Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 27 of 28 FirstFirst ... 17 23 24 25 26 27 28 LastLast
Results 521 to 540 of 559
  1. #521
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Actually, it's your lack of understanding that's the problem. The null hypothesis does not apply to every kind of claim
    So, regarding the null hypothesis, you and I hold differing opinions:
    FB: The null hypothesis, or more accurately, the principles of logic and skepticism behind it do apply in general to the rational consideration of any claim.
    Mican: The null hypothesis only applies to scientific hypotheses, and not just any claims.

    Support for your position:
    It is applied to scientific hypothesis and not just any claim. The term "rationally justified" is neither stated nor implied in the description.
    (appealing to the definition of null hypothesis from statisticshowto.com)

    Support for my position:
    Any example of the null hypothesis, or the logical and skeptical principles behind it, applying to claims which are not statistical/scientific hypotheses.

    You even said so yourself: "And of course I could be wrong and your understanding is spot-on. And if that's true, you should be capable of finding an article on the null hypothesis that demonstrates that your usage is valid"

    This is fulfilled already by your acceptance of the null hypothesis being analogous to the principle of presumption of innocence, because the null hypothesis in a criminal trial is not for a statistical/scientific claim.
    So, we already have 1 reason to accept that the null hypothesis doesn't only apply to statistical/scientific claims. This refutes the support for your claim.

    And again, to further refute the support for your claim, I've repeatedly explained for you that the null hypothesis isn't a specific hypothesis which contains any specific words, but changes according to the claim to which it applies.
    So, for the claim "x is rationally justified", the null hypothesis is "something is not rationally justified until there is rational justification for it".

    From: https://polyskeptic.com/2011/11/07/s...or-skepticism/
    "One of the primary ideas in skepticism is the idea of the null hypothesis. Now, I realize that in every day practical science this ideal is not a reality, but as a rule of scientific inquiry in general it is essential as a part of the philosophy of science. It basically says that you should wait for sufficient evidence before accepting a hypothesis as true. That is, you withhold belief until enough evidence, or at least rational justification, is given to accept something as having a basis in reality.
    Obviously the amount of evidence necessary to accept a claim is proportional to the claim; I don’t expect you to withhold belief in the claim that I ate pizza for dinner tonight; it’s not an extraordinary a claim that is worthy of serious skepticism, and accepting it even if false has little to no consequences generally. A supernatural being who created and controls aspects of the universe is a different matter, one worthy of skepticism and requiring good support to accept. As far as I have seen, no good support exists for such a claim."
    This explains how the null hypothesis does apply to mundane claims such as eating pizza, and also theistic claims.

    https://www.news24.com/MyNews24/The-...s-god-20130716
    This article contains applications of the null hypothesis including theistic/supernatural claims (god and the Loch Ness Monster) and mundane claims (someone has a pet kitten).

    https://medium.com/@Chiasma/on-falsi...s-12ae1bbf9400
    Another article explaining how the principles behind the null hypothesis aren't restricted to statistical/scientific hypotheses.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-...-everyday-life
    "We do this all the time with trivial problems. Given a closed container, we lift it to sample the weight, and accept or reject the null hypothesis that it is empty. Given a list of names, we check the first few, and accept or reject the null hypothesis that they are in alphabetical order."

    https://towardsdatascience.com/hypot...e-47f42420b1f7
    About using hypothesis testing (including the null hypothesis) for which movies are better.

    https://www.thoughtco.com/examples-o...othesis-609090
    More mundane examples.

    https://www.quora.com/What-is-null-h...-in-statistics
    "The process of hypothesis testing makes sense as it is a fairly intuitive way to reach conclusions about the world and the people in it. We often informally do hypothesis testing all the time to make sense of things in our daily routine also."

    So we have multiple examples which refute your position that "The null hypothesis only applies to scientific hypotheses, and not just any claims."

    Holding to your previous statement, we can conclude that, because "[I am] capable of finding an article on the null hypothesis that demonstrates that [my] usage is valid", [you are] wrong and [my] understanding is spot-on".

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So your lack of understanding is revealed here. Yes, I agree that the null hypothesis is analogous to the legal principle of presumption of innocence. But then I'm also aware that the principle of the presumption of innocence, like the null hypothesis, does not apply to every single claim. You see, we don't apply the criminal legal standard for any and all claims. We don't even apply the legal criminal standard in all legal claims. If it's a civil suit, the burden is not innocent until proven guilty but based on the preponderance of the evidence.
    The null hypothesis is analogous to the legal principle behind the presumption of innocence, which is the burden of proof. And while the presumption of innocence doesn't apply to civil lawsuits, the burden of proof does. The burdens in criminal vs. civil law are different (beyond reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of evidence), but it's the same principle which applies.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The standard for the null hypothesis being successful is apparently pretty high
    No, the standard of evidence in use has no bearing on whether the burden of proof & null hypothesis applies. We've already discussed examples of mundane claims for which there are null hypotheses, but lower standards for support.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So this does not show that the null hypothesis applies to all claims. In fact, it indicates the opposite. It applies to a very specific set of claims.
    No, all it shows is that you're conflating the level of evidence and skepticism required with the principle behind the burden of proof. You are essentially conflating the "how much evidence" (the standard), with the "why evidence" (the logical principle).

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And beyond that, the debate is not even about claims, but about beliefs. A belief is a thought that one has in their head and one is not required to claim that their belief is true. So your null hypothesis argument does not seem to apply to beliefs in general.
    I've already offered the null hypothesis which does apply here. The claim is "x is rationally justified", and the null hypothesis is "something is not rationally justified until there is rational justification for it".

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And that would apply to all scientific claims.
    No, it would apply to any situation where we're employing rational skepticism.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And it does not necessarily apply to non-scientific claims and definitely does not necessarily apply to beliefs (which are different than claims).
    Again, the claim is "x is rationally justified", and the null hypothesis is "something is not rationally justified until there is rational justification for it".

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And please note that is says "accepted" not "rationally justified to believe".
    You're yet again confusing a specific example of the null hypothesis with an explanation of how it works.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    By scientific standards, my Fed Ex claim completely fails and SHOULD be rejected. And yet I am rationally justified in thinking that I went to Fed Ex a few days ago due to my vivid memory of the experience.
    No, I already explained why the null hypothesis for the claim "I went to FedEx" can be easily rejected.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    The link clearly says "in science", which indicates that it applies to scientific claims. It does not indicate that it applies to non-scientific claims.
    LOL, the article starts out by setting the scope quite clearly:
    "This tactic is usually used by someone who’s made a claim and then been asked for evidence to support it."
    In any case, I've already explained how and why the same principles used in scientific enquiry apply to general rational skepticism.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Okay. To repeat 'YOU WITHHOLD BELIEF". I completely agree with that. So you don't declare that the person who stated X is not rationally justified in his belief but that, from a scientific perspective, you WITHHOLD BELIEF on whether his claim is true or not. Of course you can personally think the claim is bonkers but scientifically, it's pretty binary. Either the claim has passed the threshold of being scientifically accepted or it has not.

    So if I say "I saw God" as a claim but provide no evidence, you scientifically reject the claim and don't include it as "true" for the scientific model. But you don't jump to the opposite conclusion and say it's a fact that I didn't see God and you certainly don't conclude that I am not rationally justified in believing that I saw God. Scientifically you just don't accept the claim and ignore it until I can provide sufficient evidence that I saw God.

    So again, you are conflating "not accepted" with "not rationally justified in believing". Science says absolutely nothing about whether one is rationally justified in believing an unproven claim.
    Holding to the null hypothesis in no way requires one to "say it's a fact that [someone] didn't see God". Whether X actually saw Y and whether belief in the claim that X saw Y is rationally justified are two separate claims. Again, the claim here is "x is rationally justified", and the null hypothesis is "something is not rationally justified until there is rational justification for it".

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But failing to prove guilty doesn't mean the person didn't commit the crime - only that the evidence is not sufficient for the court to convict.
    And the null hypothesis isn't saying that the intithesis of the claim is true, it's simply expressing the default position that the claim is not true until there is evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    No, it doesn't. I've provided no evidence that I actually went to Fed Ex. For all you know, I'm lying to you. So by any scientific burden (where mere claims fall short of anything resembling scientific evidence), the null hypothesis says that science cannot accept that I went to Fed Ex.
    Again, I've already explained how, for mundane claims, the null hypothesis can be rejected.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Dude, drop the condescension. I believe that I have shown that your scientific arguments are quite incorrect and since I don't like acting like a condescending jerk, I'm just going to stick to pointing out the flaws in your arguments and not act like you're just too dumb and ignorant to understand my greatly superior knowledge of things scientific.

    Your explanations and assessments are rude and a waste of time. If my arguments are indeed wrong, you can just use a good argument to shoot it down.
    As you are so fond of saying, this is the debate network, not the complaining network.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Okay. So if one has a friend that died and then they believe that they got a visit from a friend's spirit, then that would qualify as a belief worth examining. And while God isn't directly invoked in that belief, a belief in life after death certainly indicates a belief in the soul.
    The null hypothesis here would require us to reject the claim that they got a visit from a friend's "spirit", since this has neither been coherently defined nor supported. So I would say that in this case, someone claiming that a belief in "souls" is rationally justified is violating the null hypothesis of "something is not rationally justified until there is rational justification for it".

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Well, guess what? I was lying when I said I went to Fed Ex. I was just forwarding it as a hypothetical claim and I didn't go there on the day that I said I did. So apparently by just taking my word that I went and the knowledge that such a thing could possibly happen (since people do actually go to Fed Ex), you misapplied the null hypothesis (by accepting claims without seeing any evidence that the claim is actually true) and came to the incorrect conclusion.
    The null hypotheses of "FedEx doesn't exist" and "people don't go to FedEx" can easily be nullified. Regarding the possibility of lying, the implied claim is then "this person is not lying about going to FedEx", for which the null hypothesis might be something like "someone who has reason to not tell the truth will lie". This is also nullified if, during testing of the hypotheses, no reason for the person to lie can be found. For all these reasons, we can say that belief in the claim that a person went to FedEx is rationally justified. Coming to incorrect conclusion does nothing to invalidate the logic behind the null hypothesis, it just indicates that mistakes were made in the testing of the hypotheses (or possibly even the formulation of them).

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Or maybe I wasn't lying. You don't actually know and you have no evidence that I actually went to Fed Ex on the day I said I went. Really, you need to stop telling me that I don't understand this stuff if you are going to commit such errors in applying the null hypothesis.
    I'm sorry, but your lying gotcha fails as a demonstration that you do understand it. As I've repeatedly pointed out, your insistance that the null hypothesis and, more importantly, the logical and skeptical principles behind it only apply to specific scientific claims is simply absurd, and as I've demonstrated, even the existence of just one corroborating source (I've provided multiple) is enough to refute your position on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But getting back to the main point, we are discussing belief, not claim. In other words, I will not claim that I believe I was visited by a dead friend but just tell you that I have the belief that I did but will in no way try to convince you that I did (for one does not need to convince others of one's belief in order to have that belief). I won't make any claim about my belief at all beyond that I have such a belief. And of course if one is to make another claim about the belief, whatever the claim is, they have the burden of support for their assertion. So if you are going to make a claim regarding my belief, you do have the burden to support that claim. Right?
    Again, the claim here is "x is rationally justified", and the null hypothesis is "something is not rationally justified until there is rational justification for it".
    So for your belief that you were visited by a dead friend, the claim is "this belief is rationally justified", and the null hypothesis is, in short, "no, it isn't".
    If you'd like to provide the rational justification for your belief and discuss, I'm game, otherwise, I'll move on (for real now I know LOL).



    ============================================



    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Religious faith is the kind of faith we are speaking of, specifically Christian faith in your dicussion with me, and you say it is an unwarranted faith (because in your view the evidence is insufficient), whereas the opposite is true.

    Regardless of your definition, you need faith to trust anything at all, whether or not it is demonstrated or not.
    Again, "demonstrated or not" is the line between "faith" and "reasonable expectations based on available evidence", as defined for debate here in this thread. Your statement yet again attempts to conflate the two, which violates the definitions provided.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/faith/
    I include faith in anything because faith is trust. You would not have faith in something if you did not believe it and trust it.
    The text you quoted literally explains the difference between the broader meaning of "trust" and the specific meaning of "religious faith". Here, read it again:
    "This entry is specifically concerned, however, with the notion of religious faith".

    Again, there is a difference between the different usages of "faith".
    So far, we have:
    1. "Faith", most broadly, meaning "trust". This vague usage encompasses all the different usages of the word. This usage will not be accepted as part of this discussion in order to prevent equivocation and ambiguity.

    2. "Faith", specifically, meaning "belief in something without sufficient evidence". This is the usage which is being discussed here. As stated previously, some other definitions would work as well, since they encompass the same general idea
    - "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof"
    - "firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
    - "belief that is not based on proof"
    - "strong or unshakable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence"

    3. "Faith", meaning "reasonable expectation based on available evidence".

    In this discussion, any usage of "faith" which does not comport with #2 is invalid.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Again, you have faith in a myriad of things, you just don't recognize it. Your worldview, whatever you believe, requires faith or you would not believe what you do.
    Your usage of "faith" here is invalid. What you are talking about is called reasonable expectation based on available evidence, and is not "faith" as defined in this discussion.

    So no, I don't have faith anything. If you can point out anything which I believe or think which isn't based on evidence, we can discuss that. Otherwise, such statements will be ignored.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    That is faith! This kind of faith is not blind faith.
    If, by "faith" you mean to refer to the 3rd usage above, then sure, this can be referred to as faith. But it is not the same meaning/usage as what we are discussing here, which is "faith" defined in #2. You are yet again committing the equivocation fallacy.

    So again no, what is described as "reasonable expectation based on available evidence" is not the same as what we're talking about with religious faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    There is sufficient evidence, although many do not want to accept it. The reason for this unacceptance, I believe, is that it conflicts their worldview.
    No, it's because the claims haven't met their burden of proof - in other words, there is not sufficient evidence. What you call "sufficient evidence" would not pass even the slighted scrutiny by a true rational skeptic.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    As I said before, atheism qualifies as a religious faith. It has the four to five features that qualify it along these lines. I am documenting it in my reply to your previous post under your comments on atheism (wow - that was a long post).
    Again, atheism is a single response to a single claim, nothing more. Simply put, all an atheist is, is someone who has not been convinced of theistic claims such as "deity X exists", and therefore does not believe that deity X exists.

