• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

WHY NON-CHRISTIAN?

Rebecca12

Active Member
Nov 23, 2013
317
229
✟38,496.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
If the mind is apart from the brain (and there is no evidence at all to support this) then it is difficult to account for the dramatic changes that can occur in personality, memory, etc. when one's brain is damaged. The dualists have to argue that the mind isn't properly communicating with the brain or the brain isn't communicating properly with the mind. Again, there is no evidence to support that. And how would it be walking around with a zombie body run by a brain which has an entirely different personality than your "real" personality?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,697
11,544
Space Mountain!
✟1,363,598.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
If the mind is apart from the brain (and there is no evidence at all to support this) then it is difficult to account for the dramatic changes that can occur in personality, memory, etc. when one's brain is damaged. The dualists have to argue that the mind isn't properly communicating with the brain or the brain isn't communicating properly with the mind. Again, there is no evidence to support that. And how would it be walking around with a zombie body run by a brain which has an entirely different personality than your "real" personality?

It wouldn't, at least from an old Jewish perspective.

Body & Soul | My Jewish Learning
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Ed1wolf said:
Please provide an example of a natural extracosmic Absolute.

eud: An example would be a natural universe that spawns other universes due to black holes, for instance.

No, that would not be extracosmic. The black holes would just be linking all the universes, so actually it would just be all one universe. Extracosmic means "outside" or transcendent to the universe.

ed: Ever hear of the field of Cosmogony?

eud: That's what we've been talking about this whole time. Research into the earliest moments of the Big Bang is an example of cosmogony. What of it?
Well then why did you say that no cosmologists believe the universe is an effect? Cosmologists who study cosmogony all believe the universe is an effect because they study the origin/cause of the universe.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Site Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,640
✟499,248.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
An example would be a natural universe that spawns other universes due to black holes, for instance.

No, that would not be extracosmic. The black holes would just be linking all the universes, so actually it would just be all one universe. Extracosmic means "outside" or transcendent to the universe.
Can I interject for a second guys?

First, "extra cosmic" would mean outside the cosmos, not the universe, and I think that's what you mean anyways. The cosmos is everything there is. If there are multiple universes, they are contained in the cosmos, but they are still separate universes, which means there are things outside our universe. "The universe" doesn't mean "everything that is" anymore, that's what the term "cosmos" is for now.

Right now, inflation theory is the leading theory, and it predicts multiple universes. People have been working on the multiverse theory since at least the 1960s, and mathematical proofs have been formulated that a universe can pop into existence from nothing more than a little bit of space and the laws of physics. I'm no expert, certainly, and it isn't proven, of course. But right now it's been shown to be entirely plausible and pretty likely.

So, yes, the universe is an effect, but it may be the effect of a totally naturally occurring process within the cosmos, and there's no indication that the cosmos is an effect of anything.

Now the multiverse is going to get a bunch of pushback from theists because of people like Krauss running around saying it refutes the existence of god(s) since no extra cosmic trigger is needed for new universes to occur, but that just makes everyone defensive to scientific discovery. Trouble is, and scientists have pointed out, that you still have to wonder where the laws of physics come from, even if there's no indication they had a beginning. Even WLC has started formulating an argument that says, "if there's a multiverse, God has to be behind it". So people may eventually have to drop the Kalaam, but that doesn't mean anyone has disproven God, so people shouldn't be attacking inflation theory from a religious perspective.

Remember, the Bible isn't a science book.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: CrystalDragon
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
58
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟126,756.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
No, that would not be extracosmic.

Perhaps I misunderstand the term "extra-cosmic", but where do "Stanley Jaki and Jones and Wilson" define "extra-cosmic"? Do you have a quote of that? Because without that, I don't know what they mean by the term, and you were appealing to their arguments.

Though I hardly think it matters at this point. Even if they are right that an "extra-cosmic Absolute" is not mathematically contradictory with a physics of our universe, it can still be the case that our universe is just a part of a natural "cosmos" (or multiverse) that is "Absolute" in the sense of not being an effect of anything else.

Well then why did you say that no cosmologists believe the universe is an effect?

I don't recall writing anything like that, and I have taken a quick look through my posts just to see if I had mistakenly said something like that. I can't find anything. If you give a post number, I will try to clarify what I was saying.

