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?

[harvey1]

Hein? Where is the fallacy? I really don't get where you're coming from here.

The fallacy comes from assuming that his premises are correct with respect to the structure of the world. Once QED comes to see that his premises are not correct (e.g., realizes that he cannot provide an answer to this post because this philosophy is just wrong), then he can see that he should be reasoning from a different set of premises which don't have problems like the ones he currently has).

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?

It terms of philosophy all we can do is speculate and allot for the possibility of an afterlife. In terms of a religious belief, where we experience a religious connection with God and Jesus as the risen Savior, we conceive of the nature of the afterlife condition as part of that overall experience.

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.

I'm not sure what the lack of a pre-conceived idea could possibly be. We have good reason to believe there is an all-powerful God in the world. If we connect ourselves to a religious framework in a powerful way, then we should have experiences of the goodness of God. To me, this is conceived--not pre-conceived.

[harvey1]

From what I can see, a belief in the afterlife is an essential prop supporting the rest of Christianity.

But, QED, what you see is based on an unwilliness to accept that you are wrong. As I guess I have to keep harping on, you do not have a means by which to conceive of a material cause, and that should have the result in causing you to abandon your material atheism. It doesn't have that effect, so from where you see is based on false premises altogether.

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

I say, "of course" because I sit from an entirely different vantage point than you do. I can plainly see the nature of the universe, and from that vantage point an afterlife appears to be a natural deduction of the premises which I hold (which do not have the conceptual problems that your premises contain).

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".

No, not at all. An afterlife or no-afterlife would have little impact upon God being all-good, all-powerful. In my view, the PoE is a result of contraints on God in order to obtain an Omega state. This Omega state, I believe, contains a happy ending for all those souls whom God is well pleased. However, it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. Don't get me wrong, I think it is that way, but I don't think God would give up the all-good nature or all-powerful nature if it turned out that not a soul saw an afterlife.

[whatthe?]

I think in response to the original topic that one way to integrate God or Genisis with the evolution (pardon my language) of the Universe (as science understands it today) and the evolution of man is to make the assumption that God is transcendent of the Universe. I.e. God exists outside of the scientifically knowable universe. Further to this one could make the assumption that God created the infinitely tiny singularity, that exploded in the Big Bang, (according to many current models) pre-designed to become a Universe in which the evolution of Man was inevitable. The resulting Universe would, as science seems to be continually confirming, appear to an observer within that Universe, to be behaving without intelligent control.

Still begs the question: who or what created God?

[QED]

From what I can see, a belief in the afterlife is an essential prop supporting the rest of Christianity.

But, QED, what you see is based on an unwilliness to accept that you are wrong. As I guess I have to keep harping on, you do not have a means by which to conceive of a material cause, and that should have the result in causing you to abandon your material atheism. It doesn't have that effect, so from where you see is based on false premises altogether.

From the vantage point of any human observer there is no experiment, no test with which to validate the hypothesis of an afterlife. So please don't go harping on (I like the pun here).

I say, "of course" because I sit from an entirely different vantage point than you do. I can plainly see the nature of the universe, and from that vantage point an afterlife appears to be a natural deduction of the premises which I hold (which do not have the conceptual problems that your premises contain).

I'm far too laid back with you Harvey. I really ought to hound you down on your assertions about physical laws requiring mind or Omniscient Interpreters and suchlike. But because you draw your deductions from the world of philosophy, without the rigors of scientific validation, you are at liberty to call on invention at any time you wish. If we were conducting a proper scientific investigation into the matters being discussed here your hypothesis would have to be rejected because they are, by definition, untestable. This is where the real problem is and it lies with you.

We all know why science is such a dirty word with many theists -- a quick read through the debates on these forums reveals the thinly veiled contempt that many hold for what I would describe as the most rational form of human enquiry. Where you come unstuck in my opinion is when you seek to use science to support your worldview but ignore it's methods when it suits you. You are obviously aware of this matter which is why I think you are forced to "wind your neck in" over this question of the afterlife:

An afterlife or no-afterlife would have little impact upon God being all-good, all-powerful. In my view, the PoE is a result of contraints on God in order to obtain an Omega state. This Omega state, I believe, contains a happy ending for all those souls whom God is well pleased. However, it doesn't necessarily have to be that way. Don't get me wrong, I think it is that way, but I don't think God would give up the all-good nature or all-powerful nature if it turned out that not a soul saw an afterlife.

Surely without an afterlife there would be a massive problem with the 'all goodness" of God? This safety net is frequently presented to catch the poor unfortunate souls that routinely get caught-up in the cosmic machinery. Without it we return to the harsh realities of the material atheists cosmos where life is incidental to the plot. It would be interesting to see if anyone else thinks that the afterlife is an optional element in a theistic cosmos.

[QED]

one could make the assumption that God created the infinitely tiny singularity, that exploded in the Big Bang, (according to many current models) pre-designed to become a Universe in which the evolution of Man was inevitable.

Ironically this is probably the most practical scientific test we have for the whole issue: As a Mankind is monoculture species we are currently poised in the classic position of a species on the verge of extinction. Unfortunately, in this case, the last living human would be the only one to know the truth.

[harvey1]

From the vantage point of any human observer there is no experiment, no test with which to validate the hypothesis of an afterlife. So please don't go harping on (I like the pun here).

Well, there is an experiment, but it's rather expensive to your current existence, and you might not be able to report the results...

I'm far too laid back with you Harvey. I really ought to hound you down on your assertions about physical laws requiring mind or Omniscient Interpreters and suchlike. But because you draw your deductions from the world of philosophy, without the rigors of scientific validation, you are at liberty to call on invention at any time you wish.

Same with me. I should be harder on you for saying that the universe began by a level of sophistication that clearly is untestable to say such things. I should also hound you on the material causation thing since no such material cause has ever been observed.

If we were conducting a proper scientific investigation into the matters being discussed here your hypothesis would have to be rejected because they are, by definition, untestable. This is where the real problem is and it lies with you.

Yeah, if we were conducting a proper scientific investigation, I would investigate why it is that you think science can know anything about the ultimate nature of the world, but that kind of antirealism inquiry would be too cruel of an investigation to play on you.

We all know why science is such a dirty word with many theists -- a quick read through the debates on these forums reveals the thinly veiled contempt that many hold for what I would describe as the most rational form of human enquiry.

And, we all know the frustration of seeing those who hold their metaphysical beliefs abuse science beyond what antirealists would ever accept as knowable.

Where you come unstuck in my opinion is when you seek to use science to support your worldview but ignore it's methods when it suits you. You are obviously aware of this matter which is why I think you are forced to "wind your neck in" over this question of the afterlife:

Again, I say the same to you. I see how unstuck you become when you try to justify your atheist beliefs based on scientific evidence and then start trying to make metaphysical statements with scientific models. You are obviously aware of this matter which is why I think you are forced to "wind your neck in" over this question (... this time: material causation).

Surely without an afterlife there would be a massive problem with the 'all goodness" of God?

I don't think so.

This safety net is frequently presented to catch the poor unfortunate souls that routinely get caught-up in the cosmic machinery. Without it we return to the harsh realities of the material atheists cosmos where life is incidental to the plot. It would be interesting to see if anyone else thinks that the afterlife is an optional element in a theistic cosmos.

This safety net (of material atheism) is frequently presented to catch the poor unfortunate matter-stuff in human form that routinely get caught-up in the cosmic machinery. WIthout it we return to the harsh realities of the theistic cosmos where matter is incidental to the plot. It would be interesting to see if anyone else thinks that materialism is an optional element in an atheistic cosmos.

We can all spam our posts with rhetoric, QED. It's not all that difficult. Where is your argument, though?

[QED]

From the vantage point of any human observer there is no experiment, no test with which to validate the hypothesis of an afterlife. So please don't go harping on (I like the pun here).

Well, there is an experiment, but it's rather expensive to your current existence, and you might not be able to report the results...

And this is meant to refute my claim? What this demonstrates is that it is all too easy to construct an elaborate and complex religion (such as Christianity) on numerous claims (such the afterlife) which are beyond proof one way or the other. This is how the game is played. Philosophers can construct any number of different religions using these dubious tools, hence we see a babel of different beliefs practiced around the world throughout all of mankinds history.

Now your only defence seems to be a tit-for-tat retaliation in which you try to sling the mud back at the material realists like me who objects to the theistic use of unprovables. For this purpose you have asked the question "Can there be real causation for a material atheist?" Of course there can be and that is why you have yet to convince anyone that your question is even a valid one in that topic. So, at most, it would seem to be somewhat premature for you to use it as any sort of countermeasure.

Surely without an afterlife there would be a massive problem with the 'all goodness" of God?

I don't think so.

This safety net is frequently presented to catch the poor unfortunate souls that routinely get caught-up in the cosmic machinery. Without it we return to the harsh realities of the material atheists cosmos where life is incidental to the plot. It would be interesting to see if anyone else thinks that the afterlife is an optional element in a theistic cosmos.

This safety net (of material atheism) is frequently presented to catch the poor unfortunate matter-stuff in human form that routinely get caught-up in the cosmic machinery. WIthout it we return to the harsh realities of the theistic cosmos where matter is incidental to the plot. It would be interesting to see if anyone else thinks that materialism is an optional element in an atheistic cosmos.

We can all spam our posts with rhetoric, QED. It's not all that difficult. Where is your argument, though?