    If you are trying to say that atheism is a religious faith, then you are talking about something else. Further such statements will be disregarded.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    To understand worldview bias all you have to do is look at the political gridlock in the USA between Democrats and Republicans. There is an incapacity to listen or believe anything the other side says.
    Dems vs. Reps is completely irrelevant here, and does not serve as a valid comparison of worldview bias in this case (theists vs. atheists), since there are theists and atheists on both Dem & Rep sides.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    What is more, everyone has a worldview bias. When they look at any issue, their core foundational beliefs come into play.
    A person adhering to their core foundational beliefs when looking at an issue and worldview bias are not the same thing. For instance, if one holds to rational skepticism and methodological naturalism as the foundation for how they understand reality, they are not expressing bias against theism or supernaturalism when they are skeptical of theistic or supernatural claims which haven't met their burden of proof. Bias indicates a disproportionate weight in favour of something against another in a way considered to be unfair.
    There's nothing unfair about asking for the same amount (proportionally) of evidence for theistic claims as any other claim, regardless of whether it is natural or supernatural.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    There is no neutrality (Matthew 6:24; 2 Corinthians 10:3-5; Matthew 7:26-27).
    Neutrality is in adhering to the same standards of evidence regardless of where the claim comes from.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    I have been in your camp, held your belief syatem to some extent. The NT says it is built on sinking sand. It doesnot have the foundation to support itself and when the winds of despair blow it comes crashing down.
    Regardless of whether what you wrote makes sense (it doesn't), preaching at me doesn't do anything other than indicate that you don't have an actual argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Faith is a belief and trust (and knowledge, whether true or false). We all hold to a faith of some sort, and in worldviews, most misapply faith, for not everything is true.
    The terms have been clearly defined. You yet again appear to be attempting to equivocate.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    You are trying to cherry pick the definition, but as I said earlier on this post and provided Stanford's quotation, generally, faith is a belief and trust in something. A sane person would not have a belief in something unless they trusted that it was true, and that faith would be thought of as a reasonable faith based on the evidence.
    Whether you think the text you linked is a good definition is irrelevant. The terms have been clearly defined, and further equivocations will be disregarded.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    No, atheism is involved in the denial of God, whether that be for supposedly insufficient evidence, or no supposed evidence at all, atheist is a system of belief.
    Atheism has been defined for you clearly, so you are talking about something here which is not "atheism" as we are discussing it. In any case, I strongly recommend you focus on supporting your own claims, rather than trying to attack atheism, since nothing about atheism being wrong would provide evidence for your specific theistic beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    It must build on its core belief in denial of the supernature. If you see insufficient evidence in the supernatural you will look for the answer in the natural.
    And this is a prime example of your incorrect understanding about atheism. What you have to understand is that there are atheists who have wildly differing views about all sorts of things. There are atheists who are also anti-theists (those who claim a god or gods do not exist), and atheists who are philosophical naturalists and those who are methodological naturalists (like myself). So your labelling of all atheists as denying the supernatural is wholly inaccurate.
    Out-right denial of the supernatural sounds more like philosophical naturalism, the idea that the natural is all there is, and there is no supernatural. While I can understand the thinking behind it, I personally don't agree with philosophical naturalism, and myself hold to methodological naturalism, which is the idea that, currently, we have no way of investigating the supernatural, and so are forced to view all observed phenomena as part of the natural realm. This is not a denial of the supernatural - as soon as someone provides the means for us to investigate the supernatural which passes scrutiny, it would be accepted.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Atheists seek to understand the world without looking to the supernatural, but through secular and materialistic or mechanistic means.
    Yes, because this is all we currently have access to.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    It excludes the supernatural.
    The supernatural excludes itself through its hiddenness.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    It explains the world, the universe, outside of the supernatural, within its own little box.
    Yes, the "box" of all that can be observed. Nothing wrong with that.

  2. #522
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Whether or not the burden of proof is met is disputable, and it revolves around the worldview held, but the historical evidence of fulfilled prophecy is hard to refute logically based on what is available as opposed to what is not (looking at the facts).
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, let's refrain from using the word "prophecy", as this carries too much baggage. They're predictions, and tenuous ones at best.
    Why are you quibbling over semantics with the same meaning???

    Prophecy definition =
    a prediction.
    synonyms: prediction · forecast · prognostication · prognosis · divination · augury · prognostic
    the faculty, function, or practice of prophesying.

    My personal opinion is this tactic is what the left (progressives, liberals, socialists, some atheists) do all the time (the art of misdirection). They try to obscure or create doubt in meaning and reorient the discussion and the subject matter under consideration. It is a backdoor out of the debate. The issue is whether prophecy is fulfilled based on the evidence we have available.

    Prophecy is the term the Bible uses repeatedly, and we are discussing the reasonableness of the Bible in regards to these prophecies or predictions coming about as spoken and written down years before they happened. Are they reasonable to believe? Yes, I think they are most reasonable, and I defy you to show otherwise by 1) showing the things prophesied did not come to pass, or 2) it is reasonable to believe they were written after the fact.

    All you have done so far is make assertions and redirect the narrative, IMO.

    I did provide you with a framework to do so (very next quote), but I will go further with actual prophecies.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    It is up to you to prove that your view is reasonable in the light of the evidence we have available.
    1) FACT: The OT and NT mention a coming fall of Jerusalem as the judgment of disobedience in the Jewish covenant made with God.
    2) FACT: The fall of Jerusalem happens in A.D. 70.
    3) FACT: The Mosaic Covenant CANNOT be followed within the prescribed framework of Law of Moses in Exodus or Deuteronomy after AD 70.
    4) FACT: The OT books are written before the fall of Jerusalem.
    MOST REASONABLE TO BELIEVE: Every NT book written before A.D. 70.
    Let's look at these four points:

    1) Do the OT and NT mention a coming fall of Jerusalem? Establish this is not a fact obtained in the writings, and in the context of the writings are a covenant curse (see Deuteronomy 28, esp. 28:15-16, 20, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 41, 42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 64; see Matthew 24:4-36; Luke 21:20-24).

    All these specific biblical prophecies can be demonstrated to have taken place in the writings of Josephus and during the first century. Prove otherwise.

    2) Establish that Jerusalem was not destroyed in AD 70.

    3) Establish the whole structure of Jewish worship and ritual sacrifice was not changed forever. Establish that it was not.

    4) Establish that it is more reasonable to believe the NT was written after the fact. To do so, I want you to demonstrate early documented evidence that states the prophecies were written after the incident, or that the authors wrote after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. In this way, we will see who has the more reasonable AND LOGICAL argument and makes better sense of what we do know.

    Are you going to be like most atheists I dialog with and ignore my challenge?

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    1) First of all, you'd have to provide the specific passages to which you're referring. In any case, your conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premises ("facts"). Nothing about your premises necessitates that the prediction couldn't 'have been written after the event. Even if we granted that the prediction was written before 70CE (which we don't), the fact that Jerusalem had fallen numerous times before, and that it's more than a little vague in terms of when the fall would happen, make this prediction fairly weak. Most historians could tell you that any time after about 40CE, no divine inspiration would be required in order for someone to predict the fall of Jerusalem, especially as vaguely as it was predicted.
    1) I already mentioned one - Daniel 9:24-27.

    Daniel 9:24-27 (NASB)
    Seventy Weeks and the Messiah
    24 “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. 25 So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. 26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. 27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one makes desolate.”

    1) Seventy weeks were decreed for the city and temple (complete destruction - verse 26 & 27 - the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary/on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction.
    2) It would be a time when the Anointed One was killed (verse 26).
    3) It would be a time when Daniel's people faced wars and tribulation when the abomination of desolation takes place (Daniel 9:24; 26-27).
    4) It would be a time when six specific things were fulfilled for Daniel's people (i.e., an OT people under an OT covenant).
    a) to finish the transgression,
    b) to make an end of sin,
    c) to make atonement for iniquity,
    d) to bring in everlasting righteousness,
    e) to seal up vision and prophecy,
    f) to anoint the most holy place.

    ***

    4) a) to finish the transgression - Israel kept seeking out foreign gods, and the Law of Moses (in Deuteronomy 28) lists the consequences of DISOBEDIENCE - judgment. (Matthew 23:32; 1 Thessalonians 2:16 with Isaiah 66:15; Isaiah 65:6-7). AD 70 was the time the full measure of judgment, per Deuteronomy 28, came upon Israel.

    Jesus warned that the generation He came to (this generation) would be the terminal generation (Matthew 12:41; Matthew 12:42; Matthew 23:36; Matthew 24:34; Luke 11:30; Luke 11:50-51). Those who rejected Him would be held accountable (Matthew 24:22; Daniel 12:1). They would be the people at the end of the age of OT ritual and worship (John 4:23-24; Matthew 24:3; Luke 21:20-24), the people of the Day of the Lord (Isaiah 2-4), the Day of His Wrath (Revelation 6:16-17), where God would vindicate the death of His martyrs and saints (Matthew 23:29; Luke 18:7-8; Revelation 6:9; 17:6; 18:5, 24; Isaiah 4:1-4), the time of His Second Coming (Hebrews 9:28). These verses are just a drop in the bucket of prophecy that was fulfilled in AD 70.

    4) b) To put an end to sin - the OT Law of Moses put into place an atonement that could never take away sin, it could only cover it until God made a new and better covenant. The Old Covenant showcased the inability of the covenant people to live righteously before God.
    Animal sacrifices were a covering and a picture of a far greater and better sacrifice. The animal was representational of the people who sinned. The animal paid the price they deserved for sin (the sin offering). That sacrifice was a provision of God because the penalty for sin, for wrongdoing, was death (Romans 6:23; Hebrews 9:22).
    If you sinned, you could not enter the presence of God and live. The OT teaches the SUBSTITUTIONARY animal sacrifice as that OT provision (Exodus 12:21; Leviticus 1:2; Deuteronomy 16:2).

    The NT provides a better offering, one that was sufficient for sin once for all time (Hebrews 7:27). Animals did not sin against God and produce separation from God's holiness, people do/did. So a righteous Person could provide once for all time reconciliation with God (Hebrews 9:12). The blood of bulls and goats could never be presented in the real sanctuary in heaven, only represent it in the earthly sanctuary in which God was present (Hebrews 10:4). They were only a typology or shadow of the higher truth, the heavenly truth. Jesus went into the heaven of heavens. He presented Himself before God in heaven (Hebrews 9:6-7, 8, 11-12, 15, 24, ) on behalf of His new covenant people (thus, the NT).

    So, in Christ, sin is done away with according to the NT for those in covenant relationship with Him. THAT is the message of the NT (John 3:16-18; Romans 8:1).

    4) c) To make atonement for iniquity - Jesus is the atoning sacrifice for iniquity, the only One who could live a just and righteous life before God without sin. He substitutes Himself on behalf of those who would believe. That is the message of the NT, and the entire OT points towards Him and His coming to save His people, also His coming in judgment. The whole OT looks forward to the time of the Messiah/Anointed One of God. Do you deny this written teaching as factual (a fact of both covenants)?

    4) d) To bring in everlasting righteousness - which happened under the New Covenant as prophesied in various books of the OT including Daniel 9:24 and Daniel 12 (Jeremiah 31:27, 31). Do you care to dispute the factualness of this statement?

    4) e) To seal up vision and prophecy - Daniel is told to seal up the vision and prophecy for it is not for his lifetime (Daniel 12:4, 9, 13). The NT reveals that it is the time of all (unfulfilled as yet) prophetic fulfillment (Luke 21:22; 24:25-27, 44-47; Acts 3:18-24). Revelation 1 speaks of the time of the prophecy being now (soon), during that generation (1:1-4), for the time is NEAR. Jesus is seen in heaven unveiling what Daniel was told to seal up, and the whole of Revelation speaks to 1st-century Israel (Revelation 4:1; 5:3-5, 9). The book of life and the seals are broken open by Jesus in heaven during the 1st-century. Jesus gives the people a period of one generation - 40 years - in which to repent before judgment comes. This is confirmed by NT writings. Do you wish to dispute this?

    4) f) Whether you want to look upon this "anointing" as speaking of Jesus (the Holy One) or the temple (the Holy Place) is a matter that I will not dispute here. What I want you to dispute is that the OT and NT do not place this anointing taking place (in Jesus or the new sanctuary) and complete in AD 70.

    So let's see who has the more reasonable argument and who can establish which view is more reliable. You (and others) keep arguing there is no proof/no evidence to believe that the Bible is a supernatural book and the Word of God. Let's see how cogent your argument is against prophecy being spoken before the fact, not after.

    You keep making the claims that there is no evidence for God. Prophecy deals with history and data. Show me one, any, early data transcript that back your view that prophecy was written after the fact. You NEED to present someone from an early date that documented such a view.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Give me your factual proof that Daniel 9:24-27 was written after AD 70.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I never claimed it was - how is this relevant? What prediction are you attempting to interpret from this passage?
    There are many prophecies that concern this time frame from Daniel that I could use, but I am specifically looking at the destruction of Jerusalem, so I use Daniel 9:24-27.

    It is relevant because it speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70 (a curse of Deuteronomy 28, i.e., Deuteronomy 28:16, 20, 26, 52). It speaks of the New Covenant in which the six stipulations will be met and that at the time or BEFORE the destruction of the city and temple. It speaks of an Anointed One who would be killed BEFORE the destruction of the city and temple. It speaks of the end of the age of OT worship and a better age.

    So, you 1) either have to establish that prophecy (both OT and NT) was written after the fact (someone, anyone who you can document from those times saying as much) or 2) prove that these (and many other verses) do not speak of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Its destruction is a fact that I do not think you can reasonably disagree with.

    If you can't prove 1) or 2) then how your argument is more reasonable than mine is puzzling?

    So, go ahead. Quit your assertions and supply actual proof. You make a big deal of it, so deal with it, or I think it will expose and show your critical assertions as inadequate.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    How do prophets "perform" the destruction of a city and temple in A.D. 70 to fulfill the prophecy?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The point being that if you have a large number of people working towards something, and someone predicts that it will happen, the prediction isn't miraculous.
    Nice assertion. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Provide your proof. How would they prevent a foreign army from destroying their holy city, as prophesied? Either it was prophesied before it happened or written after the case - that simple. Show REASONABLY that it was not prophesied before it happened. All you have done is ASSERT, assert, assert, as if that wins the argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    As for the NT being hammer together long after the events, show me the factual evidence or REASONABLENESS for your CLAIMS.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Well, for one, we have no originals of any of the books. All we have is copies of copies of copies, the earliest of which are just fragments dated to the 2nd century CE. In any case, what exactly are you disputing about Hitchens' statement, that individual books were put together and not written as one full testament, or that this happened long after the events?
    Show me some original ancient manuscripts (other than something carved in stone) from the time frame that has survived decay. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls containing many OT books are not originals. Not many originals survive. Will you deny every historical document from this time frame that is not an original document? Is that REASONABLE?

    Show me one OT book that is documented as being written or first composed in the common era (A.D.).

    I am not disputing that the NT books were not put together into one testament, into the NT (canonized), after A.D. 70. I am disputing that even one of them was written after A.D. 70. Give me your documented evidence that even one was. If you provide a link, provide the quote you want me to dispute, so I don't have to sift through irrelevant information. Give me the earliest sources you have that dispute the early writings of the NT books. I dare you.

    With the amount of manuscripts we have available it is reasonable to believe we have accurate copies.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    REASONABLE TO BELIEVE: Daniel is written before A.D. 70, even AD, which predicts the fall of the city and temple.
    Again, I never said Daniel was after 70CE.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    And you'll need to be specific. Which passages are you referring to that predict the fall of which city and which temple?
    OT: Daniel 9:24-27
    NT: Matthew 24:1-3; Luke 21:20-24

    For starters.

    You have one massive assumption that you have invested a lot of thought and philosophy into, that the prophecies are written AFTER the fact.

    "One of the [pieces of evidence] evidences used in defending the deity of the Christ is the testimony of prophecy. There are over one hundred prophecies regarding Christ in the Old Testament. These prophecies were made centuries before the birth of Christ and were quite specific in their detail. Skeptics questioned the date of the prophecies and some even charged that they were not recorded until after or at the time of Jesus, and therefore discounted their prophetic nature."
    https://probe.org/the-dead-sea-scrolls/

    "Scholarly consensus dates the Qumran Caves Scrolls from the last three centuries BCE and from the first century CE. Bronze coins found at the same sites form a series beginning with John Hyrcanus (in office 135–104 BCE) and continuing until the period of the First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE), supporting the radiocarbon and paleographic dating of the scrolls."

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

    It has been my witness that almost every atheist I have discussed the subject with always brushed the evidence of prophecy off without an in-depth argument over it. It's all allegation and inference with either no fact behind the charges, no reasonableness, or use of liberal scholars centuries removed from the times.

    Is it reasonable to believe these ancient artifacts (biblical manuscripts) bear witness to the reliability of the Bible (66 books; 39 books in the Old Testament, and 27 NT books) we read today? Show me it is not, and document your case.

    If there were only one or two accounts, they would be very questionable, but the over 5,000 different manuscripts from different regions and different times show that the translations are reliable. Then there are over 24,000 partial manuscripts to work with, besides. There are hundreds of early church fathers that contain citations or quotes in their writings from almost every passage in the NT and many from the OT.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    http://christianthinktank.com/qwhendan3a.html
    The first link provides evidence Daniel is produced before AD 70.

    I.E.,
    "The Dead Sea Scrolls have an extensive collection of both manuscripts of the biblical book of Daniel, as well as discussions and references to his work in other works.

    There are now eight mss. of Daniel from Qumran (1QDan/a, 1QDan/b, 4QDan/a, 4QDan/b, 4QDan/c, 4QDan/d, 4QDan/e, pap6QDan). This represents every chapter of Daniel, as Flint observes [HI:EMDSS:43]:

    "Every chapter of Daniel is represented in these manuscripts, except for Daniel 12. However, this does not mean that the book lacked the final chapter at Qumran, since Dan 12:10 is quoted in the Florilegium (4Q174), which explicitly tells us that it is written in 'the book of Daniel, the Prophet.'"

    This group of documents represents the largest representation of ANY biblical book at Qumran, exceeding even the number of Jeremiah scrolls.
    Please notice Items #5 and #7, portions from the last half of the Book of Daniel, which were COPIED (not "WRITTEN"!) between 150 and 100 BC...

    If these mss were COPIES of some antecedent mss, what might we reasonably infer about its exemplar?

    Think about this for a second. Let's say you are part of the team that is excavating the site, and you find this scroll. You look at the handwriting/layout/etc. and recognize it to be that customary to 150-100 B.C. What are the possible dates of the origination of the content of that scroll?

    1. Whoever wrote the scroll, invented the content as they wrote it (making the date of the scroll IDENTICAL TO the date of the content, and making the copy the autograph itself).
    2. Whoever wrote the scroll, made a copy from an antecedent scroll--a scroll itself older than the one YOU found, by definition. (Making the content even older than the antecedent scroll, assuming THAT scroll-writer didn't invent the content).
    3. [Number 2, but the copy is made from someone reading orally the antecedent scroll.]

    What this would mean for dating, of course, is that UNLESS THEY WERE MAKING DANIEL UP ON THE FLY, this scroll would presuppose an earlier scroll (pushing the content, again, earlier also).

    And since the antecedent copy could also be a copy of a copy, this cycle would need to be repeated back to the original acceptance (not its writing, btw) of the document as being "worthy of copying". In other words, the content must be worthy of the expense/cost of copying, and the HIGHER the expense (and correlatively, the HIGHER the number of copies found), the more valuable the content must be considered."


    See last link provided above.


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/ex...script/4Q114-1
    This link provides actual fragments of Daniel and other OT books. Therefore, there are artifacts/data before the 1st-century AD.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You need to clearly state the argument you wish to make from these sources, and not simply post links (see ODN rules). I should not have to access your sources in order to understand the argument you are making.
    See above. The point is that there is REASONABLE evidence to believe base on facts that are available. These documents exist. Some are carbon dated. The Masoretic text was the earliest translations we had before the Dead Sea Scrolls. The importance of them is that they contain nearly every OT book, and you can match what was written 650-1000 years later with these texts. They confirm the reliability of the later translations. Isaiah matches up to over 95% accuracy from one source I read. The discrepancies were mainly spelling errors.

    "A significant comparison study was conducted with the Isaiah Scroll written around 100 B.C. that was found among the Dead Sea documents and the book of Isaiah found in the Masoretic text. After much research, scholars found that the two texts were practically identical. Most variants were minor spelling differences, and none affected the meaning of the text.
    One of the most respected Old Testament scholars, the late Gleason Archer, examined the two Isaiah scrolls found in Cave 1 and wrote, “Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The five percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.”
    https://probe.org/the-dead-sea-scrolls/

    Peter

  3. #523
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    So, regarding the null hypothesis, you and I hold differing opinions:
    FB: The null hypothesis, or more accurately, the principles of logic and skepticism behind it do apply in general to the rational consideration of any claim.
    Mican: The null hypothesis only applies to scientific hypotheses, and not just any claims.

    Support for your position:
    It is applied to scientific hypothesis and not just any claim. The term "rationally justified" is neither stated nor implied in the description.
    (appealing to the definition of null hypothesis from statisticshowto.com)

    Support for my position:
    Any example of the null hypothesis, or the logical and skeptical principles behind it, applying to claims which are not statistical/scientific hypotheses.
    But that is not an entire counter-argument because I pointed out that claims that fail to satisfy the null hypothesis, even in scientific settings where the null hypothesis definitely applies, failure means that the claim is rejected, not that the claim is something that one is not rationally justified in believing.

    You have NEVER supported that the null hypothesis holds that claims that don't succeed are claims that are not rationally justified.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    This is fulfilled already by your acceptance of the null hypothesis being analogous to the principle of presumption of innocence, because the null hypothesis in a criminal trial is not for a statistical/scientific claim.
    And they do not use the null hypothesis in a criminal case. I've served on a jury and there was NEVER, EVER a mention of the null hypothesis when we are instructed on how to proceed with determining guilt. The analogy is that the scientist use rationale similar to "innocent until proven guilty" when applying the null hypothesis.

    And my argument is not the null hypothesis, or similar reasoning, is never used outside the scientific realm. My argument is that it's not used for EVERYTHING and I have supported that by showing the in civil cases, they don't use "Innocent until proven guilty" but "Preponderance of the evidence". So showing me that there are non-scientific uses of the null hypothesis does not counter my argument.

    And besides that, the null hypothesis looks at CLAIMS, not BELIEFS. If one has a belief but never forwards it for analysis of truthfulness, then the null hypothesis clearly does not apply to whether the belief is rationally justified or not (as in something that one is rationally justified in believing).


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    "One of the primary ideas in skepticism is the idea of the null hypothesis. Now, I realize that in every day practical science this ideal is not a reality, but as a rule of scientific inquiry in general it is essential as a part of the philosophy of science. It basically says that you should wait for sufficient evidence before accepting a hypothesis as true. That is, you withhold belief until enough evidence, or at least rational justification, is given to accept something as having a basis in reality.
    Obviously the amount of evidence necessary to accept a claim is proportional to the claim; I don’t expect you to withhold belief in the claim that I ate pizza for dinner tonight; it’s not an extraordinary a claim that is worthy of serious skepticism, and accepting it even if false has little to no consequences generally. A supernatural being who created and controls aspects of the universe is a different matter, one worthy of skepticism and requiring good support to accept. As far as I have seen, no good support exists for such a claim."
    This explains how the null hypothesis does apply to mundane claims such as eating pizza, and also theistic claims.
    I see absolutely no mention of the null hypothesis in that quote. And likewise it is not an example of the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis would hold that ANY CLAIM, even the most mundane, needs to be rejected until sufficient evidence to prove the claim is true is provided. In other words, one cannot just come in, say that they ate pizza with no evidence that they did, and the scientific model would indeed hold that it is a scientific fact that that person ate Pizza since the claim, while mundane, could be a lie ("Ha! I didn't eat Pizza! Fooled ya!").

    But your misapplication of the null hypothesis aside, I do agree with what is said in that article. If the claim is not mundane and without evidence, you should, per the article WITHHOLD BELIEF. But withholding belief is, well, withholding belief. It's not evidence that the claim is false or that the person who believes the claim is not justified in believing it.

    Incredible things DO happen. Very rarely, a parachute fails to open and the person survives anyway (Historically, I know of two incidents where a person fell with no parachute and survived). And if that person told anyone that he survived such an incident but provided no proof, the listener should withhold belief. But that does not mean that the survivor is not rationally justified in believing that he surcvived the fall.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The null hypothesis is analogous to the legal principle behind the presumption of innocence, which is the burden of proof. And while the presumption of innocence doesn't apply to civil lawsuits, the burden of proof does. The burdens in criminal vs. civil law are different (beyond reasonable doubt vs. preponderance of evidence), but it's the same principle which applies.
    No, it's not. "innocent until guilty" and "preponderance of evidence" are two very different standards of proof and likewise different burdens of proof.'

    With IUPG, the dependance is presumed innocent until such a level of evidence is provided to override reasonable doubt. The burden is solely on the prosecutor, just like in science the burden is solely on the person making the claim. The other side has no burden to show evidence to the contrary of the claim but just see if the evidence for is strong enough to convince.

    With POD, there is no presumption of innocence and the burden is equally shared and whichever side has the stronger evidence, wins the case. That is DEFINITELY NOT how the null hypothesis works.

    So I don't argue that the null hypothesis has no use outside of the scientific setting, but it's not the standard for analyzing every single type of claim or argument or belief and therefore the notion that it is what we must use in this situation is not a supported position.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Holding to the null hypothesis in no way requires one to "say it's a fact that [someone] didn't see God". Whether X actually saw Y and whether belief in the claim that X saw Y is rationally justified are two separate claims. Again, the claim here is "x is rationally justified", and the null hypothesis is "something is not rationally justified until there is rational justification for it".

    And the null hypothesis isn't saying that the intithesis of the claim is true, it's simply expressing the default position that the claim is not true until there is evidence.
    No, it's not. It's saying that the truthfulness of the statement is unknown until evidence shows that it is.

    As an example, let's say that I put a coin in a box and shake the box and no can see how the coin lands.

    So I claim that the coin lands heads. The null hypothesis does not say "It is not true that the coin has landed heads". It says "We don't accept the claim that the coin has landed heads" but it makes no claim on whether the coin has landed heads or tails.

    Likewise if I claim "X belief is rational" without evidence, the hypothesis says "We don't accept the claim that X is a rational belief" but it does not say that the belief is or is not rational.

    And regardless of whether it comports with the null hypothesis or not saying that something is false because you have no evidence that it is true, then you are engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy. The null hypothesis, as best I understand it, does not employ that logical fallacy so when your understanding of the null hypothesis leads you to forward the argument from ignorance fallacy, then either you are misunderstanding the null hypothesis or the null hypothesis really does engage in the argument from ignorance fallacy and therefore is not a valid hypothesis for determining what is true or not.

    So either way, when you engage in the argument from ignorance fallacy, I reject your argument. If you are invoking the null hypothesis when you invoke the argument from ignorance fallacy, I will still reject the argument.

    All arguments that employ a logical fallacy fail so whether you invoke the null hypothesis or not, if your argument uses the argument from ignorance fallacy, the argument fails.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The null hypothesis here would require us to reject the claim that they got a visit from a friend's "spirit", since this has neither been coherently defined nor supported. So I would say that in this case, someone claiming that a belief in "souls" is rationally justified is violating the null hypothesis of "something is not rationally justified until there is rational justification for it".
    The claim would indeed be rejected by the null hypothesis.

    But you have not supported that the claim is not rationally justified. You are conflating "not accepted" with "not rationally justified".

    Again, the null hypothesis would reject my claim that I went to Fed Ex (I provided no evidence that I went on that day I claim I went) but my belief that I went is rationally justified if I actually went.

    More on that below.



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The null hypotheses of "FedEx doesn't exist" and "people don't go to FedEx" can easily be nullified. Regarding the possibility of lying, the implied claim is then "this person is not lying about going to FedEx", for which the null hypothesis might be something like "someone who has reason to not tell the truth will lie". This is also nullified if, during testing of the hypotheses, no reason for the person to lie can be found.
    And right there, you are engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy. You cannot conclude that because you have seen no evidence that the person is lying, you can use that as evidence that the person is not lying.

    The scientists determine if I actually went would have no way of knowing if I lied or not and therefore could not conclude that I was or was not lying. And even if I wasn't lying, I could be mistaken. Maybe I sincerely claimed that I went Wednesday but was mistaken and I went on Tuesday. Or maybe I went to UPS but mistakenly thought I went to Fed Ex.

    If you think that a mere claim that something happened passes scientific muster well enough to be to be scientifically then...well, I don't know what to say. I think you know enough to know that my Fed Ex claim would not be scientifically accepted without solid evidence (like a time-stamp video of me being there) but are resorting to bad arguments to not concede the point. But I think you need to concede this point. If I just said that I went to Fed Ex, it would not pass the null hypothesis and the scientists would have to reject the claim (and of course they would not conclude that I did not go to Fed Ex).



    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    For all these reasons, we can say that belief in the claim that a person went to FedEx is rationally justified. Coming to incorrect conclusion does nothing to invalidate the logic behind the null hypothesis, it just indicates that mistakes were made in the testing of the hypotheses (or possibly even the formulation of them).
    Right. But if one does not make the most basic scientific mistake and accept one's claim that they did something with no solid evidence that they did it and likewise employed the null hypothesis correctly, they will reject the claim that one went to Fed Ex just because the person said he went.

    And yes, there is plenty of reason to think that the claim is rationally justified (especially from the person who went to Fed Ex)

    So I've demonstrated that a claim can fail the null hypothesis and still be rationally justified.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, the claim here is "x is rationally justified", and the null hypothesis is "something is not rationally justified until there is rational justification for it".
    So for your belief that you were visited by a dead friend, the claim is "this belief is rationally justified", and the null hypothesis is, in short, "no, it isn't".
    WRONG. The null hypothesis is "The claim is rejected" but it does not say that my belief is rationally justified or that it is not rationally justified. It says, in essence "Not accepted and ignored until you do provide enough evidence for it to be accepted".

    Again, if I say the coin is heads, the null hypothesis DOES NOT say "no, it isn't" but "the claim is rejected and ignored until you can provide enough evidence for acceptance.

    As was pointed out, the null hypothesis is analogous to "innocent until proven guilty" but when OJ Simpson was found not guilty, the court did not rule that he indeed did not murder anyone. It declared the evidence was not strong enough to convict him in our justice system. And likewise it's not considered rationally unjustified for people like you and I to believe that he actually did commit the murders he went on trial for. And likewise when a claim goes up "for trial", the "court" rules that the case is not convincing enough for the claim to be accepted into the scientific model but it does not rule that the claim is untrue. So a claim that fails the null hypothesis is not inherently rationally unjustified. In fact, I'm sure there are many claims that failed the first round of tests, were rejected, and later succeeded when more evidence to back them up was found. But in the meantime, were the proponents of the claim rationally unjustified in believing the claim they were forwarding? Of course not.
    Last edited by mican333; August 27th, 2018 at 09:55 PM.

  4. #524
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But that is not an entire counter-argument because I pointed out that claims that fail to satisfy the null hypothesis, even in scientific settings where the null hypothesis definitely applies, failure means that the claim is rejected, not that the claim is something that one is not rationally justified in believing.

    You have NEVER supported that the null hypothesis holds that claims that don't succeed are claims that are not rationally justified.
    You clearly still don't understand the null hypothesis. It is the default position. It doesn't "hold" anything, or claim anything. So again, for a claim like "x is rationally justified", the null hypothesis means the default position is "no it's not". This is not a claim which requires support - it's the default position.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And they do not use the null hypothesis in a criminal case. I've served on a jury and there was NEVER, EVER a mention of the null hypothesis when we are instructed on how to proceed with determining guilt. The analogy is that the scientist use rationale similar to "innocent until proven guilty" when applying the null hypothesis.
    As already supported, the null hypothesis is analogous to the burden of proof. They don't need to mention the null hypothesis, because it's the same principle in use, just termed in a different way.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    And my argument is not the null hypothesis, or similar reasoning, is never used outside the scientific realm. My argument is that it's not used for EVERYTHING and I have supported that by showing the in civil cases, they don't use "Innocent until proven guilty" but "Preponderance of the evidence". So showing me that there are non-scientific uses of the null hypothesis does not counter my argument.
    And we're done here.
    Your argument was, verbatim: "The null hypothesis only applies to scientific hypotheses, and not just any claims." The very first time you stated your issue with the null hypothesis was, verbatim: "the null hypothesis applies to scientific hypothesis, not any thought a person may have." You then later stated it again: "So it is applied to scientific hypothesis and not just any claim". And again with: "the null hypothesis has nothing to do with the standard claim but is a tool for challenging scientific hypothesis".
    You even already stated that if one source can be found to support my position, you'd conceded the argument. I've supported that it doesn't only apply to scientific hypotheses. So we're done.
    I provided multiple sources which discuss the null hypothesis and its applicability to mundane and theistic claims alike. Your argument is refuted.
    Your point above about how "they don't use Innocent until proven guilty but Preponderance of the evidence" is simply incoherent, since you are mixing up the default position from criminal law with the standard of evidence from civil law. For criminal law, the default position is innocent until proven guilty, and the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. For civil law the default position is that the plaintiff's claims are not true, and the standard is to the preponderance of the evidence. Both criminal and civil law have a burden of proof (analogous to the null hypothesis), but different standards of what constitutes when that burden is met.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    WRONG. The null hypothesis is "The claim is rejected" but it does not say that my belief is rationally justified or that it is not rationally justified. It says, in essence "Not accepted and ignored until you do provide enough evidence for it to be accepted".
    The null hypothesis is the default position of "something is not rationally justified until justification is provided". Really, how many times do I have to explain this to you? It's not a claim, or the rejection of a claim. It's the default position, and I'm done explaining it to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    As was pointed out, the null hypothesis is analogous to "innocent until proven guilty" but when OJ Simpson was found not guilty, the court did not rule that he indeed did not murder anyone. It declared the evidence was not strong enough to convict him in our justice system. And likewise it's not considered rationally unjustified for people like you and I to believe that he actually did commit the murders he went on trial for. And likewise when a claim goes up "for trial", the "court" rules that the case is not convincing enough for the claim to be accepted into the scientific model but it does not rule that the claim is untrue. So a claim that fails the null hypothesis is not inherently rationally unjustified. In fact, I'm sure there are many claims that failed the first round of tests, were rejected, and later succeeded when more evidence to back them up was found. But in the meantime, were the proponents of the claim rationally unjustified in believing the claim they were forwarding? Of course not.
    Again, the null hypothesis provides the default position of "this claim is not rationally justified". As the default position, it is not a conclusion or a claim. It is assumed true until it can be rejected. I'm sorry that, after numerous posts of me explaining it to you, and you even quoting the clear definition of it back to me ("[it] is the commonly accepted fact; it is the opposite of the alternate hypothesis (the claim)", you still refuse to accept it, but that's not my problem and I'm done wasting time on it. Now, if you'd like to continue to have a valuable discussion which aligns with the clear goal of the thread as I've repeatedly explained it, please provide the rational justification for the belief that someone was visited by a dead friend. Other arguments will be ignored.

  5. #525
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,077
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The null hypothesis is the default position of "something is not rationally justified until justification is provided". Really, how many times do I have to explain this to you? It's not a claim, or the rejection of a claim. It's the default position, and I'm done explaining it to you.

    Good. So stop explaining and listen instead. Your statement "something is not rationally justified until justification is provided" is not scientifically valid.

    Let me explain how the examination of a hypothesis works.

    A claim (hypothesis) is made. The scientists do approach the claim with the default position that the claim is incorrect and maintain that it is incorrect until enough evidence is given to convince them that it's correct. If the evidence is sufficient to prove it, then the claim is accepted. And if the evidence is not sufficient to prove it, then the claim is rejected.

    But here is where you are getting it wrong. After the claim is rejected, it is not held to be incorrect nor is it determined that the opposite of what the claim maintains is what is true. The claim is IGNORED and no position on whether it is correct or incorrect is given.

    I can demonstrate this with my Coin Hypothesis scenario (forwarded in the last post and ignored).

    So I flip a coin but no one sees how the coin lands. I claim the coin landed heads so the scientists approach my claim as if it is incorrect and when I can't prove that it's heads, they reject my claim. But once they reject my claim, they do not take the position that my coin did not land heads. They offer no opinion whatsoever on whether my coin landed heads or not.

    Let me cement this further with a hypothetical conversation between me and a hypothetical scientist.

    M - I claim the coin has landed heads
    S - Can you provide evidence that the coin has landed heads?
    M - No, I cannot
    S - Then your claim that the coin has landed heads is rejected.
    M - So that means that you hold that the coin has not landed heads?
    S - No, I just reject your claim and therefore will not incorporate your claim where it might be scientifically relevant.
    M - So what is the scientific position on whether the coin has landed heads or not?
    S - I have no position on that issue. There is no evidence that the coin has landed heads and there is no evidence that he coin has not landed heads. Therefore scientifically, I can take no position on whether it is heads or not.

    Now, replace the claim that the coin has landed heads with the claim that X is rationally justified and the conversation reaches the same conclusion. Science would take no position on the claim after if fails the null hypothesis.

    If the scientist determined that the coin had not landed heads due to lack of evidence that it had, he would be engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy. Likewise your statement that lack of evidence that X is rationally justified means that it's not rationally justified is likewise engaging in the argument from ignorance fallacy.


    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    And we're done here.
    Your argument was, verbatim: "The null hypothesis only applies to scientific hypotheses, and not just any claims."
    Right. And I've amended my argument so that is no longer part of my argument. I said "I'm not arguing...", not "I never said that...". So I have retracted that particular point and am no longer arguing that and therefore I am completely correct when I say "it's not my argument".

    And you don't need to explain why you are leaving a debate if you choose to do it. Either way, I believe my above argument shows that your assertion that the null hypothesis would hold that the x is not rationally justified is indeed based on a misunderstanding of science and basically using the argument from ignorance fallacy.

    If you want to rebut my assertion, go ahead. If you don't, then it stands. Why you choose to let that point stand is of no concern to me. But I certainly think the excuse you may be using here looks pretty weak (it's basically a "gotcha" and I would think that all of the arguments you did not respond to in my last post have something to do with why you are disinclined to continue the debate) but then again, the excuse is irrelevant.

    Either my argument here stands or you can provide a rebuttal to it. The choice is yours.
    Last edited by mican333; August 28th, 2018 at 07:55 AM.

  6. #526
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    Why are you quibbling over semantics with the same meaning?
    Not really quibbling, just requesting that we stick to "predictions" in order to avoid the unnecessary baggage.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2 View Post
    1) Do the OT and NT mention a coming fall of Jerusalem? Establish this is not a fact obtained in the writings, and in the context of the writings are a covenant curse (see Deuteronomy 28, esp. 28:15-16, 20, 25, 26, 30, 32, 33, 36, 41, 42, 45, 46, 48, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 64; see Matthew 24:4-36; Luke 21:20-24).
    None of the passages you listed contain sufficiently specific mention of the destruction of Jerusalem at any specific time in the future to warrant their consideration as actual predictions.

    In order to make our discussion on biblical predictions go more smoothly, I'll point out that, for a claimed prediction to be considered as such, it will need to comply with the following requirements:
    It should not be something which has a high probability of happening. A lucky guess doesn't count.
    It should be unambiguous and accurate/precise. Something doesn't qualify as actual foreknowledge if it isn't more than philosophical musing. For it to be a prediction, it should clearly state the foreknowledge along the lines of "what will happen at what time, and in what way".

    So for any passages you wish to submit as predictions, please provide the exact text of the passage with an explanation of what it is supposed to be predicting. If it comports with the requirements, then we can reasonably conclude that it is a valid prediction.

    FYI, Peter, I'm in the process of composing a response to the rest of your post, but wanted to check with you whether I should wait until posting it so that you can respond to my post # 521, so let me know.

  7. #527
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    FYI, Peter, I'm in the process of composing a response to the rest of your post, but wanted to check with you whether I should wait until posting it so that you can respond to my post # 521, so let me know.
    Thanks, Future! (^8

    I'm very slow at responding. My mind does not work quickly at my age and I like to ponder on what is being said. I'm still working on your post from link 25 (not sure the post #, off hand). My weakness has always been that I tend to address every argument.

    I will let you decide. There is always the risk that I get swamped and lose track, or simply want to address something you said in a later post because it interests me. You see, I really want someone to challenge prophecy as to its reasonableness and logic. I think it is a fascinating subject that gets lost in the rhetoric.

    I'm glad that you answer my questions. Some people do not like being questioned on their beliefs or their held (cherished) views. I tend to pick the view apart if it does not agree with my belief. I want to understand the nuts and bolts as to what makes it tick.

    I look forward to reading your response when you post it.

    Peter

  8. #528
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    706
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    No problem, Peter - I find I share the same weakness most of the time, hence the long posts!

    In that case I'll wait for your response so that we can get back on track with the single post-response rhythm.

  9. #529
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Not really quibbling, just requesting that we stick to "predictions" in order to avoid the unnecessary baggage.
    Prophecy is the term the Bible uses and I am a professing Christian.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    None of the passages you listed contain sufficiently specific mention of the destruction of Jerusalem at any specific time in the future to warrant their consideration as actual predictions.
    You would have to understand the essence of the OT. It is based on a covenant relationship between these people and their God (Exodus 24:3). Everything revolves around the covenant. God is their protector. He blesses them when they are obedient and He punishes them to show them their error when they are disobedient. God has given them a measure for disobedience like He gave other nations such as the Amorites (Genesis 15:16; Isaiah 47:9;Isaiah 65:7; Jeremiah 25:15).

    Isaiah 65:7
    Both their own iniquities and the iniquities of their fathers together,” says the Lord. “Because they have burned incense on the mountains And scorned Me on the hills, Therefore I will measure their former work into their bosom.”

    Both testaments speak of the cup of wrath, the cup of anger that God pours out on His people for their sin (Zechariah 12:2; Revelation 14:10; 16:19).

    Zechariah 12:2, 10-11
    “Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah...
    10 “I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. 11 In that day there will be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the plain of Megiddo
    (Matthew 2:18; Revelation 1:7; 18:19).

    The idea of filling up this measure or cup of sin is presented by Jesus and Paul (Matthew 23:32; 1 Thessalonians 2:16).

    That wrath is filled by God during the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (Matthew 24:3; Luke 21:20-24).

    So, again, the burden of proof is on you to prove that these prophecies (predictions) were not written before the fact/event, but after, since you claim there is no facts, no evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    In order to make our discussion on biblical predictions go more smoothly, I'll point out that, for a claimed prediction to be considered as such, it will need to comply with the following requirements:
    It should not be something which has a high probability of happening. A lucky guess doesn't count.
    It should be unambiguous and accurate/precise. Something doesn't qualify as actual foreknowledge if it isn't more than philosophical musing. For it to be a prediction, it should clearly state the foreknowledge along the lines of "what will happen at what time, and in what way".
    Daniel 9:24-27 is very specific. The timeframe is 490 heptads, and six specific conditions relevant to the Mosaic Covenant have to be met before or during the fall of Jerusalem and the city. Also, the Messiah or Anointed One would be killed before the fall of the city and temple. It would be a time of wars and the abomination of desolation would result. These and many other items are specific.

    Specifics:
    1) Seventy weeks decreed - 490 years
    2) For Daniel's people and his holy city - which city is it reasonable to believe this is? Who are Daniel's people?
    3) The people will finish their transgressions against God (judgment)
    4) There would be an end to sin for those in a right covenant relationship (in fact, the OT ritual system of worship is obliterated)
    5) There would be an atonement (payment/sacrifice) for iniquity in which
    6) Eternal righteousness would be established
    7) Prophecy and vision would be sealed or finished/fulfilled within this timeframe
    8) The Holy Place/Person would be anointed
    9) The timeframe would start from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (which at the time of their captivity had been destroyed by the Babylonians)
    10) 469 weeks would be complete with the time of the Messiah or Anointed One's death
    11) A prince to come (Titus, as He was not yet emperor or king) would destroy the city and sanctuary
    12) The end would come like a flood with wars and desolations
    13) There would be a covenant established with many for one week
    14) Halfway through the week of heptads the sacrifices and offerings would cease
    15) A complete destruction would complete the prophecy

    Much of this can be demonstrated through the writings of Josephus and others as to have happened in the 1st-century during the siege of Jerusalem and its destruction.

    I can document each point and each other passages/cases listed below much further as you bring arguments against my position. This is just a start.

    Zechariah 12:1-10 is specific. It even describes One who will be pierced for the transgressions of Israel. It gives detail of the mourning and it gives details of when (the last days) which the NT prophets/writers/Jesus speak of as during that generation. All these prophecies go hand-in-hand.

    Daniel 12 lays out numerous requirements that would happen at the end/end of the age, and it is a time of resurrection in which the Book of Life is opened and judgment takes place. The timeline also mentions the power of the holy people (the covenant people of which Daniel belongs) is completely shattered (Daniel 12:7 -
    as soon as they finish shattering the power of the holy people, all these events will be completed).

    The power of the holy people was their relationship with God. We see God involved with this people throughout the OT. We see God giving them victories over their enemies and also bringing judgment on them and many other nations.

    The timeline of this final kingdom would be during the fourth kingdom of Daniel 2 in which the king saw the statue that represented four kingdoms that would take control of the land, the whole world, that these ancient people knew (Daniel 2:40, 44-45). That fourth kingdom, via reason and inferrence can be deduced to be the Roman kingdom of empire. The other kingdoms are spoken of in the course of Daniel's prophecies. We know that King Nebuchadnezzar was the first king and kingdom (Babylon) spoken of in that prophecy. I can get into the bulk in more detail. I'm just making you aware of it for now.

    There are many, many more passages I can refer to, such as Isaiah 2-4, Isaiah 9:6-7, Isaiah 53, Isaiah 65-66, Jeremiah 31, Micah 4, many Psalms, Deuteronomy 28, as examples.

    So, OT unfulfilled prophecy keeps focusing on its fulfillment as the first century. This can be established as reasonable and logical time after time. I invite you to dispute this claim regarding these prophetic verses.

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    So for any passages you wish to submit as predictions, please provide the exact text of the passage with an explanation of what it is supposed to be predicting. If it comports with the requirements, then we can reasonably conclude that it is a valid prediction.
    I gave you a glimpse above. I can get a lot more in-depth if required by your response.

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 04:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:15 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No problem, Peter - I find I share the same weakness most of the time, hence the long posts!

    In that case I'll wait for your response so that we can get back on track with the single post-response rhythm.
    I will try to complete it tonight (the earliest one).

    Peter

  10. #530
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,494
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Whether you think I am able to respond to the arguments presented is irrelevant.


    My response was not meant as an ad hom, it wasn't about your intellectual ability, I'm sorry if that is how it came across.



    Rather, it was an observation on your response, not what I think you are capable of responding to. Your response has not been to engage with the arguments presented, but to disengage.



    You haven't offered critiques or rebuttals of the arguments offerred. That isn't an ad hom to point out, simply a fact.



    Until you engage with the premises and structure of the argument, this isn't a rebuttal.



    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Even if we granted the conclusions of each of your arguments


    Except...you haven't gotten that far in the argument yet, I'm happy to detail the ramifications of the conclusions of these arguments, but it is a lot clearer of an explanation if you engage with the premises.





    Quote Originally Posted by future
    If you want to present arguments in support of Xtian theism, then by all means, do so. Otherwise, arguments which don't necessarily lead to a conclusion which exclusively support Xtian theism will be disregarded.


    Why? I haven't made that claim, my initial claim is about theism (the title of the thread). Why can't you address that argument given that you thread is about theism.



    As for the follow on arguments, I am happy to present them once the underlying arguments I'm presenting are conceded.

    You are asking to see the mathematical support for relativity, but can't even agree that the apple fell on Newton's head.





    Quote Originally Posted by future
    I didn't "disengage" from KCA by "changing the subject", I explained why it doesn't even get past P1 as pointed out in post #313 (1. "outside our physical/temporal dimensions" is not a coherent concept and 2. changes in existing matter/energy in an existing universe fail as examples in support of P1 of KCA).


    Except, I had already rebutted those considerations in post 307: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post559234



    And then again directly in post 338: http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post559348



    I addressed point one by first highlighting multiple peer reviewed papers contradicting your assertion (including an entire field of theoretical physics) and then specifically asked you to address why something not being contained within a specific set of spatial and temporal dimensions make it incoherent. You've never addressed that question directly.



    And:





    It would seem intuitively obvious that it means, in this context, that something is not contained within our physical and temporal dimensions.



    For example, the physical constants of our universe are not generally held by physicists to be bound to our universe. They aren’t determined by it, nor governed within it.https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.06944



    It would also generally make sense when used in the context of a multiverse, even if that multiverse does not contain physical or temporal dimensions. https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.08631



    Nor do I think Neil Turok is “incoherent” when he is describing either a process, a constant, or a function as causally before or outside the universe. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.02792.pdf, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.1772.pdf, https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0404480.pdf





    And point 2 was a red herring, you keep claiming that there is a material difference that precludes all examples from counting, but you haven’t detailed what that difference is and why it matters. Until you do that, this is simply a “nu-uh” response.



    And, remember we aren’t talking about matter/energy changing. That was what you meant when you said: “ if we accepted virtual particles as changing from demonstrably and actually not-existing to demonstrably and actually existing…” We are talking about the implications if we accept basic inferential observation and the conclusions of actual particle physicists.





    By not addressing either set of questions and not presented valid support for your claims, but rather moving to othe arguments, you've, by definition, moved away from this agument.





    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Engaging in a discussion of the premises or structure of arguments which do not necessarily support any specific theistic belief, let alone your specific theistic belief, would be irrelevant to the OP.


    So you are unwilling to engage arguments presented that contradict your OP?





    Quote Originally Posted by future
    It would depend of what you mean by "gravity". If you mean the force of attraction observed when objects tend to fall towards the earth, then the method of learning this would be the observed phenomena of objects tending to fall towards the earth. If you're referring to the theory of gravity, then this requires further investigation...


    Exactly, thank you.





    Quote Originally Posted by future
    You say you're not.


    I don't recall having made any such claim. Can you point it out?



    Rather, I pointed out that these arguments are foundational in later argumentation. That we've been unable to resolve the foundational issues is irrelevant to my goals for the complete argumet.





    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Nobody's teaching anyone here.


    You are correct, analogies are not literally accurate. That is why they are...analogies.



    Regardless, the structure is the same in both cases, in order to get to the specific argument you want, you have to establish a baseline understanding and discussion. This is true in, quite literally, any other discussion, so throwing it away here isn't a rational rejection.



    If you'd like to get to the next step in the arguments, I'm happy to as well, but you'll need to accept these premises first.





    Quote Originally Posted by future
    Your statement was: "this thread isn't about how I came to belief, it is about whether theistic belief is rational"

    This is a statement expressing the incompatibility of the two areas (1. how one comes to a belief, and 2. whether a belief is rational).


    That is one heck of an intellectual leap, and one heck of an invalid inference. I could say; "this thread isn't about cheese, it is about grocery stores," that doesn't mean that cheese and grocery stores are incompatible.



    In fact, there are a whole host of things that this thread isn't about that aren't incompatible with the rationality of theism.





    Quote Originally Posted by future
    FYI, You quoted Belthazor as me. I did not say "this sounds fine" to any of your arguments.


    Thanks fo the correction, sorry.



    Quote Originally Posted by future
    No, since one of the options you've offered ("design") has the unsupported premises of: 1. designed for what? and 2. "design" implies a designer.


    Those are inferences from the option, not premises supporting the option. You are arguing what you think is the next step in the argument rather than what the text actuall says.



    There are really only two options regarding this premise.



    1) Add a fourth category. Do you have one?



    2) Remove a category, which is what seems to be what you are implying here. I'm happy to entertain an argument to that effect, but you'd need to explain why your interpretation (presumabely it is either due to necessity or chance) is MECE (Mutualy Exclusive, Completly Exhaustive). Specifially, you need to show why those two categories cover all possible explanations.



    Quote Originally Posted by future
    You can count to infinity if you count an infinite number of times.


    I get that you are claiming that but not only have several members here shown you to be wrong. And not only have you offered no evidence to support your claim. But two separate mathemticians have shown that you are wrong:



    1 and 2 deal with two distinct forms of infinites(https://math.vanderbilt.edu/schectex...potential.html). 1 addresses a potential infinity which isn't so much an infinite set, but a direction. As the link describes, "Potential infinity refers to a procedure that gets closer and closer to, but never quite reaches, an infinite end. For instance, the sequence of numbers 1, 2, 3, 4,... gets higher and higher, but it has no end; it never gets to infinity. Infinity is just an indication of a direction -- it's "somewhere off in the distance."" When you describe "counting an infinite number of times" you are (more or less) referencing a limit function, which gets infinitely close to a value, but never quite gets there.



    2 deals with an actual (sometimes called completed) (http://sites.middlebury.edu/fyse1229...tual-infinite/) infinity. IE a set of things that has an infinite number of members. These do not involve a process, like potential infinites, but rather rely on a definitional set to contain infinite members.





    Quote Originally Posted by Bel

    1. Because you agreed with and used the term yourself describing the possibility of creation

    2. Semantics. fantastic/incredible/hard to believe/that's wack/over the top. You know the idea I was trying to convey.


    1) I used the term in an objective sense with an explanation that would allow for precise translation between our two perceptions.

    2) I absolutely do get what you are trying to convey, which is your gut reaction to the claim. When someone tells you that your statement is "over the top" or "hack" or "incredible" they are making a statement on how it struck them, their "gut" feeling about it. Relying on instinct and your gut is great in a survival or instantaneous situation. It isn't a great method when evaluating rational argumentation. Gut instincts are chock full of cognitive biases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) that make our reaction to data faulty.



    For example, when I tell you these two lines are equal length (assuming it is the first time you’ve seen it), your gut reaction is that that is crazy, that it is clearly wrong. It is a fantastic, incredible, ridiculous claim...until you measure them. http://www.richardcolly.nl/Illusions...ongerLines.gif



    Likewise, when (and I used to use this a lot when I taught) I tell people this video has a gorilla (https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...468A&FORM=VIRE) I get a lot of “you’re full of it” looks I get a lot of the same reactions.



    The point is that the response “that is a fantastic claim” isn’t something that is a rational rebuttal. It is describing how you feel about the claim, not it’s underlying truth value.





    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Hang on there Skippy, that is a pretty loose interpretation of what you said.

    I think most people would take "federal income taxes, agencies, etc." to mean gov't. in general.


    Ok, sure. But that doesn’t really change the analogy at all. Levy is the act of imposing a tax. Most people (hopefully) know that the government is limited in its powers and can only do what the Constitution allows (more or less). So when you ask them “Can the federal government levy an income tax?” they wouldn’t need to know anything about the IRS, the DOJ, FBI etc. They would see that in the Constitution it is an enumerated power of the Federal government to do so.



    That is the underlying point relevant to this thread. Because you cannot detail the full emergent implications of a law doesn’t mean you can’t say the law doesn’t exist. It is illegal to murder, even if we as a judicial system have not fully explored every single nuance of that criminal code through common law.



    I don’t know the full scope of injuries that would result from me hitting the ground, but I know it is an undesirable thing that my parachute doesn’t open.



    Likewise, I don’t know the full state and motion of all matter in the universe, but I can state that the laws of thermodynamics apply.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    My understanding is 96% of the universe is "missing".


    And how do we know that a large percentage of it is missing? Because we have a very solid understanding of the underlying laws. The way they “discovered” the “missing” mass (and missing is a PR term, in astrophysics it is probably better stated as unobserved) was to compare the observed motion of stars and galaxies and the observed mass of the same against what Relativity said the mass should be to get the motion we saw.



    The essentially universal opinion was that there was more matter, not that relativity was wrong. The standard model in physics is, as GP used to love to point out, the single most experimentally verified scientific model in human history.



    Is it possible it will get overturned? Sure. But I would much sooner take odds of the President not tweeting for the rest of his presidency or a pig flying than of tens of thousands of experiments being overturned.



    Related to the thread, because we don’t know the exact nature of whatever that stuff is doesn’t mean we can’t launch rockets or fly planes, correct?





    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    It wouldn't be hard to discover/learn/show the 787 had to be built.

    How could we do this with the universe?


    technical approach

    This is an entire field of statistical enquiry based on pattern recognition and functional analysis. These are the underlying specialties that statisticians and mathematicians use to determine what is the appropriate statistical test, hypothesis, etc. In this case a proper null hypothesis would be something like “there is no guiding activity involved with the selection of physical constants.” With a good test hypothesis being “there is guiding activity involved with the selection of physical constants.” Of course that guiding activity could be necessity or design, so further analysis would be needed, but that would be the standard way we would go about approaching this problem in all scientific fields, so it stands to reason it would be used here.



    clearer approach

    The alternative is to rule out categories of causes. IE a process of elimination. We see something, a 787, a fossilized bone, a set of electronic signals that fit a mathematical pattern, ripples in the sand, etc. and we say what are the possible categories of things that could have caused this. Then we eliminate them. Chance is the easiest because we can basically apply a test for significance. “Does this thing happen by accident?”





    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Agreed. In this case "fine tuned" ONLY means the parameters for this universe to exist are fairly narrow.


    Right, and so we can employ one of the two approaches above for understanding the cause of those parameters. Clearly we aren’t implying there was no cause at all right? That the physical constants are just brute facts, unexplainable?





    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Agreed. The Earth being "made for man" to live on seems optimistic at best.


    Well, if we assume that maximizing the survivable area were the only goal. We could look at a zoo in a similar manner. Clearly we want the eels to survive, and clearly a zoo is designed, but eels can only survive in a tiny, tiny fraction of the zoo. The fact is that there are other considerations, and desired outcomes. Sticking with the zoo example, lions would survive much, much better if they had several square kilometers of uninterrupted space, but there is another consideration for a zoo, our ability to see the lions. Likewise, we could see them great if they were put in small plexiglass cages, but the lions survival would be questionable. Thus a sub-optimal result is chosen that maximizes the outcome of all the different considerations the zoo designers had.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bel

    1. Can you support that any life form can live "forever"?
    That it is possible for something to both “live forever” and be “alive?” The two aren’t mutually exclusive so it is, by definition, possible.



    There certainly isn’t any reason to reject a timeless being on that ground since the alternative is incoherent.



    Why would we think there is an automatic limitation on the concept of “living?”



    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    2. I don't think you have explicitly, it seems implied by your (and typical Christian) comments
    Could you clarify? In what sense is God an “actual infinity?” What dynamic or property are you expecting me to defend?



    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    4. Sorry, you will have to refresh my memory, because I don't remember conceding anything along these lines.
    Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you had formally ceded anything. The history (as I remember it) was that you initially made an argument that a being cannot exist outside of our spacetime. I offered some reasons as to why that wouldn’t be the case and asked if you had anything to support it. I don’t recall you having answered it so I assumed it was dropped (since it wasn’t supported).



    I’m certainly happy to entertain that line of thought, it is interesting if you’d like to reopen it.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    5. Then since you propose God "lives outside of our universe", could you define what that is?
    This concept is one that is hard to translate into plain english, but I’ll try. Sufficed to say, I could offer a more technical explanation, but you asked me not to later. Likewise, there are a massive variety of possible answers, so I don’t mean to argue that this is definitive one in any sense.



    Have you ever read Flatland? (I really think I’ve asked you this before, sorry). In that book there are creatures that live in a two dimensional universe with no height. The protagonist, a three dimensional being, interacts with them in a variety of ways. It’s a hard concept to get your mind around at first, but once you do the implications are really interesting. There are two possible examples of what God’s existence is like from that comparison.



    1) God existence is its own dimensional construct that is neither spatial or temporal. (Before you get concerned about that, I’ll remind you that QM has somewhere between 5-20 of those non-spatial, non-temporal dimensions in our own universe). This would allow Him to interact with any point of our 4 dimensional spacetime in a very complex set of ways.



    2) There is no dimensional construct God is a part of. There doesn’t really need to be. Dimensional constructs are useful for relations (x is to the left of y), but without any relations they don’t serve a point.



    The more I think about it over the years, the more I’ve come to the conclusion that 1 and 2 are the same thing, differently worded.







    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    The problem is Stinky, that when you are done only you know what you said, so it ain't always clearer.



    IOW, feel free to be as technically accurate as you like, but ALSO phrase it in the Kings English! (actually "American" would be preferred over English).

    Then if a quibble over a technicality comes up, you can still show where you were correct (assuming you were) and the quibble is just over a rough translation. I think it would help speed things up.


    Ha, fair enough. :-) I'll do that from now on, but I'll ask one favor in return. If I point way back to earlier in the conversation please don't get frustrated, just understand that I'm going back to one of those technical clarifications. And please indulge me in some small clarifications, we aren't the only ones reading this, so I definitely want to be clear.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    Ok, so "time" as we know it, only applies to our manifold (what the hell ever) and God does not reside in our manifold thingy (except when he visits, since He was "outside our manifold when it was created)? Yes?


    More or less, yes, that is my position.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bel
    (hmmm, something "undeniable" it seems. You have argued with me "nothing" is undeniable, "some people even deny the moon exists"....)


    Is it? http://www.waykiwayki.com/2015/07/fl...y-is-hoax.html



    Flat earthers think gravity to be a hoax.  Welcome down the rabbit hole my friend.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  11. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  12. #531
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Continue from Post 499

    In answering the statements and questions below it has become apparent the same themes are repeatedly evident, and one theme is how you get from an "is" or the descriptive, to an "ought" or prescriptive. Another issue/theme which keeps arising is how relative, subjective human beings get a "best" or even a "good" value from relativism? Focusing the standard on utilitarianism or some other "ism" still brings the question back to why your relativist ideology is any better than another person's relativism?

    I also covered atheism as a worldview. Without an almighty Being revealing Himself I question how something that happened in the past can be known as certain (uniformity of nature) because we operate from the present. From a naturalistic worldview the present as the key to the past.

    That is the short of it.

    You can address whatever you like or just address the brief synopsis.

    The read time for the rest of the post is about 45 minutes (sorry).

    ***

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    You are a result of mindless, unintentional, purposeless/meaningless chance (accident) UNLESS there is a personal Creator God.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, our current understanding is that we are the result of natural processes which are mindless, unintentional, and purposeless/meaningless. What exactly is your point?
    "...our current understanding..."

    Whose current understanding? Yours, or perhaps some in the scientific community, or other's of like mind who hold a materialistic worldview? I don't share such a view. What about me and those who think like I do? My views are ridiculed, suppressed and subverted by the current understanding to push that materialistic narrative. Christianity is no longer the mainstay of your country.

    The point; that your origin (its beginnings) are something that cannot be traced to anything that makes sense once you hold to naturalistic beginnings, yet despite this, you continue to suggest and find sense from such beginnings.

    What I traced my origins to can logically make sense because I trace them to a personal, intelligent, caring ultimate being, not some glob of matter plus energy over time devoid of all reason that supposedly is the origin of us. What you assume is that such an origin can produce what you witness. The difference between the two worldviews is that my worldview can make sense of what I observe, yours cannot (how do you get life and senses from inorganic chemicals mixing?). You build a house on sand, with a myriad of assumptions that start from the senseless and then magically producing a sentient being - I speak of the human being.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    What science "demonstrates" in establishing origins is speculation.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Speculating on how something happened which we as yet don't fully understand is in no way an issue. You'll find that most of what we currently know with any reasonable certainty started out as speculation on limited information.
    Mere words, assertions. If the atheist/secular/materialistic worldview does not fully understand how things happen, then that worldview could be mistaken in its views of the universe.

    You do not know; you prefer to believe what you do.

    It is an issue. How life originates from non-life has never been demonstrated in the real world, just theorized as possible. It is nonsense, IMO. Show otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    How you determine its reasonableness when there is no mind behind it is beyond me
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You need to support that any "mind behind it" is even possible, let alone required.
    One support is the reasonableness of mindful being producing other mindful beings. That is all we ever witness. What you need for your assertion is oodles and oodles of time, plus matter and energy without intent. Thus, Chance randomly somehow produces what is necessary. Does that make sense to you? If so, then explain how so I can dispute it. Some things work in theory yet are impossible to demonstrate in real life, such as arriving at the present from an infinity.

    You assume and speculate based on the THOUGHTS of other subjective, relative, limited human beings. Why should I believe them (a blind speculative faith since no human being was there to witness origins nor witnesses life from non-life happening today)? Confirmational bias verifies what a person wants to see.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    yet you continue to demonstrate meaning from it.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?
    You derive meaning from the meaningless. The universe does not have meaning to it UNLESS a MEANINGFUL Being has produced that meaning. The unbeliever's worldview tends to derive meaning from the meaningless. The unbeliever keeps borrowing suppositions from the Christian worldview to make sense of their worldview. They want things to matter, live their life as if things ultimately matter, yet don't have what is necessary for it to ultimately matter. Thus, they are what Van Til termed "a walking contradiction."

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    How does a person arrive at best from a relative, subjective mindset?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    What are you talking about? "Best" what?
    I'm talking about how you obtain quantitative VALUES from the qualitative (the OUGHT from the IS). You use these qualitative values all the time as if your personal opinion or that of other likeminded opinions establishes what is good or best. How does the descriptive (behaviorism), what is, become what SHOULD BE, the prescriptive?

    How do you get good without first KNOWING what is best?
    This is a major huddle. You just make it up, call it "good," but if someone makes up a different/opposite value, you dispute its rightness.

    How do you get best without an ultimate, fixed, unchanging standard? A relative standard is always changing, so how do you know what you believe as "good" is actually the case. It could all change tomorrow. What you call "good" today could be seen as evil tomorrow. Why is that? All I would have to do is point to abortion in your country (presuming you live in the USA) in which at one time not long ago (before Roe Vs. Wade) it was looked upon as bad, murder, and not permissible. Now it is looked upon as the woman's right to choose and that being "good."

    Same-sex marriage and sodomy was once thought of as evil, yet the idea has been promoted as "good" by many societies in recent years, and laws against same-sex marriage or sodom have been repealed and changed.

    Slavery was once thought of as permissible, and many people thought it good to own slaves. That position is no longer seen as good.

    Some countries and some people accept one view and oppose the opposite. Tyrants enslave their people by their control over them and dictate what is and will be the laws of the land. Who is right?

    The point:

    1) Once things that were thought of as bad or evil are now thought of as good or permissible.

    2) Some societies have laws that are contrary to other societies. So which view is the CORRECT view?

    The views are opposites and contradictory. Logically, two contradictory views cannot be good for they state opposites.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Why is what you believe any BETTER than what I believe?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Well, since the text you quoted was about our own individually determined meaning to our own lives, then what I believe is the meaning to my life is better for me because it's my life.
    How does that make it better, because you like it? You are confusing PREFERENCE with values.

    Why is YOUR meaning any BETTER than mine in a relative world of ideas? Because you say so? (The tyranny of it all) Because you LIKE it? That is all you have told me so far.

    Why is your social construct BETTER than that of Hitler or Kim Jong-un? Because you LIKE it?

    When there are two opposing conventions like the view of same-sex marriage or abortion, viewed in one country as Good and Right and in another as Evil and Wrong, which convention is the correct one? In a relative world which person is to say. Logically both views cannot be true since they are contrary to each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Yet you continually demonstrate that you think it is. Disagreements such as ours are what wars are fought over. And I think your worldview (devoid of God) begs the question of what makes anything "good."
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Atheism is not a worldview. It's a single response to a single claim: - "Do you believe that a god exists?" - "No."
    Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

    Atheism has all the ingredients of a worldview.

    Once you deny God, you must explain existence by some other means. You MUST sift everything through the eyes of your foundational, core, starting point. Instead of a Creator as the explanation, you must find another REASON for our existence, and you will look at life from your core presupposition, your basic building blocks. If you deny God, then a naturalistic view becomes the default, and the web of beliefs used by this default sift your ideas. You CERTAINLY don't look to God in sifting your beliefs.

    Someone who holds that God does not exist or tries to explain existence outside of God would (to be consistent) have to hold a materialistic view of the universe. Either we are here because of an ultimate being, or we are not. It can't be both.

    A worldview has four or five consistencies to it. It tries to answer such ultimate questions of:
    1) Who are we? (Ontology)
    2) Why are we here? (Metaphysics)
    3) What difference does it make? (Axiology)
    4) What happens to us when we die? (Destiny)
    5) How do we know? (Epistemology)

    How do atheists answer these essential metaphysical questions? Someone who does not believe in God answers every one of them.

    An atheist tries to answer questions in categories such as Reality, Man, Truth, and Values and here is how an atheist would answer those as opposed to a Christian:

    An Atheist/Naturalist/Agnostic/Existentialist:

    "Reality:
    The material universe is all that exists. Reality is "one-dimensional." There is no such thing as a soul or a spirit. Everything can be explained from natural law.
    Man:
    Man is the chance product of a biological process of evolution. Man is entirely material. The human species will one day pass out of existence.
    Truth:
    Truth is usually understood as scientific proof. Only that which can be observed with the five senses is accepted as real or true.
    Values:
    No objective values or morals exist. Morals are individual preferences or socially useful behaviors. Even social morals are subject to evolution and change.
    Theism:
    Christianity/Islam/Judaism

    Reality:
    An infinite, personal God exists. He created a finite, material world. Reality is both material and spiritual. The universe as we know it had a beginning and will have an end.
    Man:
    Humankind is the unique creation of God. People were created "in the image of God," which means that we are personal, eternal, spiritual, and biological.
    Truth:
    Truth about God is known through revelation. Truth about the material world is gained via revelation and the five senses in conjunction with rational thought.
    Values:
    Moral values are the objective expression of an absolute moral being."
    https://www.xenos.org/sites/default/...Worldviews.pdf

    Being an atheist, your system of thought tries to define everything starting from and looking at everything through a particular slant. Mine looks at things from a position of belief in God. The question is which is more reasonable and logical and which can make sense of our origins and values. My claim is that only my theistic system of thought makes sense or can make sense of it.

    I can put it another way for you.
    Do you see the origins of the universe and morality as being a result of natural laws and random chance? You seem to suggest as much below. Thus your worldview has excluded God as the likely answer.

    Do you see values as relative or universal/absolute/unchanging, per below?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    You would first have to establish a universal best that goodness can be measured against for the very reason that I or anyone can make an opposite claim. Then whose is right?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    A "universal best" might not exist. We certainly don't have any good evidence that one does. So we're left dealing with reality (as we experience it) on reality's terms, and we have to come to terms with the fact that we're stuck co-existing on this planet, and need to find ways of co-existing which are beneficial to us, maximize our prosperity, and minimize our suffering.
    I ask you how "best" can exist/be if everything is relative or for that matter from a subjective, limited mind?

    If a universal best, a measure that we can measure everything else from, does not exist then why is your measure any better than mine? It's not. All you can do is CALL it better. Preference does not make something good; it just makes it permissible. Hitler or Kim Jong-un permits something that you don't or may not like in your society such as the killing of Jews, or the suppression of a people. Unless you can produce a universal standard and measure what makes their view any better than what you believe? N-O-T-H-I-N-G.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    You continue to use value judgments that you can't place a best upon for the reason that you can't grasp at an ultimate best.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Nor you do have an ultimate best - you only claim you do.
    THAT is your assumption. Mere assertion. As I have said, I have a reasonable and logical faith that is necessary for the ultimate best. I do not believe you do, and I make that assertion based on your answers and dialog. I do not see you as being able to give answers to origins and meaning sufficiently. When I dig into the nuts and bolts (the basics that holds everything you believe - the web of your core beliefs - together) of your worldview presuppositions I see them as unraveling and leading to the senseless. (Matthew 7:26-27)

    I have an ultimate best, granting that God exists. What is more, I can make sense of origins.

    Why would something that has no intention, no purpose be capable of producing both? You ASSUME 'it' (whatever it is) can.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    This makes everything changing, and it is illogical to believe that two contrary and relative views can both be true at the same time and in the same manner.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    What's wrong with changing in order to improve? Don't you think it's a good thing that we're no longer burning women at the stake who've been accused of witchcraft?
    How do you know that it is an improvement unless you have a final/fixed reference point? You don't.

    The standard is always shifting without a final reference point. Demonstrate with a shifting reference point that your OPINION is any "better" than any other without a fixed reference.

    Your worldview in regards to morality is no better than any other UNLESS there is a final, fixed, unchanging reference point that good and evil can be compared. Otherwise, it is just preference - personal FEELINGS or likes versus dislikes. Some like to burn witches, other like to befriend them. What is your preference?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    So, it is YOUR worldview that cannot make sense of itself.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    1) Not sure what you mean here. 2) What does it mean for a worldview to "make sense of itself"? 3) Again, atheism is not a worldview.
    1) I mean, Is it rationally consistent with what it claims? Or Does it borrow from another worldview to make sense of its claims?
    2) It means that it has a logical starting and unchanging reference point. It does not start as nonsense/devoid of sense, and it does not morph into its opposite over time (i.e., with qualitative values).

    3) If you do not believe in God, the ultimate Supreme Being, then you HAVE to explain everything in naturalistic means eventually, for that is what you trace or believe your origins are from. If there is no supreme being, then even gods owe their existence to something else, unless you can show they are eternal supreme beings, equal in unity and power.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    You have to borrow from the Christian worldview to make sense of goodness.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Not at all. Goodness under a secular moral system is that which maximizes prosperity and/or minimizes unnecessary suffering.
    Why is maximizing prosperity good? In a universe without any ultimate fixed measure, that takes no note of suffering, or cares about it in any way, what does it matter? If you want to believe it does, so be it, but why do you continue to deny those who do not believe in maximum prosperity as the "better" option? Look at all those who believe in looking out for themselves and bleed the rest of us dry. If they choose to take your life, what makes that evil in a relative, changing universe? If they have the power to do so, then so be it. Why not? Because you DISLIKE it. Because your social convention says this should not happen whereas theirs does.

    Again, your view fails the test of logic, of two opposing beliefs being true at the same time and in the same manner. Meaning loses its identity. One has to be wrong, and only if there is a final reference point does it ultimately matter, or anything goes. Such specifics like abortion or same-sex union can't both be good and not good at the same time and in the same manner.

    It is the question of the is/ought fallacy; how you get from an is to an ought in a strictly material universe.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    You keep borrowing from a worldview that is contrary to your own that can make sense of things to make sense of anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You have no support for this claim.
    How do your values originate? They SUPPOSEDLY originate from an amoral universe with a system of belief that denies a personal supreme being. They originate from changing likes and preferences. Show me otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    There is no sense to be had of the good and evil outside of God. It all boils down to personal preference. Why is yours BETTER than mine, or is it? So why is what you believe the actual good? Demonstrate it to be.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, that which maximizes prosperity and/or minimizes unnecessary suffering serves as the foundation for determining what is good and evil. No deity required.
    Further, since you have failed to meet the burden of proof that your deity exists, then you are necessarily left without a sense of good and evil. All you're doing is claiming that you have a source for it, without actually demonstrating that you do.
    Says who? A lion does not debate on whether it is right or wrong to kill a gazelle. It likes the taste in its mouth and feeling in its belly, so it does it. It knows its survival depends on eating it, or it would not bother and die. Hitler did not think it is wrong to kill Jews. Kim Jong-un does not think it is wrong to exploit his people. They starve why he flourishes and suffer. He does not see them as having the same "rights" that he does.

    As for my God's existence, I have started the process of giving reasonable evidence and facts to you (previous post).

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    "THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE?" Says who?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, the knowledge that we will one day end makes it all the more important to spend the time we have in the best way possible. We are the ones who determine what is best for ourselves. You have not supported that an external source even required, let alone that it actually exists.
    So what? Why should I care about what is important to you, as long as what I like to do is the prevalent view?

    Again, you use the term, "best way possible" as if what you believe is best. Who made you God?

    When you say, "we are the ones who determine what is best" then if someone has an opposing view on what is best, who is "right?"

    Is it the majority that rules?

    Again, how does preference make something "good?" Because you can beat someone over the head if they do not follow what you like? That is what happens in most dictatorships throughout history. Someone manages to either convince or force the masses to follow what he or she like. So the majority follows. So, is Hitler's Germany "good?" If so, "Please step this way, you are the next to the showers!"

    Unless you have an ultimate, absolute, unchanging, righteous source that is best why is your measurement the standard I SHOULD follow?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    What facts?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The fact that this is the one life which we know we have to live.
    So why should I make it meaningful? Try living it when you're starving to death and you have no hope, or in a Nazi concentration camp. How is there justice there? What is justice in an amoral universe? Something you make up? Or something someone else makes up that is opposed to your views?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Again, you unwittingly impose my worldview into the situation by deeming it "tragic."
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No, I have full justification for why someone in pain committing suicide would be considered tragic.
    If I disagree, which one of us is right? In a universe without any ultimate reason or meaning why SHOULD I care? It is all relative.

    Again, you speak of values and used its measures (good, better best, just, justice, right, true) with every breath, but where do values begin? You manufacture them from a relativistic feeling. Why can't I feel differently and act on it? In a materialistic universe, I am a biological bag of electrochemical reaction. I react one way, you another. What is WRONG with that? What is just about that?

    You would have to borrow from the Christian worldview that believes it is wrong to commit suicide or right to have compassion on others to "justify" the view. You would have to demonstrate that your relativistic and subjective views are based on what is best or "good," or it is meaningless - it can mean whatever a person wants to make it mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Why is it tragic in an impersonal, amoral universe?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The universe doesn't care, of course, but people do.
    Some people do. But if you are nothing more than a biological bag of matter, it makes no difference, ultimately, what you or I believe.

    My Christian worldview believes it matters for a good reason. God has created us, and He values our life, and He is the One who grants it, sets it in place, and has the right to take that life from us.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    My worldview, on the other hand, believes God grants us life, life is valuable, and it is worth living as we are all created in the image and likeness of God.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    And yet you fail to support these claims. So does that mean you are left without value?
    The Bible states them. Are they unreasonable to believe? No!

    The Bible asserts that values come from an ultimately good Being who gives us reasons to live. Is that unreasonable to believe? No!

    He CONFIRMS His word by prophecy and by the impossibility of the contrary.

    You continue to inject meaning into a meaningless universe because you think it matters. It does not matter in such a universe. Besides, why do you continue to find such meaning from such a universe? Why do you continue to find a reason when no reason is ultimately there? It is so inconsistent.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    What value or use does an amoral universe have in you or me?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The concept of "value" is somewhat relative, so if we're talking in terms of the universe, then no, none of us have ultimate value. However, we ourselves are perfectly capable of seeing value in our own lives.
    If a value is relative then how do you know it is good or bad? Do you merely assign that "VALUE" to something you like and that makes it so? Why can't I do the opposite then, and make the contrary "value" so? I can, but logically both views cannot be true. Either one or the other is false and wrong. Who decides in a relativistic universe? Do you? Are you the one who makes goodness what it is or should be for yourself and others?

    When you assign the values that you LIKE they become what others will do only if you have the means to support or enforce your view, like Hitler, or Mao, or Xi, or Putin. What makes that good? Because I am not killed by you, in a meaningless universe? Ultimately, in such a worldview, my life is neither good or bad in a meaningless universe. It just is.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    I think it is a tragedy when someone kills themselves in this manner because they have not found the optimum meaning God created us for - Himself.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    And I think it's a tragedy because of the suffering the person goes through and the lost opportunity for prosperity.
    Then you are living contrary to your materialistic worldview from which nothing ultimately matters. Again, you have crossed over to borrow from my Christian worldview in which it does ultimately matter because we are answerable to God. Who are you answerable to, ultimately? Without God, no one because nothing is responsible for your existence. It just is.

    Do whatever you like, as long as what you believe is the truth as you define it. If it is not truth and God exists, then you will have to give an account.

    If there is no God, everything is permissible, as long as you can get away with doing whatever you want to.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    I also feel it is wrong because God is the giver and taker of life.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    But according to your faith, every suicide is predetermined by god. Since according to your beliefs, god ultimately is the one who takes the life, then it isn't wrong.
    It is permitted by God since you have a violation, granted by God, but God also permits you to sin, and He gives you the consequences of sin too. He could prevent you but then you would be a robot. You are not a robot. You have a choice to disobey God, even though you will suffer consequences, for God has made know to you what is indeed right and what is indeed wrong. Your conscience bears it out. It is wrong to murder. It is wrong to steal.

    He knows all things, but it is a choice people make that they will be accountable. Since God takes life, not YOU, then you taking your life goes against God's command, which you well know - Thou shall not kill.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Best in whose relative opinion? How do you get "best" from relativism???
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The demonstration of which knowledge is best comes mostly from the predictive abilities it awards us. For example, a scientific model which grants us predictive capability is better than a model for the same phenomena which does not.
    Is it by how many people like ice-cream?

    If so, then if 99 out of 100 and 990 out of 1000 people like ice-cream, then ice-cream is "good!" If 99 out of 100 like killing Jews then killing Jews is "good!" If 99 out of 100 believe it is good to kill babies, then killing babies is good! That is what the majority choose to call it. If you are a Jew how can you call them killing you or members of your family anything other than "good" since the majority determines "good?"

    This is the consequence of utilitarianism.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    How can it be necessary for a mindless, purposeless universe?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Your question is not clear. Again, you made a statement about how certainty is not available to anyone other than a "necessary Being", and I replied with "Claiming it's a necessary being doesn't make it so - this must be demonstrated." Until you demonstrate how/why such a being is necessary, then all you're doing is claiming that it is.
    Certainty is available through a necessary being, or to put it another way, what would be necessary for certainty? All I'm saying is my worldview can make sense of certainty. Can you be sure that the universe exists the way you perceive it to be?

    (Only if an ultimate Being who created it has told you as much or you get lucky and think His thoughts after He does, and logic confirms such IS the case)

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    How can you be sure that tomorrow will be like today in such a universe?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    We can't be absolutely certain that it will be, but the track record so far indicates that we can reasonably expect that it will.
    So you presume and this a result of your worldview position! Your worldview does not have what is necessary for certainty. Science, which you trust, relies on the fact of uniformity of nature, (that what has been the case continues to be). That is the framework for science. So, how certain are you of it?

    If God be true and every man a liar (Romans 3:4) then I can know that what is constant will remain constant (Genesis 8:22; Colossians 1:17). That would be one difference between our worldviews. I would have a "Better" groundwork for science.

    Why SHOULD anything REMAIN constant in a chance, random universe? THERE IS NO REASON. Yet it does!

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    There is NO REASON that it should, which speaks volumes for God's existence.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    This doesn't follow at all.
    From where your worldview starts (and finishes) there is NO REASON. How reason materializes from lifeless matter plus energy is a mystery. You can't make sense of it. Your worldview is devoid of making sense of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    why is that system of thought any BETTER than any other, and in an amoral universe at that?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, it depends on the system of thought which reliably produces beneficial results.
    Is it beneficial to murder over one billion unborn human beings since Roe vs. Wade because a woman can choose to do so and women do?

    Whose views of beneficial are you using, and why are they ultimate? If they are not, then why SHOULD I take your word for it that they are beneficial?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    I never said no truth can be found in scientific endeavors
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Numerous statement which you made (ex. "No one outside of a necessary Being revealing as much has any certainty", "What is the worldview that your system of thought rests upon regarding truth and the universe?") seem to imply that you think the only path to truth, or any meaning, is through theistic belief in your specific deity. If you are using Kuhn's writing on scientific revolutions as part of the support for this, then this is an invalid extrapolation. Nothing about changes in the way we have done science in the past invalidates the scientific method as a whole, or any specific scientific endeavours.
    Yes, I believe truth originates from God, and we learn it either from His word or by correctly thinking His thoughts after Him. When we do that science bears witness. So, we find the correct path via science when we correctly think His thoughts after Him.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    What I believe is that true science thinks God's thoughts after Him.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Which you fail to support.
    I have started to give reasons why the Bible is reasonable to believe and points to God. I invite you to refute and dispute it and let's see whose worldview is more reasonable and logical.

    We do science because of the uniformity of nature - we CAN predict based on consistents (Genesis 8:22). Why IF there is no reason behind this uniformity? We would never have any faith that we could do science.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Kuhn listed some scientific paradigms that changed with more information, more knowledge, and over time, which brings into question of whether the scientific paradigms we live under today are true to what actually is the case.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No, it doesn't. Only actual evidence can bring it into question. This is what is referred to with "more information, more knowledge". Even if I accepted your extrapolation from Kuhn, this does nothing at all to actually support your theistic claims. You could, right now, conclusively disprove every single scientific theory and model, and you'd still have all your work ahead of you to prove anything at all about your deity.
    So, which view of "Science" do you hold:
    1) The Big Bang,
    2) Multiverse,
    3) Steady State Theory,
    4) String Theory,
    5) Some other view, perhaps from the ones to follow in the link such as the Big Freeze it mentions, or Solipsism?
    https://listverse.com/2013/04/15/10-...e-and-reality/

    Science as a methodology likes to see itself as a revealer of the true nature of the universe, as sort of a seer that can look beneath the veil of appearance. Yet science is practiced by scientists, human beings who bring with themselves a whole set of predispositions, values, and beliefs. And as in any cross-section of our society, some will be seriously invested in their positions and viewpoints, taking themselves rather seriously and purporting the “correctness” of their views. Of course, there are as many who don't take this stance and seek to move beyond any personal attachment to who they are and what they've discovered.
    Universal Constants
    Ex nihilo is a Latin term that translated means “out of nothing.” It was an idea presented by St. Augustine that became Church doctrine later on. It is his philosophical explanation of how God created everything out of nothing, which interestingly enough can be applied to the big bang as well. Where did everything contained in the big bang come from and why did it bang in the first place?
    Much of the history of cosmology and its theories are a reflection of these types of people and the cultures they lived in. Often the most widely accepted theory becomes exactly that, because of the forceful personality behind the ideas. And while science tries to remain free of influence from things outside of it, the scientists who practice it are still a product of the culture and the times in which they live. In other words, in relation to the theories in cosmology, whether the universe has always existed or began with a bang, can't be separated from the influence of the zeitgeist, or spirit of the times. While there isn't enough time to go back through history in detail and show you how the cosmological pendulum has swung from one theory to the other, I can give you a rough outline and a few examples of some time periods in which this occurred. Just remember that there are always many factors impacting how any specific paradigm develops.
    https://www.infoplease.com/science/u...igins-universe


    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    When you say, I [Peter] can't know, and base that on your worldview analysis you are begging the question unless you present the facts.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You need to be more specific. "Can't know" what?
    Specificly, can't know that God exists or the Bible is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Are you certain of that (I can't know)?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Again, please be specific. What statement of mine are you referring to?
    Can't know that God exists or the Bible is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Again, I repeat, I have what is necessary for truth provided God exists.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Yes, provided. Since you haven't met the burden of proof, then you don't have what is necessary for truth. I, on the other hand, have no problem appealing to reality as the source of truth.
    Whose reality? Your view of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Furthermore, I have a reasonable faith with many convincing proofs.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    And yet you've failed to provide any.
    Is it more reasonable to believe that reason derives from a reasoning being, an ultimate reasoning Being at that? It does not derive from you, or me. You are not necessary for me to reason, nor I for you.

    Is it more reasonable to believe that reason can derive its existence from something inorganic, for that is supposedly where you owe your existence and reason from (when I say you, generically I mean all life forms)?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Can you say the same for your belief system?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I don't need to, since it is not based on faith. The proof behind the scientific method and secular morality is their continued success in production beneficial results.
    Sure it is, for ideas are not created in a vacuum. They are built upon, one concept at a time, starting from a core presupposition(s) that requires faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    My default proof is prophecy because it can be demonstrated so reasonably in history.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    And yet it fails as support for any other theistic claims. Even if we accepted that some of the predictions are true regardless of how tenuous they are, this is in no way some form of "stamp of approval" for any other miraculous or supernatural claims in the bible. The Simpsons predicted Trump, among numerous other things, but that doesn't support the truth of any other claims in the Simpsons. Further, there are issues with the predictions (non-specific/vague being the biggest), and numerous predictions which have turned out to be flat-out wrong (Egypt will be a barren wasteland, Nebuchadnezzar will destroy Tyre and it will never be built again, god will dry up the Nile, god promises Judah he would not be harmed).
    Sure it does, it supports the biblical claim that God's word is true (John 17:17).

    I do not merely accept some prophecy as true, I accept all that God prophesies through His divinely inspired servants as true, and I base it on a higher authority than my own for, I trust His Word as truth.

    I'm not familiar with The Simpsons. What exactly do you mean?
    What was the nature of the Simpson predictions, and how many were before whatever fact you are referring? What percentage of accuracy?

    Please provide the biblical prophetic verses you reference.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Another convincing evidence is making sense of morality.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Nope, secular morality has no problem making sense of morality, and it's the only moral system which is: A) actually a system and not just a collection of pronouncements, and B) demonstrated to exist.
    Secular morality can't account for goodness for it has no fixed measure. The measure is always changing.

    a) b) Show me how.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Another is the consistency or uniformity of nature.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    Uniformity of nature is evidence of uniformity of nature. Any further claims require further support or arguments.
    The question is how does something that has no mind, no intent, no purpose, but is chaotic and random (chance happenstance) continue to "act" in a uniform manner? There is no REASON that it would, but you continue to argue from reason. The more you think about it, the more that REASON and PURPOSE become apparent. The minute you start to argue for your atheistic position reason becomes apparent, and you find reason supposedly from a universe that is devoid of it. Why is there a reason for any of this? Are you just making it up? Why should I believe your reasoning?

    Support your worldview.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Another is the complexity and diversity of life and the universe and the reason that we can THINK about these things logically and rationally.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    This in no way demonstrates exclusively that your specific theistic claims are true.
    It is much more reasonable than concluding that your origins are derived from something that is devoid of reason and logic. I witness every day that from personal, logical, rational beings come others of the same kind. I never witness these mindful qualities arising any other way.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Another is why there is something rather than nothing.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    I don't know why. Could there even be "nothing"? Is that even an option? In any case, this is not support for your theistic claims.
    There is no "why" without a mindful being.

    The question then is how? How does something come from nothing? I see it as an impossibility. Unless the universe owes its existence to an outside source, there must be a beginning because I don't see how you can get to the PRESENT in an infinite/eternal universe or even a string of universes that reach back to an infinite regress.

    In a multiverse eventually you would have to arrive at the grand beginning or we are speaking of it being eternal/infinite.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Another is the unity of the Bible.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    The bible is the claim, not the support.
    It is also the support, confirmed by history.

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Another is the laws of logic which are not readily explainable in a material universe.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    "Laws of logic" isn't something that exists which needs to be readily explicable. The laws are nothing more than expressions of how reality has been observed to function - they are our own explanations of how reality works.
    So, are you saying that they depend on you and your expectations for them to be what they are?

    If you did not exist would 2+2=4 still be true? I know that it would be true if I did not exist.

    Neither you or I am the necessary mind that makes the law of identity, or laws of mathematics, or the laws of nature, what they are.

    Is the number 2 still the number 2 (or the essence of twoness) if you do not exist or could it be something else? Was it ever anything other than what it is?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    God's existence gives meaning to the universe, and you personally.
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    You have no support for this.
    I think it is logical. That is my support (other than His Word).

    Do you find meaning from a meaningless universe? That is your origins without personal being. Meaning comes from the meaningless. How?
    If there is no purpose found from the universe why do we keep finding purpose in it?

    Quote Originally Posted by PGA2
    Why would you expect to find reason, or meaning in an unreasoning, meaningless, and purposeless universe?
    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    We don't find it, we create it ourselves.
    So you invent the purpose, but there is really none ultimately there. You just make it up and delude yourself? The earth orbits the sun for no purpose/no reason. It takes the same amount of time every year. It happens for no reason yet we can discover this, we discover mathematical formulas that explain gravity, or distance, or volume. This all means nothing?

    Peter

  13. #532
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    667
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    1) I used the term in an objective sense with an explanation that would allow for precise translation between our two perceptions.
    Nonsense. We both used it in a similar fashion.

    Me:
    "Perhaps, and yet here we are and no one has an answer yet that isn't just plain fantastic."

    You:
    "Define fantastic in a measurable sense. I think when we use subjective discriptors of that nature we end up just enshringing out initial conclusions against the argument. Perhaps all the answers are "fantastic" it doesn't mean that one of them isn't the most likely."

    I don't understand your objection at all??



    ---------- Post added at 05:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:05 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    2) I absolutely do get what you are trying to convey, which is your gut reaction to the claim.
    Yes, you are partly correct.
    However, the point was, all of the options presented so far seem "fantastic" or unlikely/seems to go against common sense/preposterous/etc.
    Your point was your belief is the most likely to be true out of the bunch (I wonder that we are missing some part of the puzzle still)....

    What if I told you I was God and was asking these questions just so you would articulate the answers, because a particular person reading would use this information to go on and do great works? What would you think of this claim?

    ---------- Post added at 05:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:14 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ok, sure. But that doesn’t really change the analogy at all. Levy is the act of imposing a tax. Most people (hopefully) know that the government..."
    Your analogy started with some one blissfully unaware of gov't.
    Analogy Fail.

    ---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    And how do we know that a large percentage of it is missing?
    Because gravity is not behaving like we expect and needs a spank or we have something wrong in our calculations. Which seems more likely (or less fantastic)?

    ---------- Post added at 05:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:21 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The essentially universal opinion was that there was more matter, not that relativity was wrong. The standard model in physics is, as GP used to love to point out, the single most experimentally verified scientific model in human history.
    And yet it is off by how much when we try to measure the mass of the universe?

    ---------- Post added at 05:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well, if we assume that maximizing the survivable area were the only goal. We could look at a zoo in a similar manner.
    Well, no, not at all. First I didn't say "maximizing" which implies pretty much all areas, but it seems a stretch to say the earth is made for humans when we can't live in most the environments.
    Second, a zoo by definition, each space is made for each species it contains. That is a lot different than the whole "zoo" is made for a particular species and the other life is a secondary consideration.
    Analogy fail.


    ---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:32 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That it is possible for something to both “live forever” and be “alive?” The two aren’t mutually exclusive so it is, by definition, possible.
    It's possible that a pair porcupines are nesting in my shorts and causing me an irritation, so?
    In what way do we see anything about life that makes us think something can live forever?

    ---------- Post added at 06:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you had formally ceded anything. The history (as I remember it) was that you initially made an argument that a being cannot exist outside of our spacetime. I offered some reasons as to why that wouldn’t be the case and asked if you had anything to support it. I don’t recall you having answered it so I assumed it was dropped (since it wasn’t supported).
    No worries
    However, I don't think I have ever made that claim? Perhaps I was meant something like:
    when I hear talk about the universe expanding, I also hear that it isn't expanding into anything else. IOW, there is no other space the universe is taking up as it expands.

    ---------- Post added at 06:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Ha, fair enough. :-) I'll do that from now on, but I'll ask one favor in return. If I point way back to earlier in the conversation please don't get frustrated, just understand that I'm going back to one of those technical clarifications. And please indulge me in some small clarifications, we aren't the only ones reading this, so I definitely want to be clear.


    Yes do be clear, that is my point. Feel free to be as technical as you please, but then also give a synapsis of what you said in plain "American English" would be appreciated and I think help move things along.

    ---------- Post added at 06:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:31 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    More or less, yes, that is my position.
    Wow! I must be getting better at this, an eight word (29 letter) response
    (Please forgive my odd sense of humor).

    So is there any reason that the could not be another universe (manifold thingy) with "time" that is separate from ours?

    ---------- Post added at 06:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:35 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    Flat earthers think gravity to be a hoax.  Welcome down the rabbit hole my friend.
    LOL! I'll give you 1/2 point

    However, they don't deny the effect, only the definition of the source. They still believe "something" holds their feet on the ground!

    So they are ONLY arguing about just the cause, not the effect.

    Analogy better than fail

    ---------- Post added at 06:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Could you clarify? In what sense is God an “actual infinity?” What dynamic or property are you expecting me to defend?
    How is a being with no beginning of existence and no end not an actual infinity?
    How is the "power to do anything" (logically possible)(and in some cases NOT logically possible) not an actual infinity?
    Last edited by Belthazor; September 14th, 2018 at 05:54 PM.

  14. #533
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by BEL
    Well, no, not at all. First I didn't say "maximizing" which implies pretty much all areas, but it seems a stretch to say the earth is made for humans when we can't live in most the environments.
    Second, a zoo by definition, each space is made for each species it contains. That is a lot different than the whole "zoo" is made for a particular species and the other life is a secondary consideration.
    Analogy fail.
    I think the analogy was a demonstration that there can be other considerations, not that it represents the ultimate considerations.
    So the analogy seems to be pretty good.
    To serve man.

  15. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  16. #534
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by futureboy View Post
    No problem, Peter - I find I share the same weakness most of the time, hence the long posts!

    In that case I'll wait for your response so that we can get back on track with the single post-response rhythm.
    Over to you.

  17. #535
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    667
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think the analogy was a demonstration that there can be other considerations, not that it represents the ultimate considerations.
    So the analogy seems to be pretty good.
    I appreciate your opinion.

    Since I'm fairly sure you don't agree with my whole post, but singled out just this point to respond to, I'm going to take that as I AM getting better at this.

  18. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  19. #536
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    667
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think the analogy was a demonstration that there can be other considerations, not that it represents the ultimate considerations.
    So the analogy seems to be pretty good.
    If the Earth were made/intended for man, it makes no sense that that man can not live on a majority of it (which takes a much, much more dramatic turn when you figure in the universe too, which is nearly completely deadly to human life).

    Is the Earth made for man or no? If yes, I don't understand "other considerations" (at least any presented so far) as being relevant, but happy to consider any possibility

    The zoo analogy just doesn't work for me cause a zoo by definition is made for all "specimens", not specifically one specimen.
    Is the earth a "zoo" or made for man?

  20. #537
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    If the Earth were made/intended for man, it makes no sense that that man can not live on a majority of it (which takes a much, much more dramatic turn when you figure in the universe too, which is nearly completely deadly to human life).

    Is the Earth made for man or no? If yes, I don't understand "other considerations" (at least any presented so far) as being relevant, but happy to consider any possibility

    The zoo analogy just doesn't work for me cause a zoo by definition is made for all "specimens", not specifically one specimen.
    Is the earth a "zoo" or made for man?
    First, you have several assumptions in that.
    #1 That what is.. has always been.
    So you look and note that the earth is 70% water, and you assume it was created that way. I don't agree with that assumption, and as I do believe in a world wide flood of Noah. I believe the world was very different at it's creation.
    So created for man, that it didn't even require sweat to survive.
    #2 That "living on" is the central purpose of anything that is created for you.
    For example, If I said "this house is for you" you would expect to be able to live in it.. and that is reasonable. But would you say, dude.. if this house is really made for me, why can't I walk on the ceiling?
    What if I told you.. the ceiling I created for you.. was just for you to look at.. and your house is the Sistine Chapel.

    ---
    Now to apply that. What if the sky .. is intended to look at? Haven't humans done exactly that to great effect?
    If you want to consider the vastness of space, you should also consider that it is far, far more likely that we wouldn't have ANYTHING to observe. In the largest sense, it is a very, very small possibility that we would have anything to observe, be it because you are the only thing in existence, or because things are only in range for viewing for a small amount of time. (Ie only 15billion years or so), or that our view could easily have been obscured by our placement in our galaxy.

    So, take the zoo analogy, for humans a consideration would be at the risk of over simplifying .. to have a "room with a view".
    Which is exactly what we have. .. and what a view yea? It peaks our imagination, it appeals to our sens of adventure, it has inspired countless forms of art and story telling. We are constantly utterly awe struck by it.
    If all the that exists outside of earth was for that purpose, wouldn't you call it a smashing success? where as if you supposed it was for us to walk on, you would call it an abject failure.


    For your consideration, a simple selfie...
    https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...AcQBg..i&w=220
    It is the last picture sent from the voyager 1 space probe. After years of travel, the probe was reaching the limits of our communication with it, and had past the last target planet before heading towards deep space. At the request of Carl Sagan, the controllers turned the cameras back to earth, and sent us this picture. It is really very simple, but to many, it was an emotional and impactful picture.
    point is.. what we see matters to us.
    To serve man.

  21. #538
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    667
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    #1 That what is.. has always been.
    So you look and note that the earth is 70% water, and you assume it was created that way.
    I made no such assumption. The Earth is a dynamic planet in a state of constant change to be sure, and seemingly has been since it formed. If it was made for humans I would presume they would be capable adapting to these changes.

    ---------- Post added at 08:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    #2 That "living on" is the central purpose of anything that is created for you.
    For example, If I said "this house is for you" you would expect to be able to live in it.. and that is reasonable. But would you say, dude.. if this house is really made for me, why can't I walk on the ceiling?
    Because that would be changing the laws of physics as we know them. However, in this scenario, if the house was created for you (humans), the creator could have made it possible for you to walk on the ceiling if "he" so chose.

    ---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, take the zoo analogy, for humans a consideration would be at the risk of over simplifying .. to have a "room with a view".
    I like your point here
    though it seems odd to have made sooooooo much universe, since it goes farther that we will ever "see" (unless we attain faster than light travel).

    1. I don't see a point to making a "painting" that no one will be able to see?
    2. If we don't get to ever see it, in what way is it made for us?

  22. #539
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    I made no such assumption. The Earth is a dynamic planet in a state of constant change to be sure, and seemingly has been since it formed. If it was made for humans I would presume they would be capable adapting to these changes.
    So, was I incorrect about the oceans based objection?

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Because that would be changing the laws of physics as we know them. However, in this scenario, if the house was created for you (humans), the creator could have made it possible for you to walk on the ceiling if "he" so chose.
    "could have" is not the point.
    The zoo example is about what we can expect. Something we can't speculate about, but you can't say the alligator exhibit wasn't made for alligators, because they can't climb up the walls like ants.
    Same with a house, you can't say it wasn't made for you because you can't walk on the ceiling.
    I mean, if your approach invalidates objects we know to be made for our use and purpose.. then it isn't a very reasonable or valid approach.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    I like your point here
    though it seems odd to have made sooooooo much universe, since it goes farther that we will ever "see" (unless we attain faster than light travel).

    1. I don't see a point to making a "painting" that no one will be able to see?
    2. If we don't get to ever see it, in what way is it made for us?
    It is my understanding that the current amount of matter in the universe is necessary for life to exist at all.
    In that, if there were 10% less star material, then no stars would have formed to begin with, as it would have all expanded too fast to form.
    If there were 10% more, then no stars would have formed because it would have stayed crushed.. or crushed into a singularity too quickly.

    So.. there is that. I am certain the % is wrong and much more sensitive then 10%. If you really want to be a stickler.. I'll try and find out exactly. But here a reasonable explanation should be sufficient.
    To serve man.

  23. #540
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    667
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Theistic beliefs are not rationally justified

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So, was I incorrect about the oceans based objection?
    I think so. I didn't mention oceans nor many land areas that are unable to sustain humans

    ---------- Post added at 06:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:56 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    "could have" is not the point.
    The zoo example is about what we can expect. Something we can't speculate about, but you can't say the alligator exhibit wasn't made for alligators, because they can't climb up the walls like ants.
    This makes no sense? How is a world that is "made for humans" = to a world where humans can defy normal physical laws, or IOW, do pretty much anything (defy gravity/"climb up walls")?

    ---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:59 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It is my understanding that the current amount of matter in the universe is necessary for life to exist at all.
    In that, if there were 10% less star material, then no stars would have formed to begin with, as it would have all expanded too fast to form.
    If there were 10% more, then no stars would have formed because it would have stayed crushed.. or crushed into a singularity too quickly.
    This seems an accurate enough description for our conversation (Squatch biting thru a 2x4 at the suggestion this was adequate).

    However, this is only true cause God picked those particular values right? God could have made gravity (or anything else) with different values when He created the universe and that % of matter you refer to wouldn't matter at all. So things we will never be able to see would not matter at all in this "painting". You are trying to play both sides of the court:
    "God can do anything, but must work in the lines of our understanding of physical law type of thinking when God made the laws".
    IOW, God could have made the universe work with 90% more matter or 90% less and we would still be here. Just change the laws of physics, after all, it is His, and His choice alone what the values are, right?

 

 
Page 27 of 28 FirstFirst ... 17 23 24 25 26 27 28 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Philosophy: Does a necessary beng exist, and is it consistent with the theistic God?
    By cstamford in forum Member Articles & Essays
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: October 15th, 2015, 06:02 AM
  2. Replies: 20
    Last Post: April 25th, 2015, 09:37 AM
  3. The Theistic Definition Thread
    By Meng Bomin in forum Religion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 26th, 2007, 02:13 PM
  4. Theistic Evolution????
    By nanderson in forum Religion
    Replies: 152
    Last Post: April 13th, 2006, 06:53 AM
  5. Theistic Death
    By Iluvatar in forum Religion
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: April 2nd, 2005, 08:01 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •