RIP - Steve Jobs - "Don't be trapped by dogma"

sephir0th

philologos wrote: »

Evolution doesn't refute either the existence of Adam and Eve. I and most Reformed theology holds that humans are predisposed to sin as the Bible tells us (Romans 5:12, Genesis 6:5). It's possible that evolution was a part of divine creation, which is what many Christians including myself hold to.

Religious claims that humans are the only species that have a soul contradicts the idea of evolution and a common ancestry.

The Quadratic Equation

sephir0th wrote: »

Religious claims that humans are the only species that have a soul contradicts the idea of evolution and a common ancestry.

Physical theories do not go beyond the physical. Since when did the idea of evolution and common ancestry set out to explain the metaphysical ?

sephir0th

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Physical theories do not go beyond the physical. Since when did the idea of evolution and common ancestry set out to explain the metaphysical ?

Did the common ancestor, between say the chimpanzee and human, have a soul?

MagicMarker

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Physical theories do not go beyond the physical. Since when did the idea of evolution and common ancestry set out to explain the metaphysical ?

At what stage of evolution did we acquire souls?

CerebralCortex

sephir0th wrote: »

Religious claims that humans are the only species that have a soul contradicts the idea of evolution and a common ancestry.

Do you mean when was the soul implanted? The fact that a lot of humans have Neanderthal DNA?

On that actually, what are your views on non human, human level intelligences(if or when they eventually exist) and close to human level intelligence(dolphins) Philologos?

The Quadratic Equation

sephir0th wrote: »

Did the common ancestor, between say the chimpanzee and human, have a soul?

I don't know, you'll have to ask God when you see him.

How many hairs did the commmon ancestor have ?

How does this contradict the idea of evolution and a common ancestry as you claimed ?

dmw07

philologos wrote: »

Evolution doesn't refute either the existence of Adam and Eve

No it just proves otherwise. Both your links are to christian funded projects trying to find links between science and religion. That was the sole intention of their formation. Nothing like taking impartial information from someone with an agenda on the matter. Why, please tell has the proper scientific community as far back as Leonardo Da Vinci not researched or explored the "links" between the bible and science? That's rhetorical. Science should align harmoniously with religion (bible) if it's the truth, the way. It doesn't. That's not an opinion.

philologos wrote: »

It's possible that evolution was a part of divine creation, which is what many Christians including myself hold to.

Are you saying everything on this earth has original sin and a Jesus that saved them at some point? No need to explain. I'll read the links.

philologos wrote: »

On church attendance in Britain (where I now live):

Explains point one and confirms all other points i made. Lucky guess. You based it on attendance of one faith, in one country, in one year. I can't really say sterling analysis old boy. I can say that if I take a glass of water from the ocean, and conclude that there are no whales in the ocean due to my one, small, insignificant test, my findings would be derided by the scientific community. And rightly so.

philologos wrote: »

Also your claim that people's faith is based on where they are born is an example of the genetic fallacy.

Agreed, my assertion was not completely correct as it was a striked out sarcastic play on words. Like this (where you were born).

But then you go on list one thing, missionaries. You beat me too it. I forgot to mention in my sarcasm the great work the people who go to places and force their idea on someone else, did. Outside of missionaries which have been actively recruiting people into how to have faith, in poor uneducated areas with little or no common sense, no money and little hope for as long back as my grandfather can remember. Outside of this great accomplishment, it's via your parents and it's were you're born in the main. Every single international friend of which i've met many, if religious, conforms with this. Statistics agree with me, like Ecuador's population is 99% christian, Afghanistans being 99.7% Muslim. Are you going to tell me that a child born there will want to follow Ganesha? please. And i don't need another link to a christain funded website either. Thanks all the same.

philologos wrote: »

It also ignores the fact that most Christians live outside Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa where Christianity was most prominent.

This says otherwise and whilst it's wikipedia, it is impartial and i'm inclined to agree that most christians by volume are in america followed by Brazil. It's also got a lot of the percentage, don't you think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country
Specifically after "Top ten"

philologos wrote: »

What's so vindictive about that?

