The Dreaded Dichotomy?

[cvanwey]

Yes, something like that. But don't ask me how I "know" this, because if I told you, then I'd have to .........................run and hide.

Let's just say that either God has given me a couple of helpful insights, OR......I've seen the movie, They Live (or movies like that), one too many times. And no, I don't know "where" you can get your own set of these special sunglasses; all I do know is that they're not Ray-Bans.

I have to ask...

I would assume we both agree our senses are and can be flawed.

How are you able to distinguish communication from your own conscious from an external source? Is there a way to test for this?

 

[cvanwey]

I think one problem with the "first cause" is time. "Cause" requires time, because there must be a "before" state and an "after" state so that one can cause the other.

The "arrow of time" in physics is related to reversible transformations and entropy and so forth. To be honest I don't understand those concepts as well as I would like. A key feature I think is the non-determinism in quantum mechanics. Entropy is a measure of free states (non-determinism) in the system (I believe).

If you imagine an equation where one parameter is time then there is no causality. The "future" could be said to "cause" the "past" just as easily as the "past" could be said to "cause" the future. There is really just an equation defining a completely deterministic system.

One of the explanations of quantum mechanics is to imagine hidden factors that eliminate the non-determinism. This would make "causality" disappear (IMO), so the cosmological question of "what caused/created the universe?" becomes meaningless.

(Not pretending to understand the physics thoroughly of course. Just some random thoughts.)

Maybe this is a small or prime example as to why 'some' conclude 'God did it.'?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have to ask...

I would assume we both agree our senses are and can be flawed.

How are you able to distinguish communication from your own conscious from an external source? Is there a way to test for this?

One way is to adopt (without too many undue assumptions) a more or less "scientific" approach to life. But then, of course, while that sounds good and all, even if we attempt to format our approach with the likes of Einstein or Carl Sagan, etc., we're still likely to be bogged down by the imperfections of the human intellect no matter what any one of us does. Right?

A second way is to adopt the philosophical position of Critical Realism which seeks to ascertain how the forces of nature as well as human community and culture may shape our perceptions and our attempted conceptions of the world around us, and this application of Critical Realism would, and does, involve the realization that there is a bilateral interaction between the human mind and the surrounding world such that we each realize that we often need to do reality checks when assessing the nature of the physical world or even in assessing what we think religion can tell us about this same reality.

But to clearly and distinctly discern communication from our own mental deliberations and thus put off and stamp out our inclinations toward skepticism, how can we? Well, one would have to be able to be able to "get out" of the limitations of being human to do that, I think. And I also think we can't do that.

So, we do evaluate the world and religion as best we can in critical fashion, and it may turn out that we ... begin to see some heretofore unseen connections and/or patterns of meaning that we didn't see before.

 

[cloudyday2]

Maybe this is a small or prime example as to why 'some' conclude 'God did it.'?

The butler did it.

 

[klutedavid]

First cause/prime mover/ID/God/other (or) infinite regress?

I'm torn... Can anyone make a solid case for either? If the later concept is proven, then I guess that may mean there exists no need for a God, yeah?

I am honest in stating, I don't know! Hence, the fundamental reason I label myself a 'skeptic'. I'm trying hard to not assume, but it's difficult sometimes

Okay, go....

And as always, thank you in advance!

The fact that you even asked a question is indicative of a much deeper layer to life.

Why does man wan't to know in the first instance?

 

[cvanwey]

The fact that you even asked a question is indicative of a much deeper layer to life.

Why does man wan't to know in the first instance?

Consciousness is a mystery (to me). But I then ask, just because we have ability to ask or infer such questions, does that, in and of itself, conclude causation (from a first cause, prime mover perspective)?

 

[cvanwey]

One way is to adopt (without too many undue assumptions) a more or less "scientific" approach to life. But then, of course, while that sounds good and all, even if we attempt to format our approach with the likes of Einstein or Carl Sagan, etc., we're still likely to be bogged down by the imperfections of the human intellect no matter what any one of us does. Right?

I reckon this be the primary point of peer review, right?

Though our senses are flawed, peer review 'may' dispel the notion of blind guesses, unfounded assumptions, misguided error, and the like...??? Unless one wants to go with the plausible conclusion that we are in a test tube, the Matrix, or are merely figments of our own imagination? In which case, all bets are off?

