Question for presups...

cvanwey · Aug 12, 2018

Oncedeceived said:
Good question. When we are defending our worldview, we wish it be consistent within itself or to be coherent within that belief system; thus, while someone countering the Christian worldview with an alternate worldview one would hope that they have a reasonable accounting of such a necessary element for defending their viewpoint. "I don't know" while perhaps being an honest statement, does nothing to address this reality and the necessary explanation in any worldview being considered."

Let me just fast forward to the end, without going over the many subtle nuances and many complexities and the minutiae of such a topic... (Again, this is not directed at YOU specifically). I just wanted to provide the concept from a skeptic, non-believer, or any other person of doubt in any capacity to a specific asserted theism.

When the authors of the Bible state all scripture is God given, how might one 'know' this? The only conclusion seems to test the asserted claims within the Bible, to see if all such asserted conclusions align with perceived 'known reality'. If many happen to not, then one must question the asserted source.

Oncedeceived · Aug 12, 2018

cvanwey said:
Let me just fast forward to the end, without going over the many subtle nuances and many complexities and the minutiae of such a topic... (Again, this is not directed at YOU specifically). I just wanted to provide the concept from a skeptic, non-believer, or any other person of doubt in any capacity to a specific asserted theism.

I appreciate that from the point of view of a skeptic, non-believer and the like, that theism is not a concept that can be perceived in like mindedness as that of a Christian.

When the authors of the Bible state all scripture is God given, how might one 'know' this? The only conclusion seems to test the asserted claims within the Bible, to see if all such asserted conclusions align with perceived 'known reality'. If many happen to not, then one must question the asserted source.

If one is a skeptic/and the like, the Bible can be perceived in error to 'known reality'. The point I believe is that skeptics/and the like, when assessing the Bible or any other information are doing so using logic. So logic's explanation is necessary to determine everything and that includes 'known reality'. All information comes about through logic which is centered in truth, objectivity and is universal in nature which only can be possible with a cause that is above mankind and what best explains it, in the Christian worldview, is God and in the non-believer we have no answer so far.

cvanwey · Aug 12, 2018

Oncedeceived said:
I appreciate that from the point of view of a skeptic, non-believer and the like, that theism is not a concept that can be perceived in like mindedness as that of a Christian.

If one is a skeptic/and the like, the Bible can be perceived in error to 'known reality'. The point I believe is that skeptics/and the like, when assessing the Bible or any other information are doing so using logic. So logic's explanation is necessary to determine everything and that includes 'known reality'. All information comes about through logic which is centered in truth, objectivity and is universal in nature which only can be possible with a cause that is above mankind and what best explains it, in the Christian worldview, is God and in the non-believer we have no answer so far.

Disagree. With all due respect, such an answer appears to commit logical fallacies, which appears the antithesis of our human defined 'logic.'

An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false.

(or)

"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.

(or)

You cannot give me a specific definition, therefore my assertion wins by default.

*****************************

You still are left the task of ACTUALLY demonstrating that your specific God is real, and is the organizer of the human mind. So until you can actually do that; telling skeptics they do not have an answer to something does not then render you victorious by default

All it demonstrates, is your ability to assert an unsupported, unfounded, and blank conclusion, as if the dichotomy is ('if science does not have an answer yet, then a monotheistic and all perfect God')

Oncedeceived · Aug 12, 2018

cvanwey said:
Disagree. With all due respect, such an answer appears to commit logical fallacies, which appears the antithesis of our human defined 'logic.'

An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false.

Hold on there, I said that Christianity is the "best" explanation and is consistent within its worldview.

(or)

"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.

What gap is it filling? With 'known reality' we 'know' that space, time, matter and energy didn't exist and then they did. We 'know' that logic existed prior to mankind's existence due to truth being truth before we were here to 'know' it. So what gap am I filling?

(or)

You cannot give me a specific definition, therefore my assertion wins by default.

You have an assertion? I wasn't aware of what that might be. So how does no assertion win by default?

*****************************

You still are left the task of ACTUALLY demonstrating that your specific God is real, and is the organizer of the human mind. So until you can actually do that; telling skeptics they do not have an answer to something does not then render you victorious by default

I'm not into being victorious or into winning 'debates' at this point in my life. I only have one motivation for conversing with those who believe differently than I and that is defending my position in such a way that others may be open to God revealing Himself to them.

All it demonstrates, is your ability to assert an unsupported, unfounded, and blank conclusion, as if the dichotomy is ('if science does not have an answer yet, then a monotheistic and all perfect God')

What it does in my opinion, is to give reason for my position. It gives a cohesive view of my worldview for others to understand whether they agree or not.

cvanwey · Aug 12, 2018

Oncedeceived said:
Hold on there, I said that Christianity is the "best" explanation and is consistent within its worldview.

