What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[Gorgias]

Your beliefs conflict with what we know through the scientific method.

Chain,

I would chime in and defend my statements… but Peter and other have done a good job of it. When you find a peer-reviewed study on the emergence of evil in the world, let us know…

 

[Hee_Zen]

I’m not sure what you would accept as a “good” definition, but not being able to encapsulate a reality into the boundaries of an “adequate definition” is not an argument against the reality, merely an argument for the inadequacy or limitations of language.

So you admit that you have no idea what you are talking about when you mention “omniscience” and “omnipotence”. Or you assert that you know it, but unable to express it? In either case, why waste our time with your meaningless claptrap? Words are supposed to “mean” something.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Abiogenesis can be repeatable if someone discovers a process that results in abiogenesis, and he can demonstrate it repeatedly. That is one possible way for it to have happened. The fact that he did not witness the original abiogenesis, does not negate the worth of his achievement.

Even if abiogenesis was repeatable in the modern world, you could only say that it happened as the result of an intelligently designed experiment by scientists, not as a random event without a designer behind it such as you believe happened originally…

 

[Aloysium]

1. 
   

   So you admit that you have no idea what you are talking about when you mention “omniscience” and “omnipotence”. Or you assert that you know it, but unable to express it? In either case, why waste our time with your meaningless claptrap? Words are supposed to “mean” something.

   Now, now don’t get testy. We are all frustrated with our state of ignorance.
   I’d have something to contribute, but your attitude reminds me of the saying concerning pearls. That’s why you got silence. It has to be all spiritually burned away. The truth does not accommodate to our distorted understandings. One has to give one’s mind over to God who is the beloved, not our slave; we surrender to Truth.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So you admit that you have no idea what you are talking about when you mention “omniscience” and “omnipotence”. Or you assert that you know it, but unable to express it? In either case, why waste our time with your meaningless claptrap? Words are supposed to “mean” something.

Sure, Hee_Zen, I admit we are two slugs speaking beyond our capacities on Einstein’s theory of relativity. The difference is that you claim it is all “claptrap” because it is beyond YOUR ability to fully comprehend, while I see its sublime grandeur and wonder, even if I am only capable of catching oblique glimpses of its significance.

I will leave you to judge all reality according to your paucity, in the meantime, I admit my paucity and don’t use it to deny that something or Someone far beyond my limitations can exist merely because I don’t fully grasp what that means.

 

[Gregory_Olson]

Hey Hee Zen,

Before I start, let me say I’m impressed by you holding your own with three guys at once here… If philosophical discussions were martial arts, you’d be Ip Man .

The operating word is “IF”. But the problem is much deeper. We live is THIS existence. There are lots of “seemingly” bad things going on here. You say that “maybe” our perception about these “seemingly” bad things are inaccurate, and they are “actually” the best things that can happen to us. Unfortunately this is called an empty reasoning. Unless you can point out why those “seemingly” bad things are actually not bad at all, you have no argument.

This is called the fallacy of “argumentum ad ignoratiam”.

You are disputing things here that I did not assert. I did say that this and this thing would be the case if Christianity was correct, but I didn’t try to support them because that was not their purpose. In your previous post you had pointed out a seeming contradiction in Christian teaching; their purpose was to try to show a way, in Christian teaching, that there might in fact be no contradiction. For you, the statement was never meant to be anything more than hypothetical. (For this reason, what followed also wasn’t a full fallacy–I never tried to assert its truth.)

This would go much further, but I will give a simple answer: "If I were God, I would not create anything. But if I would decide to create other beings, I would create them directly into heaven, into eternal “bliss” (do not pass go, do not collect 200 dollars). The idea to create beings with the freedom to “doom” themselves for eternity is a totally nonsensical idea. What is the point??? And to add insult to injury… allegedly God knows before these beings are created that they will be “fodders for the fires of hell” so he creates them to be “doomed”… why?