I would assume we can test gravity, the germ theory of disease, cell theory, etc., using peer review? Can we do so for testing of the devil's mere existence? I ask you, because you seem to have performed extensive study, and I would like to know how one gets to the existence of the devil, and how this relates to a knowable conclusion about the aforementioned OP...

I'll address the second point later

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I reckon this be the primary point of peer review, right?

Too some extent. However, it now quite known that the supposed process of peer review has been, and continues to be, fraught with ongoing failure. So, there's no guarantee that it's going to provide the overall renovation to our collective errors that some of us 'trust' it will do.

Though our senses are flawed, peer review 'may' dispel the notion of blind guesses, unfounded assumptions, misguided error, and the like...??? Unless one wants to go with the plausible conclusion that we are in a test tube, the Matrix, or are merely figments of our own imagination? In which case, all bets are off?

Based upon what I just said above, I'd say it's more of a Yin-N-Yang kind of thing with peer review. So, don't trust that too far.

I would assume we can test gravity, the germ theory of disease, cell theory, etc., using peer review? Can we do so for testing of the devil's mere existence? I ask you, because you seem to have performed extensive study, and I would like to know how one gets to the existence of the devil, and how this relates to a knowable conclusion about the aforementioned OP...

Again, peer review doesn't actually provide guarantees of progress, I'm sorry to say.

I'll address the second point later

Yes, please proceed...........

 

[bling]

Interesting points to ponder. But doesn't then abiogenesis need to come into the equation? The reason I ask, is that you appear to be Christian? If this is the case, why would an intelligent creator start the process of life on earth in the ways abiogenesis studies appear to suggest, but then author a book, telling humans we were made in His image from the jump? Causes mass confusion, wouldn't you agree?

(Not that wikipedia is an academic source, but it at least paraphrases the concept)

Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

This scientific endeavor basically states earliest life forms originate from putative fossilized microorganisms. Were these intelligent? Or did evolution go from no intelligence/less intelligence, to more intelligence???

Putative fossil life in a hydrothermal system of the Dellen impact structure, Sw

I am a Chemist and from what I have read and studied, we are not even close to producing life from strictly organic chemicals. Yes, research chemist all the time write papers on some minor discovery which may relate to one element life (duplication, RNA simple formation, making some complex organic chemicals from inorganic chemicals), but underlying all this is the need to show some results from the funding they are receiving and to get more funding. Chemicals do not evolve, mutate or have some system for natural selection. Chemicals in a small molecule like water break apart easily (this is one of the reasons for the cell nucleus holding the DNA, yet water is need. I would say: it is impossible for life to come out of chemicals random actions of chemicals in any environment, yet DNA life seems to have formed at the same time life could even exist on the planet. Compare this to the billions of years it took for single cell life to first form multiple cell life (there is the evolutionary system for cells to go from single cells to multicellular and chemical have no system for forming life).

The more we know about life the more we come to realize we do not know and this has continued to be the situation. The more complexity it takes to happen the more unlikely it is to happen randomly.

To make intelligence come up through an organic life form seems to be a very hard way to do it and frankly it may not have even happened.

There are good logical reasons why the Christian God would provide a way for humans not to know at this time He truly exists, beyond the doubts of any sceptic. It all goes back to the objective.

 

[Chriliman]

First cause/prime mover/ID/God/other (or) infinite regress?

I'm torn... Can anyone make a solid case for either? If the later concept is proven, then I guess that may mean there exists no need for a God, yeah?

I am honest in stating, I don't know! Hence, the fundamental reason I label myself a 'skeptic'. I'm trying hard to not assume, but it's difficult sometimes

Okay, go....

And as always, thank you in advance!

Even if one could prove something’s infinite/eternal, we wouldn’t be able fully comprehend it.

It’s a matter of faith, always will be as long as we’re finite.

 

[cvanwey]

I am a Chemist and from what I have read and studied, we are not even close to producing life from strictly organic chemicals. Yes, research chemist all the time write papers on some minor discovery which may relate to one element life (duplication, RNA simple formation, making some complex organic chemicals from inorganic chemicals), but underlying all this is the need to show some results from the funding they are receiving and to get more funding.