The 'best', according to who/whom, and/or, what source/sources?

Oncedeceived said:
What gap is it filling? With 'known reality' we 'know' that space, time, matter and energy didn't exist and then they did. We 'know' that logic existed prior to mankind's existence due to truth being truth before we were here to 'know' it. So what gap am I filling?

Unless the prevailing consensus, based upon sighted evidence and conclusion from such unbiased evidence, demonstrates that the universe is eternal. Meaning, had no 'beginning'. If such a claim or discovery is concluded, do you then change your perception in any way?

The human perception and the invented concept of 'logic' existed before humans existed to conceptualize such a concept? Really? Do tell?

Oncedeceived said:
You have an assertion? I wasn't aware of what that might be. So how does no assertion win by default?

If a conclusion has not been established, then it is not known, period.

Oncedeceived said:
I'm not into being victorious or into winning 'debates' at this point in my life. I only have one motivation for conversing with those who believe differently than I and that is defending my position in such a way that others may be open to God revealing Himself to them.

I'm open, so what evidence might you have?

Oncedeceived said:
What it does in my opinion, is to give reason for my position. It gives a cohesive view of my worldview for others to understand whether they agree or not.

I don't agree, because as far as anyone is concerned, the Bible is written by humans, whom possess the very same 'logic' as the human/humans whom wrote any opposing theistic text. By default, all text is written by humans, with no external aid or guidance from such a claimed divine entity. I trust even you would agree, this would be the default position, and the burden of proof is with the one's claiming some 'inspired' text requires further evidence, and is not the default conclusion.

Eight Foot Manchild · Aug 13, 2018

Apologetic_Warrior said:
Have you ever tasted the laws of logic? Touched a law of logic? Smelled a law of logic? Taken a picture of a law of logic? Listened to a law of logic make a sound?

No.

But then, there is a distinction between laws - which are human inventions - and the reality they are meant to describe.

So while it is true that if there were no minds, the axiomatic statement 'A=A' would cease to exist, it is not true that things would cease to be themselves.

Apologetic_Warrior said:
However, they are necessary, and as you say "brute fact", but what is a brute fact in a world where interpretation of the world through the senses is subjective? How can anything be a brute fact, or objectively true, that is true apart from subjective interpretation in a worldview which does not assume an eternal Creator of other minds?

Your solution to the problem of subjectivity is to propose an 'eternal creator of other minds'.

If this 'eternal creator' is also a mind itself, and all of reality is predicated on it, then all of reality is necessarily subjective, not objective.

You've made the problem infinitely worse, not better. You could not possibly hope to have an objective apprehension of anything in such a universe, because any aspect of it could change at the whim of this cosmic mind, and you would have no means of predicting it.

Oncedeceived · Aug 13, 2018

cvanwey said:
The 'best', according to who/whom, and/or, what source/sources?

What I said was in the Christian worldview God is the answer: I said: " All information comes about through logic which is centered in truth, objectivity and is universal in nature which only can be possible with a cause that is above mankind and what best explains it, in the Christian worldview, is God and in the non-believer we have no answer so far." As you can see, my statement was claiming that in my worldview God best explains it. That being said, 84 percent of the world population which includes 2.2 billion Christian adherents and 1.6 billion Muslim adherents share this belief which is nearly 50% of the world population and another 34% believe in their version of the same thing. So 84% of the world's population share this belief in one form or another. Now, the source is God Himself, although I am sure that non-believers and the like disagree.

Unless the prevailing consensus, based upon sighted evidence and conclusion from such unbiased evidence, demonstrates that the universe is eternal. Meaning, had no 'beginning'. If such a claim or discovery is concluded, do you then change your perception in any way?

The evidence which most scientists agree has confirmed a beginning to our universe. To me personally, it would take a very big stretch for me to believe that the universe was eternal. At one time that is what non-believers said about the universe until scientific evidence showed that it had a beginning.

The human perception and the invented concept of 'logic' existed before humans existed to conceptualize such a concept? Really? Do tell?

Our universe is governed by very logical laws. Those laws were in force before humans were and would be if we became extinct. Truth existed prior to humans being here to determine truth.

If a conclusion has not been established, then it is not known, period.

Established how I ask? There are many paths that facts are established both personally and scientifically. Conclusions can be established and still be wrong.

I'm open, so what evidence might you have?

What makes you open? How do you think you are open to the concept of God? I'm not doubting your word, I am curious as to what you personally would consider as evidence?

I don't agree, because as far as anyone is concerned, the Bible is written by humans, whom possess the very same 'logic' as the human/humans whom wrote any opposing theistic text. By default, all text is written by humans, with no external aid or guidance from such a claimed divine entity. I trust even you would agree, this would be the default position, and the burden of proof is with the one's claiming some 'inspired' text requires further evidence, and is not the default conclusion.

Your first statement is false, there are many many who believe the Bible is inspired by God so as far as anyone is concerned is completely false; the second statement is an assertion without any basis or evidence while a good 50% of people on earth disagree which makes it not a default conclusion but simply an unproven assertion on your part. (unless you have some evidence that there is no Biblical God and that He had nothing to do with the Bible.) My claim was that in the Christian worldview, God is the best answer. It is cohesive within the worldview. I've proven that within the Christian worldview, over 2.2 billion people believe God is the best answer. So I've proven that according to Christians and their world view God is the best answer. You disagree, that's fine, I knew you did before I responded to you; but unless you can show that within the Christian worldview I am wrong in my claim then I've demonstrated what I set out to demonstrate. /

Eight Foot Manchild · Aug 13, 2018

Oncedeceived said:
The evidence which most scientists agree has confirmed a beginning to our universe.

Nope. That's a very common misconception.

What scientists actually agree on is that Big Bang cosmology describes the earliest known conditions, initial expansion and early evolution of the universe. It does not describe or even indicate an ex nihilo 'creation' event of all physical reality, as in your theology. It is in fact, unknown what happened prior to Planck time, as all of our current understandings of physics breaks down at that point.

Your assertion about 'non-believers' being proven wrong by science is also a canard. What was disproven in fact, was the steady state hypothesis, which had many supporters of all stripes of belief and non-belief, for centuries.

I happen to share a life with a Junior Professor of astronomy and astrophysics. If you have any questions about these misconceptions, I would gladly pass them along to her.

cvanwey · Aug 13, 2018

Oncedeceived said:
What I said was in the Christian worldview God is the answer: I said: " All information comes about through logic which is centered in truth, objectivity and is universal in nature which only can be possible with a cause that is above mankind and what best explains it, in the Christian worldview, is God and in the non-believer we have no answer so far." As you can see, my statement was claiming that in my worldview God best explains it. That being said, 84 percent of the world population which includes 2.2 billion Christian adherents and 1.6 billion Muslim adherents share this belief which is nearly 50% of the world population and another 34% believe in their version of the same thing. So 84% of the world's population share this belief in one form or another. Now, the source is God Himself, although I am sure that non-believers and the like disagree.

500 years ago, the 'world was flat' (as 'known' from lay people, scientists, and theists). My point being, throwing around numbers and percentages of believers, has absolutely no relevancy. Evidence and discovery is what further substantiates a claim, not the number of people whom believe. Truth, many times, is NOT revealed until after the fact. One example was the last presidential campaign. Even after the electoral college reached 270, in favor of Trump, many still could not reconcile the 'truth'.

Human nature tells us people produce false positives. Meaning, we have the propensity to invoke intentional agency. We make type one errors, or a false positive, quite often. Survival of the fitter has demonstrated that the ones whom make type one errors have higher survival rates. Meaning, a human hears a noise in the tall grass. Is it the wind, or, an (intentional agent) trying to eat me. Often times, it's the wind, but it is better to be cautious and assume intention. Your answer perfectly explains my point. The more survived, whom assign intentional agency to unknown conclusions of topics.

Oncedeceived said:
The evidence which most scientists agree has confirmed a beginning to our universe. To me personally, it would take a very big stretch for me to believe that the universe was eternal. At one time that is what non-believers said about the universe until scientific evidence showed that it had a beginning.

Or... I'm not appealing to majority, but instead, the 'evidence' presented.

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

Oncedeceived said:
Our universe is governed by very logical laws. Those laws were in force before humans were and would be if we became extinct. Truth existed prior to humans being here to determine truth.

I agree. The world was never 'flat', even though, only a few 100 years ago, everyone thought it was. How do we know it may not actually be flat? Because all provided discovery eludes to a conclusion that it would be nonsensical to infer such a prior conclusion, as we had limited discovery 500 years ago.

Oncedeceived said:
Established how I ask? There are many paths that facts are established both personally and scientifically. Conclusions can be established and still be wrong.

