I look forward to it. A man who is willing to make the first overture of peace in the heat of a debate well deserves engagement in discussions like these. I’ll see you around, I’m sure.
We never know for sure, but our confidence comes from repeated tests that pass, and by comparison with other possibilities. Probability here is in a loose sense, after Keynes. Computing real probabilities requires us to know the total space of possibilities, which is not true except in very special and controlled situations. This probability is somewhat more statistical - kind of like the expression of how often our results are due to chance rather than reflecting the true space we’re testing. Basically, though we can’t assign a number to our confidence that the world is like we think it is, we do know that the probability of this after 2 n experiments is greater than that after n experiments.
As for the uneversality of science - the universality of natural law is a postulate. But it is a postulate that gets tested by observation of stars and galaxies far away from us. Over 10 billion light years away, natural laws seem to be the same. Right now, of course over 15 bly away we can’t see, so we can’t say anything one way or another. Still, there is no reason to think things are different there.
Whoa. That’s not what the proof said. Knowledge of the possibility of something is far different from kknowledge of that thing. I have knowledge of the possibilities of a roll of the dice in craps, but that ain’t going to make me any money. One does not have to be omniscient to know the possibilities, so I don’t understand why the proof gives omniscience as the justification for the step.
As I said, I can see other, better reasons for arguing that God does not know the outcome of something. I’m not sure this is one of them.
Well, cut me some slack. Whenever I post formal tableaus, I’m inevitably accused of being obtuse and abstract, manipulating cryptic symbols that don’t mean anything, so I posted an informal one. If I word it this way instead, are we okay — It must be the case that both (God knew that it was possible Jesus would rise) and (God knew that it was possible Jesus would not rise)?
I meant to address this specifically as well:
You can offer it as another premise, but it also follows from both 1 and the Def of Om. (It is given that God knew one possibility in premise 1, and by Def of Om, He must have known the other.) But deducing it makes it more logically stable. In reductio arguments, you much prefer that the only axiom be the one you’re disproving.
That said…
Keep in mind that this is both a temporal and a doxastic modality. Formal terms would involve “belief” (where belief is true and justified) and “now-necessary” (where present necessity is caused by past necessity) rather than “knowledge” and “possibility”. It cannot be said that knowledge of all possibilities is possible without omniscience, but it can be said that omniscient implies the knowledge of all possibilities. Thus, by constructing the argument the way we did, we avoid an affirmation of the consequent as well as a gratuitous assertion in the form of a premise.
It doesn’t mean you can be whatever you want exactly. I believe there are truths that are constant and inescapable. You choose to discover them along your own path and in your own way and time or you can choose to avoid and deny them. All choices bring consequences.
What I’m I’m saying is your relationship with God, and your spiritual journey is uniquely your own. No person or organization can tell you exactly what it is. You might find a church or religion that fits okay but even then it is your journey and you can take what you want and leave the rest. I can go to church and enjoy the serice without embacing every detail of doctrine.
If you run out of answers? James 1:5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.
Yes many do. Obviously a church that preached the fear of hellfire and brimstone would not be the one for either of us. Why would I sit and listen to what I thought was fear mongering bullshit?
That’s the arguement we keep having here on the board. A benevolent God wouldn’t allow all the bad stuff to happen to his children since he could prevent it all. To me that works if we want our kids to remain kids who are totally dependent on us as adults. I don’t believe God wants servants or children but peers instead. In order for that to happen we must make our own choices and bear the consequences until we find those eternal qualities and choose them. Thats what Jesus was talking about.
Well hell yeah. Don’t we have a ton of that going on all over the place? Technically I think that what everybody is doing anyway. The difference is, do we choose some person or group to tell us what is meaningful or do we claim our right and responsibility to do that for ourselves? If you decide to give that right away that’s your choice too.
And often is. What “actually is” are the eternal constants I spoke of. In my own limited understanding I see love and truth as the things that have eternal qualities and are consistantly positive.
There is no external truth to pursue. It is an internal truth. It is the truth about who and what you really are.
Of course. Some have fairly strict requirements and some don’t. There is a way to gauge their accuracy. Jesus called it the fruits of the spirit.