Everyone has an agenda, that i get. Why i find you vindictive? Well you show your agenda from time to time, you play with people you disagree with or who point flaws and question your agenda, then ignore, or pretend to ignore, then you wait a while and confuse the situation with off tangent discussions. It comes across as childish and vindictive tbh. I'm newish so it may be a massive leap to where i got so i'll judge over time and retract if necessary. I assure you.


See you in the future philologos....

sephir0th

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I don't know, you'll have to ask God when you see him.

How many hairs did the commmon ancestor have ?

How does this contradict the idea of evolution and a common ancestry as you claimed ?

I don't believe in the concept of a 'soul' so it's not really a problem for me. It contradicts the idea because there was a gradual evolution from that common ancestor to the modern day human. Which means that you have to either accept the idea of a 'partial soul' or that at some arbitrary point your god decided to give a child a soul, while it's parents did not. Either way, it messes up your claim that modern humans are the only species to have a god-given soul.

Similarly, it becomes a problem for you when you try to deem what species can go to heaven and which can't.

The Quadratic Equation

sephir0th wrote: »

I don't believe in the concept of a 'soul' so it's not really a problem for me..

I believe in the concept of a soul so its not a problem for me either.

sephir0th wrote: »

or that at some arbitrary point your god decided to give a child a soul

Correct, except its not my God, it is just God. God is a infinite spirit, not an old man with a beard sitting on a cloud.

sephir0th wrote: »

Either way, it messes up your claim that modern humans are the only species to have a god-given soul.

Similarly, it becomes a problem for you when you try to deem what species can go to heaven and which can't.

How ? Since when did the idea of evolution and a common ancestry ever aim to deal with spirtual and metaphysical matters, or indeed why should it ? It's a completely different realm.

sephir0th

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

How ? Since when did the idea of evolution and a common ancestry ever aim to deal with spirtual and metaphysical matters, or indeed why should it ? It's a completely different realm.

It doesn't - I never claimed it did. But, if you make the claim 'humans are the only species that have a soul' you are overlapping the magisteria.

The Quadratic Equation

sephir0th wrote: »

It doesn't - I never claimed it did. But, if you make the claim 'humans are the only species that have a soul' you are overlapping the magisteria.

sephir0th wrote: »

Religious claims that humans are the only species that have a soul contradicts the idea of evolution and a common ancestry.

The only overlapping I can see here is your own. Therefore I can only try and ask again, what has the concept of a soul got to do with the theory of evolution and common ancestry ?

sephir0th

Does anyone else understand what I'm trying to say?

philologos

sephir0th wrote: »

Religious claims that humans are the only species that have a soul contradicts the idea of evolution and a common ancestry.

MagicMarker wrote: »

At what stage of evolution did we acquire souls?

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Do you mean when was the soul implanted? The fact that a lot of humans have Neanderthal DNA?

These three assume that the soul is material. In most philosophical and theological considerations it is not considered as being material. I'm open to being corrected from Scripture on this, but I'm fairly sure that Christianity doesn't put across that the soul is material. It concerns our being, and the essence of that being.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

On that actually, what are your views on non human, human level intelligences(if or when they eventually exist) and close to human level intelligence(dolphins) Philologos?

I don't believe that this has any impact on the Gospel. The Bible is a book addressed by God to humans in the Christian point of view. It has to do with how God relates with people. I believe it's possible that if other entities exist that God relates to them. I also have no issue with the idea that God relates to animals in a different way to humans looking to the lesser-intelligence side too.

Perhaps you could rephrase your question to let me know what is the fundamental issue with the Gospel in respect to intelligent entities?

dmw07 wrote: »

No it just proves otherwise. Both your links are to christian funded projects trying to find links between science and religion. That was the sole intention of their formation. Nothing like taking impartial information from someone with an agenda on the matter. Why, please tell has the proper scientific community as far back as Leonardo Da Vinci not researched or explored the "links" between the bible and science? That's rhetorical. Science should align harmoniously with religion (bible) if it's the truth, the way. It doesn't. That's not an opinion.