So the world may actually be flat? Though future discovery may augment the current consensus a bit, the world is 'known' to be some form of a sphere, and will never again, be determined as 'flat' (even though we still have a population of 'flat-earthers' whom will argue for it today). Are they wrong because the percentage is no longer in their favor, or, because of the latest evidence???? If we happen to pole an area condensed with a higher percentage of 'flat-earthers', and the numbers ruled in their favor, would it matter? No. The same goes for Christianity. Pole America, and 80+% may choose 'Christianity'. Apply that same pole to Japan. Does it MATTER, that Japan would yield a drastically lower number? NO.

Oncedeceived said:
What makes you open? How do you think you are open to the concept of God? I'm not doubting your word, I am curious as to what you personally would consider as evidence?

Good question... Demonstrated answered prayer, for starters. This would validate an intentional and personal God.

Your first statement is false, there are many many who believe the Bible is inspired by God so as far as anyone is concerned is completely false; the second statement is an assertion without any basis or evidence while a good 50% of people on earth disagree which makes it not a default conclusion but simply an unproven assertion on your part. (unless you have some evidence that there is no Biblical God and that He had nothing to do with the Bible.) My claim was that in the Christian worldview, God is the best answer. It is cohesive within the worldview. I've proven that within the Christian worldview, over 2.2 billion people believe God is the best answer. So I've proven that according to Christians and their world view God is the best answer. You disagree, that's fine, I knew you did before I responded to you; but unless you can show that within the Christian worldview I am wrong in my claim then I've demonstrated what I set out to demonstrate. /[/QUOTE]

Again, with the appeal to percentages and numbers. This means nothing.

You are also stating that because we do not yet fully know things, then God is the answer. You are also asking me to prove a negative. Hence, the two prior fallacies addressed. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Example:

Prove I didn't see an alien on the way home from work yesterday. Whom has the burden of proof? Me or you, in this case? Now lets say 5 million people are poled, and 4 million believe me and my story. Am I justified in my assertion now? Is it true now?

Oncedeceived · Aug 13, 2018

Eight Foot Manchild said:
Nope. That's a very common misconception.

What scientists actually agree on is that Big Bang cosmology describes the earliest known conditions, initial expansion and early evolution of the universe. It does not describe or even indicate an ex nihilo 'creation' event of all physical reality, as in your theology. It is in fact, unknown what happened prior to Planck time, as all of our current understandings of physics breaks down at that point.

I believe you are the one with a misconception. Not only do physics break down, they don't exist and neither does space, matter, energy or time. This from Paul Davies: 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. https://boingboing.net/2014/05/20/what-came-before-the-big-bang.html

I haven't been reading much in this area for a while so if there is something new I will stand corrected.

Your assertion about 'non-believers' being proven wrong by science is also a canard. What was disproven in fact, was the steady state hypothesis, which had many supporters of all stripes of belief and non-belief, for centuries.

I believe that not just non-believers are interested in Science so it wasn't about non-believers at all.

I happen to share a life with a Junior Professor of astronomy and astrophysics. If you have any questions about these misconceptions, I would gladly pass them along to her.

Awesome, please let me know if she can provide information that counters Dr. Davies.

Eight Foot Manchild · Aug 13, 2018

Oncedeceived said:
I believe you are the one with a misconception. Not only do physics break down, they don't exist and neither does space, matter, energy or time. This from Paul Davies: 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. https://boingboing.net/2014/05/20/what-came-before-the-big-bang.html

I haven't been reading much in this area for a while so if there is something new I will stand corrected.

I believe that not just non-believers are interested in Science so it wasn't about non-believers at all.

Awesome, please let me know if she can provide information that counters Dr. Davies.

No, there's nothing to 'counter', really. He's describing Big Bang cosmology, accompanied by his own take on one of several pre-Planck time hypotheses - an 'ex nihilo' event. Laurence Krauss is another famous proponent of this model. He's not being careful in his words though, in making it sound like that is a consensus. It isn't. And that's ok. People do that sometimes, and unintentionally cause misunderstandings.

It's also important to note that physicists use the term 'nothing' differently than Christian apologists do. An 'ex nihilo' event in physics is not truly 'from nothing'. It's a bit of a misnomer. I recommend researching what Laurence Krauss has said on the matter.

It is one possible scenario for pre-Planck time conditions. There are others, and scientists continue to speculate on them, but no one knows anything for sure. There is no 'agreement' on it, as you suggested, in any sense that is relevant to your apologetics.

2PhiloVoid · Aug 13, 2018

Eight Foot Manchild said:
No, there's nothing to 'counter', really. He's describing Big Bang cosmology, accompanied by his own take on one of several pre-Planck time hypotheses - an 'ex nihilo' event. Laurence Krauss is another famous proponent of this model. He's not being careful in his words though, in making it sound like that is a consensus. It isn't. And that's ok. People do that sometimes, and unintentionally cause misunderstandings.

