The Logic of C.S. Lewis

[Morat]

 

Morat, grow up.

  Yeah, I'd be embarassed too about the 'social statistics' remark. Context is such a killer.

I'm all for theistic evolution.  I am not for atheism.  The Christian God doesn't rightly care how much you sway His words on account of creation, so long as you think you know what you are talking about.  The results still stand.  You still have a theory and not a law

   *snort*. You don't know what scientific laws are, do you? Theories are the goal, the pinnacle, and the primary drivers of science. Laws are merely relationships considered to be universal. You know, like the one between resistance, voltage, and current.

1) what are you talking about? 

  Your definition of natural. It's flawed. Our perceptions are (currently at least) limited to this universe. However, this universe is not necessarily the sum of what is natural.

2) something from nothing does require supernatural intervention.

  Repeating it doesn't make it any less of an assumption.

When you have something, you go back and back and you will have nothing, it matters not how far back you think it was, unless you hold (faith-based) that matter is eternal.  So when you have absolutely nothing, beyond the energy, beyond everything, how does something come into being?  Scientists refuse to talk on this subject, but honest philosophy reveals: it doesn't happen.  Not naturally.  So what might be left?

 

  Really? So those new and cutting-edge (but still speculative) pre-Bing Bang cosmologies are merely my imagination? Darn, I can't believe I imagined all those articles, and all those cosmologists talking about it.

   Nor is the concept of something eternal (although matter, being part of this universe, isn't really a candidate) necessarily faith based. A definitive statement that something was eternal, with our currently level of knowledge, probably is, simply because our understanding of physics and cosmology is far from complete.

   But you seem to take as a given that our knowledge won't change. What an odd notion.

 

 

[Received]

Aye, and I know that theories have no right to be considered truth.  Also, even these laws are still subject to anti-induction.  Likely, no, but a chance?  Absolutely! 

Does this sound absurd?  Well, I'm just going with naturalist logic here.  Inductive reasoning will get you nowhere when you have claims of the opposite, and you do.  Ignore them if you will, but you're placing some good faith in your reasoning.

Pre-big bang, as well as the big bang, are all your imagination.  It doesn't happen today, the origins cannot reproduce in the now.  Your claims are based on educated, inductively reasoned, guesses. 

probably is, simply because our understanding of physics and cosmology is far from complete.

 But you seem to take as a given that our knowledge won't change. What an odd notion.

This is what gets me the most.  You admit that your ideas are not in completion, you flame faith based religions, and you assume that everything will go according to your plan.  "Probably" is no good term in the evidentialist's vocabulary.  Until your understanding of physics and cosmology, as well as your evidence for how the unvirse came to be, is complete, then take a seat with religion.  You are still basing your faith on what has not yet happened, on ideas that have not be produced, and very likely never may be.  You have your holy book as the hundreds of theories that never were, are not, and never will to be, and you have your spokesperson of religion being the scientists who do anything but contradict one another. 

I hold still.  When you have nothing, you cannot have nothing bring itself to be something without external help. 

blessings,

John

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by Received
I hold still.  When you have nothing, you cannot have nothing bring itself to be something without external help. 

Problem is, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says you can't ever really have "nothing". So your conclusion does not apply to the real universe.

See: http://www.fnal.gov/pub/inquiring/questions/vacuum_energy.html

 

[Morat]

re-big bang, as well as the big bang, are all your imagination.  It doesn't happen today, the origins cannot reproduce in the now.  Your claims are based on educated, inductively reasoned, guesses. 

  Nice handwaving. Do you truly find it convincing? I guess none of the forensic sciences work in your world!

This is what gets me the most.&nbsp; You admit that your ideas are not in completion, you flame faith based religions, and you <I>assume</I>&nbsp;that everything will go according to your plan.&nbsp; "Probably" is no good term in the evidentialist's vocabulary.&nbsp; Until your understanding of physics and cosmology, as well as your evidence for how the unvirse came to be, is complete, then take a seat with religion.&nbsp; You are still basing your faith on what has not yet happened, on ideas that have not be produced, and very likely never may be.&nbsp; You have your holy&nbsp;book as the hundreds of theories that never were, are not, and never will to be, and you have your spokesperson of religion being the scientists who do anything but contradict one another.&nbsp;

&nbsp; Wrong, wrong, wrong. Why? Because I don't claim to have the answers. You do. You say "Goddidit". That's faith. You admit to totally incomplete knowledge (and demonstrate incomplete knowledge even as far as what we know), but claim to have an answer. That's faith: Belief despite or without evidence.

&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't claim to have the answer. I don't even claim I ever will have the answer. My only claim is that it's possible I might, because human knowledge has been pretty good in the past, and has consistantly replaced supernatural explanations with natural.

&nbsp;&nbsp; That's it. Sorry, Recieved. I know you really want me to have the same sort of blind faith you do, but I don't. Nice try, though.

