Physics and catching balls.

[AtheistArchon]

- I've seen this maybe six times in the week or so I've been here:

Atheist: The resurrection (or X miracle, Y miracle, etc) violates the laws of physics.

Theist: Why? It's not a violation of physics if I reach out and catch a ball, stopping it from hitting the ground.

- Is there a sermon out there somewhere that says this or something? Far too many people have given me this for it to be just one person's example.

- I want to clear this up: reaching out and catching a ball before it hits the ground is not a violation of physics... but it also is not a miracle.

1. A person catching a ball happens all the time, every day.
2. We can demonstrate and replicate a person catching a ball.
3. We can all see you physically interfering with the ball on its way to the ground, and we can measure the event.

- Miracles... the resurrection, Noah's ark, Jonah and the whale... these all describe things which defy the laws of physics. You cannot reproduce them, you cannot test for them, you cannot measure them.

- Furthermore, and most importantly, I can describe and explain in very fine detail how exactly you caught the ball. Muscles, gravity, bones, coordination, weight vs. balance... the whole bit. I can tell you exactly how it works. Miracles? They are magic! How did Jesus come back to life... can anyone describe how it was done? How did koala bears get to the ark, exist for a year without Eucalyptus leaves, and then get back again? How did Jonah survive the acid bath of a whale's stomach? How did water turn into wine? Miracles never broach the hows, and with good reason.

- If there's an essay out there or something that elaborates on the ball catching thing, someone point me towards it please. :smile:

[Jaltus]

Don't look at me.

However, resurrection does not necessarily violate physics, it violates common sense, and common sense is often wrong. Jesus died because He could not breathe due to being on a cross. He was no longer on the cross, and therefore He was able to breathe again. No law of physics is violated.

what you are really arguing against when it comes to the resurrection is that people do not come back to life once dead. however, that has nothing to do with physics. Possibly biology, but not physics.

[AtheistArchon]

Jesus died because He could not breathe due to being on a cross.

- Wow.. you've done your homework on how crucifixion works. :smile: I admit that I didn't know how people died when crucified until only about a year ago. Before then I assumed it was from blood loss or exposure. Grisly.


He was no longer on the cross, and therefore He was able to breathe again. No law of physics is violated.

- You don't believe he was literally dead for three days then?


what you are really arguing against when it comes to the resurrection is that people do not come back to life once dead. however, that has nothing to do with physics. Possibly biology, but not physics.

- Ehhhh well biology adheres to TLOP. :smile: But I'm easy. :thumb:

[jason]

Atheist: The resurrection (or X miracle, Y miracle, etc) violates the laws of physics.

Theist: Why? It's not a violation of physics if I reach out and catch a ball, stopping it from hitting the ground.

- Is there a sermon out there somewhere that says this or something? Far too many people have given me this for it to be just one person's example.
I don't think so. But your missing the point I think. A ball falls to the ground when dropped right.

This is a "natural law". It will always happen.

But if I catch the ball then it doesn't hit the ground.

I'm not violating any law of nature though as I am an intelligent agent acting upon the ball and therefore modifying the outcome of an event.

The "laws of physics" operate on a principle of "all else being equal". Catching the ball makes things unequal, but it is not a violation. God resurrection Christ is not "all things being equal". But that does not make it a violation of any "natural law"


1. A person catching a ball happens all the time, every day.
2. We can demonstrate and replicate a person catching a ball.
3. We can all see you physically interfering with the ball on its way to the ground, and we can measure the event.
Your misssing the point.


- Miracles... the resurrection, Noah's ark, Jonah and the whale... these all describe things which defy the laws of physics. You cannot reproduce them, you cannot test for them, you cannot measure them.
That something cannot be tested does not therefore mean it violates the laws of physics. Actually given it is your claim that the laws of physics are somehow absolute and being violated is something you need to demonstrate.


- Furthermore, and most importantly, I can describe and explain in very fine detail how exactly you caught the ball. Muscles, gravity, bones, coordination, weight vs. balance... the whole bit.
That is irrelevant.


I can tell you exactly how it works. Miracles? They are magic! How did Jesus come back to life... can anyone describe how it was done? How did koala bears get to the ark, exist for a year without Eucalyptus leaves, and then get back again? How did Jonah survive the acid bath of a whale's stomach? How did water turn into wine? Miracles never broach the hows, and with good reason.
Koala's aren't bears.

But just because I cannot give you a detailed mechanism does not therefore mean it violates "the laws of phsyics" or even that such events are impossible. If God exists then such things should be childs play for him. Unless you have some ironclad proof that God cannot possibly exist then miracles are possible, however rare and unlikely.

Jason

[AtheistArchon]

I don't think so. But your missing the point I think. A ball falls to the ground when dropped right.

This is a "natural law". It will always happen.

But if I catch the ball then it doesn't hit the ground.

I'm not violating any law of nature though as I am an intelligent agent acting upon the ball and therefore modifying the outcome of an event.

The "laws of physics" operate on a principle of "all else being equal". Catching the ball makes things unequal, but it is not a violation. God resurrection Christ is not "all things being equal". But that does not make it a violation of any "natural law"

- It is in that physics does not allow people three days dead to come back to life. It certainly allows you to catch the ball, yes.


That something cannot be tested does not therefore mean it violates the laws of physics.

- True, but the resurrection does.


Actually given it is your claim that the laws of physics are somehow absolute and being violated is something you need to demonstrate.

- But I'm not claiming that TLOP are being violated. :huh: I'm claiming the opposite.


Koala's aren't bears.

- Touche. :cheers:


But just because I cannot give you a detailed mechanism does not therefore mean it violates "the laws of phsyics" or even that such events are impossible.

- Yes, agreed, but again, miracles do violate TLOP. If they did not, we'd be able to measure them and explain them, just as we can explain how you caught the ball.


If God exists then such things should be childs play for him.

- Sure... if god exists. But this is another premise with another long discussion surrounding it. :smile:


Unless you have some ironclad proof that God cannot possibly exist then miracles are possible, however rare and unlikely/

- Anything is possible. However, the distinction remains that miracles cannot be measured, and ball-catching can. The former are extraordinary, and the latter is not.

[sandlewood]

Today @ 06:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50634#post50634)
jason:The "laws of physics" operate on a principle of "all else being equal".

I don’t believe so. What are “all things” that need to be equal in order for the laws of physics to work, otherwise they will not? I’ve had physics in high school and college and never heard of this condition.


God resurrection Christ is not "all things being equal". But that does not make it a violation of any "natural law"
...
If God exists then such things should be childs play for him.

So do you believe in God because you are convinced Jesus came back to life? Or do you believe Jesus came back to life because you believe God exists and so it is likely he revived Jesus?

Some people seem to be getting caught in this circular reasoning. I think the original point was not that it was unlikely that God revived Jesus. The original point was that it was unlikely that a man came back to life, and so this would not be evidence that a god exists.


Unless you have some ironclad proof that God cannot possibly exist then miracles are possible, however rare and unlikely.
The burden of proof is with the person making the claim. Unless you would like to provide iron-clad proof that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist, or that Allah is not the one true god, or that Zeus does not exist.

[jason]

- It is in that physics does not allow people three days dead to come back to life. It certainly allows you to catch the ball, yes.
In hindsight the example is perhaps a bad one.

Lets try something else.

Does writing spontaneously appear on paper ? OBviously not. In fact such an occurence would be, I think you will agree, a violation of natural law.

Does this therefore mean that all examples of writing on paper are violations of "natural law" ?

I seriously doubt you will think so. Obviously there is an intelligent agent at work that explains exactly what is going on.

Why are miracles any different ? Pointing out that you can understand the process behind printing does not some how render the example meaningless. The critical point is that there is an intelligent agent that intervenes to make something come about that does not happen in the ordinary course of events.


- True, but the resurrection does.
Does writing violate the laws of physics ? I fail to see a distinction.


- But I'm not claiming that TLOP are being violated. :huh: I'm claiming the opposite.
But you are claiming such an event does cause such a violation. In effect you are claiming that a resurrection does violate the laws of physics. Or more exactly you are claiming the laws of physics cannot be violated, and are assuming your definition of the words "laws of physics" and "violated" are correct.


- Yes, agreed, but again, miracles do violate TLOP. If they did not, we'd be able to measure them and explain them, just as we can explain how you caught the ball.
And if we had advance warning of a resurrection and time to setup appropriate equipment then perhaps we could measure the event and better understand it. That we cannot does not automatically mean that we violate the laws of physics.


- Anything is possible. However, the distinction remains that miracles cannot be measured, and ball-catching can. The former are extraordinary, and the latter is not.
Nobody has claimed the event was not "extraordinary". But that doesn't mean it is therefore impossible or that it is a violation of the laws of physics.

Jason

[AtheistArchon]

Does writing spontaneously appear on paper ? OBviously not. In fact such an occurence would be, I think you will agree, a violation of natural law.

Does this therefore mean that all examples of writing on paper are violations of "natural law" ?

I seriously doubt you will think so. Obviously there is an intelligent agent at work that explains exactly what is going on.

- Yes, I agree with you here.


Why are miracles any different ? Pointing out that you can understand the process behind printing does not some how render the example meaningless. The critical point is that there is an intelligent agent that intervenes to make something come about that does not happen in the ordinary course of events.

- Granted, but in the case of miracles, a deity is responsible for the result, without fail. Agreed? This deity always, without any exceptions that I'm aware of, makes these things happen via supernatural means. Let me expound on this.

- You or I can sit down and write an essay on a page. When someone looks at the page, they understand how it was done. No problems here.

- But let's say that god want to write an essay. What happens? I might find the essay on my desk, but how did it get there? Does god use a pen and ink? We can't explain how it was done. All miracles have this in common. Now, physics dictates that in order to write an essay, you need lots of things in addition to simply being an intelligent entity (which clearly we are). You need paper, a writing instrument, gravity, the means to push the pen around (your hands and arms), and so on. But god is not a physical entity. How then does he accomplish anything physical? If god does it, it must violate the laws we are forced to adhere to.


Does writing violate the laws of physics ? I fail to see a distinction.