Christianity is plagued with contradictions… I would like to see some apologists to be willing to confront these contradictions head on. But if they would do that, they would cease to be Christians any more.

Would you please tell us these contradictions then? I see no contradiction here.

God did create us in a state of perfect goodness. God is perfectly good, and all his creation is perfectly good as a reflection of him. He gives from himself; everything that is good about anything is a quality of God’s because it comes from him. Whatever God creates, wherever he creates it, is necesarily a perfect (but not full) reflection of a perfect creator.

That there is anything as evil as the Devil doesn’t make sense at first after what I just said, but I won’t take up room discussing it now, unless you press me later . The Devil is now in a state of total obsoleteness, absolutely outside of God’s goodness, which we call hell. But even in this state, he still makes use of his old angelic traits, which makes sense if one believes God’s gifts to be eternal (unless you yourself reject them). So, even in hell, he was able to make himself known to humanity. At this point Satan could in no way influence humanity except to present to us his own lack of goodness, and in this way give us a choice between infinite goodness and something less than it.

Needless to say, we chose sin. And thus our free wills were perverted. Christians don’t see the posibility of damnation as a freedom, but as a partial enslavement to a will that is influencable by the Devil. God isn’t about to take our free wills away, but we can get ourselves into a vicious spiral where we freely choose sin, thus further muddling our wills, and thus making it more likely that we will “freely” choose sin again. In short, God didn’t make so that we can doom ourselves, we did; it’s only one of many consequences of separation from God. And our once perfect free wills now become a hinderance, or an agent of Satan; because of them, God isn’t about to force us to love him–that wouldn’t be real love.

To address your insult to injury comment: a minority of Christians believe in predestination, but most Christians, including Catholics, see the idea as ridiculus and illogical just as you do. Yes, God is outside of time, but that doesn’t take away from our free will to turn towards or away from God.

Whew. That was all defense… now for the offense!

…But this is getting long; it’ll have to wait for my next post.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I will leave you to judge all reality according to your paucity, in the meantime, I admit my paucity and don’t use it to deny that something or Someone far beyond my limitations can exist merely because I don’t fully grasp what that means.

This may be the fundamental difference between the theist and the atheist. Being able to imagine God is both a strength and a limitation. Being unable to imagine God (or denying that what you can only imperfectly imagine might exist) is a weakness and a limitation. The weakness if founded upon the stubborn reluctance to believe in what you cannot see.

The atomists of the ancient world (Democritus, for example) could not see atoms, but they believed in them. Their belief in atoms was viewed by some (including Aristotle) as a weakness because atoms could not be proved. That is somewhat the position of theists and atheists today. “Prove God,” the atheist says. “I would,” the theist replies, “but you have to die in order to see the only proof that will convince you.”

 

[Hee_Zen]

Would you please tell us these contradictions then? I see no contradiction here.

Sure, why not? I will just bring up one (for the time being). Among the many attributes of God there are two, which logically exclude each other. Definitions first:

"Justice" is a concept which states an action which is precisely commensurate to the act. For a judge to be just he needs to consider all the circumstances of an act, weigh all the mitigating and the exacerbating circumstances, and then deliver a verdict which is neither too harsh, nor too lenient. You can think about is as a balance scale, on one side is the act (with all the details), on the other side is the verdict. If the scale is balanced, we talk about a “just” sentence.

"Mercy" is the act of the judge who delivers a lenient sentence. He knows what the correct or “just” sentence would be, but for some reason or another the sentence is less than “deserved”. This is also a balance scale, where the judge places his finger under the plate representing the “just” sentence, and lifts it up a little.

There is no special expression for a judge who delivers a too-harsh sentence, though it is also “unjust”. Sometimes the phrase “hanging judge” is used.

Justice and mercy cannot happen at the same time, in the same instant. A judge may be “just” in one case, and then lenient in the other one. But Christians assert that God is “perfectly” just and also “perfectly” merciful. Which is a logical nonsense. The usual “defense” is that the “human concepts of justice and mercy” are inapplicable God, that God’s “justice and mercy” somehow go hand-in-hand without contradicting each other. Which is simply an attempt to “redefine” these simple concepts.

My usual disclaimer follows: “when I talk about God, I talk about the **human concept **not the assumed and alleged “being” with all those fancy attributes”. I talk about a human concept, with well-defined human terms.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Sure, Hee_Zen, I admit we are two slugs speaking beyond our capacities on Einstein’s theory of relativity.

Please speak only about yourself. I am perfectly capable of understanding these words, and see hat they are meaningless.

I will leave you to judge all reality according to your paucity…

Oh, if only this would not be one of those unfulfilled promises! Please do not give me false hopes.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Being unable to imagine God (or denying that what you can only imperfectly imagine might exist) is a weakness and a limitation.

I am perfectly able to imagine the “big guy in the sky”, who waved his imaginary wand and magically brought forth the physical universe. There is nothing impossible to imagine this feat, even though I am totally unable to comprehend how merely wishing to have something to happen will actually make it happen. It is sheer “magic”, but magic is not a logical problem. The problem is not here, it is the plethora of nonsensical attributes that God is supposed to have.

If only the apologists would stick to their assertion that God used some unimaginable magic to create the universe - and stop right there - there would no problem at all. As they said, “everyone believed in God, until some philosophers tried to **prove **his existence”. That is when the “proverbial substance” hit the fan. The believers should have just stuck to their “faith” should not have tried to drag reason and rationality into the “game”. If they did that, they would be invincible. But they foolishly wanted the “whole pie”.

Whatever God might be, he cannot be a personification of something logically contradictory. It is philosophically impossible to be both active and dwelling in a timeless environment. Any “act” is a “change”, and any “change” means to have a “before” and an “after” - which makes some kind of “heavenly time” logically mandatory. There is nothing logically impossible about the “creation” itself, it is the “timelessness” which makes this idea philosophically nonsensical. Of course the theists themselves and / or the bible confirm that God sometimes takes a human form and walks on the Earth, and as such he is subject to the physical time. But then they select the ultimate “get-out-of-jail-free” card and insist that it is simply a “mystery”. Sorry, but logical contradictions cannot be “re-classified” to become “mysteries”.

 

[davidv]

I am perfectly able to imagine the “big guy in the sky”, who waved his imaginary wand and magically brought forth the physical universe. There is nothing impossible to imagine this feat, even though I am totally unable to comprehend how merely wishing to have something to happen will actually make it happen. It is sheer “magic”, but magic is not a logical problem. The problem is not here, it is the plethora of nonsensical attributes that God is supposed to have.

If only the apologists would stick to their assertion that God used some unimaginable magic to create the universe - and stop right there - there would no problem at all. As they said, “everyone believed in God, until some philosophers tried to **prove **his existence”. That is when the “proverbial substance” hit the fan. The believers should have just stuck to their “faith” should not have tried to drag reason and rationality into the “game”. If they did that, they would be invincible. But they foolishly wanted the “whole pie”.

Whatever God might be, he cannot be a personification of something logically contradictory. It is philosophically impossible to be both active and dwelling in a timeless environment. Any “act” is a “change”, and any “change” means to have a “before” and an “after” - which makes some kind of “heavenly time” logically mandatory. There is nothing logically impossible about the “creation” itself, it is the “timelessness” which makes this idea philosophically nonsensical. Of course the theists themselves and / or the bible confirm that God sometimes takes a human form and walks on the Earth, and as such he is subject to the physical time. But then they select the ultimate “get-out-of-jail-free” card and insist that it is simply a “mystery”. Sorry, but logical contradictions cannot be “re-classified” to become “mysteries”.

The problem is that the guy you imagine is but a meager strawman of the true God. So, your conclusion are invalid as they are based on a logical fallacy.

 

[Hee_Zen]

The problem is that the guy you imagine is but a meager strawman of the true God. So, your conclusion are invalid as they are based on a logical fallacy.

Do you actually know what a “logical” fallacy is? If the picture of God - as the original creator of the universe - is incorrect that does not make it a “LOGICAL” fallacy.

 

[davidv]

Do you actually know what a “logical” fallacy is?

Yes I do. Do you?

If the picture of God - as the original creator of the universe - is incorrect that does not make it a “LOGICAL” fallacy.

Is this the description that you used in the prior post? No, and I quote “I am perfectly able to imagine the “big guy in the sky”, who waved his imaginary wand and magically brought forth the physical universe”
This is a logical fallacy - strawman.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If only the apologists would stick to their assertion that God used some unimaginable magic to create the universe - and stop right there - there would no problem at all. As they said, “everyone believed in God, until some philosophers tried to **prove **his existence”. That is when the “proverbial substance” hit the fan. The believers should have just stuck to their “faith” should not have tried to drag reason and rationality into the “game”. If they did that, they would be invincible. But they foolishly wanted the “whole pie”.

Whatever God might be, he cannot be a personification of something logically contradictory. It is philosophically impossible to be both active and dwelling in a timeless environment. Any “act” is a “change”, and any “change” means to have a “before” and an “after” - which makes some kind of “heavenly time” logically mandatory.

You have hit upon points where theists and atheists can agree. God is not logically possible given mere human logic.

But God is possible given God’s logic. And that would have to be so since the Creator must be more logical than his creatures.

The problem for the theist is to figure out who or what God is. Cultures all over the world have tried to do this with varying degrees of success or failure. Since men cannot figure this out on their own, God has revealed some aspects of himself to us both through the power of reason and through the gifts of revelation. Other aspects of himself he has kept hidden because he has a right to the exalted nature of his privacy and because there are some aspects of his nature that we cannot know given our human limitations both of reason and imagination. The atheist wants to know more than he is entitled to know, and so refuses to believe because he doesn’t know anything about God except that he doesn’t exist. The theist wants to know more than he is entitled to know, and so works at knowing more and more until he is entitled to know more and more, and hopefully in the end he will know all it is possible for him to know.

Paul A.M. Dirac Quantum Physicist, Matter-Anti-Matter

“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Sure, why not? I will just bring up one (for the time being). Among the many attributes of God there are two, which logically exclude each other. Definitions first:

"Justice" is a concept which states an action which is precisely commensurate to the act. For a judge to be just he needs to consider all the circumstances of an act, weigh all the mitigating and the exacerbating circumstances, and then deliver a verdict which is neither too harsh, nor too lenient. You can think about is as a balance scale, on one side is the act (with all the details), on the other side is the verdict. If the scale is balanced, we talk about a “just” sentence.

"Mercy" is the act of the judge who delivers a lenient sentence. He knows what the correct or “just” sentence would be, but for some reason or another the sentence is less than “deserved”. This is also a balance scale, where the judge places his finger under the plate representing the “just” sentence, and lifts it up a little.

There is no special expression for a judge who delivers a too-harsh sentence, though it is also “unjust”. Sometimes the phrase “hanging judge” is used.

Justice and mercy cannot happen at the same time, in the same instant. A judge may be “just” in one case, and then lenient in the other one. But Christians assert that God is “perfectly” just and also “perfectly” merciful. Which is a logical nonsense. The usual “defense” is that the “human concepts of justice and mercy” are inapplicable God, that God’s “justice and mercy” somehow go hand-in-hand without contradicting each other. Which is simply an attempt to “redefine” these simple concepts.

My usual disclaimer follows: “when I talk about God, I talk about the **human concept **not the assumed and alleged “being” with all those fancy attributes”. I talk about a human concept, with well-defined human terms.

This is a rather odd claim, given that the same thing could be said about the brake pedal and accelerator in an automobile. They are logically “contradictory” in the same sense that you claim justice and mercy are. The brake does just the opposite of the gas pedal, yet a good driver is one who applies both the contradictory pedals with discretion, but in relation of one with the other.

Given that God applies “perfect” justice to changeable human beings with free wills, his application of “perfect” justice may depend fully upon his application of “perfect” mercy when repentant or unrepentant individuals are the ones to whom both are applied.

Justice and mercy are not applied to bricks, but to living and changeable moral beings.

Just as changing driving conditions make it such that good driving requires the coordinated application of the brakes and accelerator, a perfectly good judge is one who applies justice and mercy in perfect coordination, not in complete isolation from each other.

 

[Al_Moritz]

It is philosophically impossible to be both active and dwelling in a timeless environment. Any “act” is a “change”, and any “change” means to have a “before” and an “after” - which makes some kind of “heavenly time” logically mandatory.

Not quite. From the wiki article on Actus purus:

*In created beings, the state of potentiality precedes that of actuality; before being realized, a perfection must be capable of realization. But, absolutely speaking, actuality precedes potentiality. For in order to change, a thing must be acted upon, or actualized; change and potentiality presuppose, therefore, a being which is in actu. This actuality, if mixed with potentiality, presupposes another actuality, and so on, until we reach the actus purus.

According to Thomas Aquinas a thing which requires completion by another is said to be in potency to that other: realization of potency is called actuality. The universe is conceived of as a series of things arranged in an ascending order, or potency and act at once crowned and created by God, who alone is pure act. God is changeless because change means passage from potency to act, and so he is without beginning and end, since these demand change. Matter and form are necessary to the understanding of change, for change requires the union of that which becomes and that which it becomes. Matter is the first, and form the second. All physical things are composed of matter and form. The difference between a thing as form or character and the actual existence of it is denoted by the terms essence and being (or existence). It is only in God that there is no distinction between the two. Both pairs - matter & form and essence & being - are special cases of potency and act. They are also modes: modes do not add anything to the idea of being, but are ways of making explicit what is implicit in it.*

Link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actus_purus

 

[Hee_Zen]

This is a rather odd claim, given that the same thing could be said about the brake pedal and accelerator in an automobile. They are logically “contradictory” in the same sense that you claim justice and mercy are.

Well, your previous claim that you are going to “bow out” was just another unfulfilled promise to give me false hope that I will not have to deal with your nonsense again. The usage of both the gas and the break pedal is not a “logical contradiction”, it is just a bad driving method. Only an idiot would push down on these two pedals at the same time! All they would achieve is to wear out the break disk’s surfaces prematurely.

Not quite.

Please spare me of the Thomistic nonsense. If God “acts” then he must perform some unimaginable **action **to bring forth some result. It is irrelevant that we do not know the specifics of this “action”. But an action (any action) separates the “before” the action was made from the “after” the action was made. And that implies a “time”.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Please spare me of the Thomistic nonsense. If God “acts” then he must perform some unimaginable **action **to bring forth some result. It is irrelevant that we do not know the specifics of this “action”. But an action (any action) separates the “before” the action was made from the “after” the action was made. And that implies a “time”.

Not quite. Here is a good post that sheds some light on it by Polytropos, who used to be an atheist until rather recently:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12076420&postcount=13

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, your previous claim that you are going to “bow out” was just another unfulfilled promise to give me false hope that I will not have to deal with your nonsense again. The usage of both the gas and the break pedal is not a “logical contradiction”, it is just a bad driving method. Only an idiot would push down on these two pedals at the same time! All they would achieve is to wear out the break disk’s surfaces prematurely.

Actually, it is a “bad” driving method only for moderately skilled drivers. The technique of left-foot braking is used in auto racing to induce oversteer or reduce understeer, also to reduce turbo lag, so unless you want to accuse autoracers of “idiocy” for doing so, it is best to retract your statement.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well, your previous claim that you are going to “bow out” was just another unfulfilled promise to give me false hope that I will not have to deal with your nonsense again.

I don’t recall promising to bow out of this thread. I am having too much fun countering your nonsense with my nonsense.