If you have not read TSM, Time Space Material and Infinity, it is one of my most major arguments in favor of Gods existence, and I suggest you read it before this post, which is a continuation of some of the ideas.
A response I once heard to the spatial argument is that 3 dimensional space is in fact wrapped onto a 4th dimensional sphere. Therefore, the size of the universe is fixed. If you travel in one direction long enough you will end up right back where you started. Now, this model contradicts euclidean geometry and has some other problems, but I will leave those aside for the moment. Two things came to mind as a result:
1) You have invented a 4th spatial dimension (the radius of the sphere). Can we travel in it? Regardless of whether we can travel in it, something must travel in it for it to be considered space. This dimension is unlimited and is still subject to the Spatial argument dilemma.
2) In this sphere, several of the dimensions to measure position in space are angles (like theta and phi for spherical coordinates). These dimensions are fundamentally limited to 360 degrees. I wanted to argue that all spatial systems required at least one unlimited dimension, such that whatever spatial system you imagined, the Spatial dilemma still applied. Unfortunately and fortunately, some exist.
Take for instance two points in 3dim space set a fixed distance apart along an imaginary vertical line. Any point in space can be signified by angles from both of these points (relative to the connecting line) and a theta about the center line.
Fortunately, the problem with this is that as points appear farther and farther away, the measurements of the two angles must become more and more precise. For any point distance x away, a precision d can be found to map the point with the angles. Therefore unlimited or infinite precision also produces a spatial dilemma. For if you shrink your viewpoint down to the arbitrary level of precision you reach, the universe becomes arbitrarily large.
2b) This has an implication for the material argument as well, adding weight. As you break down matter/energy into smaller and smaller parts, you are increasing precision arbitrarily. Therefore the dilemma of matter also produces a spatial dilemma even in a spatially finite universe. (Even if the universe is a fixed sphere 1 billion light years in radius, if the breakdown of matter is infinite, a viewer from that size will perceive an infinite universe)
05 September 2013
04 September 2013
evolutionary benefits of religion
I am now reading "Kingdom Triangle" by J.P Moreland. Awesome book. The second chapter got me thinking, though...
The most ready argument in the hands of atheists/agnostics against theists is probably that humans invented religion as a psychological crutch and it survived because it brings societies together, enforces moral law, etc. This is essentially their explanation for why anyone believes in any sort of God - it's useful for survival. [Other common arguments are how 1) you're being intolerant / relative truth and 2) the ultimate 747 / how did God begin?]
The assumption both sides have always accepted is that religion is profitable for survival - atheists because anything so prevalent must be and theists because religion is a good thing. This assumption may very well be true. But I started arguing from the point of an atheist.
Religion burdens a person down with a long list of rules, occupies much of their time in worship, takes at least 10% of their money, mentally preoccupies them, gives them an intolerance of new ideas, restricts them to one social group, etc etc. Additionally, most of the benefits I just enumerated for religion are group benefits - things that are only beneficial if most of a group has them and often benefits other in the group, not the user directly. Richard Dawkins himself makes passing comment at these benefits but considers them quite small compared to individual benefits (ch5 of The God Delusion). All the problems with religion I listed are personal. Anyone violating a moral law benefits personally if he is not caught.
To be fair, Dawkins does have a decent argument for the origin of religion - as a by-product of many other useful concepts. For instance, it is beneficial for children to listed to their parents without question. Therefore they will, and will pick up any incorrect but not hurtful advice along the way. This generational 'waste buildup' to form legend may have started religion. Also, concepts such as authority/law and design/intention by a person may have all conglomerated into religion.
However, an atheist may argue much stronger personal benefits for his belief than accumulated generational errors. Freedom from useless beliefs, higher mental clarity, ability to create morals and social norms through calculation rather than tradition (this was Dawkins response to a Muslim man on atheistic morals), more free time and money, true appreciation for nature and science, mental freedom and clarity in knowledge of ones own true position in nature, etc etc.
Now, bear in mind that I do not necessarily think atheists are evolutionary advantaged over theists. Persecution and willingness to die for others may dampen it a little but having a correct view of reality, moral based on truth, not agreements which can be broken if you think you can get away with it, freedom from guilt, worry, fear, etc are all good. But as I demonstrated, an argument can be made for atheism.
The implications of this are very specific and very significant. If the human species developed widespread belief in god (some form of God) where that trait is evolutionary inferior to what we assume is the normal atheistic state, it begs some other cause - namely God himself. This is an external argument against atheism [ atheist tenets (assuming atheists are also evolutionists), conflict with the evidence of widespread religion].
Contrary to what you may think, if theism is evolutionary preferred, the argument does not work backwards. Traditional theism does not include evolution and as such the presence of atheism does not suggest it had an external cause superior to theism. Traditional Christians who believe in absolute truth believe other religions are incorrect, and atheism is merely grouped in the 'incorrect' category.
I feel like this post isn't finished but I don't know where to go next. If you see a gaping hole please let me know. Over and out.
The most ready argument in the hands of atheists/agnostics against theists is probably that humans invented religion as a psychological crutch and it survived because it brings societies together, enforces moral law, etc. This is essentially their explanation for why anyone believes in any sort of God - it's useful for survival. [Other common arguments are how 1) you're being intolerant / relative truth and 2) the ultimate 747 / how did God begin?]
The assumption both sides have always accepted is that religion is profitable for survival - atheists because anything so prevalent must be and theists because religion is a good thing. This assumption may very well be true. But I started arguing from the point of an atheist.
Religion burdens a person down with a long list of rules, occupies much of their time in worship, takes at least 10% of their money, mentally preoccupies them, gives them an intolerance of new ideas, restricts them to one social group, etc etc. Additionally, most of the benefits I just enumerated for religion are group benefits - things that are only beneficial if most of a group has them and often benefits other in the group, not the user directly. Richard Dawkins himself makes passing comment at these benefits but considers them quite small compared to individual benefits (ch5 of The God Delusion). All the problems with religion I listed are personal. Anyone violating a moral law benefits personally if he is not caught.
To be fair, Dawkins does have a decent argument for the origin of religion - as a by-product of many other useful concepts. For instance, it is beneficial for children to listed to their parents without question. Therefore they will, and will pick up any incorrect but not hurtful advice along the way. This generational 'waste buildup' to form legend may have started religion. Also, concepts such as authority/law and design/intention by a person may have all conglomerated into religion.
However, an atheist may argue much stronger personal benefits for his belief than accumulated generational errors. Freedom from useless beliefs, higher mental clarity, ability to create morals and social norms through calculation rather than tradition (this was Dawkins response to a Muslim man on atheistic morals), more free time and money, true appreciation for nature and science, mental freedom and clarity in knowledge of ones own true position in nature, etc etc.
Now, bear in mind that I do not necessarily think atheists are evolutionary advantaged over theists. Persecution and willingness to die for others may dampen it a little but having a correct view of reality, moral based on truth, not agreements which can be broken if you think you can get away with it, freedom from guilt, worry, fear, etc are all good. But as I demonstrated, an argument can be made for atheism.
The implications of this are very specific and very significant. If the human species developed widespread belief in god (some form of God) where that trait is evolutionary inferior to what we assume is the normal atheistic state, it begs some other cause - namely God himself. This is an external argument against atheism [ atheist tenets (assuming atheists are also evolutionists), conflict with the evidence of widespread religion].
Contrary to what you may think, if theism is evolutionary preferred, the argument does not work backwards. Traditional theism does not include evolution and as such the presence of atheism does not suggest it had an external cause superior to theism. Traditional Christians who believe in absolute truth believe other religions are incorrect, and atheism is merely grouped in the 'incorrect' category.
I feel like this post isn't finished but I don't know where to go next. If you see a gaping hole please let me know. Over and out.
18 August 2013
Paul didn't save CHristianity
A couple years ago I took a world religions class at college. The teacher was a Philosophical Daoist (you need balance in life, ying yang, take the easy way). While explaining the history of Christianity she said that if it weren't for Paul, Christianity would have died. He was very passionate, spread the Gospel to most of the non-Jewish, and wrote most of the New Testament.
Naturally this irked me. Whether her point is valid or not is another story. On the one hand, it is significant that most of our New Testament was written by one man (though the gospels were not Paul), and that most of the evangelism to the non-Semitic world happened through the same man (or so it would seem). However, I would like to make a few points of explanation. I don't think this completely wraps up the concern, but it should remove most reasonable doubt.
1) Paul was not the only evangelist. Possibly in fact he is responsible for less than half of it (which is still a lot). All the apostles save John died martyrs for the faith. Peter was the rock center of the church and at one point was so touched by the holy spirit that sick were healed by even his shadow falling on them (Acts 5:15). Peter is responsible for the birth of the Coptic (Egyptian) church through teleporting to the Eunuch in Acts 8 and Thomas died in India (according to an Apocryphal book "The Acts of Thomas"). Other non-apostles were doing work at the time as well. Note Barnabas who split from Paul, presumably doing his own ministry. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul mentions 'Apollos' as another evangelist too and does not seem to denounce him.
2) The reason we have so much on Paul is because he wrote it down (directed by the Holy Spirit and intended for the bible). We do not say that Herodotus and Homer (Histories, Illiad and Odessey) were the pillars of Greek culture, much less that without them it would have collapsed, simply because their works are the main ones that survive. Although they are not canonical and may not be accurate, we do have dozens on different books from different authors around the time - commentaries and letters and such, disciples of the apostles and other church leaders like Polycarp (if I remember correctly).
3) Paul wrote 13 of the 27 books of the New Testament. Romans was written by Luke, closely associated with Paul but not authored by Paul.
4) The fact that Paul wrote so many books may be a function of his giftings and situation rather than his zeal. Other people like Peter, John or James may have even been more passionate, but demonstrated it in different ways. Peter was the rock on which Jesus built the church, and may have been caught up in administration and leadership. John was more prophetic. Paul, on the other hand, was extremely learned, one of the Jewish upper class. He knew how to write and how to write well, how to make arguments from old testament scripture and how to reason. He was also itinerant and had a wide base of churches he wished to disciple, making letters one of the most practical ways to do so. The apostles in the near region of Israel may have had an easier time and not had to write so much, and had gifts of leadership rather than teaching.
5) I'll leave you with an argument from scripture itself: Acts 5: 35-39 "35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
Naturally this irked me. Whether her point is valid or not is another story. On the one hand, it is significant that most of our New Testament was written by one man (though the gospels were not Paul), and that most of the evangelism to the non-Semitic world happened through the same man (or so it would seem). However, I would like to make a few points of explanation. I don't think this completely wraps up the concern, but it should remove most reasonable doubt.
1) Paul was not the only evangelist. Possibly in fact he is responsible for less than half of it (which is still a lot). All the apostles save John died martyrs for the faith. Peter was the rock center of the church and at one point was so touched by the holy spirit that sick were healed by even his shadow falling on them (Acts 5:15). Peter is responsible for the birth of the Coptic (Egyptian) church through teleporting to the Eunuch in Acts 8 and Thomas died in India (according to an Apocryphal book "The Acts of Thomas"). Other non-apostles were doing work at the time as well. Note Barnabas who split from Paul, presumably doing his own ministry. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul mentions 'Apollos' as another evangelist too and does not seem to denounce him.
2) The reason we have so much on Paul is because he wrote it down (directed by the Holy Spirit and intended for the bible). We do not say that Herodotus and Homer (Histories, Illiad and Odessey) were the pillars of Greek culture, much less that without them it would have collapsed, simply because their works are the main ones that survive. Although they are not canonical and may not be accurate, we do have dozens on different books from different authors around the time - commentaries and letters and such, disciples of the apostles and other church leaders like Polycarp (if I remember correctly).
3) Paul wrote 13 of the 27 books of the New Testament. Romans was written by Luke, closely associated with Paul but not authored by Paul.
4) The fact that Paul wrote so many books may be a function of his giftings and situation rather than his zeal. Other people like Peter, John or James may have even been more passionate, but demonstrated it in different ways. Peter was the rock on which Jesus built the church, and may have been caught up in administration and leadership. John was more prophetic. Paul, on the other hand, was extremely learned, one of the Jewish upper class. He knew how to write and how to write well, how to make arguments from old testament scripture and how to reason. He was also itinerant and had a wide base of churches he wished to disciple, making letters one of the most practical ways to do so. The apostles in the near region of Israel may have had an easier time and not had to write so much, and had gifts of leadership rather than teaching.
5) I'll leave you with an argument from scripture itself: Acts 5: 35-39 "35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”
12 August 2013
graduation speech
It is a tradition in the Christian group at my college to have the graduating seniors say something to the rest a couple weeks before graduation. It occurred to me that although I have two more years ahead of me, I will not be present the latter part of the second year and may wish to have a fake graduation this upcoming year. So, because I love to make speeches, I started thinking about what I'd say. These are some of my ideas.
On the one hand there is so much I want to say I could preach multiple sermons to you. On the other hand I don't want to say much because really, following God isn't that complicated. So let me say this:
First and foremost God is glorious, wrapped in mysterious darkness, and holy like none other. The more you are aware of this the better.
Second, we humans are sinful, helpless, despicable and detestable in a hundred ways. Do not deceive yourself and think you can even measure up to your own standards, let alone Gods.
Third, thank God that in his great mercy he withholds destroying us for a time, but at the end of the age, his holiness with be unleashed and all evil will be thrashed and obliterated, shunned and locked far away into eternal darkness.
Fourth, Christ died to remove our sin and save us from destruction. His passion to save you is a mighty whirlwind and a mothers whisper. Do not harden your hearts when you hear it. His yoke is easy and his burden is light and nothing can ever compare to knowing God personally. It's nuts. Accept your sin and accept his death.
Fifth, for those who believe in God, he has but one work for us - to believe in the one he has sent. John 6:29. This is much harder than it sounds and much more rewarding. Knowings Gods glory, your sin, Christs salvation and the Holy Spirits power for you is immeasurably healing and satisfying. It roots out lust, greed, anger, fear, pain, bitterness, hopelessness, and all other human ailments (mental/spiritual ones). In Christ you need nothing, desire nothing other than him, fear nothing, nothing can hurt you, and you have a glorious hope to look forward to.
Sixth, for those who believe there are two commands - love God, love people. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, it is with your heart you believe God (Romans 10:10) - our primary work, soul - worship him with abandon, mind - study the word, his commands, know his glory and his power for you, and strength - do not be hearers of the word merely but also doers. And love your neighbor as yourself.
And this is love for God, to obey his commands. And his command is this - to love one another. Read 1st John.
What is love? To want the best for someone. What is the best for anyone? To be drawn closer to God. This is how God loves us, by sending his son so we can be with him. Therefore love yourself and love others by drawing close to God.
There are two primary ways to advance the kingdom of God, bringing new people to close God and bringing those close even closer. Evangelism and discipleship. This latter part should include your own discipleship.
Seventh and finally my brothers, life is not easy and you WILL fall. Today I set before you life and death, a blessing and a cure. Hold fast to life. "These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the door-frames of your houses and on your gates." (Deuteronomy 6:5-9)
And your God will never, ever, leave you.
[exit]
On the one hand there is so much I want to say I could preach multiple sermons to you. On the other hand I don't want to say much because really, following God isn't that complicated. So let me say this:
First and foremost God is glorious, wrapped in mysterious darkness, and holy like none other. The more you are aware of this the better.
Second, we humans are sinful, helpless, despicable and detestable in a hundred ways. Do not deceive yourself and think you can even measure up to your own standards, let alone Gods.
Third, thank God that in his great mercy he withholds destroying us for a time, but at the end of the age, his holiness with be unleashed and all evil will be thrashed and obliterated, shunned and locked far away into eternal darkness.
Fourth, Christ died to remove our sin and save us from destruction. His passion to save you is a mighty whirlwind and a mothers whisper. Do not harden your hearts when you hear it. His yoke is easy and his burden is light and nothing can ever compare to knowing God personally. It's nuts. Accept your sin and accept his death.
Fifth, for those who believe in God, he has but one work for us - to believe in the one he has sent. John 6:29. This is much harder than it sounds and much more rewarding. Knowings Gods glory, your sin, Christs salvation and the Holy Spirits power for you is immeasurably healing and satisfying. It roots out lust, greed, anger, fear, pain, bitterness, hopelessness, and all other human ailments (mental/spiritual ones). In Christ you need nothing, desire nothing other than him, fear nothing, nothing can hurt you, and you have a glorious hope to look forward to.
Sixth, for those who believe there are two commands - love God, love people. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, it is with your heart you believe God (Romans 10:10) - our primary work, soul - worship him with abandon, mind - study the word, his commands, know his glory and his power for you, and strength - do not be hearers of the word merely but also doers. And love your neighbor as yourself.
And this is love for God, to obey his commands. And his command is this - to love one another. Read 1st John.
What is love? To want the best for someone. What is the best for anyone? To be drawn closer to God. This is how God loves us, by sending his son so we can be with him. Therefore love yourself and love others by drawing close to God.
There are two primary ways to advance the kingdom of God, bringing new people to close God and bringing those close even closer. Evangelism and discipleship. This latter part should include your own discipleship.
Seventh and finally my brothers, life is not easy and you WILL fall. Today I set before you life and death, a blessing and a cure. Hold fast to life. "These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the door-frames of your houses and on your gates." (Deuteronomy 6:5-9)
And your God will never, ever, leave you.
[exit]
23 July 2013
the created
He is the creator
We are the created
He is
The Orator
The Poet
The Gymnast
The Chef
The Musician
The Dancer
The Artist
The Singer
We are
the words
the ryhmes
the muscles, the bones
the aromas, the tastes
the notes, the songs
the rhythm, the moves,
the colors, the canvas
the voice
"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Eph 2:10)
I have not fully resolved for myself that it is so, but I find it strange that the superfluous things in life, a sunset, a warm friendship, a laugh, should also provide it's value. That we should be so unnecessary to God, and rightly so, yet so immensely valuable. Think of it. He didn't need us, but he made us.
We are his sunset
It comes to mind too, that sons and daughters are unnecessary too, but yet so cherished. In the end they probably cost more than they provide in your old age, yet no man would hesitate to die for his son. Created, a joy often causing pain. Yet so desirable.
We are Gods sons and daughters
"And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!'" (Gal 4:6)
"Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' it shall be said to them, 'Children[b] of the living God.'" (Hosea 1:10)
"Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel." (Jer 18:6 - verse slightly out of context, please read all)
We are the created
He is
The Orator
The Poet
The Gymnast
The Chef
The Musician
The Dancer
The Artist
The Singer
We are
the words
the ryhmes
the muscles, the bones
the aromas, the tastes
the notes, the songs
the rhythm, the moves,
the colors, the canvas
the voice
"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." (Eph 2:10)
I have not fully resolved for myself that it is so, but I find it strange that the superfluous things in life, a sunset, a warm friendship, a laugh, should also provide it's value. That we should be so unnecessary to God, and rightly so, yet so immensely valuable. Think of it. He didn't need us, but he made us.
We are his sunset
It comes to mind too, that sons and daughters are unnecessary too, but yet so cherished. In the end they probably cost more than they provide in your old age, yet no man would hesitate to die for his son. Created, a joy often causing pain. Yet so desirable.
We are Gods sons and daughters
"And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!'" (Gal 4:6)
"Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' it shall be said to them, 'Children[b] of the living God.'" (Hosea 1:10)
"Behold, like the clay in the potter's hand, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel." (Jer 18:6 - verse slightly out of context, please read all)
19 July 2013
Circular reasoning cannot prove scriptures
A pamphlet was given to me by an organization that I highly respect (but will not name for political reasons), title "The Authority of the Bible" by John R. W. Stott. I suggest reading it, it's quite good in many respects, provided you are already a Christian who believes in the bible.
The first heading introduces the concept of authority and why we need it, but the second outlines his argument for the authority of scripture:
"What is the major reason why evangelical Christians believe that the Bible is God's Word written, inspired by his Spirit and authoritative over their lives? ... [he goes over reasons we don't use] ... No. The overriding reason for accepting the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture is plain loyalty to Jesus. We believe in Jesus. We are convinced that he came from heaven and spoke from God. He said so: 'No one knows the father except the son' (Mt 11:27). ...[he quotes more scripture]... So we are prepared to believe what he taught for the simple reason that is he who taught it." (Pg. 6)
Did you catch it? Right there in the middle. "The overriding reason for accepting....scripture is plain loyalty to Jesus. We are convinced he...spoke from God. He said so:" and then he quotes scripture. Circular reasoning. We accept scripture because Jesus did. We accept Jesus because scripture says Jesus is from God (and therefore credible). Circular reasoning.
Let me give you a similar example I borrowed from a logic book, but with a different topic.
We accept Mein Kampf because Hitler did (he wrote it). We accept Hitler because Mein Kampf says Hitler is (his message is) from God. [Mein Kampf frequently says the Aryans are made in Gods image, certain common workers are Godless, etc pg 310, ]. Now, we obviously don't accept Hitler. But the argument is in the same form. Anytime you argue using two things that support each other and nothing else, it is circular reasoning.
To be fair, towards the end in pg 24, Stott addresses the accusation of circular reasoning, He says his reasoning is linear, "...in a line (historical document evoke our faith in Jesus, who then gives us a doctrine of Scripture)." (pg. 24). The problem is getting historical documents to evoke faith. The Iliad is a historical document, but we don't believe that Achilles was really blessed by the Gods. God may be able to convince you of faith in Jesus by first reading scripture, and confirm it though miracles and work in your own heart, but a historical document does not elicit faith purely by existing.
Now, I totally believe in the divinity and message of Jesus. He's pretty awesome. I also believe in the total inerrancy of the bible as it was originally written (and modern translations are pretty much completely faithful to the originals). But, I get my faith elsewhere. Below are a few reasons I have for believing Jesus and scripture:
1) The bible is quite easily the most accurate and well preserved historical document ever written (purely from an archaeological, secular standpoint). A number of objections have arisen, whole lists of them on atheistic websites, none of which I have failed to find a solution for. Archaeological finds continue to confirm the bible, the tomb of James, the brother of Jesus, census records, cities, royal records, etc, to the point that archaeologists now use the bible to find buried cities. 'oh, the bible says Capernum is about 50 miles west of... and next to...' Then they go dig and find it. (I made up the example).
2) The bible has 66 books written by many different authors over roughly a 1400 year time span. Yet it is amazingly internally consistent.
3) The three days after their charismatic leader is public tortured and killed, while hiding afraid in an upper room, the tomb appears empty and they proceed to publicly proclaim his resurrection, speak in languages they don't know, heal miraculously, and all save John are killed for their beliefs. The psychological fortitude or dementia required to overcome such loss, disarm or bribe 16 Roman soldiers (fishermen who haven't worked in 3 years outnumbered vs. soldiers who face the death penalty if they are caught), and proceed to all, without one of them breaking and letting the story out, die brutally for their lies, is simply inconceivable. That the Romans would not have produced the body and squashed an annoying cult, that no word would have leaked out, that 500 people could simultaneously hallucinate or be coordinated to tell non-contradicting stories of seeing Jesus.... The equivalent is that 12 fan or friends of Elvis claimed he rose 3 days after his death. If the evidence wasn't in their favor, no one would believe them.
4) I personally have performed what I cannot convince myself is anything other than a miracle. Two pastors and my Mom have both told stories of undeniable miracles as well. (Undeniable is spinal columns straightening, people near death suddenly becoming completely healthy, etc.)
5) I have experienced too many coincidences by what appears to be the Holy Spirit. Too many times I have experienced stimulus which is decidedly not a placebo effect or emotional experience. I am reminded of things or have thoughts which are not my own. Friends have expressed words of knowledge (they know things they couldn't without spiritual intervention or a crazy accurate intuition).
6) The entire conceptual model of Gods plan for us is both amazingly interdependent and non-contradictory, dimensionally complex to a dizzying degree and insanely simple (they kind of go hand-in-hand), supremely commonsense and practically useful in the real world, and finally emotionally/mentally healing and robust in ways no other philosophy can provide.
7) In science I have encountered roughly 5 unavoidable lines of reasoning that demand a supernatural presence in the universe, and roughly 10 more that provide strong suggestion.
8) I have not yet found another religion or belief system which is not inherently empty and would logically suggest the suicide, utter despair and meaninglessness, decidedly amoral behavior of it's followers or some combination of the three.
I could say more, but this post was not designed as proof for God.
"The Authority of the Bible" is not a bad book. It was nice to see how Jesus trusted the authority of the OT scriptures and the strong authority of the apostles who wrote the NT. But scripture cannot be proved through simple circular reasoning and faith in Jesus cannot come just through reading some historical documents.
The first heading introduces the concept of authority and why we need it, but the second outlines his argument for the authority of scripture:
"What is the major reason why evangelical Christians believe that the Bible is God's Word written, inspired by his Spirit and authoritative over their lives? ... [he goes over reasons we don't use] ... No. The overriding reason for accepting the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture is plain loyalty to Jesus. We believe in Jesus. We are convinced that he came from heaven and spoke from God. He said so: 'No one knows the father except the son' (Mt 11:27). ...[he quotes more scripture]... So we are prepared to believe what he taught for the simple reason that is he who taught it." (Pg. 6)
Did you catch it? Right there in the middle. "The overriding reason for accepting....scripture is plain loyalty to Jesus. We are convinced he...spoke from God. He said so:" and then he quotes scripture. Circular reasoning. We accept scripture because Jesus did. We accept Jesus because scripture says Jesus is from God (and therefore credible). Circular reasoning.
Let me give you a similar example I borrowed from a logic book, but with a different topic.
We accept Mein Kampf because Hitler did (he wrote it). We accept Hitler because Mein Kampf says Hitler is (his message is) from God. [Mein Kampf frequently says the Aryans are made in Gods image, certain common workers are Godless, etc pg 310, ]. Now, we obviously don't accept Hitler. But the argument is in the same form. Anytime you argue using two things that support each other and nothing else, it is circular reasoning.
To be fair, towards the end in pg 24, Stott addresses the accusation of circular reasoning, He says his reasoning is linear, "...in a line (historical document evoke our faith in Jesus, who then gives us a doctrine of Scripture)." (pg. 24). The problem is getting historical documents to evoke faith. The Iliad is a historical document, but we don't believe that Achilles was really blessed by the Gods. God may be able to convince you of faith in Jesus by first reading scripture, and confirm it though miracles and work in your own heart, but a historical document does not elicit faith purely by existing.
Now, I totally believe in the divinity and message of Jesus. He's pretty awesome. I also believe in the total inerrancy of the bible as it was originally written (and modern translations are pretty much completely faithful to the originals). But, I get my faith elsewhere. Below are a few reasons I have for believing Jesus and scripture:
1) The bible is quite easily the most accurate and well preserved historical document ever written (purely from an archaeological, secular standpoint). A number of objections have arisen, whole lists of them on atheistic websites, none of which I have failed to find a solution for. Archaeological finds continue to confirm the bible, the tomb of James, the brother of Jesus, census records, cities, royal records, etc, to the point that archaeologists now use the bible to find buried cities. 'oh, the bible says Capernum is about 50 miles west of... and next to...' Then they go dig and find it. (I made up the example).
2) The bible has 66 books written by many different authors over roughly a 1400 year time span. Yet it is amazingly internally consistent.
3) The three days after their charismatic leader is public tortured and killed, while hiding afraid in an upper room, the tomb appears empty and they proceed to publicly proclaim his resurrection, speak in languages they don't know, heal miraculously, and all save John are killed for their beliefs. The psychological fortitude or dementia required to overcome such loss, disarm or bribe 16 Roman soldiers (fishermen who haven't worked in 3 years outnumbered vs. soldiers who face the death penalty if they are caught), and proceed to all, without one of them breaking and letting the story out, die brutally for their lies, is simply inconceivable. That the Romans would not have produced the body and squashed an annoying cult, that no word would have leaked out, that 500 people could simultaneously hallucinate or be coordinated to tell non-contradicting stories of seeing Jesus.... The equivalent is that 12 fan or friends of Elvis claimed he rose 3 days after his death. If the evidence wasn't in their favor, no one would believe them.
4) I personally have performed what I cannot convince myself is anything other than a miracle. Two pastors and my Mom have both told stories of undeniable miracles as well. (Undeniable is spinal columns straightening, people near death suddenly becoming completely healthy, etc.)
5) I have experienced too many coincidences by what appears to be the Holy Spirit. Too many times I have experienced stimulus which is decidedly not a placebo effect or emotional experience. I am reminded of things or have thoughts which are not my own. Friends have expressed words of knowledge (they know things they couldn't without spiritual intervention or a crazy accurate intuition).
6) The entire conceptual model of Gods plan for us is both amazingly interdependent and non-contradictory, dimensionally complex to a dizzying degree and insanely simple (they kind of go hand-in-hand), supremely commonsense and practically useful in the real world, and finally emotionally/mentally healing and robust in ways no other philosophy can provide.
7) In science I have encountered roughly 5 unavoidable lines of reasoning that demand a supernatural presence in the universe, and roughly 10 more that provide strong suggestion.
8) I have not yet found another religion or belief system which is not inherently empty and would logically suggest the suicide, utter despair and meaninglessness, decidedly amoral behavior of it's followers or some combination of the three.
I could say more, but this post was not designed as proof for God.
"The Authority of the Bible" is not a bad book. It was nice to see how Jesus trusted the authority of the OT scriptures and the strong authority of the apostles who wrote the NT. But scripture cannot be proved through simple circular reasoning and faith in Jesus cannot come just through reading some historical documents.
02 July 2013
Hebrews 11:1
Hebrews 11:1-2 "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for."
0) A song by Hillsong recently appeared in church. The first part of the chorus declares, "I don't need to see it to believe it / Cause I can't shake this fire burning / deep inside my heart," strongly referencing Hebrews 11:1.
Now, I can't argue with this lyric directly, but I think it represents the lopsided emphasis the currently takes on this issue. It's true that we must have faith without sight and we should 'never lack in zeal', but far too often we misinterpret this verse and even pass over the other three or four parts of this faith. We think we don't have to see the evidence, we don't have to see anything and should just believe outright, slipping into an emotional and escapist sense of belief. This is very bad and may be contributing to the rise of atheism and agnosticism in the world, as well as the degradation of our Christian culture as a whole, as the young people ask tough questions and look for real answers.
Let me show you the 3 parts of these verses and how it demonstrates the stronger side of faith
1) First let's clarify 'what we do not see', because the verse says we don't see, but it requires a little thought to know what it is we don't see. This verse is a simple repetition. I happens many times in the psalms and proverbs, like Psalm 24:1 "The earth is the Lords', and everything in it / the world, and all who live in it." This one is no different. So what do we not see? The first phrase tells us it's what we hope for.
0) A song by Hillsong recently appeared in church. The first part of the chorus declares, "I don't need to see it to believe it / Cause I can't shake this fire burning / deep inside my heart," strongly referencing Hebrews 11:1.
Now, I can't argue with this lyric directly, but I think it represents the lopsided emphasis the currently takes on this issue. It's true that we must have faith without sight and we should 'never lack in zeal', but far too often we misinterpret this verse and even pass over the other three or four parts of this faith. We think we don't have to see the evidence, we don't have to see anything and should just believe outright, slipping into an emotional and escapist sense of belief. This is very bad and may be contributing to the rise of atheism and agnosticism in the world, as well as the degradation of our Christian culture as a whole, as the young people ask tough questions and look for real answers.
Let me show you the 3 parts of these verses and how it demonstrates the stronger side of faith
1) First let's clarify 'what we do not see', because the verse says we don't see, but it requires a little thought to know what it is we don't see. This verse is a simple repetition. I happens many times in the psalms and proverbs, like Psalm 24:1 "The earth is the Lords', and everything in it / the world, and all who live in it." This one is no different. So what do we not see? The first phrase tells us it's what we hope for.
2) Well, what do we hope for? What do we not have yet (do not see) as humans? Heaven! For the Jews who did not have New Testament information on heaven, heaven was often connected to the concept of inheritance or the new Jerusalem. This term carries over (like everything else) into the New Testament as we have a picture of a heavenly inheritance waiting for us after we die. Ephesians 1:18b "you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people,".
This is pie-in-the-sky, but it's also more tangible and measurable. The Jews thought (correctly) that eventually there would be a heavenly kingdom on earth at Jerusalem (read the prophets to see that) and zealots, including Simon the Zealot, on of the twelve apostles (not to be confused with Simon Peter), used to plot revolts against the Roman government in hopes of gaining this kingdom. 'What we do not see' will be quite tangible my friends, we do NOT ignore hard evidence or people who disagree with us. In fact we SHOULD 'see' them, 'be wise in the way you act towards outsiders...know how to answer everyone'. Instead we DON'T see heaven yet, but make doubly certain it's coming.
This is pie-in-the-sky, but it's also more tangible and measurable. The Jews thought (correctly) that eventually there would be a heavenly kingdom on earth at Jerusalem (read the prophets to see that) and zealots, including Simon the Zealot, on of the twelve apostles (not to be confused with Simon Peter), used to plot revolts against the Roman government in hopes of gaining this kingdom. 'What we do not see' will be quite tangible my friends, we do NOT ignore hard evidence or people who disagree with us. In fact we SHOULD 'see' them, 'be wise in the way you act towards outsiders...know how to answer everyone'. Instead we DON'T see heaven yet, but make doubly certain it's coming.
3) Why do people repeat things? Because they're important. Same goes here. Faith is 'being sure' and 'certain'. The first Greek word 'hupostasis' connotates substance and reality, that what you're sure of really does exist and has material weight. It also reminds one of legal contracts, rights of title and possession. The second 'elegchos' has to do with logical proof and a little of inner conviction.
Faith is not an arbitrary belief my friends, it's not primarily a leap, a blind commitment. Jude, like many of Paul's letters, writes to protect the faith of his hearers and them mainly goes on to warn against false prophets and specific falsehoods, not encourage them and urge them on, not give them a pep talk.
This is not to say Christianity is all head knowledge. Belief is heart-based, and as Philippians says "Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor serving the Lord". But the longest chapter of the bible is Psalm 119, all about Gods law and word, describing over and over again how the psalmist loves to meditate and study his statues and precepts.
Study the word, build yourself up in your most holy faith and pray in the spirit.
Faith is not an arbitrary belief my friends, it's not primarily a leap, a blind commitment. Jude, like many of Paul's letters, writes to protect the faith of his hearers and them mainly goes on to warn against false prophets and specific falsehoods, not encourage them and urge them on, not give them a pep talk.
This is not to say Christianity is all head knowledge. Belief is heart-based, and as Philippians says "Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor serving the Lord". But the longest chapter of the bible is Psalm 119, all about Gods law and word, describing over and over again how the psalmist loves to meditate and study his statues and precepts.
Study the word, build yourself up in your most holy faith and pray in the spirit.
10 June 2013
lampstands
Revelation 1:12-13, 16, 20 "I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man... In his right hand he held seven stars, and coming out of his mouth was a sharp, double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance. ... The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches."
The primary symbol Revelation uses for the churches is that of lampstands. Lampstands contain oil, which is often symbolic of the holy spirit, as in anointing with oil. Our primary purpose, or at least on of our major purposes as churches and individuals is to carry the Holy Spirit, the spirit of God, to be vessels. We are conduits, instruments, servants, integrally involved in his work but not to be credited for it, perceiving and testifying to all its goodness, "calling it good" as it were.
We carry the flame as lampstands, another symbol for the holy spirit, as in Pentecost. This is also refining, purity, sanctification.
Oil was used frequently as anointing in the old testament. Hm I wonder. In the NT laying on of hands, a more HS related activity, was how they commissioned missionaries. Make sure you incorporate HS in creating leaders.
The 10 virgins in Matthew 25 needed to buy extra oil and keep watch for the coming of the bridgegroom Jesus. Do not neglect the holy spirit and keep full, lest your flame go out. The lamp in the sanctuary was never supposed to go out. Never be lacking in zeal but keep your spiritual fervor serving the Lord, and pray in the spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests.
Related concepts - light, Jesus is the light of the world. No one hides a lamp under a basket but sets it on a stand so that it gives light to the whole house. God is light and in him there is no darkness. But the darkness has not understood it, the dark world we live in. Hence the necessity to keep your lamp burning as we wait for his coming. In Zion there shall be no night and no sun either, for the Son shall be the eternal light.
Anoint my head with oil Psalm 23, anoint me with the oil of joy. Never ceasing oil for the widow woman and her son with Elijah story. Oil also used a little for washing and healing by the elders and disciples.
Anyway, I was just thinking.
We are the lampstands Jesus walks among in his glory in heaven, the carriers of the spirit of God.
The primary symbol Revelation uses for the churches is that of lampstands. Lampstands contain oil, which is often symbolic of the holy spirit, as in anointing with oil. Our primary purpose, or at least on of our major purposes as churches and individuals is to carry the Holy Spirit, the spirit of God, to be vessels. We are conduits, instruments, servants, integrally involved in his work but not to be credited for it, perceiving and testifying to all its goodness, "calling it good" as it were.
We carry the flame as lampstands, another symbol for the holy spirit, as in Pentecost. This is also refining, purity, sanctification.
Oil was used frequently as anointing in the old testament. Hm I wonder. In the NT laying on of hands, a more HS related activity, was how they commissioned missionaries. Make sure you incorporate HS in creating leaders.
The 10 virgins in Matthew 25 needed to buy extra oil and keep watch for the coming of the bridgegroom Jesus. Do not neglect the holy spirit and keep full, lest your flame go out. The lamp in the sanctuary was never supposed to go out. Never be lacking in zeal but keep your spiritual fervor serving the Lord, and pray in the spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests.
Related concepts - light, Jesus is the light of the world. No one hides a lamp under a basket but sets it on a stand so that it gives light to the whole house. God is light and in him there is no darkness. But the darkness has not understood it, the dark world we live in. Hence the necessity to keep your lamp burning as we wait for his coming. In Zion there shall be no night and no sun either, for the Son shall be the eternal light.
Anoint my head with oil Psalm 23, anoint me with the oil of joy. Never ceasing oil for the widow woman and her son with Elijah story. Oil also used a little for washing and healing by the elders and disciples.
Anyway, I was just thinking.
We are the lampstands Jesus walks among in his glory in heaven, the carriers of the spirit of God.
31 May 2013
The God Delusion ch1-4
The post below is cut and paste from my reading notes for chapters 1-4 of "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, the text found free online via Russia (I hope this doesn't violate copyright stuff). Chapter 4 is the main meat of his arguments, but 2 and 3 are nice too. The remaining chapters deal with explanations of how people came to be deluded by the idea of God and have persuasive power only through explanation. I haven't finished reading them but plan to post when I do.
This post is by no means edited and is just cut and paste without formatting. I am lazy and didn't want to write it up in detail. If you have questions about specific points, please do not hesitate to comment and I'll explain gladly.
Most of this is very abbreviated paraphrase of the book. /I put my comments in between slash marks/. Bold for chapters, no tab for sections, 1 tab hanging for items under section.
chapter 4 is the main meat of his arguments, but ch2 agnosticism and noma, plus ch3 arguments for God are nice too.
This post is by no means edited and is just cut and paste without formatting. I am lazy and didn't want to write it up in detail. If you have questions about specific points, please do not hesitate to comment and I'll explain gladly.
Most of this is very abbreviated paraphrase of the book. /I put my comments in between slash marks/. Bold for chapters, no tab for sections, 1 tab hanging for items under section.
chapter 4 is the main meat of his arguments, but ch2 agnosticism and noma, plus ch3 arguments for God are nice too.
Comments on
“The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins
From book
found at http://macroevolution.narod.ru/delusion/index.html and on my computer
I have not
seen the 1.5hr video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FiHRVb_uE0
Preface:
Sees religious
people are largely so due to indoctrination and not knowing they could disagree
or call themselves atheists
Chapter 1 A Deeply Religious Non-Believer
Deserved
Respect:
“…the most exalted
object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher
animals”.
Most faiths do not
exalt the grandeur of the universe
Most/all things
considered valuable to humanity simply emerges from natural matter
Einstein quoted to
not believe in personal God /I wonder if deist?/ no – ‘nonbeliever’ but he
still uses God quite liberally “God does not play dice” etc.
Some extremely
shaming quotes from religious people, including saying religion is not based on
knowledge and that doubts are suppressed for the good of the other people in
the faith
Undeserved
Respect:
Religion to be
treated as other argumentative subjects (like politics) /good/
People shy from
disagreeing with religious view. E.g. ease of pacifism draft exemption
Point of evidence:
religions help create cultures, help ethnic cleansing but not total separator
//move down to
common law and such privileges to religious people are less or clearer//
///freedom of speech
levels, noise ordinances, hate speech, whatnot///
Chapter 2 The God Hypothesis
Polytheism
The misogynistic
rant
One of books main
points to argue:
any creative intelligence,
of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the
end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.
Religion evolved from animism and
is “founded on private revelation rather than evidence” /we argue Adam and eve,
which should have some form of evidence (e.g. flood)/
Theory of the trinity is not
distinct enough to argue against /dimensional theory/
Catholics have large, unbased
systems of saints and angels (polytheism) /true, not my belief/
God is very male /eh…maybe…yes.
Shadow of wings, love strong, but mostly male seeming. Point accepted as part
of my belief/
Monotheism
God is very patriarchal and
subduing of women (where in bible? Maybe Hagar, sarah calling Lord, but think
the 3 sisters who slept with father, God said do not accumulate wives)
Paul founded Christianity /…ok…what
about the 12? Ethiopia, India. Catholic church looks to Peter (it has a bunch
of other stuff wrong, but eh)/
Christianity spread by the sword
Constantine /did he use sword? Typical roman cares not what you believe/,
crusades, conquistadores. /Sure, and Hitler killed Jews in the name of the
Aryan race. There is a little value from looking at this stuff yes, but perhaps
look at the first 100 years more closely./
Deists used to be rejected by
theists. /Ok./
America NOT founded on
Christianity…
“the fact that the United States
was not founded as a Christian nation was early stated in the
terms of a treaty with Tripoli, drafted in 1796 under George Washington and
signed by John Adams in 1797:
As the Government of the United
States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as
it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility,
of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of
hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no
pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of
the harmony existing between the two countries.”
America more religious than England
due to Pvs.C wars, id hold by immigrants, free marketing in US,
Religious fanaticism rampant in
America /please describe/
Jefferson was deist, possibly
atheist /by Wikipedia, he believes that God is made out of matter/
Atheists are discriminated against,
harassed, whatever. Admission by a candidate would be political suicide.
Christian beliefs unbased
The Poverty of Agnosticism
Agnostic is ok for things without
evidence (like alien life and the end-Permian /flood/ extinction)
TAP – temporary agnosticism in
practice, the evidence isn’t in yet
PAP – permanent agnosticism
principle, question not answerable, all evidence not applicable
Even if conclusion unknowable,
probabilities may help
7 belief types: 100, close to 100,
>50, 50 <50 0="" a="" belief="" close="" o:p="" of="" off="" probability="" scale="">
Russell’s teapot > if
impossible to discover ever we should be PAP about the teapot, if possible TAP.
