Evidence for your beliefs

[Todd]

Hi,

This is my first post and Topic on this site, so I'll quickly introduce myself.
My name is Todd, 15 years old live in Sydney and I'm Christian and happily got saved about 2 months ago.

So anyway, I think this is a similar topic to something was put on before but anyway, I'd like to try it again.

I want people on this to state their belief and give evidence for why they think it is right or why they believe in it.

I myself as stated above am Christian, I don't know how many people have heard of this but before that I was an evolutionist, take note of what I say here evolutionists, "I didn't WANT to believe in God, because I was afraid of going to Hell for sinning, so I decided that if I believed there wasn't a God there wasn't a hell to possibly end up going to when I die, so I chose something that ruled God out, it took me ages but after 3 years I realised how pathetic evolution is because although I DID believe in it I never saw any proof of it" So anyway after this, I became Christian and saw proofs of it straight away, I've had a lot of my personal prayers answered and there's easily much proof in the bible with so many fulfilled prophecies and SCIENTIFIC FACTS that support the Bible, so thats my reason for trust in the Lord now, I'd write something longer but I'm tired right now.

Anyway, everyone else, I wanna hear your thoughts

[potwalloper.]

Icarus wrote

Potwalloper,
ALL words are by definition ambiguous and relative.

Sorry - all either means all or it doesn't. If it is not all then it is part. All is not relative, all is absolute. I know that this difficult to accept but playing with the meaning does not prove your point. All is all.

Plus, omni is NOT (singularly) a concept. If it were then the people in Atlanta cannot call the OmniDome the OmniDome. Because the don't use it for ALL things.

They can call the dome whatever they want. What they call it matters not a jot. The dome name is not an attempt to conceptualise god and is therefore irrelevant in this context.

I understand you want to use the "part-" in the sense of what we are talking about. But, since God is supposed to be the most powerful being in existance the whole omni can be ascribed to him. Omni is not always a description of EVERY concievable power, but simply has to be THE most powerful being.

So what you are saying is that omni means most rather than all. I can understand that. The use of most as a concept avoids the internal illogicality of the omni concept when applied to a god.

I can use the (or your) logic to concept descriptors such as Atheism, Agnostic and Theism.

These are not absolutes. All is an absolute.

So now that I have pointed out a flaw in your theory, will you amend it?

No flaw identified - no amendment required.

Providing the argument for your conclusion is your job not mine.

It is not for me to prove your assertion. You made the assertion that an argument could be developed to prove any conclusion not me. I have given you a conclusion - so prove it...

Obervation of an effect, yes

Observation of an effect is observed phenomena.

Perhaps in a few thousand years scientists will still be banging their heads against the wall trying to figure out what caused the Law of Causality

So we are back to the invisible wizard waving his wand - seems very credible (or perhaps it was an invisible elephant waving his trunk? Or a fairy?).

Perhaps the next time I can't explain something I should rely on the General Theory of Wizard Wandness...

[Lotan]

Lotan,
You'll need to reread and rethink my post before you go off half cocked putting claims and your own wanton will into what I said.

Reasoning based on a false premise will likely lead to a faulty conclusion. Did you not suggest " that the Bible has been correct in archeaology, antiquities, epochly, etc... it is reasonable enough to assume that its other textual claims are true as well."? If this is not a view that you hold, could you please enlighten me as to your real intention?

[Icarus]

Potwaller,
You'll have to excuse a future delay to this post. I have to get to work and such. May be a few days till I get to posting back.


Playing with the meaning is exactly what we both are doing here. It is exactly what everyone does every day. You are demanding a word that describes a God be an absolute perfect sense of the word. Yet in ANY other case you accept non abolute senses of the word, both physical and conceptual as well as in any tightly controlled philosophy discussion down to an everyday discussion. Now you are claiming context where before you did not care for context. Which is what I was saying... in context, the best word term to use to describe the most powerful being is to use omni. The best description we can use to describe something that really ascends our full understanding - ANTHROPOMORPHISM.

Also, just for any misconception out there. The Bible does not claim Omni anything. The attribution comes from a book years and years ago about the being and character of God. Which is why part of this discussion is happening. Again, it is Anthropomorphic.

And how do you know Omni is an absolute? You would have to have perfect induction in order to know if a word is absolute or not. You don't have perfect induction to arrive at such. Are you using best sense of the word?

These are not absolutes.

We were discussing concepts before, or description of concepts. Now you want absolute concepts. What is next, empirical absolutes.

No flaw identified - no amendment required.

I see you're on eleven.

Observation of an effect is observed phenomena.

No. Observation of an effect is observed effect. Watching a tree grow is observed phenomena.

How come you did not try tear apart the invisible person example??

So we are back to the invisible wizard waving his wand - seems very credible (or perhaps it was an invisible elephant waving his trunk? Or a fairy?).

Now your being (albeit) funny and avoiding the answer. What CAUSED the LAW OF CAUSALITY?


and just for a reminder, I won't likely be posting back for a few days. thanks.

[potwalloper.]

Playing with the meaning is exactly what we both are doing here. It is exactly what everyone does every day.

Sorry but I have to disagree - not every word is open to interpretation some are clear.

All = all, if not it is not all

Nothing = nothing, if there is something then it is not nothing

Infinite = infinite, if it is limited it is not infinite

I could go on...

The use of interpretation to defend the indefensible is a common position taken by those who believe in God. God is either omni or he is not. There is no middle ground. If he is not then the discussion becomes pointless as the illogical nature of the construct falls. If he is then he cannot exist unless one can explain the inherent contradiction.

What CAUSED the LAW OF CAUSALITY?

What has this to do with the issue? My views on causality have no bearing on the contradictory nature of the omni god.

Sorry but I guess we are going to have to agree to differ on this one - I have never had an adequate explanation of the omni concept and its contradictions - I guess I never will

[mrmufin]

I agree. However scientific conclusions are based upon observable phenomena. The religious tenet appears to be that since we don't yet have a comprehensive theory that explains life and the universe a magic wizard ...

That is not true. Not all scientific conclusions are based upon observable phenomena. No one has observed (seen) Gravity. We have only seen its effects. Effects are different than observed phenomena.

In the case of gravity, its effects can be predicted, quantified, and falsified. Some skeptics might point out that the predictability and quantifiability of gravity --despite its elusiveness in observational terms-- is more than the gods offer.

No one has produced a Gravity molecule have they? No.

Actually, the theoretical particle known as a graviton (a boson without mass or charge which mediates the gravitational force) is not uncommon in physics.

We only KNOW that some force out there is affecting objects and it happens to be everywhere we go. So what you actually have is Inductive Conclusion (or Inference or existance). Not an actual observation. Obervation of an effect, yes. But not hard empirical evidence. That goes for many of the molecules that are too small to be seen. We only see the effects or, "trail winds" if you will, of them. Never observed them. Not one.

At what point --if any-- can all of the "trail winds" be synthesized into a cohesive, useful statement about reality? We've not witnessed the Earth revolve around the Sun, either, but the heliocentric model of celestial mechanics seems to best explain all of the observed effects.

Perhaps in a few thousand years scientists will still be banging their heads against the wall trying to figure out what caused the Law of Causality.

I'm unfamiliar with any physical Law of Causality. What does it state?

Regards,
mrmufin

[Icarus]

Potwalloper,
I saw that your post was short, and I had a few minutes.

Yes, we can disagree. The part that gets me is that because a word description that we humans use for an anthropomorphic view of God, does not mean He does not exist. I fail to see your logic, in a word description not completing all of the word term uses means something does not exist. I am assuming you are looking for a plausible deniability. So that if God does exist, you'll somehow make the claim to God that you had reason to deny Him because His followers used a word that you found a way to make an illogical contradiction and you refused to accept that word? Not trying to put words in your mouth, but it does not make sense, in any context to demand exactness on language. Linguists don't make such demands, why is your position so unique?

The use of interpretation to defend the indefensible is a common position taken by those who believe in God.

The same is true of non believers. It is not our fault that taking the strictest form of a word with words that are logically and linguistically acceptable and somehow using them to equate it with non-existance of a subject.

What has this [Causality Law]to do with the issue? My views on causality have no bearing on the contradictory nature of the omni god.

It does not have much to do with Omni as it does to your other posts using science and claims using logic. If you don't want to answer fine. It is probably better for your argument.

mrmufin,
Yes gravity can offer more to a skeptic. My question to a skeptic that is so dialed high on skepticism is why don't you use that reasoning in other areas of signs of intelligence? Intelligent Design can be predicted, quantified and falsified as well.