- Not for us, no. But for god, yes. I'm not saying that if there's a god that he cannot write an essay... just that he'd have to go about it via some means other than pen & paper, like we do, and we can't explain how he does it. Why? Because it violates TLOP.


But you are claiming such an event does cause such a violation. In effect you are claiming that a resurrection does violate the laws of physics.

- Yes.


Or more exactly you are claiming the laws of physics cannot be violated,

- Not that I'm aware of, correct. I could be wrong! However, the laws of physics are, for us anyway, pretty solid. God may be able to break them if he exists, but I see no indication that god exists, and god would have to exist before we can say that miracles happen (because we cannot measure them ourselves).


And if we had advance warning of a resurrection and time to setup appropriate equipment then perhaps we could measure the event and better understand it. That we cannot does not automatically mean that we violate the laws of physics.

- Still, TLOP do not allow for a person three days dead to return to life. When a brain dies, there is nothing physical that can be done to it which returns dead brain matter to life. If god did it, it would have had to have been a miracle, and not physical.


Nobody has claimed the event was not "extraordinary". But that doesn't mean it is therefore impossible or that it is a violation of the laws of physics.

- That it is extraordinary doesn't mean it's a violation of TLOP, but that it happened at all does. Physics (specifically biology) tells us that a person three days dead stays dead and decomposes. I don't think you doubt this.

- Going back to your comment earlier:


And if we had advance warning of a resurrection and time to setup appropriate equipment then perhaps we could measure the event and better understand it.

- Let's say you and I were present in the tomb at the moment of the event, with all manner of scientific equipment and medical gear hooked up to Jesus. What should we expect to see? How are we going to measure god reanimating this brain? I suppose we might see cells moving and such... but how are they moving? Are they being pushed? What physical force is pushing them? You see my concern here.

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 11:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50709#post50709)
AtheistArchon:

- But let's say that god want to write an essay. What happens? I might find the essay on my desk, but how did it get there? Does god use a pen and ink? We can't explain how it was done. All miracles have this in common. Now, physics dictates that in order to write an essay, you need lots of things in addition to simply being an intelligent entity (which clearly we are). You need paper, a writing instrument, gravity, the means to push the pen around (your hands and arms), and so on. But god is not a physical entity. How then does he accomplish anything physical? If god does it, it must violate the laws we are forced to adhere to.I would expound on abiogensis and other similar theories of the orgins of the universe (a.k.a. "... and other miracles that cannot be explained" ) but since this isn't the science forum, I will simply point out a theological error in your statement above. God is both physical and spiritual. If you notice in the Garden of Eden:Genesis 3:8 And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden.This gets into the Trinity and how the omnipresent nature of God, including the One who would later be Christ, allows Him to perform the physical things as well ... the creation of the earth, when He speaks to man, etc. To say that He is not also physical (not mortal, but physical) might be what has been clouding your understanding here ... or maybe not :xmm:

God has obviously been physically present .... That is why you see in Genesis:Ge 1:26 - Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Ge 11:7 - Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." Note how in both instances a physical task is performed ... make, go ...

Unless you were meaning Yahweh is spirit, not visible ... but that still doesn't negate the above understanding in this discussion, which is to explain how the physical was done.

I think the problem comes with anyone trying to attribute natural explanations to supernatural events. The explanations are never sufficient, and the argument comes against the explanation instead of the actual event.

And, BTW, if God does ever decide to write you an essay, you may want to consider not touching it ... remember the 10 commandment tablets? :teeth:

[Socrates]

AtheistArchonYes, agreed, but again, miracles do violate TLOP. If they did not, we'd be able to measure them and explain them, just as we can explain how you caught the ball.AA naively ontologises the laws of physics. However, these laws are descriptions of observed regularities not prescriptions.

Note that both miracles and ‘scientific laws’ are our descriptions of God's actions. Philosopher Norman Geisler wrote:


Natural law is a description of the way God acts regularly in and through creation (Psalm 104:10–14), whereas a miracle is the way God acts on special occasions. …

Natural law describes the gradual activity of God in the world, whereas miracles manifest his immediate actions.

Therefore talk of laws as something that can be ‘violated’ is a misunderstanding of science.

Another point is, even if you want to take the Laws as real entities rather than a descriptions as they really are, the Laws are formulated with respect to isolated systems. E.g. Newton’s 1st Law of Motion states that objects will continue in a straight line at constant speed — If no unbalanced force is acting. But the law does not prohibit unbalanced forces acting — otherwise nothing could ever change direction!

To apply this, one skeptic tried this educated-sounding but actually ignorant argument:


Jesus couldn’t have walked on water because of Archimedes’ Principle.

This states that objects will sink in water if they weigh more than the buoyant force. But once again, this is so only if no other forces are operating . E.g. if you were tied to a helicopter you wouldn’t sink. This does not violate Archimedes’ Principle. Jesus, God Incarnate, could certainly bring other forces into play without ‘violating scientific laws’.

So a miracle should be considered as an ADDITION to scientific laws rather than a violation. That's how C.S. Lewis put is, and applied it to the Incarnation. Zygote was made by the Holy Spirit’s action on Mary’s ovum, and this was thus an addition to the system. But once the zygote was there, devlopment occurred in the normal manner.

And if we admit God, then the universe is not isolated, so there is no logical basis for opposing miracles.

[jason]

- Granted, but in the case of miracles, a deity is responsible for the result, without fail. Agreed? This deity always, without any exceptions that I'm aware of, makes these things happen via supernatural means. Let me expound on this.
I could nitpick about the use of the word deity, but unless it turns out to be a problem such a generalisation will do.

But God does not have to use supernatural means to bring about a miracle, and of course there is the problem of a definition of what qualifies as a miracle. But again, we seem to have "resurrection" as the generic understanding of what counts as a miracle so we can use that. But it is worth noting that God providentialling ordering the universe in a tiny way such that major events happen as a result, via purely "natural" means is no less miraculous.


- You or I can sit down and write an essay on a page. When someone looks at the page, they understand how it was done. No problems here.
But the point to remember is that what is interesting is the agent doing the writing not the mechanism the agent uses.


- But let's say that god want to write an essay. What happens? I might find the essay on my desk, but how did it get there? Does god use a pen and ink? We can't explain how it was done. All miracles have this in common.
We can't explain the abiogenesis of life or the origin of the universe are you attributing those to God ?


Now, physics dictates that in order to write an essay, you need lots of things in addition to simply being an intelligent entity (which clearly we are). You need paper, a writing instrument, gravity, the means to push the pen around (your hands and arms), and so on.
But never the less, you agree that without the use of an intelligent agent no amount of ink and what not is ever going to form words on the page via any sort of "natural law". In fact natural laws preclude exactly this sort of thing happening.


But god is not a physical entity.
Your very hung up on this point, and it isn't a relevant one. What law of physics is violated in a resurrection ? You keep claiming one is, but all that is violated is a commonsense observation of the universe. BUt even quatum mechanics violates that.


like we do, and we can't explain how he does it. Why? Because it violates TLOP.

We can. By an act of will.


- Not that I'm aware of, correct. I could be wrong! However, the laws of physics are, for us anyway, pretty solid. God may be able to break them if he exists, but I see no indication that god exists, and god would have to exist before we can say that miracles happen (because we cannot measure them ourselves).
Actually I would be wary of saying anything is science is "solid". (Phlogistion anybody ?).

BTW is this an in principle admission that a resurrection is possible, but that it requires the existence of God (in some loose sense of the word) ?


- Still, TLOP do not allow for a person three days dead to return to life.
Actually i'm not sure that is true. What does it mean to be alive ? do we have a soul ? If we are little more than matter in motion what law of physics would stop you (at least in theory) reanimating a dead person ? I can't think of anything.


- That it is extraordinary doesn't mean it's a violation of TLOP, but that it happened at all does. Physics (specifically biology) tells us that a person three days dead stays dead and decomposes. I don't think you doubt this.
But of course, what in principle stops us restoring the matter to its starting position and kicking it off again and restarting the person ? Are you stumping for some sort of vitalism here and the existence of a soul ? :eek: they might have to take back you atheist society card :rofl:


- Let's say you and I were present in the tomb at the moment of the event, with all manner of scientific equipment and medical gear hooked up to Jesus. What should we expect to see? How are we going to measure god reanimating this brain? I suppose we might see cells moving and such... but how are they moving? Are they being pushed? What physical force is pushing them? You see my concern here.
I'm not sure what you would expect to see. I don't think a purely reductionist view of the world could make sense of what was going on.

Jason

[AtheistArchon]

God is both physical and spiritual.

- Okay, let's say that he is a physical being. Where is he? Is he in human form? Can we detect him, since he exists physically? Why have we not detected him this way yet?


Note how in both instances a physical task is performed ... make, go ...

- But how? Unless god is an actual person with a physical body walking around performing miracles, we still have physical things being done an immaterial being.


AA naively ontologises the laws of physics.

- I think I'm just going to ignore you, Soc, until you get a grip on reality.


could nitpick about the use of the word deity, but unless it turns out to be a problem such a generalisation will do.

- Ehh is god not a deity? :huh:


But God does not have to use supernatural means to bring about a miracle,

- Natural means then? How, unless god is a physical being like us?


We can't explain the abiogenesis of life or the origin of the universe are you attributing those to God ?

- Nope, just miracles. We can do abiogenesis in the science forum. :smile:

- My question is still this: how did the essay that god wrote get written?


But never the less, you agree that without the use of an intelligent agent no amount of ink and what not is ever going to form words on the page via any sort of "natural law". In fact natural laws preclude exactly this sort of thing happening.

- Sure, we need an intelligent agent. But again, we also need a physical body!


Your very hung up on this point, and it isn't a relevant one. What law of physics is violated in a resurrection ?

- It IS relevant. Immaterial beings have no physcial form! It is impossible for an immaterial being to act on the physical world.

- My question still stands: how does god perform physical acts without being physical in form? It's an extremely important question, because if he's not a physical form, then he's breaking the laws of physics whenever he acts. Physical laws prevent brain cells from reanimating themselves!

- You keep asking me how resurrection violates the laws of physics. Do you not understand that dead brain cells stay dead? It's how the universe works!


