|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Choosing a faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
nwr writes:
I'm like your wife. I have one but only use it as a last resort to get something. That would be my attitude. However, some people just do not like e-books. My wife is such a person. She has her own kindle but almost never uses it. Maybe GDR is like that.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy writes:
Well then Christianity is theoretical as there is not sufficient consensus as there is insufficient evidence to allow a consensus to be formed. As some scientists believe string theory to be accurate many theologians believe that basic Christianity represents accurately the the nature of a deity.
There are actually a variety of acceptable terminologies. You could call string theory a theory which is not yet accepted because a consensus has not formed around it. Or you could deem the term "string theory" a misnomer since it is actually just a hypothesis. Or you could say that string theory remains in the realm of the theoretical, which is another way of saying that there's insufficient evidence for a consensus to form. Percy writes: Sure I'm fine with that. They are looking for different answers. One is to discover material properties and how things work and the other is belief about why things are the way they are.
You keep seeking a wording favorable to your beliefs. The proper way to say this is that science studies the real world, while religion is about spiritual beliefs. There are not two different forms of knowledge. There's just knowledge. You can have knowledge of the physical properties of water, or knowledge of the story of Jesus as told by Mark. They're knowledge of different things, but they're not different forms of knowledge. Percy writes: Sure, but if a very large percentage of the population believed that fire breathing dragons existed, then maybe it would be worth considering.
Defining knowledge can be confusing. Do I know what a fire-breathing dragon is? Of course I do. Is there any such thing as a fire-breathing dragon? Of course there isn't. Then how can I know what a fire-breathing dragon is if they don't exist? Percy writes: Not every post requires a response. If you have followed what I've responded to I go through them in order. Some posts though are simply comments or simple "put downs" that don't call for an account. Or in a couple of cases there are those who claim I'm lying and so I'm not interested in maintaining a discussion with them.
How many times do I have to say this? I know, I get it, you're short of time and you're drawing many responses, but that doesn't make it okay that your forcing people to remake from scratch arguments they made earlier and that you ignored/didn't have time for. Percy writes: Well, I'd suggest that there are numerous things that can be observed for which we can't absolutely say as to whether they are just nothing but absolute processes or not. As I said earlier we can roll a die that comes up 3. WE can absolutely know that it is a 3, (and personally I do believe that 3 is the reuslt of nothing but natural processes), but we can't claim absolutely that their wasn't divine interference. No, wrong again. One person failing to find non-natural processes is subjective. Two people failing is subjective. Even a thousand people failing is subjective. But 107 billion people have ever lived, and none have ever found evidence of non-natural processes. That's about as objective a finding as you can get.Maybe science will ultimately discover a process that will tell us how abiogenesis occurred. However we won't know if there was outside interference or not. Same thing with consciousness. Percy writes: I have not said that non-natural processes must exist. I do maintain that the fact that natural processes exist, implies a designer. Your argument is that because natural processes exist that therefore non-natural processes must exist. Why does this make sense to you? He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
AZPaul3 writes: That is energy, actual physical photons, and it will obey the commands of the universe.GDR writes: The commands of the universe. Doesn't a command require an intelligence?Percy writes: That wasn't my point. It was just that AZP claimed that it was following the laws of the universe which sounded to me a bit like making a deity of the "laws of the universe', now however after a little thought, I'd like to withdraw the comment. But given other things you've said, I expect that your position is that photons following the laws of the universe is evidence of non-natural photons, or at least of non-natural somethings. I don't think anyone here follows your logic and finds it opaque. I think the reason no one can follow your logic is that you're using a circular argument while leaving out one crucial part that would close the circle: you assume the existence of God. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: Call it what you like, but we now have conscious sentient life, and in my personal opinion, it is more likely to have come from an intelligent source than a non-intelligent source.Percy writes: Yes, it's your personal opinion. That was my point. You're supposed to understand that personal opinions are meaningless. There are billions of people out there and all have various numbers of personal opinions not worth discussing. Views worth discussing are backed by evidence and argument that can be weighed and assessed. You can't just say you have evidence - you have to actually have it. Your lack of evidence means that your personal opinion that God exists is equal to someone else's personal opinion that the invisible spaghetti monster exists. The reason that belief that gods and spaghetti monsters exist does not come anywhere near in validity to the consensus that the Higgs Boson exists is because of evidence. This simple fact about the importance of evidence is not going to change. Without evidence you are unmoored. You are expressing your personal opinion Your evidence is that you can observe or have evidence for natural processes. I don't argue against natural processes. However, it is simply your personal opinion, as I understand it, is that these natural processes are only the result of chance, and maybe you are right. However, scientifically we cannot say that the natural causes are not the result of pre-existing intelligence or even if there is inference in the processes from such an intelligence. It is all personal opinion based on what we as individuals experience and observe. Incidentally. this thread has hardly ever related to my point in starting this thread which was simply to make the point that it isn't the name of the deity or the religion that is important but the understanding of the nature of a deity and what it means to how we conduct our lives that matters, in response to the question of which god do you choose.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Paulk writes: I care very much about the truth, and like you and everyone else here we keep propping up our own beliefs.
Because you don’t care about the truth, only about propping up your personal belief, PaulK writes: Obviously this sort of thinking leads to an infinite regress. And it seems obvious to me that evolution is a more likely cause of intelligence than anything you might propose for your assumed “cosmic intelligence” - and that can be backed by at least some evidence. Evolution, without an external intelligence itself leads to an infinite regress of processes. Also we are fundamentally unable to perceive of a world, (although as far as I understand it we can get a picture of more than one dimension of time mathematically), with more than our one time dimension and therefore cannot picture an eternal consciousness. It is faith. With we can move around infinitely with 3 spatial dimensions, so maybe we could do the same with 3 dimensions of time. I'm not in anyway suggesting that represents reality, except that it is one way of getting a picture of an eternal existence. You can observe and learn a lot about how evolution happened. What is the evidence though, that there can't be an external intelligence behind the natural processes? On that questionHe has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Tangle writes: Maybe, or maybe Matthew was the the tax collector, (which I contend to be the case) and wrote it after hearing it, whether or not it was all one complete sermon or from more than one sermon. Who knows, possibly even Jesus had written it out, before or after, giving the talk or talks and Matthew used those. We don't know. The wiki article is someone's' opinion as is my view. It's not without problems of course, the main one being that Jesus never said any of it. Incidentally, I hold the minority view that Matthew was the first Gospel written and written early on. There is a very good book written by David Alan Black that presents a solid case for Matthean priority. Why Four Gospels. I don't agree with Black's more literalist views but I do find his case for Matthean priority compelling.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
AZPaul3 writes:
Nonsense. It is not a known fact. Richard Bauckham as I have pointed out in other posts goes through in his 600 plus page book, (which I have read) "Jesus and the eyewitnesses" and claims otherwise. You can’t disagree. Percy did not voice an opinion. He stated a known fact.Here is a brief summary on the Gospel accounts. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses AZPaul3 writes: If you dispute the fact then you must show the fact wrong. You cannot just assert that it is wrong or just disagree with what it shows. Percy’s post is fact. "The writings that did survive until today are the testimonies of the early Christian churches of the Jewish diaspora which had never had any contact with Jesus and had no reliable source of information about him." You have to deal with facts. You cannot just disagree and ignore them. It is opinion and not an established fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy writes: No, the consensus isn't changing. It can only change if new evidence of eyewitnesses comes to light. Without that you've just got endless discussion of different viewpoints, which has been the situation for centuries. Actually there are a variety of reasons. Firstly the Christian scholars up until recently were heavily influenced by the form critics who completely discounted the early church fathers. Now Christian studies are taking those works seriously. The Dead Sea Scrolls have been very helpful in providing context and a better understanding of the language including the idioms. Things like the excavation of Pompeii is providing a much clearer picture of the Roman world of the 1st century. Scholarship is moving away from regarding the Bible as directly authored by God. The internet is making the data universally available and also allows scholars access to the work of others and allows them to communicate much more easily.
Percy writes: So miracles and resurrections aren't noteworthy in 30 AD, but by 100 AD they are? You're actually describing the exact process of mythology where the details grow over time. Your own critical thinking should come into play and recognize that Papias's and Polycarp's claims of interviewing eyewitnessesn more than 70 years after the events is unlikely in the extreme. Why doesn't it? Papias was likely earlier than that but we can't be sure one way or the other. You however are completely disregarding all that was written about Jesus in the NT. Also the vast majority of Jesus' ministry was in Galilee and as a result didn't have the same following in Judea. Only a small minority of the population experienced the resurrected Jesus. For most Jesus would simply be a failed messiah. By the Gospel accounts that is also the way Jesus' followers believed until they encountered the resurrected Jesus. After all, He hadn't even raised an army let alone won any battles.
Percy writes: Are you sure we disagree? I'm sure we both believe the gospels were produced by the early Christian churches that Paul founded in the Jewish diaspora. And that they couldn't have had any contact with Jesus since Paul didn't start founding churches until after Jesus's death. And that their only source of information was secondhand. No, I don't agree.I realize that currently my belief runs contrary to the teaching of the majority oc seminaries. However I contend, that based on both internal evidence that the Gospels were authored by eye witnesses or those with contact with eyewitnesses. After reading a considerable amount on the subject, here is a summary of that belief. Matthew- written Matthew the tax collector within 10 years of the resurrection. Quite possibly written in Aramaic and the later translated into Greek, likely by himself. Luke/Acts - written by Luke who was a disciple of Paul who travelled with him and was with Paul in Jerusalem where he spent time with the disciples., and wrote in the late fifties or possibly early sixties. Mark - written by a disciple of Peter who travelled with Peter and using Matthew wrote what he did using Peter's lectures that were likely given in Rome. John - was written probably in the late 80's by a disciple of Jesus, but not one of the twelve.
Percy writes: There is zero scientific evidence so I am left with the ancient texts and what I have observed from my life and from the world around me. Actually the science that I have read by people like Brian Greene etc, have helped convince me that I am on the right track. Why is it so important to you that your faith have evidence? If it had evidence would it still be faith? However I can't know that what I believe is fact so it boils down to faith.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
AZPaul3 writes: Actually I have read Sean Carrol although not recently but I still have the book. This is way way old PopSci misunderstanding. Change your sources. See Sean Carroll. Consciousness has nothing to do with measurement. A measurement can only take place as a result of a conscious thought and action.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
AZPaul3 writes: Thanks. I thought it was and I replied in kind, but I guess our humour is too subtle for some of us. NO, no, no, it was a humorous quip and taken, at least by me, as so. I even tried to tease you with that knowledge. Your withdrawal is not necessary, not accepted. Everyone else is being too stuffy. You were fine ... and appreciated. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: All can I really say that if God bothered to bring us into existence, (even if all that He did was to introduce consciousness into the world), then it makes sense that He wouldn't do it without some purpose in mind.kjsimons writes:
Kinda above my pay grade. I believe in the re-creation of all thins as Paul writes about in Ephesians. However, I think the point is largely about conscious life. It is obvious that animals have consciousness, however, I have no idea of how far you can go with that. Do plants have a form of consciousness? Beats me. Does this apply to all living things on Earth equally? Bacteria, bugs, snakes, etc ... ?He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Tangle writes: You keep saying that but I'm not claiming equivalence. I'm simply saying that they are different. You use science as evidence and I simply believe that science is agnostic as far as there being a cosmic intelligence is concerned, but you don't agree. I have no scientific evidence for my theistic views, and they are primarily based on observation and experience.
You're continuing with this wrong-headed equivalence. You're just fooling yourself by picking out extreme views that you want to believe and claiming that they're as good as other ideas that have evidence and concensus. All views and opinion are not equal. Tangle writes:
I agree that I hold the minority view. Actually, from an Occam's Razor POV, Matthean priority is simpler as it negates inventing "Q", for which there is zero evidence. In effect, Matthew then takes the place of Q. Most scholars believe the [Matthew] gospel was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110; a pre-70 date remains a minority view.[11][12] The work does not identify its author, and the early tradition attributing it to the apostle Matthew is rejected by modern scholars.[13][14] He was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.[15] Writing in a polished Semitic "synagogue Greek", he drew on the Gospel of Mark as a source, plus the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source (material shared with Luke but not with Mark) and material unique to his own community, called the M source or "Special Matthew".[16][17] I also suggest that the minority view is growing.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: Evolution, without an external intelligence itself leads to an infinite regress of processes.PaulK writes: OK. What is the process that kicked off all of the processes necessary for all the different branches of the evolutionary processes? What was the process that produced a process for consciousness, sentience etc? What was the process that created the first cell and what was the process that caused a single cell to multiply? What was the process that caused compounds to form and so on and so on. I guess using the term infinite is too strong, however you can go right back to the BB and then into a vast unknown. And there is a fine example of you preferring a falsehood to prop up your beliefs. Thanks for proving my point. It seems simpler to me to have a cosmic intelligence who always existed outside of our world with it's one dimension of time being responsible.
GDR writes: You can observe and learn a lot about how evolution happened. What is the evidence though, that there can't be an external intelligence behind the natural processes?PaulK writes: This is another example of you avoiding the question. We both know that this is about belief. Neither view can be proven scientifically or in any other manner. And another example. The only evidence you can have is the lack of evidence for such a thing. You can’t get at the truth by just making things up and demanding that they be disproved.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
AZPaul3 writes: Not so. An observation can be as simple as a puff of air. Whether a consciousness is there to interpret the measurement or not that outcome is the same. Such collisions cause decoherence of the entangled particles. That is an outcome whether consciously measured or not. Observation is not limited to minds and meters. First off let me acknowledge that I am way out of my depth here. However, are you saying that a puff of wind can cause a wave function to collapse into a particle?
PaulK writes: Observations show the outcome of the measurement. They do not create the outcome. If you've read Carroll then realize that, unlike Copenhagen, the wave function collapse (observing the state of a system) is not limited but the wave function must include the observer and the measurement apparatus. In this an observation is not dependant on the included observer but on the state of the whole system's wave function. This is from this site: Double Slit Experimentquote:It seems that either it requires a conscious observer or with a measurement done by an apparatus constructed by a conscious being and then observed. We are far off the original top with this but I guess it doesn't matter as virtually none of the posts in this thread have been on topic. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes:
I don't have a comment from Black on that but in his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses Richard Bauckham has several pages on the subject. Is that where you got the idea that the use of the third person was evidence of authorship? Did Black actually say that? I’d appreciate a quote if he did. I tried to come up with a brief statement but Bauckham as a scholar goes into so much detail that it is difficult to come up with something concise. The basic point is that the "we" passages are to give John authority and obliquely to make the point that he was an eyewitness. Referring to the author in the third person is fairly common in ancient literature. Here is an example from Josephus taken from this site. Josaephus According to Josephus' account of the siege of Yodfat, he and his 40 soldiers were trapped in a cave by Roman soldiers. They chose suicide over capture, and settled on a serial method of committing suicide by drawing lots. Josephus states that by luck or possibly by the hand of God, he and another man remained until the end and surrendered to the Romans rather than killing themselves. This is the story given in Book 3, Chapter 8, part 7 of Josephus' The Jewish War (writing of himself in the third person):
quote: He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024