However probabilities still apply, burden of proof to believers
//hm, in what sense can
probabilities be calculated? A little with design clocks…//
Says God isn’t disprovable /say we
scientifically ‘prove’ JC did not rise? It’s not a viable explanation of the
evidence/
NOMA
Science and religion are not
Non-Overlapping MAgisteria, science can comment on God
Appears to base his argument on
the fact that he’s read so many books /I agree with your point but your method
is invalid/
Concedes science may have problems
saying stuff about morals /but if science >> God, then it can because God
>> morals/
Says theology has nothing else but
morals to contribute to human wisdom
Cannot base religion on morals b/c
what religion? How choose? /assumes religion not objective findable truth/
Science can comment on God, denial
of such is PAP.
Universe w/God is very different
from without /maybe…the universe is so saturated with God science must make
accommodation with such regularity I’d guess neither side would notice/
miracles > science applicable
Entities /I assume organism of
some sort/ exist for which no other explanation save evolution currently exists
/please name (he will in chapter 4 I think)/
The great prayer experiment
/now
we get to some real stuff/
Satirically Francis Galton sees
British royal family no more statistically healthy than average, though many
churches pray for it. Also personally prays for random plots of land which
exhibit no extra growth
Templeton Foundation, Russell
Stannard, Dr. Herbert Benson, 3 churches pray for 3 groups (1 prayer, 1 not, 1
pray and patient knows (placebo)). Patients are 1082 coronary bypass at 6 hospitals. Told to pray
for same things. No response but placebo worked reverse.
Quotes dude explaining suffering
in Gods world /relevant right now??/.
Quotes bad defenses of no results.
The Neville Chamberlain School of
Evolutionists
Theists who agree with evolution,
I think. He’s just quoting a ton of people, describing political positions and
people quoting people quoting people. Dang. Get to the point.
Can’t teach theistic biology
(evolution) or physiology (virgin birth) in class b/c separation of church and
state. /virgin birth is in violation of physiology, so that’s ok. Let the
theists explain that miracles can happen. In the event of biology/universe, if
there are Christians who are also evolutionists, then teaching evolution is
also a violation of church and state. Get over it/
Little Green Men
Russells teapot change to alien
life. Now consider how probability applies. We now have a little more data on
how many planets there are. /still don’t know spatial, time, or material limits
to universe, has the calculation been affected at all? I mean, I kind of agree
with you. This was the first chapter that I really enjoyed, but…/
Radio communication with aliens…
whatever.
Chapter
3 Arguments for God’s Existence
Yes finally
Thomas Aquinas:
Unmoved
Mover, First Cause, Costnological (there must have been a time without matter).
These do not necessarily prove the Christian God /yes, and you can deify the
universe…maybe./ Omnipotence and omniscience are mutually incompatible because
then he can’t change his mind. /That’s just a recursive like make a rock too
big to move, you don’t change your mind if you’re outside of time/ God is not
an adequate terminator to this regress like the atom is to splitting gold /um…I
don’t see why not. Split gold smaller and still be gold. Go back in causal
string and still obey laws. Reach atom and stop b/c gold defined at atom level.
Reach infinite or limit God causality and stop b/c laws defined at God level.
Sounds legit J/
Degree
need infinite or perfection to measure. He just dismisses. You could use
smelliness or some other measure. There has to be an ultimate stinker? /I
agree. Positive or negative? Things are measured relative and with numbers.
1.2inches. Relative to inch measure and number. There is something to be said
for abstract satisfactory measures though from the futility of purpose and
similar.
Design.
Naturally Darwin gave us all something to think about.
Ontological and other A Priori
Perfection
ontological: traditional takedown /yes I agree it’s an embarrassment how this
erroneous argument has been trumpeted (if it has) and how poorly better similar
ones have been communicated. That something of greatest perfection need not
have being (that is, the greatest perfection must exist in reality if it has
being, but that doesn’t mean it has being.) Please see my version from
Descartes wax./ Russell explains in a way that sets up for the wax.
Just
because I found it funny, doesn’t inf*0 = n prove an infinite God out of
nothing made a measurable universe?
Argument from Beauty /I’ve never
given this much credit or thought, but let’s see what goes/
Doesn’t
Shakespeare >> God? No, it just proves Shakespeare exists. Neither is God
to credit for Michelangelo, because it was just a product of the time. Why not
make a mural to science? Whatever. /Sure, yep. Still, would we have an
appreciation or hunger for or ability to create beauty w/o God? Idk/
Argument from personal experience
Man
hears ‘satan’ in Sottish isles, later probably is Devil Bird.
Easy
to have imagined experiences /hm, yes/ /other indicators of madness not present
in Christians/
Hollow
mask rotating. Auditory illusions too. He hears ‘male voice praying’ wind
through keyhole. /perhaps the option here is to use changed behavior/
70ppl
see sun plunge to earth at once. Discredited b/c sun didn’t actually fall,
we’re still alive /god could have made visual miracle. But idk the circumstances/
Argument from Scripture
Fourth
option to liar lunatic lord is that JC is honestly mistaken. /lunatics are
honestly mistaken that they are Charlie chaplain. One does not simply guess
wrong whether or not you are god/
Questions
vs. scripture: who wrote it and when? /mostly close observers within 50 years
of occurrence, with the exception of the pentuatech/ how did they know what to
write? /what they saw, heard, and divine inspiration/ have we interpreted their
intent correctly? /we have whole degrees to study that, probably yes/ were they
biased /pretty much yes. But e.g. tax collector and extrabiblical records, also
biblical facts that are hurtful to apostles and such/
Place
of JC birth: [Dawkins sees a contradiction between the accounts] /matthew does
not mention that mary and J were in Nazareth before (mentions no town), birth
in beth and flight to Egypt go to Nazareth. Luke has origin in Naz, census to
beth, stuff, boom JC is a young boy/. Why required to go to Naz if David lived
1000yrs before? /idk, good point. Not like census happen frequently though/
Says local quirinius census AD6, after death of Herod and too late. /hm, I
should look into that/. DOCS: Dec 2004 mag Free
Inquiry editor Tom Flynn.
Most legends of
the time had virgins births, kings adoration in crib, death and resurrection.
/interesting. Please list/. Many details only recorded in one and not the
other. Josephus does not have record of Herods massacre. Place of birth /dealt
with, no contradiction/ Geneologies are different /yes, wow. One follows
Joseph, the other mary, and both may omit generations. Esp matt who wants to
form 14s./
Gospel writers never met JC.
/um… where’d you get that?/.
Admired
Christian Scientists /irrelevant flat out I don’t care/
Admits to Farday, Maxwell,
Kelvin, Mendel (genes). Some modern people I don’t recognize, lawyers,
biologists, etc.
Side note: life without purpose
is ok, I’m anticipating having a good lunch.
Only a couple nobel prize
winners out of several hundred are Christian /hm, what a shame/. 12 vs. 213 in
the Fellows of the Royal Society (british equivalent of US natl. academy of
science).
Overall in US, religiosity is
negatively correlated with education, interest in science, and political
liberalism. /may make sense if ppl who don’t think they have it together accept
god easier/. Also with parents religion
Pascals
wager /yes yes, sore subject, let’s see if you admit the one point/
Believing cannot be motivated by
probability fire insurance /yup, probably the best point/
Why does God reward believing
instead of works /because works don’t cut it you fool, read the bible/
Due to sheer number of Gods,
probability lies with no god (probably)
Pascal was probably joking
/well…making a point that you should investigate it maybe/
Bayesian
arguments /never heard of these/
Bayes theorem is a mathematical
probability engine for determining truth with percent certainty like a
detective case
Bayes considers 6 elements and
assigns probability. 1 innate sense of good 2 ppl do evil 3 nature broken 4
minor miracles 5 major miracles 6 religious experiences /why not include
science stuff? Makes me sad/. Ends up with 67% probability then somehow hikes
it to 95% with faith but seems to give no reasoning. Dawkins says yeah, that’s
why it’s called faith /makes me sad. Bayes should include science and not blind
faith/
Dawkins does not include
goodness as a part of the god hypothesis /ok…sure. So…does evil still convince
you if there is a god he isn’t good? Misogynistic…/
Chapter 4 Why There Almost Certainly is not
God
Thinks
that a designer God requires being designed himself. /hm…any different from the
universe needing to be designed? Occam for and against. Universe without God
requires explanations that approach god/ This is his main rebuttal I think
Boeing
747.
Really, natural selection does
not depend on one change but many many chances to make very small changes.
/good call. However we consider thresholds like the beginning of life to
require 747s to cross, with no intermediates/.
God is the ultimate 747.
Natural
selection as a consciousness-raiser
Opposite north-south maps, feminism
language pronouns, Douglass Adams’s conversion, Archaeopteryx is not a hoax,
astronomy scales, if God used natural selection he’s not necessary and can be
omitted
Irreducible
complexity /alright, some examples?/
Goes over too many examples of
complex plants which creationists claim as evidence for design. Repeats that
God requires a designer so ‘science says’ natural selection. /moot point, he’s
not addressing irreducible complexity yet, just design. Whatever. He’ll
probably get to it./
Walk up gradual slope to summit
instead of jump precipice.
Quote of Darwin doubting due to
eye was rhetorical device for him, he explains after. There do exist
intermediates in natural (some good example of photosensitive cells and pinhole
eyes) /idk how to resond/
The
worship of gaps
Gaps in current knowledge (not
just specifically geological column). Religion makes us satisfied with not
understanding /aww, shame on thee. Religion maybe, but hopefully not JC follow/
Fossil record. Certainly not
just to demand explanation of every transition /hm..yes, at least not now/
Falsification possible by fossils in the wrong layer. Says creationists have
posed a few false ones.
Argument from personal
incredulity /well, neither can you just pose anything and ask us to wait for an
explanation…sometime later. Be reasonable/
From Dawkins and video,
irreducible complexity explained by small steps, parts that served to bridge
gap now disappeared, lesser uses,
Quotes Augustine as discouraging
curiosity. See http://sntjohnny.com/front/outright-lies-illiteracy-or-just-bad-scholarship/33.html
for the proper quote. Augustine is discouraging sorcery.
/which is better, laws that
never lead to anything besides more questions, or a God who definitively is not
caused (but yet asks us to investigate him and his nature)/
The
anthropic principle: planetary version /I like this one/
Goldilocks zone orbits from suns
where planets could have liquid water >> our kind of life. Anthropic
principle says duh we live on a good planet, we wouldn’t have got here
otherwise.
Same principle applies to origin
of life. /so…posit enough chances in the universe and time to come up with one life spark happening, then we’re it.
That’s what you need/
Probably in a semi-sarcastic
tone says God struck the soup with lightning to make life happen. /no, in case
there was confusion. He made life fully complex already (if we hold to 7 days
literal, which is ok with me)/
A billion*billion planets in
universe, large estimate 3k*b^2. He posits if life was 1/b /but it’s not that probable, please show me/
“We can safely predict that, if
we wait another ten million years, a whole new set of species will be as well
adapted to…” /ok, has anyone got close to seeing 10m yrs back? Ok yes, geo
column fossils. This fruit fly thing. Have you yet got any variations? Anyway,
just me being skeptical/
Says there are other thresholds
to cross: eukaryotic cell (our kind), consciousness, other parts of cells like
mitochondria. So he posits a few out of the billion (from the b^2) succeed with
these to have us w/anthropic principle. /don’t stretch it man, don’t hurt
yourself/
The
anthropic principle: cosmological version /even better/
Martin Rees Just Six Numbers constants which if slightly off would make life
impossible.
[Just Six Numbers] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFaPo2Z0KNc
[1) N = b^4 is elect F/gravity between them, affects 2) e=0.007 binds atomic
nucleus, affects formation of elements, 3) omega affects amount of matter,
gravity vs. expansion, affects collapse vs. no formation, 4) lambda antigravity
creates expansion 5) q ratio of two energies, small > inert, large >
violence w/black holes, 6) d=3 number of spatial dimensions, near black holes
time stands still] [btw at begin universe superstrings in 10 spatial
dimensions] [any untuning stifles life. He says infinite other universes,
anthropic principle] [2 basic forces, 2 size and texture and time, 2 space]
[10x frames:
human size, surrounding grass, public park, buildings, city, earths horizon, ,
whole earth, , , inner solar, entire solar, , , , star among neighbors, , , ,
start see milky way, , , whole milwy way spiral galazy, ?, more galaxies in
virgo cluster, virgo among others, full picture, 25 more frames to full
visibility (deep empty space). Now go in, arm, patch of skin, texture, cell,
molecules dna, atoms, find by colliders, 17 more to strings or quantum foam.
Total 60 frames top to bottom? Same qty humans in sun as atoms in a human. E78
atoms within telescopes.] [hm, fun that physics works everywhere in universe]
[finding planets by Doppler shift wobbles in their stars] [try to find life to
see if somewhat probable to start such that other lifes around, still
intelligence may be near impossible]
Always sets up theist
explanation vs. anthropic principle. /Now I’m not saying you’re wrong, but
you’re just asking for a false dilemma when you so strongly state two soft
options not defined as y or n Boolean/ Always goes back to God needing an
explanation. /Zikes, I got it already. Can you find one or two more debunkers
and interchange them for variety?/
Possibly no knobs to twiddle. We
know so little about the 6 numbers, they could be dependent on other stuff.
But again, you can still wonder
why all 10 firing squad ppl missed you. /funny you use analogies like this when
it pleases you. I’m all for the anthropic principle, but you just go and dodge
it when you want to bring up an interesting point that supports you. Come on,
man/
Possibly there’s quite a few
universes, and we’re just the lucky one. Or there’s been a series of
explosions, and this is a special one in the series. But the tendency is that
we’ll expand forever. Also possible that universes reproduce in black holes,
natural selection on the universe scale, and universes with black holes promote
life as well.
“Nobody understands what goes on
in singularities such as the big bang,” /well yes, you’re in the process of
discovering it. But please, if this is true, don’t get on your high horse about
how certain you are about the big bang/
Occams razor stuff /Why does he
mostly quote theologians in response to beginning of time stuff? They study
nonphysical stuff about God (I’d guess). Whatever/ Hm.. theologian guy says
it’s odd that all electrons are the same. They should be chaotic /what an odd
idea, maybe/ So god sustains their properties /yes, in the absolutist sense/
God is a single substance. /sort of…eh…lack of definition/ Dawkins says phooey.
Simplicity, some definitions
include indivisibility and heterogeity of parts /?applicable to indivisible
objects >> w/o parts?/
An
interlude at cambridge
Fun event regarding occam at
Cambridge. He riles it for having too many Christians and audience paid /lay
off, that’s just who they wanted?/ Quotes other agnostic at conference about
some of this. More screwy quote on quote on quote. 6 layers.
He raises occam objections at
said conference. He says best reply was NOMA, theo says God is simple. /yes,
that’s a bad reply, but that’s probably your filter. You don’t understand the
nature of God because he’s more complex than science. 3d on 2d/
2nd main method of
knowing theists pose is personal experience. Dawkins says this is within
science /yup…eh depending on your def of science/
Says first cause should be
simple, not God. /if there is a required object for first cause, it might as
well be God, for it’s just as unlikely to be a simple/
Says theologians in 19th
century began doubting historicity of bible. /please show me/
Says 747 is pretty much
irrefutable argument /appears to be a main foothold, I counter with god not
created, out of physics, etc/
Chapter
summary
1)
A great challenge has been to explain complexity
in nature
2)
It’s tempting to say it is design, to infer
design because we see so much human design
3)
A designer is more improbable and is not a
solution
4)
Darwinian natural selection provides the
explanation
5)
The equivalent in physics has yet to be found,
possibly helped by multiverses and the anthropic principle
6)
These ill-formed physics explanations are still
better than a designer
20 May 2013
definition of simple - occam again
"Which is simpler, God or no God?" has been a key pivot-point in apologetic debate for some time. This question stems from and is made significant by at least two principles. Therefore I have sought to define simplicity in as much detail as possible. See previous post 1, post 2, and post 3 (see section 3) on this. A major source of this post is an article from Stanford, along with the other linked wikipedia pages.
0) Principles
I) Occams razor is a principle advanced by the monk/philosopher William of Ockham in the 13th century. Basically it says that a simple explanation for something is superior to a more complex one. Two possible explanations for the beginning of universe, God and an eternally existent universe (unless it came out of virtually nothing where no scientific laws applied), could be argued as more or less simple than the other.
II) One response to the design argument for the existence of God brings up simplicity as well. Theists claim the universe is complex enough to beg a designer, and atheists respond "so who designed God?" Essentially, God has to be more complex than the universe, so he also begs a designer, and on an infinite regression. Some pose complexity arising from the big bang through natural selection as the more viable explanation.
1) Definitions by various people:
a) The original phrase from William of Ockham is "Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate," which translates as "Plurality must never be posited without necessity." This means a favor towards less quantity.
b) Newton focuses on reducing 'cause' and poses it as "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."
c) Russell (an agnostic/atheist) favors using things that are already known, "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities."
d) Hitchens says "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." This does no apply to this debate because the design argument invokes evidence from the universe.
e) Aristotle, like Ockham, looks at number, "We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses."
f) Aquinas, quantity as well, "If a thing can be done adequately by means of one, it is superfluous to do it by means of several; for we observe that nature does not employ two instruments where one suffices."
g) Einstein, quantity, "The grand aim of all science...is to cover the greatest possible number of empirical facts by logical deductions from the smallest possible number of hypotheses or axioms."
2) Simple in Abstract algebra: In abstract algebra 'simple' is something that cannot be divided by a smaller something of the same type. That is, something is 'simple' if it is not composed of multiple smaller things of the same type. In this sense, God qualifies as simple, and the universe is rather fuzzy on this point because they haven't arrived at a fundamental, indivisible particle or substance.
3) Simple in Mereology (study of categories in philosophy): A simple is something without proper parts. This means it cannot be divided, it is a single point in space without volume, and is continuous/homogenous. Depending on the results of science, the atheistic side may results in an enormous (probably over 10^100) amount of simples, or maybe just one or two. At the level of atoms, for instance, there are roughly 10^78 in the visible universe. The simplicity of God in this sense is debatable because he's not very physical.
4) Simple by the Stanford article:
a) Syntactic simplicity, elegance - the number and conciseness of the theory
b) Ontological simplicity, parsimony - the number of types of entities
5) Another option I came up with was the complexity or number of dimensions of the objects themselves.
So what does this all have to say about the decision between God and no God?
7) Lets look at the no-God side, which is easier to analyze.
a) The most clear thing I can say that as we understand it currently, the universe is not very simple. At the subatomic level there are at least several different particle types with innumerable occurrences throughout the universe.
b) The real simplicity of the universe is more debatable. Shall we find a single indivisible particle that explains everything? (Note we still run into problems about why it obeys any sort of physical law at this point, see my material argument for God). In this case the universe is only simple in parsimony, the types of entities, and not elegance. For elegance I cannot imagine how our whole experience could be derived from only one, single, indivisible particle, so I do not imagine the universe will ever pass that point.
8) Now let's look at God
a) The simplicity of God is quite fuzzy. This depends on whether or not he is composed of other, smaller objects. By abstract algebra he is simple because these smaller parts are not fully God. Yes, I know the trinity. The persons of the trinity are selected, simpler pictures of a more complex God, not identical in type to him. See my post on this. God is one type of object and cannot be divided as such.
b) God created the universe, which from a creationist standpoint is very complex. However prior to this there was no universe, just God. Neither was the universe was contained inside of God, he created it out of nothing. Some may argue that in some sense there must be an infinite amount of things inside God, for he has the capacity to create, artistically, without limit. I'm not certain about this. Is your potential to draw an innumerable amount of unique pictures something which adds to your complexity if you have not yet thought of them?
c) Most of the properties of God which we know are attitudes toward the created universe and man, and expressions of his independence and superiority over it. (Love, holiness, salvation, the omni bundle of power, knowledge, and presence, etc.) Therefore most of his complexity in this sense is lost in the time before he created. The main attribute of God remaining is that he is true to himself, wholly good, which is almost a truism and so a very small concept at that. Before all else came to be, God is God. I AM who I AM.
d) God is most certainly not composed of multiple identical objects.
9) I would venture that by these analyses, God is more simple than the universe. However, the primary purpose of this post is to provide possible explanations for simplicity and so I won't press it much.
0) Principles
I) Occams razor is a principle advanced by the monk/philosopher William of Ockham in the 13th century. Basically it says that a simple explanation for something is superior to a more complex one. Two possible explanations for the beginning of universe, God and an eternally existent universe (unless it came out of virtually nothing where no scientific laws applied), could be argued as more or less simple than the other.
II) One response to the design argument for the existence of God brings up simplicity as well. Theists claim the universe is complex enough to beg a designer, and atheists respond "so who designed God?" Essentially, God has to be more complex than the universe, so he also begs a designer, and on an infinite regression. Some pose complexity arising from the big bang through natural selection as the more viable explanation.
1) Definitions by various people:
a) The original phrase from William of Ockham is "Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate," which translates as "Plurality must never be posited without necessity." This means a favor towards less quantity.
b) Newton focuses on reducing 'cause' and poses it as "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."
c) Russell (an agnostic/atheist) favors using things that are already known, "Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities."
d) Hitchens says "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." This does no apply to this debate because the design argument invokes evidence from the universe.
e) Aristotle, like Ockham, looks at number, "We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates or hypotheses."
f) Aquinas, quantity as well, "If a thing can be done adequately by means of one, it is superfluous to do it by means of several; for we observe that nature does not employ two instruments where one suffices."
g) Einstein, quantity, "The grand aim of all science...is to cover the greatest possible number of empirical facts by logical deductions from the smallest possible number of hypotheses or axioms."
2) Simple in Abstract algebra: In abstract algebra 'simple' is something that cannot be divided by a smaller something of the same type. That is, something is 'simple' if it is not composed of multiple smaller things of the same type. In this sense, God qualifies as simple, and the universe is rather fuzzy on this point because they haven't arrived at a fundamental, indivisible particle or substance.
3) Simple in Mereology (study of categories in philosophy): A simple is something without proper parts. This means it cannot be divided, it is a single point in space without volume, and is continuous/homogenous. Depending on the results of science, the atheistic side may results in an enormous (probably over 10^100) amount of simples, or maybe just one or two. At the level of atoms, for instance, there are roughly 10^78 in the visible universe. The simplicity of God in this sense is debatable because he's not very physical.
4) Simple by the Stanford article:
a) Syntactic simplicity, elegance - the number and conciseness of the theory
b) Ontological simplicity, parsimony - the number of types of entities
5) Another option I came up with was the complexity or number of dimensions of the objects themselves.
So what does this all have to say about the decision between God and no God?
7) Lets look at the no-God side, which is easier to analyze.
a) The most clear thing I can say that as we understand it currently, the universe is not very simple. At the subatomic level there are at least several different particle types with innumerable occurrences throughout the universe.
b) The real simplicity of the universe is more debatable. Shall we find a single indivisible particle that explains everything? (Note we still run into problems about why it obeys any sort of physical law at this point, see my material argument for God). In this case the universe is only simple in parsimony, the types of entities, and not elegance. For elegance I cannot imagine how our whole experience could be derived from only one, single, indivisible particle, so I do not imagine the universe will ever pass that point.
8) Now let's look at God
a) The simplicity of God is quite fuzzy. This depends on whether or not he is composed of other, smaller objects. By abstract algebra he is simple because these smaller parts are not fully God. Yes, I know the trinity. The persons of the trinity are selected, simpler pictures of a more complex God, not identical in type to him. See my post on this. God is one type of object and cannot be divided as such.
b) God created the universe, which from a creationist standpoint is very complex. However prior to this there was no universe, just God. Neither was the universe was contained inside of God, he created it out of nothing. Some may argue that in some sense there must be an infinite amount of things inside God, for he has the capacity to create, artistically, without limit. I'm not certain about this. Is your potential to draw an innumerable amount of unique pictures something which adds to your complexity if you have not yet thought of them?
c) Most of the properties of God which we know are attitudes toward the created universe and man, and expressions of his independence and superiority over it. (Love, holiness, salvation, the omni bundle of power, knowledge, and presence, etc.) Therefore most of his complexity in this sense is lost in the time before he created. The main attribute of God remaining is that he is true to himself, wholly good, which is almost a truism and so a very small concept at that. Before all else came to be, God is God. I AM who I AM.
d) God is most certainly not composed of multiple identical objects.
9) I would venture that by these analyses, God is more simple than the universe. However, the primary purpose of this post is to provide possible explanations for simplicity and so I won't press it much.
17 May 2013
agnostic/atheist/theist model survey
This post is a survey with comments attempting to model the different types of belief systems commonly included under the umbrella of atheism and agnosticism. Theoretically for every combination of answers there exists someone in the world with that belief system.
i) In this survey, "God" refers to a being very powerful who is not human and probably created all or most of the known world.
1) From 0-100% how much do you care about the answer to the question "Does God exist?" [qty%]
a) For precision, the proper phrasing of this question probably should be "What is the percentage of decisions you make that would be affected by the difference of yes or no to the question 'Does God exist?'"
b) In addition to decisions, this question could include experiences (what you perceive, reality) and beliefs.
2a) Can we know whether God exists? [multiple choice]
i) Yes, for certain (either yes or no)
ii) We can give his existence a probability
iii) We haven't discovered the answer yet and can't give it a probability.
iv) It's impossible to know
v) All truth is relative, the question is irrelevant
vi) It's a 50/50
a) All truth is relative is sort of an odd answer. I think most people of this type do not truly believe in relative truth but say "Everyone should decide for themselves" or "Don't talk to me about that, I believe what I want to believe and you believe what you want to and let's leave each other alone." The underlying belief might be that 1 the answer does not matter or 2 can't be found or 3 there really is no God but some people imagine one to make themselves feel better, which is a personal matter. Another attitude could be that 4 discussions about religion are too painful and go nowhere so we might as well not try.
b) A possibly inferior question to 2 is 2b)
2b) If we can attach a probability to God's existence, what is it? Define 100% as absolutely certain and 0% as impossible. If there is no probability, state 'no'. [qty% or no]
i) Probability ______%
ii) Probability no applicable
b) The probability percentage question is inspired by Dawkins's "The God Delusion" which presents a probability from +100 to -100. (Dawkins is personally at near -100). I prefer 0 to 100 for mathematical reasons.
c) A probability range has the capacity to describe most other positions.100/0 percent for yes/no absolutely and 50% for 50/50 and possibly the other answers. On the probability scale it might be helpful to point out the positions very near 100 or 0 and just above or below 50%.
d) I think probability alone fails to capture the 'we don't know yet' type. (That's why I included a 'no' option). I mean, before we do tests, can we attach a probability to whether or not the earth is round? We can only use probabilities for things we have seen before or have probabilistic input. Random samples from a population can have probabilities, as could whether or not a type of concrete will pass a threshold loading test based on the performance of other concretes with similar properties, but not metaphysical reality. We haven't tested whether or not he exists. Well, maybe we can get something from tests on whether or not prayer works. We might be able to find the change that certain results would come from a randomly generated universe if we assume there were random inputs. But considering we know so little about the big bang even that is uncertain.
[Only asked if using 2a)]
3) If yes or no absolutely, please state. If a percentage, please state. If you answered otherwise to 2) but would still like to give an opinion yes, no, or a probability, please state. [yes/no/qty%]
i) Yes
ii) No
iii) Probability _____ %
4) Could the answer to 2) change? [yes or no]
i) Yes
ii) No
a) For philosophers, 2) and 4) questions could be called the epistemic (from epistemology) condition of God. That is, what is the limits of our knowledge on the subject?
b) Question 4 does not really apply to anyone except the probability and the we don't know people.
In all events classifying belief systems is difficult, no matter how hard I try. If you believe something that you don't think is at least mentioned in this post, please comment describing your beliefs and I'll modify accordingly. And just for fun, if you managed to get to the bottom of this post, I'd love it if you could comment with your answers to 1), 2a), 2b), 3) and 4).
Thanks, have a great day.
29 April 2013
tithing
We generally restrict tithing to giving 10% of your income to the church. However, it can be a much broader concept. Let me simply list off other examples of tithing
() 1st day of the week (Sunday) is devoted to God
() The Jews gave the of all sorts of things that came from the ground including regular crops, grain, oil, wool, wheat, bread, wine, honey, and every fruit tree. (See list of verses here)
() We often pray before we eat, almost before we take the first fruits of our meal
() Fasting is a stretch, but might apply
() Cain and Abel, the sons of Adam and Eve, pretty close after the fall in Eden, both sacrificed stuff to God. Cain farmed and so gave grain, wine, and stuff while Abel kept flocks and gave animal sacrifices. (Read passage here)
() We go to church in the morning, the beginning of the day, as opposed to the evening. The firstfuits of the hours of the day.
() Most praises of God from the Psalms seem to occur in the morning. Likewise I would expect, but have no evidence that offerings and dedication ceremonies typically happened in the morning. ("Morning" in the bible)
Anyway, there might be more but I no more come to mind immediately.
Tithing is the idea that God deserves the first of everything. He is your first thought in the morning, the first person you run to when you're in trouble, the first person you give praise to when things go well, the first person you thank, the first one you point to, the first person to whom you give spending of any sort for you recognize he gave you everything you have, etc.
Honor him.
() 1st day of the week (Sunday) is devoted to God
() The Jews gave the of all sorts of things that came from the ground including regular crops, grain, oil, wool, wheat, bread, wine, honey, and every fruit tree. (See list of verses here)
() We often pray before we eat, almost before we take the first fruits of our meal
() Fasting is a stretch, but might apply
() Cain and Abel, the sons of Adam and Eve, pretty close after the fall in Eden, both sacrificed stuff to God. Cain farmed and so gave grain, wine, and stuff while Abel kept flocks and gave animal sacrifices. (Read passage here)
() We go to church in the morning, the beginning of the day, as opposed to the evening. The firstfuits of the hours of the day.
() Most praises of God from the Psalms seem to occur in the morning. Likewise I would expect, but have no evidence that offerings and dedication ceremonies typically happened in the morning. ("Morning" in the bible)
Anyway, there might be more but I no more come to mind immediately.
Tithing is the idea that God deserves the first of everything. He is your first thought in the morning, the first person you run to when you're in trouble, the first person you give praise to when things go well, the first person you thank, the first one you point to, the first person to whom you give spending of any sort for you recognize he gave you everything you have, etc.
Honor him.
22 April 2013
coverings
Genesis 3. In the beginning of human history, Adam and Eve sin, eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, choosing to define right and wrong their own way, now faced with the daunting task of making their own decisions and trying to make it on their own.
A series of events immediately follow of which I will only focus on the last.
1) Adam and Eve realize they are naked - they are weak, naive, exposed, new. We realize this every time we fail, are frustrated at a problem we can't fix, feel defenseless and alone against the world. The word naked in Hebrew is very close to naive. They were out of their depth and scared.
2) Adam and Eve sew fig leaves together to cover themselves. We react to our fear by fixing our nakedness our own way, relying on and manipulating money, intelligence, friends, power, or pleasure to look as if we can handle ourselves.
3) Adam and Eve hear the sound of God walking in the garden. God is real, God can be heard walking around. Gods invisible qualities have been clearly seen since the beginning of the world so that men are without excuse.
4) Adam and Eve hide. We try to deny Gods existence, sinning again. We run away, hoping he won't interfere with our lives.
5) God asks them "Where are you?". Pursuit, relationship. God wants you and he pursues you first.
6) Adam and Eve make excuses. I'm not sure about the significance of this.
7) God curses the snake, Eve, Adam (by way of the ground from which he came) in order. Because our sin is in contradiction to the natural and good functioning of the universe, it creates discord God makes sure we see this by formally cursing the ground.
8) God makes coverings of animal skins for Adam and Eve. God initiates. God provides a covering - protection. The first sacrifice. The first symbol pointing towards Jesus. A sacrifice which takes away our naivete, gives us understanding of God and therefore good and evil.
The first symbol of Gods provision and gift of Jesus is clothes. I am not aware of any culture at any time in history following that did not wear at least some clothes. Whatever you believe, daily you bear on your body a testimony to Gods promise to you: You don't have to do this on your own, I can give you life, protection, true wisdom, and so much more. Just accept the clothes I offer you, Jesus. They are salvation, the way to life.
Notes:
9)The rest of the events of chapter three are God banishing Adam and Eve from the Tree of Life, the garden, and setting an angel guard over it. We, sinful, are not worthy of the Tree of Life. To allow us to eat it would be a shame and violation of Gods order. Disobeying God means you don't get the benefits of God (some of them anyways, Adam and Eve were still alive).
10) The story goes immediately to Adam and Eve having sex and having Cain. I am not sure of the significance of this. Before I even noticed this I was thinking about the significance of sex, as it is the only time besides showering or something that we are normally naked. There seems to be a connection of making new life or becoming clean with covering, original sin . I don't know what it is however.