Methinks you doth protest too much. My argument is that not one but many key components of religion are articles of faith and that the whole network is subject to collapse with the removal of any one pillar. Therefore I have focussed on the afterlife and have demonstrated (very easily) that it is beyond any form of validation and thus cannot be considered sound. I then suggest that without being able to rely upon it, it brings into question the supposed all-goodness of God as it means that the suffering of innocents cannot be ultimately undone in the "next life".

[harvey1]

And this is meant to refute my claim? What this demonstrates is that it is all too easy to construct an elaborate and complex religion (such as Christianity) on numerous claims (such the afterlife) which are beyond proof one way or the other. This is how the game is played. Philosophers can construct any number of different religions using these dubious tools, hence we see a babel of different beliefs practiced around the world throughout all of mankinds history.

Analytic philosophers don't construct religious beliefs. What philosophy does is provide tools by which to analyze claims that are about the way the world actually is.

In your case, you are making claims about the way the world is, and when it is shown that your claims are just as vunerable to philosophical attack as a religious belief, then you claim that science backs you when it doesn't do so.

Your recent beef about the afterlife as being "untestable" means nothing to me since your atheist beliefs are scientifically untestable, so are agnostic beliefs, so are realist beliefs, and so are antirealist beliefs. And, so are beliefs that one should have scientific verification to have beliefs. This is simply a prejudice that you've decided that is important which you are not at all consistent in applying.

Now your only defence seems to be a tit-for-tat retaliation in which you try to sling the mud back at the material realists like me who objects to the theistic use of unprovables.

I only demonstrate that you are spewing rhetoric that have no reasons behind them other than your own prejudice and selective use of verificationism which obviously isn't applied to your atheism (otherwise you'd be an agnostic).

Of course there can be and that is why you have yet to convince anyone that your question is even a valid one in that topic.

The only person who has brought a serious complaint is Curious. His argument goes against a popular stream of thought that is pushing for discrete spacetime (within the physics community specializing on uniting quantum theories and relativity theories), so I would be very cautious about agreeing with him. Even if his argument is a good one, he needs to have a much stronger argument to show in principle that discrete time is impossible. Afterall, he's basically saying that a whole line of research is wasted effort since it is impossible for there to be discrete time. Are you willing to shut the door like that? In any case, do you have an argument?

Methinks you doth protest too much. My argument is that not one but many key components of religion are articles of faith and that the whole network is subject to collapse with the removal of any one pillar.

Which pillars are you referring to?

Therefore I have focussed on the afterlife and have demonstrated (very easily) that it is beyond any form of validation and thus cannot be considered sound.

We have many sound beliefs that have no form of scientific validation. For example, I believe you are a real person. You might be the alter ego of Otseng as far as I know. But, I trust that you have only one ego and that it expresses itself as QED. Of course, we could go even farther and say that I think that there are people. It's entirely possible (although it seems to me rather remote) that an alien race has simulated this world and I'm stuck in their simulation not realizing that there was never a human race. No scientific validation to strike down that belief whatsoever. We just have to trust our senses and the rational nature of the world that that surrounds us.

I then suggest that without being able to rely upon it, it brings into question the supposed all-goodness of God as it means that the suffering of innocents cannot be ultimately undone in the "next life".

It's not a major objection, QED. There can be a resolution for the PoE if there is no afterlife. In fact, in my arguments with Spetey I have not used the afterlife as a crutch to solve the PoE. In fact, I doubt an afterlife could solve the PoE. There has to be more to the story for the PoE to be solvable.

[QED]

Harvey1, aside form the 'brain in a vat' scenario your reconstruction of Genesis amounts to one of many possible interpretations of a real event. You also acknowledge the potential for an alternative interpretation invoking the atheists anthropic principle except that you see no evidence for a metauniverse that might support such a scenario. Everything, as you say, ultimately comes down to faith.

But I have to wonder at the strength of attachment you display towards the Lord God and your wholehearted embrace of Christianity and all the accounts of Jesus that goes with it. You claim faith in all this to be more rational than faith in a naturalistic account, yet you have chosen Christianity above numerous other religious faiths. What did you find lacking with these other interpretations?

You see they all look very similar to me and appear to make a common error in equating design with a designer. This is a very understandable and long-held notion but we are priveledged today to have technology which can demonstrate that it is possible to have intelligent designs sans intelligence. This is a very modern realization and is one of those deceptive things about the world we live in that so often throws up a red herring for our perceptions.

The reason I want to discuss this with you is that you are insistent about there being a divine will about the cosmos. I've heard you argue that this is required to design, create and keep things on track providing us with an OI etc. but I've never had your reaction to my question about how come a prime mover, or uncaused cause, such as this could have so much intelligence -- a property we otherwise associate with the product of billions of years of evolution in challenging and complex environments like our own. Intelligence is only understood by us in these terms. This is mostly why I can't bring myself to jump on your gravy train. I want to know how the rational mind can conceive of disembodied intelligence in posession of all the necessary tools to build a universe.

[harvey1]

But I have to wonder at the strength of attachment you display towards the Lord God and your wholehearted embrace of Christianity and all the accounts of Jesus that goes with it. You claim faith in all this to be more rational than faith in a naturalistic account, yet you have chosen Christianity above numerous other religious faiths. What did you find lacking with these other interpretations?

Theism provides an explanation for the beginning of the universe that to me makes a lot more sense. Even if I believed that a material universe could exist an infinite time ago (e.g., Aquinas), I would still think there would need to be some kind of logic that the world obeys, and again this would lead me right back to theism since logic is a consequence of thought in my view.

To arrive from theism to Christianity has less to do with any merit of Christianity (although I do think there are tremendous merits), and more to do with the relationship that I think this God would have with the world. In my view, there isn't this divide between God acting in the universe to promote or steer the world so that it remains logical and mathematical, and acting in the universe at the minute level where birds make their nests and humans have their society. I can't imagine a God that would have the complexity of thought to be able to make a universe and not be able to supervise every minute detail of the world. That doesn't mean that God would intervene in terms of a violation of natural laws, but I can't visualize a God that at least wouldn't know our thoughts and actions.

Therefore, the conclusion I come to is that the universe is analogous to a self-extracting file. The way in which the universe evolves is according to some boundary conditions set by God, and therefore the direction of all evolutionary processes are controlled in that way. Therefore, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, etc., are characteristic of this evolutionary direction in the same manner as galaxies, black holes, stars, planets, life, etc., are also characteristic of an evolutionary direction.

Based on those assumptions, I look to see what is it about aspects of religious belief which conform to a natural theology. Unfortunately it takes a great deal of time to study natural theology in terms of science and philosophy, so I've had to limit my "research" to mainly the Christian tradition since I only have so much time. (Although, I have examined Taoism a little more closer than other religions, and I find it very enticing at this point.)

In any case, I see a strong correlation between natural theology and religion--at least Christianity. Yet, I can't imagine that other religions don't have their parallels to natural theological foundation (or religion from first principles). As of right now, I see no conflict between the basis of Christianity and the basis of looking at religion from a natural theological perspective. In fact, by studying Christianity I feel like I've had help in exploring certain paths in natural theology which later proved very fruitful.

we are priveledged today to have technology which can demonstrate that it is possible to have intelligent designs sans intelligence. This is a very modern realization and is one of those deceptive things about the world we live in that so often throws up a red herring for our perceptions.

Yes, that's very true. Natural selection is a proven mechanism and there is absolutely no question that great designs can be produced by natural means which require no direct intelligence in simulations such as cellular automata. However, as you know, I feel that you abuse this principle beyond recognition. When talking about many worlds undergoing many different interactions, it is quite clear to me that you can have natural selective processes that produce well-designed features. In other words, this is a result of a large enough state space that makes possible natural selection. The state space cannot be confused with the laws that make the state space possible. In every instance in the cosmos where we experience large state spaces (e.g., galaxies), we also observe laws that show how the state space becomes possible in the first place.

I think I'm being consistent in my approach to the universe because I give ultiimate precedence to laws over state space. Whereas, I think your consistency breaks down because, in my view, you are forced to give priority to the state space over the laws. That doesn't make sense in my opinion. You see, the state space that you'd have to give priority (i.e., a multiverse) would be much more complex than the state space we observe (i.e., our universe), and hence it defeats the whole point of looking for scientific laws that demonstrate how our state space is possible. It also is terribly ironic since just at the point to where science has reduced our state space to the most simplest of causes (namely some unified gravio-strong-electroweak force), you take this huge jump by saying that this very concise state space (regulated by perhaps a handful of equations) is caused by an uncaused, unexplainable state space of infinite size and duration having no laws. That astounds me that you would take that move. I know we've been down this road before, but I just cannot get over the fact that you won't accept that laws always have priority in the universe. Hence, all state spaces are reducible to the result of laws operating in the world, and this thought process leads directly to a God or omniscient interpreter as I've mentioned before.

The reason I want to discuss this with you is that you are insistent about there being a divine will about the cosmos. I've heard you argue that this is required to design, create and keep things on track providing us with an OI etc. but I've never had your reaction to my question about how come a prime mover, or uncaused cause, such as this could have so much intelligence -- a property we otherwise associate with the product of billions of years of evolution in challenging and complex environments like our own. Intelligence is only understood by us in these terms. This is mostly why I can't bring myself to jump on your gravy train. I want to know how the rational mind can conceive of disembodied intelligence in posession of all the necessary tools to build a universe.

Since this topic is very important--perhaps the most fundamental difference in our views, I decided to make it a separate topic. Just to keep the exchange interactive with other people, I'll give others a chance to post their replies before I respond to it in more detail.