If he’s able to do this, that makes it rather difficult for Abrahamists to accept the uniformity of nature, which in turn makes it difficult to put a lot of stock in the outcomes that science shows us.
How do we know that gravity is keeping us tethered to the world as opposed to a miracle from God - which he will stop in three days?
There is no non-scriptural evidence for any of the events of Exodus.
However, just as the Iliad may be an embellished account of a real war
against a real city located near the Dardanelles, so may Exodus be to
an era in the history of the Jewish people, and so may the Gospels be
to the ministry of a real man whose life is not independently attested.
All this is true, but it does not present a case against the past and ongoing
importance of the supernatural in the perception of billions of people.
I do not understand.
I do not know the Bible well enough to comment on this. Justified or not,
the inference has been made for 2000 years and continues to be made.
Completely irrelevant.
Supernaturalism and naturalism aren’t about peoples’ perceptions, they’re about people attempting to describe the world beyond their perceptions.
I believe the citation from post #90 covers this adequately. Here again is the link:
Catholic Encyclopedia on God and the Universe
We are permitted to make such inference as justified by observation of Nature,
and God is permitted to alter Nature.
In fact, there’s plenty of non-scriptural evidence *against *the events of Exodus.
Not really, no. The Jews were never slaves in Egypt. The Jews didn’t exist as a people at the time of Exodus, so they couldn’t have been.
Then he to all intents and purposes didn’t exist, if the Gospels is as fictionalized an account of his life as that of Moses.
This reply tells me that you are confused and in over your head.
Goodbye.
Um, cite?
And I wonder how The Master could have missed all this evidence of yours:
Cecil Adams Comments on Exodus
According to The Master the existence of the Israelites is attested by Egyptian stela of ~1230BC.
What are “intents and purposes”? Whatever they are they are in logical tension
with the idea of a “fictionalized account of his life”, a phrase which implies
underlying historical reality of “his life”.
It is fine to be rebellious, and at odds with standard scholarly opinion on the matter
of the historicity of Christ. However, it is not so fine to be at odds with The Master:
Ah, the honorable tactic of refusing to acknowledge that which everyone knows when it is inconvenient to your debating position.
Your refusal to engage me regardless, people use the terms “naturalism” and “supernaturalism” in an attempt to come to grips with the world outside their own heads and to see what common ground there is with other minds.
The claim of supernaturalism is not that people can imagine entities that are not subject to the laws of physics and chemistry, energy and matter, but that the world external to people’s minds contains such entities.
I am finding cites alluding to the behaviour of quantum particles as being unpredictable and resembling randomness, but can find nothing that says “We know that quantum particles have no cause because.. and the reason we know there is no cause as opposed to not knowing what the cause is, is because..”
Don’t know.
You keep asserting this, but that doesn’t make it true. I take it as an axiom that everything with a beginning has a cause. Laugh hysterically at me for that if you wish, but it’s from that basis, not ignorance as you keep asserting, that I conclude universes can’t magically appear without a cause.
Everything with a beginning, yes.
Clearly not “everything” needs a cause, or else nothing would be the only thing there is, was, and ever will be.
Not sure what you are saying, but obviously if there is a first cause, it was, by definition, itself uncaused.
I need to explain nothing of sort.
I am saying that something, as opposed to nothing, caused the universe to come in to existence. Asking me to explain the specific mechanics of this process is not a counter argument. For years we couldn’t explain earthquakes, so therefore nothing caused earthquakes? I can’t follow your logic.
Firstly, I could give a toss for Cecil Adams as an authority on anything.
Secondly, that column is 30 years old.
According to “The Master” and that stela, the Israelites were all wiped out. So there’s that.
If your intent and purpose is to show a historical basis for Jesus, and you point to Moses, all you’re saying is Jesus is as mythical.
No tension. I said “as fictionalized an account”, meaning there is no connection between history and the account, so it is impossible to infer anything about him from those accounts.
Again, I could give a toss what Cecil Adams has to say on the matter 26 years ago. Fact of the matter is, I choose not to believe in a historical Jesus (as depicted in the Gospels, I don’t care about some hypothetical handyman named JoshuaBenJoseph) because there’s *no *direct evidence for his existence. Plain as that. Just like I choose not to believe in a historical Buddha for the same reason. Or a historical Orpheus.