It's also important to note that physicists use the term 'nothing' differently than Christian apologists do. An 'ex nihilo' event in physics is not truly 'from nothing'. It's a bit of a misnomer. I recommend researching what Laurence Krauss has said on the matter.

Krauss is interesting, but I prefer Frank Close.

It is one possible scenario for pre-Planck time conditions. There are others, and scientists continue to speculate on them, but no one knows anything for sure. There is no 'agreement' on it, as you suggested, in any sense that is relevant to your apologetics.

Yep, that's why I also like to contemplate what Lee Smolin has to say.

Oncedeceived · Aug 13, 2018

cvanwey said:
500 years ago, the 'world was flat' (as 'known' from lay people, scientists, and theists). My point being, throwing around numbers and percentages of believers, has absolutely no relevancy.

The only relevancy is to your question of who/whom when you asked: "The 'best', according to who/whom,"
I was giving you the who and the number was just a demonstration of the amount of who's it was according to.

Evidence and discovery is what further substantiates a claim, not the number of people whom believe. Truth, many times, is NOT revealed until after the fact. One example was the last presidential campaign. Even after the electoral college reached 270, in favor of Trump, many still could not reconcile the 'truth'.

In this instance, we were discussing the who it was according to which has nothing to do with evidence or discovery.

Human nature tells us people produce false positives. Meaning, we have the propensity to invoke intentional agency. We make type one errors, or a false positive, quite often. Survival of the fitter has demonstrated that the ones whom make type one errors have higher survival rates. Meaning, a human hears a noise in the tall grass. Is it the wind, or, an (intentional agent) trying to eat me. Often times, it's the wind, but it is better to be cautious and assume intention. Your answer perfectly explains my point. The more survived, whom assign intentional agency to unknown conclusions of topics.

While I understand your dismissal of God, only when God reveals Himself does anyone have the knowledge of Him, I think you are stuck on the numbers I gave in support of the who/whom part of your post.

Or... I'm not appealing to majority, but instead, the 'evidence' presented.

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

Forgive me for not reading this yet. I promise I will but I have been tending to lunch on this end and haven't had the time to sit down and absorb the article.

I agree. The world was never 'flat', even though, only a few 100 years ago, everyone thought it was. How do we know it may not actually be flat? Because all provided discovery eludes to a conclusion that it would be nonsensical to infer such a prior conclusion, as we had limited discovery 500 years ago.

Unless there is something in the article that provides evidence to the contrary, I believe that whether a bounce or a trillion other universes are the cause of this universe, this specific one wasn't in existence as it stands now until it was. But you did share a point that is rather relevant in this discussion which is that even scientists at one time thought the earth was flat. Scientists also once thought there was a planet called Vulcan to explain strange things about Mercury's orbit, Spontaneous Generation was a strong theory until proven wrong, and Einstein's Static Universe was another proven wrong...but the point was that there was evidence for certain aspects of theories that turned out to be wrong.

So the world may actually be flat?

How did you surmise that?

Though future discovery may augment the current consensus a bit, the world is 'known' to be some form of a sphere, and will never again, be determined as 'flat' (even though we still have a population of 'flat-earthers' whom will argue for it today). Are they wrong because the percentage is no longer in their favor, or, because of the latest evidence???? If we happen to pole an area condensed with a higher percentage of 'flat-earthers', and the numbers ruled in their favor, would it matter? No. The same goes for Christianity. Pole America, and 80+% may choose 'Christianity'. Apply that same pole to Japan. Does it MATTER, that Japan would yield a drastically lower number? NO.

You are expending a great deal of effort being focused on numbers when it was just an answer to your who/whom comment. I'm not saying that because there are many believers in the world that it makes them all right. That wasn't my point, my point was that there were billions who were the who.

Good question... Demonstrated answered prayer, for starters. This would validate an intentional and personal God.

Really? Interesting. However, I doubt that would be a good validation. An answered prayer could be a coincidence. An unanswered prayer may be just delayed and happen later. Numerous explanations could be had for prayer not being a validation. There is numerous evidences for an existence of God but what I've learned is that most of it will be shrugged off regardless of merit. For instance, the fine tuning of the universe/earth; most will claim that there will be an answer in Science later and use the God of the gaps to dismiss it.

