Resurrections and hyperdimensions

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 169 by Volbrigade]

The problem with your replies is that you aren't providing rational evidence for any of your religious beliefs or claims.

All your posts amount to are the standard "preaching" techniques of this religious cult that tries desperately to denigrate anyone who refuses to join and support it.

It's not going to be productive to simply attempt to denigrate people who refuse to be convinced. In fact, that is actually in direct violation of the teachings of Jesus anyway. Jesus never instructed his disciples to argue with or accuse anyone of anything. To the contrary, he clearly instructed them to move on if people aren't interested in hearing the message.

I'm not sure whether you're lecturing or preaching here. A bit of both?

I fail to see where I have denigrated anybody. I did mention the "vague beliefs" expressed by those with opposing arguments. Is that what you refer to?

But that is exactly what they, themselves, express. "I don't claim to know what our origins are, or what our destiny is..."; "I am comfortable with not knowing...". Sound familiar?

So when a theist does nothing but argue to the bitter death with non-believers I don't see where they are paying attention to the teachings of Jesus.

All due respect, but if I am looking for insight into the "teachings of Jesus", I will look elsewhere than to a non-theist.

"Argue to the bitter death"? That's a colorful way of putting it, isn't it? From my perspective, I'm just visiting a message board dedicated to the discussion and debate of Christianity. And expressing my reasons for being a Christian. Which generates oppositional views, which I then address.

If by "bitter death", you mean until both parties begin to repeat themselves -- well, yes. am willing to engage to that point. A point we seem to have reached, in our discussion.

If I were going to preach to people I would at least follow Jesus' instructions and only preach to those who are interested in hearing the message.

Is that a nice way of saying "shut up"?

Again -- it is perhaps a good thing that the prohibition against "preaching" (however defined -- apparently, it means "sharing the Good News"; which is an odd injunction on a site devoted to Christianity...) does not extend to "lecturing", of which I cetainly have been the recipient of my share -- as here.

I think, in general, theists "preach" (against the rules);
non-theists "lecture" (within the rules).

Perhaps that has a bearing on the subject of the OP?

In the meantime, if you are attempting to argue or debate for why the religion has merit, I haven't seen where you have supplied any compelling arguments.

I certainly regret to hear that.

But I don't see where that is a compelling argument that I haven't made any.

[/quote]

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to Volbrigade]

No, what really matters is what actually IS true.

That is the ONLY thing that matters. Things which are not true are nonsense. Nonsense is useless.

Our epistemological challenge is how to KNOW what is true, and the source of that knowledge.

It is vain to look for Truth that comes from outside the "system" of Nature, within Nature itself (though it is perfectly legitimate to observe images -- shadows of that Truth -- within Nature). For truth that resides in... "extra dimensions" -- spiritual truth, if you will -- we must rely on information from that source.

That is what The Bible claims to be.

Where it gets interesting is when you look for validation of that claim.

So let's have a look at the record of claims which have been validated. In the one corner we have an ongoing end of times death wish claim which has remained unfulfilled for thousands of years. Also, the claim of the impending return of a man who died 2,000 years ago, which has a record of being right that currently stands at zero for 2,000 years. These are not idle accusations. These are undeniable facts. In the other corner we have modern science which has provided us with working technology. So what conclusions should we draw from this. The truth of ancient claims that have an ongoing record of futility which is thousands of years old. Or the physical evidence of modern working technology.

It's important that we distinguish between forensic "science", involving the study of past events -- i.e., the origins and history of the universe, and of life -- and operational science, which utilizes reproduceable and observable phenomena in producing technology.

The latter is empirical, verifiable, functional. The former is theoretical and interpretive.

The latter will dash erroneous presuppositions. The former can be used to confirm them.

The former has no practical effect on the latter. E.g., the myth that microbes became men over time has not produced one item of functioning technology.

We seem poised to veer off into eschatology.

That is a welcome development. Developments in current events are a daily reminder that "the fig tree is putting forth its leaves" -- and that has been the case since May 15, 1948.

Interesting, isn't it, how the tiny nation of Israel is at the heart of matters, worldwide: and the seismic impact that "The Everlasting Hatred" between the "children of Promise" -- the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- and the "children of the flesh" -- those of Ishmael and Esau -- has upon global events.

So -- yes, I'll be happy to follow the conversation onto those grounds, under the rubric that it is a product of living in subset, even a "digital simulation", of a hyperdimensional ("spiritual") environment (that last for Z's benefit ).

As for your lengthy post on the "eternality" of matter/energy:

You mention a "singularity" from which our cosmos sprang.

Question: what is the "cause" of the singularity?

As for Isaiah 45:7:

the term translated "evil" in the King Jimmy, other translations translate "adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery".

Taken in context of the passage, it appears that God is saying He rewards obedience to His will, and punishes disobedience. Not that He is the creator of moral evil..

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Volbrigade]

No, what really matters is what actually IS true.

That is the ONLY thing that matters. Things which are not true are nonsense. Nonsense is useless.

Our epistemological challenge is how to KNOW what is true, and the source of that knowledge.

It is vain to look for Truth that comes from outside the "system" of Nature, within Nature itself (though it is perfectly legitimate to observe images -- shadows of that Truth -- within Nature). For truth that resides in... "extra dimensions" -- spiritual truth, if you will -- we must rely on information from that source.

That is what The Bible claims to be.

Where it gets interesting is when you look for validation of that claim.

So let's have a look at the record of claims which have been validated. In the one corner we have an ongoing end of times death wish claim which has remained unfulfilled for thousands of years. Also, the claim of the impending return of a man who died 2,000 years ago, which has a record of being right that currently stands at zero for 2,000 years. These are not idle accusations. These are undeniable facts. In the other corner we have modern science which has provided us with working technology. So what conclusions should we draw from this. The truth of ancient claims that have an ongoing record of futility which is thousands of years old. Or the physical evidence of modern working technology.

It's important that we distinguish between forensic "science", involving the study of past events -- i.e., the origins and history of the universe, and of life -- and operational science, which utilizes reproduceable and observable phenomena in producing technology.

The latter is empirical, verifiable, functional. The former is theoretical and interpretive.

The latter will dash erroneous presuppositions. The former can be used to confirm them.

The former has no practical effect on the latter. E.g., the myth that microbes became men over time has not produced one item of functioning technology.

We seem poised to veer off into eschatology.

That is a welcome development. Developments in current events are a daily reminder that "the fig tree is putting forth its leaves" -- and that has been the case since May 15, 1948.

Interesting, isn't it, how the tiny nation of Israel is at the heart of matters, worldwide: and the seismic impact that "The Everlasting Hatred" between the "children of Promise" -- the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- and the "children of the flesh" -- those of Ishmael and Esau -- has upon global events.

So -- yes, I'll be happy to follow the conversation onto those grounds, under the rubric that it is a product of living in subset, even a "digital simulation", of a hyperdimensional ("spiritual") environment (that last for Z's benefit ).

As for your lengthy post on the "eternality" of matter/energy:

You mention a "singularity" from which our cosmos sprang.

Question: what is the "cause" of the singularity?

As for Isaiah 45:7:

the term translated "evil" in the King Jimmy, other translations translate "adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery".

Taken in context of the passage, it appears that God is saying He rewards obedience to His will, and punishes disobedience. Not that He is the creator of moral evil..

It's important that we distinguish between forensic "science", involving the study of past events -- i.e., the origins and history of the universe, and of life -- and operational science, which utilizes reproduceable and observable phenomena in producing technology.

The latter is empirical, verifiable, functional. The former is theoretical and interpretive.

The latter will dash erroneous presuppositions. The former can be used to confirm them.

Let me make this point as clearly as possible. What generally acknowledged, "empirical, verifiable, functional" historical event can you provide that is founded on the claim of a supernatural occurrence? Other than your contention that Jesus was resurrected from the dead of course. If you cannot provide such an occurrence, then you are claiming that the story of the risen Jesus should receive a special dispensation based entirely on Christian claims. Claims which arose entirely from among the followers of Jesus, which provoked not the slightest comment from anyone other than the followers of Jesus for many decades, and for which no physical proof was ever offered.

And how is this anything OTHER than Christians declaring that their beliefs are all true and should be accepted as valid because that's what they choose to believe?

