The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Five atheist miracles > Comments

Five atheist miracles : Comments

By Don Batten, published 2/5/2016

Materialists have no sufficient explanation (cause) for the diversity of life. There is a mind-boggling plethora of miracles here, not just one. Every basic type of life form is a miracle.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 87
  7. 88
  8. 89
  9. All
What is it that you are trying to achieve, Don?

Any belief that is based on material evidence, including even the belief in God - is materialistic.

What good can such a belief bring?

When someone says, "Well, on the balance of evidence I guess there must be God", how could they ever become religious? all they would be doing in that case, is trying to be practical!

They could become Christian by name, but would they become the followers of Christ in fact? If their belief is based on material conviction, how would they ever attain the only miracle worth its salt - the miracle of unselfishness!?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 2 May 2016 10:15:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The article contains: "This is not magic, because God, who is eternal and omnipotent, is a sufficient cause for the universe. And He can exist eternally (and therefore has no beginning) because He is a non-material entity (God is spirit, as the Bible says in many places)."

The above is magic. There is no evidence that God is anything but a creation of the human mind. That it says so in the Bible is not evidence either. The Bible is also a creation of the human mind. The article maintains that things are so because the author believes that it is so.

Batten is a research horticulturist. That reminds me of the saying: You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think.
Posted by david f, Monday, 2 May 2016 10:16:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Really OLO creationist, now have you completely given up, next you'll be letting us know you have got Runner on your editorial board.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Monday, 2 May 2016 10:24:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In order to explain life and he universe, we are left with just two conclusions, intelligent design or magic?

Perhaps the eternal still explains? And as eternal dark matter intruding into and becoming the known universe and everything in it?

And given everything is merely transformed energy, which can neither be created or destroyed, I believe, holds up as the most plausible argument postulated thus far?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 2 May 2016 10:44:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Don,

You are dead right - science has not got all the answers and probably never will have them all. Every discovery leads to more questions but enquiring minds continue to search and along the way human knowledge grows. That is how mankind progressed from living in caves to space science and that is how, eventually, we will move beyond this planet and this solar system.

All the theories of evolution and the origins of the universe have gaps and flaws but they are works in progress and most scientists are humble enough to admit this while they work at filling them. Contrast this with the bigoted, smug attitude of the religious who can blithely assert that everything we can't explain is "God's Work"

The inability of atheists or science to disprove the existence of God does not, in any way, lend weight to the proposition that He (or She) exists. Belittling those who are working to expand human knowledge and comparing them to believers in magic is ridiculous.
Posted by madmick, Monday, 2 May 2016 10:46:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author rubbishes science he clearly doesn't understand while offering no alternative explanation other than "god did it with magic". A new low even for OLO's laughable standards of scientific discourse.
Posted by JBSH, Monday, 2 May 2016 10:54:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article does not progress the argument one little bit.
Peter Sellick
Posted by Sells, Monday, 2 May 2016 11:42:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All we need to do is accept the fact that Jesus Christ was earthly, and he brought the message that Western values and beliefs are based on. This 'there is a God', there is not a God', business is a complete waste of time. No living human being can possibly know whether or not God exists, and the dead human beings haven't sent any messages back to us yet.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 2 May 2016 11:49:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'You are dead right - science has not got all the answers and probably never will have them all. '

Oh madmick so the science is not settled. Tell that to the irrational secular fundamentalist.

'Belittling those who are working to expand human knowledge and comparing them to believers in magic is ridiculous.'

no madmick but exposing stupidity in the name of science is worthwhile as masses of tax payer money is used to fill the pockets of those who hold to such blind faith. They are first to criticise any funding for faith but then display such blind bigotry.
Posted by runner, Monday, 2 May 2016 11:55:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The proposition that a God-a supreme being, created the universe, and all its contents including human intelligence just begs the question. I will submit that postulating a theistic explanation has zero information content and is no explanation at all.
Firstly, the well-known problem of who designed God and how was God designed? This is of course unanswerable.
Secondly, what was the mechanism of creation? How did the act of creation work? Did God do the creation unaided, or did he have an army of helpers such as angels and archangels?
So I claim that the God theory does not provide an answer to any of the issues raised by Don Batten. I have no difficult in accepting the thesis that ‘human understanding is limited.’ It matters not a jolt to the way I live my life; if the Universe was created by a big bang, or a God waving his magic hands.
Posted by anti-green, Monday, 2 May 2016 12:07:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"While it is possible to be a Christian and believe in an old earth, it would indicate that one has either not thought through the consequences, or that the Bible is not the ultimate authority for one’s faith." Don, from his Creation Ministries site.

I'm sorry Don but as a young earther you don't get to lecture anyone on science. You have lost that right.

The world is not 6,000 years old however you are perfectly entitled to believe it is. It is just that neglecting to mention this level of kookiness in your article is rather disingenuous don't you think?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 2 May 2016 12:09:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
you would think that pig headed evolutionist who have had to change their pseudo faith numerous times and having been exposed as fraudsters will crawl in a hole. Never an apology for their fantasy being uncovered just hoping people will forget their dishonesty. No just like warmist whose predictions have proved totally wrong and fraudulently they just dig in deeper. The Scriptures describe them very accuratley.
Posted by runner, Monday, 2 May 2016 12:17:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, suppose you are right Don & there is a God. What's that got to do with us as Humans. We are just another Creation. As for "He." Is God a He, She or It? Is A God concerned with Humans? Is God a Human or have a Human Form? Or is that a Human introspect? Is a God just ethereal?

I doubt that you will ever read this Don let alone reply to any of the Questions.

Regarding the Bible. There are so many wrong in it I wouldn't know when to start.

Camel are good. The Bible talks about Camels in the time of Abraham. Now Abraham lived about 1800 BC. Strangely Camels weren't even started to be Domesticated until after 1000 BC in Saudi Arabia. It took another 200 years for them to become reasonably common. The most common Pack & Transport animal was the Donkey, some Quagga & Zebra. Not even Cows or Chooks in the Middle East.

So relying on the Bible as actual true Fact is a real problem. eh.
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 2 May 2016 12:52:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As observed the article is not even worth commenting on, but feel free to link to it for its amusement value alone.

I wonder if OLO are positioning itself to be the Australian "World Net Daily".

If you have never been to the site it's a lot of fun and a bit scary as well. Generally called the World nut daily it is populated by "Runner types" you know foaming-at-the-month young Earther, anti-AGWer's, Anti-women, Anti-gay, anti-whatever, birthers, Preppers hell there is even few flat Earthers. If that is what this site is becoming then your in for a interesting and funny read but zero facts and insight.

Graham Young can we have a flat Earth article next week, I'm sure Runner can point a few your way.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Monday, 2 May 2016 2:26:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
These miracles are best explained by the actions of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Have you been touched by his noodly appendage yet?

https://apl.org.au/

Ramen.
Posted by JBSH, Monday, 2 May 2016 2:34:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Such an article tells us nothing except that the author has obviously wasted a great deal of time thinking about these things.

The only reason we think about things at all is in order to solve problems. That is what thinking is. It begs the question then what is the author’s problem? Why does he need to think about these questions at all?

Who we are, where we came from, why are we here – these are not problems. Not knowing does not affect our ability to enjoy life to the full. Thinking when you do not need to think is futile unless of course your aim is something else.

Perhaps authors like this are trying to avoid real problems which they personally have and for which there are solutions. Perhaps they are in an unhappy relationship and rather than face up to that reality they just tell themselves that life was not meant to be easy but it all works out in the end when we get to heaven. We should follow the example of Jesus and endure suffering – he should be our role model.

Maybe the real answer to their real problem is to leave the relationship but they are too insecure to do so. Their real problem is their insecurity but they like to make out that such unhappiness is part of the human condition and so go off in search of understanding the human condition. We do not need to understand the human condition. They project their personal problems onto the whole of mankind instead of facing the reality of their own emotional insecurity.

These kinds of articles are cries for help. They attempt to draw others into their rationalisations and to form a kind of illusory world where everyone sits around nodding in agreement because they to do not want to face reality. This is how religion begins and how it feeds off itself.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 2 May 2016 6:53:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A good article on this confusing topic, using the inadequate terminology available.
What is “God” A dictionary definition, for a start:” the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.”

This raises more questions than it answers.
Then someone observes that God cannot be seen, heard, touched smelt, or tasted, and questions the existence of God. Then we are told that he must exist, because he made the world in which we live, and if he did not, then who did?
So do we have a proper definition, to enable us to consider whether he exists?
Carl Gustav Jung was asked”Dr. Jung, do you think God exists?He answered:“I don’t think, I know.”

He said “Why do people discuss the existence of God, when we know that the Unconscious behaves just as gods are reputed to?”

There has been no proper scientific investigation of the Unconscious, which is another name for God, if we define God as a “universal intelligence”.
J.B.Rhine went to Duke University in 1927” At Duke, he developed experimental methodology for parapsychology, concentrating in the areas of telepathy, psychokinesis, clairvoyance and precognition. Publication of a 1934 book on extra-sensory perception -- based on research using Duke students and local residents -- made him famous.
"By 1935, anyone interested in this field was talking about his lab."

Over the next three decades, Rhine and lab colleagues corresponded with Einstein and Jung and celebrities such as Jackie Gleason. The Rockefeller Foundation, Alfred P. Sloan (of General Motors and Sloan-Kettering fame) and the military provided support”

https://today.duke.edu/2009/03/rhine.html

Jung wished to be scientific, but his temperament was not suited to it. The work started by Rhine does not have the organisation and direction to give any comprehensive grasp of the Unconscious, and its workings.
It is ridiculous for highly intelligent fools like Richard Dawkins to make the puerile pronouncement that there is no god, until a proper scientific investigation of the Unconscious, and its workings, particularly, for example, such manifestations as the placebo effect, has been carried out and widely considered.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 2 May 2016 6:54:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's the eagerness to know about this world and its origins which makes one a materialist, it's the questioning rather than one's particular answer. The answers may vary, including dark matter, a Creator and anything in between - but why should one ask such questions in the first place unless they were materialists?

Madmick suggested: "That is how mankind progressed from living in caves to space science and that is how, eventually, we will move beyond this planet and this solar system."

Yes, but why would one be concerned with such trivialities?
Whatever happens to mankind, whatever happens to the galaxies, is anything but miraculous, irrespective whether the world follows the laws of physics or a Creator's desires.

The only worthwhile miracle, is when by the grace of God we are able to transcend our identification and attachment to this human body and its innate desires, including its petty desires for procreation and for reaching the stars.

---

Dear Phanto,

I saw your contribution at the last moment before posting the above.

Some of your points, I have just mentioned.

One may be able to exit a bad relationship, but exiting the bigger problem called "life" and "mortality" is not as easy. With a bad relationship, one can use other relationships to pull on and extricate themselves, but no one can lift themselves out of the very condition of life/mortality by sheer will, picking themselves up by their boots so to speak. All one can do is to stop resisting and holding fast onto the ground, lift up their arms instead in supplication and hope to be pulled out of this mire. This, religion does.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 2 May 2016 7:14:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo Lane: Then someone observes that God cannot be seen, heard, touched smelt, or tasted, and questions the existence of God.

Fair enough, which leads me to...

Leo Lane: Then we are told that he must exist, because he made the world in which we live, and if he did not, then who did?

I question “Who,” does there have to be a “Who?” Is it Logical to have a “Who?” Why is the “Who” a “he?” If the “Who” cannot be seen, heard, touched smelt or tasted, & we assign “He” to Humans as they exist at present then the “Who” is a non-entity, or “It” which is called a God.

If a God exists & has Form (“let us make man in our own likeness.”) then a God “Must” have limits of some type, of. given size, shape, texture, gender (one of three or more, nowadays) In order to go from one place to another, taking into account these things then, “Time” must also be a factor. Time is lineal & only moves forward even for an” It” or a “God.”

Leo Lane: It is ridiculous for highly intelligent fools like Richard Dawkins to make the puerile pronouncement that there is no god,

I could be said also that highly intelligent fools such as Creationists & other Religious Fanatics make puerile announcements that there is a God.

Yutsie: The only worthwhile miracle, is when by the grace of God we are able to transcend our identification and attachment to this human body and its innate desires.

& be “Born Again” as a Cow & live on the streets of Calcutta. Wonderful.
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 2 May 2016 8:16:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu:

Why do you see life and mortality as problems to be solved? What is wrong with them that needs to be fixed? Why do you see them as things which you need to be lifted out of?

Some people have more problems than others but life and mortality are no one’s problem. All our problems are simply practical ones. You have to look at real problems and not some kind of mental creations. Life is there to be lived – it is not a problem to be solved. Mortality just exists as part of life like the Sun exists or gravity exists.
Posted by phanto, Monday, 2 May 2016 8:26:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don’s views are not representative of modern Christians, at least in Australia.

I do wish Don had read some of Peter Sellick’s carefully crafted repudiations of this kind of supernaturalism on this site. Or perhaps watched one of Brian Cox’s popular science programs on the origins of the universe (which address point 2 rather well). As it is, he must torture both science and theology to try to support his arguments.

Even if Don’s five “miracles” were valid arguments – and they are not – they would tell us precisely nothing about the nature of the Creator God and how we can choose between the different religions’ apparently contradictory claims about creation (or indeed the two apparently contradictory creation stories in the first two books of Genesis). As JBSH pithily points out, there is no basis in this kind of creationism to choose between Yahweh and the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 2 May 2016 8:48:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Adian: the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Now we should leave the Flying Spaghetti Monster alone. It's not his Flailing Noodle Arms you have to worry about it's his Great Meat Balls & the Sauce.
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 2 May 2016 9:34:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear, what a strange article.
I read somewhere above that we mere humans can neither prove nor disprove the existence of any God, and indeed I doubt that anyone will ever find out what happened at the beginning of the creation of this world.

So it all comes down to faith really, and if you have faith in a book written 2000 years ago by mere men who want you to believe what they say about creation etc, then good luck to you. But please don't knock my 'faith' in not believing the old book and it's authors as complete fiction.

One wonders how on earth mankind managed to get on and move forward before ever the fictitious bible was foisted upon human kind? It is humans that have brought about change in our world, not any fictitious being...
Posted by Suseonline, Monday, 2 May 2016 9:51:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,
To some extent I would agree with you, but I suspect Don may as well. Arguments examining physical or material observations can only be signs pointing in a certain direction. Ultimately faith is based on trust in the words and the communication of the one in whom you have believed.

So some say Christians should be proclaiming the 'Rock of Ages' rather than discussing the age of rocks. But I would add that God's Word should be consistent with his world, or how or why would any logical or reasonable person have faith in it?

Madmick,
Please have another look at your logic. You put forward:
'The inability to disprove X, does not lend weight to the proposition X.'
Well, I would suggest it does.

Let's say X='Barack was born in Hawaii'.
The inability to disprove Barack was born in Hawaii does not lend weight to him being born there. Rather, I would suggest it does. He was either born there or he wasn't. It's that simple.

And I don't think you've caught the thrust of Don's article. It's not about 'things we can't explain'. He does plenty of explaining.

Jayb,
Asking questions is good. I'm not sure how closely related your questions are to this article. But there are thousands of articles included in the website Don oversees. You could look it up. He's not averse to answering questions relating to the validity of the biblical Scriptures.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 2 May 2016 11:21:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find it disappointing (but perhaps not that surprising) that the main atheist response to this article is to challenge the creationist right to have a voice, rather than examine any of the content of the article.

I wonder what they're afraid of, the loss of control over censorship? If creationists are not supposed to publish in an open, public forum such as here, then where? Or more pointedly, if evolutionists hold their views to be beyond critique, then how can they claim their position as rational or evidence based?

The lack of willingness to address their issues and blind spots is why this subject will remain so polarised.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 2 May 2016 11:27:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Phanto,

<<Why do you see life and mortality as problems to be solved?>>

Because ontological anxiety underlies all our other problems and worries:
it is the primal anxiety over the possibility of one's own non-existence, non-consciousness, non-goodness and non-happiness.

We often mask our fundamental anxiety with lesser everyday fears.
We even create problems for ourselves as a way to deflect the underlying primal anxiety which is too painful to face.
Had we overcame our ontological anxiety, the rest of our problems would turn into fun.

<What is wrong with them that needs to be fixed?>

You cannot experience your own true nature, your own divinity, your identity with God beyond all existence and non-existence and unlimited eternal bliss, until and unless you overcome your ontological anxiety.

<<Why do you see them as things which you need to be lifted out of?>>

So long as you have ontological anxiety, you suffer.
You suffer for a lie, needlessly.
The lie is that you are this body of yours, which perishes.
The lie is that you are limited as this body is.
The lie is that you are a sinner, as the mind of that body is.
The lie is that you need anything outside of yourself to be happy, as your body does (and are miserable otherwise).

We pray:

asato ma sadgamaya
tamaso ma jyotirgamaya
mrtyorma amrtam gamaya
om shanti shanti shanti.

Lead me from the asat to the sat (roughly translated, illusion-to-truth).
Lead me from darkness to light.
Lead me from death to immortality
Om Peace Peace Peace.

For more in-depth answers to your question, see http://www.amritapuri.org/3731/asatoma.aum
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 1:30:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

<<So some say Christians should be proclaiming the 'Rock of Ages' rather than discussing the age of rocks.>>

Indeed they should!

Life is too short and precious to waste on material rocks.

If one still has worldly duties and a family to feed, then it is excusable to discuss the age of rocks in the course of gaining livelihood (say as a scientist or an engineer) - yet in between and in one's spare time, one should always remember the Rock of Ages.

<<But I would add that God's Word should be consistent with his world>>

I disagree. God's Word should be consistent with goodness, not with the world.

While not a Christian myself, if I were to use Christian terminology, I would say that while the world comes from God, human interest in the world comes from Satan.

<<or how or why would any logical or reasonable person have faith in it?>>

It is logical and reasonable to have faith because it is good to have it:

"It is good to give thanks to the Lord, to make music to your name, O Most High, to proclaim your grace in the morning and your faithfulness in the nights" [Psalm 92:1-2]
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 1:32:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Don (the author),

.

You’re right. We’ve still got a lot to learn about the universe. I have no doubt that many, if not all, of our current explanations of how, when, where and why it all came about will be superseded on many more occasions over the coming Ga (gigaannus) - billions of years - just as they have in the past.

It’s a race against time. Perhaps life will become extinct long before we are able to get to the bottom of it all.

If so, a large portion of mankind will no doubt continue to have recourse to the concept of the Omnipotent for protection, relief from suffering, comfort, and the reward of eternal life united with their loved ones. It’s quite simple really. All they have to do is believe that “there is a God who created everything”.

Many would have great difficulty coping with the vicissitudes of daily life without some form of faith.

It is by faith alone that they are saved.

Who cares if there really is a god or not ? Nobody will ever know – not in this life anyway, so why worry ?

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 2:15:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Others have already pointed out that saying 'God did it by magic' doesn't make something any more plausible than just saying 'It happened by magic'. Once a theist comes up with a detailed description of HOW their god did it, what he used, the sequence of his actions, the reasons for the choices he made, why this had the results that it did and -- most important -- how we can verify this -- THEN they will have a theory. Otherwise all they have is a magical fantasy.

But this is actually good news. If Don Batten and Sells are the only theists who are still willing to put their beliefs on the line for public criticism, then atheists have already won.
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 7:50:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The oxygen in the air that I breathe cannot be seen, touched, heard or felt, yet if it were gone for just a few minutes, I would die.

The THEORY of evolution postulates that all life evolved from single cell organisms that crawled, swam out of the primordal ooze. Say like bacteria clever enough to create a rotating motor spinning inside a spindle to turn a corkscrew tail to move them about a bit?

A very convenient faith based belief, that fails scientific rigor, given the complete and total absence of any carboniferous deposits that would rule this entirely faith based fanaticism in?

[And wait for the abusive dummy spits from some, as their absolutism is challenged?]

In fact the odds are less for a whirlwind whipping through a junkyard and forming a fully functional flyable 747.

We have produced bacteria pseudo life in the laboratory; but only ever in the presence of a controlling intelligence and in perfectly timed sequential steps.

According to Einstein's unified field theory, the universe and everything in it including us, is only modified energy. An explanation that holds good for dark energy and dark matter?

Can the universe think? Well, you and I can, and we are an integral part of it!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 3 May 2016 8:40:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And I should have added, given energy can be neither created or destroyed, merely modified;it follows that energy is eternal? Moreover when you or I think a thought, there is a measurable transfer of energy between one cerebral synapse and another!
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 3 May 2016 8:51:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Dan this article has been met with laughter is as it has been written by a fool. He is clearly not very familiar with the science and like most young Earth creationist he has merely regurgitated the same old sad God of the gaps argument's.

Nothing of scientific value has ever come out of the creationist camp.

From a philosophical point of view it is also a dead end, very few major Christian religions have a young Earth creationist POV just a few USA style happy clappers.

All what Don has said boils down to scientist haven't worked out yet how exactly these events happened therefore God.

500 years ago scientist didn't know how lightening was created, many people believed it was created by God(s). Just because there wasn't a conclusive scientific model on how lightening was created didn't mean the religious arguement was therefore a valid one.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 9:10:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu:

What is ontological anxiety? Why should the prospect of non-existence cause any anxiety in anyone? What is wrong with non-existence? If you do not exist then you have no consciousness or feeling so how can it be either good or bad?

If there is no such experience as non-existence then what is there to be anxious about?

Please don’t use words like God, divinity and eternal bliss. Use words that everyone can understand and which can be defined. If you have a reasonable argument then use reasonable words. A reasonable argument can only be built when everyone agrees about the meaning of the words used to build the argument. If you do not agree with these principles then you are not presenting an argument but trying to do something else like convince yourself of what you believe. These principles hold true even when you are trying to convince yourself so why would you try and delude yourself?
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 9:43:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The God deniers can froth at the mouth, spit out their hatred, misrepresent however it does not change reason for one moment. Creation demands a Creator, design demands a Designer, laws require a Lawmaker. The pseudo faith of evolution is what really should be mocked however once one is handed over to their stupidity they can't even tell the difference between a boy and girl. The Scriptures prove so true again. Nothing new about mockers who have no answers of any substance.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 9:52:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And given we are just as ignorant 500 years later? It also follows we just don't know or understand how the universe and everything in it was created or why and for what possible purpose?

It's claimed there are more stars in the milky way, (our galaxy) than grains of sand on all the combined beaches of planet earth?

And yet in the face of so much incomprehensible (purposeless?) creation, we are able to just rule out and rule in various and frequently changed explanations?

The most plausible of which is the projection of dark matter into the universe to modify itself and become the knowable universe?

And who can say exactly what ark energy and dark matter is or isn't? In fact some older wiser cultures believe the dark spaces between he stars have power to alter outcomes.

Similarly Quantum mechanics seems to postulate, if we can get enough people to believe something to be true, it becomes fact? And seemingly borne out by phenomena like fire walking that appears to leave the feet entirely unharmed after walking on red hot embers.

We have (massive untapped) power as groups of folks who can share a belief, and not as wish fulfillment but rather with the sun will rise tomorrow conviction. (If two or more gather in my name)

Imagine what kind of world we could share, if every one on it woke up tomorrow believing in love, fair and equal treatment, truly shared wealth. Or put another way, treating all others as we would be treated; in the knowledge and the wisdom, together we can conquer any perceived problem or apparent shortage.

And or there is no barrier to a better life for absolutely everyone that can't be made manifest as the literal reality if we just project enough combined and totally unselfish and unconditional love at it.

Even so, we share our world and finite resources with folks, whose only ambition and determination is to become the richest folks in the graveyard? Or shovel all else into it! Go figure?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 3 May 2016 10:09:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My dear runner,

“froth at the mouth”, “spit out their hatred”, “misrepresent”, “ pseudo faith”, “stupidity”?

The big question is how has evolution managed to strip any sense of hypocrisy from your soul?

Or to quote Matthew; “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 10:09:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Alan B,

You wrote;

“In order to explain life and he universe, we are left with just two conclusions, intelligent design or magic?”

Or the third and most obvious is that we don't know everything yet but as our understanding grows things are revealed that were once considered 'magic' or unknown and are now accepted orthodoxy.

Your post is all about filling the gaps in our knowledge with a God. In some ways this is more disingenuous than the kookiness of Don as he is prepared to set aside solid science and be judged on that. You are more intent on inhabiting the fuzzy areas thus preserving your beliefs from direct assessment. Why not take the bull by the horns and commit properly because one day all the gaps will be gone.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 10:23:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear SteeleRedux,

You wrote: "Why not take the bull by the horns and commit properly because one day all the gaps will be gone."

I don't think all the gaps will ever be gone, but I may be wrong.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 10:29:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steelie: “In order to explain life and he universe, we are left with just two conclusions, intelligent design or magic?”

Hi Steelie. Welcome Back. Intelligent Design or Magic. Nah! It was Rabbits, The Rabbits made the Heavens, Earth The Cosmos & Everything In between & round about.

Maybe what we call God does exist. Being a "Being" of which Earth is but a single Atom with-in that Being. Just Navel Gazing, that's all. Maybe?

Then, with-in us, there are other Atoms on which there is Life, but not as we know it. As they say, "It's Elephants all the way down, or is that Turtles?

Hey, Steelie, figured out if the World is Flat or Round yet? Just askin,' that's all.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 11:37:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can see from certain comments here that we have the willfully blind attempting to refute the nature of reality. Namely, that nothing in existence could account for cosmic unity, nor the interconnected nature of the natural world; nor the immense biological complexity of every form of life; nor the reality that the universe cannot sustain itself and is running down towards increasing disorder, loss of information and heat death; Nor the reality that nothing in the universe is self explaining or self sustaining with self-existing or self-creating capabilities. All of which makes a self-existing transcendent first cause beyond the running down dying cosmos – God - both a scientific and philosophical necessity. Were it otherwise nothing would exist and we wouldn't be having this conversation - like it or not, believe it or not.

So, if anyone out there knows of any self-existing, self-creating and self-sustaining entity in the universe the Nobel Committee would like to hear from you. As you will certainly be awarded the ultimate Nobel Prize. Off you go - lets all see what you come up with. http://thegodreality.org/miraclesofscience.html
Posted by johnheininger, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 11:48:24 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reading the plain truth of Scripture is so refreshing from reading the idiotic illogical rants of the deniers. Wonderful to see clearly what is written in Scripture demonstrated in nature. Must be hard to shut your eyes and deny what can be plainly seen. Oh well that phd must be worth it for some.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 12:04:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Alan B can you please give a reference to any scientist saying the things your saying?

Quantum mechanics does not suggest you can believe something into being. It just shows you don't understand QM. Probability waveforms collapsing when observation occurs is not the same a wishing.

"The oxygen in the air that I breathe cannot be seen, touched, heard or felt, yet if it were gone for just a few minutes, I would die."
Well oxygen can be seen, can be touched, and can be heard...how or earth do you think we know it's there! Again the science literate not letting their ignorance stop them from having an opinion and thinking they should be taken seriously.

@runner you demonstrate your love for your fellow man in every post.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 12:57:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But what about Consciousness and Light, which is the Energy of Consciousness? And therefore by extension the nature of Quantum Reality as a paradoxical Indivisible Unity.
Four references which essentially outshine all the arguments given so far.
http://www.dabase.org/Reality_Itself_Is_Not_In_The_Middle.htm
http://www.dabase.org/illusion-weather.htm
http://www.dabase.org/hardware.htm
http://spiralledlight.wordpress.com
Posted by Daffy Duck, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 1:07:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the end it boils down to this the materialistic view of the universe has lead to some marvelous insight and invention.

Can any of these God of the Gaps or designer types provide some useful insight into the nature of realty to improve our understanding or invention?

The answer is no... I'm happy to be corrected?
Posted by Cobber the hound, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 1:12:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cobber

Many of the leading enlightenment and 19th century scientists were Christians. Much of the impetus for their scientific quest was faith based. Belief in a universe that was made by a creator underpinned the expectation that it would be orderly and rational, as opposed to pagan thinking that saw matter as enchanted and mysterious.

Understanding the world and nature was seen as a way to understanding the mind that made it. Newton, Kepler, Boyd, Priestly and Faraday were not just believers but active as churchmen and/or theologians, though many were unorthodox. Darwin was an active churchgoer for most of his life, though in later years become agnostic.

Towards the end of Principles, Newton wrote: "This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being”
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 1:54:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Phanto,

<<Please don’t use words like God, divinity and eternal bliss. Use words that everyone can understand and which can be defined>>

In effect, you are asking me to limit my posting to the superficial and mundane, including whatever can be derived thereof, which is not of any significance.

But this is exactly my criticism of the author: instead of coming from God, then perhaps drawing some conclusions on how life on earth ought to be lived, he comes from physics and biology and attempts to make God a conclusion: God is not a conclusion, Mr. Batten!

The only value in science, is to fill our stomachs and shelter our bodies from the elements. We need healthy bodies to maintain our brains and spirit and mind and intellect, so the latter can discriminate against the vanity of the world and help us to become God-ready. So long as the vital needs of our bodies are reasonably served, we have no need to waste our time on silly questions such as how this world came about.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 2:28:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Simple maths for the willfully blind. If T=E and E=M then T can=M.

Yes, my dark matter intrusion theory comes complements of NASA and a veritable army of cooperating and consensus driven scientists.

And just a little more scientific than something from nothing or immutable energy and the unified energy field we call the entire universe being created by (beggars belief)scientifically implausible fortuitous serendipitous happenstance!?

From nothing you get more nothing and shiploads of it, if that is your locked and bolted mindset?

I come from an allied scientific background and like many of my ilk, cannot contemplate the atom, without also contemplating the very real possibility of a God particle.

If that makes me an independent original thinker, so be it. And believe the jury is still out on evolution theory and intelligent design alike.

I'd rather some folks would read some universally available scientific literature, then apply a little (still missing) research and critical thinking of their own, than simply resorting to impugning my integrity, knowledge base and intelligence as their first and only response!?

Make me go to my library and I'll bury you under a mountain of required reading and academia all connected to science and supporting the claims I've proposed in my posts.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 3 May 2016 3:43:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B you're a fool, If T=E and E=M then T can=M, might work for the rubes at your local creationist ( hillbilly) meeting, but you're just making a fool of yourself.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 4:14:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There seems to be the widespread notion on this forum that because we cant see, touch or directly observe God that we can dismiss God's existence. In fact I have never seen, touched or observed the person who designed and made my car or this computer, or anything else I have brought. None of us ever need to. We know they exist and that they are creative and intelligent because of the "very nature" of the devices they have created. These devices in and of themselves are indisputable evidence that "affirms" their existence. And no sane person would suggest otherwise. So,it is with God! We know God exists because the vary nature of everything in existence leaves us no other option: The reality of cosmic existence and unity. the existence of natural laws; inherent natural patterns; cosmic fine tuning; precisely balance of sub-atomic particles; life; consciousness; the breathtaking complexity of genetic coding and the DNA double helix, and the immense complexity of the eye and human brain. All of which necessitate and intelligent creative cause. None of which can be scientifically explained by undirected chance events and natural processes. Aware of these realities, atheists such as Richard Dawkins naively argue that God would be much more complex than everything in the universe, and therefore more difficult to explain. So, we should just conclude that the universe made itself. Of course, we could apply this same flawed logic to our car and laptop. The creator of this computer would be much more complex than the car, and therefore much more difficult to explain. So, we should all just conclude that our car and computer designed and made themselves. Which is irrational nonsense. Moreover, one of the most established fact of science is that an "effect" can never be greater than the "cause". Thus, we know that that every human attribute must of necessity be prevalent to a greater extent in the creative cosmic cause - God.
Posted by johnheininger, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 4:38:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As previously stated, one of the most established fact of science is that an "effect" can never be greater than the "cause". Thus, we know that that every human attribute must of necessity be prevalent to a greater extent in the creative cosmic cause - God. This is precisely how we know that the creative source of the universe is also a "personal" conscious creative entity that brought the cosmos, life and all else into existence. And that this transcendent creative entity must of necessity likewise possess personal attributes,including the ability to relate and communicate with humanity. Particularly when around 60 per cent of the human brain is geared towards communication. And that with humans at the very apex of the communication triangle. So, it would be humanity that would be the recipients of such communication. The million dollar question is "Has God ever directly communicated to humanity in an intelligent propositional way." And the answer is a decisive yes. The reality of God's existence firstly communicated in terms of the existence and intelligible nature of the world that surrounds us. And secondly in the immense probability that the Biblical manuscripts are indeed the source of divine revelation, having no equal or competitor in terms of historical, archeological, and legal validity. Here: http://thegodreality.org/manuscripts.htm
Posted by johnheininger, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 4:44:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
johnheininger,: And secondly in the immense probability that the Biblical manuscripts are indeed the source of divine revelation, having no equal or competitor in terms of historical, archeological, and legal validity. Here: http://thegodreality.org/manuscripts.htm

Which Biblical Manuscripts. There have been many, many Biblical Scripts. Many sources of divine revelation, over the past 7000 years that their have been written scripts. Is Gilgamesh true, are the Egyptian, Sumerian, Greek, Roman, Viking, & the Indian Vedas equally as true as the Jewish Torah & the Christian Bible. I won't include the Koran as it is just a load of Misogynistic Crap.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 5:54:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear davidf,

Oh I have little doubt we will manage to get pretty close before our consciousnesses get snuffed out, although I'm not positive about our form. Perhaps it will be some human AI hybrid, who knows, but we are becoming more God like every day. Our interconnectedness for better or worse is astounding and as mind and machines become more thoroughly intertwined it is opening up possible futures that serve to both inspire and terrify.

The ancients would of course seen our technological abilities as magic if not divine. It is diverting to thing of Jesus paving the way as a human God. His powers to heal are now replicated in even the smallest hospitals (thinking of Fred Hollows restoring sight), our vaccines are now giving protections that were the subject of much prayer, and his ascension to the heavens has become commonplace since Yuri first stepped forth.

Naturally there is a fear of knowing everything, perhaps even a tragedy in waiting, since we humans often seem to find more meaning in the journey. But the thirst for knowledge has certainly been a great driver for our species.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 7:04:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear johnheininger,

.

Wikipedia has this to say on the historicity of the gospels :

« Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels

The problem is that there are only three elements in the gospels subject to "almost universal assent" among scholars: (1) that Jesus probably existed (2) was baptized by John the Baptist and (3) was crucified on the order of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate – all the rest being a matter of pure conjecture.

As for the historicity of the Old Testament (the Hebrew bible), according to archaeologist William G. Dever :

« Archaeology certainly doesn't prove literal readings of the Bible...It calls them into question, and that's what bothers some people. Most people really think that archaeology is out there to prove the Bible. No archaeologist thinks so." From the beginnings of what we call biblical archaeology, perhaps 150 years ago, scholars, mostly western scholars, have attempted to use archaeological data to prove the Bible. And for a long time it was thought to work. William Albright, the great father of our discipline, often spoke of the "archaeological revolution." Well, the revolution has come but not in the way that Albright thought. The truth of the matter today is that archaeology raises more questions about the historicity of the Hebrew Bible and even the New Testament than it provides answers, and that's very disturbing to some people. »

In addition, it seems that the Exodus, inter alia, never happened …

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology#Expert_commentaries

I’m afraid only a very tiny percentage of what you probably call « scriptures » is the subject of consensus among reputable scholars of antiquity.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 7:52:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear John,

Has the possibility occurred to you that this world could have a creator who is not God?

Maybe some mad scientist in some other dimension?
Could that scientist not even be good?
Why should one worship that scientist?
Only because he happens to have that much more knowledge and capabilities than us? that attitude is called "might is right"!
Only because he can advance your worldly desires? that's materialistic!
Only because he could reward you with heaven and punish you with hell? that's a fear-born selfish motive!

If you reduce God to a material function, then others could just as well take His place - this is not religion: this is opportunism.
It matters not whether that person created heaven and earth - nowhere but in God will you find rest and peace.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 3 May 2016 8:00:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo,
In assessing the truth content of the gospels, your standard of proof given is 'universal assent.' As such, you've set the bar pretty high.

For how many of our personal beliefs do we only accept the standard of 'universal assent'? For example, would we ever bother turning up at a polling booth on election day if we would only choose a candidate who was commended with universal assent by all the knowledgeable political commentators. I'd doubt it.

But if we may try and compare apples with apples, the gospels should be compared with other literature of antiquity. For instance, we state with confidence the histories of people and events of ancient Rome and Greece, etc. based on the writings passed down to us by the historians and biographers of the day. We assess the accuracy and veracity of the texts by certain, hopefully objective, standards. My understanding is that the gospels are consistent with the style of certain biographies of the day, and have arrived to us intact within acceptable degrees of confidence.

The introduction to Luke's effort lends itself to such confidence: "Many people have set out to write accounts about the events that have been fulfilled among us. They used the eyewitness reports circulating among us from the early disciples. Having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I also have decided to write a careful account for you, most honorable Theophilus, so you can be certain of the truth of everything you were taught."

Jon J,
You claim to be looking for certain elements: descriptions of how; sequence of action; reasonings; and results. I would suggest that Genesis does contain these very elements. Although the creation accounts given by Moses appear more like only a framework, a fair amount of detail is there to work with and point the more curious into further avenues of investigation.

Could I ask what you mean when you say atheists 'have already won'. What have they won? A prize or award? Maybe 51% (or some other percentage) of market share? Maybe they've successfully demonstrated complete knowledge of life's deeper mysteries?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 4 May 2016 9:36:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,
You've summed it up excellently. If someone were to ask how belief in design or a grand designer helped advance science and progress, it is appropriate to turn to such a list of our Western scientific founders, and point out, as many historians and philosophers of science acknowledge, the connection between their thinking and their faith. You've mentioned Newton, Kepler, Boyd, Priestly and Faraday, but really, space here does not permit the list that should be mentioned. That the universe is orderly, unified and stable, and can be investigated rationally are not ideas that were naturally present in all men and all cultures. Scientific investigation didn't just fall out of the trees. It was a convergence of ideas that flowed from elements of religious thought. It is no coincidence that Western science flourished and boomed after the Protestant reformation.

As I see it, creationists are following in this same tradition. They are not surprised to see design in a world that was created with plan and purpose. So now, I am curious to know why you accuse Don Batten of "torturing theology". Plainly, he's out of step with majority scientific opinion on biology being capable of organising itself and its myriad forms without the programming of a Designer. But in his straight forward Bible belief, where do you say he's missing it theologically?

(And while I'm here, I would also question your perception of where the church generally in Australia stands on creation and evolution. All Christians are creationists [acknowledge God as creator] in at least some vague manner, as it is right there on page one of the Scriptures and is right there plainly in the Creeds. The degree to which Christians accept a literal Genesis varies widely, but I think it's more prominent than what you made out. I would say that Peter Selleck's view of the resurrection does not reflect the view of the great majority of Christians I've met. Most believe in a miraculous and bodily resurrection. And if you don't, I'm scratching my head to see how you interpret Corinthians 15.)
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 4 May 2016 9:43:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“In effect, you are asking me to limit my posting to the superficial and mundane, including whatever can be derived thereof, which is not of any significance.”

There is nothing that is superficial or mundane about the world we live in which is the topic of this thread. Religious people turn to religion because they see the world as superficial and mundane and project all their hopes onto some other imaginary world and existence. The problem is not that things in themselves are superficial and mundane but that some people perceive them to be. One person’s trash is another’s treasure.

People who speak as if they have some Gnostic understanding of the world are those who place themselves above their fellow men. It is an arrogance born of insecurity not of knowledge. When you use words that cannot be defined you are implying that the fault is with the reader who simply does not have your insights. If you had respect for your readers and your aim was to genuinely communicate you would use language that is commonly understood by all people. If you have a good argument then there is no need to resort to language which is other than everyday conversation.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 4 May 2016 10:01:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jayb states:

"I won't include the Koran as it is just a load of Misogynistic Crap."

Please support your statement and identify your sources.
Posted by grateful, Wednesday, 4 May 2016 10:22:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Dan S de Merengue

While I wanted to point out that believing in God as creator is not inimical to modern science, and may even be conducive to it, I am not endorsing a creationist position as advocated by Don. Belief in God as creator can cover a very broad spectrum, from people who believe God literally brought the universe, nature and humanity into being in seven days, and therefore the theory of evolution and almost all modern cosmology and geology are wrong; to scientist-theologians like John Polkinghorne and Martin Rees. These fully accept mainstream modern science, but see divine action at work in the deep symmetry and order of the laws of physics, and the fact that natural constants such as the force of gravity seem fine-tuned to create a universe capable of producing intelligent life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Dawkins has dismissed this as the “divine knob twiddler’ theory.

None of the mainstream churches deny the big bang or evolution, and the pope recently endorsed them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-francis-declares-evolution-and-big-bang-theory-are-right-and-god-isnt-a-magician-with-a-magic-9822514.html

Then there’s the position of theologians like Peter Sellick, who often writes here, and who sees God’s creative activity as nothing to do with the material origins of life and the universe.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 4 May 2016 11:41:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful: Jayb states: "I won't include the Koran as it is just a load of Misogynistic Crap."

Please support your statement and identify your sources.

I order to support my Statement I give you the... "Koran."
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 4 May 2016 2:21:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

.

You observed :

«… if we may try and compare apples with apples, the gospels should be compared with other literature of antiquity. For instance, we state with confidence the histories of people and events of ancient Rome and Greece, etc. based on the writings passed down to us by the historians and biographers of the day. We assess the accuracy and veracity of the texts by certain, hopefully objective, standards. My understanding is that the gospels are consistent with the style of certain biographies of the day …»
.

I understand your apprehension with Wikipedia. All I can say is that the sources cited in the article are purported to be reputable scholars of antiquity. If that is the case, I am sure they have proceeded as you suggest and more.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 4 May 2016 4:28:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jayb states: "I order to support my Statement I give you the... "Koran.""

In other words you cann't support the statement but are too cowardly to admit it.

My next point: You stated the following:

"Which Biblical Manuscripts. There have been many, many Biblical Scripts. Many sources of divine revelation, over the past 7000 years that their have been written scripts. Is Gilgamesh true, are the Egyptian, Sumerian, Greek, Roman, Viking, & the Indian Vedas equally as true as the Jewish Torah & the Christian Bible. I won't include the Koran as it is just a load of Misogynistic Crap."

How many of these manuscripts can you say has been preserved?
In the case of the Qur'an, we have the Birmingham manuscripts:

‘Muslims believe that the Qur’an they read today is the same text that was standardised under Uthman and regard it as the exact record of the revelations that were delivered to Muhammad.

‘The tests carried out on the parchment of the Birmingham folios yield the strong probability that the animal from which it was taken was alive during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad or shortly afterwards. This means that the parts of the Qur’an that are written on this parchment can, with a degree of confidence, be dated to less than two decades after Muhammad’s death. These portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Qur’an read today, supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration and that it can be dated to a point very close to the time it was believed to be revealed.’"

source: http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2015/07/quran-manuscript-22-07-15.aspx

That's the University of Birmingham website saying that not a Muslim website.

In the Quran itself, it predicts that it will be protected from corruption:

‘’We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption). (Al-Hijr –Stone land-:9)

There's your miracle.

Ignorance is bliss, until it is smashed on the head by the truth.
Posted by grateful, Wednesday, 4 May 2016 5:33:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Batten writes: "Isaac Newton, the greatest scientific mind of all time, was a Christian believer, as were other founders of modern science."
In Newton's time everyone was a christian. the alternative was usually punishable by a cruel death pronounced and executed by civil authority. Newton followed Arianus and Socinius. He would have been anathematised and seriously persecuted by the anglican church had his allegiances been public knowledge. He rejected as idolatry the divinity of Jesus of Joseph and Mary. Even today with the weasel-worded reinterpretations of doctrine and scripture, the lachrymose mea culpas of church hierarchy and the hypocritical adoption of ignorance as an immaculate defence, Newton would be anathematised and/or excommunicated from christianity. Anyone claiming Newton's "christianity" as advantageous to the christian cause is ignorant of history and secretly relies on that presumption being endemic among his adversaries as well.

Batten writes: "Surveys have consistently shown that people with a strong adherence to the Bible's authority are the least likely to be superstitious, in contrast to the average de facto atheist."
Such internal contradictions are of the type exemplified in the declaration; "I'm not a racist! I just hate wogs and slopes!" The phrase, "strong adherence to the bible's authority" is, in fact, an undeniable example of SUPERSTITION. Total commitment to biblical inerrancy, even a "strong adherence" [almost total] raise issues that are laughable in their internal contrariness and risible in the arbitrary nature of the choices available......illogic applied to self-delusion, the epitome of superstition. Would it be too presumptuous to enquire after some authentication of those consistently supporting surveys?
Batten exhibits that execrable feature of creationists which seeks not to inform but to preach, not to elucidate but to confound. One could, if generous enough, humorously indulge the naïve and juvenile tenor of his treatise. It becomes immediately obvious to the discerning reader that if Batten has little or no understanding of aspects of physics and chemistry he presumes a similar deficiency in his target readership. He argues with the fresh enthusiasm of one who is yet unaccustomed to the subtle use of after-shave
Posted by Pogi, Wednesday, 4 May 2016 8:25:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Phanto,

<<There is nothing that is superficial or mundane about the world we live in which is the topic of this thread.>>

The word 'mundane' comes from the Latin 'mundus' - world.

My argument here, hence the terms I use, is with others such as the author, who share a common goal, who like myself also aspire to overcome our addiction to the world (even while we might disagree over the methods).

As you wish to keep your addiction to the world, our paths part, we share no common goals and in your own words, "One person’s trash is another’s treasure."

---

Dear Grateful,

The carbon age of the Birmingham parchment proves nothing as parchments at the time were expensive and it was common to erase them and rewrite over previous texts: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/07/oldest-quran-fragments-in-the-world-discovered-in-the-uk-maybe-maybe-not

I appreciate that neither yourself nor Sheikh Nuh Keller or the Sufi tradition supports violence, but the Quran as we know it today calls for violence, hence cannot befit or be the work of the blessed Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

---

Dear Rhian,

<<from people who believe God literally brought the universe, nature and humanity into being in seven days>>

Six - not seven.

The advantage in believing the biblical creation-story, is the gift of the Sabbath.
If believing inspires you to regularly take the time off away from work and busy-ness and dedicate a day wholly for recovering your spirit, then it is worthwhile (otherwise it's merely regurgitating technical information).
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 4 May 2016 10:34:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jayb, you say:
"Leo Lane: Then we are told that he must exist, because he made the world in which we live, and if he did not, then who did?

I question “Who,” does there have to be a “Who?” Is it Logical to have a “Who?” Why is the “Who” a “he?” If the “Who” cannot be seen, heard, touched smelt or tasted, & we assign “He” to Humans as they exist at present then the “Who” is a non-entity, or “It” which is called a God."
I was simply conjecturing as to statements arising in the circumstances I described. It is not my statement, and I am not reporting anyone’s statement. I concocted it from what I remember of the many discussions I have heard. You must be aware that many people personify their deity.

Jayb:"Leo Lane: It is ridiculous for highly intelligent fools like Richard Dawkins to make the puerile pronouncement that there is no god,

I could be said also that highly intelligent fools such as Creationists & other Religious Fanatics make puerile announcements that there is a God."

My statement is in respect of a specific man whose books I have read, and whose programmes I have watched and heard. He is highly knowledgeable on DNA, and would be aware that humans are hard-wired to believe in gods
Your statement is general, so not in respect of any specific person or persons, or any particular circumstances and you have given no proper basis for it.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 4 May 2016 10:35:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Battan says "Isaac Newton, the greatest scientific mind of all time, was a Christian believer, as were other founders of modern science"

Pogi, while i understand why it is very misleading to say Christian believer given that most people who would call themselves Christians a trinitarians, the point remains that Newton had a firm belief in God that was founded on extensive research. He was a follower of Jesus not the Church.

"Isaac Newton (1642-1727) was a deeply religious person who wrote far more words on religion than he did on science. Early on, as an undergraduate at Trinity College Cambridge, he wrote a list of sins, itself a mark of his religious convictions. Many of these since relate to his non-attendance at church on Sunday. At some point he moved away from the orthodox (conventional) thinking of the Church of England and became a radical heretic, denying that Jesus Christ shared any essential characteristics of God. Because he denied the existence of the Holy Trinity that was believed by all orthodox Catholics and Protestants, Newton's position is characterized as antitrinitarian. Because there were severe legal and social penalties for holding such beliefs, he was forced to keep his views quiet and they became known only after he had died.
source: http://www.enlighteningscience.sussex.ac.uk/learning_objects/student/science_and_religion/isaac_newton_on_religion
Posted by grateful, Wednesday, 4 May 2016 10:46:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Newton was a follower of Jesus, the Prophet, and not the Church. Look at the extent of his research:
"By far the most systematic theological research undertaken by Newton concerned the field of prophecy, in which he wrote over 2 million words (which still survive). He wrote in one place that he had been chosen by God to offer an explanation of these texts to his contemporaries, though any plans in this direction were presumably thwarted by their radical nature. In other areas he analysed the character of the fourth century Roman Catholics whom he believed had worked on behalf of the devil and had perverted the Christian religion. He carried out a great deal of research on the nature of Christ's relationship to his father, and also wrote a lengthy Analysis of dimensions of Solomon's Temple, an attempt to ascertain the true dimensions of the temple based on the description given in Ezekiel chs 40-8. In the last three decades of his life he spent vast amounts of time attempting to give a true chronology of events preceding Christ, much of which depended on his redating of the voyage of the Argonauts to 936bce. On at least one occasion, he gave a sermon on his favourite subject, idolatry."
"http://www.enlighteningscience.sussex.ac.uk/learning_objects/student/science_and_religion/isaac_newton_on_religion"
Posted by grateful, Wednesday, 4 May 2016 10:48:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In the closing para to his point [1] Origin of the universe, Batten writes: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). This is not magic, because God, who is eternal and omnipotent, is a sufficient cause for the universe. And He can exist eternally (and therefore has no beginning) because He is a non-material entity (God is spirit, as the Bible says in many places). In the most generous of interpretations one might observe that Batten is declaring that his arbitrary version of the supernatural trumps magic. It is inescapable though that he is railing against a magic straw-man in order to erect a supernatural one in its place.
He has a legitimate eternal and omnipotent agency of creation because his holy book says so, but science’s “magical” agency is illegitimate because he says so. And who would know better than he who branded it magical? The very devices he uses to rail against science “magic” he uses to legitimize his god.
Batten expects to gain credibility by resort to “sufficient cause” and a contrived use of the eternal, of non-materiality and spirit, by conflating the scientific method with drawing a rabbit from a hat. So one must wonder how he reconciles his high erudition in the agricultural sciences with such hare-brained notions. Before proceeding to further criticism it might profit us to ask for an explanation.
Posted by Pogi, Wednesday, 4 May 2016 11:54:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo,
Wikipedia? It may have a place, but complex issues are not its forte.

If I was offered two texts unseen, one taken from Wikipedia, and one from the Bible, I think I'd know in which I would have more confidence. Only one has earned the reputation of containing 'gospel' truth.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 5 May 2016 12:04:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful, Wednesday, 4 May 2016 10:46:19 PM.

While I appreciate the short bio of Newton as a religious believer, not one whit of my post has suffered your attention and emerged bowed and beaten. I repeat, in Newton's day everyone was a believer at least on the surface. Religion held power of life and death over society and a highly suggestive and superstitious population lived in real fear of provoking divine wrath.
Credibility is not enhanced by advising us that during the middle ages great minds gave allegiance to the christian god. Such assertion has around the same impact as your advising that water is wet and that the pope is catholic.
Posted by Pogi, Thursday, 5 May 2016 12:41:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Possibly the three persons responsible for the greatest scientific discoveries were Newton, Darwin and Einstein. Newton lived in a time when one could not safely be an atheist. However, he did deny key Christian beliefs such as the Trinity. Darwin lost religious belief apparently completely but did not want to hurt his religious wife. Einstein did not believe in a personal God. I don't think one can be greatly above average intelligence and believe in the biblical god.

Not wanting to be burned at the stake or even rejected by society most people who realize that God like Zeus, the tooth fairy or Santa Claus is a human invention will be silent. At this time in this society one generally does not have to be silent unless one is a politician or clergy.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 5 May 2016 1:01:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,
Thanks for the article. Though a Pope's speech will naturally attract media attention, one man alone cannot represent all of the positions within the Catholic Church, which are quite varied. There are Catholic theologians who see the obvious difficulties with Darwin and evolution.

If atheists want to criticise creationists for the findings, this would be welcome if criticism is given with substantial argument. And the same could be said for believers coming from a certain angle who wish to criticise creationists for their theological positions. From your comments, you seem to have shown yourself to be a church goer. I can appreciate that understandings may differ amongst believers. But when you accuse Don Batten of "torturing theology", don't you think that is rather strong language? What is it that you find so twisted?

I said in my last post that creationists hold similar traditional views on God the Designer to those of the great founders of Western science, (Newton, Kepler, Boyd, Priestly, Faraday, etc.,) those whom you also hold in esteem. These men were not simply nominal in their faith. They had a deep respect and affection for the Scriptures. Johannes Kepler, the discoverer of the laws of planetary motion said, his scientific thoughts were “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” And so, as believers, our understanding of the world is informed by the propositional truths revealed of scripture. "For in six days the LORD made the heavens, the earth, the sea, and everything in them," might be a good place to begin theologically. As it says in the Creeds, which are a summary of the faith, 'We believe in the Father, maker of heaven and earth ... '

If you want to disagree with me, that's fine, but it would be helpful to say why you disagree. But you've done more than just disagree. You've declared the creationist understanding of theology to be 'tortured'. Such strong words require an explanation.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 5 May 2016 8:48:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

.

You wrote :

« If I was offered two texts unseen, one taken from Wikipedia, and one from the Bible, I think I'd know in which I would have more confidence. Only one has earned the reputation of containing 'gospel' truth. »
.

Which “gospel truth” do you have in mind, Dan ?

I understand there are as many different “gospel truths” as there are Christian denominations, i.e., approx. 45,000 at the latest count (2014), apart from a general consensus on the “core doctrines”: the divinity of Jesus and the authority of the bible.

It appears that the major differences depend on the branch of Christianity the denominations belong to: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism or Anglicanism.

But, whichever way you look at it, that’s still quite a lot of “gospel truths” to choose from don’t you think ?

http://www.gordonconwell.edu/resources/documents/StatusOfGlobalMission.pdf

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/branches

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 5 May 2016 9:04:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue wrote: "There are Catholic theologians who see the obvious difficulties with Darwin and evolution."

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

To the best of my knowledge, there are no obvious difficulties with Darwin and evolution. It may contradict their theology, but facts and reason have a way of contradicting fantasy. Catholic theologians placed Galileo under house arrest for supporting Copernicus' idea that the earth orbits the sun. Giordano Bruno who was burned at the stake in 1600 by the decision of Catholic theologians maintained that there were other solar systems with planets orbiting other suns. It is reasonable to assume that many Catholic theologians cannot understand science. One can only be thankful that those superstitious groups of men no longer have the power to arrest people or burn them at the stake.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 5 May 2016 9:50:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful: In other words you cann't support the statement but are too cowardly to admit it.

You are wrong. You probably misunderstood the statement because of your limited understanding of the English language & it's nuances.

The Koran as it is in it's entirety is Misogynistic in it treatment of women as merely sex objects to be owned or traded. (72 virgins) The Koran has three things as it's Sacred Tenants. Allah as only in the Koran, the Killing of Infidels & Sex with anything that moves. (women, children & animals)

grateful: How many of these manuscripts can you say has been preserved?

Quite a few actually. While, for most of them, not in their entirety. Egyptian Hieoglyphs, The Gilgamesh Sagas, Zorasterism, The three Budhists books & I'm sure Yutsie will attest the the Vedas being some 5000 years old.

It is believed that Mahommad couldn't read or write & had a scribe, as was the fashon in those days. The words wern't put down in one place until a hundred years or so after Mahommads death. <‘Muslims believe that the Qur’an they read today is the same text that was standardised under Uthman > Also, What Islamic people believe is what they are told to believe or be killed. We see a verification of that now in the Middle East. The Sharia Laws were set down at the same time.

The Koran itself & the Sharia Laws are a Comblobminanation of Middle Eastern Mans Cultural Practices at the time of writing. The Devine Revelations is only there to potray some sort of legitimacy to the Koran. A writers trick.
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 5 May 2016 9:56:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jayb wrote: "The Devine Revelations is only there to potray some sort of legitimacy to the Koran. A writers trick."

The same thing applies to the Bible. Divine Revelation gives legitimacy to the cultural practices at the time the different parts of the Bible were generated. The Bible is no more legitimate than the Koran. Even fundamentalists admit that by their acts. They generally no longer support polygamy or slavery which were both accepted in the Bible. I doubt that many fundamentalists would accept the claim of a pregnant daughter that she was a virgin.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 5 May 2016 10:11:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David f: The same thing applies to the Bible. Divine Revelation gives legitimacy to the cultural practices at the time the different parts of the Bible were generated. The Bible is no more legitimate than the Koran.

Oh, I agree. Maybe some old Hippies (Kumbyah) should get together & have a "Devine Revelation" based on 21st. Century practises & write a new "Book." Gee's, what a mess that would be. Oh, wait..., Rastafarians.
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 5 May 2016 10:46:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David f
Newton was deeply religious, though unorthodox. He wrote more about religion than science. To say he was Christian from fear of persecution or cultural blindness is to misrepresent him and his motives.

Einstein did not believe in a personal god, but described himself as religious.

Your statement “I don't think one can be greatly above average intelligence and believe in the biblical god” seems rather arrogant, and flies in the face of evidence of religious beliefs of some of the West’s greatest thinkers. But of course it rather depends on what you mean by believing in a biblical god. I would agree that young-earth seven-day creationism is not intellectually tenable given what we know today. But the bible is not a science textbook or historical journal (though it does contain some history).

Dan
I agree there is a variety of interpretations of creation within the Roman Catholic church, and others (including Anglicanism, my denomination). In my experience and observation, the ones who see evolution and the big bang as incompatible with their understanding of creation are a minority.

I accuse Batten of torturing both science and theology because he is making a category error in trying to portray scientific and theological accounts of creation as essentially the same thing. In doing so, he repeats critiques of evolution and cosmology that have been debunked many times.

More importantly, he devalues and misunderstands Genesis by interpreting it as primarily an historical account of how we came to be here. Yuri posted a great quote from John Dominick Crossan is his comments on an article by Peter Sellick: "“My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.”

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18180

Read symbolically, Genesis 1-3 has profound things to say about nature and the human condition. Read literally, it is nonsense.
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 5 May 2016 11:46:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rhian,

You wrote: "Your statement “I don't think one can be greatly above average intelligence and believe in the biblical god” seems rather arrogant, and flies in the face of evidence of religious beliefs of some of the West’s greatest thinkers."

I iterate the statement: I don't think one can be greatly above average intelligence and believe in the biblical god.

There is no evidence I know of that any of the people of great intelligence believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible. I stated it as a belief rather than a fact. One of the techniques in propaganda is name-calling. Rather than counter a person's statement with evidence one calls names. Saying my statement was 'rather arrogant' is name-calling.

Another technique is proof by assertion. 'flies in the face of evidence' is proof by assertion. If you have evidence that any great thinker believed literally in the biblical god than please supply such evidence, and I will examine it. Otherwise I have no reason to question my belief. I don't argue with facts. I also don't argue by name-calling.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 5 May 2016 12:37:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,

I'm a bit surprised to see someone like yourself raising the fine tuning argument in a somewhat favourable light, given how thoroughly debunked it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jU42uC9vag
http://youtu.be/mlLdq1tRcOg
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Fine-tuning_argument
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 5 May 2016 12:47:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is one big God of the Gaps fallacy. Leo Lane has helped to keep this fallacy alive in the comments section with his talk of consciousness.