Is the above in red a hunch, or do you have evidence for such a proclamation?

Chemicals do not evolve, mutate or have some system for natural selection. Chemicals in a small molecule like water break apart easily (this is one of the reasons for the cell nucleus holding the DNA, yet water is need. I would say: it is impossible for life to come out of chemicals random actions of chemicals in any environment, yet DNA life seems to have formed at the same time life could even exist on the planet. Compare this to the billions of years it took for single cell life to first form multiple cell life (there is the evolutionary system for cells to go from single cells to multicellular and chemical have no system for forming life).

The more we know about life the more we come to realize we do not know and this has continued to be the situation. The more complexity it takes to happen the more unlikely it is to happen randomly.

To make intelligence come up through an organic life form seems to be a very hard way to do it and frankly it may not have even happened.

Have you challenged authority, to demonstrate that their studies are false? I would imagine the powers-that-be would grant you a great service, in exposing these 'scientists' as a fraud.

There are good logical reasons why the Christian God would provide a way for humans not to know at this time He truly exists, beyond the doubts of any sceptic. It all goes back to the objective.

What are they? I haven't been able to deduce any seemingly good reasons.

 

[cvanwey]

Even if one could prove something’s infinite/eternal, we wouldn’t be able fully comprehend it.

How do you know? And even if we could not comprehend it, would this mean we could not except it's truth?

I bet that isn't the first time such statements were made, before discovery demonstrated otherwise. You don't think the theory of relativity has caused many to state the very same thing, while on the flip side, having many understand it implicitly?

 

[cvanwey]

Too some extent. However, it now quite known that the supposed process of peer review has been, and continues to be, fraught with ongoing failure. So, there's no guarantee that it's going to provide the overall renovation to our collective errors that some of us 'trust' it will do.

Might this include any scientific theories in particular, or all of them?

 

[cvanwey]

But to clearly and distinctly discern communication from our own mental deliberations and thus put off and stamp out our inclinations toward skepticism, how can we? Well, one would have to be able to be able to "get out" of the limitations of being human to do that, I think. And I also think we can't do that.

Sounds like then you are basing your method of discernment on an unfalsifiable method? If so, seems peculiar that God would require humans to take a 'leap of faith' in such a manor?

 

[com7fy8]

Assurance and conviction is the best form of evidence? Does this work for all assurances and convictions, or just when applied to the assertion of Yahweh?

Saul said a lot of things. Why is his opinion better than anyone else's?

What works the most for me is if and how God changes me to be and to love the way the Bible says is good for us and pleasing to God. I would say I have been effected by God, the way the Bible says His grace effects people. But I need more, and this is better than how I ever thought of doing with myself. For example >

"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)

So, this is not only about conviction, but if I experience God so sharing with me and He is having me think and say what His word says, but best of all how much I discover Him in me producing all the Bible says is in His love.

I used to be a driven person, but now I am more and more a love satisfied person, and God all-loving has me being more satisfied in all-loving love. I am regularly confronted to be corrected to love and care for and pray blessing to ones who are a problem for me, and also pray blessing and caring to ones I might want to use for pleasure. Love does not have me just wanting to use anyone. So, this is not what I have been thinking up to get myself to do.

In my case, seeking God means I trust Him to make me the way He wants and have me in sharing with Him. And I understand this means a lot of correction . . . of my nature . . . so I can submit to Him; it is not what I can get my own self to do.

And I have above quoted the scripture which says we need "a gentle and quiet spirit". So, my personal theologic is that God's love is gentle and quiet; and by becoming gentle and quiet in my character, this can have me in personal sharing with God, plus this gentleness and quietness is beautiful to God and "incorruptible", it says. So, this means in quietness and gentleness of His love, I can not be corrupted by noisy and dominating things such as nasty anger, anxiety, stress, dominating drives for pleasure, unforgiveness, malice, irritability with bitterness (Ephesians 4:31-32, Colossians 3:19), and other degrading and anti-love things > including also "complaining and disputing" (Philippians 2:13-16).