As for your lengthy post on the "eternality" of matter/energy:

You mention a "singularity" from which our cosmos sprang.

First, let me say that I personally have grave doubts about whether a condition that corresponds to the concept of a true singularity is possible. The concept of the singularity is derived from the observation that the universe is expanding. This gives rise to the obvious conclusion that at one time the universe was all in one place. Taken to the ultimate, this conclusion gives rise to the concept of the singularity. A condition in which all things have merged into a single single thing, and in which space and time do not exist. The problem is, such a condition is beyond the ability of modern physics to explain. This leaves us with the conclusion that either modern physics is not yet sophisticated enough for the task, a real possibility, or that the condition of the true singularity is not possible. Another real possibility. Which leads us to the possibility that something occurs prior to a condition corresponding to the theoretical singularity. And that something, perhaps, we have identified as the big bang.

Question: what is the "cause" of the singularity?

The universe was born at the moment of the big bang in much the same way that you were born. You did not exist as the discreet individual that is you prior to your conception. But the material that was to become you had already existed for billions of years at least prior to your conception. And if the law of conservation of energy is true and immutable, then then the material that was to become you had already existed eternally prior to your conception. Because matter is one of the forms that energy takes, and energy can neither be created or destroyed according to all observation and experimentation.

So, "what was the cause of the singularity?" Or more importantly, the big bang? Energy, which can neither be created or destroyed, and which is constantly forming and reforming itself eternally.

As for Isaiah 45:7:

the term translated "evil" in the King Jimmy, other translations translate "adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery".

Taken in context of the passage, it appears that God is saying He rewards obedience to His will, and punishes disobedience. Not that He is the creator of moral evil.

Let's go with the direct Hebrew to English interlinear translation then.

Hebrew Interlinear Bible (OT)
Isa 45:7
"I Yahweh and·there-is-no further one-forming light and·one-creating darkness one-makingdo well-being and·one-creating evil I Yahweh one-makingdo all-of these"

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... /isa45.pdf

So we have to decide which to consider the more valid. What you declare to be true. Or what the Bible plainly says.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 22 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Volbrigade wrote:

It's important that we distinguish between forensic "science", involving the study of past events -- i.e., the origins and history of the universe, and of life -- and operational science, which utilizes reproduceable and observable phenomena in producing technology.

The latter is empirical, verifiable, functional. The former is theoretical and interpretive.

The latter will dash erroneous presuppositions. The former can be used to confirm them.

Let me make this point as clearly as possible. What generally acknowledged, "empirical, verifiable, functional" historical event can you provide that is founded on the claim of a supernatural occurrence?

None, of course.

That is my point. When analyzing past phenomenon, we must interpret the data. Our presuppositions and worldview will determine our conclusions, based on the interpretation of the data.

For example, we cannot recreate the origin of the universe, or the deposition of the geologic column or fossil record.

We can only analyze the data, and arrive at conclusions based on that analysis.

Obviously, those conclusions will be, and are, wildly different, based on whether you presuppose:

a). That God doesn't exist; or if He does, His existence is irrelevant to the data:

-- or --

b). that God DOES exist, and He has imparted a record of His existence relative to man, in "the true history of he universe" we call The Holy Bible.

Conclusions premised on "b" are superior -- more cohesive, consistent, and coherent -- than those premised on "a".

In my opinion, of course.

Other than your contention that Jesus was resurrected from the dead of course. If you cannot provide such an occurrence, then you are claiming that the story of the risen Jesus should receive a special dispensation based entirely on Christian claims. Claims which arose entirely from among the followers of Jesus, which provoked not the slightest comment from anyone other than the followers of Jesus for many decades, and for which no physical proof was ever offered.

Yes.

And how is this anything OTHER than Christians declaring that their beliefs are all true and should be accepted as valid because that's what they choose to believe?

What else you got?

Volbrigade wrote:

As for your lengthy post on the "eternality" of matter/energy:

You mention a "singularity" from which our cosmos sprang.

First, let me say that I personally have grave doubts about whether a condition that corresponds to the concept of a true singularity is possible. The concept of the singularity is derived from the observation that the universe is expanding. This gives rise to the obvious conclusion that at one time the universe was all in one place. Taken to the ultimate, this conclusion gives rise to the concept of the singularity. A condition in which all things have merged into a single single thing, and in which space and time do not exist. The problem is, such a condition is beyond the ability of modern physics to explain. This leaves us with the conclusion that either modern physics is not yet sophisticated enough for the task, a real possibility, or that the condition of the true singularity is not possible. Another real possibility. Which leads us to the possibility that something occurs prior to a condition corresponding to the theoretical singularity. And that something, perhaps, we have identified as the big bang.

Volbrigade wrote:

Question: what is the "cause" of the singularity?

The universe was born at the moment of the big bang in much the same way that you were born. You did not exist as the discreet individual that is you prior to your conception. But the material that was to become you had already existed for billions of years at least prior to your conception. And if the law of conservation of energy is true and immutable, then then the material that was to become you had already existed eternally prior to your conception. Because matter is one of the forms that energy takes, and energy can neither be created or destroyed according to all observation and experimentation.

So, "what was the cause of the singularity?" Or more importantly, the big bang? Energy, which can neither be created or destroyed, and which is constantly forming and reforming itself eternally.

Okay. So the "what else", is essentially the "eternality" of energy.

I'll go along with that.

The question, to me, then is:

Does this "energy" have Mind, Will, Purpose?

And if not -- why not?

I submit that the intricate, detailed, skillful design that is manifest throughout our Natural world is an indication that it does. That wherever we train our gaze, in studying our cosmos, we see evidence that Intelligence has preceded us. The incredible self-replicating quadratic code of the DNA model, operating in three dimensions, for example. It's always been there -- we are only recently aware of its existence.

Its complexity shreds the idea of random assemblage, and begs for the guidance of a creative, intelligent "energy".

The Bible shares this quality. It is rife with micro- and macro-coding that is far beyond the capability of its human transcribers -- or even of modern supercomputers, in some well-known examples.

I therefore assent to the idea that both The Bible and Nature share the same Author -- er, "Energy" -- as their source.

Volbrigade wrote:

As for Isaiah 45:7:

the term translated "evil" in the King Jimmy, other translations translate "adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery".

Taken in context of the passage, it appears that God is saying He rewards obedience to His will, and punishes disobedience. Not that He is the creator of moral evil.

Let's go with the direct Hebrew to English interlinear translation then.

Hebrew Interlinear Bible (OT)
Isa 45:7
"I Yahweh and·there-is-no further one-forming light and·one-creating darkness one-makingdo well-being and·one-creating evil I Yahweh one-makingdo all-of these"

http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... /isa45.pdf

So we have to decide which to consider the more valid. What you declare to be true. Or what the Bible plainly says.

The KJV and the "Hebrew to English interlinear translation" both translate the Hebrew word " רַע " as "evil".

Many other translations use "adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery" for its use in the passage cited (it IS used as "evil" elsewhere, depending on the connotation).

I believe, given the context, that (e.g.) "calamity" is a better translation in Is. 45:7 than "moral evil".

If you disagree, I'm open to hearing the rationale for your disagreement.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Volbrigade]

Let me make this point as clearly as possible. What generally acknowledged, "empirical, verifiable, functional" historical event can you provide that is founded on the claim of a supernatural occurrence?

None, of course.

That is my point. When analyzing past phenomenon, we must interpret the data. Our presuppositions and worldview will determine our conclusions, based on the interpretation of the data.

For example, we cannot recreate the origin of the universe, or the deposition of the geologic column or fossil record.

The current popular scientific explanation for how the universe began centers around the supposition that it exploded into existence in an event known as the big bang. This argument is based on the physical evidence/observation that the universe is expanding, and that background echoes of the big bang are still discernable. The geological record, and the evidence that the fossilized remains of ancient creatures which no longer exist can be found in the geological layers that were lain down in the distant past. These provide physical evidence which can be studied and understood. This evidence was not contrived to contradict religious beliefs. The evidence is simply being taken at face value for what it tells us.