How does it prove otherwise. I've shown you Christians who argue that evolution is compatible with their faith and argue as such. I don't see any profound reason to date as to why it isn't. I don't disregard new-atheist objections to Christianity, and if one is going to engage with the argument seriously as an atheist, one shouldn't disregard what Christians say because they are Christians.

That's what is involved with entering into such a discussion. So as a result, I'm not going to ignore any Christian opinion on this topic, because if we are to discuss this topic properly it requires looking into both sides rather than rubbishing it immediately.

That's a fair view I think.

As for your point on Leonardo Da Vinci, I'm not sure it is right.

Are you saying everything on this earth has original sin and a Jesus that saved them at some point? No need to explain. I'll read the links.

No. I'm saying that people disobeyed God, and that Jesus saved them from their own sins which they committed knowingly.

dmw07 wrote: »

Explains point one and confirms all other points i made. Lucky guess. You based it on attendance of one faith, in one country, in one year. I can't really say sterling analysis old boy. I can say that if I take a glass of water from the ocean, and conclude that there are no whales in the ocean due to my one, small, insignificant test, my findings would be derided by the scientific community. And rightly so.

It's not a "lucky guess". It's a demographical fact that 90% of people in Britain don't go to church on a given Sunday. This isn't a "lucky guess". If you aren't satisfied with what I've provided you, you can go and look into it more extensively.

You complain that I haven't considered multiple countries. But my point was that in the society I live in 90% of people don't attend church weekly:

I'm living in such a society already, where 90%+ of people don't attend a church, and of those who do there is no substantive measure to determine those whom actually believe in Christ and those who don't.

That's what the original post said. I don't understand your objection to it. Are you sure you haven't misread what I've said already?

dmw07 wrote: »

This says otherwise and whilst it's wikipedia, it is impartial and i'm inclined to agree that most christians by volume are in america followed by Brazil. It's also got a lot of the percentage, don't you think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country
Specifically after "Top ten".

My point wasn't that countries outside of the West have a larger percentile of Christians in them. My point was that more Christians live outside of the Western world than in it by numbers. This is what I said in my previous post:

It also ignores the fact that most Christians live outside Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa where Christianity was most prominent.

Let me point out how the logic is wrong:
China has 50 - 100mn Christians depending on your estimate. That's either 5 - 10% of the population. In Ireland 90% roughly claim to be Christian in the census (which isn't the most accurate means of assessing), that's roughly 4mn.

Despite the fact that China has 5 - 10% Christians, 50 - 100mn is significantly more than 4mn.

As a result, the percentages aren't what is important, but the absolute number. My point was that more Christians live outside of the Western world than in it.

Your Wikipedia article actually helps my argument:

It starts off:

As of the early 21st century, Christianity has around 2.1 billion adherents.

So with 2.1 billion let's count the Western world:
Europe: 550,911,000
US: 243,186,000
Canada: 26,401,000
Australia & New Zealand: 16,771,000
South Africa: 39,843,000
Total: 877,112,000 (41.76%)

dmw07 wrote: »

Everyone has an agenda, that i get. Why i find you vindictive? Well you show your agenda from time to time, you play with people you disagree with or who point flaws and question your agenda, then ignore, or pretend to ignore, then you wait a while and confuse the situation with off tangent discussions. It comes across as childish and vindictive tbh. I'm newish so it may be a massive leap to where i got so i'll judge over time and retract if necessary. I assure you.


See you in the future philologos....

You can say whatever you like about me. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I haven't "pretended" to ignore anyone on boards.ie. In total there are 3 people on my ignore list right now. I don't put people on my ignore list because they have good arguments, I put people on my ignore list for false accusations, and a general incapability to have a respectful discussion. Given the number of skeptics and atheists I've discussed with on boards, that's a tiny number.