Fine-tuning has been mentioned, which commits the Argument from Incredulity fallacy and the Begging the Question fallacy.

Is there an apologist here (including the author) who can present an argument (just one, give us your best) in support of the existence of a god, that is not fallacious?

*Crickets chirping*
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 5 May 2016 1:49:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David f

I’ll admit my use of “arrogant” was an insult, but so was your claim that it’s not possible to be a Christian and intelligent. We have already discussed the religious beliefs of many of the west’s great thinkers, so I am not arguing without evidence. If your contention applies only to contemporary thinkers, perhaps you could consider one of the many lists of prominent contemporary academics who are also Christian, including several natural science Nobel laureates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

If your argument is that it is not possible given modern knowledge for an intelligent person to take all of the bible as literally true, then I agree with you. But that’s not what “believing in a biblical god” means to most Christians.

AJ Philips
I am aware of criticisms of the “fine tuning” theory, and used it mainly to illustrate the range of views that sits loosely under the tag of intelligent design. Some versions of it are daft (I hadn’t heard of the lunar eclipse theory before I read your link, but it’s clearly one). But some of its refutations are not very persuasive. The Douglas Adams “puddle” argument is amusing but essentially circular – the universe must be conducive to the creation of intelligent life, or we wouldn’t be here to ask the why it is. And some of science’s attempts to explain the “fine tuning” seem contrived to explain away its seeming improbability. For example, the multiverse theory which posits that all possible universes exist, including all the ones in which intelligent life could not evolve, but by logical necessity we inhabit one in which it did.

I don’t think fine tuning proves the existence of God, but it does perhaps raise the possibility that the universe has a creator. In any event, I don’t think the origin of life is the central question that the bible seeks to address
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 5 May 2016 2:34:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,
Indeed, the Bible (in particular, Genesis) addresses all of the central questions of life, not excluding details about its origin. I don't know how you could miss it.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 5 May 2016 4:03:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo,
Which of the 'gospel' truths do I have in mind? Any or all of them. Open any page, and you will find reliable information concerning the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. Some say it's life changing.

As for the 45,000 different churches or Christian denominations of which you speak, I don't find this particularly disconcerting. The gospel has entered into hundreds of different languages and cultures over many centuries. Given the human tendency to divide and splinter along the slightest quibble, I'm quite surprised at the level of unity of teaching one can find amongst the various churches. This is in no small part due to the integrity of canonical Scriptures themselves, which are recognised more or less universally by all Christians.

From my experience, I work in association with a large Christian mission in Africa. Our members come from several countries and numerous Protestant denominations. Exactly which ones I couldn't immediately say, as we never bother getting around to ask each other where we're from. We also have healthy working relations with Catholics and others. What unifies us is a lot more than what divides us.

As for this more recent (in theological terms) controversy of creation/evolution, there are differing views. Creationists and evolutionists are present everywhere; it's not split along denominational lines. Historically, the way I see it, Darwin and others really rocked the boat in about the middle to late 19th Century, and it has yet to stabilise. Belief in evolution then grew steadily for about a 100 years. But since then, sometime after the middle of the 20th Century, the tide has turned. Science is continually finding increasing levels of sophistication and evidence for design in biology. I doubt those 19th Century ideas (e.g. Darwin knew nothing of genetics, etc.) will stand the test of time.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 5 May 2016 11:04:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pogi wrote: “Credibility is not enhanced by advising us that during the middle ages great minds gave allegiance to the christian god.”

True, but I’d make two points. Firstly Newton rejected the Christian (Church sanctioned interpretation) God, and secondly he undertook an extensive rational enquiry to understand the true person of Jesus. This is inconsistent with the notion that Newton was among the “highly suggestive and superstitious” and so his example should not be dismissed so flippantly.

As a Muslim, the irony of Don Battan, CEO of Creation Ministries International (Australia), offering Newton as an example is that it was through rational enquiry that Newton came to reject the Christian God and see Jesus the way we see Jesus. Keep up the good work Don :-)
Posted by grateful, Thursday, 5 May 2016 11:26:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,
Thankyou for the information. I did my own research and found this article “Saudi scholars discredit UK's claim of 'oldest Quran' “: “...at least three Saudi scholars claim the text must have been written after the Prophet’s death for several reasons” The 3 points are: researchers should have examined the ink not the hide; the copy is “organised in [an] order which was not so during the time of the Prophet (pbuh),”; and “radiocarbon examination of a manuscript could only indicate the century in which it was made and not the year”. http://m.arabianbusiness.com/saudi-scholars-discredit-uk-s-claim-of-oldest-quran--600640.html

I was curious about the source you used: Robert Spencer. Chase Robertson, President and Distinguished Professor of History The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, refers to Spencer’s “The Truth about Muhammad” as one of the “ugly and ignorant diatribes that have appeared over the last few years” p209 (reference below). Since you describe the Prophet a man of peace, how can you even contemplate using Spencer as an "authority"?

The Ideological Uses of Early Islam Author(s): Chase F. Robinson Review by: Chase F. Robinson Source: Past & Present, No. 203 (May, 2009), pp. 205-228
Posted by grateful, Thursday, 5 May 2016 11:46:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu states: “I appreciate that neither yourself nor Sheikh Nuh Keller or the Sufi tradition supports violence, but the Quran as we know it today calls for violence, hence cannot befit or be the work of the blessed Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.”

I appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to explore some of the sources I have offered, but isn’t this statement of yours somewhat paradoxical? You say “neither yourself nor Sheikh Nuh Keller or the Sufi tradition supports violence” but then say “the Quran as we know it today calls for violence”. Yet a core tenet of Sufi teachings is that one’s drawing near to Allah is through following His rulings, the Shariah.

In effect you are rejecting the interpretation of Quran (tafsir) of followers of traditional Islam, while accepting the interpretation of the likes of Al Qaeda and ISIS who have set themselves apart from this tradition.

Are you prepared to be a bit more precise about what you mean by “the Quran as we know it today calls for violence” and offer evidence in the form of tafsir?

Why tafsir? For your claim to have any credence it would need to be supported by the interpretation of traditional Islamic scholars. Muslims don't follow the tafsir of Spencer or yourself.
Posted by grateful, Thursday, 5 May 2016 11:53:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,
I don't really want to go into a long debate about Galileo, as it goes a little outside the scope of this article. But my understanding is that it was not only some of the clergy of the day, but more so the greater part of the scientific establishment, whose thinking was rooted to Ptolemy, who opposed Galileo and his Copernican ideas on scientific grounds. His incarceration was more to do with Galileo's personality and a personal spat with a leading cardinal. The church in general was quite open to considering Copernican ideas.

When mentioning the beliefs of some "Catholic theologians", my point was simply to say that there are varying viewpoints among them. I'd agree with you that many theologians don't understand science. And maybe scientists don't understand theology. It would be valuable if we had more cross disciplinary persons of knowledge in general.

Rhian,
Thanks for your input.

I don't believe Don is falling into any theological error by viewing Genesis as an historical account. You say we shouldn't be taking the stories literally. Yet there are solid linguistic grounds for thinking that that was the way the author intended them to be taken. The writing comes across mainly as narrative. You say we should take Genesis 1-3 symbolically rather than literally. So it is possible to find a break between Genesis 3 and the rest of Genesis so as to indicate a change of genre? I doubt it. There is continuity within Genesis that is hard to break. And it is also strange how nearly all interpreters of the bible (including the leading scientists we mentioned before) leading up to the 19th Century didn't see any problem with reading all of Genesis as historical, or any need to read it only with symbolic meaning. So I think it is rough to say that Don is torturing a theological text by reading it in a straight forward, as well as traditionally accepted manner.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 6 May 2016 12:21:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David f stated (way back at the beginning) "The Bible is also a creation of the human mind."

This act of creating cults, or art, cultures, where does it come from? Why do we need all this if we are mere animals following our particular evolutionary path. Of what use is it to our material well-being?

"Batten is a research horticulturist. That reminds me of the saying: You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think."

And this notion of "culture". I can understand how "civilisation" can be viewed as a product of an evolutionary process (humans becoming more productive and establishing institutions to serve community and protect individuals/minorities), but "culture"?

How do we explain art for example? It doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose for our material well-being to have people engaging in plays and sculpture, yet we need it.

If scientists were to invent humanoid robots that could adapt and evolve with their environment and program them with an 'instinct' to survive and reproduce would they have any use for culture?

I guess what I'm saying is that culture is evidence of a spirit that is distinct from its temporary abode in the form of our material bodily forms.

Have you any other explanation for culture?
Posted by grateful, Friday, 6 May 2016 12:28:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rhian,

You wrote: "Your statement “I don't think one can be greatly above average intelligence and believe in the biblical god” seems rather arrogant, and flies in the face of evidence of religious beliefs of some of the West’s greatest thinkers."

I wrote: “I don't think one can be greatly above average intelligence and believe in the biblical god.”

Great thinkers have had deep religious beliefs. Spinoza was described as ‘god-intoxicated’. However, he rejected what he called narrative religion, Judaism and Christianity, along with the biblical god. My statement concerned the biblical god rather than religious beliefs.

Argument should not employ:

1. Name-calling
2. Assertion without evidence
3. Putting words in people’s mouths

Subsequently you wrote: “I’ll admit my use of “arrogant” was an insult, but so was your claim that it’s not possible to be a Christian and intelligent.”
My arrogance? More name calling. My claim that it’s not possible to be a Christian and intelligent? I made no such claim. I didn’t mention and wasn’t even thinking of Christians. Intelligent is not the same as ‘greatly above average intelligence’. I was thinking of people like Einstein and Newton not merely an intelligent person. I mentioned belief in the biblical god. The biblical god is not Christian. Most of the Bible is not Christian. 39 books of the Bible come from the Jewish Bible which has nothing to do with Christianity. The biblical god is mostly non-Christian. Many of the 27 books in the New Testament were also written by Jews. Unlike the biblical God who is in one piece and indivisible most Christians believe in a Trinity. That is not the biblical God. Since you persist in putting words in my mouth I don’t want to continue this discussion. It’s too wearing.

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

For science don’t consult theologians. For religion don’t consult Richard Dawkins.

Dear Grateful,

Humans are big brained animals. Culture is a bonding mechanism for big brained animals. Like God and the tooth fairy spirit is an imaginary entity.
Posted by david f, Friday, 6 May 2016 1:40:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Grateful,

The word 'tafsir' appears to correspond with the similar Hebrew word for "pleading", but without sufficient access to the Arabic source, I am not in a position of issuing my own tafsir, so unfortunately I must draw my conclusions from the studies of others.

I was impressed by the references that you provide here from time to time, which I eagerly listen to.
I am impressed by the way that Islam helps millions of ordinary and normative Muslims to grow closer to God.
But I was also impressed by the scholarly knowledge and forensic depth of Spencer, which I watched many hours of.

I am not impressed with Spencer's tone and mockery, especially in his later presentations, but I cannot turn a blind eye to the evidence he exposes regarding the Quran and Hadith.

Fortunately I also have a third source of information: The 19th-century saint, Shri Ramakrishna, turned his life into a laboratory to experiment and prove the validity of all religions. After practising and validating the various practices of all Hindu and Buddhist sects, he also validated Christianity and Islam. This enquiry culminated in his holy vision of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.

http://www.techofheart.co/2007/08/sri-sri-ramakrishna-paramahansa-sufi.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_on_Ramakrishna#Islam

This assures me about the authenticity of the Prophet and leads me to reject Spencer's view that "Muhammad didn't exist".

But as far as the Koran is concerned, the dichotomy remains and I could not be convinced that it does not call for violence, hence my conclusion that the Koran does not represent and in fact distorts the true words of the Prophet. Undoubtedly one’s drawing near to Allah is through following His rulings, but does the Quran represent Allah's ruling? I'm afraid not.

In my view, due to the harsh social realities of the Middle-East, the ancient and authentic tradition of Sufism, to survive among the violent tribes who abuse Allah, had to pay the Quran lip-service, including its violent/inauthentic parts. I applaud this practical approach that in effect allows Sufism the freedom, uncommon in that region, to follow Allah and His Prophet rather than a man-made book.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 6 May 2016 2:30:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful, Friday, 6 May 2016 12:28:45 AM:

In your post to David, you write: "I guess what I'm saying is that culture is evidence of a spirit that is distinct from its temporary abode in the form of our material bodily forms."

Can you establish a logical connection between spirit and culture? Is spirit synonymous with soul?

[a] Art is an expression of an active creative imagination. The same imagination that can foster musical composition or compose a great novel. That same imagination that can lndulge in creative inference, follow a path of reasoning to solve a qestion/problem, that can observe, predict and hypothesise. Science is the realm of the active creative mind. Humans are naturally curious, as are many of the "higher" mammals, and satisfying that curiosity is something our minds, our imaginative processes, derive much pleasure doing. Our abilities in the arts reflect our imaginations seeking expression, seeking activity, seeking satisfaction. Are crossword puzzles necessary for our material well-being? Would you read a John Le Carre novel for the purpose of enhancing your material well-being or to derive satisfaction from connecting with another creative mind?

[b] As for Robots; Much thoughtful and intelligent science fiction has been written about this subject. The great physicist Isaac Asimov is just one of several prominent authors. Some of the relevant issues are raised in the movie I ROBOT, starring Will Smith. The question of robot culture is one fraught with tantalising unknowns. Would a machine built of inert materials like steel and ceramics learn "culture" the instant it was created? It could of course be programmed but would that be a genuine aboriginal robot culture or would it be one that a human committee believed it should be? The other end of the spectrum requires robots to produce young who will grow up in a "culture" much as humans do but essentially separate from them and in a robot family in a robot society with all the essential services and perhaps a separate economy.
Somewhere in between the two extremes there might be progress but where would you like to start
Posted by Pogi, Friday, 6 May 2016 7:12:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

.

You wrote :

« Which of the 'gospel' truths do I have in mind? Any or all of them. Open any page, and you will find reliable information concerning the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. »
.

I respect your religious beliefs, Dan, but please do not expect me to accept the self-contradictions of the gospel narratives as “reliable information”.

The contradictory accounts of the discovery of the empty tomb after the crucifixion of Jesus are a good example :

There was an earthquake, and an angel came down and rolled the stone away (Matt. 28:2) from the entrance of the tomb and sat on it, even though it had apparently already been rolled away when Mary Magdalene got there (John 20:1, Mark 16:4, Luke 24:2). The reason for the visit was to anoint the body with spices (Mark 16:1, Luke 24:1) or just to look at the tomb (Matt. 28:1.

When she or they arrived, she/they witnessed the earthquake and angel coming down from heaven (Matt. 28:1), or they walked into the tomb to discover a young man dressed in white sitting on the right (Mark 16:5) or two men in bright shining clothes (Luke 24:4).

So the woman or women ran from the tomb to tell the disciples (Matt. 28:8) or they left, too terrified to say anything to anyone (Mark 16:8).

Mary Magdalene saw Jesus appear to her and decided he'd been resurrected (John 20:14-18). Or the women, having left the tomb and thinking things over, were sure that Jesus' body had been stolen, so they tried to bribe the soldiers guarding the tomb to tell them where the body had been taken (Matt. 28:11-15) …

Not only are these accounts muddled, confused and contradictory, their historical authenticity has never been established.

Presenting them as “reliable information” could be construed to be dishonest.

Belief in the gospel narratives is an act of faith, whether it be on your part or on the part of anybody else – the African Christian mission or your Catholic friends.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 6 May 2016 8:17:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan

I’d hesitate to take any of the Pentateuch literally. There could well be germs of historical truth behind the stories of the flood, founding fathers and exodus, but these have been embellished and interpreted over time. Geology tells us there was no worldwide flood (though there have been large floods that could be the basis for the story). Archaeology tells us there was no exodus of hundreds of thousands of people from Egypt to Israel, and that Jewish culture almost certainly evolved in Palestine. The Pentateuch is mostly foundation stories, and very powerful ones, but not literal history.

But yes, there is a clear switch of genre between Genesis 3 and 4. The Eden story is generally classified as myth (in the formal sense of a literary genre, not the colloquial sense of an untruth). That it is not a historical or literal account has been recognised for centuries. Augustine and Philo of Alexandria both described the Genesis creation stories as allegory.

The sharp divide between fiction and history, in our current culture is a product of the enlightenment. We have gained a lot from it, but also lost something too. To quote Crossan again:

“What if those pre-Enlightenment minds were quite capable of hearing a metaphor, grasping its meaning immediately and its content correctly, and never worrying about the question: Is this literal or metaphorical? Or, better, what if they knew how to take their foundational metaphors and stories programmatically, functionally, and seriously without asking too closely about literal and metaphorical distinctions?”

That is why I accused Don of torturing both science and theology. He is trying to reconcile biblical and scientific accounts of creation, and it cant be done.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 6 May 2016 12:00:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rhian,

I enjoyed and like your last response to Dan.

I would like to strengthen your statement: "He [the author] is trying to reconcile biblical and scientific accounts of creation, and it cant be done."

Even if this COULD be done (and at least one scientist, Dr. Gerald Schroeder, claims that he can), still one should not attempt it.

The purposes of science and religion are diametrically opposed: science is supposed to bring us worldly success whereas religion is supposed to wean us of our addiction to the world. What need have we and of what value would it be if a bunch of materialists worship a materially-based, scientifically-proven god after being convinced with clear evidence that doing so would help them achieve their material aims? Wouldn't this amount to idolatry?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 6 May 2016 3:49:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyustu

Thank you, I agree with almost all of your post, and certainly the part about idolatry.

I think we may partly differ on materialism, though. One of the central messages of the first Genesis creation story is that god pronounces creation to be “good”, several times. Unlike, say, some Greek thought, which saw the physical world as base and evil while the spiritual was pure and good, the Judeo-Christian tradition affirmed that the material world is good and valuable, and human thriving is possible and desirable in a material sense. I think that’s why John’s Gospel places so much emphasis on Jesus as the Word “made flesh”. And why Archbishop William Temple famously called Christianity the “most materialistic” of religions.

This may be one of the more important distinctions between Christianity and Buddhism, for example, with its goal of detachment.

This is not in any way to endorse some modern manifestations of materialism, that see the purpose of life as consuming goods and services, and where social status depends on wealth and power
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 6 May 2016 4:10:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rhian,

There is a time for everything and a season for every activity under the heavens [Ecclesiastes 3:1].

I agree that the world in itself, having come from God, cannot be anything but good. Life is a school, it gives us discipline - how else will we learn? but then if someone (other than the teachers) is still in primary school at the age of 50, then something is going wrong.

The Jewish Kabbalah tells that we enter the worldly sheaths in order to release and elevate those hidden divine sparks within. Those sheaths of which the world is comprised are in fact the emanations of God, so how could they be bad? The only bad thing about the situation, is when we forget ourselves and our divine nature, becoming attached to those sheaths instead.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 6 May 2016 5:02:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank-you Pogi for a very thoughtful and thought-provoking response. You ask “ Can you establish a logical connection between spirit and culture? Is spirit synonymous with soul? “

"When a choice can be made that is not determined or necessitated by prior events then we can exercise freewill. The will is free when alternative choices could have been made with the same pre-existing conditions."

To exercise freewill in this world we need an existence that is independent of our existence in this world. This is what i mean by spiritual existence: there is a soul that lives on when our bodies have long ceased functioning.

The alternative is to see our choices as responses to material stimuli or randomness and culture as solely “a bonding mechanism for big brained animals”. If there is no spirit, then culture is purely functional with no role for freewill.

Yet I can choose whether I want to conform to a culture. The fact that I’m raised in a culture that worships the tooth-fairy and insists that all men of age should erect a shrine in their gardens, lest the tooth-fairies vent their anger with projectiles in the form of molars, I still have a choice as to whether I conform or not. The ritual is a “bonding mechanism” but still each member of the society is free to choose between accepting or rejecting the practice; if not in words or deed, then at the very least privately in the heart. The culture reflects the exercise of freewill.

If i decide to object openly and I’m thrown off some cliff, then that would be the end of the matter for me but not others who would still be exercising their freewill. If I survive and the predictions of divine retribution do not come to pass then culture may begin to change. In either case, culture can only be an expression of freewill if there is a spiritual existence.

cont...
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 7 May 2016 3:52:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont..

If on the other hand, there is no spiritual existence then my ‘choice’ must be ascribed to some stimuli or randomness (perhaps operating at a psychological level). The outcome could be the same but the cause would be different. Is this how atheists understand the radical cultural changes brought about by the humanist movement, for example? I expect not.

So culture serves as an expression of freewill and freewill presupposes a spiritual existence.
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 7 May 2016 3:53:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu, you still haven't offered evidence for your view that “the Quran as we know it today calls for violence”

Instead you have stated "without sufficient access to the Arabic source, I am not in a position of issuing my own tafsir, so unfortunately I must draw my conclusions from the studies of others."

What studies are you referring to? What are their proofs?
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 7 May 2016 4:28:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reading the above posts I have concluded that there are two types of brain.
Type one has a well-developed gullibility centre and thus readily believes the God story. Probably also supports the so called organic food industry and votes Green at election times.
Type two brain has a poorly developed gullibility centre and its owner takes pride in rational and objective thought
The problem for society is to get the owners of the two types of brain to live in harmony. I fear society is not always successful in this objective.
Posted by anti-green, Saturday, 7 May 2016 11:42:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It may be personality types rather than brain types, anti green.
Meyers and Briggs, a mother and daughter developed a classification of the personality types put forward by Jung.
The sensor is a fact-lover, so if something is not detectable by the senses, it is not there.
The intuitive is attracted by possibilities, so may be convinced by ideas.
However, a sensor may consider the bible to be fact, and an intuitive might take up the idea that religion was false, being simply a means to build a power base.
Perhaps whatever our brain or personality type, our beliefs will be governed by our environment and community.
Meyers and Briggs wrote about their work. They believed that a community had approximately the proportion of different personality types appropriate to its needs.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 7 May 2016 5:44:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anti and Leo, there are several elements in your posts that point to narcissist personality disorder and such people are incapable of sustaining a rational discourse. Is that why you guys have chosen to snipe from the sidelines instead?
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 7 May 2016 8:50:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,
You're saying we ought not to view the Pentateuch as history. So now I'm interested to see how much of the New Testament you would view as history. I would say that Luke, as the writer of Luke and Acts, was very concerned with historical accuracies. In this light, how can you account for the list of ancestors in Luke chapter 3, which aligns greatly with Genesis chapter 5 if they are not both entailing straight forward historical records? What do you think Luke is trying to say, other than appearing to interpret Genesis as straight forward history?

If the story of Adam being created from the dust of the earth is myth, then in what category do you place the resurrection of Jesus, which is the central teaching of the New Testament? You seem to lean towards the writing of Peter Selleck who definitely does not accept the resurrection as a physical reality, Jesus body miraculously coming back to life in Joseph's tomb. So is this also a myth? From my point of view, both Jesus' resurrection and Adam's creation from dust are miracles. And I don't see them as miracles of particularly different orders. Both are similar. Both involve making a man come alive from non living (i.e. dead) matter. If I'm going to believe one, I may as well believe the other. Or perhaps I should believe neither. Yet this is the central teaching of the New Testament. And it's not just I, but St Paul who links Adam with Christ in several passages of the NT, comparing Jesus to a second Adam.

So Luke appears to be writing about history in Luke chapter 3. Paul appears to be talking about a physical resurrection in Corinthians 15. So it seems to me, that if we go down the road of passing off too many biblical narratives as 'myth' and separate from real history, it will descend fairly quickly to the point that everything in the Bible is largely myth, bringing it no connection with man's affairs and real world history.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 7 May 2016 10:21:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo,
I would agree that the different gospel accounts of the women at Jesus' tomb do sound muddled. But such is the nature of testimony surrounding real life drama. Compare this to different witnesses of the same car accident, or various radio sports commentators who see the same action from different viewing perspectives. Different witnesses often will bring slightly different perspectives to the same actual event, without us needing to doubt that the event occurred or the integrity of the witness. In fact, when two different witness testimonies align a little too neatly and correctly, we will even start to suspect some collusion occurring between the two.

What is also very interesting in the case of the women at the site of Jesus' resurrection is that it records women as being the first to give testimony to such and amazing event. For in those days, the legal testimony of a woman would be treated clearly less seriously than that of a man. So if the gospels were fabricated stories rather than real world action, it is less likely that the gospel writers would place women at the scene to be the initial heralds of such an event.

But I would also agree with your later conclusion that believing the accounts requires much faith. You'd think one would need to be previously inclined to believe it, as a person rising from the dead is not a normal occurrence.

I've heard it said from atheists that one needs remarkable evidence before being able to accept a remarkable event. And this gets back to the reason for Don Batten writing this article in the first place. Don is pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists, who do not have anywhere near the sufficient evidence for their five miraculous events. The evidence is really pointing the other way.Yet they are all too quickly inclined to want to believe them, as it accommodates their beliefs and choices.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 7 May 2016 10:24:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That’s Carl Sagan you’re thinking of there, Dan.

<<I've heard it said from atheists that one needs remarkable evidence before being able to accept a remarkable event.>>

And the actual quote is, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

<<And this gets back to the reason for Don Batten writing this article in the first place.>>

Given the word-allowance, I would quite happily do a line-by-line rebuttal of every word Batten said in his ridiculous article. Unfortunately, that’s not possible with our word count. Not even with the maximum word count of 2000 words for an article. I will just say now that not a single word batten said was true, and I’d be happy to debate him if he had the courage to make an appearance in the comments section. Not surprisingly, however, he won’t.

<<Don is pointing out the hypocrisy of atheists, who do not have anywhere near the sufficient evidence for their five miraculous events.>>

Atheism ranges anywhere from the complete absence in a belief in a god or gods (e.g. babies), to the rejection of religious claims as unsupported by the evidence. Therefore, atheists have no burden of proof. This is simply a case of the Switching of the Burden of Proof fallacy.

<<The evidence is really pointing the other way.>>

How so? I’d love Batten to come here and justify this (God knows his article didn’t), but alas, somehow I don’t think he will.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 7 May 2016 10:56:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A take down of Batten’s article.

<<Atheists often promote themselves as intelligent, logical, scientific, rational, etc.>>

Some of them do. Not all. Some aren’t sure of what they believe and, consequently (albeit erroneously) refer to themselves as “agnostics”.

<<They even had a proposal to call themselves 'brights'!>>

They? That was only Dawkins. And most other atheists howled his suggestion down as ‘arrogant’.

<<The aggressive 'new atheists' … like to portray those of us who believe in a supernatural Creator as irrational, unscientific, unintelligent, ignorant, or even 'needing help' (Dawkins).>>

I suppose, yes. I tend to agree to and would quite happily defend that if a theist had a problem with it.

<<Reality runs against these perceptions. Isaac Newton, the greatest scientific mind of all time, was a Christian believer, as were other founders of modern science.>>

He also lived in very primitive and ignorant times, in which virtually everyone was at least a deist, since they had no way of yet explaining the origins or diversity of life, and us humans have an unquenchable thirst for answers. Even if they’re wrong.

<<Surveys have consistently shown that people with a strong adherence to the Bible's authority are the least likely to be superstitious…>>

Err, no. Religious belief is, by definition, a superstition. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/superstition)

<<…in contrast to the average de facto atheist.>>

What is a de facto atheist, given that atheism is, in its broadest sense, simply the absence of any god-belief?

<<Indeed, one atheist expressed his chagrin that "some of the most intelligent and well-informed people" he knew were Christians.>>

Well, he can rest assured that the more intelligent an individual is, the less likely it is that they will be religious:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2395972/Atheists-higher-IQs-Their-intelligence-makes-likely-dismiss-religion-irrational-unscientific.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
http://www.medicaldaily.com/proved-atheists-more-intelligent-religious-people-250727

Surprise, surprise.
<<There is much more to say.>>

More? Nothing you’ve said has yet held, Batten. But do tell…

<<Atheists believe that everything came about by purely material processes-the universe, life, mind, and morality.>>

Do they? All of them? But just a moment ago you mentioned that many of them held in superstitious beliefs. I guess now you’re just conflating materialism with atheism.

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 8 May 2016 12:13:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…Continued

<<However, do they have a rational, logical basis for this belief?>>

Given what you’ve said so far, we’re probably not going to get much of an answer from you. But let’s see what you’ve got…
<<They actually believe in miracles without any reasonable cause for the miracles.>>

*Gasp* How so?

<<That is, they believe in magic, or the occurrence of things without a sufficient cause.>>

Do they? Who are these atheists? All the atheists I know are merely state that they don’t know. Certainly beats makin’ stuff up, don’t ya think, Batten?

<<Stuff does not happen without something to cause it to happen.>>

This is the Special Pleading fallacy, because now you’re going to claim that God can.

<<Even young children understand this law of causation.>>

Do you know what “special pleading” is?

<<Magic, where things 'just happen', is the stuff of fairytales-there is no such thing.>>

Okay, so you got one thing right. It’s a pity you cannot apply this to your own beliefs.

<<Materialists (atheists) [let’s conflate the two, shall we?] once tried to believe that the universe was eternal, to erase the question of where it came from.>>

Nope. All they’ve ever said is that, if God can be eternal, then why can’t the universe be eternal? Energy, after all cannot be destroyed. Or are you going to evoke the Special Pleading fallacy again?

<<The famous British atheist Bertrand Russell, for example, took this position. However, this is not tenable.>>

It’s not? Do tell.

<<The progress of scientific knowledge about thermodynamics, for example, means that virtually everyone has been forced to acknowledge that the universe had a beginning, somewhere, sometime-the big bang idea acknowledges this…>>

In its current form, yes. But when the universe was a singularity, the laws of physics would have broken down. Either way, inventing a god does not solve this.

<<The big bang attempts to explain the beginning of the universe. However, what did it begin from and what caused it to begin?>>

No-one knows. The question may not even make sense. Either way, inventing a god doesn’t solve this problem.

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 8 May 2016 12:13:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…Continued

<<The big bang attempts to explain the beginning of the universe. However, what did it begin from and what caused it to begin? Ultimately, it could not have come from a matter/energy source, the same sort of stuff as our universe, because that matter/energy should also be subject to the same physical laws, and therefore decay, and it would have had a beginning too, just further back in time. So, [the universe] had to come from? Nothing! Nothing became everything with no cause whatsoever. Magic!>>

Oh, the humanity!

You forgot that energy cannot be destroyed.

<<"The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada.>>

No-one has asserted that. This is a strawman.

Need I go on?

I could continue to discredit this entire article, but I think most should get the drift by now.

Fifty bucks says this guy doesn’t make an appearance to defend is patently absurd claims.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 8 May 2016 12:13:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,
Don Batten first published this article on his website on April 21. It is possible, or likely, that he's not aware that it has been republished here.

But you're saying you'd bet money that Don wouldn't be willing to defend his position from atheist challenge. Could you specify what conditions need to be met before handing over the money, and to whom would you donate the money?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 8 May 2016 4:10:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This intriguing comment was made by grateful in respect of myself, and another poster:” everal elements in your posts that point to narcissist personality disorder “
No basis for the comment is given.
Do you have a qualification in psychology, grateful, or evidence of some particular gift which enables you to know this?
I await your clarification with interest.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 8 May 2016 11:39:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Grateful,

<<What studies are you referring to? What are their proofs?>>

I was referring to the studies of Robert Spencer.
There are many hours of his presentations on youtube.
Essentially, he makes and substantiates two points:

1) The Quran calls for violence (here are some of his shortest clips):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUT41-8yzEg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knryaTzu9nM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enN8rvNAC8U

2) The Quran is inauthentic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ0uV1GjyXI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6bBeyaRjac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Que1xs81Wts

Now I understand that many Muslims consider him the devil and I don't like his character either, but I am convinced by the forensic evidence that he brings.

And I will be exalted if you or any Sheikh is able to prove him wrong by scientifically refuting his points one by one.

Now unlike Mr. Spencer who cares not for religion, as a lover of God and in order to save from disgrace the name and the spirit of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, whom I consider a man of God, I am obliged to reject the Quran as a fake composition that was forged several generations later by unrelated violent men who used the Prophet's name in vain for their political ends. Included in that is their fake line-of-transmission which they claim in the Hadith.

I believe that many Muslims are doing great and are showered by Allah's blessings for their observances of Islam everyday. I believe that Islam in general and Sufism in particular have competent Sheikhs who can lead the people in the ways of Allah. Therefore other than the Jihadists and their ilk, Muslims need not change their life: they can and should continue worshipping Allah in the same way - all they need is to drop the moral burden of considering the Quran an absolute authority as if it was the words of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him: it isn't. Nothing of course prevents Muslims and their Sheikhs from continuing to adopt those of the practices within the Quran that are good, wise and wholesome. Isn't this what most Muslims already quietly do anyway?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 8 May 2016 9:20:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

I thought that might be a possibility.

<<Don Batten first published this article on his website on April 21. It is possible, or likely, that he's not aware that it has been republished here.>>

You’re acquaintances with the bloke. Perhaps you could alert him to the article’s publishing here?

<<But you're saying you'd bet money that Don wouldn't be willing to defend his position from atheist challenge.>>

Not necessarily in every case. I’m sure he’d probably debate these ideas in a formal debate in front of an audience (heck, William Lane Craig does it all the time, and he’s not much better), and for precisely the reasons that I don’t like such a format.

Firstly, unlike a less formal, sit-down discussion (where each participant can cut the other off when they see that they've already ruined their argument with a flawed premise, or are about to go off on an irrelevant tangent), formal debates have the unfortunate consequence of allowing each participant to stand there and attack strawmen, or an argument that wasn’t made, or to perform the Gish Gallop (named after Duane Gish’s notorious tactic firing off so many claims that it would be impossible to adequately answer them all in the time allowed).

Which brings me to the second reason why I don’t like the formal debate format, and why I think Batten would probably debate his ideas in such an arrangement, and that is that creationists (as with other forms of denialism) only seem to care about planting seeds of doubt in the minds of sceptics. When the evidence is weighed so heavily against one's position, it’s about the best they can hope for, I guess.

At least here on OLO, there's the possibility of discredited everything someone says line by line, leaving nothing unchallenged. Gish Gallop or no Gish Gallop.

<<Could you specify what conditions need to be met before handing over the money, and to whom would you donate the money?>>

Just an appearance here would be enough. I’d be happy to give the money to any worthy cause, so long as it’s secular.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 8 May 2016 11:04:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

.

You wrote :

« … I would also agree with your later conclusion that believing the accounts [of the gospels] requires much faith »
.

I am delighted to see that we agree, Dan. Having broken the ice on that, the way is now open for what I trust will be truly meaningful discussion – whether on the subject in hand or any future debates on OLO.

Another matter I hold important is that it should also be possible to establish mutual respect for those, such as yourself, who place their faith in the existence of deity and the supernatural and those, such as myself, who do not.

Having “seen the light”, rather late in life, as to how and why the “god concept” germinated in the mind of primeval man and developed into modern day religion, I could, perhaps, be described as a Christian atheist - as I am a baptized “person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods” (OED definition of atheist).

However, having given it some thought, it makes no sense to define myself either as a Christian or an atheist – not a Christian because convinced that there is no god, Jesus could not have been his son, and, not an atheist because it makes no sense defining myself by reference to something I am convinced does not exist.

I prefer to define myself simply as "a very ordinary person".

I am, nevertheless, quite comfortable with the idea that others may wish to define themselves as either theists (persons who believe in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe) or as deists (persons who believe in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe) – [OED definitions].

I thought I should mention this in case your natural temperament commands that you make the odd derogatory remark about atheists. If so, please be assured that I shall not in the least be offended.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Sunday, 8 May 2016 11:21:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

Why should people define themselves by whether or not they believe that God exists?

There is no shortage of examples of people who believe that God exists but live their lives as if He doesn't; and of others who do not believe that God exist, but conduct their lives as if He does.

Surely the criterion whether or not one entertains the particular thought of "God exists" is about as shallow as the colour of one's shirt!

As for being a Christian, my definition is that a Christian is one who follows the teachings and the example of Jesus Christ. In other words, a Christian would be willing to sacrifice their life on the cross (or in an equivalent manner as required) for their love of others. I suspect that we all here fall short of this standard.

Similarly, a Muslim is one who completely surrenders themselves to God, forgoing all personal desires, preferences and comforts in favour of doing God's will. Here again, I suspect that we all fall short.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 9 May 2016 12:02:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You ask :

« Why should people define themselves by whether or not they believe that God exists? »
.

They, or should I say, we don’t usually. But in debating religious topics on this forum we all tend to project images of ourselves in our reactions, the opinions we express and our choice of words. Sometimes those images are misinterpreted. I find it helpful if we clarify matters so that there are no misunderstandings at this level. That’s all.

Anything we can do to avoid or eliminate misunderstandings improves communication and the quality of the debate.

In addition to that, I find that getting to know something about an author’s personal life and circumstances is often a useful key to a deeper and more significant understanding of his writings.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 9 May 2016 5:51:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

I have another way to define a Christian and a Muslim.

Christians are defined by what people who call themselves Christians do.

Muslims are defined by what people who call themselves Muslims do.

There is a difference between the ought and the is. The ought is what some think one ought to do. The is is what they actually do. The ought is an ideal. The is is reality.

I think it better to define religionists by what they do rather than by what is in their sacred books.

In the Civil War in the United States many Christians fought and died to preserve slavery. Currently almost all Christians oppose slavery. The sacred books of the Christians accept slavery. In that respect I think current Christians are far better than the example in their sacred books. Jesus never spoke against slavery in the New Testament. Jesus also supported the breakup of families to follow a religious ideal.

The New Testament contains the vile words of Jesus: Matthew 28 "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life." Most Christians currently support family unity.

In some respects the reality of current Christians is better than the ideal of Jesus.
Posted by david f, Monday, 9 May 2016 6:28:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan

Sorry for the late reply, I was offline on the weekend.

Luke’s genealogy includes names from the Hebrew Scriptures because they are the source he used to compile it. Luke wrote a gospel, not a history or biography, though he includes both historical and biographical material.

Many first century Jews believed the Hebrew Scriptures prophesied that the Messiah would be a descendent of David, born of a virgin and born in Bethlehem. Luke and Matthew compiled two different and incompatible birth narratives to place Jesus in this tradition. Their (inconsistent) genealogies establish Jesus as a descendent of David and of other key figures in the Hebrew Scriptures. This makes the theological point that the story that began with Adam/Abraham culminates in Jesus. Mark, the earliest Gospel, shows no interest in Jesus’ origins. Nor does Paul, the earliest NT writer. John’s Gospel has a high Christology and ignores Jesus’ earthly origins – he is Son of God and pre-existent Word.

I do not believe in bodily resurrection. If you read the Gospels closely, all point to the resurrected Jesus not being his old body revivified. The original ending of Mark has no post-resurrection appearances at all. The other Gospels all have elements of doubt and non-recognition that would not be plausible if the resurrected Jesus inhabited his old body. In John, Mary Magdalene does not recognise Jesus at the tomb until he speaks to her. Peter does not recognise him in Galilee. Luke gives us the Emmaus road story, in which Jesus walks and talks with two of his disciples for several hours and they do not recognise him. They recognise him only when he breaks break with them – a clear allusion to the last supper and communal meal of the early Christian movement (and ours!). Matthew tells us that even some of the 11 doubted that they were seeing Jesus (28:17). Paul clearly believed in the resurrection, but equally clearly his own encounter with the risen Christ was not with a physical presence. These stories suggest both continuity and non-continuity with the Jesus they had known.
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 9 May 2016 2:37:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidian: Many first century Jews believed the Hebrew Scriptures prophesied that the Messiah would be a descendent of David,

It's not hard to be a descendant of David. In fact I probably am too.

I'm doing my Genealogy. The furthest I got back is to 620 BC to an Egyptian Pharaoh. Moving forward to Ruth in the Bible. Several Caesars, Siegfried, Beowulf, Roland, Somerled, Canute, Mary Magdalene to the Mogovian Kings & the Pepin the Great, Alfred the Great, Blue Beard, William the Conqueror, The Stewarts, Plantagenet's & on & on & on it goes.

In fact "You" are more than likely to be related down the line to the very same people. So being related to David in the Bible is more than quite likely too.
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 9 May 2016 7:41:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Rhian,

.

You wrote :

« I do not believe in bodily resurrection. If you read the Gospels closely, all point to the resurrected Jesus not being his old body revivified. The original ending of Mark has no post-resurrection appearances at all. The other Gospels all have elements of doubt and non-recognition that would not be plausible if the resurrected Jesus inhabited his old body. In John, Mary Magdalene does not recognise Jesus at the tomb until he speaks to her. Peter does not recognise him in Galilee. Luke gives us the Emmaus road story, in which Jesus walks and talks with two of his disciples for several hours and they do not recognise him. They recognise him only when he breaks break with them – a clear allusion to the last supper and communal meal of the early Christian movement (and ours!). Matthew tells us that even some of the 11 doubted that they were seeing Jesus (28:17). Paul clearly believed in the resurrection, but equally clearly his own encounter with the risen Christ was not with a physical presence. These stories suggest both continuity and non-continuity with the Jesus they had known »
.

You provide rational arguments to justify your non-belief in “bodily resurrection”, presumably, of Jesus.

Should we also presume that you believe in the “spiritual resurrection” of Jesus ? If so, what rational arguments can you provide to justify that belief, rather than simply qualifying the gospel narratives of the resurrection (of Jesus) as pure myth ?

If your (presumed) belief is based on faith alone why are you concerned with rational arguments at all – whether it be for or against bodily or non-bodily resurrection or any other possible forms of resurrection ?

In other words, what role do you attribute to rational argumentation in determining your belief (faith) in the gospel narratives of the resurrection (of Jesus) ?

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 10 May 2016 1:33:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jayb,

In Judaism, the maternal lineage only determines whether one is Jewish or not. With regards to priesthood, Levi-hood and royalty, only the paternal lineage counts.

---

Dear Banjo,

It seems to me that when you use the term 'rational', you actually mean 'empirical'.

While we are generally capable of rational thinking, we are NOT rational beings: whether we base our life on empirical evidence, on faith, on myth or whatever, that primary choice of what we base our life on, is always irrational. It is only once that choice is made that we can proceed and draw from it logical conclusions in a rational way.

Obviously I cannot answer for Rhian, whom you asked:

"In other words, what role do you attribute to rational argumentation in determining your belief (faith) in the gospel narratives of the resurrection (of Jesus)?"

But if I were to believe in the gospel narratives, then my answer would be along the lines of: "I sense that those who believe and follow the gospel are better people, less selfish, less arrogant, less lustful, less greedy, less materialistic, more pure, more content, etc., so since I want to be like them, I better believe in the gospel myself".

In other words, my answer to your question: "what rational arguments can you provide to justify that belief", would be "it is good (for me) to have that belief".
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 10 May 2016 3:02:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

That’s not a rational reason to believe something.

<<In other words, my answer to your question: "what rational arguments can you provide to justify that belief", would be "it is good (for me) to have that belief".>>

The only rational reason to believe something is because it is true, and whether or not those who belief something are, “less selfish, less arrogant, less lustful, less greedy, less materialistic, more pure, more content, etc.”, says nothing about the truth of a claim.

Aside from that, I think you’ll find, particularly in the US, that the opposite is more often the case.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 10 May 2016 8:47:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear AJ Philips,

You wrote: "The only rational reason to believe something is because it is true, and whether or not those who belief something are, “less selfish, less arrogant, less lustful, less greedy, less materialistic, more pure, more content, etc.”, says nothing about the truth of a claim."

If one can show a proposition is true by facts or reason there is no need for belief. Belief is only necessary when there is no evidence to support the truth of a claim. There is no rational reason to believe something.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 10 May 2016 9:02:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

I appreciate your drawing my attention to the difference between rational and empirical and indeed both terms have application to a certain degree in the context of the arguments put forward by Rhian to justify his non-belief in (the supposed) bodily resurrection (of Jesus).

You also remarked :

« But if I were to believe in the gospel narratives, then my answer would be along the lines of: "I sense that those who believe and follow the gospel are better people, less selfish, less arrogant, less lustful, less greedy, less materialistic, more pure, more content, etc., so since I want to be like them, I better believe in the gospel myself" »
.

It’s nice to know that you sense that, Yuyutsu, though I must confess that I, personally, have very serious doubts that what you sense corresponds to reality. I fear that you are being much too optimistic and far too idealistic for that to be true of human nature.

Unfortunately, those who profess to be fervent believers in the gospels are, almost invariably, exactly the opposite to what you describe. In my experience, modesty and goodness are more often to be found in very simple people who never set a foot in a place of worship and have very little or no knowledge of the message of the gospels.

That said, Yuyutsu, I do not, by any means, exclude the possibility that there may well be a few exceptional individuals (such as yourself, perhaps) who live their daily lives in accordance with the moral values expounded in the gospels.

In any event, ethics and morality are, by no means, the monopoly of religion or religious faith. Materialists (those who support the theory that nothing exists except matter) are not necessarily more materialistic (considering material possessions and physical comfort more important than ethical or moral values) than theists or deists.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 10 May 2016 10:10:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

We’re probably going to start splitting hairs here, but to say that belief is no longer necessary when knowledge has been acquired is, I think, to define belief too narrowly or confuse it with faith.

Knowledge is a subset of belief. So, for example, while it’s possible for one to believe something to be true but not know it to be true, it is not possible to know something but still not believe it to be true, since belief is the acceptance of a proposition as true.

(I suppose some may enter a deep state of denial in which they try to convince themselves that they don’t believe something that they know to be true, but in a sense, they still need to believe it to have accepted it as true in the first place.)

If belief were a state of mind only ever necessary in the absence of evidence, then it would be indistinguishable from faith. Faith is no longer necessary once knowledge is acquired and, in fact, it would be contradictory for one to say that they know something to be true while still having faith that it is, because they’re mutually exclusive concepts. I don’t think that exclusivity exists with belief and knowledge since belief is essentially just the acceptance of a proposition as true, and we generally all accept the truth of what it is that we know.

Granted, though, many will use belief as an excuse for an opinion that they don’t have a good reason to hold.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 10 May 2016 11:00:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu wrote: “But if I were to believe in the gospel narratives, then my answer would be along the lines of: "I sense that those who believe and follow the gospel are better people, less selfish, less arrogant, less lustful, less greedy, less materialistic, more pure, more content, etc., so since I want to be like them, I better believe in the gospel myself".”

Let’s look at the record of Christian believers. After Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire they persecuted and killed pagans and heretics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_persecution_of_paganism_under_Theodosius_I tells that story.

“... Theodosius I reiterated Constantine's ban on pagan sacrifice, prohibited haruspicy on pain of death, pioneered the criminalization of magistrates who did not enforce anti-pagan laws, broke up some pagan associations and destroyed pagan temples.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscillian tells about the first Christian executed by Christians.

The fifth century Jesus Wars (http://www.christianbook.com/the-jesus-wars-philip-jenkins/9780061768941/pd/768941) tells how violence determined the doctrines Christians adopted.

Fletcher’s “The Conversion of Europe from Paganism to Christianity: 371-1386” tells how Europe was Christianised after the Roman Empire adopted Christianity. With the exception of Ireland the conversion was achieved by violence. eg. Charlemagne gave the pagan Gauls the choice of Christianity or beheading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades tells the Crusaders not only slaughtered Muslims but also non-Catholic Christians, heretics and Jews. Crusaders sacked Orthodox Christian Constantinople and massacred the Christian inhabitants, massacred the Albigensians who they regarded as heretics, massacred Jews in the Rhineland. “Participation in such a war was seen as a form of penance which could counterbalance sin.”

The Wars of the Reformation saw Christians slaughtering Christians. Martin Luther hoped Jews would accept his new faith. When they didn’t he preached against them and advocated their destruction. His diatribes were reprinted in the Nazi newspapers.

The War against science was exemplified by the murders of Hypatia, Michael Servetus and Giordano Bruno.

The Inquisition persecuted many.

The imperialist European powers massacred and enslaved the indigenous people of the Americas, Africa and Asia. This was justified as bringing the benefits of Christianity.

The Holocaust was the outcome of centuries of Christian hate.

Christianity has been an instrument of unparalleled evil.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 10 May 2016 11:20:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If god was other than an intangible concept there would be no necessary cause for the existence of apologists.
Posted by WmTrevor, Tuesday, 10 May 2016 11:48:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Banjo

I don’t equate rational belief with belief only in those parts of the bible that describe actual historical events. Nor is faith-based belief indifference to the historical facticity or otherwise of the bible’s stories: whether from a fundamentalist refusal to accept science that contradicts biblical literalism; or by assuming the bible is only a collection of made-up stories with no relation to people’s experience in actual history.

The bible comprises many people’s reflections on humanity’s experience of its relationship with God. It uses history and biography, myth, allegory, songs, poetry, parables, polemic and legends to do this. Bible study generally tries to take all of these on their own terms, recognising that each book of the bible is a product of its author’s context and concerns. Sometimes these are alien or even abhorrent to us.

Rational belief asks whether these stories present a portrait of God that is coherent, compelling, and consistent with the experiences and teaching of the church and its members.

I do think that there was a historical person called Jesus, and that the early believers experienced something extraordinary and real after his death that caused them to commit their lives to proclaiming the good news of his continued existence and message of God’s love and peace. The nature of that continued existence was something beyond human experience, so they described it in ways that both affirmed its concrete reality (he ate fish) and its otherworldliness (he appeared and disappeared, and sometimes his friends didn’t recognise him). Both are pointers to an experience that was beyond human experience and beyond precise description. “Spiritual resurrection” is as good an approximation as any.

Christian liturgy does not commemorate an historical event, but celebrates and symbolises a present reality. This Sunday, many churches will celebrate Pentecost, the birth of the church. Perhaps the most important thing is not that Jesus was resurrected, but that he is resurrected. That experience is at the heart of faith. Rational belief is perhaps what Anselm called "faith seeking understanding."
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 10 May 2016 12:18:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo,

<<Unfortunately, those who profess to be fervent believers in the gospels are, almost invariably, exactly the opposite to what you describe>>

Obviously I cannot speak for Rhian, so what I wrote was only an example: Rhian may have a different rationale which could be equally valid. Suppose that as you claim, people who fervently believe in the gospels are opposite to what I described, but others who believe in the gospels not so fervently are as I described, then the rational conclusion would be to believe in the gospels - but not fervently.

Let me give you another example: suppose I try to be a good person, but I'm aware of my weaknesses and suspect that if I were able to, then I could be tempted to blow up those I don't like. In that case, believing that E=mc2 would be irrational on my behalf.

Suppose my choice is to try being a good person while another person's choice could be to be powerful and successful. Both choices are irrational, but based on them, believing that E=mc2 would be rational for them and irrational for me.

Another example: Suppose one has made the irrational choice to try keeping their body alive. If they just had a heart attack, then it would be irrational for them to believe that someone very dear to them died. Later on, once they undergo a heart surgery and stabilise, then it may become rational for them to believe so.

<<In any event, ethics and morality are, by no means, the monopoly of religion or religious faith.>>

You are very right. Religions (if worthy of the name) offer methods to help people improve their character. Now it's up to individuals whether to use those methods.

<<Materialists (those who support the theory that nothing exists except matter) are not necessarily more materialistic (considering material possessions and physical comfort more important than ethical or moral values) than theists or deists.>>

So true, but if someone who is not materialistic believes that nothing exists except matter, then I suspect that this belief of theirs is likely irrational.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 10 May 2016 12:24:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

Again, that's still not rational. You're committing two fallacies here.

<<Suppose that as you claim, people who fervently believe in the gospels are opposite to what I described, but others who believe in the gospels not so fervently are as I described, then the rational conclusion would be to believe in the gospels - but not fervently.>>

Firstly, you're confusing correlation with causation. You also have the 'chicken and egg' conundrum. Your reasoning is utterly flawed and so it is in no way a reliable pathway to truth.

Secondly, your reasoning is a non sequitur. Just because a group of people who believe certain claims act in a particular way, it does not follow that you should believe those claims too, and the above demonstrates why.

Beware. This type of confused thinking can lead one to believe in gods that even they themselves admit do not exist.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 10 May 2016 12:52:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f: The imperialist European powers massacred and enslaved the indigenous people of the Americas, Africa and Asia. This was justified as bringing the benefits of Christianity. The Holocaust was the outcome of centuries of Christian hate. Christianity has been an instrument of unparalleled evil.

I doubt if anyone would deny that. It is entirely correct. How ever Christianity has moved on from there, with a few exceptions, (Hitler).

However the Islamic world started as violent from the get go & are still going at it strong.

The difference is that Christians have become Educated, Secular, Modern in their outlook. Where-as the moslims went from Desert Tribal to Educated, then back to Desert Tribal & have stayed that way ever since. For moslims the Earth is still flat & the Sun travels around the Earth.

They want to rule the World.

Since the Gospels were written by four people who never met Jesus face to face some 80 to 150 years after the supposed death of Jesus. All the Gospels are hearsay & therefore inadmissible in a Court of Law.

How say you AJ?
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 10 May 2016 2:23:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some thing about the Crucifixion Day has always bothered me. The Romans never let anyone take a person down from a Cross. Why did Pontius Pilot let them take Joshua (Jesus) down? Death on a Cross is usually from drowning, taking up to three days sometimes.

The lungs fill up with fluid. The soldier speared Joshua (Jesus) on the left side. The spear point would have pierced the lower lung on that side. Hence the blood followed by the water. Roman soldiers are trained in the use of a spear & therefore would have known just where & how far in to keep Joshua (Jesus) alive. It would have allowed Joshua (Jesus) to breath again. Taking him down from the cross early would mean that Joshua (Jesus) was really still alive. Then he disappeared from Joseph of Aramathera's Tomb. Prearranged with Pilot? Maybe.

When Joshua (Jesus) was asked by Pilot who his father was Joshua (Jesus) whispered in his ear & Pilot then washed his hands of the whole affair. There is a suspicion that the real father of Joshua could have been Augustus Caesar. Hence the name Joshua ben Pentera(Jesus). Remember, Mary gave birth at 13 & was betrothed to Herod Antipas at 9. Augustus was Consul for Alexandria & Antipas was the Jewish Regent. They were friends. The Army Augustus Commanded was the Pentera. The Standard with a Leopard on it(Pentera). Antipas & Mary, at 12, went to Rome for Augustus inauguration as Caesar. The Suspicion is that she was Raped by Augustus & became pregnant. Antipas was murdered by Herod (his father) on his return.

Joseph of Aramathera was married to Joshua's (Jesus) mother, Mary. He was also Pilot's Administrators. Pilot took Joseph of Aramathera to Lyon in France as his Administrator of Mines when he was reposted. Where Pilot died of Malaria, later Joseph was sent to Anglesea as Administrator of the Tin Mines. Mary & John the Younger went with him. Constantine is a descendant of John the Younger.

I just love History.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 10 May 2016 2:23:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What say I, Jayb?

Well, Mr. HiFi, I say that you are mostly correct. The main point you have failed to mention is that Christians didn’t get to where they are now on their on their own, and for the most part, were dragged there kicking and screaming there by secularism.

Just as Christianity is yet to completely pull itself out of the Dark Ages (e.g. America’s Deep South, Africa), Islam has yet to experience their enlightenment. Although there are signs in many parts of the world that this has already started to happen, these parts are, funnily enough, the more modern and civilised parts of the world.

Yes, there are many factors that influence why adherents to religions behave the way they do. Nothing is ever mono-causal. But it can never be entirely attributed to one religious doctrine being about war and conquering, and the other being a strange and contradictory mix of peace, love, mung beans, bigotry and genocide.

(The invention of video footage, for example, helped Christians to understand how horrific the results of their antisemitism could be and thus, instead, become ardent supporters of Israel as an over-correction to their past behaviour. Overnight, Jews went from being “Christ-killers” back to “God’s chosen people”.)

It gets even more complex than that, though. Christians (and atheists like yourself who are happy to be apologists for Christianity) are quick to point that that many of the influential Enlightenment figures were themselves Christians. Hardly surprising given they lived in pre-Darwinian times where that was the default. Many back then were only nominally Christian, choosing instead to call themselves ‘Deists’ (because even a wrong answer that is made up makes us feel better than having no answer at all).

There seems to be this indefatigable attempt from Christians and its apologists to, not only attribute Christianity to the Enlightenment more than what is tenable, but to argue that it was actually an essential element for its dawning.

But I think I’ve waffled for long enough now.

Until next time, Mr. HiFi.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 10 May 2016 4:10:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ: There seems to be this indefatigable attempt from Christians and its apologists to, not only attribute Christianity to the Enlightenment more than what is tenable, but to argue that it was actually an essential element for its dawning.

I do believe that Christianity was dragged into the Enlightenment kicking & screaming but eventually had to let go as science progressed & drowned out some of the Church's teachings.

<The main point you have failed to mention is that Christians didn’t get to where they are now on their on their own, and for the most part, were dragged there kicking and screaming there by secularism.>

Opps! Went back & reread. I agree.

Even as late as the 50's there was still dissent in the Christian World against Science. Wasn't it only 2 or 3 years ago that the Pope declared Officially that the World really was round & apologized to Galileo? Things like DNA & it's uses are still hotly debated in some Christian Sects. I remember back in the 50/60's Methodists, Presbyterians, 7DA's, etc., weren't allowed to listen to the music or go to dances. Still a long way to go but a long way from the Islamic World. Inter Christian violence is still around but usually disguised as something else.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 10 May 2016 6:10:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The pendulum swings back and forth, and religions become less or more oppressive. The different sects of Christianity until secularism took hold regarded tolerance as a vice which indicated that one had a lack of devotion to one’s faith. One reason for the ease of the early Muslim conquests was that Muslim rule was less oppressive than rule by Christians over Christians of another sect. Many Christians welcomed the conquerors. Early Islam discouraged conversion as Muslims regarded Islam as a religion for Arabs who did not pay taxes in the conquered areas. Conversion shrank the tax base.

Sebastian Castellio who protested the execution of Servetus in Protestant Geneva for heresy spoke for tolerance in Christian Europe. Most Catholics and Protestants approved of the execution.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10725 points to my essay on the matter.

Indian Hindus cling to the caste system. One way those of lower castes can leave the system is to convert to Islam or Christianity. This arouses Hindus of higher caste against Islam and Christianity which they see as threats to their status.

During the medieval era Islam was much more tolerant than Christianity. One example was that European universities were open only to Christian scholars while Islamic universities were open to scholars of any belief. However, as Europe emerged from the Dark Ages Islam entered theirs and became as intolerant as Christians were in the Dark Ages. Most of Islam is still mired in their Dark Ages.

With the growth of religious tolerance and the secular state Europe left the Dark Ages. The United States of America was the first country to separate religion and state. The US Constitution specifies that there be no religious test for public office.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10790 points to my essay on that subject.

At present the USA separation of church and state is under threat from sections of the US population which would eliminate it. That is of great concern to me as I regard the separation as essential for democracy.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 10 May 2016 6:45:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Rhian,

.

You wrote :

« Christian liturgy [ritual] does not commemorate an historical event, but celebrates and symbolises a present reality … Perhaps the most important thing is not that Jesus was resurrected, but that he is resurrected. That experience is at the heart of faith. Rational belief is perhaps what Anselm called "faith seeking understanding." »

Unfortunately, what you refer to as reality is not “reality” in the universally accepted sense of the term, i.e., “something that exists independently of ideas concerning it”.

Nor does Christian liturgy celebrate and symbolise “a present reality”. It celebrates and symbolises “a present religious doctrine”. An example that comes to mind is the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation (the changing of the elements of the bread and wine, when they are consecrated in the Eucharist, into the body and blood of Christ).

Nor does your claim that “he [Jesus] is resurrected” correspond to reality in the universally accepted sense of the term either. It is simply a "belief", albeit “the most important” belief “at the heart of [the Christian] faith”.

Finally, you cite Anselm’s motto, “faith seeking understanding” (fides quaerens intellectum) as an example of “rational belief” (belief based on reason or logic).