So, since you are interested in this, thank you for asking. God bless you; prayer for you, like we all need

 

[com7fy8]

I feel I have now studied the Bible sufficiently,

When I read this, something jumps right out at me. I know a number of us Jesus people keep getting new enlightenment about any scripture we read. And we can be awestruck at how God can keep giving us more with the same scripture. And, for me, it has to do with how to love, often enough, how to see in the light of love. And various ministers can prepare sermons, then get even more inspired > it just does not stop; because God is and has so much more than we do. And ones can be right in the middle of their preaching and get inspiration they never had before. And they know it's God.

and find many inconsistencies, which do not appear to align with known and tested reality?

This can mean you really have found what is not sensible; or it can be a matter of how well you are able to understand something. And the Bible does say >

"Test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

And possibly, you know of how high-level scientists first dealt with the report of the discovery of a platypus. They were adamant it was a hoax. Even when a dead one was put right before their eyes, they insisted it was parts of other animals sewn together. So, even in the secular realm, scholars are capable of denying what is right in front of them.

But Christians are human, too. So we have such an adventure, then, of sorting who is really getting it and who is self-producing and wishful, and when any given person can be one way, at times, but then the other. So, even in sharing with honorable people, we need to make sure with God.

"And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment." (Philippians 1:9)

So, in God's love is the light.

So either these believers know something I still don't, or, maybe they are invoking wishful thinking, some form of faith due to wishful thinking,

I would say we are capable of being wishful. One common reason can be we do not want to deal with getting real correction. Also, when ones we have dearly loved have lived in a horrible way, we can wish the person into Heaven . . . rather than deal with all the Bible means we need for real correction and preparation to spend eternity with Jesus. I personally do not preach anyone or myself into Heaven; but I trust God to make sure we gain all the real correction and maturity which the Bible guarantees comes in His grace.

So, I would say you are right that it is wrong to be wishful. And God is able to prove Himself to you, personally.

implying fallacious reasoning, are products of indoctrination, or maybe some other reason(s), in which I have yet to deduce.?.?.?

You do not have to put yourself at the mercy of anyone's say-so. God is able to personally prove Himself to you . . . but with the help of ones He trusts to help you. It appears to me that some number of Bible claiming people are holding to certain wrong ideas because they want to feel superior, and/or maybe they have had idols who told them things and they do not want to admit that their idols are wrong.

But any of us can have love idols, can't we?

 

[cvanwey]

What works the most for me is if and how God changes me to be and to love the way the Bible says is good for us and pleasing to God. I would say I have been effected by God, the way the Bible says His grace effects people. But I need more, and this is better than how I ever thought of doing with myself. For example >

"rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God." (1 Peter 3:4)

So, this is not only about conviction, but if I experience God so sharing with me and He is having me think and say what His word says, but best of all how much I discover Him in me producing all the Bible says is in His love.

I used to be a driven person, but now I am more and more a love satisfied person, and God all-loving has me being more satisfied in all-loving love. I am regularly confronted to be corrected to love and care for and pray blessing to ones who are a problem for me, and also pray blessing and caring to ones I might want to use for pleasure. Love does not have me just wanting to use anyone. So, this is not what I have been thinking up to get myself to do.

In my case, seeking God means I trust Him to make me the way He wants and have me in sharing with Him. And I understand this means a lot of correction . . . of my nature . . . so I can submit to Him; it is not what I can get my own self to do.

And I have above quoted the scripture which says we need "a gentle and quiet spirit". So, my personal theologic is that God's love is gentle and quiet; and by becoming gentle and quiet in my character, this can have me in personal sharing with God, plus this gentleness and quietness is beautiful to God and "incorruptible", it says. So, this means in quietness and gentleness of His love, I can not be corrupted by noisy and dominating things such as nasty anger, anxiety, stress, dominating drives for pleasure, unforgiveness, malice, irritability with bitterness (Ephesians 4:31-32, Colossians 3:19), and other degrading and anti-love things > including also "complaining and disputing" (Philippians 2:13-16).

So, since you are interested in this, thank you for asking. God bless you; prayer for you, like we all need

None of this appears to have addressed my questions. Let me rephrase them. I'm trying to get to the bottom of a final conclusion, between first cause/prime mover (vs) a variation of infinite regress. Many here assert they have one. I don't. So let's explore your methodology and see if it appears to reign true?

