elevator

Yes, I agree maybe so, but you don’t know anything for sure about the existence of God. There is no epistemological framework to grab hold on here.

No one knows what happened before the singularity (if anything) and no one knows how the universe is going to end. In fact the universe seems to be expanding rather fiercely so, if anything, the evidence points towards a universe that may go on into infinity (unless a mechanism is discovered to contract matter again - perhaps into another singularity?). "M Theory" also provides a mechanism for an eternal universe.

The Liar paradox (like Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems) have nothing to do with the question of the existence of God. And if one finds an application of the Liar paradox to this question, you are still left with the agnostic stance, because if the question of the existence of God or that which is supernatural is paradoxical, then you cannot conclude anything, agreed?

What exactly is Gödel proving here in terms of the existence of the supernatural or "God"?

Yes, my is that of agnosticism; I am an agnostic because I feel like the question remains unanswered (maybe even unanswerable). But I still recognize that atheism (what some call weak atheism) is a perfectly valid position. Most skeptics would automatically default to non-belief on any extraordinary claim until such time as evidence is presented in support of such claim.

Why not? The legal system (innocent until proven guilty) is used in every similar descision. If someone presented me with the claim "I believe John Doe killed Jane Doe", it would be fair to automatically reject that claim until such time as some form of evidence could be presented to prove this allegation. It's the presenter of the claim that must furnish the evidence to support his claim. This is a valid, well-used and established framework called "burden of proof". If you present the claim "God exists" then the burden of proof is on you. A valid default position on your claim would be to reject the validity of the claim until such time as evidence can be presented. This is the default position of an atheist. There is nothing unsound about it.

What do you mean by "apparent"? Which of those concepts are not apparent, and in what ways are they not apparent?

You can’t seriously claim that the predictive value of any prophecy is greater that the predictive value of serious scientific research? It was scientific predictions that lead to the ban on CFC-gases in the eighties for example. The predicitive power is enormous because its predictive power emanates from understanding the underlying mechanisms. Prophecies rely on supernatural claims and have, incidenitally, never been observed or confirmed in a controlled environment. There is nothing reasonable about automatically reverting to the position that "God did it".

No scripture pretends that it can. The distinction is quite important. Science has theories to explain these concepts, but they remain unproven. So religion jumps in and fills in the gaps. I can come up with explanations too, but it doesn’t make them right. They are true only in the sense that they can be proven to be true. If the scripture says it is true, then we must either prove the truth-value of the scriptural claims or identify the scripture as a divine authority. Believers are unable to do either one.

Back to personal experience again.

But God has not yet seen it fit to give this truth yet, has he? Until such time as God does one has no choice but to consider these claims to be supernatural.

But Hinduism makes this same claim. Remember the Yugas I told you about in a previous post? This prediction is not exclusive. Even science can predict that relentless competition for resources and land, combined with an increased population and population density can lead to increased evil. All you need is to read a scientific paper on the subject and you will see that the mechanisms that drive this development are quite complex. In fact such research could be made to suggest that our morality is dependant on our general happiness, resource availablity, and societal coherence and order.

Exactly. I believe all non-believers interested in the subject are quite aware that life is short and valuable. Maybe more so than religious believers because most non-believers contend that we must make the most out of this life, because it is the only life we have. Like the romans said: "memento vita brevis" (remember that life is short). Believers on the other hand are more likely to wait in anticipation for a better existence. I have no doubt that nuclear weapons in the hands of islamist fundamentalists expecting 72 virgins in the afterlife would be far more dangerous to mankind than those same weapons in the hands of atheists who know far to well how fragile and temporal life is.

They were talking about species other than humans. It is no secret that the 20th century has been a sad chapter for many species. Massive deforestation and reclaimed land for farming and residential areas have caused a vast amount of species either to become extinct or at the brink of extinction. Fortunately surveys like the one you mentioned has brought great attention to this problem and has encouraged countries to stop or slow down deforestations and implement programs to preserve endangered species. The state of Florida, for example, just a few days ago announced they bought up a massive farmland area that is to be returned into the everglades. Brazil has taken steps to slow deforestation of the rainforest. And massive efforts are in effect all over the world to preserve endagered species. All these efforts are direct consequences of surveys such as the one you mentioned. These efforts are in place because dedicated scientists called to the world’s attention the dire consequences continued predation of the earth’s resources would have on our future lives on this planet.

