[
Replying to Volbrigade]
Volbrigade wrote:
How do you stand on dismembering and chemically burning helpless people? How about helpless, innocent people?
I am not in favor of it.
Volbrigade wrote:
Well... something had an uncaused beginning. Something is an uncaused cause.
Energy can neither be created or destroyed, according to all observation. That energy had an uncaused beginning is another one of your declared assumptions. If it must be true that energy
must have had a caused beginning, which you call God, then by the same logic God
must have had a caused beginning as well. On the other hand, if it's possible for a thing to exist eternally and be uncaused, then it is possible that energy exists eternally and is uncaused. The difference is that energy actually exists; because among other things, it is us. energy is observable and quantifiable. God on the other hand has simply been imagined into existence. An extra step which is NOT observed to be valid has been arbitrarily introduced into the question, and declared to be the answer.
Unlike you, I am not making up an answer and declaring it to be the truth, the whole truth, and that's the end of it. In fact I am relying on what can be observed to be true, and then analysing the possibilities modern observation has provided for us. As opposed to developing presuppositions and then declaring these presuppositions to be established fact. But unlike you am am perfectly ready and willing to modify my opinions, or change them entirely, when and if the evidence warrants it.
Did anyone simply presuppose that computer they are are sitting at and cause it to not only exist, but to actually work? Or does it represent the result of centuries of scientific advancement at work? The laws of physics represent the highest state of confidence that we have attained in understanding the universe we live in. The laws of physics are derived from much observation and experimentation resulting in achieving exactly the same result repeatedly and without fail. The application of these laws have led to working computers, smart phone and all of the other technological marvels of our rapidly changing technological world. If the laws of physics are NOT inviolate as we now believe them to be, we are in the embarrassing position of having no idea why our technology works at all!
Ancient people worked on a different theory of how the universe works. Since they did not yet possess enough technology to acquire the information needed to explain the natural phenomenon going on around them, lightning, thunder, earthquakes and the like, they made up answers.
They presupposed solutions for which they otherwise had no means to answer. Does you not notice a difference between careful observation and experimentation which leads directly to working technology, and presupposing solutions based entirely on assumptions and declarations AT ALL?
Presupposition is simply another word for make believe, is it not? Believers presuppose that humans, and the universe we exist in must have been created by an infinitely powerful Being whom they not only presuppose exists, but whom they presuppose exists without the need for such a creation Himself.
And they made it all up, which is, as I have just pointed out, what presupposition is all about. There is another way of looking at the universe however. It's called the empirical method, and it involves investigating the physical evidence for what the physical evidence has to tell us. The empirical method entails close observation, much experimentation and direct experience, resulting in detailed conclusions that allow for the same results to be reached repeatedly. It requires that the results, when discovered, be accepted at face value even to the extent of completely abandoning centuries of make believe. This sort of research has also led us rather inextricably to the conclusion that EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS DOES SO FOR NATURAL REASONS which can be understood and even utilized for our advantage. The general term for this deeper understanding of the basis for how the physical universe operates is called quantum mechanics. Does the empirical method have credibility? Well, does that computer you are sitting at actually work? Do we have operating smart phones and all of the other modern technological marvels of this modern technological age? They are all based on a working understanding of quantum mechanics. They were NOT rendered extant by make believe.
So, where were all of these modern marvels in Jesus' time? The laws of quantum physics are exactly the same today as they were 2,000 years ago... or a billion years ago for that matter. However, by in large the ancients used a different method for reaching conclusions then the empirical method. They presupposed! What ancient peoples did not understand they simply made up reasons for. Gods and goddesses, elves, fairies, and the like. Whatever served to answer questions for which no obvious answer was readily at hand. This was the old "make it up and declare it to be true" method of reaching a preferred conclusion. It really had no practical value, other than to create the illusion of providing an answer, even though that answer had no connection to anything valid and true. Answers which had absolutely nothing to do with what was actually going on. Sadly, many people today still operate this way, applying made up solutions to questions they don't otherwise understand. Which is a shame, because the actual answers are most often readily available now, so make believe is no longer necessary. We have learned, through much trial and error, that the empirical method for accumulating genuine knowledge far surpasses the old "make it up and declare it to be true" presupposition method. So, I don't "presuppose" that there is no deity any more then I "presuppose" the existence of a multiverse. I simply rate these possibilities in order of how well they correspond to that which can be observed to be true. I see no point in arbitrarily making up the existence of an invisible Being with infinite powers where no such Being is obvious and then declaring the question to be at an end. In fact, the existence of an infinitely powerful invisible Being that possesses the power to manipulate the laws of physics at will seems to contradict everything we believe that we know about how the universe works. This is the inevitable face off between make believe and knowledge you see. Which do you suppose will win out over time, ancient ignorance, or modern science? This depends on how willing people are to take a stand for knowledge over ancient ignorance. Or, more accurately, what people prefer to believe as opposed to what the evidence seems to show.
Volbrigade wrote:
I'll go with "God". You may go against Him, if you wish. That's part of the plan.
I am not "against God" in exactly the same way that I am not "against" Odin or Zeus.
Volbrigade wrote:
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.
Do you not recognize that any of the religious documents of other religious beliefs, past and present, can and do (or once did) make the same claim? And with just as much certainty as you are now making your claims. And yet all of these documents were produced by the hands and minds of humans beings. No gods were ever involved, just the unfounded assumptions of human beings attempting to answer questions that they, as yet, did not possess the necessary evidence to answer. The overwhelming majority of these religions, and their religious documents, have disappeared entirely. They were ancient superstitious nonsense when they were conceived of, and they are nonsense now. The difference is, we have far better evidence for explaining existence then our ancient superstitious ancestors did. Now, it may be true that the evidence that we are now gathering does necessarily not serve to provide anyone with warm and fuzzy good feelings. But you see, the truth is whatever it is. Warm and fuzzy good feelings are not owed to us.
Volbrigade wrote:
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".
The big bang is currently the best model that fits the evidence. It's either true, or it is not. I have no emotional investment in the big bang. If a better explanation should surface I would walk away from it without a second thought.
Volbrigade wrote:
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 same exact protons, neutrons and electrons that make up microbes also make up men. There is no difference. And if the law of conservation of energy is valid, then some of the the very same protons, neutrons electrons that once made up microbes are now contained in you.
Volbrigade wrote:
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.
After considering both the religious and scientific versions of reality I have chosen the scientific version. The religious version makes claims that directly contradict all observation, logic and common sense. The scientific version of reality has produced all of modern technology. It was an easy choice. But then, I am only interested in what is true. Attempting to convince myself of an answer that serves to make me feel all warm and fuzzy hold no interest for me.
Volbrigade wrote:
Yes. Mine is a faith statement. So is yours ("energy is uncreated, eternal").
My statement has absolutely nothing to do with faith. That energy can neither be created or destroyed is one of the primary laws of physics. It is based on centuries of observation and experimentation.
Volbrigade wrote:
Sez you. I think you are wrong.
Jesus lived 2,000 years ago. Everyone who lived 2,000 died, and is still most reliably and undeniably dead. Despite 2,000 years worth of empty claims to the contrary, this remains an undeniable fact.
Volbrigade wrote:
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.
These natural laws are known as the laws of physics. And they operate in accordance with quantum mechanics.
Volbrigade wrote:
I am always open to facts.
Which is why I am providing them to you. What you do with them is up to you. You have a heavy emotional investment in a system of belief that promises you eternal life, reunion with dead loved ones, and the forgiveness of all your accumulated guilts. That is a lot for a dispassionate appeal to the facts to overcome.
Volbrigade wrote:
Since Jesus Christ is truth, then everything that is true conforms to Him. Please show me where I have denied a single verifiable fact.
What you cannot contradict, you simply ignore. For example, which of these details taken from the Gospels do you deny?
1. The body of Jesus was given to Joseph and Nicodemus by Pilate on the Friday before Passover.
2. Joseph and Nicodemus were followers of Jesus.
3. Joseph took the body of Jesus to his newly made personal family crypt to wash and prepare it because the sepulchre was conveniently near to the place where Jesus was crucified.
4. The followers of Jesus left the tomb, covering the entrance with a large stone.
5. The next day the chief priests took possession of the closed tomb which they did not open and inspect.
6. It was a high holy day.
7. The following day the tomb was discovered to be empty.
If you cannot deny these details, then a very natural explanation for the empty tomb and missing body of Jesus is very easy to provide. And if a perfectly natural explanation is available, then an explanation which confounds all reason, logic and common sense is spurious.
Volbrigade wrote:
No. I'm telling you that children are born malformed -- and every other evil, that is, calamitous, thing -- because I sinned.
Shame on you.
Are malformed children a part of God's plan... or did God
fail to achieve what He intended to achieve?
Volbrigade wrote:
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.
And yet no where has God offered humankind free will.
Volbrigade wrote:
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.
I hope all the malformed children find that you believe they are malformed because of their sinful nature to be comforting. Because I do not.
Volbrigade wrote:
Everything that has a beginning must have a Cause...
Agreed.
Volbrigade wrote:
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.
Did God know that Adam and Eve would sin when He created them? Did God know that the serpent would sin when He created it? Did God know that by bring all parties together in the garden He was insuring that this great sin would occur? Isn't that what omnipotent means? Was that NOT God's plan all along? If so, was there ever
any chance that Adam and Eve would
not eat the fruit? If not, where is the "free will" in this tale? Very conspicuously God has
not offered free will. The events of our lives are already written in God's book. According to your book of revealed truth, at any rate.
Volbrigade wrote:
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.
Explain choice "C" in greater detail. Because you seem to have skirted the question.