Cosmologists who study cosmogony all believe the universe is an effect because they study the origin/cause of the universe.

*facepalm*

Cosmogony is an attempt to explain how the universe developed into the form we know today. It traces causes over time, but does not insist that our universe is itself caused.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
That is nonsense, and not supported by science.

Ok, provide an entity without a mind that can reason logically.



eud: You are speaking nonsense. I agree that brains are biochemical, but that doesn't mean that brain "output" is determined by its ratio of chemical reagents. The brain is very complex, and does not function like mixing two fluids in a test tube.

I agree it is complex but how do hundreds of fluids NOT operate according to the laws of biochemistry?


eud: You are speaking like a reductionist. I'm an emergentist. I don't deny that the brain is a biological organ. I deny your reductionistic interpretation of what properties the brain may have.
It doesn't matter, if the mind is purely physically based then the outcome is the same. Is the mind that emerges physical or not?


eud: Chemistry 101 isn't Biology 101 or Psychology 101.
What is the difference at the fundamental level if the mind is physical?


eud: The brain is altered by belief in the powers of the placebo. Believing is a function of the brain.
How can something non-physical alter the physical? Belief is a non-physical property.


eud: Not through careful studies. Stories (especially when they may be urban legends) don't count.
No, these were carefully analyzed by reputable doctors and neuroscientists. Far from urban legends.


eud: Conditions pertaining to psychology. I'm not sure what more I need to say here.
What is psychology?


they are psychological conditions. They are both when it comes to brain function. There is no separating the two.

But the brain is 100% physically male and yet he claims he is a female. That is a nearly complete separation of the mind from the physical.

eud: BTW, you didn't reply to this:

Gender dysphoria has been linked to some extent to genetics. Why would that be if "male minds" and "female minds" are completely non-physical?
Yes, I did. I said that genetically the man is 100% male and yet he claims to be a female. The question is how can something that is completely tied to the physical ie genetics, cause something else physical go against every cell chromosome in the body? It makes no sense if the mind is purely a physical construct. Gender specific genetics show no real difference between you and Bruce Jenner.


eud: So? What does that have to do with psychology?

No, not correct. Psychology is quite a bit more complex than that.
Most atheistic biologists such as Dawkins believe that even psychology is ultimately controlled by genes and biology. And this is what would be expected if the mind is totally tied to the physical.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I'm not a determinist. But let's say that we accept determinism provisionally. What is the problem here?

"Behaving" logically is still reasoning logically. One still reaches logical conclusions. Even if the "output" is predetermined by biochemistry, it is still logical output.


eudaimonia,

Mark
I don't know how you cannot be a determinist if you think the mind is totally tied to the physical chemical reactions of the brain. Simple logic based on stimuli such as avoiding pain is not logical reasoning even flatworms can do that. Logical reasoning cannot occur from something that is based on chemical reactions since the output is based on the reagents NOT on premises or the weighing of evidence. Actually many neuroscientists such as Daniel Dennett agree that we do not have a reasoning mind, ie that it is just an illusion and that we do not have the free will to truly weigh arguments and reason. What they don't realize is that such a view is self refuting and science destroying.
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟155,694.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I don't know how you cannot be a determinist if you think the mind is totally tied to the physical chemical reactions of the brain. Simple logic based on stimuli such as avoiding pain is not logical reasoning even flatworms can do that. Logical reasoning cannot occur from something that is based on chemical reactions since the output is based on the reagents NOT on premises or the weighing of evidence. Actually many neuroscientists such as Daniel Dennett agree that we do not have a reasoning mind, ie that it is just an illusion and that we do not have the free will to truly weigh arguments and reason. What they don't realize is that such a view is self refuting and science destroying.

You need to read up on emergence Emergence - Wikipedia

And the fallacy of composition Fallacy of Composition
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
ed:
Because it means that your conclusions are based on the ratio of chemicals in your brain NOT on the logical weighing of evidence and arguments. But you continue to make arguments as if humans can do so, so your view is self refuting.

tm: That's just you asserting it.
Smells like a genetic fallacy.

