Christianity is commonsense

[harvey1]

I'm not an expert on other religions, so I won't compare Christianity to other religions, but I will say that Christianity makes a great deal of sense. Here are some sensical notions that I think make it a 'no-brainer' to be a Christian:

1. Logos: God is infinite and undescribable, but the Logos (or Logic) of God is the means by which God creates and transforms the world. Who can argue with Logic as the means by which creation takes place? What? Are we supposed to believe that illogic is the means by which creation takes place? C'mon.

2. Trinity: God is symmetry. That is, symmetry is 'be', 'becoming', 'that which becomes'. This is the name of God in Christianity (i.e., Yahweh), which means the three states of existence - or the basis of all symmetry. Symmetry transformation is already been shown in physics to be the basis of all major theories in physics, so it is perfectly logical to believe in the religion that embrasses symmetry in the actual name of God.

3. Mustard seed principle: Christianity is based on the notion that God is transforming the world from a mustard seed to a rich kingdom of life to be harvested at the end of time. What more can be apparent than this simple fact. The universe started off as a 'seed' and it is clear that as intelligence continues to evolve it will become more and more like God - hence a kingdom of God. It makes perfect sense.

Thus, Christianity is commonsense.

[Amphigorey]

Ok, let’s not do the imaginative universe origins thing. I was only speculating and at not much of a stretch because at least I wasn’t involving non-physical non-temporal causative elements. We know physical laws that operate on earth operate the same everywhere else in the universe that we’ve observed. I merely extrapolated that since we’ve observed phenomena which fit to a big bang theory that such events may be happening elsewhere within space/time. Why suppose we’re unique or that the big bang is some exceptional event?

How can you have a timeline creation without a cause?

How can you have non-physical non-temporal anythings effecting space/time according to no known laws? That doesn’t make sense to me.

Supposing an open ended space/time is at least as logical as speculating about events before time or trying to link “timeless” volitions to time bound events or non-physical non-proximate “causations” to specific physical locations, and is at any rate more parsimonious.

We all know what we know, academic, dogmatic or otherwise. And knowing what or that you don’t know is just as important if not more so. Careful examination (skepticism) has inherent value for intelligent life and is fundamental to the scientific process.

And Harvey, I’m not familiar with the we-are-ignorant-therefore-we-must-be-wrong argument.

[harvey1]

How can you have a timeline creation without a cause?

How can you have non-physical non-temporal anythings effecting space/time according to no known laws? That doesn’t make sense to me.

Well, let me give you an example. Virtual particles come in and out of existence all around us and throughout the universe, and their existence is due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (see http://particleadventure.org/particlead ... rtual.html ). How is it possible that Heisenberg's UP which is neither physical or temporal have any effect on the physical world? I don't know, but it is a scientific fact that they do.

Supposing an open ended space/time is at least as logical as speculating about events before time or trying to link “timeless” volitions to time bound events or non-physical non-proximate “causations” to specific physical locations, and is at any rate more parsimonious.

Let me use the uncertainty principle as a means to answer your question. If we tried to explain virtual particles without it, then we have absolutely no explanation for virtual particles other than that they are causeless entities. But, thanks to Heisenberg, we know such events are not causeless, but are caused by a law that exists 'outside' the virtual particles themselves.

Similarly, if we try and remove cause for a universe (regardless how complex that cause is), then we obviously have major problems since the timeline creation should be causeless. That cannot be since we are obviously responding to each others comments because we are trying to communicate, etc.

And Harvey, I’m not familiar with the we-are-ignorant-therefore-we-must-be-wrong argument.

It's more of an excuse than an argument, but regardless what you call it, citing our ignorance of knowledge is not a sufficient reply to address the philosophical issues of a non-caused universe.

[Amphigorey]

Well, let me give you an example. Virtual particles come in and out of existence all around us and throughout the universe, and their existence is due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

Heisenberg's problem is only the inability to measure multiple attributes at once. If you want to know direction and velocity you have to have a couple of sample points. Conversely if you want to know precise position, you can't know direction and velocity because you only have a single measure. The fact that you can't predict any of this isn't terribly surprising given that you're dealing with subatomic particles. And that the technology used to measure will influence what you measure at the subatomic scale is purely a practical problem.

It's more of an excuse than an argument, but regardless what you call it, citing our ignorance of knowledge is not a sufficient reply to address the philosophical issues of a non-caused universe.

Do you mean Agnosticism?

[harvey1]

Well, let me give you an example. Virtual particles come in and out of existence all around us and throughout the universe, and their existence is due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

Heisenberg's problem is only the inability to measure multiple attributes at once. If you want to know direction and velocity you have to have a couple of sample points. Conversely if you want to know precise position, you can't know direction and velocity because you only have a single measure. The fact that you can't predict any of this isn't terribly surprising given that you're dealing with subatomic particles. And that the technology used to measure will influence what you measure at the subatomic scale is purely a practical problem.

Since the time of Heisenberg, quantum electrodynamics (QED) was formulated which requires the existence of sea of virtual particles (or zero point energy - ZPE). This explanation by Stephen Hawking's site is useful to see how the uncertainty principle is responsible for the virtual particles (which can be measured by the Casimir effect):
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/warps3.html

It's more of an excuse than an argument, but regardless what you call it, citing our ignorance of knowledge is not a sufficient reply to address the philosophical issues of a non-caused universe.

Do you mean Agnosticism?

No. The issue of causation must be addressed by anyone who brings up the possibility that the entire timeline of the universe is without cause. Imagine if someone else brought up the possibility that the universe was without effects (i.e., if no cause is unquestioned, then saying there are no effects is also viable). However, as you might even agree, it would be quite necessary for someone making a claim like this to justify such a preposterous position. No one should just be able to say incoherent things and expect their position to be taken seriously.

[harvey1]

That would depend on the complexity of the formula. It might prove God existed but it might also be so complex that few could understand it. I am sure that if it were as easy as 2+2=4 that most would convert immediately. You assumed that most atheist would just ignore the existence of God even with proof, but once proof is given there would be no reason to doubt anymore. common sense is actually common, regardles of what mark twain said. if it were not people would have to do a lot of unnecessay explaining to get people to accomplish simple task. I am sure that explaining simple things does happen sometimes but it is not ordinary to have to explain things all the time. doing so would make the world a much more difficult place

I don't agree that most atheists would convert so easily. The arguments against atheism are pretty overwhelming, but people still accept such beliefs hook, line, and sinker. The only explanation that I can think of is not so different than the reason why creationists reject valid arguments. It has nothing to do with the arguments per se, it has only to do with what people want and need to believe. Rather than be honest about it, they just brush away anything which doesn't conform to their understanding. Over time, good ideas have a way of coming out on top, but those whose minds are set in stone usually don't convert. It would have to be something pretty extraordinary, far beyond commonsense arguments. They would have to be akin to something far more compelling.

It would be pointless for me to write out every possible step to taking medicine just like it would be for me to have to explain how to get out of a car(earlier post). These things are common sense. The beleif in the existence of a being who has yet to offer definite proof and is taking up 5 pages by debating and is using words that I have never heard of before just to prove that its existence is common sense, is far beyond common sense. Nothing that I know that is common sense requires that much explanation. Even if you are in someone else's house that medicine situation would not require that much explaining.

Your view of common sense is too restrictive, in my opinion. If common sense were that simple, then there would never be a complaint about how people lack it. The reason that people lack it is not because common sense requires an act of genius, rather it is because they are so accustomed to viewing the world at the 'tree level' that they fail to see the world at the 'forest level' (to use a common metaphor). In other words, common sense requires taking a step back and realizing how foolish we were for overlooking the obvious. This is what I mean by common sense. Common sense is seeing that causation is in effect and logic is in effect in the world. All this talk about trying to dismiss it is folly (or lacking in common sense). Why do people go to such heights to avoid accepting causation or logic as primary in the world? Much of it has to do with their way of looking at the world at the 'tree level' where all they can see is naturalist/materialist expression in the universe, so in order to maintain that world view (the 'tree view'), they are willing to go to such ridiculous lengths as to dismiss logic and causation. By accepting logic and causation as ontological 'forces' in the world, people are at least coming to grips with common sense. This is what I mean by Christianity is common sense since the Logos is primary in the religion, and of course this is what one should expect of any belief system, especially one claiming some privileged position.

[Amphigorey]

I don't agree that most atheists would convert so easily. The arguments against atheism are pretty overwhelming, but people still accept such beliefs hook, line, and sinker. The only explanation that I can think of is not so different than the reason why creationists reject valid arguments. It has nothing to do with the arguments per se, it has only to do with what people want and need to believe. Rather than be honest about it, they just brush away anything which doesn't conform to their understanding. Over time, good ideas have a way of coming out on top, but those whose minds are set in stone usually don't convert.

I don't agree. Of course I can't speak for "most atheists", I can only speak for myself. Religion offers many things anyone might want. There are many versions of Heaven, Paradise, Pure Land. Who wouldn't want that? Who wouldn't want more life any way they could get it? But forget those. My personal wish is simply to be granted the certitude that I am not alone in this sack of flesh, in this brief existence. I simply wish for some honest knowledge of a connection beyond myself. Who wouldn't want to be part of something outside themselves, something large?

harvey, you argue from big ideas and that's engaging, I commend you for it. Most people argue from little ideas of the "God hates shrimp" sort. Unfortunately, I find most religions to be amazingly petty, stultifying, procrustean absurdities. To my mind most believers are preoccupied with the details at the tree level believing that their faith is about the details. If I were to become religious, I would have to design my own religion.

[concerro]

That would depend on the complexity of the formula. It might prove God existed but it might also be so complex that few could understand it. I am sure that if it were as easy as 2+2=4 that most would convert immediately. You assumed that most atheist would just ignore the existence of God even with proof, but once proof is given there would be no reason to doubt anymore. common sense is actually common, regardles of what mark twain said. if it were not people would have to do a lot of unnecessay explaining to get people to accomplish simple task. I am sure that explaining simple things does happen sometimes but it is not ordinary to have to explain things all the time. doing so would make the world a much more difficult place

I don't agree that most atheists would convert so easily. The arguments against atheism are pretty overwhelming, but people still accept such beliefs hook, line, and sinker. The only explanation that I can think of is not so different than the reason why creationists reject valid arguments. It has nothing to do with the arguments per se, it has only to do with what people want and need to believe. Rather than be honest about it, they just brush away anything which doesn't conform to their understanding. Over time, good ideas have a way of coming out on top, but those whose minds are set in stone usually don't convert. It would have to be something pretty extraordinary, far beyond commonsense arguments. They would have to be akin to something far more compelling.

Most of the atheist I have met used to be christians at one point. I am sure if there were some proof they would convert. There would not be a reason not to. As far as overwhelming arguments against being an atheist, I dont know any.

It would be pointless for me to write out every possible step to taking medicine just like it would be for me to have to explain how to get out of a car(earlier post). These things are common sense. The beleif in the existence of a being who has yet to offer definite proof and is taking up 5 pages by debating and is using words that I have never heard of before just to prove that its existence is common sense, is far beyond common sense. Nothing that I know that is common sense requires that much explanation. Even if you are in someone else's house that medicine situation would not require that much explaining.

Your view of common sense is too restrictive, in my opinion. If common sense were that simple, then there would never be a complaint about how people lack it. The reason that people lack it is not because common sense requires an act of genius, rather it is because they are so accustomed to viewing the world at the 'tree level' that they fail to see the world at the 'forest level' (to use a common metaphor). In other words, common sense requires taking a step back and realizing how foolish we were for overlooking the obvious. This is what I mean by common sense. Common sense is seeing that causation is in effect and logic is in effect in the world. All this talk about trying to dismiss it is folly (or lacking in common sense). Why do people go to such heights to avoid accepting causation or logic as primary in the world? Much of it has to do with their way of looking at the world at the 'tree level' where all they can see is naturalist/materialist expression in the universe, so in order to maintain that world view (the 'tree view'), they are willing to go to such ridiculous lengths as to dismiss logic and causation. By accepting logic and causation as ontological 'forces' in the world, people are at least coming to grips with common sense. This is what I mean by Christianity is common sense since the Logos is primary in the religion, and of course this is what one should expect of any belief system, especially one claiming some privileged position.

Most people dont have a lack of common sense. Common sense to me is being able to understand and accomplish simple task such as taking the medicine and/or realising things that are self-evident. Sometimes when people speak of a lack of common sense they are referring to a situation where the person's ability to make good judgements is being influenced by emotions or other psyhcological factors. A woman is in an abusive realationship but wont leave even if she is able is one example. The problem here is that there is an attachment to the abuser which is interfering with the person's ability to make a decision they would easily be able to see was the correct one if they were looking at the situation from the outside in. .

I will have to admit I dont know what ontological is and if christianity were that easy to accept then at least 90% of the world should be Christians. I dont beleive the Christian God as I have heard him described throughout my life could create something where more than 50% of his creations are faulty.

[harvey1]

Most of the atheist I have met used to be christians at one point. I am sure if there were some proof they would convert. There would not be a reason not to. As far as overwhelming arguments against being an atheist, I dont know any.

There's many steps between being a Christian and being an atheist... However, proof is something no one has the luxury of having even in the small matters. You have to exercise common sense in understanding the big questions to the Cosmos, and that's why atheism makes no sense at all. If someone believes something nonsensical, then how is any 'proof' going to change their mind?

It would be pointless for me to write out every possible step to taking medicine just like it would be for me to have to explain how to get out of a car(earlier post). These things are common sense. The beleif in the existence of a being who has yet to offer definite proof and is taking up 5 pages by debating and is using words that I have never heard of before just to prove that its existence is common sense, is far beyond common sense. Nothing that I know that is common sense requires that much explanation. Even if you are in someone else's house that medicine situation would not require that much explaining.

If someone questions common sense, I don't care how simple the truth, the argument will become extremely complex since you have to go from an intuitive issue (e.g., causes exist), to something that is far from intuitive (e.g., the uncertainty principle is the cause of pair creation and you can see this is so from the Casimir effect...). You can't prove intuitive beliefs, but if you care to go through the long-hauled and complex exercise, one can show that a non-intuitive approach (e.g., causes don't exist) eventually breaks down.

I will have to admit I dont know what ontological is and if christianity were that easy to accept then at least 90% of the world should be Christians. I dont beleive the Christian God as I have heard him described throughout my life could create something where more than 50% of his creations are faulty.

I think you misunderstand the Christian God. The faith clearly states that creation was made from chaos, utter disarray. It is God who is ordering the creation to make it less faulty. Rather than waive a magic wand, this process is being corrected by evolutionary processes - the world in which we live.

As far as people believing in Christianity, as atheism demonstrates, common sense does not influence how even many intelligent people think, so it sure as heck isn't going to affect 90% of the world. Common sense is the application of a thought process, not the belief that 90% of the people accept all the common sense ideas. If that were so, then birth rates would be down, environmental protection would be at all time highs, and so on and so on.

[harvey1]

I don't agree that most atheists would convert so easily. The arguments against atheism are pretty overwhelming, but people still accept such beliefs hook, line, and sinker. The only explanation that I can think of is not so different than the reason why creationists reject valid arguments. It has nothing to do with the arguments per se, it has only to do with what people want and need to believe. Rather than be honest about it, they just brush away anything which doesn't conform to their understanding. Over time, good ideas have a way of coming out on top, but those whose minds are set in stone usually don't convert.

I don't agree. Of course I can't speak for "most atheists", I can only speak for myself. Religion offers many things anyone might want. There are many versions of Heaven, Paradise, Pure Land. Who wouldn't want that? Who wouldn't want more life any way they could get it? But forget those. My personal wish is simply to be granted the certitude that I am not alone in this sack of flesh, in this brief existence. I simply wish for some honest knowledge of a connection beyond myself. Who wouldn't want to be part of something outside themselves, something large?

I'm not saying all atheists don't want a God to exist (but many, many atheists would be upset if there were a God, I think, perhaps not a majority of atheists), however let's face it, many atheists know that they cannot have something without a cause. This is just common sense. Just about everyone knows it deep down. So, why do many atheists rest on something that is just pure baloney? The answer can only be that many atheists are willing to throw rationality out the window so that they can believe something that gives them comfort. It might not seem so, but atheism can be a comforting belief since you don't have to hope for something that you are not sure is there. If you don't have to hope for such a thing, it is like a death row inmate finding comfort in their prison cell immediately prior to their execution (have a nice meal, etc), and this becomes a comfort to many death cell inmates. It is the guy who is on death row who is still hoping for a call from the Governor who is not at ease. In that sense, a theist who lacks full conviction in their theism is in the worst comforting situation. People who generally cannot find a full conviction in theism are often more comforted by atheism. It's kind of like an acceptance of one's fate rather than hope for the best which you have doubts that God will intervene in the world.

However, many atheists pay a price for this comfort. They have to throw out rationality with respect to causation out the window, and then walk around trying to ignore it. Rather than acknowledge the reality of the situation (that cause is needed), they avoid the issue and will not face the music.

If those atheists who realize the folly of a world without cause would just face the music, then they would stop being atheists and might find peace with a God who may have a plan for life after death, or then again not. All we can do is hope and, if one is religious, all they can do is have faith that the God who created the universe is not content for letting go those who seek a life after this one.

Unfortunately, I find most religions to be amazingly petty, stultifying, procrustean absurdities. To my mind most believers are preoccupied with the details at the tree level believing that their faith is about the details. If I were to become religious, I would have to design my own religion.

Religion is evolving, however the society is evolving faster than religion. This has always been the case, and society is what pushes religion to evolve. This has many benefits since religion being slow to move can keep society from taking on beliefs and practices that are not healthy. However, eventually religion evolves to meet the new needs of a society, and as it happens, religion is re-invented. This is how Christianity came about. People were tired of the legalism and social class injustices, and Christianity had an answer that met the needs of the new society that had evolved.

As the need for religion to evolve grows, we'll see changes. It might be an environmental religion that might evolve (i.e., assuming our climate goes to hell as projected), or it might be a less doctrinated religion (e.g., Kaballah type religion), etc. These issues will resolve themselves in time.

[concerro]

There's many steps between being a Christian and being an atheist... However, proof is something no one has the luxury of having even in the small matters. You have to exercise common sense in understanding the big questions to the Cosmos, and that's why atheism makes no sense at all. If someone believes something nonsensical, then how is any 'proof' going to change their mind?


If someone questions common sense, I don't care how simple the truth, the argument will become extremely complex since you have to go from an intuitive issue (e.g., causes exist), to something that is far from intuitive (e.g., the uncertainty principle is the cause of pair creation and you can see this is so from the Casimir effect...). You can't prove intuitive beliefs, but if you care to go through the long-hauled and complex exercise, one can show that a non-intuitive approach (e.g., causes don't exist) eventually breaks down.

I think you misunderstand the Christian God. The faith clearly states that creation was made from chaos, utter disarray. It is God who is ordering the creation to make it less faulty. Rather than waive a magic wand, this process is being corrected by evolutionary processes - the world in which we live.

As far as people believing in Christianity, as atheism demonstrates, common sense does not influence how even many intelligent people think, so it sure as heck isn't going to affect 90% of the world. Common sense is the application of a thought process, not the belief that 90% of the people accept all the common sense ideas. If that were so, then birth rates would be down, environmental protection would be at all time highs, and so on and so on.

It seems that you are saying that it is intuitive(a part of our nature to naturally beleive in God) and because we are denying this we are not some of us are not using common sense. Since most cultures worship something there may be a genetic dispostion to worship something whether it is real or not but that does not mean the Christian God is the correct one to go to.

The reason why common sense does not prevail as much as it should was already discussed when humans emotions and other psychological factors interfere. As far as birth rates go we know that when a naked woman is put in front of a man his ability to make the correct decision is greatly influenced. It's human nature that makes him go to the woman and that same thing interferes with common sense in other situations as well such as gambling when you should be paying the bills first.