Science and spirituality

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, that just shows your utter inability to think logically.

I’m afraid an infinite natural regress only exists because of your infinite capacity for talking bollocks.

[Nearly Sane]

I’m afraid an infinite natural regress only exists because of your infinite capacity for talking bollocks.

I didn't claim an infinite regress. So you are misrepresenting me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Illogical drivel. If you agree everything has a cause - the principle of sufficient reason - then arguing something you believe in does not have a cause, you are being illogical.

You misrepresent me.
I do not agree that everything has a cause. That would patently put me in the infinite regress camp.
I argue that there must be sufficient reason and the argument from contingency provides that.
The universe demonstrates contingency and thus cannot be argued to be necessary in that respect.
It's really quite straightforward

[Gordon]

You misrepresent me.
I do not agree that everything has a cause. That would patently put me in the infinite regress camp.
I argue that there must be sufficient reason and the argument from contingency provides that.
The universe demonstrates contingency and thus cannot be argued to be necessary in that respect.
It's really quite straightforward

If you don't agree that everything has a cause then you implicitly accept that some things may be uncaused. So, if the universe is eternal then that it may be uncaused fits your presumption (that there are uncaused things): and to stop you dashing about frantically misrepresenting me, I'm not claiming that the universe is uncaused.

When theists deploy a 'first cause' argument then generally, and conveniently, they end up concluding that this first cause happens to be their preferred 'God' and stop the regress there, and it seems they prefer not to even countenance that their 'God'(assuming it exists) might itself be contingent.

   

[torridon]

And you could try Googling "historical evidence for the resurrection"- happy reading - but beware, it may change your life!

Of course if there were any such evidence, then it would be history books already.  There is a reason why this topic is addressed in RE classes, but not in history classes.

[Nearly Sane]

You misrepresent me.
I do not agree that everything has a cause. That would patently put me in the infinite regress camp.
I argue that there must be sufficient reason and the argument from contingency provides that.
The universe demonstrates contingency and thus cannot be argued to be necessary in that respect.
It's really quite straightforward

I didn't say you believe in an infinite regress either. The point is one cannot say that one accepts the principle of sufficient reason - that everything has a cause and then have exception (s). It creates a form of bootstrap paradox in one's thinking.

That you then go off on the use of 'necessary' in your approach just illustrates your extremely muddled thinking. What you think is making a point is as usual just a collage of concepts that you stick together in an incoherent mess 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't say you believe in an infinite regress either. The point is one cannot say that one accepts the principle of sufficient reason - that everything has a cause and then have exception (s). It creates a form of bootstrap paradox in one's thinking.

That you then go off on the use of 'necessary' in your approach just illustrates your extremely muddled thinking. What you think is making a point is as usual just a collage of concepts that you stick together in an incoherent mess

Earlier on you were effectively trying to accuse me of having insufficient reason for my proposal seemingly oblivious that you were using the principle of sufficient reason to do so. You misunderstood my position.

Gordon wished to ignore contingency and you seemingly want to ignore necessity.

The arguments have all been outlined.

[Nearly Sane]

Earlier on you were effectively trying to accuse me of having insufficient reason for my proposal seemingly oblivious that you were using the principle of sufficient reason to do so. You misunderstood my position.

Gordon wished to ignore contingency and you seemingly want to ignore necessity.

The arguments have all been outlined.

And again you have just written a morass of confusion. Arguing that something need to have a reason to believe something is not about using the principle of sufficient (that everything has a cause). You are using different philosophical concepts which are applied at different levels and bashing them together because you seem unable to present a basic case.

[Outrider]

I must admit amazement at anyone who can claim a total lack of evidence for the idea of intelligence behind creation.

It's not that there's no evidence, it's that when looked at in detail: a) the evidence has better explanations; and, b) there is no direct evidence of that supervising intelligence.

I assume you are putting all your faith behind the capacity for the random, unguided, purposeless forces of nature, which are demonstrably destructive rather than creative, to have brought into existence the unfathomable complexity of the human mind.

First, it's not 'faith', it's a combination of logical reasoning and testing against the available evidence. Second the destructive nature of those purposeless forces is INTEGRAL TO THE THEORY. If nature wasn't 'destroying' the less fit at a higher rate than the more fit, there would not be a selective pressure. If you think natural variation cannot 'create', I'd encourage you to look at the development of strains of COVID-19 in the past few years to see it in action.

Those who put their faith in the power of the theory of evolution must make many presumptions - such as to assume that every one of the countless billions of beneficial mutations needed to bring our lives into existence were generated by random events and that each one had sufficient benefit in its own right to be passed on through natural selection.

We know evolution happens, we've watched it happen in real time. We can see how often significant variations arise within reproductive cycles. And we can estimate a lower number of the billions upon billions upon billions of generations of various lifeforms in which those variations have had the opportunity to arise, spread through populations and then be selected for. I suspect that people who think it's all too unlikely just can't grasp the sheer scale of the history of life, how many iterations of each step of the evolution of life there have been; I can't demonstrate that, it's merely my suspicion.

Of course you will not find evidence for life after death if you restrict it to human scientific investigation of our material universe - this is not our true home.

And you can demonstrate that how? You might not be able to demonstrate life after death if there isn't any. You still haven't explained why this is outside of science's remit. You still haven't explained what sort of alternative methodology you have that isn't just pulling it out of mythology's arse.

The divine revelations of scripture indicate that our souls are not of this material universe, but there is plenty of evidence that souls which have passed on to their heavenly state have the power to intercede in the form of miracles performed in their name.

Divine scriptures are an argument from authority - anyone can make any claim, but the fact that they did so a hundred years ago does not make them right. That millions of people accept it as truth makes them worthy of investigation, but if all you have is that then they can be dismissed just based on the fact that people can be wrong.

from wiki:
Beatification is a recognition accorded by the Catholic Church of a deceased person's entrance into Heaven and capacity to intercede on behalf of individuals who pray in their name.
At least two such miracles need to be formally verified for a deceased person to be declared a saint - and there are many such declared saints.  There are also many personal witnesses to such miracles which have not been processed through the formal verification procedure, but which still stand as evidence.

You can take any two 'divine scriptures' and they are fundamentally at odds with each other about the detail, nature and intentions of the 'divinity' behind it all. That could be evidence of a human inability to fully comprehend, or it could be evidence of entirely separate fictions being elevated to 'sacred' for cultural reasons. You need something independent of human wish-fulfilment to base the claims upon, and you still don't have that.

And there is the historical evidence for the Resurrection which many have tried and failed to dismiss.

Ahahahahahahahahahahaha....

O.

[Gordon]

Gordon wished to ignore contingency and you seemingly want to ignore necessity.

Gordon is not ignoring contingency - Gordon is querying why your are limited your acceptance of an 'uncaused cause' to exclude the universe itself, which you say is contingent, and Gordon is also curious to know how you've determined that this necessary 'uncaused cause', that Christian theists usually refer to as 'God', isn't itself contingent (if it exists at all).
   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gordon is not ignoring contingency - Gordon is querying why your are limited your acceptance of an 'uncaused cause' to exclude the universe itself, which you say is contingent, and Gordon is also curious to know how you've determined that this necessary 'uncaused cause', that Christian theists usually refer to as 'God', isn't itself contingent (if it exists at all).
 

Let me state it again. If we postulate necessities or uncaused causes and I suppose I am it is OK to postulate candidates like acreator OR the universe. Repeat It is OK to postulate candidates.

But then we have to examine the bona fides of  those candidates and the issue here with the universe is the plethora of caused entities which are part of it.

Then there are the issues of whether the universe contains dependent parts.

Not to mention the fact that we have not observed a totally independent entity.

Now I'm aware of the problem of induction but already with the burden of contingency we cannot say that everything about the universe is uncaused. But we cannot rule out at this point that there is something about the universe that is uncaused.

But even here there are problems since an uncaused thing cannot be a part of something.

The uncaused thing must be independent, not a mechanical part of that which it is independent from and those characteristics define the uncaused cause.

[Alan Burns]

Of course if there were any such evidence, then it would be history books already.  There is a reason why this topic is addressed in RE classes, but not in history classes.

The resurrection was the event which changed history more than any other historical event. 

[Gordon]

The resurrection was the event which changed history more than any other historical event.

The 'resurrection' is not a historical event - stories about a resurrection claim have certainly had an influence, but you musn't conflate stories with historical events.

[ProfessorDavey]

... than any other historical event.

There is precisely zero credible evidence that is was a historical event.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The 'resurrection' is not a historical event - stories about a resurrection claim have certainly had an influence, but you musn't conflate stories with historical events.

positive assertion...You know what you have to do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is precisely zero credible evidence that is was a historical event.

Who gets to decide what is credible in this matter?

[Gordon]

positive assertion...You know what you have to do.

Don't be silly: the 'resurrection' tale does not feature in any work of history and is not taught as historical fact. It sits alongside Romulus and Remus being suckled by a female wolf - fantastical myth and legend, and therefore easy to dismiss.

But, since you take it seriously, how have you resolved the risks of mistakes and lies in these ancient anecdotes of uncertain provenance?

 

[Outrider]

The resurrection was the event which changed history more than any other historical event.

I'd put development of farming up against, but that notwithstanding... The claim of the resurrection of Jesus has a significant effect, but you've insufficient evidence to link that claim to an actual resurrection.

O.

[Maeght]

The resurrection was the event which changed history more than any other historical event.

Belief in the resurrection.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Don't be silly: the 'resurrection' tale does not feature in any work of history and is not taught as historical fact. It sits alongside Romulus and Remus being suckled by a female wolf - fantastical myth and legend, and therefore easy to dismiss.

But, since you take it seriously, how have you resolved the risks of mistakes and lies in these ancient anecdotes of uncertain provenance?

You may be arguing from your own incredulity here.

[Maeght]

You may be arguing from your own incredulity here.

It's about lack of good evidence. What do you consider to be that evidence?

[Gordon]

You may be arguing from your own incredulity here.

I see we can add 'incredulity' to the list of terms you don't understand: if you had said I was arguing from a position of justified scepticism then you might have been on the button, but you didn't.

[Maeght]

I see we can add 'incredulity' to the list of terms you don't understand: if you had said I was arguing from a position of justified scepticism then you might have been on the button, but you didn't.

I was going to post a definition but decided not to. maybe I should have.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see we can add 'incredulity' to the list of terms you don't understand: if you had said I was arguing from a position of justified scepticism then you might have been on the button, but you didn't.

I wasn't able to because you never justified it.

[Gordon]

I wasn't able to because you never justified it.

Yes I did - I pointed out that the 'resurrection' wasn't a historical claim and that is was more akin to fantastical myths, such as Romulis and Remus and the she-wolf. I also noted that I've yet to see a theist clearly explain on what basis they have addressed the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT stories about this 'resurrection' without recourse to fallacies.

So, I'd say that my position is one of justified scepticism since I can see no good reasons, having dispensed with the bad reasons, to think that the claimed 'resurrection' of Jesus is a proposition that merits serious consideration.