Though this 11th century Benedictine monk, Roman Catholic theologian and philosopher who was later enthroned archbishop of Canterbury and canonised as a saint following his death, proposed the first and best known ontological argument (to prove the existence of God by reason alone). He wrote:

« sin has so darkened our minds that we cannot hope to reach the truth unless God graciously leads us to it. He does so by offering us the truth through revelation and by inspiring us to accept that revelation in faith. Once we accept the truth on that basis, however, we can hope to reason out proofs for what we have already accepted through faith »

First state the conclusion (God exists) then describe how to reach it. That’s a method that can never fail !

It sounds very scientific, eminently rational. Right on target, every time !

http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/anselm.asp

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 11 May 2016 2:46:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,
On Sunday, you spoke about "planting seeds of doubt in the minds of sceptics." But aren't sceptics supposed to have doubt planted in them? Sceptics are supposed to have doubt residing right there at their root. Doubt is what defines them. Or is their doubt selective, taken out and applied only on occasions of their choosing?

I think this is one of the main points of Don Batten's article. In this instance he is the sceptic. And he's asking us to be sceptical about five 'miracles' which atheists hold up claiming to have given a materialist explanation. Are we allowed to be sceptical?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 11 May 2016 6:29:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,
Creationists are more than willing for you or anyone to scrutinise or critique their ideas. For they believe that truth, supported by the weight of evidence, is on their side. So they are happy to engage in debate, such as (if you prefer things written) this written debate hosted by the website of the Sydney Morning Herald from 2005, between those from Creation Ministries and members of the Australian Sceptics. The topic of the debate was: 'Did the universe and life evolve, or was it specially created in 6 days?'
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/skeptics_vs_creationists.pdf

So, if Don Batten and those from Creation Ministries were not shying away from an open, public debate with leading scientists from the Australian Sceptics, then I doubt he would be afraid to handle questions posed by you. But I suspect they are wary to not necessarily enter into every internet discussion on the topic. For if you did, you'd have little time to do anything else. I would guess that they may not see the need to address questions to which they've already given answers on their website, for the sake of economy of effort.

But if you did pose an interesting question to Don, that he thought was original and not yet already answered on his website, that motivated him to come here and address, then I like the idea of you donating $50 to a worthy secular cause. And I think OLO itself could be such a cause. For OLO permitting a creationist article here shows that it is indeed free and open to all Australians regardless of their persuasion or affiliation, which shows a secular attitude in the truer sense. In contrast, we have others here such as Cobber and JBSH who would prefer censorship of ideas unpalatable to them. There are too many people around quick to apply the imposition of atheism in the name of 'secularism'.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 11 May 2016 6:40:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,
You say you don't believe in a bodily resurrection. If so, then what happened to Jesus' body? It did appear to be missing. It wasn't where it was laid. The New Testament claim is that he resurrected. This claim does seem to carry some physical aspect to it, which goes beyond him only spiritually appearing to his followers. For your understanding, is God capable of intervening in the physical world? Do you accept any of the other miracles described in the bible which involved God intervening in the natural world?

Banjo,
You sound very French. I've heard that the typical Frenchman thinks of himself as a Catholic atheist. I also like your next definition of yourself as simply "a very ordinary person". That sounds quite appealing, if I could borrow it for myself. I like to think of myself like that, but I feel I have to add the word 'believer'. It's what God has made me.

As for my temperament commanding me to say the odd derogatory remark about atheists from time to time, thanks for picking me up on that. Such as my last post when I described atheists with the word 'hypocrisy'. That was a bit strong in the context. I should have said having inconsistencies and blind spots, which are traits common perhaps to us all.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 11 May 2016 6:44:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo,
When I said that believing the gospels requires much faith, that was to say that one is being asked to believe in something very particular. One is asked to believe that a particular man, on a given date about 2,000 years ago, rose from the dead, an event which is quite astounding. And as I see Rhian as saying, it was not just a revivification, such as occurred with Lazarus or others, but rising to life in an unprecedented manner, a foreshadowing of a new kind of life which is to come (which would lead us into eschatological discussion areas.)

So the gospels require faith of a particular type, which is difficult. You presumably wouldn't believe something so out of this world without good reason.

Conversely, I don't think a general belief in God should be so hard to come by at all. I think most on the planet have some vague sense of God or leaning towards believing in a deity rather than none. I think that nature screams evidence for design, everywhere we look. I had a friend who used to continually talk about the amazing qualities found in a blade of grass. The sophistication inherent within grass to allow it to grow still outdoes human technologies by many orders. One scientist who was trying to examine or emulate the process of photosynthesis, for example, was surprised that we don't see series of miniature explosions occurring on the surface of a leaf.

In such line, I think WmTrevor's recent comment was interesting, "If god was other than an intangible concept there would be no necessary cause for the existence of apologists." To him I would say generally God does not need an apologist. The apologist is there only to explain a particular aspect or understanding of God. So I don't see the theist needing to be lumbered with the burden of proof more so than the atheist. As Don's article explains, atheists have their particular miracles to explain and defend, and aren't always doing too well at it.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 11 May 2016 6:48:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

It sounds like you’re conflating scepticism with denialism.

<<But aren't sceptics supposed to have doubt planted in them?>

No, having it planted there implies it was put there by another party. Scepticism is a starting point and a methodology.

Scepticism is an integral part of the scientific process. It is a healthy, scientific approach to evaluating claims. Sceptics are willing to follow the evidence to where it leads. Denialists, on the other hand, have a position staked out in advance and sort through the evidence employing confirmation bias as they go. Denialism is mere gainsaying despite the evidence.

<<I think this is one of the main points of Don Batten's article. In this instance he is the sceptic.>>

No, he is a denialist. See above.

<<And he's asking us to be sceptical about five 'miracles' which atheists hold up claiming to have given a materialist explanation.>>

I already explained earlier that having an explanation (of any sort) is not a requirement of atheism. Atheism does not necessitate a belief in any of the claims that Don presented distortions of. Atheism is the default position. Even at its most developed, atheism is still only a rejection of religious claims as unsupported by the evidence. There is nothing within atheism to necessitate any other belief.

Don has not addressed any so-called “miracles”, he attacked strawmen. There’s another fallacy we can add to his long list.

Thanks for the link to the PDF. I didn’t get very far because the first argument the creationists presented is already an easily debunked one. Neither the first law of thermodynamics, nor the second, are violated by the formation of the universe and evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 11 May 2016 9:23:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Banjo

Your definition of reality as “something that exists independently of ideas concerning it” means that love, hate, hope, despair, beauty, loneliness and most of the other important things in life are not “real”. If your daughter tells you she loves you, do you dismiss the proposition as not real because it is impossible to confirm independently of ideas concerning it?

Liturgy is what people do, not the doctrine that tries to define what it means. Many churches celebrate mass/Eucharist/Lord’s supper; only (some) Roman Catholics call in transubstantiation.

I see “faith seeking understanding” a little differently, too. The church experiences the risen Christ and tries to understand, live, and communicate that experience. We do all three imperfectly, and in the context of our traditions, cultures and worldviews. Of course, if you don’t accept the reality of the experience, the descriptions can seem circular or self-serving.

Hi Dan

I don’t know what happened to Jesus’ body. Crossan suggests it would have remained on the cross for days and eventually been thrown into a midden: the most common fate of the bodies of crucified criminals. If it was buried in a tomb, it may still be there. Matthew’s Gospel, and possibly John, hints at a rumour that the body was stolen, and there were early Jewish stories to that effect.

I don’t believe God intervenes in the material world in the mechanistic and supernatural way you seem to describe, and I certainly don’t think biblical accounts of miracles constitute supernatural proof of the existence of God or of Christian claims about Jesus. John’s Gospel is especially scathing of faith based on miracles. Again, I understand the Gospels as trying to explain extraordinary phenomena in a culture where modern distinctions between natural and supernatural, observation and explanation did not exist. For example, illness was commonly perceived as a product of demonic influence, and healers routinely performed exorcisms and invoked divine power to cure the sick. The Gospels don’t present Jesus as unique in doing these things, only as especially good at it.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 11 May 2016 11:56:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Bible has the body taken down the first day & only after a few hours. I doubt very much if Joshua (Jesus) had died in that time. He would have been fairly beat up, by all accounts, but not enough to kill him. They were tough in those days. As I said previously the Spear to the lungs would have drained them & allowed him to breath again. Saving his life. The Astringent Wine Vinegar on a sponge would have revived him a bit. Kept the Heart going.

My bet it was a deal done with Pilot by Aramathera. Jesus,
As far as "Not being recognized by his followers." Either a disguise or disfigurement could account for that.

It is also said that Joshua (Jesus) also went to France, around Marseilles (Mary Magdalene ended up there. Reportedly had dementia & died in a cave) & He also reported in parts of England. (Mary his mother & John the Younger lived there.) Being a Buddhist Monk went back to India. His Grave is said to be in the Pakistani Highlands near the Afghan Boarder. In an old Buddhist Shrine. Remember he wore an unusual Red Robe that was one piece. What Tibetan Monks wear? Exactly.

Is Joshua's connection with India what led Philip to go there? It was around where Philip was murdered that it is reported that Jesus was a student of Hinduism before he fell foul of them & went to Northern India to study with the Buddhists.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 11 May 2016 12:26:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Rhian,

.

You wrote :

« Your definition of reality as “something that exists independently of ideas concerning it” means that love, hate, hope, despair, beauty, loneliness and most of the other important things in life are not “real” »
.

That is the philosophical sense of the word “reality” as indicated by “Dictionary.com”. The OED definition of the word “real” is a little more explicit: “actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed”.

Perhaps this latter definition will reassure you that, provided they are not simply “imagined or supposed”, the various sentiments you mentioned may be real.

The point I was making in my previous post, of course, was that what you believe to be reality and present as such does not correspond to the universally accepted sense of the term. They are your personal religious beliefs – which, no doubt, are probably shared by many devout Christians such as yourself.
.

You also wrote :

« Liturgy is what people do, not the doctrine that tries to define what it means »

Quite so. I do not confuse liturgy and doctrine. I clearly indicated in my previous post that liturgy means “ritual” (i.e., what people do). But in your previous post, you wrote: « Christian liturgy … celebrates and symbolises a present reality ».

My comment on that was that Christian liturgy does not celebrate and symbolise “a present reality”. It celebrates and symbolises “a present religious doctrine”.

What you refer to as “reality” is not reality in the universally accepted sense of the term. It is “religious doctrine”.
.

You concluded :

« The church experiences the risen Christ and tries to understand, live, and communicate that experience … Of course, if you don’t accept the reality of the experience, the descriptions can seem circular or self-serving »

The OED definition of “experience” is: “practical contact with and observation of facts or events”.

I have no problem accepting “the reality of the experience” provided the “church” has “practical contact with” the risen Christ, not just “imagined or supposed”.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Thursday, 12 May 2016 6:58:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,
You're saying that scepticism is an integral part of the scientific process. So if others make the claim that dinosaurs morphed into birds at some time in the past, or some other animal at some point unseen changed into a completely different form, am I allowed to be a bit sceptical towards that claim?

Rhian,
When I asked what you thought happened to Jesus' body, I took it as given that you would have thought that his friends took his body from the cross and laid it in a tomb. Why? Because that what the Scriptures say. I would have thought you'd have read that far.

If you're not able to follow the plain account of Scripture, then I don't know how we could have any meaningful discussion about anything found therein. It's not my modern, post enlightenment, skewed reading that I'm imposing onto Scripture to say simply this: Jesus died on a Roman cross. His friends took his body down, and laid it in a tomb. Over subsequent days and weeks Jesus appeared to numerous of his followers on several occasions, sufficient to convince them that he had risen from the dead.

This isn't me making up something that isn't plainly written there. I think that once you start doubting the basics, you may as well toss the whole thing out. I can't keep track of which bits you're wanting to keep.

Even Swiss cheese can only have so many holes before it stops being viable.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 12 May 2016 9:07:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That is correct, Dan.

<<You're saying that scepticism is an integral part of the scientific process.>>

Just bear in mind my distinction between scepticism and denialism. It will save a lot of confusion.

<<So if others make the claim that dinosaurs morphed into birds at some time in the past…>>

Not morphed, evolved. Morphing is done with computers on the same object, and no one dinosaur morphed into a bird - as the word 'morph' would imply. Please choose less emotive language if you want to be taken seriously.

<<…or some other animal at some point unseen changed into a completely different form, am I allowed to be a bit sceptical towards that claim?>>

Absolutely. I would be sceptical too, as this would completely contradict evolution and turn biology on its head. This would be worldview-altering stuff.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 12 May 2016 9:29:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SDM: This isn't me making up something that isn't plainly written there. I think that once you start doubting the basics, you may as well toss the whole thing out.

The Gospels were written by four different people who had never met or knew Joshua, aka Jesus. They were written 60 to 160 years after the death of Joshua, aka Jesus. The authors compiled their stories based on what they had heard from various sources, who had heard the stories from other people. Therefore they are all Hear-say, which accounts for the huge differences.

I doubt very much that Joshua, aka Jesus died on the Cross. He couldn't have. Not in that short of time.
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 12 May 2016 10:44:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Banjo

The concise OED (I don’t have access to the full version) gives more than one definition of “real”. It also gives “relating to something as it is, not merely as it may be described”, “not artificial”, “genuine”. These are closer to my meaning, and also I think widely accepted in everyday language. Few people would find the statements “she really loves me” or “Elgar’s cello concerto is really beautiful” logically incoherent, even though neither accords with your definition of “real”.

Likewise, “experience” has more than one meaning. OED also gives “feel”. Chambers Dictionary gives “the practical acquaintance of anything gained by trial” (similar to the OED definition you quote) but also includes “wisdom derived from the changes and trials of life”, “anything received by the mind, such as sensation, perception and knowledge” and “to feel, suffer or undergo”. It is in these latter senses that the church experiences the risen Christ.

Hi Dan

I have read the scriptures, and continue to read them regularly. But I do not take them all literally. I certainly don’t accuse you of making things up, and I respect the seriousness with which you take scripture. But what you call doubting the basics may be a different form of belief. I don’t deny the resurrection, I just don’t think it means the same thing you think it means. Or more accurately; we probably both agree on the most important things that it means, but disagree on whether it took bodily form.

If you peer in the holes of your Swiss cheese, you might find a world worth exploring.
Posted by Rhian, Thursday, 12 May 2016 4:03:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Rhian,

.

Thanks for indicating your choice among the numerous OED definitions of the words you employ, in particular for “real” and “experience”.

You didn’t mention which edition of the Concise OED you refer to. The most recent edition is the 12th edition, published in 2011.

Might I suggest you consult the online edition which is frequently up-dated. It was last up-dated in August 2015.

There is usually one main definition and supplementary definitions depending on particular contexts. The dictionary provides a practical example of the context in which each definition applies.

The context in which you employed the word “experience” was: « The church experiences the risen Christ and tries to understand, live, and communicate that experience ».

The main OED definition of the verb “experience” is “encounter or undergo (an event or occurrence). The supplementary definition is: “feel (an emotion or sensation)”, as, for example: “an opportunity to experience the excitement of New York”.

It seems to me you are employing the word “experience” out of context if, as you write, you mean “feel (an emotion or sensation)”. I doubt that anybody would understand that you are referring to the emotions of “the church” (as the OED example refers to “the excitement of New York”).

The context in which you employ the word “experience”, (“the church experiences the risen Christ and tries to understand, live, and communicate that experience”) is about trying to understand something, putting it into practice and communicating it.

There is no hint of “feeling” in that context.

The more appropriate word is “belief”, not “experience”.
.

Also, your definition of “real” is fine in the contexts you indicate (She really loves me. Elgar’s cello concerto is really beautiful) but not so for the word “reality” when you write: “Christian liturgy … celebrates and symbolises a present reality … Perhaps the most important thing is not that Jesus was resurrected, but that he is resurrected”.

The reality of the resurrection of Jesus has never been established. It is not “reality”. It is “religious doctrine” (c.f., the OED definition of “reality) :

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 13 May 2016 12:21:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

.

You observe :

« You sound very French. I've heard that the typical Frenchman thinks of himself as a Catholic atheist. I also like your next definition of yourself as simply "a very ordinary person". That sounds quite appealing, if I could borrow it for myself. I like to think of myself like that ... »

I might sound French, Dan, but I’m afraid I haven’t quite got there yet, despite having lived in France for half a century – with a French wife, French children and French grand-children. I’m the only foreigner in the family.

With a name like that, you are probably more French than I am – but obviously, not a “typical Frenchman”.
.

You add :

« … but I feel I have to add the word 'believer'. It's what God has made me »

I’m sorry about that, Dan. That’s a heavy cross to bear. I’m glad it didn’t fall on my shoulders.
.

Then remark :

« So the gospels require faith of a particular type, which is difficult. You presumably wouldn't believe something so out of this world without good reason »

That’s correct, Dan. I usually try to keep my beliefs to a strict minimum. They tend to cloud my vision. I’ve got enough on my hands trying to fathom out all the con men who cross my path on this God-forsaken earth, let alone all the invisible creatures that might be hovering around somewhere promising and threatening this, that and whatever.

It’s a little too much for me to handle, Dan. As I said, I’m just a very ordinary person.

But I could do with a little company if you’d like to join me. By all means, please do.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 13 May 2016 1:47:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ
From what you're saying, it seems that time is the magic ingredient.

So if the claim being made is that one animal gradually changed into a completely different form of animal over time, over generations, then there is no need to apply scepticism towards this claim. Is that it?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 13 May 2016 8:37:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's close, Dan

<<From what you're saying, it seems that time is the magic ingredient.>>

That and variation. It's not "magic" though. Don't make the same mistake Don did with his use of the word "miracles". We're talking established, rational scientific explanations here.

<<So if the claim being made is that one animal gradually changed into a completely different form of animal over time, over generations, then there is no need to apply scepticism towards this claim. Is that it?>>

Again, close. It would be fine for someone ignorant of the science to be sceptical at first. But given all that has been established over the last 150 years or so, scepticism would not only be absurd after honest inquiry, but you would probably find that it actually denialism the whole time, since the individual likely had their position staked out in advance.

Again, remembering the distinction between scepticism and denialism will save a lot of confusion.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 13 May 2016 9:06:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Staking out a position in advance'. This would imply adherence or commitment to an Idea or concept regardless of the empirical evidence.

Interesting.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 13 May 2016 3:25:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Close enough, Dan.

<<[Staking out a position in advance] would imply adherence or commitment to an Idea or concept regardless of the empirical evidence.>>

More specifically, it is the commitment to an idea that one will likely show themselves (at a later date) to be unwilling to move from when then evidence is assessed, and that - when the evidence is assessed - it will be done so with a confirmation bias that leads to the cherry-picking of data.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 13 May 2016 3:34:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A confirmation bias. - Fascinating!
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 13 May 2016 4:27:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not sure what you're getting at, Dan.

I can see why the implications of staking out a position in advance would be 'interesting'. But I'm at a loss as to why a confirmation bias (when sorting through, and cherry-picking data) would be 'fascinating'.

I can only guess that you are, once again, failing to understand that atheism, as starting point, is as a default position and not a staked-out one. And that you are therefore implying that the problems inherent in a commitment to an idea, and confirmation bias, can equally apply to atheism.

Well, they don't.

This kind of flawed thinking is based on two incorrect assumptions:

1. That God's existence is obvious and that atheists require faith to deny it ("I didn't have enough faith to be an atheist!"), and;
2. That atheists have a reason to be emotionally invested in the non-existence of a god, despite the fact that it carries no rewards such as an eternity of bliss.

Christians try to get around the second by claiming that atheists just want to sin, but no-one in their right minds would choose a few decades of debauchery over and eternity of bliss. So this argument fails.

Yes, Dan. I was once a Christian creationist too. I know how all the thinking goes.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 13 May 2016 4:56:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

Why should a king grovel in the mud with the pigs?

Why should one who has faith in God ever bother with empirical evidence?

You cannot serve two masters!

May the peace of God, surpassing all understanding, guard your heart and your mind in Christ Jesus.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 13 May 2016 5:10:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo

You chose to progress this discussion using dictionary definitions. But both of the words you highlighted have meanings other than the ones you quoted, and in both cases those other meanings are closer to what I meant.

I don’t have access to the full OED, and the concise version is exactly that: concise, not comprehensive. My preferred single volume dictionary is Chambers because it has more words and more definitions than any other dictionary of its type (I’m a crossword fan).

Many individual Christians base their faith on spiritual experiences that they believe are products of encounters with God. These range from “born again” experiences in charismatic/evangelical traditions, to encounters with the numinous described by mystics and theologians like Rudolph Otto. In these cases, a “feeling” is the closest approximation I can find to describe the experience, and I use the analogies of love and beauty to convey the sense that, even though such experiences are not objectively provable, they are utterly real to those who have them.

Christians also experience Jesus in community and liturgy. In John’s Gospel, Jesus says: by this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another; and in Matthew: wherever two or three gather in my name, I am with them. It’s a standard that we often fall dismally short of, but at its best church (as a worshipping community, not an institution) is exactly that – a group of people caring deeply for each other’s social, material and spiritual well-being, and acting out the values that Jesus taught. Of course, these characteristics can also be found in other communities – Jesus didn’t say that only Christians love one another. But they are a model we aspire to. Paul’s metaphor is that the believing community is the body of Christ – the physical presence that does God’s work in the word.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 13 May 2016 6:29:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Rhian,

.

Thank you for your explanations which I find quite helpful.

Though, apart from the context of your text, I can see some justification for considering “belief” as a personal “experience”, anybody not familiar with your terminology could not possibly imagine that what you refer to as the Church’s “experiences” are, in fact, not experiences as one normally understands them, but simply “beliefs”. In the context of your text, presenting “beliefs” as “experiences” is quite misleading.

It is equally misleading to claim that “Christian liturgy celebrates and symbolizes reality” in reference to the “resurrection” of Jesus. The reality of the resurrection of Jesus has never been established. In the context in which you have presented the term, Christian liturgy does not celebrate and symbolize “reality”. It celebrates and symbolizes “Christian doctrine”.

Unfortunately, in the contexts in which you employ the two terms, “beliefs” are not “experiences” and “Christian doctrine” is not “reality”.

Presenting them as such could be construed to be dishonest which, I’m sure you will agree, is highly regrettable and not your intention.

May I suggest your texts should read :

« The church believes in the resurrection of Jesus and tries to understand, live, and communicate that belief »

« Christian liturgy … celebrates and symbolises present Christian doctrine … Perhaps the most important thing is not the belief that Jesus was resurrected, but the belief that he is resurrected”.

I hope I have correctly interpreted your message and await your comments with interest.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 14 May 2016 1:35:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Banjo and Rhian,
If we are going to argue about words, can I also mention some grammar?

I believe that Jesus (was) resurrected. Rhian wants to say that he is resurrected, and wants to draw some kind of distinction between 'is' and 'was'. I would suggest that it by simple logic, to say that he is resurrected is to imply that he was first resurrected.

Otherwise said, it is nonsense to say that he is resurrected without saying he was resurrected at some previous point in time.

It's all pretty clear in the text itself (lest we allow plain Scripture to throw light on our interpretations.)
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 14 May 2016 1:58:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Bible is mostly non-Christian since most of it was written by Jews. The Bhagavad Gita is the sacred book of the Hindus. The Tripitaka is sacred to the Buddhists. The Koran is sacred to the Muslims. The Jewish Bible is roughly the same as what Christians call the Old Testament, but there are significant differences. The foregoing are all regarded as scripture by one group of religionists or another. I can see no reason for preferring one to another. They were all written by humans, and the main reason that most humans prefer one to the other is that it was the sacred story their parents accepted. At one time people believed the stories told in the Greek myths and regarded them in the same way that people regard the various scriptures currently. Socrates was found guilty of both corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and of impiety ("not believing in the gods of the state") and condemned to death. If the charges were accurate Socrates was an atheist as far as the Greek gods were concerned. Since Socrates lived the Christian God and other gods have been invented. It seems to me reasonable not to believe in any god at all since they all are merely human inventions. Everyone who has contributed to this dialogue lacks belief in some gods and is an atheist to those gods. Why believe in any god(s)? What justifies the belief of you who accept the Bible?
Posted by david f, Saturday, 14 May 2016 8:52:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Banjo

I don’t think what I describe is far removed from experiences as commonly understood. Have you ever experienced love?

I agree that “beliefs” are not “experiences” and “Christian doctrine” is not “reality”. Beliefs and doctrines are the way we try to understand and express what we experience. So belief is not the most important thing; the most important thing is what prompts that belief. Our beliefs and doctrines are an imperfect and incomplete way of expressing that. As Paul says, we see in a glass, darkly.

Hi Dan

I used the present tense to indicate that resurrection was not a single event in the historical past, but a continuing phenomenon. That’s why we say “Christ is risen” not “Christ was raised”.
Posted by Rhian, Saturday, 14 May 2016 8:55:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

<<Why believe in any god(s)?>>

For the same reason one would believe in anything:

If a particular belief is good for you, if it helps you, if it makes you a better person, if it brings you closer to achieve your goals, if it makes you happy - then go for it. If it doesn't - then don't.

Even the same belief can be good for some and not for others.

Whether or not a belief corresponds, or even is consistent with objective/empirical material evidence, is not in itself a good reason to adopt or reject it.

Materialists are people who value material outcomes.
Since most human actions are based on beliefs; and since actions that are based on empirical evidence are likely to produce a predictable material outcome, it follows that materialists find it beneficial for them when their beliefs conform as practically as possible to empirical evidence.

On the other hand, religious people want to break their attachments to material outcomes and one method that can help us in this process is to adopt beliefs that do not correspond with, or even contradict empirical evidence. Having such beliefs that thwart our desire to control material outcomes is thus an act of sacrifice. Materialists find sacrifice idiotic - religious people find sacrifice elevating.

I therefore find attempts to rationalise religious beliefs in terms of empirical evidence (which is what the author is trying to do), as defeating the very purpose of religion. This is so regardless whether or not the beliefs in question do in fact match with empirical evidence.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 14 May 2016 10:07:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Rhian,

.

You ask :

« Have you ever experienced love? »
.

Yes I have, and continue to do so. Either love is or it is not. If it is not then it never has been.

On the other hand, it is impossible for me to experience the suicide of Hitler. But I can believe in the suicide of Hitler.

By the same token, it is impossible for the Church (understood as “a worshipping community”) to experience the resurrection of Jesus. But the Church can believe in the resurrection of Jesus.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Saturday, 14 May 2016 11:37:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote, "Whether or not a belief corresponds, or even is consistent with objective/empirical material evidence, is not in itself a good reason to adopt or reject it."

We differ. I think whether or not a belief corresponds, or is consistent with objective/empirical material evidence, is the only reason to adopt or reject it.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 15 May 2016 4:37:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,
We might say Christ is risen. We also often say that Christ was raised. One is a consequence of the other.

When we say Christ was raised, this refers to him being raised on a particular day, an event in time. When we say he is risen, that is ongoing, a state of being. He was raised never to die again.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 15 May 2016 6:53:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

Say a family had a terrible road accident, the whole family died except one child that is severely wounded in hospital. Would you immediately tell the child that his/her parents are dead? After all, won't this be consistent with objective/empirical material evidence?

I would rather tell the child, so long as they are still recovering from physical danger, that their parents love them and wait for them to recover. I think that this will be better for the child as it would give them more incentive to get well.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 15 May 2016 7:10:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

There is a difference between temporarily withholding information from someone for good reason, and deliberately deluding oneself for a lifetime in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Your analogy is invalid.

A better analogy in support of david f’s position, to demonstrate why aligning one’s beliefs with reality is important, is to imagine the harm that could come from someone convincing themselves that they had won the lottery when they hadn’t. They may go on a spending spree and blow every cent they have in anticipation of this forthcoming windfall. But eventually, they’re going to owe rent/mortgage payments and require money for food and bills, yet they’ll have no money left.

Now that’s a more accurate analogy.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 15 May 2016 9:16:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yayutsu: In other words, you can not provide evidence from traditional Islamic teachings, so you rely on the interpretation of non-muslims to support your belief. It would be like me basing my understanding of Shri Ramakrishna not on what your teachers interpret of his teachings but on what someone like...well, Spencer, interprets it. You'll select whoever confirms your views with no willingness for critical reflection. Rational discussion is not possible under these circumstances.
Posted by grateful, Sunday, 15 May 2016 10:44:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Grateful,

On the contrary, I am eager to hear Islamic scholars refute the views of Spencer. In fact, I believe that this is something the world needs, urgently, because Spencer's conclusions regarding the demands of the Quran are similar to those of Daesh. I believe that it is badly missing - or if it already exists, then it is not heard out loud.

My view is that those Muslims I know are wonderful religious people who love God and their fellow beings. THIS is the view that I would want to confirm - I have no reason whatsoever to want to confirm another view.

Yet the translated words of parts of the Quran, which unfortunately is all I can access, are striking in their violence and the way the Hadith speaks about the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is blasphemous, cruelly depicting him as a monster, murderer and rapist, which God have mercy, pains me.

Being the case, I ask the question: why should the good Muslim people, lovers of God and His prophet, need to unjustly be cursed, stained and branded by such a violent book?

Yes, I want to be told, I want to be convinced that this is not the case. I want the world to hear that this is not the case. I want the Muslims to hear that this is not the case so they don't misguidedly think that the Prophet, peace be upon him, wanted them to join Daesh.

It is not enough to issue general statements telling "this is not true, the Quran is non-violent": we need Muslim scholars to answer both Spencer and Daesh claim-by-claim, verse-by-verse.

Where are those Sheikhs and Imams? If Spencer's analysis of the Quran can be refuted, then why don't we hear those learned refutations of Spencer and others from the rooftops?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 15 May 2016 11:35:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In relation to the comment you made, grateful,:” several elements in your posts that point to narcissist personality disorder “, you have not supplied the clarification I requested.
If, as seems likely, you simply missed your medication that day, and consequently made a baseless comment, fine, but at least let us know, and not attempt to avoid the issue.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 16 May 2016 12:59:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,
You say you were a Christian and a creationist in the past, and so that gives you some kind of inside knowledge on the topic. Conversely, most creationists I know were previously evolutionists (including, I think, the author of this article) until being convinced otherwise. So, it's a two-way street.

Banjo,
It's not so bad being a believer. I find it quite liberating actually. So, a man came back from the dead in unusual circumstances. Yet he was no ordinary man. The date in the corner of my computer screen reminds me of that. And I say it's liberating, partly because if I didn't believe it, I'd have five even more difficult things to believe, as spelled out in this article.

But why believe this man came back from the dead? It could be many reasons, some better than others. It could be from reports from others who claim to have experienced it as a reality. (I'm particularly thinking of the current date, 15th May, which is this year's Day or Pentecost, which believers celebrate as the day the Holy Spirit first made his particular impact felt on earth.)

Before that, it started with the first reports from women who came back from an empty tomb. But who would believe a group of excitable women who couldn't even get their story straight? But that was enough to engage others with a need to uncover the truth, and look into it deeper
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 16 May 2016 9:08:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, Dan. I’ve mentioned this to you several times over the years.

<<You say you were a Christian and a creationist in the past, and so that gives you some kind of inside knowledge on the topic.>>

But in that last instance, I was more broadly referring to how the fundamentalist Christian erroneously reasons when trying to justify their faith. The example I gave before (“I didn’t have enough faith to be an atheist!”), is a classic one.

<<Conversely, most creationists I know were previously evolutionists (including, I think, the author of this article) until being convinced otherwise.>>

I seriously doubt it would be "most". But yes, I know a few myself too (although polls consistently suggest that the flow is heading much more rapidly in the other direction). And do you know one thing they all share in common?

Not one of them understood evolution before they before they became born-again Christians, and not one of them understands it now (why, even you yourself demonstrated that you don't understand evolution in some of your earlier posts to me on this thread).

But the similarities don’t end there.

Not one of them is a born-again Christian because creationist arguments convinced them that evolution wasn’t true and that creationism is. Not one. Two of them met (and ended up marrying) Christians and found the flashing lights and the rock music of the mega-stadiums appealing, the rest had addictions of various types and found God (who never seems to be able to appear before the addiction sets in, which would save the poor addict a lifetime of recovery).

Now, while it couldn’t always be said that those who are no longer Christians, understand evolution; it can be said that they at least know that, say, “Life is too complex to have evolved”, is not a valid argument. Further to that, former-creationists who manage to retain their faith, do always seem to understand evolution.

Coincidence? I think not.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 16 May 2016 11:48:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Dan

I don’t know the liturgy in your church, but in mine we proclaim “Christ is risen” twice in our regular communion services, during the greeting and in the memorial acclamation. It speaks to the risen Christ being a present reality. I agree that the resurrection can also be viewed as something that happened in the past, but it is the ongoing presence, not the historical event, that matters most in my view.

Hi Banjo

Apologies, looking at my earlier post I see my expression was not very clear. When I said: “Perhaps the most important thing is not that Jesus was resurrected, but that he is resurrected. That experience is at the heart of faith” I did not mean that the church experiences resurrection, but that the church experiences the presence of the risen Christ. This is experienced spiritually, not materially.
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 16 May 2016 12:15:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Rhian,

.

You explained :

« When I said: “Perhaps the most important thing is not that Jesus was resurrected, but that he is resurrected. That experience is at the heart of faith” I did not mean that the church experiences resurrection, but that the church experiences the presence of the risen Christ. This is experienced spiritually, not materially. »
.

A spiritual experience as opposed to a material experience is a psychological journey that takes us beyond the reality perceptible to our five senses and the comprehension of our mind and intellect.

Many brilliant scholars have philosophised on this but it remains a matter of conjecture as to whether it corresponds to anything other than a figment of the imagination.

When all else fails one may call upon the notions of mysticism (the hidden truth), esoteric revelation, illumination, vision, intuitive insight, divination, transcendental knowledge, preternatural, supernatural, numinous or paranormal experiences …

Once again, I feel that “religious belief or faith” are more appropriate terms than “religious or spiritual experience”.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Monday, 16 May 2016 9:54:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo,
I once met Ron Barassi. It was an experience I can't easily forget.

I have certain beliefs about Ron Barassi. One is that I believe he is one of the greatest coaches in Australian football history. I also believe that I actually met him. There were no other witnesses to the meeting, or at least none that would remember the encounter except for me and also probably my Dad, who was there.

Anyway, I believe I truly met him. And it was an experience. (I was about seven or eight years old at the time, and he gave me a hug.)
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 17 May 2016 2:34:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

.

Just as well your father was there, Dan. You never know, but a big friendly hug like that between one of the greatest coaches in Australian football history and a little boy of seven or eight could have been quite physical.

In fact, it probably was quite physical. I guess that's why you were able to experience it, and still have fond memories of it.

I'm sure your father would have remembered it too.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 17 May 2016 6:14:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are several rational explanations for spiritual experiences. For the hyper-religious, you’ll sometimes find that they suffer from Temporal Lobe Epilepsy.

Someone on OLO once claimed to me that they had “directly experienced God”. Unbeknownst to this person, what they were actually describing was a TLE seizure. Specifically, the type that is referred to as a ‘Complex Partial Seizure’.

The more general and less pronounced spiritual experiences that Christians often describe can be explained by the type of euphoria that anyone experiences when surrounded by like-minded people. Brain scans suggest this too. I was reminded of this when I attended a sceptics’ convention last year and experienced exactly the same feeling that I used to think was God “touching my heart” when I went to church.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 17 May 2016 8:40:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu states:

“It is not enough to issue general statements telling "this is not true, the Quran is non-violent": we need Muslim scholars to answer both Spencer and Daesh claim-by-claim, verse-by-verse.”

Your assigned reading :-)

Refuting ISIS: A Rebuttal of Its Religious and Ideological Foundations, by Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi, https://ia601307.us.archive.org/13/items/RefutingISIS/Refuting%20ISIS.pdf
(the first edition is available online because he has since released an expanded 2nd edition)
Posted by grateful, Tuesday, 17 May 2016 10:27:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo wrote” <<“In relation to the comment you made, grateful,:” several elements in your posts that point to narcissist personality disorder “, you have not supplied the clarification I requested.
If, as seems likely, you simply missed your medication that day, and consequently made a baseless comment, fine, but at least let us know, and not attempt to avoid the issue.”>>

Leo, I didn’t notice your reply. In relation to your original post, I missed my medication

Returning to your post, you mentioned:

“Perhaps whatever our brain or personality type, our beliefs will be governed by our environment and community.”

I’d argue that if our beliefs are solely the product of “environment and community”, then any notion of free will is a delusion

Are you denying that we can exercise choice in the following sense:

"When a choice can be made that is not determined or necessitated by prior events then we can exercise freewill. The will is free when alternative choices could have been made with the same pre-existing conditions." http://www.informationphilosopher.com/... ?
Posted by grateful, Tuesday, 17 May 2016 11:03:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,
The comparisons between attending sceptics conferences and going to church, how far do you want to continue down that path?

Banjo,
You can probably guess the point as I was getting at with the Ron Barassi comparison. Life is full of meetings, interactions and experiences. Our many personal encounters vary from mundane to life changing; articulate or cathartic; individual or collective; etc.

I agree that the physical side to my meeting with Barassi did make it stick in my memory more readily. But I suppose that the point I was alluding to is that
many of us have other experiences that mirror these personal encounters, which we label 'spiritual' as they can be deeply impacting without there being any physical component at all.

Perhaps without any physical component it becomes all that more subjective and harder to substantiate or analyse.

But all personal encounters are somewhat subjective. For example, if my father became senile and couldn't remember the Barassi meeting (and I guarantee Barassi isn't going to remember it), then since it is hard to substantiate, must you challenge my contention that I once really met the legendary Ronald D Barassi?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 18 May 2016 9:53:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

There seems to be more innuendo in your comments to me on this thread than anything else.

<<The comparisons between attending sceptics conferences and going to church, how far do you want to continue down that path?>>

I don’t necessarily “want” to go down it any further, but if the two are analogous in other ways that become relevant to the discussion, then I’ll mention them.

Why? What is it that you’re suggesting? What is it that you really want to say?

Again, having been a fundamentalist Christian myself once before, I’m pretty sure I know what it is. I see two possibilities: one confuses denialism with scepticism, the other commits the False Analogy fallacy.

But I’d prefer it to come from you first.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 18 May 2016 10:17:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm back from Townsville & I believe I had a great week-end. It was a great experience.

Banjo: You never know, but a big friendly hug like that between one of the greatest coaches in Australian football history and a little boy of seven or eight could have been quite physical. Just as well your father was there, Dan.

Yes. You never know, with the reputation of Coaches now-a-days. ;-)

grateful: I’d argue that if our beliefs are solely the product of “environment and community”, then any notion of free will is a delusion.

I would argue that "Peer Pressure" is also a factor, more so in some Communities than others. Especially if you may lose you head if you don't conform to the Community you are with-in. That, will negate "Free Will" every time.

S de M: The comparisons between attending sceptics conferences and going to church, how far do you want to continue down that path?

The difference is that you are free to attend a Sceptics Conference, where-as in some communities you are compelled to attend at least once a week, or 7 times a day, depending on the Religion & the Community. The Penalties range from disenfranchisement, Ostracisement to Beheading.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 18 May 2016 10:18:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

While you ponder your response to my question, I’d just like to add to the dissimilarities between attending church and attending sceptics’ conventions that Jayb pointed out.

I’ve racked my brain trying to come up a second similarity, but I can’t. The dissimilarities, on the other hand, are coming to me faster than I can get them down:

1. Sceptics can employ the scientific method to all their inquiries, without the need to compartmentalise;
2. sceptics don’t thrust beliefs and standards, based on unprovable dogmas, onto the rest of society;
3. sceptics don’t have a Holy Book from which they cannot deviate;
4. sceptics don’t have to engage in mental gymnastics to reconcile a dogma with real-world observations;
5. sceptics can apply Occam’s Razor in all cases;
6. and, my favourite, sceptics are content with, “I don’t know”, as an indefinite answer. Which is a lot more honest than just making stuff up.

That last one there was just one of many reasons why Don Batten’s article was nonsense, and why your argument, that if you were an atheist then you would have to believe the absurd notions that Batten put forth, was invalid.

Anyway, that’s enough for now. I wouldn’t want to be hypocritical by performing the Gish Gallop myself. Hopefully, though, the above should actually help you to refine your response to my initial question, rather than overwhelm you.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 19 May 2016 1:13:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jayb wrote:

<<grateful: I’d argue that if our beliefs are solely the product of “environment and community”, then any notion of free will is a delusion.

I would argue that "Peer Pressure" is also a factor, more so in some Communities than others. Especially if you may lose you head if you don't conform to the Community you are with-in. That, will negate "Free Will" every time.>>

I think "peer pressure" comes under "community".

In any case, "free will" can not be negated by coercion. Look at the definition a bit more carefully:

"When a choice can be made that is not determined or necessitated by prior events then we can exercise freewill. The will is free when alternative choices could have been made with the same pre-existing conditions." http://www.informationphilosopher.com/...

Free will is when a choice is made without being "determined or necessitated by prior events".

If i say "I don't believe" not because it is true but to avoid discrimination and abuse, then that has no affect on my choice to believe. I still believe because i have chosen to believe. No-one can force me to disbelieve. I'm saying the opposite to appease others and harm. That is what having an existence that is independent of this world means; a spiritual existence.

If we are a simply “big brained animals”, then our existence as such has been solely “determined or necessitated by prior events”. If there is no spiritual existence then my ‘choice’ must be ascribed to some stimuli or randomness (perhaps operating at a psychological level). Culture would be solely “a bonding mechanism for big brained animals”.

Yet, even if we accept culture as a “bonding mechanism”, the fact remains that it is my choice whether I conform to the culture or not. The existence of this choice cannot be explained by evolution.

cont...
Posted by grateful, Thursday, 19 May 2016 1:33:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont...

To exercise free will we need an existence that is independent of our existence in this world. This is what I would mean by spiritual existence: there is a soul that lives on when our bodies have long ceased functioning.

If on the other hand, there is no spiritual existence then culture is purely functional with no role for free will.

So either culture serves as an expression of free will or the notion of freewill itself is a delusion.

To conclude, freewill presupposes that each and every one of us has a spiritual existence; an existence that is independent of our worldly existence.

So I'm asking (Leo, you and others): Where do you stand: Are you denying that we can exercise choice?
Posted by grateful, Thursday, 19 May 2016 1:34:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grateful,

There was a lot of non sequiturs there. Possibly too many to address in 350 words.

<<So I'm asking …: Are you denying that we can exercise choice?>>

That’s a big topic that is still hotly debated. More importantly, it has little-to-nothing to do with whether or not a god exists. Unless one believes in an omniscient god, in which case free will cannot exist; or is, at best, meaningless, because we could not possibly deviate what from an omniscient god already knew we were going to do. That would be a paradox.

But going back to your question, my answer would be: I don’t know. It’s possible that free will is only an illusion. Sam Harris presents some good arguments for this in his book, Free Will.

<<…"free will" [cannot] be negated by coercion.>>

According to the OED it can:
“The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate;” (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/free-will?q=free+will)

The constraints don’t have to be “prior”. They can also be succeeding and foreseeable. For example, "Love and worship me or your'll go to Hell", is conducive to free will.

You have not provided arguments as to why free will requires a god or a spiritual realm. All you have presented are reasons why the determinism/free-will debate is a tricky one. This next bit was a bit of a stretch, though:

<<The existence of [the choice to conform to a culture or not] cannot be explained by evolution.>>

Yes, it can.

The ability to exercise choice is advantageous in a social species like ourselves. So those able to do so, would have been more likely to pass on their genes. Total, rigid conformance to a culture and its rituals would hinder a people’s ability to adapt to change and see them eventually disappear when circumstances changed or their cultural practices were proving harmful. Indeed, there’s probably many examples throughout history of the disappearance of certain peoples for this very reason.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 19 May 2016 2:30:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Grateful,

Thank you so much for allowing me to read the refreshing wisdom of Shaikh Muhammad Al-Yakoubi.

This Fatwa ought to be studied in all schools around the world.

No-doubt, Shaikh Al-Yakoubi carries with him the SPIRIT of Islam as he is very able to transcend the LETTER of Islam. For a secular reader (and for a Khawarij), who is unversed in the spirit of Islam, or indeed in the spirit of religion in general, the literal printed words can easily be read as a call to violence - and this is what Robert Spencer is picking on: and why wouldn't he, so long as that many who call themselves "Muslims" agree with his interpretation while most others who know the truth, Shaikh Al-Yakoubi being an exception, are silent, often out of fear?

The other area that Spencer comments about, and is understandably untouched by this specific Fatwa that deals with current matters of higher priority, is the historical/forensic inauthenticity of the Quran and Hadith. Spencer concludes that Muhammad (peace be upon him) did not exist, whereas I conclude from his evidence that the Prophet Muhammad, p.b.u.h, existed and indeed was a great saint, yet the written books of Islam, at least in part, do not reflect his true spirit, life and works.

In my view, true Islam has such deep roots that in case the old books do it more damage than good, more misleading than leading, more injustice than justice, then it would do better by discarding them like a rotten tooth. The alternative is to clean up and repair those books, carefully and fearlessly sorting what truly is from Allah and His messenger and what is not: this will be an enormous and tedious work, but I can hardly think of a better cause.

Let me conclude that my intention is not to insult Islam, but to strengthen it.
Due to the gravity of human nature, EVERY religion eventually decays
(Buddha predicted that his own new religion will decay in 500 years),
yet the Lord promised to appear again and again to renew and uplift religion.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 19 May 2016 3:57:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yutsie: (Buddha predicted that his own new religion will decay in 500 years)

Considering Buddhism is not a "Religion" but a way of life, I can't see how the Buddha could predict that. Buddhism has been around for 2666 years give or take 10 or 15 & it's still going strong today.

Buddha is not a God, never was a God & will never be a God. In fact most of Christianity takes from the teachings of Joshua, aka Jesus, who is known to have studied Buddhism & Hinduism. Preferring Buddhism to Hinduism. I can see why.

Also, Buddhism didn't interfere with his own Jewish Religion, as he wasn't "Worshiping" a false God. He was just studying a lifestyle.
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 19 May 2016 6:00:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jay,

I am not knowledgeable enough to tell whether Jesus studied Buddhism. It is a possibility.

Buddha did not predict that his new religion will disappear, but that it would degenerate and gradually lose its purity. From http://buddhism.about.com/od/buddhisthistory/a/buddhistwomen.htm :

"Ananda had made his point, and the Buddha relented. Pajapati and her 500 followers would be the first Buddhist nuns. But he predicted that allowing women into the Sangha would cause his teachings to survive only half as long -- 500 years instead of a 1,000."

Buddhism is both a way of life and a religion in as much as it aids people in practical ways to come closer to God.

Buddhism happens to differ from the Abrahamic religions in that it doesn't use the specific technique of belief in gods, but belief is only one religious technique among many and doesn't suit everyone.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 19 May 2016 6:30:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,
Through your comments as a whole, I don't get the impression that all that you adhere to, and all your understanding of the world, rests solely upon what exists in your church liturgy. So I would wonder why you tend to argue that way with regard to Christ's resurrection? For example, like Peter Selleck, you tend to accept/believe in evolution. That's definitely not found in any Anglican Church liturgy.

AJ,
It's sometimes thought (not necessarily true) that a more interesting article will provoke a high number of comments. There has been an unusually high number of responses here, but not many have really interacted much with the article itself.

So I'm interested in what you have under point six, where you accuse Don Batten of making stuff up. Could you elaborate on this. What has he just made up?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 20 May 2016 5:00:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Dan

I have used liturgy in this thread because it’s a way the church expresses and enacts its beliefs. I wouldn’t expect liturgy to have anything to say about evolution, for the same reason I wouldn’t expect the American Journal of Botany to have anything to say about liturgy. That's not its purpose.

I have also tried to convey that there is more to resurrection than an experience, supernatural or otherwise, that the disciples testified to 2,000 years ago. The church experiences Jesus as a continuing and living presence (“Christ is risen”). The church itself embodies Christ (“we are the boy of Christ”). The church also experiences the divine through the Holy Spirit, as we celebrated particularly at Pentecost last Sunday. All of these claims are not just part of the liturgy, they are biblically based.
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 20 May 2016 5:39:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To be honest, Dan. I’ve only ever heard that from yourself.

<<It's sometimes thought (not necessarily true) that a more interesting article will provoke a high number of comments.>>

But I’m glad you added the qualifier there in brackets, because it’s certainly not the case with Don Batten’s article, as demonstrated by the line-by-line rebuttal I began a week or two ago. The number of comments that an article generates is a pretty unreliable standard by which to measure how interesting and thought provoking it is, because there are other possibilities. Why, the article could be offensively absurd.

For example, I just read through Batten’s article again to count the different fallacies he commits in it, and here’s a list of them all:

1. the Straw Man fallacy;
2. Special Pleading;
3. Begging the Question;
4. the Argument from Personal Incredulity;
5. the Argument from Ignorance, and;
6. the Tu Quoque fallacy.

Six fallacies in only 2300 words! Some were committed on multiple occasions.

That’s terrible.

<<There has been an unusually high number of responses here, but not many have really interacted much with the article itself.>>

Batten may find that more people respond to what he writes if he actually engages with what others think, instead of attacking straw men.

<<So I'm interested in what you have under point six, where you accuse Don Batten of making stuff up. Could you elaborate on this. What has he just made up?>>

I wasn’t specifically talking about Batten there, but he is a Christian and Christians make stuff up all the time where their God is concerned. Either that, or they happily adopt stuff that had already been made up by others to avoid coming to more rational conclusions. Stuff they could not possibly know. Here are some examples:

- God works in mysterious ways.
- Noting bad can come from God.
- God is love.
- God is the prime-mover/alpha-and-omega/[insert whatever nonsense you like here to commit the Special Pleading or Begging the Question fallacies].

I could go on forever, but I think you catch my drift.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 20 May 2016 7:04:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course, that should be "caveat", not "qualifier".

But since I'm wasting a post, here's a video of a monkey riding a bike:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kVW7G_-wz0
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 20 May 2016 7:18:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Philips, could we add "only God can account for the laws of logic" to your list?

And here's an orangutan seeing a magic trick:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIxYCDbRGJc
Posted by WmTrevor, Friday, 20 May 2016 7:27:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,
I was taking my idea of what defines a good OLO article from the OLO Contributors page, in which Graham Young writes:

"Our contributors have a combination of one or more of the following characteristics:
- Expertise in their field
- Influence in their field
- Writing skills
- Interesting, even iconoclastic, ideas
- The ability to provoke debate
The ideal contributor will have the lot, but writing skills on their own could well get you a gig."

I would say that Don Batten has passed on most if not all of these points. But the idea that an article that provokes much discussion is a healthy article is hardly my idea alone.

-

AJ (19 May) - "Sceptics are content with, “I don’t know”, as an indefinite answer. Which is a lot more honest than just making stuff up. That last one there was just one of many reasons why Don Batten’s article was nonsense,"

You accuse Don Batten of making stuff up. Could you elaborate on this. What has he just made up?

AJ (20 May) "I wasn’t specifically talking about Batten there, but he is a Christian and Christians make stuff up all the time."

Thanks for admitting to an error. But your overt prejudice is not an endearing quality.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 20 May 2016 8:38:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

I was under the impression that you thought my sixth point was directly aimed at Batten’s article.

<<Thanks for admitting to an error.>>

Don Batten’s article does make a lot of stuff up, if you really want to do down that route. I mentioned some of it in my line-by-line rebuttal of his article. It appears you keep forgetting that I posted that. What, with your request that I give an example of where Batten has ‘made stuff up’, and now your assumption that I have admitted to an error.

What do you think it is that one needs to do when attacking straw men?

That’s right: make stuff up (and then attack that instead).

So no, I did not admit to an error, and nor did I engage in any "overt prejudice".
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 20 May 2016 9:07:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,
Yes, on one hand you were claiming Don Batten 'made stuff up'. On the other hand you say that you weren't referring to Batten when you said Christians make stuff up.

Either way, what I was hoping was that you could point out in Batten's article where (or if) you think he made stuff up.

---

Rhian,
The Anglican liturgy does refer to God's 'creation'.

"Gracious God, our heavenly Father,
we humbly thank you
for all your gifts so freely given:
for life and health and safety,
for work and rest and friendship,
and for the wonder of creation."

and from The Apostles’ Creed

"I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth."

So the liturgy is concerned with God's creation. And you say you are concerned that liturgy is biblically based. The liturgy enacts and expresses church beliefs.

I can see how this all fits with Christ's resurrection. I find it difficult to see how it fits with evolution. Is there any overlap between biblical teaching and evolutionary?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 20 May 2016 11:03:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not quite, Dan.

<<Yes, on one hand you were claiming Don Batten 'made stuff up'. On the other hand you say that you weren't referring to Batten when you said Christians make stuff up.>>

I said I wasn’t “specifically” referring to Don Batten in my sixth point. You conveniently skipped that crucial word.

There is no contradiction. Batten was obviously included to the extent that he is a Christian.

<<Either way, what I was hoping was that you could point out in Batten's article where (or if) you think he made stuff up.>>

I did. Firstly, he invented the stances that he attributed to all atheists. Furthermore, as I mentioned before, part of his tactic here was to sneakily switch back and forthe between “atheism” and “materialism”. Basically, he attacked strawmen, such as the alleged belief that the universe just poofed out of nothing.

Secondly, he ‘makes stuff up’ by inserting a God into the unknowns, as if that answers anything.

Oh, I just realised. That makes seven fallacies. I didn’t count the God of the Gaps fallacy before. Sorry.

But what about you? We’ve been talking about me for so long, I’m starting to wonder about you. What do you think of the fact that Batten committed six, no, seven fallacies in a mere 2300 words?

If you have the word allowance to address each one, then that would be great, otherwise, just pick one that you think you can refute and let’s hear what you’ve got to say.

In the meantime, I've found Don on Facebook, I'm going to ask him to join this conversation. I betcha he doesn't.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 20 May 2016 11:19:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ, consider the definition of free will once again:

“When a choice can be made that is not determined or necessitated by prior events then we can exercise freewill. The will is free when alternative choices could have been made with the same pre-existing conditions."

Suppose there is a God who has predetermined all actions. This does not rule out alternative choices.

God can have me raised by a caring family and yet i can choose between being someone who is grateful or alternatively someone with a sense of entitlement.

I can be made dirt poor or very ill, and still have the choice of being a person who is patient or a person who cries fowl.."why me?".
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 21 May 2016 1:04:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,
I can see you've provided a list of alleged logical fallacies, but I don't think you've explained how anything on this list actually applies to Don Batten's article.

I understand the concept of a straw man argument, but I don't see where it is that Batten has created such a thing. I asked you where did Batten 'make stuff up'. You said that he made up a straw man (a feebler argument that is easier to attack.) So I'm wondering what was the example that you gave. Looking back into your postings, you allege that he made this up, -
<<The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada.>> "No-one has asserted that. This is a strawman."

However, Batten didn't make this up. It's a direct quote from Discover Magazine in relation to Alan Guth's theory of inflation. So Batten is not making this up. Rather, you should read what he's saying a bit more carefully.

Batten appears to me to be using the words materialist and atheist as synonyms, considering both words refer to those who deny the existence of the spiritual. This would seem reasonable given the context. The point of the article is that atheists acknowledge no forces other than the natural or material (the forces of physics and chemistry), but these forces are inadequate and even counterproductive in explaining the large scale events that atheists believe occurred.

I've glad you've made contact with Dr Don Batten. But I think you may need to be clearer in your understanding and criticisms of his writing before he'll feel obliged to respond. That's my opinion.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Saturday, 21 May 2016 2:00:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ says
That’s a big topic that is still hotly debated. More importantly, it has little-to-nothing to do with whether or not a god exists. Unless one believes in an omniscient god, in which case free will cannot exist; or is, at best, meaningless, because we could not possibly deviate what from an omniscient god already knew we were going to do. That would be a paradox."

AJ

Assuming God exists and He is omniscient, I can choose to go for a walk but it would be up to God whether in fact I go for a walk.

Furthermore, the choice would be made meaningful by the intention underpinning the choice.

Even choosing to walk, doing physical exercise, can be worship if I intend maintain my stamina as a means of doing what pleases Him, rather than any other worldly purpose.

If God instructs us to be grateful for the good we experience and to be patient in the face of adversity, we can choose to follow or ignore.

God would make some people more capable than others but what would count is what we choose to do with what we have been given.

AJ states:

"The ability to exercise choice is advantageous in a social species like ourselves. So those able to do so, would have been more likely to pass on their genes. Total, rigid conformance to a culture and its rituals would hinder a people’s ability to adapt to change and see them eventually disappear when circumstances changed or their cultural practices were proving harmful. Indeed, there’s probably many examples throughout history of the disappearance of certain peoples for this very reason."

Your argument presupposes "the ability to exercise choice".
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 21 May 2016 8:23:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful: I can choose to go for a walk but it would be up to God whether in fact I go for a walk.

No. You can choose to go for a walk, but the God already knew you made that choice. Going by the supposition that "The God" exists, then the God knew all of your actions in life before you were born & that you were going to Hell anyway. Yet, the God, allowed you to be born. Somewhat cruel don't you think.

A case for there being no God.
Posted by Jayb, Saturday, 21 May 2016 9:13:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"No. You can choose to go for a walk, but the God already knew you made that choice. Going by the supposition that "The God" exists, then the God knew all of your actions in life before you were born"

Exactly.
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 21 May 2016 6:23:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Be grateful for such insight and use it wisely.

If you find yourself caring for people or giving in charity thank Allah for His mercy. Similarly if you find yourself enduring hardship with patience or being grateful in times of ease praise the one who is the real cause. He could well have had you doing the opposite.

Where is the cruelty in this? It's your choice. Would you have preferred to have been born an ant or an elephant with no choice or responsibility?
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 21 May 2016 6:39:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Grateful,

How do you know an ant or an elephant has no choice or responsibility?
Posted by david f, Saturday, 21 May 2016 6:47:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grateful: Where is the cruelty in this? It's your choice.

So the God is just playing with humanity, as a toy. If the God knows that you are going to do something stupid before you have done it or you were even born & going to Hell, then what was the point of your birth. Sort of gift to the Devil. Sounds like an unholy conspiracy to me by a very nasty God.

What happened to all the Old Gods. I suppose once people stopped believing in them they just faded away into oblivion. I guess when people wake up to "Gods," the ones we have today will just fade away into oblivion too & that'll be a good thing. I wonder just what will take their place.

It's not so much that "Gods" are a problem, it's Religion & it's accompanying Dogma, that is.
Posted by Jayb, Saturday, 21 May 2016 8:18:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Dan
Yes we refer to God as creator. But as these pages show, there are many ways to understand that. Some believe God literally created the universe and life in six days, as Genesis describes. Some, apparently including the pope, think Genesis is a metaphor, and God creates through natural processes like evolution and gravity. Others, like Peter Sellick, think God's creation has nothing to do with the origin of life and the universe but concerns the new creation of god's kingdom
Posted by Rhian, Sunday, 22 May 2016 5:37:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David f wrote:
"How do you know an ant or an elephant has no choice or responsibility?"

In the same way as you do: through observation. Firstly, i have never heard of anyone demand of an ant or elephant that they be held to account for their actions. Secondly, science (as of last year's New Scientist) has found no other creature that has created anything that could be described as art.

Islamic teachings is consistent with these observations in that it maintains that unlike humans, animals have no choice but to worship Allah. We however are to be judged based on our choices. We are free to choose to believe or not believe.

Do you maintain we have free will?
Posted by grateful, Sunday, 22 May 2016 8:52:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful says :” animals have no choice but to worship Allah. “.
Do you have any evidence for this weird statement, grateful, or have you missed your medication again and are only capable of talking nonsense?
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 22 May 2016 9:37:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo, returning to your post, you mentioned:

“Perhaps whatever our brain or personality type, our beliefs will be governed by our environment and community.”