Your first statement is false, there are many many who believe the Bible is inspired by God so as far as anyone is concerned is completely false; the second statement is an assertion without any basis or evidence while a good 50% of people on earth disagree which makes it not a default conclusion but simply an unproven assertion on your part. (unless you have some evidence that there is no Biblical God and that He had nothing to do with the Bible.) My claim was that in the Christian worldview, God is the best answer. It is cohesive within the worldview. I've proven that within the Christian worldview, over 2.2 billion people believe God is the best answer. So I've proven that according to Christians and their world view God is the best answer. You disagree, that's fine, I knew you did before I responded to you; but unless you can show that within the Christian worldview I am wrong in my claim then I've demonstrated what I set out to demonstrate. /[/QUOTE]

Again, with the appeal to percentages and numbers. This means nothing.

See above.

You are also stating that because we do not yet fully know things, then God is the answer. You are also asking me to prove a negative. Hence, the two prior fallacies addressed. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Example:

Prove I didn't see an alien on the way home from work yesterday. Whom has the burden of proof? Me or you, in this case? Now lets say 5 million people are poled, and 4 million believe me and my story. Am I justified in my assertion now? Is it true now?

How do you know we don't yet fully know things? What negative was I asking you to prove?
And if absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, doesn't that include evidence for God's existence as well?

Oncedeceived · Aug 13, 2018

Eight Foot Manchild said:
No, there's nothing to 'counter', really. He's describing Big Bang cosmology, accompanied by his own take on one of several pre-Planck time hypotheses - an 'ex nihilo' event. Laurence Krauss is another famous proponent of this model. He's not being careful in his words though, in making it sound like that is a consensus. It isn't. And that's ok. People do that sometimes, and unintentionally cause misunderstandings.

It's also important to note that physicists use the term 'nothing' differently than Christian apologists do. An 'ex nihilo' event in physics is not truly 'from nothing'. It's a bit of a misnomer. I recommend researching what Laurence Krauss has said on the matter.

It is one possible scenario for pre-Planck time conditions. There are others, and scientists continue to speculate on them, but no one knows anything for sure. There is no 'agreement' on it, as you suggested, in any sense that is relevant to your apologetics.

If you read the entire article, the 'nothing' was explained quite well as to his meaning. Laurence Krauss has many critics on his work in the scientific community. I could go into Krauss and the problems with his theory, but we would be straying to far from the original posters post I fear.

There may not be an 'agreement' but many of the most prominent Scientists do happen to agree with Davies. And what sense would that be, relevent to my apologetics?

Apologetic_Warrior · Aug 13, 2018

Eight Foot Manchild said:
No.

But then, there is a distinction between laws - which are human inventions - and the reality they are meant to describe.

So while it is true that if there were no minds, the axiomatic statement 'A=A' would cease to exist, it is not true that things would cease to be themselves.

Essentially you're telling me what we identify and describe as the laws of logic are a.) human conventions, and b.) if there were no [human] minds the statement would cease to exist, but not the things. And what "things" are you referring to? The things outside of our minds? But of course. But the notion of logic as a mere human convention is absurd, and equally absurd that if no human minds were present that the natural order would be described as anything but predictable, and therefore logical.

Eight Foot Manchild said:
Your solution to the problem of subjectivity is to propose an 'eternal creator of other minds'.

If this 'eternal creator' is also a mind itself, and all of reality is predicated on it, then all of reality is necessarily subjective, not objective.

You've made the problem infinitely worse, not better. You could not possibly hope to have an objective apprehension of anything in such a universe, because any aspect of it could change at the whim of this cosmic mind, and you would have no means of predicting it.

I realized shortly after creating the post you respond to, that I should have mentioned another attribute of the God of Christianity, namely immutability. Which basically nullify's your response above. Good day mate.

Eight Foot Manchild · Aug 13, 2018

Apologetic_Warrior said:
Essentially you're telling me what we identify and describe as the laws of logic are a.) human conventions, and b.) if there were no [human] minds the statement would cease to exist, but not the things.

Correct. Which is what just about any logician would tell you as well, unless they subscribe to some form of solipsism.

Just like if human minds ceased to exist, water would still freeze when cold enough, even if the concept of 'temperature' and the means of measuring it weren't there.

The statement 'A=A" does not magically cause things to be themselves. It does not hold reality in check. It is a statement about reality. It is descriptive, not prescriptive, just like the laws of physics.

My worldview distinguishes between reality and statements about reality. Does yours?

Apologetic_Warrior said:
And what "things" are you referring to? The things outside of our minds? But of course.

I'm glad you agree, but it's contradictory of you to do so. You propose that all of reality - both physical and conceptual - finds its primacy in a mind. Far from solving any problem of subjectivity, it blows up to the size of the universe.