I’m not sure it does - to be frank, I think the encyclopedia is trying to have it’s cake and eat it too. It seems the pantheistic version is more coherent with regard to God sustaining the universe and miracles.
All this link tries to explain is God’s importance to the universe, it doesn’t address why we should be sure that a particular event is the result of a miracle or God’s order (ie, the laws of nature).
So how can we tell the difference between them?
I’m surprised you couldn’t find it. Here’s a better clue - look up “Bell’s inequality.” It pretty much rules out an underlying, unseen cause (hidden variables).
You never did answer my question back from page 2 - if this God who created the universe is “timeless,” then how can it take any action or make any decisions? Those are dependent on time existing.
This seems awfully close to the Ontological Argument for God - that a God must exist because of the way we define our words.
Are you asking for certainty in science as opposed to what is reasonable to believe?
Again, your problem seems to be with physicists and possibly the metaphysics of science.
Here are some links that might help:
Keep in mind that these are meant to help - I don’t necessarily agree with them. In fact, I think both your premises are wrong and that you are begging the question. Here’s a good article that illustrates more precisely what I mean.
So then how do you know either? You are essentially saying, ‘we don’t know, therefore magic’.
I would prefer to base my beliefs on models with at least some evidence and coherence - or I would simply admit that I don’t know.
Either position is better than ‘I don’t know, therefore it was the result of magic’.
Okay, then the onus is on you to demonstrate it. What is your basis for saying that:
Further, please explain what you mean by ‘come into existence’ since I suspect that you mean that it came into existence from nothing, which begs two more questions:
We have no evidence that anything has come into existence from absolute nothing, much less that it has or could have a cause. This is an assertion on your part probably DUE to the behavior of already existing matter/energy WITHIN this universe. Further, this assertion is contradicted by observations of quantum particles popping into and out of existence in a vacuum.
You can take whatever you’d like as an axiom - but why should anyone (including yourself) put any weight into that axiom? In other words, your ‘axiom’ is no better than if I said I had an axiom that you were completely wrong on this. You probably don’t find my axiom compelling, do you?
Show one thing that had an ultimate beginning.
What is ‘nothing’?
Further, what is the criteria for something not to have a cause?
I think this refutes your argument - however I think we are miscommunicating and I wish to be charitable to your position. So can you please explain in different words what you mean by this?
Then why should we believe that “Anything arising “uncaused” makes far less sense that anything arising “caused”.”
Why should we believe that something can cause something else to come into existence from nothing even makes sense?
Should we just trust you?
What evidence do you have that the universe came into existence?
What evidence do you have that the a theory of time (presentism) is correct?
I could go the Richard Gott route and say the universe caused itself and your argument provides evidence of this. Would you object? Why?
I could go the quantum tunneling route and say that your argument provides evidence of this. Would you object? Why?
Asking you to explain the mechanics is relevant when you dismiss the models and theories that physicists and philosophers have as an explanation - especially if you are going to say that your explanation makes more sense!
I don’t think she’s fully come out and said that God did it. She seems to be saying this, implicitly, granted.
I would ask if this is the case, then what evidence does she have that there is an absolute time, which our relative universe operates within - which is what she is presupposing.
I don’t really believe a word of it. If their god had actual non-tenuous effects he would just be a part of the world: natural. It’s the very tenuousness of the alleged effects (tenuous to the point of non-existence) that causes what is labeled supernatural to be “supernatural”.
It’s just another word for “horseshit we make up and know deep down is just fairystories but choose to believe in anyway”.
“The supernatural” is to the natural as “stage magic” is to a stage trick: it only exists as a lack of knowledge or understanding. Once you gain knowledge and understanding of a “magic” trick you don’t believe in magic, you just know how the stage trick was done. If we ever discover there actually are angels we won’t prove the supernatural exists, we will have just discovered a new aspect of nature.
I tried again, but still nothing. Can you please link me to some direct cites that show evidence that quantum particles exhibit uncaused behaviour. (Not to be confused with behaviour that is unpredictable, and/or resembles randomness).
Whatever caused time to exist must itself be timeless. Therefore, one explanation would be to posit that whatever caused time is in a constant, unchanging state of causation.