I’d argue that if our beliefs are solely the product of “environment and community”, then any notion of free will is a delusion

Are you denying that we can exercise choice in the following sense:

"When a choice can be made that is not determined or necessitated by prior events then we can exercise freewill. The will is free when alternative choices could have
Posted by grateful, Sunday, 22 May 2016 10:52:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting that those who ascribe culture, art, cults and religions to evolution are not prepared to tackle the question of choice and free will.

Would I be right in saying those present cannot reconcile the two?
Posted by grateful, Sunday, 22 May 2016 11:06:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Grateful,

"Would I be right in saying those present cannot reconcile the two?"

Well, I am present, but I didn't take part in discussing this issue, even since you first raised it in page 30 ("I’d argue that if our beliefs are solely the product of “environment and community”, then any notion of free will is a delusion").

It's not that I cannot reconcile the two, but rather that I don't want to reconcile them. Even if I could, I believe that it would be sinful to do so. That would be similar to what the author of this article is trying to do, for which I criticise him.

That we experience free will is subjectively self-evident and this is sufficient to prompt us to choose responsibly, nothing more is needed: who cares whether it is a delusion, given that the world (including its "environment and community") is also a delusion!

One should not look at the world for answers. If we must ask about the world, then the only relevant question would be how we get our next meal from it to feed our bodies and shelter them from the elements. Once we settled and set aside this worry, we should have our attention on God alone.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 23 May 2016 2:34:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yutsie: we should have our attention on God alone.

But, there is no God. God & Gods are a man invented delusion for the Elite to control people.

We can all exercise Free Will, but it is controlled (muted) by Religion, Custom & the Community. EG; If you live in an Islamic Community & you want to exercise your Free Will to change you Religion. If you do, the Penalty is to have your head lopped off. Do you change your Religion? I don't think so. So you Free Will is Muted, isn't that right grateful?
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 23 May 2016 8:47:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Grateful.

I don't know if there is a way to tell if there is such a thing as free will. When I do something I cannot be sure whether it was predictable, a sum of my experience or heredity or something else. I don't tackle the question of choice or free will since I don't think it is a real question.

You wrote: "David f wrote:

"How do you know an ant or an elephant has no choice or responsibility?"

In the same way as you do: through observation. Firstly, i have never heard of anyone demand of an ant or elephant that they be held to account for their actions. Secondly, science (as of last year's New Scientist) has found no other creature that has created anything that could be described as art."

I don't think you answered my question. Your remarks seemed irrelevant to the question.
Posted by david f, Monday, 23 May 2016 8:58:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jay,

<<We can all exercise Free Will, but it is controlled (muted) by Religion>>

By contemptible people who abuse religion and utter God's name in vain.

<<But, there is no God. God & Gods are a man invented delusion for the Elite to control people>>

When the name of God is used for sex, money and power - that is the worst sacrilege. Better for those who do so to be atheists who have never heard the name of God, nay better still for them to have never been born. I wrote that we should have our attention on God alone, but those lost souls have their attention on controlling others instead.

Now obviously, man cannot invent God: how possibly could a finite mortal do that? Man cannot even conceive the unfathomable. Rather, man invents different concepts of God and gods, some more suitable, appropriate and beneficial than others.

In a sense, it's true that there is no such object as God, no such creature. Logically speaking, it is an error to think of God as an object, as something that exists: on the other hand, for probably most people this is a very useful and beneficial logical error. Of course, if personally for you such concepts aren't beneficial then you would be better off staying away from all concepts of God.

So given that you are not one of those who benefits from a concept of God, how can you keep your attention on God? well as there is nothing but God, notice the sense that something is - you are, others are, life is, then have your attention on discerning the truth, asking what truly is: "Who am I", "What am I", "What is life" and "What others are". Doing so you will eventually realise God for yourself, without any interfering concepts and then if you prefer not to call Him by any name, still none of God's blessings will be missed.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 23 May 2016 11:14:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David
Are saying i cannot answer the question and this is because it is not a real question? Can you explain why you say it is not a real question?
AJ thought he could answer it. I guess you would disagree with his evolutionary approach.

Regarding my response, what do I need to clarify?
Posted by grateful, Monday, 23 May 2016 11:34:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why, I’ve already explained a few, Dan.

<<..I don't think you've explained how anything on this list actually applies to Don Batten's article.>>

Here’s a quick rundown of them.

The Straw Man:
One example of a Straw Man from Batten was where he took the somewhat-sensationalist title of a science magazine and attacked that without actually addressing the content of the article. Which, when you read it, puts things into perspective:

“To the average person it might seem obvious that nothing can happen in nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something.” (http://discovermagazine.com/2002/apr/cover)

Batten quote-mined the title of an article without bothering to address anything that had actually been said in the article (which can be read in full in the above link). He wanted it to look like physicists (and thus, by extension, every single atheist, or materialist (whichever suited his argument best at the time)) claim that the universe just poofed into existence from what we laymen would usually think of as nothing (i.e. no matter and a very low state of energy).

The Special Pleading fallacy:
This one I already explained. Batten insists that everything has a cause, but is willing to let his god off the hook on that one.

Begging the Question:
Batten commits this fallacy because the essay is implied, indirect evidence for his god, but his god is already assumed in the premise of his argument, so it’s essentially circular (e.g. God is required for the creation of the universe, therefore, the universe is proof that God exists).

The Argument from Incredulity:
This one was implied throughout the entire article. Basically, because Don can’t see how naturalistic explanations could be true, then that means they’re not. This was the most subtle of all fallacies but was explicit in his mocking tone.

The Argument from Ignorance:
This was committed impliedly in Batten’s assumption that because some things have not yet been conclusively proven (e.g. what happened before the Big Bang and abiogenesis), then they must therefore be false. Why else would he refer to them as “magic”?

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 23 May 2016 11:36:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…Continued

Tu Quoque:
This fallacy was the entire article. In his article, Batten is essentially saying, “Well, we might believe in magic, but so do you.” I know he tried to distinguish his god’s work from magic, but all he demonstrated was that he needs to consult a dictionary (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/magic).

The God of the Gaps:
This one, you explained yourself: “The point of the article is that atheists acknowledge no forces other than the natural or material (the forces of physics and chemistry), but these forces are inadequate and even counterproductive in explaining the large scale events that atheists believe occurred.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324030)

Sure, but that doesn’t mean you’re justified in plonking a God in those gaps.

<<Batten appears to me to be using the words materialist and atheist as synonyms, considering both words refer to those who deny the existence of the spiritual. This would seem reasonable given the context.>>

No, it’s not reasonable at all. It’s actually dishonest. Batten is, first and foremost, attacking atheism. But to do this, he needs to paint all atheists as materialists by - using slight of hand - switching between the two terms interchangeably. Yet not all atheists are materialists.

There's another example of his Straw Men.

As for contacting Batten, I did so that night, but I am yet to receive a response. Somehow I think my $50 is safe. Batten's article seems geared towards those who already believe, and I suspect he's switched on enough to realise that an atheist is going to be able to pick it to pieces.

grateful,

The existence of an omniscient god may not stop someone making choices (I’ll even call this free will, if you like), but as I said earlier, those choices are meaningless if making a different choice could never have occurred by virtue of an omniscient god’s ability to see the future.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 23 May 2016 11:36:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But getting back to your main point, grateful.

<<To exercise free will we need an existence that is independent of our existence in this world … To conclude, freewill presupposes that each and every one of us has a spiritual existence; an existence that is independent of our worldly existence.>>

Okay then, what happens to this ‘spirit’, and the free will which it supposedly makes possible, when a person suffers from a brain injury? Because, when a person suffers from a severe enough brain injury, everything that makes that individual who they are can be reset: their personality, their memory, their preferences, their desires, even their ability to form new memories.

What happens to such a person’s spirit and free will? Did the spirit suffer from brain injury too? Is its ability to move and communicate with the brain-injured person’s body hampered? Did it pack up and leave? Did a new spirit, with behaviour more like that of a brain-injured person, complete with a different personality, set up camp in the unfortunately person’s body?

And what if the brain injury causes someone to become an atheist? Did their own spirit condemn itself to hell? (Or physical death if they were a Muslim living in an Islamic theocracy and someone found out about their apostasy?)

The existence of free will, if it even exists at all, does absolutely nothing to prove the existence of souls, spirits, or a spiritual realm.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 23 May 2016 8:41:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ wrote:
The existence of an omniscient god may not stop someone making choices (I’ll even call this free will, if you like), but as I said earlier, those choices are meaningless if making a different choice could never have occurred by virtue of an omniscient god’s ability to see the future.

An “omniscient god’s ability to see the future” means that the god would know our choices before we made them. How would this make the choices any less meaningful?

AJ states:

“Okay then, what happens to this ‘spirit’, and the free will which it supposedly makes possible, when a person suffers from a brain injury? Because, when a person suffers from a severe enough brain injury, everything that makes that individual who they are can be reset: their personality, their memory, their preferences, their desires, even their ability to form new memories.
“What happens to such a person’s spirit and free will? Did the spirit suffer from brain injury too? Is its ability to move and communicate with the brain-injured person’s body hampered? Did it pack up and leave? Did a new spirit, with behaviour more like that of a brain-injured person, complete with a different personality, set up camp in the unfortunately person’s body?”

Being able to choose requires having an existence that is independent of our worldly existence. This is compatible with an infinite range of possible forms that the worldly existence may take.

AJ: "And what if the brain injury causes someone to become an atheist? Did their own spirit condemn itself to hell? (Or physical death if they were a Muslim living in an Islamic theocracy and someone found out about their apostasy?)"

If someone is a believer by choice but because of brain injury they become a committed atheist, then the fact remains that they chose to believe and did not choose disbelief.
Posted by grateful, Tuesday, 24 May 2016 8:25:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Okay then, grateful. I should have said that “the ability to make those choices” is meaningless.

<<An “omniscient god’s ability to see the future” means that the god would know our choices before we made them. How would this make the choices any less meaningful?>>

I didn’t mean to imply that those choices have no meaning, if that’s what you’re getting at.

Since it would be a paradox to deviate from what an omniscient god already knew we were going to do, then the fact that we were able to make the choice is meaningless because making a different choice was never an option.

The logic here is similar to, “Can God create a rock so heavy that he can’t carry it?” If he can, then he’s not omnipotent. If he can’t, then he’s not omnipotent. Do you see the paradox now?

<<Being able to choose requires having an existence that is independent of our worldly existence. This is compatible with an infinite range of possible forms that the worldly existence may take.>>

So what exactly is the role that this spiritual existence plays then? Because your free-will argument suggests that it needs to be there to control the person independently of the physical-world constraints. But now you seem to be suggesting that our spiritual existence doesn’t need to do anything, it just has to exist.

You need to clarify this.

<<If someone is a believer by choice but because of brain injury they become a committed atheist, then the fact remains that they chose to believe and did not choose disbelief.>>

So choices are no longer choices after a brain injury then? Is Gary Busey not really a Christian because he became one after a permanent head injury sustained after a motorcycle accident that has affected his personality? Does God then not admit him to heaven because his choices no longer count? Or is it only the unfavourable choices that don’t count? Did Gary Busey’s atheist spirit lose some control over his mind after the head injury?

I don't think you’ve really thought this through properly.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 24 May 2016 10:44:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A man after my own heart, AJ, a man after my own heart. Go for it!
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 24 May 2016 11:24:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ wrote:
"I don't think you’ve really thought this through properly."

Correct. I'm thinking it through and challenging my own beliefs with the aid of people like yourself. I'm not advocating.
Posted by grateful, Tuesday, 24 May 2016 2:19:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,there are two things that are impossible for God.

Firstly, there are those things that are intrinsically impossible such as creating a five-sided triangle. This is just a play on words.

We have an example of this in your statement:

AJ: “The logic here is similar to, “Can God create a rock so heavy that he can’t carry it?” If he can, then he’s not omnipotent. If he can’t, then he’s not omnipotent. Do you see the paradox now?”

Consider this example. God is omnipotent. From this we deduce that God cannot be a man. Why? Because man is not omnipotent. So it is impossible for God to a man for the simple reason that it is not of His nature.

Similarly, the rock. It is of the nature of God to say “Be” and it is. It is not in His nature to create a situation in which He is not omnipotent (such as a creating a rock so heavy that he cannot lift). So we do not have a paradox but a play with words

The second impossibility is for something to occur which an omniscient god has informed us will not occur. You write:

AJ: “Since it would be a paradox to deviate from what an omniscient god already knew we were going to do, then the fact that we were able to make the choice is meaningless because making a different choice was never an option.”

If an omniscient god had informed us of all our choices “then the fact that we were able to make the choice is meaningless because making a different choice was never an option” But as you know we are not assuming that the omniscient god has informed us of our choices. So as far as we are concerned there are options and they are meaningful.

In summary, what you call a paradox is a play on words and your assertion that the choices are meaningless implicitly assumes an omniscient god informing us of our choices.

Finally, I’ve shown that the logic of your two statements are in fact different.
Posted by grateful, Tuesday, 24 May 2016 4:22:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ: “You need to clarify this. “<<If someone is a believer by choice but because of brain injury they become a committed atheist, then the fact remains that they chose to believe and did not choose disbelief.>>

So choices are no longer choices after a brain injury then?”

Clarification: He did not choose to become an atheist.

Jayb: <<A man after my own heart, AJ, a man after my own heart. Go for it!>>

Jayb, you "sceptics" must really whoop it up at your conferences with all these word games (oops sorry, "paradoxes")

David, AJ and Jayb: what say you?
Posted by grateful, Tuesday, 24 May 2016 4:32:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Grateful,

Is a brain any more or less an accident than a brain after a brain injury? We are conceived by a union of a sperm and ovum. A sperm cell has half the genetic complement of the male that produced the cell, and the ovum has half the genetic complement of the female that produced the cell. In either case the half that was kept is a matter of chance. Presumably if another half had been kept we would be making different decisions because we would have a different brain.

We are what we are - a product of arbitrary circumstances. We can create entities such as God or fate which deny the arbitrary circumstances of our conception. I would rather keep it simple and not try to explain as anything but arbitrary the circumstances which has made us what we are.
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 24 May 2016 5:13:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unfortunately, grateful, you still haven’t managed to address a single thing I’ve said.

The omnipotence paradox you simply sidestep; the omniscience paradox you dodge completely by attacking a straw man; and you still haven’t clarified the role that spirits play in providing us with free will.

<<God is omnipotent. From this we deduce that God cannot be a man. Why? Because man is not omnipotent. So it is impossible for God to a man for the simple reason that it is not of His nature.>>

No, no. If God has unlimited power, then he could be a human just like any one of us, but if he were to make himself a human like the rest of us, then he wouldn’t have unlimited power.

This is the same as the ‘rock’ paradox. It solves nothing.

<<So we do not have a paradox but a play with words>>

The only one here playing with words is yourself. I’m simply adhering to basic definitions. Your concept of god is inherently contradictory. This is why modern theologians have abandoned it. It cannot be defended.

<<The second impossibility is for something to occur which an omniscient god has informed us will not occur.>>

No, it was our ability, or lack thereof, to deviate from that which an omniscient god already knows will happen. I said nothing about a god informing us of anything. This is a straw man.

<<So as far as we are concerned there are options and they are meaningful.>>

Yes, but that’s not what I mean by “meaningful” now, is it? Whether or not we personally see meaning in our choices is entirely irrelevant to my point. The notion of ‘meaningfulness’ has more than one sense: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/meaningful.

You are addressing 1.1 in the above link, while I’ve been using 1.3 the whole time.

This is the fallacy of equivocation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation)

<<Clarification: He did not choose to become an atheist.>>

That wasn’t what I was asking you to clarify. What I asked you, was how exactly the existence of a spirit provides us with free will? What is its precise function? (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324147)
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 24 May 2016 6:02:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful, these were not word games when the venerated Abu Ali al-Husayn ibn Abd Allah ibn Al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Sina; (yes, I had to Google the full name because I only know him as Avicenna) considered such open questions a millenia ago and they were already ancient philosophical issues then.

That they are still open questions is compelling support for "sceptics" I find.

But it can be interesting to start with a simple question such as, "Is everything subject to the will of god?" and see where it leads.

In my case, atheism.
Posted by WmTrevor, Tuesday, 24 May 2016 6:13:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Grateful,

Indeed, thinking of God as an object is bound to land us into all sorts of paradoxes.

But this should not discourage you. It doesn't mean that you should stop doing so!

Attributing some ideal objective qualities to God (omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc.), though nonsensical from a material point of view, can be (for most of us) extremely beneficial spiritually: it reinforces our devotion and helps us to focus on God rather than on the mundane - and in the last count, this is all that matters!

Should circumstances, however, require that we subject our faith to philosophical analysis, just remember that these attributes are only approximations: they point at the truth, but they are not the truth, nor were they ever meant to be. No mind can grasp God, no words can tell.

It's like when someone asks you: "what is infinity?", so you wave your arms and tell them: "you go and you go and you go and you go and you continue to go". You have not in fact described infinity at all, but there's perhaps a chance that your listener will somehow get the flavour.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 24 May 2016 11:10:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The precept is that God is Good. is wrong. God is Bad, just as bad a Satan. Look at all the Wars fought over Religion, would a good God allow that. Look at the Medical problems, Children born all twisted up, dying in pain of many & varied diseases. Drugs & Alcohol that kill & maim people every day. A good God who is supposed to love Humans just wouldn't let that happen.

Don't argue "Free Will." God is supposed to control everything that we do & happens to us. So God is purposely doing this to Humans for his (it's) own amusement. Not nice.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 25 May 2016 8:20:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jay,

Imagine you go to the cinema and there are 3 movies available:

1. "Bunny the rabbit built a home, he lives comfortably in his home with Mrs. Bunny, their boy Henry and their girl Mary. In the evening, Mrs. Bunny prepared supper, they all sit to the large wooden table and have a nice carrot pie, drink carrot juice and finally have a beautiful carrot pudding. The children are polite and very nicely behaved. After the meal they say "Thank you Papa, thank you Mama", they change to their soft and clean pyjamas and enter their beds. Their parents tuck them nicely under the blankets and they fall asleep into sweet dreams."

2. "Zappy our hero is flying near the speed of light, it's a race when he must overtake the alien spaceship which is on its way to destroy Earth, but in order to obtain the weapons he needs to destroy the aliens he must first save the earth from a devastating strand of ebola in a test-tube which the Mafia planted 10Km deep under the sea and would be automatically opened unless all the world's remaining maidens under 24 become their sex-slaves. The clock is ticking..."

3. "Gooper tries to turn on his side and vomit, but he's too slow and much of it soaks his shirt. A lizard passes by, so he bites off his leg and tries to chew it with his rotten teeth. The woman on the bed from which he fell asks "what about sex?", so he slowly tries to open his rusty zip but then gives up and moans "what the heck, grog is better". "What about your grandfather then?", she asks (Grandfather is slumped on the desk). "Well, don't ask me to bury him, I rather keep the smell than go out working".

Which movie will you choose? It's all up to you.

(continued...)
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 25 May 2016 12:36:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(...continued)

The movies characterise the three Gunas (modes) that run the world, respectively Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. Everything that happens is a combination of the three in one proportion or another (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gu%E1%B9%87a).

In this analogy, God is the white cloth upon which the movies are screened. In truth, regardless which movie is being screened, all that is really there is this white cloth. God is always there, the only true reality, He moves nothing and nothing moves Him. You always have the option to turn off the projector.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 25 May 2016 12:36:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ, why can we not simply say God cannot create a rock that he cannot lift BECAUSE HE IS OMNIPOTENT?
Posted by grateful, Wednesday, 25 May 2016 2:13:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Because, grateful, that would be a contradiction.

<<…why can we not simply say God cannot create a rock that he cannot lift BECAUSE HE IS OMNIPOTENT??

I’ll re-word what you just said to highlight why:

“Why can we not simply say that God’s power has a limit to it because he has unlimited power?”

If a god cannot create a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it, then he is, by necessity, not omnipotent. How can you limit a god’s power on the one hand, and then immediately proceed to say that it's unlimited? That makes no sense. Such a god would disappear into a puff of logic the moment you conceived of it.

All you’ve done is gone from a paradoxical concept to a contradictory statement.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 25 May 2016 3:15:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yutsie: God is always there, the only true reality, He moves nothing and nothing moves Him.

Or Her, or it. You are saying that "a God" doesn't do actually do anything at all. God is just there. So exactly what use is "a God" other than for people to use the figment of "a God" to control other people.

Yutsie you're just plain weird mate. Just as well there is no doG. Opps, dyslexia steps in again.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 25 May 2016 5:38:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ: "All you’ve done is gone from a paradoxical concept to a contradictory statement."

Fair enough.

Well doesn't the whole notion of God lifting anything presuppose he is limited and therefore not omnipotent? He has no need to lift a rock to cause it to disappear from one position and appear in another (as we would perceive it). So the paradox presupposes God is not omnipotent, then assumes he is omnipotent to conclude that he cannot be omnipotent.
Posted by grateful, Wednesday, 25 May 2016 7:12:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jayb: "Yutsie you're just plain weird mate. Just as well there is no doG. Opps, dyslexia steps in again."

From what i have been able to observe on these forums, atheism seems to attract a disproportionate number of people who take pleasure in belittling others. These remarks could have been spoke by Trump.
Posted by grateful, Wednesday, 25 May 2016 7:21:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful,

The main point, that you're still desperately trying not to understand, is that the whole concept of omnipotence is in and of itself one big contradictory paradox. Even before you apply it to a god.

<<Well doesn't the whole notion of God lifting anything presuppose he is limited and therefore not omnipotent?>>

No, the paradox says nothing about a god’s need, or not, to physically lift something. A paradox is as impossible in theory as it is in practice.

<<He has no need to lift a rock to cause it to disappear from one position and appear in another (as we would perceive it).>>

And I have no need to go back in time and shoot myself, but that wouldn’t stop it being a paradox if I did.

You are just sidestepping the problem here. An unstoppable force may never meet an immovable object, but that doesn’t make the paradox of the two existing in the same dimension go away. How, for example, can an unstoppable force be unstoppable if an immovable object exists to stop it? Similarly, how can a limitless being exist if it exists to limit itself?

<<So the paradox presupposes God is not omnipotent, then assumes he is omnipotent to conclude that he cannot be omnipotent.>>

No, the paradox starts with the assumption that God is omnipotent. Like I said before, though, the concept of omnipotence is a paradox before one even gets to the point of applying it to a god.

Modern theologians and sophists get around this dilemma now by claiming that God is “maximally powerful”. Personally, I find the idea of a “maximally powerful” god pretty underwhelming (it is, after all, infinitely less powerful than an omnipotent god), but at least with a maximally powerful god you have the luxury of defining and re-defining your god as you see fit, depending on whether you hit a contradiction or not.

Not a very honest way of thinking, I know. But since when has any theological pursuit been concerned with intellectual honesty?
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 25 May 2016 8:56:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful: atheism seems to attract a disproportionate number of people who take pleasure in belittling others.

You didn't find Yutsie post rediculess & belittling.

grateful: These remarks could have been spoke by Trump.

The World need people like Trump. We, in Australia, should be so lucky. Maybe the next Senate will be full of little Trumps, with any luck.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 25 May 2016 9:16:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ: "And I have no need to go back in time and shoot myself, but that wouldn’t stop it being a paradox if I did."

Good point.

Consider:
It is impossible for God to create a triangle with more than 3 sides
It is impossible for God to create a situation in which He is not God

The first is intrinsically impossible. In no sense is it possible or something we would ask of God.

The second is not possible if the following verse is from God

"The originator of the heavens and the earth. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be’, and it is.” (Qur'an 2:117)

If this is the word of God, then God is informing us he does not lift.

So "Can God create a rock that He cannot lift" entails God doing something He has has informed us he does not do.

I should get back to your question regarding the spirit, but do you see my point?
Posted by grateful, Wednesday, 25 May 2016 11:21:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful,

I am fully aware of these apologetics you're using. I used to use some of them myself as a Christian. You're not springing anything on me that I haven't heard a thousand times before.

<<It is impossible for God to create a triangle with more than 3 sides>>

Well, there could be a fifth side if there were a forth angle of 180 degrees. But yes, I know what you're saying.

<<It is impossible for God to create a situation in which He is not God>>

It shouldn't be if he's omnipotent. Which is why omnipotence is a paradox.

<<The first is intrinsically impossible. In no sense is it possible or something we would ask of God.>>

Correct, it is impossible.

But whether or not we would ask it of God is irrelevant. I'm not sure what the point was in mentioning that.

<<The second is not possible if the following verse is from God>>

The second is not possible even if it isn't.

<<If this is the word of God, then God is informing us he does not lift.>>

I've already explained why whether or not a god lifts is irrelevant to whether or not a paradox exists. Please re-read my last post. That's pretty much all I talk about.

<<I should get back to your question regarding the spirit, but do you see my point?>>

That would be good if you could get back to my question regarding spirits. But yes, I see your point. I had anticipated it long before you even made it, which is why my earlier posts had managed to preempt it.

Again, nothing that you're saying is new to me.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 26 May 2016 12:16:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jay,

Indeed it's incorrect to describe God as 'He', 'She' or 'It', but I must use some language. I am well aware that no language is or ever can be adequate in describing or defining God. The reason is that only objects can be defined or described - and God is not an object.

What can be said about God, if it is any helpful, is only in the negative: we can say what God is not. Well because God is not an object, not a "thing", you can safely state that "God is not __fill_in_this_space_with_anything_you_like__".

So why should one get involved with God at all?

- Because you already are, because we are totally involved with God already whether we know it or not. One may ignore all concepts of God (and I agree that concepts of God that are being used to control others should be avoided), but one cannot ignore God Himself (sorry for having to use a pronoun, I know it's inadequate). Everything you do, everything you have and everything you are, are God. Put simply, there is nothing but God.

In the movie-screen analogy (and please bear in mind that it is only an analogy - God is not a white cloth!), no movie - good, bad or ugly, can be screened without the underlying white sheet. Beyond all the appearances: boring, exciting, disgusting and so many combinations thereof, the only reality is that white sheet on which rays of coloured light are projected.

When watching movies, we tend to get involved, believing that what we see is real and forget about the white cloth. Yet the cloth is real and the drama is an illusion. Once you are distressed or sick&tired enough of the movies, you can shift your attention to the underlying cloth. Since you've been watching the movies for a long time and are habitually focused on the illusions rather than on the true reality, it can take some effort to divert your attention. Religion in this analogy, provides you with methods to do so.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 26 May 2016 12:38:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yutsie: believing that what we see is real.

No I don't.

Regarding the Movies. I'd likely watch all three.

Yutsie: God is not an object, not a "thing", you can safely state that "God is not __fill_in_this_space_with_anything_you_like__".

"God is not __fill_in_this_space_with_anything_you_like__". "Human", God can't be, humans are fallible, have size & shape, therefore must be limited in time.

"God is not __fill_in_this_space_with_anything_you_like__". "Visible" Therefore ethereal.

"God is not __fill_in_this_space_with_anything_you_like__". "Real"
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 26 May 2016 8:40:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jay,

<<Regarding the Movies. I'd likely watch all three.>>

Fine, you seem to enjoy it all, but then don't complain for example about "Children born all twisted up, dying in pain of many & varied diseases" - that was your choice.

Once you become truly sick and tired of watching children born all twisted up, of drugs and alcohol that kill and maim people, of medical problems and of wars fought over religion - whether this be tomorrow or in a trillion year's time, completely up to you, then you have the option of either turning off the projector or even while the projector is on, you could train yourself to notice the ever-present white cloth upon which the movies are screened. At that time of your choice you may want to use the advice of some established religion - or you can find your own methods: both ways are valid, although the latter, refraining from the practical advice of your predecessors, would take you longer.

Now I'm glad you got it: God is not human, visible or real - but remember: there is nothing but God, including yourself, which means that you also are neither human, visible or real. The world too, including the sufferings therein, is like the movies - unreal!

Enjoy yourself for as long as you want, and meanwhile suffer as well - it's part of the deal: once you grow tired of it, religion can show you the way to the true reality beyond all appearances - God.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 26 May 2016 10:18:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ: <<<<It is impossible for God to create a situation in which He is not God>>

It shouldn't be if he's omnipotent. Which is why omnipotence is a paradox.>>

No, it should be impossible even when he is omnipotent in the same sense as the triangle statement.

Consider the following verse:

"For, God’s are all the forces of the heavens and the earth; and God is indeed almighty, truly wise!" Al-Fath 48:7

This implies nothing can exist without God and in particular “a situation in which He is not God” cannot exist. This situation is impossible in the same sense that it is impossible for a triangle with more than 3 sides to exist.

So to ask "Can God create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift?" is to ask whether God can create a situation which cannot exist.
Posted by grateful, Thursday, 26 May 2016 2:27:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yutsie: there is nothing but God,

& Nothing is God.

Yutsie: religion can show you the way to the true reality beyond all appearances - God.

Religion can show me what Religion wants me to see, hear or feel in the name of whatever particular Religion it is. Or, punish me, if I choose not to believe in whatever Religion it is that demands that, "I believe." That doesn't make the Religion Real, nor does it make God Real.

Science can show you the way to the true reality beyond all appearances even better.
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 26 May 2016 3:10:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How long do you want to keep going in circles, grateful?

<<No, it should be impossible even when he is omnipotent in the same sense as the triangle statement.>>

Then he’s not omnipotent because his power has a limit, hence the paradox. I’ve already been through this with you many times now. You are merely refusing to see the paradoxes and contradictions in your statements.

<<This [Quranic verse] implies nothing can exist without God and in particular “a situation in which He is not God” cannot exist.>>

That would be a form of circular reasoning that I spoke of earlier known as ‘Begging the Question’, because you have inserted your conclusion into the premise. It’s fallacious.

<<So to ask "Can God create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift?" is to ask whether God can create a situation which cannot exist.>>

Yes, and if he can’t, then his power is not unlimited; therefore, he is not omnipotent.

This contradicts nothing I’ve said.

Seriously, grateful, I suggest you find some more useful intellectual pursuits. Over thousands of years, not one theologian has overcome the omnipotence paradox, so what makes you think that you - some dude on the internet - is going to do it now?
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 26 May 2016 3:48:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jay,

I have done my best to explain to you about God and religion, but it seems that you are not willing to learn from me, that you rather prefer the opinions of others as your main source of information. I make no demands and I mete no punishments.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 26 May 2016 5:46:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,
You say that Peter Selleck believes that creation (i.e. God creating) has nothing to do with our origins. Well, that hardly makes much sense. I'll read again the Bible's opening ten words, and go from there. But really, I'm as confused as ever about what Selleck might actually believe.

You say you are concerned with the Biblical text. If the Pope and others want to toy with metaphoric readings in something as straight forward as Genesis, then I suppose that's their right. With some imagination, you could read just about anything into any text. But if you're going to look at the words in context, where do you go in the Bible to see evolution?

I would hope that the Pope et al would look at the text consistently and intelligently. There may be value in spending time and energy explaining why the text doesn't really mean what it seems to be saying, but it's the 'young earth' creationists alone that seemingly care about what's actually written in the text. For example, when I look at the lengthy account of the Great Flood in Genesis, I don't know why the writer would have included such specificity of detail sustained over several chapters if he wasn't concerned with historic detail. Could all of those details have metaphorical meanings?

AJ,
Thanks for your clarifications on those points concerning Don Batten's article.

However, I fail to see why you accuse Don of dishonesty for plainly stating what he believes. He explains that atheists believe that everything came about by purely material processes. That is, they are materialists. Is this not so? Or are there atheists who believe the universe came about from non-material processes?

Don has not created a straw man, but he has highlighted the conundrum of whether those who don't believe in God believe the universe came from something or nothing. He doesn't ignore the guts of Alan Guth's inflation theory. He addresses it. So does the universe come from something or nothing? It's complex, as would suggest the title of Lawrence Krauss's book.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 27 May 2016 2:05:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,
I don't believe Don's article contains the fallacies you allege.

His main idea is that physical properties alone fail to explain the universe we observe. By implication, it would be reasonable to look to a non physical source or cause for what we observe. That's logical, it's not special pleading. I think Don could have spent more time explaining why such an alternative is reasonable, but with essays there are word limits, and his focus was on the inadequacies of the purely physical explanation.

You say he was begging the question, but which question was he begging? You speak of the question of whether God exists. Without doubt, Don would be making the assumption God exists. That's central to his worldview. He's the CEO of a Bible based Christian apologetics ministry. If he wasn't fully convinced that God exists before he opened his mouth, then he's definitely in the wrong job. Everybody in this discussion comes with their assumptions and presuppositions. No one comes with a blank slate. So if you want to accuse him of holding certain assumptions, go right ahead. It's something we all do. It's unavoidable. Again, as in my previous paragraph, we ask what the focus of the article is. Don is addressing the question of whether physical properties alone can explain some of the world's wonders. The question of God's existence is not the principal thrust of his ideas.

Some accuse Don of falling back to a 'God of the gaps' type of thinking, that is, to focus on what is not known or not well understood, and allow God to fill that void. By contrary, he is not speaking about what we are ignorant. His focus is on that which we know, the ever increasing knowledge and data base being unveiled by modern investigative techniques. As Thomas Nagel said, "given what is known about the chemical basis of biology and genetics, what is the likelihood that self-reproducing life forms should have come into existence spontaneously on the early earth, solely through the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry?"
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 27 May 2016 2:09:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SDM: I'll read again the Bible's opening ten words, and go from there.

The Bible is a man made invention. It's the distorted story of one Nations History.

SDM: For example, when I look at the lengthy account of the Great Flood in Genesis, I don't know why the writer would have included such specificity of detail sustained over several chapters if he wasn't concerned with historic detail.

The story of the Great Flood is a combined story of the flooding of the Dead Sea. Around 100000 BC the Ice Age ended. The Dead Sea was a lake at that time.

The worlds Seas rose but the Dead Sea remained very low. An El Nino event happened which caused heavy rain to saturate the land around the Bosporus. Then area was struck by a big Earthquake that opened up the gap between the Marmara Sea & the Black Sea. The Wash from the intake into the Black Sea is very visible in Google Earth. This was not the only significant event of this nature that happened around the same time, give or take a few thousand years.

Another big event was the opening of the English Channel by a Tidal Wave, created when a big shelf of Ice in Norway broke off. I suspect events like this happened all over the World. The Outwash from this event is also visible on Google Earth.

Yutsie: I have done my best to explain to you about God and religion.

Ditto.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 27 May 2016 8:45:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I had already explained why, Dan.

<<I fail to see why you accuse Don of dishonesty for plainly stating what he believes.>>

And it looks like we’re about to go through it again.

<<[Batten] explains that atheists believe that everything came about by purely material processes. That is, they are materialists. Is this not so?>>

Yes, it is not so, and I have already explained why:

“Atheism [is] the rejection of religious claims as unsupported by the evidence.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#323511)

But even in instances when an atheist positively asserts that there is no god, that still says nothing about how they believe the universe or life came about.

There is nothing within atheism to necessitate materialism.

<<...are there atheists who believe the universe came about from non-material processes?>>

Yes, some New-Agers do.

<<Don has not created a straw man>>

Yes he has, and I explained how he did it too: by quote-mining the somewhat-sensationalist coverline of a science magazine and attacking that without addressing what the article actually said.

<<...[Batten] has highlighted the conundrum of whether those who don't believe in God believe the universe came from something or nothing.>>

No, he claimed they believe it came from nothing (without defining ‘nothing’), then, in a sleight of hand, mocked (specifically) materialists for supposedly having not explanations for the origins of the universe.

That’s a straw man and a sleight of hand. You’re not making things any better for Batten.

<<[Batten] doesn't ignore the guts of Alan Guth's inflation theory. He addresses it.>>

No, he didn’t address it, and I had already explained why at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324100.

<<[Batten’s] main idea is that physical properties alone fail to explain the universe we observe. By implication, it would be reasonable to look to a non physical source or cause for what we observe. That's logical, it's not special pleading.>>

That’s not what I said Batten's special pleading was. Here it is again:

“Batten insists that everything has a cause, but is willing to let his god off the hook on that one.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324100)

Is it any wonder you don’t respond by quoting me?

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 27 May 2016 9:42:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
...Continued

<<I think Don could have spent more time explaining why such an alternative is reasonable…>>

I’m all ears, if you want to give it a go.

<<You say he was begging the question, but which question was he begging?>>

That’s not what ‘begging the question’ means, and I think you know that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

As for your second-last paragraph, I don't see how it addresses anything I’ve said or get’s Batten off the hook with regards to his fallacies. You did have a crack at the Tu Quoque fallacy yourself, though, with your, “Everybody in this discussion comes with their assumptions and presuppositions.” Which ignores the virtues of atheism being the default position.

<<Some accuse Don of falling back to a 'God of the gaps' type of thinking, that is, to focus on what is not known or not well understood, and allow God to fill that void.>>

Hey! That was me. Credit where credit’s due.

<<By contrary, he is not speaking about what we are ignorant. His focus is on that which we know, the ever increasing knowledge and data base being unveiled by modern investigative techniques.>>

No, he pretty much just pointed to gaps and uncertainties. Furthermore, Batten’s mocking tone implies that he has a better answer, and so that answer which he supposedly has becomes relevant. His article was one of mockery and sneer, not sincere and neutral inquiry.

<<As Thomas Nagel said,...>>

Your quote (-mine?) says nothing about the changes of life arising from chemicals. It merely poses a question.

Sorry, Dan, but you haven't gotten Batten off the hook at all. My accusations still stand. Here’s a challenge for you, though, that will save us both a lot of time: try responding what I’ve actually said by quoting me. I don’t think you can do it.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 27 May 2016 9:42:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually Yutsie you have disappointed me. The four Vedas have as much "Truth" in them as the Bible.

According to Larousse, "World Mythology" ISBN: 0. 600. 33225. x. The Creation Story is a Dusie.

In the beginning there was "That." or the "Absolute" represented by Visnu who had Markandeya in his stomach. Now Visnu is sitting on a Multi-headed Cobra which is floating on an Ocean of Milk. The Cobras name is Ananta. Now Lakshmi turns up & get married to Visnu? I guess Lakshmi is a bit of a fish wife & ear bashes Visnu because while he is contemplating his navel a Lotus flower grows out of it, I guess that's what happens if you don't bathe. A bloke called Vayu grabs it (him,) by the stalk & gives it a shake, (interesting) Then Brahma pops out of the Lotus flower. Now Brahma has four arms & four mouths & reads the four Vedas all at the same time. No wonder Hindus are so confused. Anyway Brahma then populates the Earth.

Why haven't you claimed that this is the correct version of the World Creation Yutsie? I feel that the Hindu Creation Story has as much credence as the Christian Bible. Don't you?

Some time ago a school in America started work on a Science Model Museum. The Creationists took them to Court & the Court said they had to include the Creationists Model as well. So the School complied, but wrote to a number of other Religions inviting them to sue if they didn't include their Creation Models as well. Apparently the School has about 10 Creation Models from Science, Christianity 1 & 2, American Indian, African, Asian, Indian, etc,. The Creationists complained & the Court said that the Museun had the right to be inclusive of all Religions, which they had done.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 27 May 2016 11:51:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jay,

Sorry, it is not possible to please everyone at once.

I do hope that you have read my criticism of the author starting from the very first post of this thread, where I explain why it is not a good idea to play around with creation stories. If you haven't done so yet, then please read it now.

The mythology to which you refer has very deep spiritual, symbolic and esoteric meaning and I am always eager to drink the nectar of its wisdom, though it does require study to understand. One thing however that it does NOT attempt to do is to explain the origins of this universe. I refer those who want to waste their time in such silly pursuits to science.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 27 May 2016 2:26:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,
There are some people with a genuine desire to investigate our history and our origins, where it is we really came from. They believe if we better understand our past, it will advantage us moving forward. It appears you're not among them.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Friday, 27 May 2016 4:14:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Dan

Of course there is no mention of evolution in the bible. Its authors were not aware of it, and it wasn’t what they set out to write about.

A flood like the one described in Genesis could never have happened. There are dozens of websites that gleefully point out its scientific impossibility. Here’s one:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noah's_Ark

It’s also uncannily close to older Mesopotamian flood stories such as the Epic of Gilgamesh.

The pope doesn’t “toy” with metaphorical readings of Genesis. He understands that it cannot be taken seriously as a literal account of human origins, and was never intended to be (why do you think it contains two, inconsistent, creation stories?).
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 27 May 2016 4:38:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

Yes, the desire to investigate exists, but it comes from error.

Our bodies have history and humanity has origins.
But YOU and I have not come from anywhere.
We are not bodies, we are not humans. We just happen to wear a human for 70 or 100 years and when it's used up, we drop it.

How can we better understand our past... where we have no past?
Yes, it will indeed be better if we understand this, that we have no past, only eternal present in God: it will advance us by encouraging us to move forward towards God rather than remain stuck in the mud of the origins of our bodies. The way forward is to realise our true identity as God, rather than as separate and limited human beings.

So long as we are addicted to identifying with our human bodies, yes I can understand the desire to understand their origin, but it's a waste of time and energy.

A human birth is a rare achievement - some have waited for this opportunity for trillions of years, for neither lower no higher beings can attain God in a lifetime: what a pity to waste this opportunity on trivia!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 27 May 2016 5:04:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In response to

<<This [Quranic verse] implies nothing can exist without God and in particular “a situation in which He is not God” cannot exist.>>

AJ wrote: "That would be a form of circular reasoning that I spoke of earlier known as ‘Begging the Question’, because you have inserted your conclusion into the premise. It’s fallacious."

The reasoning is not circular because in using the Qur'anic verse I assume the Qur'an is the word of god. If this is the case, then god is informing us that a force that does not belong to God will not occur. A rock that God cannot lift implies a force other than God. It cannot be created because God is truthful and he has informed us it shall not occur.

Neither God being truthful nor the Qur'an being the word of God presuppose god is omnipotent. These premises can be discussed independently of one concludes about the omnipotence of god.

I notice in your response to Dan (and i dip my kufi to your resilience and knowledge) you wrote:

“Atheism [is] the rejection of religious claims as unsupported by the evidence.”

So evidence for Qur'an being the word of god must also be evaluated.

One argument for the Qur'an being the word of god is that statements are made regarding natural phenomena and the universe which have only subsequently been supported by scientific investigation.

The following 9 minute video provides a succinct summary of the position: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-pYCf4MBwo

cont...
Posted by grateful, Friday, 27 May 2016 5:35:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont..

Some examples include:

” We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?” Noble Quran 21:30

“Have not the unbelievers ever considered that the skies and the earth were once one mass, then We split them asunder?” Noble Quran 21:30

“…and sends down water from the sky with which We produce pairs of various kinds of vegetation .“ Noble Quran 20:53

“The Unbelievers say “Never to us will come the hour”: say “Nay! but most surely by my Lord it will come upon you by Him Who knows the unseen from Whom is not hidden the least little atom in the Heavens or on earth: nor is there anything less than that or greater but is in the Record Perspicuous:” Noble Quran 43.3

“Then turned He to the heaven when it was smoke, and said unto it and unto the earth: Come both of you, willingly or loth. They said: We come, obedient.” Noble Quran 41.11

“We sent aforetime our apostles with Clear Signs and sent down with them the Book and the Balance (of Right and Wrong) that men may stand forth in justice; and We sent down Iron in which is (material for) mighty war as well as many benefits for mankind that Allah may test who it is that will help unseen Him and His apostles; for Allah is Full of Strength exalted in Might (and able to enforce His will)” -Noble Quran 57:25

Could Muhammad, peace be upon him, have authored this? Were these observations consistent with the beliefs of the time or even up until very recently? According to the Qur'an:

“It is no less than inspiration sent down to him: He (Muhammad) was taught by one mighty in Power.” Noble Quran 53-4, 5

Whatever your position on this and other evidence, it is clear that supposing the Qur'an is the word of god is not begging the question.

P.S.

This also addresses Dan's concern that we may have strayed from the article's topic and gives Yuyutsu something to ponder.
Posted by grateful, Friday, 27 May 2016 5:38:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grateful: One argument for the Qur'an being the word of god is that statements are made regarding natural phenomena and the universe which have only subsequently been supported by scientific investigation.

What? like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9Jp_XCvVto
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FaNg_nxqns
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 27 May 2016 5:58:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful,

Those verses are pretty vague and wishy-washy. They sound like they might mean something to us now with the benefit of our relatively advanced scientific knowledge today, but would you have derived from them the same meaning if you lived back then?

No, so it’s not very compelling evidence at all for a god.

Now, if the Qur’an informed people back then that there are these microscopic organisms that will make you sick if they multiply too much, and that to avoid having them multiply too much, one should have a bath at least once a week, then that would be a bit more impressive.

And I mean in specific detail too. Not just, “Ye be the little ones that creepeth and crawleth and maketh them ill; for the water that splisheth and spasheth will kill.” 1 AJ 63:9

Heck, even that’s closer than the verses you had quoted. But would primitive people derive from my scripture that people get sick because of bacteria and that they need to wash regularly to avoid illness?

If verses, that sound like they were describing science that could not have been known in those times, are evidence that the Qur’an is the word of a god, then are the verses that are dead wrong (like those in the videos Jayb shared) evidence that the Qur’an is not the word of a god?

Sorry, grateful, but the evidence you have provided is pretty weak given the alleged power of the being that we’d be talking about here.

I don’t know what it would take to convince me that a god exists. But what I do know is that if a god does exist, then it would know what it would take to convince me of its existence. Which means either one of two things:

1. this god isn’t interested in revealing itself to me in any way that could be considered rationally justifiable, or;
2. it doesn’t exist.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 27 May 2016 7:27:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If Mahomet was given the Koran by the Angel Gabriel, then where is it (the Original). I would imagine it would be the most Holy object in Islam & referred too often. It would have never been lost. I led to believe the Koran, as it is now was compiled by some Caliph 150 years after Mahomet died (or ascended into Heaven) after his own Customs & Traditions & his desire for World Conquest.

Yutsie: One thing however that it does NOT attempt to do is to explain the origins of this universe.

Yes it does. "That" is "Absolute" The closest we can get to that is by it's nature impossible to depict. Possibly "Pranava" I believe. Where nothing existed. Then there was the One, then the One became multiple. The appearance of the Universe therefore is Cyclic. This suggests that "this" Universe had a previous incarnation & one before that. It reduced to a "The One" then multiplied (The Big Bang) & will eventually reduce to the "The One" again & so it will start all over again.

Nothing to do with Gods. Unless our Universe is only an Atom as part of some bigger thing. That then would be "A God" as we would understand it.

Weather or not Humans (Intelligent live forms) existed previously & will again after this big Crunch. That's a question for the Navel Gazers amongst us.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 27 May 2016 7:56:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ: "Sorry, grateful, but the evidence you have provided is pretty weak given the alleged power of the being that we’d be talking about here."

That’s fine. You have hadn’t the time or inclination to examine the evidence in any detail, while there are other scientists (non-Muslim) who have, notably

Maurice Bucaille’s "The Bible, the Qur’an and Science” (free download: https://archive.org/details/TheBibletheQuranScienceByDr.mauriceBucaille) and “What is the Origin of Man”

AJ: "Atheism [is] the rejection of religious claims as unsupported by the evidence.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#323511)

I very skeptical of such claims. On his own admission Richards Dawkins wrote his books without ever having read the Qur’an. Is that the case with you as well?

Anyway, I’ll hunt down your original question relating to free will and the spirit and give it my best shot
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 28 May 2016 11:19:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like I said before though, grateful, are the inaccuracies in the Qur'an evidence that it's not the word of a god?

<<On his own admission Richards Dawkins wrote his books without ever having read the Qur’an. Is that the case with you as well?>>

Correct, I haven't read the Qur’an and I don't need to either.

Do you reject all the other thousands of gods that you don't believe in because you read the scriptures for them all?

We don't have to have read scriptures to reject the existence of this god or that god as unsupported by the evidence, because scriptures are not reliable evidence of the gods they discuss. I once explained why this is the case with the Christian god, and the same applies to all versions of the Abrahamic god to varying degrees:

"Even if the Gospels and the vague and questionable non-Christian accounts of a person, who may be Jesus, can be believed, what does that say for a God who chooses to convey the most important message to mankind by only revealing it to certain individuals, who then write it down so that thousands of years later we need to rely on copies of copies of translations of copies by anonymous authors with no originals?

The God that Christians believe in is incredibly stupid if it wants to actually achieve its goal of spreading its message to humanity by relying on texts, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony. That's not a pathway to truth and anything that could qualify as a God would know this - which either means that God doesn’t exist, or he doesn’t care enough about those who understand the nature of evidence to actually present it.

There’s no amount of anecdotal, testimonial reports that could be sufficient to justify believing that the events actually happened as reported - no amount - and anything that could qualify as a God would not be relying on ancient texts if he wanted to convey this information to people in a way that was believable." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14398#248464)
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 29 May 2016 12:05:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ: "Correct, I haven't read the Qur’an and I don't need to either. "

That's true. Its your choice.
Posted by grateful, Sunday, 29 May 2016 12:48:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful: AJ: "Correct, I haven't read the Qur’an and I don't need to either. "

Well I have. I find it to be the most Racist, Sexist, Misogynist, urges Violence, Scientifically incorrect, Medically incorrect & Political book I have ever read. Definitely not the work of a God of any description.

The Original was written by a Racist, Sexist, Misogynist, urges Violence, Scientifically incorrect, Medically incorrect & Political incorrect male & backed up (Hadith) by other Racist, Sexist, Misogynist, urges Violence, Scientifically incorrect, Medically incorrect & Political incorrect males from then on.

Definetly not a God inspired book.
Posted by Jayb, Sunday, 29 May 2016 8:01:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful,

Whether or not reading the Qur'an is my choice was not the point I was making, if that's the only meaning you've extracted from what you quoted of me.

<<That's true. Its your choice.>>

My point was one of necessity, not choice. I don't need to read any holy scriptures to determine that there is no evidence for a god, because anything that could qualify as a god would realise that ancient texts in languages that die out is not a way to reveal oneself to the world if your existence in an issue of importance.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 29 May 2016 8:43:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What then is a good way, in your view?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 29 May 2016 5:58:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, Dan, just about anything would be better than ancient texts written in languages that die out, wouldn't you think? Anything that could qualify as a god should realise this too.

Walking among us would be good. Heck, just acting in damn near any way that doesn't have a more rational explanation to it would be a start.

Either way, copies of copies of translations of copies of texts written by anonymous authors, with no originals, is not a good method of communication or revelation.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 29 May 2016 6:20:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear AJ,

It is possible for a God to be all-powerful, all-knowing and all-good and, in addition to be stupid. That is she speaks in archaic texts. She isn't too intelligent.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 29 May 2016 6:35:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Walking among us. Could you clarify what you mean by 'us'. Do you mean you?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 30 May 2016 1:12:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DSdM: Walking among us.

I would have thought that means, "Coming down to Earth & being physically seen in Person.

I don't mean the supposed "Son." I mean the big "Hughie" himself.

Nah! no-one would believe it anyway & all the Religions would get together & try to kill him/her/it anyway. Can't get in the way of "Big" Business you know.

No comment on "Other Religions Creation Stories?" Too hard, maybe.
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 30 May 2016 1:23:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

I'm not sure how a god could be both all-knowing and stupid at once. Do you mean 'lack common sense'?

Dan,

I more meant everyone when I said that. I think. I'm not sure. It doesn't really matter. My point about ancient texts being insufficient evidence and an inadequate form of communication for a god still stands either way.

I'm sure a god could figure something out themselves. Whether or not I can does not detract from my argument one iota.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 30 May 2016 1:25:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm surprised you've made the statement 'I'm not sure', while in the middle of giving God advice.

But getting back to God 'walking among us', you would prefer he made his appearance to everyone and not just his selected chosen. But what if people were facing the wrong way, or didn't want to look?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 30 May 2016 1:42:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I didn't think it would be all that surprising, Dan.

<<I'm surprised you've made the statement 'I'm not sure', while in the middle of giving God advice.>>

I have, after all, shown myself to be smarter than your god. At least with regards to how not to reveal oneself when the revelation of oneself would have such monumental consequences.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and copies of copies of translations of copies of texts written by anonymous authors, with no originals, is not evidence of anything much at all, let alone extraordinary evidence.

<<But getting back to God 'walking among us', you would prefer he made his appearance to everyone and not just his selected chosen.>>

Probably. Again though, it’s not important. Finding problems with an off-the-cuff suggestion of mine will not detract from my point.

<<But what if people were facing the wrong way, or didn't want to look?>>

I’m sure a god capable of creating a universe could figure something out. Like I said before, Dan:

I don’t know what it would take to convince me that a god exists. But what I do know is that if a god does exist, then it would know what it would take to convince me of its existence. Which means either one of two things:

1. this god isn’t interested in revealing itself to me in any way that could be considered rationally justifiable, or;
2. it doesn’t exist.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 30 May 2016 2:32:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just how would a God reveal him/Her/It to us?

Maybe we'll look up one day & instead of the Sun we'll see a great big Eye looking through a Microscope into a Petri Dish at us. That's how I see it.

Yap! yap! nip, yap! ;-)
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 30 May 2016 2:56:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear A J,

Knowledge does not equate with intelligence. My computer has stored in it much more knowledge than I can ever have. However, it has no intelligence.
Posted by david f, Monday, 30 May 2016 3:40:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Rhian,
There's no mention of evolution in the Bible. Ideas fitting that kind of description for life's origins appear to be absent, you agree. Yet it is not true that the writers of the Bible were unaware of the issues and were unconcerned with discussing them.

Moses was very concerned with the world's origins, enough to give it a detailed account in Genesis as a precursor before detailing the beginnings of his nation's history. And Jesus himself referred to these writings, appearing to accept them as historical. He saw no issue of contradiction between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, but was happy to quote from them both.

I don't think it is true that the ancients were unaware of evolution. While a Darwinian form of evolution may not have been popular, similar ideas were present in ancient times

For example, the early Greeks from around the eighth and seventh centuries B.C. held cosmogonic ideas about the cosmic egg from which all things were produced at the beginning. From those times all the way through to the days of Louis Pasteur in the late Nineteenth century, it was often generally accepted that some forms of life spontaneously arose from inanimate matter.

Various concepts of evolution (compatible with other more mystical religions) in history abound. Genesis was written with the purpose of contrasting these and other erroneous ideas to the specific plans and purpose of the Creator.

Well may you point to websites that discount the practicalities of a global flood. Yet there are many arguments (and many web pages) supporting the idea also. My question to you was put as someone I thought might have a higher view of the Christian Scriptures.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 30 May 2016 3:54:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Dan

You assume that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, and that is a traditional view. But it is not consistent with modern bible study, which concludes that it was written and rewritten by many authors and editors, themselves using a variety of written and oral sources.

To return to the flood example, a historical flood of the magnitude described in Genesis is not supported by modern archaeology, geology, biology, climatology, basic physics or common sense. You can try to “supernatural” away problems like:

• what did the animals eat?
• Why didn’t they eat each other?
• what happened to all the waste?
• how did Noah get access to the creatures who live at the north pole or in deep caves underground?
• how did the dinosaurs fit?
• how did animals and people repopulate the earth from such a limited gene pool?
• why didn’t the boat break up?
• where did the water come from?
• where did it recede to?
• how long would it have taken for even the most torrential rain imaginable to submerge Mount Everest by 15 cubits?

But we have to assume not only that God somehow contrived to resolve all of these problems, but also that He then concealed the evidence. Nothing in geology points to such an event.

If you read such a story in any other medium than the Bible, including similar stories in the scriptures of other cultures, I doubt you would take them as literal accounts, whatever their level of detail (Gigamesh is no less detailed than Genesis).

http://www.rosemike.net/quotes/misc/epic_gil.pdf

I have deep respect for Christian scriptures. I take them seriously, but that is not the same as taking their stories literally. Indeed, taking them literally can debase them and present a distorted and unbiblical theology, which presupposes that we should believe in God and Jesus because the Bible says they can transgress the laws of nature. It’s a bit like saying that Aesop is worth reading because he recorded an actual race between a hare and a tortoise.
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 30 May 2016 6:09:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DSdM: Genesis was written with the purpose of contrasting these and other erroneous ideas to the specific plans and purpose of the Creator.

Do you know that for sure or are you just assuming.

I don't remember a forward explaining that point. I do remember that in the Preface of the King James Bible, written by the Compilers for King James saying, "What is contained with-in may not be the whole truth, but the truth is contained with-in." That's after a number of pages extoling what a Jolly Good Fellow James was. Remember King James 1, Pedophile, Queer, Masochist, murdered of his best friend for fun, murderer of Witches & a lot of other strange things. (King James, by Antonia Fraser. Book Club Associates of London, Printed by C. Tinling & Co Ltd. London & Prescot.)

Rian: It’s a bit like saying that Aesop is worth reading because he recorded an actual race between a hare and a tortoise.

Naughty boy. Aesop is not Politically Correct nowadays, in fact it's banned in Schools. Noddy was banned once too for sleeping in the same bed as Big Ears but it's back in Vogue because of the GLTB.
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 30 May 2016 6:48:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ: "My point was one of necessity, not choice. I don't need to read any holy scriptures to determine that there is no evidence for a god, because anything that could qualify as a god would realise that ancient texts in languages that die out is not a way to reveal oneself to the world if your existence in an issue of importance."

Point taken, although obviously people like Dr. Maurice Bucaille would disagree:

<<Maurice Bucaille, who worked as chief of the Surgical Clinic, University of Paris, was deeply interested in the correspondences between the teachings of Scripture and modern secular knowledge. After a decade-long study, Dr. Maurice Bucaille addressed the French Academy of Medicine in 1976 concerning the existence in the Qur’an of certain statements on physiology and reproduction. He reasoned that: "...our knowledge of these disciplines is such, that it is impossible to explain how a text produced at the time of the Qur’an could have contained ideas that have only been discovered in modern times…"

That year, Maurice Bucaille published La Bible, le Coran et la science. The book proved to be enormously popular and has been translated into languages spoken throughout the Muslim world. Enthusiasts consider this work as one of the most important ever on Islam and science discourse. The opponents of this approach label this trend as "Bucaillism". The book analyzes the scriptures in the light of modern scientific knowledge and identifies contradictions between established scientific facts and scriptures. The author analyzes creationism vs. evolution, astronomy, the conception in the womb, separation of water in subterranean oceanic rivers, and other issues, and attempts to document each point he makes. The general contents of The Bible, the Qur’an and Science are:

• The Old Testament – examines the origins of the Bible, describes the books of the Old Testament, highlights evidence of science in the Old Testament (i.e. creation of the world, date of creation and appearance of mankind, the flood), critically examines scientific error.

cont...
Posted by grateful, Monday, 30 May 2016 8:14:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont..

• The Gospels – explores sources and history of the text of the gospels, genealogy of Jesus, modern science and the gospels, contradictions and improbabilities in descriptions in the gospels.

• The Qur’an and Modern Science – examines the authenticity of the Qur’an, identifies scientific phenomena described in the Qur’an (creation of heavens and earth, astronomy, earth science, water cycle, animal and plant kingdoms, human reproduction).

• Qur’anic and Biblical Narrations – draws parallels between the Qur’anic and Bibilical texts and modern knowledge, dealing specifically with the narrations of the Flood and the Exodus

• Qur’an, Hadiths and Modern Science

• General Conclusions

• List of Quotations from the Qur’an

Bucaille’s other work, "Mummies of the Pharaohs - Modern Medical Investigations" (St. Martins Press, 1990), won a History Prize from the Académie Française and another prize from the French National Academy of Medicine.>> http://www.cis-ca.org/voices/b/bucaille-mn.htm
Posted by grateful, Monday, 30 May 2016 8:14:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ: <<The existence of free will, if it even exists at all, does absolutely nothing to prove the existence of souls, spirits, or a spiritual realm.>>

I argued that for free will to exist requires that we must have an existence that is independent of our physical form. This is implied by the following definiton

"When a choice can be made that is not determined or necessitated by prior events then we can exercise freewill. The will is free when alternative choices could have been made with the same pre-existing conditions." http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/problem/
Posted by grateful, Monday, 30 May 2016 8:26:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear grateful, I do believe, in the Koran, it says that all illness are caused by Bad Jinns, not Viruses or Bacteria, etc. Does it not?

