Help With A Question?

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

I also have issues with pushing the whole ID agenda or any agenda that is promoted as proven science that has not been scientifically proven. There is not one theory on the origin of our existence that has ever been proven through science.

We have various groups with differing agendas seeking to promote their versions on the origin of our existence whether it is based on scientific, philosophic, or religious theories.

What I find interesting is the realm of metaphysics and its newly discovered linkages to the most ancient of mystical writings. But, even here, there is this seemingly inherent fear of encountering anything spiritual. One can’t read anything written over 5,000 years ago and neglect the fact that these people were keenly aware of the spiritual world around them.

Some of you are laughing right now but we do have well preserved writings, much of it on stone, most of it from Egypt, dating back at least 5,000 years.

I’ve spent this evening reviewing these many posts and see that what drives one forward can hold another back. The original poster wanted to know what to say to a non-believer as to why they should become a Christian. My question is rather, why not believe in the Christian God?

 

[MarkAnthonyCozy]

I will now issue a challenge to non-believers of the Christian God. Let us begin with some research on the earlist known writings of men. I will initially concede that the Holy Bible, for all it’s knowledge which dates back to the origin of our existence, was passed down orally through the millenia. It wasn’t put into writing until about 4,000 years ago and took about 2,000 years to complete.

Let us go to ancient Egypt, which, as alluded to before, does have a plethora of writings including the Book of the Dead. But we need to go back further to the most ancient Egyptian inscriptions yet to be found.

Ernest A. Budge, Keeper in the Department of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities for the British Museum from 1894 to 1924, was the leading Egyptologist of his time. He personally excated many of the Egyptian sites, Aswan being his most notable.

According to Budge and as corroborated by Philip Van Ness Myers, the most notable historian of his time, in his book Ancient History, the most ancient Egyptian writings ever deciphered read: “God is a spirit and no man has known his form; He is the one living and true God; He has existed from the beginning, and he is life; He is the creator of the heavens and the earth, and all that there is.”

These were deciphered and recorded when Egyptology reached it’s zenith at the beginning of the 20th Century. Nothing to this day more ancient than this has been discovered and deciphered.

These people were over 6,000 years closer to our point of origin than we are. Go ahead and laugh. The pyramids that they built have stood the test of time and it is still somewhat of a mystery of how they were actually built. It is also a mystery as to why the polytheistic ancient Egyptians would ever write such a thing unless deep inside them, deep in their ancient memories were stories of this one true God.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

the improbabilities of any particular hand in poker are irrelevant to determining the reasonability of a belief in how that particular distribution of cards was reached because you already KNOW how it was reached: by shuffling and dealing.

but when it comes to the origins of the universe and life, we don’t know how it happened. so. in attempting to figure it out, it’s totally appropriate to use statistical evidence.

Good point.
But we already do know a great deal about the origins of the universe and life.
And statistical evidence is not calculating odds. How can you calculate odds of a system you profess to know nothing about?

Besides neither cosmology nor evolution are based on true randomness, but on natural effects that produce order. In the poker example consider cards making up a surviving hand heavier than the others. Then shuffle them in a box. The heavy cards land more often on the bottom then the light ones. Declare those hands as good ones. Bingo. Evolution.

 

[AnAtheist]

jimmy:

A decision is not a thing, it is an idea.

Ideas consist of electrochemical reactions in one’s neurons. Therefore they are things.

 

[AnAtheist]

MarkAnthonyCozy:

I will now issue a challenge to non-believers of the Christian God. Let us begin with some research on the earlist known writings of men. I will initially concede that the Holy Bible, for all it’s knowledge which dates back to the origin of our existence, was passed down orally through the millenia. It wasn’t put into writing until about 4,000 years ago and took about 2,000 years to complete.

Then we can stop here. The origin of homo sapiens was 100000 to 250000 years ago. The origin of life was 3.5bln years ago, the origin of Earth 4 to 4.5bln years, the origin of matter 10 to 20bln years ago.
Are you seriously implying, the Genesis story was orally handed down from 100000 years ago?

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

MarkAnthonyCozy:

According to Budge and as corroborated by Philip Van Ness Myers, the most notable historian of his time, in his book Ancient History,

This isn’t academic citing, if I did this then my university professor would give me a failing grade. But I’ll go with it for the sake of argument.

the most ancient Egyptian writings ever deciphered read: “God is a spirit and no man has known his form; He is the one living and true God; He has existed from the beginning, and he is life; He is the creator of the heavens and the earth, and all that there is.”

It is also a mystery as to why the polytheistic ancient Egyptians would ever write such a thing

Actually there’s nothing mysterious about this if you know a little about ancient Egyptian theology. Like yours truly, the ancient Egyptians were soft polytheists: believers in many Gods and Goddesses who are components of one single overarching Divinity (whom I, after the Hindus, call Brahman, and the Egyptians called Netjer). “One true and living God” exists, but, as the Hindus say, truth is one but the wise call it by many names (ekam sat vipraha bahudha vadanti), and the names through which the one true and living God is known are His persons, the many Gods and Goddesses. Which isn’t that far removed from the Christian Trinity (one God, many persons).

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Good point.
But we already do know a great deal about the origins of the universe and life.

we do. to continue your analogy, we know that there was a really big deck of cards and that there were an enormous number of suits each with a bewildering number of cards. what we don’t know is who dealt the hand, and if the deck was stacked.

AnAtheist:

And statistical evidence is not calculating odds.

to a certain extent that’s exactly what it is.

AnAtheist:

How can you calculate odds of a system you profess to know nothing about?

good question - i honestly have no idea what formulas or data people use when they calculate the odds for things like the anthropic principle. but they do - maybe try to google it and see what you can come up with.

AnAtheist:

Besides neither cosmology nor evolution are based on true randomness, but on natural effects that produce order.

i don’t think you’ve got this right: evolution is common descent with difference. but the mechanism for introducing these differences is random mutation and other random effects like genetic drift.

i mean, to be sure, the causes of the mutations - radiation, copying errors, and whetver else - are natural. it’s just their occurrence that’s supposed to be random.

AnAtheist:

In the poker example consider cards making up a surviving hand heavier than the others. Then shuffle them in a box. The heavy cards land more often on the bottom then the light ones. Declare those hands as good ones. Bingo. Evolution.

i’m not sure i understand the analogy.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

No?
Then what about the good old “nothing can come from nothing”? Are you telling me, there are things in this very universe, that are uncaused?
Thanks for disproving the Aquinate proof of God.

i think, by “decisions”, jimmy means something like “free choices”. and then it all depends on what you think of free choices - is a free choice a “thing”?

AnAtheist:

Ideas consist of electrochemical reactions in one’s neurons. Therefore they are things.

maybe. maybe not. but at any rate, if you are serious about freedom of choice, then free choices can’t be electrochemical reactions or anything else subject to physical or natural laws, since then they wouldn’t be free…

 

[wolpertinger]

john doran:

maybe. maybe not. but at any rate, if you are serious about freedom of choice, then free choices can’t be electrochemical reactions or anything else subject to physical or natural laws, since then they wouldn’t be free…

Whether determinism holds true or not is important to theologicians and philosophers. For all practical purposes, it matters not.

I’m inclined to side with the determinists.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

maybe. maybe not. but at any rate, if you are serious about freedom of choice, then free choices can’t be electrochemical reactions or anything else subject to physical or natural laws, since then they wouldn’t be free…

Choices are subject to physical laws, like anything else. “Free” in this context means they are not determined by the state of the universe. That is physically possible on the quantum level. Free choices and modern physics are not contradicting, quite the opposite is the case. I recomment Paul Davies “God and the New Physics” for more details on that issue.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

i don’t think you’ve got this right: evolution is common descent with difference. but the mechanism for introducing these differences is random mutation and other random effects like genetic drift.

i mean, to be sure, the causes of the mutations - radiation, copying errors, and whetver else - are natural. it’s just their occurrence that’s supposed to be random.

Correct, but you are missing one important mechanism, that is evolutionary pressure. I am not sure if that’s the correct English term, “Evolutionsdruck” in German.
Basically the environment favours certain mutations, thus forcing selection. At this stage the process is not purely random anymore. We have to deal dependent probabilities, which are extremely difficult if not impossible to calculate.

 

[AnAtheist]

wolpertinger:

Whether determinism holds true or not is important to theologicians and philosophers. For all practical purposes, it matters not.

I’m inclined to side with the determinists.

Well, I am not.
Quantum physics clearly disproves determinism and makes way for a cosmology that explains the origin of the universe (and of free thoughts (will) too btw) without divine interference.

 

[john_doran]

wolpertinger:

Whether determinism holds true or not is important to theologicians and philosophers. For all practical purposes, it matters not.

I’m inclined to side with the determinists.

traditional wisdom is that you can’t be morally responsible for that which you do and which you couldn’t help but do (ought implies can).

so. if we’re all determined to do what we do by the laws of nature, what room is there for morality?

shouldn’t that matter to everyone?

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Choices are subject to physical laws, like anything else. “Free” in this context means they are not determined by the state of the universe. That is physically possible on the quantum level. Free choices and modern physics are not contradicting, quite the opposite is the case. I recomment Paul Davies “God and the New Physics” for more details on that issue.

i am familiar with the good old “quantum loophole”. it’s never been given a sufficiently robust treatment, though, and it’s not clear that one is even possible.

that is, just saying free choice is made possible by quantum indeterminacy doesn’t actually explain anything. how does (alleged) indeterminacy at the quantum level intersect with my brain-states in a fashion that allows for me to make a choice undetermined by the immediately precedent state of the universe? what’s actually happening there? how are free choices **mine **rather than just something that happens to me? how is it possible to distinguish free choices caused by quantum indeterministic phenomena (i.e. choices that appear to me to be the result of deliberation), and any other action of mine (i.e. actions/choices not preceded by any sense of deliberation)? what kind of plausible quantum neurophysiological model can be proposed to account for the phenomenon of free choice?

and so on.

 

[wolpertinger]

john doran:

traditional wisdom is that you can’t be morally responsible for that which you do and which you couldn’t help but do (ought implies can).

so. if we’re all determined to do what we do by the laws of nature, what room is there for morality?

shouldn’t that matter to everyone?

A classic fallacy. The truth of determinism is not predicated on whether one likes or dislikes the ramifications.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

Correct, but you are missing one important mechanism, that is evolutionary pressure. I am not sure if that’s the correct English term, “Evolutionsdruck” in German.
Basically the environment favours certain mutations, thus forcing selection. At this stage the process is not purely random anymore. We have to deal dependent probabilities, which are extremely difficult if not impossible to calculate.

well, it’s not that i forgot about it, it’s just that, as you say, it’s not random. and i was only observing that there is an irreducibly random component to (neo-)darwinian evolutionary theory.

 

[john_doran]

wolpertinger:

A classic fallacy. The truth of determinism is not predicated on whether one likes or dislikes the ramifications.

that would be a fallacy (though i’m not sure how classic). but i have not made it.

i agree: it’s got nothing to do with “liking” the ramifications - it has everything to do with the reasonableness of the ramifications: when you are confronted with two contradictory propositions, you abandon the one about which you are less sure.

so. determinism entails the falsity of moral responsibility. i am more sure that there is such a thing as moral responsibility than i am that determinism is true. so i reject determinism.

in the same way i reject hypotheses that entail, for instance, that we can’t know that there’s an external world, or other people, or that there’s no such thing as objective truth, and so on.

 

[wolpertinger]

john doran:

that would be a fallacy (though i’m not sure how classic). but i have not made it.

…

in the same way i reject hypotheses that entail, for instance, that we can’t know that there’s an external world, or other people, or that there’s no such thing as objective truth, and so on.

This is where I will simply disagree with you.

 

[john_doran]

wolpertinger:

This is where I will simply disagree with you.

with what do you disagree? is it that you think that i did make the (classic) blunder i deny having made?

 

[jimmy]

AnAtheist:

Ideas consist of electrochemical reactions in one’s neurons. Therefore they are things.

What you speak of is memory and the messages that the body sends to the rest of the body. Ideas and creaivity are not electrochemical pathways in the neurons.

The brain tells one signal from another by the pathway it follows and where it is coming from. If you were correct, then my brain would have to be able to form a new idea in milliseconds. Ideas are not neural pathways.