation of, rather than in accordance to, natural law.

Are you sure there's a distinction? "Solidness" is also merely a property. The atoms of the chair give the chair its solidness, the same as the photons of light give the light its redness.

Solidness is the same. Solidness is just EM repulsion between your atoms and the chair's atoms. It's not a thing unto itself, it's just a name we give to a phenomenon.

Blame English language. To us, a "person" and an "individual" are the same thing. But the Greeks had a distinction that we don't. (From what I understand, most other ancient peoples were aware of the distinction. That's why we say modern man, or Western man, is "individualistic" where ancient man wasn't.) We say one God in three persons, the Greek said "three hypostases in one ousia". I'm sure that a full understanding of the Greek doesn't make the Trinity easily comprehensible, but I think the juxtaposition of ideas is much less stark.

As an aside, there's an idea many Christians hold, that the unprecedented conquests of Alexander the Great were intended by God to make Greek the lingua franca before the arrival of Christ, because of the Greek language's precision and accuracy. (Of course Alexander also fulfilled an ancient prophecy by demolishing the city of Tyre, which helps bolster the claim.)

I'm not a big fan of ancient prophecies. Besides, there is some dispute as to whether Alexander the Great even exist (he probably did ).

But besides, you're a quantum physicist, you have some nerve accusing others of wanting to have their cake and eat it; you want your cats to be alive and dead at the same time. You guys practically invented cognitive dissonance. If reality is as impossibly bizarre as you say it is, I think a Triune God who's responsible for it all is relatively easy to accept.

There's a difference between incomprehensibly bizarre, and wholly illogical. Quantum mechanics may play merry hell with our intuitive ideas about location, but that doesn't mean 1+1=3 all of a sudden.