Regarding the early advances in Science & Medicine in the Golden Age of learning. That all stopped in the 15th. Century when the Muller's gained Power. The Age of learning came to a sudden halt & has been going backwards ever since. Has it not?
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 30 May 2016 8:32:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful,

I think I’ve sufficiently demonstrated (especially now with the help of Dan) the fact that ancient texts are not reliable evidence for gods.

I have also made my point with regards to the vague and wishy-washy verses in the Qur’an that you quoted. If you think I’m wrong, then you need to provide reasoning as to why I am wrong, if you want to counter what I’ve said. Simply stating that this Dr. Maurice Bucaille thinks that such vague verses (that could be applied to a lot of phenomena) agrees with you, is fallacious. It’s known as the Argument from Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority).

And are you seriously trying to suggest that the Old Testament got science right? It gets both the age of the Earth, and how it formed, wrong; and it mentions nothing about evolution (for reasons Rhian has already pointed out), despite evolution being a fact. The old Testament doesn’t even get history right. There is no evidence at all that Moses existed; and we know that both the Exodus and the Flood never happened.

<<I argued that for free will to exist requires that we must have an existence that is independent of our physical form. This is implied by the following definition>>

I know, and I already discredited that definition at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#323963

We eventually got to the point where you were going to explain the exact way in which the soul functions to provide us with free will, because of the dilemma that brain injuries presented to your claims. Remember?
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 30 May 2016 10:59:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Rhian,

I could not agree more with your reply to Dan, but since I'm not a Christian I could not convincingly write the same myself.

However, the Hindu scriptures include similar stories, for example about the daemon Hiranyaksha who kidnapped planet Earth, then submerged and hidden it under the waters of the ocean. Subsequently the Lord incarnated as a boar, killed Hiranyaksha and saved the earth.

http://theindianmythology.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/varaha-avatar

I have full faith in this story and I worship the Lord in all forms, including in the form of this boar (Varaha), but this doesn't mean that the narration was meant to describe any objective/scientific/historical facts.

As a clue, water is the realm of unconsciousness, or at least an obscured consciousness. When you are under water, everything looks hazy. The name "Hiranyaksha" is derived from 'gold', thus the story is meant to tell us that gold distorts our vision. Hiranyaksha demanded that people worship him instead of God. As for the daemons, they are all habitual tendencies within our minds - in this case Greed, but then Vishnu, the aspect of God/goodness that is responsible for the sustaining of life, appears even in the least expected forms in order to kill those daemons and purify our mind.

Trying to understand mythology as material reality is childish - but then Jesus said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oDEO2twRP8
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 31 May 2016 1:16:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ:<<Simply stating that this Dr. Maurice Bucaille thinks that such vague verses (that could be applied to a lot of phenomena) agrees with you, is fallacious. It’s known as the Argument from Authority>>

He is an authority and you are not. He learned the langauges of the scriptures and Qur'an to understand them. You did not. He would know what Argument from Authority means. You evidently do not.

AJ: <<I think I’ve sufficiently demonstrated (especially now with the help of Dan) the fact that ancient texts are not reliable evidence for gods.>>

I don't. I think your just rationalising.

AJ:<<And are you seriously trying to suggest that the Old Testament got science right?>>

You're either baiting or suffering sever delusions

AJ:<<I know, and I already discredited that definition>>

In your dreams. Your example was incoherent.

AJ: <<We eventually got to the point where you were going to explain the exact way in which the soul functions to provide us with free will, because of the dilemma that brain injuries presented to your claims. Remember?>>

There is no dilemma. For there to be free will we need to exist independently of our physical condition: unborn, health, ill, brain damaged or dead
Posted by grateful, Tuesday, 31 May 2016 8:43:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear grateful, I do believe, in the Koran, it says that all illness are caused by Bad Jinns, not Viruses or Bacteria, etc. Does it not?

Is the Koran right. All illnesses are caused by bad Jinns as stated in the Koran.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 31 May 2016 9:07:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’ve gotta say, grateful, your tone has taken a sudden and unexpected turn for the worse.

<<He is an authority and you are not. He learned the langauges of the scriptures and Qur'an to understand them. You did not.>>

I had explained to you precisely why I thought the vague quotes you provided did not prove your point. If you do nothing to address what I say and simply point to an authority who agrees with you, then http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority.

<<I don't [think you’ve sufficiently demonstrated the fact that ancient texts are not reliable evidence for gods].>>

Then please provide your reasoning for this belief. Dan gave it a shot. My last post couldn’t have possibly been more of inviting of a rebuttal, short of directly requesting one.

<<You're either baiting or suffering sever delusions>>

No. Please refer back to your first dot point spruiking the book of this authority of yours. It suggests that the Old Testament is scientifically accurate. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324351)

<<In your dreams. Your example was incoherent.>>

Then please explain to me why my response, to the explanation of free will that you quoted, had failed to discredit it; and why my example did not make sense to you. I tried to make doing this easier for you by providing you with a link back to my comment, so clearly I’d be more than happy to go through it with you if there was something you didn’t understand.

<<There is no dilemma. For there to be free will we need to exist independently of our physical condition: unborn, health, ill, brain damaged or dead>>

Simply re-stating your assertion won’t lend it any more veracity. You need to provide reasoning for this assertion. I had explained how brain injury poses a dilemma to your claim that free will requires a spirit (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324124). You even later stated your intention to get back to me on this:

“I should get back to your question regarding the spirit…” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324210)

But now all it sounds like you’re doing is stamping your feet and digging your heels in. Not a good look.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 31 May 2016 9:43:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ, to be clear on the topic of Scripture, I think the Christian Scriptures are an amazing revelation of God. He has made himself known to many through them. There is good reason the Bible is the world's number one selling book year in year out; by far the book most translated into the world's languages. And that reason is, ordinary people see something uniquely special in it. You might not, but to carry the analogy I raised earlier, some people are not looking; some really don't want to. Those Ancient Greek and Hebrew texts have gone incredibly far, perhaps reaching more people throughout history than if the message had been introduced at some other time, place, or manner.

And don't kid yourself that not having the originals is a terrific problem. The confidence to know what was in the original is derived from the similarities found among the many copies distributed far and wide. For example, if the first established version of the Australian Constitution was destroyed, do you think we couldn't discern what it contained by the many copies that have since spread and multiplied?

Yet for those who aren't seeking him or listening to his words, God still has revealed himself sufficiently for anyone to know his reality. For everywhere you look, one sees what God has made, his invisible qualities being effectively deduced. As this article by Batten demonstrates, the human mind can discern the reasonable limits of what can arise by natural processes (evolve), and what is likely to require plan, purpose and intentionality.

But minds also often require a certain attitude or posture before being capable of admitting the truth of what's evident.

Has it never occurred to you that God may wish to act more gentlemanly, rather than assert to impose himself?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 1 June 2016 9:07:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue wrote:

"Has it never occurred to you that God may wish to act more gentlemanly, rather than assert to impose himself?"

There is absolutely no evidence that God is anything other than a creation of the human imagination. As long as one imagines an entity one can make that entity anything one likes - even a gentleman. Dan, that is a silly remark.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 1 June 2016 9:20:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’m sure you believe this, Dan. I once did too.

<<[God] has made himself known to many through them.>>

But you still need reliable evidence. Especially if you want others to believe it as well.

<<[The reason the Bible is the world's number one selling book is because] ordinary people see something uniquely special in it.>>

I have no arguments with that at all. It’s not evidence for anything other than what you stated, though.

<<…some people are not looking [for God]; some really don't want to.>>

I already explained why that’s not an argument (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324336).

Further to what I said there, what does that say for a god that has an important message for us all and supposedly wants a relationship with everyone? This excuse doesn’t add up.

You don’t think I used this excuse myself many times before as a Christian? Christian or Muslim, none of you guys are saying anything that I haven’t heard many times before, or even said myself.

<<And don't kid yourself that not having the originals is a terrific problem.>>

It is given that it was apparently the best way an all-powerful being could think to reveal himself. And in a remote and illiterate part of the world, too, mind you.

<<For everywhere you look, one sees what God has made, his invisible qualities being effectively deduced.>>

Then why would he do it all in ways that had perfectly reasonable naturalistic explanations if he wanted to make his existence obvious through his creation?

<<But minds also often require a certain attitude or posture before being capable of admitting the truth of what's evident.>>

Again, you don’t think a god could find a way around that?

<<Has it never occurred to you that God may wish to act more gentlemanly, rather than assert to impose himself?>>

No, because, once again, we’re talking about a god that supposedly has an important message and wants a relationship with each and every one of us. There is nothing gentlemanly about letting people burn in hell for an eternity simply because he didn’t want to be “imposing”.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 1 June 2016 10:16:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Yuyutsu

Thank you for your comments, and contributions to this thread.

Jesus did indeed call on disciples to be like children, but I don’t think he meant us to be naïve or literalist. He made the comment in response to the disciples asking him who is greatest in God’s kingdom. Childhood in the ancient world was hard and dangerous: about half of newborns did not survive to adulthood. Children were vulnerable and dependent, without power or status. I think Jesus is proposing a model of discipleship based on humility and service, not the conventional values of status and power
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 1 June 2016 5:52:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ: <<I don’t know what it would take to convince me that a god exists. But what I do know is that if a god does exist, then it would know what it would take to convince me of its existence. Which means either one of two things:

1. this god isn’t interested in revealing itself to me in any way that could be considered rationally justifiable, or;
2. it doesn’t exist.>>

I agree with << if a god does exist, then it would know what it would take to convince me of its existence>>

However, this argument cannot be used to justify not reading the scriptures. It presumes an understanding of what the scriptures say about the purpose of our existence and this requires the scriptures. Secondly, you acknowledged the need to assess the strength of evidence offered by scriptures. In your words:

AJ: "Sorry, grateful, but the evidence you have provided is pretty weak given the alleged power of the being that we’d be talking about here."

Furthermore, I disagree with << this god isn’t interested in revealing itself to me in any way that could be considered rationally justifiable>>

A rational justification for not revealing himself directly would be that he wants you to choose without compulsion.

For there to be no compulsion in religion requires that God not reveal himself directly (lest the choice be self-evident) and that we have an existence that is independent of our physical existence so our choices cannot be predetermined by the ‘environment’ or chance.

In the Qur’an a non-believer is one who rejects faith implying accurate understanding of the options and the ability to discern.
Posted by grateful, Thursday, 2 June 2016 4:09:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful: A rational justification for not revealing himself directly would be that he wants you to choose without compulsion.

This is not Compulsion?

Quran 2:191 SLAY THE UNBELIEVERS WHERE EVER YOU FIND THEM
Quran 3:28 MUSLIMS MUST NOT TAKE INFIDELS AS FRIENDS
Quran 3:85 ANY RELIGION OTHER THAN ISLAM IS NOT ACCEPTABLE
Quran 5:33 MAIM AND CRUCIFY THE INFIDELS IF THEY CRITICIZE ISLAM
Quran 8:12 TERRORIZE AND BEHEAD THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN SCRIPTURES OTHER THSN THE QURAN
Quran 8:60 MUSLIMS MUST MUSTER ALL WEAPOBS TO TERRORIZE THE INFIDELS
Quran 8:65 THE UNBELIEVERS ARE STUPID; URGE THE MUSLIMS TO FIGHT THEM
Quran 9:5 WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY ARISES, KILL THE INFIDELS WHEREVER YOU CATCH THEM
Quran 9:23 MAKE WAR ON THE INFIDELS LIVING IN YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD
Quran 47:12 DO NOT HANKER FOR PEACE WITH THE INFIDELS; BEHEAD THEM WHEN YOU CATCH THEM
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 2 June 2016 4:30:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That wasn’t necessarily an excuse to not read scriptures, grateful.

<<I agree [that if a god does exist, then it would know what it would take to convince us of its existence]. However, this argument cannot be used to justify not reading the scriptures.>>

It can, actually. But if you really must know, the main reason I don’t read the Qur’an is because, from what little of it I have read, it appears to be excruciatingly boring. The Bible was a painful enough slog for me as it was (though I would never have admitted to that at the time). Another reason I won’t read it is because there is no reliable evidence for this god that it claims exists.

<<[Your argument] presumes an understanding of what the scriptures say about the purpose of our existence and this requires the scriptures.>>

My argument only presumed that a god would be knowledgeable enough to know how to prove its existence to me. Nothing more. What ‘purpose’ has to do with that, one can only guess.

<<…you acknowledged the need to assess the strength of evidence offered by scriptures.>>

I acknowledged no such thing. I said the evidence you'd provided for the Qur’an being the word of a god was weak. Where you’re getting the element of necessity from, I don’t know.

<<A rational justification for [God] not revealing himself directly would be that he wants you to choose without compulsion.>>

So, here we have this god who wants people to choose to believe in him without the “compulsion” that reliable evidence would engender, but if they don’t believe, then they’ll go to hell.

That’s not rational. If such a severe punishment exists, then he is obliged to either reveal himself or change his rules.

<<...we have an existence that is independent of our physical existence so our choices cannot be predetermined by the ‘environment’ or chance.>>

I didn't ask what the purpose of the soul was (though I haven't heard that one before). I asked how exactly the soul performs this function given that brain injuries contradict your claim.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324124
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324162
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 2 June 2016 6:20:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grateful - "A rational justification for not revealing himself directly would be that he wants you to choose without compulsion. For there to be no compulsion in religion requires that God not reveal himself directly (lest the choice be self-evident.)"

I see where you're coming from here. I think you've expressed it quite well.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 2 June 2016 10:24:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What would you say in response to my rebuttals then, Dan?

<<I think you've expressed it quite well.>>

I did, after all, demonstrate that God not wanting to be imposing or not wanting to compel people to believe in him was neither gentlemanly nor rational, given that he’ll send people to Hell if they don’t believe.

How does yours and grateful's claim gel with:

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6

Even if you’re one of these modern theists who believes in Annihilationism (as if that were so much better), how is it gentlemanly or rational of God to allow certain family members and friends, of those who will live in an eternity of bliss with him, to disappear into eternal nothingness?

How would an eternity anywhere be bliss if there were loved ones that you would never see again? Forever! I’ll tell ya what: if there is anyone you care about who doesn’t believe in this god of yours, and this god does in fact exist, then whoever it is that goes to heaven won’t be you. Not entirely, at least.

What if your son eventually decided he was an atheist? (Certainly not unlikely nowadays.) Would the person living in bliss for an eternity without his son still be you?
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 2 June 2016 11:11:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One needs no justification to read or not to read any written material. However, if we don't read some written material we are at a loss. If we want to be a productive member of a modern society we must be conversant with science and mathematics wherever we may live. Since much of western literature contains references to biblical and classical material we should be familiar with the Bible and early history if we live in western society. However, we can function quite well without a knowledge of history or the Bible. Such knowledge has given pleasure to me, but such knowledge is not necessary knowledge. One can live a productive, moral and enjoyable life without any contact with the Bible. In China, India and other non-western societies many people live such lives.
Posted by david f, Friday, 3 June 2016 8:47:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ:<< But if you really must know, the main reason I don’t read the Qur’an is because, from what little of it I have read, it appears to be excruciatingly boring. The Bible was a painful enough slog for me as it was (though I would never have admitted to that at the time). Another reason I won’t read it is because there is no reliable evidence for this god that it claims exists.>>

You offer two reasons that I’d like to address.

Firstly, the main reason you do not look to the Qur’an for evidence is that YOU find it “excruciatingly boring”. Since when was science supposed to be a thrill a minute?

When I first tried reading the Qur'an I put it down because of boredom. I also experienced the "excruciating boredom" trying to read the bible (although I was raised by atheists).

However, a year later, I said to myself, “this time let the Qur’an do the talking”, and the guidance, along with confirmation of certain firmly-held principles, was forthcoming. I had no reason not to accept, so I accepted Islam then and there.

You can call it a leap of faith, which indeed it was, but if you read most of my posts I think you’ll also find that I actively seek to expose my faith to critical scrutiny as long as the scrutiny is based on evidence and reason.

For example, my argument regarding free will is not to “prove” the existence of spirits or gods, but to test what I think is the central premise underpinning a set of essays by 'Alija Ali Izetbegovic in his "Islam between east and West". ....

cont..
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 4 June 2016 12:33:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont...

Can we say there is a stark choice. If you argue that our existence is solely contingent on our physical environment, then there can be no free will. Conversely, for free will to exist we must have an existence that is independent of our physical form, as implied by the following definition

"When a choice can be made that is not determined or necessitated by prior events then we can exercise freewill. The will is free when alternative choices could have been made with the same pre-existing conditions."

Returning to your statement, you also say “I won’t read it is because there is no reliable evidence for this god that it claims exists”. The Qur’an is the evidence. But you will not read it. Why? Because, besides getting bored, you find no evidence for god that the Qur’an claims exists.

But is that how science operates? Suppose I claim to have seen a black swan and let's assume that you are living in Europe a few hundred years ago. Would you say” “I will not listen to you because there is no reliable evidence that black swans exist”? That is not someone who can claim to form judgements based on the evidence.

Another example. You disparage Bucaille on the basis of a dot point made by someone else. You didn’t bother to test your first impressions with the author’s own words before dismissing him out of hand. In fact, you only need to go to the conclusion of the relevant chapter to realise that he also concludes that there are scientific inaccuracies in the Old Testament, although he is far more cautious in making inferences.

I put his work forward because he also examined the Qur’aan and concludes that it is not open to similar criticism. This is intended to challenge your position regarding the Qur'an. If he is to be dismissed in a scientific manner, his reliability, qualifications and the manner by which he reaches his conclusions all need to be assessed. He cannot be dismissed based on a "dot point" that he did not author.
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 4 June 2016 1:04:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In response to <<..you acknowledged the need to assess the strength of evidence offered by scriptures.>>

AJ writes: <<I acknowledged no such thing. I said the evidence you'd provided for the Qur’an being the word of a god was weak. Where you’re getting the element of necessity from, I don’t know.>>

In this very paragraph you acknowledged “the need to assess the strength of evidence” by assessing the strength of evidence (as weak)
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 4 June 2016 1:06:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For me? All the time, grateful. I love learning new things.

<<Since when was science supposed to be a thrill a minute?>>

But scriptures are not science, they are the writings of ancient people. You are yet to demonstrate there is anything in scripture that can be, to any degree of certainty, interpreted as a scientific claim.

Thanks for the story behind your conversion to Islam. I found it refreshingly honest for two reasons:

Firstly. describing your decision-making process as one guided by, "Why not?", rather than, "Why?", suggests you were in search of something and were willing to accept the first thing that came along without employing the same sceptical mind that, say, a scientist would.

Secondly, you were not afraid to admit that you did indeed take a great leap of faith. But faith isn’t a pathway to truth any more than rolling dice is. Faith is the excuse people give when they don’t have a good reason to believe something, yet you’re here claiming that you do.

<<…I actively seek to expose my faith to critical scrutiny as long as the scrutiny is based on evidence and reason.>>

So you’re happy to accept an extraordinary claim based on faith, but any scrutiny of that claim must meet a higher standard than what it took for you to accept it in the first place?

You have the concept of the burden of proof arse-backwards.

<<…my argument regarding free will is not to “prove” the existence of spirits or gods, but to test what I think is the central premise underpinning a set of essays...>>

See what I mean? You’re starting with the wrong default position. Do scientists accept claims until they’re proven wrong? Are the accused presumed guilty until proven innocent?

<<Can we say there is a stark choice.>>

No, that may be a false dichotomy.

<<If you argue that our existence is solely contingent on our physical environment, then there can be no free will.>>

I’m not arguing either of the two premises there. I have merely rejected your claims as unsupported by the evidence.

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 4 June 2016 9:25:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…Continued

Moreover, I have no strong position on the question of free will. Again, it may only be an illusion.

<<Conversely, for free will to exist we must have an existence that is independent of our physical form, as implied by the following definition…>>

Like I said before, simply re-stating your assertion won’t lend it any more veracity. You need to provide reasoning for this claim. And again, I have already discredited that assertion you describe as a “definition”. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#323963)

<<The Qur’an is the evidence [for God].>>

You are yet to demonstrate this. But can I take it then that, given the only two options I pointed out earlier (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324336), you believe that your god “isn’t interested in revealing itself to me in any way that could be considered rationally justifiable”?

<<But is that how science operates?>>

Oh, so now we’re interested in how science operates? Such an interest would have been handy earlier on in your decision-making process.

Your ‘black swan’ analogy is invalid, because I can know that birds exist and that black is a colour/shade. They’re natural phenomena. There is nothing to suggest that anything supernatural exists, however.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

<<You didn’t bother to test your first impressions with the author’s own words before dismissing him out of hand.>>

It appears I did misread that point, slightly. However, that does nothing to relieve you of having committed the Argument from Authority fallacy. Furthermore, rather than sending me off to read entire books, how about you give me what you think is this Bucaille character’s most compelling argument and we’ll go from there?

<<I put his work forward because he also examined the Qur’aan and concludes that it is not open to similar criticism.>>

Then what would this Bucaille have to say in response to Jayb's selection of Quranic verses?

<<In this very paragraph you acknowledged “the need to assess the strength of evidence” by assessing the strength of evidence (as weak)>>

Again, where does the element of necessity come into play? Not everything I do is out of necessity.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 4 June 2016 9:25:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful: you read most of my posts I think you’ll also find that I actively seek to expose my faith to critical scrutiny as long as the scrutiny is based on evidence and reason.

grateful: “I won’t read it is because there is no reliable evidence for this god that it claims exists”. The Qur’an is the evidence.

The only evidence there is for the Koran is Mohammed word that it was dictated to him by the Archangel Gabriel. Since he couldn’t read or write I find his statement to be false. The Koran was then complied some 150-200 years later by a Sheik, which is, I take it, where the second part comes from. (Mohammed’s supposed earlier part & then his later part.)

The Original was written by a ignorant tribal Camel Train Hijacker who was Racist, Sexist, Misogynist, urges Violence, Scientifically incorrect, Medically incorrect & Political incorrect male & backed up (Hadith) by other Racist, Sexist, Misogynist, urges Violence, Scientifically incorrect, Medically incorrect & Political incorrect males from then on.

I take it that you actively seek to expose follow through with the following;
Quran 2:191 slay the unbelievers where ever you find them
Quran 3:28 muslims must not take infidels as friends
Quran 3:85 any religion other than islam is not acceptable
Quran 5:33 maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize islam
Quran 8:12 terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other thsn the quran
Quran 8:60 muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels
Quran 8:65 the unbelievers are stupid; urge the muslims to fight them
Quran 9:5 when the opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them
Quran 9:23 make war on the infidels living in your neighbourhood
Quran 47:12 do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them.

All illness is caused by Bad Jinns & women are second class & can be beaten at a mans whim, backed up by Umars.

I take it also that you, poirot, Steelie, etc. agree with the all the Rulings in the Hadith as well.
Posted by Jayb, Saturday, 4 June 2016 9:35:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, grateful, I should have said, “That’s not very good evidence then”, in response to your claim that the Qur’an is the evidence for a god (I can think of 2.2 billion people who would probably disagree with you there).

I have already pointed out why holy scriptures could not be evidence for anything that could qualify as a god, unless that god is not interested in presenting evidence for itself in any way that could rationally justify a belief in its existence. My logic here also runs contrary to your claim that I have acknowledged a necessity in assessing scripture as evidence for a god. Clearly I don’t.

Apparently you do agree with me on the unreliability of scripture as evidence (at least to some degree) given this claim:

“A rational justification for not revealing himself directly would be that he wants you to choose without compulsion.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324474)

An overarching assumption here is that God has toned down the persuasiveness of the evidence for himself, so as to not compel us to believe. But then what does that say for a God who is ready to condemn unbelievers to an eternity of torture in the afterlife if they don’t believe? (I can only assume, given your lack of urgency to correct me earlier, that you agree with a literal interpretation of the Qur’an when it speaks of Hell.)

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/says_about/hell.html
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 4 June 2016 12:20:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<You have not provided arguments as to why free will requires a god or a spiritual realm. >>

True. The evidence for this lies elsewhere.

The point of my original argument is the notion of an existence that is independent of our existence in this world allows free will, as defined by the OED:

OED: “The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate;” (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/free-will?q=free+will)

With free will the notion that there is no compulsion in religion is meaningful.
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 4 June 2016 10:02:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, grateful? Don't keep us all waiting in suspense.

<<The evidence for [why free will requires a spiritual realm] lies elsewhere.>>

If you have evidence for this, then I'd love to hear it. So too would the Christians still reading, I reckon. I'm willing to bet they're not sure what this evidence is that you're referring to either.

<<The point of my original argument is the notion of an existence that is independent of our existence in this world allows free will, as defined by the OED:>>

Oh, okay. Because, before, you were saying that a soul/spirit was essential for free will to be possible. Now it just allows for it? Sounds like you might be backpedaling.

But sure, by itself, I suppose. But that doesn't mean much when one then introduces the threat of Hell. That is a mighty big constraint, after all.

<<With free will the notion that there is no compulsion in religion is meaningful.>>

Sounds reasonable enough. Neither one proves the other, though. Religion doesn't prove the existence of free will, and free will wouldn’t prove the supernatural claims of religions because of the problems that brain injuries present.

So we've just come back to that dreaded brain-injury dilemma again.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 4 June 2016 10:49:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,
Thanks for the link to the Epic of Gilgamesh. I've never read it before. Its story of the flood does seem reminiscent of the biblical flood account. I'm sure Don Batten might especially enjoy the line, "In the evening, when the rider of the storm sends down the destroying rain, enter the boat and batten her down."

However, I'm not sure what you're saying it shows. I've often heard people say that the flood legends found among diverse cultures lends weight to the biblical flood legend not being true. Perhaps you could help explain to me this logic, because by contrary, in my understanding many flood legends would be just the type of evidence I would expect if the biblical flood account was real. For if it really happened, I would expect that all mankind would share a deep memory of the event, and this memory would survive within the legends and stories passed down through the centuries. What is notable is not that the legends vary somewhat, but the level of similarity found in flood legends from diverse parts of the earth.

The vital question for a reader of Genesis is what type of literature does it fit. What is its purpose or genre? Putting Genesis alongside one of Aesop's tales of a race between a hare and a tortoise would be to ignore the grandeur, scope and majesty of the Biblical creation account. Much of the detail of the flood account seems unnecessary for what might be taken simply as imagery, or symbolism within a parable. That it was intended to be read as historical was the dominant view of the church for the greater part of its history, and overwhelmingly the way most scientists saw it up until about mid to late Eighteenth Century (e.g. Usher's date of creation at 4004 BC based of Genesis 5 and 11 had the respect of scientists such as Isaac Newton.)

cont ...
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 5 June 2016 7:20:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To consider the purpose of the Genesis account, an important angle it carries is as a defence of the goodness of God. Many times within Genesis 1 we see God affirming creation as 'good' (Yusutsu take note, we weren't always "stuck in the mud of the origins of our bodies", but our bodies were created gloriously in God's image.) It's perfectly clear that God is the originator of a good earth. It then gives some explanation of the origins of evil, and its relation to human accountability. Only after mankind rebelled did evils and other unpleasantness arise, including the curse of death; an inadvertent invader into human history.

In this Biblical scenario, humanity's abuse of free will, pride and rebelliousness is at the cause of suffering and death. But in the evolutionary scenario, death, struggle and suffering simply always were, from time immemorial. If God supposedly used evolution in his process of creation, then death, struggle and suffering were his chosen means to achieving a 'good' earth, and places the origin for evil in the hands of God. Yet God is the judge of evil, and the restorer of all things good. If the fossil layers supposedly represent millions of years, then death, including human, was present long before Eden's rebellion, which falsifies the biblical narrative.

There was a time within the modern scientific period when most, similar to today's creationists, viewed the record of death within fossils and rock layers as reminders of the Great Flood and a testimony to God's worldwide judgement. That this outlook fell away is due to the changing philosophical perspectives following the Enlightenment rather than anything in the rocks themselves.

As to your investigative questions: from where did the water arise, and recede; limited gene pools; dinosaur sizes; etc., such questions have often been successfully addressed by creationists. And it's largely a matter of perspective. The pre-flood mountain ranges and ocean canyons would have been radically different. For instance, you mention Mt Everest, whose limestone peaks were formed under the sea, as evidenced by the fossils of ocean-bottom dwelling creatures they contain.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 5 June 2016 7:25:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ: <<So we've just come back to that dreaded brain-injury dilemma again.>>

I don't see the problem, so please clarify.
Posted by grateful, Sunday, 5 June 2016 10:19:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue,

If the God of Genesis were good it would not destroy almost all life on earth by the flood and create conflict among humans by separating them into different language groups. He would not order a man to kill his son to see if a man would be willing to commit an atrocity. Of course if he were omniscient he would know how the man would react, and it would be unnecessary to test him. He would not subject the Egyptians to the plagues. He would just soften Pharaoh's heart instead of hardening it. In the New Testament he would not submit his son to torture. The God of the Bible is a sadistic, arbitrary and evil entity who is not worthy of worship. When I was a child and heard about the binding of Isaac I could not accept the evil entity called God. Maybe there is a good God somewhere. However it is not the God of the Bible. People who accept the evil entity may say we don't know his purposes and his divine plan. However, the Bible says by thy fruits shall we know them. The fruits of God are horrible, and the Crusades, Inquisition, Holocaust, destruction of native peoples, burning of witches at the stake and other manifestations of intolerance are some of the fruits of Christianity.

You apparently worship that evil God and subscribe to that evil religion. May you be enlightened.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 5 June 2016 10:36:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't see how I could make it much clearer, grateful.

You said:

"With free will the notion that there is no compulsion in religion is meaningful." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324527)

Which is a fairly meaningless statement when you think about it. Not to mention irrelevant to anything we’ve been discussing. Unless, perhaps, you were trying to claim that both religion and free will prove each other.

Which is why I said:

"Neither one proves the other, though. Religion doesn't prove the existence of free will, and free will wouldn’t prove the supernatural claims of religions because of the problems that brain injuries present." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324530)

Which would then have brought us back to the brain-injury dilemma that you are apparently so determined to avoid.

Is that any clearer?

Since I'm here, do you have anything compelling from this Bucaille character? Your evidence for the Qur'an being the evidence for a god does seem to hinge on this guy's claims, after all.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 5 June 2016 10:44:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ: <<<<With free will the notion that there is no compulsion in religion is meaningful.>>

Sounds reasonable enough. Neither one proves the other, though. Religion doesn't prove the existence of free will, and free will wouldn’t prove the supernatural claims of religions because of the problems that brain injuries present. >>

Agreed

<<<<The point of my original argument is the notion of of an existence that is independent of our existence in this world allows free will, as defined by the OED:>>

Oh, okay. Because, before, you were saying that a soul/spirit was essential for free will to be possible. Now it just allows for it? Sounds like you might be backpedaling.>>

At one point, I did put "soul" there as a "place-holder" for "an existence that is independent of our existence in this world" which is probably what lead to your confusion.

<<But sure, by itself, I suppose. But that doesn't mean much when one then introduces the threat of Hell. That is a mighty big constraint, after all.>>

Not for you and many others so it cannot be described as a mighty big constraint". For others, among those who believe, its importance depends on the person's closeness to Allah. The closer they are the more they are motivated by love for their creator and a desire to please him.

<<If you have evidence for this, then I'd love to hear it.>>

Your actions speak louder than your words.
Posted by grateful, Sunday, 5 June 2016 10:56:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful,

If you agree that neither religion or free will are evidence of each other, then what was the point in saying:

"With free will the notion that there is no compulsion in religion is meaningful." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324527)

I don’t see its relevance to the discussion.

<<…I did put "soul" there as a "place-holder" for "an existence that is independent of our existence in this world" which is probably what lead to your confusion.>>

‘Soul’, ‘spirit’, ‘an existence that is independent of our existence in this world’. It doesn’t matter what terminology you use. My point, that you had softened your stance, still remains. There was no confusion.

<<[The threat of Hell is not a constraint] for you and many others so it cannot be described as a mighty big constraint".>>

So you’re saying that only atheists have free will? Okay, but this still doesn’t address my question with regards to how precisely the soul functions to provide us with this free will, in light of the brain-injury dilemma.

From the perspective of a god endowing us with free will, however, it would be immaterial as to whether or not atheists realised that the threat of Hell really did exist. That fact that it did in the first place would mean that, ultimately, free will cannot exist because the constraint is still there. Similarly, in tort law it does not matter if a person is unaware that they are free to leave. If they believe at the time that they’re not, then they can sue for false imprisonment.

<<…among those who believe, its importance depends on the person's closeness to Allah. The closer they are the more they are motivated by love for their creator and a desire to please him.>>

The logic in my last paragraph applies here too. Whether or not theists fear Hell is immaterial.

<<Your actions speak louder than your words.>>

Are you suggesting that, despite me asking multiple times, I don’t really want to hear the evidence for why free will requires a soul? What a copout. Admit it, grateful, you don’t have any evidence.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 5 June 2016 12:26:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ: <<<<Your actions speak louder than your words.>>

Are you suggesting that, despite me asking multiple times, I don’t really want to hear the evidence for why free will requires a soul? What a copout. Admit it, grateful, you don’t have any evidence.>>

I think that is unfair. Firstly, you've simply ignored the point that the argument about free will was not about proving god.

secondly, I have in fact offered evidence. This was in the context of the omnipotence paradox. Your response convinced me that you are very weak when it comes to critical thinking:

<<AJ wrote: "That would be a form of circular reasoning that I spoke of earlier known as ‘Begging the Question’, because you have inserted your conclusion into the premise. It’s fallacious."

The reasoning is not circular because in using the Qur'anic verse I assume the Qur'an is the word of god. If this is the case, then god is informing us that a force that does not belong to God will not occur. A rock that God cannot lift implies a force other than God. It cannot be created because God is truthful and he has informed us it shall not occur.>>

In response you offer the opinion of AJ Phillips and Jayb. AJ Phillips has never read the Qur’an and defers to Jayb for the interpretation of the Qur’an.

I then offer Maurice Bucaille’s "The Bible, the Qur’an and Science” and “What is the Origin of Man”, but you reject him out of hand based on a dot point that was not even authored by Bucaille.

So yes, when critical thinking is required, I’ll be avoiding you. But the paradox discourse was useful. Thankyou.
Posted by grateful, Sunday, 5 June 2016 2:06:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grateful what gives your religion the right to kill people if they are not of your Religion, refuse to accept your Religion or don't have a Religion at all?
Posted by Jayb, Sunday, 5 June 2016 2:17:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I had noted that, grateful.

<<Firstly, you've simply ignored the point that the argument about free will was not about proving god.>>

But I ignored it because it’s irrelevant. You made the claim and suggested multiple times that you could substantiate it. Here’s one example:

“The evidence for [why free will requires a spiritual realm] lies elsewhere.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324527)

<<secondly, I have in fact offered evidence. This was in the context of the omnipotence paradox.>>

Your example of my misunderstanding of what you were saying is not evidence of free will requiring a soul.

<<Your response convinced me that you are very weak when it comes to critical thinking:>>

This is just an ad hominem attack. Another fallacy. It’s also a bit rich coming from someone who only applies scientific inquiry and scepticism when they think it’ll suit their beliefs.

If my critical thinking skills are so weak, then why are you so reluctant to give me what you think is a compelling argument from this Bucaille character? What are you afraid of?

<<A rock that God cannot lift implies a force other than God.>>

No, it only addresses the force of the said god.

<<It cannot be created because God is truthful and he has informed us it shall not occur.>>

Two assertions based on faith. You’re essentially magic-ing the dilemma away with an assertion based on faith. And you mock my critical thinking skills?

<<AJ Phillips has never read the Qur’an…>>

And I’ve explained why I don’t need to have. This is the Courtier’s Reply fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply)

<<…and defers to Jayb for the interpretation of the Qur’an.>>

Jayb didn’t interpret the Qur’an. He quoted it.

<<I then offer Maurice Bucaille’s [books]...>>

Yet you are apparently not confident enough in his arguments to provide me with a specific one.

You may expose your beliefs to scrutiny, grateful, but that is of no use if you duck, weave, and employ fallacy after fallacy to avoid addressing any of it.

Like I said, faith is the excuse people give when they don’t have a good reason to believe something.

Clearly you don’t.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 5 June 2016 3:18:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rhian,

<<Jesus did indeed call on disciples to be like children, but I don’t think he meant us to be naïve or literalist.>>

Yes, reading Jesus' statement in the context it was said, Matthew 18, I agree that he referred to humility and lowliness. This at least was his main meaning, though it does not exclude the possibility of additional multiple-layered meanings.

I do see a legitimate and positive place for naïvety and literalist belief, but it's certainly not suitable for everyone, only for some - while for others, this can spell fanaticism and disaster.

It is saddening to notice how due to the onslaught of scientific thinking in the last few centuries, it became ever more difficult for those to which this path suits, to follow it. I am even saddened to watch how discussions like this hinder the simplicity of literal belief from those who should benefit from it. Paradoxically, much sophistication is now usually required before one can resume the innocence of a child.

---

Dear Dan,

(Yusutsu take note, we weren't always "stuck in the mud of the origins of our bodies", but our bodies were created gloriously in God's image.)

I must have made myself unclear, so sorry:

The mud that I referred to was the mud of the mind, the mud of wasting our time and spoiling our innocence in intellectual gymnastics while attempting to find the origin of our bodies.

I said nothing whatsoever about the actual origin of our bodies, which I believe that we should not be bothered with. Love God, Love thy neighbour, Pray, Worship, Forgive, Serve - what else is there to know?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 5 June 2016 4:26:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,
'Love God, love thy neighbour, pray, worship, forgive, serve.' I wouldn't argue with any of these. Sounds pretty good. What else could we add to the list? Maybe, be a witness to the truth. St Paul looked to mature believers to be 'speaking the truth in love'. St Peter said to be prepared to give an answer [apologia] to those asking of you a reason for your hope.

So, defending the gospel with truth and reason is a natural part of the Christian faith. If we all here weren't keen on reason and investigation, then I'm not sure why we'd bother taking interest in discussions like this one. This topic might not interest you, but it obviously does some.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 6 June 2016 8:36:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan S de Merengue wrote: "What else could we add to the list? Maybe, be a witness to the truth."

Of course what Dan S de Merengue presumably means: "Be steadfast in one's religious belief and possibly seek to promulgate it." Religious belief is often equated with truth by religious believers. Religious belief is not truth, and it is a misuse of language to call it truth. Truth can be demonstrated as supported by reason or facts. Religious belief is merely the opinion of a believer and not truth. It is a form of superstition.
Posted by david f, Monday, 6 June 2016 9:11:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f writes: “Of course what Dan S de Merengue presumably means: "Be steadfast in one's religious belief and possibly seek to promulgate it."”

Very much so.

This reminds me of a time when, unbeknownst to myself, I was transitioning out of Christianity. I still thought of myself as a Christian and would refer to myself as a Christian to others. I had stopped attending church, but hadn’t quite gotten to the stage yet where people start referring to themselves as “agnostic”, as though it were a third mutually exclusive category.

I was in the lunch room talking to a colleague of mine, who was an outspoken fundamentalist Christian, just happily chatting away about the usual nonsense Christians talk about, when he said to me something along the lines of, “We’re lost souls just searching for the truth.” I remember immediately thinking to myself, “How dishonest. You’re not searching for any truth. You think you’ve already found it.”

We saw a similar situation with grateful. One can investigate reality or expose their beliefs to criticism all they like, but if entertaining the possibility that one’s religious beliefs are false can never be an option, then there is no point.

"["What Would It Take to Change Your Mind?" is] a question that atheists are frequently asked, and they almost invariably answer with “evidence”. In the debate between Nye and Ham, they were both asked this question, and Ham answered “nothing” and Nye said “evidence”…" (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/marginoferr/2014/03/06/what-would-it-take-to-change-your-mind)
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 6 June 2016 10:43:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

<<This topic might not interest you, but it obviously does some.>>

Indeed there is no reason why this topic should interest God's children, but that's not the issue: the author is liable to inadvertently do damage through his article. If people were to be convinced by the article, then they would be calling on God for the wrong reasons and subsequently, instead of worshipping God they would be taken to idolatry.

Do you consider the gospel that weak that it needs defending? The gospel is there to defend you, to lead you away from temptation. Would you use a bible-book to kill flies?

If knowing whence this world and our bodies came was necessary for procuring our daily bread, then it could be excused - but it isn't.

Those who know God should certainly be teaching about Him, but mature believers are a rarity. A mature believer is fixed on God. A mature believer, as opposed to an agnostic, puts all their eggs in the one basket of God rather than keep some, just in case, in the basket of the world saying "well perhaps I'm just a body after all". A mature believer would pick up Genesis 1 and use it to teach his/her disciples about the Sabbath, about the importance of taking regular times off away from work to rest and reflect on God. A mature believer, even if s/he could, would not use the bible in vain to teach physics and biology.

<<St Peter said to be prepared to give an answer [apologia] to those asking of you a reason for your hope.>>

Just tell them "I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help. My help cometh from the Lord, which made heaven and earth. He will not suffer thy foot to be moved: He that keepeth thee will not slumber". Nothing more is needed. Once they see your undivided hope, it may inspire and prompt them to follow your personal example.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 6 June 2016 3:52:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,
It seems the Ken Ham v Bill Nye debate made quite a splash in some circles. From my view, it seems that both Ham (the supposed 'Fundamentalist') and Nye (the supposed 'Skeptic') are similarly convinced of their own position.

Yet in the blog, for which you have linked, the atheist seems to lean towards Ham's statement, 'nothing' would change his mind, as being the more appropriate. This is the blog's final paragraph -

"To me, answering the question “what would it take to change your mind” with “when you prove enough evidence” is exactly the same as saying “when hell freezes over” and “when pigs fly”. I personally find it more honest to outright say “Nothing changes my mind”. I find saying “when you prove enough evidence” a tad dishonest because it pretends that this is an open debate, while to me it’s not. It’s only technically true, on a purely syntactic level. To me, “nothing” represents the truth better."
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 6 June 2016 4:53:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,
I don't know what you've got against physics and biology. You seem to deliberately want to take an anti-intellectual path. Sorry, that's not for me.

Haven't you read the New Testament? There is quite a lot of it devoted to keeping doctrine pure from false teaching, and staying faithful to the truth of the gospel. In the early centuries there were heresies, such as Gnosticism, and church leaders were busy to defend the truth of the gospel.

I do not believe the gospel is weak. Yet truth still needs a defence. Take the example of Lindy Chamberlain, whom I consider to be an Australian hero. She knew the truth. She saw it with her own eyes. (A wild dog had taken a baby out of her tent.) Yet knowing the truth herself wasn't enough. Keeping herself out of prison wasn't enough. The only thing that would satisfy her was a declaration of the truth. And she fought for 32 years until she had a certificate in her hands given to her by the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to say that a dingo had taken her baby out of that tent on that night.

They say that truth will naturally rise to the top. Usually it will. Sometimes truth must be defended. We shouldn't be sitting around on our hands.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 6 June 2016 5:38:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What’s with the “supposed”, Dan?

<<From my view, it seems that both Ham (the supposed 'Fundamentalist') and Nye (the supposed 'Skeptic') are similarly convinced of their own position.>>

Ken Ham is a fundamentalist by the very definition of the word:

“A person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion:” (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fundamentalist)

If you have any evidence that Bill Nye is not really a sceptic, then I’d be interested to hear it. Otherwise, it looks like applying Hitchens’ Razor here may be in order.

<<Yet in the blog, for which you have linked, the atheist seems to lean towards Ham's statement, 'nothing' would change his mind, as being the more appropriate.>>

I don’t think the blogger leans towards Ham’s position. The difference appears to lie in the blogger speaking more colloquially and not allowing for the hypothetical as Nye did. Especially given this comment:

“It’s not that I would reject any evidence in favor of the existence of a god, it’s that I honestly don’t think that evidence will ever come up.”

But the rest of what the blogger had to say was not the point of my linking to it. Nor is it because I’m under any illusions that they are an authority. I linked to that article (after selecting it from multiple search results, mind you) as a way of demonstrating that an observation that I have made myself many times before (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15301#264276), has been made by others too.

People tend to get bored and stop listening if one starts to repeat oneself too often, so I thought I’d let someone else make my point for me this time. That Nye and Ham featured as a famous example of the observation was purely incidental too.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 6 June 2016 7:20:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, I should have pointed out, too, that whether or not Nye and Ham are "similarly convinced of their own position[s]" is beside the point. The point is who of the two would be willing to change their mind under ANY circumstances.

Again, though, that Nye and Ham feature as an example was trivial. I was applying the same frequently- and widely-observed phenomenon to theism and atheism in general. Which is why I cut the mentioning of creationism out with the ellipsis.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 6 June 2016 7:34:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

Science has its place: we use it to provide sustenance to our bodies: food, clean water, shelter, clothing, medicine, etc. Without the knowledge of physics and chemistry and biology we would have no chance of sustaining so many (in fact too many) people on earth and keeping them alive and more healthy for more years.

But this is where it should end - while science can tell us all we need about the world, it is useless in regard to truth, for the only Truth is God while the world is only an illusion.

<<Haven't you read the New Testament? There is quite a lot of it devoted to keeping doctrine pure from false teaching, and staying faithful to the truth of the gospel>>

From the moment treasures are placed in the hands of humans, corruption is inevitable. I take no pleasure in telling you this, that despite all good efforts, both the old and new testaments were not and could not be kept pure over time. Trying to capture God in words is like trying to catch the moon by quickly covering a bucket that is full of water while it reflects the moon's image.

<<You seem to deliberately want to take an anti-intellectual path. Sorry, that's not for me.>>

There is indeed an intellectual path to God, if that's for you, but it is a very difficult one, very treacherous and many who tried it have ended up mad, utterly lunatic. Essentially, you would be playing in the devil's court and I wish you the best of luck if you believe that you could beat the devil in their own court.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 7 June 2016 12:31:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Dan

It is possible that a real flood is behind the ancient flood stories. Jayb mentions one theory, that it recalls the flooding of the Dead Sea. Another is the inundation of the Black Sea from the Mediterranean. Some think it reflects the regular flooding common in the swamplands of Mesopotamia. However, many scholars theorise that, because Gilgamesh predates the Old Testament, the authors of Genesis borrowed and adapted the story from the Mesopotamians.

What is clear, though, both from physical evidence and common sense, is that a flood of the magnitude described in Genesis could never have happened. Nor is it possible that all animals and birds alive today are descendants of pairs of every species that Noah took on the ark. Or that a person with Bronze Age technology could have built an ark as described in Genesis. You are right that creationists have tried to address these questions, but I have never seen an explanation that looks remotely plausible.

I agree that recognising genre is important to understanding scripture. But detail is not necessarily a marker of historical accuracy. The genres of Genesis are hotly debated among academics, e.g.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=nfN9BAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=genesis+history+fiction+or+neither&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjW-orW9ZTNAhXIjJQKHaj7ACMQ6AEIJTAA#v=onepage&q=genesis%20history%20fiction%20or%20neither&f=false

Hi Yuyutsu

Yes, childlikeness is hard in the scientific age, and something is lost as a result. Theologian Marcus Borg talks of three ways to approach scriptures.

- “Pre-critical naiveté” accepts the scriptural stories as literally true – there really was a great flood, a garden of Eden, a virgin birth, etc.
- “Critical thinking” questions these stories and concludes that they cannot be literally true. It also understands scriptures as human creations that reflect the ideas and cultures of its authors.
- “Post-critical naiveté” accepts the conclusions of critical thinking but see the truth of scripture as not dependent on its historical accuracy. This, I think, is being childlike without being childish.

I think you might enjoy Borg.
https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Bible-Again-First-Time-ebook/dp/B000FC13HC/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1465271184&sr=1-2
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 7 June 2016 1:54:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian: Jayb mentions one theory, that it recalls the flooding of the Dead Sea. Another is the inundation of the Black Sea from the Mediterranean.

The Flooding was from the Mediterranean through the Gap at Istanbul. The area was weakened by weeks of rain then a Major Earthquake hit the area causing the gap & emptied the Mediterranean into the Black Sea.

Rhian: Or that a person with Bronze Age technology could have built an ark as described in Genesis.

The Flooding of the Black Sea happened about 9000BC. About 7000 years before the Bronze Age. In 9000BC they only had Primitive stone tools & were Nomadic peoples not living in permanent settlements.

There is no way one person could have built a vessel of any size let alone one the supposed size of the Ark. A small dugout canoe for fishing would be about all there was in 9000BC.

I really don't care what it says in the Bible, it is clearly a borrowed story.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 7 June 2016 6:54:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyustu,

What do you mean then, when you say "truth"?

<<[Science] is useless in regard to truth, for the only Truth is God while the world is only an illusion.>>

And why did you spell 'truth' with a capital 'T' in once instance and not the other?

What is the evidence for this claim, and your claim that "the world is only an illusion"?

If the world is only an illusion, then how did you come to that conclusion without a world that is not an illusion to distinguish it from? This sounds to me like the creationists' Watchmaker fallacy.

Asserting as fact that which is not evidently true is dishonest, so I'd be interested to hear what you have to support these claims.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 8 June 2016 1:27:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Jayb

I don’t think we disagree. I was simply listing some of the theories of events that may have lain behind the Middle Eastern flood myths. The Black Sea inundation did pre-date the Bronze Age, but stories of that event may have been preserved and morphed into the stories of the great flood that seem to have emerged in the Bronze Age. Or, there may be another event behind the flood stories; or no event at all. And I agree, whether 9,000BCE or 4,000BCE, no one could have built an ark as described in Genesis.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 8 June 2016 1:53:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian: Or, there may be another event behind the flood stories;

The other big event that happened around 9000BC was the English Channel Event. Although , that would have only taken a few hours apparently. Interesting story that, worth looking up.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 8 June 2016 2:45:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yep, that's interesting

the one I would have loved to see is the Atlantic breaking into the Mediterranean, though sadly there were no humans around to mythologise that one.

http://www.livescience.com/10607-colossal-flood-created-mediterranean-sea.html
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 8 June 2016 2:59:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Around 9000 BC the ancestors of all of us alive today were producing descendants. Glad we all are here. That was before all of the current world religions and gods were invented. Humans invented many more worthwhile things, but superstition still exists today, and probably existed around 9000 BC.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 8 June 2016 3:12:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Rhian,

<<- “Post-critical naiveté” accepts the conclusions of critical thinking but see the truth of scripture as not dependent on its historical accuracy. This, I think, is being childlike without being childish.>>

Spot on and thanks for the link!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 8 June 2016 3:38:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Yuyutsu.

I'll take your passive-aggressive silence, apparent in the timing of your response to Rhian, as a concession that you don't have any justification for what you said or how you said it.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 8 June 2016 4:01:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"This article does not progress the argument one little bit."
Peter Sellick
Posted by Sells, Monday, 2 May 2016 11:42:49 AM

57 pages of discussion later, nearly all of it most civil; I think he may have missed something.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 8 June 2016 6:00:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian: the one I would have loved to see is the Atlantic breaking into the Mediterranean, though sadly there were no humans around to mythologise that one.

<The Mediterranean Sea as we know it today formed about 5.3 million years ago when Atlantic Ocean waters breached the strait of Gibraltar, sending a massive flood into the basin. - See more at: http://www.livescience.com/10607-colossal-flood-created-mediterranean-sea.html#sthash.EySSJbUJ.dpuf>

Yes, I believe that Humans would have been around the "Lucy" stage at that point in Human History
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 8 June 2016 9:17:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let me pose a challenge to atheists. Are you prepared to clarify your position relating to what constitutes sufficient evidence for rejecting the view that there is no god?

Suppose the view that there is no god is our null hypothesis. Can an atheist state, following well-established scientific method, an acceptable probability of falsely rejecting the no-god hypothesis?

In my field we commonly use a probability of 1 in 20 or 1 in 100 depending on the consequences/costs of rejecting the null. Zero probability would mean that you would only reject the null with complete certainty.

If you are an atheist, what probability would you be willing to accept?
Posted by grateful, Thursday, 9 June 2016 5:57:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Grateful,

An evidence for the existence of God would be a disaster: it would spoil all faith, it would bring materialistic former-atheists to go through the motions of worshipping God only because they would treat Him as an ATM.

If I had such evidence (which I don't), then surely I would do everything in my power to conceal it.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 9 June 2016 6:13:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Grateful,

Mathematical theorems can be proven with a probability of 1 if every step in the logic can be justified. Scientific theorems about the behaviour of matter can never be proven with certainty. All we can say is that so far no evidence has turned up to disprove a theorem so we accept it provisionally. Newton's theory of gravity, published in 1687, had no evidence to disprove it until the twentieth century when Einstein's relativity modified it. Experimental evidence confirmed relativity. As to the existence of God there is absolutely no evidence to support its existence. Any evidence at all would cause me to rethink my atheism. Since there is no evidence but only religious belief which is not evidence there is no reason for me to be other than an atheist.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 9 June 2016 6:33:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful,

How can it be that you understand what the null hypothesis is, yet simultaneously struggle to understand why disbelief is the default position?

<<Are you prepared to clarify your position relating to what constitutes sufficient evidence for rejecting the view that there is no god?>>

This is the Shifting of the Burden of Proof fallacy (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof). The onus of proof is on the one making a claim, not the one rejecting it. Like I said earlier, scientists don’t accept claims until they’ve been disproved. The default position is always disbelief. The Philosophic burden of proof may help you to understand why (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof).

As for probability, I don’t know what field you’re in, but some of my qualifications lay in criminal psychology, and in psychology, probability is measured between 0 to 1. I’m not aware of probability being measured any other way, unless you are clumsily referring to Confidence Intervals.

<<Suppose the view that there is no god is our null hypothesis. Can an atheist state, following well-established scientific method, an acceptable probability of falsely rejecting the no-god hypothesis?>>

A more appropriate question would be, “What evidence would it take for you to believe in a god?” To which the next question would inevitably be, “Which god?”, or, “What kind of a god?” Because, if you’re going to claim that a carving in your back yard is your god, then I’d happily accept that that god exists, I’d just disagree with you that it’s a god.

Regardless, I don’t think any atheist could answer your question. Which is likely the reason WHY they are atheists, still sitting there at the default position of disbelief.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 9 June 2016 10:25:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In responce to :
<<Are you prepared to clarify your position relating to what constitutes sufficient evidence for rejecting the view that there is no god?

Suppose the view that there is no god is our null hypothesis. Can an atheist state, following well-established scientific method, an acceptable probability of falsely rejecting the no-god hypothesis?>>

...two atheists have responded but neither has committed to a an acceptable probability for falsely rejecting the null hypothesis ---or to use AJ Phillips terms -- the "default position" of no god.

So how can you wonder why I take beleif as the default position.

For in asking this question, I am assuming disbelief as the default position and indeed asking for evidence of god. Yet despite taking the position atheists insist upon, at least two of them are not prepared to furnish us with a criteria for rejection of the notion that existence is a pure accident and has no purpose behind it.

This is an example of a belief based on faith (that there is no god) not rationality.
Posted by grateful, Friday, 10 June 2016 6:56:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ: "Like I said earlier, scientists don’t accept claims until they’ve been disproved. The default position is always disbelief. "

Excuse me! the first sentence is non-sense; an attempt to evade a simple question.

The second presumes that it is is rational to disbelieve.

To have disbelief as the default position would require:

1) Believing that there is no consciousness that is not the by-product of material evolution. There is no free will as such

2) Believing that the laws of universe are an accident, the result of randomness: stable, persistent patterns, repeating themselves an uncountable number of times is an accident
Posted by grateful, Friday, 10 June 2016 7:33:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful: To have disbelief as the default position would require:
1) Believing that there is no consciousness that is not the by-product of material evolution.

That's a nonsense statement. Consciousness "is" a result of Material Evolution.

grateful: There is no free will as such.

Yes there is, as a result of Material Evolution.

grateful: 2) Believing that the laws of universe are an accident, the result of randomness: stable, persistent patterns, repeating themselves an uncountable number of times is an accident.

Why not? Actually nobody knows if it is, "Random, Stable, Persistent Patten, etc. Each transition may be completely different. It may or may not involve life. "Well, not as we know it, Jim." I don't see what it would have to do with "A God." It would be just Randomness repeating itself every so many Hundred Billion Earth Years or so.

Maybe what is called "A God" IS just "Material Evolution" & some Humans have pushed their own spin on Nature in order to control other Humans & bend them to their Will, negating "Free Will."
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 10 June 2016 8:17:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful,

Default positions don't change. If you use reasoning to arrive at a different position, then it's no longer a default position. You don't get to invent your own default position, and your suggestion that you do contradicts your claim that you arrived at your current position using reasoning.

Just what field exactly is it that you're in? Because it's starting to sound less and less like a legitimate field in anything. I certainty wouldn't want to trust any of the conclusions that those working in your field arrive at.

<<...two atheists have responded but neither has committed to [an] acceptable probability for falsely rejecting the null hypothesis...>>

If one cannot find a reason to reject the null hypothesis, then one stays at the null hypothesis. They don’t assume that it is, therefore, false.

<<...at least two atheists are not prepared to furnish us with a criteria for rejection of the notion that existence is a pure accident and has no purpose behind it.>>

If you could explain to me which part of the Switching of the Burden of Proof fallacy you don't understand, then I will happily clarify it for you, but there is nothing within atheism to necessitate the positions you've pinned to atheism here.

<<Excuse me! the first sentence [i.e. scientists don’t accept claims until they’ve been disproved] is non-sense...>>

How so? Do you know of an instance since the Enlightenment in which a scientist accepted a claim and waited until it was disproved before they rejected it?

<<The second presumes that it is is rational to disbelieve.>>

Yes, rejecting a claim until it has been supported by evidence is the rational position to take. You've not contradicted this.

<<To have disbelief as the default position would require:>>

No, as I pointed out earlier (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#323665), there is nothing within atheism to necessitate either of those positions you've mentioned.

In many cases, 'God' is simply a placeholder for those lacking the courage or intellectual honesty to say, "I don't know." Given the false dilemmas you insert into atheism, this is appears to be the case for you too.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 10 June 2016 10:25:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, grateful. In response to:

“...two atheists have responded but neither has committed to [an] acceptable probability for falsely rejecting the null hypothesis...”

I should have actually said:

“If one cannot determine the probability (I presume you’re referring to the p-value, even if you don’t seem to realise that yourself) of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis, then they don’t reject it.”

Forgive me, but the first of your last two posts was very disjointed and made little sense. Note, for example, the contradiction in these two statements:

- “So how can you wonder why I take beleif as the default position.”

- “For in asking this question, I am assuming disbelief as the default position and indeed asking for evidence of god.”

Regarding the first statement there. No-one has “wondered why [you] take belief as the default position“ for two reasons: firstly, until now, you’ve never said that it was your default position; secondly, it cannot, by definition, be a default position.

<<This is an example of a belief based on faith (that there is no god) not rationality.>>

You are only referring to strong, explicit atheism here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#/media/File:AtheismImplicitExplicit3.svg).

Either way, faith is belief without evidence or in the face evidence to the contrary, so there would need to be reliable evidence for a god before the explicit claim that there is no god could be considered to be faith-based, and so far, you have not provided any reliable evidence.

On another note, if you are suggesting that atheists’ inability to determine a p-value for rejecting the null hypothesis means that your belief in a god is therefore justified, then you are committing the Argument from Ignorance fallacy, and pretending that your belief in a god can be a default position doesn’t get you around that.