Apologetic_Warrior said:
But the notion of logic as a mere human convention is absurd,

Again, only if you are incapable of distinguishing between reality and statements about reality.

Apologetic_Warrior said:
and equally absurd that if no human minds were present that the natural order would be described as anything but predictable, and therefore logical.

If there were no minds, nothing would be 'described' at all. Nature would simply be.

Which is only a problem if you believe logical axioms, the laws of physics etc., are prescriptive, rather than descriptive. Do you?

Apologetic_Warrior said:
I realized shortly after creating the post you respond to, that I should have mentioned another attribute of the God of Christianity, namely immutability. Which basically nullify's your response above. Good day mate.

No, ad hoc-ing 'immutability' onto your god does not magically make a reality predicated on him 'objective'.

cvanwey · Aug 13, 2018

Oncedeceived said:
The only relevancy is to your question of who/whom when you asked: "The 'best', according to who/whom,"
I was giving you the who and the number was just a demonstration of the amount of who's it was according to.

In this instance, we were discussing the who it was according to which has nothing to do with evidence or discovery.

While I understand your dismissal of God, only when God reveals Himself does anyone have the knowledge of Him, I think you are stuck on the numbers I gave in support of the who/whom part of your post.

Forgive me for not reading this yet. I promise I will but I have been tending to lunch on this end and haven't had the time to sit down and absorb the article.

Unless there is something in the article that provides evidence to the contrary, I believe that whether a bounce or a trillion other universes are the cause of this universe, this specific one wasn't in existence as it stands now until it was. But you did share a point that is rather relevant in this discussion which is that even scientists at one time thought the earth was flat. Scientists also once thought there was a planet called Vulcan to explain strange things about Mercury's orbit, Spontaneous Generation was a strong theory until proven wrong, and Einstein's Static Universe was another proven wrong...but the point was that there was evidence for certain aspects of theories that turned out to be wrong.

How did you surmise that?

You are expending a great deal of effort being focused on numbers when it was just an answer to your who/whom comment. I'm not saying that because there are many believers in the world that it makes them all right. That wasn't my point, my point was that there were billions who were the who.

Really? Interesting. However, I doubt that would be a good validation. An answered prayer could be a coincidence. An unanswered prayer may be just delayed and happen later. Numerous explanations could be had for prayer not being a validation. There is numerous evidences for an existence of God but what I've learned is that most of it will be shrugged off regardless of merit. For instance, the fine tuning of the universe/earth; most will claim that there will be an answer in Science later and use the God of the gaps to dismiss it.

Your first statement is false, there are many many who believe the Bible is inspired by God so as far as anyone is concerned is completely false; the second statement is an assertion without any basis or evidence while a good 50% of people on earth disagree which makes it not a default conclusion but simply an unproven assertion on your part. (unless you have some evidence that there is no Biblical God and that He had nothing to do with the Bible.) My claim was that in the Christian worldview, God is the best answer. It is cohesive within the worldview. I've proven that within the Christian worldview, over 2.2 billion people believe God is the best answer. So I've proven that according to Christians and their world view God is the best answer. You disagree, that's fine, I knew you did before I responded to you; but unless you can show that within the Christian worldview I am wrong in my claim then I've demonstrated what I set out to demonstrate. /

See above.

How do you know we don't yet fully know things? What negative was I asking you to prove?
And if absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, doesn't that include evidence for God's existence as well?[/QUOTE]

My intent is not to zing you, not to roast you, not to 'win' anything. If you read the flat analogy I provided, in it's context, and take it for face value, I feel it reveals quite a lot, in reference to some of your statements.

If you read the topic again, regarding 'intentional agency', you might see where I'm coming from, again, in response to your replies...

The 'eternal' universe article is not meant to be the be-all-end-all piece to again 'win' anything. Just instead, that points within the article appear compelling; and I also have no clue how many scientists agree/disagree (and don't care basically). I guess my point, is such an article is produced without a presupposition or bias. It only investigates evidence, and follows such evidence where it honestly leads them.

In regards to 'answered prayer', this was for starters. I'm fully aware all the possible pitfalls of prayer. Hence, the reason I underlined it Another big one, for me, is all the stuff, in the OT, which could never have actually happened. Meaning, it appears to be written by men, whom only wrote down what they knew, at the time it was written, and does not reveal any forward thinking truth, inspired by any possible all-knowing agent.

Thank you

Eight Foot Manchild · Aug 13, 2018

Oncedeceived said:
If you read the entire article, the 'nothing' was explained quite well as to his meaning. Laurence Krauss has many critics on his work in the scientific community.