It may not be imaginary, but it is certainly a personal experience that I must, in order to believe you, accept on blind faith alone.

You assume that your virtual reality exists. You assume that God exists. You are making a whole lot of assumptions in order to support your claims. It’s almost like you’re building your own religion; by presenting these truth-claims, for which there is no evidence. The most obvious assumption of all would be to assume the existence of the reality we can experience.

Same thing as believing something on unsufficient evidence.

No, no, I disagree. If there is enough evidence to believe something without doubt or question then that is not blind faith. Blind faith is when despite the lack of any evidence, you accept a concept without doubt or question. This is a very important distinction.

You assume that life is only possible in an exactly equal Earth-Moon configuration. Life could be possible in a varity of configuration maybe even in moonless systems or on the moon of a Gas giant sufficiently close to the host star. Also, no one knows what the conditions were like in the early solar system. There is nothing to indicate that large objects couldn’t have collided to form binary (or close to binary) systems such as Earth-Moon and Pluto-Charon.

Your theory is much less powerful because it exhibits no evidence for its validity. Occam’s Razor applies because you make far more assumptions than just asserting the existence of observed physical reality.

But you previously said we were still capable of morality without God?

ohmi

... 'epistemological framework' sounds very grand ,and so one might think that such a thing could be useful ... but in fact such frameworks only get in the way by distracting one from the real cause of 'knowledge' [of the various kinds available]!

Examine the autobiographies of those who have 'discovered' ideas that changed the course of history and our ways of life ... in them we find the cause of such 'knowledge-creating' ideas:

The steps are revealing: first existing ideas are tried to their limits to create the right queston, then one retires toa favourite quiet place to cease from thought [meditate] since thought exhausts what can be gotten from old ideas and is then stumped...

then in meditation the new idea comes instantaneously , appears in the mind when one is humble enough to admit that one does not know and cannot think out any solution...

We often call this inspiration [taking in the spirit] and even this simple analysis/description shows it is the basis , the core driving force ,of all knowledge . Even scientists and philosophers often admit that the new idea comes from God, not from themselves [direct evidence of God] , so that this is one major way that God controls mankind .

[Perhaps the LHC will shortly generate a quick end to this universe ]

{Contracting a universe is definitely work for God , not something we can even dream of wielding with our puny control, knowledge, and energy at our disposal , not to mention that we are making our earth very rapidly uninhabitable -we have very little time left because we don't care about husbanding the earth, acknowledging our dependence on the whole biosphere and acting responsibly to ourselves and future generations]

When the universe is sufciently spread out [and destroyed to heat energy] there ain't anything much to happen even if there were unlimited time [barring intevention from beyond this universe] , the universe ends by entropy increase , time becomes meaningless as change becomes infinitesimal [conceptions may reach their limits too].

With care one can use language, logic, reason, without assuming they are complete [but mostly we have not done so and do not do so]

As to the existence of God, in principle all people could remember their first instant of consciousness [and know from that that they came from God] , and so come to understand the scripture, and the cause behind Love being undeniably right and its being the deepest desire in men , and the reason why men live in debilitating conflict [whereas no other animal has this problem]

You are not saying what 'extraordinary' means here , and it is not being assessed objectively.

Besides that the legal system is in fact unjust in many ways... the reason that the analogy is unsound is that the assumption of innocence until proven guilty is particular to the legal system [for reasons local to the legal system]

I use the word 'apparent' to emphasise the point [of my belief] that physical reality is virtual, illusion.

As soon as one sees that all that men do is driven by the enormous power of inspiration, then the greater power of prophecy becomes obvious. he saints are given to know all the future [and the past of everyone]:-

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

The predictive power of prophecy is absolute, science is only relative ... it is the application of science that created the CFC problem , and similarly is destroying the ecosystem upon which men depend... this is the most abysmal understanding one can imagine , men are going to die by the billion directly because of science [prophecy shows its power by predicting this catastrophe which science generates]

God demonstrably did do it [through inspiration] and will do it [though you will not accept that until it happens of course, but prophetic prediction operates on a grander scale than science seems capable of]

Again I would point out that scripture is distinct from religion , the two do not agree .

Again, a 'proof' is relative to any axioms ,and axioms are a matter of faith...

the axioms of reason are by no means an uncontested faith.

I thus prefer the absolute of my faith in my direct experience of God [where I came from] ,and the absolute of the rightness of Love, to all your [dependent, conditional] relativisms and your acquired faith in contested axioms and abused languages.

One should also question the concepts of evidence and existence , because these are far from obviously correct.

believers in the creeds of religions [billions] are NOT the believers in the God of scripture [144,000 odd]

As scripture points out, He has given his truth to a few, and some of them have written a few words about it ...

The scripture already went way beyond that insight, and you are ignoring that the driving force of science is inspiration, [which science cannot explain, but which many ascribe to God !]

Exactly. I believe all non-believers interested in the subject are quite aware that life is short and valuable. Maybe more so than religious believers because most non-believers contend that we must make the most out of this life, because it is the only life we have. Like the romans said: "memento vita brevis" (remember that life is short).

God has a defined use for everyone in this life too!

Religionists call themselves 'believers' simply as part of their denial process , it is not a well-defined term because it does not say in what one believes [put simply EVERYONE believes something, does that make everyone a 'believer'?]

The scripture shows that belief in false religion will dominate in this earth, whereas belief in God is for only one in a million at this time... so I suggest that you avoid the trap of this useless term .

Being more 'moral' than inconsistent hypocritical religionists is no big deal , the goal set by God is much higher and very few reach it before death [Matt 7:14, Rev 7:3-8]

Both too little and too late ... the economists hold the power over almost all government decisions, and the bankers [who actually run the world] back economics [because they wouldn't make money for nothing from repossessions without it] ... the irony is that the bankers cannot live in a destroyed world either, yet hire pseudo-science to obfuscate the issues in a bizarre attempt to keep the concept of infinite growth alive as it fails catastrophically.

The scripture explained the problem millenia ago , a few foresightful people explained it decades ago [and were laughed to scorn] , the science takes a loooong time , and governments still drag their feet [the best targets set so far ,which are not on target to be met by anyone, allow a greater than 50% chance of thermal runaway of the planet and certain death of all mankind ... does it make any sense at all to anyone except in terms of what God said long ago through the prophets?

Despite the popularity of that view of reality, it is not in fact obvious in the least , but remains an act of faith ... one cannot prove it in any way [as you have agreed]... and there are far too many problems with it for it to be true , all of which are removed by the notion of a virtual reality ... and virtual us]

No, no, I disagree. If there is enough evidence to believe something without doubt or question then that is not blind faith. Blind faith is when despite the lack of any evidence, you accept a concept without doubt or question. This is a very important distinction.

Imho the notion of 'evidence' is far from being deep enough ... simply look at how much knowledge is absolute and realise that everything that is not absolute is an act of blind faith , even the notions of 'physical existence', consciousness, self, the universe ,... in the end one has to get back to firm foundations of the absolute [as the scripture points out] , then one can come to see the use of the notion of faiths [countless different ones!] to God's plan.

A moon-less earth would have been far more unstable, not suited to life because of wobbles of the axis direction... also mild tides ,less conducive to life moving from sea to land.

I would suspect that orbiting a gas giant creates some unique problems too [not least the incoming debris shower and 'bi-monthly' gravitational flexing ]

Also it matters not about what happened in the early solar system , what is significant to forming complex life is long-term stability

Again , this analysis is not deep enough , one has to question the notions of evidence and existence also

But you previously said we were still capable of morality without God?[/quote]

Yes, but only a few are restored to pure conscience and given all truth now to be able to enact perfect Love of all ... in principle we do not have to accept the ways of the world as taught by parents, teachers ,etc, but in practice we almost all do ...

elevator

Epistemology is about the acquisition of knowledge, about what we know and how this knowledge is acquired. It seems as though you want to throw away everything we know about the reality we live in and accept some alternate reality with your God and scripture as the ultimate authority; despite there being absolutely no evidence for it. This epistemological framework that you mock is the basis for trying to understand the world as it really is; not as we wish it to be.

Is this how you expect sciences such as astrophysics, electromagnetism, optics, relativity, particle physics, biological sciences (such as germ theory, cell theory, evolution, molecular biology, etc.), geology, genetics, just to mention a few, has come to be? Despite what you may think most knowledge is acquired through years of intense research into the mechanism to be explained. This involves hypotesizing, gathering evidence to support said hypothesis, experimentation and testing of the predictions made by the hypothesis, it involves peer review and intense scrutiny of the evidence used to derive the knowledge.

Religion’s version of knowledge acquisition is: assert something; then believe it to be true.

Gravity is perfectly capable of contracting any matter; we don’t need God for this. Question is, however, is the amount of matter sufficient to stop expansion and contract the universe or will the universe go on for eternity (or alternatively (just one alternative); be part of an eternal M Theory, multidimensional universe)?

In most cases I use words based on their dictionary definition. If I attempt to redefine a word outside its dictionary definition, I’ll let you know.

You are misunderstanding. The underlying principle is that a statement or allegation is assumed to be false until such time as it can be proven to be true. If you make an extraordinary or supernatural claim for which there is no evidence, it is a perfectly valid position to assume that your statement is false until such time as evidence can be presented to prove it to be true. This is the position of an atheist. I go a step further and, despite the fact that you cannot give me any evidence, I give you the benefit of the doubt, and assert that since neither science nor religion has come up with evidence suggest one way or the other I’ll assert no knowledge.

In that case it is apparent only to you. What is readily apparent to most human beings is the reality in which we live (hence the definition of the word apparent). If you believe that physical reality is a virtual one - an illusion - and you have nothing to back up that assertion except your own personal belief then there is nothing apparent about it.

Do you see how vague these prophecies are? And how inherently unproveable? And how convenient it is that you cannot know the real truth (according to you) until such time as God chooses to reveal it. It really gets you a free pass because there is no way to prove you wrong (despite the burden of proof being on you) and the lack of evidence can be blamed on a revelation yet to come.

I didn’t hear many complain about the emergence of technology. I bet very few of your 144000 subjects to salvation complained about CFC in hairspray, asthma inhalers, deodorants, or any aerosols, or its effects on the ozone layer, or were even aware of the catastrophic deforestation of rainforests, or knew about the daily extinction of species all over the world, or the effects of the use of fossile fuels. All the comforts of modern life are a direct consequence of scientific research. Had it not been for science we’d still be cooking our meals in Stone Age caves using bone utensils. I bet you most of those "green" people and the scientists working to restore our environment are people who understand the brevity of life and how fragile it is; not all those who honestly believe that life on this earth is doomed and that eternal existence in paradise shall await in heaven after death.

I realize that you are profoundly opposed to the term religion, so lets make this deal; in every context where I make the mistake of using the word "religion", you may replace that with either "God" or "scripture". So let me repeat the original statement I made, with these substitutions in place: "No scripture pretends that it can. The distinction is quite important. Science has theories to explain these concepts, but they remain unproven. So God jumps in and fills in the gaps."

I hope you don’t believe in a hell, ohmi? It would seem quite cruel to save only 144000 and suffer the rest to eternal damnation.

I have never agreed that the existence of this reality remains unknown; I have agreed that the existence of God remains unknown (hence my agnostic stance). What I have asserted is that there is no reason to believe in any alternative reality as no evidence exists to suggest one. And even if there is an alternate reality, you are still left with the problem that God is always in a different reality in our own, and so no matter how you define our own reality, the question of the existence of God will always remain a matter of faith.

Point remains; there are theories for the formation of the moon that doesn’t include a God. We know very little about the conditions in the early solar system. We know that there were violent collissions between large objects. The fact that some elements of its formation, such as the formation of the moon and the formation of, say the asteroid belt, remains subject of debate is no reason to fill in the gaps with God.

---

All the other statements we have debated already and all conclude the same: we disagree on the nature of God and the authority of scripture and we disagree on the divinity of certain properties such as love.

ohmi

As I pointed out, simply look at the evidence in the autobiographies of the men who made 'breakthroughs' in science ... many ascribe the source of the new idea in knowledge as being God.

Why do you think that science cannot explain inspiration upon which it is based?

I looked at what many project as 'physical reality' , there is no evidence whatever for accepting this faith [philosophers admit this] ,and there are many 'holes' in this theory.

I have discussed some of the 'evidence' for it some of which has the reassuring property of being absolute , far better than conditional ideas that just don't fit with everything.

I don't believe that I mocked anything, but the spirit is without the problem of time, which makes it far more real than apparent continually-decaying temporality.

It is easily shown to be so .

None of this ad hoc game of fashion occurs until after inspiration provides the answer in a flash.

I keep telling you that I don't believe in religion... and I certainly didn't advocate what you say here

I thought that the point which you made before was that gravity was demonstrably not winning , expansion accelerating ?

Fine, OK.

That seems ridiculous ,one should not assume anything whatsoever until it satisfies your criteria for acceptance.

If you make an extraordinary or supernatural claim for which there is no evidence, it is a perfectly valid position to assume that your statement is false until such time as evidence can be presented to prove it to be true.

That seems ridiculous ,one should not assume anything whatsoever until it satisfies your criteria for acceptance.

The 'evidence' has however been presented , you just ignored it...

On the contrary, beliefs are just as unreal or real as anything else...

Do you see how vague these prophecies are? And how inherently unprovable?

No I don't! For instance the prophecy that one man will unite all the world [bar very few] is not vague at all, nor unprovable.

If one became a saint one could know all truth in life... and the prophecy that all men will know it is both not vague and not unprovable

The evidence is presented well enough.

You didn't hear me then, nor listen to the many who feel it is insane to destroy our world in the name of 'progress'

The scripture says that heaven is reserved for those who perfect their Love in life ... death only frees one from sin an brings resurrection to the body .

Again you are confusing old wives tales in religion with what scripture actually says.

I realize that you are profoundly opposed to the term religion, so lets make this deal; in every context where I make the mistake of using the word "religion", you may replace that with either "God" or "scripture".

These terms are not interchangeable... these are distinct, not to be conflated.

The pace of science is determined by inspiration from God, thus it is not plausible to imagine that God fills in any gaps by some other means [except to the saints]

'Hell' is simply a word for describing that life is not seen in the dead ... the scripture guarantees that all are resurrected to the body who die... even Jesus went to 'hell' , was not a life, for three nights , and was resurrected to the body [and did not go to heaven until later, after translation]

The word translated 'damnation' actually means [fair] 'judgment' , and the words translated 'eternal' mens 'lasting an age' ... do not rely on the vested interests of religion for translation.

I have never agreed that the existence of this reality remains unknown; I have agreed that the existence of God remains unknown (hence my agnostic stance).

When one dreams it seems just as real as when one is 'awake' until one 'awakens' ... but one can dream that one awakens ...

Thus one cannot discern if one is not in some sense asleep, or if one is virtual in a virtual reality , or if this apparent life is an illusion...

However , if this apparent life were real then people would not be destroying the earth just to let a few have vast amounts of money , people would care about the earth and our future [and our childrens' future]... but they mostly do not.

If we simply evolved from animals then people would not live in debilitating conflict and denial, but we do...

All the science stuff you believe is a matter of faith, science is based upon [contested] axioms which can only be accepted on irrational faith.

Interestingly I have in fact never attempted to 'fill in any gaps with God'...

elevator

The way I see it; you must prove two things; that God exists and that the bible is inspired by this God. Unless those two are satisfied nothing else makes sense. Quoting the bible without knowing its authority makes no sense. You might as well be quoting any other literary works. Appealing to the divinity of properties such as love also makes no sense unless you can prove the existence of the divinity. All you have is a whole bunch of assertions that all crumble under the obvious lack of evidence for a divine power and the divine authority of the bible. Most of your presented evidence presumes that you believe in God and accept the bible as truth.

There is no use to continue this discussion because we disagree firmly on those two central points. If you want to continue discussion of a properly defined subject, I'll be happy to do so.

ohmi

The proof of God [and thus recognition of the truth of the words of the saints and prophets in scripture] is not found by examining [and obviously rejecting through inconsistency] the god images of apostate religions...

but through deep honesty about one's own heart of Love and realising that, perplexingly, one allows the world to prevent us from doing what we most want to do ,which would make everyone happy.

elevator

You must be one of the very few able to find consistency within the bible.

I agree. Virtues like honestly and love (those are just two of many) are both good virtues that we should strive to include in our lives as much as possible. What I disagree with though, is the need for the biblical God (or any God for that matter) to do this.

ohmi

I agree. Virtues like honestly and love (those are just two of many) are both good virtues that we should strive to include in our lives as much as possible. What I disagree with though, is the need for the biblical God (or any God for that matter) to do this.[/quote][/quote]

You missed the point, the fact is that we cannot do what we want to do no matter how much we 'strive' ... unlike all other animals ... that is one reason for the 'need' of the biblical God.

elevator

I am apparently still missing the point because I don't know where you are going with this. Take Jainism for example, a religion where reverence for life (human or animal) is a central virtue. There is no need for the biblical God there. Everyone is perfectly capable of these virtues without the biblical God.

ohmi

People are indeed capable [in the sense of having a conscience that might guide them], and love talking about what is right, and many would love to do it, but without God there is no explanation of why so very few are truly wholly virtuous.