From your above link:
To most people, the claim that something cannot come from nothing is a truism. However, most physicists disagree. Against the claim, they often cite what are variously known as quantum vacuum fluctuations or virtual particles. These are particle-antiparticle pairs that come into existence in otherwise empty space for very brief periods of time, in agreement with the Heisenberg uncertainty relations. [Q1] [Q2] They produce measurable effects, such as the Lamb shift and the Casimir-Polder force.[Q3] [Q4] These particles are not anomalies; they are so common that some physicists argue that if we think of empty space as nothing, then there is no such thing as nothing, because space never is empty—it is always filled with virtual particles.[Q5] In short, if we follow most people in thinking of empty space as nothing, then we have at least one pervasive example of something that can come from nothing.
This extract appears to be saying that quantum particles are not seemingly caused by the otherwise empty space they appear in. This is not evidence that the quantum particles are uncaused, unless we pre-suppose that the empty space is all that exists. I see no reason to pre-suppose that.
You asked me a question that I didn’t know the answer to, so I said I don’t know. I went on to draw absolutely no subsequent conclusion.
You, however, have repeatedly implied that universes magically popping in to existence without a cause is a consideration to be taken seriously. In other words “We do know, and it’s magic”.
I take it as an axiom that everything with a beginning requires a cause. I don’t take seriously, like you and others, that universes, or anything at all for that matter, can magically come in to existence without a cause. It’s an axiom that you can take or leave, there is nothing further that can be fleshed out in regards to it.
For something to come in to existence, all that is required is that said thing:
[ul]
[li]Does not exist, and then[/li][li]Exists[/li][/ul]
Good, because I also reject that anything can come in to existence from absolutely nothing..
So what are you saying? Is there evidence of something popping in to existence uncaused, or isn’t there?
Every scientist in history has relied on axioms. Again, I reject that anything can come in to existence without a cause, universes or otherwise. This to me is axiomatic, it’s self-evident. If one takes my view, then there are implications in terms of explaining what caused a material, time-and-space bound universe to come in to existence.
If you, however, take the idea seriously that things can magically come in to existence without a cause, then all the power to you, but we disagree at the axiomatic level. Axioms by nature do not/can not need further explanation, lest they are no longer axioms. Hence, I’m not sure what more I can say to you.
I’m not sure how you got that - the text you quoted is basically saying there might not be something we would call ‘empty space’ or that what we consider empty space is actually filled with ‘virtual particles’. I see nothing about ‘causes’ in the portion you are trying to draw my attention to. As to presuppositions, empty space is obviously not all that exists.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here, to be frank.
I feel as though you are backing away from the claims you have made. What is your position?
As to your interpretation of my position, it is wrong - I do not support the notion that the universe magically popped into existence. I have repeatedly stressed that I am a proponent of the b theory of time.
I have said that IF the universe did come into existence at one point in time (presupposing the a theory) then the idea that it was uncaused by an outside agent is more likely since it makes more sense than if an outside agent caused it (with the exception of m theory).
Okay, I can leave your explanation as unreasonable - as it begs several questions. It can be rejected by rational people.
You apparently don’t even understand my position since you consistently create a strawman out of it. I do not hold that there ever was a moment when the universe wasn’t.
I will leave your ‘axiom’ as it’s irrational.
This isn’t actually true, as I have explained multiple times. You seem to be shutting down though (it’s clear you haven’t read my links, as you continue to misconstrue my position), so I suppose we will have to leave things as they are.
Okay.
I am saying that what we have observed within the universe supports things popping into existence uncaused. I am also separating this observation with the universe itself. In other words, I am trying to avoid a composition logical fallacy.
?
I am not saying that you cannot make use of axioms - I am saying your axioms are arbitrary and you are only taking them as axiomatic because you cannot defend them and don’t want to actually discuss them.
You are appealing to intuition about something that is decidedly AGAINST intuition (quantum physics). So we have good reason for rejecting your view. You, of course, may continue to believe it, or believe in magic or whatever, but you can’t then say that your position is reasonable, because it’s not. When this is pointed out, you say that your position is axiomatic and you stick your fingers in your metaphorical ears.
You realize that axioms are not supposed to be arbitrarily chosen, don’t you?
Reasonable people do not just say ‘this position “feels” right to me, therefore I am going to make it axiomatic’.
This is essentially what you are doing.