My agenda is simple in respect to Christianity. I just want to help people consider Jesus in a way that they mightn't normally. This is much my agenda off-boards as well as on it. That's not vindictive. In fact if I believe what I do it would be patently immoral of me not to tell people about Him. In fact there is no personal gain in telling people about Christ. I don't make a living from it, and Scripturally I don't gain any brownie points with the man upstairs for doing it, but rather it is out of a genuine care that Christians do this. There's nothing about inflating egos about it either. It doesn't make me a better person, in fact I acknowledge fully that I am a sinner and that I've lived most of my life in rebellion against my Creator.

King Mob

So that's a no to addressing my points then philologos?

philologos

Explain to me how I haven't explained properly what I've already told you and I might give it another go. I've given you my position, and essentially you've said that you don't like it. We need a better way of doing this if that is the case. I don't guarantee what I tell you is something that you will like or agree with.

So yes. Tell me what was wrong with what I've already posted to you, and then we can consider additional points because I don't want to waste my time or yours.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

Explain to me how I haven't explained properly what I've already told you and I might give it another go. I've given you my position, and essentially you've said that you don't like it. We need a better way of doing this if that is the case. I don't guarantee what I tell you is something that you will like or agree with.

So yes. Tell me what was wrong with what I've already posted to you, and then we can consider additional points because I don't want to waste my time or yours.

No I didn't I said that one of your explanations you gave to a side point was silly.

However I still had several questions which you ignored and had been ignoring for some time.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75186666&postcount=346

Explain precisely why you think that finite things must always have a cause.
Explain precisely why the universe cannot be in some sense infinite.

These are the two points I've been trying to get you to address since I joined the thread and you've yet to answer either.

There's another dangling question but we'll leave that in case you give another essay on a side point while ignoring the main ones again.

philologos

King Mob wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

Explain to me how I haven't explained properly what I've already told you and I might give it another go. I've given you my position, and essentially you've said that you don't like it. We need a better way of doing this if that is the case. I don't guarantee what I tell you is something that you will like or agree with.

So yes. Tell me what was wrong with what I've already posted to you, and then we can consider additional points because I don't want to waste my time or yours.

No I didn't I said that one of your explanations you gave to a side point was silly.

However I still had several questions which you ignored and had been ignoring for some time.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75186666&postcount=346

Explain precisely why you think that finite things must always have a cause.
Explain precisely why the universe cannot be in some sense infinite.

These are the two points I've been trying to get you to address since I joined the thread and you've yet to answer either.

There's another dangling question but we'll leave that in case you give another essay on a side point while ignoring the mai ones again.

I've already explained the points concerning why I think the universe is finite on this thread.

I'll try go over this again this evening.

I've been trying to get around to as much as is possible for me to do in what spare time I have. I'm going to do my best. That's it.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

I've already explained the points concerning why I think the universe is finite on this thread.

I'll try go over this again this evening.

I've been trying to get around to as much as is possible for me to do in what spare time I have. I'm going to do my best. That's it.

Well no, you have not explained that. You have only repeated that you consider it logical without actually backing it up.
And that only addresses one of my points. I made two.

And that excuse is getting kinda tired when you seem to have the time to write walls of text concerning side points or new topics.

MagicMarker

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

The only overlapping I can see here is your own. Therefore I can only try and ask again, what has the concept of a soul got to do with the theory of evolution and common ancestry ?

Because we evolved from the very animals you say do not have souls. So at what point were we given souls? And why does my close cousin Mark have a soul but my distant cousin Alfred not have a soul?

robindch

philologos wrote: »

I've already explained the points concerning why I think the universe is finite on this thread.

You haven't.

As people have pointed out time and again, you simply say that you believe your viewpoint because you prefer it.

This isn't a very good reason.

Dades

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

sephir0th wrote: »

or that at some arbitrary point your god decided to give a child a soul

Correct, except its not my God, it is just God. God is a infinite spirit, not an old man with a beard sitting on a cloud.


How ? Since when did the idea of evolution and a common ancestry ever aim to deal with spirtual and metaphysical matters, or indeed why should it ? It's a completely different realm.

philologos wrote: »

These three assume that the soul is material. In most philosophical and theological considerations it is not considered as being material. I'm open to being corrected from Scripture on this, but I'm fairly sure that Christianity doesn't put across that the soul is material. It concerns our being, and the essence of that being.

What nonsense is this?

Call it material... call it metaphysical... call it BOB - it doesn't matter.

If you assume humans have a soul in ANY form, and you also assume humans have a physical body - then you have to address the question as to at what point in the evolution of humans did God decide that this physical body/person/character become "connected" with a soul.

Our bodies are individual and our 'souls' are individual - are you both suggesting that the two are not connected in any way? Put another way, are we a bunch of meat sacks walking about the earth or has each of us got our own soul?

Wibbs

I certainly wouldn't believe in the soul as per the Judeo/christian/muslim notions. Well not so much the Jewish. The immortal soul is more a Christian and later thang. Even the ancient Egyptian notions of the twin souls weren't immortal as such. For me the "soul" is to be found as part of our symbolic thought and self awareness and in that regard I'd certainly consider us a little more than meatbags, or automatons. No theism required. I consider us a special case in nature. There's exists no one like us and never has that we know of.

However I suppose if souls existed and all that, I don't see why it would be so black and white. One could imagine that like self awareness and symbolic thought that it wouldn't be an either or thing, that there wouldn't be a distinct point where "no soul" became "soul". That the soul would evolve* along a line. IE Animals and plants have potential souls, but aren't fully evolved and the soul is most realised(so far) in a modern homo sapiens. That would bring in the hierarchy of souls(which most faiths have), but it's workable as a thought experiment. I suppose one could also argue on a theological slant that humans got souls when they found god. IE you discover self awareness when you become self aware, which could also plug into the soul evolution thang.







*Cue JC having an attack of the vapours. Mercy.

robindch

Wibbs wrote: »

For me the "soul" is to be found as part of our symbolic thought and self awareness and in that regard I'd certainly consider us a little more than meatbags, or automatons.

"Consciousness" for "soul" is a reasonable enough substitution for me.

Wibbs wrote: »

one could also argue on a theological slant that humans got souls when they found god.

In christian mythology, I'd imagine that the process of ensoulment only started when humans had evolved far enough that they could tell good from bad and therefore needed the deity's skyhook to avoid the unavoidable trap that the all-loving, all-knowing deity had placed there.

Alternatively, you could just take the trad view and say that it started with Adam and Eve and go all "you're just being closed-minded/cold and horrible" if somebody tries to pin you down on what's actually meant by that.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

"Consciousness" for "soul" is a reasonable enough substitution for me.

Or "ethos".

And on your birthday, too...

dead one

Wibbs wrote: »

For me the "soul" is to be found as part of our symbolic thought and self awareness and in that regard I'd certainly consider us a little more than meatbags, or automatons. theism required. I consider us a special case in nature.

You are very close to islamic concept of soul --- “The Prophet explained this (by saying): ‘Whoever has known himself, has known God.’”--- Your real self is your soul--- Wibbs, you were born with wings, why prefer to crawl through life?”
It is like old ways:
"There is a life-force within your soul, seek that life.
There is a gem in the mountain of your body, seek that mine.
O traveler, if you are in search of That
Don't look outside, look inside yourself and seek That."

philologos

King Mob:

Q1: Explain precisely why you think that finite things must always have a cause.
Finite things always have a cause, in that they began to exist X years ago. Something must have happened X amount of years ago to bring thing Y into existence. That's logical. In respect to this I'm happy to hear good reason as to why I would be wrong, but that's the fundamental premise that we take when we look to the origin of finite things.

Q2. Explain precisely why the universe cannot be in some sense infinite.
There's ambiguity in this question. What do you mean by in some sense? In terms of time, given what we know at present we tell that the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old by the expansion that took place following the Big Bang. It is widely recognised that the universe began X amount of time ago, and given this, it must be caused as all other finite things are caused. The question that is left is what caused it to come to be.

I'm happy to be told that I am wrong, but unless this has good basis I'm not going to place a different standard in respect to atheism as I do in respect to everything else.

robindch wrote: »

You haven't.

As people have pointed out time and again, you simply say that you believe your viewpoint because you prefer it.

This isn't a very good reason.

I've not said that at all. What I have said is that I find Christianity is more reasonable than atheism is in that it makes better sense. That's not the same thing as "preferring it".

As a general truth: what is more likely to be true is still more likely to be true as far as I see it even if you detest it. I wouldn't dare present the idea that the truth changes on the basis of how much one might want to wish it away.

Delirium

You've stated everything must have a cause but haven't explained why it's God and why is God exempt from the rules.

MagicMarker

And what is the cause of god? Oh wait I forgot, god is infinite because of who the fúck knows.

Amazingly the same old arguments make just as little sense as they did first time round.

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

King Mob:

Q1: Explain precisely why you think that finite things must always have a cause.
Finite things always have a cause, in that they began to exist X years ago. Something must have happened X amount of years ago to bring thing Y into existence. That's logical. In respect to this I'm happy to hear good reason as to why I would be wrong, but that's the fundamental premise that we take when we look to the origin of finite things.

Following that "logic" it must how can you say Yahweh isn't responsible for sin? Something Xtians are so adamant that he didn't do.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

King Mob:

Q1: Explain precisely why you think that finite things must always have a cause.
Finite things always have a cause, in that they began to exist X years ago. Something must have happened X amount of years ago to bring thing Y into existence. That's logical. In respect to this I'm happy to hear good reason as to why I would be wrong, but that's the fundamental premise that we take when we look to the origin of finite things.

But it's not logical to assume this for all cases. Even at face value there's no way for you to exclude the possibility of a causeless finite thing.
Just as you are assuming that infinite things do not need a cause and that they can't have one.
Here you are essentially assuming your premise and refusing to back it up.

And on top of that, we know that such an assumption is wrong because there are things that are finite and have no cause.

philologos wrote: »

Q2. Explain precisely why the universe cannot be in some sense infinite.
There's ambiguity in this question. What do you mean by in some sense? In terms of time, given what we know at present we tell that the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old by the expansion that took place following the Big Bang. It is widely recognised that the universe began X amount of time ago, and given this, it must be caused as all other finite things are caused. The question that is left is what caused it to come to be.

I have repeatedly given you numerous examples of exactly what I meant. you just ignored them like you did with all of my points. There could not be any ambiguity if you had read what I had written.
1. The universe could exist as a finite part of a infinite cycle of big bangs and big crunches.
2. The universe could have arisen from a previous universe just as another universe might arise from ours in an infinite cycle.
3. The universe could exist in an omni-verse which is infinite and contains other universes.
4. The universe could have arisen from an infinite quantum foam.

And many many other examples of theoretical models that exist and are supported by physics.

So why do you know that these examples are all impossible?

philologos wrote: »

I'm happy to be told that I am wrong, but unless this has good basis I'm not going to place a different standard in respect to atheism as I do in respect to everything else.

And I've repeated these exact points several times before.
The reason you're happy to be told you are wrong is because you can just ignore it when that happens.

King Mob

koth wrote: »

You've stated everything must have a cause but haven't explained why it's God and why is God exempt from the rules.

Because God is infinite therefore always existed, therefore there could not have been a point were he did not exist, and if there is no transition between existing and non-existing then there is nothing needed to cause such a transition, hence an infinite thing does not need a cause.
Unless of course it's not god, then it doesn't count apparently.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Following that "logic" it must how can you say Yahweh isn't responsible for sin? Something Xtians are so adamant that he didn't do.

You know why Christians claim that God isn't responsible for sin. Indeed, I wrote a thesis on the concept of divine foreknowledge and the human will recently. In a nutshell in Augustine's take (in On The Free Choice Of The Will) knowing what is to happen is not the same as causing it to happen. Humans nonetheless freely will those choices even if they are known about.