&nbsp;

 

[Sky]

Morat,

Why don't you believe in God? What would it take for you to believe in God?

 

[Morat]

&nbsp; That is a discussion for apologetics. It is completely off topic in this thread. If you search the apologetics forums, you will find (within the last two weeks) several threads on that topic. Some I participated in.

&nbsp;

 

[Received]

Indeed, Morat, this argument would be flawed on both of our sides if God were impersonal.&nbsp; I don't claim He is.&nbsp; Nor do any Christians here.&nbsp; We are not here to prove people wrong, but to lead them to what we have already experienced, that which science cannot deny nor even detect.&nbsp; Personal revelation.&nbsp; Going any further would be apologetics, and I have put a good emphasis on this and the properly basic belief.&nbsp;

When it comes down to it, you have two groups: those who believe and have claims for it, and those who do not and have no solid evidence to hold fast, but rather, something they claim will&nbsp;come about and be discovered&nbsp;soon.&nbsp; That is more faith than any theist.

Also, I'm not trying to convert you to anything.&nbsp; Remember, this thread was started on the subject of naturalism and the whole accident fallacy of causality.&nbsp; I never intended to preach here.&nbsp; You may be taking it this way, and that is fine.&nbsp; I'm not a scared arminian who wants so bad to save everyone so far as to make a bigot of myself and consider everyone else completely wrong in the process.&nbsp; I just know what I have is genuine.&nbsp; And I know you will be dealt fairly, as indeed, nobody&nbsp;dislikes justice.&nbsp; But I suppose I'm running off into objective morals.&nbsp; I just&nbsp;know that the opposition is taking more than it can handle.&nbsp; Evidentialism will never solve everything.&nbsp;

Also, I state again.&nbsp; You either claim to have nothing in the beginning and go against logic in supporting naturalism, or you have eternal matter (of which may have part with other universes) and you are religious.&nbsp; Ignorant atheism or pantheism.&nbsp; I know I applaude the latter much more.&nbsp; Of all I would applaude the honest nihilist who knows only that he exists and holds no faith in anything, be it divinity or theory.&nbsp; Oddly enough, we don't seem to have any of these true atheists here.

blessings,

John

 

[Morat]

When it comes down to it, you have two groups: those who believe and have claims for it, and those who do not and have no solid evidence to hold fast, but rather, something they claim will&nbsp;come about and be discovered&nbsp;soon.&nbsp; That is more faith than any theist.

&nbsp; You don't really buy that logic, do you?

&nbsp; You think stating "I don't know, but someday we might" is as much 'faith' as "God made it all, even though I have no compelling evidence, only rationalization"?

&nbsp;

Also, I state again.&nbsp; You either claim to have nothing in the beginning and go against logic in supporting naturalism, or you have eternal matter (of which may have part with other universes) and you are religious.&nbsp; Ignorant atheism or pantheism.&nbsp; I know I applaude the latter much more.&nbsp; Of all I would applaude the honest nihilist who knows only that he exists and holds no faith in anything, be it divinity or theory.&nbsp; Oddly enough, we don't seem to have any of these true atheists here

&nbsp; Once again, the assumption that something eternal cannot be naturalistic. It's a bad assumption, why do you keep making it?

 

[Received]

If God were impersonal I would agree wholeheartedly. But He's not. Because of what has happened in my life, and what has happened in hearing testimonies from others (things of which are way beyond coincidence) I know a personal God exists. And from that I know His will was in creation. If it weren't then He's false and I, as well as 1.6 billion, are nuts. Indeed, I would not doubt you coming to that conclusion.

Also, you assume that what is eternal is natural. How can that be? Are we just to accept forever and never say "hmmm" on behalf of something that we have the capability of grasping? I would take that matter is everlasting, but eternal? Impossible if the natural is the end all. Are you claiming it isn't? Then why are you flaming the possibility of the supernatural?

 

[Morat]

If God were impersonal I would agree wholeheartedly. But He's not. Because of what has happened in my life, and what has happened in hearing testimonies from others (things of which are way beyond coincidence) I know a personal God exists. And from that I know His will was in creation. If it weren't then He's false and I, as well as 1.6 billion, are nuts. Indeed, I would not doubt you coming to that conclusion.

&nbsp; You don't know, you believe. Knowledge implies evidence. Care to share? Anything convincing over there? I can always hope.

&nbsp; Please don't try the argument from popularity again. Reality is not defined by how many people believe something.

&nbsp; Nor do I consider you nuts or deluded. Why should I? People believe all sorts of weird things, most of them false. Why would I condemn you for doing so as well?

Also, you assume that what is eternal is natural. How can that be? Are we just to accept forever and never say "hmmm" on behalf of something that we have the capability of grasping? I would take that matter is everlasting, but eternal? Impossible if the natural is the end all. Are you claiming it isn't? Then why are you flaming the possibility of the supernatural?

&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't assume anything. You removed the concept without any basis. There are some sketchy and preliminary cosmologies that predict an eternal and primordial state. I have no idea if they are correct or not (neither do it's proponents. They are, due to the current incomplete state of certain aspects of physics, not really testable). However, if correct, they are entirely naturalistic, yet eternal. (It's not matter, by the way. Why are you so hung up on matter. Do you think matter is all there is?).

 

[Received]

Morat, I know.&nbsp; Because I cannot prove it to you externally does not mean that there is no proof.&nbsp; It also doesn't mean that it's false.&nbsp; To science it certainly may, as science is the study of the natural.&nbsp; When you are pleading for supernature, science will have to be left at the door.&nbsp; Knowledge does not always imply external&nbsp;evidence.&nbsp; China does not exist from my perspective being in the states, because I have never seen it.&nbsp; I have seen pictures, but they could have been made up.&nbsp; I have heard about it, but you never know with all these rumors going about.&nbsp; But when I see it I know it is there.&nbsp; That is properly basic.&nbsp; Personal revelation is the ultimate end all of knowledge, and the root of wisdom.&nbsp; Also, you tell me to give you evidence and you then claim in your next paragraph that some areas of physics are untestable.&nbsp;

You said you didn't assume anything, but right thereafter you placed the word "predicted" and "if".&nbsp; Until you have the answer, how can you assume you are right?&nbsp; If you don't, then how can you assume anything beyond nature is wrong?&nbsp; How about divinity?&nbsp; How about a personal God?

Ah, and I never got the hint of you going past matter.&nbsp; But if you are, how is this energy natural, and still beyond our grasp of time, going into the realm of&nbsp;eternity?&nbsp; How can you test that, being in time, something is eternal?&nbsp; I'll take everlasting,&nbsp;or within time, but eternal is beyond time.&nbsp; I could totally believe that this matter, predicted, is what we call God, if indeed you claim it is beyond nature and eternal.&nbsp; You predict based on inductive rationality.&nbsp; We&nbsp;as Christians can use the same gun.&nbsp; "hmmmm, objective morals" or "hmmmm logic" (on behalf of the non-eternal matter naturalists) and so on.&nbsp; The only thing that ties the knot is personal revelation.&nbsp; And that will get you nowhere with a skeptic's mindset (not that I'm against that mindset).

blessings,

John

 

[Morat]

You said you didn't assume <I>anything</I>, but right thereafter you placed the word "predicted" and "if".&nbsp; Until you have the answer, how can you assume you are right?&nbsp; If you don't, then how can you assume anything beyond nature is wrong?&nbsp; How about divinity?&nbsp; How about a personal God?

&nbsp;&nbsp; Who said I was right? Do you even read my posts, or do you just scan them and make up my arguments for me?

&nbsp; I know nature exists. That's not really arguable. I know science has been incredibly effective explaining nature.

&nbsp;&nbsp;I don't know the supernatural exists. I know that the various explanations of the supernatural are mutually contradictory, untestable, and often vague.

&nbsp; Why on earth would I assume the supernatural exists without any reason for it?

Ah, and I never got the hint of you going past matter.&nbsp; But if you are, how is this energy natural, and still beyond our grasp of time, going into the realm of&nbsp;eternity?

&nbsp;I didn't say I was going past matter. I merely said "matter isn't all that exists'. What is space-time? Is it matter? Energy? Yet it's something, is it not?

 

[Received]

Indeed, it is something.

I'm still not getting how you can call yourself a naturalist when you claim you are not sure how everything came about.

Also, how does supernature contradict with nature? I would agree that, according to science, it is untestable. Vague? Certainly! Ungraspable? Not always.

blessings,

John

 

[Morat]

I'm still not getting how you can call yourself a naturalist when you claim you are not sure how everything came about.

&nbsp; It's very easy. I know the natural world exists. Naturalistic explanations have been historically successful. Why would I invent a supernatural world without reason or evidence?

Also, how does supernature contradict with nature? I would agree that, according to science, it is untestable. Vague? Certainly! Ungraspable? Not always.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Because you can't tell the difference between the "supernatural" and "Something Bob made up".

&nbsp;

 

[Received]

Ok, so you know the natural world exists and you study what you can see and what has been recorded. Good deal. Your attitude towards the beginnings of the cosmos are "perhaps" and not solid, correct? If you are not ruling out supernature, then thats all I ask.

I admit (logically) that scientists and naturalists have not experienced what the religious world has. Until they do, and until their results concerning the universe are solid, they have no right to claim this universe is godless, except on their assumptions on theological problems, (evil in the universe, free will, etc.) of which can easily be solved in the genre of apologetics.

blessings,

John