Dear Dan,

>>God did not leave us without statement to his creative activity<<
I agree, we Christians believe that He revealed Himself to us in the Book of Scripture AS WELL AS in the Book of Nature: it is the theologians and exegetes who are best suited to read and explain the Bible to us, whereas in case of the Book of Nature it is the scientists.

AJ Philips,

The dictionary I took the definition from is the one included in Mac OS 10.6.3, based on the New Oxford American Dictionary. Thanks for the other definitions saying more or less the same, as well as for explicit examples of what I had in mind when referring to everyday facts that are “universally accepted”, i.e. beyond dispute.

>>And that, to me, is pure sophistry - in every sense of the word<<
In my earlier post to david f I wrote “Very roughly speaking … an atheist’s external view of the theist position is that this sense is a mere hallucination, delusion, superstition etc. Well, sophistry must be one of the things I gathered under “etc”.

Dear Dan and AJ Philips,

I am sorry I could not express more clearly (for you two to understand) what I had in mind. I was hoping to clarify some things, and my intention was certainly not to attack; neither religious believers nor unbelievers.

Dear George,
it seems you and I have more in common than some of your other antagonists, the difference between us being that while I acknowledge the dubiousness of empirical knowledge, and the need to consider human fascination with the numinous (outside its ideologically constructed conventions), I stop short of resolving my scepticism in a belief system. I s'pose I'm your classic agnostic, or what today we disparagingly call a relativist--which however can be purposive as well as aimless.

Dear George,

I am not adequately informed to be dogmatic about QM interpretations. Yet, yes, I would see prima facie the feasibility of two realms, perhaps with a semi-permeable seam. Moreover, I would see observation to be a loose concept, wherein, being deduced by the environment might suffice. Like you, I see nothing supernatural about this. If true, it is just how things are.

On the other hand, I appreciate that cosmologists like the mathematics of the multiverse. The idea of every possible event occurring is not only fantastic but convenient. Overall, despite its predictive power, I suspect the various contemporary QM interpretations will prove to be stop-gap until more solutions are known.

Where QM might have role is allowing the concurrency of superposition of states overcome the otherwise enormous time intervals required of classical biogenesis.

I am aware of the Zeno paradoxes (and inverse Zeno paradoxes in QM). Also, I am aware of the more grounded (technical) application of infinities and entanglement. That said, these terms do allow us to reflect upon how an alleged god might be constituted and how said god is “entangled” with realms, including our reality: i.e., How does god relate and engage with creation(s)? I have read the Goldilock’s Enigma and appreciate its speculative nature. On the other hand, the notion of a self-sustaining, self-organising universe is a more testable proposition than god in heaven.

Once matter is known to be created spontaneously and casualty diminished and properties are time are better understood, we can contain existence, without extrapolation to external agencies. Herein, in the last eighty years, we have come closer to understanding the universe as the universe alone, even if solutions beg new questions. We may taken only "the first step on the journey of a thousand miles", yet with the supernatural, there is no footing for a first step.

I read the Huffington Post cite. Thanks.

Dear Banjo,

My recent sojourn into QM was to suggest to George; though a sceptic, I am not stuck in nineteenth century mechanics. Instead, I will engage realms other than overt (to us) realities. Here, science is starting to probe with good effect. Moreover, the empirical seemingly has fuzzy edges on matters such as the creation, biogenesis and consciousness. Yet, these ideas have the potential to be progressed. Conscripting science as a tool to measure religion, shows even an excellent tool does not work, suggesting no tool will. God doesn’t measure up in the sense that likes of Lord Kelvin applied measure.

Dear Squeers,

I agree the non-empirical exists and that old notions about reality are undergoing revision. Yet, we seem to be enjoined to these other realities, which are just that, other realities, not the supernatural. I think George would accept the last point.

If existence can be explained by fuzzy stuff in QM and particle physics, do we really need sustain a first cause, when there may never have been a cause? If there is no first cause, why do we need to have been created (by God) in the simple sense of creation?

Oliver:
<If existence can be explained by fuzzy stuff in QM and particle physics, do we really need sustain a first cause, when there may never have been a cause? If there is no first cause, why do we need to have been created (by God) in the simple sense of creation?>

It's hard for humans to escape inductive reasoning, which always leads us back to first causes, ultimately rationalised as a singularity. I think it makes more sense to consider future prospects. It's unlikely anything sophisticated triggered the phenomenal universe, and in any case if it did, that's a singularity. It's much more plausible, I think, that meaning is retrospective, that the past and present is somehow connected with the future as fait accompli. If so, there must be a connection between our (ongoing?) future apotheosis and the present, which would otherwise surely be nothing more than an indifferent stage in that ultimately transcendent development. Either we are stark raving mad, a la Schelling, or we're haunted by the future, rather than first causes.

George,

Thanks for letting me know where you got the definition from. On reflection, it wasn’t the definition I had a problem with (the definition was more or less right) it was fact that you had then interpreted it, and put a spin on it, in such a way that it made everyday facts appear to be subjective when they’re not.

<<In my earlier post to david f I wrote “Very roughly speaking … an atheist’s external view of the theist position is that this sense is a mere hallucination, delusion, superstition etc. Well, sophistry must be one of the things I gathered under “etc”.>>

No, actually, if you re-read what I wrote, it wasn’t your position I was referring to, but the argument you used. Sophistry is simply the use of arguments that are deliberately devised to appear plausible, but are actually fallacious and misleading.

Besides which, everything you mentioned to david f before the “etc” related to why one might PERCEIVE things the way they do, so I don’t think you get to just lump a description of how one might CONVEY things the way they do into the ‘etc’ when it suits you, unfortunately.

<<I am sorry I could not express more clearly (for you two to understand) what I had in mind.>>

I read you loud and clear, George, so I’m not sure what it is that you think you could have expressed more clearly. Could you clarify this?

It seems that you do a lot of apologising to me for not being able to express yourself more clearly, but you’re always so careful about how you word your posts that I don’t see how you could possibly be clearer.

Considering English is your second language and yet you speak it far better than most here on OLO, I certainly don’t think communication is a problem. No, I think the problem you face is that you’re arguing from the inherently flawed form of Christian apologetics known as ‘Presuppositionalism’ that - as every other form of apologetics does - falls down at its premise and ultimately fails.