cont/ ...

George may need correct my loose metaphor:

1. How many prime numbers are there?
2. How many numbers are there; all numbers?
3. Where prime numbers reside?

Is not the smaller infinity of prime numbers embedded in all numbers?

Actually, in many respects, from my perpective George and I share some of our thinking, even, if every now and then, we agee to disagree.

If (hypothetical for me) scripture is divinely inspired, it should be recalled that someone in 1600, when there were clocks, would not be able to de-engineer/replicate a quartz watch. Primitive nomads would not understand 11-D M Theory, even if neurologically these nomads were as smart us: The 6,000 year old earth/universe made sense in the context of the genelogies of the Bible to Jewish* folk back then. A delimited patrimonial spine being more apt than quarks. If the alleged Holy Spirit descended on Pope Benedict, so he could see how exotic matter could hold a worm to all the passage of classic materical with QM contact (time machine), he probably could not share the news. No one would understand.

The universe is much, much older than 6,000 years. One could hold the universe to very ancient and still be q genuine theist, I suggest.

* The Mayans and Summerians(?) had very long calendars. The Greek Gods (Titans & Olypians)had Ages.

Dan S de Merengue

>> And I struggle to comprehend why an atheist bothers studying theology. <<

For two very simple reasons:

1. To understand why apparently intelligent people believe such stuff as "Genesis is history", resurrection, virgins births

AND

2. are incapable of leaving others to their beliefs but have to go forth and proselytise.

Which wouldn't be so bad, but our children are exposed to such disinformation as Creationism, my taxes provide an income stream for this mythology - tax breaks way beyond what charities are entitled to and a special status that is finally being breached. After over 2000 years of being told "my religion is the one and only truth" we are finally questioning. We asking questions because the more science learns about the natural world the more like tribal mythology the bible becomes and, also, because other religions have merit, such as Buddhism which has no issue with evolution or science in general. Whereas the big 3 Middle Eastern religions still wield great power and hold us back as an intelligent species.

Believe what you want, but at least allow the rest of us to live and LEARN.

david/quote..<<..Naturalism maintains/..that physical phenomena are the consequence...only of natural causes>>there is not a lot to debate about your definition...

except/that...those who believe in god/
believe god to be a natural.../nurture
as well as supra-natural..
ie..causation of that we call so loosly nature...naturally

so in a way
its good to find a point of agreement

as far as i know...
most causes have another underlying cause

then other laws...
that insure a certain reaction dependant on modifying affects

i have heard that science reasons...that two forces...opposing oppisites...colided to 'cause'..the big-bang...

when i heard that put forward..i had to laugh..
seeing the oppisites of heaven/hell

that simple causation set off further/fruits...i recalled heaven is in the light/..hell is in the darkness...

so the dark-deep...is clearly extrapolated
by its colision with the light

then i recalled that..let there be light..was mentioned twice/in genesis..and the speculations..as to what the..'other'..light moment was gets interesting...[seeing a series of causes?]

then there is the other/result from the intitial/cause..
by which i begun this discourse...followed the preceeding causes..

that of the angel most beloved of god..
that refused to bow down to adam..and was thus cast from the heavens

i have allways sympathised..with this angel...
[i too]..would refuse..to bow-down..to a mere..'man'..as well..

thus little wonder half the angels followed..the cast-out angel...

but for this../we would not have freewill

SEE WHAT YOUR SIMPLE COMMENT CAUSED?

but for your simple throw-away line..[cause]
that caused such an avolanche..of other thoughts
set of by..your one..'cause'..

anyhow there are many other...opinions...your singular/cause has liberated...but these can wait till another time

when some/other..secondary..cause..
sets them out/..into the world..via word

we must have action...followed by reaction

egsemplified for me..by the de-bait...
of light being a particle..or a wave

of course light..is a photon/particle...[in part]
but released en-mass...by a specific/causal/event..
in..the form of..a wave/..or waves

Dear Severin,

I remember reading that you’ve had health issues, but I didn’t remember that it affected the clarity of your thinking. Having always been one of my favourite contributors here, it really saddens me hear that. Although I’m impressed that you still appear to maintain far more clarity in your thinking than many on OLO despite your health.

All the best with that.

George,

I understand that you were repeatedly trying to say that. I picked up on it the first time.

<<I don’t know who said that, not I.>>

Great! Now we’re getting somewhere.

Okay, so how did you go from “I believe that Something not reducible to the physical exists” to concluding that Yahweh was that “Something”? How did you go from presupposing this, to believing that the Bible held the answers - even to the extent that you can state that “[God] wants us to THINK - read and contemplate not only His Book of Scripture but also His Book of Nature”?

Do you think the “religious education” (as you would prefer I call it) that you received from your parents played any role in this? And have you considered that if it did, then a presupposition never really played any part in your current religious beliefs to begin with? For example, I can’t really relate to the points you make about axioms or presuppositions, because my parents took it upon themselves choose my “presupposition” for me.

In the end though, the fact that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the alleged Jesus actually existed was a big problem - insurmountable in fact. We have no carpentry works from Jesus; no writings; no contemporary accounts. The same goes for the Exodus. You’d think there’d be some evidence left behind after thousands of people crossing a dessert over many years, but archaeologists can’t find a thing.

Then there’s Christianity’s pagan roots, the murky origins of the Bible and the various interests and agendas that would have gone into producing the final cut. Revelations, for example, was considered by some to be so obviously written by a madman, that it almost didn’t make it into the final edition.

I know you once said that explaining how you went from presupposition to conclusion would be “theological hair-splitting”, but the term “hair-splitting” implies that it’s unimportant and I don’t think it is if you want to present religious belief as being no more or less reason-based than unbelief.

Continued...

...Continued

So, to understand you as best as I think I can, what I’d really like to know is how you got from the presupposition to the conclusion, and how did you overcome the hurdles that I couldn’t?

Dan,

<<But if you think that churches in Australia are not also populated by a healthy number of ex-atheists and educated people from non-religious homes, then you need to get out more.>>

More importantly, the number of people leaving the church continues to plummet at a much faster rate than the rate at which people who join the church.

What you’re also not mentioning are the numerous tragic stories behind these atheist-to-Christian conversions, which tend to take the most of the gloss off of them... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRzcCbjQ_5I