What if Genesis were reconstructed?

[harvey1]

There are biblical translations where the translators update the Hebrew and Greek concepts to modernize them with current use of popular language. I was wondering, if a translation were to pop up that was consistent with this type of liberty, but made Genesis compatible with evolution, would this be acceptable or do you think it would be counter-productive? If you think it would be counter-productive, then in what way?

[QED]

Again, you have to face the consequences of the wrecking ball that I mentioned to materialism.

I think you ought to start a new thread to present this 'wrecking ball' for wider scrutiny. Personally I don't think there's anything to answer and I would be happy to argue my reasons for this in that topic.

...Therefore, it's true that the words which decided nuclear fusion were "declared" at the beginning of time, but it is also true that each and every instance those words are "re-declared" by the OI each and every time the physical situation satisfies those laws. Since those laws are partially based on God's will for the whole universe, every event is approximating God's ultimate will in the world.

Each and every time the physical situation satisfies those laws? What does this mean? It still sounds highly redundant to me but I take it this is why you give God an editorial role passing judgement on each and every transaction. Is this right?

[harvey1]

Each and every time the physical situation satisfies those laws? What does this mean? It still sounds highly redundant to me but I take it this is why you give God an editorial role passing judgement on each and every transaction. Is this right?

Not quite right. God's will restricts what the universe can necessarily be, and as a result, the laws of nature are dependent on that will being as it is. God doesn't live in time, so where there is a will of God, there exists a law that necessarily follows as an approximation to that will.

Let me give you an example. Suppose it is your will to wake up at 4 am every morning. If perhaps your will was strong enough, it will influence your biological clock to wake up at or before 4 am. The biological clock waking you up at or before 4 am every day becomes a kind of law for your body's "universe." Don't get me wrong, you don't consciously decide each morning to wake up at 4 am, you just have a will that strongly wants to wake up at 4 am. This will has implications for how your body reacts to that intense desire, one of which is that your biological clock sets itself to follow this intense will.

Each and every morning you wake up at 4 am, it is your will "saying" to your body, "wake me up at 4 am or before, or I'll be very disappointed that I overslept." Fortunately, your biological clock does exactly as you want, and you find yourself waking up at the appropriate time.

Similarly, God has a pre-determined will. That will really wants the universe to develop life, intelligence, consciousness, superconsciousness, etc., and this will sets a "biological clock" in the world to perform the role of directing the "body of God," the universe, to follow laws set by this "biological clock."

From our perspective, it appears these laws were determined 13.7 billion years ago and that God has been loafing around a lot since (13.7 billion years - 7 days). But, that perspective is incorrect because God doesn't exist in time. The will of God sets the laws for the entire 13.7 billion years and whatever time is remaining (perhaps an infinite time remaining). The same will determines the nature of the laws throughout the whole period of time until that will is accomplished. Some of those laws are physical laws, some of them are much more complex laws, e.g., "laws" that bring about the origin of life, etc..

In each case, the laws approximately conform to God's ultimate will, but do so minimally. This is why we observe the universe randomly and very haphazardly make its way through time. It sometimes appears there is no divine mind controlling these things, and sometimes it's quite apparent that there is such a complex mind. The universe is like the teenager that washes the dishes in the sink when it absolutely has to. If it doesn't have to, it does all sorts of unwillful behavior. The will of God really doesn't restrict the universe more than it has to, and the creation process can be as sloppy as is needed, it doesn't matter. God tells the earth and heavens to do it (by law), and darn it, it's gonna happen even if the teenager washes the dishes at 2 am half asleep.

Therefore, in this conception, it isn't a story of God being the overly protective parent that watches everything the kids do. God is much more of a delegator. That is, God's will by its nature necessitates a certain kind of natural law and those laws emerge in a physical system whenever the necessary character of "higher laws" (or thoughts of God) impinge upon them.

Thus, one could consistently say that God spoke for light to be created by nuclear fusion. The laws that control fusion are causally related to a chain of laws which ultimately are responding to God's will. Those same words are still being spoken, it's just that there is no physical situation where fusion is about to happen. From our perspective, it all looks very natural and very mathematical, which it is, however we don't follow the causal chain to the rightful source because we can't see the chain reaching up to Heaven.

For you this will all look ad hoc, but this view is much more simplistic and explains the universe much more in accord with Occam's razor than your view. Now, let me see about that new thread...

[QED]

For you this will all look ad hoc, but this view is much more simplistic and explains the universe much more in accord with Occam's razor than your view. Now, let me see about that new thread...

Sorry harvey1, but to say that God operates 'out of time' is another one of those meaningless statements that is always handy when a rationalization is needed. Working from within this universe everything you've stated above amounts to activity at t=0 and all the data shows that from that point on it was 'hands off' experience. Occams razor is then poised over the spontaneous emergence of a vast amount of energy versus the spontaneous emergence of a personal god of infinite creative capacity who, in turn, creates a vast amount of energy. No contest.

It's difficult to argue against what you say; not because you are correct about those things, but because you have chosen to say things which are immune from enquiry. I want to use an analogy to explain this (but unfortunately the only one that comes to mind is terrorism. I do not mean to imply that you are a terrorist!). All states are at the mercy of terrorism because it operates outside of the rules. Because of this terrorists gain undeserved advantages. If they declared war and drew up official battle lines armies could engage them. Now you will balk at me suggesting that you are operating 'outside the rules' but that is exactly what philosophy can do. Thus conclusions become 'purely philosophical' -- a well known term often used to describe quaint curiosities.

I'm not aiming this at you personally, it is an accusation towards theism in general. I think that one of the major reasons for the persistence of religion is this conflation between arguments that can't be refuted because they are correct and those that are simply phrased in such language as to be beyond refute -- irrespective of their merit. The Afterlife is a classic example. It can be postulated but never proved.

[harvey1]

Sorry harvey1, but to say that God operates 'out of time' is another one of those meaningless statements that is always handy when a rationalization is needed.

The H-H path integral operates outside of time. In fact, it's what gives meaning to time. I am basically saying that this approach is correct in principle.

Working from within this universe everything you've stated above amounts to activity at t=0 and all the data shows that from that point on it was 'hands off' experience.

No. The path integral defines all the paths taken (or could be taken) from Alpha to Omega (or A to B). It's not just the t=0 point, it includes all the points on the paths all the way to B.

Occams razor is then poised over the spontaneous emergence of a vast amount of energy versus the spontaneous emergence of a personal god of infinite creative capacity who, in turn, creates a vast amount of energy. No contest.

For this discussion, let's go to the new thread that I created per your request. It will dispell your materialist yearnings if you are willing to accept the power necessary conclusions.

It's difficult to argue against what you say; not because you are correct about those things, but because you have chosen to say things which are immune from enquiry.

Nothing is immune from inquiry. Not even this statement!

I want to use an analogy to explain this (but unfortunately the only one that comes to mind is terrorism. I do not mean to imply that you are a terrorist!). All states are at the mercy of terrorism because it operates outside of the rules. Because of this terrorists gain undeserved advantages. If they declared war and drew up official battle lines armies could engage them. Now you will balk at me suggesting that you are operating 'outside the rules' but that is exactly what philosophy can do. Thus conclusions become 'purely philosophical' -- a well known term often used to describe quaint curiosities.

Except in this case I don't acknowledge that you have a legitimate nation. I say that your nation are terrorists to my state which encompasses much more of humanity than your nation, and it has been around much, much longer than you guys. From my perspective, you guys are the "terrorists." (I'm not saying or comparing you, though, to actual terrorists, same as you aren't doing so with my views.)

I'm not aiming this at you personally, it is an accusation towards theism in general. I think that one of the major reasons for the persistence of religion is this conflation between arguments that can't be refuted because they are correct and those that are simply phrased in such language as to be beyond refute -- irrespective of their merit. The Afterlife is a classic example. It can be postulated but never proved.

But an afterlife is up for review and criticism, just like any other metaphysical perspective. Spetey, for example, was arguing against an afterlife because of the identity issue. You raised the lack of a scientific explanation, even in principle. I responded to both of those objections.

[QED]

It's difficult to argue against what you say; not because you are correct about those things, but because you have chosen to say things which are immune from enquiry.

Nothing is immune from inquiry. Not even this statement!

I disagree. The matter of the afterlife cannot be settled from this side of the grave. Of course we can bring all the science and logic available to bear upon it but this will prove nothing when all you have to claim is that God's infinite powers are able to transport our souls (whatever that might be) to his chosen destination and that this place is off-limits to us mortals. If I were you I would be somewhat embarrassed by the fact that so much of what I believed in was of this nature. But that's probably why Iim me.

Except in this case I don't acknowledge that you have a legitimate nation. I say that your nation are terrorists to my state which encompasses much more of humanity than your nation, and it has been around much, much longer than you guys. From my perspective, you guys are the "terrorists."

You are mistaken to respond to my analogy at this level. The essence of my analogy was that there are 'rules' that the terrorist is able to flaunt to his advantage. In the case we are discussing the rule that propositions must be amenable to testing and verification. All good hypothesis are supplied with tests that would be capable of disproving them. Something that is beyond verification is not considered science.

But an afterlife is up for review and criticism, just like any other metaphysical perspective. Spetey, for example, was arguing against an afterlife because of the identity issue. You raised the lack of a scientific explanation, even in principle. I responded to both of those objections.

This is the problem. You can always call on things like quantum teleportation to beam you up from an emergency in your argument, but merely demonstrating that certain things are possible in principle is not a satisfactory form of proof. I will repeat my main point here: Something that is by definition beyond verification cannot be considered science. While you can demonstrate quantum teleportation you cannot propose any way of verifying that there is an afterlife at the end of it.

[harvey1]

I disagree. The matter of the afterlife cannot be settled from this side of the grave. Of course we can bring all the science and logic available to bear upon it but this will prove nothing when all you have to claim is that God's infinite powers are able to transport our souls (whatever that might be) to his chosen destination and that this place is off-limits to us mortals. If I were you I would be somewhat embarrassed by the fact that so much of what I believed in was of this nature. But that's probably why Iim me.

Again, your ideas, your beliefs (in my view) are all based on fallacious thinking. If you were to accept the view that the material world is a clever deception before you, then everything can change, including your views of an afterlife. This is does not mean it is beyond inquiry, in fact, coming to see your fallacious thinking is something that can be inquired upon and concluded. Investigating what kind of beliefs you need to rebuild with after the wrecking ball has left, is the part of the inquiry that leads to new possibilities, including an afterlife. However, not everything is provable. Somethings only remain possible. At this stage, that's as far as I've been able to get with respect to the afterlife. But, I'm not content to think that there is no such argument out there waiting for someone to discover it...

You are mistaken to respond to my analogy at this level. The essence of my analogy was that there are 'rules' that the terrorist is able to flaunt to his advantage. In the case we are discussing the rule that propositions must be amenable to testing and verification. All good hypothesis are supplied with tests that would be capable of disproving them. Something that is beyond verification is not considered science.

Science doesn't conclude much in terms of existence. For example, all of the findings by science might be rejected by antirealists as just good models, but having nothing to do with reality. In addition, there's fallibilism within scientific findings that are believed to be true by the realist, and that fallibilism is not something that science can address either. Philosophy is required. It is part of the conversation as to what constitutes a good belief, and whether there are metaphysics involved, etc.. Science provides a very good basis to believe certain things about the world, but this must all be within the context of philosophical investigation.

This is the problem. You can always call on things like quantum teleportation to beam you up from an emergency in your argument, but merely demonstrating that certain things are possible in principle is not a satisfactory form of proof. I will repeat my main point here: Something that is by definition beyond verification cannot be considered science. While you can demonstrate quantum teleportation you cannot propose any way of verifying that there is an afterlife at the end of it.

No, of course not. That misses the point, though. When looking at conceptual perspectives of the world, we have to eliminate what is not possible and give very low probability to those things that look very unlikely. Science can only take us so far with respect to many of the bigger questions (e.g., are there really laws to the universe?, can the world be reduced to purely material things, etc.). This is why we need philosophy and philosophical argument to address those possibilities. An afterlife so far alludes us in being able to show that it is more than a possibility. However, many atheist and agnostic philosophers (and some theist philosophers) believe an afterlife is not metaphysically possible. That's why the inquiry does not end with science.

[QED]

Science doesn't conclude much in terms of existence. For example, all of the findings by science might be rejected by antirealists as just good models, but having nothing to do with reality. In addition, there's fallibilism within scientific findings that are believed to be true by the realist, and that fallibilism is not something that science can address either. Philosophy is required. It is part of the conversation as to what constitutes a good belief, and whether there are metaphysics involved, etc.. Science provides a very good basis to believe certain things about the world, but this must all be within the context of philosophical investigation.

Well I think we must part company when you get to this conclusion. I'm going to stick with Richard Feynman who never minced his words. He could never appreciate philosophy and thought religion was nothing but wishful thinking. Once you say that science must be beholden to philosophy it is clear that there is no common ground for a debate. That this is true is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the teatime news has still not broken the story that the existence of God has been proven. I don't mind betting that this news will never break.

[harvey1]

Once you say that science must be beholden to philosophy it is clear that there is no common ground for a debate.

I didn't say that science is beholden to philosophy. I said philosophy is part of the conversation as to what constitutes a good belief, and whether metaphysics is involved. I also stated that certain aspects to existence must be carried out in the context of philosophical investigation. Few scientists would disagree with this. In fact, science is quick to see that some areas are philosophical terrain which inexperienced scientists sometimes stray. They are quick to be told by their peers that they are engaging in philosophy. I think a little philosophy is needed in science, but the push is toward doing good science.

As far as Feynman, I think the philosophy that irked him was philosophy that tried to interfere with scientific belief. For example, the path integral formulation requires some bizarre effects and philosophers at the time were probably very skeptical about it. Perhaps Feynman thought they didn't know what the heck they were talking about. Just speculating...

[ST88]

I disagree. The matter of the afterlife cannot be settled from this side of the grave. Of course we can bring all the science and logic available to bear upon it but this will prove nothing when all you have to claim is that God's infinite powers are able to transport our souls (whatever that might be) to his chosen destination and that this place is off-limits to us mortals. If I were you I would be somewhat embarrassed by the fact that so much of what I believed in was of this nature. But that's probably why Iim me.

Again, your ideas, your beliefs (in my view) are all based on fallacious thinking. If you were to accept the view that the material world is a clever deception before you, then everything can change, including your views of an afterlife. This is does not mean it is beyond inquiry, in fact, coming to see your fallacious thinking is something that can be inquired upon and concluded. Investigating what kind of beliefs you need to rebuild with after the wrecking ball has left, is the part of the inquiry that leads to new possibilities, including an afterlife. However, not everything is provable. Somethings only remain possible. At this stage, that's as far as I've been able to get with respect to the afterlife. But, I'm not content to think that there is no such argument out there waiting for someone to discover it...

Hein?

Where is the fallacy? I really don't get where you're coming from here. If there is no possibility of discovering the nature of an afterlife condition, how is it possible to make any assumptions about it before you've found your argument? This strikes me as wishful thinking, and I think we can agree that going into an inquiry of any kind with a pre-conceived idea of what you will find will taint the inquiry.

[QED]

It's even more perilous than that ST88. From what I can see, a belief in the afterlife is an essential prop supporting the rest of Christianity. When I first asked harvey1 if he believed in it his reply was "of course". Little wonder given that it serves as a vital safety-net to catch all the poor souls who perish in untimely ways. It's one thing to assume a place next to the heavenly father at the end of a long and happy life, but within the Problem of Evil there is this question of innocents who suffer premature deaths in horrifying accidents. Such tragedies are frequently rationalized by claims that it all gets smoothed over in the afterlife. Take that away and I think "we have a problem Houston".