They both do. So does literally everyone else in the scientific community. That's how science works.

Oncedeceived said:
I could go into Krauss and the problems with his theory, but we would be straying to far from the original posters post I fear.

No you couldn't, because there is no such theory. There are no theories about pre-Planck time, because it is at present impossible to verify anything about it. There are a few well-formed hypotheses, and a lot of guesses, and that's it. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is misinformed, or possibly selling something.

Also, that's a problem for you, not me. You're the one arguing for a universe 'ex nihilo', remember?

Oncedeceived said:
There may not be an 'agreement' but many of the most prominent Scientists do happen to agree with Davies.

No, most scientists agree that it is currently unknowable. Some of them try to make educated guesses from there, but that's all they can do presently.

Also, you're moving the goalposts. Your initial assertion was that 'most scientists' agree that this is 'confirmed'. That is false. Full stop.

Oncedeceived said:
And what sense would that be, relevent to my apologetics?

You asserted that scientists were largely in 'agreement' with you about all of physical reality coming into existence 'ex nihilo', and that this was 'confirmed'. They are not, and it is not. Big Bang cosmology necessitates no such thing, and no one - not you or me, not Davies or Krauss, certainly not William Lane Craig - knows what happened pre-Planck time.

Oncedeceived · Aug 13, 2018

Eight Foot Manchild said:
They both do. So does literally everyone else in the scientific community. That's how science works.

Quite true.

No you couldn't, because there is no such theory. There are no theories about pre-Planck time, because it is at present impossible to verify anything about it. There are a few well-formed hypotheses, and a lot of guesses, and that's it. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is misinformed, or possibly selling something.

Right again, it is no theory.

Also, that's a problem for you, not me. You're the one arguing for a universe 'ex nihilo', remember?

I'm the one arguing that the universe didn't exist at the Big Bang, or whatever you would like to call it. The universe we reside within didn't at one point have space, matter, energy or time.

No, most scientists agree that it is currently unknowable. Some of them try to make educated guesses from there, but that's all they can do presently.

Also, you're moving the goalposts. Your initial assertion was that 'most scientists' agree that this is 'confirmed'. That is false. Full stop.

You disagree that the consensus of Scientists agree that the evidence supports a 'time' where there was no space, energy, matter or time during the 'birth' of the universe? I use birth loosely as no one can see back further than that.

You asserted that scientists were largely in 'agreement' with you about all of physical reality coming into existence 'ex nihilo', and that this was 'confirmed'.

What does ex nihilo mean to you?

They are not, and it is not. Big Bang cosmology necessitates no such thing, and no one - not you or me, not Davies or Krauss, certainly not William Lane Craig - knows what happened pre-Planck time.

I believe what Davies is saying is exactly that as well. But he is saying we can determine what happened from the singularity (or so called) which is what he was referring to.

Oncedeceived · Aug 13, 2018

cvanwey said:
See above.

? Sorry?

How do you know we don't yet fully know things? What negative was I asking you to prove?
And if absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, doesn't that include evidence for God's existence as well?[/QUOTE]

My intent is not to zing you, not to roast you, not to 'win' anything. If you read the flat analogy I provided, in it's context, and take it for face value, I feel it reveals quite a lot, in reference to some of your statements.

If you read the topic again, regarding 'intentional agency', you might see where I'm coming from, again, in response to your replies...

The 'eternal' universe article is not meant to be the be-all-end-all piece to again 'win' anything. Just instead, that points within the article appear compelling; and I also have no clue how many scientists agree/disagree (and don't care basically). I guess my point, is such an article is produced without a presupposition or bias. It only investigates evidence, and follows such evidence where it honestly leads them.

Ok, no zing. How do you know it was produced without presupposition or bias?

Also, I would like you to respond to this if you don't mind:
How do you know we don't yet fully know things? What negative was I asking you to prove?
And if absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, doesn't that include evidence for God's existence as well?

In regards to 'answered prayer', this was for starters. I'm fully aware all the possible pitfalls of prayer. Hence, the reason I underlined it Another big one, for me, is all the stuff, in the OT, which could never have actually happened. Meaning, it appears to be written by men, whom only wrote down what they knew, at the time it was written, and does not reveal any forward thinking truth, inspired by any possible all-knowing agent.

Ok, prayer we agree is not a validation. So rather than evidence you would be moved by you provide what disturbs you in the OT. Still not about validation of evidence that you would be open to.

Thank you

Thank you!

Question for presups...

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

Senior Veteran

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

Critically Copernican

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Pilgrim

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

Well-Known Member

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency