First a confession. I am here to see whether someone doesn't believe in Thor or Leprechaun's BECAUSE he is like the God of Abrahamic theism.I don't believe in Thor because there is no evidence for his existence as an actual entity rather than a mythical figure in stories made up by people.
Actually my beliefs on Thor have changed. I saw him as a nordic story, an invented superhero like superman. Then I looked at him as more the expression of the religiousity and the sense of the numinous in Nordic idiom.
I have though to confess I don't know a lot about him. Are you like me or are you an expert.... Who or what then, since you guys use his name a lot, is Thor?
First a confession. I am here to see whether someone doesn't believe in Thor or Leprechaun's BECAUSE he is like the God of Abrahamic theism.Over to you Vlad - why don't you believe in Thor as a real entity, not just an expression of subjective religiosity or a human created myth.
Actually my beliefs on Thor have changed. I saw him as a nordic story, an invented superhero like superman. Then I looked at him as more the expression of the religiousity and the sense of the numinous in Nordic idiom.
I have though to confess I don't know a lot about him. Are you like me or are you an expert.... Who or what then, since you guys use his name a lot, is Thor?
I don't believe in Thor because there is no evidence for his existence as an actual entity rather than a mythical figure in stories made up by people.Agree completely.
I don't believe in leprechauns because there is no evidence for their existence as an actual entity rather than a mythical figures in stories made up by people.
I don't believe in the christian god because there is no evidence for his existence as an actual entity rather than a mythical figure in stories made up by people.
Simple really.
Over to you Vlad - why don't you believe in Thor as a real entity, not just an expression of subjective religiosity or a human created myth.Since I believe Thor is an expression of religiosity, I think he is but a vague caricature and an unskilled stab at the abrahamic God and our understanding through Christ. His outstanding warrior nature is obviously a narrow view of divinity by people obsessed with warfare.
Gordon and I seem to have reasoned and consistent reason why we don't believe in Thor as a real entity, consistent in that we apply it to other similarly purported entities, such as the christian god and leprechauns.
How about you Vlad - why do you believe that the christian god is a real entity yet Thor is merely an expression of religiousity when there is exactly the same credible evidence for both (i.e. zero).
Easy peasy, Vlad: insufficient credible evidence.Is that based on what's credible to you, Gordon?
Since I believe Thor is an expression of religiosity, I think he is but a vague caricature and an unskilled stab at the abrahamic God and our understanding through Christ.Why don't you believe that the christian god is merely an expression of christian religiosity, rather than a real entity. And why don't you believe that the christian god is but a vague caricature and an unskilled stab at the Norse Gods and our understanding through Odin?
Why don't you believe that the christian god is merely an expression of christian religiosity, rather than a real entity. And why don't you believe that the christian god is but a vague caricature and an unskilled stab at the Norse Gods and our understanding through Odin?I have encountered God through Christ. It is obvious that , like me you know little about Thor but unlike me you are a philosophical empiricist. No inconsistency the abrahamic God is more comprehensively cosmic and philosophically fundamental than a nordic war God who rather than being the ground of all being is just the CEO of a band of superheroes.
That seems equally as reasonable (or unreasonable) as your claim of the opposite.
You seem terrible inconsistent in your thinking Vlad.
Is that based on what's credible to you, Gordon?
I have encountered God through Christ.
I, too, have encountered God through Christ.Morning Anchorman.
Morning Anchorman.
Vlad seems to be of the opinion that Norse people who believed they had encountered Thor were actually encountering the abrahamic god but not really recognising it.
How can you be sure that when you believe you have encountered the abramac god that you aren't actually encountering Thor (or any other god) but can't really recognise it, probably because your upbringing is steeped in the notion that god is the christian one.
There is no evidence that a Thor, or for that matter, a Venus, or a Re-Horakhty, ever walked this earth.Nope - there is some very scant evidence that a person called Jesus walked the earth - there is no more credible evidence that this person was divine or god than there is that Thor is divine or god. And, of course, many religious traditions include people known to exist (often with far greater evidence for their actual existence than Jesus) who were also considered to be deities.
Christ did.
As for my upbringing?That you went to Sunday School demonstrates that you were brought up within a christian tradition, so unsurprising that if you think you encounter god, you will ascribe that encounter to be the god you were brought up to believe.
If quitting Sunday School at the age of nine and rejecting all religions untill my late teens qualifies me, then, yes, I'll own up.......
Nope - there is some very scant evidence that a person called Jesus walked the earth - there is no more credible evidence that this person was divine or god than there is that Thor is divine or god. And, of course, many religious traditions include people known to exist (often with far greater evidence for their actual existence than Jesus) who were also considered to be deities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_been_considered_deities
That you went to Sunday School demonstrates that you were brought up within a christian tradition, so unsurprising that if you think you encounter god, you will ascribe that encounter to be the god you were brought up to believe.
Were you brought up in a different tradition (e.g. hindu) you'd likely ascribe that encounter to one or more of the hindu gods. And that would be the same regardless of whether you'd quit hindu religious instruction classes.
Er.....I went to Sunday School, not because my mother, who raised me, thought I should, but because it was mandatory if you wished to be in the Junior Section of the Boys' Brigade.So let's get this one right Anchorman.
I'd say my upbringing in matters religious was more secular than anything resembling Christianity.AM - parents bringing their children up in a secular manner tend not to send their kids to overtly christian instituions such as the Boys' Brigade and sunday school.
I have encountered God through Christ.How do you know it wasn't Loki tricking you into thinking you have encountered God?
Yet the existence of the person Yeshua barYusef is beyond dispute by any methodology of which I am aware.
I'm not one of them, but there are people - even a few historians - that dispute his existence. The evidence really isn't that strong but it amounts toI think that is correct.
a) a religion (it seems to me that most religions have a founder)
b) a very few references to Jesus in Paul's letters and some poorly attested myths that (I think) have accreted onto a real person.
So let's get this one right Anchorman.Forgive me but I enjoyed the way Anchorman seems to have stopped indulging the above.
So you went to a christian institution (Sunday School) aimed at christian religious instruction because another christian institution that you were a member of (The Boys' Brigade) required you to. And that latter organisation has the motto:
"The advancement of Christ's kingdom among Boys and the promotion of habits of Obedience, Reverence, Discipline, Self-respect and all that tends towards a true Christian manliness."
And somehow you seem to be arguing that you weren't brought up within a christian tradition.
Forgive me but I enjoyed the way Anchorman seems to have stopped indulging the above.That's not what is being claimed. The claim is that Anchorman was brought up "within a Christian tradition". It is likely that Anchoreman's upbringing has informed his decision to believe in the Christian god rather than anybody else's.
How often do you need to be informed that mere attendance at a religious institution doesn't make you a christian.
How often do you need to be informed that mere attendance at a religious institution doesn't make you a christian.What I said was that he was brought up in the christian tradition - a different matter. And parents who choose to send their kids to sunday school (most don't now and most didn't back when AM was a kid), and also to other christian organisations, who in AM's case seemed actually to require christian instruction at Sunday School are bringing up their children in the christian tradition.
That's not what is being claimed. The claim is that Anchorman was brought up "within a Christian tradition". It is likely that Anchoreman's upbringing has informed his decision to believe in the Christian god rather than anybody else's.Absolutely correct - and had he been brought up within an islamic tradition, attending madrassa classes and islamic youth groups I suspect that he would believe in the islamic god rather than anybody else's.
I think that is correct.
I too am not particularly interested in challenging the veracity of Jesus as a historical character, largely because it doesn't seem to be a particularly useful discussion as christianity is largely about faith rather than truth in a factual sense.
That said when people make the kind of claim that Anchorman does it should be challenged. The very notion that it is possible to make a perfectly credible argument that Jesus never actually existed as claimed (in a factual sense) in the bible shows how little evidence there is for him. Effectively the evidence for Jesus as a historical figure comes pretty well entirely from the bible, and other early christian documents - but this is, in a historical sense, really weak evidence, because:
1. It is not comtemporary - as JP points out Paul hardly discusses Jesus as a historical figure and the gospels (which do) are from decades after the event, and the earliest extant versions, centuries later.
2. It is partial - written by people with an agenda and with a clear incentive to 'big up' the notion of Jesus as a historical character, in support of their evangelising remit.
3. The reports lack independence - it would appear that what we have in the gospels links back to a tiny number of source materials.
4. It isn't corroborated - we have no independent corroboration from another non-christian source (see below).
5. There is no archeological evidence to back up the claims in the gospels.
So for the historical evidence to be strong we'd expect (in addition to archeological evidence), independent (ideal from the 'other side') corroboratory evidence and reports. But there aren't any. The nearest we have are a couple of tiny sections in documents also written decades after the event, most of which are about the presence of early christians (not really in doubt) rather than the presence of a historical Jesus. There is also strong evidence in these documents of doctoring - in other words later christian interpolation, so there is doubt over whether even the tiny sections are actually in the original versions of Tacitus and Josephus.
Let's be clear about evaluating historical sources. Here's one list I found on the interwebs (https://www.margotnote.com/blog/2017/5/2/9-ways-to-verify-primary-source-reliability). There are others, but they mostly seem quite similar:
1. Was the source created at the same time of the event it describes? If not, who made the record, when, and why?
2. Who furnished the information? Was the informant in a position to give correct facts? Was the informant a participant in the original event? Was the informant using secondhand information? Would the informant have benefited from giving incorrect or incomplete answers?
3. Is the information in the record such as names, dates, places, events, and relationships logical? Does it make sense in the context of time, place, and the people being researched?
4. Does more than one reliable source give the same information?
5. What other evidence supports the information in the source?
6. Does the source contain discrepancies? Were these errors of the creator of the document or the informant?
7. Have you found any reliable evidence that contradicts or conflicts with what you already know?
8. Is the source an original or a copy? If it’s a copy, can you get a version closer to the original?
9. Does the document have characteristics that may affect is readability? Consider smears, tears, missing words, faded ink, hard-to-read handwriting, too dark microfilm, and bad reproduction.
So let's apply these to Mark's gospel
1. GMark is not contemporary. We don't know who wrote it and it was probably written three or four decades later and it was written as a theological document.
2. We don't know who wrote Mark and we don't know who gave him the information so we can't really answer any of these questions, except that they were probably using at least second hand information.
3. Mark has no dates. It does mention some people and places known to exist but it does make errors of fact in geography.
4. We don't know of any reliable sources concerning the life of Jesus, except maybe Paul and he is silent on almost every aspect of Jesus' life, plus Mark may be partly dependent on Paul.
5. Other than the other gospels which are almost certainly not independent sources, I know of no other evidence concerning the life of Jesus.
6. Yes. We don't know where they originated.
7. There's good evidence that miracles don't happen.
8. We do not have the original. This is true of all ancient documents but that doesn't mean we can discount the point, it means that it is a problem for all ancient documents.
9. Not applicable because we don't have the original.
Mark strikes out on every single criterion.
That's not what is being claimed. The claim is that Anchorman was brought up "within a Christian tradition". It is likely that Anchoreman's upbringing has informed his decision to believe in the Christian god rather than anybody else's.How does that work?
How does that work?If you are brought up in a traditional that culturally and societally believes in a particular god and does not culturally and societally believe in other gods then it is likely that if you believe in god and consider that you've experienced god then the god you believe in will be the one aligned with the culture you are brought up in.
If you are brought up in a traditional that culturally and societally believes in a particular god and does not culturally and societally believe in other gods then it is like that if you believe in god and consider that you've experienced god then the god you believe in will be the one aligned with the culture you are brought up in.QuoteI think I asked how that works rather than you merely repeating the statistics. Can you say it is cause or correlation? Secondly, How is that true of world religions with Global distribution?
What you say could be true of nominal religion too and that makes your analysis quite murky given that religious adherence can rise and fall in terms of mere decades.
How would it invalidate God or Christianity anyway?
Given your own experience of a god free upbringing why do you not admit to that being cultural or your own belief set might be culturally influenced?
I think I asked how that works rather than you merely repeating the statistics. Can you say it is cause or correlation?How does it work - well if you give me the child at seven, I'll give you the adult ... It is hardly rocket science.
Secondly, How is that true of world religions with Global distribution?Yes
What you say could be true of nominal religion too and that makes your analysis quite murky given that religious adherence can rise and fall in terms of mere decades.What on earth do you mean, and actually the notion that religious adherence goes up and down over decades is simply wrong - trends in religious adherence tend to be much longer range than that, specifically because they are so tied up with upbringing and therefore range over several generations. So in the UK adherence has been on the decline for nigh on a century, first a fairly gently decline and over the past 50 years rather more rapid - again you'd predict this on the basis of generational transmission.
How would it invalidate God or Christianity anyway?It doesn't - I was merely challenging AM's claim of not having been brought up within the christian tradition - which is clearly nonsense given that he mentions attending both Sunday Schools the Boys' Brigades (both achingly christian tradition organisations).
Given your own experience of a god free upbringing why do you not admit to that being cultural or your own belief set might be culturally influenced?I didn't have a god free upbringing - I doubt anyone brought up in the 60s and 70s had a god free upbringing given that the default position with society and schools was that god exists and that that god is the christian one. My upbringing was certainly not very actively religious, although I also briefly was sent to Sunday school and had grandparents who were churchgoers. So although it was pretty 'religion-light' it had far more religion/god in it than atheism - indeed I don't think I really recognised that atheism was a thing until I was probably in my teens and I certainly don't think I'd ever met someone in my upbringing who overtly (or even covertly) described themselves as atheist, although I now recognise that plenty of people I knew at the time were actually atheist.
Since I believe Thor is an expression of religiosity, I think he is but a vague caricature and an unskilled stab at the abrahamic God and our understanding through Christ. His outstanding warrior nature is obviously a narrow view of divinity by people obsessed with warfare.
I have encountered God through Christ. It is obvious that , like me you know little about Thor but unlike me you are a philosophical empiricist. No inconsistency the abrahamic God is more comprehensively cosmic and philosophically fundamental than a nordic war God who rather than being the ground of all being is just the CEO of a band of superheroes.
Leprechauns are tiny irishmen if you can believe that.
How does it work - well if you give me the child at seven, I'll give you the adult ... It is hardly rocket science.I thought that was the jesuits not the church of Scotland.
All you are saying is that christian culture makes cultural christians which is fine because even Dawkins describes himself as much. Cultural religion is synonomous with nominal religion rather than conviction
Yes
What on earth do you mean, and actually the notion that religious adherence goes up and down over decades is simply wrong - trends in religious adherence tend to be much longer range than that, specifically because they are so tied up with upbringing and therefore range over several generations. So in the UK adherence has been on the decline for nigh on a century, first a fairly gently decline and over the past 50 years rather more rapid - again you'd predict this on the basis of generational transmission.
Religion lite, as you say, has been the condition of this culture for decades hence the census campaign. I see no reason not to believe Anchorman when he relates his experience of christianity light trather than your quirky madrass theory of sunday school attendance in the sixties.
I didn't have a god free upbringing - I doubt anyone brought up in the 60s and 70s had a god free upbringing given that the default position with society and schools was that god exists and that that god is the christian one. My upbringing was certainly not very actively religious, although I also briefly was sent to Sunday school and had grandparents who were churchgoers. So although it was pretty 'religion-light' it had far more religion/god in it than atheism - indeed I don't think I really recognised that atheism was a thing until I was probably in my teens and I certainly don't think I'd ever met someone in my upbringing who overtly (or even covertly) described themselves as atheist, although I now recognise that plenty of people I knew at the time were actually atheist.
I see no reason not to believe Anchorman when he relates his experience of christianity light trather than your quirky madrass theory of sunday school attendance in the sixties.So you accept that AM's upbringing was in the christian tradition then, in other words accepting my view rather than his rather bizarre implication that an upbringing that involved sunday school and Boys' Brigade somehow had nothing to do with christianity, indeed organised christianity.
All you are saying is that christian culture makes cultural christians which is fine because even Dawkins describes himself as much.That isn't what I am saying, although it is indeed true.
... sunday school attendance in the sixties.What are you not believing Vlad - that less than a quarter of kids in 1960 attended Sunday School and that is a snapshot of a declining attendance from the turn of the 19th to 20th centuries that continues through to today. That is demonstrated by evidence, it isn't a matter or belief.
So you accept that AM's upbringing was in the christian tradition then, in other words accepting my view rather than his rather bizarre implication that an upbringing that involved sunday school and Boys' Brigade somehow had nothing to do with christianity, indeed organised Christianity.I think it was no more a christian upbringing than yours or mine and had the same activities been provided, as mine were by the urban district council rather than the BB's he would have attended those. The appeal to being brought up in a 'tradition' is tenuous but somehow you manage to cast Christians who choose Christ as they get more mature as brainwashed sleeper agents a la 'The manchurian candidate'. The reality is that in a globalised society you are going to be exposed to competing beliefs but chiefly secularism and that was true in the sixties and seventies.
That isn't what I am saying, although it is indeed true.Cultural and nominal christians can be active in the church in fact at one point it was necessary to get into a much sought after place in a church school.
What I am saying is that active, rather than culturally, religious people almost always adhere to the religion and believe in the god of their upbringing. Show me an active christian and (except in very rare cases) I will show you someone brought up to be christian. Show me an active muslim and (except in very rare cases) I will show you someone brought up to be muslim. Show me an active hindu and (except in very rare cases) I will show you someone brought up to be hindu.
That's not what is being claimed. The claim is that Anchorman was brought up "within a Christian tradition". It is likely that Anchoreman's upbringing has informed his decision to believe in the Christian god rather than anybody else's.And I think he is saying he has encountered Christ which I would suggest is a different process from the one you are suggesting, namely some kind of cultural osmosis.
And I think he is saying he has encountered Christ which I would suggest is a different process from the one you are suggesting, namely some kind of cultural osmosis.
And I think he is saying he has encountered Christ which I would suggest is a different process from the one you are suggesting, namely some kind of cultural osmosis.
You went to Sunday School and you were in the Boys Brigade. Please don't insult our intelligence by pretending Christianity was nothing more to you than Islam.
Yep.
No bells or whistles, no rallies or waking up during the church services I never attended, none of it.
Isn't it strange that people brought up in a Christian tradition overwhelmingly encounter Christ rather than some other deity, but people brought up in other traditions e.g. Islam or Hinduism etc overwhelmingly encounter the deities of their tradition?I'm not sure whether a personal relationship with Allah is a thing in Islam. Also there are people brought up in the so called christian tradition who opt for Islam. Although having said that the tradition people are brought up in and have been is more a kind of secular agnosticism and scientism and that means one could question whether your beliefs aren't merely cultural. Cultural hinduism probably equally risks producing cultural hindus.
Actually, it's not strange: of course you encounter the god that you are familiar with.
Anchorman encountered Christ rather than, say Allah, because Christianity is the religion with which he was familiar.
I'm not sure whether a personal relationship with Allah is a thing in Islam.A personal relationship with Christ is also not a thing, at least, not a real one. If it were, Christians wouldn't be so obsessed with the Bible because they could talk to Jesus direct and have him answer back. They wouldn't need preachers and priests to tell them what Jesus thinks.
Also there are people brought up in the so called christian tradition who opt for Islam.True, but not many.
A personal relationship with Christ is also not a thing, at least, not a real one. If it were, Christians wouldn't be so obsessed with the Bible because they could talk to Jesus direct and have him answer back. They wouldn't need preachers and priests to tell them what Jesus thinks.I think you are only talking about the reformed wing of the church regarding biblical obsession. The rest of the church accepts in various measures the personal relationship, the ongoing transformative relationship with the holy spirit.
True, but not many.
I think you are only talking about the reformed wing of the church regarding biblical obsession. The rest of the church accepts in various measures the personal relationship, the ongoing transformative relationship with the holy spirit.Does Jesus talk to you? What does he say? How does he say it? Is he a voice in your head? How do you know it's actually Jesus and not Loki trying to trick you?
Does Jesus talk to you? What does he say? How does he say it? Is he a voice in your head? How do you know it's actually Jesus and not Loki trying to trick you?Not voices, a sense of presence, a sense of distance, thoughts, phrases which come to mind, new insights and understandings, new illumination of a formerly closed off biblical passages, a hunger for the bible, a sense of mental and spiritual integration in Christian fellowship and after sacraments. That sort of thing.
You went to Sunday School and you were in the Boys Brigade. Please don't insult our intelligence by pretending Christianity was nothing more to you than Islam.
For crying out loud AM, the BB are a well known christian youth organisation, with a christian founding mission and christian ethos that they have retained (unlike a number of other youth organisations that have moved away from a specifically christian founding ethos).
Speking as siomeone who not only grew up in the BB, but was a BB officer for twenty four years, to say that the ethos was Christian is stretching it a bit.
Yes, we tried to convey the Object..."The Advancement of Christ's Kingdom among Boys.....etc", but if you think there was some form of holy osmosis goin g on, forget it.
Indoctrination was simply not on the agenda; I taught the faith side in the Company for twenty years, and you can guarantee that!
If I left a Boy asking questions, then that's fine with me.
My purpose was to pen minds, not close them.
Not voices, a sense of presence, a sense of distance, thoughts, phrases which come to mind, new insights and understandings, new illumination of a formerly closed off biblical passages, a hunger for the bible, a sense of mental and spiritual integration in Christian fellowship and after sacraments. That sort of thing.
If you'd been born in Karachi you wouldn't have a hunger for the Bible, you probably would not even tolerate having one in the house. If you'd been born in Madras, it probably would be Krishna, or Ganesh you'd be yearning for, not Christ. A Roman centurion ? probably Mithras. Evidence is, that these things are artefacts of mind embedded in our psyche through cultural conditioning.
Karachi?
Yep....despite persecution, we are growing there, as in India.
Indeed, the church in India has sent missionaries here.
we have a local worker, a convert from Hinduism, from a family with Hinduism in their blood - his grandfather being a Brahmin priest.....
Sweeping statement there......
Karachi?
Yep....despite persecution, we are growing there, as in India.
Indeed, the church in India has sent missionaries here.
we have a local worker, a convert from Hinduism, from a family with Hinduism in their blood - his grandfather being a Brahmin priest.....
Sweeping statement there......
Data from Pew Research suggests that conversions between faiths are but a minor contributor to overall landscape of religious demographics across all faiths. This is true of Islam, the numbers of people converting from Islam to other faiths is roughly equal to the number of people converting into it.The numbers of conversions from to a different religion to the one they were brought up is in tiny. I posted some info on this a while ago.
If you'd been born in Karachi you wouldn't have a hunger for the Bible, you probably would not even tolerate having one in the house. If you'd been born in Madras, it probably would be Krishna, or Ganesh you'd be yearning for, not Christ. A Roman centurion ? probably Mithras. Evidence is, that these things are artefacts of mind embedded in our psyche through cultural conditioning.If you were born in Bracknell Berkshire you wouldn't have a hunger for the bible. What I am saying is my hunger for the bible was not cultural so for me there is but one source of that transformation. Prior to a period of Enlightenment of the bible I considered church going a campy cultural pretence but suddenly experienced the fellowship qualities.
If you were born in Bracknell Berkshire you wouldn't have a hunger for the bible. What I am saying is my hunger for the bible was not cultural so for me there is but one source of that transformation. Prior to a period of Enlightenment of the bible I considered church going a campy cultural pretence but suddenly experienced the fellowship qualities.
Since the UK has been secular and technological for decades that my religious beliefs are not cultural but from God and most of your secular beliefs are cultural.
If you were born in Bracknell Berkshire you wouldn't have a hunger for the bible. What I am saying is my hunger for the bible was not cultural so for me there is but one source of that transformation. Prior to a period of Enlightenment of the bible I considered church going a campy cultural pretence but suddenly experienced the fellowship qualities.Of course it is cultural - the reason why you and AM ended up as christians rather than muslim, jewish, hindu etc is because you were brought up within a christian tradition and culture.
Comical. The UK may well be increasingly secular, but that doesn't mean that the dominant religion isn't Christian, and that most of an average person's exposure to 'god' and religion would be via Christianity. Even if you considered it "campy cultural pretence", that means you were familiar with it, and that's the point. If you'd have been raised in a Muslim country, how do you know you wouldn't have had a "hunger for the Qur'an"? The stats the prof quoted suggest that would be more likely.Saying that the dominant religion is Christianity is like saying the dominant pop group is whatever the dominant pop group is. Religion is and has been for decades a minority interest to the point where there is little interest for what it says about itself. This is why it is now viewed in cultural terms which along with statistics is the chief lens through which
As for your claim "my religious beliefs are not cultural but from God", how about at least making an attempt to give a rational basis for why anybody should take it seriously. Go on, there's a first time for everything!
Saying that the dominant religion is Christianity is like saying the dominant pop group is whatever the dominant pop group is.
Religion is and has been for decades a minority interest to the point where there is little interest for what it says about itself. This is why it is now viewed in cultural terms which along with statistics is the chief lens through which
Secularism presently views the world.
This makes secularism itself and individuals more cultural and exposed to passing fads and charismatic individuals.
In terms of rationality. I believe a moral realism is more rational than an alternative system where moral Stances are made up.
That it is more reasonable to stick with cause and effect...
...with prime actualizer...
...than insisting on cause and effect until it doesn't suit.
These are all reasonable.
The universe just is....and that is it......is definitionally unreasonable for we are eschewing a reason.
Drivel. The point I've made was about familiar concepts of 'god'.The argument from contingency embodies the principle of sufficient reason.
Irrelevant wittering (and you still don't seem to understand secularism).
You may find it easier but where is the rational argument that that is the way things are, rather than how you'd like them to be? Who's suggesting that they are just 'made up'.
Why? We have reasons aplenty to think it doesn't universally apply even within space-time, let alone trying to apply it the space-time itself (where it's actually difficulty to even make it make any sense).
Why only one and what's the connection to any god?
Which is exactly what postulating a "prime actualizer" would be doing. ::)
Then show your reasoning.
Trying to shift the burden of proof. We don't need to know how or why the universe exists to dismiss your unfounded claims.
The argument from contingency...
...embodies the principle of sufficient reason.
The universe just is and there's the end to it(Bertrand Russell)does not.
Saying that the dominant religion is Christianity is like saying the dominant pop group is whatever the dominant pop group is. Religion is and has been for decades a minority interest to the point where there is little interest for what it says about itself. This is why it is now viewed in cultural terms which along with statistics is the chief lens through whichIt is a bit more complicated that that. The issue isn't really what religion is the dominant one in a country, although that will add to the general 'mood music' within a country. No, the issue is the culture that an individual is brought up in, which may, or may not, align with the dominant religion.
Secularism presently views the world.
It is a bit more complicated that that. The issue isn't really what religion is the dominant one in a country, although that will add to the general 'mood music' within a country. No, the issue is the culture that an individual is brought up in, which may, or may not, align with the dominant religion.I thought we had discussed the problems with the term Active this or that. I am sure that what a christian terms as active is different to what a moslem terms as active. Of course I would imagine that you expect both to accept your one size fits all definition. Cultural christinaity produces largely cultural christians and cultural christianity in the UK does not deal in personal relationship in the sense that an active Christ encountered and committed christianity and indeed that is a closed book to many who think they are christian because this is a Christian country. It isn't, it's secular. That is the prominent Weltbilt and that's why you'll find your views are culturally decided.
So in effect virtually no-one not brought up within a particular religious culture becomes an adherent of that religion as an adult. So in the UK active adult christians were, except in very, very rare instances, brought up as christians. Active adult muslims were, except in very, very rare instances, brought up as muslims. Active adult jews were, except in very, very rare instances, brought up as jews etc, etc. So bringing up a child in a particular religious culture is pretty well essential for there to be a possibility that that person will be an adherent of that religion as an adult.
Do I care that I am only one of the few converts from a non religious background?Really - I'm sure we've discussed this before and it was pretty clear that your upbringing was christian (albeit something you briefly rejected in you teens).
Really - I'm sure we've discussed this before and it was pretty clear that your upbringing was christian (albeit something you briefly rejected in you teens).Cultural christianity of a far lesser kind than say, Dawkins, Perhaps. Anything like what my adult experience of Christianity, I think I would have noticed.
So from another thread you stated:Yes....at the age of 24.
'I was confirmed into the Church of England and simultaneously received into membership of the Methodist church'
Yes....at the age of 24.Thank you.
Thank you.All we are going to get here Prof is what you consider a religious upbringing.
So just to confirm that your upbringing was non religious, perhaps you'd let us know the following:
1. Were you baptised
2. Did you attend religious services as a child, regularly or occasionally
3. Did you ever attend Sunday School
4. Did you start to take communion before the age of, let's say, 16.
5. Did you attend a faith school or a non faith school
Some of these might be indicators of mere cultural christianity and a non religious upbringing even if the answer is yes. Others definitely indicate a religious upbringing.
Where do you think the religion seeped inErr - in the faith school and in Sunday School - and also in your parents choices - specifically to send you to a faith school and to Sunday school. Guess what parents bringing their children up in a non religious tend not to sent their children to faith schools and certainly don't send their children to Sunday school.
Err - in the faith school and in Sunday School - and also in your parents choices - specifically to send you to a faith school and to Sunday school. Guess what parents bringing their children up in a non religious tend not to sent their children to faith schools and certainly don't send their children to Sunday school.It was the local school. The school run didn't exist so there wasn't really an alternative for my parents, The culture was secular. We did do nativities so I suppose you are going to call 'manger danger' I believe the swivel eyed atheists call it.
It was the local school. The school run didn't exist so there wasn't really an alternative for my parents,Really?
The culture was secular. We did do nativities so I suppose you are going to call 'manger danger' I believe the swivel eyed atheists call it.Really - no assemblies with hymn singing and 'close your eyes, put your hands together and pray to Jesus'-type stuff. Given that this was required by law (and still is) and in the 60s, 70s etc was largely complied with even in non faith schools, the notion that your faith school (CofE I presume) wasn't doing this is barely believable. No little picture book bible stories - again commonplace even in non faith schools.
It was the local school.Note the selective response.
What you seem to be suggesting is that you were not conditioned as a child to believe in Christianity. I believe you had a 'spiritual' experience later in life which you seem to have interpreted as a Christian one rather than, say, a Zen experience. Perhaps you could say what prompted the Christian interpretation as opposed to that of any other religion.
Going back to rejecting christianity with me saying I had never accepted proper Christianity until my twenties........are you proposing that people who reject there childhood faith don't properly reject it?
Perhaps you could say what prompted the Christian interpretation as opposed to that of any other religion.Probably the formative experiences of his upbringing. Specifically being immersed in christianity within the christian faith school he attended and Sunday school he attended. Plus his 'occasional' attendance at church services during his upbringing - note his careful use of language here. I suspect this was rather more than the typical attendance for non religious people, which tends to be for 'invite events' e.g. christenings, weddings and funerals.
What you seem to be suggesting is that you were not conditioned as a child to believe in Christianity. I believe you had a 'spiritual' experience later in life which you seem to have interpreted as a Christian one rather than, say, a Zen experience. Perhaps you could say what prompted the Christian interpretation as opposed to that of any other religion.As I was reading the works of CS Lewis I became aware of something behind Lewis writing and that I was tuning into it. The reality of it began to strike me. The bible which had been quaint remote and incomprehensible started to become vital, relevant and not only comprehensible but relaying the "signal".I was enthusiastic for God at that time but then Jesus began to be part of my transformation. I started praying to God about Jesus and soon guided to New testament passages where Jesus stands at the door of your life knocking and where he says to Matthew....follow me. I spent a few hours totally focused on this, trying to avoid then I had a mental picture of a pudding with no taste and knew that that's what life would be like if I denied Christ and so I told him to take it all. The mental paralysis ended and I was overjoyed I'd found him.
Not voices, a sense of presence, a sense of distance, thoughts, phrases which come to mind, new insights and understandings, new illumination of a formerly closed off biblical passages, a hunger for the bible, a sense of mental and spiritual integration in Christian fellowship and after sacraments. That sort of thing.So nothing certain then, all just vague feelings.
How does Loki trying to trick me negate the existence of Christ? Why isn't it Christ, Jeremy?I'm not saying it isn't Christ, I'm asking you how you know it is Christ and not some other deity trying to trick you.
So actually not stretching it at all.
Speking as siomeone who not only grew up in the BB, but was a BB officer for twenty four years, to say that the ethos was Christian is stretching it a bit.
Yes, we tried to convey the Object..."The Advancement of Christ's Kingdom among Boys.....etc",
but if you think there was some form of holy osmosis goin g on, forget it.
Indoctrination was simply not on the agenda; I taught the faith side in the Company for twenty years, and you can guarantee that!
If I left a Boy asking questions, then that's fine with me.
My purpose was to pen minds, not close them.
So actually not stretching it at all.I think the issue here is that some people seem to misunderstand or misrepresent the level of religiosity of their upbringing on the spectrum from completely non-religious to uber-religious within the overall population.
If "the Advancement of Christ's Kingdom among Boys" is not a Christian ethos, what is?
As I was reading the works of CS Lewis I became aware of something behind Lewis writing and that I was tuning into it. The reality of it began to strike me. The bible which had been quaint remote and incomprehensible started to become vital, relevant and not only comprehensible but relaying the "signal".I was enthusiastic for God at that time but then Jesus began to be part of my transformation. I started praying to God about Jesus and soon guided to New testament passages where Jesus stands at the door of your life knocking and where he says to Matthew....follow me. I spent a few hours totally focused on this, trying to avoid then I had a mental picture of a pudding with no taste and knew that that's what life would be like if I denied Christ and so I told him to take it all. The mental paralysis ended and I was overjoyed I'd found him.And I suspect had you been brought up in an islamic tradition, and attended extra-curricular madrassa classes (rather than Sunday school) and a muslim faith school (rather than a christian faith school) then it would have been a muslim equivalent of CS Lewis who would have resonated with you and you would be talking about how the Koran suddenly made sense and that you'd started praying to Allah.
If you were born in Bracknell Berkshire you wouldn't have a hunger for the bible.You're more likely to have a hunger for the Bible than any other religious tome.
What I am saying is my hunger for the bible was not culturalIt more than likely is though. In this country people tend to hunger for the Bible. In Pakistan, they are more likely to hunger for the Koran.
If you were born in Bracknell Berkshire ...Were you brought up in Bracknell Vlad?
I think the issue here is that some people seem to misunderstand or misrepresent the level of religiosity of their upbringing on the spectrum from completely non-religious to uber-religious within the overall population.
Now if I'm being charitable I suggest this is merely not being able to have perspective if all around you are religious - the kind of person who fails to recognise that the BB are an overtly christian organisation, or that being sent to Sunday School was just what every did and wasn't really about christianity, at a time when three quarter of kids did not attend these overtly christian institutions.
But if I am being less charitable then I'd begin to see deliberate misrepresentation - specifically christians (AM and Vlad seem to be examples) trying to pass off their upbringing as non-religious to emphasise some conversion to christianity, when the reality is that they were brought up in a christian tradition, probably brought up to be christian and that is what they have become as adults, christians.
It may be something like your accent. I don't have an accent and neither does anybody else who was brought up in the same village as me. On the other hand, I bet somebody from Leeds could easily identify that I was brought up in the South East of England from the way I talk.That's right - it depends entirely on your ability to perceive the full spectrum of religiosity. So someone may be a regular churchgoer but somehow see themselves as being in the middle ground of religiosity as there are others far more fervent in their church, but fail to recognise that just by being a regular church goer they are already right at one end of the religiosity spectrum as less than 10% of people are churchgoers.
I was brought up in a Christian family and I was Christian until I was about twenty. However, most of my childhood friends were fairly irreligious and yet, because we all attended the same schools, I know they were exposed to Christian ideas and the Christian Bible. We all attended the same assemblies which were usually Christian in nature (although the story about the long chopsticks is apparently not Christian). We all had religious education in which Christianity was a central focus. If you were in the cubs or scouts, you had church parades once a month and so on and so on.Spot on - even though my family were pretty non religious the default growing up in the 70s was that there was a god and that god was the christian god. It permeated everything, even though my schooling was non faith. Assemblies were basically mini christian services with prayers, hymns etc. At my secondary school there was an annual service in the local cathedral. RE taught you about christianity and other religions, with the emphasis on the other (in other words not what we believe in). Sundays were tedious because of 'god' etc etc.
If you grew up in Britain in the seventies as I did, it was impossible to escape the Christian traditions.
So nothing certain then, all just vague feelings.I'm not saying it isn't Christ, I'm asking you how you know it is Christ and not some other deity trying to trick you.A new understanding of things is more than just a vague feeling. I realise we are away from numbers and into stuff that's hard to quantify.
So actually not stretching it at all.Not nearly anywhere like you were Jeremy. You are an exception to your own rule.
If "the Advancement of Christ's Kingdom among Boys" is not a Christian ethos, what is?
Nobody said anything about indoctrination. We just pointed out that you have been immersed in Christian culture your whole life
Spot on - even though my family were pretty non religious the default growing up in the 70s was that there was a god and that god was the christian god.QuoteMore like there was ''something greater'' and that was true even when CS Lewis was doing apologetic talks in the late forties and fiftiesQuoteIt permeated everything,Not where I was.Quoteeven though my schooling was non faith. Assemblies were basically mini christian services with prayers, hymns etc. At my secondary school there was an annual service in the local cathedral. RE taught you about christianity and other religions, with the emphasis on the other (in other words not what we believe in). Sundays were tedious because of 'god' etc etc.So by your own theory you should be as religious as me. RE was not considered a serious subject in secondary school when I was there and the boys took the opportunity to rag the most lenient teachers one lad depicting the disciples as a hells angel chapter. How we laughed.
Did religion permeate everything. It was a thing whereas there is zero religion now in many places where it used to be unless the religious is of the unhinged extreme variety, why they even took the religion and ethics message board from the BBC.
So by your own theory you should be as religious as me.Nope because being brought up is pretty well a necessary requirement for someone to be religious as an adult, it is not sufficient, as transmission of religiosity even for someone brought up in a religious culture is incredibly inefficient or 'leaky'. So over 40% of children brought up as christians become non religious as adults.
Not where I was.And where exactly was this Vlad - was it Bracknell as you seemed to imply in an earlier post?
I think the issue here is that some people seem to misunderstand or misrepresent the level of religiosity of their upbringing on the spectrum from completely non-religious to uber-religious within the overall population.But the mystery is surely either why are me and anchorman Christians when yours and jeremy's steepage in it seems at least similar and you profess differently? That seems to cut right across your theory.
Now if I'm being charitable I suggest this is merely not being able to have perspective if all around you are religious - the kind of person who fails to recognise that the BB are an overtly christian organisation, or that being sent to Sunday School was just what every did and wasn't really about christianity, at a time when three quarter of kids did not attend these overtly christian institutions.
But if I am being less charitable then I'd begin to see deliberate misrepresentation - specifically christians (AM and Vlad seem to be examples) trying to pass off their upbringing as non-religious to emphasise some conversion to christianity, when the reality is that they were brought up in a christian tradition, probably brought up to be christian and that is what they have become as adults, christians.
Not where I was.I suspect it was but you perhaps lacked the perspective to realise. So in your primary school (I presume this was the faith one) did you have assemblies that involved clear christian elements, such as christian hymns, prayer etc. I would be very surprised if you didn't, presuming this was back in the 70s or thereabouts, even more so with this being a faith school.
And where exactly was this Vlad - was it Bracknell as you seemed to imply in an earlier post?You seem to want the low down on me Prof, I think it's time for you to give me an answer or two.
I suspect it was but you perhaps lacked the perspective to realise. So in your primary school (I presume this was the faith one) did you have assemblies that involved clear christian elements, such as christian hymns, prayer etc. I would be very surprised if you didn't, presuming this was back in the 70s or thereabouts, even more so with this being a faith school.No alter calls though, no call for repentance, nothing about the new life. Plenty of Our Father, Harold be thy name though.
But the mystery is surely either why are me and anchorman Christians when yours and jeremy's steepage in it seems at least similar and you profess differently? That seems to cut right across your theory.Not really - in terms of the religiosity of upbringing I suspect mine was the least religious of me, you, AM and Jeremy. You and AM seem not to want to accept that faith schools and Sunday school implies a pretty religious upbringing, Jeremy is clear about his.
We need to have an agreement on what it means to be immersed in religion surely because we are at odds over that.
What is the difference between becoming a Christian as an adult and conversion to Christianity as an adult?
Jeremy seems to be the one brought up in the christian tradition.
You seem to want the low down on me Prof, I think it's time for you to give me an answer or two.Well that nails you down as a child of the 70s Vlad ;) But a question deserves an answer - I found them all pretty ghastly, in particular the 'cola' never tasted remotely like shop-brought coke.
So, what's your favourite Sodastream flavour? Ha Ha.
Plenty of Our Father, Harold be thy name though.So you were expected to recite the Lord's prayer (presumably with the CofE ending) yet seem reluctant to see your upbringing as christian. Bit like AM's refusal to recognise that being a member of a christian organisation that requires you to go to specific christian instruction rather suggests you are being brought up in a christian tradition, if not to become christian.
As I was reading the works of CS Lewis I became aware of something behind Lewis writing and that I was tuning into it. The reality of it began to strike me. The bible which had been quaint remote and incomprehensible started to become vital, relevant and not only comprehensible but relaying the "signal".I was enthusiastic for God at that time but then Jesus began to be part of my transformation. I started praying to God about Jesus and soon guided to New testament passages where Jesus stands at the door of your life knocking and where he says to Matthew....follow me. I spent a few hours totally focused on this, trying to avoid then I had a mental picture of a pudding with no taste and knew that that's what life would be like if I denied Christ and so I told him to take it all. The mental paralysis ended and I was overjoyed I'd found him.The fact that you were reading the works of C. S. Lewis seems to suggest that your 'Christian' past associations may have influenced that decision. You didn't, for instance, read about Bahá'u'lláh and become a member of the Bahá'í Faith or Jiddu Krishnamurti and become a Theosophist. However, may your joy continue.
The fact that you were reading the works of C. S. Lewis seems to suggest that your 'Christian' past associations may have influenced that decision.Indeed - perhaps Vlad will let us know what, or who, led him to read CS Lewis, whose adult works (and indeed his Narnia books) are well known to be about, or heavily influence by his christian beliefs.
The fact that you were reading the works of C. S. Lewis seems to suggest that your 'Christian' past associations may have influenced that decision. You didn't, for instance, read about Bahá'u'lláh and become a member of the Bahá'í Faith or Jiddu Krishnamurti and become a Theosophist. However, may your joy continue.Any past association did nothing for me spiritually. Where I started with Lewis was his writing on the numinous or as I understood it, the feeling that there was something greater which was where I considered I was, Bahai, seems to be a variant of Islam and in a way Islam is a variant of Christianity in fact Christianity would have been fairly well known in Arabia at the time of Mohammed. Reading CS Lewis on religion, he does talk about his reading of the norse and greek divinities and later the hindu divinities but as he says they do not have Christ, and that phrase chimed with me for some reason.
Indeed - perhaps Vlad will let us know what, or who, led him to read CS Lewis, whose adult works (and indeed his Narnia books) are well known to be about, or heavily influence by his christian beliefs.A close relative who had become a Christian about five years earlier sent me one of his books, Mere Christianity. I subsequently read God in the Dock, Problem of Pain and Surprised by Joy and the Screwtape letters.
Any past association did nothing for me spiritually. Where I started with Lewis was his writing on the numinous or as I understood it, the feeling that there was something greater which was where I considered I was, Bahai, seems to be a variant of Islam and in a way Islam is a variant of Christianity in fact Christianity would have been fairly well known in Arabia at the time of Mohammed. Reading CS Lewis on religion, he does talk about his reading of the norse and greek divinities and later the hindu divinities but as he says they do not have Christ, and that phrase chimed with me for some reason.I think we were wondering what led you to start reading Lewis - given that he is well known to be a christian author (in other words many of his book are about or heavily influence by christianity) I wonder what, or who led you to read his adult works. I think many people of our age (assuming then sodastream reference indicates a child of the 70s) got no further than the Narnia books, which I read as a child, and then re-read as a adult and recognised the clunkiness of the christian allegory which had, perhaps unsurprisingly evaded me at the age of ten.
A close relative who had become a Christian about five years earlier sent me one of his books, Mere Christianity. I subsequently read God in the Dock, Problem of Pain and Surprised by Joy and the Screwtape letters.Thanks - you replied, before I'd posted my last post. Is this relative you aforementioned uncle.
Thanks - you replied, before I'd posted my last post. Is this relative you aforementioned uncle.No he was converted in the late 1930's as a student at University.
No he was converted in the late 1930's as a student at University.You seem rather obsessed with this notion of 'conversion' - so in your eyes, you converted, your uncle converted, this mysterious relative of yours converted. So none were brought up as christians then? Or were they all (including you) brought up in a christian culture as christians, perhaps rebelled as teenagers and were comfortably back in the fold as adults (just like your idol CS Lewis).
You seem rather obsessed with this notion of 'conversion' - so in your eyes, you converted, your uncle converted, this mysterious relative of yours converted. So none were brought up as christians then? Or were they all (including you) brought up in a christian culture, perhaps rebelled as teenagers and were comfortably back in the fold as adults (just like your idol CS Lewis).Basically your argument is that any cultural Christianity must lead to someone becoming a christian as an adult but that is plainly not the case since some reject their faith , some don't really have one and never have one.
If your family contains three people brought up in a non religious manner who actually converted to christianity you'd represent a remarkable statistical quirk. Research indicates that just 1% of active christians in the UK were brought up in a non religious manner - for of the approx. 2 million active christians that would be just 20,000 people or one in one thousand of the approx. 12million people who say their upbringing was non religious.
So if this is a one in a thousand chance, three close members in one family all converting from a non religious upbringing to becoming christians represents perhaps a one in a billion likelihood.
Basically your argument is that any cultural Christianity must lead to someone becoming a christian as an adult ...No I'm not - that is ridiculous. Pretty well everyone in the UK is embedded in a culturally christian environment. That isn't the same as a religious upbringing.
Again it all depends on what one means by a religious upbringing.Well I would have thought choosing to send your child to a CofE faith school (I suspect other options were available in Bracknell) and certainly choosing to send you child to Sunday School are pretty good indications of a religious upbringing.
Also God doesn't work to statistics, He does not work like an empirical thing.Well he is pretty bad at that conversion thing, isn't he given that just a tiny percentage of christians in the UK (and I suspect in most other places with a stable freedom of religion history) weren't brought up to be christians. I think he needs to try a little harder in this conversion stuff, don't you.
No I'm not - that is ridiculous. Pretty well everyone in the UK is embedded in a culturally christian environment. That isn't the same as how they are brought up. It is the upbringing.In science both would be considered environmental factors with a hefty load of overlap. Another word for it would be nature or nurture. I think you are seeing this a a simple set of parameters. It isn't. That's why in sociology there needs to be an agreed definition and if that definition isn't that er,definate that is how, as social science, it has to be.
If you are brought up as a christian you may retain that christian upbringing as an adult or you may notThis immediately rejects the reports of people that they reject their faith or come back to it and with all due respect your shoe horning me into the same category as, say Jeremy [/quote] - there is about a 60:40 chance of the former and latter. If you are brought up in a non religious manner (regardless of whether cultural christianity is around and about) your chance of being religious as an adult is tiny.
Another word for it would be nature or nurture.It is nurture - there is no 'christian' gene.
In science both would be considered environmental factors with a hefty load of overlap.Both living in a country which is culturally christian and being brought up christian are both aspects of nature. But the former is pretty well irrelevant in generating adult christians, it is the latter that matters - unless you are brought up religious (in this case christian) you have nigh on zero chance of ending up christian as an adult.
Well I would have thought choosing to send your child to a CofE faith school (I suspect other options were available in Bracknell)QuoteI got sent there because my childhood years were spent in a village. We only got a car in 1964 and my mum never drove. You are superimposing todays lifestyle on the 1960's. and certainly choosing to send you child to Sunday School are pretty good indications of a religious upbringing. But is school upbringing? And does a couple of hours count. Is it not just part of the cultural environment? Isn't upbringing what goes on in the home.Since Christians were not regarded as dangerous monsters in those days it was a great way for a working mother and father to offload the kids.
And you still haven't answered me about the latter - what is your explanation for your parents sending you to Sunday School, except that they wanted their child to have a religious element to their upbringing.
If your parents insulated you from religion do you not think that explains your desire to do so as an adult? Or are you just specially pleading religion.
Citation please.Any number - various analyses of the regular British Social Attitudes survey, a variety of works by David Voas and also research from the (catholic) St Mary's University, Twickenham Centre for Religion and Society. None are what you might call campaigning groups - so I'm not quoting from NSS or HumanistUK although they may also pick up on this research.
Both living in a country which is culturally christian and being brought up christian are both aspects of nature. But the former is pretty well irrelevant in generating adult christians, it is the latter that matters - unless you are brought up religious (in this case christian) you have nigh on zero chance of ending up christian as an adult.I know. But if that is a british statistic. Britain has been secular for decades. Dawkins knew this, The BHA knew it that's why they've wanted the census changed.
But even if you are brought up christian it doesn't come close to guaranteeing that you will be christian as an adult, with about 40 out of every 100 people brought up as christians choosing to be non religious as adults.
I got sent there because my childhood years were spent in a village.The school was in the village? The only school in the village? Why the mention of Bracknell if you were living in a village, or was this on the outskirts of Bracknell.
But is school upbringing? And does a couple of hours count. Is it not just part of the cultural environment? Isn't upbringing what goes on in the home.Decisions parents make about schooling are clearly elements of upbringing - for example whether to send a child to a private school, or single sex school or faith school - each represents a conscious decision of the parents.
I got sent there because my childhood years were spent in a village. We only got a car in 1964 and my mum never drove. You are superimposing todays lifestyle on the 1960's.No I'm not superimposing today's lifestyle.
The school was in the village? The only school in the village? Why the mention of Bracknell if you were living in a village, or was this on the outskirts of Bracknell.Village not on the outskirts of Bracknell or even the New town I did move to aged 12 and three quarters.
Decisions parents make about schooling are clearly elements of upbringing - for example whether to send a child to a private school, or single sex school or faith school - each represents a conscious decision of the parents.And no requirement not to. As I said Christians were not considered the dodgy types they are considered today.
But we are talking about Sunday School - there is no requirement for parents to send their child to Sunday school,
Parents send their kids unlike normal school so there can be no 'is was the local school argument' - your parents must have had a reason to sunday school,Quotewhen we moved to the new town most kids spent sunday at the adventure playground run by the urban district council supervision and I went there as an early teenagerQuoteto choose to send you to Sunday school, unlike three quarters of parents at that time. And I'm struggling to see any plausible reason other than they wanted a christian upbringing for their child. And they may well have wanted this regardless of whether they were themselves particularly religious at that stage.That doesn't explain why my uncle was chaperoned so as not to spread his religion. How on Earth can a couple of hours on a sunday be an upbringing? I fear you have lost it somewhere.
And no requirement not to.Indeed, and there is no requirement not to sent children to jewish scripture classes or islamic madrassa classes. It is pretty hard to argue that parents choosing to send their children to any religious instruction classes are doing it other than because they'd like their child to have religious instruction within that religion.
That doesn't explain why my uncle was chaperoned so as not to spread his religion.Perhaps your parents were a bit wary of his rather extreme approach to religion. Vlad, it isn't normal to bring religious literature when you visit your nephew. Clearly your parents preferred a more mainstream (as they saw it) route to inculcate christianity into you - by sending you to sunday school.
Indeed, and there is no requirement not to sent children to jewish scripture classes or islamic madrassa classes. It is pretty hard to argue that parents choosing to send their children to any religious instruction classes are doing it other than because they'd like their child to have religious instruction within that religion.Your comparison with sunday school and the the literary scholarship of a jewish or islamic scripture class is overplayed.
Perhaps your parents were a bit wary of his rather extreme approach to religion. Vlad, it isn't normal to bring religious literature when you visit your nephew. Clearly your parents preferred a more mainstream (as they saw it) route to inculcate christianity into you - by sending you to sunday school.Clearly?...........This is your attempt to shoehorn me in with JeremyP.
How on Earth can a couple of hours on a sunday be an upbringing?It is part of it, along with the school assemblies, where you were praying, singing hymns etc. Also your attendance at religious services - you seem a little mazy on details on this, which seems a little convenient. When you are brought up in a non religious environment you are pretty clear on the few occasions you attended a religious service, as it was so unusual. In my case a couple of Christmasses (when we were staying with my religious grandparents or Aunt), the annual school service ... and well, that's it. I don't think I went to any christenings, church weddings, nor religious funerals as a child.
Perhaps your parents were a bit wary of his rather extreme approach to religion. .No more extreme than going to sunday school surely which according to you is vital for adult christianity (except for the Chinese it seems).
No more extreme than going to sunday school surely which according to you is vital for adult christianity (except for the Chinese it seems).It is extremely difficult to draw any conclusions about changes in religiosity in countries that have had varying levels of religious freedoms over the past few decades, such as China. So if more people in china indicate they affiliate as christian is that because there are more christians or they feel more able to say they are christian because restrictions on religions have been relaxed over the past few decades.
Re; Voas and the decline of religion in the west. There is an East you know. Seems to have increased around 10 times in China so, in terms of a world religion?
Your comparison with sunday school and the the literary scholarship of a jewish or islamic scripture class is overplayed.Not at all - they are entirely analogous institutions. All aim at religious instruction, are usually directly linked to and run through a place of worship and all often have as part of their remit preparation for a religious rite of passage.
There is an East you know.There is indeed - which doesn't just involve China but many other countries. So you've cherry picked China as it supports your thesis of conversion to christianity (except it doesn't really as my post above indicates).
There is indeed - which doesn't just involve China but many other countries. So you've cherry picked China as it supports your thesis of conversion to christianity (except it doesn't really as my post above indicates).But you have explained why there are likely to be more apatheists. It is because they absorb the weltbild of their culture which as we know has been secular humanist. As indeed you have. Christianity is now the subversive in the UK
But what about other major countries in the region:
Japan - well the proportion of christians hasn't really changed over the past decades
South Korea - we seem to have gone beyond 'peak christianity' (driven from the Korean war) and the proportion of the population affliliating as christians is beginning to decline.
Philippines - very hight proportion affiliate as christian but this is on the decline
India - proportion of christians hasn't really budged since the 1950s
And more worryingly for christians (and religion generally) in pretty well all of these countries the younger population is less likely to be religious (and christian) than older people suggesting the same problem with transmission of religion that we see here.
If you were born in Bracknell Berkshire you wouldn't have a hunger for the bible. What I am saying is my hunger for the bible was not cultural so for me there is but one source of that transformation. Prior to a period of Enlightenment of the bible I considered church going a campy cultural pretence but suddenly experienced the fellowship qualities.
Since the UK has been secular and technological for decades my religious beliefs are not cultural but from God and most of your secular beliefs are cultural.
Viewing religion and it's truth in terms of numbers begins to look like the Fred Astaire and Ginger Roberts of argumentum ad Populum.Vlad - that's a bit rich from someone obsessed with apparent (albeit not likely to be true) conversion to and increase in numbers of christians in China.
Whether Secular Humanism in the UK survives the coming threat to the economy and our bountiful way of life will be interesting to watch.Not sure what you mean by Secularism and Humanism (capitalised) - if you mean NSS and HumanistsUK, then I've little doubt they will survive.
But you have explained why there are likely to be more apatheists.
It is because they absorb the weltbild of their culture which as we know has been secular humanist. As indeed you have. Christianity is now the subversive in the UK.
Viewing religion and it's truth
... in terms of numbers begins to look like the Fred Astaire and Ginger Roberts of argumentum ad Populum.
Whether Secular Humanism in the UK survives the coming threat to the economy and our bountiful way of life will be interesting to watch.
Vlad - that's a bit rich from someone obsessed with apparent (albeit not likely to be true) conversion to and increase in numbers of christians in China.I thought it was you who appealed straight away to ''religion in numbers''. I held off talking about China until quite a way into the conversation and then only to show that decline in christianity has been preceded by a rise in Christianity. Conversion is a recognise term in religion. Active seems like a word from social science. Voas seems to have a narrow study period, seems to have the opposite of survivorship bias, and restricts his geopolitical area of study.
Also I challenge your use of the word truth - for something to be considered truth or true, or certainly objectively 'true for everyone' there needs to be evidence to support this claim.I am one of those christians who believe it is true for everyone. Just like you believe it not to be true for anyone
There is no evidence to support the claims of religion, those claims are merely opinion, faith, beliefs or assertionsThere is no evidence to support philosophical empiricism, and yet here you are.
Not sure what you mean by Secularism and Humanism (capitalised) - if you mean NSS and HumanistsUK, then I've little doubt they will survive.I was thinking more of the secularism and humanism abroad in the country, particularly the humanism which supports religionless goodness particularly the retreat of goodness. In fact the new prevaling view may soon become ''human as potential danger.'' I'm sure the NSS and HUK will survive much reduced but always a minority commitment
And if you mean secularism and humanism, well I think they are alive and well and one strong message from the pandemic is that (largely) people have gone with the science,Science isn't humanism and as I've said proper climate science shows humanity to be the danger
the evidence base etc in terms of dealing with the pandemic, in other words taken the secular approach. And again (largely) people have been willing to change their ways of life in support of others more vulnerable, a classic humanist trait.That will have to be assessed in the light of what we vote for and how those who could not work from home are treated in future.
On the broader issue of prosperity - I doubt very much that the economic hit in the UK will have any meaningful effect on religiosity and its ongoing decline in the UK. However there is a broader global point, but not one that is very comfortable reading for religious apologist. Levels of religiosity correlate exceptionally closely with undesirable characteristics, whether that be poverty, poor life expectancy, poor education standards, economic inequality. So if you create a society where people are more prosperous, healthier, better educated, healthier, with greater equality as night follows day religiosity declines. So for religions that claim to want to help people there is a huge dilemma - if society genuinely becomes better religion is in trouble. Not surprising that religions have often and still do pay lip service to improving society - they need a steady supply of the impoverished to 'help' and also to keep their pews filled.The hit as I say will be on the rose tinted humanist perspective. What you say about things getting better and better is nothing but the old mans onward progressive march fallacy.
"Religion is the opium of the people." Karl Marx.Putin controls everything in Russia......Former KGB in soviet, atheist government?
I wonder who now controls the market ..... https://russianreport.wordpress.com/religion-in-russia/orthodoxy-in-russia-today/
No, you've interpreted it as such, but not supported that interpretation with anything.Well the figures seem to show that 53% of the UK have no religion. Atheists seem to go full UKIP on this reckoning that, that just about wraps it up for religion and NSS and HUK want to go full secular(what do we want? ...secularism.....when do we want it?...NOW!).
None of us completely escape our cultural influences.QuoteWell I haven't and neither has DawkinsQuoteIf you'd been born in Pakistan or Afghanistan then you would have taken a different path and it would be the Qur'an you would be hungering for. This is the ambient cultural influences working through individuals. Had you been a labourer in the Egyptian Middle Kingdom, it wouldn't be Christ that was the object of your devotion, but more likely Osiris, or Horus. If you were born into a family of Mesolithic hunter gatherers, you would have been an animist. We are all products of the happenstance influences that form us.You go by what lights you have I suppose.
A new understanding of things is more than just a vague feeling. I realise we are away from numbers and into stuff that's hard to quantify.But you don't know why. You just assume that it's because of your god.
Why would an old hebrew book suddenly become of value and comprehensive to me? Why should the emphasis be on Christ?Because those are the religious accoutrements with which you have become familiar owing to your upbringing.
Of course you are the last person to ask.
But the mystery is surely either why are me and anchorman Christians when yours and jeremy's steepage in it seems at least similar and you profess differently? That seems to cut right across your theory.The only difference between my upbringing and that of my non religious friends is that my parents took me to church on Sundays. We all sat through the school lessons about religion. We all listened to our teacher talking us through the Old Testament stories in the Bible (missing out the bloodbaths and the sexual perversions etc).
We need to have an agreement on what it means to be immersed in religion surely because we are at odds over that.
What is the difference between becoming a Christian as an adult and conversion to Christianity as an adult?
Jeremy seems to be the one brought up in the christian tradition.
The only difference between my upbringing and that of my non religious friends is that my parents took me to church on Sundays. We all sat through the school lessons about religion. We all listened to our teacher talking us through the Old Testament stories in the Bible (missing out the bloodbaths and the sexual perversions etc).We also did the arabian knights and stories from china. That's what a good liberal education does for you.
We also did the arabian knights and stories from china. That's what a good liberal education does for you.
I thought it was you who appealed straight away to ''religion in numbers''.My interest and my engagement in this thread has largely been about explain why the numbers change - something you seem unable, or unwilling to grasp. In your eyes religiosity going up and down seems to be akin to this years' fad, next year we will see something different. When you understand why the numbers are changing in the UK (and many other similar countries) then you will understand that the effect is locked in for the next 40 years, probably more. The one caveat being migration of people into the UK, but this isn't really a change in religiosity, merely moving religious or non religious people from one place to another.
I held off talking about China until quite a way into the conversation and then only to show that decline in christianity has been preceded by a rise in Christianity.While there may have been changes in active participation in christianity in the UK over the past centuries you'd have to go a very, very long way back for an increase in the proportion of people in the UK who believed in christianity - probably 1000 years.
Conversion is a recognise term in religion. Active seems like a word from social science.Actually conversion is an extremely hard thing to assess except by proxy as it really reflects a change in internal belief. Conversion is typically assessed by one of a number of aspects of religiosity, typically self-identified affiliation, importance and active involvement in christianity. Active involvement (i.e. activity) is far better recognised and easier to assess - you can actually measure the numbers of people attending worship, you cannot easily assess conversion as you get people like you and AM who claim conversion when in reality this is nothing of the sort as your upbringing involved heavy dollops of Christianity which you retained as adults.
Voas seems to have a narrow study period, seems to have the opposite of survivorship bias, and restricts his geopolitical area of study.Actually his studies have sufficient understanding and length of data (you need a cohort approach to understand what is going on) to be able to accurately tell the story of the past 100 years and predict what will happen until the cohort of current teenagers have largely died, by about 2080. That sounds pretty long range to me.
I am one of those christians who believe it is true for everyone.But that is merely a belief, a subjective opinion not backed up by evidence - hence it cannot be considered to be an objective truth, at best it is a subjective truth.
The only difference between my upbringing and that of my non religious friends is that my parents took me to church on Sundays.But I think that is very significant - where parents actively engage their child in christianity (e.g. by taking them to church, sending them to Sunday school, choosing a faith school) it sends a message that christianity is important, and I would suspect, that the beliefs of that religion are true (whether overtly expressed or just through their actions of being engaged in christianity and requiring you to be too). That seems to me to be a major difference between your friends' upbringing and yours. And this difference seems to be critically important in the likelihood of a person choosing to be religious as an adult.
But I think that is very significant - where parents actively engage their child in christianityYes, it is significant. It's why I was a Christian and remained so until I was about 20.
(e.g. by taking them to church, sending them to Sunday school, choosing a faith school) it sends a message that christianity is important, and I would suspect, that the beliefs of that religion are true (whether overtly expressed or just through their actions of being engaged in christianity and requiring you to be too). That seems to me to be a major difference between your friends' upbringing and yours. And this difference seems to be critically important in the likelihood of a person choosing to be religious as an adult.
Well the figures seem to show that 53% of the UK have no religion.
Atheists seem to go full UKIP on this reckoning that, that just about wraps it up for religion and NSS and HUK want to go full secular(what do we want? ...secularism.....when do we want it?...NOW!).
Unfortunately I think most of those are apatheist rather than public and campaigning atheists, as uninterested in what you have to say as what I have to say.
Yes, it is significant. It's why I was a Christian and remained so until I was about 20.Indeed because you were brought up as christian and then became one of the >40% of people brought up christian who chose to become non religious as an adult.
I would say all my friends knew what the Bible was and had some idea of the stories it told. They were all aware of the significance of Christmas and Easter in Christian tradition. They all were aware of the claims for the resurrection. On the other hand, very few of them knew anything about what was in the Koran or the traditions of Islam or Hinduism etc. If any of them had a conversion experience, it would almost certainly be to Christianity because that is what they knew.True, although if their upbringing was basically non religious (with the general 1970s cultural christianity swirling around) then the likelihood of them becoming religious as adults is exceptionally small even if in the unlikely event they did become religious it is like to be christianity rather than any other religion.
Unfortunately I think most of those are apatheist rather than public and campaigning atheists, as uninterested in what you have to say as what I have to say.Nope I don't think that is true. I certainly agree that most people are neither tub thumping atheist campaigners nor tub thumping christian apologists, but that doesn't mean they have no opinion on the key concerns of the secular campaigners. So polling shows that majorities (in many cases very large majorities) do not want enduring influences of religious organisations to continue within the public domain, so for example being opposed to state funded faith schools, wanting automatic seats for bishops to be removed from the HoLs, wanting the CofE status as the established religion to be abolished, thinking that religion should not have a special influence on public policy, that the law should apply to everyone equally, regardless of religion.
Right.But at the moment it still leaves a significant number of the population that do consider themselves religiously affiliated so the case for a wholly secular society with the religion expunged is about as firm as the case for Brexit. There seem to be lotsa of things that have a pernicious effect and the ''atheist bus ''type case you make is and has proved to be rather simplistic. Apatheists are less likely to call revenge on religion I would imagine.
You think? There are some, I presume, but certainly here you tend to get the perspective that there are probably a range of viewpoints in there - from the 'spiritual but not religious' through the 'vaguely a believer but not sure in what' through to the full-blow, nail-spitting antitheists that only you appear to be aware of. The point, though, is that the group of 'non-religious' has been growing for some time, continues to grow, and now outweighs all the various 'religious' put together. Exactly how many of those are 'proper' atheists might be relevant if the discussion were 'god' or 'gods', but when the topic is religions then the status of 'non-religious' is significant in its own right.
Why is that unfortunate? If a significant portion of the populace can go about their lives and not feel that they need to get exercised about it, then in some ways that's a good thing - it means that religion isn't having the day-to-day pernicious effect on their lives that has been the case in the past.
O.
Nope I don't think that is true. I certainly agree that most people are neither tub thumping atheist campaigners nor tub thumping christian apologists, but that doesn't mean they have no opinion on the key concerns of the secular campaigners. So polling shows that majorities (in many cases very large majorities) do not want enduring influences of religious organisations to continue within the public domain, so for example being opposed to state funded faith schools, wanting automatic seats for bishops to be removed from the HoLs, wanting the CofE status as the established religion to be abolished, thinking that religion should not have a special influence on public policy, that the law should apply to everyone equally, regardless of religion.I think you are confusing the nefarious desire of religious bastards to exercise evil political control for, certainly Christianity here. I think there must be a fair amount of people that would want religion to be represented in government and the case for there not being is peculiarly exclusive from the Humanists IMV who no doubt want appropriate gender and professional representation. You seem to present the expunging of religion as a masturbatory secular revenge fantasy rather than a balanced idea IMHO.
So many of these people may be apatheists, but they seem to align in terms of their views with the secularists, not the religionists.
I think you are confusing the nefarious desire of religious bastards to exercise evil political control for, certainly Christianity here. I think there must be a fair amount of people that would want religion to be represented in government and the case for there not being is peculiarly exclusive from the Humanists IMV who no doubt want appropriate gender and professional representation. You seem to present the expunging of religion as a masturbatory secular revenge fantasy rather than a balanced idea IMHO.No one is arguing that people who are religious should not be involved in politics, government, public life etc in exactly the same way as people who are not religious.
But at the moment it still leaves a significant number of the population that do consider themselves religiously affiliated so the case for a wholly secular society with the religion expunged is about as firm as the case for Brexit. There seem to be lotsa of things that have a pernicious effect and the ''atheist bus ''type case you make is and has proved to be rather simplistic. Apatheists are less likely to call revenge on religion I would imagine.Well as you mentioned brexit - it is the religious people (and in particular christians) wot won it for brexit!! Non religious people voted solidly remain.
No one is arguing that people who are religious should not be involved in politics, government, public life etc in exactly the same way as people who are not religious.Religious representation is probably one issue facing what has turned out to be a generally Gameable system of representation which is way overdue reformation.
The point is about religious organisations and religious people getting privileged access and special privileges on the basis of their religion that are not afforded to others who are not religious. And that is a point that seems to be supported broadly, including, presumably those people you describe as apatheist. So no-one is arguing (or at least I'm not aware of anyone who is) that a christian person should not be allowed to be a member of parliament (that would be totally the opposite of secularism) the argument is that leading members of specific religious organisations should not have a set number of automatic seats in parliament. The argument isn't that religious organisations shouldn't be allowed to exist (that would be totally the opposite of secularism) it is that the law should apply equally to religious and non religious organisations etc etc.
Religious representation is probably one issue facing what has turned out to be a generally Gameable system of representation which is way overdue reformation.Not quite sure what you mean, but if you think that religious representation needs reform then I, and most people in the UK, agree.
However An organisation which calls itself non religious or secular campaigning to eliminate the representation of religion as an aspect of peoples lives goes against the spirit of increasing representation rather than diminishing it. It automatically shuts down an avenue of expression.Any organisation can campaign for whatever it wants - that doesn't oblige the government to pay heed.
... campaigning to eliminate the representation of religion as an aspect of peoples lives ...They are doing nothing of the sort. Since when have the NSS suggested that religious people should not be able to:
Indeed because you were brought up as christian and then became one of the >40% of people brought up christian who chose to become non religious as an adult.
True, although if their upbringing was basically non religious (with the general 1970s cultural christianity swirling around) then the likelihood of them becoming religious as adults is exceptionally small even if in the unlikely event they did become religious it is like to be christianity rather than any other religion.
Exactly.Actually having thought about this some more I think it might be slightly more complicated.
Actually having thought about this some more I think it might be slightly more complicated.Just a reminder that you haven't explained why people who reject faith in God come back to it and how the christian child is brainwashed a la The manchurian candidate and becomes a sleeper until activation.
It is absolutely clear that people brought up within a religious tradition will remain religious as adults nearly alway retain their childhood religion rather than convert to a new religion. So cradle christians become adult christians, cradle jews become adult jews, cradle hindus become adult hindus etc.
However I'm not so certain about people brought up in a non religious tradition and become that very, vary rare person - choosing to be religious as an adult while not having been brought up religious. I'm not sure these (highly unusual) people necessarily fold into the religion that formed the cultural backdrop of their upbringing, so christianity in the UK. I suspect they might be rather more promiscuous (if you excuse the phrase) and convert to a rather broader range of religions. I'll do some digging on the research on this.
Actually having thought about this some more I think it might be slightly more complicated.Just a tiny proportion of nones (people brought up in a non religious manner) become religious as adults. However of those that do about 70% become christians, while 30% become adherents of a non christian religion. So despite the prevailing cultural christianity of the UK a fairly sizeable proportion of cradle non religious people who become religious as adults opt for religions other than christianity.
It is absolutely clear that people brought up within a religious tradition will remain religious as adults nearly alway retain their childhood religion rather than convert to a new religion. So cradle christians become adult christians, cradle jews become adult jews, cradle hindus become adult hindus etc.
However I'm not so certain about people brought up in a non religious tradition and become that very, vary rare person - choosing to be religious as an adult while not having been brought up religious. I'm not sure these (highly unusual) people necessarily fold into the religion that formed the cultural backdrop of their upbringing, so christianity in the UK. I suspect they might be rather more promiscuous (if you excuse the phrase) and convert to a rather broader range of religions. I'll do some digging on the research on this.
Just a reminder that you haven't explained why people who reject faith in God come back to it ...I think I've explained it many times - typically this occurs in the late teens and early 20s with cradle christians comfortably back in the fold (if they are going to return) but their mid 20s. This is classic 'rejecting upbringing' behaviour seen in all sorts of aspects of upbringing at that age as kids push back against their parents' beliefs and expectations. Once that rebellious phase is over those people either recognise that they don't need religion or fold back into the religion of their childhood.
I think I've explained it many times - typically this occurs in the late teens and early 20s with cradle christians comfortably back in the fold (if they are going to return) but their mid 20s. This is classic 'rejecting upbringing' behaviour seen in all sorts of aspects of upbringing. Once that rebellious phase is over those people either recognise that they don't need religion or fold back into the religion of their childhood.And he introduces something else he'll likely leave unexplained ''Folding back into the religion of childhood''. Even Dawkin's argues there are no such things as Christian or Moslem children. Are you sneekily caricaturing religion as childish perchance?
I don't think there is any delineation here between a cultural christian and a convicted or converted one.I have no idea what you mean by a convicted christian!
And he introduces something else he'll likely leave unexplained ''Folding back into the religion of childhood''. Even Dawkin's argues there are no such things as Christian or Moslem children. Are you sneekily caricaturing religion as childish perchance?The religion they were brought up in, the religion of their upbringing - I think that was obvious.
I have no idea what you mean by a convicted christian!They say religion is ''caught not taught'' although that applies mostly in the case of Christianity. Being baptised as an infant does not make one a committed Christian. There is another saying that going to church no more makes you a christian than going to the Garage makes you a car.Quotewhat an admission of your level of competenceBut of course there is a difference between a cultural christian - someone not brought up to be christian but who will absorb the broader mood music and cultural christian heritage that they see around them and someone brought up as a christian. I am broadly the former, JP the latter - we might have ended up in the same place but our journey's are different - JP needed to 'convert' to be non religious, I never needed to as I was never really religious at all. There are others who are brought up christian and retain their christian beliefs as adults - a brief period rejecting those beliefs doesn't in my mind represent a 'conversion' to non religion, merely a rebellion - to come back to the religion of their childhood does represent a conversion, as best it is a reversion.
They say religion is ''caught not taught'' although that applies mostly in the case of Christianity.Who says? Certainly not me - christianity is certainly 'taught' as unless you have been taught to be a christian when you are a child you will almost certainly never come to christianity as an adult.
Being baptised as an infant does not make one a committed Christian.True - but then in most cases baptism occurs at an age when the child has no recollection or memory. But although being baptised doesn't make you a christian you will never become a committed christian (or except in very, very rare circumstances) unless you had a christian upbringing - baptised, send to Sunday school, faith school etc etc.
You have chosen to interpret my upbringing as religious. I wouldn't say I possessed a religion as a child ...Yup - you were sent to a faith school, sunday school, attended church services (although you seem to have conveniently lost your ability to recollect how often - point being if it was as rare as hen's teeth, you'd remember) - so yes your upbringing was christian, and not just culturally christian (as mine was) but pretty actively christian at a pretty impressionable age. So at a later age you didn't 'catch' christianity from no-where, you'd already been taught it, you just folded back into that upbringing as often happens.
... but I think you are probably appealing to your academic status here rather than actual competence.Well I think that may be for others to judge, but I think it is clear that during this discussion I have provided reasoned argument backed up by evidence to support my opinions as to how and why intergenerational transmission of religious belief occurs.
But at the moment it still leaves a significant number of the population that do consider themselves religiously affiliated so the case for a wholly secular society with the religion expunged is about as firm as the case for Brexit.
There seem to be lots a of things that have a pernicious effect and the ''atheist bus ''type case you make is and has proved to be rather simplistic.
Apatheists are less likely to call revenge on religion I would imagine.
Yup - you were sent to a faith school, sunday school, attended church services (although you seem to have conveniently lost your ability to recollect how often - point being if it was as rare as hen's teeth, you'd remember) - so yes your upbringing was christian, and not just culturally christian (as mine was) but pretty actively christian at a pretty impressionable age. So at a later age you didn't 'catch' christianity from no-where, you'd already been taught it, you just folded back into that upbringing as often happens.I take Dawkins line that there are no Christian Children etc. i.e. just because your parents were actively christian you must be. My parents were not active Christians by any sense. So I dispute an active christian upbringing. What I was in your view is a social science construct and since the science is social science it is open to error. Also highly dubious is your ''folding back into the religion of childhood'' a process you still haven't elucidated.
You argument seems to be that the world is simply full of people converting to christianity out of no-where. There is no evidence for this whatsoever. People don't just catch christianity unless they've been taught it in the first place as a child.No, I think that christianity has had less influence for a lot longer than any of you atheists in this country. Christianity is the encounter with Christ leading to repentence and trust. Teaching it does not make a Christian.
On the secular/atheist/apatheist/antitheist spectrum that you seem to be peering at no-one wants religion,QuoteThat is unscientific hyperbole especially when global statistics are taken into account. That is mere atheist wankfantasyAll the religions you mention are polytheist and not world religions.Quotethey want to not have to care at allHardly a satisfactory philosophical argument. We virtually know that the effective part of the British public, voters want to forget about Covid and move on with the man largely responsible for it's impact; they either just want it to keep to itself, or they want it to finish the process of slipping off into obscurity that the Norse, Greek, Roman, Aztec, Inca and so many other religions have already done.
The issue of to what extent people in the UK were exposed to Christianity, to a greater or lesser degree, is undoubtedly relevant: especially in relation to those who were born and grew up when organised Christianity had an influential role across UK society at large.Given your interest in this board christianity can hardly be an irrelevence can it? If it really was an irrelevence you'd be doing something else surely.
That is no longer the case though, and a while ago I recall a cleric being asked (in an episode of the Beyond Belief podcast, iirc) about the issues facing Christianity in the UK and he said along the lines of the biggest problem was the "unchurched": people for whom Christianity was simply an irrelevance in that they never had any engagement with it on a personal or family basis beyond what happened at school - people like me.
I wasn't even christened, which was probably unusual for a child born in the west of Scotland in 1952, and none of my 3 children or 5 grandchildren have been christened - so we are all "unchurched". I wonder to what extent what was unusual in my case 69 years ago is now more the norm: I suspect it may be, which is why the cleric mentioned above was concerned.
That is unscientific hyperbole especially when global statistics are taken into account. That is mere atheist wankfantasy
All the religions you mention are polytheist and not world religions.
Satan and the angels are not divine.
As to polytheism, Christianity is a polytheistic tradition trying pseudo-intellectual sophistry to pretend like it's not in an attempt to manufacture some sort of fundamental difference from previous superstitions. The Holy Trinity, Satan, the (other) angels in their multitudinous ranks and, depending on the specifics of the theology, divine saints... that's a lot of divine entities rocking around for a monotheism.
O.
I take Dawkins line that there are no Christian Children etc. i.e. just because your parents were actively christian you must be.I agree - new born babies are no more born christian than they are born muslim or born West Ham fans or born musical. However they are born into households that may be christian, muslim or West Ham fans or musical and/or to parents who chose to bring them up to be christian, muslim, West Ham fans or musical by taking active steps to inculcate those aspects into their children - such active steps might include choosing to send their children to a faith school or to Sunday School/madrassa classes, allowing their children to attend worship at church/mosque or buy buying a little West Ham top for them to wear and taking them to see West Ham when they are old enough.
My parents were not active Christians by any sense. So I dispute an active christian upbringing.Maybe your parents weren't active christians - but nonetheless they made decisions about your upbringing that ensured promulgation of christianity in you that were entirely choices - while I might accept your argument on the faith school (although it is really rare that there wasn't another non faith school in easy walking distance) but there can be no such argument on Sunday School - that was an active decision to send you to a completely voluntary and elective activity whose prime purpose is christian religious instruction. Why on earth would they have done that unless they wanted you to be brought up in a christian manner. And even if they didn't understand what Sunday School was (hardly credible) that you went and were attending a faith school at a key age and (although weirdly you seem hazy on details) were attending christian worship as a child indicates that your upbringing was miles away from being non religious, but was actively christian, regardless of whether your parents were active churchgoers. Here is the clue - parents bringing up their children in a non religious manner do not choose to send their children to voluntary religious instruction classes, whether christian, muslim, hindu etc, nor are they likely to send their kids to faith schools nor are they likely to have kids attending religious worship, whether christian, muslim, hindu etc.
Also highly dubious is your ''folding back into the religion of childhood'' a process you still haven't elucidated.As a child you attended a faith school with a fundamental christian ethos, you attended christian religious instruction classes, you attended christian worship. Your bringing wasn't non religious, it was christian. Despite the fact that you briefly stepped away from your christian upbringing it is clear that later you reverted back to the religious that your upbringing had promulgated in you. You folded back into the religion of your childhood. The very notion that you claim that after reading CS Lewis the bible, which you had previously studied but hadn't made sense began to make sense. Had you not been brought up in a christian manner that statement would be nonsensical as you'd never have studied the bible before - but of course you did, in the christian environments of your faith school and your sunday school.
Given your interest in this board christianity can hardly be an irrelevence can it? If it really was an irrelevence you'd be doing something else surely.
Satan and the angels are not divine.
No, I think that christianity has had less influence for a lot longer than any of you atheists in this country.Complete nonsense.
I agree - new born babies are no more born christian than they are born muslim or born West Ham fans or born musical. However they are born into households that may be christian, muslim or West Ham fans or musical and/or to parents who chose to bring them up to be christian, muslim, West Ham fans or musical by taking active steps to inculcate those aspects into their children - such active steps might include choosing to send their children to a faith school or to Sunday School/madrassa classes, allowing their children to attend worship at church/mosque or buy buying a little West Ham top for them to wear and taking them to see West Ham when they are old enough.If the parents have no real idea or commitment what constitutes a religious conversion then they are going to conclude that whatever brush with religion they had a brush with religion such as sunday school is not in their view going to turn they're kids into a holy roller and so they will see sunday school as a respite
And there are examples where parents make a decision to take active steps to promulgate something thing in their children that isn't something they do themselves - for example my in laws weren't musical, played no instruments but they ensured that all of their children were brought up to be musical by taking a range of active steps for their children - enrolling in instrument lessons, buying a piano for them to practice on etc etc.
Maybe your parents weren't active christians - but nonetheless they made decisions about your upbringing that ensured promulgation of christianity in you that were entirely choices - while I might accept your argument on the faith school (although it is really rare that there wasn't another non faith school in easy walking distance) but there can be no such argument on Sunday School - that was an active decision to send you to a completely voluntary and elective activity whose prime purpose is christian religious instruction. Why on earth would they have done that unless they wanted you to be brought up in a christian manner. And even if they didn't understand what Sunday School was (hardly credible) that you went and were attending a faith school at a key age and (although weirdly you seem hazy on details) were attending christian worship as a child indicates that your upbringing was miles away from being non religious, but was actively christian, regardless of whether your parents were active churchgoers. Here is the clue - parents bringing up their children in a non religious manner do not choose to send their children to voluntary religious instruction classes, whether christian, muslim, hindu etc, nor are they likely to send their kids to faith schools nor are they likely to have kids attending religious worship, whether christian, muslim, hindu etc.
I think you have a problem of perspective - I think you cannot see that because your upbringing wasn't as tub thumpingly christian apologist as you have become that it wasn't a christian upbringing. It was. It is a bit like someone who as an adult is a rabid West Ham fan, season ticket holder, attending all home and away games claiming that they weren't brought up to be a West Ham fan because their parent's only bought them the odd top, supported them attending the occasional game and encouraged them to find out all about West Ham by buying the West Ham fanzine for them every week (ie. like Sunday school).
As a child you attended a faith school with a fundamental christian ethos, you attended christian religious instruction classes, you attended christian worship. Your bringing wasn't non religious, it was christian. Despite the fact that you briefly stepped away from your christian upbringing it is clear that later you reverted back to the religious that your upbringing had promulgated in you. You folded back into the religion of your childhood. The very notion that you claim that after reading CS Lewis the bible, which you had previously studied but hadn't made sense began to make sense. Had you not been brought up in a christian manner that statement would be nonsensical as you'd never have studied the bible before - but of course you did, in the christian environments of your faith school and your sunday school.
Complete nonsense.No, I'm talking about the atheists on this board who feel oppressed by supposed Christian society. You for instance think that Britain in the sixties was a religious country, I don't and haven't in fact I had to wait to age 23 before receiving what I would call the proper key christian information. I think that most of the people in the street are likely to be apatheist rather than publicly professing atheists who, I'm afraid are still in a small minority.
I don't think I even knew that atheism and atheists were even 'a thing' until I was probably in my 20s such was (and still is) the invisibility of atheism in the UK. Organised christianity and christians have a prominence in the UK, even now, easy beyond atheists and atheism. Take a brief walk or drive in any village, town or city and likely you'll pass several churches proudly proclaiming their Christianity. Look amongst the people you know - no doubt the tiny proportion (perhaps 5% of the population) who are active christians will have made that know to you somehow and you will be aware of it, if even an off hand, cast away comment that at the weekend 'after church, they went for a walk and pub lunch'. Vlad at least every fourth person in the UK is atheist - I bet you, nor I have any idea who most of those people are, because they tend to keep these things private. Given your persecution complex that should terrify you Vlad - every fourth (maybe every third) person you pass in the street, meet in the pub, have a meeting with at work, serves you in a shop is ... an atheist.
Gabriella is a convert to Islam from another tradition I understand.Yes I am aware of that and I never said no-one ever ends up as an adult as an adherent of a different religion to the one of their upbringing. What I have said is that it is very, very rare - a comment that (unlike most of yours) is actually backed up by research and evidence. So Gabriella's conversion from hinduism as a child (I believe) to islam as an adult doesn't discount my views at. Actually the make up of people on this MB is pretty consistent with the broader stats on adult religious adherence compared to upbringing, noting that what you describe as apatheists are unlikely to be particularly interested in engaging in this MB.
Yes I am aware of that and I never said no-one ever ends up as an adult as an adherent of a different religion to the one of their upbringing. What I have said is that it is very, very rare - a comment that (unlike most of yours) is actually backed up by research and evidence. So Gabriella's conversion from hinduism as a child (I believe) to islam as an adult doesn't discount my views at. Actually the make up of people on this MB is pretty consistent with the broader stats on adult religious adherence compared to upbringing, noting that what you describe as apatheists are unlikely to be particularly interested in engaging in this MB.Certainly your misunderstanding about what Christianity actually is colours the efficacy of your methodology. I certainly get the opinion that you are running an argumentum ad populum.
You for instance think that Britain in the sixties was a religious country, ...Well I can't really speak about the 60s as I was too young, but UK society had a pretty heavy underlying dollop of christianity about it. I suspect pretty well every child in school in the early 70s was expected to participate in christian prayers, hymns etc and required to learn about christianity, shops and most amenities weren't open on a Sunday due to christianity, there were (and still are) christian churches pretty well everywhere so you could hardly miss them, many youth organisations were aligned to churches, any welcoming ceremony for a new-born child was expected to be christian (or at least another religion), the notion of a non religious ceremony was unheard of, likewise for funerals. This was a world where the very first word of the national anthem was 'God', and it is pretty clear which god was being referred to. Need I go on.
I don't and haven't in fact I had to wait to age 23 before receiving what I would call the proper key christian information.Ah bless, Vlad didn't get the christian information he wanted as a child - point being that this wasn't because you'd never received christian instruction, you'd had it year after year thought childhood - you just weren't taken with the information you received.
No, I'm talking about the atheists on this board who feel oppressed by supposed Christian society.
Certainly your misunderstanding about what Christianity actually is colours the efficacy of your methodology.Not really unless you are in no true scotsman territory Vlad. And by the way you aren't the arbiter of what christianity is for all christians. Most of this research involves self declaration - people don't need to prove they meet the Vlad-test-for-true-christians, no they are asked to indicate:
Satan and the angels are not divine.
Our education system requires daily induction into the state religion - we have a state religion!Indeed and even in non faith schools back in the 70s there was a pretty clear to expectation (well actually a requirement) to engage children in christian, well actually CofE, worship.
All the religions you mention are polytheist ...So what - why is a religion somehow more important because it is monotheistic rather than polytheistic.
... and not world religions.Define a world religion. It seems to me that christianity is only a 'world religion' firstly in a current geographic sense and then only by the good luck to be around at a time when people have been able to travel the world.
So what - why is a religion somehow more important because it is monotheistic rather than polytheistic.As Outrider has said the age of polytheism is largely over Monotheism not so, Hinduism has developed it's own monist monotheism
Define a world religion.One that is able to cross cultures, The abrahamic monotheisms and Buddhism have been able to do this and that is why they are referred to as world religions
It seems to me that christianity is only a 'world religion' firstly in a current geographic sense and then only by the good luck to be around at a time when people have been able to travel the world.Christianity has been going for 2000 years and has survived where geopolitical and geoscivilisations have failed and has even survived the upheaval.
But I'd also argue that it isn't a world religion if you consider world, not just to involve current geography but also time and scope. So christianity is a religion that has existed for a blink of an eye in terms of the history of earth, and even less so in terms of the history of the universe - so pretty parochial in that sense. Also christianity, unlike some other religions, is achingly anthropocentric - about humans, by humans, for humans and therefore has absolutely nothing to say to the 99.9999% (or whatever it may be) of life that is not human, and of course nothing to say to the world before humans.Social science is achingly anthropocentric anthropology is achingly anthropocentric. What a stupid accusation. Cosmology and science starts with religion and proceeds with the idea that laws govern a reasonable cosmos.
Satan would certainly be classed as a god (small g) in any religion that is not pretending to be monotheistic. Compare him to Loki or Ganesha. Apart from his alleged evil intent, he doesn't seem any different to me.Satan is a created being and not of divine substance. Those notions are up to you whether you reject them.
Indeed and even in non faith schools back in the 70s there was a pretty clear to expectation (well actually a requirement) to engage children in christian, well actually CofE, worship.You were, in your own theory brought out of the oven too early Ha Ha. My argument is that a cultural christian environment or even a PROPER CHRISTIAN UPBRINGING in culture and in heart and home does not a christian make. Only a commitment to Christ can do that.
So if that environment wasn't as such how come I know the Lord's Prayer so well (the CofE) version, that whenever I've attended RCC services with my wife (which I have done occasionally) I am always caught out when their version suddenly (and still to me unexpectedly) ends early. That's how embedded the Lord's prayer is - and where did that come from? Standard early 70s non faith schooling.
Satan is a created being and not of divine substance. Those notions are up to you whether you reject them.
The gods of many religions are created. Most of the Ancient Greek pantheon were born in the normal way to other gods. Your distinction is somewhat artificial. I'd call it monotheistic snobbery, which is the perception that monotheism is somehow more advanced than polytheism and, as a result, trying to pretend your polytheistic religion is really monotheistic.I don't think my distinction is artificial. Satan and the angels are not of the divine substance. They are created, Constructed rather than birthed. You are turning your ignorance of that into some kind of virtue I feel. That is what makes Christianity monotheism. In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God is pretty clear cut to me.
At the end of the day, they're all make believe.
My argument is that a cultural christian environment or even a PROPER CHRISTIAN UPBRINGING in culture and in heart and home does not a christian make. Only a commitment to Christ can do that.
Not much of an argument, Vlad: presumably you'd have to be exposed to Christianity first in order to decide that you want to make a "commitment to Christ", since it seems unlikely that any one would make this "commitment" without first having been exposed to Christianity - which does seem rather circular.Clearly we are all exposed to it. We know this due to the lavish amount of Goddodging.
I'm guessing it is the exposure to Christianity, plus the requisite amount of gullability, that is the key stage - and of course not everyone who is exposed to Christianity accepts it, but these days fewer are perhaps being exposed in the first place (the 'unchurched' I mentioned previously)
...lavish amount of Goddodging.
Clearly we are all exposed to it.
Something else you've never provided the slightest hint of a scintilla of evidence for. ::)You provide most of it. I just flag it up.
Which kind of undermines your previous arguments. You were exposed to Christianity, so, when you had a 'religious experience' you interpreted it in those terms. As has already been said, if you'd been more exposed to another religion, it's likely you'd have interpreted it differently.Other religions do not have Christ, you are either divine yourself or the mediator between God and man are commandments and written word.
You provide most of it. I just flag it up.
In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God is pretty clear cut to me.Perhaps for the benefit of others, you could explain what that means.
You were, in your own theory brought out of the oven too early Ha Ha.Eh - err, what on earth are you on about Vlad.
My argument is that a cultural christian environment or even a PROPER CHRISTIAN UPBRINGING in culture and in heart and home does not a christian make. Only a commitment to Christ can do that.Yet more not true scotsman non-sense.
Other religions do not have Christ, you are either divine yourself or the mediator between God and man are commandments and written word.
Not much of an argument, Vlad: presumably you'd have to be exposed to Christianity first in order to decide that you want to make a "commitment to Christ", since it seems unlikely that any one would make this "commitment" without first having been exposed to Christianity - which does seem rather circular.Absolutely spot on. Had Vlad not had the christian upbringing he did (faith school, Sunday school, attending christian worship etc) the likelihood that he'd be a christian now, as an adult, is vanishingly small.
I'm guessing it is the exposure to Christianity, plus the requisite amount of gullability, that is the key stage - and of course not everyone who is exposed to Christianity accepts it, but these days fewer are perhaps being exposed in the first place (the 'unchurched' I mentioned previously)
Clearly we are all exposed to it. We know this due to the lavish amount of Goddodging.Vlad - no-one here is 'dodging god' as you cannot dodge something that doesn't exist.
Perhaps for the benefit of others, you could explain what that means.Yes. At the beginning was what the writer of John's Gospel called the logos translated as the word. The word is God the son who was to be incarnated as Jesus. Now, the universe comes at the instruction of God i.e. the word, Christ or logos. This word or logos actually is God.
An appeal to something that has it's limitations. No true human can ever be an orang utan is not a fallacy for instance but patently the case.
Yet more not true scotsman non-sense.
Yes. At the beginning was what the writer of John's Gospel called the logos translated as the word. The word is God the son who was to be incarnated as Jesus. Now, the universe comes at the instruction of God i.e. the word, Christ or logos. This word or logos actually is God.Pure assertion and without a scrap of evidence to support it.
As Outrider has said the age of polytheism is largely over Monotheism not so, Hinduism has developed it's own monist monotheism.
One that is able to cross cultures
The abrahamic monotheisms
and Buddhism have been able to do this and that is why they are referred to as world religions.
Christianity has been going for 2000 years and has survived where geopolitical and geoscivilisations have failed and has even survived the upheaval.
Cosmology and science starts with religion and proceeds with the idea that laws govern a reasonable cosmos.
I don't think my distinction is artificial. Satan and the angels are not of the divine substance.The trouble is that "divine substance" is defined in terms of gods. Something is divine if it is "of God" or "godlike". If you define a god as something made of divine substance, you have a circular definition.
They are created, Constructed rather than birthed. You are turning your ignorance of that into some kind of virtue I feel. That is what makes Christianity monotheism. In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God is pretty clear cut to me.If they are constructed by God, then they are "of God" i.e. divine i.e. gods in their own right. Satan is a deity. He even has worshippers.
the mediator between God and man are commandments and written word.
Yes. At the beginning was what the writer of John's Gospel called the logos translated as the word. The word is God the son who was to be incarnated as Jesus. Now, the universe comes at the instruction of God i.e. the word, Christ or logos. This word or logos actually is God.
When you analyse this without the confirmation bias of Christianity, it's obviously nonsense. Words are not sentient beings. Words don't become people or gods. It's just poetic gobbledygook.
When you analyse this without the confirmation bias of Christianity, it's obviously nonsense. Words are not sentient beings. Words don't become people or gods. It's just poetic gobbledygook.It's poetic metaphor. Put simply the universe exists only on God's say so.
Why would you need a mediator if you have a personal relationship with God?You can only have a personal relationship because of what Christ did on the cross that is God taking on sin on himself in Jesus Christ.
You can only have a personal relationship because of what Christ did on the cross that is God taking on sin on himself in Jesus Christ.Baseless assertion. There is precious little credible (i.e. contemporary, independently verified, non-partial) evidence that Jesus even existed, still less how he died. And there is, of course, no evidence even for the existence of god so until or unless you can provide credible evidence that god even exists the whole notion that this chap or that chap did this on behalf of god, or that god did this on behalf of us is ... well ... entirely moot.
You can only have a personal relationship because of what Christ did on the cross that is God taking on sin on himself in Jesus Christ.
You are wrong the earliest modern western scientists worked on the assumption that God ordered the universe and such order made it worthwile for ordered systematic study People like Newton , Kepler et al.
Neither Cosmology nor science more broadly 'starts' with religion; they start with questions that religion hasn't been able to satisfactorily answer, and then go on to demonstrate why many of the questions religion thought it had satisfactorily answered it had actually got wrong. Religion - Christianity, at least, and many of the others - does not proceed with the idea that laws govern a reasonable cosmos, it starts with the idea that god is the magic that can overwrite the reasonable laws to perform 'miracles'.
O.
You are wrong the earliest modern western scientists worked on the assumption that God ordered the universe and such order made it worthwile for ordered systematic study People like Newton , Kepler et al.I don't think we can really be sure of that at all. Certainly it is likely that they believed in god and specifically christianity but I suspect their scientific research (as for most scientists) is simply to understand more and the notion of whether what they found out was, or was not, directly attributed to god was a key part of their motivation is speculation. Actually I think there is a long and (ig)noble tradition of theist scientists 'compartmentalising' - effectively placing their religious belief in one box and their scientific understanding in another so that they don't really have to address the issues of conflict one with the other.
Which just underlines the total absurdity of Christianity. We all get punished and separated from god by godThat is not Christianity. Adam or man is the one who spoils the relationship, his legacy, Human society is despoiled as a result of it and all humans suffer from the acts of humans who come before.....say that ain't so
then god turns into a man and makes sure to get tortured to deathIn order to take sin on himself
(but not really, really death because he's back with the living again after three days)His humanity is resurrected by divinity. Was Dead now risen from dead
and that magically makes things okay again,Not magically that would be the case if God just magickly waived the consequences of sin away without taking it on himself.
You are wrong the earliest modern western scientists worked on the assumption that God ordered the universe and such order made it worthwile for ordered systematic study People like Newton , Kepler et al.
Physicist and Atheist Paul Davis acknowledges the christian paradigm implicit in natural law.
Your last paragraph is probably the biggest load of antireligious twaddle ever shat out on this message board.
That is not Christianity.
Adam or man is the one who spoils the relationship, his legacy, Human society is despoiled as a result of it and all humans suffer from the acts of humans who come before.....say that ain't so
In order to take sin on himself
More insane sadomasochistic injustice. Killing somebody for supposed wrong doing is unjust anyway, killing somebody else, doubly so, and doing it to right a wrong that was the result god's injustice in the first place (see above), just adds to the utter insanity of the whole thing.
You can only have a personal relationship because of what Christ did on the cross that is God taking on sin on himself in Jesus Christ.That doesn't answer the question. Why do you need a mediator for a personal relationship with God?
Yet nothing you say actually contradicts it...So do you think you should therefore suffer the effects of your own sin?
It obviously isn't so, but if it was it would make god manifestly unjust for making later generations pay for the sins of previous ones. Every bit as daft as the literal fruit eating.
More insane sadomasochistic injustice. Killing somebody for supposed wrong doing is unjust anyway, killing somebody else, doubly so, and doing it to right a wrong that was the result god's injustice in the first place (see above), just adds to the utter insanity of the whole thing.
That doesn't answer the question. Why do you need a mediator for a personal relationship with God?Christ is the mediator to the Father. As Jesus says no one comes to the father accept through him I think you keep forgetting that Jesus is God.
One wonders why this happened at that specific point in time. Why did God suddenly decide it was appropriate for his Son to die? What about the generations before? Do they get the benefit? Of course, we mustn't forget that his Son is also himself, for Christ is God too. That makes it all that much clearer.Christ taking on sin is an eternal act and Good for all people.
I make no apologies for ridiculing the doctrine of the Atonement, which has always seemed to me incomprehensible nonsense. However, I certainly don't mock the figure of the historical Jesus, as much as we can know anything for certain about him (which isn't a huge amount).
Christ taking on sin is an eternal act and Good for all people.Collected, inherited guilt:
I think you keep forgetting that Jesus is God.Vlad - I think you keep forgetting that there is no evidence that god even exists.
So do you think you should therefore suffer the effects of your own sin?
Rather than for God to take them upon himself?
The separation from God is man's doing and injustice.
Christ is the mediator to the Father. As Jesus says no one comes to the father accept through him I think you keep forgetting that Jesus is God.No, I think it is you who is forgetting that. If Jesus is God, you are saying he mediates between you and himself.
When Christ died he opened the way for a personal relationship. He is not going to force it. The crucixion is God's way of telling us he has taken our sins and removed the path to the Father reversing the work of Adam. The way to God is now open.
...reversing the work of Adam.
What does that mean? I don't think you believe in a literal magic garden with a talking snake and all that, so what exactly is "the work of Adam", what is it that actually happened that needs reversing?IMHO The ancestral alienation from God. It is obvious that those who have gone back have spoilt things for those that have followed going way back in human history.
No, I think it is you who is forgetting that. If Jesus is God, you are saying he mediates between you and himself.I'm saying there was an act of mediation. Christ on the cross. I have just taken your sins on? Incarnation makes more sense namely God as sufferer on account of absorbing the costs inflicted by human sin and alienation. Jesus exchanges his life for the believer's according to St Athenasius and I think there's a lot to that..
Why didn't he just tell you? Why didn't he just say "I have taken your sins on"? Having to arrange for his own temporary execution seems somewhat bizarre.
Christ taking on sin is an eternal act and Good for all people.
I'm saying there was an act of mediation. Christ on the cross. I have just taken your sins on? Incarnation makes more sense namely God as sufferer on account of absorbing the costs inflicted by human sin and alienation. Jesus exchanges his life for the believer's according to St Athenasius and I think there's a lot to that..Considering the kind of gobbledegook you come out with it is little wonder that the only people (except in the rarest of cases) who believe this kind of nonsense as adults are those who were brought up to believe it as children.
IMHO The ancestral alienation from God. It is obvious that those who have gone back have spoilt things for those that have followed going way back in human history.
I'm saying there was an act of mediation. Christ on the cross. I have just taken your sins on? Incarnation makes more sense namely God as sufferer on account of absorbing the costs inflicted by human sin and alienation. Jesus exchanges his life for the believer's according to St Athenasius and I think there's a lot to that..
It's insane, incoherent nonsense. God deciding to incarnate and making sure it gets tortured to death in order to 'forgive' us for being the way god made us in the first place? Just think about it.I think it is an error to believe wrong doing doesn't hurt or debase the perpetrator hence Jesus death. It was Socrates I think who ventured that if a perfect human appeared there would be a desire to put that person to death (The ultimate in Goddodgeing, perhaps). Regards self punishment. I have heard of that being advanced in christian theology circles.
Come to think of it, it would actually make slightly more sense if god actually felt the need to punish itself for being so unjust as to separate the whole of humanity from it due to the actions of people in the past. Sort of divine self-flagellation.
Which would mean that we are being punished for the 'sins' of former generations, which makes god unjust again.No, It means we are blighted by the actions of our ancestors. Christ has overturned that alienation anyway and the way to God is open should you so choose.
Considering the kind of gobbledegook you come out with it is little wonder that the only people (except in the rarest of cases) who believe this kind of nonsense as adults are those who were brought up to believe it as children.What an informed, technical, mature objection, Davey.......Not.
And yet above you say "when Christ died he opened the way for a personal relationship. He isn't going to force it."No, I'm saying it is an eternal act.
This of course is the "At one ment" - and now you state it IS an act which began in time. He could hardly be inviting an unforced personal relationship with dead people.
I think it is an error to believe wrong doing doesn't hurt or debase the perpetrator hence Jesus death.But the basic tenet of christianity is that everyone is presumed to have done wrong before the fact - that is, in my, opinion morally bankrupt, deeply unjust and massively dangerous when that concept is embedded in a society.
That is not Christianity.
Adam or man is the one who spoils the relationship, his legacy.
Human society is despoiled as a result of it and all humans suffer from the acts of humans who come before....
In order to take sin on himself His humanity is resurrected by divinity.
Was Dead now risen from dead.
Not magically that would be the case if God just magickly waived the consequences of sin away without taking it on himself.
What an informed, technical, mature objection, Davey.......Not.Fine - so if you religions message is so compelling why is it almost entirely unknown for people not brought up to believe it to believe it as adults.
But the basic tenet of christianity is that everyone is presumed to have done wrong before the fact - that is, in my, opinion morally bankrupt, deeply unjust and massively dangerous when that concept is embedded in a society.Christ has overturned the ''work of Adam'', which is separation from God without hope.QuoteIs it I can't find that straight away the presumption is that everyone has fallen short. The orthodox idea is that everyone is blighted as a consequence and suffers in this life and does not presume post mortem punishment for Adam's personal sin.Judge an individual on the basis of what that individual has done. Do not judge an individual on the basis of what some other person who might have been related to them did countless generations ago.
It is. It's not the emphasis you choose to put on it, but it's a reasonable description of the story.I think your belief that suffering has been eliminated from those countries which move from christianity relates to physical suffering but not the hurt and debasement of wrong doing. I move that lots of those countries are the cause of suffering in other countries. We are all about to suffer from climate change.
How can Adam be punished for wrongdoing when he was made with no capacity for understanding of wrongdoing?
And yet the societies that have moved away from Christianity and other religions are the ones where the suffering is demonstrably the least.
Why is a blood sacrifice necessary for (unwarranted) forgiveness?
Three day sacrifice... that was definitely a sacrifice sufficient to fundamentally alter the psycho-spiritual destiny of humanity for all eternity... oh, wait, no, that's a particularly bad Bacardi Breezer bender.
Was there medical intervention? Was there some sort of first-aid applied? What process was used to reconstruct the broken down neurons which started to degrade with lack of oxygen? Or was this just some divine handwaving... the Resurrection is depicted as one of God/Jesus' miracles, that sort of definitionally makes it magic.
O.
I'm saying there was an act of mediation. Christ on the cross. I have just taken your sins on?An act of mediation in which God mediates between you and himself. That doesn't make any sense.
Incarnation makes more sense namely God as sufferer on account of absorbing the costs inflicted by human sin and alienation.Why do you think that makes any sense at all? Why would one temporary crucifixion equal "the costs inflicted by human sin and alienation". Why does there need to be any suffering to absolve human sins.
Jesus exchanges his life for the believer's according to St Athenasius and I think there's a lot to that..All of them? The lives of just the Christian believers alive today are about two billion. Why does there need to be an exchange at all?
I think it is an error to believe wrong doing doesn't hurt or debase the perpetrator hence Jesus death.
No, It means we are blighted by the actions of our ancestors.
Christ has overturned that alienation anyway and the way to God is open should you so choose.
We suffer in this life as a consequence of former generations. That is cause and effect.
Christ has overturned the ''work of Adam'', which is separation from God without hope.
Except it obviously hasn't, otherwise we'd have exactly the same clarity, evidence, and choice that Adam had. No matter how you interpret it, in the story, Adam wasn't short on evidence for god, wasn't burdened with the wrong-doing of ancestors, and wasn't asked to accept absurd nonsense.Unfortunately, what you do has consequences for those who come after that is just cause and effect. Christ has undone the work of Adam and there is now no necessary or involuntary irreversable alienation from God, only one's own resistance to God.
Oh, okay, the not eating the one fruit was a bit nonsensical but compared with what Christianity asks us to accept today, it's positivity sane.
An act of mediation in which God mediates between you and himself. That doesn't make any sense.
Why do you think that makes any sense at all? Why would one temporary crucifixion equal "the costs inflicted by human sin and alienation". Why does there need to be any suffering to absolve human sins.QuoteBecause human sins cause suffering to the perpetrator. The crucifixion is a mediatory act.Yes Jesus sacrifice is good for all. The way to God is now open
All of them? The lives of just the Christian believers alive today are about two billion. Why does there need to be an exchange at all?
Unfortunately, what you do has consequences for those who come after that is just cause and effect.
Christ has undone the work of Adam and there is now no necessary or involuntary irreversable alienation from God, only one's own resistance to God.
Because human sins cause suffering to the perpetrator. The crucifixion is a mediatory act.
Yes Jesus sacrifice is good for all. The way to God is now open
It doesn't make any sense. Why does the way to God require him to sacrifice himself (temporarily)?Jesus at the crucifixion takes on the effects of sin on the perpetrator.
Why did God need to mediate between himself and humans?
Why would God suffering in any way alleviate the suffering of humans? If you have one person suffering, making a second person suffer doesn't cancel out the first person's suffering, it merely doubles the amount of suffering.
Jesus at the crucifixion takes on the effects of sin on the perpetrator.
It doesn't make any sense. Why does the way to God require him to sacrifice himself (temporarily)?If somebody does you wrong you either seek restitution which demands an appropriate sacrifice from the other person or you bear the effects of others wrong doing totally yourself (forgiveness)
Why did God need to mediate between himself and humans?
Why would God suffering in any way alleviate the suffering of humans? If you have one person suffering, making a second person suffer doesn't cancel out the first person's suffering, it merely doubles the amount of suffering.
Please answer the questions I raised.God the son is the mediator between God the father and man. No one gets to the father except through me. It seems to me that mediation through a mediator was the nearest analogy. If you think you have a better one feel free. What it does mean is that without the incarnation and death of Jesus there would be no way through to God.
And add this one to your list:
Why does Jesus at the crucifixion take on the effects of sin?
If somebody does you wrong you either seek restitution which demands an appropriate sacrifice from the other person or you bear the effects of others wrong doing totally yourself (forgiveness)How does God having himself nailed to a cross advance either of those two objectives?
God the son is the mediator between God the father and man.So Jesus isn't God then, just a god. No problem. We just need to stop calling Christianity a monotheistic religion.
No one gets to the father except through me.So you can't have a personal relationship with God, only Jesus. OK, that's reasonable.
God the Father suffering because of sin would have no identification with the human predicament. Jesus is God's way of identifying with humanity and suffering a death alienated from God the father.
Jesus at the crucifixion takes on the effects of sin on the perpetrator.
If somebody does you wrong you either seek restitution which demands an appropriate sacrifice from the other person or you bear the effects of others wrong doing totally yourself (forgiveness)
How does God having himself nailed to a cross advance either of those two objectives?If God is alienated from himself then that can only be due to human sin. Jesus was regarded as sinless otherwise people wouldn't have recognised him as divine. We derive from Jesus' abandonment on the cross as expressed in the saying ''My God , My God why have you forsaken me?'' That Jesus has allowed himself fully to be identified with sinful humanity since human sin is what alienates.
Which is still unjust and insane, and, what's more, it obviously didn't even work, as you are still going on about us suffering the effects of the 'sins' of previous generations.It's about re establishing the relationship with God. God doesn't torture himself to death , man does. What a bizarre statement.
Why would that have to involve god torturing itself to death? As Jeremy said, who is making these stupid rules apply to god, if not god itself?
If God is alienated from himself then that can only be due to human sin.
Without Jesus taking on sin and it's effects on the self i.e. alienation alienation without hope would be our lot.
Still as mad as a bucket full of spiders. Again, who makes these insane rules, if not god?This is getting a bit ''What I would do if I was God''. I don't think a consequence free universe is one where anything at all would happen and if you think of it, isn't that what your kind of proposing?
This is getting a bit ''What I would do if I was God''. I don't think a consequence free universe is one where anything at all would happen and if you think of it, isn't that what your kind of proposing?
Christ has overturned the ''work of Adam'', which is separation from God without hope.Firstly, of course the whole story of Adam, garden of eden etc is just a myth.
If God is alienated from himselfYou should reread this and contemplate what it actually means. It's really quite a bizarre statement.
then that can only be due to human sin. Jesus was regarded as sinless otherwise people wouldn't have recognised him as divine.What's the rule that says you have to be sinless to be divine?
In terms of us making restitution, we can't because we don't know the true impact of any wrong doing and we don't IMHO know where to start on the project. Hence needing the work of Jesus.Hang on. Jesus endured only a couple of days of being dead. How can that be restitution for all of human sin? Even if he had stayed dead, it would only have been the equivalent of one fifth of Jack the Ripper's murders. One measly three day crucifixion is nowhere near enough to pay restitution for all of humanity's crimes.
I think your belief that suffering has been eliminated from those countries which move from christianity relates to physical suffering but not the hurt and debasement of wrong doing.
I move that lots of those countries are the cause of suffering in other countries.
We are all about to suffer from climate change.
Adam was in harmony with God and ''walked with him''.
He was instructed not to do something and chose to do it anyway. So your thesis of ignorance is incorrect.
Jesus laying down his life at the hands of men was a result of the natural ultimate conclusive act of Goddodging. That he died and experienced alienation and self alienation is a consequence of the self hurt and debasement of wrong doing of others which he took upon himself.
You should reread this and contemplate what it actually means. It's really quite a bizarre statement.It is deduced from Jesus’ words on the cross My God, My God Why have you forsaken me? Self alienation is not unknown in psychology. Alienation from God in a sinner is an obvious consequence. For Jesus to be in such a position as divine he would have to be the bearer of sin from else where.
What's the rule that says you have to be sinless to be divine?God is the antithesis of evil hence Jesus sense of rejection on the cross. The sin is taken on by Jesus humanity and because he is human and divine it becomes an act of mediation between the two.
Hang on. Jesus endured only a couple of days of being dead.You don’t endure anything when you are dead. Besides, Jesus is bearing the consequence of human sin so I don’t really recognise your argument here
How can that be restitution for all of human sin? Even if he had stayed dead, it would only have been the equivalent of one fifth of Jack the Ripper's murders. One measly three day crucifixion is nowhere near enough to pay restitution for all of humanity's crimes.That would be an obvious kind of magic given the consequences of sin on the perpetrator.As far as we are concerned God has opened the way to himself. Will you take it?
On the other hand, if it's about forgiveness, there was no reason at all for Jesus to be crucified. God could just say "I forgive you" and it would be done.
By every measurable metric suffering is consistently lower in nations with lower levels of religiosity. You can make any claims you want about hypothetical, undemonstrable, psycho-metaphysical 'sin' levels that you want to, but until you can demonstrate they're any more real than your claims of the god you use them to try to justify I'll stick with the DEMONSTRABLE REALITY of the correlation between better standards of living and lower religiosity.Regards the scourge of economic suffering. Man made. Wealthy nations have stood by and supported corrupt inefficient governments to get things on the cheap.
And you can show the widespread suffering in the world that arises from, say, Scandinavia, how? The consistent inability of people to decipher IKEA instructions? Nokia phones? Lapland's apparent stranglehold on Santa?
Yes, we are. And when we do those countries with developed technology and higher levels of formal education - which also correlate with lower religiosity, though perhaps not as strongly - will still be better off than the countries that cling to religion as some sort of comfort blanket when they see they aren't those happier, safer places.
No, he wasn't. He's an entirely mythic creation, regardless of whether the 'god' of the story is real, Adam was not.
He was, supposedly, made ignorant of good and evil, and was punished for doing evil... he picked from a tempting tree put in front of a being given curiosity and no understanding of wrongdoing... he was put near a tree that meant 'certain death', yet a being that could create the entirety of reality couldn't understand how to build a bloody fence?
God created this reality, knowing what would happen - any 'sacrifice' in there is meaningless, because God chose that reality when he founded it, if you accept the tale - time is entire, it all exists, it's our sense of it that is limited. If god created everything, that includes time, and if god is outside of time then he can see - and foresee - it all. Ergo, if Adam 'sinned', it's because God chose to create that reality; Jesus 'sacrifice' was part of the plan.
O.
Regards the scourge of economic suffering. Man made.Oh yes that's right Vlad - all those countries with healthcare meaning that people live longer and healthier lives, with education to provide opportunities for rewarding and well rewarded careers, with low infant mortality rates so parents are likely to see their children grow up, with the ability to enjoy a retirement, and typically with democracy so that people have a say in how their countries are run and protection of human rights, with greater equality between the 'haves' and the 'have nots'.
Regarding human sin God is not the author.If you believe that all creation is god's creation, then of course god is the author of human sin. You can't cherry pick Vlad - you can't assert that god created everything than then claim that he only created the good stuff and not the bad stuff.
It is deduced from Jesus’ words on the cross My God, My God Why have you forsaken me?Ah, so Jesus is not God then, according to Mark. Glad we sorted that out.
The sin is taken on by Jesus humanity and because he is human and divine it becomes an act of mediation between the two.You haven't answered the question. Who made the rule that says you have to be sinless to be divine?
You don’t endure anything when you are dead.So what was the sacrifice then? I admit hanging on a cross for an afternoon is pretty bad, but some crucifixion victim endured for days, so what Jesus did hardly seems like "restitution" for the sins of all mankind.
Besides, Jesus is bearing the consequence of human sin so I don’t really recognise your argument here That would be an obvious kind of magic given the consequences of sin on the perpetrator.As far as we are concerned God has opened the way to himself.Why did he need to crucify himself to do it though? Surely God makes all the rules. Why did he paint himself into such a terrible corner?
Will you take it?Jesus didn't die for my sins. I wasn't born then and in any case, I'll take responsibility for my wn actions. I refuse to accept I have the blood of Jesus on my hands.
Regards the scourge of economic suffering. Man made. Wealthy nations have stood by and supported corrupt inefficient governments to get things on the cheap.
Regarding human sin God is not the author.
it could be more equitable,True - but there is a clear correlation between inequality within a country and its religiosity. And of course also a a clear correlation between average wealth within a country and its lack of religiosity.
If you believe that all creation is god's creation, then of course god is the author of human sin. You can't cherry pick Vlad - you can't assert that god created everything than then claim that he only created the good stuff and not the bad stuff.God created the material universe what happens in it is due to processes within it including intelligence.
Ah, so Jesus is not God then, according to Mark. Glad we sorted that out.Orthodox Christianity found plenty in the life of Jesus to consider him divine and human and in his sayings on the cross. There were other Jesus based sects who viewed him as God's adopted son.
You haven't answered the question. Who made the rule that says you have to be sinless to be divine?
So what was the sacrifice then? I admit hanging on a cross for an afternoon is pretty bad, but some crucifixion victim endured for days, so what Jesus did hardly seems like "restitution" for the sins of all mankind.
Why did he need to crucify himself to do it though? Surely God makes all the rules. Why did he paint himself into such a terrible corner?
Jesus didn't die for my sins. I wasn't born then and in any case, I'll take responsibility for my wn actions. I refuse to accept I have the blood of Jesus on my hands.
Orthodox Christianity found plenty in the life of Jesus to consider him divine and human and in his sayings on the cross. There were other Jesus based sects who viewed him as God's adopted son.
God created the material universe what happens in it is due to processes within it including intelligence.Cop out Vlad - if god is the creator then he is directly or indirectly responsible for the bad stuff as well as the good stuff. If god isn't responsible for what goes on in the universe then that means he isn't really the omnipotent creator christianity claims, and it also means that you cannot claim the good stuff as his creation.
Cop out Vlad - if god is the creator then he is directly or indirectly responsible for the bad stuff as well as the good stuff. If god isn't responsible for what goes on in the universe then that means he isn't really the omnipotent creator christianity claims, and it also means that you cannot claim the good stuff as his creation.Pollyanna-ish? The Christian prognosis for the alienated self is about as bad as it gets.
It is childishly Pollyanna-ish to create this god of yours and claim all the good stuff, every person miraculously pulled from a building after an earthquake, every good deed, every person who survives cancer to be his doing, which claiming that all the bad stuff, the child killed in an accident, the people who die in an earthquake, all those that don't survive cancer etc as nothing to do with him.
Here's a point, Vlad, that has always seemed odd to me - I've heard Christians say along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing rather than quoting) that "God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son" (or words to that effect) - but this is 'God' right, and as you recently said it created the "material universe", so how come 'God' couldn't have more that one son?God fully identifies with mankind by being a person. Any other mode of incarnation and this full identification falls down and is imv a bit freakish.
Hell - even my oldest daughter has more than one son, so why couldn't 'God' have 23, 137 or 1308 sons if it wanted to? After all, if it could create the "material universe" it could surely have as many sons as it wanted and we could have had a Jesus suited to every age throughout history, so that we'd now have an internet-savvy Jesus with PR skills suited to the 21st century: surely that would be a lot better for 'God', believability-wise, compared to a bunch of ancient anecdotes of largely unknown provenance that contain fantastical claims.
God fully identifies with mankind by being a person. Any other mode of incarnation and this full identification falls down and is imv a bit freakish.
Pollyanna-ish?Yup in terms of 'everything good is to do with god, everything bad ... well nothing to do with god' - you made that very point in a post just a short while ago on this thread.
Science does not do Good or bad.True, but nor does it claim to, unlike your god. And the notion of good and bad is an entirely human-centric matter - humans define morality. The concept of good and bad is completely meaningless to an asteroid in a distant solar system devoid of life.
The badness of the cosmos I would move comes from alienation towards it.Complete nonsense - what we define as good is down to cultural and societal norms associated with humans, what is defined as bad is down to cultural and societal norms associated with humans. And, of course, what is considered good and bad fluctuates over time. That some cultures ascribe good/bad to a human created god does not alter the point that human morality is defined by, err, humans.
And that derives from our alienation from God.
Why "freakish"?Why freakish? BECAUSE A HUMAN IS ONLY EVER 1 person with one life I suppose anything other than that and humanity as it is experienced is not fully identified with.
Maybe more than one Jesus at a time would be overkill, but why wouldn't 'God' send another now and again to deal with changing circumstances so as to get the message across? I hear tell of people called 'influencers' who use the internet to promote stuff (or themselves) so maybe 'God' is missing a trick by not doing the same - just think how much more effective 'miracles' would be if they were captured by CCTV, where the prevailing conditions were known, such as numbers of witnesses, and where any witnesses could be questioned systematically immediately.
I think 'God' is missing an opportunity.
Why freakish? BECAUSE A HUMAN IS ONLY EVER 1 person with one life I suppose anything other than that and humanity as it is experienced is not fully identified with.
But I thought you guys believed that Jesus was 'God', was still around so that you could have a relationship with him, and that at some point Jesus was to return: in effect then Jesus can't be equated with a common or garden human. Therefore, if Jesus is still around in some sense, and is due to return at some point, then I'd have thought regular reappearances might be an effective strategy and quite consistent with him not being permanently dead.We believe he is both Man and God. Jesus ultra low probability resurrection was a miracle of God as a promise of future resurrection and to start the Church.
We believe he is both Man and God. Jesus ultra low probability resurrection was a miracle of God as a promise of future resurrection and to start the Church.
Jesus ultra low probability resurrection was a miracle ...Something with a low probability isn't a miracle, just an event with a low probability.
God created the material universe what happens in it is due to processes within it including intelligence.
If 'miracles' are events that have an "ultra low probability" there are (at least) a couple of issues that immediately arise: first, how to estimate probability when it comes to divine agency/miracle claims and, second, if the available methods for estimating probability of 'miracles' are all naturalistic then what you say about the resurrection being an "ultra low probability" claim implies that divine agency is also naturalistic and not supernatural.Naturalistic is without God I take it. That is philosophical naturalism.
I think you guys need to think through the consequences of what you believe, since what you believe doesn't seem to hang together too well.
No, time is not something that is happening to the universe in an ongoing manner, time is a dimension through which we are moving, but the relative past, present and future are all there, all the time.God is the answer to why something rather than nothing. So the universe could be infinite but only there because of God.
I God creates 'the universe', he creates our subjective future alongside our subjective past, and everything in between.
O.
God is the answer to why something rather than nothing.
So the universe could be infinite but only there because of God.
God is the answer to why something rather than nothing.
So the universe could be infinite but only there because of God.
No, 'God' is a way to avoid admitting 'we don't know'.Maths doesn't do Gods. Maths doesn't produce universes.
No, there are any number of mathematical models of an infinite universe that do not require any gods.
Neither of those points addresses the question, though: how do you reconcile a theology founded on human free will with the idea of a created universe which would make the idea of free will impossible?
O.
God is the answer to why something rather than nothing. So the universe could be infinite but only there because of God.
No it isn't. God, if it exists, is something.You have talked about the maths existing for a universe, I have said maths does not by itself make universes exist that needs an actualiser. The question is what is it about the universe that is infinitely actual rather than potential?
And there is no point in making vague references to "the argument from contingency" unless you're ready to present some version of it and defend it. Claiming that a god is 'necessary' is meaningless babble unless you can fully explain it.
questi
Whoosh!
But why God rather than nothing?Because there is a necessary something. So we are back to our quest for what it is about about the universe that is necessary?
Why does a created universe make free will impossible.
The important choice to accept or reject God is not about the universe.Biased question - suggesting this is about accepting or rejecting god is a question based on an assumption that god actually exists. There is no credible evidence for the existence of god so until or unless you provide that compelling evidence for the existence of god asking whether we accept or reject god is moot.
You have talked about the maths...
...I have said maths does not by itself make universes exist that needs an actualiser. The question is what is it about the universe that is infinitely actual rather than potential?
Because there is a necessary something.
Free will is an incoherent regardless (except for compatibilism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism), which doesn't work with respect to a god), but the point was that the best model we have is the 'block universe', so all of time is just a direction through it. A creator god would have had to make the whole of history, not just set it going and stand back.Free will operates within moral realism, what ought to be done and what can be done. There are no physical constraints on the morality of a situation. Since physicality is neither good or bad but just ''stuff''
Biased question - suggesting this is about accepting or rejecting god is a question based on an assumption that god actually exists. There is no credible evidence for the existence of god so until or unless you provide that compelling evidence for the existence of god asking whether we accept or reject god is moot.As biased as say philosophical naturalism? I think so and yet you plump for naturalism all the time. ''On what warrant?'' I say.
Because there is a necessary something.But why God?
As biased as say philosophical naturalism? I think so and yet you plump for naturalism all the time. ''On what warrant?'' I say.I disagree - we know that natural things exist as we have ample evidence for their existence. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to make an assumption that something exists where there is an evidence base to support it. To assume that something exists where there is evidence to support it demonstrates reasonable and rational thought.
Free will operates within moral realism...
There are no physical constraints on the morality of a situation. Since physicality is neither good or bad but just ''stuff''
There are no physical constraints on the morality of a situation.Morality is a societal and cultural construct. It does not exist outside of the those boundaries, which are narrowly associated with living species with sufficient higher consciousness and a largely communal behaviour.
But why God?He is actual rather than potential and therefore cannot not be. i.e. that is His sufficient reason.
Can you not see how "God" is not an adequate answer to "why something rather than nothing"? It just raises an other question - well, the same question again.
He is actual rather than potential and therefore cannot not be. i.e. that is His sufficient reason.
He is actual rather than potential and therefore cannot not be. i.e. that is His sufficient reason.Handwaving assertion without a shred of evidence to back it up.
Morality is a societal and cultural construct. It does not exist outside of the those boundaries,Quotein several which are narrowly associated with living species with sufficient higher consciousness and a largely communal behaviour.A moral reality is like mathematical reality. There are moral equations.
Imagine the universe before any life emerged - the notion of morality is meaningless.
Imagine the universe where life has developed but only to the level of simply single cell organisms - the notion of morality is also meaningless.
Handwaving assertion without a shred of evidence to back it up.It's logical that something is potential until it is actualised and that leads back to an actual actualiser that is never merely a potential.
Given that there is no evidence that god even exists speculating about the nature of this god is doubly pointless.
By why is he there rather than not there?Because He cannot not be. Can one say that of the universe.
A moral reality is like mathematical reality. There are moral equations.Such as Vlad.
Because He cannot not be.You are doing it again - just repeating unevidenced assertions again and again does advance your argument one iota - until you provide some evidence that god even exists the notion that god couldn't not exist makes no sense as you haven't demonstrate that god exists.
He is actual rather than potential and therefore cannot not be. i.e. that is His sufficient reason.
It's logical that something is potential until it is actualised and that leads back to an actual actualiser that is never merely a potential.
Whether that is a temporal heirarchy or a vertical heirarchy of dependence.
Because He cannot not be. Can one say that of the universe.
You are doing it again - just repeating unevidenced assertions again and again does advance your argument one iota - until you provide some evidence that god even exists the notion that god couldn't not exist makes no sense as you haven't demonstrate that god exists.By definition, if the actual actualizer which is not itself potential did not exist, nothing else would since there would be nothing to actualise it. Since potential things have been actually actualised they must have an actual actualizer and that must exist and has never not existed. And that in a nutshell is it. Nothing else comes close to that argument.
By definition, if the actual actualizer which is not itself potential did not exist, nothing else would since there would be nothing to actualise it. Since potential things have been actually actualised they must have an actual actualizer and that must exist and has never not existed. And that in a nutshell is it. Nothing else comes close to that argument.Absolute non-sense.
I'm afraid.
Absolute non-sense.It's not absolute nonsense at all. Where for instance does it fall down? You haven't said.
You are just adding additional waves of unevidenced assertion to try (in vain) to justify you other unevidenced assertion. That doesn't strengthen your argument, it just sends it spiralling into greater and greater nonsense with less, rather than more, credence.
It's not absolute nonsense at all. Where for instance does it fall down? You haven't said.It falls down because:
All you are saying is it isn't the way the universe is working this instant. To which I say, in all this see of actualised potential we observe what where or whom is the actual actualiser?
It falls down because:An actualizer is something that turns potential into something actual. Please demonstrate a potential that has become an actual without an actualizer. If you manage somehow to do that then we have something self actualised which is at worst a ridiculous notion or at best just another term for an actual actualizer which has never not existed....since it actualised itself.
1. You haven't defined what an actualiser is.
2. Even if you are able to answer 1, you haven't demonstrated that an actualiser exists
3. Even if you are able to answer 2, you haven't demonstrated that an actualiser is necessary
So you are a million miles away from justifying that the actualiser is god, which would also require you to demonstrate that god actually exists - which, of course, you haven't and you can't.
An actualizer is something that turns potential into something actual.Please define potential and actual in this context. Given that we are talking about the universe then I guess we are discussing energetics and therefore potential energy, which is just one state of energy that can readily convert into other states of energy and vice versa.
An actualizer is something that turns potential into something actual.
Still meaningless gibbering. ::)Not really, Before the above bollocks appeared on our screens it was merely potential. You actualised that potential. Straight forward really.
Please define potential and actual in this context. Given that we are talking about the universe then I guess we are discussing energetics and therefore potential energy, which is just one state of energy that can readily convert into other states of energy and vice versa.Potential is the potential to become or be. To become is to become an actual thing rather than a potential thing.
Not really, Before the above bollocks appeared on our screens it was merely potential. You actualised that potential. Straight forward really.Come on Vlad - you've still failed to demonstrate what you mean by potential and actual - in energetics terms potential energy is no less actual than, say, kinetic energy. And of course one can convert into the other and vice versa - so you'd need not just an actualiser, but also a de-actualiser. Or, well, let's cut to the chase ... you are just talking non-sense.
Science is based on cause and effect, where potential is actualised so these notions should not be foreign to you.
Potential is the potential to become or be. To become is to become an actual thing rather than a potential thing.Nope - in energetics (which let's face it is pretty governing in universe terms) potential energy is no less actual than kinetic energy. The energy merely takes a different form (and in reality our descriptions of those forms is largely nominal and for the purposes of human explanation of phenomena).
Not really, Before the above bollocks appeared on our screens it was merely potential. You actualised that potential. Straight forward really.
Science is based on cause and effect, where potential is actualised so these notions should not be foreign to you.
Come on Vlad - you've still failed to demonstrate what you mean by potential and actual - in energetics terms potential energy is no less actual than, say, kinetic energy. And of course one can convert into the other and vice versa - so you'd need not just an actualiser, but also a de-actualiser. Or, well, let's cut to the chase ... you are just talking non-sense.Of course it's not nonsense. You yourself and every observed thing is what's known as actual. It's actually there. On the other hand there was a time when you were not you were merely a potential person. It's as straight forward as that. Why you cannot derive that knowledge from what you know of potential and other energy I know not. Your intellectual shortfall here is what happens when you deliberately position yourself as the man who will argue nothing but science.
So, according to this, an 'actualizer' is just a cause. Which runs us right into all the things that are wrong with first cause 'arguments'.There is nothing wrong with first cause arguments if you wish to correct me you may try. That the first cause is not observed in science is just a limitation of science, not the non existence of first cause.
On the other hand there was a time when you were not you were merely a potential person.Anthropocentric non-sense - there is no difference in fundamental energetics terms between a person and a potential person - all that happens is that the relevant energy is configured in a slightly different manner. We are all, when it comes down to it, defined by chemistry, which is in itself defined by physics.
Of course it's not nonsense. You yourself and every observed thing is what's known as actual. It's actually there. On the other hand there was a time when you were not you were merely a potential person. It's as straight forward as that. Why you cannot derive that knowledge from what you know of potential and other energy I know not. Your intellectual shortfall here is what happens when you deliberately position yourself as the man who will argue nothing but science.
There is nothing wrong with first cause arguments if you wish to correct me you may try.
You yourself and every observed thing is what's known as actual. It's actually there.But the energy therein may be potential energy - I can observe a rock on the edge of a ledge - it has potential energy, but that is no less real (nor is the rock) than if that rock begins to roll down the hill with conversion of one energy form to others (kinetic, heat, vibration/sounds) etc.
But the energy therein may be potential energy...
Maths doesn't do Gods. Maths doesn't produce universes.
Why does a created universe make free will impossible.
The important choice to accept or reject God is not about the universe.
TBH I don't think Vlad is talking about energy. It looks like he's trying to use one of Edward Feser's arguments. The problem is that he's not very good at it and it's a crap argument anyway.Sure - I get that - but he is unable to explain what he means except in an incredible narrow and anthropocentric manner. Anything really fundamental about the universe should remain just as valid regardless of whether humans (or indeed any life form) exists.
Because He cannot not be.Why not? I see no reason why a god has to exist.
Can one say that of the universe.Quite easily
Why not? I see no reason why a god has to exist.I have explained why there is a necessary being for if there wasn't there would be nothing.
Quite easily
"Because the Universe cannot not be."
See. It's very easy to say.
I have explained why there is a necessary being for if there wasn't there would be nothing.No you haven't - and your use of the term being is achingly biased toward some notion of an intelligence, i.e. god - as being necessary for the universe. It may well be that there is some necessary entity, concept or fundamental principle required for the universe to exist. Likewise there may not be. However to infer that this entity, if such a thing even exists, is a being demonstrates how unable you are to think beyond your theist blinkers - you cannot see beyond some kind of intelligent creator.
Why not? I see no reason why a god has to exist.Yup easy to state, albeit less easy to prove. However the difference between saying the universe cannot not be and god cannot not be is that we can, at least, demonstrate, through evidence that the universe does exist - whether it has to exist is another matter. We have no evidence that god even exists, let alone cannot not exist.
Quite easily
"Because the Universe cannot not be."
See. It's very easy to say.
No you haven't - and your use of the term being is achingly biased toward some notion of an intelligence, i.e. god - as being necessary for the universe. It may well be that there is some necessary entity, concept or fundamental principle required for the universe to exist. Likewise there may not be. However to infer that this entity, if such a thing even exists, is a being demonstrates how unable you are to think beyond your theist blinkers - you cannot see beyond some kind of intelligent creator.Alright I don't mind if you call it the necessary thing, entity, concept or fundemental principle, your reluctance to even accept the notion of intelligence to it is redolent of Goddodging aka you'll accept anything except God. You've been Caught Davey, bang to rights and projecting your bias onto me too, You naughty academic.
I have explained why there is a necessary being for if there wasn't there would be nothing.
Is the universe that being? well, because what we see could conceivably have been different.
The only thing concievably that could be seen by it's action are the laws of nature which cannot be changed,(But even then they could be concieved of as possibly being different)...
It may well be that there is some necessary entity, concept or fundamental principle required for the universe to exist.Ah sweet agreement to the possibility. Good, we can now discuss it's attributes.
You're confusing assertion with explanation again. ::)No. The necessary entity has to be what it actually is since there is nothing comparable external to it to make it be one thing or another.
Same goes for any god you dream up.
Same goes for any god you dream up.
You've neither made a sound argument that a 'necessary being' must exist nor have you managed to distinguish some god you might make up from the universe according to the criteria that you've also (apparently) just made up.
Comical.
No. The necessary entity has to be what it actually is since there is nothing comparable external to it to make it be one thing or another.
Ah sweet agreement to the possibility. Good, we can now discuss it's attributes.
I have explained why there is a necessary being for if there wasn't there would be nothing.There's a difference between a necessary being and a necessary something. You have failed to explain why the necessary thing has to be a god nor why your god is not contingent (assuming he exists).
Ah sweet agreement to the possibility. Good, we can now discuss it's attributes.Fine - I imagine its attributes would correspond to fundamental physics.
Fine - I imagine its attributes would correspond to fundamental physics.I'm not so sure since fundamental physics seems to involve components and that suggests a whole bag of contingencies.
I think that you positioning yourself as the man only interested in scientific solutions has conditioned you to see the status quo as a kind of true for all time and all conditions. So since nothing necessary has been observed, it is therefore unlikely to exist. You have lost sight of the illogicality of everything being contingent. But I think you are beginning to recognise the logic of a necessary entity. To suggest no necessary entity.....(even I would come to the universe being the necessary entity if something necessary could be found about it is an abrogation of your scientific commitment since you have discarded the principle of cause and effect, for mere effect IMHO. You are settling for a hedge.
But indicating the possibility of a necessary entity (which of course theoretical and experimental physicists have been doing for years), doesn't mean there is a necessary entity - so unlike you I remain open to the possibility of both a necessary entity and no necessary entity.
I'm not so sure since fundamental physics seems to involve components and that suggests a whole bag of contingencies.
So since nothing necessary has been observed...
You have lost sight of the illogicality of everything being contingent.
...it is an abrogation of your scientific commitment since you have discarded the principle of cause and effect...
I'm not so sure since fundamental physics seems to involve components and that suggests a whole bag of contingencies.Because one of the major areas of theoretical and experimental physics is around the notion of fundamental and unifying theories that can explain the universe.
Given that, why would you think it's attributes correspond to fundamental physics?
You can't even begin to go there when you haven't even made a start on the argument.But I can. My argument is based on contingency and necessity. The argument is outlined in a lot of places. Objections and counterarguments are not successful particularly your generic argument. ''We don't know what it is but it can't be God'' or ''we don't know a clue what it is but I don't like what you are saying''.
Still waiting for the first hint of an argument that tells us that there must be something necessary or any suggestion of how something might be unable to not be.
I think that you positioning yourself as the man only interested in scientific solutions has conditioned you to see the status quo as a kind of true for all time and all conditions. So since nothing necessary has been observed, it is therefore unlikely to exist.Blimey - shows how little you understand about science, the scientific process and scientists themselves. Scientists like nothing better than to make observations about something that has never been observed before - we spend our careers doing this. The notion that we simply accept the status quo is, frankly bonkers - science is constantly challenging the status quo - that's what the scientific method is all about, continually testing the best explanations for observations based on current evidence. If those theories stand up to that testing, we continue to accept them until or unless new evidence arises at which point we happily ditch the previous explanation for a better one.
You have lost sight of the illogicality of everything being contingent.Not at all - there is no illogicality here - it is a perfectly reasonable possibility and one that I accept to be possible, just as I accept there there may be some non-contingent fundamental physical entity.
Because one of the major areas of theoretical and experimental physics is around the notion of fundamental and unifying theories that can explain the universe.To say that everything is contingent gives rise inexorably to the question ''On what?''
And perhaps this work won't come up with something that isn't contingent and we might then conclude that there is no element that isn't contingent, which wouldn't be an unreasonable conclusion.
To say that everything is contingent gives rise inexorably to the question ''On what?''Another element within a complex interconnected network of elements. Why is that so hard to understand. Not everything is hierarchical.
Not at all - there is no illogicality here - it is a perfectly reasonable possibility and one that I accept to be possible, just as I accept there there may be some non-contingent fundamental physical entity.I do because contingent things are contingent because they are dependent. That is the nature of the beast I'm afraid. If you find something that isn't contingent then that is automatically necessary.
You are the one that refuses to accept one explanation as being even possible, despite the fact that you have no evidence on which to dismiss it.
Another element within a complex interconnected network of elements. Why is that so hard to understand. Not everything is hierarchical.There is no 'another' because you have said 'everything' is contingent.
But I can. My argument is based on contingency and necessity.
The argument is outlined in a lot of places.
You seem to be accepting two definitionally contradictory things.Nonsense - I never said both were the case (albeit with a quantum mechanical perspective you might be able to argue that an element is both necessary and contingent) - not what I said is that both are plausible and that we don't have the evidence currently to determine which is correct. In the absence of evidence I am not ruling either out.
Nonsense - I never said both were the case (albeit with a quantum mechanical perspective you might be able to argue that an element is both necessary and contingent) - not what I said is that both are plausible and that we don't have the evidence currently to determine which is correct. In the absence of evidence I am not ruling either out.One arrives at the argument from contingency through logic and reason since it is likely science is limited to the contingent. One reason being that only contingent things may be observable scientifically.
You on the other hand, without a shred of evidence, seem to have nailed your colours to the mast, not just for a necessary element, but a necessary being and presumably that that necessary being is god. Of course your assertion is arse over tit, in other words allowing your prejudged conclusion to cloud your approach to evidence.
One arrives at the argument from contingency through logic and reason since it is likely science is limited to the contingent. One reason being that only contingent things may be observable scientifically.
All very nice I'm sure, but you are avoiding a key issue: if there are non-contingent/necessary things, and if these things aren't amenable to naturalistic investigation as you suggest (which is an assertion of yours btw), then on what basis can you know that they actually exist, and if you can establish that they do exist, then how can you know anything about their characteristics?You are making the assumption that things can only be known or experienced naturalistically.
One arrives at the argument from contingency through logic and reason...
One reason being that only contingent things may be observable scientifically.Why on earth should that be the case Vlad - where is your evidence for this assertion. I know you desperately want to make a case for something 'out there' which we cannot detect, observe, have any evidence for that you can then go 'ha, god' - but that is just wishful thinking.
One arrives at the argument from contingency through logic and reason since it is likely science is limited to the contingent.No it isn't unless you self-define necessary as effectively 'magic' - there is no logical, reasoned argument to justify the notion that a necessary element must not be amenable to scientific investigation, not that science can only investigate contingent entities.
You are making the assumption that things can only be known or experienced naturalistically.
No I'm not - since you insist that the non-contingent/necessary is outwith the scope of naturalism then I'm asking you what alternative approach might apply given you claim you have logic and reason on your side. You could start by explaining the approach you adopted in order the justify your stated position on this.I think Vlad needs to take a step back - firstly he needs to justify his claim that non-contingent/necessary entities cannot be amenable to standard scientific observation. Only once he has done that does the question of what alternative methods need to be used to determine the difference between a non-contingent/necessary entity that exists but cannot be detected by standard methodology and a non-contingent/necessary entity that does not exist.
I think it's time you spilled the beans, Vlad.
I think Vlad needs to take a step back - firstly he needs to justify his claim that non-contingent/necessary entities cannot be amenable to standard scientific observation. Only once he has done that does the question of what alternative methods need to be used to determine the difference between a non-contingent/necessary entity that exists but cannot be detected by standard methodology and a non-contingent/necessary entity that does not exist.Firstly I would agree that what you call “a huge flaw” is contentious. I actually think it revolves around the question does mere observation actually affect something? And if affected is it’s status not then dependent. Perhaps you can flesh out your argument that the necessary entity does not affect the contingent when the contingent is dependent on the necessary.
Problem for Vlad is that he has no way of even addressing the first question because his only (clearly logical and reasoned :o) argument for non-contingent/necessary entities not being amenable to standard scientific observation is because he has already prejudged the conclusion - in other words that he has already (without a shred of evidence) decided that there is a non-contingent/necessary entity, indeed a non-contingent/necessary being and that this being is god - and the only way he can sustain this argument in the absence of any evidence is to come up with this non-sense that god, as a non-contingent/necessary entity must not be amenable to standard scientific observation.
But, of course, a huge flaw in his argument is that it can only be sustained if god has no impact whatsoever on contingent entities (including people) who are observable by the scientific method. So his argument is only sustainable if this god is completely invisible and never interacts whatsoever with the known and observable universe. Possible, of course, but not consistent with the claims about the christian god.
Firstly I would agree that what you call “a huge flaw” is contentious.Not at all - as scientist we are completely comfortable with detecting things via their interactions with other things. So if your non-contingent/necessary entity is not to be able to be detected by standard observation it cannot interact with contingent entities in a manner which is detectable, so cannot have the features you claim for the christian god. So yup - a pretty huge flaw in your argument.
Let us run though with the idea that the necessary is observable. What do you think we would be looking for?
Not at all - as scientist we are completely comfortable with detecting things via their interactions with other things. So if your non-contingent/necessary entity is not to be able to be detected by standard observation it cannot interact with contingent entities in a manner which is detectable, so cannot have the features you claim for the christian god. So yup - a pretty huge flaw in your argument.Two things here, your argument seems to be based on philosophical empiricism where you talk about standard procedures.
Perhaps you can flesh out your argument...
Let us run though with the idea that the necessary is observable. What do you think we would be looking for?
Two things here, your argument seems to be based on philosophical empiricism where you talk about standard procedures.Firstly - I never used the term 'standard interactions' I used the term 'standard observation' in other words our standard scientific approach.
Secondly, what kind of interaction are you looking at?
I would suggest the presence of contingent things is an interaction of sorts. Secondly if one is not dogmatically philosophical empiricist all kinds of non empirical interactions seem to be taking place.
That does leave what you call standard interactions so I have to again ask what you would expect to see?
Firstly - I never used the term 'standard interactions' I used the term 'standard observation' in other words our standard scientific approach.Two things. Most interactions reported would in scientific terms show up neurologically.
Regarding the interactions - first, pretty well by definition there must be interaction between the necessary and contingent entities, as otherwise the necessary entity would ... well ... not be necessary, as it would easily not exist. So in a manner of speaking what makes an entity necessary is that it interacts directly or indirectly with all contingent entities as otherwise it wouldn't be necessary.
What is the nature of the interaction - well there is nothing to suggest it would be any different to interaction between any other entities (e.g. two or more contingent entities) - what makes a necessary entity necessary is not the nature of its interactions, but there importance - in other words that the contingent entities could not exist without those interactions. But that doesn't mean that the interactions must be magic - quite the reverse they are most likely to be fundamental physical interactions, and if so we can detect them either directly or due to their impact on other entities.
One thing about the necessary entity though is that being non contingent means being a law unto itself...
Yet another utterly unsupported assertion pulled out of the void where your actual argument should be. ::)Oh dear, Never talk to strangers doesn't understand the meaning of non contingent or the implications.
No argument, no case to answer. Your 'necessary entity' is still nothing better than a personal fairytale.
You are making the assumption that things can only be known or experienced naturalistically.
Oh dear, Never talk to strangers doesn't understand the meaning of non contingent or the implications.I don't think you do either.
Have you ever experienced anything non naturalistically? How can you be sure you did?I would say yes I have and you probably have too, namely things that can't be measured empirically. I go on the premises that ''if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it is a duck'' and ''it is what it is.'' I would also say that the best intellectual and linguistic framework which describes my non naturalistic experience experience is that of Christianity.
FFS. I’ve backed away from this mb of late in part because there’s no chance of Vlad ever behaving honestly, and in part because there are no other religious contributors that I can see with anything of interest to say. Nonetheless, as Vlad won’t do it himself here’s the argument he implies:Bollocks......much missed bollocks.......But bollocks all the same.
1. Everything I observe and everything I understand about the universe appears to be determinative.
2. Therefore, the universe itself must be determinative – ie, necessarily caused by something other than itself.
3. To avoid the problem of infinite regress, that causal agency must also be non-determinative in character.
4. Therefore God.
All four steps are wrong for reasons we all understand (all it offers is, “it’s magic innit”), which is why he’ll never set out his reasoning for himself. When asked for it though, what he does instead is throw in the accusation of “philosophical materialism” as if that in some way supports him. It does no such thing though for the following reasons:
1. It doesn’t mean what he thinks it means – ie, the claim that all that exists must be material. What he actually means is physicalism, (which actually is the view that all that exists is ultimately physical) but which no-one here I’m aware of subscribes to because absolutist statements of this type are unverifiable.
2. Having established his straw man, the then relies on his own mischaracterisation to claim his interlocutors to argue “certainly not “God””, rather than the actual position of “no sound reasons to think “God”” – two positions that are fundamentally different.
3. Finally, when asked what method other than reason or evidence he proposes instead to verify his claim “God” he always – and I mean always – runs away.
Others are of course free to engage with him without addressing first the fundamental lies and evasions on which he relies, but it seems a fool’s errand to me.
All best.
Bollocks......much missed bollocks.......But bollocks all the same.
Oh dear, Never talk to strangers doesn't understand the meaning of non contingent or the implications.
I would say yes I have and you probably have too, namely things that can't be measured empirically.If you can't measure it empirically, how can you know if it was real or not?
I go on the premises that ''if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it is a duck'' and ''it is what it is.'' I would also say that the best intellectual and linguistic framework which describes my non naturalistic experience experience is that of Christianity.But you said you couldn't measure it. How can you rank possible explanations if you can't analyse the phenomenon properly? I would say the best intellectual and linguistic framework which describes your Christian experience is that you imagined it. Why is your explanation better than mine?
I would say yes I have and you probably have too, namely things that can't be measured empirically. I go on the premises that ''if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it is a duck'' and ''it is what it is.'' I would also say that the best intellectual and linguistic framework which describes my non naturalistic experience experience is that of Christianity.
Bollocks......much missed bollocks.......But bollocks all the same.
Two things. Most interactions reported would in scientific terms show up neurologically.Not really, unless you are only focussing on humans/living things. There are plenty of interactions - e.g. gravity, light, spins etc that would result in interactions that aren't anything to do with neurology, although scientists, as smart people, might interpret those interactions neurologically. But those interactions would still occur regardless of any observation by humans or any other living thing.
One thing about the necessary entity though is that being non contingent means being a law unto itself ...I don't think that is true at all. A necessary entity is one that is required to exist for other things to exist, in other words not contingent on another entity. That doesn't mean it is a law unto itself, still less that it somehow operates outside the rules that govern contingent entities. All it means is that contingent entities cannot exist/happen without it.
... so I still doubt how penetrable it is to science.Of course it can - it may in itself be direct observable by science, or indirectly observed via its effects on contingent entities.
Which I believe relies somewhat on the repeatable.Why wouldn't a necessary entity be consistent with repeatability - I would have thought that of all entities the most fundamental, the most required, the most necessary, will also be the most reproducible.
Secondly I wonder generally how the necessary entity fits into the laboratory or even field of study.Science constantly deals with identifying necessary and contingent elements in networks, pathways and systems (clearly on a more limited scale than universal) - so the standard approach is to remove elements and determine whether effects remain - if they do then the element you have remove isn't necessary, but may be contingent. If on the other hand removal means all further effects are abolished then this is necessary. Studies do this all the time, for example in medical research - knock out the action of a gene and look at downstream pathways.
I do appreciate though your points.
Not really, unless you are only focussing on humans/living things. There are plenty of interactions - e.g. gravity, light, spins etc that would result in interactions that aren't anything to do with neurology, although scientists, as smart people, might interpret those interactions neurologically. But those interactions would still occur regardless of any observation by humans or any other living thing.A noble enterprise i'm sure.
I don't think that is true at all. A necessary entity is one that is required to exist, in other not contingent on another entity. That doesn't mean it is a law unto itself, still less that it somehow operates outside the rules that govern contingent entities. All it means is that contingent entities cannot exist/happen without it.
Of course it can - it may in itself be direct observable by science, or indirectly observed via its effects on contingent entities.
Why wouldn't a necessary entity be consistent with repeatability - I would have thought that of all entities the most fundamental, the most required, the most necessary, will also be the most reproducible.
Science constantly deals with identifying necessary and contingent elements in networks, pathways and systems (clearly on a more limited scale than universal) - so the standard approach is to remove elements and determine whether effects remain - if they do then the element you have remove isn't necessary, but may be contingent. If on the other hand removal means all further effects are abolished then this is necessary. Studies do this all the time, for example in medical research - knock out the action of a gene and look at downstream pathways.
The same approach can be applied more universally, albeit in a more theoretical manner as you can't easily knock-out an element of the big bang experimentally in the manner that you might with a gene. You can however, still conduct experimental studies, for example Hadron collider experiments aimed at identifying very short lived particle generation in conditions that may mimic those earliest event in the universe. Through these methods we can determine the inter-relationship between entities and elements and determine which may clearly be dependent on others and some which might be candidates for necessary entities.
A noble enterprise i'm sure.I'm not sure noble is the correct word - I think we do it both in the spirit of enquiry and investigation and because stuff comes out of it that benefits society. The type of approach I have described will have been crucial over many years in order to allow us to fight covid, through understanding the disease process, developing diagnostics and vaccines/therapeutics.
Much of this is incorrect. The necessary entity is only subject to itself. There are no governing rules of nature .If that were so it would be contingent on those laws and so not “Necessary”.
I don't think that is true at all. A necessary entity is one that is required to exist for other things to exist, in other words not contingent on another entity. That doesn't mean it is a law unto itself, still less that it somehow operates outside the rules that govern contingent entities. All it means is that contingent entities cannot exist/happen without it.
Of course it can - it may in itself be direct observable by science, or indirectly observed via its effects on contingent entities.
Much of this is incorrect. The necessary entity is only subject to itself. There are no governing rules of nature .If that were so it would be contingent on those laws and so not “Necessary”.Nope you are getting it wrong - let's imagine that the governing rules of nature are the necessary entity - not only would they apply to themselves (obviously) but they also apply to all the contingent elements - hence those elements are contingent. The notion that a necessary entity sits in perfect isolation and somehow has no interaction with the contingent entities is clearly nonsense as those contingent entities would therefore not be contingent on the necessary entity.
Nope you are getting it wrong - let's imagine that the governing rules of nature are the necessary entity - not only would they apply to themselves (obviously) but they also apply to all the contingent elements - hence those elements are contingent. The notion that a necessary entity sits in perfect isolation and somehow has no interaction with the contingent entities is clearly nonsense as those contingent entities would therefore not be contingent on the necessary entity.If the governing rules are the necessary entity......but what if they aren't since one view of them is that they are unified with matter and energy. They then Proceed from the necessary entity. If the governing rules are dependent on their existence on matter and energy and visa versa they cannot be the necessary entity since they are contingent on each other for existence. We must either say that the rules are the necessary entity or matter/energy is or look elsewhere.
I know it suits your unevidenced assertion to try to make out that a necessary entity somehow sits outside the physical world, but this is incoherent and baseless. The point about a necessary entity is that it is required to exist for other contingent entities to exist - nothing more, nothing less. It does not have to sit outside (and therefore non interacting with) the physical world and indeed were it to do so it is hard to see how it could be a necessary entity for the physical world at all.
They then Proceed from the necessary entity.Which would then be, by definition, the governing rules.
We must either say that the rules are the necessary entity or matter/energy is ...So you are accepting that matter/energy or their governing rules may be the the necessary entity (if there even is one). Well those things clearly lie within the sphere of the physical world, not outside it, they are clearly amenable to standard scientific observations. So you seem to be arguing against yourself as elsewhere you seemed to imply that a necessary entity must exists entirely outwith the physical world, not interact with the physical world and therefore not be amenable to standard scientific observation.
... or look elsewhere.Indeed - but the place to look would be within the sphere of the physical world involving entities that are part of that physical world and interact with other entities (contingent ones) within that physical world.
Of the two, the rules of nature with an existence independent of matter energy is to my mind a better candidate for necessary entity than matter/energy/rules or matter/energy, since matter/energy can be actualised.Depends on what you mean by the rules of nature - I think this kind of implies life, in which case I'd close you down straight away as it is pretty clear that life doesn't need to exist for the universe to exist so cannot be a necessary entity. Fundamental principles of physics - well perhaps.
Nope you are getting it wrong - let's imagine that the governing rules of nature are the necessary entity - not only would they apply to themselves (obviously) but they also apply to all the contingent elements - hence those elements are contingent. The notion that a necessary entity sits in perfect isolation and somehow has no interaction with the contingent entities is clearly nonsense as those contingent entities would therefore not be contingent on the necessary entity.I am not saying that matter/energy is independent of the necessary being.
I know it suits your unevidenced assertion to try to make out that a necessary entity somehow sits outside the physical world, but this is incoherent and baseless.Not at all, what I am saying is that it is independent for it's existence from the physical world which as the contingent thing is clearly not independent of the necessary being for it's existence
So you are accepting that matter/energy or their governing rules may be the the necessary entity (if there even is one). Well those things clearly lie within the sphere of the physical world,And are observed to be contingent, thus ending any claim to being the necessary entity.
Prof and others,I don't think anyone is listening to you.
What's the point of arguing with Vlad about something he hasn't demonstrates even exists and hasn't defined in any way? He can and is just making shit up to suit his baseless superstition.
... the necessary entity.But there may not be a necessary entity.
And are observed to be contingent,Are they, all of them - evidence please.
... thus ending any claim to being the necessary entity.See above - but you are also making a presumption that there is a necessary entity - that isn't proven in any way.
I don't think anyone is listening to you.
What I am suggesting is that the contingencies of the physical world are not independent of the necessary entity but the necessity of the necessary entity is independent of the contingencies of the physical world. You see, not baseless at all...In which case they would be perfectly amenable to standard scientific observation which could either observe the entity directly or indirectly through its actions on other entities. Which doesn't seem to be consistent with your previous view that somehow a necessary entity must not be amenable to standard scientific observation.
... but the necessity of the necessary entity ...Once again your presumption that there is a necessary entity.
Are they, all of them - evidence please.There are reasons and logic to suggest the necessary entity. All you are saying is there is no scientific proof. I am putting that down to the limitations of science, you believe that science IS the limit and that, professor is a philosophical argument not a scientific one.
See above - but you are also making a presumption that there is a necessary entity - that isn't proven in any way.
There are reasons and logic to suggest the necessary entity.There are also reasons and logic to suggest that there isn't a necessary entity, so back to my question:
Once again your presumption that there is a necessary entity.There are reasons for my presumption as you call it. I'm afraid there is no clear refutation of the argument from contingency.
Simple question for you Vlad:
Do you accept that there may not be a necessary entity?
Simple Yes/No answer is all that is required
There are also reasons and logic to suggest that there isn't a necessary entity, so back to my question:What are they?
There are reasons for my presumption as you call it. I'm afraid there is no clear refutation of the argument from contingency.
All you are saying is there is no scientific proof. I am putting that down to the limitations of science, you believe that science IS the limit and that, professor is a philosophical argument not a scientific one.Not at all - what I am saying is that if there is a necessary entity, that entity must interact and affect contingent entities and therefore must be amenable to standard scientific observation, either directly or indirectly.
There are reasons for my presumption as you call it. I'm afraid there is no clear refutation of the argument from contingency.Fudge - it is a simple question, so I'll ask it again:
In which case they would be perfectly amenable to standard scientific observation which could either observe the entity directly or indirectly through its actions on other entities. Which doesn't seem to be consistent with your previous view that somehow a necessary entity must not be amenable to standard scientific observation.My own advice would be to look for a particle maybe which gives rise to a plethora of various different particles while demonstrating no change in itself.
Fudge - it is a simple question, so I'll ask it again:No.....I cannot see it, it is illogical
Do you accept that there may not be a necessary entity?
Simple Yes/No answer is all that is required
Why do you think there might not be a necessary entity? Because it hasn't been proved scientifically?Unlike you I will answer the question:
No.....I cannot see it, it is illogicalThat you cannot see it isn't a credible argument. Nor is it is illogical - as there are plenty of arguments for the universe that don't require a necessary entity, noting that you need to recognise that time and space aren't some kind of fixed element, so all the arguments about what happened before the universe was formed or what is outside the universe are predicated.
Unlike you I will answer the question:So, no scientific proof.....That argument is therefore rooted in philosophical empiricism and scientism. Which are philosophical not scientific arguments.
Until there is credible evidence for the existence of a necessary entity we cannot distinguish between:
a). A situation where there is a necessary entity but we have not yet been able to observe it/gain credible evidence for its existence
b). A situation where there is no necessary entity
Hence the rational and logical position to take is firstly to accept both remain possibilities until or unless we gain the evidence and that we should work hard on methods to understand the universe which may help us understand which of a) or b) is the case. This is, of course, what physicists around the world are doing.
So, no scientific proof.....That argument is therefore rooted in philosophical empiricism and scientism. Which are philosophical not scientific arguments.Oh dear Vlad you are so dogmatic, and dogmatically wrong.
That you cannot see it isn't a credible argument. Nor is it is illogical - as there are plenty of arguments for the universe that don't require a necessary entity, noting that you need to recognise that time and space aren't some kind of fixed element, so all the arguments about what happened before the universe was formed or what is outside the universe are predicated.The argument from contingency does not depend on time.
The notion of a necessary entity is just as illogical and it simply revisits the it just is argument aligned to infinite regress.
There remains no clear philosophical refutation of the argument from Contingency. It remains the most reasonable argument due to the principle of sufficient reason.
The argument from contingency does not depend on time.
The argument from contingency does not depend on time.Yes it does as the standard argument from contingency is based on a series of cause/effect elements - A causes B, B causes C, C causes D etc. But that is predicated on a series of temporal events that work fine in our general linear temporal world where time is a constant and runs in one direction only. But that isn't necessarily the case.
Yes it does as the standard argument from contingency is based on a series of cause/effect elements - A causes B, B causes C, C causes D etc.
Vladdism:
1. I believe something to be true.
2. I believe it to be true because I have an argument to justify my belief.
3. I’m not going to tell you what that argument is.
4. You haven't refuted the argument that I keep secret.
5. Therefore the argument is sound.
6. Therefore the belief is justified.
7. Repeat endlessly.
There are reasons and logic to suggest the necessary entity.What are they?
Except I think the argument is imaginary, rather than secret, so no matter what anybody says, he can just make up some bullshit in order to claim that it doesn't refute the (non-existent) argument
Actually, although the original (see the 'third way' here (https://human.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Philosophy/Words_of_Wisdom_-_Introduction_to_Philosophy_(Ondich)/02%3A_Medieval_Materials/2.05%3A_Aquinas-_Summa_Theologicae_Third_Article)) does depend on time, it isn't the same as a first cause argument that requires chains of cause and effect as you suggest. This is the problem with arguing about an argument that Vlad is just pretending has been made but won't specify.Indeed.
As it stands, the original is obviously silly but there have been several attempts to update it. However, as long as Vlad hides behind the ambiguity, he can just make up any shit he wants and get others to run around after him.
(Clarke's) Argument from contingency (courtesy of Introduction to Philosophy, by Philip A. Pecorino - https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%203%20Religion/Cosmological.htm (https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%203%20Religion/Cosmological.htm))If not every entity can be contingent is false. Please demonstrate how every being can be contingent is true.
Premises:
1. Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary.
2. Not every being can be contingent.
3. Therefore, there exists a necessary being on which the contingent beings depend.
4. A necessary being, on which all contingent things depend, is what we mean by “God”.
Conclusion:
5. Therefore, God exists.
There are a number of criticisms of the various stage of this, but for me the most obvious is that point 2 is completely baseless - there is no definitive reason why everything in existence should not be contingent on prior events. Therefore, the argument fails.
O.
(Clarke's) Argument from contingency (courtesy of Introduction to Philosophy, by Philip A. Pecorino - https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%203%20Religion/Cosmological.htm (https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/intro_text/Chapter%203%20Religion/Cosmological.htm))The notion of contingency is meaningless without the context of necessity. The trouble is I think, we have gentlemen either been taught that language is pliable or we've deliberately been dishonest in our use of it.
Premises:
1. Every being that exists is either contingent or necessary.
2. Not every being can be contingent.
3. Therefore, there exists a necessary being on which the contingent beings depend.
4. A necessary being, on which all contingent things depend, is what we mean by “God”.
Conclusion:
5. Therefore, God exists.
There are a number of criticisms of the various stage of this, but for me the most obvious is that point 2 is completely baseless - there is no definitive reason why everything in existence should not be contingent on prior events. Therefore, the argument fails.
O.
If not every entity can be contingent is false. Please demonstrate how every being can be contingent is true.Via an inter-related network and where time is relative and not fixed. Easy.
The notion of contingency is meaningless without the context of necessity.No it isn't - it is perfectly possible (and indeed happens all the time) to have systems in which each element is dependent on another element (all are contingent) but none is necessary, in other words has to exist. All you need is a system with multiple pathways and built in redundancy.
Via an inter-related network and where time is relative and not fixed. Easy.You have just labelled the one in front the necessary being without stating why. It was put to you that the argument from contingency is not dependent on spatial or temporal position but on being. In which case there is nothing about where a runner is which suggests his necessity or contingency.
I think the following analogy reflects your rather simplistic and naive view.
Imagine a situation where there is (from the perspective of a simplistic observer) a straight running track. The observer states that if there are five runners there must be one in front (the necessary entity) and the others following (contingent) and none of the other runners can ever reach the front unless they overtake the leader. Seems reasonable, but only if we accept a narrow view of space and time.
So on space - if the track is, in fact, not linear but circular, then it becomes perfectly possible to the last to appear to be first at a particular time without ever having to overtake anyone. And it becomes impossible to determine a leader (necessary entity) and indeed all of the runners are actually following someone else (all are contingent). Secondly on time - this only works if time is uni-directional (and remember that time is a relative phenomenon). If not then apparent reversal of time can make the race run backwards, so again the person perceived as first suddenly becomes last.Waste of time.
No it isn't - it is perfectly possible (and indeed happens all the time) to have systems in which each element is dependent on another element (all are contingent) but none is necessary, in other words has to exist. All you need is a system with multiple pathways and built in redundancy.This is like saying the universe comes about because there are lots of things in it. Completely unhelpful bollocks i'm afraid.
This is like saying the universe comes about because there are lots of things in it. Completely unhelpful bollocks i'm afraid.Oh dear the universe comes about - clearly implying time to be linear and unidirectional, in other words a time before the universe comes about and a time after it comes about. You are making unsubstantiated assumptions about time I'm afraid Vlad.
This is like saying the universe comes about because there are lots of things in it. Completely unhelpful bollocks i'm afraid.And actually I'm not talking about the universe per se, merely saying that it is perfectly possible (and demonstrable) for systems to contain only contingent entities, so that any single entity can be removed without affecting the integrity of the network - in other words no entity is necessary (i.e. has to exist for the rest of the entities to exist and be functional).
The notion of contingency is meaningless without the context of necessity. The trouble is I think, we have gentlemen either been taught that language is pliable or we've deliberately been dishonest in our use of it.
And actually I'm not talking about the universe per se, merely saying that it is perfectly possible (and demonstrable) for systems to contain only contingent entities, so that any single entity can be removed without affecting the integrity of the network - in other words no entity is necessary (i.e. has to exist for the rest of the entities to exist and be functional).Yes what you are saying is your system has been constructed that way to function on it's own. So if you are include the necessity and that isn't part of the system. The contingency can work by itself. That could describe deism where God or the necessary entity has removed itself having constructed a universe to do that. You haven't removed the necessary entity, It has removed itself of course. The problem with deism is there are no guarantees that the necssary entity does not slot himself back in on occasions.
It doesn't seem to make any dent on the argument from contingency.
Yes what you are saying is your system has been constructed that way to function on it's own.Some of these systems self-assemble so aren't really constructed that way
Vlad,The one that has led Professor Davey to acknowledge there might be a necessary entity?
What argument from contingency - the one you either don't have or do have but want to keep secret?
The one that has led Professor Davey to acknowledge there might be a necessary entity?
Now you've returned what with you and that other chap ''Never talk''(If only he took his own advice) I don't know if I want to stick around to be Gaslit.
Some of these systems self-assemble so aren't really constructed that wayBut do the components self assemble, and if so from what?
You also seem terribly confused between necessary elements (in other words something that cannot fail to exist for other contingent things to happen) and first cause. They aren't the same, albeit presumably a first cause would also be a necessary entity, noting that the whole concept of first cause is predicated on time being uni-linear and constant, which isn't necessarily the case.
So there can be plenty of entities that are both necessary within one context, but contingent within another.
Vlad,
"Might be"? There might be anything - leprechauns included. How does that supported you're entirely un-argued assertion that there is a necessary entity?QuoteAnything is possible is not an argument because it clearly ignores the possibility of the impossible. More meaningless durry from the House of Hillside, I'm afraid.
Anything is possible is not an argument because it clearly ignores the possibility of the impossible. More meaningless durry from the House of Hillside, I'm afraid.
The one that has led Professor Davey to acknowledge there might be a necessary entity?
Now you've returned what with you and that other chap ''Never talk''(If only he took his own advice) I don't know if I want to stick around to be Gaslit.
...as I keep saying to you the argument from contingency is not dependent on time.
The original (Aquinas, see #428 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18825.msg839606#msg839606)) does depend on time. So, once again, we have you just making shit up about an argument that, as far as anybody here can tell, simply doesn't exist.I'm struggling to see how any form of the argument from contingency cannot be dependent on time.
I'm struggling to see how any form of the argument from contingency cannot be dependent on time.The argument from contingency involves dependence so My existence emerges from a lower level of organisation and so on and so forth until we get to the final necessary entity. Another analogy might be an infinity of moving railway trucks where there has to be some kind of locomotive entity moving them, funnily enough this is known in the transportation industry as the prime mover, yet another an infinty caused by perfectly aligned mirrors empty until I put my hand between them or an infinity of people owed a fiver forever disappointed until someone actually puts in a fiver. I believe There are arguments involving temporal relationships and heirarchiess and these are often mistaken for the argument from contingency and I'm not convinced that we .
So if x is contingent on y, which is therefore necessary for x to occur that is surely dependent on a temporal path from y to x. Noting that time is a relative concept, if time were reversed then you'd reverse your argument so now you would have y contingent on x, which is therefore necessary for y to occur.
It is like my runner analogy - unless you accept time to be unilinear it becomes impossible to determine who is in the lead and who is following.
Goodness knows why the Prof is playing your gameI would imagine it might have something to do with not dismissing the principle of sufficient reason out of hand.
I'm struggling to see how any form of the argument from contingency cannot be dependent on time.
As I said, the original does depend on time (because it assumes all contingent things will at some time not exist), but Vlad is probably confusing the argument with some other versions where there is a hierarchy of dependence (if you want to waste an hour of your life you could watch this: An Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God Edward C Feser, PhD (https://youtu.be/Z5PjiS1MJM8), which is probably part of what he's got in mind), but as long as he refuses to be explicit about the supposed argument, it's anybody's guess and he can just go on making any shit up he wants about his (secret/non-existent) argument.On what warrant do you refer to any of Aquinus' arguments as ''the original?'' Even If it was and there are subsequent modifications so what? Nobody gives a shit that Einstein changed his tune.
The argument from contingency involves...
On what warrant do you refer to any of Aquinus' arguments as ''the original?'' Even If it was and there are subsequent modifications so what? Nobody gives a shit that Einstein changed his tune.
My existence emerges ...emerges - you can't see beyond a narrow universe in which time is constant and unilinear can you Vlad. emerges is clearly a term associated with time. So if time runs in reverse then you disappear, if time stops then the concept of emerging - being not there on moment and there the next, simply has no relevance.
Another analogy might be an infinity of moving railway trucks where there has to be some kind of locomotive entity moving them, funnily enough this is known in the transportation industry as the prime mover,A terribly poor analogy as the notion of movement is relative - so does the train move or does the surrounding countryside move. Also back to time - whether the train appears to move and in which direction is entirely dependent on time.
yet another an infinty caused by perfectly aligned mirrors empty until I put my hand between them or an infinity of people owed a fiver forever disappointed until someone actually puts in a fiver.Another terrible analogy - you are assuming the people are already there so why not the fiver - you can easily have an infinity of fiver passing events involving ten people in a circle continually passing the fiver one to another infinitely, It involves the people and it involves the fiver but which is necessary and which contingent for this infinite passage to happen. Well actually both the people and the fiver are, at the same time, both necessary and contingent.
emerges - you can't see beyond a narrow universe in which time is constant and unilinear can you Vlad. emerges is clearly a term associated with time. So if time runs in reverse then you disappear, if time stops then the concept of emerging - being not there on moment and there the next, simply has no relevance.I think it is you who is taking a temporal view of things like emergence. Water is wet, the wetness is due to the amount and nature of molecules, neither has to wait for those properties which are due instantaneously to the nature of the atoms involved and thus at any point there exists a heirarchy of dependency. Now points are spaceless and timeless.
A terribly poor analogy as the notion of movement is relative - so does the train move or does the surrounding countryside move. Also back to time - whether the train appears to move and in which direction is entirely dependent on time.
Another terrible analogy - you are assuming the people are already there so why not the fiver - you can easily have an infinity of fiver passing events involving ten people in a circle continually passing the fiver one to another infinitely, It involves the people and it involves the fiver but which is necessary and which contingent for this infinite passage to happen. Well actually both the people and the fiver are, at the same time, both necessary and contingent.
You do not seem to understand the purposes of analogy. In the case of the fiver the people just provide an example of an infinity. They represent an infinite emptiness of fivers.So you can just a well say that a fiver without the people represents an infinite emptiness of people.
Unless a fiver is put in that infinity of folk will be bereft of a fiver.Unless the people are there the fiver will be bereft of the people so it cannot be moved from one person to another.
So you can just a well say that a fiver without the people represents an infinite emptiness of people.I think the point is rather ''Why, if we are talking about infinity, which is the only thing possibly negating the significance of time, would we have an infinity of something rather than nothing?'' A. Something has to be put in.
Unless the people are there the fiver will be bereft of the people so it cannot be moved from one person to another.
So in this case both are required to exist for the outcome (infinite moving of a fiver) to exist - if either the people or the fiver does not exist the overall action is impossible, hence both are necessary (i.e. cannot not exist for the outcome to be achieved). But at the same time each is contingent on the other - the people require the presence of the fiver and the fiver requires the presence of the people for the outcome to be achieved.
I fully understand analogy, it is that yours are exceptionally poor and fail even to come close to justifying your position that there must be a necessary entity and all other things are contingent. Your analogy cogently describes a situation where the people and the five are both necessary and contingent at the same time.
I think the point is rather ''Why, if we are talking about infinity, which is the only thing possibly negating the significance of time,Nonsense - the issue of the non linearity and constancy of time is not related to infinity.
would we have an infinity of something rather than nothing?'' A. Something has to be put in.Well of course you can have an infinity of nothing - but if we are talking about something, then something has to be there - it doesn't have to be put in which simply begs the question, from where and comes back to your real problem with understanding time as anything other than constant and unilinear - you are implying that previously it used to be somewhere else and then was put in. Another assertion of temporal linearity
An infinity of dependence and therefore contingency looks like never being satisfied.I have no idea what you are on about.
Why don't you actually come up with some kind of explanation or theory that you actually believe in rather than make these completely unintelligent and unintelligible psycho-babble sound bites.
Because he's too scared of not being able to defend it. ::)I suspect it is more fundamental than that - I doubt he even has an argument to defend.
The notion of contingency is meaningless without the context of necessity.No, it's turtles all the way down.
The trouble is I thinkThe trouble is that you re confusing the concept with the reality.
If the universe is contingent the next logical question is ''On what''? If your answer is nothing then you have declared the universe necessary. It is unavoidable.OK fine. That works for me.
No, it's turtles all the way down.QuoteEvidence?Yes you've claimed to know cosmic reality before have you considered you might be delusional?
The trouble is that you re confusing the concept with the realityQuote. OK fine. That works for me.really so what's the sufficient reason for the universe being the necessary entity.NB. The universe just is is not the same as declaring the universe as the necessary entity. Over to you.
really so what's the sufficient reason for the universe being the necessary entity.NB. The universe just is is not the same as declaring the universe as the necessary entity. Over to you.
Yes you've claimed to know cosmic reality before have you considered you might be delusional?Nope. I've never claimed to know cosmic reality.
really so what's the sufficient reason for the universe being the necessary entity.one sufficient reason would be that, if nothing created the Universe, it is necessary, by definition.
NB. The universe just is is not the same as declaring the universe as the necessary entity. Over to you.I'm not declaring the Universe the necessary entity, I'm just declaring that we don't know whether it is or not. Furthermore, it seems pointless speculating about the nature of its creator when we don't yet know if it had one.
Well I find that statement one that leaves me wondering whether to counter it or not. I find myself finding that statement fair.
one sufficient reason would be that, if nothing created the Universe, it is necessary, by definition.
One thing I am fairly sure of is that any creator of the Universe - even if it was interested in the fates of some life forms on one of the planets orbiting one of the hundreds of billions of stars in one of the hundreds of billions of galaxies - would find a better way of saving us than pretending to be a human and pretending to be executed.I think when the pagan later roman emperor Julian the apostate was dying was troubled by what strange incarnations of Jesus might exist cosmically so wondering how God relates to other beings like us in intelligence and consciousness and moral dilemmae has a bit of a history.
Well I find that statement one that leaves me wondering whether to counter it or not.How can you counter a definition?
For me and probably science too, the universe looks completely contingent.What are the characteristics of an object that make it look completely contingent? For me, the one that would matter is that the object had a cause. What is it about the Universe that makes it look like it had a cause?
So what I am looking at is not necessary.Generally speaking, you are looking at things in the Universe, not the Universe itself.
That doesn't mean there isn't a necessary it leaves me asking what it is about the universe that is necessary?
How can you counter a definition?Ever observable thing seems to have a cause. Going by the law of mediocrity, science will find that the laws that govern the universe are the same throughout the universe.
What are the characteristics of an object that make it look completely contingent? For me, the one that would matter is that the object had a cause. What is it about the Universe that makes it look like it had a cause?
Generally speaking, you are looking at things in the Universe, not the Universe itself.QuoteI don't think so since I am the one postulating the necessary entity, You, only a recent and grudging assenter the notion. When me or anyone observes the visible universe, according to you we are not. How can you square those two sentiments. All you are saying in a roundabout way is what I think your saying is that there is something about the universe which is necessary. To which the next question is what is it that we are not seeing or observing about the universe and I say we because you aren't either.
Further though the only sense I can make of your bizarre statements about looking at the universe and not looking at the universe is that what you are saying is the only way we can see the universe is by not being part of it or external to it. That is a position only occupied by the necessary entityQuoteI'm not sure why you are having such trouble with this. Do you need me to explain to you what "necessary" means in this context?Please feel free.
Still no argument, definitions, or explanations from Vlad the coward.Not according to Stanford University meta review. And I'd rather take their word than yours if your deranged and disturbed posts are anything to go by.
The 'argument from contingency' is dead in the water and is easily refuted.
Not according to Stanford University meta review.
After all they, your posts, seem to say that the argument I have allegedly failed to give has magically some strange how been refuted SEVERAL TIMES Ha Ha Ha.
[citation missing]Not only has academic philosophy failed to ''sink'' Argument from contingency, Perhaps the greatest mind of public, campaigning atheism who still maintains respect for philosophy Sean M. Carroll is still apparently searching, in between his day job for a way around the principle of Sufficient reason.
There is nothing "allegedly" about your failure to give an argument, the evidence is in this thread. If I'm wrong you could easily point to where you've given it.
I just decided to use your own approach, Vlad. You made the claim "There remains no clear philosophical refutation of the argument from Contingency." (#422 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=18825.msg839600#msg839600)), without actually ever saying what the argument was, so I didn't see why I couldn't make the opposite claim without saying what the refutation was.
Are you starting to get any hint of the problem here? Is any part of this sinking in at all? Even a little bit?
Nothing?
Not only has academic philosophy failed to ''sink'' Argument from contingency, Perhaps the greatest mind of public, campaigning atheism who still maintains respect for philosophy Seam M. Carroll is still apparently searching, in between his day job for a way around the principle of Sufficient reason.
On has to respect him but not Bertrand Russell or Dawkins who both merely appealed to'' brute fact'' to declare themselves right about the universe.
Claim, claim, claim,.... ::)https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#Obje3PrinCausSuffReasSusp
Still no argument and still no reference to an argument.
What you don't seem to grasp (and if you knew even a tiny bit of logic or philosophy, you would) is that nobody needs an alternative explanation to dismiss an argument if it isn't sound, or, in this case, non-existent. Nobody has to scrabble around looking for something 'necessary'. They wouldn't even if anybody had made the case that there must be such a thing. It's entirely up to those proposing something specific (like a god) to make their case. This is the basic, simple, philosophical burden of proof.
Claim, claim, claim,.... ::)If argument from contingency has the burden of proof what do you think the agreed default position is?
Still no argument and still no reference to an argument.
What you don't seem to grasp (and if you knew even a tiny bit of logic or philosophy, you would) is that nobody needs an alternative explanation to dismiss an argument if it isn't sound, or, in this case, non-existent. Nobody has to scrabble around looking for something 'necessary'. They wouldn't even if anybody had made the case that there must be such a thing. It's entirely up to those proposing something specific (like a god) to make their case. This is the basic, simple, philosophical burden of proof.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/#Obje3PrinCausSuffReasSusp
Objection 3: The Principles of Causation and Sufficient Reason Are Suspect
Now can you reference those papers where the argument from Contingency has been ''sunk''.
If argument from contingency has the burden of proof what do you think the agreed default position is?
Ever observable thing seems to have a cause.You mean every observable thing in the Universe seems to have a cause. It's a fallacy to attempt to deduce from that that the Universe has a cause.
You mean every observable thing in the Universe seems to have a cause. It's a fallacy to attempt to deduce from that that the Universe has a cause.Everything in the universe is contingent therefore the universe is necessary?
Everybody in the room was wearing trousers. Therefore the room was wearing trousers.
Everything in the universe is contingent therefore the universe is necessary?When you put it like that, it's obvious your argument is a non sequitur.
When you put it like that, it's obvious your argument is a non sequitur.What is it about the universe that is necessary?
I should, of course, have added that the whole concept of a 'necessary being' is logically questionable, at least in the sense that it is something that must exist (as has been suggested here). There is nothing we can imagine that would cause a contradiction if it didn't exist.Not sure about this. Take the greatest contingent thing that can be imagined. Say, the universe. The question then is on what is it contingent on?
What is it about the universe that is necessary?
They do if they declare the universe may be or is the necessary entity. Since that is a positive assertion.
- Nobody has to say what is necessary when you haven't made the case that anything is.
Not sure about this. Take the greatest contingent thing that can be imagined. Say, the universe. The question then is on what is it contingent on?
If you imagine the universe to be necessary, the next question is what is the sufficient reason for it.
You will also no doubt remember this gem from the stamford university meta review on the argument.
'' even those who critique the PSR (understood broadly that every contingent thing, event. or fact must have a sufficient cause, reason, or ground) invoke it when they suggest that defenders of the principle have failed to provide a sufficient reason for thinking it is true.''
What is it about the universe that is necessary?
Are you not a part of the universe. If all the parts are contingent.....what is it about the universe that is necessary?
Two things, the fallacy of composition occurs when we extend the properties of some of the parts. All parts we see seem to be contingent.
Anything with parts is definitionally contingent. What then is it about the universe that is Necessary?
They do if they declare the universe may be or is the necessary entity. Since that is a positive assertion.
Again what do you think is the default position here?
Saying something may be is a very different claim than saying something is. All a 'may be' claim requires is that we don't know that it's false.That's only if the questions aren't stupid.
Just the same as it always is. You want to claim that we can deduce god from some argument, it's up to you to make said argument. If any steps are questionable or any deduced entities may refer to something else, then the case has not been made and the deduction fails.
And that is?
Just the same as it always is.
Saying something may be is a very different claim than saying something is.
NTtS,What a 'maybe' means is that the something in question is not logically impossible or unreasonable. You are appealing to your own bollocks argument thrown in when your back, as it frequently is, is against the wall that ''everything is possible.'' Were that so then the impossible would be possible. So that's one to add to the litany of shite arguments.
Quite. Of all the lies, evasions, misrepresentations, straw men, non sequiturs, endless fallacies etc on which Vlad relies this at heart is the one he depends on the most: time and again he elides a could be into an is – either by insisting an interlocutor defend an is when all that’s been argued is a could be, or by claiming for himself an is when all he has is a could be. Given how may time this has been explained to him he’s either very dim or very dishonest (or a bit of both) but he’ll never change.
What a 'maybe' means is that the something in question is not logically impossible or unreasonable.
You are appealing to your own bollocks argument thrown in when your back, as it frequently is, is against the wall that ''everything is possible.''
Were that so then the impossible would be possible. So that's one to add to the litany of shite arguments.
That's only if the questions aren't stupid.
I question your questioning since any idiot can say I question that or that is questionable which so far is your limit.
And that is?
If not every entity can be contingent is false. Please demonstrate how every being can be contingent is true.
The notion of contingency is meaningless without the context of necessity.
The trouble is I think, we have gentlemen either been taught that language is pliable or we've deliberately been dishonest in our use of it.
So nonsense like contingency without necessity has come about.
If the universe is contingent the next logical question is ''On what''? If your answer is nothing then you have declared the universe necessary. It is unavoidable.
I presume this is supposed to be a single sentence? Every thing is contingent if reality is infinite - there is no 'start', there is no arbitrary 'beginning', reality extends without end, and our universe is just one element within it.Deepity.
Vlad,Yes and I have given the reasons why: Everything observed looks contingent. Therefore the universe as known or observable is uniformly contingent.
Nobody on this thread has stated that the Universe is contingent or not contingent except you.
Yes and I have given the reasons why: Everything observed looks contingent. Therefore the universe as known or observable is uniformly contingent.
There is nothing observed in the universe that is necessary.
There is nothing observed that hasn't arisen from some cosmic soup.
Since the cosmic soup changed it is considered contingent.
The objection to that is that anything with parts can be considered contingent.
I suppose you could get round that...
Everything observed looks contingent. Therefore the universe as known or observable is uniformly contingent.
Yes and I have given the reasons why: Everything observed looks contingent. Therefore the universe as known or observable is uniformly contingent.It's been explained to you why this reasoning is fallacious.
There is nothing observed in the universe that is necessary. There is nothing observed that hasn't arisen from some cosmic soup.
Secondly you suggested the universe is more than the sum of it's parts and the universe as such could be necessary.No. I explained to you that the Universe is not just the things inside it.
The objection to that is that anything with parts can be considered contingent.
Regards the necessary entity being God. The endowments of the philosophical being as outlined by Aquinus are exactly what Christians have in mind when thinking of God. In terms ofEven if all of those points held for the creator of the Universe, they do not imply the Christian god. Nor do the make the creator of our universe necessary.
Independence from the contingent universe(sovereignty)
Creator of the contingent universe
The giving of natural laws up to an including the conduct of mankind/sentient intelligent and conscious being.
Personality as defined by independence from natural laws (Total free will equivalent)Activity is totally derived from self.
Deepity.
Since the cosmic soup changed it is considered contingent.Why. For something to be deemed necessary it needs to be essential for other things to exist. That doesn't mean that the necessary thing need to exist for ever, nor that is cannot be changed. All that is needed is for it to exist for sufficient time for the contingent entities to come into existence. Once that has happened its job is done and it can vanish or be changed through action with the contingent entities and that will have no bearing whatsoever on whether that entity was necessary.
Why. For something to be deemed necessary it needs to be essential for other things to exist. That doesn't mean that the necessary thing need to exist for ever, nor that is cannot be changed. All that is needed is for it to exist for sufficient time for the contingent entities to come into existence. Once that has happened its job is done and it can vanish or be changed through action with the contingent entities and that will have no bearing whatsoever on whether that entity was necessary.To add to this, the Christian god blatantly changes. If incarnating as a human isn't change, what is?
To add to this, the Christian god blatantly changes. If incarnating as a human isn't change, what is?And if Vlad suggests this wasn't a change driven by a contingent entity, then surely that argument cannot be applied to the purported crucifixion in which 'contingent entities' (people) cause Jesus to change from being alive to being dead.
It's been explained to you why this reasoning is fallacious.If you are talking about the fallacy of composition I'm afraid I talked about the whole universe as we have observed it. There is nothing in the whole observed universe which we have not observed scientifically. Therefore since it looks as if it has all derived from something which changed. It is observed as wholly contingent. Your argument accusing me of fallacy of composition only works if we took a sample of the observed universe and extended the properties of that sample to the whole universe. But I am not doing that, what I am saying is that the whole observed universe is contingent.
No. I explained to you that the Universe is not just the things inside it.I asked you to explain this and you didn't. My contention is that the observed universe is exactly what it says on the tin. You acknowledge that but say that the observed universe is the things in it. Agreed. But then you merely assert that the universe (the things in it) is not just the things in it.
To add to this, the Christian god blatantly changes. If incarnating as a human isn't change, what is?God in christianity is both God and man. A man changes but the God in the man stays the same......I find it remarkable that bronze age goatherders preempted your objection 2000 years before the fact.
Why. For something to be deemed necessary it needs to be essential for other things to exist. That doesn't mean that the necessary thing need to exist for ever, nor that is cannot be changed. All that is needed is for it to exist for sufficient time for the contingent entities to come into existence. Once that has happened its job is done and it can vanish or be changed through action with the contingent entities and that will have no bearing whatsoever on whether that entity was necessary.Jesus as described by mainstream christianity is both God and man. The man changes but the God in the man remains the same.
Jesus as described by mainstream christianity is both God and man. The man changes but the God in the man remains the same.So what - you have failed to address my question.
So what - you have failed to address my question.let's see. After you were concieved there was no real reason for your father to continue to exist since you could have been raised by wolves.
Where in the definition of a necessary entity is the requirement for this entity to always exist. That is an entirely different matter. So something to be a necessary entity it needs to exist to allow other things (contingent entities) to come into existence and exist and for certain outcomes to flow - there is no requirement for the necessary entity to continue to exist once the 'necessary' element of its actions are complete. Nor is there any requirement for the contingent elements not to be able to impact on the necessary entity once they have come into existence.
If you are talking about the fallacy of composition I'm afraid I talked about the whole universe as we have observed it. There is nothing in the whole observed universe which we have not observed scientifically. Therefore since it looks as if it has all derived from something which changed. It is observed as wholly contingent.
Your argument accusing me of fallacy of composition only works if we took a sample of the observed universe and extended the properties of that sample to the whole universe. But I am not doing that, what I am saying is that the whole observed universe is contingent.
That leads to the next question which you haven't answered ''what then is it about the universe that a) Is not just the observed b) not contingent.
The man changes but the God in the man remains the same.
The necessary being is independent of time and therefore any need or other wise of continuation after a sell by date. Or whether there is a requirement for him or not.
And the fact remains that something that doesn't change, can't think, can't plan, can't act, and hence can't create anything or incarnate itself.That might be true of something frozen at a point of time but something in and with eternity? I'm not so sure. I think thinking, planning etc,are mere analogies of what God achieves.
The necessary being is independent of time and therefore any need or other wise of continuation after a sell by date. Or whether there is a requirement for him or not.Independent of time, but apparently not independent of gender.
Independent of time, but apparently not independent of gender.OK her or it.
The first is baseless assertion, the second clearly demonstrates a narrow anthropocentric mindset. But hey what else would you expect from a person who believes in a man-made god that men have determined is kind of like a super-human and becomes a man. :o
OK her or it.Too late - shows you achingly obvious narrow bias.
Too late - shows you achingly obvious narrow bias.It's the convention and if it pisses the committee who have ruled this sexist behaviour off but even more importantly pisses you off, I'm sticking with it.
Your argument accusing me of fallacy of composition only works if we took a sample of the observed universe and extended the properties of that sample to the whole universe.
But I am not doing that, what I am saying is that the whole observed universe is contingent.
Vlad,Wait a minute, are you saying that there is part of the universe that is unobserved? If it's unobserved what warrant do you have to definitely say it isn't as contingent as the rest.....or necessary even?
Except of course “the whole observed universe” is just a sample of the universe itself, so the fallacy of composition is precisely what’s you’ve done.
I saw someone stand up at a cricket match a while ago to get a better view. Should I therefore infer, based on my sample of the observed crowd, that if everyone stood up they’d all get a better view? Why not?
Except it may not be, and again - so what? How have you made the leap from that part of the universe we happen to have observed to the properties of the universe as a whole?
Good luck with that.
That might be true of something frozen at a point of time but something in and with eternity?
Wait a minute, are you saying that there is part of the universe that is unobserved? If it's unobserved what warrant do you have to definitely say it isn't as contingent as the rest.....or necessary even?
Science doesn't say that there is anything more than the observed universe does it.
Wait a minute, are you saying that there is part of the universe that is unobserved?
If it's unobserved what warrant do you have to definitely say it isn't as contingent as the rest.....or necessary even?
Science doesn't say that there is anything more than the observed universe does it.
You are arguing from pure scientism.
I thought you guys were strong on evidence. Not so it now seems.
You've 'forgotten' the burden of proof again. It's you who is trying to make a case. It's not up to the rest of us to give an alternative model, just show that your argument is full of holes. Actually more hole, than argument, to be honest.No. Hillside is saying I am wrong because i'm only describing the observed universe and he is saying we are not seeing the whole story. Scientifically he cannot demonstrate that this unobserved part of the universe even exists and yet he is declaring me wrong on the strength of this unobserved part of the universe.
Science provides very good reasons to think that the universe is much bigger than the observable universe.
Vlad,We have no evidence of your unobserved part of the universe. That is plain logic. Therefore you merely believe like I do that not everything that is is that which is observed. Now , do you say it is contingent or necessary.
Most of it is unobserved: https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy
Shifting the burden of proof fallacy (again). No-one definitely says that – all that’s being said is that you cannot infer a property of the whole from the (relatively limited) observations of some of its constituents. You on the other hand do make a definite statement (that the universe must be contingent on something else), and then used the (supposed) gap it opens to fill with the claim “god”.
Of course it does – that’s why people keep doing it. Pluto had long been known to exist, but it wasn’t until the New Horizons mission sent back pictures that we found out more about it.
Lying won’t help you here – and that’s not what “scientism” means.
Stop embarrassing yourself. Again: you don’t (presumably) think that, based on your observation of one spectator, if everyone stood up at the cricket match they’d all have a better view. Why then commit the same logical howler with your assertion about the universe as a whole being contingent?
Good grief.
No. Hillside is saying I am wrong because i'm only describing the observed universe and he is saying we are not seeing the whole story. Scientifically he cannot demonstrate that this unobserved part of the universe even exists and yet he is declaring me wrong on the strength of this unobserved part of the universe.
If he is saying there is an unobserved part of the universe is he saying it is contingent or necessary?
Do you still not understand the burden of proof, after all this time? ::)Do you still not understand that you cannot argue that someone is wrong and claim that you are simultaneously not arguing that they are right or wrong.
It's not about making a claim about the unobserved universe, it's just about fact that you are trying to make some sort of general claim from a sample. It means you haven't made your case, not that you're definitely wrong because we know something specific about what you've left out.
When will you get it into your head that nobody needs an alternative conjecture in order to point to the holes in yours?
FFS, you haven't even made the basic case that there must be something necessary yet, or even properly defined what you mean by it.
No. Hillside is saying I am wrong because i'm only describing the observed universe and he is saying we are not seeing the whole story. Scientifically he cannot demonstrate that this unobserved part of the universe even exists and yet he is declaring me wrong on the strength of this unobserved part of the universe.
If he is saying there is an unobserved part of the universe is he saying it is contingent or necessary?
Do you still not understand that you cannot argue that someone is wrong and claim that you are simultaneously not arguing that they are right or wrong.
Vlad,I'm sorry Hillside.
Once again: YOU are the one asserting the universe to be contingent on the basis of the observations we have of it. Unless YOU can demonstrate that somehow those observations tell us everything there is to know about the universe, then YOU are the one committing the fallacy of composition.
It’s that simple. Really, it is. for
I'm sorry Hillside.
It get's even worse for you since your default is the cosmos, all we can observe, is all there is.
And yet here you are arguing I am wrong based on the existence a so called part of the universe that isn't observed.
We have no evidence for that bit Hillside. You are therefore self contradictory appealing to an unproven thing when it suits, and then things which can only be proven when that suits.
Given then that the universe we observe is contingent and is the only universe we have evidence for,according to you then there is no validity in just calling it part of the universe. No fallacy of composition was therefore made by me.
[You still seem to be pushing this unvalidated unobserved bit of the universe. Is it contingent or necessary?
Vlad,Goodness me do I have to do it all for you. I have the luxury of suggesting that there is another unobserved part of the universe, I have the luxury of suggesting that it or part of it is necessary, you do not since your default is physicalism because that is all we observe. The verified universe is observed and observed to be changing and that makes it contingent. You are at liberty to suggest there may be an unobserved part of the universe in fact you have declared me wrong on the strength of there being one. You have no evidence for it. Given you are a physicalist I take it you are suggesting that this unverified universe is physical. Your physicalism is based on observation, your hidden unobserved universe isn't, you cannot as a physicalist entertain a non physical part of the universe and we know you are extrapolating your present observation.
You certainly should be.
No, that’s YOUR default remember? It would have to be for you to draw a conclusion about the universe as a whole without collapsing onto the fallacy of composition again.
No, I’m arguing that you’re wrong inasmuch as the reasoning you’re trying to justify your claim “the universe must be contingent on something else” is wrong. Whether it actually is contingent on something else is a different matter – you could be right about that just as a matter of guessing, but so what?
The stupidity is particularly deep here: yet again – to make YOUR claim “the universe must be contingent because of the contingency of the things in it” YOU need to show that all those things are known, for exactly the same reason that you’d need to know what happens when everyone stands up at the cricket match to make the claim that everyone would have a better view that way.
This shouldn’t be difficult to grasp, even for you.
Yet again: it’s “given that that part of the universe we happen to know about appears to be contingent” (itself a dubious claim as it happens) – you have no idea at all what else there is to know let alone whether anything we know so far tells us anything about the properties of universe as a whole.
I don’t know, but I’m not the one making any claims about that either way – YOU are. What I am arguing though is that your justification for asserting it to be contingent is wrong – flatly, plainly, boxer-twistingly wrong.
I'm sorry Hillside.
It get's even worse for you since your default is the cosmos, all we can observe, is all there is. And yet here you are arguing I am wrong based on the existence a so called part of the universe that isn't observed. We have no evidence for that bit Hillside. You are therefore self contradictory appealing to an unproven thing when it suits, and then things which can only be proven when that suits.
Given then that the universe we observe is contingent and is the only universe we have evidence for,according to you then there is no validity in just calling it part of the universe. No fallacy of composition was therefore made by me.
You still seem to be pushing this unvalidated unobserved bit of the universe. Is it contingent or necessary?
Vlad,No, I am asking, if the universe is necessary what is it about the universe which is necessary?
You certainly should be.
No, that’s YOUR default remember? It would have to be for you to draw a conclusion about the universe as a whole without collapsing onto the fallacy of composition again.
No, I’m arguing that you’re wrong inasmuch as the reasoning you’re trying to justify your claim “the universe must be contingent on something else” is wrong. Whether it actually is contingent on something else is a different matter – you could be right about that just as a matter of guessing, but so what?
The stupidity is particularly deep here: yet again – to make YOUR claim “the universe must be contingent because of the contingency of the things in it” Y
No, I am asking, if the universe is necessary what is it about the universe which is necessary?
I have the luxury of suggesting that there is another unobserved part of the universe, I have the luxury of suggesting that it or part of it is necessary, you do not since your default is physicalism because that is all we observe.
The verified universe is observed and observed to be changing and that makes it contingent.
You are at liberty to suggest there may be an unobserved part of the universe in fact you have declared me wrong...
If the universe you suggest is contingent then the next question is contingent on what?
No, I am asking, if the universe is necessary what is it about the universe which is necessary?
It's not on anyone else to prove that the universe itself is necessary, if it's being raised merely to point out that your claim 'God is necessary' (derived from the argument from contingency idea that 'something' has to be necessary) is not proven.Excuse me but we seem to have two of your ''evidentialists'' arguing for the existence of an unobserved part of the universe in order to prove me wrong...on no evidence.
For your claim of God (by way of the argument from contingency) to stand you have to show why 'the Universe' cannot be the 'necessary thing' instead of 'God'.
Off you go.
O.
Excuse me but we seem to have two of your ''evidentialists'' arguing for the existence of an unobserved part of the universe in order to prove me wrong...
I have the luxury of proposing an unseen part of the universe without hypocrisy, they don't
Goodness me do I have to do it all for you. I have the luxury of suggesting that there is another unobserved part of the universe, I have the luxury of suggesting that it or part of it is necessary, you do not since your default is physicalism because that is all we observe. The verified universe is observed and observed to be changing and that makes it contingent. You are at liberty to suggest there may be an unobserved part of the universe in fact you have declared me wrong on the strength of there being one. You have no evidence for it. Given you are a physicalist I take it you are suggesting that this unverified universe is physical. Your physicalism is based on observation, your hidden unobserved universe isn't, you cannot as a physicalist entertain a non physical part of the universe and we know you are extrapolating your present observation.
That leads us to the conclusion that the rest of the universe is therefore like the observable part of the universe and therefore contingent.
If the universe you suggest is contingent then the next question is contingent on what?
Vlad,My contention is that it is logical to expect a necessary entity due to the principle of sufficient reason and I think there are a few converts to that position here.
Yet again (and try to concentrate on what’s actually being said this time): YOU are the one asserting that’s what’s currently known about the universe justifies YOUR claim that it must be contingent on something else. It does no such thing though, for the reason that keeps being explained to you (fallacy of composition) and that you keep evading, misrepresenting, diverting from etc.
This is NOT about your positive claim that the universe must be contingent on something else.
Excuse me but we seem to have two of your ''evidentialists'' arguing for the existence of an unobserved part of the universe in order to prove me wrong...on no evidence.
Jeremy said that the universe being the necessary entity ''works'' for him. In which case we are entitled to ask why it works for him.
God works for me because the necessary being in all it's lovely attributes not only works for me but does so because of sufficient reason whereas all that has been evidenced in the universe looks contingent and has arisen because something else changed making the something else contingent.
If therefore there is any contradiction it is with your ''evidentists'' who are atheist on the strength of how the universe is observed to be but drop that to introduce an unobserved part of the universe.
I have the luxury of proposing an unseen non contingent part of the universe without hypocrisy, they don't.
On the other hand if they are proposing more of the same universe they are acknowledging it to be contingent.
It's the convention and if it pisses the committee who have ruled this sexist behaviour off but even more importantly pisses you off, I'm sticking with it.In which case your achingly narrow bias towards human-like things as necessary entities persists.
My contention is that it is logical to expect a necessary entity due to the principle of sufficient reason and I think there are a few converts to that position here.
Recently somebody referenced a paper by Sean M. Carroll trying to avoid sufficient reason. I think there is sufficient reason to think that would probably undercut science itself.
The metareview of contingency argument of Stanford University has commented that those opposing sufficient reason do so on the grounds of insufficient reasoning on the part of those proposing sufficient reason.
However if I am commiting the fallacy of composition(I'm not because your contention that I am missing another part of universe is unevidenced) then you are contending there is another part of the universe. that is a positive assertion on your part.
I ask you again is this part contingent or necessary? If it is contingent, I ask on what? If it is necessary then you are a convert to the argument from contingency?
You see, it is a win win situation for me and a lose lose situation for you.
My contention is that it is logical to expect a necessary entity due to the principle of sufficient reason and I think there are a few converts to that position here.
Recently somebody referenced a paper by Sean M. Carroll trying to avoid sufficient reason. I think there is sufficient reason to think that would probably undercut science itself.
The metareview of contingency argument of Stanford University has commented that those opposing sufficient reason do so on the grounds of insufficient reasoning on the part of those proposing sufficient reason.
However if I am commiting the fallacy of composition(I'm not because your contention that I am missing another part of universe is unevidenced) then you are contending there is another part of the universe. that is a positive assertion on your part. I ask you again is this part contingent or necessary? If it is contingent, I ask on what? If it is necessary then you are a convert to the argument from contingency?
You see, it is a win win situation for me and a lose lose situation for you.
So yet again: how do YOU propose to justify YOUR claim that the universe MUST be contingent on the basis only of the current state of knowledge about the observable constituents of the universe?And also Vlad, how do you justify your unevidenced assertion that somehow necessary entities are not observable. Note that most things we 'observe' we do so indirectly via the actions they have on other entities. So when we observe light, that is because the light is detected by receptors in cells, when we touch something it is via changes in chemistry associated with touch receptors. If we observe radiation from a distant solar system we don't detect the radiation directly but by its effect on detector systems.
If you are talking about the fallacy of composition I'm afraid I talked about the whole universe as we have observed it. There is nothing in the whole observed universe which we have not observed scientifically. Therefore since it looks as if it has all derived from something which changed. It is observed as wholly contingent. Your argument accusing me of fallacy of composition only works if we took a sample of the observed universe and extended the properties of that sample to the whole universe. But I am not doing that, what I am saying is that the whole observed universe is contingent. I asked you to explain this and you didn't. My contention is that the observed universe is exactly what it says on the tin. You acknowledge that but say that the observed universe is the things in it. Agreed. But then you merely assert that the universe (the things in it) is not just the things in it.You’ve observed the whole Universe? Really. I call bullshit.
That leads to the next question which you haven't answered ''what then is it about the universe that a) Is not just the observed b) not contingent.
You see as a non empiricist I would agree that the universe is not just the observable bit. But you don't have that luxury. do you.
If you are saying there is something about the universe that we can't see but is greater than the observed universe then I'm sorry to say it but we are actually on the same lines
God in christianity is both God and man. A man changes but the God in the man stays the same......I find it remarkable that bronze age goatherders preempted your objection 2000 years before the fact.If God can’t change, he can’t make a decision to incarnate as a human. Anything that has agency must be able to change by definition.
You’ve observed the whole Universe? Really. I call bullshit.But Jeremy all you are saying is there is a part of the universe that you have no evidence for
We cannot observe the whole Universe. We can only observe objects in it. We can make deductions about it based on our observations but, so far, one of those deductions is not whether the Universe just is or was created by something else. You are the only one here claiming to know which of those alternatives is true. We are just asking you for some evidence for your opinion.
But Jeremy all you are saying is there is a part of the universe that you have no evidence for
You are arguing that I am wrong with certainty on the strength of something you have zero evidence of.
On another board this would be a game set and match moment where you and the rest retire to the pavilion in defeat, caught out by arguing from a huge entity with Zero evidence.
You are arguing that I am wrong with certainty...
You are arguing that I am wrong with certainty on the strength of something you have zero evidence of.No he is arguing that you do not have the evidence to sustain your view - that is entirely different from saying that you are wrong with certainty.
You are arguing that I am wrong with certainty on the strength of something you have zero evidence of.
If God can’t change, he can’t make a decision to incarnate as a human. Anything that has agency must be able to change by definition.God or the necessary entity remains the same in his/it's being, He/it is neither enhanced, nor diminished. He neither grows nor decays. God /the necessary entity is the actualizing agent. He/it doesn't change from potential to actuality. He is already actual. He doesn't decide in a moment; he has eternally ruled that things should become and those rulings come from his nature not any kind of inspiration or mental realisation.
Christianity was not invented by goat herders in the Bronze Age.
God or the necessary entity remains the same in his/it's being, He/it is neither enhanced, nor diminished. He neither grows nor decays. God /the necessary entity is the actualizing agent. He/it doesn't change from potential to actuality. He is already actual. He doesn't decide in a moment; he has eternally ruled that things should become and those rulings come from his nature not any kind of inspiration or mental realisation.
Moreover he, he is not actualised by that which he actualises.
I would move you can therefore have agency just by being.
Secondly…
…lets compare two modus operandii by which the universe can be actualised.
Let us forget the necessary entity for now and take two scientific theories of how we have come to be. First the big bang origin theory of the origin. Here the universe doesn't begin in time but that's when time ''starts''. So no requirement for time.
Secondly there is some theory doing the rounds that we are a hologram projected from the edge of the universe.
Now whatever the merits or extent of these theories they do represent two modes of creation. One has the creator at the ''start'' of a temporal heirarchy. The other, whatever is projecting the universe moment be moment is at or near the bottom of a heirarchy that doesn't depend on being at any start.
And these two modes reflect two cosmological arguments Kalam and argument from contingency.
God or the necessary entity remains the same in his/it's being, He/it is neither enhanced, nor diminished. He neither grows nor decays. God /the necessary entity is the actualizing agent. He/it doesn't change from potential to actuality. He is already actual. He doesn't decide in a moment; he has eternally ruled that things should become and those rulings come from his nature not any kind of inspiration or mental realisation.
I would move you can therefore have agency just by being.
Secondly lets compare two modus operandii by which the universe can be actualised.
Let us forget the necessary entity for now and take two scientific theories of how we have come to be. First the big bang origin theory of the origin. Here the universe doesn't begin in time but that's when time ''starts''. So no requirement for time.
Secondly there is some theory doing the rounds that we are a hologram projected from the edge of the universe.
And these two modes reflect two cosmological arguments Kalam and argument from contingency.
And these two modes reflect two cosmological arguments Kalam and argument from contingency.
No, they represent two theoretically (though not currently) testable hypotheses regarding the nature of our universe; they say little to nothing regarding any potential 'cause' of our universe.No, My point is they represent two types of heirarchies, one temporal and one ontologically dependent and emergent.
The cosmological and contingency arguments are philosophically phrased special pleadings that have been repeatedly shown to be flawed attempts to justify claims of magic.
O.
I'm afraid I don't support the view of people who claim to be scientific by insisting on sufficient reason and then wanting to dispense with it when it comes to cosmological questions.
No, My point is they represent two types of heirarchies, one temporal and one ontologically dependent and emergent.
I'm afraid I don't support the view of people who claim to be scientific by insisting on sufficient reason and then wanting to dispense with it when it comes to cosmological questions. They sicken me to my very essence.
No, My point is they represent two types of heirarchies, one temporal and one ontologically dependent and emergent.
I'm afraid I don't support the view of people who claim to be scientific by insisting on sufficient reason and then wanting to dispense with it when it comes to cosmological questions. They sicken me to my very essence.
Or, one for which the explanation is potentially valid, and one for which it has already been shown to be deficient.So, you seem to be charging me with insufficient reason for saying why I believe in sufficient reason. That's rich.
I'm struggling to determine in what sense you're using 'sufficient reason' - in some instances you seem to be meaning that an argument is sufficient, at other times you appear to be using it in the sense of everything needing to have a reason... and when you do the second you often confuse reason with cause.
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't see the philosophical school of sufficient reason - that everything happens for a reason - to be justifiable, and I certainly think you're misapplying it if you presume that the scientific notion of cause and effect is the same things.
So, you seem to be charging me with insufficient reason for saying why I believe in sufficient reason. That's rich.
Vlad,Because the evidence we have is that all observed things in the universe indeed the observed universe is contingent and not necessary.
No, it’s true. If you think the universe has insufficient reason for its own existence but that a supposed creator you call “god” does have sufficient reason for its own existence then rather than post a stream of fallacious arguments or just run away from your mistakes, why not finally try at least to set out a cogent argument to justify your claim?
Because the evidence we have is that all observed things in the universe indeed the observed universe is contingent and not necessary.
Any argument from any supposedly unobserved universe eg I am making the fallacy of composition in subsequently unevidenced.
If we are talking the whole universe here we eventually come to the question contingent on what? Don't know is insufficient becuase we do know the properties of a necessary being.
It is unobservable, it is necessary for a contingent universe, it is independent of that universe, it is independent of any other in it's creativity.
If you are saying there is something necessary about the contingent universe a) what is it? b) aren't you straying into deepity?
...and arguing that there is insufficient reason for the principle of sufficient is just plainly comical.
Because the evidence we have is that all observed things in the universe indeed the observed universe is contingent and not necessary.
Any argument from any supposedly unobserved universe eg I am making the fallacy of composition in subsequently unevidenced.
The temptation though is to believe in the unobserved universe as an extrapolation of what we see. That only yields more contingency. Indeed such a view is I would move is necessary to maintain your atheism. Contingency alone is insufficiently reasonable because my subsequent question is always going to be ''contingent on what''.
If we are talking the whole universe here we eventually come to the question contingent on what? Don't know is insufficient becuase we do know the properties of a necessary being. It is unobservable, it is necessary for a contingent universe, it is independent of that universe, it is independent of any other in it's creativity. For people who had forgotten about necessity, who had had it witheld from them by an agnostic culture or who just downright have ignored it this might be enough to start thinking about in the first instance.
Now it may be there is something about the universe which is necessary. What is it? Why aren't we seeing it? It cannot be anything we observe because we observe contingency.
If you are proposing a holistic necessity about then that is merely a belief. The trouble is holistic properties are contingent on the levels beneath from which they emerge.
The trouble here for your grumpy self righteous argument is that you accused me of the fallacy of composition based on the unobserved. You said I was wrong but it seems you were wrong.
If you are saying there is something necessary about the contingent universe a) what is it? b) aren't you straying into deepity?
Infinite regress doesn't answer the question. In fact it is a diversionary device and arguing that there is insufficient reason for the principle of sufficient is just plainly comical.
Vlad,Infinite regress fails on it's own hillside since every time you put up a contingent the appropriate response is to ask what it is contingent on?. That is another example of the unproductivity of infinite regression. Also, it is the worst possible case of including entities beyond necessity as in Occam's razor.
A dubious claim at best, but in any case when do you plan to explain why properties observed in a system must also therefore apply to the system itself?
Wrong again. YOU’RE the one making the claim – ie, that a property of the constituents of the universe that we’ve observed must also apply to the universe itself – and unless YOU can finally justify it, that’s precisely the fallacy of composition.
This is just incoherent. Your “temptations” are epistemically worthless, and in any case even if I were to follow you down this rabbit hole my question would also be the same about your assertion “god” – ie, contingent on what? As your answer to that is effectively “magic”, you’re adding nothing to the limited verifiable knowledge we already have about the universe.
More white noise. We don’t come to the question “contingent on what?” at all – what we actually come to is, “we don’t know whether the universe as a whole must be contingent on something else”. That’s the don’t know part. By all means though if you think it must be then have a go at explaining why (I’ll alert the Nobel committee to your imminent scientific breakthrough), but until you can you’re stuck in the same nursery-level thinking: “my head hurts because that branch hit me, therefor the universe has a creator”.
Burden of proof mistake (again). I’m not proposing anything remember? All I’m doing is pointing out the fallacies and gaps in the justifications YOU attempt for the claims and assertions YOU make.
No it doesn’t – see above. If you want to leap straight from observable phenomena being contingent to the universe as a whole being contingent then you continue to commit the fallacy of composition. If I said that, based on one person standing at the cricket match having a better view, everyone standing at the cricket match would therefore have a better view would your charge of my making the fallacy of composition be wrong because you hadn’t observed every spectator standing up?
Can you see now where you keep going wrong? Anything?
I’m saying no such thing. There may or may not be something necessary about the universe itself – I have no idea. Nor though have you, and you're the only one making the positive assertion about this here remember? Try as you might to shift the burden of proof, that’s still what you’re doing. Until and unless you finally make an argument for a contingent universe that isn’t full of mistake and holes, all other have to do is to identify those mistakes and holes – a trivially easy thing to do.
No – it’s a point that undoes you. Your only way out of your problem of infinite regress is “it’s magic innit” – which makes you the person in the cartoon who writes a formula and inserts into it “miracle happens here”. How do you think that adds anything to the sum total of human knowledge?
Infinite regress fails on it's own hillside since every time you put up a contingent the appropriate response is to ask what it is contingent on?. That is another example of the unproductivity of infinite regression. Also, it is the worst possible case of including entities beyond necessity as in Occam's razor.
Other than that I don't see any other thing of merit in your post.
But Jeremy all you are saying is there is a part of the universe that you have no evidence forNo. Where did you get that idea from?
You are arguing that I am wrong with certainty on the strength of something you have zero evidence of.No, I'm arguing that your statement "there is nothing in the Universe we have not observed" is a lie. There's no indication at all that we have observed the whole Universe and every indication that there is more that we cannot observe, at least not yet.
On another board this would be a game set and match moment where you and the rest retire to the pavilion in defeat, caught out by arguing from a huge entity with Zero evidence.Are you trying to do a cricket metaphor or a tennis metaphor? Your muddled thinking seems to be unbounded.
God or the necessary entity remains the same in his/it's being,If God remain the same he/it can't incarnate as a human and come down to Earth. Becoming human would not be staying the same.
He/it is neither enhanced, nor diminished. He neither grows nor decays. God /the necessary entity is the actualizing agent. He/it doesn't change from potential to actuality. He is already actual. He doesn't decide in a moment; he has eternally ruled that things should become and those rulings come from his nature not any kind of inspiration or mental realisation.There's a lot of speculation there about an entity that you can't even demonstrate exists.
Moreover he, he is not actualised by that which he actualises.
If God remain the same he/it can't incarnate as a human and come down to Earth. Becoming human would not be staying the same.One might suppose that the Trinity was broken at the Incarnation (as some Christians believe), and if not then, surely at the Crucifixion, when Christ ("who contained the fullness of the godhead bodily") - died. But no, mainstream Christianity still maintains that God does not change.
There's a lot of speculation there about an entity that you can't even demonstrate exists.
As an aside, the OT gives numerous instances of where God can be bargained with and persuaded to change his mind.
One might suppose that the Trinity was broken at the Incarnation (as some Christians believe), and if not then, surely at the Crucifixion, when Christ ("who contained the fullness of the godhead bodily") - died. But no, mainstream Christianity still maintains that God does not change.But are you, as a mind steeped in agnostic culture where faux ignorance passes as politeness and not having disturbing ideas, not talking of change as a contingent entity might change, i.e. having a beginning, having an end, subject to entropy, expending energy, replacing energy, learning, being genetically programmed to change, being forced to change by external factors or laws of nature etc. etc. God does none of these things. The bible talks about God being the same, today, yesterday and tomorrow. The NT states that Jesus is both man and God and whenever we recognise God in prayer, worship,
When you've tried to get your head round the idea of 'kenosis' when Christ being God 'emptied himself', and you still hear of this idea of the changeless God, you begin to realise there is little point arguing these things at all. It amounts to an excuse for theologians to go on perpetrating meaningless nonsense.
As an aside, the OT gives numerous instances of where God can be bargained with and persuaded to change his mind.
No. Where did you get that idea from?My mistake, I should have said there is nothing in the observed universe that hasn't been observed. As for the unobserved universe there cannot definitionally be evidence for it and you cannot then succesfully accuse me of not seeing that which is unobserved(unevidenced).
No, I'm arguing that your statement "there is nothing in the Universe we have not observed" is a lie. There's no indication at all that we have observed the whole Universe and every indication that there is more that we cannot observe, at least not yet.
Are you trying to do a cricket metaphor or a tennis metaphor? Your muddled thinking seems to be unbounded.
My mistake, I should have said there is nothing in the observed universe that hasn't been observed. As for the unobserved universe there cannot definitionally be evidence for it and you cannot then succesfully accuse me of not seeing that which is unobserved(unevidenced).
Two things, I think you are beginning to react to your revelation of the concept of the necessary entity but you are still clinging on to the melting iceberg that it must be like a contingent thing.
Secondly, What is it about the universe that is necessary?
My mistake, I should have said there is nothing in the observed universe that hasn't been observed.
As for the unobserved universe there cannot definitionally be evidence for it and you cannot then succesfully accuse me of not seeing that which is unobserved(unevidenced).
Two things, I think you are beginning to react to your revelation of the concept of the necessary entity but you are still clinging on to the melting iceberg that it must be like a contingent thing.
Secondly, What is it about the universe that is necessary? since what we observe seems to be contingent and there is no evidence for that which is not observed.
I should have said there is nothing in the observed universe that hasn't been observed.:o - do you realise what a pointless statement that is Vlad.
:o - do you realise what a pointless statement that is Vlad.Not really, Hillside and Jeremy have implied that I am committing the fallacy of composition without having seen the whole universe.
The problem is that your so called 'argument' makes assumptions about the whole universe (in fact, the whole multiverse, should such a thing exist), not just the observable universe.The whole multiverse and any whole universe which is anything more than the observed universe is unevidenced, Never talk. Just reflect on that. You are arguing therefore from unevidenced premises.
Not really, Hillside and Jeremy have implied that I am committing the fallacy of composition without having seen the whole universe.
Firstly there is no evidence for anymore universe that has been observed...
You are wasting your own time since you could go away and do 'better things' . I think though there is something magnetic about being challenged over your guff about infinite regress, an evidence universe we haven't observed yet and your arguing that there is insufficient reason for believing in sufficient reason.
Why then are you wasting everyone’s time by just repeating the same mistakes over and over again no matter how often you’ve had them corrected?
Not really,Nope it is a completely pointless and vacuous comment, as BHS points out is tautology.
Not really, Hillside and Jeremy have implied that I am committing the fallacy of composition without having seen the whole universe.
This is what is pointless.
Firstly there is no evidence for anymore universe that has been observed....unless they are changing their definition of evidence.
Therefore I am not just commenting on part of the evidenced universe.that would be composition but all of it.
Because you are both committing the fallacy of composition and making assumptions about what we haven't observed. Nobody else is trying to say they know.I would only be committing the fallacy of composition if I was only discussing part of the evidenced universe and extending that over the whole. Since I am excluding the unevidenced part I am describing the whole of the evidenced universe and therefore not making the fallacy.
False. The flatness indicates that it's almost certainly much larger than we can observe, it certainly isn't smaller, and it would be a massive, unrealistic coincidence if it were the same size as the observable universe.
As far as I am aware in quantum physics observation affects everything observed. Certainly energy is transferred and therefore externally induced change has happened. This therefore makes everything observed contingent.
1. Show that everything we know so far actually is contingent (itself a dubious claim).
Vlad,Obviously you are including the unevidenced universe with the evidenced universe here. I can think of no other area where you value the unevidenced.
That’s what you have done if you want to claim that everything in the universe is contingent on something else. How would you know that everything in the universe is contingent on something else unless you’ve considered everything in the universe?
I would only be committing the fallacy of composition if I was only discussing part of the evidenced universe and extending that over the whole. Since I am excluding the unevidenced part I am describing the whole of the evidenced universe and therefore not making the fallacy.
Your so called evidence is, in your own words merely ''almost certain'' i.e. unevidenced. You are therefore mistaking belief for knowledge and it is uncertain if your are allowing yourself extrapolation. If the extrapolated universe is uniform and uniformly contingent then we must ask contingent on what? If on the other hand you are saying that the necessary ''component'' of the universe is as yet unobserved I could be more sympathetic to that but it does have it's difficulties.
Then, about the massive unrealistic coincidence? Apparently we can observe the universe and extrapolate it back a long way towards the big bang. How long until we get there 10 years, 5 years, tomorrow.
But hey I'm encouraging your big error. Making accusations without actual evidence.
Obviously you are including the unevidenced universe with the evidenced universe here. I can think of no other area where you value the unevidenced.
I would only be committing the fallacy of composition if I was only discussing part of the evidenced universe and extending that over the whole. Since I am excluding the unevidenced part I am describing the whole of the evidenced universe and therefore not making the fallacy.
Your so called evidence is, in your own words merely ''almost certain'' i.e. unevidenced.
You are therefore mistaking belief for knowledge and it is uncertain if your are allowing yourself extrapolation.
If the extrapolated universe is uniform and uniformly contingent then we must ask contingent on what?
Then, about the massive unrealistic coincidence? Apparently we can observe the universe and extrapolate it back a long way towards the big bang. How long until we get there 10 years, 5 years, tomorrow.
As far as I am aware in quantum physics observation affects everything observed. Certainly energy is transferred and therefore externally induced change has happened. This therefore makes everything observed contingent.
So, you seem to be charging me with insufficient reason for saying why I believe in sufficient reason. That's rich.
But are you, as a mind steeped in agnostic culture where faux ignorance passes as politeness and not having disturbing ideas, not talking of change as a contingent entity might change, i.e. having a beginning, having an end, subject to entropy, expending energy, replacing energy, learning, being genetically programmed to change, being forced to change by external factors or laws of nature etc. etc. God does none of these things. The bible talks about God being the same, today, yesterday and tomorrow. The NT states that Jesus is both man and God and whenever we recognise God in prayer, worship,
the everyday and in avoiding him what we recognise is wholly God and certainly not less than God. What Jesus does is human what there is about him is divine.
As far as I am aware in quantum physics observation affects everything observed. Certainly energy is transferred and therefore externally induced change has happened. This therefore makes everything observed contingent.So to apply this logic when Jesus was observed, that makes god contingent
So to apply this logic when Jesus was observed, that makes god contingent
I dont think the theory of quantum mechanics requires an observer.As I understand it there was.speculation as to whether our observation of the universe might hasten it’s demise. This was countered by an argument that matter had the same quantum effects as human observation.
You begin with listing a well-worn collection of examples of contingency, and then immediately move on to religious assertion "God does none of these things" (considering you accused bluehillside below of "mistaking belief for knowledge", your hypocrisy is astounding).I think Aquinus moved to calling the necessary entity God because he had considered what the properties of the necessary entity must logically be to avoid contingency and found them to align with the God of Abraham Hence his statement made having philosophically and logically arrived at a necessary being.”and we call this God”.
The bible does indeed talk of God being the same today yesterday and tomorrow (specifically in Hebrews 13:8, it refers to Christ in these terms). However, the bible says many things about God, and gives many images of him/it, and taking a quote or two and making it refer to the whole does not make an argument. You go on to say that the NT states that Jesus is both man and God - well maybe most of the writers of the NT came to believe this, but these were almost certainly beliefs made up after the event (it is certainly prevalent in John, but even there you have the phrase "My Father is greater than I"). All these various theological positions were eventually just hammered out in intellectual argument and presented as dogma. Which is what you continue to do.
You then move on to matters of subjective experience - always dangerous ground in trying to convince your opponents. I wouldn't be as dismissive as Russell, who rejected such an approach in one sentence. Moreover, you presume to speak for all Christians. I would suggest that the experience of most "Christians" (apart from certain hysterical evangelicals) is very far from the kind of intimate certainties about Christ's nature that you imply. Even such worthies as Mother Theresa of Calcutta and San Juan de la Cruz had no so such cosy relationship with the deity in their lives (Mother Theresa confessed that God seemed very distant most of her life, and San Juan de la Cruz only ended his Dark Night by a supposed mystical experience where he was "transformed into God". Hmmmm). And of course most "Christians" go along with the dogma of their church because that's what they've been brought up to believe, and religious belief helps sort out the usual trials of weddings and funerals etc.
I suppose the problems for Christianity began when it inherited so much Greek thought and grafted it onto Judaism. The changeless god idea has more in common with Aristotle, on whom Aquinas was definitely parasitic, and whose ideas you've obviously imbibed. And then there are Platonic ideas filtering through Wisdom literature and John's gospel etc. etc.
As I understand it there was.speculation as to whether our observation of the universe might hasten it’s demise. This was countered by an argument that matter had the same quantum effects as human observation.
I think Aquinus moved to calling the necessary entity God because he had considered what the properties of the necessary entity must logically be to avoid contingency and found them to align with philosophy. Hence his statement made having philosophically and logically arrived at a necessary being.
Also as we have seen these are also down to a strange deference for scientists as if they were priests...
...and a strange but flexible relationship with empirical evidence where one minute we are appealing to it as paramount and the next minute we are arguing from what might be in the vast unknown expanse out there.
Today we are agnostic culturally but it is largely down to politeness and an automatic and on going suspension of judgment.I disagree - I think we have moved to being a more evidence based, rather than faith based, society. So where once people might rush to judgement in the absence of evidence increasingly we are now prepared to accept that we currently don't know in circumstances where there is insufficient current evidence in order to sustain a conclusion.
Also as we have seen these are also down to a strange deference for scientists as if they were priests ...Hmm, as a professional scientist I'm not sure I recognise that claim at all. I think the public have a level of respect and trust for scientists, and more importantly scientific evidence but that isn't either strange nor deference. I note the implication in your words that there should be deference to priests (and weird that people might see scientists in that same deferential light), but there is news for you - except in the world of religious adherents there is limited respect for nor deference to priests within the general public, which isn't surprising as respect needs to be earned not demanded.
... and a strange but flexible relationship with empirical evidence where one minute we are appealing to it as paramount and the next minute we are arguing from what might be in the vast unknown expanse out there.That shows just how little you understand science. As scientists we draw conclusions (best explanation) based on evidence. Where there is really strong evidence those conclusions (we call them theories) are really strong, albeit as scientists if or when additional evidence comes to light that changes that best explanation we will change our minds too. But there are plenty of other circumstances where we currently don't have the evidence base to support a strong conclusion and we are happy to accept that currently we just don't know - we don't rush to judgement but will continue to beaver away to find more evidence which may in due course allow us to become more certain in our conclusions.
I think Aquinus moved to calling the necessary entity God because he had considered what the properties of the necessary entity must logically be to avoid contingency and found them to align with the God of Abraham Hence his statement made having philosophically and logically arrived at a necessary being.”and we call this God”.
Today we are agnostic culturally but it is largely down to politeness and an automatic and on going suspension of judgment.
Also as we have seen these are also down to a strange deference for scientists as if they were priests…
…and a strange but flexible relationship with empirical evidence where one minute we are appealing to it as paramount and the next minute we are arguing from what might be in the vast unknown expanse out there.
Add to this an atheism particularly of the not wanting god variety and you have an anti philosophical push against the principle of sufficient reason, the necessary entity and support for the dubious brute fact, the contingency of everything and infinite regress.
Regards Aquinus and Aristotle, the similarities just reflect what happens when you have to reduce abrahamic religion to philosophy.
There are also different meanings of changeless and Aquinus derives his from the context of the argument from contingency and we are likely to draw ours from our Newtonian conceptions but devoid of Newton’s motivations.
Hmm, as a professional scientist I'm not sure I recognise that claim at all. I think the public have a level of respect and trust for scientists, and more importantly scientific evidence but that isn't either strange nor deference. I note the implication in your words that there should be deference to priests (and weird that people might see scientists in that same deferential light), but there is news for you - except in the world of religious adherents there is limited respect for nor deference to priests within the general public, which isn't surprising as respect needs to be earned not demanded.Scientists or vicars Davey? Who is perceived as more authoritative even over matters in which they have no training.
That shows just how little you understand science. As scientists we draw conclusions (best explanation) based on evidence. Where there is really strong evidence those conclusions (we call them theories) are really strong, albeit as scientists if or when additional evidence comes to light that changes that best explanation we will change our minds too. But there are plenty of other circumstances where we currently don't have the evidence base to support a strong conclusion and we are happy to accept that currently we just don't know - we don't rush to judgement but will continue to beaver away to find more evidence which may in due course allow us to become more certain in our conclusions.
That's how science works Vlad.
Scientists or vicars Davey? Who is perceived as more authoritative even over matters in which they have no training.Scientists are far more trusted by the public than priests - and indeed all the most trusted professions by the public use evidence to support their professional judgements (doctors, nurses, professors, judges, engineering, scientists), which means that they professionally (it is part of their professional ethical codes) do not stray beyond their training and expertise. Priests and vicars on the other hand do not base their views on evidence and regularly stray into making judgements on matters that they have no expertise on, nor training in. This is probably why they are far less trusted by the public.
In terms of the scientific priesthood I think we all know the structure and establishment of that. Einstein, Darwin and Feynman have papal statusProbably true, although there is no comparison between their evidence based approach and the unevidenced faith based approach of a pope.
with Dawkins, Krauss, Dennett ,Stegner et Coe.Nope - these people are largely prominent for their activities outside of science, so they aren't really in that scientific echelon. The next group down would be a whole raft of nobel prize winners.
below which I suppose puts you at the level of monk.:o
Science I’m not discussing science but scientism.Nope - you specifically were talking about scientists and therefore science. Your notion of scientism is irrelevant - I doubt any of the scientists I know would class themselves as being adherents of scientism, indeed they'd probably have no idea what you are talking about. They are professional scientists, because they use science to answer questions and solve problems.
Vlad,That the argument that argument from contingency has been falsified is wankfantasy. That it has been falsified here is narcissistic wankfantasy.
You really have got your twaddle-o-meter dialled up to 11 today haven’t you…
Aquinas’s argument has long since been falsified, oftentimes here in fact. That you ignore the falsifications you're given doesn’t make them go away.
Gibberish. It’s because more people do apply judgement than used to be the case that we’re much less a theocratic society than we once were. Depressingly though, lots of other countries are theocracies, with attendant institutionalised misogyny, human rights abuses, poor educational levels etc.
And your evidence for that unqualified claim would be what exactly? Broadly people defer to science, not scientists – and for the good reason that it’s most reliable means we’ve yet found to understand the phenomena we experience and observe.
Naturally you have an example to back up that claim right? Yet again – people here don’t argue that something is on the basis of what might be (that’s your territory remember?); rather they merely say that you cannot discount the possible to justify your various claims and assertions.
You’ve a had all of the various mistakes here corrected many items already, and ignored or straw manned those corrections. What then would be the point of doing it again? Suffice it to say that the only atheism you’ve encountered here is coherent, logically cogent and philosophically supported. That’s why you can never lay a glove on it, so resort instead to your various dodges.
What would you propose instead – just guessing (or, as you call it, “faith”)?
Gibberish.
So anyway, is there any chance that you will finally try at least to address the arguments you’ve actually been given here that undo you? How about starting with your constant shifting of the burden of proof for example?
That the argument that argument from contingency has been falsified is wankfantasy. That it has been falsified here is narcissistic wankfantasy.
That the argument that argument from contingency has been falsified is wankfantasy. That it has been falsified here is narcissistic wankfantasy.
Dawkins, Krauss, Dennett ,Stegner et Coe.Really - the only person on that list that I would say I knew who they were without googling is Dawkins - and although he is was a pretty prominent scientist (although nothing like top draw Nobel prize winning) he is most prominent for his work outside of science.
Stegner - who - never heard of him, and googling doesn't help. Who is he.
Prof,Still never heard of him - will look him up. Is he a prominent scientist?
I assume he was trying to reference Victor Stenger.
Still never heard of him - will look him up. Is he a prominent scientist?
As I understand it there was.speculation as to whether our observation of the universe might hasten it’s demise. This was countered by an argument that matter had the same quantum effects as human observation.
Wasn’t it Heisenberg who said observation affects the condition of a particle.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626313-800-has-observing-the-universe-hastened-its-end/
Prof,So is he actually eminent as a leading scientist, or just high profile on the basis of his views on religion etc.
He is (or rather was) one of the roster of bogeymen Vlad routinely trots out when he’s trying to ad hom scientists who have also written on a/theism. He’s on Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_J._Stenger
So to apply this logic when Jesus was observed, that makes god contingentJesus is both Man and God. His material humanity is therefore contingent I.e there was a time when Jesus the man wasn't.
Jesus is both Man and God. His material humanity is therefore contingent I.e there was a time when Jesus the man wasn't.And since he was observable then god is contingent, according to your logic.
And since he was observable then god is contingent, according to your logic.His material humanity which came into existence was contingent and materially and empirically observable. His divinity is not material or contingent. Other faculties are involved in the recognition of the divine, revelation being one of them.
Jesus is both Man and God. His material humanity is therefore contingent I.e there was a time when Jesus the man wasn't.Oh dear - back on the old unilinear time stuff - so working with your rather simplistic view of time:
Other faculties are involved in the recognition of the divine, revelation being one of them.
His material humanity which came into existence was contingent and materially and empirically observable. His divinity is not material or contingent. Other faculties are involved in the recognition of the divine, revelation being one of them.Special pleading. Was Jesus god? Was Jesus observable. If the answer to both those is yes, then stating as you did that anything observable is contingent, makes god contingent.
Vlad,And if there are other 'faculties' then it's still observation which makes god, according to Vlad's logic, contingent.
“Other faculties” eh? What “faculties” would they be then – how for example would you determine whether something had been “revealed” rather than imagined?
Jesus is both Man and God. His material humanity is therefore contingent I.e there was a time when Jesus the man wasn't.
You really need to learn to stop digging, Vlad, since when you do you invariably end up tying yourself in knots - and Houdini you ain't.But Gordon there is nothing about Jesus being both Man and God that isn't mainstream Christianity..
If, as you say, Jesus is both Man and God then anyone observing Jesus was observing both these aspects containing in the one package, so to speak. Therefore, according to your logic, and as NS pointed out, 'God' must be contingent.
If there is a wrong tree to bark up then you are sure to find it and commence yapping.
But Gordon there is nothing about Jesus being both Man and God that isn't mainstream Christianity..
Jesus is of course the great mystery and unknown being both God and Man with no blending and no loss
Of either humanity or divinity.
You are just trying to circumvent necessity. That is the hole you are digging.
But Gordon there is nothing about Jesus being both Man and God that isn't mainstream Christianity..and ergo by your 'logic' your god is contingent
Jesus is of course the great mystery and unknown being both God and Man with no blending and no loss
Of either humanity or divinity.
You are just trying to circumvent necessity. That is the hole you are digging.
and ergo by your 'logic' your god is contingentI suggest as a humian your grasp of logic is impaired. I do not worship the material of Jesus, I recognise I suppose his perfection in the Socratic sense and am impressed by it and I worship his divinity...which is untouched by contingency.
I suggest as a humian your grasp of logic is impaired. I do not worship the material of Jesus, I recognise I suppose his perfection in the Socratic sense and am impressed by it and I worship his divinity...which is untouched by contingency.And I suggest that are now trying to shift the argument away from the absurdities of "high Christology", realising that you are indeed tying yourself in knots, to the simpler argument of whether there is a first cause or not.
I think you are merely trying for an argument that avoids anything being categorically necessary for the universe.
I suggest as a humian your grasp of logic is impaired. I do not worship the material of Jesus, I recognise I suppose his perfection in the Socratic sense and am impressed by it and I worship his divinity...which is untouched by contingency.Your avoidance of your own logic is boring.
I think you are merely trying for an argument that avoids anything being categorically necessary for the universe.
Of course it is cultural - the reason why you and AM ended up as christians rather than muslim, jewish, hindu etc is because you were brought up within a christian tradition and culture.I think a quarter of those raised Muslim leaving Islam is quite a sizeable number and shows some thought before people identify a preference or disinclination for any particular organised belief. This is from the Pew Research survey from 2014:
As I have shown a tiny, tiny proportion (so small to be insignificant) of people who are current christians were brought up within a different faith tradition. People simply do not convert from one religion to another to any significant degree and the reason why is that unless you are brought up in a particular faith tradition that faith simply seems odd, alien, and, frankly, unbelievable. Had you been brought up within a muslim culture and tradition, say in Karachi, your hunger would have been almost certainly been for islam and the koran.
Religions realise this, which is why they spend so much effort ensuring that children are brought up in their faith - they know that unless they do this the likelihood that they will come to that faith as adults is close to zero.
But Gordon there is nothing about Jesus being both Man and God that isn't mainstream Christianity..
Jesus is of course the great mystery and unknown being both God and Man with no blending and no loss
Of either humanity or divinity.
You are just trying to circumvent necessity. That is the hole you are digging.
Indeed, and there is no requirement not to sent children to jewish scripture classes or islamic madrassa classes. It is pretty hard to argue that parents choosing to send their children to any religious instruction classes are doing it other than because they'd like their child to have religious instruction within that religion.If children were brought up in a cultural vaccum here in the UK when out in society, there might not be as much of a demand for schools that teach other cultures from those parents who come from other cultural backgrounds. I would say the demand for religious instruction classes is often caused by parents trying to fight against the cultural "indoctrination" their children are exposed to in mainstream British society and schools.
My mistake, I should have said there is nothing in the observed universe that hasn't been observed.That's a tautology. Since the observed Universe is defined as the things we have observed, it's an empty statement.
As for the unobserved universe there cannot definitionally be evidence for itOf course there can. There's evidence for dark matter and dark energy even though we cannot observe either. The number of planets we have found in our galaxy is strong evidence that there also planets in the Andromeda galaxy even though we've never observed any.
Two things, I think you are beginning to react to your revelation of the concept of the necessary entity but you are still clinging on to the melting iceberg that it must be like a contingent thing.I've no idea what that means.
Secondly, What is it about the universe that is necessary?It could be the Universe itself that is necessary. But you're barking up the wrong tree here. I don't know if the Universe is necessary or if there is something else on which it is contingent. I'm not taking a position one way or the other: I'm admitting I don't know.
there is no evidence for that which is not observed.So on what basis can you infer the existence of any kind of god? Things would go far better if you just admitted your position is based only on faith.
You are just trying to circumvent necessity.
I suggest as a humian your grasp of logic is impaired. I do not worship the material of Jesus, I recognise I suppose his perfection in the Socratic sense and am impressed by it and I worship his divinity...which is untouched by contingency.
I think you are merely trying for an argument that avoids anything being categorically necessary for the universe.
That's a tautology. Since the observed Universe is defined as the things we have observed, it's an empty statement.It's the only universe we have evidence for your argument for the universe being the necessary entity seems to be based on an unobserved unevidenced other part.
Of course there can. There's evidence for dark matter and dark energy even though we cannot observe either. The number of planets we have found in our galaxy is strong evidence that there also planets in the Andromeda galaxy even though we've never observed any.Then you have a flexible definition of the word evidence. Is a theory evidence? I'm not sure.
It could be the Universe itself that is necessary.I think you have yet to explain how, in other words your reason for believing that and what evidence you have since it seems to lie in an unevidenced part of the universe.
I think you're attempts to not contradict orthodoxy have you trying to tie yourself in knots to have a god that is both contingent (i.e. human) and necessary (i.e. divine), which is just a new iteration of the fundamental problem Christianity has always had trying to maintain ideas of perfection and eternality for the divinity of a god whilst conceding to it manifesting a human avatar. The two ideas are irreconcilable, logically, I suspect you need to have faith in the magic to be able to accept both premises as possible for a being that can break the rules at will.First of all I think you are confusing the properties of time and eternity, contingent and necessity and now you are throwing perfection into the mix. The key issue here for your argument against a being which is divine and human is that all a human being is or can be is physical and mechanistic. Any warrant for that is wholly derived from materialism.
O.
I think you have yet to explain how...
Yet again, the burden of proof sails about 30,000ft over Vlad's head. Nobody has to explain anything. You are making a claim, so it's up to you to rule it out. Well, it would be if you'd even got as far as demonstrating that something has to be necessary and what that would actually mean.No if say Jeremy believes the universe could be necessary he has a reason for saying it which I have a right to enquire of.
No if say Jeremy believes the universe could be necessary he has a reason for saying it which I have a right to enquire of.Could be implies also could not be - a position of uncertainty. I don't think there is a burden of proof on someone who is not making a definitive claim as to whether the universe is or is not necessary.
But Gordon there is nothing about Jesus being both Man and God that isn't mainstream Christianity..Ok - it's an interesting concept. But it sounds as meaningless as saying a man with a penis could be a woman. Once the words "man" and "woman" stop meaning anything because the people who use the words say they can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean and the words defy an agreed definition, then it's not surprising that people who like the words they use to mean something just dismiss words like "humanity", "god" and "divine" as meaningless as they are indifferent to abstract concepts that cannot be cannot be understood with the intellect because they cannot be objectively defined.
Jesus is of course the great mystery and unknown being both God and Man with no blending and no loss
Of either humanity or divinity.
First of all I think you are confusing the properties of time and eternity, contingent and necessity and now you are throwing perfection into the mix.
The key issue here for your argument
...against a being which is divine and human is that all a human being is or can be is physical and mechanistic.
The question is can you be two different things at the same time? The answer I would say is yes. So Bill Clinton was both president of the united states and a saxophonist,
Richard Feynman was a great scientist and a bongo player, Hawking was a towering mind and severely physically disabled and so on and so forth. That 1960's carpet cleaner that beats as it sweeps as it cleans
That God can be in something or all things panentheism is a metaphor. we easily confuse that which does not take up any space with that which does. For instance a hand cannot be a glove but we can have an entity called a gloved hand which is a recognise entity but two things.
The other point is that that which is different doesn't mix. Since one's properties have no counterpart in the other.
We might ask, what then is the unifying thing in Jesus the wholly divine and the wholly perfectly human? The answer is that which is shared is the perfection and spiritual or eternal aspect.
I see no broken rules just ignorance of process.
ROTFLOL!Any contingency depends on a necessity, In terms of a beer belly, copious quantities of beer are necessary. Therefore necessity is a logically coherent possibility.
Nobody needs to circumvent it, your 'argument' for it is so full of holes it's actually more hole than argument. I suggest that it's you who is trying to divert away from your complete inability to address its many problems.
After all these posts you've achieved virtually nothing with regard to this supposed 'argument':
- You haven't demonstrated that anything is necessary.
- You haven't said how necessity is defined in this context (there have been two definitions used here).
- You haven't shown how necessity is a logically coherent possibility.
- You haven't shown that there must be only one necessary entity.
- You haven't shown what a necessary entity's characteristics would be (just asserted some).
- You haven't shown that the universe can't be necessary.
- And now, the characteristics you've just asserted must be those of a necessary entity conflict with the Christian ideas of god.
Yes, but that would be possibly the most effective way of demonstrating his love to mankind, would it not? John 3:16.
God created this reality, knowing what would happen - any 'sacrifice' in there is meaningless, because God chose that reality when he founded it, if you accept the tale - time is entire, it all exists, it's our sense of it that is limited. If god created everything, that includes time, and if god is outside of time then he can see - and foresee - it all. Ergo, if Adam 'sinned', it's because God chose to create that reality; Jesus 'sacrifice' was part of the plan.
O.
If I am, I'm in the good company of the history of Christian Theologians.Dream on
Therefore, either Jesus is not god, or one of your presumptions about contingency and necessity is flawed.
Any contingency depends on a necessity, In terms of a beer belly, copious quantities of beer are necessary. Therefore necessity is a logically coherent possibility.
There is nothing in the observed universe that does not demonstrate contingency. The dictionary definition of which is ''dependent on , conditioned by.''
If the observed universe is conditioned and contingent...
...we are entitled to ask ''on what, what is it which is necessary for the universe?''.
...we observe contingency in the universe. Therefore to impute necessity into the universes parts is to commit the fallacy of division.
I think then that is game over for the universe as the necessary entity.
You have made a fatal contradiction in your argument since you say I haven't shown the universe cannot be necessary. It is foolish I think to argue that the universe as we observe it is not contingent.
If you accept that and suggest it is ALSO NECESSARY then you are not opposing the idea that Jesus can be both contingent man and necessary human. That renders your last objection contradictory.
Ok - it's an interesting concept. But it sounds as meaningless as saying a man with a penis could be a woman. Once the words "man" and "woman" stop meaning anything because the people who use the words say they can mean whatever anyone wants them to mean and the words defy an agreed definition, then it's not surprising that people who like the words they use to mean something just dismiss words like "humanity", "god" and "divine" as meaningless as they are indifferent to abstract concepts that cannot be cannot be understood with the intellect because they cannot be objectively defined.Nobody is trying to dismiss words. Jesus Humanity isn't ditched because we accept his divinity.
"humanity" and "divinity" as you have used it here just seem to be subjectively understood social constructs similar to "gender". The concept of "humanity" is that by definition it is physically and mentally imperfect and fallible because humans are imperfect and fallible. If your concept of "divinity" includes the characteristic of perfection, something cannot be both perfect and imperfect at the same time.No imperfection in Jesus humanity is ever implied in Christianity. Just because we are imperfect.
So you're defining it in relative terms, then. This directly contradicts many of the claims you've made before and the definition in the version of the argument you referenced earlier. It also immediately rules out a single necessary entity because pretty much everything is necessary for something else. The universe is full of necessary entities.
Straight into the fallacy of composition.
To which the answer is a resounding "don't know" and it might be nothing at all.
It wouldn't, but, according to your definition of necessity above, pretty much everything is necessary in some way for something.
Again, according to your definition above, the universe is necessary for everything in it and we have no idea if we can extrapolate further.
Just calling something foolish isn't an argument. ::)
I was using what you'd previously claimed were properties of a necessary entity. Now you've moved the goalposts and anything can be necessary, so you really need to make up your mind.
You've made things worse for yourself, not better.
No, I haven't beer is necessary for a beer belly, God is necessary for the universe.
I maintain you are burdened with a lifetime of not thinking in contingent and necessary terms.
Yes, but that would be possibly the most effective way of demonstrating his love to mankind, would it not? John 3:16.
Baseless assertion.
Necessity in the way you've just changed your mind to, is entirely familiar to me but it doesn't work as an argument for a god because, whereas the universe is clearly necessary for everything in it,Quote!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Then for the sake of pete tell us what in the universe is not contingent!!!
Are you saying that without what we observe there wouldn't be a universe. That makes the universe contingent because it would be dependent on it's parts. Necessity isn't an emergent property for goodness sake.
It can't be what is contingent so what is it about the universe that is necessary. Come on it's supposed to be clear.
Can Jesus fleshy kidney be divine. no. Can it mix with divinity no (what is there to physically mix with) Can Jesus body be divine no What were the Kidney and body? Material.
Is jesus human spirit divine no, is it empirically observable no, is it eternal yes.
Is God Necessary yes. Can his necessity mix with human spleen physically, No, what is there to mix with?
Is God spirit, Yes
Is He eternal Yes
If God is necessary then he is at the base of all heirarchies.
If God determines the outcome of those heirarchies then he can determine the heirarchy on which Jesus humanity depends on. He can be in on Jesus or as we say incarnated as Jesus.
Is a watering can physical yes, is there any necessity to it no. It is wholly contingent.
No.Jesus did not commit suicide.
Forgiveness without a blood sacrifice would be better, but... Not holding children accountable for the alleged flaws of their forebears... not imposing (or even threatening) eternal, transferrable punishments for a temporal 'crime... adequately securing hazardous materials?
As with any abusive relationship, it's not necessary the extent of the love that's being questioned but rather the nature of it and the manifestation of it. If this is real, it's an abusive relationship that we should be helping each other to get out of.
Even then 'I'm going to kill myself (temporarily) to show you that I love you' is just straight up emotional abuse, it's a self-centred, obssessive act of a deranged psyche.
O.
Jesus did not commit suicide.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Then for the sake of pete tell us what in the universe is not contingent!!!
Are you saying that without what we observe there wouldn't be a universe. That makes the universe contingent because it would be dependent on it's parts. Necessity isn't an emergent property for goodness sake.
Jesus did not commit suicide.
Nobody is trying to dismiss words. Jesus Humanity isn't ditched because we accept his divinity. No imperfection in Jesus humanity is ever implied in Christianity. Just because we are imperfect.It doesn't really matter what you are trying or intending. The point I was trying to convey was that the words "humanity" and "divinity" are rendered meaningless in the way you use them because humanity is by definition imperfect and something cannot be both perfect and imperfect, without the words "perfect" and "imperfect" becoming meaningless. In the same way that the terms "man" and "woman" become meaningless once some members of the transgender community start using the term "woman" to mean someone with a penis.
Jesus is the acme of human perfection and I for one wish to convey the solidity of that.
Vlad,Well one does make mistakes along the way however people have now been exposed to concepts that have been, and you should understand this most of all, turdpolished from the theist atheist debate and I have pushed the point your strange relationship with argument based on evidence has come to light namely your atheism and default position is based on all we can see except when it suits you to use a part of the cosmos that hasn't been observed or evidenced.
Others here have already dismantled most of your latest suite of logical howlers, straw men, shiftings of the burden of proof, false analogies etc so there’s no point in me doing it too. Mind you, it was a good call to call something a “mystery” recently rather than “it’s magic innit”, which is what you actually meant – clerics too do that a lot so they appear slightly less to be chancers that way.
Anyway, you also though claimed a while back to have “special faculties” – ie, a god detector presumably – that others presumably lack. What would these “faculties” be exactly, and why do you think you have them? Are the akin to Joseph Smith’s magic specs perhaps, or maybe you think you were just born with an extra sense the rest of us lack?
Do tell!
Well one does make mistakes along the way however people have now been exposed to concepts that, and you should understand this most of all, turdpolished from the theist atheist debate and because I have pushed the point your strange relationship with argument based on evidence has come to light namely your atheism and default position is based on all we can see except when it suits you to use a part of the cosmos that hasn't been observed.
As far as these angels of reason, these magistrates of soundness who's praises you sing for allegedly but unevidentially have brought me down seem to believe that the universe may be contingent and necessary but think it a travesty that Jesus, not nearly as big as the universe, can in no possible way be contingent and necessary.
Talk about arguing above your pay grade ha, ha ,ha.
Can Jesus fleshy kidney be divine. no. Can it mix with divinity no (what is there to physically mix with)But I thought the New Testament asserts that Jesus came to be born through divine intervention with a woman, with that divine intervention taking the place of a man in the reproductive process. So how could the zygote that became Jesus (and his kidneys) have come to be other than through mixing of material (Mary's oocyte) with some unspecified divinity.
Can Jesus body be divine no
It doesn't really matter what you are trying or intending. The point I was trying to convey was that the words "humanity" and "divinity" are rendered meaningless in the way you use them because humanity is by definition imperfect and something cannot be both perfect and imperfect, without the words "perfect" and "imperfect" becoming meaningless. In the same way that the terms "man" and "woman" become meaningless once some members of the transgender community start using the term "woman" to mean someone with a penis.To start talking about the collective ''humanity'' is to misunderstand the incarnation. Jesus did not not incarnate as humanity but as a human.
If words become meaningless by the way you use them, it's not really surprising that any arguments that contain those meaningless words also become meaningless, and therefore unconvincing. It's not really surprising to you is it that some people require words used in an intellectual argument to mean something in order to have any hope of finding the argument convincing?
Well one does make mistakes along the way…
…however people have now been exposed to concepts that, and you should understand this most of all, turdpolished from the theist atheist debate…
…and because I have pushed the point your strange relationship with argument based on evidence has come to light namely your atheism and default position is based on all we can see except when it suits you to use a part of the cosmos that hasn't been observed.
So, it's been worth it.
As far as these angels of reason, these magistrates of soundness who's praises you sing for allegedly but unevidentially have brought me down seem to believe that the universe may be contingent and necessary but think it a travesty that Jesus, not nearly as big as the universe, can in no possible way be contingent and necessary.
Talk about arguing above your pay grade ha, ha ,ha.
Jesus is firstly the ultimate in humanity,Unevidenced assertion
secondly he is the perfect human being,Unevidenced assertion
thirdly sin is nailed down as that which stops us from being perfect.Unevidenced assertion
But I thought the New Testament asserts that Jesus came to be born through divine intervention with a woman, with that divine intervention taking the place of a man in the reproductive process. So how could the zygote that became Jesus (and his kidneys) have come to be other than through mixing of material (Mary's oocyte) with some unspecified divinity.What version of the bible are you using or are you referring to the Bible commentary supplement of the Lancet?
To start talking about the collective ''humanity'' is to misunderstand the incarnation. Jesus did not not incarnate as humanity but as a human.Ok. But a human is imperfect. That is one of the characteristics of being human - your imperfections -physiologically, intellectually, emotionally, chemically, psychologically etc; The human body is vulnerable, therefore imperfect. The human mind is vulnerable, therefore imperfect.
I agree all but one of humanity is imperfect.I am not seeing how that statement is different from asserting that a woman can have a penis?
Most people on this board would reject the notion of perfection presumably because they think it cannot be or imperfection of humanity.Not sure about rejecting the notion of perfection. We can all see imperfections therefore it makes sense to come up with the notion that something free of imperfections would be the definition of perfect. A flawed vulnerable human body and mind would have imperfections. The possibility exists that something that is not a human body or mind could be perfect.
Jesus is firstly the ultimate in humanity, secondly he is the perfect human being, thirdly sin is nailed down as that which stops us from being perfect.The imperfection of sin, which is some chemical/spiritual/moral/emotional/ psychological imperfection observed in a human is part of the definition of being human. Unless the word "sin" means something else to you? To me saying that Jesus is without sin but also human is like saying a person with a penis is a woman - for me it just does not compute - either human and imperfect or not human and perfect but human and perfect sounds meaningless - what is the need for asserting the human part? Of course anyone can assert it, and some/ many may and do enthusiastically support the idea of human and perfect but my point is that it's not surprising if other people shrug their shoulders and find it too meaningless to engage with other than out of politeness.
I do not see how using words in such stark and concrete terms as I am doing makes them meaningless or what my discussion has to do with your analogy.Yes I get that you cannot see my point, in the same way that I cannot understand your "human but perfect" point. We are each limited to what we can see. Not really sure what either of us can do to understand something if it just doesn't make sense to us.
To my mind it is the mealy mouthed ''know what I mean'' euphemistic, understatement of middle class people that renders english meaningless.You're right - language and how it is used is imperfect. That was my point - it's not really surprising that some / many people aren't convinced by imperfect arguments in imperfect languages about abstract concepts.
What version of the bible are you using or are you referring to the Bible commentary supplement of the Lancet?Any version of the bible supplemented by what we now know (but people didn't know then) about human reproduction and development.
What version of the bible are you using or are you referring to the Bible commentary supplement of the Lancet?
Ok. But a human is imperfect. That is one of the characteristics of being human - your imperfections -physiologically, intellectually, emotionally, chemically, psychologically etc; The human body is vulnerable, therefore imperfect. The human mind is vulnerable, therefore imperfect.You seem to be hedging your bets here
I am not seeing how that statement is different from asserting that a woman can have a penis? Not sure about rejecting the notion of perfection. We can all see imperfections therefore it makes sense to come up with the notion that something free of imperfections would be the definition of perfect. A flawed vulnerable human body and mind would have imperfections. The possibility exists that something that is not a human body or mind could be perfect.
None of us would be able to demonstrate that anything is perfect so I would think most people on this board could only assert perfection about something - the same way a person asserts gender.
The imperfection of sin, which is some chemical/spiritual/moral/emotional/ psychological
imperfection observed in a human is part of the definition of being human. Unless the word "sin" means something else to you? To me saying that Jesus is without sin but also human is like saying a person with a penis is a woman - for me it just does not compute - either human and imperfect or not human and perfect but human and perfect sounds meaningless - what is the need for asserting the human part? Of course anyone can assert it, and some/ many may and do enthusiastically support the idea of human and perfect but my point is that it's not surprising if other people shrug their shoulders and find it too meaningless to engage with other than out of politeness.I cannot see how you can have a concept of human imperfection outside the context of human perfection. Of course we don't have to have empirically seen human perfection but we are aware of it hence our awareness of imperfection. The idea of not being right must betray some state of being right. I believe it was socrate's who meditated on the appearence of the perfect person and concluded that he would be eventually be put to death on, presumably, the principle of nobody liking a smartarse.
Yes I get that you cannot see my point, in the same way that I cannot understand your "human but perfect" point. We are each limited to what we can see. Not really sure what either of us can do to understand something if it just doesn't make sense to us.
You're right - language and how it is used is imperfect. That was my point - it's not really surprising that some / many people aren't convinced by imperfect arguments in imperfect languages about abstract concepts.
Any version of the bible supplemented by what we now know (but people didn't know then) about human reproduction and development.We know the Y chromosome to be a reduced version of the x chromosome hence conditions like haemophilia. So given you can start a reproductive process with a single cell neither a male gamete nor a resulting female is a necessity................ God of course could raise a male gamete ''from the dust''(to go full bible) but doesn't even have to go there.
So if Jesus wasn't born following sexual reproduction he's (theoretically) have to have been the product of pathenogenesis (in which case he would have been female) or the claimed divine intervention would have to have replaced the male gamete within the reproduction process which would mean the divide (literally) rising, well actually fusing with the material oocyte.
That the writers of the bible knew nothing about reproductive biology is irrelevant - arguments from ignorance aren't credible.
Vlad,I don't get it. Can you give an example of what you mean?
So is there a separate chromosome for these supposed “special faculties” of yours then?
Why so coy?
I don't get it. Can you give an example of what you mean?
We know the Y chromosome to be a reduced version of the x chromosome hence conditions like haemophilia. So given you can start a reproductive process with a single cell neither a male gamete nor a resulting female is a necessityParthenogenesis does occur in many species, albeit I don't believe it has ever been demonstrated in humans. However in species that use XX, XY as chromosomal determinants of sex the offspring are female.
................ God of course could raise a male gamete ''from the dust''(to go full bible) but doesn't even have to go there.In which case the divine male gamete would literally mix or fuse with the material female gamete, completely refuting your claims.
Since the bible doesn't describe the process we are fairly free to speculate IMHO.Of course the bible doesn't describe the process because the people who wrote it were ignorant of the mechanisms of human reproduction.
You seem to be hedging your bets hereJust allowing for the concept of "sin" to be interpreted in many different ways by imperfect humans using imperfect language.
I cannot see how you can have a concept of human imperfection outside the context of human perfection.Yes I get that you can't see it; in the same way I can't see how a human can be perfect - human perfection to me is meaningless because the way I use the word "human" it has the necessary characteristic of being imperfect. If it was perfect it would lose what it was that makes it human and relatable.
Of course we don't have to have empirically seen human perfection but we are aware of it hence our awareness of imperfection.I am aware of imperfections, which leads me to think that all imperfections, whether I am aware of them or not, could in theory be removed. As I said that would mean for me that it was no longer human. That is why I have no idea what you mean by a perfect human. I agree you are free to assert a perfect human. Equally I am free to assert that a human cannot simultaneously be perfect. It's just the way we each use and understand words.
The idea of not being right must betray some state of being rightFrom observation whether something is right or wrong from a human's perspective seems to be a matter of individual human taste. So the state of being right is temporary e.g. you are in a room full of people where more people think you are right than wrong and then something you observe or hear might change your/their perspectives
I believe it was socrate's who meditated on the appearence of the perfect person and concluded that he would be eventually be put to death on, presumably, the principle of nobody liking a smartarse.Sounds like that imperfection goes with the territory of being human.
I suppose what I am saying is the concept of the imperfect is meaningless without the concept of perfection and in the same impenetrable way imperfection and the awareness of it has been transmitted to us from earliest humanity so has the impenetrable and confused idea and awareness of perfection. Biblically I think the term is used far less than the word perfected or perfecting and of course the key issue is the discussion of sin and holiness.Yes I can understand the concept of perfection, just not a perfect human. Sin is another abstract concept that isn't really explained. Not really surprising since we haven't got very far explaining god. Humans imperfectly interpreting the concept of "divine" and divine laws from an inexplicable god may not make much sense to people who are not on a similar wavelength for that particular interpretation.
I suppose what I am saying is the concept of the imperfect is meaningless without the concept of perfection and in the same impenetrable way imperfection and the awareness of it has been transmitted to us from earliest humanity so has the impenetrable and confused idea and awareness of perfection.But the concepts of perfection and/or imperfection in the context of a human are entirely subjective matters. They sit entirely within the realm of human subjectivity.
Just allowing for the concept of "sin" to be interpreted in many different ways by imperfect humans using imperfect language.Yes I get that you can't see it; in the same way I can't see how a human can be perfect - human perfection to me is meaningless because the way I use the word "human" it has the necessary characteristic of being imperfect. If it was perfect it would lose what it was that makes it human and relatable.I am aware of imperfections, which leads me to think that all imperfections, whether I am aware of them or not, could in theory be removed. As I said that would mean for me that it was no longer human. That is why I have no idea what you mean by a perfect human. I agree you are free to assert a perfect human. Equally I am free to assert that a human cannot simultaneously be perfect. It's just the way we each use and understand words. From observation whether something is right or wrong from a human's perspective seems to be a matter of individual human taste. So the state of being right is temporary e.g. you are in a room full of people where more people think you are right than wrong and then something you observe or hear might change your/their perspectives Sounds like that imperfection goes with the territory of being human.Yes I can understand the concept of perfection, just not a perfect human. Sin is another abstract concept that isn't really explained. Not really surprising since we haven't got very far explaining god. Humans imperfectly interpreting the concept of "divine" and divine laws from an inexplicable god may not make much sense to people who are not on a similar wavelength for that particular interpretation.I don't see how you can gauge/identify imperfection without having some benchmark of perfection. I agree our perceptions are likely imperfect and we suffer from bias which imbues us with a measure of incompetence but at the very least we have the inklings.
I don't see how you can gauge/identify imperfection without having some benchmark of perfection.
'Why are you calling me good? No one is good except God.' (Mark 10:18) This Jesus saying seems to suggest that he didn't see himself as perfect and, as it is recorded in the New Testament that he prayed to his God, this seems to suggest that he didn't think that he was God.My interpretation is that he is challenging his listeners to think about the connections they are making without thinking. If Jesus was, to the audience, so Good they had to talk about it, might they not have made the connection between Jesus and God and not fully realised it?
Vlad,We all have magical faculties Blue. Your super power is turdpolishing.
Maybe you could use those magic "faculties" of yours to do the job?
your argument for the universe being the necessary entityI haven't made any such argument.
I think you have yet to explain how, in other words your reason for believing that and what evidence you have since it seems to lie in an unevidenced part of the universe.
Vlad,Well, a good old God dodge betrays a God detector. Being prepared to dump the principle of sufficient reason, dump cause and effect (effectively the raison d'etre of science) prepared to argue from an unobserved and therefore unevidenced part of the universe thus overturning your own evidential standards, suggesting everything is contingent and floating an infinite regress thus multiplying entities beyond necessity to the max looks like a mad scramble for the door to dodge God.
“Other faculties are involved in the recognition of the divine, revelation being one of them” (Vlad - Reply 621).
As you’re claiming to have “other faculties” I was just wondering what they might be? I reckon magic specs like Joseph Smith had is a good shout, but you may of course be claiming to have some other “faculties” entirely. An inbuilt god-o-meter maybe?
Do tell.
'To make the imperfect perfectThumbs up to that.
It is enough to love it.'
Kathleen Raine
We all have magical faculties Blue. Your super power is turdpolishing.
your superhero identity........The Polisher.
In terms of a beer belly, copious quantities of beer are necessary.
Vlad,Is it absurd?, Is it a pain?, No, It's the Polisher! Faster then a speeding teatowel, more powerful than concentrated Brasso. The polisher mild mannered defender of wonky new atheism.
Ah yes – always a safer bet to try an ad hom rather than actually engage with numerous mistakes in your semi-literate, logically incoherent, substantially dishonest efforts here.
You were the one claiming to have special faculties though remember? If you now want to run away from that as you do so often when you run out of road that’s a matter for you. Pity though – I was rather counting on you claiming magic specs, but I guess we’ll never know now.
Yes, but that would be possibly the most effective way of demonstrating his love to mankind, would it not? John 3:16.
Well, a good old God dodge betrays a God detector.
Being prepared to dump the principle of sufficient reason, dump cause and effect (effectively the raison d'etre of science) prepared to argue from an unobserved and therefore unevidenced part of the universe thus overturning your own evidential standards, suggesting everything is contingent and floating an infinite regress thus multiplying entities beyond necessity to the max looks like a mad scramble for the door to dodge God.
I don't see how you can gauge/identify imperfection without having some benchmark of perfection. I agree our perceptions are likely imperfect and we suffer from bias which imbues us with a measure of incompetence but at the very least we have the inklings.The doctrine based on faith is the Quran is a message - the word of Allah and perfect.
Let's put this in an Islamic context. Is the Koran a book? Is it imperfect? Is it the material manifestation of the word of God?
Is it absurd?, Is it a pain?, No, It's the Polisher! Faster then a speeding teatowel, more powerful than concentrated Brasso. The polisher mild mannered defender of wonky new atheism.
The doctrine based on faith is the Quran is a message - the word of Allah and perfect.So here again we have an instrument of discernment, faith, an object of perfection manifested, which is or derives from the divine?
People who were with Prophet Mohamed memorised verses as they were revealed / recited by him and also started writing it down on scraps of animal skin, leaves, parchment. It got organised into chapters in a book (after Prophet Mohamed died) by Caliph Umer and then Caliph Usman, who were companions of Prophet Mohamed.
If you look at different copies of the Quran there may occasionally be slight minor differences in the diacritics in different copies of the book - maybe due to printers - who knows. I know this because I recite it in Arabic over Zoom with others and we sometimes spot differences.
I'm probably the wrong person to ask about the Islamic context as I would say as a human I don't have the capability to judge what is perfect so it's just doctrine. I don't even know what perfect means. It's a matter of taste. Language is ambiguous etc etc
When I point this out to Muslims they say the Quran being perfect is a faith position.
So here again we have an instrument of discernment, faith, an object of perfection manifested, which is or derives from the divine?I think this was mentioned a few posts back - that you hold a faith position. A faith position isn't a convincing argument. If it was you would be convinced by my faith position into becoming a Muslim or I would be convinced by your faith position into becoming a Christian or a follower of Thor.
I think this was mentioned a few posts back - that you hold a faith position. A faith position isn't a convincing argument. If it was you would be convinced by my faith position into becoming a Muslim or I would be convinced by your faith position into becoming a Christian or a follower of Thor.Discernment as taste? Not sure, my view is that even the 'unfaithful' discern God but don't acknowledge the resultant thoughts, feelings and urges to bail out or draw back as such. I know though that encounter can be a matter of fact, undramatic experience though.
If by "discernment" you mean taste, then different faith positions are not to everyone's tastes. And whether my taste for something is enough to convince someone else to give it a go is a bit hit and miss. Taste is subjective based on nature/nurture - there are so many different interpretations available of Islamic or Christian doctrines depending on the individual tastes of the person holding that faith position. People who are somewhat misogynistic or authoritarian may argue the meaning of the words in a doctrinal text one way, those of a more liberal persuasion will argue for a different meaning of the doctrine. Sure someone can feel a connection with someone else's faith position but just as easily someone else might not connect with it.
e.g. I was in the British OTC at uni so I can relate to non-pacificst interpretations of faith doctrines as the culture I absorbed in the British army was that violence was not always a bad thing and was praised as courageous, and a patriotic duty etc and being a leader sometimes might involve going to battle. Hence when I came across the history of Islam and Prophet Mohamed in a land of tribal rivalries, it did not put me off that a man like Prophet Mohamed, who was both a religious and political leader for 13 years of a state that united the rival tribes, was occasionally required to be on the battlefield leading from the front against threats to the state but could also show compassion to enemy armies. But despite this I feel no connection with more overtly war-like concepts of gods such as Thor.
And I can see why some people whose tastes lean towards much more pacifist ethereal tendencies would find it off-putting for religious leaders to concern themselves with earthly matters of governance and political stability rather than just focusing on spiritual concepts.
Discernment as taste? Not sure, my view is that even the 'unfaithful' discern God but don't acknowledge the resultant thoughts, feelings and urges to bail out or draw back as such. I know though that encounter can be a matter of fact, undramatic experience though.I don't know. I don't discern Jesus as God - I just can't relate to the concept of it as you have described it or the concept of the Trinity or the concept of Jesus dying on the cross to redeem everyone's sins. As I said for me it doesn't make sense and it is not a story I can relate to but it clearly makes sense to you. I think I had a more emotional reaction to the narrative when the story was presented in Narnia with a lion etc but with a man in Nazareth - not seeing anything more than a man.
Did the fact that Mohammed was a military man attract you to Islam?No - it just was not a deal-breaker.
I don't know. I don't discern Jesus as God - I just can't relate to the concept of it as you have described it or the concept of the Trinity or the concept of Jesus dying on the cross to redeem everyone's sins. As I said for me it doesn't make sense and it is not a story I can relate to but it clearly makes sense to you. I think I had a more emotional reaction to the narrative when the story was presented in Narnia with a lion etc but with a man in Nazareth - not seeing anything more than a man.I have to compare any drawing back from God with my experience of drawing back from God in Christ. I remain rather unmoved, unchallenged and yes undisturbed by Islam spiritually and intellectually although it covers much of the same philosophical ground. The word of God incarnated as a human to me is a more comprehensive event than the manifestation as a book.
The feeling of lack of connection and not buying into that concept emotionally or intellectually - is that what you mean by "feelings and urges to bail out or draw back". Don't you feel the same way about Allah and Prophet Mohamed? Are you saying you discern Allah?
No - it just was not a deal-breaker.
I was attracted by some of the verses in the Quran - the bluntness in the way it presented human psychology, motivations, strengths and weaknesses but also intertwined with poetic imagery and the combination of bluntness and poetry in the Quran about Allah. There was both a simplicity and complexity to it - as it seemed to be ok to just say things were a mystery and unknowable but if you wanted to think more deeply there were metaphors and analysis. Reminded me of English A'Level analysis. It also helped that its adherents that I encountered seemed to have a strong family bond, were fun and were very hospitable
The doctrine in Islam is that Prophet Mohamed is human, not divine, and he lived a human life and died a human death and he is not to be worshipped, but people can see examples from his words and actions. So his words and actions need to be relatable and human and cover many different kinds of scenarios that ordinary people might encounter - poverty, hunger, hostility, religious persecution, threats of war, having to negotiate for peace, offers of bribes, threats to life, exile, insults, compromise, religious practices, marital and family life, discord, sexual attraction, giving charity, business dealings, contracts, commerce etc.
Obviously many things might not be so relatable in 21st century Britain, but there is a lot that is, and the practices of other cultures can be fascinating and can help me to see British cultural norms in a different perspective and my British culture also influences my interpretation of Islam.
I have to compare any drawing back from God with my experience of drawing back from God in Christ. I remain rather unmoved, unchallenged and yes undisturbed by Islam spiritually and intellectually although it covers much of the same philosophical ground. The word of God incarnated as a human to me is a more comprehensive event than the manifestation as a book.I do not really feel any particularly deep emotional connection to Prophet Mohamed - sure some of the stories are moving - and there are some things to respect or admire. The stories and examples from his life can be thought-provoking. I find the concept of a supernatural entity much more interesting.
What you say about your chief prophet resembles what they call the Great man theory of History...... not big on that I'm afraid. Do you think in a sense you went looking for that kind of man? I'm not a great reverer and certainly wouldn't treat a man as a superman without experiencing the divine element.
I do not really feel any particularly deep emotional connection to Prophet Mohamed - sure some of the stories are moving - and there are some things to respect or admire. The stories and examples from his life can be thought-provoking. I find the concept of a supernatural entity much more interesting.Yes like you, I too find that rather compelling.
I have to compare any drawing back from God with my experience of drawing back from God in Christ.I was not sure what you meant by this.
I remain rather unmoved, unchallenged and yes undisturbed by Islam spiritually and intellectually although it covers much of the same philosophical ground. The word of God incarnated as a human to me is a more comprehensive event than the manifestation as a book.Fair enough. I prefer books.
What you say about your chief prophet resembles what they call the Great man theory of History...... not big on that I'm afraid. Do you think in a sense you went looking for that kind of man? I'm not a great reverer and certainly wouldn't treat a man as a superman without experiencing the divine element.I forgot to say (though you probably already know) that Muslims as part of their faith revere/ respect Jesus as a Prophet like Mohamed. But both are considered human and therefore fallible. I too am not into revering people either or books particularly but I can connect with the words.
I have to compare any drawing back from God with my experience of drawing back from God in Christ.
I forgot to say (though you probably already know) that Muslims as part of their faith revere/ respect Jesus as a Prophet like Mohamed.
Well, a good old God dodge betrays a God detector. Being prepared to dump the principle of sufficient reason, dump cause and effect (effectively the raison d'etre of science) prepared to argue from an unobserved and therefore unevidenced part of the universe thus overturning your own evidential standards, suggesting everything is contingent and floating an infinite regress thus multiplying entities beyond necessity to the max looks like a mad scramble for the door to dodge God.
VG,I'm not sure I do reject all the woo aspects of my faith. The supernatural is woo and I don't reject that. I am also happy to go along with the faith position that Mohamed was a prophet and the Qu'ran is a message - that's woo.
Just out of interest, if you reject the woo apects of your faith (and presumably of Vlad’s faith too), why do you refer to either as a prophet?
(1) My interpretation is that he is challenging his listeners to think about the connections they are making without thinking. If Jesus was, to the audience, so Good they had to talk about it, might they not have made the connection between Jesus and God and not fully realised it?
(2) Also do you realise he is saying no one is good except God? How do you .....and they..... feel about that?
(3) If he is Good, then he is God......... if he isn't good, then who can be?
I'm not sure I do reject all the woo aspects of my faith. The supernatural is woo and I don't reject that. I am also happy to go along with the faith position that Mohamed was a prophet and the Qu'ran is a message - that's woo.
I just meant that compared to other Muslims I have spoken to I appear not to be filled with the kind of emotions of love, admiration etc they seem to have for Prophet Mohamed. From my perspective the man has been dead since 632 AD (https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/founder-of-islam-dies) so for me there is a limit to how much of a connection I can have from the stories. But many other Muslims seem to profess love and reverence for him.
You really do live in a little fantasy world all of your own. Not only do you still not get the burden of proof, and therefore are totally misunderstanding the positions others are taking, but your god doesn't address any of the problems raised about why things exist and are as they are. It just amounts to "it's magic, innt?".
You haven't even begun to explain how your god would have "sufficient reason", you've just asserted it ("because it's magic, innit?"). Accusing others of suggesting it might not apply is pure hypocrisy. That's why I kept asking you to justify the concept of a necessary entity and, because you couldn't, why you then cut the feet off your own 'argument' by defining it in a totally different sense to that which would be required to make your excuse for an argument make even the slightest bit of sense
Vlad,Draw back from crap ideas to crap ideas contingency without necessity, using the principle of sufficient reason to try to debunk the principle of sufficient reason, infinite regress and the multiplying of entities beyond necessity to the max, appealing to the unevidenced part of the universe while waxing sanctimoniously about evidence.
Vlad fallacy of the day: reification.
People don’t “draw back from God” or from “God in Christ”. What they actually draw back from (ie, reject) is the crap arguments used to justify the claim that there’s a god at all.
Draw back from crap ideas to crap ideas contingency without necessity, using the principle of sufficient reason to try to debunk the principle of sufficient reason, infinite regress and the multiplying of entities beyond necessity to the max, appealing to the unevidenced part of the universe while waxing sanctimoniously about evidence.Parklife
I was not sure what you meant by this. Fair enough. I prefer books.What I mean to say is I realised I was dodging God and have consciously dodged God. So surrendering to God for me is hardly a preference but rather an admission of need.
I forgot to say (though you probably already know) that Muslims as part of their faith revere/ respect Jesus as a Prophet like Mohamed. But both are considered human and therefore fallible. I too am not into revering people either or books particularly but I can connect with the words.
VG,I hadn't really thought about prophecies except in passing. I had a quick Google and it seems the Qu'ran has a couple of prophecies but nothing that sounded interesting. There is a description of what will supposedly happen after the world ends but I don't take the description literally - I assume it is trying to convey an idea and generate certain feelings through imagery.
Ah, OK thanks - so you go further than thinking Mohammed (and Jesus) was just a charismatic mortal with interesting things into the notion that he also had supernatural powers of foretelling the future.
As you might expect I find that odd given that there's no way to investigate or validate that claim, but I guess that's the personal faith part right?I find believing in prophecies odd too for much the same reason, which is probably why I know nothing about any prophecies as I haven't looked into it. I guess there is a limit to how much woo I am comfortable with.
What I mean to say is I realised I was dodging God and have consciously dodged God. So surrendering to God for me is hardly a preference but rather an admission of need.What exactly did you do that you see as "dodging God"?
Draw back from crap ideas to crap ideas contingency without necessity...
...using the principle of sufficient reason to try to debunk the principle of sufficient reason...
...infinite regress and the multiplying of entities beyond necessity to the max, appealing to the unevidenced part of the universe while waxing sanctimoniously about evidence.
Draw back from crap ideas to crap ideas contingency without necessity, using the principle of sufficient reason to try to debunk the principle of sufficient reason, infinite regress and the multiplying of entities beyond necessity to the max, appealing to the unevidenced part of the universe while waxing sanctimoniously about evidence.
I hadn't really thought about prophecies except in passing. I had a quick Google and it seems the Qu'ran has a couple of prophecies but nothing that sounded interesting. There is a description of what will supposedly happen after the world ends but I don't take the description literally - I assume it is trying to convey an idea and generate certain feelings through imagery.
I guess I call him Prophet Mohammed because that's what everyone else calls him so it's just a title and differentiates him from the millions of Muslims called Mohammed/ Muhammad/ Mohamed etc who are named after him. In the Quran he is referred to as a messenger and the Qu'ran is the message so in the context he is seen as a mouthpiece and his revelations or the verses he recites are not considered to be his composition. If he made any prophecies when he wasn't being a mouthpiece i.e. if there are prophecies made by him that are not verses of the Quran I don't know much about them so either they can't have been very important or I wasn't paying attention.
Also, once you start looking at what he may or may not have said that is not in the Qu'ran there can be disputes amongst Muslims about whether he actually said it and in what context and how should it be interpreted (this is starting to sound like something out of a Discworld novel)
I find believing in prophecies odd too for much the same reason, which is probably why I know nothing about any prophecies as I haven't looked into it. I guess there is a limit to how much woo I am comfortable with.
VG,Direct line to deity - yes - as in mouthpiece for said deity rather than a hotline to contact the deity at will; passing on messages from deity - yes; predicting future events such as the winner of a race - not really come across this about Prophet Mohamed so am assuming predicting the future is not a major requirement in the Arabic words 'nabi' or 'rasul', which have been translated into English as 'Prophet'.
Well fine, but the title “prophet” is more than just an honorific isn’t it? Surely to be a prophet one must be in the prophecy business, no? You know, with a direct line to a deity on whose behalf the prophet passes on messages, tells you the winner of the 4.30 at Kempton Park etc?
This seems a pretty fundamental difference to me from a mere mortal with some interesting things to say as it requires buying wholesale an explanatory model of the universe outwith anything we can explain with reason or evidence.The Qu'ran (the message) has some poetic stuff to say about the universe but I would not say it was contained an explanatory model of the universe. After Prophet Mohamed died there were various Muslim scientists in the 8th century onwards who investigated and developed ideas relating to astronomy and maths. I don't think they used the Quran as a reference book for any science-based investigations.
Of course folks are entirely free to believe anything they wish about this kind of thing (provided of course they don’t expect their opinions to be specially privileged, to be taught as facts to children, to be immune from criticism or ridicule etc.) but it still seems to me an odd position to adopt by people possessed of reasoning abilities. Ah well...No doubt it does seem odd to an atheist. That's fine - I think it would be boring if we all thought the same way.
What exactly did you do that you see as "dodging God"?Refusal to get into a serious discussion about religion, Rather being condescending and sarcastic toward to religious people I considered as automatically odd and weird, Turning tv and radio programmes about religion off although that was a trait I picked up from my parents. Patronising all bookshops apart from, yes you'ved guessed it christian bookshops was my kind of life modus. When I became aware of God's real presence and his call I tried to blot it out but couldn't eventually in all honesty.
Refusal to get into a serious discussion about religion, Rather being condescending and sarcastic toward to religious people I considered as automatically odd and weird, Turning tv and radio programmes about religion off although that was a trait I picked up from my parents. Patronising all bookshops apart from, yes you'ved guessed it christian bookshops was my kind of life modus. When I became aware of God's real presence and his call I tried to blot it out but couldn't eventually in all honesty.What do you consider as a serious discussion?
What do you consider as a serious discussion?I thought you wanted to know about my God dodging rather that for me to set up a piece from you about what you think about God dodging. That said, the only real beef I have is your notion that this forum is primarily for debate it isn’t I mean that might be the idea, It has become the home of the Ad hom, a hang for antitheists, propaganda, a home for the posse and the pack, people who operate on the “OI, nutter” principle.......and those are just it’s good points.
Forums are not really the place for polite and affirming conversations but we seem to have had many impolite serious discussions on here. If you post on an online debate forum, isn't there an expectation for someone else to robustly challenge your view?
If we make a positive claim on a debate forum that God exists or God is a delusion, presumably we would expect people to ask why we believe that. And in any ensuing discussion, people who don't share a particular belief in/ agree with the positive claim made would say it sounds nonsensical and ask for evidence to support the claim. I agree that ad homs are pointless but asking for evidence is fair.
I remember in the threads about Meghan and Harry I said they were skipping town and heading to the US to not just make money but to have more control over their money and activities without being told what to do or say by palace officials. I was asked for evidence that their actions were motivated by money to further their ambitions rather than because they were craving privacy - I did not have any and I could not be bothered to justify my opinion by writing an analysis on those two. I was just giving my opinion on how I read the situation from the various media reports. I did not mind that people dismissed my opinions as I did not have any evidence for them. Now it turns out that they had been in talks with various streaming companies and were keen to sign on the dotted line sooner rather than later, which they couldn't do while being working royals in London.
I personally don't see that it's particularly out of place on a debate forum for some posters to challenge claims with ridicule or condescension, if the points made are thought-provoking and not ad homs. It's nicer if ridicule and condescension are not involved and probably more effective but everyone's different and if it's a poster's online personality to ridicule at the end of the day it's online - any time people are finding it too frustrating or have had enough they can leave for a while and come back later.
I thought you wanted to know about my God dodging rather that for me to set up a piece from you about what you think about God dodging. That said, the only real beef I have is your notion that this forum is primarily for debate it isn’t I mean that might be the idea, It has become the home of the Ad hom, a hang for antitheists, propaganda, a home for the posse and the pack, people who operate on the “OI, nutter” principle.......and those are just it’s good points.
Vlad,See what I mean about propaganda..
Actually it’s more a home for people who use reason and argument to investigate your claims and assertions, and thereby find them wanting. Accusing others of not wanting a “serious” discussion is beyond ironic given your endless ducking and diving, but nonetheless it’s still within you gift finally to try at east to engage with the arguments you’re given rather than ignore or misrepresent them.
See what I mean about propaganda..
I thought you wanted to know about my God dodging rather that for me to set up a piece from you about what you think about God dodging. That said, the only real beef I have is your notion that this forum is primarily for debate it isn’t I mean that might be the idea, It has become the home of the Ad hom, a hang for antitheists, propaganda, a home for the posse and the pack, people who operate on the “OI, nutter” principle.......and those are just it’s good points.Fair point. By ad homs I assume you mean when people accuse others of dishonesty. I don't take it seriously - it's just a forum.
No.That would mean allowing us to disobey God perpetually without consequence
Forgiveness without a blood sacrifice would be better, but...
Not holding children accountable for the alleged flaws of their forebears...That isn't the case, as Adam's descendants ultimately make their own choices.
not imposing (or even threatening) eternal, transferrable punishments for a temporal 'crime...I don't know the answer to this, but maybe it's a bit like having to 'obey' gravity and not jump off a cliff. Gravity is not unfair, it keeps us on the ground: likewise, God's moral laws are not unfair, they enable us to maintain relationships but if we ignore them we are alienated from each other and God.
Fair point. By ad homs I assume you mean when people accuse others of dishonesty. I don't take it seriously - it's just a forum.There are brilliant philosophies and beliefs around most are brilliant some diabolical so, most are wrong.
Your idea of God-dodging seems to be ridiculng arguments for gods or ridiculing people who make arguments for gods or both?
As the burden of proof is on the person who makes a positive claim e.g. a claim that God does/ does not exist, people who make assertions about the supernatural must seem mad to atheists. Most of the people on here seem to be in the position of I haven't been presented with any convincing evidence to believe that gods exist e.g you don't believe in Allah and I don't believe Jesus is the Son of God because neither of us find the evidence convincing. We already know atheists don't find the evidence convincing for any gods.
There's not much for people to say on here other then to dismantle other people's positive claims, unless we're on the Jokes thread or music thread etc. I don't know why an atheist would be on a religion thread except to dismantle arguments people make for gods.
I came on here as a Muslim fully expecting to get a verbal kicking from some atheists and theists about Islam. Even some Muslims give each other a verbal kicking about Islam on forums. It's useful knowing what is going through other people's minds and there are always some people who don't hold back on forums unlike IRL, so info gained on forums has helped me when having conversations IRL.
The trouble is people want to play other players rather than the ball.Agree
Also people don't seem to want to own any Weltbilt thinking that things are obvious that what they think is knowledge rather than belief.What is the difference between knowledge and belief? What criteria would you use to decide whether a piece of information is knowledge or whether it is a belief?
I enjoy a bit of knockabout though.So do I - but arguing on here takes up a lot of time so I need to take breaks from this board or I never get any work done.
What is the difference between knowledge and belief? What criteria would you use to decide whether a piece of information is knowledge or whether it is a belief?Err ... evidence.
AgreeFor me the finest example of confusing what one knows with what one believes has been Bluehillside who has accused me of the fallacy of composition based on an as yet unobserved and unevidenced part of the universe. He can only believe this since that part remains unobserved and unevidenced. Since the fallacy only holds when one takes a part and treats it like a whole. Since I am appealing to the whole evidenced part I am not technically committing the fallacy. He is confusing what he believes with what he knows.
What is the difference between knowledge and belief? What criteria would you use to decide whether a piece of information is knowledge or whether it is a belief?
So do I - but arguing on here takes up a lot of time so I need to take breaks from this board or I never get any work done.
For me the finest example of confusing what one knows with what one believes has been Bluehillside who has accused me of the fallacy of composition based on an as yet unobserved and unevidenced part of the universe. He can only believe this since that part remains unobserved and unevidenced. Since the fallacy only holds when one takes a part and treats it like a whole. Since I am appealing to the whole evidenced part I am not technically committing the fallacy. He is confusing what he believes with what he knows.Let's park BHS to one side for the moment - we'll get back to him and his beliefs/ accusations later. BHS and I enjoy a good argument so I don't want to get distracted.
For me the finest example of confusing what one knows with what one believes has been Bluehillside who has accused me of the fallacy of composition based on an as yet unobserved and unevidenced part of the universe. He can only believe this since that part remains unobserved and unevidenced. Since the fallacy only holds when one takes a part and treats it like a whole. Since I am appealing to the whole evidenced part I am not technically committing the fallacy. He is confusing what he believes with what he knows.
For me the finest example of confusing what one knows with what one believes has been Bluehillside who has accused me of the fallacy of composition based on an as yet unobserved and unevidenced part of the universe. He can only believe this since that part remains unobserved and unevidenced. Since the fallacy only holds when one takes a part and treats it like a whole. Since I am appealing to the whole evidenced part I am not technically committing the fallacy. He is confusing what he believes with what he knows.
In which Vlad shows that he understands neither the fallacy of composition nor the relevance of the unobserved and unknown part of the universe to the burden of proof for his argument. You made two logical errors, not just one, and you don't even seem to get that (well, actually, you've made many more than two errors, but there are two that are relevant to this nonsense).I have by and large ended by asking if the universe is the necessary entity what is necessary about it knowing full well that anything with parts is contingent.
I would explain it all again, but what's the point? For some reason you seem to be determined to bring up your total confusion (or dishonesty) time and time again and refuse to engage with anybody who explains it to you.
I have by and large ended by asking if the universe is the necessary entity what is necessary about it knowing full well that anything with parts is contingent.
I have by and large ended by asking if the universe is the necessary entity what is necessary about it knowing full well that anything with parts is contingent.
Super - how about answering Gabriella's question about how you discriminate between knowledge and belief.Yes please Vlad. I now finally understand what you mean by God dodging so would like to clear up whether you are saying you know God is a necessary being or are you saying it is possible that God is/ isn't a necessary being?
That would mean allowing us to disobey God perpetually without consequence.
That isn't the case, as Adam's descendants ultimately make their own choices.
I don't know the answer to this, but maybe it's a bit like having to 'obey' gravity and not jump off a cliff. Gravity is not unfair, it keeps us on the ground: likewise, God's moral laws are not unfair, they enable us to maintain relationships but if we ignore them we are alienated from each other and God.
There's not much for people to say on here other then to dismantle other people's positive claims, unless we're on the Jokes thread or music thread etc. I don't know why an atheist would be on a religion thread except to dismantle arguments people make for gods.
Maybe to learn something?As a former atheist, yes when I was an atheist I could politely learn about someone else's beliefs about the supernatural. It's not much different to learning about other people's cultures or philosophies or politics or morals even if you don't share those beliefs.
As a former atheist, yes when I was an atheist I could politely learn about someone else's beliefs about the supernatural. It's not much different to learning about other people's cultures or philosophies or politics or morals even if you don't share those beliefs.I think I've learned all sorts of things about all sorts of stuff from this MB - much nothing to do with religion.
I think the polite listening probably goes out the window if the other person starts giving you the impression that they think there is something lacking in you (you're less moral, more selfish, less spiritual, less humble etc) because you don't share their beliefs about the supernatural or moral, political or philosophical beliefs.Or by requesting evidence and providing evidence ;).
At that point it probably becomes more enjoyable to rebuff their self-important egotistical and patronising assumptions... by being egotistical, patronising and condescending to them.
I think I've learned all sorts of things about all sorts of stuff from this MB - much nothing to do with religion.Same here. I don't find it the local posse hangout as Vlad seems to think it is. And I've experienced pile ons especially on the Muslim Board.
Or by requesting evidence and providing evidence ;).Agreed.....sometimes in a neutral tone and sometimes in a egotistical, patronising and condescending manner - and sometimes in a very humorous and entertaining way - depending on your perspective /taste.
But on the broader knock-about stuff, much of the time it is just fun, but it does allow an individual to 'road-test' and hone their arguments. And to borrow from others whose arguments you broadly agree with.Agreed.
If god sacrifices god (for the weekend) to god, we haven't paid any consequence anyway.We have because we still have to pay the penalty of physical death.
If the sin was inherited before and is still inherited now, we're not forgiven anyway. I fail to see what's allegedly been achieved, even if you accept the premise.We will be able to go back into the garden, so to speak - in the new earth.
I appreciate that the explicit doctrine of 'original sin' is particular to certain sects, but my understanding (and I'm more than happy to be corrected if I'm wrong) is that we are forced to live outside the perfection of the Garden of Eden (eternal life, not wants etc.) because Adam and Even were evicted for THEIR behaviour. We are being punished for their actions, even without the explicit doctrine of original sin. I didn't eat the apple, why am I doomed to die? I can make all the choices I like, but I still die.Good point, but Jesus was tempted outside the garden, as we are, but he didn't sin. Okay I know he is God, but I don't think that made it easier for him. The temptations continued up until he was on the cross, which he could have come down from.
I appreciate the honesty - your faith, presumably, allows you to believe that there is a fairness underlying this even if you cannot immediately see it. All I can tell you is that I can't rationalise a loving God that cares for us or about us, with those particular rules and explanations. I can rationalise gravity being 'unfair' because gravity isn't portrayed as loving, or all powerful, or as the designer. God is all of those, and I can't see how the unfairness - or even just the appearance of unfairness - is his responsibility. As a parent, and as the husband of a teacher, the appearance of at least an attempt at fairness is important in getting 'buy-in', if the system appears rigged there is no reason for people to try to comply with it.I guess the example wasn't completely sound. There is the rule over the day and night that was ordained for the sun and moon, so in a sense we have to obey them as well, and they are fundamentally good because they support life. But yes, I see your point. They aren't designers or loving.
O.
We have because we still have to pay the penalty of physical death.
We will be able to go back into the garden, so to speak - in the new earth.
Good point, but Jesus was tempted outside the garden, as we are, but he didn't sin. Okay I know he is God, but I don't think that made it easier for him. The temptations continued up until he was on the cross, which he could have come down from.
I guess the example wasn't completely sound. There is the rule over the day and night that was ordained for the sun and moon, so in a sense we have to obey them as well, and they are fundamentally good because they support life.
The other idea I had was that as a parent, one knows the child will disobey at times and that potentially the child could perpetually rebel and alienate itself. But we chose to have children, knowing that they may do this, or that we may have to sacrifice ourselves for them (personally I haven't had kids yet but I would guess this becomes a thing for a parent).
Likewise, God chose to create us and give us free will, knowing he would need to save us, so I think it's a good analogy?
Yes please Vlad. I now finally understand what you mean by God dodging so would like to clear up whether you are saying you know God is a necessary being or are you saying it is possible that God is/ isn't a necessary being?First of all I am aware that things which cannot be falsified are generally termed beliefs. I would not personally have put forward your knowledge , belief dichotomy, I think that is too simple and I'd put experience in there too as many members will have noticed.
And are you saying it is possible that the universe is/isn't a necessary being?
Would you take out the word "know" and use the word believe in the above sentences?
That would mean allowing us to disobey God perpetually without consequenceHow would it be different to the current circumstances except that God wouldn't have had to give up a weekend?
That isn't the case, as Adam's descendants ultimately make their own choices.Do you disagree with the concept of original sin then?
I don't know the answer to this, but maybe it's a bit like having to 'obey' gravity and not jump off a cliff. Gravity is not unfair, it keeps us on the ground:Gravity is a physical law. It's not a sentient being that
likewise, God's moral laws are not unfairEternal punishment for temporal crimes seems somewhat unfair. Furthermore, some people can get away with their crimes just by turning to Christ it seems. God will let you off, but only if you have heard of Christianity and only if you are credulous enough to believe in what is an incoherent story with more holes than Blackburn, Lancashire.
Is the universe the necessary being....
So how can 'the universe' be the necessary entity?
Secondly, from the best definition of contingency i've seen....the Merriam webster dictionary.....a contingent thing is something which is dependent on and conditioned by. This gives us an idea of what necessity and the necessary entity must be like...
Is the universe the necessary being....You are getting way, way ahead of yourself Vlad. That is like asking is strawberry the preferred flavour of gum chewed by Martians.
You are getting way, way ahead of yourself Vlad. That is like asking is strawberry the preferred flavour of gum chewed by Martians.No, the argument starts with contingency, we know what we observe fits the clear definitions of contingency, the logical pathway is thus 'on what is it contingent'. This is true for the universe. The necessary entity is that whose existence is unavoidable. since the universe is observed to be conditional or conditionable then the necessary being must be something other than what we have observed. That is why I ask what is it about the universe which is necessary. Since contingency demands necessity and if we say the universe is contingent the next logical question is on what.
Before you come close to asking that question you need to go through the following steps:
1. You need a clear and agreed definition of a necessary entity.
2. You need to clearly define what a necessary being is and why it is distinct from a necessary entity as defined in 1.
3. You need to provide compelling evidence that there is a necessary being
Only then can you start to discuss whether the universe is that necessary being.
But you've not even got beyond 1 yet Vlad.
Since contingency demands necessity ...There you go again - basing your arguments on assumptions that you haven't substantiated/justified.
There you go again - basing your arguments on assumptions that you haven't substantiated/justified.Come on, contingency means dependent on or conditioned by name something that isn't. The next logical question is ''on what''. Stop fucking gas lighting.
As pointed out previously it is perfectly possible to have only contingent entities within a system. And it is also possibly for entities to be both necessary and contingent in different contexts.
Come on, contingency means dependent on or conditioned by name something that isn't. The next logical question is ''on what''. Stop fucking gas lighting.Sure, but the answer to 'on what' is likely to simply be something that is in itself contingent on another entity.
No, the argument starts with contingency, we know what we observe fits the clear definitions of contingency, the logical pathway is thus 'on what is it contingent'. This is true for the universe.
The necessary entity is that whose existence is unavoidable.
since the universe is observed to be conditional or conditionable...
then the necessary being must be something other than what we have observed. That is why I ask what is it about the universe which is necessary. Since contingency demands necessity and if we say the universe is contingent the next logical question is on what.
The non existence of the necessary being is not logical since contingency is both defined and observed. The necessary entity has sufficient reason from the definition of contingency.
Having established necessity...
...we need to ask what are it's attributes, where as the contingent is dependent on and conditioned by the necessary entity is not.
Again what is it about the universe which is necessary since it will have to fulfil these things.
Finally, evidence. Since observation involves some kind of conditioning and the necessary entity is not conditionable then direct observation is impossible.
And don't forget the best one can say of the universe is that the universe ''just is'' which avoids sufficient reason which undermines science.
If you say that science is good except for the universe as a whole that is special pleading and emergence and an emergent thing is not necessary.
Therefore the necessary entity or being is not to be observed directly
Sure, but the answer to 'on what' is likely to simply be something that is in itself contingent on another entity.Hand wavy? No, I would say yours is hand wavy. You seem to have got something for nothing here in other words no such system ever been observed. All systems we observe are dependent on an externality.
Now your whole argument is based on linearity - in other words that eventually you get to something which is necessary for all the things further down in the chain, but is not contingent on anything else. The end of the chain so to speak. But the chain may be circular, not linear so that:
Entity A is contingent on entity B
Entity B is contingent on entity C
Entity C is contingent on entity D
Entity D is contingent on entity A
In this very simple example there is no absolute 'necessary entity' (i.e. one that is not contingent), but there are four entities that are both necessary and also contingent.
So your hand wavy assertion that contingency demands necessity, presumably implying that there must be a necessary entity that isn't contingent is logically flawed below the waterline.
Hand wavy? No, I would say yours is hand wavy. You seem to have got something for nothing here in other words no such system ever been observed. All systems we observe are dependent on an externality.There are all sorts of systems and networks that operate in this manner.
Secondly you seem to have invented a perpetual motion machine, a second handwave, again no such system has been observed all systems need inputOh dear back to your inability to see time as anything other than unilinear.
Your system is therefore twice logically flawed below the waterline.Nope - as I said it is a possibility, not that it is certain. And it is certainly possible, which makes your claim that there must be a necessary entity (or being) unsustainably. There might be, but there might not be. And frankly if you claim there is then you open up more questions than you answer.
Again we are back to what is it in the universe that is necessary.Back to your unevidenced and illogical assertion that the notion that there must be a necessary entity is the only possible explanation. It isn't.
How do you know it's true for the universe?Because we observe the contingent in the universe.
How is it logically possible for anything to unavoidably exist? How would we recognise it, even if we were aware of it? How do you know that the universe's existence was avoidable?Necessity arises from contingency. If the contents of the universe is contingent then there must be something about the universe which is necessary if the universe is contingent then the universe is contingent on something which must necessarily exist.
No it isn't. All we can observe is the contents of the universe. We can't observe that the universe depends on anything.We don't know that "contingency demands necessity", and even if we did, we wouldn't know what sort of thing to look for because something that cannot fail to exists is not possible in any obvious way. The only way we could know that is if we found something that would cause a contradiction if it didn't exist. I can't even imagine something like that, can you? Can you explain how?[/quote] Contingency without necessity is nonsense even Davey sees that
Of course you haven't given sufficient reason for a necessary being. "All the contingent stuff wouldn't exist without it" is not sufficient reason for something to exist.So I haven't given sufficient reason for sufficient reason then. And that is now a problem because you seemed to believe that the universe just is with no sufficient reason. You are confused.
There are all sorts of systems and networks that operate in this manner.But I think you'll find these systems are contingent on something else i.e. They depend on or are conditioned by something else
Oh dear back to your inability to see time as anything other than unilinear.sadly your system was just a unilinear one was just a linear one bent round making it the equivalent of something for nothing and a perpetual motion machine.
.You with your something for nothing machines and perpetual motion machines are lecturing me on the unevidenced and illogical............
Back to your unevidenced and illogical assertion that the notion that there must be a necessary entity is the only possible explanation. It isn't.
Contingency without necessity is nonsense even Davey sees that.I haven't said that in the context of your definition of necessary, i.e. something that isn't contingent, but only necessary. I have said that you may (and certainly do) have all sorts of systems involving entities that are both contingent on other entities but also necessary for further contingent entities.
Again we are back to what is it in the universe that is necessary.
No idea - perhaps you should tell us: after all, this is your bandwagon (albeit you are the sole passenger).It's God, Gordon, immortal, invisible and sovereign(not contingent).
Spill the beans.
Because we observe the contingent in the universe.
Necessity arises from contingency. If the contents of the universe is contingent then there must be something about the universe which is necessary if the universe is contingent then the universe is contingent on something which must necessarily exist.
Contingency without necessity is nonsense...
So I haven't given sufficient reason for sufficient reason then.
And that is now a problem because you seemed to believe that the universe just is with no sufficient reason.
It's God, Gordon, immortal, invisible and sovereign(not contingent).
What's the sufficient reason for this god's existence?We know there must be a necessary entity to explain the contingency in the universe, we know that entity cannot be dependent on anything else in the universe or conditioned by the universe.
Infinities are unproductive and multiple entities beyond necessity and so cannot be imagined. If we can imagine something that Just is, always has been always will be as is, then we have imagined God. The universe is forever changing and contingent so how just is can something like that ''just be.'' I'm not sure.
At least we can imagine a cycle of contingency, an infinite causal chain of contingency, or something that 'just is'. Something that is its own reason for existing, on the other hand, seems about as credible as a square circle, so far. You have given not the first hint of a reason as to how that could possibly work.
We know there must be a necessary entity to explain the contingency in the universe...
...we know that entity cannot be dependent on anything else in the universe or conditioned by the universe.
It must be immortal (not conditioned by time) creative (since everything is contingent from it) and sovereign ( creating while ungoverned by the laws of nature).
Infinities are unproductive and multiple entities beyond necessity and so cannot be imagined.
If we can imagine something that Just is, always has been always will be as is, then we have imagined God.
I think you guys just need time and space to realise how illogical your proposals are.
No, we don't. We neither know that the universe (as a whole) is contingent.In which case we are looking for something about the universe that is necessary.
In which case we are looking for something about the universe that is necessary.
Something that could fail to exist is contingent and we must therefore ask on what.
Infinite regression never answers this question, it is a diversion, infinites are unobserved, unproductive and make a mockery of occam's razor and never supply sufficient reason. Now tell me why they are preferable to the neccesary entity?
No. Firstly, because you haven't established that the idea of something that couldn't fail to exist even makes sense, let alone is a reality, and secondly, what I just described is the universe (as modelled by GR).If something can fail to exist then it's existence was contingent on something, it was conditional on something you haven't said what it is conditional on.
Because they are logically self-consistent, whereas you have given no possible coherent explanation at all as to how anything can be such that it couldn't have failed to exist. Not even the first tiniest hint of how that could make any sense at all.
And you still haven't answered the question about what the sufficient reason is for your made up god. Why couldn't it have failed to exist?
You seem to want us to just accept that your god is necessary, on blind faith, just because you say so, and yet you want everybody else to justify everything. It's blatant hypocrisy, as well as all the other absurdities regarding something that cannot change being anything remotely like the Christian god.
You seem to want us to just accept that your god is necessary, on blind faith, just because you say so, and yet you want everybody else to justify everything. It's blatant hypocrisy, as well as all the other absurdities regarding something that cannot change being anything remotely like the Christian god.
Well said. Even if Vlad were able to justify the existence of some sort of god as a necessary being, the most he could claim for it would be a kind of Aristotelian god, remote and contemplating its own perfection. A creator perhaps, but one that withdrew from its own creation and left it to its own devices. Deism in short.Is all evil natural?QuoteDeism is not atheism Dicky, also you may have noticed these guys are upset at the idea of any necessary entity, not just the God of theism I put that down to the necessity entity being the gateway to religion.And since there is precious little evidence that the world is or has ever been in the hands of a benevolent deity since natural evils have always abounded (I presume the Devil is not going to be invoked for those)
If something can fail to exist then it's existence was contingent on something, it was conditional on something you haven't said what it is conditional on.How do you know that there is anything that couldn't fail to exist Vlad.
And since there is precious little evidence that the world is or has ever been in the hands of a benevolent deity since natural evils have always abounded (I presume the Devil is not going to be invoked for those) Is all evil natural?I used the phrase natural evils to distinguish from those perpetrated by humans.
How do you know that there is anything that couldn't fail to exist Vlad.Because if the necessary entity failed to exist everything else would also fail to exist in other words there would be nix, nada. there had to be something some reason that something came about.
...I put that down to the necessity entity being the gateway to religion.
If something can fail to exist then it's existence was contingent on something, it was conditional on something you haven't said what it is conditional on.
I used the phrase natural evils to distinguish from those perpetrated by humans.Do you understand that a necessary being must not be dependent on or conditioned by anything else? It doesn't look like it and I would ask you where in atheism is there anything like that? I therefore find it most unconvincing but no doubt you have a reason to suppose that your being convinced trumps my lack of being convinced.
Their arguments against there being a god as a necessary being I find convincing. It was the final point made by NTtS that even if such a claim could be substantiated, there is an impossible leap to be made (by faith alone, I'd say) to suggest that such a being must be the Christian God.
Because if the necessary entity failed to exist everything else would also fail to exist...
Except that the way you've described it (the characteristics you've just made up) would actually explicitly exclude it being any sort of god of religion.Again the reason is that there logically has to be a necessary entity which has sufficient reason, an infinite regress provides explanation for nothing and is unproductive and the properties of the necessary entity are better matched to theism than atheism.
Which still doesn't tell us how it can be possible for anything to be such that it couldn't have failed to exist. This is one of the major problems with the whole logical omnishambles that you're pretending is an argument.
If there is sufficient reason for something to exist (which you insist must be the case for everything), then it must be contingent on that reason.
You've either got to have something that is its own sufficient reason, so contingent only on itself, which is conceptually identical to the cyclic contingency you've already rejected, or we're back to brute facts, an infinite regress, perhaps the ultimate multiverse in which everything that isn't impossible (self-contradictory) actually exists, or maybe an answer that is something we haven't even thought of.
What's silly and transparent special pleading is just to assert your god is somehow necessary because you want it to be.
Begging the question. ::)Presumably there would be a reason for something to have existed rather than nothing.
What would be impossible about nothing existing?
Because if the necessary entity failed to exist everything else would also fail to exist in other words there would be nix, nada. there had to be something some reason that something came about.And ... so what. We certainly know that things exist, but we don't know whether things (all things) could not exist. Why couldn't there be nix, nada, while we know that isn't the case, you are arguing that it couldn't be the case and I take issue with that.
Do you understand that a necessary being must not be dependent on or conditioned by anything else? It doesn't look like it and I would ask you where in atheism is there anything like that? I therefore find it most unconvincing but no doubt you have a reason to suppose that your being convinced trumps my lack of being convinced.Do really think I haven't worked my way through Aquinas' 'proofs' ( or Anselm's even more vacuous 'proofs') before?
Again the reason is that there logically has to be a necessary entity which has sufficient reason...
...an infinite regress provides explanation for nothing and is unproductive and the properties of the necessary entity are better matched to theism than atheism.
Begging the question. ::)Presumably there would be a reason for something to have existed rather than nothing.
What would be impossible about nothing existing?
Presumably there would be a reason for something to have existed rather than nothing.It is. The sufficient reason for something existing must exist. You are treating nothing as a something.
That's not an answer to the question I asked.
If you insist on a sufficient reason, then does that reason exist? If it does, how can it be the reason for everything existing (including itself)? If it doesn't exist, how can it be a reason for anything?You are saying there is insufficient reason for the principle of sufficient reason. Think about that for a moment.
Do really think I haven't worked my way through Aquinas' 'proofs' ( or Anselm's even more vacuous 'proofs') before?Anselm?......He's an ontological argument guy isn't he so unless he had a cosmological 'proof' I don't know why you have pulled him into this argument.
I found them unconvincing on the first reading, and nothing any apologist has come up with subsequently has changed my mind. My interest in such matters is not overwhelming, but I'll continue to follow this for a little while. I might just have a revelation...
If the necessary entity is not God then what is it?How many times do I have to say this - you need first to demonstrate that there is a necessary entity before you can speculate what it is. And you haven't come close to doing that.
Could it be there doesn't have to be a necessary being?Yup, a perfectly reasonable proposition
There isn't a necessary entity?Again a plausible possibility.
There is a necessary entity but it's not God? who knows.Yup, again a reasonable proposition to add to the other reasonable propositions.
Yup, a perfectly reasonable propositionI think I detect a shifting of the goalposts here from the necessary entity necessary for the contingency in the universe to the existence of an entity which cannot possibly not exist, while keeping the option of God not being the necessary being. The idea of contingency without the necessity is absurd given the definition of contingency. In other words if you have established contingency you have established a necessary entity for it. What you are making is a challenge to the principle of sufficient reason using the principle of sufficient reason. worse is there must be a sufficient reason for there being something rather than nothing. So are you sure you wish to continue with your attempt to disprove the principle of sufficient reason by using the principle of sufficient reason. The reason for why there is something rather than nothing is the bottom most reason in the heirarchy.
Again a plausible possibility.
Yup, again a reasonable proposition to add to the other reasonable propositions.
And, of course, add to that the possibility that there is a necessary entity that is god, but not the christian god, and further that there is a necessary entity that is the christian god.
All are possibilities, but we are miles away from from having sufficient evidence to credibly conclude whether or not there is a necessary entity and if there is one what that necessary entity is.
A sensible person recognises our lack of knowledge and accepts our uncertainty. A fool makes bold and unsubstantiated claims with apparent certainty when there is none. I think we know who on this MB are the former and who is the latter.
It is. The sufficient reason for something existing must exist. You are treating nothing as a something.
You are saying there is insufficient reason for the principle of sufficient reason. Think about that for a moment.
You still haven't answered the question I asked. I started by trying to ask what the sufficient reason for this supposed 'necessary entity' would be. You said that if it didn't exist, nothing would exist, so I asked why you thought that was impossible. Why is it something had to exist rather than just did exist? Goodness knows why you think this is any sort of answer.Infinite regress does not provide sufficient reason because the question, contingent on what is never answered.
With the above statement you've effectively said that the principle of sufficient reason (in the sense of applying to the physical world) leads directly to an infinite regress. So it's just as silly as 'first cause' arguments starting with the premiss that everything must have a cause.
So, yet again: what would be the sufficient reason for your proposed necessary entity?
Try just thinking before typing an answer, for once. I didn't say anything of the sort, I pointed out that if a sufficient reason for existence itself, exists, then it would be part of existence, and asked how that would work. A question you've ignored in favour of repeating this stupid mantra you seem to think is so profound, but is actually just an equivocation fallacy.
Infinite regress does not provide sufficient reason because the question, contingent on what is never answered.
The argument from contingency is a bottom up argument it starts with observable things the neccesary entity is the logical conclusion
the final question in the logical progression of the contingency argument is why something rather than nothing. The necessary entity explaining that is the reason there is something rather than nothing. That is the final sufficient reason.
Sure, but the answer to 'on what' is likely to simply be something that is in itself contingent on another entity.But there is also an entity which is the system of A, B, C and D on which all four of those entities are contingent. On the other hand, you could argue that the system arises because of the existence of the entities in it and it is therefore contingent on them.
Now your whole argument is based on linearity - in other words that eventually you get to something which is necessary for all the things further down in the chain, but is not contingent on anything else. The end of the chain so to speak. But the chain may be circular, not linear so that:
Entity A is contingent on entity B
Entity B is contingent on entity C
Entity C is contingent on entity D
Entity D is contingent on entity A
In this very simple example there is no absolute 'necessary entity' (i.e. one that is not contingent), but there are four entities that are both necessary and also contingent.
It's God, Gordon, immortal, invisible and sovereign(not contingent).
Which we were doing before the 'sacrifice', so what's changed? What does the 'sacrifice' achieve? And why was it necessary for a loving all-powerful god to demand, commit and accept a sacrifice in order to achieve it?
And what of all the people who've already died? Or is this a 'spiritual' garden, where whatever it is that gets admitted isn't actually me?
Assuming that I accept that there was no 'cheating', that he chose to suffer, chose to really die (even if only temporarily)... I still don't see what it was supposed to achieve or why it was necessary. If it was an act of atonement to apologise TO humanity I could understand the gesture - it would still be gratuitous and unnecessary, but it would make sense. But to punish himself, in order to feel able to forgive us for something someone else did... it just sounds deluded.
I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure that any inanimate object can be 'good' or 'evil' - it simply is, any good or evil comes from how we choose to interact with it. Which is part, I suppose, of the mystique of things like the sun and moon, their inaccessibility means that they're sort of immune to our exhortations (to borrow a phrase), their indifference should be humbling if we took long enough to think about it.
I'm up to four now, and it's a fear at times. That fear, though, comes about because as parents we're imperfect - we can't absolutely predict how our encouragements and penalties are going to be taken, we can't know the exact state of mind of our children, what else has impacted them on any given day, and how all those little bits will add up. God is depicted as though he can... could a perfectly loving, all-knowing being be anything less than the ideal parental figure?
I know it's not intended as an 'excuse', but free-will always feel like it's being deployed as a sort of 'get out of jail free' card. Notwithstanding the biological and physical evidence that suggests free-will is an illusion, and that our future is already defined, as soon as free-will is put on the table philosophically god is no longer all-knowing. If the future can be altered, god is no longer all-powerful - even if that loss is a decision on his part. And if god is not all-knowing and all-powerful, is it still god?
O.
But there is also an entity which is the system of A, B, C and D on which all four of those entities are contingent.Indeed
On the other hand, you could argue that the system arises because of the existence of the entities in it and it is therefore contingent on them.Absolutely - and when you consider the necessary aspect of a necessary entity you may end up with that being contingent on its contingent entities.
First of all I am aware that things which cannot be falsified are generally termed beliefs. I would not personally have put forward your knowledge , belief dichotomy, I think that is too simple and I'd put experience in there too as many members will have noticed.Sure but people like to categorise information. Otherwise discussions become difficult to understand if we don't use common terms. I'm not really fussed what we call it so long as we both agree that there are some pieces of information that are repeatedly testable at any given time with the necessary equipment, and the results are consistently demonstrable to others and are in the vast majority of cases experienced by those others in the same way allowing common terms of reference and rules to be derived (until new information is discovered that alters our understanding and rules etc). We could call this knowledge but it doesn't really matter what we call it so long as we can distinguish it from other types of information.
The ultimate thing in the universe is where I started. I found myself unusually moved and energised by Carl Sagans TV epic Cosmos. Shortly afterwards I was introduced to CS Lewis and his writings about the numinous helped me make sense of what had been stirred in me by Sagan. While reading LewisI agree it is not possible to put experiences into words that adequately convey that experience.
and getting to the bottom of the numinous ultimate thing I became aware of what was beyond Lewises words and beyond the numinous.
I read more of Lewis on christianity, the bible became clearer to me, the moral argument became comprehensible to me in the light of my experience but eventually I encountered Jesus call in The new testament rev 3.20 and at the same point I became aware of God's holiness at which point after a short struggle I gave in and offered him all I was. You see, we have experiences that are beyond words and yet we are forced to use the appropriate word framework to describe them and for me the agnostic british wordframe petered out as an explanatory tool quite early on in the journey
Is the universe the necessary being....well you're not and I'm not and Alpha centuri isn't we are part of the universe. So how can 'the universe' be the necessary entity? Secondly, from the best definition of contingency i've seen....the Merriam webster dictionary.....a contingent thing is something which is dependent on and conditioned by. This gives us an idea of what necessity and the necessary entity must be like and as Aquinus has pointed out that fits what we call God better. He is not dependent (sovereign)and he isn't conditioned by.I actually was reading a verse of the Quran translation to point out to my Muslim boyfriend (now husband) what a load of crock it was along with every other religious text. He seemed to be a switched on, intelligent, thoughtful person, ran a business, had integrity, so I could not understand how he could possibly think that any of the stuff written in these texts were particularly profound or useful and thought I would do him a favour and enlighten him and draw him away from this superstitious nonsense. As you say, words are not adequate to convey why I changed my mind, but I read a verse about modesty and attention-seeking and I guess it deflated my cocky self-assurance as I realised the reason I wanted to enlighten him was as a way of drawing attention to myself, to make myself look good - intelligent, logical, reasoned, articulate, to put on display what I thought were some winning qualities to get his attention. I guess the words I read in the Quran alerted me to my natural attention-seeking inclinations and so I decided to read some more. And eventually I decided to be someone different with a different outlook and I find the Quran/Islam helps me with that.
So since I see ''getting religion'' as movements from one thing to another, from the outside toward the centre.....what moved you from the poetry of the quran to Allah?
The sacrifice makes it possible for a believer to have eternal life, which was lost at the Fall.
Why was this necessary? Because our good deeds alone can't achieve eternal life. Only someone who hasn't sinned (Jesus) and therefore to whom the penalty of death doesn't apply, would deserve eternal life. So the question is, how does Jesus' death pay for our sins and enable a believing sinner to have eternal life, or, why does God accept Jesus' death to pay for our sins when it should be us that pay for them?
This is not easy to answer, but as I've been thinking about it a few things have come to mind: firstly, that God's purpose when he acts is that people would glorify his name.
I don't know if you've read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe? At one point, Edmund becomes a traitor, and the white witch reminds Aslan that because of this, Edmund has to die on the Stone Table. But Aslan offers himself in Edmund's place and is killed instead. Then Susan and Lucy find him alive, and in the ensuing battle he crushes the witch to death.
So I'm just thinking about whether CS Lewis answers the question here: the witch is Aslan's enemy, so she gets to kill him which maybe she thinks is better for her than killing Edmund (??). But I'm not sure how Aslan's death in Edmund's place satisfies the Emperor-beyond-the-sea. More to think about anyway.
Yes but Aslan tricked the White Witch into substituting himself for Edmund knowing that he would be resurrected by the "deeper magic from before the dawn of time". So, both he and the White Witch are beholden to a higher power.Not sure if you're aware of the emperor, who represents God the Father? It seems Lewis didn't fully understand the way the death of Jesus worked, and in Lion WW Aslan says that there is a deeper magic which makes death work backwards, if someone who has not been treacherous dies in the place of someone who has. Still the question is why?
In Christianity, God plays the role of both the White Witch and Aslan and it is God that makes the rules that are the analogue of the deep magic. The story in The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe makes sense in its own context, but the Christian story does not. Essentially, God tricks himself with a loophole in his own rules.
Anselm?......He's an ontological argument guy isn't he so unless he had a cosmological 'proof' I don't know why you have pulled him into this argument.
I understand Bertrand was erstwhile impressed with the ontological argument and said it feels wrong to the modern mind but that people didn't actually understand why and where it was wrong. I am hazarding that you feel the argument from contingency is wrong but don't understand why you feel that way. The answer of course is the modern obsession with empirical evidence, science and agnosticism.....
........
Brute fact or I don't want to investigate any further? I think Russell sums atheism up well when he say's ''the universe is and there's an end to it.''
I made an aside reference to Anselm because he made an argument which was supposed to prove the existence of God. Not a cosmological one, agreed. Anyway, I have to say that it was clear to me why A's argument failed (even if Bertie couldn't see it) - it's all about the imprecision of language. You theological chaps are all too keen to use words like 'perfect' and 'greater' as if they had some absolutely precise meaning when applied to being or beings. Gabriella, in one of her extremely lucid posts, has already pointed out the meaningless nature of this approach when applied to Jesus, calling him the 'perfect' man. A being "greater than any that can be imagined" is similarly meaningless. You might as well say "hairier than any that can be imagined". Russell's final remark above I agree with.I've argued Anselm before with someone. I think he tends to talk in terms of the maximum of any common trait. So any good quality and God is maximally that particular quality.
So, to make sure that anyone else who wants to get on board knows the theme: you're on about arguments from contingency and necessity, mixed with tangential references to arguments from "the hierarchical, sustained first cause" and the classic first cause argument. I imagine that the majority of people would be bored to death by such matters, and that their atheism is more likely to result from questions of theodicy (how can there be a good god when there is such evil in the world)
At the risk of taking this thread in yet another direction, I'll say something about this last point. I'm sure you've misrepresented atheists' views on morality before - and been corrected by various posters.
If atheism is asking ''how can there be a good god when there is such evil in the world'' it does so with a shrug and a ''Nuffing to do wiv us, guvnor'' and an oft stated morality which according to some is like a matter of taste.
If atheism is asking ''how can there be a good god when there is such evil in the world'' it does so with a shrug and a ''Nuffing to do wiv us, guvnor'' and an oft stated morality which according to some is like a matter of taste.That is about as far from my experience when I came to recognise I was an atheist.
At the risk of taking this thread in yet another direction, I'll say something about this last point. I'm sure you've misrepresented atheists' views on morality before - and been corrected by various posters..
What is 'nothing to do with us, guv' are the earthquakes, the volcanic eruptions, delightful diseases like plague and smallpox, or the admirable life habits of the Guinea Worm.
Though most atheists would not claim any absolute moral source, I doubt that they would therefore think that 'anything goes' or the decision whether I batter someone to death is 'a matter of taste'. I think many would be quite happy to aspire to some version of Kant's Categorical Imperative, though we're all likely to fall short. The latter requires no God-reinforcement. Neither does some version of the Golden Rule. We all know what harms us, certainly on a physical level. It doesn't require much intellect or imagination to realise such things will harm our neighbour too. So don't bloody well do them.
That is about as far from my experience when I came to recognise I was an atheist.A consumer of someone else's views is how I found myself at my conversion to Christianity.
While I vaguely paid lip service to christianity and actually tried to believe morality (or ethics) was something 'other', something written in a religious text on good vs evil that sat in perfect isolation, independently from my active engagement. I wasn't an active partner in morality or ethics, merely a 'consumer' of someone else's views.
A consumer of someone else's views is how I found myself at my conversion to Christianity.Explain please - that previously (i.e. before you returned to christianity) that you were a consumer of someone else's views, or that once you'd returned to christianity that you were now a consumer of someone's else's views.
Many of the world's ills could be sorted with a fair distribution of wealth........ just saying.True - albeit that view is not one found exclusively in religious thought or in non-religious thought. And of course a view on a matter is one thing, putting that view into action entirely another. And there is a clear correlation between societies around the world that are the most equal and societies that are the most secular.
Explain please - that previously (i.e. before you returned to christianity) that you were a consumer of someone else's views, or that once you'd returned to christianity that you were now a consumer of someone's else's views.A ha, this is another of these Davey experience is more true, more good, more existentially meaningful than yours.
True - albeit that view is not one found exclusively in religious thought or in non-religious thought. And of course a view on a matter is one thing, putting that view into action entirely another. And there is a clear correlation between societies around the world that are the most equal and societies that are the most secular.But in many large secular societies that has been mere hype also celebrity atheist thought is dominated by the idea of progress and some prominent atheist thinkers think this is down to capitalism. I'm sorry to say that industry and capitalism has potentially proved disasterous for the earths ecology of which we are part. The system responsible for secular progress has resulted, as it inevitable had to, in a concentration of wealth, the expendability of the poor and climate change. The opposing secular doctrine didn't mind the production or industries of capitalism and turned out not to work either
At the risk of taking this thread in yet another direction, I'll say something about this last point. I'm sure you've misrepresented atheists' views on morality before - and been corrected by various posters.But as we know intellect isn't entirely a fit for morality, one can be clever and immoral. There are urges at play including the demands and comfort of the ego. And of course the phenomenon underlined at COP26 of knowing what you ought to do but failing to do it. Many opportunities for commandment morality like ''don't bloody well do them'' to fail present themselves.
What is 'nothing to do with us, guv' are the earthquakes, the volcanic eruptions, delightful diseases like plague and smallpox, or the admirable life habits of the Guinea Worm.
Though most atheists would not claim any absolute moral source, I doubt that they would therefore think that 'anything goes' or the decision whether I batter someone to death is 'a matter of taste'. I think many would be quite happy to aspire to some version of Kant's Categorical Imperative, though we're all likely to fall short. The latter requires no God-reinforcement. Neither does some version of the Golden Rule. We all know what harms us, certainly on a physical level. It doesn't require much intellect or imagination to realise such things will harm our neighbour too. So don't bloody well do them.
I've argued Anselm before with someone. I think he tends to talk in terms of the maximum of any common trait. So any good quality and God is maximally that particular quality.The matter of taste comment I made refers to people's moral behaviour and I think it applies to both religious and atheist. Being religious or atheist does not seem to prevent people's moral behaviour from being influenced by their taste.
Theologians, I think aren't as big on the ontological argument and even I recognise it as iffy.
But then there is Socrates who said that if the perfect man showed up he'd be put to death, reflecting something about divinity that is abhorrent to people. I think divinity gives Jesus a quality that people abhorred that is pretty unique. Maximum holiness which people hate because they are anything but.
So if Jesus isn't divine and human then he's just a very good, pious and outstanding man. I think that is the view of Islam. Of course neither Islam nor Jesus as a good man christianity can further Jesus if as Dorothy L. Sayers observed, people think Trump or Stalin or Hitler is more outstanding a m,an.
I don't believe i've ever used the term greater than can be imagined.....but I wouldn't , perhaps baulk at using the term ''greater than can be imagined by people on this forum, evidently'' .
If atheism is asking ''how can there be a good god when there is such evil in the world'' it does so with a shrug and a ''Nuffing to do wiv us, guvnor'' and an oft stated morality which according to some is like a matter of taste.
I've argued Anselm before with someone. I think he tends to talk in terms of the maximum of any common trait. So any good quality and God is maximally that particular quality.Walt, I am not sure I understand what you mean when you use the term "divine" or "holy" or "perfect". There does not seem anything you can specifically point to and say these qualities cause Jesus or any other human to be divine/ holy / perfect.
Theologians, I think aren't as big on the ontological argument and even I recognise it as iffy.
But then there is Socrates who said that if the perfect man showed up he'd be put to death, reflecting something about divinity that is abhorrent to people. I think divinity gives Jesus a quality that people abhorred that is pretty unique. Maximum holiness which people hate because they are anything but.
So if Jesus isn't divine and human then he's just a very good, pious and outstanding man. I think that is the view of Islam. Of course neither Islam nor Jesus as a good man christianity can further Jesus if as Dorothy L. Sayers observed, people think Trump or Stalin or Hitler is more outstanding a m,an.
I don't believe i've ever used the term greater than can be imagined.....but I wouldn't , perhaps baulk at using the term ''greater than can be imagined by people on this forum, evidently'' .
If atheism is asking ''how can there be a good god when there is such evil in the world'' it does so with a shrug and a ''Nuffing to do wiv us, guvnor'' and an oft stated morality which according to some is like a matter of taste.
A ha, this is another of these Davey experience is more true, more good, more existentially meaningful than yours.Nice rant Vlad - but entirely irrelevant to the question I was asking.
You don't seem to realise that the national culture has been agnostic for a very long time. I came to the understanding that my thoughtless adherence to agnostic, don't mention religion, religion is silly and cranky like your uncle was just what I'd been brought up in.
You said you had been brought up in a religionless way, It looks like you went from no religion to no religion. Where is the conversion in that? To my mind you have spent a lot of time and effort on cultivating a commitment you've never not had.
A ha, this is another of these Davey experience is more true, more good, more existentially meaningful than yours.Says the childhood Sunday School attendee, the childhood faith school attendee and the childhood christian worship attendee (albeit you seem to be rather coy about how often this was)
You don't seem to realise that the national culture has been agnostic for a very long time. I came to the understanding that my thoughtless adherence to agnostic, don't mention religion, religion is silly and cranky like your uncle was just what I'd been brought up in.
You said you had been brought up in a religionless way, It looks like you went from no religion to no religion. Where is the conversion in that? To my mind you have spent a lot of time and effort on cultivating a commitment you've never not had.Actually I have never said that my upbringing was religionless, not least because it was pretty well impossible to have a religionless upbringing in the late 60s and 70s. So although my immediate family weren't religious, extended family were and schooling required attending assemblies that were effectively christian worship, with christian hymns, prayers (primary school effectively put your hands together, close your eyes and pray to god; secondary school assemblies always involved reciting the Lord's prayer). And this was in non faith schools.
Walt, I am not sure I understand what you mean when you use the term "divine" or "holy" or "perfect". There does not seem anything you can specifically point to and say these qualities cause Jesus or any other human to be divine/ holy / perfect.I think we detect the divine (our ''chief end'' as the calvinists would have it) and the holy which is more to do with goodness) because in the presence of them we can begin to feel where we stand in relationship to them. They seek us rather than us being on the lookout for them. Sometimes I feel I am with a better person not by looking at them but by being in their presence. When I mention Revelations 3.20 it is because the mentioned 'knock' was real, clear and insistent to me and the presence of the holy likewise. Since because of my experience of Christ I find Jesus inextricable from the Holy and divine.
How would anyone recognise that a human is perfect or divine or holy? Surely a person would have to consciously identify those attributes in someone else before they can hate them, rather than hate them for being narcissistic or obnoxious or condescending or some other reason?
Nice rant Vlad - but entirely irrelevant to the question I was asking.My apologies I thought I made it plain that my views were those of my agnostic, embarrased by religion culture and that changed at my conversion.
I simply wanted you to clarify whether when you said:
A consumer of someone else's views is how I found myself at my conversion to Christianity.
That you meant that you were a consumer of someone else's views when you were in your non christian phase or a consumer of someone else's views when you were in your christian phase as you wording is confusing.
My apologies I thought I made it plain that my views were those of my agnostic, embarrased by religion culture and that changed at my conversion.No it wasn't clear, so thanks for clarifying Vlad.
I think we detect the divine (our ''chief end'' as the calvinists would have it) and the holy which is more to do with goodness) because in the presence of them we can begin to feel where we stand in relationship to them.Do you mean when in the presence of a good person you recognise that they are a better person than you because they are more caring or selfless or tolerant?
They seek us rather than us being on the lookout for them. Sometimes I feel I am with a better person not by looking at them but by being in their presence.Again what does "being in their presence" mean? If it is not what you saw or heard, what senses did it stimulate? Did you become aware of some thoughts that made you feel safe / happy / peaceful/ energised - that kind of thing? Is that what you associate with holy or divine? What were those thoughts that preceded the feeling that you were in the presence of something divine or holy?
When I mention Revelations 3.20 it is because the mentioned 'knock' was real, clear and insistent to me and the presence of the holy likewise. Since because of my experience of Christ I find Jesus inextricable from the Holy and divine.
Yes I agree one has to encounter God and Jesus to find them repulsive but one hates them for the assault of the divine nature on your own ego.In Islam we have a different concept - we are required to fight our own egos. In the concept of jihad we struggle daily or hourly to overcome the desires of our own egos or nafs as it is known in Arabic. I know the word "jihad" is more commonly associated with a holy war but military battles are considered the minor jihad. The major jihad is considered the struggle to elevate your moral conduct.
Do you mean when in the presence of a good person you recognise that they are a better person than you because they are more caring or selfless or tolerant?Personally I was terrified because there was no doubting his real presence and what I call his demand. So what preceded this were the words of the bible ''follow me'' in the Gospel and revelations 3:20 '' Behold I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door I will come in''. Obviously this is not every Christian's experience but I am relaying mine
Or do you mean when our conscience troubles us?
As I am not clear what you think you detected. What did it sound like or look like or feel like?
Again what does "being in their presence" mean? If it is not what you saw or heard, what senses did it stimulate? Did you become aware of some thoughts that made you feel safe / happy / peaceful/ energised - that kind of thing? Is that what you associate with holy or divine? What were those thoughts that preceded the feeling that you were in the presence of something divine or holy?
In Islam we have a different concept - we are required to fight our own egos. In the concept of jihad we struggle daily or hourly to overcome the desires of our own egos or nafs as it is known in Arabic. I know the word "jihad" is more commonly associated with a holy war but military battles are considered the minor jihad. The major jihad is considered the struggle to elevate your moral conduct.In Christianity it is the fellowship of the Holy spirit which elevates us.
Says the childhood Sunday School attendee, the childhood faith school attendee and the childhood christian worship attendee (albeit you seem to be rather coy about how often this was)That's your brainwashing theory again Prof. I think you are mistaking 'churching' with 'getting religion'.
Actually I have never said that my upbringing was religionless, not least because it was pretty well impossible to have a religionless upbringing in the late 60s and 70s. So although my immediate family weren't religious, extended family were and schooling required attending assemblies that were effectively christian worship, with christian hymns, prayers (primary school effectively put your hands together, close your eyes and pray to god; secondary school assemblies always involved reciting the Lord's prayer). And this was in non faith schools.I have noted through this board some stand out misunderstandings of Christianity by people who claim to have lost their Christianity. I cannot ever remember anybody calling for commitment at any church service I went to, any sunday school I attended and withdrew myself from, I feel I may have been pulled pretty damn sharpish and was steered away from churches where that sort of thing went on. there was no religion I encountered that elicited a response from me either way. It seems to me you experienced more religion in your shorter brush with it in the 60's and 70's than I did with mine.
However while it was impossible to avoid religion in those days (or rather to avoid christianity) growing up I don't think I ever believed it, albeit I really tried to do so, but didn't succeed in my late teens/early 20s as I knew quite a lot of actively christian people at university. But once I'd recognised I was an atheist it was pretty clear to me that I never believed any of it all along - or certainly from an age where I had sufficient maturity to be able to consider such matters. I guess when I was very young I simply believed in god in the way I believed in father christmas because culturally I was told it was true.