The World's history according to Christianity

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

For two reasons:

1. There is no satisfactory theory supporting that or similar “beliefs”, but there are alot of things that point into that direction. Like it is compatible with proven laws of physics.
2. It is the best theory I have. The best theory you have is “goddidit”. That is obviously a better theory to you than to me, but I regard it unsatisfactory. It explains everything and nothing. Accept that as a theory and we could abandon further fundamental research.

I am more than willing to change my theory, if new evidence shows up. Are you?

i think we’re talking about dfferent things…

i’m questioning your epistemology, not your metaphysics: you have stated your positive belief in a theory for which no empirical confirmation exists, in apparent violation of your own ciriticisms of me, for example, for believing a theory under the very same conditions.

but whatever. your other points are off the mark.

1. if your beliefs are compatible with the laws of physcis, then so are mine, since our beliefs diverge only at the moment of the universe’s coming into being.
2. stated in those terms, your best explanation is “itjusthappened”. and i’d like to see someone seriously propose that as an explanation in the courtroom, for example (your honor - i know i was there with the gun and that i pulled the trigger, but i didn’t do it - it just happened).

and while we’re speaking about abandoning further researh, where does the “it just happened” theory get you in the cloud chamber, for that matter? “wow. look at that crazy particle-trail we keep getting. oh, well, there’s no point trying to look into it, because it just happens”.

to the extent that my disagreement with you is scientific (i think, for example, that quantum fluctuation cosmology is untenable), then more and better evidence will definitely change my opinion.

but, to the extent that my disagreement with you is epistemological and ontological, specifically regarding the necessity of and my certainty in the causal principle and the impossibility of an actually elapsed infinite number of moments of time, then there just isn’t evidence that can be discovered to shift the balance of my convictions: i believe that the causal principle is necessarily true, and that the existence of an actual infinite is logically impossible, both of which are beliefs not based on empirical evidence.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

exoflare

I got it, but I can’t seem to open it. Try again?

Gilbert

 

[AnAtheist]

1. if your beliefs are compatible with the laws of physcis, then so are mine, since our beliefs diverge only at the moment of the universe’s coming into being.

granted

1. stated in those terms, your best explanation is “itjusthappened”.

There are things, that just happen (out of uncertainty). Therefore that is a valid assumption.
There are no things, that happen due to divine influence (before you protest, yes, I know, we disagree on that), therefore assuming divine influence for just that incident is not valid.

to the extent that my disagreement with you is scientific (i think, for example, that quantum fluctuation cosmology is untenable), then more and better evidence will definitely change my opinion.

but, to the extent that my disagreement with you is epistemological and ontological, specifically regarding the necessity of and my certainty in the causal principle and the impossibility of an actually elapsed infinite number of moments of time, then there just isn’t evidence that can be discovered to shift the balance of my convictions: i believe that the causal principle is necessarily true, and that the existence of an actual infinite is logically impossible, both of which are beliefs not based on empirical evidence.

fair enough

 

[AnAtheist]

SamCA:

I can’t speak for AnAtheist, but I’m not here to convert anybody. I know that’s not going to happen, and I have better things to do than tilting at windmills even if I wanted to convert people. Which I don’t.

I’m here because I’m trying to understand how conservative Christians think. Given current events in America, this seems like a prudent thing to do – plus, I find religion fascinating, in general.

I’m also not a militant atheist, in the traditional sense.

Exactly.
Plus debating is an intellectual challenge, both entertaining and educational.
Plus I originally came here to correct some :banghead: views people have about “satanic”, “immoral”, “socialist” atheists. Or at least, I try with more or less success.

 

[eptatorata]

SamCA:

I’m here because I’m trying to understand how conservative Christians think.

May I bring forum.catholic.org to your attention, then? If you want to learn about conservative Christians, your time would be better spent there.

 

[eptatorata]

AnAtheist:

Plus debating is an intellectual challenge, both entertaining and educational.

A debate is two or more people talking, but not understanding each other. I can see the entertainment and educational value, but not the intellectual challenge.

 

[AnAtheist]

exoflare:

Like it matters, right…? ^_-

cmns.mnegri.it/miracolo/

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

Oh, that one.
I wonder whether anybody not paid by the Church ever witnessed the actual transformation.

 

[Genesis315]

AnAtheist:

Oh, that one.
I wonder whether anybody not paid by the Church ever witnessed the actual transformation.

Non-believers and secular journalists witnessed and documented the sun miracles at Fatima.

Likewise, scientists can’t figure out why the Guadalupe tilma hasn’t rotted away during almost 500 years when it should have in like 50.

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

There are things, that just happen (out of uncertainty). Therefore that is a valid assumption.

well, as you know, i would dispute that: there is nothing about quantum mechanical experimental data that entails acausal transactions. bohmian mechanics is an completely consistent model of QED that is entirely deterministic.

and it just makes no sense to reject the causal principle based on a theory formulated to account for experimental evidence which is gathered in compliance with the causal principle.

 

[AnAtheist]

john doran:

and it just makes no sense to reject the causal principle based on a theory formulated to account for experimental evidence which is gathered in compliance with the causal principle.

But it does make sense to abandon the causal principle by introducing an eternal supreme intellect into a theory? Or to propose Free Will, which needs uncaused effect to be non-deterministic?

 

[trogiah]

AnAtheist:

. To accept it, is taking it as it is. In that sense I accept the world (reality).

I don’t agree. To judge reality as good or bad you need a presumption of how reality should look like, otherwise you cannot compare. I don’t make such a presumption, I just take reality as it can be observed.

I would suggest that a conscious human being cannot exist without making some such presumption. At some level.

But you finally did clearly answer the original question I asked.

Consider the Greatest Commandment (as given through Moses)

“You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, all your mind, all your strength, and all your soul.”

I think the statement “I accept the world” is the first step in keeping that commandment.

Reading the Old testament, or the New, with the thought that “maybe God exists and maybe God doesn’t” will render much of the Scripture meaningless. I will admit for myself that if the important decision that must be made is something like “I have considered the evidence and have come to the conclusion that God does in fact exist (or the opposite conclusion)” then I will have to go with “doesn’t exist.”

But I don’t come to that conclusion because I don’t even ask the question “Does God exist?”

“God” is the name I give to existence. I think this is what Moses did. Read the passage about the burning bush. If you use and English translation and it uses the name YAHWEH, then it is an incorrect translation. The word YAHWEH is aramaic or hebrew or something but it isn’t English.

I am sure that it is reality that Jesus (and his disciples) heard say
“This is my beloved son, listen to him.”

I am getting a little off here so let my refocus by saying that anyone who really and fundamentally accepts reality (even when reality is not particularly kind to them) is not so far from God. And I think the whole discussion of atheism has more to do with the Name of God than with God him/her/itself.

Last thing, you never responded to the question, is the idea that some people do actually have a clearer understanding of reality than other people and acceptable idea?

peace

-Jim

 

[john_doran]

AnAtheist:

But it does make sense to abandon the causal principle by introducing an eternal supreme intellect into a theory? Or to propose Free Will, which needs uncaused effect to be non-deterministic?

the necessity of an uncaused first cause is a conclusion drawn using the causal principle. same goes for the necessity of free will.

 

[Contarini]

AnAtheist:

Sure I can. Christians insist, that this is the very same god. Christians talk of absolute Truth.

They often talk too glibly. Of course there is absolute Truth. But we do not know it absolutely. Revelation takes place in time, and our understanding of what has been revealed also grows and develops. Christians believe that revelation is complete, but we have spent 2000 years trying to understand it, and we’ve probably only just begun.

AnAtheist:

The Jews either knew that Truth or not. So, were they right or wrong?

Not wrong. Incomplete. Of course, Muslims say that our truth is similarly incomplete. I am not convinced. But God knows the truth.

AnAtheist:

Ok, so he used a little cultural relativism to make his way? And that stopped 2000years ago? No further preparations? How can you be sure of that?

I can’t. But I have not been convinced that there is any further revelation.

My understanding of cultural relativism is that there is no truth beyond the norms of various cultures. That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that our access to the truth is conditioned and always imperfect, and that God works to bring us to fuller knowledge slowly, patiently, over time.

AnAtheist:

That is a matter of perspective. Different yes, but radically?

Yes, because in Judaeo-Christian belief the gods are created beings and there is one divine reality behind them. This of course was also the belief of many ancient Greco-Roman “pagans.” Jews and Christians believe that that mysterious divine reality has taken the form of one particular tribal god. Christians further believe that that God has become incarnate in Jesus Christ. The gods are powerful beings but are not ultimate reality. The God we worship is the ultimate reality of the universe.

AnAtheist:

That is exactly where Christianity bugs me. God creates death, God creates humans who cut themselves off, and then he submits to his own creation to overcome it. ???

God doesn’t create death. Death is not a thing waiting around to jump on people. Death simply is the state of being cut off from God’s life. God permits death to occur, yes. And this is the single biggest problem with Christianity, or theism generally. I believe in spite of this paradox. I understand why you would find it too much to swallow. But I live in a world marked by death, yet also by goodness. I have to make sense of both, and the Christian story is the best way I have been shown to do so.

Yours truly,

Edwin