Teleology of the Universe

[shunyadragon]

I doubt that what you quoted condemns the thinking processes of ancient religions. I think it exposes the "thinking processes" of he who wrote it.

classic non-answer. Therefore any ancient religion, church or variation, cult or sect may be logically the only 'true way.'

None of their ancient teleology world views are compatible with cosmology and science of our physical existence. The closest match id views like Taoism, Buddhism, which make no assumptions that would conflict with modern science.

[Adam]

Frank, gather your thoughts, please.
The Post #28 does not mention "ancient religion(s)" at all. Why do you assume it does? The word "myths"?
I can't figure out what he IS saying, and I don't dare ask him to try to explain, because he may try.

[shunyadragon]

Frank, gather your thoughts, please.
The Post #28 does not mention "ancient religion(s)" at all. Why do you assume it does? The word "myths"?
I can't figure out what he IS saying, and I don't dare ask him to try to explain, because he may try.

When you are referring to 'myths' as far as I am concerned were in the realm of ancient history. I am to a certain extent uncertain also what he was referring to, but I know what I am referring to. It is the ancient myths of the Pentateuch which form the foundation of doctrines of Christianity.

[Adam]

Now you're specifying "Pentateuch". Again, not in his quote. You expect us to read your mind.

[JimL]

Knowledge is what is believed being true. If what is believed is true, but how that belief came about is not true. Then the reasons for the knowledge is not true knowledge. The reasons are false the knowledge is true. Myths believed to be true history are a false knowledge about what is real history. But a story believed to be a myth, is knowledge that the story is a myth.

Bottom line, what we know or think we know is what we believe. What we believe to be true.

Belief does not make anything true. But belief is what knowledge consists of.

I'd have to disagree with you here. Belief has nothing to do with knowledge, to believe something to be true, is to not have knowledge of its truth. Just like evidence of a thing is not knowledge of the thing itself

[37818]

I'd have to disagree with you here. Belief has nothing to do with knowledge, to believe something to be true, is to not have knowledge of its truth. Just like evidence of a thing is not knowledge of the thing itself

You are not thinking correctly here. There is nothing you know that you did not chose to believe as true.

[JimL]

You are not thinking correctly here. There is nothing you know that you did not chose to believe as true.

Doesn't matter, it may be that I don't know anything at all, it may be that all that I think I know are in reality only beliefs, beliefs that are wrong. Choosing to believe something does not make that belief equal to knowledge. Belief and knowledge are not synonymous, to believe is to have an opinion, to know is to be aware of facts.

[shunyadragon]

You are not thinking correctly here. There is nothing you know that you did not chose to believe as true.

You're confusing and providing a foggy distinction some, between some basic English definitions for belief (believe), and knowledge (to know). You need to clarify how you are using these terms in comparison with religious belief and, for example, scientific knowledge.

Needs more clarification.

[Carrikature]

Knowledge is what is believed being true. If what is believed is true, but how that belief came about is not true. Then the reasons for the knowledge is not true knowledge. The reasons are false the knowledge is true. Myths believed to be true history are a false knowledge about what is real history. But a story believed to be a myth, is knowledge that the story is a myth.

Bottom line, what we know or think we know is what we believe. What we believe to be true.

Belief does not make anything true. But belief is what knowledge consists of.

I don't think it makes any sense whatsoever to call something knowledge that is in fact not true. You could argue that all we have are beliefs, and I would agree. You can't argue that beliefs and knowledge are synonymous.

[Mountain Man]

I don't make that assumption. Rather, my question was why do some Christians (like my mother in law and ShrimpMaster) believe that human beings initiated biological death/heat death?

It seems like those believers have an unsophisticated understanding of science. The universe was never a perpetual energy machine. Ditto human beings and all life.

I'm referring to your assumption that the heat death of the universe is inevitable. If Adam and Eve never sinned then I don't see why God couldn't have perpetually sustained the universe.

[shunyadragon]

Now you're specifying "Pentateuch". Again, not in his quote. You expect us to read your mind.

He need not directly specify the Pentateuch. I am using the "Pentateuch" as a clear example where: . . . 'what we know or think we know is what we believe. What we believe to be true.

Belief does not make anything true.'

Knowledge is what is believed being true. If what is believed is true, but how that belief came about is not true. Then the reasons for the knowledge is not true knowledge. The reasons are false the knowledge is true. Myths believed to be true history are a false knowledge about what is real history. But a story believed to be a myth, is knowledge that the story is a myth.

Bottom line, what we know or think we know is what we believe. What we believe to be true.

Belief does not make anything true. But belief is what knowledge consists of.

This fits the thread 'Teleology of the Universe,' because the Teleology based on the ancient myths of the Pentateuch form the foundation of traditional Christian doctrines and beliefs. That is what makes them illogical, and irrational to be real in any sense of the word. The Teleology of the Biblical scripture does not remotely fit the knowledge of science.

I and others have requested he clarify his use and distinction between 'belief' and 'knowledge.'

[whag]

I'm referring to your assumption that the heat death of the universe is inevitable. If Adam and Eve never sinned then I don't see why God couldn't have perpetually sustained the universe.

The universe was born to expand into nothingness and experience entropy. You seem to be saying that God would stop that expansion if the impossible condition of all human beings never sinning once occurs. *scratches head*

[Mountain Man]

The universe was born to expand into nothingness and experience entropy. You seem to be saying that God would stop that expansion if the impossible condition of all human beings never sinning once occurs. *scratches head*

There are two possibilities: 1) In the event that mankind didn't fall into sin, God could have stopped the universe from running away towards its own destruction; or 2) After the fall, God could have removed a little bit of his sustaining power from the universe resulting in its current state.

I don't see a problem with either possibility although I lean towards the second.

[Carrikature]

I'd have to disagree with you here. Belief has nothing to do with knowledge, to believe something to be true, is to not have knowledge of its truth. Just like evidence of a thing is not knowledge of the thing itself

Strictly speaking, the 'classic' definition of knowledge is "justified true belief". You can't know something if you don't believe it to be true. Believing isn't enough, but it's an integral part of the process.

[whag]

There are two possibilities: 1) In the event that mankind didn't fall into sin, God could have stopped the universe from running away towards its own destruction; or 2) After the fall, God could have removed a little bit of his sustaining power from the universe resulting in its current state.

I don't see a problem with either possibility although I lean towards the second.

Re: 1, do you mean humankind needed to be perfect for the universe to persist?