Equivocation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation)
The Appeal to Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)
The Ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)
The Courtier’s Reply (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply)
The Shifting of the Burden of Proof (http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Shifting_the_burden_of_proof)
The Argument from Ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)

That’s six fallacies in one discussion, grateful! If you cannot defend your religious beliefs without committing fallacy after fallacy, then perhaps you need to re-assess them?
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 11 June 2016 2:43:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ, you said,
"If a god does exist, then it would know what it would take to convince me of its existence." In response Grateful said that it was reasonable for God to not reveal himself directly, as he wants people to freely choose him without compulsion. For if God is revealed too directly, then it would lead to something like a forced command, which takes away the freedom to chose, or moral responsibility. So, God may have reason not to reveal himself too directly.

Yet I believe that there is evidence for God's existence present and sufficient to leave the rational person with no reasonable doubt of his existence. Perhaps the problem lies in people not being sufficiently rational.

Concerning the onus or 'burden of proof', which you correctly say falls upon the person making the claim, I would say that good arguments have been made for God's existence, but nothing resembling the perfect mathematical type proof of which David F speaks. David says that theorems about the behaviour of matter can never be proven with certainty. For example, could any of us prove that the sun exists, even at midday on a cloudless day?

One could argue passionately about the penetrating glare of the golden orb, the effects of heat radiation, and light refracting within the atmosphere. But I fear the reaction of the sceptics, who return indoors, or under the shade of a tree, and pronounce, 'Sun? I don't see it. You prove it to me.'

So an ultimate proof for God's existence will never be found. Yet I think this case of the sun is analogous to the positive arguments for the existence of God. It also renders somewhat meaningless the insistence from atheists or sceptics that they do not have the onus of proof. For to bother discussing who has the burden of proof regarding the existence of the sun is to realise we were addressing things from the wrong angle.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 12 June 2016 6:23:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jayb and Rhian,
I've followed some of the things you've said recently with interest relating to what you claim to 'know' and the nature of 'knowing' itself.

"Geologists HAVE LONG KNOWN that the Mediterranean became isolated from the world's oceans around 5.6 MILLION years ago."
"Scientists also LARGELY AGREE that the Mediterranean basin was refilled when the movements of Earth's crustal plates caused the ground around the Gibraltar Strait to subside, ... But exactly how the waters cut their way through and how long it took them to do so WASN'T KNOWN."
"The Flooding of the Black Sea HAPPENED ABOUT 9000BC. ... The Flooding was from the Mediterranean through the Gap at Istanbul. The area was weakened by weeks of rain then a Major Earthquake hit the area causing the gap & emptied the Mediterranean into the Black Sea."
"The other big event THAT HAPPENED AROUND 9000BC was the English Channel Event. Although, that would have only taken a few hours APPARENTLY."
"WHAT IS CLEAR ... is that a flood of the magnitude described in Genesis could NEVER have happened."
"Whether 9,000BCE or 4,000BCE, NO ONE could have built an ark as described in Genesis."

I'm wondering how you KNOW some of these things with the certainty that you claim, especially the dates. How much is theory, how much conjecture? Was anyone recording these events so we can have some kind of reliable testimony as to their timing?

And how do you KNOW for certain what ancient people could and couldn't do? We know ancient people were capable of building the colossal pyramids, which have stood intact for millennia. But you also KNOW that ancient people couldn't build a square box out of wood designed to float for a year?

Please compare what you know to be true with what others (such as Tas Walker, below) also believe to have come to know, and the confidence in your methods for having arrived at your truth.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 12 June 2016 6:28:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Summarised from an article by geologist, Tas Walker:
"The landscapes of Central Australia provide a dramatic picture of the reality of Noah’s Flood. Once we can envisage how that global catastrophe unfolded on the earth, and understand something of its enormous magnitude, and what to look for, we can see the evidence everywhere. The big issue that throws people off the trail is the million-year dates that are quoted for the different geological features. However, none came with a label attached stating the date it was formed. All such dates have been invented by people who didn't see it form, and are simply stating their personal beliefs about what happened.

1. Granites:
They point to rapid crustal movements generating a large magma volume, rapid magma transport through fissures, and rapid magma accumulation in plutons.
2. Sediments:
a. They cover a large geographical area, pointing to enormous watery catastrophe.
b. Strata have a uniform size over a large geographic area, pointing to huge watery catastrophe.
c. Straight contacts between strata indicate minimal time elapsed between deposition of one layer and the next.
d. Thick strata point to abundant water over the area—a large-scale watery catastrophe.
e. Thick strata also point to abundant sediment supply—rapid erosion and transport.
f. Large cross beds in strata indicate water currents were reasonably deep.
g. Recumbent cross beds in strata point to highly energetic, strong water flow.
3. Hard sandstone:
Quartz cement (silica) in sediment point to high mineral content in water due to the effects of Flood processes.
4. Water-transported boulder deposits point to high energy water flows.
5. Landscape eroded with flat planation surfaces point to erosion when whole continent was covered by water.
6. Water gaps through ranges point to Flood run-off and erosion as the receding waters reduced in their level as they drained the continent.
7. Small amounts of debris at the base of steep cliffs and gorges indicate the erosion occurred relatively recently.
8. Eroded material taken out of the area point to the power and volume of water that flowed over the area as the floodwaters receded."
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Sunday, 12 June 2016 6:34:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan.

Yes, I also pointed out that if Hell is a consequence of not believing in this god, then it’s not enough to say that that god doesn’t want to compel people to believe in it. It's just downright bizarre to spruik the supposed moral virtue of a god who wouldn’t dream of imposing itself on us, if one also believes that this god will send people to Hell if they don’t believe in it.

Anyway, if you believe that “there is evidence for God's existence present and sufficient to leave the rational person with no reasonable doubt of his existence”, then by all means, please share it. After all, if you’re right, then there are souls at stake here. We would also be testing your proposition that it is perhaps people who are not sufficiently rational. I’d seriously doubt it, though. For if that were the case, then otherwise-rational theists wouldn’t need to compartmentalise their religious beliefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartmentalization_(psychology)).

I’ve heard many arguments over the years. I even presented some of them myself as a Christian, but none of them are convincing to anyone who doesn’t already believe, so I’m interested in what you may have to offer. Nothing has to be proven with absolute certainty. Given the extraordinary nature and gravity of the claims, however, the evidence would need to be extraordinary. And reliable, for that matter. Personal revelation, for example, is not reliable.

Your ‘sun’ analogy assumes that reliable evidence has in fact been provided to sceptics on occasions, but that they refuse to see it. I’ve never witnessed that before. But hey, what better time to test that than now?

<<For to bother discussing who has the burden of proof regarding the existence of the sun is to realise we were addressing things from the wrong angle.>>

The burden of proof isn’t an angle to approach the question of the existence of a god. It is a logical starting point so as to avoid counter-productive discussion and fallacious reasoning. It is no more meaningless on the question of God than it is in a court of law.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 12 June 2016 1:09:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Deat DSDM, Tas Walker is a Creationist & his opinions aren't me wiping my posterior with.
Posted by Jayb, Sunday, 12 June 2016 4:54:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ: "Default positions don't change. If you use reasoning to arrive at a different position, then it's no longer a default position. You don't get to invent your own default position, and your suggestion that you do contradicts your claim that you arrived at your current position using reasoning."

It depends on how you arrive at your default position. My understanding of atheists position is as follows: let's take as our starting position that we agree to use reason and think through our positions, as well as others' positions, critically and rationally.

Along comes someone with a claim that there exist fairies. Atheists are saying that the default position cannot be "fairies exist" because the claim is not falsifiable.

Let me quote from Stenger's "God: the Failed Hypothesis" who draws upon Karl Pooper's distinction between empirical statements that are refutable and statements that are irrefutable. The former are described as "restricted existential statements". The latter are pure existential statement which apply "to the whole universe and is irrefutable simply because there can be no method by which it could be refuted".

cont....
Posted by grateful, Monday, 13 June 2016 1:25:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont..

For example, “ "There exists a pearl which is ten times larger than the next pearl." If this statement were restricted the words "There exists to some finite region in space and time, then it may of course become a refutable statement. For example, the following statement is obviously empirically refutable: “At this moment and in this box here there exist at least two pearls one of which is ten times larger than the next largest pearl in this box.” But then this statement is no longer a strict or pure existential statement: rather it is a restricted existential statement. A strict or pure existential statement applies to the whole universe, and it is refutable simply because there can be no method by which it could be refuted. For even if we were able to search our entire universe, the strict or pure existential statement would not be refuted by our failure to discover the required pearl, seeing that it might always be hiding in a place where we are not looking" (Popper quoted in Stenger, p27)

Stenger concludes from this:

"By this criterion, it would seem that the existence of God cannot be empirically refuted because to do so would require making an existential statement applying to the whole universe (plus whatever lies beyond). But, in looking at Popper's example, that this is not the case for God. True, we cannot refute the existence of a God who like the pearl in Popper's example, is somewhere outside the box, say, in another galaxy. But God is supposed to be everywhere, including inside a single box, no matter how small, we should either find him, thus confirming his existence, or not find him, thus refuting his existence.”

So how does Stenger arrive at the default position of “God does not exist”? By defining god as part of space and time. But this does not refer to a god to which I'm referring.

cont...
Posted by grateful, Monday, 13 June 2016 1:27:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont..

The god I’m referring to created space and time and is eternal. The god has purpose in creating space and time, just as human beings have purpose in art, politics, literature, raising a family, going to work, marching in the streets, etc.

The basis of an explanation of the universe that is rational but not based on science, is that god created the universe for a purpose: that we may learn through experience the meaning of worshipping him. This entails choice but not causation since god remains the cause of everything. This is the god that I think is consistent Islam , as well as Judaism and Christianity (although Dan may correct me).

This is not a scientific explanation because science deals with causation and causation requires time (cause precedes effect), while god is eternal. Nevertheless it is an explanation.

So my default position is that there is god. It began when I read the Qur'an and I said "You speak to me" (i.e. I did not pre-judge). At this point it was like a home-coming after years in the wilderness in that it there were verses that confirmed personal convictions. Now everywhere I look I find purposeful activity and not something that is a by-product of randomness.

Nevertheless, it is always possible that the initial and continued existence of the universe can be by chance, just as we cannot rule out throwing a coin 1 million or so times and getting heads every time. It just seems very unlikely.

As for the Qur'an, it insists on the use of reason and invites you to challenge its veracity which is the position I adopt. So far I have not been let down.
Posted by grateful, Monday, 13 June 2016 1:28:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The preceding 3 posts, by the way, also addresses the following statement from madmick

"All the theories of evolution and the origins of the universe have gaps and flaws but they are works in progress and most scientists are humble enough to admit this while they work at filling them. Contrast this with the bigoted, smug attitude of the religious who can blithely assert that everything we can't explain is "God's Work"

The inability of atheists or science to disprove the existence of God does not, in any way, lend weight to the proposition that He (or She) exists. Belittling those who are working to expand human knowledge and comparing them to believers in magic is ridiculous" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201

Firstly, I do not postulate a "god of gaps". I am not saying, that god explains what science does not explain. Rather, the "laws of nature" describe the result of god's will.

Secondly, human choice is not causative in space and time. Nevertheless it determines the degree to which we draw closer or more distant to Allah.

If you want to see what your status is with god, look at what you are doing.
Posted by grateful, Monday, 13 June 2016 1:38:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,
To see one example of an atheist whose attitude is to look the other way when evidence is presented unfavourable to his preferred outlook, look no further than Jayb's last statement.

----

As for theology that says God sends people to Hell for not believing in him, this isn't correct. It's partly a misunderstanding of the word 'belief'. There are clearly two types of belief. There is belief that God exists, and there is a salvation belief which entails the saving knowledge of God, and submission to his will.

Biblically speaking, God's existence is considered obvious. So there's no great merit in believing that. In fact, James 2:19 says emphatically, "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder." So believing that there is one God (i.e. belief in his existence) isn't sufficient for salvation. Therefore, not believing it isn't going to be a crucial factor. God will condemn people, as he so determines, because he is righteous and holy, and as Judge of the earth, he will judge people according to their wrongs committed. Yet he has made a way of salvation for those who believe on him, that is, belief in the gift of forgiveness and grace that he has made available in Christ.

Therefore, there is a clear distinction in the definitions of the word 'belief'. A simple belief that God exists doesn't make much difference either way. That kind of belief is already expected. For God holds all people morally accountable before him for their actions and decisions.

---

Regarding the default position, or burden of proof, I proposed the 'sun' analogy, as I thought it might represent the picture more clearly.

proposition: the sun exists (affirmative), sun doesn't exist (negative). Assuming the negative, and then attempting to argue for the affirmative, it would still be near impossible to prove the proposition in any absolute sense.

Similarly, many view God as sufficiently obvious not to have to assume his non-existence. But really, starting with any assumption stifles the possibility of productive discussion favourable to the contrary view
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 13 June 2016 6:23:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful: god created the universe for a purpose: that we may learn through experience the meaning of worshipping him.

I propose, that "if" a God did create the entire Universe & everything in it, then, A God would not even be interested in Humans enough to even think about wanting Humans to Worship him/her/it. The God would have just created Humans & left us up to our own design & go on our merry way. No Heaven or Hell, these are man s invented devices designed for the elite to control the masses.

DSDM: There are clearly two types of belief. There is belief that God exists, and there is a salvation belief which entails the saving knowledge of God, and submission to his will.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Using Religion (belief) as a means of controlling the Masses. "Submission to his will," is really the "Dogma" behind the various Religions. It's all about "Money" & Control.

DSDM: Biblically speaking, God's existence is considered obvious.

With the emphasis on "Biblically Speaking." Considering all Religion's Bible's are "Man" inspired. The Interpretation of every word of each "Bible" is interpreted by every Religion differently. Every person Interprets their own Religions Bible to suit their own particular view with-in the framework of what they are "demanded" to believe by their own particular Religious Sect.
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 13 June 2016 8:14:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful,

Default positions are not something that we arrive at individually. The default position is an objective one. It’s always disbelief.

<<Atheists are saying that the default position cannot be "fairies exist" because the claim is not falsifiable.>>

No, the default position cannot be "fairies exist" because the default is always one of disbelief. It has nothing to do with what is and is not falsifiable. The reason the default position is always one of disbelief is because of the burden of proof, and the burden of proof is what it is because it would be absurd to go around believing any and every claim we heard. We’d inevitably end up holding contradictory beliefs.

<<So how does Stenger arrive at the default position of “God does not exist”?>>

We arrive at conclusions, not default positions. The default position is a starting point, not a conclusion.

<<But this does not refer to a god to which I'm referring.>>

It doesn’t matter what kind of a god it is that you’re referring to. You could worship a rock in your backyard for all I care, the principles remain the same regardless.

<<The basis of an explanation of the universe that is rational but not based on science, is that god created the universe for a purpose…>>

How is that rational?

<<This is not a scientific explanation because science deals with causation and causation requires time (cause precedes effect), while god is eternal.>>

Again, the principles remain the same. If you’ve pushed your god into obscurity so that science cannot investigate it, then it just makes an, ‘is no evidence’, into a, ‘cannot be any evidence’. Either way, the end result is still ‘no evidence’ and disbelief is therefore justified.

How is it that you can have disbelief as your default position with regards to every other claim, and yet when it comes to potentially the most import claim, you start with the assumption that a god exists?

By the way, you were an atheist as a baby. This fact alone discredits your claim that anything but disbelief could be a default position.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 13 June 2016 10:33:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

Jayb’s dismissive attitude towards creationist claims is reasonable given that creationists have never once provided any evidence for their beliefs without distorting or omitting facts. But even if a great flood was a legitimate interpretation of all that you posted, then it still wouldn’t be reliable evidence for your god any more than disproving evolution would be, and to mistake it as such would be to appeal to a false dichotomy.

Thanks for clarifying your beliefs on Hell. It was basic protestant theology that I’m very familiar with. Unfortunately, it doesn’t do anything to negate my point, however. Saying that it’s not enough to just believe; that one also needs “a salvation belief which entails the saving knowledge of God, and submission to his will” only strengthens my point, because one cannot get to that point without a basic belief in that god first.

To say that a basic belief “is already expected” is to say that this god expects us to be unreasonable, as it goes against the notion of disbelief as the default position and the concept of the burden of proof.

<<proposition: the sun exists (affirmative), sun doesn't exist (negative).>>

No no. The above is ‘guilty‘ and ‘innocent’. I’m talking ‘guilty’ and ‘not guilty’. That is, ‘not guilty’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘innocent’, it just means that there’s not enough evidence to conclude ‘guilt’. In other words, not believing something doesn’t necessarily mean accepting the opposite.

<<…it would still be near impossible to prove the proposition in any absolute sense.>>

Again, no-one’s asking for absolute proof of anything. Absolute certainty is a useless red herring, and may not even be possible, depending on how one defines knowledge.

<<..starting with any assumption stifles the possibility of productive discussion favourable to the contrary view>>

Correct, which is why we start with disbelief, rather than a belief that the opposite is true.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 13 June 2016 10:34:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Dan

Tas Walker is a young earth creationist who earns his living writing and preaching about young earth creationism, not as a geologist. Can you point to any atheist, agnostic or non-fundamentalist geologist who holds similar views about a global flood? Or an atheist, agnostic or non-fundamentalist biologist who believes that all life came into being in less than a week? Or an atheist, agnostic or non-fundamentalist physicist who believes that the sun, moon, earth and cosmos were formed in a couple of days?
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 13 June 2016 12:47:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

I personally don't care whether or not Noah's flood occurred: this or any other event for that matter wouldn't affect my love of God one iota.

Now suppose for a moment that this forum could convincingly prove to you that the biblical flood never happened, would that cause you to stop loving God? How sad then!!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 13 June 2016 11:14:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What about Jesus dying on the cross, or his rising from the dead? There are certain historical events that are so deeply embedded within the biblical narrative as to be inseparable from the message.

Christianity is an historical faith. God acted in history. It would be nice if God simply said, ‘Everyone just be nice to each other,’ and then we might or might not pay attention. But that isn’t Christianity. The Christian gospel is about God intervening in history to bring things to completion.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Monday, 13 June 2016 11:50:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

It is certainly good to believe in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus - count your blessings!

But by discussing this with atheists you are playing with fire and if for whatever reason you are no longer able to believe, should this belief instead turn from a blessing into a curse? should you then drop your religion in despair? I think not and I hope it never happens!

As for God's intervention in history, I take it a step further: without God it is not possible to speak of history, or of anything else really. In fact, "without God" is a nonsensical combination of syllables: the only basis on which we can even begin to conceive of withness and withoutness, is God. The was-ness of any historical event or even the was-not-ness of other events, both depend on God's is-ness. Events could prove false, but God's is-ness which is identical with your am-ness is irrefutable and can never be undone.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 14 June 2016 1:57:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wasn't offering that the death and resurrection of Christ were merely 'good' events. They were essential events, if the Christian message has any meaning at all.

That is, without these events actually occurring, we could throw the whole book in the bin. As CS Lewis said (rough paraphrase,) Christianity can never just contain some good ideas. It will never be a little bit correct. It is either gloriously true, or gloriously entire nonsense.

God instigated all history (i.e. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. -
In the beginning [time]
God [person]
created [action/events]
the heavens [space]
and the earth [matter].
That just about covers it all, what else is there?)

He entered into history, and he speaks the truth about history.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 14 June 2016 2:38:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

My last comment was not about the merits of the crucifixion and ressurection of Jesus, but rather about the merit of YOU, Dan, believing in the above.
As I said, the fact that you believe is a blessing for you.

<<They were essential events, if the Christian message has any meaning at all.>>

Essential for what?
For the Christian message to have a meaning?
Why is that (having a meaning) important?

What IS truly important is whether the Christian message helps you to become a better person.
What IS truly important is whether the Christian message helps you to love thy fellow as thyself.
What is ultimately important is whether the Christian message helps you to be closer to God.
If it successfully achieves this, then who cares even if it has no meaning?!

<<That is, without these events actually occurring, we could throw the whole book in the bin.>>

How sad! Throwing the good book in the bin only because some events haven't occurred. What a waste!

<<It is either gloriously true, or gloriously entire nonsense.>>

Scary, dangerous stuff: suppose you become convinced by the atheists on this forum that the flood never occurred, then would you conclude that Jesus' teachings and resurrection were also entirely nonsense? would you then believe that all that's left for you is to eat, drink and be merry until the grime reaper takes your body away, that there's no longer a point in caring for anyone and anything else but your own bodily pleasures?

<<He entered into history>>

Have you read Genesis 1:2 in the original Hebrew?

"Veha'arets haytah TOHU VAVOHU".

"Tohu Vavohu" is commonly understood as either "chaotic" or "formless void", but if you split those words, "[O]to hu vavo hu", you get: "and the earth was the same Him and in Him it is".
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 14 June 2016 3:48:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As someone who lost their Christian beliefs because they couldn’t reconcile them with science, I know where Dan is coming from. So let me put it another way that I think Dan will agree with:

No Adam and Eve? No original sin. No original sin? No need for salvation. No need for salvation? No need for a saviour. No need for a saviour? No need for the resurrection.

And at that point, we throw the Bible in the bin. Which is exactly what I did.

To maintain his beliefs, all Dan has to do is deny all of the biological, geological and cosmological sciences (Okay, so it doesn’t sound so insignificant when you put it like that, but hear me out…).

Scientists believe that humans, as we know them, have been round for about 200,000 years. So if you’re a Christian and accept all the natural sciences, then here’s what you have to believe:

For 198,000 years, God sat back with total indifference and watched people being born (many dying in the process, including the mother); if they lived, then it was only to about 25 years old, which they then died in horrendous and painful ways as the result of war, famine, their teeth, or microorganisms that they didn’t know existed; natural events like earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis would have been mysterious and utterly terrifying; only for us to then make some small progress towards the end of it all with immense suffering and labour.

After 198,000 years, God finally decides that it’s time to intervene, and the only way he can think of to do this, is to come down in human form and offer himself in a filthy sacrifice in a remote and illiterate part of Palestine; the news of which has still not completely penetrated the rest of the world.

When you get rid of all the useless bits of religion (Yuyutsu’s beliefs), and all the false bits of religion (Dan’s beliefs), what you’re left with is good old secular humanism. There is no need for the rest.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 14 June 2016 6:53:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Y,
So, even if I can't trust the Bible, I should still trust God (whoever that might be).

Is that a succinct summary of what you're saying?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 14 June 2016 6:04:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The discussion between Dan and Yuyutsu is interesting to watch. The dynamics of the interaction are fascinating.

Here we have Dan (a creationist who understands that his theology comes crashing down if certain events in its narrative never occurred) being advised by Yuyutsu (a non-specific theist that leans towards Hinduism) that he should effectively stick his fingers in his ears and repeat, “La, la, la, la, I can’t hear you.”

Yet only the creationist understands why that’s not acceptable.

So concerned is Yuyutsu for Dan’s faith, that he is encouraging him to keep demonstrably false beliefs, some of which entail his own eternal torture for believing in the wrong god, because such beliefs will supposedly help bring Dan closer to his god.

What kind of a strange and hideous god is this anyway?

(And why is it that I keep proof-reading the above in David Attenborough’s voice?)

“[B]y discussing this with atheists you are playing with fire…” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324939)

This goes down as one of my all-time favourite OLO quotes. Good to know that it’s nothing personal.

I’ll take that as compliment too, by the way.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 14 June 2016 7:35:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<How is it that you can have disbelief as your default position with regards to every other claim, and yet when it comes to potentially the most import claim, you start with the assumption that a god exists?>>

you need to elaborate.

AJ: <By the way, you were an atheist as a baby. This fact alone discredits your claim that anything but disbelief could be a default position.>>

Islam teaches that we are all born with fitra defined as "good human nature, the simple and healthy moral responses of someone who is natural; the soul's capacity to know Allah." (Ha Min Keller "Sea without Shore")

The Qur'an states:

"So set thy face to the service of religion as one devoted to God. And follow the nature made by Allah (fitratall&#257;hi)– the nature in which He has fashioned all mankind (fitratall&#257;hi). There is no altering the creation of Allah. That is the right religion but most men know not." (Qur'an 30:30)

The Prophet stated:
"No child is born except on the fitra and then his parents make him Jewish, Christian or Magian (Zoroastrian), as an animal produces a perfect young animal: do you see any part of its body amputated?"

We are born without sin and as pure believers. No child before "coming of age" or adolescence dies except as a believer. Their is no original and inherited sin in Islam.

cont...
Posted by grateful, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 4:41:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont...

For those seeking Allah:

"How should a heart be illumined whose mirror but reflects created things? Or how should it travel to Allah when manacled by its desires? Or how should it hope to enter the presence of Allah when unpurified from the strain of its forgetfulness? Or how should it hope to understand subtle secrets when it has not even repented of its wrongs (Ibn Ata'illah (1259-1310), Al-Hikam or Book of Aphorisms, quoted in Sea Without Shore)

The author of Sea Without Shore goes on to say: "In our times if the fitra or primal human nature is further to reach and take back than before, it is because our nature has become sullied by man's own hand. The ruh has been supersaturated not only with haram and offensive, but with the sensory, amplified by endless repetition through digital technology. the goal is the highest that can be imagined. It is real, and it is realisable. But only those who disentangle themselves from the web can reach it" (Huh Ha Min Keller, 2011, "Sea Without Shore", p169)

note:
ruh means "spirit ; the soul, the subtle reality within every human being tha was created to know, love and return to Allah"

That said, your idea makes no sense in the context of being a materialists. I think what you mean is that a baby has not heard of God. But then a baby, for a materialists, cannot not have any notion of belief or disbelief if they have no notion of god.
Posted by grateful, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 4:42:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In reply to <<So how does Stenger arrive at the default position of “God does not exist”?>>

AJ says: <<We arrive at conclusions, not default positions. The default position is a starting point, not a conclusion.>>

Errr..? Victor Stenger chose to justify his position by arguing that "God exists" is a pure existential statement and so can not be falsified. But this is based on Popper definition which presumes something supposed to exist in space and time (like fairies).

In the case of God we are discussing the existence of the creator of space and time who it eternal.

Victor Stenger was, he died recently, a materialist and atheists whose works have been cited by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, among other prominent atheists.

AJ says: <<It doesn’t matter what kind of a god it is that you’re referring to. You could worship a rock in your backyard for all I care, the principles remain the same regardless.>>

..and thereby misses the point. We are not talking about something that exists in space and time, like your rock. See the preceding point.

In response to <<The basis of an explanation of the universe that is rational but not based on science, is that god created the universe for a purpose…>>

AJ asks: <<How is that rational?>>

Would you accept testimony of modern scientists?

<<Again, the principles remain the same. If you’ve pushed your god into obscurity so that science cannot investigate it, then it just makes an, ‘is no evidence’, into a, ‘cannot be any evidence’. Either way, the end result is still ‘no evidence’ and disbelief is therefore justified.>>

But what if modern scientists were to say that although we cannot investigate God because science is limited to describing what is in space and time, yet nevertheless there are explanations which are rational?

cont...
Posted by grateful, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 4:57:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Prediction: AJ will not take a position, just like he will not be willing to state the conditions under which he would be prepared to discard his hypothesis that god does not exist. Instead he will resort to personal insult, as exemplified by the following:

"Just what field exactly is it that you're in? Because it's starting to sound less and less like a legitimate field in anything. I certainty wouldn't want to trust any of the conclusions that those working in your field arrive at."
Posted by grateful, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 4:58:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,
I'm glad you're enjoying the thread.

I don't connect well with nearly anything Yusutsu says, but this last comment of hers (his?) I especially didn't agree with.
"...by discussing this with atheists you are playing with fire."

On the contrary, I'm happy to chat with anyone about anything, anytime, so long as they know how to be civil. I enjoy contrasting opinions. Why else would I come here?

Some of your last comments about theology I can well relate to, but I think you still haven't quite got the idea of God as Judge. You've said that God judges people for not believing in him. But I can't see that in my understanding of the Scripture. He stands to judge all people for their wrong doing, whether they claim to believe in him or not. He is the ultimate judge. I showed you the verse from the book of James, which says that the demons believe in God, and shudder. They know that they still stand under the judgement of God.

You may claim that openly believing or declaring that God exists is a step towards a true saving faith, or a right standing with God. Maybe or maybe not. It didn't help the demons, as I pointed out above. A true saving faith and simply believing in God are independent and may not necessarily relate at all. One may not lead the other. To claim one necessarily relates to the other is perhaps like claiming that growing hair on your chin is a step towards growing hair on you head. Now, in fact, I'm quite capable of growing hair on my chin but have great difficulty growing hair on my head. My wife, fortunately, has it the other around. She is very capable of growing hair on her head, but doesn't have much success with growing hair on her chin.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 7:30:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,
I'm glad you've brought up the issue of people's possible ulterior motivations for believing whatever they believe. It's true that Tas Walker is a geologist who makes a (meager) living by speaking and writing about evidence for creation. He would be well capable of making a lot more money by going back to his old job working for mining companies. But everyone has their cross to bear.

But you've asked for something rather odd. You ask for me to point to an atheist who believes in a global flood. Of course atheists don't believe in Noah's flood. If they did, they would no longer be atheists. If an atheist was convinced by the biological evidence to believe in God (as in the case of the former English Atheist philosopher, Antony Flew, mentioned here in Don Batten's article) then he would no longer be classed in the category of atheists. It's like you're asking me to point to a Liberal supporter who plans to vote Labor this election, something rather self-contradictory.

But if we're going to talk about motivations, it quickly becomes a self fulfilling prophecy that people will naturally want to follow the majority view. That's where the money is, as much as water flows into the seas. You could take the example of Big Bang cosmology, which is the popular cosmological theory of recent times. Because it's popular, that's where the funding grants are. If you want to work in astronomy, you better follow that line if you want a funding grant. Now, Big Bang cosmology is hardly a proven idea, but it's hard to buck the system.

But good research is capable of throwing up counter examples. I know you have a natural bias against creationist astronomers, so naming but one well known astronomer who comes to mind, having no connection with creationist circles, who is senior enough to shrug off the compulsion to fall into line with the consensus, but who also gave serious challenges to the ideas of the Big Bang, was Halton Arp (1927-2013.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 7:39:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, I think it was pretty clear the first time, grateful.

<<you need to elaborate.>>

Maybe we'll re-visit it when you're up to speed.

<<The Qur'an states: … The Prophet stated: …>>

And Captain Kirk stated, “What does God need with a Starship?”

Big deal.

It’s not enough to just tell me what the Qur’an says. You need to demonstrate the truth of that claim.

<<No child before "coming of age" or adolescence dies except as a believer.>>

Christians believe that too. That doesn’t mean babies actually believe, though. Indeed, the fact that they don’t is what necessitates such a claim.

<<I think what you mean is that a baby has not heard of God.>>

Yes, therefore, they cannot be a theist. Theism and atheism are a legitimate dichotomy. You are either one or the other. A baby is specifically an implicit atheist. For your benefit again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#/media/File:AtheismImplicitExplicit3.svg.

<<Victor Stenger chose to justify his position by arguing that "God exists" is a pure existential statement and so [cannot] be falsified.>>

So what?

Incidentally, “God does not exist” (strong atheism), is a claim that has strayed from the default position of disbelief.

<<In the case of God we are discussing the existence of the creator of space and time who it eternal.>>

So the claim goes, yes.

<<[Stenger] was … a materialist and atheists whose works have been cited by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, among other prominent atheists.>>

So what? Is this a fallacious appeal to authority?

<<We are not talking about something that exists in space and time, like your rock.>>

I know. My point was that it doesn’t matter what you’re talking about. No appeal to transcendence, on any level, changes my point.

<<Would you accept testimony of modern scientists?>>

I would accept the testimony of anyone who can rationally justify their position. Whether or not they are a scientist is irrelevant and fallacious.

I’m sorry your prediction failed.

That wasn’t a personal insult earlier, either. It was a legitimate observation. I note with interest, however, that you still haven’t mentioned what field it is that you’re in.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 9:24:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

Whether or not your god ultimately judges people for believing in him is immaterial.

If any belief at all is required to begin with (which it is, one cannot have a belief that grants salvation if they don’t have a belief in the first place), then God has an obligation to reveal himself in a way such that a belief in him could be rationally justified, if eternal damnation is the consequence for not having a salvation-granting belief. Stating that a simple belief alone is not enough doesn’t get you around this.

<<He stands to judge all people for their wrong doing, whether they claim to believe in him or not.>>

This appears to be an attempt to side-step my point. Because, what you’re not mentioning, is that a salvation-granting belief entails asking for forgiveness for one’s sins, and one would not do this unless they at least believed in the first place. Therefore, my referring to belief alone is adequate for my argument since a simple belief is an essential element for a more complex salvation-granting belief.

Appealing to a salvation-granting belief only makes my point more pertinent. My terminology is all-encompassing. When I say that a god has a moral obligation to reveal himself in a way such that a belief in him could be rationally justified (if eternal damnation (or Annihilation) is the consequence for not believing in him), the Protestant salvation-granting belief is automatically included.

You are trying to get God off on a technicality.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 9:24:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan S de Merengue,

May your wife continue to have difficulty growing hair on her chin.

There is no evidence that God exists. However, there are three items of evidence that have led to the empirical verification of the Big Bang, so that, even if Einstein and Lemaître had never lived, the recognition that the universe began in a hot, dense state would have been forced upon us: the observed Hubble expansion; the observation of the cosmic microwave background; and the observed agreement between the abundance of light elements-hydrogen, helium and lithium-we have measured in the universe with the amount predicted to have been produced during the first few minutes in the history of the universe.

It is pleasant to have a civil exchange with disagreement but no name-calling or put downs.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 9:30:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<Whether or not your god ultimately judges people for believing in him is immaterial.>

The only proof there is of a God judging people is from Holy Books. These were written by "Man." These Men insist that their writings were inspired by a God. The reason Rulers/Priests/Sharman put that bit in there is to exert control over their flock/followers.

It seems to me that a God would have to be entirely Narcissistic to create a specific Species purely for the sake of having that Species Worship/Adore Him/Her/It. That would be the worst failing of a God.

If there is a God then He/She/It is having a good laugh at Mans expense, given the amount of Confusion/Killing/Suffering there is committed in His/Her/It's name.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 10:35:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By the way, grateful, I have not stated a hypothesis that god does not exist.

<<…just like he will not be willing to state the conditions under which he would be prepared to discard his hypothesis that god does not exist.>>

I have already explained to you that I cannot state such conditions, which is why I’m still at the default position of atheism, it is not a case of unwillingness:

“I don’t think any atheist could answer your question. Which is likely the reason WHY they are atheists, still sitting there at the default position of disbelief.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324778)

For you to deliberately ignore or twist my words, or draw implications from what I say that are simply not there, is rather dishonest. Allah would be shaking his head. It is clear that you are becoming quite upset, and who could blame you? Sixty-one posts in and you are yet to make the slightest bit of headway.

At what point does it not become obvious that your beliefs are not justified?

I think the reason you’re having so much difficulty understanding (aside from your apparent determination to not understand, of course) is because you are only addressing one of three sub-categories of atheism. That being the one of strong atheism. This is a common retreat for theists when they need to make atheism sound as dogmatic as their theistic beliefs, or strip it of its rightful place as the default position.

They usually then mistake the weak forms of atheism (both implicit and explicit, but sometimes just explicit) as ‘agnosticism’, seemingly unaware that gnosticism and agnosticism address different questions: http://tinyurl.com/jelqsda.

For so long as you read “strong atheism” every time I say “atheism”, you will continue to be horribly confused, and churn out long, disjointed stings of posts that are largely irrelevant to what I am actually saying.

Dan,

I forgot to mention, I didn't mean to be chauvinistically presumptuous in referring to Yuyutsu as male. It appears that Yuyutsu's gender changes from discussion to discussion (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7323&page=0#225506). Perhaps it's to maintain some sort of air of mystique? I don't know.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 11:15:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

A succinct summary of what I am saying is, please remain on the side of goodness and stay away from evil, no matter what the world is showing you.

Psalm 118:9 is usually translated into English as: "It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes". Literally the verse says: "It is better to take shelter in the Lord than to trust generous people".

I am not telling you what you should or should not do, I only tell you what is good and yes, "It is good to give thanks to the Lord".

Probably the best example is Job: by any normal standards, he had nothing to thank God for as he held God responsible for all his terrible losses, but still he thanked Him. Why? because it is good to do so, because this keeps you on the side of goodness and away from the side of evil.

One should obviously thank God when they are happy and successful, but one should also thank God when they lose it all and one should even continue to thank God if they lose their trust in the bible.

Princes and generous people can promise you the world and could usually be trusted to provide your material desires. Trusting God doesn't provide any of that, but it ensures that you remain on His side.

Ultimately, only God will prevail.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 11:20:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Dan

I didn’t ask you to name an atheist who believes in Noah’s flood. If the flood was an historical event of the magnitude the Bible describes, I would expect there to be physical evidence that would be evident to geologists and biologists. Likewise, if the universe and solar system sprang into being in a few days, I would expect astrophysicists to have uncovered evidence of this.

An atheist scientist could accept that these events occurred without accepting biblical explanations for them, just as most atheist historians accept that some events described in the Bible actually happened, without taking this as evidence for the existence of God. The questions of whether there was an historical flood, or how long it took for the universe to come into being, are open to scientific inquiry. The question of whether God caused them may not be.

I agree that we need to look to motive when examining people’s beliefs, but I don’t think this helps your case. In my experience, most geologists are not motivated by a desire to prove or disprove the bible, but to discover the origins and nature of the earth. To dismiss the overwhelming scientific consensus in biology, geology, astrophysics etc as mere groupthink, in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are right, seems to me to reveal more of your own motives than theirs.

It’s true that within all of these disciplines there are individuals who dissent from the majority view. That’s how science works – every hypothesis should be open to question, and even theories supported by overwhelming evidence (like evolution) remain theories, in principle capable of being disproved. But even if these theories are wrong, it doesn’t mean your alternative explanation is right. Halton Arp may not have accepted the big bang theory, but he was no young earth creationist.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 15 June 2016 11:43:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

Just to clarify. The reason I say that your arguments actually strengthen my point, is because by being as specific as you are about what helps one to avoid eternal damnation (or Annihilation), you have actually saddled your god with a second, and perhaps even a third, obligation (if eternal damnation is the consequence for not holding a salvation-granting belief). Not only must your god now:

1. reveal himself in a way that a belief in him could be rationally justified, but also;
2. reveal himself as specifically the Protestant Christian version of God, and perhaps even to;
3. advise everyone to read at least the Gospels so that they know how to avoid an eternity of torture.

His job was easier under my all-encompassing way of putting it.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 16 June 2016 6:18:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Would any of the atheists (or agnostics) like to comment on whether the following video, "Believe in God in Five Minutes (Scientific Proof)" by Gerald Schroeder constitutes evidence in their eyes?

http://geraldschroeder.com/wordpress/?page_id=211
Posted by grateful, Thursday, 16 June 2016 5:35:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd advise people to start reading from Genesis. That gives the Gospels more of a background and context for understanding.

Yusutsu,
Why quote Scripture to me when you've previously suggested I shouldn't put my confidence in the Scriptures?

You encourage me with a Psalm to 'trust the Lord'. I already do trust the Lord. I trust him to tell the truth. Is there anything better for building trust?

P.S. Please state if you're man or woman. Both AJ and I are having to guess which pronoun to use for you. To quote a line, 'In the beginning he made them male and female.'
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 16 June 2016 6:29:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grateful: "Believe in God in Five Minutes (Scientific Proof)" by Gerald Schroeder constitutes evidence in their eyes?

I don't feel it proves that there is a God.

The first Law of Energy is that it cannot be created or destroyed just changed from one form to another.

The Theory is that after the Big Bang comes the big Crunch, after the Big Crunch comes the another Big Bang, ad infinite. There are mini Big Bangs with-in this current ones These form The Elements. When Stars die they go Bang, or Supernova & there are some really big Stars. Our sun is not a very big Sun compared to others like R136a1 which has 256 times the Mass of our Sun or UY Seuti which has a Radius 1700 time our Sun.

Our Sun is only a Yellow Dwarf with a Diameter of 4345230 Kilometers. That's 109 times the Diameter of the Earth. Now if you want to talk about big. UY Seuti has a Diameter of 14,773,782,000 Kilometers. That's 37060 Earths across its face. This is all just in our Galaxy which is rather small compared to others out there. Another interesting fact, if you took all the Planets in our Solar System & put them between Earth & our Moon you would fall about 10% short.

So Earth itself is very insignificant in Reality. Where does man stand in all this? Totally insignificant & not really worth a God even thinking about.
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 16 June 2016 8:19:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful,

This Schroeder character appears to claim that God is the nothingness outside space and time because, allegedly, something can come from (this) nothing provided you have quantum physics and the laws of relativity which, together, supposedly fit the Bible's description of God; that being:

1. not physical;
2. able to act on the physical;
3. created the physical from nothing, and;
4. predates the universe.

Firstly, I don’t know much at all about quantum physics. No-one really does. But even assuming that he’s right about quantum physics and relativity being able to produce something from nothing, he can’t know that these predate the universe. No-one knows what predates the universe. It may not even make sense to ask the question. It could be like asking, “What’s north of North?” As far as I know, the laws of physics break down once you get to the singularity that the universe began from.

But even if we were to grant that this Schroeder character's scientific claims are right, what’s to say that it’s not a co-incidence that the attributes of his "laws of nature" fit the Bible’s description of God? I mean, not even a sheep-herder from ancient times is going to invent a god that can’t act on the physical or that doesn’t predate the universe. Explaining unknowns, such as natural disasters and the origins of everything, was, after all, one of the main purposes for inventing gods.

I’d like to know how the fact that we’re here proves that this god is active in the universe now, too. Now that’s a non sequitur if I ever heard one.

Sorry, grateful, but this supposed evidence for a god is simply terrible. Is there anything you could perhaps add that I might have missed or misunderstood?

By the way, the irony of you providing a link to a guy claiming that the Bible’s description of God helps to prove his existence, when your authority on the Qur’an’s scientific accuracy claims that the Qur’an is the more scientifically accurate of the two, hasn’t escaped me.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 16 June 2016 9:00:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

<<Why quote Scripture to me when you've previously suggested I shouldn't put my confidence in the Scriptures?>>

I would never make such a suggestion - I am happy that you have confidence in the Scriptures.

Perhaps what you refer to was my fear that you could lose this confidence? I hope it never happens, but since you are playing with fire here, this is a possibility. Should it ever come to that, I encourage you to still trust God and remain on His side, even if you are no longer able to trust the Scriptures.

<<You encourage me with a Psalm to 'trust the Lord'. I already do trust the Lord. I trust him to tell the truth.>>

And may you always know the truth in your heart of hearts by the grace of the Holy Spirit. There is no truth other than God.

There is however a difference between truth and mere facts.
God is not there to feed our curiosity and addiction to facts.

<<Is there anything better for building trust?>>

There are many things that help people to build trust in the Lord, including charity, purity, introspection, prayer and austerities.

The very best among them is the company of saints. As not everyone is fortunate enough to have that, the next-best is to keep the good company of the righteous and faithful and to read or listen to the Scriptures.

However, attempting to correlate between Scripture and facts is an offence against faith and will not help you to build this trust.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 16 June 2016 10:31:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ Why do you refer to Schroeder as a "character"?

According to Antony Flew, Schoeder's arguments were instrumental in turning him away from atheism to theism. You have heard of Antony Flew haven't you?
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 18 June 2016 12:10:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ: <<By the way, the irony of you providing a link to a guy claiming that the Bible’s description of God helps to prove his existence, when your authority on the Qur’an’s scientific accuracy claims that the Qur’an is the more scientifically accurate of the two, hasn’t escaped me.>>

It hasn't? Let's explore this. I noticed that Dan also suggested we read the account of Genesis, so perhaps some comparisons across texts might be useful.
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 18 June 2016 12:30:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For the same reason I referred to Bucaille as a "character", grateful.

<<Why do you refer to Schroeder as a "character"?>>

Because just referring to him by surname has too much of a formal ring to it; an air of respect that he doesn't deserve given the stupidity of his claims.

I was going to say "joker", but I thought that might be laying it on a little too thick. Schroeder did enough damage to his own credibility "in five minutes" without me having to add to it.

<<According to Antony Flew, Schoeder's arguments were instrumental in turning him away from atheism to theism.>>

So instead of addressing my rebuttals to this Schroeder character, you’re going to fallaciously appeal to an authority by mentioning Antony Flew and his acceptance of this Schroeder character’s arguments? Sheesh. You’re not even trying anymore, are you?

But, yes. Poor ol’ Flew. Seems he starting losing his marbles towards the end there. He rejected the idea of an afterlife, so it’s not like he was ‘cramming for the finals’ or anything.

The guy, who was brilliant enough to coin the No True Scotsman fallacy and understand that the problem of evil means that an omniscient god cannot exist, decided that he was a Deist with no justification other than the God of the Gaps fallacy.

Very sad indeed.

So yes, there’s the answer to your question. I do know of Flew. Many atheists do. You lot make damn sure of that. He is, after all, about the only famous conversion story you’ve got involving a prominent scientist.

<<I noticed that Dan also suggested we read the account of Genesis, so perhaps some comparisons across texts might be useful.>>

Oh, we haven’t gotten that far yet. You still need to establish the existence of a god first, then we’d need to find out if the Abrahamic god is the one true god. Only then will comparing the accuracy of Islam and Christianity be anything more than a sheer waste of time.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 18 June 2016 2:55:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ you are degrading anyone who poses a threat to your point of view. Why? Why not make an argument rather than denigrate the person?
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 18 June 2016 4:05:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful,

I have presented arguments against the reasoning and arguments of those with whom I disagree, in order to justify my pointing out of their stupidity. To do otherwise would be to commit the ad hominem fallacy, and I don't do fallacies, sorry.

You, on the other hand, have focused only on my "denigrating", presumably to avoid addressing my counter-arguments.

Now that, if anything, is fallacious.

My point of view is not under threat either, by the way. If it turns out that I'm wrong, then so be it. I'll simply change my mind. As an atheist, I have no reason to cling to my position as, unlike the theists' position, nothing is at stake.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 18 June 2016 7:56:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Grateful,

I once had the privilege to hear a lecture by Gerald Schroeder in person.

To summarise, he pointed at something with the following 4 properties:

1. Non physical.
2. Acts on the physical.
3. Created the physical from nothing.
4. Predates the universe.

That put together, he claims, is the Biblical Definition of God, with the conclusion that "science has indeed discovered the Biblical God".

---

Well first, I read the bible and I don't recall God being defined anywhere. Not that this is possible anyway, but I cannot even find anywhere in the bible an attempt to define God. Can you?

Second, Schroeder's god is not non-physical: it's just external to this particular universe.

Third, Schroeder's god is not immutable: previously (in some external, non-relative sense of time), before the universe was created, he was not a Creator, but later he BECAME a Creator. Further, Schroeder's god is affected by the actions of man: when man for example invented trains, Schroeder's god suddenly became the primordial cause for the existence of trains, which he previously wasn't.

Fourth, Schroeder doesn't mention consciousness, only matter.

Fifth, Schroeder provides no reason why his god ought to be worshipped, why it is good to do so.

Only objects can be defined, which is why all attempts to define God are bound to fail.

One ought to love God with all one's heart, with all one's soul and with all one's means - not to try to understand and analyse God as if He were a mere object.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Saturday, 18 June 2016 9:06:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jayb wrote:
<<I don't feel it proves that there is a God.>>

I don't like the expression "prove" either. Its more about saying that there are passages in the Bible that are not inconsistent with science, which of course does not address the issue of other passages which are inconsistent with science (such as creation of the universe in a period of 7 days and the sequential creation of the sun then earth, etc).

I came across this Christian website drawing upon science to put the case for fine-tuning. Its quite long, but worth a read. IT concludes:

Informed scientists now universally recognise that the Universe is exquisitely finely tuned to allow the coming into being of intelligent life.
The only reasonable debate is whether this is due to:
1. A Loving Ultimate Creator (the universe was designed by God !)
2. An extraordinary coincidence (No self-respecting scientist champions this idea because the odds against it makes winning the lotto like a sure thing)
3. There exists an infinity of "other Universes" in which the constants are different (and we are so lucky to be living in the universe with the "right constants").

Note that none of the choices 1, 2 and 3 are scientific - science deals with observable and repeatable phenomenon.

Choice 2 is the least logical - it's just as scientific as playing a mega lotto (something like picking 100 numbers between 1 and 1,000,000 and win with your first ticket)... Talking about "against all odds".... - further reading: "Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe", Martin Rees - Here is a summary: click here

Choice 3 is an "onthological (a priori) argument" - since we already know the universe that we live in provides all the necessary molecules to support life, therefore there must be a "logical explanation" for it. And one of the possible logical explanation is the "theory" that there are infinite number of universes and we are so lucky to live in the right one.

cont...
Posted by grateful, Sunday, 19 June 2016 2:19:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful,

Oh dear! You’re not resorting to the fine-tuning argument now, are you?

And poor Jayb. Why subject him specifically to it? I'm at least used to it.

I watched your video, now watch this video that thoroughly debunks the ridiculous fine-tuning argument:

http://youtu.be/_jU42uC9vag?t=3259

I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. Watch that and let us take it from there. That should lead to a more productive discussion.

Yuyutsu,

Wow, what a co-incidence!

<<I once had the privilege to hear a lecture by Gerald Schroeder in person. To summarise, he pointed at something with the following 4 properties:>>

Why, they’re exactly the same four properties that I just listed two days ago! (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#325077)

Seriously though, that's taking your snubbing of me a little too far. You don’t need to keep making a point of it. I got it after your passive-aggressively timed response to Rhian earlier (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324707).

I realise you're probably still traumatised after our last marathon discussion (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579&page=0#199366). That’s why I understood your choice of wording when you mentioned “playing with fire”, and took it as a compliment. But please, it's just getting ridiculous now.

Obviously you're still reading my posts. Your pretending that I don't exist won't make me go away. It just makes discrediting your unfounded claims all the more easier since we don't have to go through a tiresome back-and-forth to prove my point. Your silence alone does it for me.

Where and when was it that you saw this Schroder character give a presentation on the four points that I co-incidentally highlighted too? Because I have my doubts that this presentation ever happened.

You do raise an interesting point that I hadn’t gotten around to mentioning, though, and that is that I too cannot remember where the Bible actually describes God in such a way. It’s just assumed by Christians.
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 19 June 2016 4:07:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ: << Oh dear! You’re not resorting to the fine-tuning argument now, are you?>>

No, just exploring what happens when we assume and then seek to refute the hypothesis of no god.

AJ: << I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. Watch that and let us take it from there. That should lead to a more productive discussion.>>

The anonymous author of this video objects to the probability argument on the grounds that we have only a “sample of one”. He also speaks of the possibility of multi-universes. He is suggesting that if and until we can collect are more reliable sample of universes we have to accept the hypothesis that the current universe has produced life not by design but by chance. Indeed, if there were an infinite number of universes being created by the nature laws, then it becomes a realistic possibility that the exact configuration of constants that we believe is required for life can occur.

The problem with this argument is firstly where is the evidence that there is an infinite number of universes? Secondly, if there are an infinite number of universes, one needs to demonstrate that the occurrence of life is sufficiently small so as to reject the hypothesis of design.

Finally, even if we were to accept an infinite number of universes of which we are the one instance of life, this still does not explain laws of nature governing the creation of the universe.

We could add another one. We are speaking of life. What about intelligent life involving the creation of a single thought or perhaps a sonnet? Any videos dealing with question?

Finally, what about free-will? Is it a delusion?
Posted by grateful, Sunday, 19 June 2016 3:33:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

Neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis are stupid. However, they are formed by their culture. One reason Gandhi got as far as he did was that satyagraha was part of the Indian culture. Non-violence to some degree is part of every culture. In appropriate cases it has worked even against the Nazis.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/jorgen-johansen/hitler-and-challenge-of-non-violence tells of an occasion where non-violence worked in 1943 in Nazi Berlin.

If both the Israelis and Palestinians had been devoted to non-violence they could have formed one state in 1948 rather than being partitioned by the UN.

Both Judaism and Islam have a tradition of non-violence. However, it is not as known among those groups as it is in the Indian society.

https://centerforjewishnonviolence.org/ tells about a centre for Jewish non-violence. From that site:

“Just as other traditions around the world draw from their heritage to engage in nonviolent resistance to oppression, so too do we look within our own tradition for inspiration, from Shifra and Puah’s noncooperation with Pharoah’s instruction to slay Hebrew baby boys to Honi the Circle Maker’s insistence that “he shall not be moved” until the rains fall from the sky.”

“As Jews from around the world, we are implicated by the actions of the Israeli government when it claims to act in the name of all Jews. When our name and our religion is being used in ways that we disagree with and in ways that contradict international law, it is our responsibility to speak out.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e85OG3J2gsY tells about Palestinian non-violence. From that site:

“Taghyeer Movement advances non-violence as the foundation of a Palestinian national identity and core value of Palestinian state building. Informed by the civic transformation achieved by Mhatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela, Taghyeer Movement is organizing a network of Palestinian community activists and leaders. Participants in Taghyeer are committed to a non-violent end of the occupation and peaceful community building. Embracing Palestinian values and culture, we transcend the narrative of victimization, nurturing peace, Palestinian independence, and mutual security with our neighbors.

If both groups can gain enough followers there will be peace.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 19 June 2016 5:03:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And straight off the bat, grateful, you start with the ad hominem fallacy.

<<The anonymous author of this video…>>

The fact that YouTuber, AndromedasWake, hasn’t given his name says nothing about the validity of his arguments.

<<…objects to the probability argument on the grounds that we have only a “sample of one”.>>

Yes. Not to mention all the other problems with the fine-tuning argument that he was willing to let creationists have in order to get to the more fundamental problem of only having a sample size of one.

As someone who works in a mysterious field involving strange statistical methods, even you should have some idea of just how fatal that is to the fine-tuning argument.

<<He is suggesting that if and until we can collect are more reliable sample of universes we have to accept the hypothesis that the current universe has produced life not by design but by chance.>>

He doesn’t suggest that at all. Where did talk of design or accepting any sort of hypothesis come into it?

<<The problem with this argument is firstly where is the evidence that there is an infinite number of universes?>>

The author of the video never claimed that there is an infinite number or universes. Nor did his argument rely on such an assumption.

<<Secondly, if there are an infinite number of universes, one needs to demonstrate that the occurrence of life is sufficiently small so as to reject the hypothesis of design.>>

No, that’s the Switching of the Burden of Proof fallacy again. The onus is on those claiming that the universe is designed to demonstrated that. Furthermore, how could one ever determine what “sufficiently small” is?

<<Finally, even if we were to accept an infinite number of universes…>>

You’re still stuck on multiple universes. You didn’t absorb much at all of what was being said in the video, did you?

<<What about intelligent life involving the creation of a single thought or perhaps a sonnet?>>

What about it?

<<Finally, what about free-will? Is it a delusion?>>

It may only be an illusion. I don’t know. Why?
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 19 June 2016 5:16:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

I agree, nice thoughts, though you posted your last comment under the wrong article.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 20 June 2016 8:47:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful,

Since I have some posts up my sleeve, I figure I might try to nip this in the bud. This is getting boring. You seem to have lost puff and Yuyutsu’s behaviour has just become plain bizarre. It’s interesting to witness the variety of responses to cognitive dissonance, however.

For most of my days as a theist, the internet wasn’t around, so it was easy to remain blissfully ignorant when one was surrounded by the on-tap misinformation that circulates church congregations. Fact-finding was a lot harder when one had to go to the library and trawl hundreds of books. As soon as I was exposed to facts (or “fire”, as Yuyutsu would put it) de-conversion naturally flowed from there. Nowadays, there are no excuses and it fascinates me to see the variety of defence mechanisms employed to protect the belief. It’s as though the belief takes on a life of its own and hijacks its host’s ability to process information.

Take your interpretation of the video I linked to, for example. A passing mention is made of the fact that only with an infinite number of universes could we hope to approach a probability of 1 for intelligent life evolving, and you somehow think that the problem of only having a sample size of one hinges on that passing comment made three minutes earlier in the video.

That’s gobsmacking.

I’ve watched the video multiple times since yesterday, racking my brain as to how your religious belief hijacked your cognitive processes to feed you such a strange interpretation of what was said, and I’ve come up empty-handed.

Do you actually hear different words to what is being said, I wonder?

Anyway, I hope you enjoy your testing of your no-god hypothesis. It’s a pity you didn’t test the god hypothesis before accepting Islam. You probably wouldn’t be in this mess if you had. You do statistics back-to-front in this strange industry you’re in. In every other industry, one would start with a null hypothesis to test relationships between two or more variables, not to fallaciously switch the burden of proof.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 20 June 2016 10:51:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ: "Since I have some posts up my sleeve, I figure I might try to nip this in the bud. This is getting boring. You seem to have lost puff and Yuyutsu’s behaviour has just become plain bizarre. It’s interesting to witness the variety of responses to cognitive dissonance, however."

Yuyutsu, i think AJ is trying to exit with one last set of character assignations. The whole post is an ad hominium argument and fails to address the issue.

He knows when he's licked and he's spat the dummy in a puerile display characteristic of "New Atheists" such as Dawkins and Harris (to distinguish them from those atheist who are truly committed to following the evidence wherever it may lead). Just look at the video to see just how childish these people can be.

Bye AJ
Posted by grateful, Monday, 20 June 2016 6:14:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My guess is that once AJ read my reference to "sonnet" he realised the game was up. Here is the full reference:

<<The complexity of the genetic code led Flew to believe that the origin of life required a ‘creative intelligence’.

Flew was particularly impressed with a physicist’s refutation of the idea that monkeys at typewriters would eventually produce a Shakespearean sonnet. The likelihood of getting one Shakespearean sonnet by chance is one in 10^690; to put this number in perspective, there are only 10^80 particles in the universe. Flew concludes:
‘If the theorem won’t work for a single sonnet, then of course it’s simply absurd to suggest that the more elaborate feat of the origin of life could have been achieved by chance’ (p. 78).

Flew was also critical of Dawkins’s ‘selfish gene’ idea, pointing out that ‘natural selection does not positively produce anything. It only eliminates, or tends to eliminate, whatever is not competitive’ (p. 78). He called Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene ‘a major exercise in popular mystification’, and argued that Dawkins made the critical mistake of overlooking the fact that most observable traits in organisms are the result of the coding of many genes (p. 79).>>
http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew

Antony Flew is regarded as the 20th century’s most influential atheist thinker, Antony Flew, who announced in 2004 that he accepted the existence of a God based on the scientific evidence

cont...
Posted by grateful, Monday, 20 June 2016 6:16:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont..

This is how AJ responded to just a mention of Antony Flew's name:

<<But, yes. Poor ol’ Flew. Seems he starting losing his marbles towards the end there. He rejected the idea of an afterlife, so it’s not like he was ‘cramming for the finals’ or anything.

The guy, who was brilliant enough to coin the No True Scotsman fallacy and understand that the problem of evil means that an omniscient god cannot exist, decided that he was a Deist with no justification other than the God of the Gaps fallacy.

Very sad indeed.>>

Ad hominen, ad hominen, ad hominen through and through.

Jayb, don't waste your life mixing with such people. AJ was just as condescending to you as the rest of us...and you've been cheering him on!
Posted by grateful, Monday, 20 June 2016 6:17:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I explained earlier, grateful, my criticisms of others only ever follow a discrediting of their arguments. I don't just engage in "character assassination" for the sake of it or to divert attention or avoid addressing the arguments of others as you have on numerous occasions.

If you could point to an instance of myself employing the ad hominem fallacy, then I will gladly acknowledge it and walk away with my tail between my legs.

No? Didn't think so.

<<My guess is that once AJ read my reference to "sonnet" he realised the game was up.>>

Well that was a bad guess then, because I had no idea what you were on about. I've only heard the analogy that refers to Hamlet.

<<The complexity of the genetic code led Flew to believe that the origin of life required a ‘creative intelligence’.>>

Our genes aren't codes. It's all just chemical. We impose codes on them so that we can make sense of them.

<<Flew was particularly impressed with a physicist’s refutation of the idea that monkeys at typewriters would eventually produce a Shakespearean sonnet.>>

The problem being, of course, that our DNA didn't form by random chance like that. It was guided by natural selection and Flew should have known this. Thus my comment with regards to Flew losing his mind was justified.

<<Antony Flew is regarded as the 20th century’s most influential atheist thinker, Antony Flew, who announced in 2004 that he accepted the existence of a God based on the scientific evidence>>

Do you understand what "Argument from Authority" means?

Anyway, it's unfortunate to see you leave in a huff.

Again.

Yet another response to cognitive dissonance. Interesting to observe, but ultimately disappointing.

Perhaps another time?
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 20 June 2016 6:46:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu wrote:<<Dear David,I agree, nice thoughts, though you posted your last comment under the wrong article.>>

I'd like to second that :-).

Yuyutsu wrote: <<One ought to love God with all one's heart, with all one's soul and with all one's means - not to try to understand and analyse God as if He were a mere object.>>

Absolutely. But i think you're being overly critical in your 5 points. At issue for Schroeder (who comes from the Jewish tradition) is whether the account in the Bible is compatible with science.

Of course from the perspective of a Muslim the real issue is whether the Quran is correct in stating the Torah and Injil were originally the Word of God but were subsequently corrupted. The changes may well have been well-intentioned but the result nevertheless would have been the same: some or many parts of these scriptures may be the word of God, but others not.

So without having read all of Schroeder's works, it may be that he (and others) ignore those parts that are not compatible with science or even the God of Abrahamic tradition.

For example, the universe being created in 6 days, with God resting on the 7th could be explained by a desire to encourage Jews to observe the Sabbath. Yet it is not compatible with science nor a God that is beyond any need.

Any thoughts from others, particularly the Christians?
Posted by grateful, Monday, 20 June 2016 6:54:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well I'm glad to see that your foot-stamping only lasted around ten minutes, grateful. Welcome back.

Stepping back into my Christian shoes, I would have to say that I would have probably sided with Dan on this one. The Christian god, as I knew him, was a God that wanted a relationship his creations and had an important message for them, and such a god would not stuff about by being cryptic.

This goes back to the two possibilities that I mentioned earlier. At first, it wasn't so much that I stopped believing in a god, it's more that I acknowledged that such a god wasn't interested in revealing himself to me in any way that a belief in him could be rationally justified, and so I didn't bother with him anymore.

As for scriptural corruption, my opinion was that the Qur'an is a corruption of the true scriptures. An inevitably, as I saw it, given that the Qur'an was around 600 years younger. A longer distance in time from the actual events.

As far as I was concerned, the Bible was Star Wars and the Qur’an was Spaceballs.

How do Muslims reconcile the fact that the Qur'an is the more accurate account given that it's so much younger?
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 20 June 2016 7:45:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grateful: Jayb, don't waste your life mixing with such people. AJ was just as condescending to you as the rest of us...and you've been cheering him on!

Actually, I agree with AJ.

Grateful: For example, the universe being created in 6 days, with God resting on the 7th could be explained by a desire to encourage Jews to observe the Sabbath.

I see you agree with "Mans" influence on Sacred Books. Even the Koran?

All the Sacred Books were written with the express purpose of advancing some "Order" into the lives of early peoples from about 8000 BC on, when Man started to settle down into permanent Villages & move away from a Hunter Gatherer lifestyle. There obviously had to be some "Rules" for living in close proximity to each other. Someone had to take charge & what better person than "Gods" to back up the Chief/Headman/Sharman. Sort of, "I'm in Charge here, The Gods are on my side."

The "Rules" were important for the Peace & Good Governance in these early Villages. These "Rules" grew into Religion. Different Villages/Peoples, different Gods. Then came the Warfare over whose God was more powerful, or just who won the Battle which was really over Land, Possessions & Power/Control over people.

In 11000 years nothing has really changed. It really still over Land, Possessions & Power/Control over people. Nothing to do with non-existent Super Entity, Aka, God.

Except some very naive people really by into the non-existent Super Entity, Aka, God, thing.
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 20 June 2016 7:57:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Grateful,

The Torah could still be the Word of God even if it is factually incorrect and even if it contains internal contradictions.

Bear in mind that the people at the time when the Torah and most other scriptures were written, did not have a notion of objective science like we have today.

In those days' terms, it was not considered a lie to say things that contradicted physical evidence (it was however considered a lie to say "I didn't take it" when you did).

God is not a television set - He is not there to bring you news and documentaries. The "Word of God" as I understand it, is that word which will direct you toward Him. If the Genesis Creation story inspires one to observe the Sabbath, thus take regular time off work to devote to prayer and contemplation/meditation, then we have every justification to call it "The Word of God".

Due to the passage of time and differences in culture, it may well be that the Torah no longer works in the way it used to, but that doesn't change its original divine purpose.

When I was young and scientifically-inclined, I was astonished to read of two presumably-enlightened Tibetan Lamas playing chess. I wondered: since they are both enlightened, they would know everything including who will win, they can foresee all the moves, so why are they playing?

I had the fortune to ask a saint for a personal advice on a particular issue. Some information in his loving reply, I later discovered, was factually incorrect, yet by following his advice I benefited and done the right thing, which I probably wouldn't otherwise. Since that, I learned my lesson on what counts and what is of no consequence. My question about the chess-playing Lamas dissolved as well: knowledge of God is not knowledge of facts.

My criticism of Schroeder is for trying to force rational people to believe in God. The delicate plant of faith needs to grow organically: if you pull it up to try helping it grow, then it will lose its roots.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 20 June 2016 10:04:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

You still haven’t mentioned when you had the privilege of seeing this Schroder character. It didn’t happen, did it? Just as the field that grateful works in doesn’t exist.

Why is it that you religious folk are so okay with telling porkies? It seems to be a real sickness, and the fact that I wasn’t alright with doing that myself seems to be the difference between my de-conversion story and the story of yours and grateful’s continued clinging to religious faith. That’s evident in his offensively skewed version of events regarding this discussion. I understand that some on OLO consider the pointing out of lies as abuse, and I appreciate that, I really do, but I simply don’t know how else it can be described when it’s so overt.

(If anyone has some advice, then I’d appreciate it.)

Does it not occur to either of you that the fact that your god supposedly requires you to tell untruths means that he doesn’t exist?

Jayb,

Just so you know, and since grateful raises the point, my, “And poor Jayb. Why subject him specifically to it?”, was not meant to be condescending towards you or suggest an inability on your behalf to deal with grateful’s bogus and fallacious claims. I can see now how it may have appeared that way.

(The way in which these people twist one’s meaning makes it impossible to open one’s mouth without having some sort of sinister interpretation extracted from it somehow.)

I’m just so used to having theists speak to me through other people nowadays that I (perhaps too often) presume that posts addressed to other people are actually addressed to me. It sometimes happens when they find they cannot answer a particular argument and respond to me through a post to other people. Perhaps in the hope that I don’t tear the argument down in that particular instance, while still maintaining the illusion that what I have said has been addressed adequately? I’m not sure. Yuyutsu does it sometimes, though.

Either way, I didn’t mean to underestimate you. Sorry if it sounded like that.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 20 June 2016 10:51:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ: Just so you know, and since grateful raises the point,

It's OK. I got that in the first instance & Yutsie Ok too providing he hasn't been spending time in the Incense Room.

What I find strange is that Theists claim that "Only their Holy Book" is the Word of "The True God."

The Sectarians, of any Religion, are not fighting for Authenticity, but for Power over the People (money) As in the case's of the Catholic Church verses Protestantism, Sunnies verses Shia, Hindus verses Sikhs, etc,.

I like to get back to the beginning/start of things. Even as a kid I pulled thing apart just to see how they worked. I have attempted to do that with Religion, as opposed to Gods (see my earlier Posts) to explore where the concept originated in the mind of Man. I believe I have mostly succeeded in that quest.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 21 June 2016 7:54:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jayb wrote: <<The "Rules" were important for the Peace & Good Governance in these early Villages. These "Rules" grew into Religion. Different Villages/Peoples, different Gods. Then came the Warfare over whose God was more powerful, or just who won the Battle which was really over Land, Possessions & Power/Control over people.>>

Jayb, for the Muslims the Qu’ran is itself a miracle and a sign pointing to the existence of God.

To get a feel for why, the following link provides the recitation, along with a translation of Surah Maryam verses 1 to 21 (6:50 minutes).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euqv3p0HFYs

In these versus, particularly from 16 to 36 onwards ( from the 3:05 to 8:15 minute marks), the Qur’an tells the story of Maryam, how she went into seclusion, the conception of Jesus, the birth pains she experienced, how she was accused by her community of being unchaste and the response that came from her new born son, Jesus.

This is for all the Christians out there.

A second point: the Qur’an itself declares that it will be preserved, uncorrupted by man. This opens the Qur’an up to refutation in the sense that if you can prove that there has been tampering, then it follows it cannot be the word of God. I’m not asking you to try but only giving an example of the level of certitude that the Qur’an offers Muslims (that it is the word of god).

After listening to the verses consider how you would explain the qur’an as anything but the word of God. If it was so easy why hasn’t someone been able to produce something similar? Why is it unique, one of a kind? Or is it? I'm open to discussion based on the evidence.

We can always return to what science has to offer in terms of evidence for a creator unless you want to explore this topic further.
Posted by grateful, Tuesday, 21 June 2016 6:25:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,
You ask the question, what is the evidence for there being a God, and want to start from a presumption that there is no god. Well, that is one perspective to start from.

Don Batten is looking at a different (but related) question; investigating origins. He puts it like this (in his own words):

"Note that when it comes to the origin of things there are three possibilities:
1. They always existed. This can be ruled out for the origin of life and species (but also the universe.)
2. They made themselves
3. They were created

That leaves two possibilities. Evolution is the materialists’ myth about how things made themselves. If the materialist explanation of origins is shown to be inadequate, then that leaves creation [or vice versa]. Creationists did not invent this line of reasoning; evolutionists have been using it since Darwin. The modern day hero of God-haters, Richard Dawkins, uses the argument all the time. For example, he argues that the human eye is badly designed, so therefore it could not have been created by an omnipotent Creator; it must have evolved (the details of how are sidestepped)."

AJ, you claim that God is not being rational, or that he "wasn't interested in revealing himself to me in any way that belief in him could be rationally justified." I would suggest that the fault in your logic is that you've put yourself at the centre of it. God is not revealing himself "to me". Yet the evidence is there, and is sufficiently rational and convincing, at least to others, such as Flew. As in the present article, Batten quotes Flew, “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.”

Batten elaborates -

"The problem of how early biochemical processes led to an organism is further from solution than ever and gets more difficult every day. More knowledge just adds to the evidence that life could never form itself.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 21 June 2016 9:51:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(cont...)

"Take for example, the research into what could constitute the minimal first cell. This has consistently shown that the first cell is more complex than anyone wanting to believe in abiogenesis ever believed. 480 proteins (+) are essential. Do you know that not even one of these proteins could ever form, even in the whole universe, even with 14 billion years?
(See the calculations here, http://creation.com/who-created-god
and the admissions of evolutionists here, http://creation.com/origin-of-life).

"If this does not provide sufficient evidence for you that life could never make itself (the problem is insoluble for the materialist), then it shows that no amount of evidence would convince you. I would debate this issue on any university campus. Evolutionists are lately trying to say that the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution because they haven’t the foggiest idea how life could have made itself." - Don Batten.

-

Rhian,
You say that if the Great Flood was an historical event, then you would expect this would be physically evident to geologists and biologists. I agree. And it is evident to many. Yet all evidence is interpreted through a framework of understanding, or paradigm. Evidence must be viewed and argued. It doesn't just speak for itself.

Similar with evidence for a 'young' universe, you say astronomers should see evidence. They do. Take, for example, the disintegration of comets. From this we expect comets should have a relatively short shelf life. So why haven't they extinguished themselves over the vast ages? Long age believers adjust their theories to suit their philosophical outlook, often despite the evidence, not because of it. 'Earth made itself over long ages' (evolution) happens to be the current dominant philosophical paradigm.

David F says the only way to interpret the astronomical evidence is with the Big Bang. Yet certain acclaimed astronomers such as Halton Arp see it otherwise. In the decades to come, we look forward to hearing many different proposals as to how to explain the evident red shift and other measurable phenomena.
(cont...)
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 21 June 2016 9:55:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Rhian cont ...)
The main problem I had with your last post was the overriding impression you gave that, in science, the majority must be right. Yet I'm sure even you could give examples from the history of science where things scientists had assumed to be true and unquestioned have later been demonstrated false. But you use the word 'consensus', which implies the idea of general agreement. What percentage does it take to make or break a 'consensus'? 1% or 51% or something else? I put it to you that when it comes to biological, geological, or astronomical research into origins, there is no consensus; there is only minority and majority views. There are plenty of dissenters for every theory.

When it comes to the Noah's Flood, I put to you (again) certain evidences, which anyone can see, if you are prepared to look at the evidence with the right perspective, or prepared to wear an alternative set of glasses (paradigm).

"Geomorphology is a subfield of geology which specializes in studying and explaining the shape of the earth’s surface—its mountain ranges, plateaus, and plains. It includes study of small-scale features such as hills, valleys, slopes, and canyons. Although we all see and enjoy the beauty of the mountains, rivers, and valleys of the earth, it is amazing how difficult it is for secular science to explain their origin. Their difficulty arises because they begin with an incorrect assumption about what happened in the past. They reject the biblical Flood and assume uniformitarianism, which insists the earth’s rocks, fossils, and surface features may only be explained using present slow-and-gradual processes over millions of years.

"Elevated flat-topped landforms such as plateaus and mesas are no less difficult for the uniformitarian to explain.

"The Genesis Flood clears up these apparent mysteries. The majority of the erosion and deposition of the Earth’s surface took place during the runoff of the Flood water, when the mountains and continents rose and the ocean basins sank. The water first flowed as wide currents during the Abative Phase.
(cont...)
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 21 June 2016 10:00:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Then as more mountains and plateaus were exposed above the Flood water, the water was forced to channelize around these obstacles. This later phase is called the Dispersive Phase.

"Erosion beyond anything we can imagine today scoured the Earth during Flood runoff. Landforms were first carved by the wide flows of the Abative Phase and then by the channelized flows of the Dispersive Phase. Rapidly-flowing, wide currents planed the surface flat and deposited hard, rounded rocks that were transported hundreds of kilometres from their source. Plateaus and mesas were created in two stages: first, the top sediments were planed flat by sheet flow. Then lower, channelized flow cut away surrounding sediments as the continents rose relative to sea level, and the ocean basins sank, causing the water level to drop. These landform remnants were thus isolated, and left with steep sides. Occasionally, tall inselbergs were spared from destruction [e.g.Uluru,] leaving them dotted over some planation surfaces. The eroded debris was swept off the continents and deposited where the currents slowed—in deep water at the continent margin, forming the continental shelf and slope.

"As the water became more channelized in the Dispersive Phase, valleys and vertically-walled canyons were rapidly carved. Some of these gorges cut down through rock that was soon to form mountain ranges, ridges, and plateaus. This explains how water gaps are often found today cutting through mountains and other high areas—in ways that make no sense to uniformitarian geomorphologists. Of course, in normal rivers and streams today, water always takes the easiest course—it never flows into mountains, but flows around them.

"Rapid, channelized currents flowed down valleys forming wide, flat pediments, capping them with rounded rocks. The channelized currents did not stop as they exited the continents, but were strong enough to cut deep submarine canyons into the newly deposited sediments on the continental margin.

"The Genesis Flood explains the ‘mysteries’ of geomorphology. And these ‘mysterious’ landforms are found worldwide, providing powerful confirmation that the Flood was global, as the Bible records." - Michael J. Oard.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 21 June 2016 10:03:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan S de Merengue,

You wrote: "The modern day hero of God-haters, Richard Dawkins, uses the argument all the time. For example, he argues that the human eye is badly designed, so therefore it could not have been created by an omnipotent Creator; it must have evolved (the details of how are sidestepped)."

Dear Dan,

Atheists do not hate God, tooth fairy, Zeus or Santa Claus. Why hate what does not exist?

Your statement above is false and reading “Climbing Mount Improbable” will tell you why it is false.

In “Climbing Mount Improbable” Dawkins describes the evolution of the eye in exquisite detail. Not only does Dawkins describe a scenario for the evolution of the eye from light sensitive cells, but he also supports every step in that scenario by citing actual creatures found to have light sensitive organs which are constructed as described.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/248764.Climbing_Mount_Improbable

"Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins

“The human eye is so complex and works so precisely that surely, one might believe, its current shape and function must be the product of design. How could such an intricate object have come about by chance? Tackling this subject in writing that the New York Times called "a masterpiece" Richard Dawkins builds a carefully reasoned and lovingly illustrated argument for evolutionary adaptation as the mechanism for life on earth.The metaphor of Mount Improbable represents the combination of perfection and improbability that is epitomized in the seemingly "designed" complexity of living things. Dawkins skillfully guides the reader on a breathtaking journey through the mountain's passes and up its many peaks to demonstrate that following the improbable path to perfection takes time. Evocative illustrations accompany Dawkins's eloquent descriptions of extraordinary adaptations such as the teeming populations of figs, the intricate silken world of spiders, and the evolution of wings on the bodies of flightless animals. And through it all runs the thread of DNA, the molecule of life, responsible for its own destiny on an unending pilgrimage through time. Climbing Mount Improbable is a book of great impact and skill, written by the most prominent Darwinian of our age.”
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 21 June 2016 10:46:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
HOW TO ARGUE LIKE AN ATHEIST DARWINIAN.
 
Step 1  Attempt to use experimental and observational science for your beliefs. Once that fails, we go to. ...
 
Step 2 Work with unobserved events and hypothetical assumptions. Once that fails,we go to... 

 Step 3 Extrapolate contrived historical theories you have no evidence for. Once that fails,we go to... 
 
Step 4 Attempt to say that like you the other side of the argument is "guessing the past". Once that fails we go too... 
 
Step 5 Claim that the universe came from nothing out of nowhere, that mud brought itself to life,turned mud into mind, goo into you via the zoo, and earth into Einstein, and that a monkey like ancestor “one day started talking”.  
 
Step 6  If a hurled squashed tomato hits you in the face, just assume the tomato made and hurled itself.  
 
If you can believe all that special creation by God is a comparative stroll in the park
Posted by johnheininger, Tuesday, 21 June 2016 11:45:11 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dsdm: Yet the evidence is there, and is sufficiently rational and convincing, at least to others,

Where? Don't point to the Bible. I've already explained that it is a Man Made Book written & added to , to control the Masses. It, the Torah, & the Koran have as much validity as "Alice & Wonderland."

dsdm: if you are prepared to look at the evidence with the right perspective, or prepared to wear an alternative set of glasses (paradigm).

What? a perspective that ignores Geology, The millions of years of the movement of Earths Crustal Plates & so on & so forth. Having fish fossils found on top of Mt. Everest only proves the movement of Earth Crustal Plates.

dsdm: The majority of the erosion and deposition of the Earth’s surface took place during the runoff of the Flood water, when the mountains and continents rose and the ocean basins sank. The water first flowed as wide currents during the Ablative Phase.

& all this happened in a few days? Yair right. If the waters were that high where did they run off to? To the Centre of the Earth maybe? Must remember to look for a big hole in the Earths surface next time I'm out & about or did it fill up with the mud runoff?

dsdm: ‘mysteries’ of geomorphology.

This is getting sillier & sillier.

David f: Atheists do not hate God, tooth fairy, Zeus or Santa Claus. Why hate what does not exist?

You can't hate something that doesn't exist. I certainly don't hat God Lovers. If that's their thing, so be it. It's Just that they try to shove their stupidity down everyone's throats & kill them if they don't play along with their stupidity. You don't get atheist's killing people for believing in a God, except in Communistic Countries like Nth. Korea.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 22 June 2016 10:27:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful,

I failed to mention earlier that, aside from being factually incorrect, Flew’s marvelling at the improbability of a sophisticated “code” like DNA forming by chance is the Argument from Incredulity. But since you were only citing someone else, I'm happy to leave your fallacy count at six.

Dan,

Disbelief isn’t just “one perspective to start from”, it’s the only reliable perspective to start from if one wants to help ensure that the conclusions that they reach are reliable.

As for Batten’s list of three possibilities, they are in all likelihood a false trichotomy where the universe is concerned. We simply don’t know enough to make that determination. Batten missed a fourth one that I just recently mentioned too: it may not make sense to ask. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#325077) With regards to life (and maybe the universe) there’s a fourth possibility that Batten failed to mention: they occurred naturally. "They created themselves" is an emotive caricature more suggestive of a desire to mock rather than engage in any sort of serious inquiry.

There are many plausible hypotheses that explain how life may have started, so Batten’s claim that no-one has a clue is simply false. A quick Google search will show this. Here’s one of the most plausible explanations to date: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE.

<<Evolution is the materialists’ myth about how things made themselves.>>

You are conflating evolution and abiogenesis. They are two different areas of science. The evidence for evolution is so strong that you could prove abiogenesis to be impossible and you still wouldn’t have disproved evolution.

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 22 June 2016 12:29:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…Continued

<<If the materialist explanation of origins is shown to be inadequate, then that leaves creation [or vice versa].>>

No, this is a false dichotomy.

<<Creationists did not invent this line of reasoning; evolutionists have been using it since Darwin.>>

Then they’re wrong. Although I’ve never heard that from those who accept evolution before.

<<[Dawkins] argues that the human eye is badly designed, so therefore it could not have been created by an omnipotent Creator; it must have evolved...">>

That’s not dismissing a third, fourth, or fifth possibility. It’s just ruling one out. And he's right too.

<<(the details of how [the eye evolved] are sidestepped)>>

No they're not, it's pretty much common knowledge for those of us who have investigated evolutionary biology beyond the pamphlets handed out at church. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye)

With regards to God revealing himself to me, there is no fault in my logic. If an eternity of torture is the consequence for not believing, then your god has an obligation to reveal himself to everyone, or remove his punishment. It’s that simple.

I wouldn’t be pointing to creationism as your evidence for a god either. There are no creationist arguments that withstand even the most cursory criticism, as evinced in this response of mine and many others in the past. The video I linked to above, for example, discredits the quotes of Batten that you provide. How am I supposed to trust the opinions of those who consistently make false analogies like the one describing a tornado assembling a 747, for example? All that proves is that they don't understand the sciences that they criticise.

As for Flew, I’ve already discredited the reasoning behind his deism in my discussion with grateful, so I’m not sure why you would bring him up.

johnheininger,

grateful and I have just gone through a lengthy discussion discrediting the nonsense you posted in that last contribution of yours. I’m sorry you missed it.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 22 June 2016 12:29:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Dan

I don’t think that in science the majority must be right. In fact, we would never have made scientific progress unless minority voices successfully challenged accepted wisdom. But if you are to challenge the majority opinion you must do it with scientifically credible evidence and argument. Young earth creationists don’t do this. They garble science to try to make it confirm to their preconceptions. The material you quote is a good example. In fact, geologists have no difficulty at all explaining the origins of plateaus and mesas.

http://www.scienceclarified.com/landforms/Ocean-Basins-to-Volcanoes/Plateau.html

And even if the majority scientific opinion is wrong on a particular issue, it doesn’t mean your alternative hypothesis is correct. The confluence of evidence that contradicts young earth creationism is so vast, and from such diverse sciences – astronomy, biology, geology – that the probability of all of them being wrong is infinitesimal.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 22 June 2016 1:05:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ATHEISM-EVOLUTION:IT HAPPENED ALL BY ITSELF, THEY SAID

http://thegodreality.org/tomato.htm
Posted by johnheininger, Wednesday, 22 June 2016 1:17:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Return to the article, Don Battan concludes his first section, "Origin of the Universe", with the following

<<"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). This is not magic, because God, who is eternal and omnipotent, is a sufficient cause for the universe. And He can exist eternally (and therefore has no beginning) because He is a non-material entity (God is spirit, as the Bible says in many places).>>

It appears that the fundamental weakness of the any materialist explanation of the beginning of the universe is that it relies upon laws of nature that it cannot explain.

Science cannot explain the laws of nature because logically they are independent of space-time and science can only offer explanations about space-time phenomena.

So logically science cannot offer an explanation of the "laws of nature".
Posted by grateful, Wednesday, 22 June 2016 6:03:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful,

That quote of Batten’s is special pleading. It’s fallacious, sorry. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading)

<<It appears that the fundamental weakness of the any materialist explanation of the beginning of the universe is that it relies upon laws of nature that it cannot explain.>>

Not necessarily. From a materialist point of view, one could also hold out for explanations that we may not yet have, or have no way of yet testing properly (e.g. string theory). Either way, the explanation is likely to be a naturalistic one, like Zeus's lightning bolts.

Inserting a god into the increasingly small gaps of our knowledge doesn’t explain anything. It's fallacious. A god has no explanatory power. It is mere temporising by pushing the question back a step, because then you need to explain where God came from.

I know, I know. God is eternal. You still need to demonstrate that, though. And if that’s not possible, then fine. All that would mean is that we’ll never know. It doesn’t give us a licence to just assert God’s existence.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 22 June 2016 6:49:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The issue of our time is not "Is it science", but rather to what extent mainstream science now lives in a surreal world of its own making far removed from reality.

I have no problems with a claim, hypothesis or any theory being proposed. That is what science and physics is all about. What concerns me the the current enforcement of a godless “philosophy” in the name of science: The imposition of the metaphysical RELIGIOUS dogma of atheistic SCIENTISM masquerading as science. The hard-core atheism of “philosophical” naturalism and godless materialism which is now being deceptively paraded as science is nothing more than metaphysical RELIGIOUS dogma. A religious dogma founded on unproven “blind faith” beliefs well beyond the testable and verifiable limits of science and physics. A growing number of scientists and philosophers now openly acknowledge this, including atheistic philosophers such as Thomas Nagel and Daniel Dennett. As admitted by Dennett in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, “There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination.”
Posted by johnheininger, Wednesday, 22 June 2016 8:28:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
johnheininger,

Dan Dennett rejects the notion of scientism as a straw man, and I agree with him:

http://youtu.be/6u3YXvDUqMc?t=104

Scientism is an -ism without any -ists. It’s a nonsense term used by people to stop others in their tracks when they become uncomfortable with science exploring an area that they don’t want it to, or feel that it shouldn’t. Throwing the term out there is a desperate attempt to censor others by invoking a metaphorical ghasp from the metaphorical audience followed by metaphorical murmurs of concern:

“Oh no! It’s scientism!”
“What’s scientism?!”
“I don’t know, but it doesn’t sound good.”

Science may have its limits. Science can’t disprove solipsism or Last Thursdayism, for example. But like with God, if you settle on ideas such as these, then there’s nowhere further you can go.

Science is all we have at the moment. Religion doesn’t answer anything, it merely asserts.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 23 June 2016 12:19:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's time you joined the real world! Dennett and his atheistic fellow travelers are up to his ears in atheistic SCIENTISM, masquerading as science.

The Carte blanc assertion that science can know and define the ultimate nature of reality now permeates mainstream science at every level, and in every field of science. That is what the bazaar quest for the godless ToE is all about. And reveals the extent to which the scientific world has been seduced by the hard-core atheism of “philosophical” naturalism and godless materialism.

Philosophical Naturalism is discredited. There is a major problem with this mindless atheistic religious premise: It is impossible for “finite” humanity with limited insights, knowledge and understanding define “infinity”, or even substantiate that the scientific world really knows, that they really know.

That the scientific world is naive enough to even engage in such an impossible quest beggars belief. Of course, scientists must always look for natural processes and causes to explain any observation or phenomena. That is what science and physics is all about. The scientific revolution was founded on the theistic premise that the universe is both rational and intelligible, because a rational and intelligent God created it. Without this initial premise it is impossible to do science.

However, when mainstream science abandoned the theistic scientific paradigm on which the pioneers of modern operated, and fully embraced the hard-core atheism of philosophical naturalism the scientific world entered a surreal world that was neither rational nor scientific. It is a world where the absurdities of atheistic “Scientism”, now rule.
Posted by johnheininger, Thursday, 23 June 2016 12:52:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful: Science cannot explain the laws of nature because logically they are independent of space-time and science can only offer explanations about space-time phenomena.

Neither than an invented God. This was primitive mans attempt to answer the question of where did this all come from. No science 80 thousand years ago so they inserted a mystical figure using the Term "God" as an explanation. It also helped to control the newly settled peoples around 8000 BC.

The fact of the matter is, we really don't know, but science is at least investigating the matter. Where-as Religion blindly accepts some mysterious phenomena know as "God." Most Religions have given up killing unbelievers but some haven't.
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 23 June 2016 8:30:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, johnheininger, “the real world”.

<<It's time you joined the real world! Dennett and his atheistic fellow travelers are up to his ears in atheistic SCIENTISM, masquerading as science.>>

I’m not the one here who has an invisible friend that is so insecure it demands to be worshipped and worries about what consenting adults do in their beds while leaving millions to starve to death. But hey, at least he helps you to find your car keys when you need them, right?

You can repeat and capitalise the word “scientism” all you like, it’s not going to make it any more of a legitimate concept.

<<There is a major problem with this mindless atheistic religious premise: ...>>

The irony of labelling atheism (or any non-religious methodologies/worldviews) a “religion”, as a slur, is always lost on you folk, isn't it?. Like “scientism”, it is emotive guff used to caricaturise beliefs that you perceive as a threat or an affront to the decreasingly-significant religious beliefs in a modern world.

<<The scientific revolution was founded on the theistic premise that the universe is both rational and intelligible, because a rational and intelligent God created it.>>

Oh yes, the ‘orderly creator’. So Christians’ belief in an orderly creator (it’s never explained why order for its own sake could not be enough) accidentally inspires some in pre-Darwinian times to investigate this orderly ‘creation’. Big deal. That says nothing about the truth of the Christian religion. Only that those who believed in it held a belief that, by pure fluke, turned out to be beneficial.

As they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

<<Without this initial premise it is impossible to do science.>>

There seems to be plenty of atheist scientists (who, unsurprisingly, make up the majority of scientists, by the way) that seem to manage just fine without the god element.

I’m sorry you feel so threatened by the ever-decreasing relevance of your religion. The plummeting numbers in church attendance probably don’t help either. But labelling naturalism a “religion”, in a stroke of unwitting irony, doesn’t help your case.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 23 June 2016 12:39:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Science cannot explain the laws of nature because science is limited to explaining things that exist in space-time. Space-time presupposes these laws (according to science). This is not a “gap” that science may conceivably traverse but something beyond science.

The question is whether we are pure products of space-time, or our bodies are the means by which souls experience choice.
In the latter case, the laws of nature would offer an environment of cause and effect, availing each of us the opportunity to learn the meaning of the remembrance of God by observing the results of our actions and reflecting on our intentions. God wants for us to love Him, not His creation, and to do so voluntary.

“It is by means of soul that man is the best of creations as it is by means of soul that man acquires knowledge of God and His attributes and by no other organs of the body. It is by means of the soul that man can go to the nearness of God and make efforts to realise Him. So soul is the king of the body and its different organs are its servants to carry out its orders and commands. It is accepted by God when it remains free from things other than God. When it is attached to things other than God, it drifts away from God. It is the soul which will be asked and rebuked. It becomes fortunate if it is purified and cleansed, and it becomes unfortunate if it is kept impure. It is the knowledge of the soul which is the root of the knowledge of God. When man does not know himself he does not know God” Ghazzali, Book of Destructive Evils, Chapter 1, Ihya ulum-id-din (The Book of Religious Learnings)
Posted by grateful, Thursday, 23 June 2016 11:35:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Grateful,

I am impressed by Ghazzali. Thank you.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 24 June 2016 12:05:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grateful,

How do you know the laws of nature (whichever one's you're referring to there) predate the big bang?

<<Science cannot explain the laws of nature because science is limited to explaining things that exist in space-time.>>

No-one knows what predates the big bang. The term 'Laws of Nature' is also very ambiguous. It could refer to scientific laws, or even Natural Law.

<<Space-time presupposes these laws (according to science). This is not a “gap” that science may conceivably traverse but something beyond science.>>

Either way, it’s not a gap you can just plonk your god in without any evidence and then assume that you’ve provided a useful explanation.

<<The question is whether we are pure products of space-time, or our bodies are the means by which souls experience choice.>>

Okay, but you still haven’t demonstrated that souls are required for free will or how exactly they perform this function given the dilemma that brain injuries present.

Here’s another hypothetical: what if two people were to swap brains? Forget for the moment that such an operation isn’t yet possible. Let’s pretend that it’s possible and that two people have a legitimate reason for doing it. Do those people’s souls follow the brains, or stay with the bodies?

<<God wants for us to love Him, not His creation, and to do so voluntary.>>

And if we don’t, then we suffer for eternity. Compulsory love. That’s not very voluntary.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 24 June 2016 12:12:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu "Dear Grateful,

I am impressed by Ghazzali. Thank you."

Until recently, it has been difficult to find a decent translation. There is better translation of the passage here on p2: http://www.ghazali.org/books/skillie.pdf. I took it from this website: http://www.ghazali.org/2015/09/ihya/

For a recent and reliable translation of the complete 4 book set of Ihlya ulum id din go here: https://www.fonsvitae.com/Home/tabid/38/Default.aspx

There are other spiritaul masters: Ibn 'Ata'allah ,Imam al-Haddad , Ibn 'Arabi,Rumi. Look up Abul Hasan Ali ash-Shadhili and Shadhili Tariqa
salaams
Posted by grateful, Friday, 24 June 2016 6:01:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu & others

This 3 min video indicates how Al ghazal went sort spiritual truth

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OjL6cUZXnI4

I'm trying to stimulate your curiosuty because in aL ghazali you'll find the "proof of islam". Understanding why leads one to the sorts of questions and issues we've been discussing.

Here is a good intro

http://lostislamichistory.com/al-ghazali/
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 25 June 2016 1:03:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful,

I don’t understand what was supposed to be so profound about your quote or the links you provided. Perhaps you could summarise it for others?

Personally, I find the following resonates with me a lot more:

“As one believes, one enters into an infinite truth that transcends understanding. You will soon be aligned by a power deep within yourself - a power that is both transcendent and unique. Truth may be the solution to what’s holding you back from a staggering metamorphosis of joy. Potential requires exploration, and to embark on a quest of vision is to become one with it. When we resonate with the universe, we dream and we are reborn.

Consciousness is the growth of synchronicity, and of us. The goal of chaos-driven reactions is to plant the seeds of beauty rather than illusion. The galaxy is electrified with supercharged waveforms. Thus the complexity of the present time seems to demand a deepening of our lives if we are going to survive. Dogma is born in the gap where transcendence has been excluded. Yes, it is possible to extinguish the things that can eradicate us, but not without truth on our side. We are all pilgrims of the multiverse. Consciousness consists of a resonance of quantum energy. “Quantum” means a condensing of the higher. By ennobling, we exist.”

I’d be interested to hear both yours and Yuyutsu’s thoughts on the above.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 25 June 2016 12:29:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ: Consciousness is the growth of synchronicity, and of us. The goal of chaos-driven reactions is to plant the seeds of beauty rather than illusion. Etc,.

I shudder with the beauty of those words. their exquisiteness doth hover about me like moonlight on a lake at midnight.
Posted by Jayb, Saturday, 25 June 2016 4:10:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Grateful,

Thank you. I watched a few clips of Al Ghazali and I intend to watch more. Clearly, this is a true teacher of religion and I recommend those clips wholeheartedly for anyone who likes to find what religion is about, especially those illustrated clips labelled "#SpiritualPsychologist" that present the basic concepts of religion in a light and easy manner.

For the purpose of this particular discussion, let me quote from one of those clips: "Imam Al Ghazali on the Secrets of the Heart", http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TQSI3Km9NU :

"Acquired knowledge deals either with the present world such as the arts and sciences or the next world such as knowledge of the heart, God and His attributes. The power of the intellect cannot master the knowledge of both worlds, causing tension."
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 26 June 2016 12:53:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yutsie: I watched a few clips of Al Ghazali.

The flaw I see with Al Ghazali is that he assumes there is a God.
Posted by Jayb, Sunday, 26 June 2016 8:45:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jay,

<<Yutsie: I watched a few clips of Al Ghazali.>>

Excellent.

<<The flaw I see with Al Ghazali is that he assumes there is a God.>>

When I listen to Ghazali, it makes me reflect on my own flaws of character. Surely this is more useful than looking for flaws in someone else, how more so in one who is long dead.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 26 June 2016 12:00:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
H I Matar in “Islam for Beginners” wrote about Al Ghazali and ijtihad. Ijtihad means a spirit of inquiry, This was prominent in early Islam. In contrast to Christian universities which allowed only Christians Islamic universities had Buddhist, Christian, Jewish and other non-Islamic scholars. Our language is replete with words of Arabic origin inspired by the contributions of early Islam - algorithm, algebra and zero in mathematics – apogee, perigee, azimuth, Deneb and Aldebaran in astronomy, alembic, antimony, alcohol, aniline and camphor in chemistry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Arabic_origin points to the many words in English of Arabic origin which includes the above and many others. Most of these words come from early Islam.

Al Ghazali wanted to restrict ijtihad to questions of religion. Those who opposed him wanted to keep a broader definition of ijtihad. In the fourteenth century Al Ghazali’s followers won out, and Islam entered its Dark Ages. The glorious universities became schools of theology, and Islam turned its past on its open-minded past.

In contrast the Christian world rediscovered the writings of Lucretius, a Roman poet inspired by Epicurus, who believed natural events had natural causes and questioned the existence of any supernatural.Stephen Greenblatt’s “The Swerve, How the Renaissance Began” tells of that discovery which eventually led to the Enlightenment which questioned religious belief itself.

As Christendom left the Dark Ages which were largely the result of Christian dominance Islam entered its Dark Ages which were largely the result of the dominance of the followers of Al Ghazali.

Science and inquiry are only compatible with religious belief if religious belief does not deny the findings of science and whatever conclusions evidence and logic lead us to.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 26 June 2016 1:11:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

I am very new to Al Ghazali's teachings, but to summarise what I learnt so far about him:

1) Al Ghazali was a teacher par excellence on religious matters.
2) Al Ghazali also tried his hand at material-philosophy/science/logic, but from what we know today, he made some errors there (which likely contributed to his remorsefully leaving Baghdad).
3) Al Ghazali did not preach against material-philosophy/science/logic, but only against it overstepping its rightful purpose and attempting to draw conclusions about God and spirit.

I agree with Al Ghazali there: science is not equipped to understand the spiritual and should not attempt to discuss God - doing so weakens science. But similarly also, religion should not attempt to discuss the world and its science - doing so weakens religion. These areas of knowledge are mutually exclusive and even the personnel who are experts at one are normally novices in the other.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 26 June 2016 6:25:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,

That may very well be the case.

<<...science is not equipped to understand the spiritual and should not attempt to discuss God - doing so weakens science.>>

But all that means is that we cannot know that the spiritual is anything meaningful at all.

Evidence and reason, based on logical absolutes, is the only pathway to truth, given what we currently know. Assertions about God or the spiritual are pure stabs in the dark, and that's being generous. Science is, as Sagan alluded to, at least a candle in that dark.

If you concede that I am right, then please don't say anything in response. Your silence will speak louder than words. Thank you.

Jayb,

I'm glad that quote of mine touched you too. I got it from a random nonsense generator and the fact that it contained as much meaning as the nonsense that comes from some of the theists here really says something.

I was hoping to see if I got a response to it as if it actually meant something in order to create my own Earn Malley moment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ern_Malley). It wouldn't surprise me if I did. Nonsense like this and the supposed wisdom that comes from these gurus and theologians is referred to as "pseudo-profound" and "deepities" (e.g. God is not a being, God is being itself).

I once had a discussion with a post-modernist on OLO and added a randomly-generated paragraph from http://www.elsewhere.org/journal/pomo to a response of mine to see if he noticed that one of my paragraphs didn't actually make any sense at all (à la the Sokal Afair), and he didn't seem to. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair)

"Orderliness is an ingredient of the progressive expansion of fulfillment" - Deepak Chopra
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 26 June 2016 7:20:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I didn't think Ghazzali was that bad I loved the song.

Up there Ghazzali
In there & fight
Out there & at 'em
Show 'em your might.
Fly like an angel
You're out there to win.

Loved it.
Posted by Jayb, Sunday, 26 June 2016 7:44:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu wrote: "I agree with Al Ghazali there: science is not equipped to understand the spiritual and should not attempt to discuss God - doing so weakens science."

I also agree with Al Ghazali in that science is not equipped to understand the spiritual since there is no evidence that such a thing as a spiritual exists. However, science is well equipped to discuss why people have the delusion that there is a spiritual. Psychology, psychiatry, anthropology and many other scientific disciplines can focus on the reasons people believe in a spiritual. Science is also not equipped to discuss God since there is absolutely no evidence that any such entity exists. However, science is well equipped to discuss why people believe in God. Psychology, psychiatry, anthropology and many other scientific disciplines can focus on the reasons people believe in the particular nonsense of deity.

Chapter 9 of “The World until Yesterday” by Jared Diamond discusses various attributes of religion. They are:

1. Belief in supernatural agents. Our senses can’t give us evidence for the existence of these supernatural agents, but they are invoked to explain things of which our senses do give us evidence.
2. Social movements of people who identify themselves as sharing deeply held beliefs.
3. Adherents make painful or costly sacrifices to display their commitment to others.
4. Rules of behavior
5. Belief that supernatural agents reward and punish. Prayer, donations and sacrifice can cause these agents to intervene.

Scientific study of the above attributes yield reasons why those attributes exist and what functions they serve.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 26 June 2016 7:57:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

Science can potentially study all that is physical, including the human brain. Humans are animals, so when we make no spiritual effort to rise above this animal state and de-identify with our human bodies, then we behave as predicted by their instincts, which is researchable.

I disagree with Jared Diamond that his list comprises of religious attributes: if anything, I would name them primitive social attributes.

Sure, people can believe in all manner of things as a result of their herd-instinct and similar biological functions arising from human nature. This is the default, the lowest common denominator: when belief is not accompanied by spiritual effort, it cannot be called "religion".
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 26 June 2016 8:31:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

Religion is made up of primitive social attributes. It is mumbojumbo that is basically nonsense. Apparently you want to believe in that nonsense and see something worthwhile in it. You certainly don't need my permission to continue doing so. Enjoy.
Posted by david f, Sunday, 26 June 2016 9:25:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu and David f

Keith Ward's lecture "Why there almost certainly is a god: doubting Richard Dawkins" is directly relevant to your discussion.

Can we deny that historians explain even though they appeal to motivation and purpose something alien to science except in the metaphor?

Here is the link: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l2KdiNbgHxo
Posted by grateful, Sunday, 26 June 2016 10:33:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you, Grateful, for linking us to a fallacy-filled discussion from an intellectual light-weight. An example of just how dreadful Keith Ward's rebuttal to Dawkins is can be seen at 46:08 (http://youtu.be/l2KdiNbgHxo?t=2765) where Ward invokes the Special Pleading fallacy - something we had just finished discussing.

Do you have any discussions of substance to offer? Preferably one's that actually address Dawkins' arguments instead of beating up on straw men?
Posted by AJ Philips, Sunday, 26 June 2016 10:46:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Grateful,

Perhaps your spelling of Keith Ward's lecture as "Why there almost certainly is a god" with a small-'g' for 'God' was intentional - or perhaps it was a Freudian slip: because this is what Ward's long, winding and unfocused lecture is really about, not about God with a Capital-G.

Unlike Ward's idea, a materialist for me is one who appreciates the material, one who considers it to be of value. Only someone who values the world could care this way or the other how it was created.

Compatible with Ward's conclusions, the (non-physical) creator of this world could even be some minor god, perhaps a baby-god for whom this world is a toy or perhaps s/he could be some mad (perhaps even evil) scientist from another time-space dimension - this gives me no incentive to love and worship him: it's all to do with science and nothing to do with religion!

---

Dear David,

I try to follow a religious path - I care not for such primitive social attributes which some ignorant people (of both the believer and unbeliever varieties) mistakenly consider "religious".

Meanwhile, you are nearly 91 years old. I wish you enduring health, but you know well that you will not remain in this world for very long.

Apparently you still seem to value the ephemeral, which is not a rational to do, especially at your age. You certainly don't need my permission to continue doing so. Enjoy it while you can.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 27 June 2016 2:40:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

You are right. I value the ephemeral because that is all we have. I hope to live long enough to enjoy my 91st in October in the company of some of my wonderful descendants. Many humans prefer to be enslaved by the superstition and ignorance of religion because they find the realisation that there is nothing more than the ephemeral frightening. At the same time other humans face that realisation and find the joy that is possible in this world. Two of those were Epicurus and Protagoras.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/

"The philosophy of Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.) was a complete and interdependent system, involving a view of the goal of human life (happiness, resulting from absence of physical pain and mental disturbance), an empiricist theory of knowledge (sensations, together with the perception of pleasure and pain, are infallible criteria), a description of nature based on atomistic materialism, and a naturalistic account of evolution, from the formation of the world to the emergence of human societies. Epicurus believed that, on the basis of a radical materialism which dispensed with transcendent entities such as the Platonic Ideas or Forms, he could disprove the possibility of the soul's survival after death, and hence the prospect of punishment in the afterlife. He regarded the unacknowledged fear of death and punishment as the primary cause of anxiety among human beings, and anxiety in turn as the source of extreme and irrational desires."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/protagor/

"Protagoras is known primarily for three claims (1) that man is the measure of all things (which is often interpreted as a sort of radical relativism) (2) that he could make the "worse (or weaker) argument appear the better (or stronger)" and (3) that one could not tell if the gods existed or not."
Posted by david f, Monday, 27 June 2016 6:40:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu writes: "Meanwhile, you are nearly 91 years old. I wish you enduring health, but you know well that you will not remain in this world for very long.

Apparently you still seem to value the ephemeral, which is not a rational [thing] to do, especially at your age."

A fascinating revelation.

So even when someone speaks of noble pursuits such as ridding oneself of the ego; even when one attempts to - an indeed believes that they have - achieved a higher state of enlightenment and being than the rest of us (one in which gender must remain ambiguous, presumably because it is of no importance when one exists on this higher plane); and even when one tries not to be materialistic (while earning more money than most of us could possibly dream); even then, religious belief still just boils down to a primitive fear of death.

Why am I not surprised?

As far as I'm concerned, and if there really is such a thing to be attained, then the lack of death anxiety displayed by david f at his grand old age is what it really means to have achieved a higher state of being. Not some rubbish a bored and long-dead Hindu guru dreamt up.

I reject the notion of sin. But if there were anything that should qualify as a sin, it would be to waste the one and only life that we know we're going to have by treating it as if it isn't important, or were simply a stage to wipe one's feet before the real party starts. There's nothing enlightened about that.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 27 June 2016 8:27:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yutsie: perhaps s/he could be some mad (perhaps even evil) scientist from another time-space dimension.

Given the state of human activity concerning Gods. I believe you may be onto something here.

Yutsie: which is not a rational to do, especially at your age.

You seem to be invoking that old people have a fear of dying & therefore would/should turn to a Spirit to allay that fear. Not so. Older people when getting close to the day actually look forward to being gone. Recent studies by some Academic have found.
Posted by Jayb, Monday, 27 June 2016 10:44:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu’s reaction is reminiscent of Boswell

“Flesh in the Age of Reason” by Roy Porter has the following:

Like Johnson, Boswell was tortured by a fundamental fear of death. He sought reassurance of any kind from anyone. He harassed the dying David Hume. The sceptical philosophe’s calm at his impending demise from liver cancer drove Boswell ever more distraught: he wanted to see in the unbeliever the fear which gripped himself. In vain he tried to make Hume reveal some spark of faith. At the sceptic's imperviousness, Boswell became increasingly desperate:

“I ... felt a degree of horror, mixed with a sort of wild, strange, hurrying recollection of my excellent mother's pious instructions, of Dr. Johnson's noble lessons, and of my religious sentiments and affections during the course of my life. I was like a man in sudden danger eagerly seeking his defensive arms."

The thought of somebody dying without dread was unbearable. P. 191

same book:

Ignorance and credulity have ever been companions, and have misled and enslaved mankind; philosophy has in all ages endeavoured to oppose their progress, and to loosen the shackles they had imposed; philosophers have on this account been called unbelievers; unbelievers of what? of the fictions of fancy, of witchcraft, hobgoblins, apparitions, vampires, fairies; of the influence of stars on human actions, miracles wrought by the bones of saints, the flights of ominous birds, the predictions from the bowels of dying animals, expounders of dreams, fortune-tellers, conjurors, modern prophets, necromancy, cheiromancy, animal magnetism, metallic tractors, with endless variety of folly? These they have disbelieved and despised, but have ever bowed their hoary heads to Truth and Nature. . . .

In regard to religious matters, there is an intellectual cowardice instilled into the minds of the people from their infancy; which prevents their inquiry: credulity is made an indispensable virtue; to inquire or exert their reason in religious matters is denounced as sinful; and in the catholic church is punished with more severe penances than moral crimes. – Erasmus Darwin p. 389

Better philosophy than religion
Posted by david f, Monday, 27 June 2016 1:16:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If adults talk like this, what hope for the children.
Posted by grateful, Monday, 27 June 2016 6:14:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

Interesting stuff. I never realised that such a desire (that being that their non-believing fellow elderly members of society fear their mortality) existed in some older theists. I supposed I would probably react the same too if I were elderly and still religious. I note a similar bewilderment displayed in some theists who ask me why I don’t just run around raping and killing people if I don’t believe in a god. I hope such people keep their beliefs.

grateful,

If adults talk like what?

<<If adults talk like this, what hope for the children.>>

Like we should appreciate the one and only life that we know we’re going to have? Like we should accept uncomfortable realities and face them head on instead of opting for comforting lies? How could speaking and thinking honestly possibly be a bad thing for future generations?

In case you haven’t noticed, from the dawn of humanity, violence has continued to decline, and never has that decline happened faster since the plummet in religious affiliation that began after the Enlightenment. Now, while I accept that correlation does not necessitate causation, it certainly puts to rest this idea that religion is a necessary force in the world.

Anyway, if you could elaborate, that would be helpful.
Posted by AJ Philips, Monday, 27 June 2016 8:07:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear David,

<<I value the ephemeral because that is all we have.>>

Even if that was the case, this is still irrational: take for example the statement: "I value my disease/bug/pain/slavery because that is all I have"...

<<Many humans prefer to be enslaved by the superstition and ignorance of religion because they find the realisation that there is nothing more than the ephemeral frightening>>

...superstition and ignorance induced by some bastards who unjustifiably dare call themselves "religious".

So, some people feel frightened, then are led astray by crooks, what's that to do with anything we were discussing?

<<At the same time other humans face that realisation and find the joy that is possible in this world.>>

That's an illusion - Joy is our native state. One feels relative joy, or relief, when the burdens of the world temporarily lessen. We find great refreshing joy in deep sleep (too bad our memory-recorder is off at that time) and so we should find great joy in death. But is death ephemeral? In my Hindu view, too bad it is, too bad that so long as we haven't attained God, we cannot rest forever, but eventually need to come back to this world and its pains.

---

Dear Jay,

<<You seem to be invoking that old people have a fear of dying & therefore would/should turn to a Spirit to allay that fear.>>

Where have I mentioned fear of dying?

Young people too should seek to detach themselves from the world. However, they often find it more difficult due to passion and ignorance. Older people who have more experience and less to expect from the world should usually find it easier to detach.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 28 June 2016 4:59:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,
Are you now claiming to be 'rational'? Previously you were trying to tell me there was a difference between truth and facts. When truth and facts must separated, then truth dies for true men.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 28 June 2016 8:59:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Sigh*

Sometimes it’s hard to not be offended by being deliberately ignored and spoken to through other people. Especially when said person goes out of their way to make a point of it (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#325132).

But I need to keep reminding myself that when someone to whom you were nothing but polite can no longer address you directly, then that is the greatest compliment they can pay you and the strength of your arguments. We see this in grateful now too.

Thank you, Yuyutsu. From the bottom of my heart, I thank you. I feel our relationship has achieved a higher state of being and now exists on the plane from which you look down upon us all. For direct communication is now as unnecessary as your gender. Most would consider this utterly rude and petulant, especially coming from someone who is supposed to have achieved a higher state of being than everyone else. But they don’t understand.

I am thoroughly enjoying the discussions that we’re not having, and look forward to many more in the future.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 28 June 2016 9:47:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu,

You are twisting yourself into knots. We may be able to deal with ‘disease/bug/pain/slavery’ because there are alternatives such as health/insecticide/analgesics/freedom, but there is no alternative to the ephemeral. That's all there is.

Religion consists of superstition and ignorance. It is nothing else regardless of the character of those who claim otherwise.

There is no native state of emotion. Joy is one emotion. Sadness, grief, anger and many others exist.

You wish to retain your illusions about attaining God. You don’t need my permission to do so
Posted by david f, Tuesday, 28 June 2016 9:50:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ:<<If adults talk like what?>>

Following your example, kids would learn to preoccupy themselves playing stupid mind games.

This is a game where lying and cheating is permitted. Where you can claim to be open to evidence when in fact you are not and accuse others of various logical fallacies when in fact it is you committing the fallacies. You can accuse others of lying when you are the one lying. This is done to deflect attention from the weakness in your own argument and your own porkies.

The aim of the game is not to find the truth but to win and control.

I grew up with this stupid game, but my children will not. They can open their religion to challenge and remain true to values and lifestyle of their religion.

As they grow, they will observe their non-Muslim school mates follow a “lifestyle” of binge drinking, sex and drugs, along with self- mutilation (tattoos and piercings on all parts of the body). It will not be a surprise if they, as i did, encounter stories of date rape and attempted suicide among their class-mates.

They'll be taught that in fact this lifestyle is not "normal" and fundamentally it is because their parents cannot or will not provide the guidance they need.

Without Islam I would have been one of these parents.

Don't expect any more responses from me
Posted by grateful, Tuesday, 28 June 2016 10:07:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

<<Are you now claiming to be 'rational'?>>

Not at all, Dan. I claimed and explained many times why none of us is rational and I include myself in it.

<<Previously you were trying to tell me there was a difference between truth and facts. When truth and facts must separated, then truth dies for true men.>>

Good and well: there are no true men, there is only God and this is the truth, so when the truth is known, this "point-of-view of God" (for lack of more accurate words) that formerly considered itself to be a man(/woman), has turned inside to know Its true identity.

---

Dear David,

Suppose even there are no alternatives, it doesn't rationally follow that one should value anything - you could still value nothing. If you value the ephemeral because it is the only thing in existence, then you probably do so because you value existence, which itself is irrational.

Sure, our native state is not an emotion, it is sat-chit-ananda, but when pure bliss is reflected in a body, it shows as the emotion of joy.

As for beating religion for the evil of others, we have been there 100 times already, so perhaps for a change I'll take it with humour:

Gone was every blessed bird!
"Horrid Spitz!" was her first word.

"O you Spitz, you monster, you!
Let me beat him black and blue!"

And the heavy ladle, thwack!
Comes down on poor Spitz's back!
Loud he yells with agony,
For he feels his conscience free.

(from http://germanstories.vcu.edu/mm/mmeng2.html)
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 28 June 2016 11:01:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the response, grateful. I was under the impression that our relationship had attained the higher state of being that that of Yuyutsu and mine had attained. Apparently it has from this point forth, though.

Unfortunately, however, you have merely resorted to slanderous ad hominem with accusations that you, unsurprisingly, cannot substantiate. Very disappointing.

I’m sorry you don’t like having your fallacies pointed out to you, but simply accusing me of doing the same without supporting that claim with evidence/examples can only be interpreted as an attempt to defame. Very poor form indeed.

Modesty aside for a moment, the reason my arguments are robust enough for those like Yuyutsu and yourself to have to take your ball and go home by vowing to ignore me, is because I am aware of logically fallacious reasoning, and can therefore avoid it. Do I catch myself out doing it too? Sure. But when I do, I pull myself up and correct my thinking by either finding a different line of reasoning for my belief, or discarding that belief if that’s not possible.

This is the fundamental difference between you and I. And if you ever learn to do this too, then you’ll find that your religious beliefs will vanish faster than you can say, “logical fallacy”.

Your claim that the loss of religion will and does result in all sorts of horrible things is not supported by the evidence, I’m afraid. If anything, the opposite is the case.

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf
http://www.skepticmoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/table-religion-vs.....png
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA

<<Don't expect any more responses from me>>

I won’t then. But don’t expect that this will stop me responding to your claims if they are wrong.

Yuyutsu has refused to respond to me since a marathon discussion we had well over a year ago (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6579&page=0). But this sort of childish silent treatment only works if the person who you are ignoring does what they do to provoke a reaction, and that’s not the case for me. I do what I do because I care about the truth. If you don't respond, then that just makes my job a whole lot easier.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 28 June 2016 11:09:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ<<Yuyutsu,

You still haven’t mentioned when you had the privilege of seeing this Schroder character. It didn’t happen, did it? Just as the field that grateful works in doesn’t exist.

Why is it that you religious folk are so okay with telling porkies? It seems to be a real sickness, and the fact that I wasn’t alright with doing that myself seems to be the difference between my de-conversion story and the story of yours and grateful’s continued clinging to religious faith. That’s evident in his offensively skewed version of events regarding this discussion. I understand that some on OLO consider the pointing out of lies as abuse, and I appreciate that, I really do, but I simply don’t know how else it can be described when it’s so overt.

(If anyone has some advice, then I’d appreciate it.)

Does it not occur to either of you that the fact that your god supposedly requires you to tell untruths means that he doesn’t exist?
>>

I have Grad Dip in Statistic, along with Hons (1st class) & PhD

You have a problem.
Posted by grateful, Tuesday, 28 June 2016 11:36:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well I’m glad your boycott of me only lasted one-and-a-half hours, grateful. Welcome back.

<<I have Grad Dip in Statistic, along with Hons (1st class) & PhD>>

And yet you somehow don’t understand how and when exactly to utilise the null hypothesis. Nor do you seem to understand exactly why a sample size of one is fatal to the fine-tuning argument (or perhaps you did once it was pointed out to you and that’s why you needed to introduce the concept of multiverses as a red herring?). Nor did you even seem to realise that probability is measured between 0 and 1. You also appeared to confuse confidence intervals with p-values.

Looks like I’ll just have to give you the benefit of the doubt. Either way, my suspicions were well-founded and based on evidence and are, therefore, not indicative of me having some sort of a problem.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 28 June 2016 12:03:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful: Without Islam I would have been one of these parents.

You don't know that, you have assumed that because your Religion has TOLD you that would be the case. That's using Fear to control you. If you were a good parent you would have instilled good behaviour into your children anyway.

I know myself that we did a good job of raising our kids. Still, one went off the rails for a while until he got a shock & now is a pillar of his Community. You can be a "Feral Parent" & the Kids turn out really good & you can be a "Perfect Parent" & still your kids can turn out bad. Religion has nothing to do with it. Look how many Muslim kids were raised right & now are running away to commit Jihad.
Posted by Jayb, Tuesday, 28 June 2016 12:19:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jayb,

What your saying is correct. But what i was saying is based on what i know of myself.
Posted by grateful, Tuesday, 28 June 2016 2:08:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ: <<And yet you somehow don’t understand how and when exactly to utilise the null hypothesis. Nor do you seem to understand exactly why a sample size of one is fatal to the fine-tuning argument (or perhaps you did once it was pointed out to you and that’s why you needed to introduce the concept of multiverses as a red herring?). Nor did you even seem to realise that probability is measured between 0 and 1. You also appeared to confuse confidence intervals with p-values.

Looks like I’ll just have to give you the benefit of the doubt. Either way, my suspicions were well-founded and based on evidence and are, therefore, not indicative of me having some sort of a problem.>>

AJ I said “don’t expect a response” not “I will not respond”.

You over-stepped the mark calling Yuyutsu and myself dishonest.

When you find yourself in trouble you revert to the following tactic: present a fallacious interpretation, which you know is false (like the one above), or raise an issue which is off the point and you know is off the point. The purpose is to avoid conceding a point by putting the other person on the defensive.

The game you’re playing is different from what others are playing. While others might be trying to test an argument, offer information or make a point, you are playing a game with two things in mind: winning (as you see it) and maintaining control. You will do anything to win your game and maintain control ("Looks like I’ll just have to give you the benefit of the doubt....").

This is evident in the above post, along with the inability to accept responsibility for your words.

The above contrivance of my argument is a clear signal that you cannot address the question: Where do the laws of nature come from if not from within space-time? How can science, which is limited to explaining within space-time, account for the laws of nature?

Therefore, arguments for the validity of explanations that are not what physical science (eg. Keith Ward) can offer are critically important.
Posted by grateful, Tuesday, 28 June 2016 6:30:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful,

I’m not sure why you would bother to tell me that on this particular occasion then if you didn’t mean for it to signify an arrangement a little more permanent.

<<I said “don’t expect a response” not “I will not respond”.>>

I never expect the theists I engage with on OLO to respond. Mostly, I think, because I overestimate them. No offence or anything, but the ability you guys have to continue to prop up an argument that’s already dead in the water never ceases to amaze me. It reminds me of that movie, Weekend at Bernie’s.

<<You over-stepped the mark calling Yuyutsu and myself dishonest.>>

If I see dishonesty, then I will call it out. In those instances, it was pretty overt.

<<When you find yourself in trouble you revert to the following tactic: present a fallacious interpretation, which you know is false (like the one above), or raise an issue which is off the point and you know is off the point.>>

I would be fascinated to hear of an instance in which I actually found myself “in trouble”. Unlike yourself, I have no burden of proof and no reason to cling to my position if it turns out that I’m wrong.

<<This is evident in the above post, along with the inability to accept responsibility for your words.>>

Oh, I absolutely accept responsibility for my own words. I’m not ashamed of my accusations and provided solid reasoning as to why I shouldn’t be. Your qualifications are still suspect. I make no bones about that.

<<Where do the laws of nature come from if not from within space-time?>>

I’ve already alluded to the fact that I don’t know. I’m not a theoretical physicist. I don't think even physicists know. What I do know, however, is that plonking a god in as an explanation is fallacious.

My (or anyone else’s) inability to answer your questions or unknowns does not strengthen your argument, and it is foolish of you to think or make out as if I’ve somehow been on the back foot because I can't provide an answer.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 28 June 2016 10:21:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
gratfull: What your saying is correct. But what i was saying is based on what i know of myself.

Ditto.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 29 June 2016 8:45:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful,

When someone is gracious enough to give you the benefit of the doubt and thereby offer to cease continuing down a line of suspicion, you don’t throw that back their face to make it look like they can’t take responsibility for their own words. To do so reeks of desperation.

Every one of your slanderous accusations are as contrived as the above mentioned; applying the most dubious and creative interpretations of my actions to conjure up something sinister on my behalf. Some examples:

That you had figured that my critical thinking skills weren’t very good over a simple misunderstanding, thus giving yourself an excuse to bow out with some dignity (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#324554).

That I was exiting in a huff, leaving a trail of charater assassinations in my wake, out of some imagined necessity (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#325193).

That when I find myself in trouble (one can only imagine when that has been), I “present a fallacious interpretation [of some unknown occurance], which [I] know is false” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#325498). Do you know what transference is in psychology? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference) And your evidence for this? My pointing out of the dubiousness of your claimed field, and Yuyutsu’s obviously made up story about having gotten those four infamous points from an attended presentation when I had just posted them and they were in your video.

Then we finally come to this creative interpretation of a gracious act to suggest that I cannot take responsibility for my own words. Well that’s gratitude for you.

Every one of your slanderous claims are so obviously contrived that it’s embarrassing to read.

If you have become so desperate to deflect that you can defame another by twisting an act of goodwill to turn it against them, then how about I just take the more honest route? I think your qualifications are bogus. You clearly know nothing more, and sometimes even less, than your average layman about statistics.

I take full responsibility for those words because I can back the claim. You even clumsily quoted me doing so in your last response to me before proceeding to use it against me.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 29 June 2016 10:28:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh, I almost forgot my favourite example, grateful.

Granted it was included in with the allegation of me supposedly storming off in a huff. Nevertheless, it was by far the most far-fetched example of a “fallacious interpretation, which you know is false” (as you would put it) and, therefore, deserves a special mention. I’m talking about your ‘sonnet’ question.

Your exact words were:

“We could add another one. We are speaking of life. What about intelligent life involving the creation of a single thought or perhaps a sonnet? Any videos dealing with question?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#325150)

Pretty ambiguous stuff there. It bears little-to-no resemblance to the misguided claim that DNA forming by itself is about as likely as a chimp sitting at a typewriter and eventually producing Hamlet (or a Shakespearean sonnet, as you would put it) by bashing randomly at the keys.

So I ask for clarification of what it is that you’re talking about and you gleefully gloat that, after some seventy odd posts (and that’s just from you) getting you absolutely nowhere, you had somehow finally caught on to a winner with this ‘sonnet’ claim, and that, as a consequence, I had apparently fled like some fraud who had realised that “the game was up”.

Unbelievable.

Now THAT, my friend, is a “fallacious interpretation, which you know is false”. As I mentioned before, transference.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 29 June 2016 5:47:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Play your games with someone else AJ. I can't see you as anything other than fraud and slander
Posted by grateful, Wednesday, 29 June 2016 7:29:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grateful,

It is quite audacious of you to dig your heels in like that and continue down the same line of accusations that I have just finished demonstrating are not in any way true and reek of hypocrisy.

<<I can't see you as anything other than fraud and slander>>

A person cannot be a "slander" too, by the way.

You have not demonstrated a single instance of fraud on my behalf. Your accusation relies on claims that now lay in tatters spread across my last three posts.

I've been debating theists for over ten years now and in all my experience, there are only two ways in which the discussion ends: with the theist disappearing, or with the theist attempting to defame the atheist, almost as if to say, "Well, if I'm going down anyway, then you're coming with me."

It's disappointing.

Especially when you're speaking to someone who starts off so polite, and probably is ordinarily a polite person, only to know in advance that that may eventually change.

You believe that religion improves individuals. It is in part for the above mentioned reason why I think it can do the opposite too. Religion poisons people's minds and can make ordinarily nice people become vicious if that belief is threatened. Again, it's disappointing, but I continue to do what I do regardless because I believe that reason deserves defending.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 29 June 2016 8:30:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[5:19am, 30/06/2016] Sadaf Quran: &#128150; What is love &#128150; Love is when Bilal (Radhiallahu 'anhu) stopped giving the adhan after the death of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam)

Love is Bilal leaving Madina after the Prophet’s (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) death because everything reminded him of his beloved

Love is Bilal seeing the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) in a dream telling him, "what is with this dryness/distance oh Bilal?" when a long time had elapsed since he visited the Prophet's (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) grave, prompting Bilal to head to Madinah upon waking

Love is Bilal arriving in Madinah in the middle of the night and Hasan and Hussain (Radhiallahu 'anhum) finding him at the maqam of the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) crying and Hasan and Hussain insisting that he give the adhan for Fajr. People came rushing to the masjid: weeping and anguished - reminded of their days with the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam)

Love is Bilal…when Umar ibn al Khattab (Radhiallahu 'anhu) asked him to give the adhan calling the army in Sham to prayer, and when he reached the part "Ashhadu anna Muhammadan Rasul Allah" began to weep uncontrollably, unable to finish the adhan, causing the entire army to weep with Umar (Radhiallahu 'anhu) being the most emotional of them all

Love is Bilal on his deathbed experiencing the pangs of death, with his family weeping for him, and Bilal (Radhiallahu 'anhu) saying, "Tomorrow I meet the beloveds: Muhamamad and his companions"
[6:13am, 30/06/2016] June Aziz Panjkov: SubhanAllah
Alhamdulillah
Laa IllahaillAllah

I heard about the story of Bilal love to Our beloved Prophet Muhammad SAW. Its so beautiful. &#128554;
May Allah give us His Mercy. Aamiin
Posted by grateful, Thursday, 30 June 2016 6:25:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I just wanted to share. Apologies for not staying on topic.
Posted by grateful, Thursday, 30 June 2016 6:37:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting story. It shows me that Islamic People are "over emotional" when it comes to their Religion & that's why we have all the killing by Islamic People. They can't control themselves.
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 30 June 2016 8:06:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting bit of information

"
Leading scientists still reject God

Research on this topic began with the eminent US psychologist James H. Leuba and his landmark survey of 1914. He found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected US scientists expressed disbelief or doubt in the existence of God, and that this figure rose to near 70% among the 400 "greater" scientists within his sample [1]. Leuba repeated his survey in somewhat different form 20 years later, and found that these percentages had increased to 67 and 85, respectively [2].

"In 1996, we repeated Leuba's 1914 survey and reported our results in Nature [3]. We found little change from 1914 for American scientists generally, with 60.7% expressing disbelief or doubt. This year, we closely imitated the second phase of Leuba's 1914 survey to gauge belief among "greater" scientists, and find the rate of belief lower than ever — a mere 7% of respondents."

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Posted by grateful, Thursday, 30 June 2016 9:01:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuts,
If you say we're all irrational, then why bother accusing David of being irrational? If we're all essentially irrational, why bother coming here (or going anywhere) to discuss anything at all? Staking your basis in irrationally leaves all discussion futile. I don't know why I bother.

AJ,
Your understanding of theology is lacking. The pot doesn't advise the potter what to make of it. The potter makes whatever he wants of the pot.

God is under no obligation to do anything for anyone. He's under no obligation to reveal himself to you. You say it's 'not fair' if he doesn't. (Though, I suspect he already has.) Yet the pot doesn't tell the potter what's fair. However, I'm guessing God is especially not feeling under obligation to speak to people with their fingers in their ears.

And your theology is also lacking if you think God judges people for not believing in him. As I said earlier, he judges people for their wrong actions. In that sense, to be 'fair', all he need give you is a conscience or a sense of right and wrong. It's as simple as James 4:17 (... it is sin to know what you ought to do and then not do it.)

Jayb,
Both you and David objected to Don Batten saying that Richard Dawkins was modern day hero of God haters. You respond saying you can't hate something that doesn't exist. I'm sure the logic of what you say isn't lost on Don, which is why he said it. I suspect that when Don speaks of hate he's taking a measure of the anger and emotion found in the theological arguments he sees thrust towards God. Why hate what does not exist? Why, indeed?

You say you like to 'get back to the beginning/start of things'. I like that sentiment. That's the reason I like this article from Batten. And it seems to have struck a chord with quite a few, or maybe touched a raw nerve.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 30 June 2016 9:09:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,
Thanks for the link to that page on geology, 'Science Clarified'. But for one small fanciful phrase in interlude, I particularly liked the description of Rainbow Bridge in Utah.

"Covering a distance of 270 feet (82 meters), Rainbow Bridge is the largest and most symmetrical natural bridge in the world. Salmon-pink in color, the bridge is composed entirely of Navajo sandstone. Sandstone is a type of rock made up of grains of sand bonded together by a mineral cement, like calcium carbonate. Water easily dissolves this bond, washing away portions of the sand to form fascinating shapes. ['Million of years ago'?], water flowing off nearby Navajo Mountain washed over the area, cutting a canyon in the soft sandstone. As water continued to course through the canyon, it cut a hole in a curve in the canyon's side, eventually leading to the formation of the Rainbow Bridge. "

The picture is so graphic; I can almost hear the water swirling as I read this.

It seems you are willing to admit that the majority can be wrong on a particular issue, but you're still grappling with the definition of consensus. How many dissenters does it take to challenge a theory? You say, "even if the majority scientific opinion is wrong on a particular issue, it doesn’t mean your alternative hypothesis is correct." Perhaps, but it can't hurt. If there were two major theories in contention, A & B, and I wanted to support A, then finding weaknesses in the argument for B couldn't be such a bad thing.

In that line, I think it legitimate for Batten to point out the problems biology has in explaining the diversity of life via mutations and natural selection. If the evidence for biological evolution is supposedly so one sided towards evolution, how do you account for those 16 high profile evolutionary scientists mentioned in Batten's article meeting to discuss this crisis in evolutionary biology. Batten (an experienced biological scientist himself) says the only consensus arrived at between these 16 was that there is a major problem with the evidence for evolution.
http://creation.com/review-altenberg-16
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 30 June 2016 9:15:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dsdm: You respond saying you can't hate something that doesn't exist.

Exactly right. Just because I don't believe in something does not mean that I "Hate" something. Yes, I have said it before, "You cannot hate something that doesn't exist."But, neither do I hate people who believe in "A God," that's their choice. I think they're wrong but I can't force them to be right, as one of my T-shirts says, or something similar. I don't hate these people & I expect them to respect my beliefs, fat chance.

I don't think most Religious people Hate Atheists either. I don't think many people bother brooding on the subject all the time. Except the Ultra Religious & Fanatics who have a propensity to kill people. I've not seen that in Atheists, except the maybe Soviets & the Chinese about 80 years ago. The Fanatical Religious use the excuse, "God spoke to me & told me to do it" or "the Devil made me do it." Good excuse, eh. People with Obsessional Mental Problems. There seems to be a lot of that in "People of Religion."
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 30 June 2016 10:25:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So basically, Dan, your argument boils down to, ‘Something becomes right if God says it’s right.’ Am I right?

<<The pot doesn't advise the potter what to make of it. The potter makes whatever he wants of the pot.>>

The problem with this argument is that God could say that murder is right and you would have to accept that it was. Saying that God wouldn’t say that because it’s not in his nature doesn’t get you around this problem either.

<<God is under no obligation to do anything for anyone. He's under no obligation to reveal himself to you.>>

As I said before, he is if he’s going to send people off to be tortured forever if they don’t believe. Nothing you’re saying is negating this point of mine.

<<However, I'm guessing God is especially not feeling under obligation to speak to people with their fingers in their ears.>>

Like I said earlier, if you think that this is the case, then let’s test it out. Explain to me what you think constitutes good evidence for a god. grateful gave it a good crack but was ultimately unable to provide anything that was not fallacious.

<<And your theology is also lacking if you think God judges people for not believing in him. As I said earlier, he judges people for their wrong actions.>>

I don’t see where you’ve said that, sorry.

So are you of the belief that one doesn’t need to believe in God to go to Heaven, just that they need to be good people, despite John 14:6? That’s very Catholic of you. I could have sworn you were of the Protestant variety. Especially with your talk of a salvation-granting belief being required, and not just a mere belief.

I can assure you that my knowledge of Christian theology is quite good too. I spent a good chunk of my days as a Christian attending my church’s weekly Bible study group.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 30 June 2016 2:02:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

<<If you say we're all irrational, then why bother accusing David of being irrational?>>

This is not an accusation - there is nothing wrong about being irrational.

We all operate essentially out of irrational desires rather than out of reason. Yes, we may apply reason on top in order to calculate how we may best achieve those desires, but without those initial desires we wouldn't be bothered to do anything, to write anything, to say anything or even to think anything.

<<If we're all essentially irrational, why bother coming here (or going anywhere) to discuss anything at all?>>

Everyone who is here has their own reason(s), perhaps you can tell me what are yours. Whatever those reasons are, they either are irrational or are a rational conclusion based on earlier irrational attitudes and desires.

<<Staking your basis in irrationally leaves all discussion futile. I don't know why I bother.>>

You may enjoy discussing things with others who essentially share your own values. You may also come here to learn whether or not you share any of your values with others. Nothing on earth however dictates that one should hold any particular values (if any). The less values you have in common with others, the more futile your discussions with them will be.

If your reason for being interested in God is that He is the creator of this world, then your primary interest is on this world rather than in God, Who for you then becomes a mere agent. As such, you may conduct interesting discussions with atheists who also value the world. Don't say then that I haven't warned you once they lead you astray and rob away your faith in God.

---

Dear Jay,

It is healthy and proper to cry and weep for someone you love who is no longer with you, how more so for someone who has been showing you the light as you are now forced to continue finding the rest of your way in darkness.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 30 June 2016 2:09:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yutsie: how more so for someone who has been showing you the light as you are now forced to continue finding the rest of your way in darkness.

That someone is dead & can't give a fig about weather you cry or not. The crying bit is done to impress others. In the Middle East they pay people to form a crowd & cry at Funerals just to impress other people. They are Professional Weepers.
Posted by Jayb, Thursday, 30 June 2016 3:46:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jayb: <<It shows me that Islamic People are "over emotional" ....... They can't control themselves>>

As it is, you have paid all Muslims an enormous compliment being associated with the name Bilal:

<< Born as a slave, Bilal was among the emancipated slaves freed by Abu Bakr due to the Islamic teachings of slavery. He was known for his beautiful voice with which he called people to their prayers. Bilal ibn Rabah rose to a position of prominence in Islam; but after Muhammad died in 632 AD, Bilal adopted an isolationist and monastic lifestyle.>>

The following is a description of what Bilal, the person you described as “overly emotional”, went through:

<<When Bilal's master, Umayyah ibn Khalaf found out, he began violently to torture Bilal. With Abu Jahl instigating, Umayyah tied Bilal up and had him dragged around Mecca as a means to break Bilal's faith. In addition, children mocked Bilal for disobeying Umayyah and rejecting idol worship.Although the extent of torture was painful, Bilal never renounced Islam. Even when the torture was taken to the extreme, Bilal would repeat "Ahad Ahad" (God is absolute/one). Frustrated upon Bilal's refusal to denounce Islam, Umayyah became even more angry. He ordered that Bilal's limbs were to be stretched out and tied to stakes lying flat on desert sand, so that he could feel the intensity of the sun and the Arabian heat. He would be whipped and beaten while tied to the stakes. Constantly refusing to denounce Islam, Umayyah became frustrated and ordered that a large boulder/stone be placed on Bilal's chest. The boulder heated by the sun burned Bilal's body while also crushing him. However, Bilal remained firm in belief and continued to say "Ahad Ahad". After such punishments, news of this slave reached some of Muhammad's companions who told Muhammad of the slave. Muhammad then sent Abu Bakr. Eventually, Abu Bakr negotiated a deal with Umayyah to purchase Bilal and exchange three of Abu Bakr's slaves (a pagan male slave and his wife and daughter) and emancipate him from slavery>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_Ibn_Rabah
Posted by grateful, Thursday, 30 June 2016 8:55:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

I just wanted to address the following point of yours, specifically, because I remember expressing a similar sentiment myself and it was possibly the first time a problem with Christian theology twigged with me. Of course, being the good Christian that I was, I promptly pushed it out of my head. That was, until, such realisations started to become more and more frequent. Anyway…

<<God is under no obligation to do anything for anyone.>>

Actually, he is. If he brought us into this world without asking us if we wanted to be a part of it, then he has an obligation to make sure that everyone is adequately provided for. That your god allows millions to starve speaks volumes about him. What kind of a monster lets that happen when they have the power to do something about it?

Would you let your son starve? Of course not. Just as you wouldn’t lock him in the basement and torture him forever just because he didn’t love you. You hold a different standard for your god - a lesser standard - and you excuse him for unimaginable neglect and horrors that you yourself would never dream of doing. A god that deals infinite punishment for finite crimes is infinitely evil.

You are more moral than your god. Most of us are.

Meanwhile, I’ve just had a revelation. I think Yuyutsu may be my god! Think about it. He remains genderless, he exists on a higher plane than the rest of us, his words are inaudible, I cannot see him, and he speaks to me through other people.

Whoa!
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 30 June 2016 9:02:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As to being irrational the philosopher David Hume said, "Reason is the slave of the passions."

Yuyutsu wrote, "We all operate essentially out of irrational desires rather than out of reason. Yes, we may apply reason on top in order to calculate how we may best achieve those desires, but without those initial desires we wouldn't be bothered to do anything, to write anything, to say anything or even to think anything."

I agree with David Hume and Yuyutsu in the matter of being irrational.

We mount a rational argument for irrational reasons. We are not going to settle anything. We may get a bit of information, but, most of all, I enjoy the contact with others on these strings. I stopped arguing on another string because I wasn't enjoying it. The other fellow didn't think that was a legitimate reason to stop, but I think that ultimately is the only reason we argue or stop arguing.

On the surface what could be more rational than mathematics? I have two wonderful books. "Induction and Analogy in Mathematics" and "Patterns of Plausible Inference" by Polya. I will spend part of what's left of my life in going through the reasoning and trying to solve the problems in those books. Since some of the problems haven't been solved by great mathematicians I am not going to solve them either. Why do I do it? It gives me pleasure. Why does it give me pleasure? I have no rational answer.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 30 June 2016 9:28:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I come here to discuss the merits of Don Batten's article, whom I find to be an eminently rational person. I don't come here to play word games. It is impossible to discuss anything with someone who openly delights in being irrational, or who claims that truth is separate from facts.

AJ,
Sitting in church doesn't make you a Christian theologian, no more than sitting in an armchair makes you an expert, nor sitting in McDonald's makes you a hamburger.

Jayb,
I agree with you that, whether atheist or religious believer, most people don't hate others because of their differing beliefs, most of the time. Yet there are the obvious exceptions.

And most of the discussion on this thread has been quite civil, and some of it has been interesting. Yet I did notice your overly emotional reaction to the geological evidence provided by Tas Walker (12/6/16). Yours was not a rational response.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Thursday, 30 June 2016 10:59:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu and David: great reads . Thanks

Look up Daniel Kahneman,Nobel prize in behaviour economics , and his book "Think, slow & fast" . Also Ainslie who applied psychology & economicsto understand addictions. Both are pioneers.

A much earlier pioneer is Hamid al ghazali, previously cited, guided by the teachings of the Quran and the Prophet.

To illustrae with a well known condition, procastination is where the rational self does battle with the impulse self.

Fascinating.

David , by the way ,for a more balanced understanding of ghazal vis a vis science, go here: http://lostislamichistory.com/al-ghazali/

In no way was he opposed to science. He condemned theologians venturing into to realm of science (if they are not qualified) as much as scientist delving into theology (without the qualifications).
To quote ghazali:

“Great indeed is the crime against religion committed by anyone who supposes that Islam is to be championed by the denial of these mathematical sciences. For the revealed Law nowhere undertakes to deny or affirm these sciences, and the latter nowhere address themselves to religious matters.”
Posted by grateful, Friday, 1 July 2016 8:58:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful: . With Abu Jahl instigating, Umayyah tied Bilal up and had him dragged around Mecca as a means to break Bilal's faith.

It just goes to show how barbaric Middle Eastern people are. Nothing has changed in 1300 years. They are still caught up in the same barbarity, now in the name of Islam. A good reason not to allow this Religion into Australia. Thank you for this conformation.

There are many similar stories about Christians being subjected to the same sort of tortures & not giving up their faith & I'm sure the same goes for any other Religion.

dsdm: Yet I did notice your overly emotional reaction to the geological evidence provided by Tas Walker (12/6/16). Yours was not a rational response.

That wasn't an emotional response, that was just stating plain fact. I tried to get emotional once but everyone laughed at me.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 1 July 2016 9:16:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan,

An interesting reworking of the old, "Sitting in a church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car." (That was always a favourite ad hom of mine back in the day.)

<<Sitting in church doesn't make you a Christian theologian, no more than sitting in an armchair makes you an expert, nor sitting in McDonald's makes you a hamburger>>

But I never claimed to be a theologian. I am confident, however, that I know more about the Bible than most Christians, just as atheists tend to know more about religion in general than believers (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2010/09/28/130191248/atheists-and-agnostics-know-more-about-bible-than-religious). And what about my Bible study group attendance? You didn’t mention that and surely that helped with my Biblical knowledge. I was also one of the Sunday School teachers and went on to be a youth group leader in my final days of church attendance.

Yes, I was an active member of my church. My heart was filled with the love of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus the Christ, who on the night in which he was betrayed took bread… and I wanted to the rest of the world to find Jesus too and experience what I was experiencing. It was euphoric.

But I digress.

Your reworking of the ‘sitting in a church doesn’t make you a Christian’ line is an ad hominem because it addresses me rather than my arguments. You haven’t answered my question either. Do you subscribe to the Catholic belief when it comes to salvation, or the Protestant? Because you seem to have expressed both views now, and they are mutually exclusive.

grateful,

Are you exempt from the former because you’re not a theologian?

<<He condemned theologians venturing into to realm of science (if they are not qualified) as much as scientist delving into theology (without the qualifications).>>

Because you were guilty of that a little earlier.

The latter is nonsense, however, because theology is all made up and continuously reworked to get around logical problems when they're pointed out. One does not need to be a theologian to delve into it.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 1 July 2016 9:20:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank-you for that refreshing dose of bigotry Jayb.

You need to get out and about, and mix a bit more.
Posted by grateful, Friday, 1 July 2016 10:27:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the pre-occupation of AJ with the "man" rather than the "ball", along with the accusations of lying and character assignations of anyone he disagrees with, reflects his inability to mount a credible argument against the evidence offered by the Dan Battan.

Well done Dan.
Posted by grateful, Friday, 1 July 2016 10:34:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful: Thank-you for that refreshing dose of bigotry Jayb.

It's not bigotry, it's just plain fact. Islam does not fit into Australian Culture & Australians should not have to change their way of life to appease such a horrifically violent & archaically centered Religion, just to be Politically Correct in Australia.

25 years ago Australia didn't have Security Alerts, Terrorist Alerts, ASIO spying on people, etc,. Australia didn't need to have these until the influx of Middle Eastern Islamic people. To rectify this problem Islam needs to be removed, Lock, Stock & Barrel, from the shores of Australia. Harsh but sensible for Australians safety.

Because Australians are mostly nominally Christian or no Religion they are under threat from Allah/Islam. All this because of a supposed "Allah/God" who supposedly loves us if we "Adore" him/Her/it or He/Her/it will have people run around killing those who don't. Isn't your "Allah/God" wonderful? Not.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 1 July 2016 11:01:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
grateful,

Why do you feel the need to defame those who discredit your arguments? At least I deal with an individual’s arguments before describing what it says about the person; and even then, I only do that when it has been going on for so long or is so overt that to ignore it is to ignore an elephant in the room.

In this instance, it appears that you are annoyed that I spotted you contradicting yourself. But that's okay, none of us is perfect. Just keep it in mind for next time. It'll help you to refine and better communicate your ideas in the future. But by focusing on me instead, or interpreting the revelation as a problem inherent within me, you will never grow in your ideas and will be doomed to repeat your mistakes.

Anyway, if I am unable to mount a credible argument, then why do you need to resort to personal attacks? Does the word irony or hypocrisy mean anything to you?

In case you missed it, not one of your arguments withstood my criticism. So apparently peeved by that are you now, that you can do nothing more than sit on the sidelines and throw stones. That’s a very petulant way to behave.

All you’re doing now is stomping your feet, and your congratulating Dan on arguments that have also flopped, and Batten on an article that I have already explained is fatally flawed, is a prime example of digging one’s heels in too. Either that or wilful blindness.

The most disappointing thing about all this is that I can tell that you are actually a really nice person. But as I pointed out earlier, religious beliefs appear to take on a life of their own and hijack their hosts. They even spread themselves like a virus and evolve to suit their environment like viruses do. Let me tell you, the parallels are astounding when you really get into it.

But that's another story. I at least remove some of the responsibility from you by portraying it in such a way.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 1 July 2016 11:48:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Jay,

Grateful belongs to the Sufi sect of Islam, which is extremely peaceful (and persecuted by Daesh). Time and again he presented here references to show that his religious instructors abhor violence and even see the concept of "Jihad" as an internal struggle within one's soul to fight off one's weaknesses of character.

Your attacks on innocent people is unwarranted, but especially as a non-believer, how can you claim that a non-existent Allah could have ordered people to kill each other?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 1 July 2016 1:09:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yutsie: how can you claim that a non-existent Allah could have ordered people to kill each other?

The people of Islam believe that Allah/God orders them to kill people who are not Moslem. That's what is says in the Koran multiple times, regardless of what Sect a Moslem belongs too. Does it not?

Killing of unbelievers is not an option. It is a definite Order from Allah/God anyway you look at it within Islam.

AJ: The most disappointing thing about all this is that I can tell that you are actually a really nice person. But as I pointed out earlier, religious beliefs appear to take on a life of their own and hijack their hosts. They even spread themselves like a virus and evolve to suit their environment like viruses do.

I Second that.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 1 July 2016 1:44:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Islam is not unique in commanding its followers to kill the infidel. The Bible clearly commands its followers to do likewise.

Deuteronomy 13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 13:7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; 13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: 13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

Most Jews and Christians are too civilised to literally follow that evil book. Quite possibly most Jews and Christians are unaware that the passage exists. However, it and similar passages exist in that evil book.
Posted by david f, Friday, 1 July 2016 2:42:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f: Deuteronomy 13:6.

Yes I'm quite familiar with the passage, also the one that says that you have to eat your children if you haven't got any food left in a siege. There are lots like that in Deuteronomy.

no one in Religions has taken any notice of those passages for thousands of years. All except Islam that is. Still living in the dirt of a Desert in the 6th Century. That's their thing but they can keep it in the Desert from whence it came along with their Allah/God. Civilized people don't do those sorts of things anymore.
Posted by Jayb, Friday, 1 July 2016 4:40:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don Battan...i blame you for all this attention. If you hadn't had brought forth such a succinct and powerful case against atheism they would not now be preoccupied with labeling me, my beautiful family and blessed friends as evil and threatening us with a stateless existence.

Australian culture seems to be going through a crisis. Materialism is not bringing happiness but increasing mental illness, suicides, alcohol and drug abuse, misogyny, racism, domestic violence and pedophilia.

Leigh Sales coped it last night from Labor supporters. People no longer seem to be able to express their disagreement in civil terms but resort to abuse and vicious personal attacks:

http://m.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/news-and-current-affairs/federal-election-2016-abcs-leigh-sales-republishes-relentless-twitter-abuse-20160701-gpw3n2.html

Sad

What has this to do withe the case against atheism? Plenty. This is your legacy. Explain how we got here and provide a solution. You've got all these wonderful theories. Let's see just how useful they are.
Posted by grateful, Friday, 1 July 2016 10:34:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, grateful, “succinct and powerful”. And yet, funnily enough, neither you nor Dan are able to negate a single argument against Batten's article.

<<Materialism is not bringing happiness but increasing mental illness, suicides, alcohol and drug abuse, misogyny, racism, domestic violence and pedophilia.>>

Actually, those things have not increased. We’re just more aware of them. Compounding our false perception of the extent of these issues is our increased sensitivity to them with the increase in information available and a 24-hour news cycle.

<<Leigh Sales coped it last night from Labor supporters. People no longer seem to be able to express their disagreement in civil terms but resort to abuse and vicious personal attacks:>>

Oh, tell me about it! But you can change your ways, grateful. Yuyutsu willing, you can change your ways.

<<What has this to do withe the case against atheism? Plenty. This is your legacy. Explain how we got here and provide a solution. You've got all these wonderful theories. Let's see just how useful they are.>>

I’m sorry to inform you, grateful, that violence (worldwide) continues to decline and societal health continues to increase with the decline in religiosity. It’s a pity you never applied your statistical knowledge to criminology as I did. It is a media-exacerbated myth that the world is going to pot. Here’s those links again:

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.pdf
http://www.skepticmoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/table-religion-vs.....png
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA

Simply digging your heels in and re-asserting your baseless claims isn't going to make them come true, I'm afraid. The decline in religion has seen unprecedented peace and tolerance. The problems you cite are actually religion's legacy, not atheism's.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 1 July 2016 11:03:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So it's just part and parcel of Australian culture.Does Australian culture need to change?
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 2 July 2016 3:47:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is what part and parcel of Australian culture, grateful?

<<So it's just part and parcel of Australian culture.>>

People labelling you and your friends and family “evil”, and threatening to render you stateless? Or materialism?

If it’s the former, I don’t think that’s acceptable and it would need to change. But I don’t see where that’s happened on this thread. So why bring it up here?

If it’s materialism to which you refer, then to answer your question:

“Does Australian culture need to change?”

I'd have to say, ‘no’. Given what I pointed out to you in my last post, it appears we are definitely heading in the right direction. It would be utterly foolish for us to stop now.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 2 July 2016 4:07:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grateful I have nothing against you personally, or your family. You do sound like a nice guy & I bet you have a nice family too.

The many friends I have had, Work mates. They too were nice people, at work. Running into them privately, at the Supermarket, etc, was a different thing, when I spoke to their wives I was rebuked for speaking to the wives & they spoke harshly to her for acknowledging my hello. Strange behaviour I thought at the time. Now I know why.

The big complaint of overseas Wars is that civilians get killed. Well women & children. Why is that? The fighters take their wives & children into the War Zone because if they leave them behind their neighbours will rape them then they would be obliged to stone their wife to death for being unfaithful. Go figure & many other similar things.

My observation of Islam. the study I have done of the Koran & the Hadith & several other Books. Eg; the Ayatollah Khomeini's "little Green Book," & Plenty of UTube by important Imams, etc,.

So it's just part and parcel of Islamic culture. Does Islamic culture need to change?

Grateful: So it's just part and parcel of Australian culture. Does Australian culture need to change?

<As they grow, they will observe their non-Muslim school mates follow a “lifestyle” of binge drinking, sex and drugs, along with self- mutilation (tattoos and piercings on all parts of the body). It will not be a surprise if they, as I did, encounter stories of date rape and attempted suicide among their class-mates.>

I take it that this is what you are referring to as Australian Culture.

No. Definitely not. Australian Culture really good & is the envy of the World. It definitely doesn't need to change nor should it. Not to meet the demands of a rather backward religion that would demand us to revert to one of perpetual violence against each other. Give up our free way of life for one of fearing for one life.
Posted by Jayb, Saturday, 2 July 2016 5:52:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If I can change for the better and be able to raise children free of these social diseases then anyone can.

Salaams
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 2 July 2016 6:08:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu
You'll appreciate the following
Al ghazali's "Alchemy of Happiness". I found a free download here:https://archive.org/details/cu31924028976161

Salaams
Posted by grateful, Saturday, 2 July 2016 6:29:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don’t put yourself down like that, grateful.

<<If I can change for the better and be able to raise children free of these social diseases then anyone can.>>

I’m sure you weren’t that bad before Islam. And given the studies and stats I provided earlier, it appears that most do it better without religion, anyway.

If religion worked for you, then that's something at least. Apparently for most, however, betterment occurs without religion.

Each to their own, I suppose.
Posted by AJ Philips, Saturday, 2 July 2016 10:17:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJ,
Earlier you said, "Disbelief isn’t just 'one perspective to start from', it’s the only reliable perspective to start from if one wants to help ensure that the conclusions that they reach are reliable." From what I understand, your persepctive is that one must start with disbelief. That's healthy scepticism. So for investigating the question, what is the evidence for God being, you start from a position of disbelief in God, and see if there is sufficient evidence to rise up and convince you otherwise from your disbelief in God.

I said the approach has merit. Yet I also fear that it could lead to a self fulfilling prophecy. When your initial outlook is one of disbelief, if disbelief is your governing perspective, then the disbelieving position is predictably where you're likely to finish.

Yet Don Batten would ask you, are you being consistent? Do you approach other questions with the same starting position of disbelief? Don gives the atheist five specfic, real world examples.

For one example (the origin of life), the philosopher Thomas Nagel formulates the question like this, "Given what is known about the chemical basis of biology and genetics, what is the likelihood that self-reproducing life forms should have come into existence spontaneously on the early earth, solely through the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry?"

Now if you were consistent, you would start from a position of disbelief. That's healthy scepticism. Non-living chemicals don't normally (in fact, never in our experience) bring self reproducing life forms into existence spontaneously. Louis Pasteur famously demonstrated this. The canning industry depends on this fact everyday. Every ordinary tin of sardines is an experiment, repeated thousands of times, that non living matter won't produce life, even under favourable conditions (such a can is far more favourable than any theorised 'primeval soup'.)

So where is your initial scepticism to an unseen and mind-blowingly unlikely occurrence? Shouldn't you begin with disbelief? What happened to your previous maxim, 'remarkable claims require remarkable (sufficient) evidence'? Please try and be consistent.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 6 July 2016 5:01:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Grateful, for supporting Don's article. In doing so you opened yourself to the aggressions of those with only a superficial understanding of religion.

I agree that this was a succinct but powerful article. Why did it receive an almost unprecedented surge to the comments section? It obviously struck a chord or hit a nerve somehow. I suppose that was something to do with the quality of the article, or maybe simply that here was a knowledgeable scientist giving an opposing voice to the only one people usually hear in popular media, that 'science is inevitably leading the world towards atheism' type mantra. And so came the reaction, much of it rather more emotive than reasoned. For example, Jayb still owes some kind of explanation as to why he feels justified in responding with insults and invective when presented with rational evidence and argument from a qualified scientist (12/6/16).

Yuyutsu,
Amongst everyone here, you opened the batting, asking Don what he was trying to achieve. You seemed adverse to a religious person looking towards the material world for evidence. You asked me, what would happen to my faith if the physical evidence pointed away from there ever being a global flood? I could have easily responded, what would be the effect on others' disbelief if they started to see the evidence for the flood?

I think Don as a believer was aiming to show that there are intellectually satisfying answers to support theistic claims, for people who are openly seeking, despite the noise being made by the new atheists; information often kept hidden within the flow of mainstream culture. It's healthy that people can find such answers that relate to the real world where real people live (rather than the illusory world where nobody really lives,) and that God might be gracious enough to use such information to overcome obstacles to saving faith. The essence of the gospel message is still about the Rock of Ages rather than the age of rocks. Nenertheless, the real, tangible world does matter to people, and to God (having created it) .
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Wednesday, 6 July 2016 5:09:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dsdm: Jayb still owes some kind of explanation as to why he feels justified in responding with insults and invective when presented with rational evidence and argument from a qualified scientist (12/6/16).

My justification is in the rational evidence and argument from a qualified scientist. Don Batten is a God fearing man. I am not. There is no God therefore no-one to fear. He maybe a qualified Scientist but his article is still only his opinion. His opinion is as valid as mine & anyone else's, for or against. I am a qualified Mechanical Tradesperson with a "lot" of extra modules added to my Mechanical, Electrical, Electronic, Computer & Business knowledge. That doesn't make me an expert to present rational evidence or argument on Astronomy.
Posted by Jayb, Wednesday, 6 July 2016 7:29:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dan,

«I could have easily responded, what would be the effect on others' disbelief if they started to see the evidence for the flood?»

I addressed this question in page 16:

"What need have we and of what value would it be if a bunch of materialists worship a materially-based, scientifically-proven god after being convinced with clear evidence that doing so would help them achieve their material aims? Wouldn't this amount to idolatry?"

«I think Don as a believer was aiming to show that there are intellectually satisfying answers to support theistic claims, for people who are openly seeking,»

I agree, he so aims.

Now what are those people seeking? Are they seeking God? Are they approaching God?

If not, if they only seek answers to satisfy their curiosity and material desires, then what would those people find? Will it help them to find God?
For this, see my response to Johnheininger on the bottom of page 9, beginning with: "Has the possibility occurred to you that this world could have a creator who is not God?" (note that I'm not saying that this is the case, only that anyone who is convinced by Don Batten's arguments might consider other possibilities instead of God).

HOWEVER, what if those people do in fact seek and approach God? Then possibly, as you say, "God might be gracious enough to use such information to overcome obstacles to saving faith", a very interesting prospect indeed, Amen!

The Bhagavad-Gita 7:16, http://auromere.wordpress.com/2009/03/22/gita-chapter-7-vers-16, tells us about four types of people who approach God. The one relevant here is the 'jijnasu', the knowledge-seeker.

As you see on this reference, this verse has various conflicting interpretations: http://www.bhagavad-gita.us/bhagavad-gita-7-16. Of these, I mostly respect the view of Sri Adi Shankaracharya, who does not elaborate much, but says:

"jijnasuh, the seeker of Knowledge, who wants to know the reality of the Lord"

So here I believe is the key: does the reader of this article comes with the desire to know the reality of the Lord, or just about the origins of the mundane?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 6 July 2016 10:04:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That’s right, Dan.

<<From what I understand, your persepctive is that one must start with disbelief.>>

Especially if we care about the truth of our beliefs.

<<So for investigating the question, what is the evidence for God being, you start from a position of disbelief in God, and see if there is sufficient evidence to rise up and convince you otherwise from your disbelief in God.>>

Correct.

<<Yet I also fear that [this approach] could lead to a self fulfilling prophecy. When your initial outlook is one of disbelief, if disbelief is your governing perspective, then the disbelieving position is predictably where you're likely to finish.>>

If one lets it “govern” one’s inquiry, then sure. This is why a healthy scepticism must be employed instead.

<<For one example (the origin of life), the philosopher Thomas Nagel formulates the question like this...>>

We have no way of knowing the chances. They’re probably pretty small. So are the chances that you and I were going to be born, given all the chance events that had to occur throughout history for the right sperm and ovum to eventually meet, but that doesn’t mean we’re not here.

<<Now if you were consistent, you would start from a position of disbelief [with regards to abiogenesis].>>

Correct.

<<Non-living chemicals don't normally (in fact, never in our experience) bring self reproducing life forms into existence spontaneously. Louis Pasteur famously demonstrated this.>>

Correct, Pasteur debunked the spontaneous generation. He did not, however, debunk abiogenesis. Which is entirely different. That link again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE

<<So where is your initial scepticism to an unseen and mind-blowingly unlikely occurrence?>>

It faded with the evidence. Regardless, a lack of evidence would not be evidence for a god, and mistaking it as such is the Argument from Ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance).

<<Shouldn't you begin with disbelief?>>

I did. I was even a Christian creationist at the time.

<<What happened to your previous maxim, 'remarkable claims require remarkable (sufficient) evidence'?>>

Nothing. I still regard it as an important maxim. There is nothing extraordinary about abiogenesis, however.

<<Please try and be consistent.>>

I have been, and I will.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 7 July 2016 1:18:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I realise this discussion is now dead, but I read the following last night and can’t help but share it. It so perfectly describes why my discussions on this thread (particularly the one with grateful) went the way they did, that I think it would be an apt note to end on:

“Challenge a person's beliefs, and you challenge his dignity, standing, and power. And when those beliefs are based on nothing but faith, they are chronically fragile. No one gets upset about the belief that rocks fall down as opposed to up, because all sane people can see it with their own eyes. Not so for the belief that babies are born with original sin or that God exists in three persons or that Ali is the second-most divinely inspired man after Muhammad. When people organize their lives around these beliefs, and then learn of other people who seem to be doing just fine without them—or worse, who credibly rebut them—they are in danger of looking like fools. Since one cannot defend a belief based on faith by persuading skeptics it is true, the faithful are apt to react to unbelief with rage ...” — Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined

“Play your games with someone else AJ. I can't see you as anything other than fraud and slander” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#325520)
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 15 July 2016 11:14:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

An interesting thought, AJ.

Thanks for the quote from Steven Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature" though I'm a bit dubious about his claim that "violence has declined". If it has, it still has a long way to go.

I have saved the quote for future reference.

However, I am more inclined to think that violence has simply evolved and adapted to the changing circumstances imposed on us by modern society (the so-called "better angels of our nature").

At the last count, here in France, another 84 innocent by-standers have just "bit the dust" while watching the fireworks during the annual Bastille day celebrations.

The pro-Brexit voters in the UK were protesting against ecomomic violence.

Domestic violence doesn't seem to be declining significantly anywhere in the world, to the best of my knowledge.

Rapists still get-off free in their large majority in every country without exception, and is increasingly practised as a regular weapon of war against civil populations not directly engaged in the conflicts.

Just a few examples ...

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 15 July 2016 7:11:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Banjo Paterson,

Although it’s hard to gauge precisely to what extent, violence on the whole certainly has declined. This is well known amongst criminologists. Pinker goes into great depth on this in his book (832 pages). Most people (particularly older generations) find this counter-intuitive, so Pinker dedicates the first chapter of his book to giving a brief rundown of violence throughout human history from the Stone Age up until now.

As I touched on briefly earlier, multiple factors influence our perception of the extent to which violence is occurring now in comparison to the past, such as social media, a 24-hour news cycle, improved communications, increased media reporting on violence, nostalgia, increased awareness, and broader definitions of what constitutes a crime.

It’s interesting that you mention domestic violence, because it’s a good example of the last two factors that I listed. Decades ago, domestic violence was treated by police as a private issue, and it was considered inappropriate for police to get involved in such matters. Child sex abuse is another example. My father was gang-raped at the age of twelve by a group older teenage boys; when he tried to tell his mother about what had happened, she told him to stop being so silly.

The Honeymooners was a ‘50s sitcom that was a good example of how frivolously domestic violence was once treated (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98qw86DsdZ0). Ralph, the main character played by Jackie Gleeson, was always threatening to hit his wife (Alice). That was funny stuff in the ‘50s. Of course, Alice never believed that Ralph would actually do it, but not because she thought he was too much of a nice guy to ever hit her, no, it was because she didn't think he was man enough to do it.

Anyway, you can check out Pinker’s TED talk on all this at the following link if this topic interests you.

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence?language=en.
Posted by AJ Philips, Friday, 15 July 2016 8:24:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear AJ,

Thanks for the Pinker quote. I have circulated it. From my limited view of the world I would say there is much less violence now then there has been in the past. I recently read Jared Diamond's "The World until Yesterday". He has spent much time with tribal people particularly in New Guinea. With all the sophisticated weapons of modern warfare the casualty rate in tribal warfare is much greater than it is in our current wars. I intend to read Pinker's book.
Posted by david f, Friday, 15 July 2016 8:37:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear AJ & David,

.

Sorry to have taken so long to get back to you. My computer stubbornly refused to open. For no apparent reason, it has now decided to get back to work again.
.

AJ wrote :

« Although it’s hard to gauge precisely to what extent, violence on the whole certainly has declined. This is well known amongst criminologists »
.

That may be so, AJ, but I suspect that the criminologists’ vision of “violence” is limited to what is classified as “crime” in terms of the law. That is the problem with specialists. Their specialist knowledge tends to narrow down their vision to their specific field of expertise.

Unfortunately, I have not read Steven Pinker's book, "The Better Angels of Our Nature", which I see was published in 2011, and therefore cannot comment on it.

However, I watched the video, for which you provided the link, on his talk (filmed in 2007), that he, himself, indicates was originally entitled “Everything you know is wrong” but has been presented as “The surprising decline in violence”. He does not say who made the change, but it could possibly have been on the suggestion of the talk organiser, TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design).

I mention this because he may not have wished to convey the idea that his talk was about violence in general – because it is not. It is about deaths due to warfare, genocide, and homicide, where more or less reliable statistics are available.

Seen in that light, i.e., for what it is, it is an excellent historical study. His references are impeccable and his analyses, particularly perspicacious.

However, I regret his overshooting the line by generalising as he does when he asks :

« Well, why has violence declined? No one really knows, but I have read four explanations, all of which, I think, have some grain of plausibility ».

.

(Continued ...)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 19 July 2016 1:22:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

(Continued ...)

.

What bothers me is that “deaths due to warfare, genocide, and homicide” do not cover all the violence in the world. There is much more to it than that. Much of it is hidden, underhand and insidious: people dying early deaths as a result of poverty, famine and lack of health care due to economic and political factors; poorly constructed buildings collapsing in known earthquake zones; domestic violence that continues to penetrate the inner circles of families in epidemic proportions, etc., etc., …

It seems to me that the modern era that sees the violence of “deaths due to warfare, genocide and homicide” diminishing, gives rise to different types of violence that probably did not exist 10,000 years ago, the point of departure of Steven Pinker’s talk. As for domestic violence, though it is not difficult to imagine that it has always existed, there is little sign of it diminishing. If anything, it has possibly even increased with the increased stress and frustrations of our modern lifestyles.

Perhaps he expanded out his study in the book he published four years later.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 19 July 2016 1:25:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo Paterson,

I have a degree in criminology and I can assure you that’s not the case.

<<...I suspect that the criminologists’ vision of “violence” is limited to what is classified as “crime” in terms of the law.>>

There are many acts that criminologists consider to be crimes despite being legal. Particularly where white-collar crime is concerned. Criminologists consider all the forms of violence that you mention too.

Regarding Pinker’s TED talk, the reason he uses homicide, genocide, and death is because he only had twenty minutes and homicide is considered indicative of overall “crime” rates due to its lack of ambiguity, its steadiness in rates, and the fact that people tend not to be killed without others noticing.

Curiously, you mention the age of the book twice in your response (a mere four years) as if this were relevant or worthy of noting. Although I may be sensing innuendo where there is none.
Posted by AJ Philips, Tuesday, 19 July 2016 10:02:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear AJ,

.

It is interesting to learn that « there are many acts that criminologists consider to be crimes despite being legal ». That’s a pretty broad definition of what constitutes a “crime”. It comes under the third OED definition which gives as an example: “it’s a crime to keep a creature like Willy in a tank”.

I guess I could have given as an example: “it’s a crime to keep a dog in an apartment” – but maybe that’s just a matter of personal opinion. Apparently there are about 200,000 Paris dog owners who don’t consider that to be a crime – despite the 10 tons of droppings on the streets every day and the six hundred broken limbs of people slipping on the droppings, on average, per year.

Getting back to Pinker’s TED talk, you remark: “curiously, you mention the age of the book twice in your response (a mere four years) as if this were relevant or worthy of noting”.

That's because I recognise that he would have had ample time to broaden his study to include all forms of violence in his book if he intended to study "violence" in general.

I understand your observation that he only had 20 minutes for the talk but I think that if he had really intended to address the subject that was announced, “The surprising decline in violence”, i.e., “violence” in general, he would have said at least a few words about limiting his remarks to what he considered to be the principal manifestations of violence, due to time constraints.

Strangely enough, even the title of his book does not mention “violence”: “The Better Angels of Our Nature”. That is why I am still not sure that his objective was to study “violence” in general at all.

I am inclined to think that his real aim was to treat the subject announced in the title of his book: “The Better Angels of Our Nature”, just as the real aim of his talk was the original title he gave it: “Everything you know is wrong”.

(Continued ...)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 20 July 2016 12:50:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

(Continued ...)

.

His intent seems to have been to simply underline the greater benefits obtainable by cooperation than those obtainable by violence and, he adds:

« Anything, I think, that makes it easier to imagine trading places with someone else means that it increases your moral consideration to that other person »

If his objective had been to study violence in general, in addition to those indicated in my previous post, his treatise should have included such important manifestations of violence as:

• The United Nations estimate that, 4.4 billion people of the current world population of 7.4 billion do not have access to justice. The other 3 billion theoretically have access to the courts but, may or may not have access to justice. In 2012, Amnesty International found that 101of the 196 countries in the world repress their people’s right to freedom of expression; 80 countries systematically conduct unfair trials denying their citizens justice and 112 countries torture their citizens. By the end of 2013, according to the United Nations, 51.2 million individuals were forcibly displaced worldwide as a result of persecution, conflict, generalised violence, or human rights violations.

• The 1.25 million road traffic deaths in 2013 (World Health Organisation) and almost one million individuals who commit suicide each year – one every 40 seconds. Many more attempt suicide (around 10-20 million) each year.

• The International Labour Organisation, estimate that 20.9 million are victims of forced labour, a type of enslavement that includes labour and sexual exploitation. This does not include cases of trafficking for organ removal, forced or child marriages and forced adoptions.

• The 10.2 million people in prison around the world in 2013 (King’s College London’s International Centre for Prison Studies).

• The International Organization for Migration estimate that over the last two decades, more than 60,000 migrants died trying to reach their destinations, and this only includes deaths for which there is some record. Many die unnoticed.

And the list goes on …

But, again, I have not read his book, and perhaps he does mention all this, and more.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 20 July 2016 1:01:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo Paterson,

Naturally there’s not always going to be a consensus amongst criminologists on what exactly constitutes a crime. Even with regards to some acts that are illegal.

<<It is interesting to learn that « there are many acts that criminologists consider to be crimes despite being legal ». That’s a pretty broad definition of what constitutes a “crime”.>>

I think you’re over-analysing this and jumping to too many conclusions.

Crime is a surprisingly difficult notion to pin down. Examples of legal acts that criminologists generally agree constitute crimes are banks offering credit cards with temporary low interest rates to lure desperate people who they know will always have the card at the limit and will be forever trapped paying maximum interest, pretty much everything televangelists do, and insurance companies’ bad faith claims.

There are probably some animal-activist criminologists who would agree that keeping a dog in an apartment is, or should be, a crime; but they would be fringe outliers who wouldn’t be doing their careers or tenures any favours by just focussing on that. I suspect they’d also have a bit of trouble stirring up enough passion about such an issue, or would have too much difficulty in getting enough criminologists to agree with them, to bother focussing on it too much.

<<…I recognise that he would have had ample time to broaden his study to include all forms of violence in his book if he intended to study "violence" in general.>>

I haven’t finished the book, but either way, whether or not he does, the fact that the more obvious, direct, and conventional forms of violence have declined is a fascinating-enough fact by itself. And whatever it is that we’ve been doing right there deserves attention, but we need to know what that is first. It would be silly to not bother finding an answer to that because violence may not have come down if we include indirect forms of violence such as inflicting poverty on certain demographics.

Continued…
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 20 July 2016 3:26:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…Continued

I suppose, if Pinker doesn’t address those less-direct forms of violence you mention, that it would ease your concerns if he called his book, “The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why the Conventional, More-obvious, and More-direct Forms of Violence that We Generally Think of When We Hear the Word ‘Violence’ Have Declined”, but that wouldn’t have the same ring to it.

That being said, I see no reason why, even in twenty years, Pinker should have had to have broadened his study to all forms of violence.

<<Strangely enough, even the title of his book does not mention “violence”: “The Better Angels of Our Nature”.>>

Yes, it does. As mentioned earlier (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201#326029), the full title is, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined.

<<His intent seems to have been to simply underline the greater benefits obtainable by cooperation than those obtainable by violence…>>

I’m hundreds of pages into the book and so far, he has only mentioned them once in less than a chapter.

The problems you list are all legitimate problems, and perhaps Pinker does mention them. But like I said before, I don’t think it would be a big deal at all if he doesn’t. Indeed, given how big the topic of why the more conventional forms of violence have declined is by itself, I wouldn’t be surprised if he doesn’t, nor would I be surprised if he never feels the need to. The amount of research that went into his book is enough for any one lifetime. Perhaps someone else could pick that up later, but I think it’s unfair to criticise a person for trying to understand, and raise awareness of, a particular phenomenon in the event that they don’t cover what may be impossible for one person to do adequately in a lifetime.

One thing I’ll say in your defence, however, is that while you’ll often hear about (conventional) crime rates having gone down over the last few decades, when one takes into account white-collar crime, criminologists agree that crime has probably gone up. Although we’ll never know that for sure.
Posted by AJ Philips, Wednesday, 20 July 2016 3:26:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear AJ and Banjo Paterson,

There has been an attempt, sometimes successful, of religious believers and other moralisers, to define violation of their beliefs as a crime. The notorious experiment in government morality in the US, Prohibition, is an example of that. Treating drug usage as a crime rather than an addiction like alcohol or gambling is another example that fills US prisons. The opposition to same-sex marriage is another example. No attempt will be made to tell religious institutions who they can marry. However, their efforts are to curtail civil marriage and to see their religious predilections enshrined in civil law.

Some clerics are aware of the difference between religious injunctions and civil law. Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury said:

"In a civilised society, all crimes are likely to be sins, but most sins are not and ought not to be treated as crimes. Man's ultimate responsibility is to God alone."
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 20 July 2016 4:53:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear AJ & David,

.

Thanks, AJ, your comments are well taken but please be assured that I do not consider that I am in a position to criticise Steven Pinker at present. I know what he said but I do not know what he wrote. I reserve my judgment until I learn whether he considers it is sufficient to draw an overall conclusion on the variability of violence in general based solely on available statistics for “deaths due to warfare, genocide and homicide”, or not.

I note that where you and I appear to differ is that I consider he had ample time (in 4 years) to collate and analyse all the available data on violence in general (if that was the object of his study), whereas you indicate that it is a task that “may be impossible for one person to do adequately in a lifetime”.

Naturally, I emphasise “available” data. If no data is available for certain types of violence, then this should be indicated, and the necessary reserves made in respect of the conclusions which, consequently, become less significant.

I am not suggesting that anybody should spend their lives looking for data that does not exist. But, at the same time, I should strongly object, if conclusions based on data relating to specific types of violence, irrespective of their importance, were presented as a valid indication of the overall variability of violence in general.

Naturally, I agree with you that “white collar crime” should be added to the long list of different types of violence I cited in my previous posts. There are probably others as well.

Perhaps you and/or David might be kind enough to let me know the extent of his study and the basis on which he draws his conclusions when you will have finished reading his book.

David, you raised some fairly prickly questions in your last post. I sympathise with your attitude to them all but I need to rack my brains much more seriously before deciding what I consider to be the best solution for each of them.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 20 July 2016 9:19:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear david f,

All good points. Drug use is an example of an illegal activity that even the most conservative criminologist would not consider a crime, but rather a mental health issue, and perhaps a manifestation of unresolved social problems.

Prohibition is known to be a resounding failure, and the 1920s Prohibition in the US provided criminologists with a rare opportunity to study its effects and usefulness (or should I say, “uselessness”?).

I did an essay on illicit drugs as one of my assessment items, and started with the intention of approaching the issue from what appeared to me to be the common sense angle: that prohibition was necessary, and to ask what could be done to improve the ‘war on drugs’. To my surprise, I found no evidence whatsoever in the literature to support continued prohibition and had no choice but to argue that prohibition was counterproductive and that a harm minimisation approach needed to be taken instead.

In fact, so non-existent was the evidence that prohibition was a good idea, that, in order to present a contrary view to rebut, I needed to reference some dodgy religious webpage and, consequentially, lost marks there for referencing something that was not scholarly.

There is a brilliant TED talk on this topic that bears an uncanny resemblance to the essay I wrote:

http://www.ted.com/talks/ethan_nadelmann_why_we_need_to_end_the_war_on_drugs?language=en

Legalising illicit drugs would be a significant blow to organised crime. The only downfall is that a society that legalised all illicit drugs would possibly end up sacrificing the current generation of addicts. Prohibition, however, taught us that when a substance is legal and no longer taboo, abuse rates of it drop.

As for religion and the perception of violence, Christians tend to be the most sceptical that violence (or conventional violence, at least) is declining, as it is imperative to Christian theology that the world be going to pot. Not only does the Bible predict this, but it’s also supposed to be a sign of the eagerly awaited return of Jesus.
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 21 July 2016 1:15:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Banjo Paterson,

It seems pointless for us continue much further when neither of us has finished reading the book. I’ll be sure to report back with more details if it ever becomes relevant in a future discussion. Although, I would recommend reading the book yourself.

The book has its critics, naturally. But it is a fascinating read nonetheless. It has helped to fill some of the gaps in my criminological knowledge that were never filled during my years at university. Questions I had such as, how is it that we live in more civilised times, and yet some things that were once considered uncivilised are now more commonplace (e.g. swearing, wearing revealing clothing)?

(FYI, the answer to the above is because we no longer need to fear violent retribution in the event that we offend someone.)
Posted by AJ Philips, Thursday, 21 July 2016 1:15:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 87
  7. 88
  8. 89
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy