Non-realist Christianity

[Dicky Underpants]

Dicky,

He's also given to dismissing as "bollocks" arguments he can't process. Be interesting for example to see how he'd argue for absolutism without omniscience.

Blue
I'm at a loss to know exactly where Steve stands now. I know that years ago he was prone to waver between realism and non-realism. Given his first post in this thread, he seemed to be firmly in the non-realist camp, "doing religion" without affirming any of its propositions, treating it "as an art, rather than as a science". But his arguments elsewhere suggest that he's still hankering for there to be some 'universal mind' as the basis of everything. Certainly his opposition to regarding mind as an epiphenomenon of matter suggests this, and he's quite polemical about it. I must admit, the phenomenon of consciousness itself is quite extraordinary, but I've learned from here not to indulge in 'arguments from incredulity' Sometimes the ghost of old Bish Berkeley rears itself though....

[Spud]

Within the particular context of human civilisation that would be reasonable.  You can't extrapolate from that to some fundamental prime cause context without running into logic problems though.

What I always come back to is that the signs of intelligent design don't give us conclusive revelation of the existence of God, just clues or hints. We need personal revelation from God Himself in order to know Him.

[Shaker]

What I always come back to is that the signs of intelligent design don't give us conclusive revelation of the existence of God, just clues or hints.

Is that the signs of intelligent design in kittens and rainbows, or the signs of intelligent design in rectal cancer?

[Robbie]

Blue
I'm at a loss to know exactly where Steve stands now. I know that years ago he was prone to waver between realism and non-realism. Given his first post in this thread, he seemed to be firmly in the non-realist camp, "doing religion" without affirming any of its propositions, treating it "as an art, rather than as a science". But his arguments elsewhere suggest that he's still hankering for there to be some 'universal mind' as the basis of everything. Certainly his opposition to regarding mind as an epiphenomenon of matter suggests this, and he's quite polemical about it. I must admit, the phenomenon of consciousness itself is quite extraordinary, but I've learned from here not to indulge in 'arguments from incredulity' Sometimes the ghost of old Bish Berkeley rears itself though....

Leave past behind. Now is what matters.Let us all ponder beliefs/non-beliefs on here 'til we may conclude - or not. Big deal for some of us with questions on thejourney.

[Rhiannon]

When I started out here I was a polytheist/pantheist. Not any more. Things change.

[SteveH]

Yes you did! You told him to do some learning!

As to the philosophiocal point I would suggest that his academic qualifications mean he knows an infinite amount more about philosophy than you ever will!

Which is why I leave arguing philosophy with him to a, to use your own term, smartarse like you.

I don't recall telling him to "do some learning" - it's not a phrase I'd use. Anyway, how was I to know he was a neuro-scientist before he told me?

[SteveH]

But "the Void is always full".

Must admit I'm getting a bit confused about SteveH's position. On this thread, he started by arguing for the non-realist God standpoint. Elsewhere (on the icontinence pants thread) he seems to be arguing that the "stuff of the universe is mind-stuff" (which is closer to the realist God outlook). And here he's giving a nod to Aquinas' First Cause.

I wobble.

[SteveH]

It is if you agree with bluehillside's proposition in his #151
a caused cause - infinite regression
an uncaused cause - not allowed as a means of terminating the regression, according to bluehillside
therefore the only other option is a cause from nothing to terminate the regression

unless ...

the whole proposition of an infinite regression is flawed in the first place!

You are making even less sense than usual.

[SteveH]

Dicky,

He's also given to dismissing as "bollocks" arguments he can't process. Be interesting for example to see how he'd argue for absolutism without omniscience.

What do you mean by that?

[SweetPea]

Spud and SteveH

For me, the Intelligent Design - Creator is the elephant in the room.
Take DNA.... we all have a different pattern... and where does 'the information' come from?
The fibonacci sequence in nature is all about design. If there is design there is a designer.

[Spud]

Is that the signs of intelligent design in kittens and rainbows, or the signs of intelligent design in rectal cancer?

You have a point. The rectum seems to be intelligently designed and I would expect the designer to be able to fix it when it goes wrong.

[Rhiannon]

Spud and SteveH

For me, the Intelligent Design - Creator is the elephant in the room.
Take DNA.... we all have a different pattern... and where does 'the information' come from?
The fibonacci sequence in nature is all about design. If there is design there is a designer.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/pseudo/fibonacc.htm

[Owlswing]

I don't recall telling him to "do some learning" - it's not a phrase I'd use. Anyway, how was I to know he was a neuro-scientist before he told me?

Because he knew, unlike you, exactly what he was/is talking about?

[Shaker]

You have a point. The rectum seems to be intelligently designed and I would expect the designer to be able to fix it when it goes wrong.

And yet this fixing doesn't occur.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

What do you mean by that?

You were arguing for "absolute truths". You cannot though know something to be an absolute truth unless you can eliminate even the possibility of an unknown unknown that would falsify the claim. And the only way to do that would be to be omniscient.

In everyday parlance it doesn't matter much - "it's absolutely true that Uncle Harry used to get pissed over Christmas dinner" is true enough. When you're talking strict epistemology though, it matters a lot.

To put it another way, we can only identify as true that which we are capable of identifying as true. We are not though omniscient.     

[Enki]

Spud and SteveH

For me, the Intelligent Design - Creator is the elephant in the room.
Take DNA.... we all have a different pattern... and where does 'the information' come from?
The fibonacci sequence in nature is all about design. If there is design there is a designer.

No. it isn't. You're just cherry picking.

[Robbie]

I wobble.

Can see that steveH. i wouldn't believe anyone who says they never 'wobble', it's human. Be interested to see where you are when you come out t'other side. Faith isn't static. One of the reasons I appreciate the Quakers is their recognition of that(but like yourself don't take the plunge & actually join them).

[SweetPea]

No. it isn't. You're just cherry picking.

No, not cherry picking, just seeing what many others can also see.

So are you saying you can see no design in the 'programming' of DNA and it's complexity?

[Spud]

And yet this fixing doesn't occur.

It does according to the testimony of some Christians. It might be like an eclipse: visible only to a few in different places at different times. If you are skeptical about these, what about the gospel accounts of Jesus healing people of every kind of disease?
John 1:14 says that in Jesus, God was revealing himself to us. Which is what I was getting at a few posts ago. We have clues from the creation that God exists, but he confirms it through Jesus Christ.

[Shaker]

It does according to the testimony of some Christians.

... one of whom has claimed as much on this forum.

Guess what happens when you press for some testable, shareable, investigable evidence, something that we can follow up for ourselves?

It might be like an eclipse: visible only to a few in different places at different times.

Except eclipses can not only be predicted long in advance but investigated. And no eclipse is visible to "a few" people.

If you are skeptical about these, what about the gospel accounts of Jesus healing people of every kind of disease?

What about them?

John 1:14 says that in Jesus, God was revealing himself to us. Which is what I was getting at a few posts ago. We have clues from the creation that God exists, but he confirms it through Jesus Christ.

Isn't that what Muslims say about Mohammed?

[SusanDoris]

Spud

so what do you think are the prospects for getting rid of my cancer with a prayer or two?!

I'll stick to medication and, it may turne out to be, surgical skill.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spud,

It does according to the testimony of some Christians.

Just out of interest, what do you think the relationship to be between testimony and evidence?

[bluehillside Retd.]

SweetPea,

So are you saying you can see no design in the 'programming' of DNA and it's complexity?

Why would anyone with even a cursory understanding of the relevant science think that?

[Spud]

... one of whom has claimed as much on this forum.

Guess what happens when you press for some testable, shareable, investigable evidence, something that we can follow up for ourselves?

I mainly wanted to point out that although it may seem like healing doesn't occur, it has occurred according to the NT.

Except eclipses can not only be predicted long in advance

As was Christ's coming and miracles, Matthew 8:17 and Isaiah 53:4.

but investigated.

Luke 1:3

And no eclipse is visible to "a few" people.

Neither were Jesus' healing miracles.

What about them? Isn't that what Muslims say about Mohammed?

Really, did Mohammed claim to be the Son of God?

[Gordon]

I mainly wanted to point out that although it may seem like healing doesn't occur, it has occurred according to the NT.

In which the events referred to are two millennia in the past, and where the provenance of these stories is uncertain - then there is the problem of mistakes or lies, and then there is the problem of there being no evidence beyond these anecdotal claims: pinch of salt stuff really, and best not taken seriously.

As was Christ's coming and miracles, Matthew 8:17 and Isaiah 53:4.Luke 1:3

Same problems.

Neither were Jesus' healing miracles.

Same problems.

Really, did Mohammed claim to be the Son of God?

So what: I could claim to be the son of Zaphod Beeblebrox but I could be wrong, honestly mistaken or telling lies.