A series of events immediately follow of which I will only focus on the last.
1) Adam and Eve realize they are naked - they are weak, naive, exposed, new. We realize this every time we fail, are frustrated at a problem we can't fix, feel defenseless and alone against the world. The word naked in Hebrew is very close to naive. They were out of their depth and scared.
2) Adam and Eve sew fig leaves together to cover themselves. We react to our fear by fixing our nakedness our own way, relying on and manipulating money, intelligence, friends, power, or pleasure to look as if we can handle ourselves.
3) Adam and Eve hear the sound of God walking in the garden. God is real, God can be heard walking around. Gods invisible qualities have been clearly seen since the beginning of the world so that men are without excuse.
4) Adam and Eve hide. We try to deny Gods existence, sinning again. We run away, hoping he won't interfere with our lives.
5) God asks them "Where are you?". Pursuit, relationship. God wants you and he pursues you first.
6) Adam and Eve make excuses. I'm not sure about the significance of this.
7) God curses the snake, Eve, Adam (by way of the ground from which he came) in order. Because our sin is in contradiction to the natural and good functioning of the universe, it creates discord God makes sure we see this by formally cursing the ground.
8) God makes coverings of animal skins for Adam and Eve. God initiates. God provides a covering - protection. The first sacrifice. The first symbol pointing towards Jesus. A sacrifice which takes away our naivete, gives us understanding of God and therefore good and evil.
The first symbol of Gods provision and gift of Jesus is clothes. I am not aware of any culture at any time in history following that did not wear at least some clothes. Whatever you believe, daily you bear on your body a testimony to Gods promise to you: You don't have to do this on your own, I can give you life, protection, true wisdom, and so much more. Just accept the clothes I offer you, Jesus. They are salvation, the way to life.
Notes:
9)The rest of the events of chapter three are God banishing Adam and Eve from the Tree of Life, the garden, and setting an angel guard over it. We, sinful, are not worthy of the Tree of Life. To allow us to eat it would be a shame and violation of Gods order. Disobeying God means you don't get the benefits of God (some of them anyways, Adam and Eve were still alive).
10) The story goes immediately to Adam and Eve having sex and having Cain. I am not sure of the significance of this. Before I even noticed this I was thinking about the significance of sex, as it is the only time besides showering or something that we are normally naked. There seems to be a connection of making new life or becoming clean with covering, original sin . I don't know what it is however.
Commentary on Russell's "Why I am Not a Christian"
Below are notes I took while reading a lecture by Bertrand Russell titled "Why I am Not a Christian." This text can be found online here.
Making sense of this post probably requires a strong working knowledge of some of the main arguments for Gods existence, moral/justice arguments against Christianity, and teachings in the bible. If you are confused and can't make sense of it though the links or your own research, just drop me a comment request and I'll turn this into prose - though that takes a while and you can ask a specific question if you want a faster response.
Section headings (my explanation) are in bold
The language before the dash is an argument or claim by Christianity (paraphrased from Russell)
The language after the dash is Russells reply (paraphrased how I'd say it and very short)
The language in between slashes, /text/, is my response to Russell
The language in between brackets, [text], is stuff not written by Russell but implied and good to include so that his argument makes sense.
Why I am Not a Christian – lecture by Bertrand Russell March
6, 1927
An outline summary with responses by Nathan Tonkinson,
4/22/13
Christian belives in – god, immortality, JC was at least “the
best and wises of men”
Existence of God –
rebuttals of arguments for God (another list of arguments I don't necessarily agree with)
First
cause – who made God? If there must be something without a cause, it may as
well be the universe /hm, cool. Deification of universe again. Back to infinite
time arguments/
Natural
law (probability of the existence of ordered laws) – science has now moved to
where these laws are no longer so amazing. Subatomically many things go by
chance /hm, good point/. Natural law, as a description of behavior that is not
optional, does not imply a lawgiver. Why did God choose those natural laws?
/art, to glorify self/ if by chance then he is not subject to law /of course/.
If to make best universe, then he is following a law and you might as well
delete the intermediary /if purpose is to glorify self, purpose is wrapped up
in the mediator, purpose is also non-deductive (has multiple solutions)/
Design
- nose designed to fit spectacles: it is
silly. Life adapted to environment, not the other way around. /without most of
the clocks, life in any form would not be possible, without some of them, even ordered
material structures would not exist/. World is defective and so not designed
/the fall/. It just so happens that at this point in the slow decay of the
universe life is possible /again, cosmological material constants, besides I’d
like a better picture of how the universe changes as it decays/. This view of
decaying universe is not depressing>suicide /unless man has an inherent
hunger for meaning significance/
Existence of morals – Kant (and others) are
blinded by stuff the learn in childhood. Right and wrong >! God. If God >
morals then God is not under morals and he is not good. /but God and his glory
= good. That is the identifying definition, by Gods infinite properties his
glory is self-evident as a good thing, good = alignment with the state of the
universe/.
God necessary to solve injustice –
if future world unknowable we assume roughly same as here: unjust. /but we say
knowable. Signs saying the oranges are better on the lower layers/.
Reasons people really believe in
god – taught at infancy and the need for safety person who looks after you. /necessary
response would be extensive. Orr-Ewing might help/
Teachings of Christ –
Christians do not follow them
Turn
the other cheek [Matthew 5:39, Luke 6:29] [and other principles] - these principles existed
before JC (e.g. 700BC Buddhist and Taoism) /sure, moral law is given through consciences which we had before JC/
/I have my brother to thank for reminding me of the main principle defense against the following arguments (that Christians do not follow Christ's teaching). We don't claim to be perfect. In fact, 1 John 1:8 says if we claim to be without sin, we're lying. So Christians admit we're never perfect. As my genius brother accurately diagnosed, this fallacy of calling out hypocrisy is called tu quoque and is a specific form of the more general ad hominem fallacies./
/I have my brother to thank for reminding me of the main principle defense against the following arguments (that Christians do not follow Christ's teaching). We don't claim to be perfect. In fact, 1 John 1:8 says if we claim to be without sin, we're lying. So Christians admit we're never perfect. As my genius brother accurately diagnosed, this fallacy of calling out hypocrisy is called tu quoque and is a specific form of the more general ad hominem fallacies./
“Judge
not lest ye be judged” [Matt 7:1-5, Luke 6:37] – but many Christians are judges
/you misunderstand the principle, it has to do with superiority, not punishments. See the context in the matthew passage/
“Give
to him that asketh of thee” [Matt 5:42, Luke 6:27-37] – but many Christians
disagree with this politically /again misunderstanding, we apply this to
ourselves to the extent it benefits others and retains our capability of
helping more. We also do not force this principle upon others via government/
“Go and
sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor.” [Matt 19:20-23, Luke 12:29-36] –
Christians do not practice this. /same thing as generosity and applies to more rich people (who have enough wealth they’d end up selling stuff, where less right
people just end up giving money quantities) please see matthew context. Also see luke context where it is for encouragine people to value God stuff more than this earth/
Teachings of Christ –
defects in
Historically
doubtful the existence of Christ /he does not pursue, and so I won’t/
“You
shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come” [Matt10:23] – [we have and he hasn’t] /Because they are preaching ‘the kingdom of
heaven is near’ (v7) this coming is probably the coming of the kingdom.
Debatable since the surrounding descriptors characterize the kingdom but may
also characterize the period immediately before (30yr prev). Restricting to
Israel also supports the nearer date. Commentaries claim he’s referring to the
AD70 destruction, but I don’t buy it. /
“Some
standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His
Kingdom” [Matt 16:27-17:2, Luke 9:26-29]– [they did and he hasn’t] /this refers to his
transfiguration (the next event recorded), death, or resurrected body, all of which some saw. ‘Coming
into’ the kingdom is beginning of it, and the kingdom clearly started after his
death (or close to it). Though I will admit the verse immediately before is about the end times Please read context./
“Take
no thought for the morrow” [Matt 6:31-34] – not practical if he’s not back yet, so
he assumed he’d come back soon /out of context. This refers to not worrying and
trusting in God to provide. It does not eliminate long-term planning. You have
more of an argument from 1 Cor 7:8, 25 etc. Though this is not a command and is
in light of not being attached to the world (v31-35)./
Personal morals of JC
– defects in
Belief in
hell – doctrine of hell gives rise to torture /does this even deserve a
response? No, torture was around long before/
Malicious
acts such as legion into swine [Mark 5:1-17, Luke 8:27-39] - /nature is just
around to glorify him, if death of swine makes the town believe in him, it’s
good.
Cursing of fig tree [Matt 21:18-22,
Mark 11:12-4, 20-24] – not justified /Fig tree, idk. Notes say sometimes fig
tree had early crop and full of leaves may indicate a few figs. Just a physical
parable like the prophets/
Bad results of
Christianity
Religion commonly defended
because it produces morals – it does not necessarily /non-driver, I agree
largely. Logical end extrapolation results in amorality and instinct to
selfishness and anarchy (eh…sot of, no barrier to bad action when not get
caught, so criminality is rational)/
Terrible things done in the name of religion – unacceptable /Done where religion is enforced with strength in the
government. This is not supposed to be. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s; do not
pass judgment, etc. The perpetrators are misusing religion, using religion as
an excuse or misinterpreting truth. Considering the other wars of history, the
holocaust, red china, oppressive colonialism, the mob, etc. I think it is not
quite so bad either/
Catholic
church would outlaw birth control for parents who are known will have disabled
children – this is unacceptable /that’s the catholic church law, not a law in
the bible. Paul in 2 Cor 7 says do not abstain, but says nothing about birth
control. (though we assume no murder, must be pre-conception control)/
In
general church morals inflicts suffering and does not produce happiness – this is
stupid. /Many virtues are hard to follow and man sins hard to abstain from, but
their aim is net happiness in the long run, even within this life. Going to
college costs money and time, but it will bring the greatest ‘happiness’ in the
long run./
Christianity based on
fear
Christianity based on fear of
unknown or death or etc and need for safety or guidance. [from a previous
section he has taught at infancy and need for safety or guidance] – therefore improper
base . /Probably driven more by God forcing himself in our faces (in the past)
and the instinct suspicion or hunger for something bigger that what we see now.
Romans 1:20, 2:14-15/
Science
can assuage that fear /science can only partially give us confidence. First of
all, it only partially describes the world and so does not give us absolute
certainty. Second, science may not provide escapes from the fears. So far we
cannot escape death.
What we must do
Conquer
the world and fears with science. Don’t abase yourself by saying you’re a
sinner /but we’re also sons of God, eventually a whole lot more awesome than
science has imagined so far/. Make the best of the world. Progress. Crap.
//interesting
that he uses such strong negative language towards Christianity (here in the
end) when it is merely a delusion and old piece of clothing that must be shed.
I suppose I may perceive stronger negative than the objective reader (if such a
thing exists). He is also legitimately angry that so many of us have not shed
this dirty coat for 2000yrs.//
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)