Actually, the theoretical particle known as a graviton (a boson without mass or charge which mediates the gravitational force) is not uncommon in physics.

The key word here is "theoretical". If I am using Potwalloper's Strict Terms, then I too can not accept a graviton as reality. (*side note interjection: I am not opposed to most of sciences claims based on effect observation) And Physicists are wrong in their assesment that it exists. It either is real or it is theoretical.

At what point --if any-- can all of the "trail winds" be synthesized into a cohesive, useful statement about reality? We've not witnessed the Earth revolve around the Sun, either, but the heliocentric model of celestial mechanics seems to best explain all of the observed effects.

Don't get me wrong, scientific inductive conclusions are legitimate. My overall intent was to show Potwalloper's logic seems to get thrown out the window when it comes to proving the invisible WHEN it comes to God.

I'm unfamiliar with any physical Law of Causality. What does it state?

It is also called the Law of Cause and Effect. It essentially states that every effect has a cause. There are two views to describe this Law. One is the Generative Theory of Causality where the premise is that a cause generates an effect and that the cause and effect are not independent of each other. The second view is the Successionist Theory of Causality where cause and effect relationships are merely actions resulting in other actions and are independent of each other. The difference between the two view is boiled down to future prediction.

[mrmufin]

Intelligent Design can be predicted, quantified and falsified as well.

Okay, then. How could intelligent design be falsified, quantified, or predicted?

Actually, the theoretical particle known as a graviton (a boson without mass or charge which mediates the gravitational force) is not uncommon in physics.

The key word here is "theoretical". If I am using Potwalloper's Strict Terms, then I too can not accept a graviton as reality. (*side note interjection: I am not opposed to most of sciences claims based on effect observation) And Physicists are wrong in their assesment that it exists. It either is real or it is theoretical.

The words "theory" and "theoretical" have very different connotations in scientific venues than they often have in non-scientific conversation. Theories (not laws) are the backbone of modern science, and a scientific theory is pretty much anything but a "guess." Frankly, I'd prefer to reserve any judgement as to the accuracy of the theories presented in modern particle physics.

At what point --if any-- can all of the "trail winds" be synthesized into a cohesive, useful statement about reality? We've not witnessed the Earth revolve around the Sun, either, but the heliocentric model of celestial mechanics seems to best explain all of the observed effects.

Don't get me wrong, scientific inductive conclusions are legitimate. My overall intent was to show Potwalloper's logic seems to get thrown out the window when it comes to proving the invisible WHEN it comes to God.

While I respect potwalloper's position, and your response to it, potwalloper and myself may not be deploying equivalent methodology in this discussion. My position is that the gods are concepts which elude any practical means of testability and falsifiability. In simplest terms, faith plays a much greater role in religion than it does in science. Thus, if the gods can be falsified by any impartial methodology, I'd be very curious as to what those methods would consist of.

I'm unfamiliar with any physical Law of Causality. What does it state?

It is also called the Law of Cause and Effect. It essentially states that every effect has a cause. There are two views to describe this Law. One is the Generative Theory of Causality where the premise is that a cause generates an effect and that the cause and effect are not independent of each other. The second view is the Successionist Theory of Causality where cause and effect relationships are merely actions resulting in other actions and are independent of each other. The difference between the two view is boiled down to future prediction.

What you've described may be popular in philosophical discourse; it may have been a popular position among 18th and 19th century scientists. However, a quick scouring of the many and varied physics texts here at the mufin residence returns no such physical law. The context in which you presented the assertion suggested that it is a scientific principle, but the study of quantum mechanics strongly suggests no such law is in effect.

Regards,
mrmufin

[Icarus]

Okay, then. How could intelligent design be falsified, quantified, or predicted?

One would be the previous invisible person inside a body effect. And there are some other examples. Which we can get into later if you choose, for now I think I have a lengthy post to other points in your post.

The words "theory" and "theoretical" have very different connotations in scientific venues than they often have in non-scientific conversation. Theories (not laws) are the backbone of modern science, and a scientific theory is pretty much anything but a "guess."

You'll have to explain how the connotations are used. Does one have to travel in scientific inner circles to know how they are being used inside of scientific venues? How are they different than what a layman knows them to be?

Theories have to rest on something, even if they are assumed, in order for the theory to have a chance at validity in reality. Isn't that why some wild theories are laughed at when they are proposed? While I would agree with you if you meant to say that theories are the backbone of investigative science. But not science itself.

Frankly, I'd prefer to reserve any judgement as to the accuracy of the theories presented in modern particle physics.

Why is that? Elaborate for me a bit.

My position is that the gods are concepts which elude any practical means of testability and falsifiability. In simplest terms, faith plays a much greater role in religion than it does in science.

1) So science can account for everything then?
2) Is science the only source for objective truth?

However, a quick scouring of the many and varied physics texts here at the mufin residence returns no such physical law. The context in which you presented the assertion suggested that it is a scientific principle, but the study of quantum mechanics strongly suggests no such law is in effect.

Are you not asking me to have a whole lot of faith that you actually do have "many and varied physics texts" (or that you actually did go look in them)? More faith than necessary? By even presenting it into the argument, I either have to accept that you really do have texts in your home about physics and about the subjects related to the thread and that you really did scour them quickly. That you are not bluffing or lying. Or I'll have to travel to your home and observe that you have them. Not only that, but that you had them before you posted. That you did scour them quickly. What type of texts are they. Did you buy them during my travel to your home. Should I check local book stores to see if any such texts have been purchased recently.... etc... all that to say, a good amount of faith seems to be ok to ask of when it is on [your] side of the argument.

But (and just for this faith asking arguments sake) you asked me to verify the Law of Causality with what it states. Which could assume that my assertion of the law was not taken with faith.

The subjects may be different but the faith assertions are equal.

"...18th and 19th century..." What kind of statement is that? Are you trying to put your view into a "superior" modern era and mine into a rudementary past? Wow. Please tell me your not trying to be so subliminally base in argumentation. I certainly hope your intent was not so base. And when did popularity affect an actual scientific law to become passe? Is it like so totally last century for the hip scientists at the science mall? You yourself (assuming some scientific employment) are using methodologies from the same era, if not even older. So, again, why was that statement made?


"...quantum mechanics strongly suggests no such law is in effect." Are you trying to trying to tell me that there is NO movement what-so-ever at the quantum level? Or that nothing is created or destroyed at the quantum level? If anything, Quantum Mechanics is [using] the Succesionist Theory in its predictability.

I am not a Quantum Physicist or the like, but a search on google with a search like "Law of Causality with Quantum Mechanics" produces quite a load of material to read. One paper essentially stated in long scientific terms that it is not that "all" the laws have been thrown out, but that we just don't know "how" some are working at this level.

If you are a Quantum Physicist let me know, I'd love to pick your brain on some issues.

[potwalloper.]

Yes, we can disagree. The part that gets me is that because a word description that we humans use for an anthropomorphic view of God, does not mean He does not exist. I fail to see your logic, in a word description not completing all of the word term uses means something does not exist. I am assuming you are looking for a plausible deniability. So that if God does exist, you'll somehow make the claim to God that you had reason to deny Him because His followers used a word that you found a way to make an illogical contradiction and you refused to accept that word?

I am sorry but my problem with the concept of an omni god has nothing to do with me looking for a "plausible deniability". What possible reason could there be for this? I do not believe that God exists...

Your position on the interpretation of omni is interesting. The vast majority of Christians do not appear to share your view on this. Ask them if God is all powerful (ie can it do anything it wants) and the answer will be an unqualified "YES". The same for the other omnis.

My problem with this is that omni as a concept is illogical when considered from the point of view of "all". This has nothing to do with me trying to find a reason why god should not exist. I have not proposed the existence of a god and the obvious default is non-existence - why should I have to prove a negative?

It does not have much to do with Omni as it does to your other posts using science and claims using logic. If you don't want to answer fine. It is probably better for your argument.

What comes through from your posts appears to be an attempt to show that God exists due to the fallability of existing scientific models of the origin of the universe and life.

The key issue here is that scientific models/theories are just that, theories. I am well aware of the flaws in scientific understanding and of the current gaps in our knowledge.

However I cannot see the link between the identification of flaws in scientific theory and some form of justification for the existence of God. That would be like saying "I don't understand the mechanisms that underpin schizophrenia so God must make people schizophrenic".

When we look at this cold we have to return to my original comments regarding the magic wizard. You appear to be proposing that since scientific explanations are not complete or perfect this somehow justifies the view that the universe was created by a magic wizard, and yes he did pop out of nowhere and is now invisible and undetectable. Yes I know it is a simplistic view - however you need to appreciate that this really is what you are proposing.

Whilst a lack of understanding appears to be enough to justify the existence of the wizard in the minds of Christians the same "logic" is strangely suspended when applied to the origin of the wizard. When the question is asked "who made god then" the response invariably goes down the route of either "I don't know" or "he always was" - somehow acceptable to those who rely on faith.

If Christian "logic" (ie I don't know so God must have done it) is applied then God will have required a creator also.

Small gods have little gods upon their backs to bite em, little gods have tiny gods and so ad infinitum...

Of course those that score 11 out of 10 on blind faith will carefully utilise the "blind" element to avoid seeing this.

Whilst it was a throw away comment I am beginning to think that you really do believe in the General Theory of Wizard Wandness to explain the universe - I'll just polish up my crystal ball, perhaps the answer will be in there, or in the tea leaves, or in some battered old work of fiction?

Science may be flawed - in my view it is the only credible basis for our understanding that avoids GTWW.

[dangerdan]

One would be the previous invisible person inside a body effect. And there are some other examples. Which we can get into later if you choose, for now I think I have a lengthy post to other points in your post.

I can’t help but feel this is at the heart of the matter. Supernatural arguments, like intelligent design, are not credible scientific arguments because you can’t verify the issues at hand. Further, the introduction of an intelligent being designing this and that really raises more problems than it solves. Sure, you can now have a theory of how this big and spectacular universe came into existence, but you are now faced with the even greater problem of an even bigger and even more spectacular God type character!

Quote:

My position is that the gods are concepts which elude any practical means of testability and falsifiability. In simplest terms, faith plays a much greater role in religion than it does in science.

1) So science can account for everything then?

Everything that can be verified, quantified, tested repeatedly, etc, etc. So long as you can falsify it with empirical evidence.

2) Is science the only source for objective truth?

I would say it’s the most reliable type of knowledge humans can possess.

Are you not asking me to have a whole lot of faith that you actually do have "many and varied physics texts" (or that you actually did go look in them)? More faith than necessary? By even presenting it into the argument, I either have to accept that you really do have texts in your home about physics and about the subjects related to the thread and that you really did scour them quickly. That you are not bluffing or lying. Or I'll have to travel to your home and observe that you have them. Not only that, but that you had them before you posted. That you did scour them quickly. What type of texts are they. Did you buy them during my travel to your home. Should I check local book stores to see if any such texts have been purchased recently.... etc... all that to say, a good amount of faith seems to be ok to ask of when it is on [your] side of the argument.

I like your critical thinking. Though you could just say “what books were they?”

But (and just for this faith asking arguments sake) you asked me to verify the Law of Causality with what it states. Which could assume that my assertion of the law was not taken with faith.

The subjects may be different but the faith assertions are equal.

True. Soooo……out of my curiosity…what is it? Which scientist put it forward? It defiantly wasn’t the big guys, Newton, Einstein, etc. Perhaps you could just give us a brief outline, doesn’t have to be much.

"...18th and 19th century..." What kind of statement is that? Are you trying to put your view into a "superior" modern era and mine into a rudementary past? Wow. Please tell me your not trying to be so subliminally base in argumentation. I certainly hope your intent was not so base. And when did popularity affect an actual scientific law to become passe? Is it like so totally last century for the hip scientists at the science mall? You yourself (assuming some scientific employment) are using methodologies from the same era, if not even older. So, again, why was that statement made?

I cannot answer for him, but just out of my curiosity, was it in the 18th or 19th century that this theory of causality was put forward? I must admit it sounds like it was from that era, merely because “causality” seemed to be popular then, that’s all.

"...quantum mechanics strongly suggests no such law is in effect." Are you trying to trying to tell me that there is NO movement what-so-ever at the quantum level? Or that nothing is created or destroyed at the quantum level? If anything, Quantum Mechanics is [using] the Succesionist Theory in its predictability.

Perhaps muffin was merely saying that we currently think nothing “causes” (as in the traditional concepts of causality) the random movements that are observed in quantum mechanics. It is…well…random!