We can. By an act of will.

- Wha? We can do physical things by sheer will? Show me.


BTW is this an in principle admission that a resurrection is possible, but that it requires the existence of God (in some loose sense of the word) ?

- Yes, I've been saying that over and over. But you've got to show a god exists first.


Actually i'm not sure that is true. What does it mean to be alive ? do we have a soul ? If we are little more than matter in motion what law of physics would stop you (at least in theory) reanimating a dead person ? I can't think of anything.

- Well dang Jason, why didn't we think of that earlier? You mean we could have been resurrecting dead people all along?!

- Physics stops us from reanimating dead people, Jason. A dead brain stays dead. That's how the universe works.


But of course, what in principle stops us restoring the matter to its starting position and kicking it off again and restarting the person ?

- Uh. :duh:


I'm not sure what you would expect to see. I don't think a purely reductionist view of the world could make sense of what was going on.

- Answer my question. How does an immaterial being act upon the physical world?

- Let's use water and wine as another example. It's physically impossible for water to turn into wine. Can we agree on that? Such an event violates the laws of physics. Understand?

[Woman]

Jason:

But God does not have to use supernatural means to bring about a miracle, and of course there is the problem of a definition of what qualifies as a miracle. But again, we seem to have "resurrection" as the generic understanding of what counts as a miracle so we can use that. But it is worth noting that God providentialling ordering the universe in a tiny way such that major events happen as a result, via purely "natural" means is no less miraculous.

This is a most confusing statement.

“But God does not have to use supernatural means to bring about a miracle”...yes, he does. Or, by definition it's not a miracle. Miracle = supernatural intervention. No supernatural, no miracle.

Oh you can say, "it's a miracle you didn't break your neck when you fell," but that's just a figure of speech. A miracle is not just something unexplained. It is God intervening in a way that is supernatural (above nature) to cause something to happen. This isn't my definition. It's the church's definition.

[TheFiveSolas]

Atheist,
Is it a violation of the laws of physics, in your estimation of course, for non-living matter to become living?

[AtheistArchon]

Atheist,
Is it a violation of the laws of physics, in your estimation of course, for non-living matter to become living?

- Please, call me Bryan, or just call me AA (not short for alcoholics anonymous). :smile: "Atheist" could be lots of people on the boards. :brow:

- Ahhh, an abiogenesis question I'm betting. Sneaky! Suffice it to say that it's against the laws of physics for a person who has been dead for at least three days to "come back to life". If we're talking about organic molecules forming crude biological compounds in the space of a few million years, then that's another story and another argument. In all honesty, I don't know that much about abiogenesis except what I was taught by reading Sagan and Miller, of which I retained very little.

[TheFiveSolas]

AA (aka Bryan :rofl: ),

Can you list which law(s) of physics is/are being violated and why you think it is a violation?

[adam.naranjo]

I've seen this maybe six times in the week or so I've been here:

Atheist: The resurrection (or X miracle, Y miracle, etc) violates the laws of physics.

Theist: Why? It's not a violation of physics if I reach out and catch a ball, stopping it from hitting the ground.

- Is there a sermon out there somewhere that says this or something? Far too many people have given me this for it to be just one person's example.

- I want to clear this up: reaching out and catching a ball before it hits the ground is not a violation of physics... but it also is not a miracle.

1. A person catching a ball happens all the time, every day.
2. We can demonstrate and replicate a person catching a ball.
3. We can all see you physically interfering with the ball on its way to the ground, and we can measure the event.

- Miracles... the resurrection, Noah's ark, Jonah and the whale... these all describe things which defy the laws of physics. You cannot reproduce them, you cannot test for them, you cannot measure them.

- Furthermore, and most importantly, I can describe and explain in very fine detail how exactly you caught the ball. Muscles, gravity, bones, coordination, weight vs. balance... the whole bit. I can tell you exactly how it works. Miracles? They are magic! How did Jesus come back to life... can anyone describe how it was done? How did koala bears get to the ark, exist for a year without Eucalyptus leaves, and then get back again? How did Jonah survive the acid bath of a whale's stomach? How did water turn into wine? Miracles never broach the hows, and with good reason.

I will start with a couple of questions:

ONE: You would call yourself a materialist/naturalist, correct? (I assume you know enough to accept that this is your only option as an atheist with regard to a general outlook on reality)

ONE b: Do the Laws of Physics actually exist, are they real? (and can I trust them?)

ONE c: Are Laws of Physics extended in pace? In other words, are the Laws of physics themselves physical?


TWO: If you were to go about proving, with certainty, that the laws of physics are uniform, how would you go about it?

THREE: Are your statements regarding the laws of physics dependent on empirical observation? In other words, do you know that there are LAWS of physics because of empirical evidence? (not you personally, but science in general?)

FOUR: How would you justify, without begging the question, the scientific method – which essentially operates on observation. So, in other words, how would you go about defending the validity of observational tests for truth, like verificationalism? If you don’t follow me let me put it this way: How would you prove that knowledge about reality is gained through empirical evidence – justify it. Give me a reason to believe that empirical evidence should be trusted as a valid truth test (keep in mind that to beg the question would be irrational and would be a non-answer – so nocircular reasoning)


I would like to just propose these questions, but I can’t help saying:

Your worldview violates the Laws of Physics. You cannot offer the preconditions necessary to justify your belief in the uniformity of nature. Humian skepticism, and the problem of induction has no answer in your worldview – otherwise hume would have certainly given it. Unfortunately, he realized that belief in the uniformity of natural laws is unwarranted from the atheist worldview - since you MUST have a powerfull, all knowing being, outside of physical reality iteslf in order to offer the precondtions upon which such uniformity is possible and justifed…To say that we know that nature is uniform, so that we can make predictions into the past and future concerning how nature will behave, is to engage in circular reasoning. As Hume notes, one would need perfect knowledge of all physical events in the universe to be certain about the natural worlds workings. (Juest becasuse all of the swans you have seen are white, does not mean ALL SWANS are white) Rationally, one cannot justify belief the uniformity of nature because uniformity is, by definition, exhaustive, yet no one has exhaustive knowledge. Its also completely irrational and illogical to argue for the validity of observational evidence by observational evidence – that’s circular reasoning and begging the question.

So then, the atheist is left without warrant for believe in LAWS (absolute by definition) of nature. Because all attempts to justify observation, are based on observation itself. Logically, this doesn’t work.

So, because the atheist is left without preconditions for the uniformity of nature, and because the ability to make any meaningful, or absolute (certain), statements about physical reality are based on the assumption of its uniformity, the atheist can make NO CERTAIN STATEMENTS WHICH DEPEND ON UNIFORMITY IN NATURE – AND CANNOT MAKE ANY CERTAIN, FACTUAL, OR ACTUAL STATEMENTS ABOUT SCIENCE, NATURE, OR ANY REASONING BASED ON EXPEREINCES RELATED TO THEM.

Do a little philosophical investigation and you will hit this problem. Your worldview is reduced to philosophical skepticism – the inability for any knowledge whatsoever, which is self-refuting and therefore is absurdly. So, your worldview reduces to absurdity – ask Nietzsche! And that being the case, you have to take a huge leap of faith to rely on universal laws of physics, of which you have no certainty. I’m sure you can follow this reduction to absurdity.


However, the Christian worldview, gives EXACTLY what would be need for preconditions for uniformity of nature, and therefore the intelligibility of experieince…
The GOD of the universe HOLDS the WHOLE thing TOGETHER. Hebrews 1 says that Christ, “sustains (or upholds etc) ALL THINGS by his powerful word”
Colossians 1:17 says that “all things were created by Him and for Him…(Christ)…and in Him ALL THINGS hold together.” Christ not only HOLDS all things together, but he also KNOWS all physical realities and their conditions. He is the one who knows the past and future. Christ himself controls all nature, therefore doing a miracle is NOT a violation of nature itself, for nature itself is, at ALL times, subject to the will of God. Nature is subject to God…God does not have to “intervene” …For he, in fact, holds all creation together. Quantum physics poses not problems to the Christian worldview, for God brings ORDER and uniformity to formlessness chaos….mmmm sounds like Genesis 1.

So, if you want to have unjustified, irrational faith in the uniformity of nature go ahead. You cannot justify faith in uniformity, or laws of nature, because your only option is to defend it from itself – this is circular reasoning, begging the question. So you have no rational basis for believe in LAWS of nature, or uniformity. And because all your reasoning is based on such things being true – that the world really is the way we observe it, trustworthily uniform – you cannot justify your reasoning at all. You cannot justify, absolutes, certainty, or factuality. You cannot justify statements you make that rely on factuality, not only for ‘proof’ but also by nature of the statements themselves. You can’t make statements of fact, truth, absolution, and certainty – and therefore you cannot debate these issues. You cannot debate if you cannot offer facts. You have no facts that you can give justification for in your worldview which cannot escape philosophical skepticism and the inability to know anything.

The only way to justify your reasoning and the intelligibility of experience and save your rationality, is to submit to Christ in your reasoning, and in your heart. The scriptures say that one must, “confess that Christ is LORD, and believe in there heart that the father raised Him from the dead, and you will be saved.”


Adam.Naranjo


PS....sorry TheFiveSolas ... didn't want to step on your shoes.... Its 12:15 where I'm at, and I'm tired...I hope it was explianed simply -- you know it can be difficult sometimes.

[Blake Reas]

We could always use Bahnsens Argument for the existence of God from Tooth Paste as he did in the Gordon Stein debate! What do you think Adam and Thefivesolas?:cheers: From one presupp to two others!

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake :spam:

[adam.naranjo]

yes we could. hahaha
"you could call this the tooth paste tube argument God's existance"

I was listenign to that debaet again recently, wow was STEIN torn UP.

Another thing, Stein mentions that George H Smiths book (atheism the case against GOd) is one of the best books for atheism. WOW, that book is horrible. The whole thing is ciricular...he might as well have said, "I dont assume that God exists, therefore he doesn't"...

One more thing... Tomorrow i'm takling Anton Thorns paper, 'TAG and the fallacy of the stolen concept' - (at least I hope I will)

See ya.

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 05:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51806#post51806)
adam.naranjo:

yes we could. hahaha
"you could call this the tooth paste tube argument God's existance"

I was listenign to that debaet again recently, wow was STEIN torn UP.

Another thing, Stein mentions that George H Smiths book (atheism the case against GOd) is one of the best books for atheism. WOW, that book is horrible. The whole thing is ciricular...he might as well have said, "I dont assume that God exists, therefore he doesn't"...

One more thing... Tomorrow i'm takling Anton Thorns paper, 'TAG and the fallacy of the stolen concept' - (at least I hope I will)

See ya.

Hey Adam,
I never heard of that Paper where can it be found? I will be in the "Ville" tommorow around 1245 wanna meet up?

By His Grace For His Glory,
Blake

[AtheistArchon]

Can you list which law(s) of physics is/are being violated and why you think it is a violation?

- Well, in order for such a thing to happen, several things would have to occur.

1. Brain cells, once dead, do not spontaneously reanimate. Given that Jesus suffocated and died while on the cross, oxygen starvation occurred in the brain (anoxia). Something would have to occur to reanimate the dead brain tissue.

2. When anoxia occurs, the brain swells. This swelling of the brain builds intracranial pressure (because there is no room in the skull for the brain to swell into), and cuts off blood flow to the brain, "bruising" of the brain, sometimes herniation of the brain (the brain extending into a skull cavity, like an orbit), and of course killing brain cells outright with pressure. Something would have had to prevent this.

3. In order for a brain to function properly, various chemical and electrical stimuli are necessary. At death, these chemicals fail to reach the brain (because there is no longer a brain to control the output of these chemicals, obviously), and electrical activity ceases. While a mere electrical charge can "jump start" a muscle group, this is not the case with the brain, since the job of brain cells is not to contract like other muscle cells in the body. Something would have had to restore both chemical and electrical functionality to a dead and physically damaged brain.

4. Once a person dies, rigor mortis sets in. The lack of ATP flowing in the muscles causes them to "lock up" and become rigid. Rigor can begin anywhere from ten minutes to a few hours after death, and usually lasts around 24 hours. Rigor mortis is usually reversed at this point due to muscle tissue breakdown due to acids in the body, rendering them quite useless (as if they weren't during rigor). Something would have to prevent this.

5. Speaking of acids, the stomach and intestines are full of what are actually quite potent acids and bacteria. They are kept from eating through stomach tissue by mucus secreted from the body, but without this mucus secretion, autolysis happens. Autolysis is the destruction of tissues by stomach acids and bacteria (self-digestion). Over time, the stomach and upper intestine is liquified by these acids, and if the body is prone, these spill over into the pleural cavity where the lungs are very quickly dissolved. Autolysis happens within mere hours of death. Something would have to prevent this from happening.

6. In addition, autolysis (and other acids breaking down tissue in other parts of the body) produces large amounts of gasses. These gasses distend the body and very often break through the skin (which is one reason why drowning victims, or dead people tossed into a body of water, resurface for a while... at least until the skin breaks and the gas is released). Something would have to prevent this.

7. Parasites are present in everyone, even the most healthy individuals of our own time. They mostly do not bother us while we are alive, because they are evacuated from our bodies or are killed at a greater rate than they can enter and multiply. In a corpse, however, existing parasites multiply rapidly. These parasites of course consume human tissue and are a key component in decomposition. They would have to be stopped from doing so.

- And so on and so forth. I'm not an expert on decomposition, but I've been exposed to the study of it in the past. Suffice it to say that acid does not suddenly become non-acidic... it is the chemical construction of these materials which make them behave the way they do and which makes the body decompose. Damaged and liquified tissue does not spontaneously reform into healthy organs.

[adam.naranjo]

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/Morgue/TAG_Stolen_Concept.htm

I've only read half of it.

---

Yeah, Lets meet up and eat or drink, or something. Or get online on campus and have some fun bustin' people up....

OH, lets talk about TRUTHIS.NET
The reason I'm not utalizing it is because I really want to buy a better domain name. When we get a better one, we can KICK IT and put a bunch of stuff up...and start writing some stuff as well...and posting things we've already written...etc...etc...

Take care,
Adam

[johnransom]

Today @ 10:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51753#post51753)
AtheistArchon:
In all honesty, I don't know that much about abiogenesis except what I was taught by reading Sagan and Miller, of which I retained very little.
Now there's an admission! Given that you don't even recognize Sagan's oft-quoted definition of the universe, that's something of an understatement.

And, BTW, you're avoiding questions again. So let's put it again: which "law of physics" specifically do you think resurrection violates? (Your tedious list of events at death does not count.)

[AtheistArchon]

- Adam.naranjo, that certainly is a lot to respond to. It seems that most of it is philosophical in nature... perhaps we can make a thread detailing your questions in the philosophy forum.

- I also notice that you've made quite a few assertions there... I'd love to have a chance to let you back them up properly. Also, I appreciate the sermon at the end, but I'm sure you must suspect that it has no convincing weight with someone who doesn't assume the ad-hoc supernatural presuppositions that you assume. :smile:

- Let's make a new thread, and there we'll have space to breathe. I suspect, given your assertions, that would be far too long to be over quickly in this one.

[AtheistArchon]

Now there's an admission! Given that you don't even recognize Sagan's oft-quoted definition of the universe, that's something of an understatement.

- You're going to have to be less coy if you want me to understand what you're talking about.


And, BTW, you're avoiding questions again. So let's put it again: which "law of physics" specifically do you think resurrection violates? (Your tedious list of events at death does not count.)

- It doesn't? Why not... because you say so? :thumb:

- Do you dispute them?

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 05:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51813#post51813)
adam.naranjo:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Sparta/1019/Morgue/TAG_Stolen_Concept.htm

I've only read half of it.

---

Yeah, Lets meet up and eat or drink, or something. Or get online on campus and have some fun bustin' people up....

OH, lets talk about TRUTHIS.NET
The reason I'm not utalizing it is because I really want to buy a better domain name. When we get a better one, we can KICK IT and put a bunch of stuff up...and start writing some stuff as well...and posting things we've already written...etc...etc...

Take care,
Adam

Get on Aim so that I can tell you where to meet up.
Blake

[AtheistArchon]

- Also, while campus banter can be fun, I'd like to request that frivolous posts be kept to PM or email. Thanks! :smile:

[Blake Reas]

Today @ 06:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51823#post51823)
AtheistArchon:

- Also, while campus banter can be fun, I'd like to request that frivolous posts be kept to PM or email. Thanks! :smile:

Hey, guess what that is why I told him to get on AIM. :huh:
By His grace For His Glory
Blake

[Woman]

adam:

I will start with a couple of questions:

ONE: You would call yourself a materialist/naturalist, correct? (I assume you know enough to accept that this is your only option as an atheist with regard to a general outlook on reality)

ONE: You would call yourself a religious fundamentalist/supernaturalist, correct? (I assume you know enough to accept that this is your only option as a believer in miracles with regard to a particular slant on reality)


ONE b: Do the Laws of Physics actually exist, are they real? (and can I trust them?)

ONE b: Does the doctrine of the Trinity actually exist? Is it real and can I trust it?


ONE c: Are Laws of Physics extended in pace? In other words, are the Laws of physics themselves physical?

ONE c. Are the Laws of Physics, Biology, Astronomy, ect. suspended in the Bible? In other words, weren't these laws laws real 2000 years ago?


TWO: If you were to go about proving, with certainty, that the laws of physics are uniform, how would you go about it?

TWO: If you were to go about proving, with certainty, that the inerrancy of the Bible is uniform, how would you go about it?


THREE: Are your statements regarding the laws of physics dependent on empirical observation? In other words, do you know that there are LAWS of physics because of empirical evidence? (not you personally, but science in general?)

THREE: Are your statements regarding your beliefs dependent on
faith instead of evidence? (not you personally, but the Christianity in general?)


FOUR: How would you justify, without begging the question, the scientific method – which essentially operates on observation. So, in other words, how would you go about defending the validity of observational tests for truth, like verificationalism? If you don’t follow me let me put it this way: How would you prove that knowledge about reality is gained through empirical evidence – justify it. Give me a reason to believe that empirical evidence should be trusted as a valid truth test (keep in mind that to beg the question would be irrational and would be a non-answer – so nocircular reasoning)

How would you justify, without begging the question, the resurrection, in other words, how would you go about defending the validity of Biblical truth, authorship, literal meaning, etc. If you don't follow me let me put it this way: How would you prove that knowlege about the Passion/Creation/Trinity is gained through ancient stories with no empirical evidence- justify it. Give me a reason to believe that Bible stories and faith should be trusted as a valid truth test (keep in mind that to beg the question would be irrational so no circular reasoning)

[Sheepdog]

AA, the thing with the properties of death is, those aren't explicitely physical laws, as John has pointed out. regarding 1 and 3, it is possible to "jump start" the brain-- we do it quite often with drowning victims, a sometimes with victims of hypothermia. it couldn't occur left to natural processes, of course, but it is do-able. regarding 2 and 4-7, it is physically possible to slow and even stop those occurances (i.e., mummification greatly slows the decay process, crygenics can stop it altogether). what we posit is that God can, without violating physical laws, 'sidestep' all 7, only a whole lot more efficiently than we can.

cool av, btw. hard to tell what it is, though.

[adam.naranjo]

WOMEN

I'm going to bed. I'll repsond tommorrow afternoon.

PS...you don't really get it do you...?

Read Read Read. you learn more that way. Start with Hume, he's an oldie but a goodie...

Adam. Naranjo

[AtheistArchon]

AA, the thing with the properties of death is, those aren't explicitely physical laws, as John has pointed out.

- But the laws of physics determine the actions of chemicals... surely we can agree on this much?


regarding 1 and 3, it is possible to "jump start" the brain-- we do it quite often with drowning victims, a sometimes with victims of hypothermia. it couldn't occur left to natural processes, of course, but it is do-able.

- In these cases, the brain activity has not ceased. The cold temperature simply slows down the process of death. In a victim three days dead (after the brain is dead), such a thing is not possible.


regarding 2 and 4-7, it is physically possible to slow and even stop those occurances (i.e., mummification greatly slows the decay process, crygenics can stop it altogether).

- Can a body survive mummification or cryogenic freezing?


what we posit is that God can, without violating physical laws, 'sidestep' all 7, only a whole lot more efficiently than we can.

- Then he would have to have done it in a supernatural way. First, he would have to take physcial form, because an immaterial being cannot interact with material substances. How did this happen?


cool av, btw. hard to tell what it is, though.

- It's the cover of an oooold PC game called Archon. Kind of like a Commodore 64 version of battle chess. :smile:


PS...you don't really get it do you...?

- Get what?


Read Read Read. you learn more that way. Start with Hume, he's an oldie but a goodie...

- I've read lots of Hume. Hume is philosophy 101, and so is Nietzshe. For a real workout, try Bertrand Russel. :thumb:

- When you respond, make it in a new thread please. You raise a lot of good questions, suitable for a new topic. Thanks!

[jason]

This is a most confusing statement.

“But God does not have to use supernatural means to bring about a miracle”...[b]yes, he does. Or, by definition it's not a miracle. Miracle = supernatural intervention. No supernatural, no miracle.

Are you sure. How are you defining supernatural ?

If god prevents a violent crime by providentally making sure it will rain at a certian time thus preventing an attack, does the fact that he used a butterfly 6 months earlier on the other side of the world make the action any less God intervening ?

Is this no longer a miracle ?

Jason

[AtheistArchon]

If god prevents a violent crime by providentally making sure it will rain at a certian time thus preventing an attack, does the fact that he used a butterfly 6 months earlier on the other side of the world make the action any less God intervening ?

- How would he "use" a butterfly? Project himself into its mind and flap his wings just so? How is this done naturallly?

- No matter how many times we remove ourselves from the actual miracle, somehow, at some point, god must supernaturally intervene.

[johnransom]

Today @ 12:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51820#post51820)
AtheistArchon:
- You're going to have to be less coy if you want me to understand what you're talking about.
You continue to prove my point. Evidently you have never heard "The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." Only the most famous thing Sagan ever said (but not necessarily the dumbest).


- It doesn't? Why not... because you say so? :thumb:

- Do you dispute them?
Why dispute something that is totally off point but possibly quite accurate in and of itself? They are irrelevant for two reasons: 1) As others and I have explained, they merely describe events at death and do not constitute "laws" of physics, or even biology. They may operate in accordance with certain if the said laws, but are not laws themselves; and 2) we are talking about resurrection, not death. Just because death complies with some unspecified physical laws does not automatically imply resurrection does not.

[AtheistArchon]

You continue to prove my point. Evidently you have never heard "The cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." Only the most famous thing Sagan ever said (but not necessarily the dumbest).

- Well JR, if you'd ever said this to me, maybe I would have picked up on it. In reality, all you said was this: "all that is".

- So, sorry to dissapoint you. In the future, perhaps you can be more concise. :ahem:


Why dispute something that is totally off point but possibly quite accurate in and of itself? They are irrelevant for two reasons: 1) As others and I have explained, they merely describe events at death and do not constitute "laws" of physics, or even biology. They may operate in accordance with certain if the said laws, but are not laws themselves;

- Okay, I'll accept that nitpick. Is it safe to say, then, that you do not disagree with my list?


2) we are talking about resurrection, not death. Just because death complies with some unspecified physical laws does not automatically imply resurrection does not.

- But by necessity, death comes before resurrection. The damage done would have to be addressed... you cannot ignore it. On the other hand, if you're prepared to explain how resurrection happens (and cures these ailments I've listed) via natural means, thereby violating the physical laws which control them, then I'm all ears. Until then, "it's a miracle".

[johnransom]

Today @ 11:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
AtheistArchon:
- Well JR, if you'd ever said this to me, maybe I would have picked up on it. In reality, all you said was this: "all that is".
Yeah, and anyone who can claim even a passing knowledge of Sagan would have picked up on it instantly.


- So, sorry to dissapoint you. In the future, perhaps you can be more concise. :ahem:
I don't see why. All I am doing is proving your inability to comprehend context.


- Okay, I'll accept that nitpick. Is it safe to say, then, that you do not disagree with my list?
Nitpick? Telling you you're completely off base is a nitpick? And since I know nothing of the biology of death, I neither agree nor disagree with your irrelevant list.


- But by necessity, death comes before resurrection. The damage done would have to be addressed... you cannot ignore it. On the other hand, if you're prepared to explain how resurrection happens (and cures these ailments I've listed) via natural means, thereby violating the physical laws which control them, then I'm all ears. Until then, "it's a miracle".
So what? Can you prove there is no natural way to correct all of this? And until you establish which physical laws are violated, this remains irrelevant. Oh, I forgot, you hate answering questions.

Your trolling habit is getting more and more obvious.

[Woman]

Jason:

Are you sure. How are you defining supernatural ?

If god prevents a violent crime by providentally making sure it will rain at a certian time thus preventing an attack, does the fact that he used a butterfly 6 months earlier on the other side of the world make the action any less God intervening ?

Yes, I'm quite sure. Without "interference" there is no miracle, but merely a coincidence.

Gravity need not be defied. It's a simple concept. If God interferes, it's supernatural.

[Woman]

adam:

WOMEN

I'm going to bed. I'll repsond tommorrow afternoon.

PS...you don't really get it do you...?

Read Read Read. you learn more that way. Start with Hume, he's an oldie but a goodie...

Your condescending suggestion that you are more philosophically "aware" than I am is amusing. I am, however, quite surprised that you use Hume, who carried the empiricism of John Locke and George Berkeley to the logical extreme of radical skepticism. Hume's skepticism is also evident in his writings on religion, in which he rejected any rational or natural theology.

Regarding his stand on "miracles," for instance the resurrection, a resurrection could only be well enough attested to to be justifiably believed if it could be judged as somehow analogous with something in our past experience. If it is, then it must be considered a natural event because, for Hume, anything analogous to our experience is at least analogous in the sense of suggesting that it too has a natural cause. We experience only that which occurs in nature and judgments based on that experience will not warrant positing causes outside of that experience. Suppose that some event actually was supernaturally caused. (Let us suppose Hume recognizes this as a logical possibility in his essay, though I do not think it is given his analysis of causation and his empiricism.) Hume would say that we could not, on the basis of experience, attribute a supernatural cause to the event because we experience only natural causes (i.e., events occurring in the usual course of nature). If an event were supernaturally caused we could legitimately say that we "experienced" some supernatural event, but the sense of experience used here would be an equivocation on Hume's usage This "cause," being transcendent, and not discernible by means of "sense impressions," "internal impressions," or "impressions of reflexion" could not be an item of experience at all as Hume sees it. Thus, because Hume thinks that every cause must be regarded as natural, he is committed to the view that one could justifiably believe that an extraordinary event had occurred, but never a miracle.

I'll see your Hume and raise you: (from the ancients)...Hippocrates, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Appolonius - (from Mediaeval times) Aquinas, Ockham and Scotus - (from the Rennaisance) Bacon and Montaigne (from the early modern) Decartes, Locke, Voltaire, Kant, Pascal and Spinoza - (from the 19th century) Emerson, Nietzsche, Comte, Hagel and Shopenhauer - (from the 20th century) Heidegger, Whitehead Sartre, Derrida, Foucault, Kune, Locke, Russel and Freud.

When you've read these you will have a good background to prepare you for the greatest living philosopher, Ken Wilber.

Read - Read - Read

:read: :read: :read:

[adam.naranjo]

Yesterday @ 07:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Woman:

adam:


Your condescending suggestion that you are more philosophically "aware" than I am is amusing. I am, however, quite surprised that you use Hume, who carried the empiricism of John Locke and George Berkeley to the logical extreme of radical skepticism. Hume's skepticism is also evident in his writings on religion, in which he rejected any rational or natural theology.

Regarding his stand on "miracles," for instance the resurrection, a resurrection could only be well enough attested to to be justifiably believed if it could be judged as somehow analogous with something in our past experience. If it is, then it must be considered a natural event because, for Hume, anything analogous to our experience is at least analogous in the sense of suggesting that it too has a natural cause. We experience only that which occurs in nature and judgments based on that experience will not warrant positing causes outside of that experience. Suppose that some event actually was supernaturally caused. (Let us suppose Hume recognizes this as a logical possibility in his essay, though I do not think it is given his analysis of causation and his empiricism.) Hume would say that we could not, on the basis of experience, attribute a supernatural cause to the event because we experience only natural causes (i.e., events occurring in the usual course of nature). If an event were supernaturally caused we could legitimately say that we "experienced" some supernatural event, but the sense of experience used here would be an equivocation on Hume's usage This "cause," being transcendent, and not discernible by means of "sense impressions," "internal impressions," or "impressions of reflexion" could not be an item of experience at all as Hume sees it. Thus, because Hume thinks that every cause must be regarded as natural, he is committed to the view that one could justifiably believe that an extraordinary event had occurred, but never a miracle.

I'll see your Hume and raise you: (from the ancients)...Hippocrates, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Appolonius - (from Mediaeval times) Aquinas, Ockham and Scotus - (from the Rennaisance) Bacon and Montaigne (from the early modern) Decartes, Locke, Voltaire, Kant, Pascal and Spinoza - (from the 19th century) Emerson, Nietzsche, Comte, Hagel and Shopenhauer - (from the 20th century) Heidegger, Whitehead Sartre, Derrida, Foucault, Kune, Locke, Russel and Freud.

When you've read these you will have a good background to prepare you for the greatest living philosopher, Ken Wilber.

Read - Read - Read

:read: :read: :read:

I’m soooo glad you brought this up…actually you played into my hands hahaha.
First of all I always found it interesting that, like Hume, what skeptics do is set forth definitions that already assume the non-existence of God or the extra-natural and precede to deduce from that point that God cannot exist…that’s called begging the question. If you want to continue with this – if you don’t agree – you will find that I will continue to prove it over and over and over again.

Secondly, and more importantly
The results of philosophical skepticism are inescapable.
The problem with Hume and others is that there skepticism would destroy their ability to defend their skepticism….hence the ‘ism’ of skepticism.

This makes it hard for you to use Hume’s arguments, because in the end he didn’t believe in the ability to argue in the first place…no certainty makes for no argument.

Reasoning utilizes, in all thought, consciously and unconsciously, induction as a basis for knowledge. Hume cannot justify induction (the inductive principle), and neither can you. Because all reasoning utilizes it one cannot argue against it without begging the question. Because all reasoning rests on it, and it is unjustified, it is impossible to be certain about anything. UNLESS, you offer preconditions for intelligibility that make sense of induction, and unify our worldview from beginning to end… This is transcendental reasoning. Ontological transcendental reasoning is the only type that can give the preconditions of intelligibility…and the God of the Bible fits the Bill exactly…(I wonder why?)

However,
I have had philosophers, who understand these issues, sit in front of me and agree that our God does answer all of the questions…yet very few come to faith. WHY? Because of the power of sin and suppression of God in the hearts of mankind -- the presuppositions that follow color everything you see. And you only want to interpret it in a way that leaves you as god.


regarding your list of philosophers
Where did you get it? Haha. Wow, you can make lists. Have you ever really thought about where this history of philosophers has brought us to day?
You like Ken because he says what you want to hear…


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


With regard to your earlier response.

Your earlier response was saddening. I’ll be brief.

(ps before I get started…of course Hume took the stance he did, he had no choice because he couldn’t offer the preconditions for intelligibility within his worldview, where he assumed His own reasoning as the starting point for finding truth. All those who do so are lead into skepticism and absurdity)



Yesterday @ 01:13 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Woman:

adam:


ONE: You would call yourself a religious fundamentalist/supernaturalist, correct? (I assume you know enough to accept that this is your only option as a believer in miracles with regard to a particular slant on reality)

Fundamentalist
People have different assumptions about the meaning of this word. I cant answer this briefly.

Supernaturalist
This also has various understandings. I do however believe that there is an extra-natural/material reality.

The real issue = what i'm about to say is from the assumption that your are defending the athesim of atheistarchon, which you may not be....especially considereing your mention on Ken W. earlier)
You are also a super-naturalist. You believe in a non-material order of existence. That is, if you believe in absolute and universal laws of logic, and science. (which you don’t I’m sure…no matter how much you assume them as universal, making your reasoning meaninfull)
Of course, the point you miss is that, like philosophical skeptics, you have no coherence in your basic beliefs and/or worldview. Because you cannot justify your own ability to have certain knowledge upon which all predication is based, and upon which this discussion can make sense or be meaningful – in other words, actually MEANING something. You place an unbelievable amount of faith in the unseen future, and base all reasoning upon it (whether you know it or not); however, you have no certain justification of it, leading to relativism and skepticism….which makes this conversation meaningless. Without the preconditions for intelligibility. Without explanation concerning how you can base reasoning on physical law about which you have proof. Without explanation about how you can set about proving the validity of such reasoning, while at the same time utilizing that reasoning in your proof. Without the ability to make coherence your dependence upon universal abstract laws, and your belief in the non-existence of non-material universal absolutes independent from mankind. (please don’t make me qualify my statements, having purported yourself as one who understands these issues I shouldn’t have to) You are left without the ability to have any meaningful participation in this forum.




ONE b: Does the doctrine of the Trinity actually exist? Is it real and can I trust it?

Your reasoning is conditioned on the existence of the Triune God of scripture Not only is it real, but in your reasoning you trust this truth completely. However, you suppress this truth as well.
I would like to here some justification of your reasoning, some epistemological scheme or theory of confirmation…or do you not have one – and can you give a coherent justification for it?


ONE c. Are the Laws of Physics, Biology, Astronomy, ect. suspended in the Bible? In other words, weren't these laws laws real 2000 years ago?

This is where you really don’t understand what I was saying. These scientific “laws” (which you cannot justify or give meaningful preconditions for) are only our “thinking God’s thoughts after Him”. Let me explain it briefly:

1God has granted us capability to recognize design. (which evolutionary theory has NO hope of justifying – self-conscious intelligence.)

2We recognize design and formulate it -- understanding it (keeping in mind that even mathematics breaks down at some point – all human reasoning is faulty at some point)

3We call these laws. However, what they really are, are God’s normal ways ‘holding’* created things together, *(Colossians 1:17) He, being God and Holding the universe together in a way that pleases him, can work non-normally as well. ie., miracles.

4 One of the big assumptions you make in discussing these “laws” (that you cannot justify as real laws) is that you assume a materialist stance, which disallows you to not only put faith in God, but also disallows you to put faith in the axioms of logic and intelligibility…however this does not stop you from putting your faith in them – which is why you loose any semblance of coherence in your worldview.

5 Again, perhaps you can offer some answers – or point in the direction of those who you believe hold the them.




TWO: If you were to go about proving, with certainty, that the inerrancy of the Bible is uniform, how would you go about it?

Uniform
Your use of the word uniform causes me to question your understanding of its use in my discussion. As I’m sure you’re referencing my previous post in your use of that word. Sounds like you don’t understand it. The inerrancy of the Bible would be, by definition, uniform – other wise it wouldn’t be inerrant.

Proof
Transcendentally (I assume you know what I mean). The Bible must be true by the impossibility of the contrary…I bet you’ll love that one. (I will go further, if I think you will follow)




THREE: Are your statements regarding your beliefs dependent on
faith instead of evidence? (not you personally, but the Christianity in general?)

Yes, just like you, my reasoning rests on faith. However, my faith coheres with my reasoning, yours does not. My statements depend, in the end, on faith. However, faith and the ability to make statements, in the end relies on God. The things I believe are firstly conformed to the Lordship of Christ, and they therefore cohere with reality…On the other hand. Your faith is in your lordship, and because of that your reasoning will never cohere with the way you live and make life intelligible, nor will you escape the inability to know anything – as you have rested your reasoning, by faith alone, on illogical premises that you cannot grant certainty, nor make intelligible in your own worldview. You cannot justify laws of science with certainty, yet you rest your reasoning on it –even your justification of induction is based on induction….that is faith.. (I could give a dozen examples of your life of faith – but you have purported to be understanding of the philosophical issues at hand, and you already know this).




How would you justify, without begging the question, the resurrection, in other words, how would you go about defending the validity of Biblical truth, authorship, literal meaning, etc. If you don't follow me let me put it this way: How would you prove that knowlege about the Passion/Creation/Trinity is gained through ancient stories with no empirical evidence- justify it. Give me a reason to believe that Bible stories and faith should be trusted as a valid truth test (keep in mind that to beg the question would be irrational so no circular reasoning)

1They will only be trusted by those whom God calls. I don’t expect anyone to be persuaded by any arguments but by the Holy Spirit.

You should know that the empirical evidence for the resurrection is in the Bibles favor…the only observational evidence that could disprove the resurrection is missing…the body. I don’t need to go through the debates…however; I would like to ask what you have read by those who argue FOR the resurrection…and what theory you hold to?

2
I openly admit at the outset that all of my reasoning rests on the Lordship of Christ. And seeing as how he gives the preconditions for the intelligibility of all experience (which no other worldview can possibly offer – except in a God that LOOKS EXACTLY like the God of the Bible, as his attributes are the ONLY possible offering for the preconditions of intelligibility – which you depend on) you also rest on him as the precondition for your reasoning. (not to mention morality, human dignity, science etc., cannot be justified outside of the Christian worldview)

So I would show the validity of my worldview in the impossibility of the contrary.
Keep reading. It’s not until your are through with incoherence that you might reach out for Him to save you from yourself.


adam

[AtheistArchon]

- I don't have time to form a complete reply to you, Adam, but maybe it's not even my place, since you were responding to Woman anyway. However, a minor nitpick:


First of all I always found it interesting that, like Hume, what skeptics do is set forth definitions that already assume the non-existence of God or the extra-natural and precede to deduce from that point that God cannot exist…that’s called begging the question. If you want to continue with this – if you don’t agree – you will find that I will continue to prove it over and over and over again.

- Don't be too certain of yourself. We do agree that a high number of presuppositions is less desireable then a low number, do we not?

- A skeptic (a naturalist, in this case) uses limited presuppositions (that I am aware of):

1. I exist. (cogito, ergo sum, of course)
2. The universe exists.
3. I can relate to the universe in a meaningful way. (we are not being decieved when we use our senses, i.e. brains in vats.)

- A believer uses these:

1. I exist.
2. God exists. (Specifically, the Christian god, with all associated attributes and emotions.)
3. God "made" the universe.
4. God made the universe such that we are not being fooled by our senses...
5. ... except for supernatural events performed by god.

- It seems to me that a "default" position of skepticism is preferable. After all, I could add two or three presuppositions to any worldview, and be justified in just about any belief afterwards, do you not agree?

- That being said, skepticism is a natural and justified default position to take in any issue. We certainly feel justified in being skeptical when we visit the used car dealership. He may sell us a good car, but we're not going to simply take his word for it.

- As for unreasonable conditions set up by skeptics concerning deities, I'm not entirely sure that such things are unjustified. For example, you may think that asking Jesus to physically appear for us and explain how to turn water into wine is excessive, and unacceptable. But then again, the initial claim is equally excessive: Jesus turned water into wine.

- You will find, I think, many areas of Christianity which unbelievers have no real problem accepting. These things usually are not extraordinary in nature, however. :smile:


Reasoning utilizes, in all thought, consciously and unconsciously, induction as a basis for knowledge. Hume cannot justify induction (the inductive principle), and neither can you. Because all reasoning utilizes it one cannot argue against it without begging the question. Because all reasoning rests on it, and it is unjustified, it is impossible to be certain about anything. UNLESS, you offer preconditions for intelligibility that make sense of induction, and unify our worldview from beginning to end… This is transcendental reasoning. Ontological transcendental reasoning is the only type that can give the preconditions of intelligibility…and the God of the Bible fits the Bill exactly…(I wonder why?)

- Hmm. How did you first gain knowledge of god?

- It wouldn't have been... empirically, would it? Reading the bible, listening to ministers, being taught by your parents, and so forth?

- How can you trust that this knowledge is true? :wink:

[edit: As a possible foreshadowing of future arguments regarding atheistic epistemology, allow me to interject a concept which you haven't touched on in your criticisms: pragmatism. Faith, certainly, but built upon less presuppositions and strengthened by pragmatism (for there is no other reason to do science). Just a tidbit.]

[Woman]

Adam:

Yes, just like you, my reasoning rests on faith. However, my faith coheres with my reasoning, yours does not. My statements depend, in the end, on faith. However, faith and the ability to make statements, in the end relies on God. The things I believe are firstly conformed to the Lordship of Christ, and they therefore cohere with reality…On the other hand. Your faith is in your lordship, and because of that your reasoning will never cohere with the way you live and make life intelligible, nor will you escape the inability to know anything – as you have rested your reasoning, by faith alone, on illogical premises that you cannot grant certainty, nor make intelligible in your own worldview. You cannot justify laws of science with certainty, yet you rest your reasoning on it –even your justification of induction is based on induction….that is faith.. (I could give a dozen examples of your life of faith – but you have purported to be understanding of the philosophical issues at hand, and you already know this).

Adam, Adam, Adam...:smile:

Aside from the befuddled and overly wordy response, there remain two facts.

1. You assume wayyyyyyyy too much about me and my beliefs. I am not an atheist, therefore spare me ALL the mumbo jumbo about why God has to exist. I simply cannot squeeze my concept of the Divine into the narrow, mythological, man-created God of Genesis.

2. In the end you are reduced to the tired self-righteousness of "reach out for Him to save you from yourself."

*sigh* - just more preaching

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

:read:

[adam.naranjo]

Yesterday @ 05:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Woman:

Adam:


Adam, Adam, Adam...:smile:

Aside from the befuddled and overly wordy response, there remain two facts.

1. You assume wayyyyyyyy too much about me and my beliefs. I am not an atheist, therefore spare me ALL the mumbo jumbo about why God has to exist. I simply cannot squeeze my concept of the Divine into the narrow, mythological, man-created God of Genesis.

2. In the end you are reduced to the tired self-righteousness of "reach out for Him to save you from yourself."

*sigh* - just more preaching

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

:read:

Apearently you didn't read my post.
I qualified my statments by saying that they were directed towards atheism and skepticism, which I assumed you may not believe. (drawing from your statement about Wilbur)
I said:

what i'm about to say is from the assumption that your are defending the athesim of atheistarchon, which you may not be....especially considereing your mention on Ken W. earlier)


The reason my post was directed in such a way is becasuse you were using hume as an example.

I suppose I should have started my post with the above comment, that way you would have realized that I was merely 'pretending' that you were a skeptic for the continuity of the discussion. Anyhow, none of that matters now.

-------

Regarding you comment about preaching:
Yes, your right. I preach. So do you.

------

Regarding your post in general.



Adam.Naranjo

[adam.naranjo]

I have edited this post a couple times. Please re-check it

I don't have time to form a complete reply to you, Adam, but maybe it's not even my place, since you were responding to Woman anyway. However, a minor nitpick:





First of all I always found it interesting that, like Hume, what skeptics do is set forth definitions that already assume the non-existence of God or the extra-natural and precede to deduce from that point that God cannot exist…that’s called begging the question. If you want to continue with this – if you don’t agree – you will find that I will continue to prove it over and over and over again.

- Don't be too certain of yourself. We do agree that a high number of presuppositions is less desirable then a low number, do we not?

- A skeptic (a naturalist, in this case) uses limited presuppositions (that I am aware of):

1. I exist. (cogito, ergo sum, of course)
2. The universe exists.
3. I can relate to the universe in a meaningful way. (we are not being decieved when we use our senses, i.e. brains in vats.)
Let me say that what follows is not something I made up. Rather it’s the philosophy of the past (Hume Descartes Kant and on into modern philosophy, Russel and others) that has lead to philosophical skepticism.
Response:
1.- I’ll let the first one slide without any further discussion.

2- The universe exists?

A- What the heck is that? The universe? And what in the world do you mean by, “it exists?”

B- Do you mean that it really exists, objectively, and outside of consciousness?
Here is the problem you have here. You have NO evidence for objective existence of the universe outside of consciousness, nor do you have any evidence that our consciousness perceives the objects of which we are conscious as they really are. Further more, because an atheist worldview depends on belief in such things in its reasoning, yet cannot give proof for them, an atheist worldview is reduced to full skepticism.

[edit Bellow I am restating the problems with perception, obersvation, and the assumption of uniformity. I have talked about this in tha past. You may already grasp this, yet I'm not sure that you do. edit]

In order to have knowledge about the universe, you have to assume uniformity of it. In other words, when you look at the world around you your mind receives information and based on that information one makes certain inferences. For example, if one looks at a tree, and then walks away and comes back to the tree, how does one know that the same tree is the same tree? One infers that because one has never seen a tree disappear or reappear one should assume (without verifiable proof) that the tree is the same tree. (which by the way, the substance of all physical objects changes, the atoms move in and out) If I look at you and close my eyes, and then open them back up, how can I be sure you are the same person, or even the same physical substance? How do I know that you did not sneak away, and then have your twin come and stand in front of me? In other words, how can I trust by observations of objects over time. Identity over time, what about that? How do I know you were still there when I closed my eyes? Could you have diapered while my eyes were closed? In order to make sense out of the universe our minds have to assume certain things (conceptual schemes), one of the first things being the uniformity of nature. That the past, as we have seen it, will be like the future. That the observations of past natural conditions will be the same way in the future. However, the only way to prove this uniformity, upon which all of our reasoning relies, is to assume it before hand. The only way to attempt to prove that nature has always been and always will be uniform is to say that it nature has been uniform in your observation of it in the past. But that would be arguing for the uniformity of nature by using the uniformity of nature as part of your argument. Circular reasoning. Saying “I believe in the uniformity of nature because nature is uniform” is circular, it’s even worse to say, ”I believe in uniformity because nature seems to be uniform”. If I have not explained this well enough…read some philosophical text books.
Another problem with defending the uniformity of nature from an atheist worldview is this:
If you were to say that all swans were white because you had seen a trillion swans and they were all white, you would be making a claim that you could not make with any certainty. In order to have certainty about such a universal an exhaustive claim one would have to know the whole universe through out all time. One would have to be omniscient. Inductive arguments cannot give certainty, only probability. And in the case of the uniformity of nature, the probability is nearly 0 because no one has seen enough of the universe, or enough of time to make any probabilistic claims at all. if your basis for knowledge, (in this case uniformity of nature, upon which all knowledge is based on in the atheist worldview) is uncertain, then you can have no knowledge. It’s also quite problematic that the basis of knowledge in an atheist worldview would only be understood if it were already assumed. (Because uniformity can only be certain if one is all knowing) Again, if you don’t follow, read a philosophy text book.

The real Issue
The inductive and causal principles are unjustified in the atheist worldview, because they are circular and require a basis of knowledge outside of physical reality itself (so as to not beg the question) in order to gain any semblance of certainty. That is why modern philosophy has reduced to skepticism. (Besides a little pantheism) The atheist has no knowledge from the outside, and has no justification for its axioms. That is why Kant proposed transcendental reasoning to give some kind of preconditions for intelligibility. However, Kant realized at the end that in answering some questions, he had created even tougher transcendental questions which he could not answer because the answer required the existence of a being with certain qualities. (qualities that just happen to fit the God of scripture)

So, in the end, you have to assume what your trying to prove in order to prove it. But keep it a secret, atheists hate it. Did you ever listen to the debate between Stein and Bahnsen? You should.

3 You have no rational basis for believing that you can understand or relate to the ‘supposed’ outside world[/b]

a First of all, you have no basis for belief in an actual outside world. Again, read some philosophy text books

b You have no basis for belief that the objects of consciousness are a representation of the outside world

c Becaues of this (and other issues I wont discuss) you have no basis for belief in understanding the outside world. Now if want to assume that you can, you are welcome to. However, I would argue that the only reason you can assume it because its true, and that the only rational reason for believing its true is that the God of universe, holds the universe together, controls it, began it, gives it inescapable meaning, moral senses, etc… God gives the only necessary preconditions for our experiences of this world and our making it intelligible. He created us with minds with inherent causal inference – a sign of incredible design.
Honest atheists realize that they are reduced to complete skepticism, you can deny it all you want, it wont change the facts. That you cannot have certainty about ANYTHING, in your worldview.


This is the main point You actually assume a lot more then what you have stated. And the point I’m trying to get you to understand is that you have no rational right to assume any of it, if you are reasoning from your worldview (or any non-Christian worldview). Your worldview leaves you high and dry without certainty, without knowledge. Because you refuse to live the way your worldview rationally demands, you must be assuming another worldview as the basis for your reasoning -- MY WORLDVIEW. Of course, you don't do this consciously as you would never admitt it. In order to justify your foundationalist assumptions you need a worldview that can justify them by give preconditions for them – which, as Kant said, is the only way to answer problems regarding axioms of this nature. MY WORLDVIEW DOES GIVE PRECONDTIONS FOR THEM. Again, yours does not. As many atheists admit, because there is no denying it. Naturalistm/atheism/materialism lead to philosophical skepticism and absurdity. The claims of skepticism cannot possibly be true, as they are self refuting – hence absurdity. If you want to live in absurdity you can. However, I don’t believe you do because you continue to want to use facts and logical thinking in your argumentation. However, your worldview (as an atheist) does not allow for facts, because NOTHING can be known with certainty, there are not facts (or truths). The atheist worldview cannot account there being for Laws of Logic because of the assumptions in the atheist worldview.. (listen to Greg Bahnsen’s debate with Stein…Bahnsen rakes him over the coals on this one) In order to talk about facts, certainty, and truth, you need to step outside of your worldview and assume on mine for a while. You must borrow aspects of my worldview that you cannot account for in yours. Why? Because my Christian worldview is TRUE, it’s the way the world really is…and It give the preconditions for the world to be as it is. I’m done.
In denying the Lordship of Christ you become reduced to skepticism in your worldview....As the Proverb says, 'the fool has said in his heart there is no God'



- A believer uses these:

1. I exist.
2. God exists. (Specifically, the Christian god, with all associated attributes and emotions.)
3. God "made" the universe.
4. God made the universe such that we are not being fooled by our senses...
5. ... except for supernatural events performed by god.


First of all, If God made the universe and continues to hold it up and ‘run it’, then it is not strange at all to assume that God could do as he pleases with it.

Secondly, I can only justify knowledge of my existence, or anything for that matter, because I have the Triune God as my basis for all knowledge, and the one who gives the preconditions necessary for the intellgibililty of experience.



- It seems to me that a "default" position of skepticism is preferable. After all, I could add two or three presuppositions to any worldview, and be justified in just about any belief afterwards, do you not agree?

NO, you obviously have no idea what your talking about. (look below



- That being said, skepticism is a natural and justified default position to take in any issue. We certainly feel justified in being skeptical when we visit the used car dealership. He may sell us a good car, but we're not going to simply take his word for it.

Again, you have no idea what your talking about. Skepticism is the philosophical belief that knowledge of anything is not possible. Because philosophy has proven that knowledge (Justified true believe) is not possible, the only remaining possibilities are foundationalism (blind assumption/like you) and transcendental reasoning (to discover what the necessary preonditions for what we assume are). But, you probably have no idea what I’m talking about….read read read.





Reasoning utilizes, in all thought, consciously and unconsciously, induction as a basis for knowledge. Hume cannot justify induction (the inductive principle), and neither can you. Because all reasoning utilizes it one cannot argue against it without begging the question. Because all reasoning rests on it, and it is unjustified, it is impossible to be certain about anything. UNLESS, you offer preconditions for intelligibility that make sense of induction, and unify our worldview from beginning to end… This is transcendental reasoning. Ontological transcendental reasoning is the only type that can give the preconditions of intelligibility…and the God of the Bible fits the Bill exactly…(I wonder why?)

- Hmm. How did you first gain knowledge of god?


Wow your first good question. And the answer -- Revelation from God. He must speak to us, and come down to us in order to reveal himself.

The main point again
However, if what you meant to ask was how could one have knowledge of God given the problems of induction…the answer is that THE PROBLEMS OF INDUCTION ARE ONLY A PROBLEM IN YOUR WORLDVIEW, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT GIVE THE NECESSARY PRECONDITIONS FOR INDUCTION WHICH JUSTIFY IT. I CAN!
In other words, I can explain why induction works, without begging the question in regards to induction. I do however beg the question in regards to God. However, in my axiom you have the preconditions for intelligibility, and coherence of worldview. This is something that you are without. Atheists can't believe in absolute truth, but rely on it in there reasoning, all the time -- thats worldview incoherence. You continuously have to assume only things MY worldview can offer you…because my worldview is coherent with reality, and yours is not.



- It wouldn't have been... empirically, would it? Reading the bible, listening to ministers, being taught by your parents, and so forth?

Doesn’t matter how it was. Its true non-the-less. However I was raised as a Christian…I myself went through times of doubt, but have clung to the Rock of Salvation! Who saves me, not only from sin, but also from sinful reasoning that reduces to absurdityl




- How can you trust that this knowledge is true?


Depends on what you mean.

aI believe/trust because God called me out of darkness, out of the grave of sinful reasoning and human autonomy, and made me alive together with Christ. I have not choice but to believe.

bFaith. (which you ALSO use as the basis for your worldview – you admitted this above in your assumptions.)

cMy worldview is trust worthy because if it were not true, you could not account for reasoning, facts, laws of logic, inductive and causal principles, human dignity, morality, or knowledge about anything -- all reasoning would reduce to absurdity. It MUST be true, by the impossibility of the contrary. All other worldview reduce to absurdity.



[edit: As a possible foreshadowing of future arguments regarding atheistic epistemology, allow me to interject a concept which you haven't touched on in your criticisms: pragmatism. Faith, certainly, but built upon less presuppositions and strengthened by pragmatism (for there is no other reason to do science). Just a tidbit.]

HAHA, I would LOVE to deal with pragmatism….Tell you what, I will reduce that to absurdity tomorrow, how does that sound. (Fun, I can’t wait)

Lastly, I must apologize for possible typos.

Adam.naranjo

Eph 4:17 This I say therefore, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the unbelievers also walk, in the absurdity of their mind, 18 being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;

[Woman]

adam:

Do you even follow the scope of transcendental reasoning??
Do you not see the point here? I would continue in a more detailed and simplified fashion. However, I don't think you are willing to put in the time and effort to think on this level.
I suppose this conversation is over, and that you can offer no reply.

Really adam, this post is beneath you.

No, I neither need nor desire you to hold forth in a "simplified" fashion. I have no difficulty following transcendental thought and have read extensively on the subject for years.

If you are hinting that I would not "take the time" to accept your tutelage, you are correct. You condescendingly insinuate that I am not your intellectual equal and that makes me smile. It's been my experience that those who feel the need to bolster their egos by claiming to be academics...seldom are.

By the way, it's Wilber, not Wilbur and I still suggest you wade through him.

:deal:

[adam.naranjo]

Yeah, your right.
I apologize for being an a*# on that one.

I suppose I was just worked up or something.
Sorry.
----------

My tutelage has nothing to do with. Actually, I would rather not.
It's not an ego thing. Rather, its an anger thing. I often get ticked off because people make statments, assumptions and all the rest, without thinking through it all. And many people have a hard time understanding transcendental reasoning , and it's scope. (Especially in regard to an ontological trascendental argument.) That doesn't keep them from arguing against God, who cannot be argued against without assuming him. Frustraiting.
BUT, I shouldnt get that way. Sorry again,

Adam Naranjo

[Woman]

adam:

My tutelage has nothing to do with. Actually, I would rather not.
It's not an ego thing. Rather, its an anger thing. I often get ticked off because people make statments, assumptions and all the rest, without thinking through it all. And many people have a hard time understanding transcendental reasoning , and it's scope. (Especially in regard to an ontological trascendental argument.) That doesn't keep them from arguing against God, who cannot be argued against without assuming him. Frustraiting.
BUT, I shouldnt get that way. Sorry again,

Adam Naranjo

apology warmly accepted - smart-A#$ comments of my own withdrawn.

I have a temper and a big mouth and it's something I do TRY to work on.

:argh:

[AtheistArchon]

- Adam, let's start up a new thread in the philosophy forum. :smile: To be honest, I'm a bit lost going back between posts here. I'll make a new thread called Atheist Epistemology.

[HRG_new]

04-02-2003 @ 02:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50634#post50634)
jason:


But just because I cannot give you a detailed mechanism does not therefore mean it violates "the laws of phsyics" or even that such events are impossible. If God exists then such things should be childs play for him. Unless you have some ironclad proof that God cannot possibly exist then miracles are possible, however rare and unlikely.

Jason

True. However there is a big problem with supernatural explanations: if Loki exists, then it's child's play for him to modify photons so that it only seems that water is transformed to wine or someone has been raised from the dead. If Coyote exists, then it's child's play for him to modify the memory of all participants so that they remember having seen something which never happened. Etc.

IOW if you admit supernatural explanations, you cut the connection between our perceptions and reality. Even if you have successfully excluded all naturalistic explanations, all you can say that something supernatural has happened, but not what. There will always be a myriad of supernatural explanations; and because we by definition lack all experience from the supernatural, we cannot say which ones are plausible.

Regards,
HRG.

[Sheepdog]

Yesterday @ 07:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=114883#post114883)
HRG_new:

True. However there is a big problem with supernatural explanations: if Loki exists, then it's child's play for him to modify photons so that it only seems that water is transformed to wine or someone has been raised from the dead. If Coyote exists, then it's child's play for him to modify the memory of all participants so that they remember having seen something which never happened. Etc.

IOW if you admit supernatural explanations, you cut the connection between our perceptions and reality. Even if you have successfully excluded all naturalistic explanations, all you can say that something supernatural has happened, but not what. There will always be a myriad of supernatural explanations; and because we by definition lack all experience from the supernatural, we cannot say which ones are plausible.

Regards,
HRG.

hey, another Carmite invades TWeb. welcome.

the problem with such reasoning, is that it is double edged. for instance, one naturalistic explanation for the sensory information going into your brain is that your body is really interacting with a real physical world. an alternative, which could be true by naturalistic processes (with a little help of man and technology) is that you are a brain in a vat, wired to a neuro-interactive simulation. in this model, all sensory information is fed to you mind by the simulation, including supposed supernatural events (which in this model may easily be accounted for as bugs in the software).

or, another alternative is that one of us is in a coma and is dreaming this. so, by the very same reasoning above, all was could posit is that something natural is occuring.

however, you would agree that asserting an alternative doesn't make it equally viable as a default hypothesis. unless you believe you are a brain in a vat, we both assume reality as we know it is real. likewise, perhaps the best hypothesis for a supernatural event (granted their existance) would be the one most readily available.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 09:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=115845#post115845)
Sheepdog:



hey, another Carmite invades TWeb. welcome.

the problem with such reasoning, is that it is double edged. for instance, one naturalistic explanation for the sensory information going into your brain is that your body is really interacting with a real physical world. an alternative, which could be true by naturalistic processes (with a little help of man and technology) is that you are a brain in a vat, wired to a neuro-interactive simulation. in this model, all sensory information is fed to you mind by the simulation, including supposed supernatural events (which in this model may easily be accounted for as bugs in the software).

or, another alternative is that one of us is in a coma and is dreaming this. so, by the very same reasoning above, all was could posit is that something natural is occuring.

however, you would agree that asserting an alternative doesn't make it equally viable as a default hypothesis. unless you believe you are a brain in a vat, we both assume reality as we know it is real. likewise, perhaps the best hypothesis for a supernatural event (granted their existance) would be the one most readily available.
We all begin by presupposing that solipsism is false. This also entails the presupposition that our perceptions accurately reflect reality at all times. The proposition of supernatural occurances re-introduces the unfalsifiable possibility that our perceptions do not accurately reflect reality, and as such those propositions are irrational.

Yours,
Garth