So you deny that the product of chemical reactions are not the result of the ratio of the reagents? You just failed chemistry if so.

tm: Just look at an AI engine for example...
It operates entirely on 1s and 0s, just like all other software, and it runs on hardware.
However, the neural network (organised through 1s and 0s) most certainly is capable of weighing options and forming conclusions based on the data available.
It can only look at the options it was programmed with. And will only come up with the conclusions of problems that the programs can solve.

tm: Your objections, is thus not in evidence nore does it make any sense.
It makes perfect sense according to the laws of chemistry and if you believe that the brain is just chemicals with a little electricity thrown in.

ed: But that is my point, if your mind is purely biochemistry then you CANNOT go where the evidence suggests,

tm: Why?

You keep asserting this, but you never explain it.

See above.

ed: No, there are actual studies where people WERE cured. The Journal "New Scientist" in 2005 acknowledged this fact when they published their "13 Things that Don't Make Sense" and the placebo effect was No. 1 on the list.

tm: The placebo effect itself, does no curing.
Exactly, it is the "nonexistent" non physical mind that cures the physical body. That is the evidence.

tm: You are welcome to cite a study that says otherwise.

I did, read the article I referenced above.

ed: This is more than anecdotal evidence, these are cases that have been confirmed and analyzed by doctors and neuroscientists.

tm: Citation?
Until you provide it, it's just an anecdote.

Read "Brain Death and Consciousness" especially the article by Pim van Lommel called "About the Continuity of Our Consciousness". p. 115.

ed: Exactly.

tm: You can't say "exactly" and then go on to disagree....

Actually I did agree.

ed: That is my point. Biologically these people are either 100% male or female

tm: Your point is false.
I said that the differences are NOT restricted to the presence of reproductive organs. There's hormone balances etc that come into play as well.

I agree it is not restricted to reproductive organs, there are sex differences between brains too. And these people have male brains or female brains and yet claim to be the opposite sex.

tm: People with a gender identity crisis, will likely have a biological cause for it.
So far I have seen no one come up with such a cause, unless you can provide a citation.

ed: If this is real then this shows a nearly complete disconnect between what they are mentally and what they are biologically.

tm: Only if you ignore the underlying biological causes for such gender identity confusion.

Please state what those biological causes are and your source. I have never heard such causes reported.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
So, it's just anecdotal.

It may be anecdotal but it is based on the universal experience of being human.


eud; That's Aldous Huxley. I don't doubt that there are going to be a handful of people like that. It's not a likely explanation for the vast majority of people who accept evolution.

I am not saying it is a majority view but from my own experience it is far more than just a handful and of course most would not admit that as the reason and in many cases it is one reason among several other reasons.

eud: Or would an ex-Christian who said that the main reason that he ever became a Christian because he feared death mean that the majority of Christians became Christians for that exact reason?
I did not say it was the majority.


eud: You could say that it is knowledge of definitions. In that sense, it is knowledge of logical thinking, since definitions and their applications are a part of logical thinking. Scientists will of course agree with the definitions. However, the definitions are not scientific knowledge. They precede scientific knowledge. They are not knowledge of the universe as attained through science. That is what I meant.
Nevertheless as seen by the field of cosmogony most cosmologists do believe the universe is an effect.


eud: Unicorns are also a logical possibility. So is Frodo Baggins. Logical possibilities are a dime a dozen. They have no scientific or philosophical weight. *shrug*

The difference is that there is no evidence for unicorns and Frodo Baggins. While there is for God.
 
Upvote 0

Eudaimonist

I believe in life before death!
Jan 1, 2003
27,482
2,738
58
American resident of Sweden
Visit site
✟126,756.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Libertarian
Ok, provide an entity without a mind that can reason logically.

This discussion has gone on a long time, and I can understand if you are ceasing to pay close attention and are forgetting what I have been arguing.

I don't argue that human beings don't have minds. I argue that minds are a function of brains, notably human brains. An example of an entity with a mind that can reason logically is a human being, and it is the human brain that makes that mind possible.

I know from experience that this answer won't satisfy you, but it is the correct answer.

I agree it is complex but how do hundreds of fluids NOT operate according to the laws of biochemistry?

They do interact in a chemical way, but they do so in a far more complex way than your reductionistic oversimplification of chemistry, which seems to be based on high school chemistry labs with test tubes. Brains aren't test tubes.

It doesn't matter, if the mind is purely physically based then the outcome is the same. Is the mind that emerges physical or not?

It is both physical and non-physical, each as seen from a different perspective. The mind is something that the physical brain does, in the sense that "computation" is something that physical computers do. You can view the result as something non-physical, but it is physical at the same time.

What is the difference at the fundamental level if the mind is physical?

Forget about "fundamental" levels. The whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. There are properties of wholes that are not possessed by the parts taken individually.

How can something non-physical alter the physical? Belief is a non-physical property.

Activities of physical brains are the "non-physical" thing you are talking about. The activity is of physical brains, and so there is a physical connection to a physical body.

No, these were carefully analyzed by reputable doctors and neuroscientists. Far from urban legends.

Urban legends may easily claim that. But doctor's reports are not the same thing as careful studies.

What is psychology?

Is there some reason this resource isn't good enough for you?

Psychology - Wikipedia

But the brain is 100% physically male and yet he claims he is a female. That is a nearly complete separation of the mind from the physical.

No, it isn't. There's no reason why one must feel "male" in a male body if one has a physical brain. The feeling of being "male" is a product of brain function. If there is, for instance, a genetic condition that alters that brain function, one might feel like one has the "wrong" body. There is no separation of the mind from the physical implied by that.

Yes, I did. I said that genetically the man is 100% male and yet he claims to be a female. The question is how can something that is completely tied to the physical ie genetics, cause something else physical go against every cell chromosome in the body? It makes no sense if the mind is purely a physical construct. Gender specific genetics show no real difference between you and Bruce Jenner.

I've already posted evidence of a genetic link to gender dysphoria, which makes sense if the mind arises from physical brain function.

Most atheistic biologists such as Dawkins believe that even psychology is ultimately controlled by genes and biology. And this is what would be expected if the mind is totally tied to the physical.

If gender dysphoria can in some instances have a genetic cause, then Dawkins would be correct, and you would be mistaken.


eudaimonia,

Mark
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
TIL that computers are non-physical. Funny how they missed telling me that through 7 years of college and 20+ in the industry.
No, computers are bound by how they are programmed, if they are programmed with a form of logic then they can use that form of logic to come to a determined conclusion. Computers in themselves do not reason. So IOW they operate according to purely physical processes.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Compare mixing two chemical solutions in a test tube to what happens below.


Your brain wiring is like a city, says neuroscience
Brain Wiring

brain-wiring-vanweeden.jpg


Biochemistry is certainly involved, but it doesn't "boil down" to biochemistry in any extreme reductionist way, as you are trying to do.


eudaimonia,

Mark
I never said it was exactly like simply combining two chemicals, electrophysical laws are also involved, but nevertheless they are determined and do not operate on the laws of logical reasoning. And actually your article supports intelligent design of the brain, as far as we know only intelligent minds can design city's and their power grids.
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So you deny that the product of chemical reactions are not the result of the ratio of the reagents? You just failed chemistry if so.

No, that's not the part I was disagreeing with.
I was disagreeing with your assertion that "therefor, it's not a result of weighing the evidence".

Brain chemistry, rather, is the physical process by which weighing the evidence happens.

Your brain is what you do your thinking/reasoning with. Brain chemistry is how that process physically works.

It can only look at the options it was programmed with.

No. The whole point of machine learning (=the backbone of modern AI) is that the system becomes "smarter" through "experience".

And will only come up with the conclusions of problems that the programs can solve.

Sure. And our brains were "programmed" by our evolutionary history. As Krauss likes to say at times: "our brains evolved to avoid being eating by lions in Africa".

And in the field of psychology, it is rather remarkable how many human psychological traits can be traced back to exactly that idea. Including human inclination for superstition and religious belief.

It makes perfect sense according to the laws of chemistry and if you believe that the brain is just chemicals with a little electricity thrown in.

Again, "thinking" is a process that occurs in the brain. The brain accomplishes this function by a physical process, which is brain chemistry.

You can disagree with it all you like, but you're simply going to miss the fact that it is true.
It's actually rather undeniable. You can put someone's brain in a scanner and like literally see the brain activity as the subject is asked to think, reason, sing, brings up memories, etc.

Exactly, it is the "nonexistent" non physical mind that cures the physical body. That is the evidence.

No, it doesn't. There's no such thing.

I did, read the article I referenced above.

I did read it. It does not say what you claim it says.
13 things that do not make sense

If anything, it expresses several times that we do not know how it works exactly.
There is nothing in there that even mentions anything about people being cured of any illness.

Read "Brain Death and Consciousness" especially the article by Pim van Lommel called "About the Continuity of Our Consciousness". p. 115.

He's not a neurologist and that's not a scientific paper.
Actual neurologists critique his ideas because he completely ignores actual nobel-prize-winning scientific knowledge concerning neurology.

I agree it is not restricted to reproductive organs, there are sex differences between brains too. And these people have male brains or female brains and yet claim to be the opposite sex.

You don't know that. You just would like that to be true and then just assert it as fact.

So far I have seen no one come up with such a cause, unless you can provide a citation.

Unlike you, I didn't assert it as fact. I said "likely".
It is what scientists expect to find, as they dig deeper into how the biology works and differs between males and females. It is also where all current data points to.

Please state what those biological causes are and your source. I have never heard such causes reported.

Causes of transsexuality - Wikipedia

Especially the part about transsexuality among twins is remarkable.
In one third of the identical twins where at least one was transsexual, both were transsexual. Which is a significant signal that transsexuallity might be heavily influenced by genetics. One third is a LOT.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
If the mind is apart from the brain (and there is no evidence at all to support this)

Have you read any of my posts? I have provided multiple lines of evidence for the mind being non-physical and only partially tied to the brain. The mind uses the brain to interact with the physical world.

reb: then it is difficult to account for the dramatic changes that can occur in personality, memory, etc. when one's brain is damaged.
No, these can be accounted for by the mind requiring an undamaged brain to interact with the outside world. It is like if I started typing on a damaged computer keyboard. So that some letters were missing. You would think I was mentally challenged and yet I would actually not be. It would just be my damaged brain/computer/ keyboard.


reb: The dualists have to argue that the mind isn't properly communicating with the brain or the brain isn't communicating properly with the mind. Again, there is no evidence to support that.

Not exactly. See above. There is evidence as I have provided earlier.

reb: And how would it be walking around with a zombie body run by a brain which has an entirely different personality than your "real" personality?

It would not usually be zombie body, the body is usually perfectly designed for the particular mind and personality that embodies that body. And as a human being, you would not be complete without your matching body to complement your mind. In the case of something like real transgenderism then you would be right. Your personality/mind would be totally different from the body designed for it. That is why if transgenderism is real, then it is evidence for the mind not being totally controlled or tied to the physical and biology. This is also evidence for transgenderism being a pathology.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Can I interject for a second guys?

First, "extra cosmic" would mean outside the cosmos, not the universe, and I think that's what you mean anyways. The cosmos is everything there is. If there are multiple universes, they are contained in the cosmos, but they are still separate universes, which means there are things outside our universe. "The universe" doesn't mean "everything that is" anymore, that's what the term "cosmos" is for now.

No, cosmos DOES mean the universe. Why do you think that scientists that study the universe are called COSMOLOGISTS. And universe means everything that physically exists.

nd: Right now, inflation theory is the leading theory, and it predicts multiple universes. People have been working on the multiverse theory since at least the 1960s, and mathematical proofs have been formulated that a universe can pop into existence from nothing more than a little bit of space and the laws of physics. I'm no expert, certainly, and it isn't proven, of course. But right now it's been shown to be entirely plausible and pretty likely.

No, actually the majority view is still only one universe. There is no empirical evidence that other universes exist, it is all theoretical. But even if there are other universes, the Level 1 and Level 2 models for the multiverse still show that the multiverse is an effect and requires a cause that fits the characteristics of the Christian God.

nd: So, yes, the universe is an effect, but it may be the effect of a totally naturally occurring process within the cosmos, and there's no indication that the cosmos is an effect of anything.

No, see above. Cosmos and universe are the same thing. And all the evidence points to the universe/cosmos being an effect.

nd: Now the multiverse is going to get a bunch of pushback from theists because of people like Krauss running around saying it refutes the existence of god(s) since no extra cosmic trigger is needed for new universes to occur, but that just makes everyone defensive to scientific discovery.
No, the multiverse does not refute the existence of God as shown above. It still requires a cause very similar to the Christian God.


nd: Trouble is, and scientists have pointed out, that you still have to wonder where the laws of physics come from, even if there's no indication they had a beginning. Even WLC has started formulating an argument that says, "if there's a multiverse, God has to be behind it". So people may eventually have to drop the Kalaam, but that doesn't mean anyone has disproven God, so people shouldn't be attacking inflation theory from a religious perspective.

Remember, the Bible isn't a science book.
Yes, even Einstein said that the laws of physics require a Lawgiver. IOW a supernatural personal being. Actually even though the bible is not a science book, when it does touch on science, it is correct. Such as the fact that the Bible is the only sacred religious book that teaches the inflationary theory of the universe. It teaches that the universe had a definite beginning and is expanding and is winding down energetically. This is evidence for its divine origin.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Perhaps I misunderstand the term "extra-cosmic", but where do "Stanley Jaki and Jones and Wilson" define "extra-cosmic"? Do you have a quote of that? Because without that, I don't know what they mean by the term, and you were appealing to their arguments.

Though I hardly think it matters at this point. Even if they are right that an "extra-cosmic Absolute" is not mathematically contradictory with a physics of our universe, it can still be the case that our universe is just a part of a natural "cosmos" (or multiverse) that is "Absolute" in the sense of not being an effect of anything else.

Even most multiverse models are effects and require a cause. See Level 1 and Level 2 Multiverse Models. Though actually there is no empirical evidence for the existence of more than one universe.


eud:*facepalm*

Cosmogony is an attempt to explain how the universe developed into the form we know today. It traces causes over time, but does not insist that our universe is itself caused.


eudaimonia,

Mark
Fraid not, from Wikipedia:

Cosmogony

Cosmogony (or cosmogeny) is any model concerning the coming-into-existence (i.e. origin) of either the cosmos (i.e. universe), or the so-called reality of sentient beings. Developing a complete theoretical model has implications in both the philosophy of science and epistemology.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Site Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,640
✟499,248.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
No, cosmos DOES mean the universe. Why do you think that scientists that study the universe are called COSMOLOGISTS. And universe means everything that physically exists.
Meh, we made the term "cosmologist" before people started thinking there was a possibility of more than one universe. So tell me this, if a Big Bang produces a universe, and there's more than one big bang, is the term "universe" really applicable for everything that exists? That creates a contradiction in the fact that there are more than one universe, and there is one universe.
No, actually the majority view is still only one universe. There is no empirical evidence that other universes exist, it is all theoretical. But even if there are other universes, the Level 1 and Level 2 models for the multiverse still show that the multiverse is an effect and requires a cause that fits the characteristics of the Christian God.
I tried to find how many cosmologists ascribe to the multiverse idea and how many don't. You're right that there's more contention than I thought, and inflation theory doesn't necessarily predict multiple universes though. However it isn't all theoretical. The theories are based in part on observations made in labs and in space. String theory is an example of something that is all theoretical because it is all math.
The models for the multiverse you mention make no mention of an origin of the multiverse. Model one just describes a bunch of universe existing in their own bubble, and model two is based off of a "membrane" that could very well be eternal, as it isn't doesn't require any origin.
No, the multiverse does not refute the existence of God as shown above. It still requires a cause very similar to the Christian God.
Why did you start with a "no" here? In the part you quoted, I actually agreed with you so...
Yes, even Einstein said that the laws of physics require a Lawgiver. IOW a supernatural personal being. Actually even though the bible is not a science book, when it does touch on science, it is correct. Such as the fact that the Bible is the only sacred religious book that teaches the inflationary theory of the universe. It teaches that the universe had a definite beginning and is expanding and is winding down energetically. This is evidence for its divine origin.
Einstein said that the idea of a "personal" god is childish, so you should work on your paraphrasing (IOW) skills. The Bible doesn't say anything about science. What you perceive is your selective interpretation to try and match poetic language to scientific facts.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

re Member
Aug 28, 2007
27,473
19,169
Colorado
✟536,492.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
...Some souls do not want anyone to be over them and greater than they are;

...and others want answers to satisfy their rebellious spirit.

...Some others think much in terms of seeing, feeling, and touching, so will not bow to that which is intangible, as they say
All your reasons for not believing boil down to a character flaw, namely: self-aggrandizement.

Can you admit there might be more charitable-sounding reasons for non-belief? Would that feel threatening to your sense of faith?
 
Upvote 0