Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Alan Burns on September 02, 2016, 10:10:01 AM
-
I recall these events as they happened without exaggeration or fabrication.
It was Tuesday July 26th. My wife, daughter and I were preparing to embark on a two week holiday in Skiathos, Greece. We were to be picked up at 1:30am in a taxi to travel to Manchester airport for an early morning flight.
A few days before, I had started to experience some pain when passing urine. It had happened before, but passed off in a day or two, but this time it did not pass off. It was getting more painful, more urgent and more frequent. At 11pm I started passing blood. I had to face the reality that I was in no condition to travel and would have to cancel the holiday and seek urgent medical attention. Then ...
Words come into my head saying "Just lie down and pray the Rosary". I have nothing to lose, so I lay on the bed and start silently reciting the sorrowful mysteries of the Holy Rosary. As I pray, all the pain and discomfort drift away and I am covered with a blanket of reassurance telling me that all will be well. As I start on the glorious mysteries, I am so comfortable that I have to make an effort to keep awake. While I am praying, my wife joins me for a lie down, oblivious of the drama I have experienced. On finishing the Glorious mysteries, I drift off to a peaceful sleep. I wake up at 1am in time to prepare for the taxi. I take the two and a half hour taxi ride to Manchester without a single toilet stop. Just two hours earlier I had been weeing blood every five minutes. During the three and a half hour flight I make just one toilet trip, free from pain and blood and I look forward to what turns out to be a wonderful holiday.
So I humbly give thanks and praise to God for this amazing answer to prayer.
People will inevitably ask the question : "Why does God answer my prayers and not other people's?" All I can say is that whenever I put my faith and trust in God, prayers do get answered. I am convinced that faith is the key which unlocks the power of prayer.
postscript: When we arrived in Greece I told my wife of the drama I experienced. She was shocked and amazed, and made me promise to see a doctor when we returned home. The doctor confirmed that I had a urinary tract infection, and I was given a course of antibiotics to clear it up, but she offered no explanation for the two week respite which allowed me to enjoy our holiday.
-
Why did you bother with medical help?
-
My husband gets urinary tract infections. He will have break from one, then two or three weeks later it will start again. He doesn't like to have too many antibiotics, so doesn't always seek treatment unless it is really bad.
This made me giggle.
The Power of Prayer
In a small Midwestern conservative town, a business owner began to construct a building for a new bar. The local church started a campaign to block the bar from opening with petitions and prayers.
Work progressed, however, right up until the week before opening, when a lightning strike hit the bar and it burned to the ground.
The church folks were rather smug in their outlook after that, until the bar owner sued the church on the grounds that the church was ultimately responsible for the demise of his building, either through direct or indirect actions or means.
In its reply to the court, the church vehemently denied all responsibility or any connection to the building's demise.
As the case made its way into court, the judge looked over the paperwork at the hearing and commented, "I don't know how I'm going to decide this, but as it appears from the paperwork, we have a bar owner who believes in the power of prayer, and an entire church congregation that doesn't!"
-
Why did you bother with medical help?
I do what my wife tells me ;)
-
This made me giggle. ....
It made me smile too :)
-
I do what my wife tells me ;)
Do you understand that this is laughable as any sort of evidence for a god intervening in your problems?
I assume this is some sort of joke?
-
People will inevitably ask the question : "Why does God answer my prayers and not other people's?" All I can say is that whenever I put my faith and trust in God, prayers do get answered.
Is there any time when you don't put your faith and trust in God?
-
I do what my wife tells me ;)
As any obedient husband should! :D
BTW did your friend Becky have her brain scan?
-
People will inevitably ask the question : "Why does God answer my prayers and not other people's?" All I can say is that whenever I put my faith and trust in God, prayers do get answered. I am convinced that faith is the key which unlocks the power of prayer.
Any why is it that God has not answered your prayers to supply a cure for bone cancer or Parkinsons disease or Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease ?
Is it
1/ that you do not care enough about these conditions to pray about them in the first place, or,
2/ that God does not care enough about these conditions to consider it a worthy use of his interventionist powers ?
Whaddya think ?
-
e one
Why did you bother with medical help?
Nice one!
Reading that OP was like wading through treacle.
P.S. Floo, your story made me laugh too!
-
Any why is it that God has not answered your prayers to supply a cure for bone cancer or Parkinsons disease or Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease ?
Is it
1/ that you do not care enough about these conditions to pray about them in the first place, or,
2/ that God does not care enough about these conditions to consider it a worthy use of his interventionist powers ?
Whaddya think ?
My personal prayers get answered in a very personal way.
Of course I pray for solutions to big global problems, but these appear to require more than just my personal prayer. If more people prayed with faith I am sure more answers would come. I recall some time ago that there was a big call from our churches to pray for the conversion of Russia. The Christian faith in Russia is no longer persecuted by government forces, and Leningrad has been renamed back to St Petersburg.
-
My personal prayers get answered in a very personal way.
And how can you be sure that you wouldn't have had exactly the same respite in urinary symptoms had you not prayed - answer, you can't.
-
My personal prayers get answered in a very personal way.
Of course I pray for solutions to big global problems, but these appear to require more than just my personal prayer. If more people prayed with faith I am sure more answers would come. I recall some time ago that there was a big call from our churches to pray for the conversion of Russia. The Christian faith in Russia is no longer persecuted by government forces, and Leningrad has been renamed back to St Petersburg.
This is just delusional thinking.
Source vocabulary.com
Delusional comes from a Latin word meaning "deceiving." So delusional thinking is kind of like deceiving yourself by believing outrageous things. Delusional thoughts are often a sign of mental illness, but the word can also be used more loosely to describe behavior that is just not realistic.
-
My personal prayers get answered in a very personal way.
Of course I pray for solutions to big global problems, but these appear to require more than just my personal prayer. If more people prayed with faith I am sure more answers would come. I recall some time ago that there was a big call from our churches to pray for the conversion of Russia. The Christian faith in Russia is no longer persecuted by government forces, and Leningrad has been renamed back to St Petersburg.
So because not enough people pray for it your god chooses to let children die in pain - what a dick of a god!
-
My personal prayers get answered in a very personal way.
Of course I pray for solutions to big global problems, but these appear to require more than just my personal prayer. If more people prayed with faith I am sure more answers would come. I recall some time ago that there was a big call from our churches to pray for the conversion of Russia. The Christian faith in Russia is no longer persecuted by government forces, and Leningrad has been renamed back to St Petersburg.
Is it like some sort of critical mass needs to be achieved then, rather like the government agreeing to act on petitions that attract a minimum number of signatures ?
-
If more people prayed with faith I am sure more answers would come.
I have no doubt that vast numbers of people pray for world peace, or for a cure for cancer etc on very regular occasions. How come that isn't sufficient for god to respond - and if it isn't sufficient, how many people are needed, is there a certain threshold, like there is on the official government petitions.
-
Is it like some sort of critical mass needs to be achieved then, rather like the government agreeing to act on petitions that attract a minimum number of signatures ?
Blimey - we seem to have written almost exactly the same post at the same time, without knowledge of the other persons post.
That is surely more than coincidence - must clearly be evidence for the mysterious workings of god ;)
-
My personal prayers get answered in a very personal way.
Of course I pray for solutions to big global problems, but these appear to require more than just my personal prayer. If more people prayed with faith I am sure more answers would come. I recall some time ago that there was a big call from our churches to pray for the conversion of Russia. The Christian faith in Russia is no longer persecuted by government forces,
Are you sure?
https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2016/07/4555259/
http://m.christianpost.com/news/christians-russia-fear-kgb-style-crackdowns-putin-signs-law-banning-evangelism-166318/
-
And how can you be sure that you wouldn't have had exactly the same respite in urinary symptoms had you not prayed - answer, you can't.
That's the key question. Things happen and if you believe in God and the power of prayer than you assign that as the reason, if you don't believe in those things then you just accept that things happen. If you pray and the thing doesn't happen then you make up a reason why God hasn't answered that one.
-
I have no doubt that vast numbers of people pray for world peace, or for a cure for cancer etc on very regular occasions. How come that isn't sufficient for god to respond - and if it isn't sufficient, how many people are needed, is there a certain threshold, like there is on the official government petitions.
Cancer is not the killer it used to be, there have been tremendous breakthroughs even in my lifetime and people who have had cancer recover, or are in long term remission, and live a normal life span. There have also been great advances in the treatment and, sometimes, cure of other diseases. If we think about it, a lot of us might have died in infancy of things like respiratory infections had we been born a few years earlier.
Regarding peace, it is people who cause wars and it seems to me that they always will. Lots of us on here will remember the Vietnam war which seemed to go on forever. When it was eventually over I naively thought the USA would not waste lives so needlessly in such a hurry again. How wrong I was.
Now, neither of the above may have anything to do with prayer but I can't see how it hurts. I've had some incidences in my life that I honestly believe were helped, or solved, by prayer but I can't prove it so I don't make a big thing out of it. We never can prove it!
-
I do what my wife tells me ;)
Cop out answer.
You say you had some increasingly bad symptoms for a few days before you went on holiday - they then stopped entirely (is that right) and you were completely symptom free for 2 whole weeks (again is that correct). That is certainly what you implied.
If so why would you go to the doctor about something which had resolved itself, certainly in terms of symptoms and hadn't been giving you any problem for weeks.
-
Cancer is not the killer it used to be, there have been tremendous breakthroughs even in my lifetime and people who have had cancer recover, or are in long term remission, and live a normal life span. There have also been great advances in the treatment and, sometimes, cure of other diseases. If we think about it, a lot of us might have died in infancy of things like respiratory infections had we been born a few years earlier.
Regarding peace, it is people who cause wars and it seems to me that they always will. Lots of us on here will remember the Vietnam war which seemed to go on forever. When it was eventually over I naively thought the USA would not waste lives so needlessly in such a hurry again. How wrong I was.
But if god actually answered prayers in the manner that Alan seems to imply why wouldn't god have acted on the prayers for world peace or a cure for cancer.
Now, neither of the above may have anything to do with prayer but I can't see how it hurts. I've had some incidences in my life that I honestly believe were helped, or solved, by prayer but I can't prove it so I don't make a big thing out of it. We never can prove it!
In a way I am with you there. If someone does something (provided it does affect anyone else) and that helps them in a psychological manner to deal with things then that's fine, whether that thing might be prayer, meditation, spending time with friends/family or listening to music.
But the issue for me is when people try to link something that happened directly to that prayer etc, when there is no evidence for a causal relationship. More so when they claim that unproven cause and effect is driven by a supernatural middle man called god.
-
Are you sure?
https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/2016/07/4555259/
http://m.christianpost.com/news/christians-russia-fear-kgb-style-crackdowns-putin-signs-law-banning-evangelism-166318/
A couple on the Isle of Man who had been part of the praying watched Game of Thrones the week before and forgot about praying for Russia, so God decided they needed a little lesson
-
Alan seems to think all is hunky dory Christian-wise in the ex-Soviet Union but that is far from true. The state wants to control the established church. It was always so, even before 1917. Communism has not been the only tyrannical force in Russia, there is something about the place that seems to foster totalitarianism. Christians (& presumably people of other religious beliefs), latched on to Communism as the Big Thing to be got rid of and I'm sure they were right but other things can be just as bad.
Prof, I don't proselytise about faith and prayer, it is a personal thing. You'll have to ask Alan why God didn't or doesn't intervene in some circumstances, it's not a question I have ever asked because I accept that life is a mixture of good and bad. That includes my own life. I believe there will never be world peace - though we could learn not to get into strife which would make war less common! There will always be illnesses. That's life. I'm grateful for small mercies and don't look to blame anyone if situations seem unfair.
-
Prof, I don't proselytise about faith and prayer, it is a personal thing.
Good
You'll have to ask Alan why God didn't or doesn't intervene in some circumstances,
I and others have and he hasn't really answered. The closest he has come it to claim that perhaps god doesn't intervene if the quantum of prayer doesn't reach some kind of threshold. So apparently his god is responding when one person prays (him) about a matter (a urinary tract infection that might prevent him from going on holiday), which let's face it is a pretty trivial matter in the great scheme of things. Yet fails to intervene when countless people are praying for world peace or a cure for cancer. Very strange god if that's his attitude.
-
If so why would you go to the doctor about something which had resolved itself, certainly in terms of symptoms and hadn't been giving you any problem for weeks.
Also, how would the doctor have been able to diagnose the disease if Alan was no longer displaying symptoms?
-
Also, how would the doctor have been able to diagnose the disease if Alan was no longer displaying symptoms?
Alan isn't claiming a cure more a sort of holiday pass so he could have a nice time while children died in pain
-
I suspect that for some praying has a placebo effect helping the body's own healing mechanisms to kick in.
-
Also, how would the doctor have been able to diagnose the disease if Alan was no longer displaying symptoms?
I asked him that, but he hasn't confirmed whether the symptoms went away entirely over the 2 week holiday period or were merely markedly reduced.
Nonetheless he might have explained to his doctor the earlier symptoms which would have flagged up the possibility of a urinary tract infection. That said if I hadn't had symptoms for 2 weeks I doubt I would think it worth worrying the doctor at all.
-
AB,
I recall these events as they happened without exaggeration or fabrication.
It was Tuesday July 26th. My wife, daughter and I were preparing to embark on a two week holiday in Skiathos, Greece. We were to be picked up at 1:30am in a taxi to travel to Manchester airport for an early morning flight.
A few days before, I had started to experience some pain when passing urine. It had happened before, but passed off in a day or two, but this time it did not pass off. It was getting more painful, more urgent and more frequent. At 11pm I started passing blood. I had to face the reality that I was in no condition to travel and would have to cancel the holiday and seek urgent medical attention. Then ...
Words come into my head saying "Just lie down and pray the Rosary". I have nothing to lose, so I lay on the bed and start silently reciting the sorrowful mysteries of the Holy Rosary. As I pray, all the pain and discomfort drift away and I am covered with a blanket of reassurance telling me that all will be well. As I start on the glorious mysteries, I am so comfortable that I have to make an effort to keep awake. While I am praying, my wife joins me for a lie down, oblivious of the drama I have experienced. On finishing the Glorious mysteries, I drift off to a peaceful sleep. I wake up at 1am in time to prepare for the taxi. I take the two and a half hour taxi ride to Manchester without a single toilet stop. Just two hours earlier I had been weeing blood every five minutes. During the three and a half hour flight I make just one toilet trip, free from pain and blood and I look forward to what turns out to be a wonderful holiday.
So I humbly give thanks and praise to God for this amazing answer to prayer.
People will inevitably ask the question : "Why does God answer my prayers and not other people's?" All I can say is that whenever I put my faith and trust in God, prayers do get answered. I am convinced that faith is the key which unlocks the power of prayer.
postscript: When we arrived in Greece I told my wife of the drama I experienced. She was shocked and amazed, and made me promise to see a doctor when we returned home. The doctor confirmed that I had a urinary tract infection, and I was given a course of antibiotics to clear it up, but she offered no explanation for the two week respite which allowed me to enjoy our holiday.
I recall these events as they happened without exaggeration or fabrication.
A couple of weeks ago I fell off my bike and mildly twisted my ankle. Unfortunately I was just about to go to France for my annual holiday, so I banged two coconut shells together, burnt some Rosemary leaves and chanted the name of the great volcano god Hephaestus 43 tines without blinking.
And guess what? Yup, after just two weeks my ankle felt better!
People will inevitably ask the question : "Why does Hephaestus answer my prayers and not other people's?" All I can say is that whenever I put my faith and trust in him, prayers do get answered. I am convinced that faith is the key which unlocks the power of prayer.
Luckily as both you AB and I have dispensed entirely with even the most rudimentary tests for our respective claims - double blind trials, for example - our claims are precisely as (in)valid as each other.
-
I recall these events as they happened without exaggeration or fabrication.
Several years ago, I began to get very painful abdominal pains after passing urine. At times, the accompanying stinging sensation made me pass water very frequently. This lasted for some weeks before eventually I went to the doctor. After going to the doctor, I had an ultra sound scan on my bladder area, but nothing was found. Soon afterwards, I had agreed to go on a special dancing day at the Bridlington Spa, but, the night before, the pain was so discomforting that I told my wife, I didn't think I would make it. Just before I went to bed, I, yet again, went to the toilet. Strangely enough, this time, however, I felt a sudden very sharp pain and realised I had passed something. Looking in the toilet pan I could see the offending object, which I retrieved. The next morning, I felt no pain, went dancing, had an excellent time and had no ill effects.
I actually took the object to the doctors(it was brownish, hard, crystalline, and about 1/3 cm across) who told me immediately that I had passed a bladder stone. Since then I have had no particular bladder problems, and certainly no pain whatever.
At no time did I pray, or even think about praying.
So, if I go by Alan's way of thinking, I suppose the moral of this story might be: if you want to help your body recover from a bladder problem, it would be advisable not to pray at all.
Actually, what I really think in my case is that praying would have been completely superfluous, even as a placebo effect. Much better for me to have used whatever placebo effect is useful by some other means which I have confidence in. Oh, and of course, it goes without saying, that many ailments absolutely need the help of the Medical profession.
-
Prof et al,
If so why would you go to the doctor about something which had resolved itself, certainly in terms of symptoms and hadn't been giving you any problem for weeks.
Just to note that, while sitting in a doctor's waiting room recently, I read the front of a pamphlet that said something like: "Seen blood on your pee? See your doctor, even if it happened only once."
Medical advice is to have it checked out, even if it seems to be a one-off.
-
Don’t use foolish repetitions or verbosity. God already knows your needs
before you ask. (Matt 6 7:8)
-
That's true enki but people feel as though they need to do something, it's quite natural. That applies to prayer as well as doing practical stuff.
Regarding Alan, had he been my husband, I would have insisted he see a doctor even if the symptoms had disappeared so don't see it as a big deal. However these things do sometimes just go away if sufficient water is taken, which doesn't mean the symptoms won't return. He was quite right to go to the doc, I'm with his wife on that one. It sounds horrible!
-
A staunch believer might say that as a result of prayer, it is God guiding Alan's wife in what she says and the doctor's diagnosis and treatment.
-
ekim,
A staunch believer might say that as a result of prayer, it is God guiding Alan's wife in what she says and the doctor's diagnosis and treatment.
A staunch believer in anything might say that the object of his belief was causal when an outcome is unexpected and desired. The "believer's" problem though is to resolve the basic issues of bad thinking on which his attribution rests.
Alan's OP for example is a good example of that bad thinking.
-
That's true enki but people feel as though they need to do something, it's quite natural. That applies to prayer as well as doing practical stuff.
Regarding Alan, had he been my husband, I would have insisted he see a doctor even if the symptoms had disappeared so don't see it as a big deal. However these things do sometimes just go away if sufficient water is taken, which doesn't mean the symptoms won't return. He was quite right to go to the doc, I'm with his wife on that one. It sounds horrible!
Of course, and often this is quite harmless(apart from your pocket), such as using magnetic therapy for athritic pain, or, as I know one lady who swore that her arthritis was somewhat improved by rubbing in WD 40 on the offending part. As long as the placebo element kicks in, then no real problem. However, The key to what you are saying is 'as well as doing the practical stuff', by which I hope you mean the stuff that has been shown evidentially to work. And I would agree with you. If a person where to rely purely on the placebo effect of whatever floats their boat, and eschew a practical medical response when that is what is needed, then this could lead to a dangerous situation as regards their health.
-
AB,
I recall these events as they happened without exaggeration or fabrication.
A couple of weeks ago I fell off my bike and mildly twisted my ankle. Unfortunately I was just about to go to France for my annual holiday, so I banged two coconut shells together, burnt some Rosemary leaves and chanted the name of the great volcano god Hephaestus 43 tines without blinking.
And guess what? Yup, after just two weeks my ankle felt better!
People will inevitably ask the question : "Why does Hephaestus answer my prayers and not other people's?" All I can say is that whenever I put my faith and trust in him, prayers do get answered. I am convinced that faith is the key which unlocks the power of prayer.
Luckily as both you AB and I have dispensed entirely with even the most rudimentary tests for our respective claims - double blind trials, for example - our claims are precisely as (in)valid as each other.
It is truly amazing what your deterministic emergent properties can come up with.
But the reality is the sadness in realising that your soul is inventing these imaginary scenarios to try to prove its own non existence.
-
It is truly amazing what your deterministic emergent properties can come up with.
But the reality is the sadness in realising that your soul is inventing these imaginary scenarios to try to prove its own non existence.
while your god chooses to have children die in excruciating pain throughout the time of your nice holiday.
-
But the reality is the sadness in realising that your soul is inventing these imaginary scenarios to try to prove its own non existence.
This has to be the winner of the daftest sentence of the year award (even though it is still September).
-
while your god chooses to have children die in excruciating pain throughout the time of your nice holiday.
Every human being will suffer pain and sadness in their lives. The fact that we are able to recognise it as something undesirable gives us the hope that there is a world without pain and sadness, and Jesus has opened up a way for our souls to reach this true home which we all yearn for.
-
Every human being will suffer pain and sadness in their lives. The fact that we are able to recognise it as something undesirable gives us the hope that there is a world without pain and sadness, and Jesus has opened up a way for our souls to reach this true home which we all yearn for.
and now you rejoice in the children dying in excrutusting pain. Also I don't yearn for this true home thing.
-
Every human being will suffer pain and sadness in their lives. The fact that we are able to recognise it as something undesirable gives us the hope that there is a world without pain and sadness, and Jesus has opened up a way for our souls to reach this true home which we all yearn for.
Yes Alan, now take your pills, then go and have good lay down; oh yes, don't forget to take your comfort blanket with you too.
ippy
-
Every human being will suffer pain and sadness in their lives. The fact that we are able to recognise it as something undesirable gives us the hope that there is a world without pain and sadness
It doesn't actually engender hope: it just makes us recognise that for some pain and sadness is their lot in life, such as kids with bone cancer - in relation to whom your platitudes are unpleasantly perverse.
and Jesus has opened up a way for our souls to reach this true home which we all yearn for.
Which is as comforting as being advised that Noddy lives in Toytown.
-
AB,
It is truly amazing what your deterministic emergent properties can come up with.
They're not mine, but yes - emergent properties are amazing: a thousand years of so of the same types of merchants in the same part of Florence; the astonishing complexity and apparent sophistication of ant colonies; consciousness and the illusion of "free" will - remarkable phenomena all.
But the reality is the sadness in realising that your soul is inventing these imaginary scenarios to try to prove its own non existence.
Well, that may be your "reality" but it's also as convoluted a piece of casuistry as I've heard in a long time. Perhaps if you made some effort to demonstrate this supposed "soul" to begin with you might at least have a premise for your assertion that's worth considering?
Notwithstanding, any chance of you tackling the long lost of bad thought processes on which your OP rests?
Ta.
-
jeremyp,
Also, how would the doctor have been able to diagnose the disease if Alan was no longer displaying symptoms?
By referring him to a specialist who would conduct further investigations so as to eliminate (or not) the chance of a more serious complaint.
-
Also, how would the doctor have been able to diagnose the disease if Alan was no longer displaying symptoms?
Just a urine test was enough to confirm that it was a UTI.
-
... emergent properties are amazing: a thousand years of so of the same types of merchants in the same part of Florence; the astonishing complexity and apparent sophistication of ant colonies; consciousness and the illusion of "free" will - remarkable phenomena all.
But nothing actually emerges in the physical sense. It could be more accurately described as "perceived properties". My conscious awareness is what facilitates the perception of these properties in other phenomena.
-
But nothing actually emerges in the physical sense. It could be more accurately described as "perceived properties". My conscious awareness is what facilitates the perception of these properties in other phenomena.
Not so, termites were busy building cathedral mounds, a classic example of physical emergence, long before humans evolved to perceive them and wonder at the process.
-
AB,
But nothing actually emerges in the physical sense. It could be more accurately described as "perceived properties". My conscious awareness is what facilitates the perception of these properties in other phenomena.
Torridon has got there before me, but both physical structures (termite mounds, city neighbourhoods etc) and behaviours (ants "farming" other insects etc) are emergent "properties" that exist whether or not you happen to be there to observe them.
-
But nothing actually emerges in the physical sense. It could be more accurately described as "perceived properties". My conscious awareness is what facilitates the perception of these properties in other phenomena.
Yes . Emergence is always going to be problematic for the reductionist (who has to explain how the properties are connected to the level beneath them when observation of that level reveals it not to have those properties) and the materialist who has to link the property to the substrate.
Informationalists might argue that there is more information than substrate.
I look forward to all their explanations of these present problems.
-
Vlad,
Yes . Emergence is always going to be problematic for the reductionist (who has to explain how the properties are connected to the level beneath them when observation of that level reveals it not to have those properties) and the materialist who has to link the property to the substrate.
Informationalists might argue that there is more information than substrate.
I look forward to all their explanations of these present problems.
You don't understand emergence. Try Steven Johnson's book Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software for a good primer.
-
Vlad,
You don't understand emergence. Try Steven Johnson's book Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software for a good primer.
Actually my post is based on Paul Davies the physicist and some articles he did for New Scientist. Cue Hillside and Dawkinsian bullshit about Davies being ''nice to religion''.
-
Vlad,
Actually my post is based on Paul Davies the physicist and some articles he did for New Scientist. Cue Hillside and Dawkinsian bullshit about Davies being ''nice to religion''.
It may be "based on" that but it still reveals your woeful ignorance of the subject. If you want to talk about emergence, find out something about it first. That's why I pointed you to a book to get you started.
You're welcome.
-
Vlad,
You don't understand emergence. Try Steven Johnson's book Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software for a good primer.
Typical Hillside Gambit.
1: Don't address the points raised.
2: Merely assert lack of understanding in opponent.
3: Reinforce trick by quoting a book.
Yawn.
-
Vlad,
It may be "based on" that but it still reveals your woeful ignorance of the subject. If you want to talk about emergence, find out something about it first. That's why I pointed you to a book to get you started.
You're welcome.
I have found out something about it since I referenced Paul Davies. Did you miss that?
-
AB,
Torridon has got there before me, but both physical structures (termite mounds, city neighbourhoods etc) and behaviours (ants "farming" other insects etc) are emergent "properties" that exist whether or not you happen to be there to observe them.
Could it be, then, that one of Alan's emergent properties is a soul which he has become aware of and that your 'properties' have emerged in a different direction to make you at most soul-less or at least incapable of recognising such a property?
-
Of course I pray for solutions to big global problems, but these appear to require more than just my personal prayer.
Could it be that when you are praying for the big problems that you are not doing it correctly?
All I can say is that whenever I put my faith and trust in God, prayers do get answered.
::)
-
Could it be, then, that one of Alan's emergent properties is a soul which he has become aware of and that your 'properties' have emerged in a different direction to make you at most soul-less or at least incapable of recognising such a property?
which leads to a method that says x and not x are both true, so not useful
-
Vlad,
Typical Hillside Gambit.
1: Don't address the points raised.
2: Merely assert lack of understanding in opponent.
3: Reinforce trick by quoting a book.
Yawn.
No gambit - just pointing out that your post betrayed your ignorance of the subject. Termite mounds for example have air conditioning - they draw in cooler air and vent it from the top and thereby maintain the mound's constant temperature. No termite though ever was capable of designing an air conditioning system - ie, it's an emergent property.
You try figuring out from there where you went wrong...
-
which leads to a method that says x and not x are both true, so not useful
What is the difference here between say a penis and a soul?
-
Vlad,
No gambit - just pointing out that your post betrayed your ignorance of the subject. Termite mounds for example have air conditioning - they draw in cooler air and vent it from the top and thereby maintain the mound's constant temperature. No termite though ever was capable of designing an air conditioning system - ie, it's an emergent property.
You try figuring out from there where you went wrong...
Sorry everybody I missed out Hillside gambit steps 4 where he puts up something completely non sequitur that I've never argued against to suggest I am ignorant.
Cue Hillside gambit step 5 where he congratulates/criticises me on spelling sequitur right or wrong as the case.
-
What is the difference here between say a penis and a soul?
in which Vlad shows he does not understand logical propositions
-
Vlad,
Sorry everybody I missed out Hillside gambit steps 4 where he puts up something completely non sequitur that I've never argued against to suggest I am ignorant.
Cue Hillside gambit step 5 where he congratulates/criticises me on spelling sequitur right or wrong as the case.
You made some basic errors re the nature of emergence. If you want to discuss it here, then you need at least a grounding so as to be able to engage meaningfully.
Oh, and for once your problem isn't that you've miss-spelt "sequitur"; rather it's that you don't understand what it means and so have wrongly accused me of it.
-
Could it be, then, that one of Alan's emergent properties is a soul which he has become aware of and that your 'properties' have emerged in a different direction to make you at most soul-less or at least incapable of recognising such a property?
I think that persons, or souls (in the common sense, not in AB's sense) are excellent examples of emergence. Once we understand emergence, dualism becomes spurious.
-
Vlad,
You made some basic errors re the nature of emergence. If you want to discuss it here, then you need at least a grounding so as to be able to engage meaningfully.
That's mere assertion which you haven't justified yet.
Does engaging with you meaningfully really mean agreeing with you?...or being an atheist?
-
That's mere assertion which you haven't justified yet.
Does engaging with you meaningfully really mean agreeing with you?...or being an atheist?
in which Vlad refuses to engage and uses the straw that he found down the back of his sofa
-
I think that persons, or souls (in the common sense, not in AB's sense) are excellent examples of emergence. Once we understand emergence, dualism becomes spurious.
How?
-
Vlad,
That's mere assertion which you haven't justified yet.
Does engaging with you meaningfully really mean agreeing with you?...or being an atheist?
Opening up with "emergence is always going to be a problem for the reductionist" tells us instantly that you understand neither "emergence" and nor for that matter "reductionism". It's a bit like saying, "architecture is always going to be a problem for the morris dancer".
I was merely trying to help you by pointing you towards a source for the subject you presume to critique. If you really want to stay in architecture/morris dancing territory though that's up to you.
And no, engaging meaningfully doesn't mean agreeing - often the opposite in fact. What it does mean though is obtaining a basic vocabulary in the subject such that dialogue becomes possible.
Paul Davies incidentally dismisses "God" as an explanation for apparently consistent universal laws.
-
Vlad,
Opening up with "emergence is always going to be a problem for the reductionist" tells us instantly that you understand neither "emergence" and nor for that matter "reductionism". It's a bit like saying, "architecture is always going to be a problem for the morris dancer".
I was merely trying to help you by pointing you towards a source for the subject you presume to critique. If you really want to stay in architecture/morris dancing territory though that's up to you.
And no, engaging meaningfully doesn't mean agreeing - often the opposite in fact. What it does mean though is obtaining a basic vocabulary in the subject such that dialogue becomes possible.
Paul Davies incidentally dismisses "God" as an explanation for apparently consistent universal laws.
Hillside you are just trying to repeat the Hillside Gambit. I am amused by it although for I find such behaviour a bit creepy. But at the end of the day, if you can't see the link between reductionism, materialism and information theories then you are the one without a grounding in emergence.
-
Vlad,
Hillside you are just trying to repeat the Hillside Gambit. I am amused by it although for I find such behaviour a bit creepy. But at the end of the day, if you can't see the link between reductionism, materialism and information theories then you are the one without a grounding in emergence.
It's not a "gambit" to explain that you don't understand the words and terms you attempt to use. There's nothing "reductionist" about emergence - pretty much the opposite in fact given that it entails the "the sum is greater than the parts" paradigm. The only creepy thing here is your continued misuse of language even when the correct meanings have been explained to you (cf your re-definitions of "philosophical materialism", "scientism", "atheism" etc).
If nonetheless you seriously think there to be a conflict between emergence and reductionism, then explain it rather than just assert it.
Maybe you could do that when you finally attempt to explain how you'd go about falsifying leprechauns?
-
Not so, termites were busy building cathedral mounds, a classic example of physical emergence, long before humans evolved to perceive them and wonder at the process.
But the "property" in these cases is defined by the perceived complexity within the physical materials - not the materials themselves. So as I said - nothing "emerges" in the physical sense, it is just complexity as perceived by our conscious awareness.
-
AB,
But the "property" in these cases is defined by the perceived complexity within the physical materials - not the materials themselves. So as I said - nothing "emerges" in the physical sense, it is just complexity as perceived by our conscious awareness.
Again, no termite is capable of conceiving of air conditioning yet it exists in the mounds they construct whether or not you happen to be there to "perceive" it.
That's emergence.
-
AB,
Again, no termite is capable of conceiving of air conditioning yet it exists in the mounds they construct whether or not you happen to be there to "perceive" it.
That's emergence.
But the concept of air conditioning only exists in the conscious awareness of human beings. Take away our conscious awareness and these properties cease to exist. Ultimately all that exists outside of conscious awareness is atomic particles, radiation and space.
-
A staunch believer might say that as a result of prayer, it is God guiding Alan's wife in what she says and the doctor's diagnosis and treatment.
A staunch atheist would then ask why God doesn't guide rapists away from committing rape, to which the staunch believer's normal reply is that God doesn't interfere with Free Will. The staunch atheist would then point ut that guiding Alan's wife and doctors in the way the staunch believer suggests is a violation of their Free Will.
-
Every human being will suffer pain and sadness in their lives.
Why does your god think it is more important for you to have a pain free holiday than for millions of children to live a pain free life?
Your god is a monster. It's fortunate he doesn't really exist.
-
But the concept of air conditioning only exists in the conscious awareness of human beings. Take away our conscious awareness and these properties cease to exist. Ultimately all that exists outside of conscious awareness is atomic particles, radiation and space.
Nonsense.
Do you really think that the 'air-conditioning' property of termite mounds ceases when humans aren't looking ? These mounds were doing this long before humans discovered them.
-
Nonsense.
Do you really think that the 'air-conditioning' property of termite mounds ceases when humans aren't looking ? These mounds were doing this long before humans discovered them.
What you perceive and label as "air conditioning" is just atomic particles reacting to events. The labelling and human perception will of course have no effect on the behaviour of these particles. The entire universe contains particles reacting to events. The process of perceiving these events and labelling them only exists in human perception, as does the concept of emergent properties.
-
What you perceive and label as "air conditioning" is just atomic particles reacting to events. The labelling and human perception will of course have no effect on the behaviour of these particles. The entire universe contains particles reacting to events. The process of perceiving these events and labelling them only exists in human perception, as does the concept of emergent properties.
There are many examples of emergence throughout nature and they don't depend on human perception or labelling to function. Termites did not have to wait for biologists to come along and study them and put a name on the process for it to exist. 'Emergence' simply refers to systems that display different properties at higher levels of organisation to the properties of their simpler constituent parts. It does not depend on external perception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence)
-
A staunch atheist would then ask why God doesn't guide rapists away from committing rape, to which the staunch believer's normal reply is that God doesn't interfere with Free Will. The staunch atheist would then point ut that guiding Alan's wife and doctors in the way the staunch believer suggests is a violation of their Free Will.
Another staunch believer might say that God guides by revealing to his prophets ways to overcome 'sins of the flesh' so that the will is free from such compulsions and so that love and compassion may express itself freely as perhaps it does in the case of the wife or doctor.
-
AB,
What you perceive and label as "air conditioning" is just atomic particles reacting to events. The labelling and human perception will of course have no effect on the behaviour of these particles. The entire universe contains particles reacting to events. The process of perceiving these events and labelling them only exists in human perception, as does the concept of emergent properties.
The "labels" are language, which we need to communicate and exchange ideas. "Termite" and "air" are labels too, but there's no "just" about them - they describe succinctly complex natural phenomena. The fact is that termite mounds are ventilated in a remarkable way that no individual termite could conceive of, yet they exist anyway. Whether you happen to be around to label the phenomenon, it happens nonetheless. Ventilated mound construction is thus an emergent property.
Below is an extract and a link the shows you how remarkable they are:
"The mechanism the researchers identified relies, in large measure, on the structure of the mounds.
The mounds are built around large central “chimneys” that reach from gallery ― the underground vault where the bulk of the colony lives ― to the top of the mound. While the interior of the mound features large structural walls, the exterior is far thinner, with walls that, while impermeable to wind, allow for the exchange of gases.
During the day, Mahadevan explained, as sunlight warms the mound’s outer walls, the air inside warms, causing it to rise.
“What you get is a convection cell,” Mahadevan said. “The warm air can’t move through the walls quickly enough, but it has to go somewhere, and the only possibility is for it to go down into the interior through the central chimney. At night, as the exterior cools, the airflow reverses, and it pulls the air up from the central part of the mound.”
The result, Mahadevan said, is that while CO2 concentrations during the day can reach up to 4 or 5 percent in the center of the mound, airflow at night pulls the gas to the exterior walls, where it can escape by diffusing through the walls.
“But what’s remarkable here is how the termites are using transients. The temperature outside the mound is oscillating, and they have developed a method to harness that to ventilate their mounds.” Mahadevan said."
(http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/09/how-termites-ventilate/)
-
Another staunch believer might say that God guides by revealing to his prophets ways to overcome 'sins of the flesh' so that the will is free from such compulsions and so that love and compassion may express itself freely as perhaps it does in the case of the wife or doctor.
And the staunch atheist asks why God can't do something similar to rapists.
-
....... they have developed a method to harness that to ventilate their mounds.” Mahadevan said."
(http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/09/how-termites-ventilate/)
Doesn't that imply that some form of conscious intelligence is involved, albeit at a termite level?
-
Doesn't that imply that some form of conscious intelligence is involved, albeit at a termite level?
No.
-
What you perceive and label as "air conditioning" is just atomic particles reacting to events. The labelling and human perception will of course have no effect on the behaviour of these particles. The entire universe contains particles reacting to events. The process of perceiving these events and labelling them only exists in human perception, as does the concept of emergent properties.
'The process of perceiving these events' is done by your soul, which according to you does not actually reside in this universe IIRC.
Is that correct?
-
ekim,
Doesn't that imply that some form of conscious intelligence is involved, albeit at a termite level?
No. Inasmuch as termites do have "intelligence", it's vanishingly tiny compared with that needed to design and build a ventilated mound from the outset. That's the point about emergence - complex outcomes come from simple components.
Cities are often like that by the way. No-one says, "this'll be the street with all the flower shops" yet they tend to appear together anyway. There's a trade though - as a flower shop owner it suits me to have one nearby because together we attract to the area people who want to buy flowers, but on the other hand I might not want it right next door for fear of the competition it provides. Over time an equilibrium is achieved that - viewed top down - looks for all the world as if it had been designed that way, but all that's actually happened is that it's emerged from the bottom up.
-
And the staunch atheist asks why God can't do something similar to rapists.
... and yet another believer might say that the way is straight and narrow but open to all. Many are called but few make it because they choose the wider path leading to eternal damnation.
-
ekim,
No. Inasmuch as termites do have "intelligence", it's vanishingly tiny compared with that needed to design and build a ventilated mound from the outset. That's the point about emergence - complex outcomes come from simple components.
Cities are often like that by the way. No-one says, "this'll be the street with all the flower shops" yet they tend to appear together anyway. There's a trade though - as a flower shop owner it suits me to have one nearby because together we attract to the area people who want to buy flowers, but on the other hand I might not want it right next door for fear of the competition it provides. Over time an equilibrium is achieved that - viewed top down - looks for all the world as if it had been designed that way, but all that's actually happened is that it's emerged from the bottom up.
So the author was wrong to say they have developed a method for the purpose of ventilating their mounds ..... it was just trial and error choices, over many years, which allowed an appropriate outcome for their communal success?
-
So the author was wrong to say they have developed a method for the purpose of ventilating their mounds ..... it was just trial and error choices, over many years, which allowed an appropriate outcome for their communal success?
The author phrased it in such a way that you might read it as that but in context that isn't a valid interpretation. Further the idea that it is trial and error and is then a communal decision doesn't make sense.
-
skim,
So the author was wrong to say they have developed a method for the purpose of ventilating their mounds ..... it was just trial and error choices, over many years, which allowed an appropriate outcome for their communal success?
Sort of - the trial and error process is part of it but then behaviours become embedded and repeated. When a foraging ant finds food for example and releases a pheromone the following ants read that as "turn right" (or whatever) and the result over time is complex behavioural and physical structures. The termites have "developed" the method for ventilated mounds in one sense, but not in the sense that there's a head termite with a hard hat and a sheaf of plans telling the other termites what to do.
Here's a link to a good radio documentary on the subject you might enjoy:
http://www.radiolab.org/story/91500-emergence/
-
BH
Thanks, I'll have a lsiten.
-
ekim,
Thanks, I'll have a lsiten.
No problem. A warning though: the Radiolab documentaries are generally very good, so you might find yourself listening for (many) more hours than you expect as you explore them!
-
Doesn't that imply that some form of conscious intelligence is involved, albeit at a termite level?
No, rather it demonstrates how complex phenomena such as 'intelligence' emerge from underlying primitives. You are an intelligent guy, but none of your neurons are intelligent.
-
The language can be confusing too, can't it? to say that termites 'have developed' would perhaps be more scientifically described as 'behaviours which were adaptive and enabled the species to survive persisted ... but of course we absolutely need non-convoluted phrases for general use.
that sounds a bit pompous! :) Not meant to be!
-
'The process of perceiving these events' is done by your soul, which according to you does not actually reside in this universe IIRC.
Is that correct?
That's an interesting point. Presumably Christians such as AB are compelled to say that the soul is not part of nature, and not part of the universe, but somehow finds it way into the human body or self or whatever. Well, obviously, this is divine injection at work, God has a large syringe full of soul-juice. Well, supernatural soul-juice.
I don't know whether AB would say that perception itself is not part of nature, but here we come back to the usual argument from incredulity - 'I can't see how the brain produces consciousness, therefore God', or the like.
-
If prayer was powerful no child would die :(
No innocent baby would come to harm.
If free will triumphs over prayer, it's not that powerful :(
-
I recall these events as they happened without exaggeration or fabrication.
It was Tuesday July 26th. My wife, daughter and I were preparing to embark on a two week holiday in Skiathos, Greece. We were to be picked up at 1:30am in a taxi to travel to Manchester airport for an early morning flight.
A few days before, I had started to experience some pain when passing urine. It had happened before, but passed off in a day or two, but this time it did not pass off. It was getting more painful, more urgent and more frequent. At 11pm I started passing blood. I had to face the reality that I was in no condition to travel and would have to cancel the holiday and seek urgent medical attention. Then ...
Words come into my head saying "Just lie down and pray the Rosary". I have nothing to lose, so I lay on the bed and start silently reciting the sorrowful mysteries of the Holy Rosary. As I pray, all the pain and discomfort drift away and I am covered with a blanket of reassurance telling me that all will be well. As I start on the glorious mysteries, I am so comfortable that I have to make an effort to keep awake. While I am praying, my wife joins me for a lie down, oblivious of the drama I have experienced. On finishing the Glorious mysteries, I drift off to a peaceful sleep. I wake up at 1am in time to prepare for the taxi. I take the two and a half hour taxi ride to Manchester without a single toilet stop. Just two hours earlier I had been weeing blood every five minutes. During the three and a half hour flight I make just one toilet trip, free from pain and blood and I look forward to what turns out to be a wonderful holiday.
So I humbly give thanks and praise to God for this amazing answer to prayer.
People will inevitably ask the question : "Why does God answer my prayers and not other people's?" All I can say is that whenever I put my faith and trust in God, prayers do get answered. I am convinced that faith is the key which unlocks the power of prayer.
postscript: When we arrived in Greece I told my wife of the drama I experienced. She was shocked and amazed, and made me promise to see a doctor when we returned home. The doctor confirmed that I had a urinary tract infection, and I was given a course of antibiotics to clear it up, but she offered no explanation for the two week respite which allowed me to enjoy our holiday.
Given all that faith out there, why is it that ambulances don't take people to the local church/mosque/temple/synagogue instead of hospital?
-
There are many examples of emergence throughout nature and they don't depend on human perception or labelling to function. Termites did not have to wait for biologists to come along and study them and put a name on the process for it to exist. 'Emergence' simply refers to systems that display different properties at higher levels of organisation to the properties of their simpler constituent parts. It does not depend on external perception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence)
Outside human perception, everything just exist as simple constituent parts. Any higher levels of perceived organisation are entirely defined and categorised by the subjective conscious perception of human beings.
-
AB,
Outside human perception, everything just exist as simple constituent parts. Any higher levels of perceived organisation are entirely defined and categorised by the subjective conscious perception of human beings.
Look at the extract I posted for you - various interconnected features have to operate together for the termite mound to work effectively. That's not "simple constituent parts" at all - it's a system.
Moreover, it's a system of which no individual termite could conceive - yet they produce it anyway. You can define and categorise that any way you like but it exists whether or not you do that.
And that's an example of emergence.
Why is it so difficult for you to grasp?
-
... and yet another believer might say that the way is straight and narrow but open to all. Many are called but few make it because they choose the wider path leading to eternal damnation.
To which the staunch atheist replies "why did God make the path so stupidly narrow?"
-
Outside human perception, everything just exist as simple constituent parts. Any higher levels of perceived organisation are entirely defined and categorised by the subjective conscious perception of human beings.
You are going down the road to full-on Berkeley type idealism, that everything is mind. It's an interesting set of ideas, but not very useful. For example, stars exist, but according to you, don't really, unless I have the concept of stars. Where does that get you?
-
Wiggs,
You are going down the road to full-on Berkeley type idealism, that everything is mind. It's an interesting set of ideas, but not very useful. For example, stars exist, but according to you, don't really, unless I have the concept of stars. Where does that get you?
Nowhere much - if we don't proceed as if there's a world "out there" then what could we do instead? AB's problem I suspect is worse than that though - he seems to accept that some phenomena do exist independent of his ability to "perceive" them - tables, bananas etc - but that others do not - eg, systems, or at least systems that haven't been consciously designed top down.
It's all a bit arbitrary, but it gives him just enough wiggle room to pop in a non-material "soul" to do the interpreting or some such.
-
Wiggs,
Nowhere much - if we don't proceed as if there's a world "out there" then what could we do instead? AB's problem I suspect is worse than that though - he seems to accept that some phenomena do exist independent of his ability to "perceive" them - tables, bananas etc - but that others do not - eg, systems, or at least systems that haven't been consciously designed top down.
It's all a bit arbitrary, but it gives him just enough wiggle room to pop in a non-material "soul" to do the interpreting or some such.
Yes, although tables and bananas can be seen as systems in a way. I think AB said that the universe consists of particles which react, but how does he know that? I think Berkeley went full-tilt and said that everything is mind. As you say, AB is trying to have a half-way house.
-
Wiggs,
Yes, although tables and bananas can be seen as systems in a way. I think AB said that the universe consists of particles which react, but how does he know that? I think Berkeley went full-tilt and said that everything is mind. As you say, AB is trying to have a half-way house.
Quite so. By chance I read a while back about how difficult machine recognition can be with reference to tables. After all, what's a table? Most people can tell you straight away what is and isn't a table, but it's actually a hard problem - when does a flat surface supported off the ground become or cease to become a table and instead become something else? A workman's saw bench for example isn't a table, but how would you programme a machine to distinguish that flat surface on legs from, say, a coffee table?
The answer incidentally is that you don't. Rather software uses heuristics that feed back whether the machine got it right or not such that eventually it builds a model that's good enough for real world application.
-
'The process of perceiving these events' is done by your soul, which according to you does not actually reside in this universe IIRC.
Is that correct?
You have to ask the question:
How can conscious perception be achieved by the deterministic activity of atomic particles?
Atomic particles react to events - they do not consciously perceive.
Conscious perception requires the properties of billions of atomic particles to be perceived by a single entity of awareness. Many human brain will cells contain the information to be perceived, but physical science has no definition for the entity which perceives this information. And not only does this entity perceive the information in the brain, it can interact with it in a way which can't be explained by deterministic science.
The human race has been aware of their spiritual nature for several thousand years, and contrary to the opinions of many misinformed people, current scientific discoveries have not been able to disprove our spiritual nature.
-
To which the staunch atheist replies "why did God make the path so stupidly narrow?"
To which the believer replies "God didn't make any paths. The paths were created by man. One path to climb back to the source/destination he had fallen from, which is easier when he releases his burdens. The wider path is a continuation of his fall made more likely as his burden of attachments continue to grow." As the man said ' Learn from me .... as my yoke is easy and my burden is light.
-
You have to ask the question:
How can conscious perception be achieved by the deterministic activity of atomic particles?
Atomic particles react to events - they do not consciously perceive.
Conscious perception requires the properties of billions of atomic particles to be perceived by a single entity of awareness. Many human brain will cells contain the information to be perceived, but physical science has no definition for the entity which perceives this information. And not only does this entity perceive the information in the brain, it can interact with it in a way which can't be explained by deterministic science.
The human race has been aware of their spiritual nature for several thousand years, and contrary to the opinions of many misinformed people, current scientific discoveries have not been able to disprove our spiritual nature.
Is that a yes or a no?
-
Is that a yes or a no?
I am implying that our spiritual soul is not composed of material elements, and therefore does not belong to the physical universe we perceive.
-
Outside human perception, everything just exist as simple constituent parts. Any higher levels of perceived organisation are entirely defined and categorised by the subjective conscious perception of human beings.
I think you are very confused about this. Termite mounds were 'working' long before humans noticed and studied them. Their 'emergent' properties are properties of the mound not of any outside observer. We can observe them and label them but that does not define them; they are what they are and they do what they do. The way you are arguing is as if gravity did not exist until an apple happened to fall on Isaac Newton's head one day and he thought up the theory of gravitation. Emergent phenomena are properties of complex systems and there always was complex system before human evolved and there will be complex systems after we have gone.
-
AB,
You have to ask the question:
How can conscious perception be achieved by the deterministic activity of atomic particles?
Not if you find an unsatisfactory answer to give you a mandate to pop in "God", "soul" etc rather than just a "don't know" you don't.
Atomic particles react to events - they do not consciously perceive.
Depends what you mean by "events", and it's sub-atomic particles in any case but yes - individually they cannot "perceive" - ie, interpret - anything.
Conscious perception requires the properties of billions of atomic particles to be perceived by a single entity of awareness.
No. The "billions of atomic particles" is the "single entity of awareness". That's the point. Consciousness is an emergent property of those countless and individually non-conscious component parts.
Many human brain will cells contain the information to be perceived, but physical science has no definition for the entity which perceives this information.
Of course it does. That's what theory of mind is about. That it doesn't have all the answers yet - or may never do - is a secondary matter.
And not only does this entity perceive the information in the brain, it can interact with it in a way which can't be explained by deterministic science.
No, of course it can be explained and besides your dualism - mind vs body - is bogus. What would this mind be if not for a property of the body?
The human race has been aware of their spiritual nature for several thousand years, and contrary to the opinions of many misinformed people, current scientific discoveries have not been able to disprove our spiritual nature.
That's called the negative proof fallacy, and moreover the perception of a "spiritual" dimension to our existence is entirely irrelevant to the argument. "Being aware of" and "demonstrating to be the case" are not the same thing at all.
-
I am implying that our spiritual soul is not composed of material elements, and therefore does not belong to the physical universe we perceive.
So, not actually part of the universe but somewhere else?
-
Atomic particles react to events - they do not consciously perceive.
Conscious perception requires the properties of billions of atomic particles to be perceived by a single entity of awareness. Many human brain will cells contain the information to be perceived, but physical science has no definition for the entity which perceives this information. And not only does this entity perceive the information in the brain, it can interact with it in a way which can't be explained by deterministic science.
All these things are classic instances of emergence of complex phenomena from simpler underlying constituents. Einstein was a really clever bloke, but it wasn't because he had lots of really clever neurons. No neuron is clever, and yet cleverness arises out of the complex systems of interconnected neurons.
Similarly, an ant is a pretty dim creature with only a tiny brain, and yet an ant colony can make intelligent decisions about where to site a nest. The intelligence of the colony emerges out of the communication within the system of ants.
-
I am implying that our spiritual soul is not composed of material elements, and therefore does not belong to the physical universe we perceive.
But of course your 'spiritual soul' is just an idea without any justification, an idea born of nothing more profound than incredulity, therefore limited usefulness.
-
Is that a yes or a no?
Ah! I like your response. :) I had Synthetic Dave read that chunk of garbled prose several times and considered responding to the last sentence but rejected the idea!
-
I am implying that our spiritual soul is not composed of material elements, and therefore does not belong to the physical universe we perceive.
What make you think that Alan? How do you know? How can you or anyone else possibly know that?
ippy
-
AB,
I am implying that our spiritual soul is not composed of material elements, and therefore does not belong to the physical universe we perceive.
Actually what you're "implying" first is a "spiritual soul" to begin with, albeit without any sort of coherent logic or evidence to support the contention. What this supposed soul is made of would be a secondary matter once you've established the premise, though pouffing into existence these "non-material elements" gets you off the hook I guess of any kind of rational enquiry into what they might be.
-
Emergent phenomena are properties of complex systems and there always was complex system before human evolved and there will be complex systems after we have gone.
The meaning word "complex" is a product of human perception. We perceive some things as complex because we can recognise some form of functionality or interactivity, but this recognition is entirely the product of subjective human perception.
Ultimately I am just trying to point out that what is termed as "emergent properties" are just a collection of atomic particles obeying the laws of science. How they came into being does not give them any superior properties to other atomic particles. The fact that termites were responsible for building a mound with holes in it does not give the mound any special qualities that can't be achieved by other mounds of material. So to try to explain conscious awareness as an emergent property of basic atomic elements will not work if it is not possible for basic material elements to achieve conscious awareness.
-
To which the believer replies "God didn't make any paths.
To which the staunch atheist replies "you said God created everything".
The paths were created by man.
To which the staunch atheist replies "God created man, and if he (God) is omniscient, he would know that the Man he designed would try to create impossibly narrow paths."
You see if the God that Christians claim exists actually does exist, he is responsible for everything by virtue of his omni- powers.
-
I am implying that our spiritual soul is not composed of material elements, and therefore does not belong to the physical universe we perceive.
How do you know?
-
How do you know?
Because I am a spiritual being, not a biological robot.
-
AB,
The meaning word "complex" is a product of human perception. We perceive some things as complex because we can recognise some form of functionality or interactivity, but this recognition is entirely the product of subjective human perception.
Nope. They're "complex" in the sense that they're systems - various properties of the components working together to create new phenomena that the components individually do not exhibit. Whether we're there to "interpret" these systems makes not a blind bit of difference to the fact of their existence.
Ultimately I am just trying to point out that what is termed as "emergent properties" are just a collection of atomic particles obeying the laws of science.
No. They are that, but they're not "just" that. See above.
How they came into being does not give them any superior properties to other atomic particles.
Different rather than "superior", and yes it does. A termite mound has different functional properties from the termites, mud and spit that made it.
The fact that termites were responsible for building a mound with holes in it does not give the mound any special qualities that can't be achieved by other mounds of material.
Of course it does. "Mounds of material" don't just self-assemble as functioning air ventilation systems.
So...
Your premise has failed (see above), so so has the "so" here...
...to try to explain conscious awareness as an emergent property of basic atomic elements will not work if it is not possible for basic material elements to achieve conscious awareness.
Your failure to grasp what emergence entails is remarkable for its obtuseness and wilful ignorance of the subject. I've already recommended to you a good book (albeit not "the" good book in your terms) on the subject so why not read it before attempting to critique the subject again?
-
Because I am a spiritual being, not a biological robot.
How do you know that you aren't a biological robot?
-
Gordon,
How do you know that you aren't a biological robot?
He doesn't - that's just the way it "feels" to him so he has to construct an entire set of asserted claims to provide a rationale for it.
-
Because I am a spiritual being, not a biological robot.
Actually I've got you down as a biological robot, one that is under the delusion that it is a spiritual being. That makes sense I think, it would account for the predictable nature of your posts.
Joking aside, have a look at this robot :
https://youtu.be/W0_DPi0PmF0 (https://youtu.be/W0_DPi0PmF0)
Extrapolating current trends I think it will not be long before robots are so life like they will be indistinguishable from real humans, and we will have to design them differently so we can tell the difference. And as our artificial intelligence approaches naturally evolved organic intelligence, the whole notion of 'robot' is going to dissolve, it will have outlived its usefulness. We are information beings, the matter from which we are made does not really define us, sooner or later we will upgrade ourselves to more durable materials and the era of organic people that suffer and decay will be over.
-
It's interesting that 'I am a spiritual being' is on a par with 'I am not a spiritual being', or 'I don't know if I am a spiritual being', or 'I don't care'. I mean, that they are expressions of people's feelings, and have equivalent status. This is like the old examples, 'I experience God', and 'I don't experience God'. If one is valid, so is the other. It gets you exactly nowhere.
-
Your failure to grasp what emergence entails is remarkable for its obtuseness and wilful ignorance of the subject. I've already recommended to you a good book (albeit not "the" good book in your terms) on the subject so why not read it before attempting to critique the subject again?
All the examples of so called emergence I have seen can be replicated with some form of human creativity. This is because these emergent properties can be entirely defined from basic material elements.
In the case of conscious awareness, you can't claim this to be an emergent property if it can't be replicated in material terms. You can point to the information contained in the brain cells, but until you can define how these are perceived in material terms it is not feasible to assume that it is an emergent property.
-
Actually I've got you down as a biological robot, one that is under the delusion that it is a spiritual being. That makes sense I think, it would account for the predictable nature of your posts.
Joking aside, have a look at this robot :
https://youtu.be/W0_DPi0PmF0 (https://youtu.be/W0_DPi0PmF0)
Extraopolating current trends I think it will not be long before robots are so life like they will be indistinguishable from real humans, and we will have to design them differently so we can tell the difference. And as our artificial intelligence approaches naturally evolved organic intelligence, the whole notion of 'robot' is going to dissolve, it will have outlived its usefulness. We are information beings, the matter from which we are made does not really define us, sooner or later we will upgrade ourselves to more durable materials and the era of organic people that suffer and decay will be over.
We have the ability to mimic the external behaviour of humans, but this does not imply that we can create the internal conscious awareness experienced by humans.
-
In the case of conscious awareness, you can't claim this to be an emergent property if it can't be replicated in material terms.
Yes you can.
Conscious awareness is an emergent property.
There I just did it.
Much like you claiming that there is a soul somewhere, not residing in the universe, which connects with your material brain cells.
It's really quite easy.
What now?
-
We have the ability to mimic the external behaviour of humans, but this does not imply that we can create the internal conscious awareness experienced by humans.
It's just a matter of time; whatever has evolved naturally, we reproduce with better materials sooner or later. There is nothing magic about consciousness, it is a question of information flow within a bounded system and there is no reason to suppose that carbon compounds are the only ones capable of hosting information flows
-
It's just a matter of time; whatever has evolved naturally, we reproduce with better materials sooner or later. There is nothing magic about consciousness, it is a question of information flow within a bounded system and there is no reason to suppose that carbon compounds are the only ones capable of hosting information flows
There is information circulating within the bounded system of my computer. Are you saying that my computer has consciousness? It is possible to still the mind so that information ceases to flow and still simply remain aware.
-
It's just a matter of time; whatever has evolved naturally, we reproduce with better materials sooner or later. There is nothing magic about consciousness, it is a question of information flow within a bounded system and there is no reason to suppose that carbon compounds are the only ones capable of hosting information flows
In addition to the information flow there is the question of a recipient for this information - You.
-
Because I am a spiritual being, not a biological robot.
How do you know?
It seems to me that you don't know but are merely thinking wishfully.
-
There is information circulating within the bounded system of my computer. Are you saying that my computer has consciousness? It is possible to still the mind so that information ceases to flow and still simply remain aware.
My desktop computer has pretty much zero consciousness, as it is not architected with that end in mind; rather it produces specific outputs for specific inputs with minimal effort. Conscious minds on the other hand have huge information and energy redundancy built in and they process information in ways that are synchronised, homogenised, prioritised, recursive so they are far less good at specific problem solving, but are hugely more adaptable and learnable. When your laptop starts having mood swings, that would be a good indicator that its consciousness level is approaching that of human. Oh, hang on a minute ...
-
In addition to the information flow there is the question of a recipient for this information - You.
That would be the 'me' that disappears every time I go to sleep; in other words, 'I' is a phenomenological product of waking consciousness, rather than a recipient, or beneficiary, of it
-
Supposing, as seems likely, the universe hosts other humanoid creatures, how would that play with those who think god was responsible for creating humans on our planet only?
-
Supposing, as seems likely, the universe hosts other humanoid creatures, how would that play with those who think god was responsible for creating humans on our planet only?
how have you calculated the likelihood of other humanoid creatures that leads to say it is likely?
I don't think there are that many people who would be that bothered by this. It would just be seen as another miracle of creation.
-
how have you calculated the likelihood of other humanoid creatures that leads to say it is likely?
If the Universe is infinite, it is a virtual certainty.
-
If the Universe is infinite, it is a virtual certainty.
we might be using two different meanings of Universe here. I was reading Floo's comment to refer to the one we are in which is not infinite.
I am not even sure if we move to a concept of some overarching Universe, covering not just this one, but all multiverse concepts that there is any sense of it being infinite.
-
we might be using two different meanings of Universe here. I was reading Floo's comment to refer to the one we are in which is not infinite.
Really? You should publish a paper about it, you might get a Nobel prize.
-
Really? You should publish a paper about it, you might get a Nobel prize.
so let me check this you think that in order to allowed the hypothesis that the current universe is infinite we will just ignore all comments from physicists talking about the age of the current Universe?
-
so let me check this you think that in order to allowed the hypothesis that the current universe is infinite we will just ignore all comments from physicists talking about the age of the current Universe?
The Universe is certainly of finite age, but nobody knows if it is finite in extent or not.
http://www.universetoday.com/119553/is-the-universe-finite-or-infinite/
-
how have you calculated the likelihood of other humanoid creatures that leads to say it is likely?
I don't think there are that many people who would be that bothered by this. It would just be seen as another miracle of creation.
Blimey NS, you and my husband would get on like a house on fire. Every statement, I make, however innocuous, he challenges me to provide the evidence! :D
Of course I don't have any actual evidence there is other humanoid life out there somewhere, but my single brain cell would think it strange if there wasn't!
-
The Universe is certainly of finite age, but nobody knows if it is finite in extent or not.
http://www.universetoday.com/119553/is-the-universe-finite-or-infinite/
a universe that is finite in time is not infinite
-
a universe that is finite in time is not infinite
It can be if it is infinite in other dimensions.
Please read the link I posted.
-
Blimey NS, you and my husband would get on like a house on fire. Every statement, I make, however innocuous, he challenges me to provide the evidence! :D
Of course I don't have any actual evidence there is other humanoid life out there somewhere, but my single brain cell would think it strange if there wasn't!
didn't ask for evidence, asked for the method you used to determine probability here. As for you thinking it would be strange if there wasn't humanoid life out there, that is exactly the same approach taken by Alan Burns as regards the existence of a soul.
-
That would be the 'me' that disappears every time I go to sleep; in other words, 'I' is a phenomenological product of waking consciousness, rather than a recipient, or beneficiary, of it
When the physical senses shut down during sleep, the soul's window into this physical universe will shut too. And as time is a physical property of this material universe, the soul's perception of time will also shut down during sleep. There is the question of dreams. There is certainly brain activity during dreams, but is this a response to stimulation from the soul, or is the soul is just perceiving the activity of brain cells?
-
Another scientist who says we don't know if the Universe is infinite or not.
Interview with Joseph Silk (http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/People/Is_the_Universe_finite_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk)
-
It can be if it is infinite in other dimensions.
Please read the link I posted.
I did, and I was going to posit a thought experiment which I thought was going to help but it's convinced me that you are right if we qualify it that in a universe which is infinite in the spatial dimension then all things that can have happened in the time of that universe has existed, are almost certain to have happened multiple times. In a universe with a different time of existence, some things may have happened there that would not be replicated in the other universe.
I think though that in discourse about infinity if the term is not qualified it includes temporal infinity, though I accept that once the qualification is made , you are right.
-
I think though that in discourse about infinity if the term is not qualified it includes temporal infinity, though I accept that once the qualification is made , you are right.
The Universe could also be finite spatially and have a finite age but it could still be infinite in the sense that it will go on forever into the future.
-
The Universe could also be finite spatially and have a finite age but it could still be infinite in the sense that it will go on forever into the future.
so in the case of such a universe, then it wouldn't be possible to say that all things that could happen would be happening an infinite number of times concurrently. We could be in a universe where in the time of its existence and given its size that we are the only or indeed first humanoids but that there will be infinite of humanoids in the future of this never ending universe.
-
so in the case of such a universe, then it wouldn't be possible to say that all things that could happen would be happening an infinite number of times concurrently. We could be in a universe where in the time of its existence and given its size that we are the only or indeed first humanoids but that there will be infinite of humanoids in the future of this never ending universe.
Will some be identical to use in every way?
There are only so many combinations of atoms in a given space, so with infinite space some patterns must repeat.
-
so in the case of such a universe, then it wouldn't be possible to say that all things that could happen would be happening an infinite number of times concurrently. We could be in a universe where in the time of its existence and given its size that we are the only or indeed first humanoids but that there will be infinite of humanoids in the future of this never ending universe.
Errr possibly...
Entropy plays a part so that, at some point in the future, there will be no low entropy sources of energy for life forms to exploit. I think that applies for a Universe that is expanding like ours, whether it is infinite in extent or not. This is well beyond my level of competence in astrophysics, so take it with a hefty pinch of salt.
-
Will some be identical to use in every way?
There are only so many combinations of atoms in a given space, so with infinite space some patterns must repeat.
logically, if the restriction is correct, then there be an infinite number identical to us.
-
Errr possibly...
Entropy plays a part so that, at some point in the future, there will be no low entropy sources of energy for life forms to exploit. I think that applies for a Universe that is expanding like ours, whether it is infinite in extent or not. This is well beyond my level of competence in astrophysics, so take it with a hefty pinch of salt.
Yeah, I think we have to use it as a thought experiment with a number of assumptions, and part of what the second article was covering seemed to be the while idea of something post heat death as well as pre Big Bang.
Interesting topic if a bit of a derail. I will now say a prayer to see if I can stop my head hurting from all this infinity.
-
When the physical senses shut down during sleep, the soul's window into this physical universe will shut too. And as time is a physical property of this material universe, the soul's perception of time will also shut down during sleep.
How convenient to have a nice easy answer. Of course this nice easy answer leaves unaddressed how an immaterial thing could interact at all with something in the material world, given that is what 'immaterial' means. AKA 'having your cake and eating it'
-
When the physical senses shut down during sleep, the soul's window into this physical universe will shut too. And as time is a physical property of this material universe, the soul's perception of time will also shut down during sleep.
That means then that the soul shuts down permanently during the permanent sleep ie death?
-
That means then that the soul shuts down permanently during the permanent sleep ie death?
As the soul is only a fancy name for consciousness, when we die the body and mind shut down for good, imo.
-
As the soul is only a fancy name for consciousness, when we die the body and mind shut down for good, imo.
It is only your opinion, because you don't know: nobody does.
-
It is only your opinion, because you don't know: nobody does.
But until there is evidence for its existence, the default position is NOT to believe it exists.
-
But until there is evidence for its existence, the default position is NOT to believe it exists.
Do you believe there is life elsewhere in the Universe?
-
Do you believe there is life elsewhere in the Universe?
No
-
No
There have been meteorites land on Earth with microscopic life on them. So you are wrong there. It is just conceivable that you might be wrong about other matters. It is not just a matter of evidence: it is also about informed and intelligent debate. Without that there never will be any evidence because we won't.
-
There have been meteorites land on Earth with microscopic life on them. So you are wrong there. It is just conceivable that you might be wrong about other matters. It is not just a matter of evidence: it is also about informed and intelligent debate. Without that there never will be any evidence because we won't.
There have been ZERO meteorites with life on them!!!!!!!
If there had been it would be world shattering news!
You are confusing this with proteins that are used by life on Earth.
So you are wrong ,and not me in this instance.
Do you believe life exists on other planets?
-
To which the staunch atheist replies "you said God created everything".
To which the staunch atheist replies "God created man, and if he (God) is omniscient, he would know that the Man he designed would try to create impossibly narrow paths."
You see if the God that Christians claim exists actually does exist, he is responsible for everything by virtue of his omni- powers.
That's where Alan's God given 'free choice' come in. There is no fun in populating the Earth with robots which can only follow a set program. So he embedded a soul within a semi robotic disposable physical body. The more the soul identifies with the physical and mental the further it falls from the heavenly. The path to the Heavenly state is only narrow through lack of use. The path to eternal damnation is wide because of over use. As the main man said "Your body is made from earthly elements but if you lose your valuable inner essence how will you replenish it? Then of what good are you but to be returned to the earth to be trodden under foot." and ... "Don’t attach yourself to transient earthly pleasures but unite with the eternal delights of the Divine. What you treasure is where your heart is."
-
There have been meteorites land on Earth with microscopic life on them.
No there haven't.
So you are wrong there. It is just conceivable that you might be wrong about other matters. It is not just a matter of evidence: it is also about informed and intelligent debate. Without that there never will be any evidence because we won't.
No, in fact, you are wrong on this occasion. If a meteorite had landed on Earth with life in it, that would be a massive discovery.
-
Exactly.
So you don't believe there is life elsewhere in the universe?
-
No there haven't.
No, in fact, you are wrong on this occasion. If a meteorite had landed on Earth with life in it, that would be a massive discovery.
There have been claims of life on meteorites. I, like you, am unable to verify such claims, as I, like you, am not qualified to do so. There has been much scientific discussion, most recently on a paper produced by Sri Lankan astronomers.
-
There have been claims of life on meteorites. I, like you, am unable to verify such claims, as I, like you, am not qualified to do so. There has been much scientific discussion, most recently on a paper produced by Sri Lankan astronomers.
There are claims of fossil evidence of life in meteorites but not actual life on meteorites as I understand it.
-
There have been claims of life on meteorites.
Not by reputable scientists.
I, like you, am unable to verify such claims, as I, like you, am not qualified to do so.
There would be massive headlines about it all over the media if the stories were true.
-
There have been claims of life on meteorites. I, like you, am unable to verify such claims, as I, like you, am not qualified to do so. There has been much scientific discussion, most recently on a paper produced by Sri Lankan astronomers.
These claims are NOT verified.
So at this time there is ZERO evidence for life anywhere except on the Earth.
If life is found elsewhere, it will be MASSIVE news and you will not miss it.
-
It might be worth unpacking the question about whether there is life elsewhere in the universe because BeRational's position here is extremely useful in showing the position of quite a number of the atheists on this board. When he states that he does not believe in life elsewhere in the universe, he is not taking the position that there is no life elsewhere in the universe.
Taking the hypothetical of there actually being life found in meteorites, if that had happened but BeRational had not heard of it, his position based on the evidence to hand is still logical. If there are claims of such life being found, and he is aware of them, then until those claims are investigated, his position is still logical.
-
How convenient to have a nice easy answer. Of course this nice easy answer leaves unaddressed how an immaterial thing could interact at all with something in the material world, given that is what 'immaterial' means. AKA 'having your cake and eating it'
You seem to be very optimistic about what can be achieved by purely material entities which simply react to events. The evidence for the existence of non material entities which are not restricted by deterministic rules of science lie in the perception of your own existence
-
You seem to be very optimistic about what can be achieved by purely material entities which simply react to events. The evidence for the existence of non material entities which are not restricted by deterministic rules of science lie in the perception of your own existence
The weird thing is that your citing of the inadequacy of materialism in accounting for consciousness, self, and so on, is matched by your inability to show how the immaterial connects with the material. Just like that, I suppose!
-
You seem to be very optimistic about what can be achieved by purely material entities which simply react to events. The evidence for the existence of non material entities which are not restricted by deterministic rules of science lie in the perception of your own existence
I think you mistyped evidence instead of assertion.
-
AB,
You seem to be very optimistic about what can be achieved by purely material entities which simply react to events. The evidence for the existence of non material entities which are not restricted by deterministic rules of science lie in the perception of your own existence
No, the only "evidence" you have for non-material stuff is your limited reasoning ability. If you could grasp the arguments you've been given you'd realise that the claim utter nonsense.
Mind you, if you want to assert into existence the non-material nonetheless I guess using non-sense to do it has a certain pleasing aptness.
-
AB,
No, the only "evidence" you have for non-material stuff is your limited reasoning ability. If you could grasp the arguments you've been given you'd realise that the claim utter nonsense.
But the fact that you can reply to my post in such a way is clear evidence that your brain is not entirely driven by deterministic reactions to events which began about three billion years ago.
-
AB,
But the fact that you can reply to my post in such a way is clear evidence that your brain is not entirely driven by deterministic reactions to events which began about three billion years ago.
The term "clear evidence" has to mean something if you want to use it in meaningful discourse. Why on earth would you think that replying to a post on a website isn't just an outcome of an unfathomably long chain of cause and effect?
-
But the fact that you can reply to my post in such a way is clear evidence that your brain is not entirely driven by deterministic reactions to events which began about three billion years ago.
Or maybe it is. Only you just can't fathom out why that might be.
-
You seem to be very optimistic about what can be achieved by purely material entities which simply react to events. The evidence for the existence of non material entities which are not restricted by deterministic rules of science lie in the perception of your own existence
I don't see that follows. Perception, when you deconstruct it, is cascades of bioelectrochemical reactions all following natural laws. Vision, for instance, is the vastly complex informational transformation of patterns in photon energy from retina to cortex. There is no magic in this process. I don't look up at the sky and decide that my blue-sensitive retinal cones should react differently to blue wavelengths of light today; no, I see the sky as blue and I have no choice in the matter; and so it must be with higher levels of perception and cognition such as self-awareness as these all arise out of similar biological neural processing.
-
AB,
The term "clear evidence" has to mean something if you want to use it in meaningful discourse. Why on earth would you think that replying to a post on a website isn't just an outcome of an unfathomably long chain of cause and effect?
Which leaves no possibility for conscious manipulation of your thoughts if they are all pre determined.
-
Which leaves no possibility for conscious manipulation of your thoughts if they are all pre determined.
Does that matter, if the end result is that you still believe/feel that you have conscious manipulation?
-
AB,
Which leaves no possibility for conscious manipulation of your thoughts if they are all pre determined.
No it doesn't because that "manipulation" is itself a function of cause and effect. You cannot just make up an arbitrary "something" outside of that which itself isn't anchored in consistent laws and processes so as to address a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. Just because you feel that you're manipulating by some non-natural process doesn't mean that you actually are - it just means that it feels that way.
-
I've just read through your posts with Blue Alan, blinkered would be at the kinder end of ways to describe your determined dismissal of any eminently sensible post sent to you.
I know this old quote of Douglas Adam's could be seen as old hat but it describes you so well and in a nutshell, quote:
“I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously.”
Have a serious look into a mirror while reading this quote to yourself, it describes you and exactly where you are.
ippy
-
But the fact that you can reply to my post in such a way is clear evidence that your brain is not entirely driven by deterministic reactions to events which began about three billion years ago.
The problem here is that we are all subjects of brain washing...we are surreptitiously told things are true which are blatantly untrue. Propaganda and advertising are the worst offenders but we are often willing partners to it. The problem is that by being overloaded with false reasoning we become stunted in our mental outlook...this is serious because we are then falling into unhealthy physical health problems...the healthy circulation of nutrients to our brain and our glands and organs become suppressed.
Enter the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ. He and he alone offers the mechanics of repair via his righteous teaching.
Don't just take my word for it...everyone is entitled to give it a try.
-
But the fact that you can reply to my post in such a way is clear evidence that your brain is not entirely driven by deterministic reactions to events which began about three billion years ago.
How is that evidence for that?
-
Sparky,
The problem here is that we are all subjects of brain washing...we are surreptitiously told things are true which are blatantly untrue. Propaganda and advertising are the worst offenders but we are often willing partners to it. The problem is that by being overloaded with false reasoning we become stunted in our mental outlook...this is serious because we are then falling into unhealthy physical health problems...the healthy circulation of nutrients to our brain and our glands and organs become suppressed.
Being lied to is a problem (which is why I wish you'd stop doing it) but it's not the problem here. The problem here is that the evidence about the nature of "free" will fatally undermines the edifice Alan Burns has built to validate his faith beliefs, so he just denies it and hopes no-one notices.
Enter the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ. He and he alone offers the mechanics of repair via his righteous teaching.
Which is a personal opinion you happen to hold, but only a personal opinion until and unless you finally manage an underlying argument to support it.
Don't just take my word for it...everyone is entitled to give it a try.
Many have, and have found your claims to be complete nonsense.
-
The problem here is that we are all subjects of brain washing...we are surreptitiously told things are true which are blatantly untrue. Propaganda and advertising are the worst offenders but we are often willing partners to it. The problem is that by being overloaded with false reasoning we become stunted in our mental outlook...this is serious because we are then falling into unhealthy physical health problems...the healthy circulation of nutrients to our brain and our glands and organs become suppressed.
Enter the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ. He and he alone offers the mechanics of repair via his righteous teaching.
Don't just take my word for it...everyone is entitled to give it a try.
It didn't work for me when I was a kid and needed him most.
-
The problem here is that we are all subjects of brain washing...we are surreptitiously told things are true which are blatantly untrue. Propaganda and advertising are the worst offenders but we are often willing partners to it. The problem is that by being overloaded with false reasoning we become stunted in our mental outlook...this is serious because we are then falling into unhealthy physical health problems...the healthy circulation of nutrients to our brain and our glands and organs become suppressed.
Enter the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ. He and he alone offers the mechanics of repair via his righteous teaching.
Don't just take my word for it...everyone is entitled to give it a try.
Wrong word Nick, you're using brainwashing when you actually mean indoctrination, brainwashing was a failed North Korean experiment, that dates back to the fifties, it doesn't work so they gave up on it, don't worry though it's a common error.
ippy
-
Enter the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ.
You keep referring to the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ
Looking at your religion, it's easy to see that Christianity consists of thousands of different denominations, sects and cults, all asserting that their take on the mythology is true.
Please can you share with us exactly what these accurate teachings are.
A simple enough request? Well, maybe not for you, as your consistent inability to tell us what these accurate teachings are belies whatever message it is that you're attempting to get across.
-
I've just read through your posts with Blue Alan, blinkered would be at the kinder end of ways to describe your determined dismissal of any eminently sensible post sent to you.
I know this old quote of Douglas Adam's could be seen as old hat but it describes you so well and in a nutshell, quote:
“I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting. But it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously.”
Have a serious look into a mirror while reading this quote to yourself, it describes you and exactly where you are.
ippy
These frequent allusions to comments made by Douglas Adams are absurd. What was he? A writer of pretty silly things, certainly no theologian or great intellect. His opinion is of no more worth than any Joe Bloggs. And for him to impugn the intelligence of millions is arrogant and puerile, and ever so slightly ridiculous, since thousands and thousands of them are a good deal more intelligent and perceptive than he ever was. It seems that when a person achieves a little fame or notoriety they immediately assume they are experts in anything they choose to pontificate on.
-
BA,
These frequent allusions to comments made by Douglas Adams are absurd. What was he? A writer of pretty silly things, certainly no theologian or great intellect. His opinion is of no more worth than any Joe Bloggs. And for him to impugn the intelligence of millions is arrogant and puerile, and ever so slightly ridiculous, since thousands and thousands of them are a good deal more intelligent and perceptive than he ever was. It seems that when a person achieves a little fame or notoriety they immediately assume they are experts in anything they choose to pontificate on.
That's a sort of inverse argument from authority - "he wasn't an authority, therefore we can discount what he said".
You need to separate the ideas from the person. What he said stands or falls on its merits - the puddle analogy for example is an effective way to demonstrate the anthropic principle, so people use it. It doesn't become less effective for that purpose because he wasn't, say, a professor of logic.
-
BA,
That's a sort of inverse argument from authority - "he wasn't an authority, therefore we can discount what he said".
You need to separate the ideas from the person. What he said stands or falls on its merits - the puddle analogy for example is an effective way to demonstrate the anthropic principle, so people use it. It doesn't become less effective for that purpose because he wasn't, say, a professor of logic.
I was merely making the point that he was quoted as though because he said it, it must be true. Why not simply make the point without reference to some "celebrity or other?"
-
BA,
I was merely making the point that he was quoted as though because he said it, it must be true. Why not simply make the point without reference to some "celebrity or other?"
No-one does that. He's credited with the quotes because that's the standard protocol in discussions of this kind. It's a courtesy, and it looks like attempted plagiarism if you use the quotes unacknowledged.
-
BA,
No-one does that. He's credited with the quotes because that's the standard protocol in discussions of this kind. It's a courtesy, and it looks like attempted plagiarism if you use the quotes unacknowledged.
It is perfectly proper to make a point others have made, as long as you don't repeat something word for word as though it is your original idea. It would be a tad difficult to debate anything if we were constrained by having to give credit to anyone who might have made a similar point.
-
It is perfectly proper to make a point others have made, as long as you don't repeat something word for word as though it is your original idea. It would be a tad difficult to debate anything if we were constrained by having to give credit to anyon who might have made a similar point.
are you saying that quoting anyone is wrong?
-
BA,
It is perfectly proper to make a point others have made, as long as you don't repeat something word for word as though it is your original idea. It would be a tad difficult to debate anything if we were constrained by having to give credit to anyon who might have made a similar point.
You can make the point in general but if, say, I wanted to use the puddle analogy to demonstrate the anthropic principle it'd be bad form not to cite the person who came up with it.
-
are you saying that quoting anyone is wrong?
I'm saying that it is absurd to quote someone unless they have a particular expertise in that subject, not simply because they are well-known. Otherwise I might as well quote my next door neighbour, Dave, from time to time. After all, his opinion would be as valid as that of Douglas Adams!
-
I'm saying that it is absurd to quote someone unless they have a particular expertise in that subject, not simply because they are well-known. Otherwise I might as well quote my next door neighbour, Dave, from time to time. After all, his opinion would be as valid as that of Douglas Adams!
if your next door neighbour says something worth quoting, then I see nothing wrong with that. The idea that one needs 'expertise' in something to be right on it is ludicrous.
-
if your next door neighbour says something worth quoting, then I see nothing wrong with that. The idea that one needs 'expertise' in something to be right on it is ludicrous.
You miss my point. I am saying that Adams was quoted as though his opinion carried more weight than Dave's; that's what's ludicrous. Why not just make your point without quoting anyone?
-
You miss my point. I am saying that Adams was quoted as though his opinion carried more weight than Dave's; that's what's ludicrous. Why not just make your point without quoting anyone?
so you are taking the position that quoting people is in some way wrong.
-
so you are taking the position that quoting people is in some way wrong.
Non, NS, I'm not. I'm saying quote someone if they are an acknowledged expert who might be adding something that most others cannot; otherwise, don't bother.
-
Non, NS, I'm not. I'm saying quote someone if they are an acknowledged expert who might be adding something that most others cannot; otherwise, don't bother.
so I should never, say quote Shakespeare 'First let's kill all the lawyers', because he isn't an acknowledged legal expert?
-
BA
You have mentioned theologians several times; can you cite a theologian who actually knows something about the God they are supposedly studying and teaching about?
They may have encyclopaedic knowledge of the words and opinions of dozens or thousands of people, but that is not what I would like to know.
-
so I should never, say quote Shakespeare 'First let's kill all the lawyers', because he isn't an acknowledged legal expert?
You may quote him in a discussion about personal views on lawyers, but not on factual matters, since he wasn't an expert, if there is such a thing, as experts on lawyers. We are, at least I am, talking about subjects which deal in facts, not opinions.
-
You may quote him in a discussion about personal views on lawyers, but not on factual matters, since he wasn't an expert, if there is such a thing, as experts on lawyers. We are, at least I am, talking about subjects which deal in facts, not opinions.
the Douglas Adams quote was on a personal view that Ippy shared. So on that basis you are saying it is fine
-
the Douglas Adams quote was on a personal view that Ippy shared. So on that basis you are saying it is fine
Again: I'm asking why he needed to quote him. It didn't add anything to his argument, more than if he had quoted my friend, Dave.
-
BA,
Non, NS, I'm not. I'm saying quote someone if they are an acknowledged expert who might be adding something that most others cannot; otherwise, don't bother.
And that's the full on argument from authority fallacy. You need to separate the idea from the person making it; whether the idea is expressed by Aristotle, Douglas Adams or your mate Dave is neither here nor there. Either the idea stands on its merit or it doesn't. If Aristotle said something wrong and Dave said something right, so be it.
Acknowledging authorship though is done as a courtesy, not because their status improves the quality of the idea.
-
BA
You have mentioned theologians several times; can you cite a theologian who actually knows something about the God they are supposedly studying and teaching about?
They may have encyclopaedic knowledge of the words and opinions of dozens or thousands of people, but that is not what I would like to know.
One assumes that a theologian would be an intelligent person who has thought deeply and studied all aspects of the Bible and religion and can offer insights and suggestions that ordinary people such as you and I are unable to manage to such a degree.
-
Again: I'm asking why he needed to quote him. It didn't add anything to his argument, more than if he had quoted my friend, Dave.
Because he felt it summed up what he wanted to say. Just as I might quote Shakespeare on killing lawyers which you have already accepted is fine
-
BA,
One assumes that a theologian would be an intelligent person who has thought deeply and studied all aspects of the Bible and religion and can offer insights and suggestions that ordinary people such as you and I are unable to manage to such a degree.
One would assume that, yes. One would also assume though that - if these theologians wanted their claims of fact to be taken seriously - they'd make some attempt at least to bridge the gap from faith to fact.
-
Because he felt it summed up what he wanted to say. Just as I might quote Shakespeare on killing lawyers which you have already accepted is fine
You are assuming that's why he quoted Adams. I suspect it was rather because he felt that it gave more credence to what he said merely because of Adams' celebrity.
-
BA,
You are assuming that's why he quoted Adams. I suspect it was rather because he felt that it gave more credence to what he said merely because of Adam' celebrity.
But as acknowledging authorship of quotes and ideas is the standard protocol in open discussions, you probably "suspect" wrongly.
-
BA,
But as acknowledging authorship of quotes and ideas is the standard protocol in open discussions, you probably "suspect" wrongly.
Well, you don't know, do you?
-
You are assuming that's why he quoted Adams. I suspect it was rather because he felt that it gave more credence to what he said merely because of Adam' celebrity.
No, I'm not assuming it, I'm taking ippy as being truthful because he explains that he thinks the quote sums up Alan so well. You on the other hand are implying ippy was lying. What grounds do you gave to make that implication?
-
No, I'm not assuming it, I'm taking ippy as being truthful because he explains that he thinks the quote sums up Alan so well. You on the other hand are implying ippy was lying. What grounds do you gave to make that implication?
Well, I'm sure ippy is grateful you are acting as his advocate, unsolicited. Perhaps he ought to answer for himself, though I doubt he would contradict what you say.
-
BA,
Well, you don't know, do you?
No, but nor do you - and you were the one making the accusation remember?
-
BA,
No, but nor do you - and you were the one making the accusation remember?
Okay. Stalemate.
-
Well, I'm sure ippy is grateful you are acting as his advocate, unsolicited. Perhaps he ought to answer for himself, though I doubt he would contradict what you say.
so you have no grounds for implying ippy is a liar.
-
BA,
Okay. Stalemate.
No, you were the one making the accusation so the burden of proof was with you. You haven't provided it.
Fool's mate more like.
-
One assumes that a theologian would be an intelligent person who has thought deeply and studied all aspects of the Bible and religion and can offer insights and suggestions that ordinary people such as you and I are unable to manage to such a degree.
[/quote]That is too vague a response, especially as you said a few posts earlier:We are, at least I am, talking about subjects which deal in facts, not opinions.
-
That is too vague a response, especially as you said a few posts earlier:We are, at least I am, talking about subjects which deal in facts, not opinions.
To be clear, I believe the New Testament is about facts. There are those who are qualified, through years of study, to be considered expert. There are also many shades of opinion and interpretation. To me, it is straightforward: I believe in the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that He is the Son of God.
-
That is too vague a response, especially as you said a few posts earlier:We are, at least I am, talking about subjects which deal in facts, not opinions.
I believe that the NT is factual, so those learned in its study are dealing in facts, rather than mere opinion. I do not include the OT in that.
-
BA,
To be clear, I believe the New Testament is about facts. There are those who are qualified, through years of study, to be considered expert. There are also many shades of opinion and interpretation. To me, it is straightforward: I believe in the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that He is the Son of God.
I don't doubt that they are expert in what the Bible says. None of them though so far as I'm aware have any expertise at all in building the logical bridge from faith to fact.
-
BA,
I don't doubt that they are expert in what the Bible says. None of them though so far as I'm aware have any expertise at all in building the logical bridge from faith to fact.
Belief is one thing FACT is quite another.Where the Bible is concerned faith and logic are often at odds.
-
To be clear, I believe the New Testament is about facts. There are those who are qualified, through years of study, to be considered expert. There are also many shades of opinion and interpretation. To me, it is straightforward: I believe in the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that He is the Son of God.
How have you, and those you refer to as qualified, addressed the risk that the NT content contains mistakes or lies?
-
How have you, and those you refer to as qualified, addressed the risk that the NT content contains mistakes or lies?
Yes, and like all history it is studied on that basis.
-
Yes, and like all history it is studied on that basis.
History is studied in a methodologically naturalistic way.
-
Yes, and like all history it is studied on that basis.
And if a biographer told us Henry the 8th rose from the dead three days after he snuffed it, we would take that biography with a pinch of salt.
-
BA,
No, you were the one making the accusation so the burden of proof was with you. You haven't provided it.
Fool's mate more like.
Accusation? No, not really; merely a comment. This is not some sort of kangaroo court, with everyone trying to score points - and the winner, as he sees it, getting to call the other, "fool," or some such. It's very silly.
-
And if a biographer told us Henry the 8th rose from the dead three days after he snuffed it, we would take that biography with a pinch of salt.
Indeed. But not perhaps if there were countless witnesses. But I guess you don't study history, just make assertions to suit your point of view.
-
Indeed. But not perhaps if there were countless witnesses. But I guess you don't study history, just make assertions to suit your point of view.
and again history is studied in a methodologicaly naturalistic way.
-
Yes, and like all history it is studied on that basis.
So - can I take it that you agree that there is a risk that the NT contains mistakes or lies?
-
So - can I take it that you agree that there is a risk that the NT contains mistakes or lies?
Yes.
-
Indeed. But not perhaps if there were countless witnesses. But I guess you don't study history, just make assertions to suit your point of view.
I see. So if this biographer said there were 2500 witnesses, you would believe it?
I understand why you're a theist now.
-
I see. So if this biographer said there were 2500 witnesses, you would believe it?
I understand why you're a theist now.
I would assume that there were good grounds to take it seriously and that it was unlikely that there were 2,500 liars knocking about conveniently. That's why I don't dismiss it out of hand at the very least. You seem to, so I can see why you are an atheist.
-
I would assume that there were good grounds to take it seriously and that it was unlikely that there were 2,500 liars knocking about conveniently.
It only needs one liar - the person who made the claim that there were 2,500 witnesses.
-
It only needs one liar - the person who made the claim that there were 2,500 witnesses.
But there wasn't only one person who made the claim.
-
Indeed. But not perhaps if there were countless witnesses. But I guess you don't study history, just make assertions to suit your point of view.
My old grandma came back to life three weeks ago, BA, and she died in 1954. There were countless witnesses. We had a good ol' knees up.
-
It only needs one liar - the person who made the claim that there were 2,500 witnesses.
I agree, people can be very gullible.
-
BA,
But there wasn't only one person who made the claim.
How many witnesses claimed to see Mohammed fly to heaven on a winged horse too? Do you accept that claim on the same basis that you accept the resurrection claim?
Why not?
There are so many problems with it that it's hard to know where to begin, but briefly:
1. You have no idea how many witnesses there were because no-one thought it important enough to write down at the time.
2. There are very few records and those that there are were made decades after the event, and they show heavy signs of copying from each other. The Chinese whispers phenomenon alone moreover tells you that huge changes could have been made through the oral tradition in the intervening decades.
3. The event happened at a time when miracle stories were commonplace. The bar for acceptance of such stories as true was very low.
4. There are many non-miraculous possible explanations for the story that you have no means of discounting, and moreover that fit the way the universe is observed to work in every known example except for the resurrection story. The assumption therefore must be heavily weighted towards a naturalistic cause.
5. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence bar for the resurrection story is by contrast set astonishingly low - which is why it would never be accepted in a court of law, isn't taught as fact in mainstream schools etc. This should at least give you pause given how much you have riding on it being true.
6. Such (non-contemporaneous) records as there are have been multiply translated and are known to have been edited and doctored in the ensuing centuries.
7. Fooling a crowd with a conjuring trick is no more difficult than fooling one person with the same trick.
8. Etc and wearily etc...
Is any of this beginning at least to sink in yet?
Anything?
-
BA,
How many witnesses claimed to see Mohammed fly to heaven on a winged horse too? Do you accept that claim on the same basis that you accept the resurrection claim?
Why not?
There are so many problems with it that it's hard to know where to begin, but briefly:
1. You have no idea how many witnesses there were because no-one thought it important enough to write down at the time.
2. There are very few records and those that there are were made decades after the event, and they show heavy signs of copying from each other. The Chinese whispers phenomenon alone moreover tells you that huge changes could have been made through the oral tradition in the intervening decades.
3. The event happened at a time when miracle stories were commonplace. The bar for acceptance of such stories as true was very low.
4. There are many non-miraculous possible explanations for the story that you have no means of discounting, and moreover that fit the way the universe is observed to work in every known example except for the resurrection story. The assumption therefore must be heavily weighted towards a naturalistic cause.
5. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The evidence bar for the resurrection story is by contrast set astonishingly low - which is why it would never be accepted in a court of law, isn't taught as fact in mainstream schools etc. This should at least give you pause given how much you have riding on it being true.
6. Such (non-contemporaneous) records as there are have been multiply translated and are known to have been edited and doctored in the ensuing centuries.
7. Fooling a crowd with a conjuring trick is no more difficult than fooling one person with the same trick.
8. Etc and wearily etc...
Is any of this beginning at least to sink in yet?
Anything?
The only thing that is sinking in is that you have a big problem. Go and get a life, instead of devoting endless hours discussing something you don't even believe in. It really is quite alarming. I am concerned about you, and some others on here, in the grip of an obsession like this.
Do try and come up with a good response so Floo can congratulate you at my expense. This whole thing is becoming absurd. Now you can see why I left for a year or so. I reappear and it's the same old same old. Bird-watching is very relaxing, I'm told. Why not try that?
-
BA,
The only thing that is sinking in is that you have a big problem. Go and get a life, instead of devoting endless hours discussing something you don't even believe in. It really is quite alarming. I am concerned about you, and some others on her, in the grip of an obsession like this.
Do try and come up with a good response so Floo can congratulate you at my expense. This whole thing is becoming absurd. Now you can see why I left for a year or so. I reappear and it's the same old same old. Bird-watching is very relaxing, I'm told. Why not try that?
Evasion noted. If you don't want to have a bad argument ("there were 2,500 witnesses") challenged, don't post it here. It's simple enough.
-
BA,
Evasion noted. If you don't want to have a bad argument ("there were 2,500 witnesses") challenged, don't post it here. It's simple enough.
See, there you go I simply tire of this intense , almost cross-examination technique. Isn't there anything on telly tonight? Drat, there I go, evading again!
-
Jesus was crucified and was resurrected after the 3rd day to show those who believed in him and follow his righteous ways, will have access to the same science...it is all part of the mechanics of the universe. Those who don't believe or who actively work in opposition to that science wont achieve the same results.
Jesus said that those who follow him will never die and it all revolves around upbuilding a righteous spirit carved from an indestructible energy. You don't want it...you will not get it...but, we are told, the alternative is grim.
-
My old grandma came back to life three weeks ago, BA, and she died in 1954. There were countless witnesses. We had a good ol' knees up.
You may well laugh. I'm not, 'cos it wasn't funny.
-
The only thing that is sinking in is that you have a big problem. Go and get a life, instead of devoting endless hours discussing something you don't even believe in. It really is quite alarming. I am concerned about you, and some others on here, in the grip of an obsession like this.
Do try and come up with a good response so Floo can congratulate you at my expense. This whole thing is becoming absurd. Now you can see why I left for a year or so. I reappear and it's the same old same old. Bird-watching is very relaxing, I'm told. Why not try that?
Hmmm...I've responded to a post in a similar vein else where BashfulAnthony, so I'll give another angle...
You will no doubt be familiar with the Lord Jesus' many exchanges with the Pharisees, teachers of the Law, etc. Why wouldn't they accept Him as the Messiah? Because their worldview wouldn't allow for Him being the Messiah. They decided that He didn't fit the bill, so it didn't matter what the evidence said, what He did (miracles, healings, etc., their minds were already made up. In short, their worldview was not falsifiable.
Like you, I took a break from posting on these types of forums, but for much longer than a year. I decided to look at how the Lord Jesus tackled the problem. He exposed the flaws in their worldviews and premises. What I learnt also was to apply properties of truth. Truth does not depend on what we think about it. Truth is supported by evidence. A statement can be shown to be true directly, or to be not true by showing that the converse is true.
Where truth cannot be verified directly, it has to be accepted by faith, but as it will be supported by evidence, it is not blind faith. A problem arises when we start deciding in advance what the nature of the evidence must be, so there's one point to address. A second problem arises when we start deciding how the evidence must be handled.
I have given the questioners here ample opportunity to show how their commitment to a naturalistic philosophy is falsifiable. None has been forthcoming. If they could demonstrate that all causes/effects have natural explanations, there would be no need for religious belief of any kind, but hey, I'm shifting the burden of proof again ;)
-
Hmmm...I've responded to a post in a similar vein else where BashfulAnthony, so I'll give another angle...
You will no doubt be familiar with the Lord Jesus' many exchanges with the Pharisees, teachers of the Law, etc. Why wouldn't they accept Him as the Messiah? Because their worldview wouldn't allow for Him being the Messiah. They decided that He didn't fit the bill, so it didn't matter what the evidence said, what He did (miracles, healings, etc., their minds were already made up. In short, their worldview was not falsifiable.
Like you, I took a break from posting on these types of forums, but for much longer than a year. I decided to look at how the Lord Jesus tackled the problem. He exposed the flaws in their worldviews and premises. What I learnt also was to apply properties of truth. Truth does not depend on what we think about it. Truth is supported by evidence. A statement can be shown to be true directly, or to be not true by showing that the converse is true.
Where truth cannot be verified directly, it has to be accepted by faith, but as it will be supported by evidence, it is not blind faith. A problem arises when we start deciding in advance what the nature of the evidence must be, so there's one point to address. A second problem arises when we start deciding how the evidence must be handled.
I have given the questioners here ample opportunity to show how their commitment to a naturalistic philosophy is falsifiable. None has been forthcoming. If they could demonstrate that all causes/effects have natural explanations, there would be no need for religious belief of any kind, but hey, I'm shifting the burden of proof again ;)
All I can add is that I am staggered at the closed-mindedness on here. They do not simply doubt; they are furiously determined not to give ground in their unbelief. Why, I don't know. As Jesus said to Thomas, "...blessed are those who have not seen me, yet believe."
-
All I can add is that I am staggered at the closed-mindedness on here. They do not simply doubt; they are furiously determined not to give ground in their unbelief. Why, I don't know. As Jesus said to Thomas, "...blessed are those who have not seen me, yet believe."
They can't, for the same reason those that the Lord Jesus censured on occasions didn't: A lack of faith.
I could understand if applying faith was limited to religious belief only, but we use it all the time! If I go to a bus stop to wait for a bus, what objective proof do I have that I will get to my destination? None! I can't see forward in time to see myself getting off the bus at the other end. So I am applying faith. That faith may be based on certain criteria, but it is still not objective proof. When does the proof arrive? When I get off the bus at the end of the journey.
The faith necessary for belief in God is no different, except that secular philosophy will call the equivalent of getting off the bus at the end of the journey a confirmation bias. So again, it can be seen that what is happening is in reality arguments against religious belief. It's a defence of a materialist philosophy that has constructed arguments for anything that would attempt to contradict it because it cannot defend itself and is not falsifiable.
-
They can't, for the same reason those that the Lord Jesus censured on occasions didn't: A lack of faith.
I could understand if applying faith was limited to religious belief only, but we use it all the time! If I go to a bus stop to wait for a bus, what objective proof do I have that I will get to my destination? None! I can't see forward in time to see myself getting off the bus at the other end. So I am applying faith. That faith may be based on certain criteria, but it is still not objective proof. When does the proof arrive? When I get off the bus at the end of the journey.
The faith necessary for belief in God is no different, except that secular philosophy will call the equivalent of getting off the bus at the end of the journey a confirmation bias. So again, it can be seen that what is happening is in reality arguments against religious belief. It's a defence of a materialist philosophy that has constructed arguments for anything that would attempt to contradict it because it cannot defend itself and is not falsifiable.
I like your reasoning there SwordOfTheSpirit...I wished I had thought of it.
-
BA,
See, there you go I simply tire of this intense , almost cross-examination technique. Isn't there anything on telly tonight? Drat, there I go, evading again!
Post a fallacious argument and it will be "cross examined". Why does this upset you so? If I did it and was corrected I'd be delighted - that way I'd have learned something.
-
They can't, for the same reason those that the Lord Jesus censured on occasions didn't: A lack of faith.
I could understand if applying faith was limited to religious belief only, but we use it all the time!
That depends on what you mean by 'faith'.
If I go to a bus stop to wait for a bus, what objective proof do I have that I will get to my destination? None! I can't see forward in time to see myself getting off the bus at the other end. So I am applying faith.
Or you are applying knowledge, in that in order to be waiting at the bus stop to get to your destination you will have knowledge of the bus routes and timetable, and based on inductive reasoning (the service is usually reliable) you will have a reasonable expectation of getting to your destination - something might go wrong of course, but that you are there waiting for the bus implies that you are justified in doing so by knowledge that is equally available to any other prospective bus traveler.
That faith may be based on certain criteria, but it is still not objective proof. When does the proof arrive? When I get off the bus at the end of the journey.
Aside from your use of 'objective proof', which is fraught with problems, it seems you are conflating knowledge such as those involving the details of bus travel with the details of the divine: as far as I can see you don't have knowledge of the latter but you have 'faith', which isn't the same thing at all.
The faith necessary for belief in God is no different...
Yes it is, since you don't have knowledge of 'God' that equates to the details your bus travel analogy.
..except that secular philosophy will call the equivalent of getting off the bus at the end of the journey a confirmation bias.
Nope - since you haven't demonstrated that a journey has actually occurred.
So again, it can be seen that what is happening is in reality arguments against religious belief.
Nope - it is the rebuttal of arguments for religious belief, since these are invariably fallacious in one way or another.
It's a defence of a materialist philosophy that has constructed arguments for anything that would attempt to contradict it because it cannot defend itself and is not falsifiable.
Nope again - it's simply a rejection of poor reasoning.
-
Sword,
You pack a lot of fallacies into very few words. Briefly:
Hmmm...I've responded to a post in a similar vein else where BashfulAnthony, so I'll give another angle...
You will no doubt be familiar with the Lord Jesus' many exchanges with the Pharisees, teachers of the Law, etc. Why wouldn't they accept Him as the Messiah? Because their worldview wouldn't allow for Him being the Messiah.
Either that, or he wasn't able to make a cogent argument for being the "Messiah, or he wasn't the Messiah at all. There are various options here.
They decided that He didn't fit the bill, so it didn't matter what the evidence said, what He did (miracles, healings, etc., their minds were already made up. In short, their worldview was not falsifiable.
No, that's just your presumption. You have no way of knowing either that he was the Messiah, and nor what evidence would have been persuasive even if he was.
Like you, I took a break from posting on these types of forums, but for much longer than a year. I decided to look at how the Lord Jesus tackled the problem. He exposed the flaws in their worldviews and premises.
If you say so. Why don't you try the same approach then, starting with an explanation of what you think your interlocutors' "worldview" to be.
What I learnt also was to apply properties of truth. Truth does not depend on what we think about it.
Actually it does. "Truth" is what we determine it to be - it's not some mysterious force just floating around "out there". Try some basic epistemology for further details.
Truth is supported by evidence. A statement can be shown to be true directly, or to be not true by showing that the converse is true.
Sort of. A propositions can be shown to be provisionally, probabilistically true but that says nothing a supposed absolute truth.
Where truth cannot be verified directly, it has to be accepted by faith,...
Pardon? Whose "faith"? Yours? Mine? The cat's?
What on earth do you think faith has to do with truth?
... but as it will be supported by evidence, it is not blind faith.
How would you differentiate "faith" from "blind faith" exactly?
A problem arises when we start deciding in advance what the nature of the evidence must be, so there's one point to address. A second problem arises when we start deciding how the evidence must be handled.
Actually the real problem is in deciding what you mean by "evidence". If you think "faith" has anything to do with it, you've given yourself quite a job to demonstrate that. Good luck with it though.
I have given the questioners here ample opportunity to show how their commitment to a naturalistic philosophy is falsifiable. None has been forthcoming. If they could demonstrate that all causes/effects have natural explanations, there would be no need for religious belief of any kind, but hey, I'm shifting the burden of proof again ;)
That's not true - I've given you a method to do that several times now but you've just ignored it. Here it is a again: try taking the lift to the ground floor, then try jumping out of the window and relying on an angel to carry you down. Now tell me whether the statement "the naturalistic lift options is probabilistically more likely to deliver you safely to the ground than the non-naturalistic angel option" is true or not.
Let me know how you get on.
-
BA,
All I can add is that I am staggered at the closed-mindedness on here. They do not simply doubt; they are furiously determined not to give ground in their unbelief. Why, I don't know. As Jesus said to Thomas, "...blessed are those who have not seen me, yet believe."
You're right that I'm "closed minded" inasmuch as I cannot see any reason to accept at face value arguments that are demonstrably false. Sorry about that, but hey - just think of the bewildering array of beliefs that would ensue if I changed my mind about that.
-
Sword,
They can't, for the same reason those that the Lord Jesus censured on occasions didn't: A lack of faith.
Indeed, just as presumably your "lack of faith" prevents you from believing in the Sumerian gods or for that matter in leprechauns. Luckily for those possessed of a functioning intellect it's apparent that personal faith says nothing whatever to the truthfulness or otherwise of a conjecture.
I could understand if applying faith was limited to religious belief only, but we use it all the time! If I go to a bus stop to wait for a bus, what objective proof do I have that I will get to my destination? None! I can't see forward in time to see myself getting off the bus at the other end. So I am applying faith. That faith may be based on certain criteria, but it is still not objective proof. When does the proof arrive? When I get off the bus at the end of the journey.
This is desperate stuff - you're just playing with the ambiguity in the term "faith". I have "faith" that my car will start tomorrow - it's a good make, it's aways stared n the past, it has petrol in the tank etc. "Faith" in this sense means, "a reasonable expectation based on practical experience". I do not however have "faith" that there's a pet dragon sleeping under the bonnet, "faith" in the sense of "a belief that I cannot anchor to the world I appear to observe, mediated through intersubjective experience".
The faith necessary for belief in God is no different...
Of course it is - it's the dragon type, not the starting car type.
...except that secular philosophy will call the equivalent of getting off the bus at the end of the journey a confirmation bias.
That's not what "confirmation bias" means.
So again, it can be seen that what is happening is in reality arguments against religious belief. It's a defence of a materialist philosophy that has constructed arguments for anything that would attempt to contradict it because it cannot defend itself and is not falsifiable.
Flat wrong in all respects - see above. You're going to have to do an awful lot better than this train crash of an argument if you want to make a case for your beliefs I'm afraid.
-
BA,
You're right that I'm "closed minded" inasmuch as I cannot see any reason to accept at face value arguments that are demonstrably false. Sorry about that, but hey - just think of the bewildering array of beliefs that would ensue if I changed my mind about that.
Who knows? One day you may realise...
-
BA,
Who knows? One day you may realise...
That fallacious arguments should be treated seriously? Seems unlikely, but you never know...
-
Sparky,
I like your reasoning there SwordOfTheSpirit...I wished I had thought of it.
It's just as well that you didn't - it's very bad reasoning.
-
BA,
That fallacious arguments should be treated seriously? Seems unlikely, but you never know...
You know what I mean, and I seriously hope you will.
Have a good night, I'm off to watch the Paralympics.
-
BA,
You know what I mean, and I seriously hope you will.
Have a good night, I'm off to watch the Paralympics.
Have a good one to Bashers, and enjoy the paralympics.
-
You may well laugh. I'm not, 'cos it wasn't funny.
Yes, I'm pleased you see that as a lot of nonsense, BA. If only you would use that same logic in other ways.
-
Jesus was crucified and was resurrected after the 3rd day
That's no big deal because we know that back in the day, resurrections were commonplace. The Bible itself tells us how the following individuals all came back to life after they'd died:
1. Widow of Zarephath's son
2. Shunamite's son
3. Man tossed into Elisha's tomb
4. Widow of Nain's son
5. Jairus' daughter
6. Lazarus
7. Tabitha
8. Eutychus
Not forgetting the hundreds (maybe thousands) who zombie-walked their way into Jerusalem.
Of course it wasn't just the Middle East where people came back from the dead but all over the ancient world. Some of these include:
Quetzalcoatl
Ishtar
Osiris
Adonis
Dionysus
Persephone
Tammuz
Baal
Attis
Lemminkainen
Odin
Ganesha
Krishna
So there you have it, returning from the grave used to be much more commonplace than people think.
Strange how all these resurrections, occurred in a time when humans were deeply superstitious and since the advent of science we haven't reliably recorded any instances of people being resurrected after death. This is so much the case that it's only the deeply superstitious who still cling to the ancient myths.
-
People are still being resurrected today apparently!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
That's no big deal because we know that back in the day, resurrections were commonplace. The Bible itself tells us how the following individuals all came back to life after they'd died:
1. Widow of Zarephath's son
2. Shunamite's son
3. Man tossed into Elisha's tomb
4. Widow of Nain's son
5. Jairus' daughter
6. Lazarus
7. Tabitha
8. Eutychus
Not forgetting the hundreds (maybe thousands) who zombie-walked their way into Jerusalem.
Of course it wasn't just the Middle East where people came back from the dead but all over the ancient world. Some of these include:
Quetzalcoatl
Ishtar
Osiris
Adonis
Dionysus
Persephone
Tammuz
Baal
Attis
Lemminkainen
Odin
Ganesha
Krishna
They would be commonplace if the population of the world were around 200.
I'm afraid what you are actually saying is something you probably don't want to I.e. that resurrection is commonplace among people who have been er,ressurected.
There are as well sometimes hundreds of years between cases and many are proposed within works which are mythological.
Only the NT accounts could be pointed at as reportage and of course are associated with Jesus who whether we like it or not had this 'thing' about him.
-
Vlad,
They would be commonplace if the population of the world were around 200.
I'm afraid what you are actually saying is something you probably don't want to I.e. that resurrection is complace among people who have been er,ressurected.
There are as well sometimes hundreds of years between cases and many are proposed within works which are mythological.
Only the NT accounts could be pointed at as reportage and of course are associated with Jesus who whether we like it or not had this 'thing' about him.
Of course Vladdy boy, of course. So what you're saying here is that the many resurrection stories that many other religions have (but with which the Christian version has remarkable similarities, and that themselves derive from more ancient stories centred on the re-birth of the year as the season pass) are all myth, whereas the same thing in the religion in which you happen to believe is like, well, you know, "reportaaaage" man, only it's only reportage that no-one thought worth writing down until decades later.
Hmmm...
-
Vlad,
Of course Vladdy boy, of course. So what you're saying here is that the many resurrection stories that many other religions have (but with which the Christian version has remarkable similarities, and that themselves derive from more ancient stories centred on the re-birth of the year as the season pass) are all myth, whereas the same thing in the religion in which you happen to believe is like, well, you know, "reportaaaage" man, only it's only reportage that no-one thought worth writing down until decades later.
Hmmm...
As is obvious in ancient history not all documents survive.......in fact very little survives.
-
But there wasn't only one person who made the claim.
Yes there was - the biographer.
Who else apart from Paul made the claim that there were five hundred witnesses to Jesus' resurrection?
-
The only thing that is sinking in is that you have a big problem. Go and get a life, instead of devoting endless hours discussing something you don't even believe in. It really is quite alarming. I am concerned about you, and some others on here, in the grip of an obsession like this.
What's alarming is the amount of hypocrisy oozing out of every one of your orifices. If it's such a bad thing to spend endless hours discussing stuff, why are you here?
Do try and come up with a good response so Floo can congratulate you at my expense.
Do try to come up with a response that is not a stream of insults.
This whole thing is becoming absurd. Now you can see why I left for a year or so.
Why please feel free to fuck off again. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.
-
Vlad,
As is obvious in ancient history not all documents survive.......in fact very little survives.
And I hear it'll get dark tonight.
Yes, very little survives - but enough has to tell us about many of the resurrection stories that many religions had and have. So? Are you trying to suggest that the resurrection of Jesus was in fact the splash in that week's Bethlehem Bugle (just above the ad for Hamed's Amphora Emporium's closing down sale) only all the copies were used to line the readers' cat litter trays or budgie cages so only the stuff written down decades later has made it?
I think we should be told about this groundbreaking research!
-
Vlad,
And I hear it'll get dark tonight.
Yes, very little survives - but enough has to tell us about many of the resurrection stories that many religions had and have. So? Are you trying to suggest that the resurrection of Jesus was in fact the splash in that week's Bethlehem Bugle (just above the ad for Hamed's Amphora Emporium's closing down sale) only all the copies were used to line the readers' cat litter trays or budgie cages so only the stuff written down decades later has made it?
I think we should be told about this groundbreaking research!
I don't think there is any law governing where resurrections happen Hillside. I merely point out that what looks like a long list or, if you are an anti theist a list as long as the M4 it still makes resurrection by no means commonplace.
In terms of extant literature you seem to be suggesting that the first drafts of major ancient documents exist somewhere.....or even second, third or fourth drafts.
On the other hand there seems to be lots of heterodox literature pointing to Jesus being particularly notable but strangely neither the Roman or Jewish reports on the phenomena of Christianity being a completely made up story seem to exist.
Strangely the non existence of anything of that nature until centuries after Jesus has not bothered Jesus Mythers for whom a gap of twenty or so years after Jesus lived the vital proof that he is likely to be a work of fiction.
-
Vlad,
I don't think there is any law governing where resurrections happen Hillside.
Well as claims of resurrections also claim them to be supernatural, and as laws are a naturalistic concept I guess the two would be incompatible if ever the premise could be demonstrated.
I merely point out that what looks like a long list or, if you are an anti theist a list as long as the M4 it still makes resurrection by no means commonplace.
But it would also mean that the uniqueness of it (which as I understand it is central to Christian doctrine) would be lost.
In terms of extant literature you seem to be suggesting that the first drafts of major ancient documents exist somewhere.....or even second, third or fourth drafts.
Actually I thought you were - what was the point otherwise of telling us that not much has survived?
On the other hand there seems to be lots of heterodox literature pointing to Jesus being particularly notable but strangely neither the Roman or Jewish reports on the phenomena of Christianity being a completely made up story seem to exist.
I'm relaxed about Jesus the man having existed - perhaps as one of many itinerant mystics and street magicians or similar whose story caught the wind, and around whom myths have grown up over time. The notion that those miracle stories are actually true I find bizarre, but hey-ho I guess.
Strangely the non existence of anything of that nature until centuries after Jesus has not bothered Jesus Mythers for whom a gap of twenty or so years after Jesus lived the vital proof that he is likely to be a work of fiction.
What are you trying to say here?
-
Vlad,
Well as claims of resurrections also claim them to be supernatural, and as laws are a naturalistic concept I guess the two would be incompatible if ever the premise could be demonstrated.
But it would also mean that the uniqueness of it (which as I understand it is central to Christian doctrine) would be lost.
The first question would be how?
Why would other examples of resurrection affect the functional results of Jesus resurrection? After all the NT has other examples of resurrection and they have not detracted from The Ressurection.
-
Vlad,
I'm relaxed about Jesus the man having existed - perhaps as one of many itinerant mystics and street magicians or similar whose story caught the wind, and around whom myths have grown up over time. The notion that those miracle stories are actually true I find bizarre, but hey-ho I guess.
It seems to me that the only Jesus narratives that have grown up over a long period of time is Jesus myth and Jesus as street magician.
.
If you are suggesting that Jesus like stories of these other Mystics and street magicians did not survive then you are undoing your own argument about the lack of early orthodox Christian material
-
Vlad,
The first question would be how?
How what? That anyone would be able to distinguish a genuine resurrection from stories about a resurrection?
That's a problem for the people who claim such things I'd say.
Why would other examples of resurrection affect the functional results of Jesus resurrection? After all the NT has other examples of resurrection and they have not detracted from The Ressurection.
They wouldn't "affect" it, but as I understand it Christians put great store by the supposed uniqueness of the event for their man/god only. If they actually think there were a whole bunch of them of which the resurrection of Jesus was just one that's blow a pretty big hole in the dogma I'd have thought. Why would "God" have magicked back to life his son and a bunch of nobodies too?
-
Vlad,
It seems to me that the only Jesus narratives that have grown up over a long period of time is Jesus myth and Jesus as street magician.
How about the Jesus as the son of God narrative?
If you are suggesting that Jesus like stories of these other Mystics and street magicians did not survive then you are undoing your own argument about the lack of early orthodox Christian material
Again, what are you trying to say here? Have a look at "survivor bias" to see why thinking that beliefs that survived must in some way have been more true or better than those that did not.
-
Vlad,
How what? That anyone would be able to distinguish a genuine resurrection from stories about a resurrection?
That's a problem for the people who claim such things I'd say.
They wouldn't "affect" it, but as I understand it Christians put great store by the supposed uniqueness of the event for their man/god only. If they actually think there were a whole bunch of them of which the resurrection of Jesus was just one that's blow a pretty big hole in the dogma I'd have thought. Why would "God" have magicked back to life his son and a bunch of nobodies too?
No.
Jesus resurrection matters for who is being resurrected.........so no hole in the dogma.
-
Vlad,
How about the Jesus as the son of God narrative?
No that appears soon after the ministry of Jesus if not during the ministry itself.
-
Vlad,
No.
Jesus resurrection matters for who is being resurrected.........so no hole in the dogma.
Say what now? So there was a whole bunch of supernatural resurrections, but only one of them concerned the son of God so - um - it's not the (supposed) fact of the resurrection that's important but rather who God did it to ?
Really?
-
Vlad,
No that appears soon after the ministry of Jesus if not during the ministry itself.
But we've already had someone here tell us that some people didn't believe his "I'm the son of God" line so presumably the conclusion that he was just a mystic, street preacher etc was a contemporary one too.
-
Vlad,
But we've already had someone here tell us that some people didn't believe his "I'm the son of God" line so presumably the conclusion that he was just a mystic, street preacher etc was a contemporary one too.
To interject a moment here: A lot of people over the centuries haven't believed He was Son of God; many still don't. But it happens to be true.
-
To interject a moment here: A lot of people over the centuries haven't believed He was Son of God; many still don't. But it happens to be true.
it happens to be nonsensical.
-
BA,
To interject a moment here: A lot of people over the centuries haven't believed He was Son of God; many still don't.
As indeed is the case for many other characters from different religions.
But it happens to be true.
Why do you think that? Isn't there an "in my personal opinion" missing there?
-
Vlad,
But we've already had someone here tell us that some people didn't believe his "I'm the son of God" line so presumably the conclusion that he was just a mystic, street preacher etc was a contemporary one too.
Yes I'm sure there were but they don't seem to have left any extant literature nor even any indication that in those days one was 'just a mystic'.
-
BA,
As indeed is the case for many other characters from different religions.
Why do you think that? Isn't there an "in my personal opinion" missing there?
You can say it's my opinion, but that's neither here nor there. It's still true.
-
Vlad,
Yes I'm sure there were but they don't seem to have left any extant literature nor even any indication that in those days one was 'just a mystic'.
Literature that says, "we met this bloke who claims to be the son of God. What a bozo eh?".
Well, um - what about that stuff someone was telling us here about the pharisees not having enough faith to believe him or some such guff. Isn't that written down somewhere?
-
BA,
You can say it's my opinion, but that's neither here nor there. It's still true.
But apart from your personal opinion on the matter, why do you think that?
-
BA,
But apart from your personal opinion on the matter, why do you think that?
Because I have studied the NT over a lifetime, and I believe what it is saying to me.
-
You can say it's my opinion, but that's neither here nor there. It's still true.
It's still nonsensical.
-
Because I have studied the NT over a lifetime, and I believe what it is saying to me.
Given your lack of understanding of the study of history being methodological naturalistic, your study is undermined
-
BA,
Because I have studied the NT over a lifetime, and I believe what it is saying to me.
Focus on that "I believe" for a minute - that's the personal opinion bit. You are of course entitled to that opinion, just as others have personal opinions about the supposed truthfulness and accuracy of all sort of different religious texts, but - absent a method of any kind to test these claims - a personal opinion is all you have.
-
Given your lack of understanding of the study of history being methodological naturalistic, your study is undermined
Oh NS, you say the nicest things, though to be brutally honest, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.
-
Oh NS, you say the nicest things, though to be brutally honest, I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.
Then you should be able to refer to a recognised university course in this country where history is not taught as methodologically naturalistic. Can you?
-
Just supposing Jesus was the offspring of god, getting a girl pregnant before she married the man to whom she was espoused, and expecting him to father the kid, is the work of a scoundrel! It is a bit rich that some condemn conception out of wedlock, but it is fine for god to get a girl up the spout!
It is strange that the people who knew Jesus best didn't regard him a god of some sort.
-
Then you should be able to refer to a recognised university course in this country where history is not taught as methodologically naturalistic. Can you?
Come on! I don't think I'll bother, I've still got to have a shave today. Really, NS, let's talk sensibly. Incidentally, do you have details of all university courses and what they entail?
-
Come on! I don't think I'll bother, I've still got to have a shave today. Really, NS, let's talk sensibly. Incidentally, do you have details of all university courses and what they entail?
so that would be a 'no'.
-
so that would be a 'no'.
Well, no, more of a, "I don't give a...!"
-
Well, no, more of a, "I don't give a...!"
A no followed by an evasion, underlining you cannot justify your own claim to expertise.
-
Because I have studied the NT over a lifetime, and I believe what it is saying to me.
That would be the relativist (it's true for me) fallacy unless you can show that what you believe to be true is actually true independent of your belief that it is.
However, since you have agreed that there is the risk that the NT could contain mistakes or lies then you should be able to explain the method whereby you have rejected these risks when it comes to be core claim of Jesus being dead and then being resurrected.
-
A no followed by an evasion, underlining you cannot justify your own claim to expertise.
No, NS, read what I said. I said, "I don't give a..." I've spent years doing it and I get nowhere; not with those programmed to disbelieve. I'm too old to waste any more of my time reiterating.
-
That would be the relativist (it's true for me) fallacy unless you can show that what you believe to be true is actually true independent of your belief that it is.
However, since you have agreed that there is the risk that the NT could contain mistakes or lies then you should be able to explain the method whereby you have rejected these risks when it comes to be core claim of Jesus being dead and then being resurrected.
Gordon, please read my last answer to NS: it's the same for your post.
-
In my opinion, the gospels were just as likely to be prone to exaggeration and porkies, just like modern day journalism written for a mass audience.
-
No, NS, read what I said. I said, "I don't give a..." I've spent years doing it and I get nowhere; not with those programmed to disbelieve. I'm too old to waste any more of my time reiterating.
not answering questions is likely to contribute to getting nowhere. You may want to stop doing it as a tactic.
-
In my opinion, the gospels were just as likely to be prone to exaggeration and porkies, just like modern day journalism written for a mass audience.
Ah! Only exaggeration! That's a step forward!
-
not answering questions is likely to contribute to getting nowhere. You may want to stop doing it as a tactic.
But you see, NS, I have answered these questions till I've been blue in the face. Strangely, you atheists seem unaware that you have repeated the same thing umpteen times over the years. I simply cannot be bothered to say the same things again and again.
-
Vlad,
Literature that says, "we met this bloke who claims to be the son of God. What a bozo eh?".
Well, um - what about that stuff someone was telling us here about the pharisees not having enough faith to believe him or some such guff. Isn't that written down somewhere?
Hillside if you are saying that there were those who believed and those that didn't based on scripture I'd agree with you.
If you are saying that scripture says that there were no believers and then after a long period people believed I cannot agree with you.
-
But you see, NS, I have answered these questions till I've been blue in the face. Strangely, you atheists seem unaware that you have repeated the same thing umpteen times over the years. I simply cannot be bothered to say the same things again and again.
Are you saying you have answered previously the question of which recognised UK university has a history course that is not methodologically naturalistic (which was the question) but can't be bothered answering it again?
-
In my opinion, the gospels were just as likely to be prone to exaggeration and porkies, just like modern day journalism written for a mass audience.
And also, religious leaders around the world, whose followers claim miracles by their leader. Obvious example is Sai Baba, who was claimed to levitate, heal diseases, produce flowers out of thin air, bilocation, blah blah blah. Maybe all of this really happened, but then again, maybe not, and his followers are bigging him up.
-
Are you saying you have answered previously the question of which recognised UK university has a history course that is not methodologically naturalistic (which was the question) but can't be bothered answering it again?
Are you saying that history is a science?
-
And also, religious leaders around the world, whose followers claim miracles by their leader. Obvious example is Sai Baba, who was claimed to levitate, heal diseases, produce flowers out of thin air, bilocation, blah blah blah. Maybe all of this really happened, but then again, maybe not, and his followers are bigging him up.
Benny Hinn is a case in point, I believe he has claimed amputated limbs have regrown due to his healing ministry, but of course the evidence is lacking.
-
Are you saying that history is a science?
No, I'm saying that it is studied (and studied in terms of history was first referred to by BA) in a methodologically naturalistic way. Can you, as BA has refused, point me in the direction of a recognised university course in the UK that is not taught in that basis?
-
No, I'm saying that it is studied (and studied in terms of history was first referred to by BA) in a methodologically naturalistic way. Can you, as BA has refused, point me in the direction of a recognised university course in the UK that is not taught in that basis?
Do you have evidence that history research is universally consciously methodological naturalistic?
Surely history would be identical to science and therefore able to eliminate itself since it is by definition the study of unrepeatable events.
-
I think historians tend to ignore miracles, because, as NS says, they operate in naturalistic manner. Of course, they study people's claims of miracles. Case in point, E. P. Sanders, 'The Historical Figure of Jesus', who does not investigate miracles, as they are supernatural, and therefore outside the scope of academic history.
-
Vlad,
Hillside if you are saying that there were those who believed and those that didn't based on scripture I'd agree with you.
The former.
If you are saying that scripture says that there were no believers and then after a long period people believed I cannot agree with you.
No, I'm saying that there are some (non contemporaneous) accounts of belief and of disbelief, and that further stories on the belief side of the equation have been added since. I'm not sure how a "story" of non-belief could be invented, but I guess the use of reason and logic would lead many subsequent observers to conclude that the Jesus as God story, the Jesus miracle stories etc are more probably than not myths.
-
Wiggs,
I think historians tend to ignore miracles, because, as NS says, they operate in naturalistic manner. Of course, they study people's claims of miracles. Case in point, E. P. Sanders, 'The Historical Figure of Jesus', who does not investigate miracles, as they are supernatural, and therefore outside the scope of academic history.
And for the matter outside the scope of academic anything.
-
Do you have evidence that history research is universally consciously methodological naturalistic?
Surely history would be identical to science and therefore able to eliminate itself since it is by definition the study of unrepeatable events.
No, it would not be identical. In part your problem is you have become confused between a definition of science, and one that is wrong to start with, and methodological naturalism. They are not one and the same thing.
Let's first deal with your misunderstanding of the question of unrepeatable events here. In an absolute sense all events are unrepeatable and indeed unique. Were one to use your specious idea that unique events were supernatural then every event is by that definition. The use of repetition in science refers to experimentation and not about whether the actual event is repeated.
To move onto history, methodological naturalism simply assumes that we can investigate using probabilistic techniques (something impossible in a supernatural claim since it breaks the normal assumption of cause and effect in methodological naturalistic disciplines). In order to evaluate claims of the supernatural it would need some form of method to do that. You know like the one you have been asked for so many tines but gave never supplied.
As to do I have evidence that history is universally naturalistic in method,note I have no idea what your addituon of 'consciously' means in the context, the answer is no but since that's a strawman irrelevant. As already noted BA talked about using historical studies to establish the truth of supernatural claims in the NT. In the number if universities in the UK that I have been involved with on the study of history they have been entirely naturalistic in method. In terms of the number of people I know currently teaching history at university, they all teach it in a naturalistic manner. So what I was asking BA was to back up his claim of having studied history in a way that is not methodologically naturalistic. Despite asking, nothing so far.
So now that I've clarified the matter, do you know of any such teaching in a recognised UK university course that does this?
-
Vlad,
Do you have evidence that history research is universally consciously methodological naturalistic?
Do you have evidence that there isn't a teapot orbiting Earth just beyond the range of the instruments we have that could detect such a thing?
What should we conclude from this?
-
Vlad,
Do you have evidence that there isn't a teapot orbiting Earth just beyond the range of the instruments we have that could detect such a thing?
What should we conclude from this?
Just as I was compiling "CategoryFuck of the week you popped up and provided it.
Many thanks.
-
Vlad,
Just as I was compiling "CategoryFuck of the week you popped up and provided it.
Many thanks.
Ah category error - yet another term you've never understood. Oh well.
-
No, it would not be identical. In part your problem is you have become confused between a definition of science, and one that is wrong to start with, and methodological naturalism. They are not one and the same thing.
Let's first deal with your misunderstanding of the question of unrepeatable events here. In an absolute sense all events are unrepeatable and indeed unique. Were one to use your specious idea that unique events were supernatural then every event is by that definition. The use of repetition in science refers to experimentation and not about whether the actual event is repeated.
To move onto history, methodological naturalism simply assumes that we can investigate using probabilistic techniques (something impossible in a supernatural claim since it breaks the normal assumption of cause and effect in methodological naturalistic disciplines). In order to evaluate claims of the supernatural it would need some form of method to do that. You know like the one you have been asked for so many tines but gave never supplied.
As to do I have evidence that history is universally naturalistic in method,note I have no idea what your addituon of 'consciously' means in the context, the answer is no but since that's a strawman irrelevant. As already noted BA talked about using historical studies to establish the truth of supernatural claims in the NT. In the number if universities in the UK that I have been involved with on the study of history they have been entirely naturalistic in method. In terms of the number of people I know currently teaching history at university, they all teach it in a naturalistic manner. So what I was asking BA was to back up his claim of having studied history in a way that is not methodologically naturalistic. Despite asking, nothing so far.
So now that I've clarified the matter, do you know of any such teaching in a recognised UK university course that does this?
I am only saying that science is not the study of the unrepeatable. Where as history is and is therefore only sensitive to that naturalism which is dependent on its definition on suggestions of the supernatural.
I see zero constraint on the historian who wishes to state that for a group of people the resurrection was real without making a comment on whether it actually was.
Nor can I see any constraint on a historian stating that history has a starting date even though philosophers and scientists may be floundering.
Finally just evoking UK universities and alleging some firm and quasi religious allegiance to methodological materialism looks like a bit of a fiddle.
Surely a historian is interested in what happened rather than whether it conforms to some naturalism. Let's not forget that something only becomes natural if it repeats itself.
-
So as with B that would be a no, and again an avoidance of producing the methodology as requested.
If you have a non UK recognised university, i'm happy to listen but BA only seems to have 'studied' in this country so it does not seem like a fiddle to me.
ETA oh and by the way I note that you keep on ignoring that this was generated by BA's claim to have studied history in some way to help him verify supernatural claims and yet being able to provide no evidence of how this might be achieved. And that you are still presenting a strawman about what I am claiming. I would ask that you refrain from this sort of dishonest tactic
-
No, it would not be identical. In part your problem is you have become confused between a definition of science, and one that is wrong to start with, and methodological naturalism. They are not one and the same thing.
Let's first deal with your misunderstanding of the question of unrepeatable events here. In an absolute sense all events are unrepeatable and indeed unique. Were one to use your specious idea that unique events were supernatural then every event is by that definition. The use of repetition in science refers to experimentation and not about whether the actual event is repeated.
To move onto history, methodological naturalism simply assumes that we can investigate using probabilistic techniques (something impossible in a supernatural claim since it breaks the normal assumption of cause and effect in methodological naturalistic disciplines). In order to evaluate claims of the supernatural it would need some form of method to do that. You know like the one you have been asked for so many tines but gave never supplied.
As to do I have evidence that history is universally naturalistic in method,note I have no idea what your addituon of 'consciously' means in the context, the answer is no but since that's a strawman irrelevant. As already noted BA talked about using historical studies to establish the truth of supernatural claims in the NT. In the number if universities in the UK that I have been involved with on the study of history they have been entirely naturalistic in method. In terms of the number of people I know currently teaching history at university, they all teach it in a naturalistic manner. So what I was asking BA was to back up his claim of having studied history in a way that is not methodologically naturalistic. Despite asking, nothing so far.
So now that I've clarified the matter, do you know of any such teaching in a recognised UK university course that does this?
Sorry, I'm just not going to get involved in these never-ending, and rather pedantic, academic roundhouses. I am interested, however, in knowing just how many universities and history teachers you are acquainted with!
-
Oh and while we are at it, Vlad I note you a repeating your idea that only repeating events are natural. As already pointed out all events are unique so therfore you are logically claiming in an absolute sense nothing is natural.
That's leaving aside that you are in presenting the idea as true ignoring the philosophy of science, the meaning of methodological naturalism if you want to present such novel ideas, you need to make a case rather than just repeat then and ignore what has been said against them
-
Sorry, I'm just not going to get involved in these never-ending, and rather pedantic, academic roundhouses. I am interested, however, in knowing just how many universities and history teachers you are acquainted with!
You made the claim. You aren't back it it up.
-
So as with B that would be a no, and again an avoidance of producing the methodology as requested.
If you have a non UK recognised university, i'm happy to listen but BA only seems to have 'studied' in this country so it does not seem like a fiddle to me.
ETA oh and by the way I note that you keep on ignoring that this was generated by BA's claim to have studied history in some way to help him verify supernatural claims and yet being able to provide no evidence of how this might be achieved. And that you are still presenting a strawman about what I am claiming. I would ask that you refrain from this sort of dishonest tactic
History will report on any event reported without casting any judgment.
If you are saying that historians now only report on repeatable events then either you are exaggerating or there is now a new school of history like the great man theory or Marxist history.
-
History will report on any event reported without casting any judgment.
If you are saying that historians now only report on repeatable events then either you are exaggerating or there is now a new school of history like the great man theory or Marxist history.
I am quite clearly not saying history of talks about reoeatabke events and indeed have gone into some of of your misuse of t idea of repeatability which you are ignoring. Kindly stop with your dishonest approach
-
You made the claim. You aren't back it it up.
Answer the question, or your whole argument falls flat.
-
Answer the question, or your whole argument falls flat.
Somewhat ironic coming from someone who has refused to answer the question I asked you three times. But hey ho I won't let your double standards get in the way. I've studied different history course at 3 universities and contributed to courses in 2 of them , I know well about 15 lecturers covering different history subjects, including 4 professors. Less well about 40.
Just to point out if I had said higher or lower numbers it doesn't really mean the point is defeated. That is because you claimed your study of history had allowed you to evaluate the gospels and the idea of resurrection as a fact. So once again I ask you name me a recognised UK university course that isn't methodolofically naturalistic? If you want to extend it beyond the UK,if you'll indicate what your study with such an institution was.
-
Answer the question, or your whole argument falls flat.
Hi there B A I've just got back in from the garden Been fixing security locks on my new back gate weeding out the rose beds and I've read your posts about my quote.
Your post reminded me of a quote of Thomas Paine's:
"If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it; it raises the question in the mind very easily decided, which is: Is it more probable that nature should out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie?"
Anyway your posts made me wonder if you would find it interesting?
ippy
-
Hi there B A I've just got back in from the garden Been fixing security locks on my new back gate weeding out the rose beds and I've read your posts about my quote.
Your post reminded me of a quote of Thomas Paine's:
"If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it; it raises the question in the mind very easily decided, which is: Is it more probable that nature should out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie?"
Anyway your posts made me wonder if you would find it interesting?
ippy
I always find your posts interesting, ippy, even though I almost always disagree with them! Paine was an interesting man, but had a sad ending.
-
Somewhat ironic coming from someone who has refused to answer the question I asked you three times. But hey ho I won't let your double standards get in the way. I've studied different history course at 3 universities and contributed to courses in 2 of them , I know well about 15 lecturers covering different history subjects, including 4 professors. Less well about 40.
Just to point out if I had said higher or lower numbers it doesn't really mean the point is defeated. That is because you claimed your study of history had allowed you to evaluate the gospels and the idea of resurrection as a fact. So once again I ask you name me a recognised UK university course that isn't methodolofically naturalistic? If you want to extend it beyond the UK,if you'll indicate what your study with such an institution was.
To be honest, I've forgotten the original thread; probably because the discussion was either so blindingly dull, or just irrelevant. Sorry about that, professor.
-
To be honest, I've forgotten the original thread; probably because the discussion was either so blindingly dull, or just irrelevant. Sorry about that, professor.
Brave Sir Bash ran away!
-
BA,
To interject a moment here: A lot of people over the centuries haven't believed He was Son of God; many still don't. But it happens to be true.
This reminded me of something but I couldn’t think what. Then it just came to me:
Dr. Fox: “Paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that's a scientific fact: there's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact.”
(Brass Eye)
-
They would be commonplace if the population of the world were around 200.
I'm afraid what you are actually saying is something you probably don't want to I.e. that resurrection is commonplace among people who have been er,ressurected.
There are as well sometimes hundreds of years between cases and many are proposed within works which are mythological.
Only the NT accounts could be pointed at as reportage and of course are associated with Jesus who whether we like it or not had this 'thing' about him.
Yeah, I could have worded it a bit better than I did.
Can't help notice how you dismiss any accounts outside the NT - sounds like a bit of confirmation bias going on there.
-
Yeah, I could have worded it a bit better than I did.
Can't help notice how you dismiss any accounts outside the NT - sounds like a bit of confirmation bias going on there.
I rather think it's the lack of firm historical context and the "epic" nature of the other accounts.
On the other hand as I told Bluehillside I don't fully discount the possibility of extra biblical resurrections.
-
"The power of prayer": it's all in the imagination, if it makes anyone feel better talking to themselves and calling it praying, fine, enjoy.
ippy
-
I have given the questioners here ample opportunity to show how their commitment to a naturalistic philosophy is falsifiable. None has been forthcoming. If they could demonstrate that all causes/effects have natural explanations, there would be no need for religious belief of any kind, but hey, I'm shifting the burden of proof again ;)
Here it is a again: try taking the lift to the ground floor, then try jumping out of the window and relying on an angel to carry you down. Now tell me whether the statement "the naturalistic lift options is probabilistically more likely to deliver you safely to the ground than the non-naturalistic angel option" is true or not.
Which has the same error as all of those arguments based on Bertrand Russell’s parable of the Celestial Teapot! It fails to make the distinction between faith and blind faith. All you have done is come up with a scenario that requires blind faith and compared it with something else, as if the two are comparable. In doing so, you are assuming the conclusion to try and demonstrate the conclusion.
-
Sword,
Which has the same error as all of those arguments based on Bertrand Russell’s parable of the Celestial Teapot! It fails to make the distinction between faith and blind faith. All you have done is come up with a scenario that requires blind faith and compared it with something else, as if the two are comparable. In doing so, you are assuming the conclusion to try and demonstrate the conclusion.
Which is the same error that you've made since you joined here: you propose no method of any kind to explain why religious faith isn't "blind". Why therefore would anyone treat your faith in "God" any differently from someone else's faith in a celestial teapot, of for that matter in anything else that takes their fancy? What's actually happening here is that you are assuming your conclusion - ie, that religious faith isn't blind faith.
Incidentally, you've missed the point of Russell's celestial teapot in any case - it's merely a demonstration of the negative proof fallacy. "You can't disprove it, therefore it's true" is a bad argument for the teapot and for "God" alike.
-
Which has the same error as all of those arguments based on Bertrand Russell’s parable of the Celestial Teapot! It fails to make the distinction between faith and blind faith. All you have done is come up with a scenario that requires blind faith and compared it with something else, as if the two are comparable. In doing so, you are assuming the conclusion to try and demonstrate the conclusion.
Faith is blind if it hasn't any evidence to support it.
-
Faith is blind if it hasn't any evidence to support it.
I agree
-
I agree
The power of prayer is wonderful...Those that don't pray cannot possibly know about prayer or the change in lifestyle associated with it can deliver. We are living in an age when we are often led into prayer by false prophets else we are encouraged to ignore it so that we can grab the merchandise at knock-down prices...so what hope have non-believers got in learning about the power of prayer...but the power of prayer delivers to a sincere prayer a 'living water' that soothes the parts no other quencher of thirsts can't reach.
Try it...but read the Gospels first so that you aren't ignorant in the Biblical things you condemn.
-
Incidentally, you've missed the point of Russell's celestial teapot in any case - it's merely a demonstration of the negative proof fallacy. "You can't disprove it, therefore it's true" is a bad argument for the teapot and for "God" alike.
I was glad someone pointed that out.
-
The power of prayer is wonderful...Those that don't pray cannot possibly know about prayer or the change in lifestyle associated with it can deliver. We are living in an age when we are often led into prayer by false prophets else we are encouraged to ignore it so that we can grab the merchandise at knock-down prices...so what hope have non-believers got in learning about the power of prayer...but the power of prayer delivers to a sincere prayer a 'living water' that soothes the parts no other quencher of thirsts can't reach.
Try it...but read the Gospels first so that you aren't ignorant in the Biblical things you condemn.
Looks like the Bible god missed a trick.
https://www.cs.montana.edu/courses/esof522/handouts_papers/IntercessoryPrayer.pdf
The above publication shows the results of a study of cardiac patients who were being prayed for. It would have been a truly excellent time for your god of choice to reveal himself. Just think, he could have saved every patient that was prayed for and left the rest to die. Can you imagine having that data to proselytise with? Man, you wouldn't need to do anything - it would sell itself without any effort on your behalf.
Of course, reality got in the way and it wasn't to be. When studied, the results showed that prayer failed. If you read the study you will see that there were three groups of people:
1. Those who weren't prayed for.
2. Those who were prayed for but weren't told about it.
3. Those who were prayed for and were told about it.
The fact is that from the results, it's plain that people in the third group died faster than those in the other two groups.
With publicity like that, how on earth are you supposed to convince people that prayer to your god of choice works?
Oh, you aren't.
-
Looks like the Bible god missed a trick.
https://www.cs.montana.edu/courses/esof522/handouts_papers/IntercessoryPrayer.pdf
The above publication shows the results of a study of cardiac patients who were being prayed for. It would have been a truly excellent time for your god of choice to reveal himself. Just think, he could have saved every patient that was prayed for and left the rest to die. Can you imagine having that data to proselytise with? Man, you wouldn't need to do anything - it would sell itself without any effort on your behalf.
Of course, reality got in the way and it wasn't to be. When studied, the results showed that prayer failed. If you read the study you will see that there were three groups of people:
1. Those who weren't prayed for.
2. Those who were prayed for but weren't told about it.
3. Those who were prayed for and were told about it.
The fact is that from the results, it's plain that people in the third group died faster than those in the other two groups.
With publicity like that, how on earth are you supposed to convince people that prayer to your god of choice works?
Oh, you aren't.
Jesus taught us how to pray. He said find a quiet place out of earshot of others then he showed us how to structure our prayers. You want to design your own terms and conditions Khatru then slam God because he doesn't meet those terms and conditions.
My experience is somewhat different...by following the proper t & c's we find that every prayer is answered. Not by riches or splendour, not by repair to injuries or health problems which have been in the destructive process for many years...but by delivering the one property that will repair all ills...God's mighty strength...his living water...that is absorbed into our being and offers us everything Jesus said it would...the strength to cope with all our problems. The key one being that if we die we will be resurrected, providing we are sincere in upbuilding a righteous spirit.
-
Assertions, useless arguments and nothing which gives any credence to the beliefs of atheists about God and Jesus Christ.
The truth is that the bible tells every man how to find God. It even says that " If you seek God with all your heart you will find him".
So those atheist on the thread who have never sought God with all their heart are not in a position to claim Christ or God to be none existent.
You can choose not to believe, you state " I do not believe" but what you cannot do is dismiss the truth when you have never done as the bible tells you to do to know them.
The evidence and even the truth shows that you do not want to believe. That is different from those who want to know God and Christ are real and so seek the truth with all their heart and find them.
For all the useless arguments.... If you never try you can never say the way isn't true or failed. Because you require more faith to believe in something you purposely avoid the truth about. There has been no arguments by atheists that actually change the fact they are atheist by choice. Men have to love truth and want the truth to be able find and know God.
No atheist here fits that bill., They choose to be atheist and have no heart to seek the truth.
-
Assertions, useless arguments and nothing which gives any credence to the beliefs of atheists about God and Jesus Christ.
The truth is that the bible tells every man how to find God. It even says that " If you seek God with all your heart you will find him".
So those atheist on the thread who have never sought God with all their heart are not in a position to claim Christ or God to be none existent.
You can choose not to believe, you state " I do not believe" but what you cannot do is dismiss the truth when you have never done as the bible tells you to do to know them.
The evidence and even the truth shows that you do not want to believe. That is different from those who want to know God and Christ are real and so seek the truth with all their heart and find them.
For all the useless arguments.... If you never try you can never say the way isn't true or failed. Because you require more faith to believe in something you purposely avoid the truth about. There has been no arguments by atheists that actually change the fact they are atheist by choice. Men have to love truth and want the truth to be able find and know God.
No atheist here fits that bill., They choose to be atheist and have no heart to seek the truth.
I wouldn't and couldn't dispute a single point you make there Sassy.
-
How though can you seek God 'with all their heart' if you have no belief in God? How could that process start? You can't do something 'with all your heart' if you have no belief can you? I genuinely don't understand how this could work.
-
The evidence and even the truth shows that you do not want to believe. That is different from those who want to know God and Christ are real and so seek the truth with all their heart and find them.
For all the useless arguments.... If you never try you can never say the way isn't true or failed. Because you require more faith to believe in something you purposely avoid the truth about. There has been no arguments by atheists that actually change the fact they are atheist by choice. Men have to love truth and want the truth to be able find and know God.
No atheist here fits that bill., They choose to be atheist and have no heart to seek the truth.
Oh, what nonsense. Nobody chooses what to believe Sass, this has been pointed out to you already so many times. At least no honest person does so. We can be persuaded, or not, by evidence and reason. 'Being persuaded' is a passive thing, not an active choice. I can no more choose to be persuaded by something unconvincing than I can choose to see the sky as purple. It is not within the power of an honest person.
-
Jesus taught us how to pray. He said find a quiet place out of earshot of others then he showed us how to structure our prayers. You want to design your own terms and conditions Khatru then slam God because he doesn't meet those terms and conditions.
The scientific test was about the outcome of prayer and not the method. Those people followed Jesus' instructions to the letter - it made no difference whatsoever.
My experience is somewhat different...by following the proper t & c's we find that every prayer is answered. Not by riches or splendour, not by repair to injuries or health problems which have been in the destructive process for many years...but by delivering the one property that will repair all ills...God's mighty strength...his living water...that is absorbed into our being and offers us everything Jesus said it would...the strength to cope with all our problems. The key one being that if we die we will be resurrected, providing we are sincere in upbuilding a righteous spirit.
"If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you."
John 15:7
"Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."
Mark 11:24
The key word in the above quotes is "whatever". There are no caveats, no if's and but's, no conditions. Whatever you ask will be done.
That's what the man said.
-
The scientific test was about the outcome of prayer and not the method. Those people followed Jesus' instructions to the letter - it made no difference whatsoever.
"If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you."
John 15:7
"Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."
Mark 11:24
The key word in the above quotes is "whatever". There are no caveats, no if's and but's, no conditions. Whatever you ask will be done.
That's what the man said.
A lot of what I say Khatru is based upon my own personal experience. What Jesus promises is that God will provide exactly what we need according to the prayer we make. This is providing we are trying to be righteous and providing we stick to the regulations regarding prayer that Jesus taught us. The most endearing thing I found from prayer is the strength to cope with all my problems...simply by trusting in God and following Jesus as he taught us, time passed the problems passed and I was richer because I had trusted in Jesus and he had kept his word.
I hear of many times when this advice would be beneficial. The Samaritans will tell you the amount of people who hit crisis point...they can't go on any longer...their problems are too great. Winning time is the only useful way out of these problems so that the unhappy person can upbuild their own strength to cope with their own problems, and perhaps some guidance in where they are going wrong...but no...all Khatru can see is if we want to win on the lottery it is God's duty to listen and pay up.
-
The Samaritans will tell you the amount of people who hit crisis point...they can't go on any longer...their problems are too great.
Don't the Samaritans advise using God's spiritual waters as a solution when people call them?
-
Don't the Samaritans advise using God's spiritual waters as a solution when people call them?
No Seb...what they do, if I'm understanding them correctly...is listen.
Remeber Jesus Christ, he taught us to tell our problems to God so that he could listen...we could then often resolve our problems with lessons from his word.
Note the word 'Samaritans Seb'...a Biblical expression to identify where they get their strength from to help...but I'm not going down one of God's caring but sensitive routes with you when you have plainly shown that you have no righteous interest.
-
No Seb...what they do, if I'm understanding them correctly...is listen.
Are they not missing a trick there though Nick?
If only they listened and quietly and thoughtfully mentioned the healing nature of God's Spiritual Waters. Think of how many poor souls could be cured - and saved (if it was an atheist calling of course).
Do you not think that would be a fantastic idea?
-
Are they not missing a trick there though Nick?
If only they listened and quietly and thoughtfully mentioned the healing nature of God's Spiritual Waters. Think of how many poor souls could be cured - and saved (if it was an atheist calling of course).
Do you not think that would be a fantastic idea?
The irony is that you can ridicule me, the helpers, and those who desparately need help in one breath, Seb.
Even you can realise that people who need this help are in no mood to talk Godly things...like you they have a history of foresaking him, though in their desparation they may have cried out for help and found nothing, because they don't know how God works. It is a slow, solid, emotional, repair mechanism...but, be warned of the aggressive uncaring souls that are all around you because they will push your face back in the mud quicker than you can bat your eyes.
-
The irony is that you can ridicule me, the helpers, and those who desparately need help in one breath, Seb.
Even you can realise that people who need this help are in no mood to talk Godly things...like you they have a history of foresaking him, though in their desparation they may have cried out for help and found nothing, because they don't know how God works. It is a slow, solid, emotional, repair mechanism...but, be warned of the aggressive uncaring souls that are all around you because they will push your face back in the mud quicker than you can bat your eyes.
But Nick if only there was some way of letting then know that they have forsaken him (not sure how you know that but anyway) and that there is a way to show them how God works.
Are you saying that would be a bad thing to do?
-
A lot of what I say Khatru is based upon my own personal experience. What Jesus promises is that God will provide exactly what we need according to the prayer we make. This is providing we are trying to be righteous and providing we stick to the regulations regarding prayer that Jesus taught us.
You claim to know how to pray and you also claim to know the truth. Therefore, there can be no better person than you to make a selfless, righteous prayer.
Please, pray to your god to cure every child that is currently sick and dying. I ask nothing for me a d I know you will ask nothing for yourself. Please do this sincerely, honestly and from the heart and surelynyour god will save the little children.
all Khatru can see is if we want to win on the lottery it is God's duty to listen and pay up.
No, that's deliberately disingenuous.
Intercessory prayer is made with the best if intentions yet it fails time amd time again.
Why is this? Why doesn't God step in and save the life of an infantbstruck down with me ingitis or leukaemia? Christians pray, not for themselves but for the child, het more often than not, the child dies.
Using your logic means that for some reason, your god has decided that the prayers aren't righteous.
You know what? Maybe you're right and the Bible god sees right through the phoney goodness and virtue and sees it as it truly is. That is the vast majority of believers couldn't care less whether a child lives or dies and their prayers are just an attempt to score brownie points with their god.
-
(((((That is the vast majority of believers couldn't care less whether a child lives or dies and their prayers are just an attempt to score brownie points with their god.)))))
I don't believe that to be true at all, of course most care, I just don't believe god exists to answer their prayers.
-
(((((That is the vast majority of believers couldn't care less whether a child lives or dies and their prayers are just an attempt to score brownie points with their god.)))))
I don't believe that to be true at all, of course most care, I just don't believe god exists to answer their prayers.
Of course their god doesn't exist.
I was using Nicky's own logic - he said that prayers have to be righteous to succeed.
What's wrong with praying that someone doesn't die? Apparently plenty, given the rate of failure.
Hence my remark that maybe the believer's motives were to impress their god rather than to offer up an honest prayer to try and convince their god to intervene and save a life.
Of course, if Nick really knew his Bible he'd realise that no one is righteous.
"As it is written there is no one righteous, not even one"
Romans 3:10