1. Are the 'assurances' and 'convictions' about other gods justified as well, or just when applying them to Yahweh? If not, why not? If so, then where might we go from here?

2. Why are the assertions from Saul any more credible than anyone else's?

 

[cvanwey]

When I read this, something jumps right out at me. I know a number of us Jesus people keep getting new enlightenment about any scripture we read. And we can be awestruck at how God can keep giving us more with the same scripture. And, for me, it has to do with how to love, often enough, how to see in the light of love. And various ministers can prepare sermons, then get even more inspired > it just does not stop; because God is and has so much more than we do. And ones can be right in the middle of their preaching and get inspiration they never had before. And they know it's God.

All could be said equally when reading other books.

This can mean you really have found what is not sensible; or it can be a matter of how well you are able to understand something. And the Bible does say >

"Test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

When speaking to many, it appears to comes down to the following...

'When reading the Bible, what ever I agree with is correct. If I disagree with something, then I must be mistaken, or taking it out of context; because I am a mere fallible human being.'

And possibly, you know of how high-level scientists first dealt with the report of the discovery of a platypus. They were adamant it was a hoax. Even when a dead one was put right before their eyes, they insisted it was parts of other animals sewn together. So, even in the secular realm, scholars are capable of denying what is right in front of them.

But Christians are human, too. So we have such an adventure, then, of sorting who is really getting it and who is self-producing and wishful, and when any given person can be one way, at times, but then the other. So, even in sharing with honorable people, we need to make sure with God.

I'm speaking more about evolutionary biology, astronomy, archaeology, etc, in general. Not isolated one-off events, in which people use to oppose scientific endeavor as a whole

I am not able to merge, conjoin, or reconcile many discoveries, with the assertions and claims from the Bible. For me, it becomes an either or proposition. And since I have ruled the Bible out, as truth for certain aspects, it does not necessarily mean it's all bad. However, I do not look to the Bible to give me answers regarding how we got here.

But I still do question how we got here, and am holding out for logical answers, which may most likely not come in my life time...? Unless you have something possibly falsifiable for me to address?????

And God is able to prove Himself to you, personally. You do not have to put yourself at the mercy of anyone's say-so. God is able to personally prove Himself to you . . .

How does God go about doing so? How does God go about proving Himself?

 

[Chriliman]

How do you know? And even if we could not comprehend it, would this mean we could not except it's truth?

I bet that isn't the first time such statements were made, before discovery demonstrated otherwise. You don't think the theory of relativity has caused many to state the very same thing, while on the flip side, having many understand it implicitly?

You can accept that something is infinite/eternal, but that acceptance is based on faith, since we ourselves are finite. It’s my understanding that it would take an infinite/eternal mind to fully comprehend infinity/eternity.

Now one might argue that our minds are infinite/eternal, but our bodies are finite, to which I’d be intrigued to hear more. Although, I know my mind began so I at least know it hasn’t existed into the eternal past.

 

[com7fy8]

1. Are the 'assurances' and 'convictions' about other gods justified as well, or just when applying them to Yahweh? If not, why not? If so, then where might we go from here?

2. Why are the assertions from Saul any more credible than anyone else's?

I have tested in prayer, because I understand that only God, really, can know; so if He is able to communicate with us, He is the One to speak for Himself.

And I have checked into a number of "gods" and religions, including certain ones claiming to be by the Bible. But first I have had some experience with the Bible, myself, so I have a chance to compare. And it is easy to see how Jesus is superior and better.

And the One I am experiencing to be God through Jesus is absolutely pure and pleasant and kind and almighty to make the most horrible stuff ever in me go away . . . in moments, no effort or method by me. And He is about family loving, caring and sharing among others who are His children. And I have experienced no other spiritual being close to how He is. And He has me go with the Gospel.

About the assertions of Paul > who else can you quote to say we can be personally ruled by God in His own peace almighty to keep us safe from evil thoughts and feelings and drives, while also growing us in personal and tender sharing and caring with Him and one another as His family?

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

So, this is how He personally shares with us, not how we get ourselves to do anything. We are not self dependent. So, like I say, who else can make this claim about God or any other religion, which you can quote since you have checked it out.