I have some problems with this point of view, and that's much how I concluded. It excludes the idea that God in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures does intervene rather than sitting back and watching in an almost deistic manner (for a brief example look to Jeremiah 29:19, Ephesians 2:8-10). There still aren't questions of whether or not God caused sin, but rather how can one justify God intervening in some peoples lives for some purpose, and not intervening in other peoples lives or other situations for other purposes. The question of Epicurus' dilemma (as flawed as it is) can come into this question also. If God can intervene to bring other people to Him, why doesn't He intervene to cause the profound suffering and evil that exists in the world (which being honest is mostly caused by other human beings).

As I said before, how about putting some meat to your question?


King Mob: I'm happy to accept that I may be wrong. If you are to say so I'd appreciate some examples rather than simply being told I am wrong so I could do some of my own reading on the subject.

I don't think the multiverse as an idea deals with the creation of the universe properly. One it severely violates Ockham's Razor as far as I can see it. Secondly it merely pushes the question of causation one step backwards.

As for quantum foam and omniverses I'd need to read up more on that concept.

Delirium

How is the idea of a multiverse any different from the idea of God creating the universe with regards to Ockham's Razor?

CerebralCortex

philologos wrote: »

You know why Christians claim that God isn't responsible for sin. Indeed, I wrote a thesis on the concept of divine foreknowledge and the human will recently. In a nutshell in Augustine's take (in On The Free Choice Of The Will) knowing what is to happen is not the same as causing it to happen. Humans nonetheless freely will those choices even if they are known about.

I have some problems with this point of view, and that's much how I concluded. It excludes the idea that God in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures does intervene rather than sitting back and watching in an almost deistic manner (for a brief example look to Jeremiah 29:19, Ephesians 2:8-10). There still aren't questions of whether or not God caused sin, but rather how can one justify God intervening in some peoples lives for some purpose, and not intervening in other peoples lives or other situations for other purposes. The question of Epicurus' dilemma (as flawed as it is) can come into this question also. If God can intervene to bring other people to Him, why doesn't He intervene to cause the profound suffering and evil that exists in the world (which being honest is mostly caused by other human beings).

As I said before, how about putting some meat to your question?

WHO ARE CAUSED BY GOD! Also the very act of "creation" is an intervention. You confuse sophistry with logic and rationality and then claim the high ground in both those respects. It's tiresome. The reality is that musings on the origins of the universe is a logical mire.

But no Philologos has privileged insider knowledge and powers of rationality because he opened his heart.

Wibbs

koth wrote: »

You've stated everything must have a cause but haven't explained why it's God and why is God exempt from the rules.

Well one could look at it that everything has a cause(and effect) in this universe. It's kinda the biggest rule in the place. However if something existed beyond/before/after this universe those rules may not apply or apply in very different ways. Even concepts like beyond/before/after are rooted in this universe. Time itself kicked off with the big bang. No beyond existed, the universe expanded into literally nothing. Actually an infinite nothing as far as we can tell. So the nothing itself appears to be infinite, with no cause. Now we might say the nothing is a negative, but it seems to be something, because our universe popped into being from it.

Delirium

Wibbs wrote: »

Well one could look at it that everything has a cause(and effect) in this universe. It's kinda the biggest rule in the place. However if something existed beyond/before/after this universe those rules may not apply or apply in very different ways. Even concepts like beyond/before/after are rooted in this universe. Time itself kicked off with the big bang. No beyond existed, the universe expanded into literally nothing. Actually an infinite nothing as far as we can tell. So the nothing itself appears to be infinite, with no cause. Now we might say the nothing is a negative, but it seems to be something, because our universe popped into being from it.

Generally have no problem with all of that. But philo is saying the Christian god existed in that dimension/reality and for some reason decided to create a universe.

I'm trying to figure out, aside from being Christian, what reasons there are for saying that God is the ultimate cause.

King Mob

philologos wrote: »

King Mob: I'm happy to accept that I may be wrong. If you are to say so I'd appreciate some examples rather than simply being told I am wrong so I could do some of my own reading on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_uncertainty
For example a quantum fluctuation due to the uncertainty principle can cause a pair of particles to arise without any reason or need for external energy then annihilate quickly. Thus being finite and having no cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_genesis

Now since you are confident in your ignorance, please explain why this theory is impossible.

philologos wrote: »

I don't think the multiverse as an idea deals with the creation of the universe properly. One it severely violates Ockham's Razor as far as I can see it.

You'll have to explain that. For one ideas about the multiverse are actually supported by physics and mathematics, something which you cannot claim about god.
Then even if you were to ignore that (which you will) and assume that both concepts are on equal footing, then we've the fact that a supernatural intelligence has never once been the explanation for anything.
So why should we start assuming that it is the explanation now?

philologos wrote: »

Secondly it merely pushes the question of causation one step backwards.

Lol. Irony.
The same can be said about your God.
If you can simply assume that he's infinite how come we can't do the same for a multiverse?

philologos wrote: »

As for quantum foam and omniverses I'd need to read up more on that concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

So you don't know about any of these theories but you are still sure that they are wrong?

Doesn't the fact that these theories exist and are actually supported by maths and physics destroy your only support for God as creator?

King Mob

koth wrote: »

How is the idea of a multiverse any different from the idea of God creating the universe with regards to Ockham's Razor?

Because there are several mathematical models which can explain it's existence making it far more supported than the concept of God.
And the multiverse does not require an intelligence.

robindch

philologos wrote: »

What I have said is that I find Christianity is more reasonable than atheism is in that it makes better sense. That's not the same thing as "preferring it".

It's little different -- your personal preference is for christianity over atheism, because you believe it makes more sense. However, since the answers you've provided have never indicate why it makes more sense, I can only conclude that it's down to personal preference. in this case, probably your own seemingly-intense desire for a purpose.

Christianity provides several popular ones right out of the tin, but atheism doesn't. Hence the preference.

philologos wrote: »

I wouldn't dare present the idea that the truth changes on the basis of how much one might want to wish it away.

Whatever you're referring to as the truth here (an accurate description of reality? something else? I don't know) has an existence which is generally independent of your belief that it does or does not exist.

However, if you drop over to the Other Forum, you can find plenty of instances of certain posters defining reality -- the kind of splendidly pompous presumption which, irritatingly, takes my breath away just as the laughter starts.

I don't see you doing any different here by having a requirement (for purpose or whatever else), then choosing a set of pseudo-facts about the universe which helpfully provide you with what you wanted.

CerebralCortex

King Mob wrote: »

Because there are several mathematical models which can explain it's existence making it far more supported than the concept of God.
And the multiverse does not require an intelligence.

Thus not violating Ockham's razor. Numeracy(multiverse) does not imply complexity.

magicbastarder

are there any threads on this forum which don't degenerate into people arguing what everyone else means?

Zombrex

It is funny given how reasonable the Bible is, how much it makes sense from start to end, some questions just never get answered.

Philologos (and any other religious folks who care to answer), do you believe that Noah and other humans at that time lived for hundreds of years as described in the Bible?

Zombrex

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Thus not violating Ockham's razor. Numeracy(multiverse) does not imply complexity.

It should also be remembered that Ockham's razor is not that the simplest explanation is likely to be the correct one.

It is instead a warning about inserting unnecessary elements into a theory that don't add to the explanation.

Some what ironically since Ockham was a Christian, God did it is the mother of all violations of Ockham's razor, given that we have a universe that functions just fine without the need to insert God did it into any element of it. There is nothing we understand where the understanding is increased by insert God into the theory.

We are either left with the same level of understanding or we never understood the process in the first place.

For example we can explain the existence of humans through the theory of natural evolution. What does that add to the understanding of humans? Nothing. It is a completely unnecessary insertion, without God we end up with the same result so why both inserting God at all.

dmw07

And back on track for a moment

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXcfDN6L9d8

DublinWriter

magicbastarder wrote: »

are there any threads on this forum which don't degenerate into people arguing what everyone else means?

For forum substitute 'The Internet' and the answer is no.