The evidence often DOES contradict religious beliefs however. So we are left to consider whether we should accept that what the physical evidence has to tell us is valid, or whether we should consider what some choose to declare to be true to be valid. For example, all the physical evidence indicates that a corpse cannot come back to life and fly away. So which should rightly prevail, all the physical evidence, observation and common sense concerning the ability of a corpse to become reanimated and then fly away, or unsubstantiated claims that this apparently impossible and frankly silly claim actually occurred? Do we give more weight of consideration to the opinion scientific experts in their fields, or, for example, do we trust the opinion of individuals who also genuinely believe that a man once rode around in the belly of a large fish for several days as if it were a sea-going taxi, only to be deposited, safe and sound, on dry land again.

Let me just say that I am more than willing to encourage you to spread out your beliefs so that we can all have a good look at them.

We can only analyze the data, and arrive at conclusions based on that analysis.

Obviously, those conclusions will be, and are, wildly different, based on whether you presuppose:

a). That God doesn't exist; or if He does, His existence is irrelevant to the data:

I propose that the existence of God is an assumption. I further propose that the assumption that God not only exists, but is omnipotent and that therefore any claim made concerning God's activities is by definition valid, is a perfect example of the mechanism of delusion, make believe, and self deception. Such a claim is not based on observation and the physical evidence at all. Such a claim is based on the ancient religious method of "make up an answer and declare it to be true." Of course statistically such a process might, entirely by accident, stumble onto the right answer. But the odds against it are nearly infinite.

b). that God DOES exist, and He has imparted a record of His existence relative to man, in "the true history of he universe" we call The Holy Bible.

Except of course the Holy Bible was written by the hand of men, who declared it to be derived from God. Shall I list the other holy books of the other religious beliefs around the world that make the same claim about their religious documents? That would be too long and cumbersome of course, but a partial list can be found HERE:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text

Conclusions premised on "b" are superior -- more cohesive, consistent, and coherent -- than those premised on "a".

In my opinion, of course.

In your opinion, yes. But then in your opinion it is reasonable to believe that a corpse came back to life and flew away. Or at least achieved the hyperstate of "metacosm." Presumably you also believe that a man once rode around in the belly of a large fish for several days as if it were a sea-going taxi as well. We are in fact in the very process of examining your opinions here. Please continue.

Okay. So the "what else", is essentially the "eternality" of energy.

I'll go along with that.

The question, to me, then is:

Does this "energy" have Mind, Will, Purpose?

And if not -- why not?

This is at least a reasonable question. Is the energy that composes the universe itself intelligent? Humans are intelligent, and our intelligence is composed of energy (EVERYTHING that is not nothing is composed of energy). So is the energy of the universe itself intelligent? We currently have no evidence that it is, and that is really all that can be said about that. Except to note that the universe is not intelligence simply as a result of someone declaring that it is, in exactly the same way that the universe is not unintelligent simply as a result of someone declaring that it is not. It is perfectly valid to leave some questions open until such time as evidence one way or the other is discovered. If ever.

I submit that the intricate, detailed, skillful design that is manifest throughout our Natural world is an indication that it does. That wherever we train our gaze, in studying our cosmos, we see evidence that Intelligence has preceded us. The incredible self-replicating quadratic code of the DNA model, operating in three dimensions, for example. It's always been there -- we are only recently aware of its existence.

Does existence through the act of living creatures preying on fellow living creatures really strike you as an "intricate, detailed, skillful design?" Or does it seem more something which resulted through the development of opportunity and necessity? Does this system REALLY imply the work of an omnipotent supremely intelligent Being? Because if I were an omnipotent Being I easily could have done better. And I am pretty far from supremely intelligent.

Its complexity shreds the idea of random assemblage, and begs for the guidance of a creative, intelligent "energy".

And yet everything that occurs can be seen as the result of quantum mechanics in action. Is quantum mechanics an intelligent force? Not to the best of my knowledge. It appears to be the entirely random ongoing interaction of quantum bits of energy. This ongoing interaction, and the vast age and size of the universe, means that anything that has the potential for being realized has a statically increasing chance for become extent over time. And since life is unquestionably possible, the occurrence of life becomes statistically probable.

If a designer is necessary to explain existence, then a designer-designer is necessary to explain the existence of the designer. Of existence is the sum total of random possibilities, then no designer is needed, and nothing further needs explaining.

Another way that I like to present this idea, is by pointing out that things are not true simply because someone has declared them to be true. As you earlier pointed out, the only thing that is important is what is true. And as I earlier pointed out, things which are not true are nonsense. And nonsense is valueless.

I therefore assent to the idea that both The Bible and Nature share the same Author -- er, "Energy" -- as their source.

Well, you have this right at least. But not in the way you mean. Human intelligence is energy. And humans wrote the Bible.

The KJV and the "Hebrew to English interlinear translation" both translate the Hebrew word " רַע " as "evil".

Many other translations use "adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, misery" for its use in the passage cited (it IS used as "evil" elsewhere, depending on the connotation).

I believe, given the context, that (e.g.) "calamity" is a better translation in Is. 45:7 than "moral evil".

If you disagree, I'm open to hearing the rationale for your disagreement.

It is interesting, even provocative, that Christians sometimes find it convenient to translate the Hebrew word "רַע " variously as "adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, and misery," and yet the Jews translate their own Hebrew word "רַע " as "evil." That this concept of God does not conform with the Christian concept of God may have a direct bearing on why you are struggling so hard to establish that what the OT plainly says is not really what the OT really means at all.

Which puts me very much in mind of what Lewis Black had to say about Christians translating Jewish texts.


"That book (the OT) wasn't good enough for you Christians.....was it!

No, 'we've got a better book with a better character. You're gonna love him.'

And you called your book new, and said that our book was 'old.'

And every Sunday I turn on the television set. And there's a priest or a pastor reading..... from my book. And interpreting it. And their interpretations, I have to tell you, are usually wrong.

And it's not their fault..... because it's not their book.

You never see a rabbi on TV interpreting the New Testament... dew yew!

If you want to truly understand the Old Testament, if there is something you don't quite get... there are Jews who walk among yew... and they, I promise you this, will take time out of their very Jewy Jewy day.... and interpret anything you are having trouble understanding.

And we will do that... if of course the price is right."

[ttruscott]

I think, in general, theists "preach" (against the rules); non-theists "lecture" (within the rules).

Lecturing is also against the ranting rule.

[Volbrigade]

I think, in general, theists "preach" (against the rules); non-theists "lecture" (within the rules).

Lecturing is also against the ranting rule.

Then maybe I should cease discoursing with TotN -- I seem to be encouraging him to make two violations...

TotN -- you say that "everything is energy". And I said, "I'll go along with that."

God is energy. At least, He is the source of energy. The cause of energy/matter, and space and time. And He designed it to conform to its precise calibrations -- strong and weak force, gravity, EM, etc. The precise balance of conditions on earth to maintain the water and life cycles and food chain.

And remember -- as magnificent as it is, the universe that we encounter is fallen. In its original condition there was no carnivory, e.g.

Our disagreement stems from the fact that I put "Energy" (God) outside the universe He created; you, it appears, make "energy" the sum total of it.

You will say mine are groundless assumptions.

But no more so than "energy is everything". Care to provide proof of that statement? Proof that can be "verified as true and accurate"?

Volbrigade wrote:

Conclusions premised on "b" are superior -- more cohesive, consistent, and coherent -- than those premised on "a".

In my opinion, of course.

In your opinion, yes. But then in your opinion it is reasonable to believe that a corpse came back to life and flew away. Or at least achieved the hyperstate of "metacosm."

Again with the flying corpse thing? I thought we had settled that. What's next -- "the flying spaghetti monster"?

But to the point: yes, there exists an eternal, infinite environment, of which our space-time ("energy") continuum is but a subset -- a "square", relative to a "cube", idiomatically speaking.

That is where the "corpse" "flew off" to. It is our eternal abode, as well -- unless we reject it for foolish (and even intellectual) pride, conformity, peer pressure, or the enticements of this world.

Volbrigade wrote:

Okay. So the "what else", is essentially the "eternality" of energy.

I'll go along with that.

The question, to me, then is:

Does this "energy" have Mind, Will, Purpose?

And if not -- why not?

This is at least a reasonable question. Is the energy that composes the universe itself intelligent? Humans are intelligent, and our intelligence is composed of energy (EVERYTHING that is not nothing is composed of energy). So is the energy of the universe itself intelligent? We currently have no evidence that it is, and that is really all that can be said about that. Except to note that the universe is not intelligence simply as a result of someone declaring that it is, in exactly the same way that the universe is not unintelligent simply as a result of someone declaring that it is not. It is perfectly valid to leave some questions open until such time as evidence one way or the other is discovered. If ever.

IOWs -- you don't know.

I do.

The universe itself is not intelligent. It is designed, however -- and reflects the Intelligence of its Designer, who exists in a metacosm (somebody -- Blastcat -- complained about that word. But I love it. He said it was "made up." LOL -- what word isn't?) that transcends and subsumes the cosmos, which is finite -- dimensionally bounded.

Volbrigade wrote:

I submit that the intricate, detailed, skillful design that is manifest throughout our Natural world is an indication that it does. That wherever we train our gaze, in studying our cosmos, we see evidence that Intelligence has preceded us. The incredible self-replicating quadratic code of the DNA model, operating in three dimensions, for example. It's always been there -- we are only recently aware of its existence.

Does existence through the act of living creatures preying on fellow living creatures really strike you as an "intricate, detailed, skillful design?"

Yes. But it wasn't originally that way.

Or does it seem more something which resulted through the development of opportunity and necessity? Does this system REALLY imply the work of an omnipotent supremely intelligent Being? Because if I were an omnipotent Being I easily could have done better. And I am pretty far from supremely intelligent.

Another claimant to be a better creator than God? I'll let you and DI battle it out over who is the better "designer".

I'll refer you to my post #14 of this thread, and offer the same challenge to you that I did him. Where did he go, btw?

Otherwise:

Yes. Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three day and nights. And as that was a prefigurement of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ -- "the volume of the book is about Him", after all -- it is reasonable to assume that Jonah, too, died and was resurrected. And "safe and sound" is probably a poor choice of phrase, given the narrative.

Btw -- a "freebie" -- that's not even the biggest miracle in the story. The biggest miracle is that the King of Ninevah was warned to repent -- and the entire city did!

I still maintain that the context in Is. 45:7 renders "calamity" a better choice than "moral evil"; and am unpersuaded by your citation of Lewis Black, who I find considerably less than impressive.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Volbrigade]

Then maybe I should cease discoursing with TotN -- I seem to be encouraging him to make two violations... Cool

First, let me say that you have the right not to respond to anyone you choose. Just as we have the right to comment on, and contradict as necessary, the claims you DO make.

TotN -- you say that "everything is energy". And I said, "I'll go along with that."

God is energy. At least, He is the source of energy. The cause of energy/matter, and space and time. And He designed it to conform to its precise calibrations -- strong and weak force, gravity, EM, etc. The precise balance of conditions on earth to maintain the water and life cycles and food chain.

Yes, and "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His prophet." Also, "Krishna is Lord," and "Homage to the Buddha, the Blessed One, the Exalted One, the Fully Enlightened One." Allah, Krishna and the Buddha are the source of energy too. Because those that believe in them say so and declare it to be true. There have been countless god's over the centuries. Each one the source of all things, and each one fully believed to be real and extent by those that worshipped them. What can we learn from this? One main and important fact... there have been billions of people over the years that subscribed with absolute devotion to claims which were in reality nothing more than complete and total fulla bulla. But of course that only ever happens to the other guy.

And remember -- as magnificent as it is, the universe that we encounter is fallen. In its original condition there was no carnivory, e.g.

I have no "memory" of the universe being fallen at all. My experience is that the universe simply is as it is. I am aware of what the Bible says, however. The Bible also says that there are times when it is right and righteous to hack babies and children to death with swords. Among other hideous things. I am NOT impressed with the Bible.

Our disagreement stems from the fact that I put "Energy" (God) outside the universe He created; you, it appears, make "energy" the sum total of it.

All observation indicates that the universe is composed of energy continually reforming itself, and that energy can neither be created or destroyed. You claim that God created that which can neither be created or destroyed in the first place. You have taken a step and made a claim which is not observed, and have simply declared it to be true. You made it up! Things which cannot be supported by physical evidence but only imagined and declared to be true are known as "make believe."

You will say mine are groundless assumptions.

Let's explore this thought further. What exactly is an assumption, and what exactly is undeniable fact? And how do we go about telling the difference?

Believers often confirm that God is there for them answering their prayers. And they assume that their prayers have been undeniably answered by God when they get that promotion they have been praying for, or when their team wins the big game. Exactly as they prayed it would. Proof, they believe, and they claim, of the existence of God. And on those occasions when they DON'T get that promotion, or their team loses the big game? That is simply God's will. So proof of the existence of God is sustained on the occasions that the prayed for thing is realized. But evidence for the non existence of God is NOT sustained when the prayers go unanswered. Which is the majority of the time. This is known as a false dichotomy.

Wikipedia
A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, false binary, black-and-white thinking, bifurcation, denying a conjunct, the either–or fallacy, fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses,
fallacy of the excluded middle, the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of the false alternative) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited
alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

People often work diligently to achieve their goals. And if the goals are not too unrealistic, people do at times succeed in achieving them. Because in the physical world, those things which are physically possible can be achieved. It's also true however, that that in the physical world physical reality has a way of interviening. And in the physical world, the world of reality, prayers and appeals to God amount to nothing more than useless hot air and wishful thinking. Make believe.

In 1994 a tornado hit the Goshen Alabama Methodist Church during Sunday service, causing the walls of the church to collapse. Twenty people died including six children. Why would God allow the deaths of those in His own house of worship, including the most innocent, who were there in the very act of worshiping him, when all He had to do was to prevent the walls from collapsing? The problem is that when put to the test, make believe is invariably unaffected by the harsh realities of real life. If a wall falls on you, or a mad man shoots you in the head, make believe does not serve as protection. Even for innocent children.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/04/03/us/pi ... holds.html

In 2012, after shooting and killing his own mother, a mentally unstable man went to the Sandy Hook Elementary School and methodically shot 20 six year olds and a teacher in the head. A Supreme Being would really have come in handy that day. Did God just sit there and watch the whole thing? Or was he distracted, too busy fulfilling the mundane prayers of others? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hoo ... l_shooting

So when a psycho comes into a classroom full of six year old's armed with a hand gun and the intention of shooting each one in the head at point blank range, or when a tornado causes a brick church wall to collapse on and kill worshipers in the very ACT of praying to God... in other words when faith comes face to face with physical reality, physical reality inevitably prevails. And God is nowhere to be found. A God who is not there for these individuals and who does not act at a moment of extreme physical peril is in no way different from a God who never existed to begin with.

The point is, in real life what we actually observe is that when the chips are down and faith is confronted by reality, reality will ALWAYS win out. When the chips are down and a Supreme Being would really REALLY come in handy, God, invisible unknowable but assumed to exist anyway God, will invariably act in exactly the same manner as a God who isn't actually there. In fact a God who refuses to act even in the face of the ultimate crisis of life and death for the most innocent of His followers is a God who corresponds in every way to A GOD WHO NEVER EXISTED TO BEGIN WITH! What exactly is the difference? This is as close to an empirical test for the actual existence of God as one might reasonably hope for. And in these sorts of make or break tests, the result for the question "does God exist," invariably corresponds in every way to a negative finding.

Now let me make it clear. I do not blame God for what occurred at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, in exactly the same way that I hold no grudge against Santa for not ACTUALLY coming to my house each Christmas.

But no more so than "energy is everything". Care to provide proof of that statement? Proof that can be "verified as true and accurate"?'

On July 16, 1945, in New Mexico, the first atomic explosion was produced. Matter was converted into it's basic components of heat, light and radiation. Energy. And so Einstein's famous theorem of E=MC^2 was proven. Matter is simply one of the forms that energy takes.

Again with the flying corpse thing? I thought we had settled that. What's next -- "the flying spaghetti monster"?

You provided a made up term, "metacosm," to explain the claim of the resurrection of Jesus, and the claim that he subsequently flew off up into the sky. Your entire premise is nothing more than a series of assumptions and made up claims for which you can provide no physical evidence. Nothing his been settled. All you have provided is your personal belief system and a series of empty and insupportable claims.

Your book of revealed truth indicates that Jesus physically returned from the dead. It also indicates that Jesus physically physically flew off, up into the sky and disappeared into the clouds. It's in your book of revealed truth, and you are stuck with what it says. Attempting to gloss over what the Bible specifically says with a layer of double talk does not have any effect on what the words contained in the Bible actually say.

But to the point: yes, there exists an eternal, infinite environment, of which our space-time ("energy") continuum is but a subset -- a "square", relative to a "cube", idiomatically speaking.

Are there other dimensions, essentially more directions in space/time than we can perceive? According to current scientific thought, the answer is yes. Could the God you are proposing, exist in those other (hyper) dimensions? Since we cannot perceive those other dimensions, we have no ability of examining them. So anything could be true concerning them. But you see, science works on observation and experimentation. Not by imagining facts and declaring them to be true. That is the province of make believe, and those who prefer subscribing to make believe rather than the physical, and at times unpleasant, physical world.

That is where the "corpse" "flew off" to. It is our eternal abode, as well -- unless we reject it for foolish (and even intellectual) pride, conformity, peer pressure, or the enticements of this world.

Yes. It's a perfectly silly claim. An unreasonable and insupportable claim, without an ounce of physical evidence to support it. Other than the insupportable claims themselves, of course. But insupportable claims (lies and make believe) are a very common currency among humans.

IOWs -- you don't know.

I do.

I don't know. And I recognize that there are things I don't know. I await for the time when the blanks can be filled in with physical evidence. I am 68 years old. I have managed to fill in many many blank spaces with new information based on observation and the physical evidence over the course of my life time. You fill in the blanks with rigid assumptions and make believe. Your blanks spaces have already been filled in with make believe, leaving you no potential for learning and growing.

The universe itself is not intelligent. It is designed, however -- and reflects the Intelligence of its Designer, who exists in a metacosm (somebody -- Blastcat -- complained about that word. But I love it. He said it was "made up." LOL -- what word isn't?) that transcends and subsumes the cosmos, which is finite -- dimensionally bounded.

If the universe was designed, than then the designer was totally inept. Certainly in the creation of biology. Because biology is inherently wasteful. Why are some of the young of every species born with physical deformities that insure that they will not survive? Why does the DNA molecule sometimes fail to correctly read the sequence? That makes no design sense at all. It is in fact an inherent design flaw and totally contradictory to the nature of a omnipotent designer Being who does not fail and does not make mistakes. Why did omnipotent God design faulty systems which regularly fail to work correctly? Why did God make life, and then make cancer? Why have entire species gone extinct? If biology is the product of the design of an omnipotent Being, this makes no sense at all. It makes perfect sense however, if biology is simply the product of ongoing random change and natural selection.

The creatures which are best suited for survival are the creatures with the best chance of surviving and reproducing. If biology is simply the product of random chance and taking advantage of the conditions that prevail, then the wasteful nature of biology is not only an unavoidable certainty, it is a necessity.

Yes. But it wasn't originally that way.

Because you have declared that to be so? At some point I should probably begin to keep a running count of the assumptions and empty claims you make. By which I mean, claims for which you have no actual physical evidence, which actually contradict the physical evidence, or which have an ongoing record of complete failure and fallacy which is thousands of years old.

Another claimant to be a better creator than God? I'll let you and DI battle it out over who is the better "designer".

I don't for a moment suppose that any "designer" ever existed to begin with.

I'll refer you to my post #14 of this thread, and offer the same challenge to you that I did him. Where did he go, btw?

I am afraid I am not DI's keeper. He is certainly capable of defending himself however.

Otherwise:

Yes. Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three day and nights. And as that was a prefigurement of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ --

This is the level of sophistication required to suppose that fish are filled withbreathable air, and that it is possible to live inside of one for several days without being converted into fish poop. Which is in fact a normal part of the process behind being eaten.

"the volume of the book is about Him", after all -- it is reasonable to assume that Jonah, too, died and was resurrected. And "safe and sound" is probably a poor choice of phrase, given the narrative.

Because you declare there exists a Being that can do anything, therefore anything you declare is not only plausible, but somehow self evident. Your entire belief system is based on a series of unfounded EMPTY assumptions. And for some reason you have concluded that declaring to to be so is the same thing as establishing that it is therefore undeniably so. This not only in spite of, but in defence of, the various flatly silly claims that are contained in your ancient book of ancient superstitions.

I still maintain that the context in Is. 45:7 renders "calamity" a better choice than "moral evil"

A better choice for Christians perhaps. But not a better choice for Jews, who after all wrote Isaiah 45. And Isaiah 45 makes no distinction between "moral" and virtual evil. It simply say that God creates evil. God creates all things, and there is no other God. That is in fact the purpose and message contained in Isaiah 45.

and am unpersuaded by your citation of Lewis Black, who I find considerably less than impressive.

He is a confirmed atheist, so I wouldn't expect you to take to him. He's damned funny though.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to Volbrigade]

Then maybe I should cease discoursing with TotN -- I seem to be encouraging him to make two violations... Cool

First, let me say that you have the right not to respond to anyone you choose.

Why, thank you kindly. Very generous of you.

Just as we have the right to comment on, and contradict as necessary, the claims you DO make.

Is that the royal "we"? Is "contradict" synonymous with "lecture to"?

TotN -- you say that "everything is energy". And I said, "I'll go along with that."

God is energy. At least, He is the source of energy. The cause of energy/matter, and space and time. And He designed it to conform to its precise calibrations -- strong and weak force, gravity, EM, etc. The precise balance of conditions on earth to maintain the water and life cycles and food chain.

Yes, and "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His prophet." Also, "Krishna is Lord," and "Homage to the Buddha, the Blessed One, the Exalted One, the Fully Enlightened One." Allah, Krishna and the Buddha are the source of energy too. Because those that believe in them say so and declare it to be true. There have been countless god's over the centuries. Each one the source of all things, and each one fully believed to be real and extent by those that worshipped them. What can we learn from this? One main and important fact... there have been billions of people over the years that subscribed with absolute devotion to claims which were in reality nothing more than complete and total fulla bulla. But of course that only ever happens to the other guy.

Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists wil have to make their own defenses of their faith. I would, if they were true, coherent, consistent, and cohesive. They're not: Christianity is. I will stick to expressing and defending it, thanks.

And remember -- as magnificent as it is, the universe that we encounter is fallen. In its original condition there was no carnivory, e.g.

I have no "memory" of the universe being fallen at all. My experience is that the universe simply is as it is. I am aware of what the Bible says, however. The Bible also says that there are times when it is right and righteous to hack babies and children to death with swords. Among other hideous things. I am NOT impressed with the Bible.

I take it you are anti-abortion?

Our disagreement stems from the fact that I put "Energy" (God) outside the universe He created; you, it appears, make "energy" the sum total of it.

All observation indicates that the universe is composed of energy continually reforming itself, and that energy can neither be created or destroyed. You claim that God created that which can neither be created or destroyed in the first place. You have taken a step and made a claim which is not observed, and have simply declared it to be true. You made it up! Things which cannot be supported by physical evidence but only imagined and declared to be true are known as "make believe."

It's not make believe to acknowledge that our universe had a beginning, and thus must have a cause. You're assertion that "energy can't be created" is a religious one: I assented to it, if you include God in the definition of "energy".

You will say mine are groundless assumptions.

Let's explore this thought further. What exactly is an assumption, and what exactly is undeniable fact? And how do we go about telling the difference?

Believers often confirm that God is there for them answering their prayers....

the rest of the interlude that starts here amounts to a lecture (partly courtesy of Wiki), expressing various opinions. Those opinions are duly noted.

But no more so than "energy is everything". Care to provide proof of that statement? Proof that can be "verified as true and accurate"?'

On July 16, 1945, in New Mexico, the first atomic explosion was produced. Matter was converted into it's basic components of heat, light and radiation. Energy. And so Einstein's famous theorem of E=MC^2 was proven. Matter is simply one of the forms that energy takes.

Yes.

Matter-energy behaving according to the laws that God ordained when He created the universe.

Incidentally -- His eternal "Word" (Logos), who we know as Jesus Christ, holds that universe together.

Anf one of these days, He's going to let go.

Can you imagine the release of energy? Elements, melting with "fervent heat"? How did Peter know?

I think God told him.

Again with the flying corpse thing? I thought we had settled that. What's next -- "the flying spaghetti monster"?

You provided a made up term, "metacosm," to explain the claim of the resurrection of Jesus, and the claim that he subsequently flew off up into the sky. Your entire premise is nothing more than a series of assumptions and made up claims for which you can provide no physical evidence. Nothing his been settled. All you have provided is your personal belief system and a series of empty and insupportable claims.

Your book of revealed truth indicates that Jesus physically returned from the dead. It also indicates that Jesus physically physically flew off, up into the sky and disappeared into the clouds. It's in your book of revealed truth, and you are stuck with what it says. Attempting to gloss over what the Bible specifically says with a layer of double talk does not have any effect on what the words contained in the Bible actually say.

But to the point: yes, there exists an eternal, infinite environment, of which our space-time ("energy") continuum is but a subset -- a "square", relative to a "cube", idiomatically speaking.

Are there other dimensions, essentially more directions in space/time than we can perceive? According to current scientific thought, the answer is yes. Could the God you are proposing, exist in those other (hyper) dimensions? Since we cannot perceive those other dimensions, we have no ability of examining them. So anything could be true concerning them. But you see, science works on observation and experimentation. Not by imagining facts and declaring them to be true. That is the province of make believe, and those who prefer subscribing to make believe rather than the physical, and at times unpleasant, physical world.

That is where the "corpse" "flew off" to. It is our eternal abode, as well -- unless we reject it for foolish (and even intellectual) pride, conformity, peer pressure, or the enticements of this world.

Yes. It's a perfectly silly claim. An unreasonable and insupportable claim, without an ounce of physical evidence to support it. Other than the insupportable claims themselves, of course. But insupportable claims (lies and make believe) are a very common currency among humans.

Opinion noted.

If only it didn't make more sense than anything else -- certainly anything that you have offered so far.

IOWs -- you don't know.

I do.

I don't know. And I recognize that there are things I don't know. I await for the time when the blanks can be filled in with physical evidence. I am 68 years old. I have managed to fill in many many blank spaces with new information based on observation and the physical evidence over the course of my life time. You fill in the blanks with rigid assumptions and make believe. Your blanks spaces have already been filled in with make believe, leaving you no potential for learning and growing.

Case in point. Nice lecture, though.

The universe itself is not intelligent. It is designed, however -- and reflects the Intelligence of its Designer, who exists in a metacosm (somebody -- Blastcat -- complained about that word. But I love it. He said it was "made up." LOL -- what word isn't?) that transcends and subsumes the cosmos, which is finite -- dimensionally bounded.

If the universe was designed, than then the designer was totally inept. Certainly in the creation of biology. Because biology is inherently wasteful. Why are some of the young of every species born with physical deformities that insure that they will not survive?

Sin.

Why does the DNA molecule sometimes fail to correctly read the sequence?

Entropy. Which started with the Fall. Which as a result of sin.

That makes no design sense at all. It is in fact an inherent design flaw and totally contradictory to the nature of a omnipotent designer Being who does not fail and does not make mistakes. Why did omnipotent God design faulty systems which regularly fail to work correctly? Why did God make life, and then make cancer? Why have entire species gone extinct? If biology is the product of the design of an omnipotent Being, this makes no sense at all. It makes perfect sense however, if biology is simply the product of ongoing random change and natural selection.

The creatures which are best suited for survival are the creatures with the best chance of surviving and reproducing. If biology is simply the product of random chance and taking advantage of the conditions that prevail, then the wasteful nature of biology is not only an unavoidable certainty, it is a necessity.

And planned. "Before the foundation of the world."

Yes. But it wasn't originally that way.

Because you have declared that to be so? At some point I should probably begin to keep a running count of the assumptions and empty claims you make.

You can put them with the lectures and empty claims you've made, and have a boxed set!

By which I mean, claims for which you have no actual physical evidence, which actually contradict the physical evidence, or which have an ongoing record of complete failure and fallacy which is thousands of years old.

The "physical evidence" for theism is precisely the same as the "physical evidence" for non-theism. What is different is the interpretation of that evidence (ground previously covered).

Another claimant to be a better creator than God? I'll let you and DI battle it out over who is the better "designer".

I don't for a moment suppose that any "designer" ever existed to begin with.

Which makes your claim to be a "better designer" a nonsensical one. Carry on...

I'll refer you to my post #14 of this thread, and offer the same challenge to you that I did him. Where did he go, btw?

I am afraid I am not DI's keeper. He is certainly capable of defending himself however.

Nice dodge. And apparently not. He has been as silent since that post.

Otherwise:

Yes. Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three day and nights. And as that was a prefigurement of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ --

This is the level of sophistication required to suppose that fish are filled withbreathable air, and that it is possible to live inside of one for several days without being converted into fish poop. Which is in fact a normal part of the process behind being eaten.

"the volume of the book is about Him", after all -- it is reasonable to assume that Jonah, too, died and was resurrected. And "safe and sound" is probably a poor choice of phrase, given the narrative.

Because you declare there exists a Being that can do anything, therefore anything you declare is not only plausible, but somehow self evident. Your entire belief system is based on a series of unfounded EMPTY assumptions. And for some reason you have concluded that declaring to to be so is the same thing as establishing that it is therefore undeniably so. This not only in spite of, but in defence of, the various flatly silly claims that are contained in your ancient book of ancient superstitions.

Lecture noted.

I still maintain that the context in Is. 45:7 renders "calamity" a better choice than "moral evil"

A better choice for Christians perhaps. But not a better choice for Jews, who after all wrote Isaiah 45. And Isaiah 45 makes no distinction between "moral" and virtual evil. It simply say that God creates evil. God creates all things, and there is no other God. That is in fact the purpose and message contained in Isaiah 45.

It is true that God creates all things. And he created the ground for moral evil to occur, by making creatures capable of utilizing their free will, in rebellion against Him.

But the use of "evil" in the KJV, in this case, is along the somewhat obsolete lines as might be used to describe a bad day; e.g., "the day that my football team was upset in the playoffs was an evil day." Or, perhaps, of recounting a tornado outbreak: "the evil day started with a low pressure system in the Midwest..".

Evil, as in "calamitous", "miserable".

Not malicious, moral evil.

and am unpersuaded by your citation of Lewis Black, who I find considerably less than impressive.

He is a confirmed atheist, so I wouldn't expect you to take to him. He's damned funny though.

To you.

I prefer comics who are actually funny.

Speaking of which -- have you seen the Dana Carvey vid, available on Netflix streaming? I gave it a view, not expecting much: a home run. Side-splittingly funny. His bit on why the Italians will never have a space program -- perfect pitch.

Give it a try. We all could use a good laugh at this point.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Volbrigade]

Is that the royal "we"? Is "contradict" synonymous with "lecture to"?

The "royal we" would be those who disagree with your claims. You have already encountered several.

Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists wil have to make their own defenses of their faith. I would, if they were true, coherent, consistent, and cohesive. They're not: Christianity is. I will stick to expressing and defending it, thanks.

The point is that everyone finds their particular belief to be unquestionably the one true and valid belief. A true believer is the very last candidate to recognize the shaky foundation upon which their own belief system is founded.

I take it you are anti-abortion?

I am anti beheading and disemboweling helpless people.

It's not make believe to acknowledge that our universe had a beginning, and thus must have a cause. You're assertion that "energy can't be created" is a religious one: I assented to it, if you include God in the definition of "energy".

Nothing that we observe had an uncaused beginning. Everything that we observe had a prior cause. Did energy have an uncaused beginning? I don't know! Our ability to observe does not extend that far. We cannot even directly observe the big bang. We can only interpolate it's occurrence from evidence which is currently observable. All observable evidence indicates that every effect is the result of an earlier cause. There is no reason to suppose that the big bang is not the result of an earlier cause. Currently, there is no clear answer to the question of what occurred prior to the big bang. The big bang represents a door that we cannot, as yet at least, peer behind. Making up an answer and declaring it to be true however is not only pointless, it is a deterrent to the search for knowledge, since by answering the question with an unfounded assumption, it closes off the path to searching for the actual answer.

And this is one of the biggest flaws in religion. It works to restrict the continued unfettered search for answers.

the rest of the interlude that starts here amounts to a lecture (partly courtesy of Wiki), expressing various opinions. Those opinions are duly noted.

Apparently you consider any discussion that disagrees with your conclusion to be a "lecture." The purpose of my "interlude" was to demonstrate how religion suppresses the examination of the facts by only choosing to accept evidence which supports the desired conclusion, while utterly ignoring and dismissing evidence which serves to disprove the desired conclusion. Just as you have done by dismissing what I wrote as a "lecture" without addressing the point I was making. Which is that, based on a dispassionate look at ALL of the available empirical evidence, the Being you propose exists can not really be distinguished from a a Being who never actually existed to begin with. All we have to consider is a vast interconnected network of assertions and and assumptions constructed by generations of believers, but no actual physical evidence to stand on is provided. It's a system of smoke without any actual fire.

Yes.

Matter-energy behaving according to the laws that God ordained when He created the universe.

Do you notice how you have simply declared this to be true? And what is your basis for declaring this to be true? Your firm belief and declaration that it is true.

Opinion noted.

If only it didn't make more sense than anything else -- certainly anything that you have offered so far.

It only "makes more sense than anything else," as long as you don't make the effort to understand the alternatives. I have reached the conclusion that I have after acquainting myself with both sides of the argument. And for evidence, I offer you modern science in the form of that computer you are sitting at, for a start. And what is your evidence? Two thousand years of unfilled promises and unsupported declarations.

I don't know. And I recognize that there are things I don't know. I await for the time when the blanks can be filled in with physical evidence. I am 68 years old. I have managed to fill in many many blank spaces with new information based on observation and the physical evidence over the course of my life time. You fill in the blanks with rigid assumptions and make believe. Your blanks spaces have already been filled in with make believe, leaving you no potential for learning and growing.

Case in point. Nice lecture, though.

Does it seem to you that a person who has made up an answer and declared it to be valid, is open to continuing to learn and accept new information as it is discovered? Or does a person who has made up an answer and declared it to be valid represent a case of "my mind is made up, so don't bother trying to confuse me with facts?"

If the universe was designed, than then the designer was totally inept. Certainly in the creation of biology. Because biology is inherently wasteful. Why are some of the young of every species born with physical deformities that insure that they will not survive?

Sin.

Are you suggesting that children are born malformed because they sinned?

And that THIS is actually part of God's plan?

Entropy. Which started with the Fall. Which as a result of sin.

Do you even understand the concept of entropy?

And planned. "Before the foundation of the world."

Just as the fall of Adam and Eve was planned "before the foundation of the world." And nothing can ever alter the course of God's plan. Which included, from "before the foundation of the world," malformed babies. Among other horrors. Because God is a fiend. OR... God failed to achieve His desired plan when he created the world. In which case God is a failure. So which God do you worship, the fiend or the failure?

Because you have declared that to be so? At some point I should probably begin to keep a running count of the assumptions and empty claims you make.

You can put them with the lectures and empty claims you've made, and have a boxed set!

All you have to do is demonstrate that I am wrong, and your claims are valid, by offering an argument which is NOT based on "It's true because Christians believe and have declared it to be so." A fall back position based on actual physical evidence.

The "physical evidence" for theism is precisely the same as the "physical evidence" for non-theism. What is different is the interpretation of that evidence (ground previously covered).

"Non-theism" is simply the lack of a belief in theism.

Which makes your claim to be a "better designer" a nonsensical one. Carry on...

I never claimed to be a "better designer." I only suggested that if I was omnipotent I could have done a better job.

I am afraid I am not DI's keeper. He is certainly capable of defending himself however.

Nice dodge. And apparently not. He has been as silent since that post.

I have no idea where DI might be. I often take off on trips for extended periods myself. In which case corresponding on DC&R becomes the least of my interests. But if you believe that you have run DI to ground with your reasoning, I am afraid you are sorely mistaken. I have been reading DI's material for a number of years now, and I must say that he is not so easily humbled. Not that we always agree.

A better choice for Christians perhaps. But not a better choice for Jews, who after all wrote Isaiah 45. And Isaiah 45 makes no distinction between "moral" and virtual evil. It simply say that God creates evil. God creates all things, and there is no other God. That is in fact the purpose and message contained in Isaiah 45.

It is true that God creates all things. And he created the ground for moral evil to occur, by making creatures capable of utilizing their free will, in rebellion against Him.

Allow me to speak up here. Because you have not been paying attention in the past. WHERE EXACTLY DOES THE BIBLE INDICATE THAT GOD GAVE HUMANITY FREE WILL? I have been asking this question of various believers, including you, for some time now, and the response has pretty uniformly been silence! And if God has not clearly chosen to offer humankind free will, why do YOU feel qualified to proclaim that He has?

But the use of "evil" in the KJV, in this case, is along the somewhat obsolete lines as might be used to describe a bad day; e.g., "the day that my football team was upset in the playoffs was an evil day." Or, perhaps, of recounting a tornado outbreak: "the evil day started with a low pressure system in the Midwest..".

Evil, as in "calamitous", "miserable".

Not malicious, moral evil.

This would be a "reinterpretation" of the word evil from the guy who uses words which are entirely made up, like "metacosm." God either created evil as a part of His plan from "before the foundation of the world," or God did not create evil at all, and it's occurrence was entirely unplanned and unintentional. Again, fiend or failure, choose your poison.

To you.

I prefer comics who are actually funny.

Speaking of which -- have you seen the Dana Carvey vid, available on Netflix streaming? I gave it a view, not expecting much: a home run. Side-splittingly funny. His bit on why the Italians will never have a space program -- perfect pitch.

Give it a try. We all could use a good laugh at this point.

I enjoy Dana Carvey as well. His church lady bit on SNL was hysterical.

I have seen Lewis Black live however, and he killed.

And so I will leave you with the Lewis Black bit performed on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart a few years ago, on why Glen Beck has Nazi tourettes. Even if you don't choose to watch it, others reading this post will certainly find it amusing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/1 ... 74659.html

[Volbrigade]

I take it you are anti-abortion?

I am anti beheading and disemboweling helpless people.

Me too.

How do you stand on dismembering and chemically burning helpless people? How about helpless, innocent people?

It's not make believe to acknowledge that our universe had a beginning, and thus must have a cause. You're assertion that "energy can't be created" is a religious one: I assented to it, if you include God in the definition of "energy".

Nothing that we observe had an uncaused beginning. Everything that we observe had a prior cause. Did energy have an uncaused beginning? I don't know!

Well... something had an uncaused beginning. Something is an uncaused cause.

I'll go with "God". You may go against Him, if you wish. That's part of the plan.

Our ability to observe does not extend that far. We cannot even directly observe the big bang. We can only interpolate it's occurrence from evidence which is currently observable. All observable evidence indicates that every effect is the result of an earlier cause. There is no reason to suppose that the big bang is not the result of an earlier cause. Currently, there is no clear answer to the question of what occurred prior to the big bang. The big bang represents a door that we cannot, as yet at least, peer behind. Making up an answer and declaring it to be true however is not only pointless, it is a deterrent to the search for knowledge, since by answering the question with an unfounded assumption, it closes off the path to searching for the actual answer.

I disagree. If the Bible is propositional truth, imparted by the Creator of the universe, then to ignore it -- to deliberately say, in effect, "let's look for another explanation besides this one (The Bible). This one, we don't like so much..." is to choose the path of error.

The Big Bang (all of them; there are several theories. All have their problems; some contradict each other) actually supports the Bible. We now know that the universe had a beginning. The only question is: what caused it? You say "a singularity", but that is, of course, totally theoretical and unverifiable. I'll go with "God".

And this is one of the biggest flaws in religion. It works to restrict the continued unfettered search for answers.

Agree. If you include the secular, non-theist, materialist "religion" expressed in the belief system that says the universe created itself. And microbes magically morphed into men.

the rest of the interlude that starts here amounts to a lecture (partly courtesy of Wiki), expressing various opinions. Those opinions are duly noted.

Apparently you consider any discussion that disagrees with your conclusion to be a "lecture." The purpose of my "interlude" was to demonstrate how religion suppresses the examination of the facts by only choosing to accept evidence which supports the desired conclusion, while utterly ignoring and dismissing evidence which serves to disprove the desired conclusion. Just as you have done by dismissing what I wrote as a "lecture" without addressing the point I was making. Which is that, based on a dispassionate look at ALL of the available empirical evidence, the Being you propose exists can not really be distinguished from a a Being who never actually existed to begin with. All we have to consider is a vast interconnected network of assertions and and assumptions constructed by generations of believers, but no actual physical evidence to stand on is provided. It's a system of smoke without any actual fire.

That's funny, since God is described as a "consuming fire."

The info you lectured -- er, provided ( ) -- was lengthy. I chose not to copy it.

The point is -- I've made this many times, but I understand that it doesn't sink in; and I understand WHY it doesn't sink in -- you have a choice. You have a choice as to which version you choose to believe. It has nothing to do with "physical evidence" -- that is the same for both sides. It is a question of which version is the most coherent, consistent, cohesive.

The version you ascribe to is none of those things.

The Biblical version is all of them.

Yes.

Matter-energy behaving according to the laws that God ordained when He created the universe.

Do you notice how you have simply declared this to be true? And what is your basis for declaring this to be true? Your firm belief and declaration that it is true.

Yes. Mine is a faith statement. So is yours ("energy is uncreated, eternal").

Opinion noted.

If only it didn't make more sense than anything else -- certainly anything that you have offered so far.

It only "makes more sense than anything else," as long as you don't make the effort to understand the alternatives. I have reached the conclusion that I have after acquainting myself with both sides of the argument.

I have, too.

And for evidence, I offer you modern science in the form of that computer you are sitting at, for a start. And what is your evidence? Two thousand years of unfilled promises and unsupported declarations.

Sez you. I think you are wrong.

By the way -- the computer you're sitting at is convincing evidence that this universe follows knowable, predictable natural laws and rules -- evidence of design and order, which demands a Designer to order them. It is also a metaphor for the reality of what you are: software. Massless, volumeless, weightless. Inhabiting the hardware of your physical body. That "software", which is the real you (ubiquitous), is not subject to time. The drumbeat of your "hardware" -- the beating of your heart -- is all that stands between you (again, ubiquitous "you") and eternity.

I don't know. And I recognize that there are things I don't know. I await for the time when the blanks can be filled in with physical evidence. I am 68 years old. I have managed to fill in many many blank spaces with new information based on observation and the physical evidence over the course of my life time. You fill in the blanks with rigid assumptions and make believe. Your blanks spaces have already been filled in with make believe, leaving you no potential for learning and growing.

Case in point. Nice lecture, though.

Does it seem to you that a person who has made up an answer and declared it to be valid, is open to continuing to learn and accept new information as it is discovered? Or does a person who has made up an answer and declared it to be valid represent a case of "my mind is made up, so don't bother trying to confuse me with facts?"

I am always open to facts.

Since Jesus Christ is truth, then everything that is true conforms to Him. Please show me where I have denied a single verifiable fact.

If the universe was designed, than then the designer was totally inept. Certainly in the creation of biology. Because biology is inherently wasteful. Why are some of the young of every species born with physical deformities that insure that they will not survive?

Sin.

Are you suggesting that children are born malformed because they sinned?

No. I'm telling you that children are born malformed -- and every other evil, that is, calamitous, thing -- because I sinned.

And that THIS is actually part of God's plan?

Yes. A plan to make creatures of matter, who have the free will, the choice, to become eternal Sons of God, in the image of the risen Jesus Christ.

An image which the unfortunate creature in your picture will share, being unaccountable for its sins, as small children are. And if you choose to accept the grace and mercy afforded by Christ, then you will see that deformed infant as he truly is; not merely the hardware that he/she is trapped in: and he will be a glory to behold.

Entropy. Which started with the Fall. Which as a result of sin.

Do you even understand the concept of entropy?

I do.

And planned. "Before the foundation of the world."

Just as the fall of Adam and Eve was planned "before the foundation of the world." And nothing can ever alter the course of God's plan. Which included, from "before the foundation of the world," malformed babies. Among other horrors. Because God is a fiend. OR... God failed to achieve His desired plan when he created the world. In which case God is a failure. So which God do you worship, the fiend or the failure?

Neither. I worship the true, living God, and His Christ. There is a fiend that we must deal with. And it is advisable to be armored against him (Ephesians 6). His main weapon is deceit. And he prowls about "like a roaring lion, seeking to devour whom he may."

Because you have declared that to be so? At some point I should probably begin to keep a running count of the assumptions and empty claims you make.

You can put them with the lectures and empty claims you've made, and have a boxed set!

All you have to do is demonstrate that I am wrong, and your claims are valid, by offering an argument which is NOT based on "It's true because Christians believe and have declared it to be so." A fall back position based on actual physical evidence.

Everything that has a beginning must have a Cause...

The "physical evidence" for theism is precisely the same as the "physical evidence" for non-theism. What is different is the interpretation of that evidence (ground previously covered).

"Non-theism" is simply the lack of a belief in theism.

Tautology noted.

And the evidence for the theist is exactly the same as for the non-theist.

The worldviews, of course, lead to differing conclusions on non-verifiables: i.e., origins and history.

Which makes your claim to be a "better designer" a nonsensical one. Carry on...

I never claimed to be a "better designer." I only suggested that if I was omnipotent I could have done a better job.

Close enough.

I am afraid I am not DI's keeper. He is certainly capable of defending himself however.

Nice dodge. And apparently not. He has been as silent since that post.

I have no idea where DI might be. I often take off on trips for extended periods myself. In which case corresponding on DC&R becomes the least of my interests. But if you believe that you have run DI to ground with your reasoning, I am afraid you are sorely mistaken. I have been reading DI's material for a number of years now, and I must say that he is not so easily humbled. Not that we always agree.

He's posted elsewhere...

A better choice for Christians perhaps. But not a better choice for Jews, who after all wrote Isaiah 45. And Isaiah 45 makes no distinction between "moral" and virtual evil. It simply say that God creates evil. God creates all things, and there is no other God. That is in fact the purpose and message contained in Isaiah 45.

It is true that God creates all things. And he created the ground for moral evil to occur, by making creatures capable of utilizing their free will, in rebellion against Him.

Allow me to speak up here. Because you have not been paying attention in the past. WHERE EXACTLY DOES THE BIBLE INDICATE THAT GOD GAVE HUMANITY FREE WILL? I have been asking this question of various believers, including you, for some time now, and the response has pretty uniformly been silence! And if God has not clearly chosen to offer humankind free will, why do YOU feel qualified to proclaim that He has?

I think the clearest example is in Genesis ch. 3, where Eve explains that God gave them a command NOT to eat of a certain tree, and she was deceived into eating it. Followed by Adam doing the same, of his own free will. That is the seed plot for the entire Bible. Everything else that follows expands upon this point -- e.g., the dreary litany of the nation of Israel, continually turning from God to idolatry. Out of their free will.

But the use of "evil" in the KJV, in this case, is along the somewhat obsolete lines as might be used to describe a bad day; e.g., "the day that my football team was upset in the playoffs was an evil day." Or, perhaps, of recounting a tornado outbreak: "the evil day started with a low pressure system in the Midwest..".

Evil, as in "calamitous", "miserable".

Not malicious, moral evil.

This would be a "reinterpretation" of the word evil from the guy who uses words which are entirely made up, like "metacosm."

LOL. Can you give me an example of a word that is not "made up"? Is "meta" "made up"? How about "cosmos"? Any idea who made them up? Can you figure out what a word coined from them might refer to?

God either created evil as a part of His plan from "before the foundation of the world," or God did not create evil at all, and it's occurrence was entirely unplanned and unintentional. Again, fiend or failure, choose your poison.

I'll take choice "c" -- none of the above.

To you.

I prefer comics who are actually funny.

Speaking of which -- have you seen the Dana Carvey vid, available on Netflix streaming? I gave it a view, not expecting much: a home run. Side-splittingly funny. His bit on why the Italians will never have a space program -- perfect pitch.

Give it a try. We all could use a good laugh at this point.

I enjoy Dana Carvey as well. His church lady bit on SNL was hysterical.

I have seen Lewis Black live however, and he killed.

And so I will leave you with the Lewis Black bit performed on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart a few years ago, on why Glen Beck has Nazi tourettes. Even if you don't choose to watch it, others reading this post will certainly find it amusing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/1 ... 74659.html

[/quote]
We'll just have to disagree. I never found the Church Lady to be among Carvey's best work, even when I was an unbeliever. And I haven't seen a lot of Black, but what I have seen convinced me that I wasn't interested in seeing any more.