You’re right, I don’t agree. If I spank my kids for touching the stove after I’ve said not to then I’m punishing them. If they hurt themselves and then realize that I told them not to do that out of love, that not me punishing them. Thats kinda how I see it.
There’s a passage from the Book of Mormon that first got me thinking about this years ago.
The language is a little to condeming for my taste but the principle remains.
Here’s the thing that I find very cool about this. Years ago I believed quite differently than I do now. Yet in both cases I was being true to what I sincerely believed at the time. I was being true to myself internally, emotionally, mentally and spiritually. What you’ve just described to me is you being true to yourself. I honor and respect that. You rejected concepts of God that didn’t work for you. Me too. You haven’t found a concept that works for you at this time. That’s what is true for you and thats what we’re asked to pursue. My own path has led me to different conclusions but I also am being true to what works for me and willing to learn more.
But whereas error is an accepted and even cherished part of science, it is something that’s usually denied or covered up in religion. It’s a fundamentally different approach.
Oh, all right. I know people say not to get “hung up” on the details, but I don’t see how I can believe in something that seems plainly self-contradictory/nonsensical to me. But anyway, yep, it appears we’re in the same fast-sinking boat. See ya at the bottom 
I would like to believe this – that moral choice is all that matters – but then that goes back into the question of how much of Christianity is open to interpretation.
Yes, that’s what I believe too. I asked Voyager this because it seemed like he believed it had a “good chance” at arriving at the so-called universal truths.
Thanks, Liberal. Ok. If your interpretation of God is accurate, your explanation makes sense as well. But that’s the question, isn’t it? Who is He?
Are you talking about the “God sacrificing Jesus to save the world” discussion? I wondered about this briefly before, but honestly, I don’t know enough about the whole “God is a trinity” concept yet to have any sort of real opinion on the matter. But if you’d LIKE to talk about this, go right on ahead – I certainly don’t mind. If you’d like to take a break for now, that’s fine too. I’m cool with whatever you guys decide to do.
Yup, you understood me completely. So how do you still place so much faith in science? Why is there no reason to think that things MAY be different 15 billion lightyears away?
If certain truths are constant and inescapable, then they must apply to everyone. But what happens when two people come across contradictory truths that are supposed to be constant and inescapable? Who would be right and how would he know? My objection to this sort of subjective thinking is that without some sort of external and objective measurement, they too often degenerate into disagreements and then wars.
Not quite. The child wouldn’t be dependent on us. I’m talking about, essentially, cloning a person completely – memories included. They’d just be a carbon copy of us and definitely a peer, not a subordinate. In other words, why didn’t God just clone himself instead of making inferior copies?
There’s one more option that’s too often ignored: The belief in ignorance. Everybody is doing that because everybody thinks they’re right. If everyone instead believed that they could be wrong, things might be different.
The word “truth” has so many meanings. I agree with you that knowing yourself is one very essential part of the experience, but there are other questions I would like answered too. That’s all I mean by “external truths”.
And foremost among these “other questions” is the question of who or what created the world I exist in. I can search within myself for the answer, but I could never logically ascertain whether my internal belief equals the actual external creator – unless I AM that creator, a possibility which I don’t like to think about.
For me, this thread isn’t so much about “finding myself” – I spent a lot of time doing that already, and I’m sure it will continue – but about the questions outside myself.
“For me, this thread isn’t so much about “finding myself” – I spent a lot of time doing that already, and I’m sure it will continue – but about the questions outside myself.”
Err, just to clarify: I’m asking these questions because, for me at least, one of a religion’s purposes is to answer these external questions. Thus, if I were to choose a religion, I’d want one that makes as much logical sense as possible. But this entire process does have to do with me and myself, of couse.
This reminds me very much of Descartes’ approach, in the Meditations. He realises that he has no access to any sort of “external truth” - I’m sure you know about his “evil demon”, or the modern equivalent in which you’re a brain in a vat, being fed erroneous information about a non-existent “outside world” by a mad scientist. There’s no way we can have the sort of absolute, logical certainty about anything external to our minds - including the fact there’s such a thing as “logical certainty” in the first place.
What Descartes then does is to use Anselm’s ontological argument to prove - at least, to prove to his own satisfaction - that God exists, and that he therefore has justification for his faith that the universe is actually as it appears to be. The ontological argument, of course, is as open to objection as any other argument for the existence or non-existence of God, but I think Descartes’ point still stands - we need some sort of faith before we can consider any sort of truth about the “external world”, whether it’s faith in God or just faith in the general reliability of our senses and reason; we can’t find “external truths” through pure reason without faith of any sort.
I know that many atheists object to using the word “faith” to describe any part of their belief system, but I don’t see how they can get around Descartes otherwise. I’m sure Voyager will have an answer to this, and I look forward to hearing it. 
I would say that all parts of any belief system are “open to interpretation”. A particular church may give a particular, definite answer to any specific question you have, but - certainly for most of the issues you’ve raised - I wouldn’t say there was one answer that all Christians have to accept for any of them.
And, of course, if you do find a fundamental disagreement between what you know in your heart to be true and Christianity, it would be wrong of you to pretend to be a Christian. Some churches may tell you that you’re damned for doing this, but I hope that, if nothing else, this discussion has shown you this isn’t a universal Christian belief.
I completely agree. Logic has its limits and “logical certainty” is, for me at least, ultimately based on faith. However, logic is what I try to rely upon simply because I haven’t found anything better/more reliable – yet.
I don’t buy Anselm’s argument, but even if I did, I don’t see how it can differentiate a Christian god from any other god or even plain solipsism. It doesn’t say anything about the nature of the god.
Yes, I have to submit to that initial step of having faith in logic because without that, I don’t believe I would be able to “think” much at all. The languages I speak, the scenarios I imagine, the cause-and-effect relationships that govern my life… are all too closely intertwined with the system of logic that I know. I don’t think I can comprehend a world that actually functions with logical contradictions.
But beyond that, I don’t want to use faith any more than I must because it hasn’t proven to reliable enough.
A part of me still believes that everything after “I think, therefore I am” was a cop-out on Descartes’s part. I am not certain of anything past that, myself. But I’d still like to find out more about the world that I APPEAR to live in, which is why I asked all these questions. Even if the answers aren’t 100% certain, at least they provide some interesting possibilities.
I would not pretend to be Christian. Such an act would serve no purpose – not for me, not for other Christians, and not for anyone else. I want to give it an honest chance and I’m trying to see if it’s something I can actually buy into full-heartedly, and these questions are just one of the stumbling blocks. If they really can’t be answered, well, maybe you’re right and Christianity just ain’t for me, But I had to try, at least
The universe is different than existence there can be many Universes that we do not know about. The universe exists(we can prove that) so it is in existence. To be REAL it must exist. Nothing then is spirit. Or should I say spirit is nothing?
Monavis
Of course.
Any religious faith worth the name is based on a love of God. As we know from our human relationships, we can’t try to love someone else; it just happens to us. If it’s not happened to you, then following any religion is the wrong thing for you to do; but I would still urge you to keep looking.
Ugh. I wouldn’t put it that way. If science begins cherishing error, then we’re all in deep doodoo.
Science cherishes (and in fact is built on) the notion of falsification, i.e., that some hypothesis about nature may be proved false by empirical test. But formulating a wrong hypothesis is quite a different thing from outright error, which makes me think of things like mistakes in the design of experiments or miscalculations of data elements. I don’t think that a scientist should pat himself on the back just because he ruined a speciman or screwed up some math. And I might add that it is not unheard of at all for error of that sort to be covered up in science.
Meanwhile, some religions enourage constantly examining oneself for false beliefs and even questioning God, so as to discern a right revelation from a wrong one. I think that both science and religion suffer from their share of political infestation by men who seek power and wealth at the expense of other men.
Surely, you don’t mean that. Have you decided that science is not for you because of its unanswered questions? Or that logic is not for you because of its undecidable propositions? I would encourage you to consider that epistemology is a fine thing, an interesting thing, and a thing that is fun to study. But in the end, nothing is really all about knowledge; everything is all about value — what you value. You will hang in there with science and logic because you value them so much. The question to ask yourself is whether you value finding the God you seek. A man is always seeking that which he treasures; it is the nature of our journey. “Where your treasure is, there your heart is also.” — Jesus
That is too often true. It’s interesting to note that even apostle Paul acknowledged that his knowledge was incomplete. For myself , it’s important to be aware of what we don’t know, and how much there is left to learn in order to process new possibilities. Of course I have certain foundational beliefs that I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about and they would be hard to shake. In organized religion I see a lot of people who believe according to tradition. A, everybody in my group says this is true so it must be true: sort of thing.
There are lots of differences in doctrine and belief that fall under the umbrella of Christianity, so I guess it’s pretty open to interpretation. That’s why the conclusion for me is that no person or group has all the answers {especially the ones that think they do} and I have as much access to spiritual truth as anyone.
As well as who are we in relation to God? We can and do go forward learning as we go. We can’t just wait to have all the answers before we choose. It is in the act of choosing and trying that we learn.
Yes, they apply to everyone, but everyone has the right to discover them in their own way and in thier own time. Mutual respect and consideration and a little faith that although our paths may seem different now they ultimately have the same destination. I claim my right to choose my own path and honor that right for others. I have friends who are wonderful people and conservative Christians. I have others who are wonderful atheists or agnostics. Love is love, compassion is compassion, honesty is honesty. Their actions are a reflection of what they value and that’s how we relate to each other. No need to fight over the other details.
How do we decide what justice is? Liberty? All the other intangibles? Do we have external and objective measurement for those? We can’t. The same holds true for spiritual truth.
I don’t believe he did. In the metaphor of Eden it was Adams and Eve’s choice that seperated them from God. We chose to be seperate. We can choose otherwise.
I agree. In fact we can pretty much be assured that there’s a lot more we don’t know than what we know. That’s the beauty of it in IMHO. We can choose our own path and allow others to choose theirs. Unfortunatly some choices bring conflict and we must deal with it. If someone’s choice means breaking into my house then I must deal with it. If someone’s choice means passing opressive laws then I have to choose how to deal with it. I don’t have to choose hatred and spite.
I think I know what you mean but I’d point out that you have to decide internally what these external truths mean to you. For me a key belief is are we primarily {or entirely} physical beings with spiritual beliefs, or are we actually spiritual beings having a fleeting physical experience. I doubt you’ll discover an answer to that externally.
Ahhhh there you have it. As God’s peers we are creators or at least co creators of our lives. IMHO the answer to who or what created the world we exist in is an internal question also. One of my objections to some traditional Christian belief is the view of God as some external being out there somewhere that interacts with us.
I’m not sure you can answer the questions you’re asking while trying to keep them outside yourself. What should I have for dinner or what kind of car should I buy are questions that start as subjective and end up outside of yourself {for the most part} Other questions remain internal.
For myself it started years ago by simply asking the question " God if you’re really there I want to know" I asked it with a sincerity and seriousness that meant I was willing to change my direction and my choices based on the answer. There’s been a bunch of mistakes and misinterpretations since then but hey, the journey of a thousand miles and all that.
As Lib mentioned. The Holy Spirit has the answers. I believe it’s one of the inexcapable truths I mentioned. It’s our connection to God and each other. Jesus described it as the source of all truth and decribed kindness, humility, love, compassion, as the fruits of the spirit.
It’s not an external being trying to set rules for you and get you to obey with the promise of some future reward. It’s the very essence of who and what you are and the process of losing our illusions.
Hey Reply. Yup, that’s the argument. Frankly, I’ve pretty much said what I have to say. Liberal believes he has refuted it. I don’t think so. If it interests you, read both sides and draw your own conclusions.
And cosmosdan, your quote from the Book of Mormon reminds me of Homer Simpson’s famous riff on Pascal’s Wager (Homer the Heretic; season four, episode three): What if we’ve picked the wrong religion and, every time we go to church, we’re just making God madder and madder?
Oy. Will you please stop doing that? What I believe is what I said, namely, that I addressed — not refuted — it. In fact, I’ve said many times in my history here that every worldview is valid, even those directly opposed to my own. That’s because worldviews are subjective.
Then fuck him. Who needs that sort of god?
I’m not complaining about the style at all - in fact I appreciate it, and I suspect that others do also. I hope my quibbling is productive - it is meant to be. You see, I spend a lot of time reviewing papers, so I easily get into this mode.
Your restatement is fine - but, unless A or ~A is necessarily true, isn’t it always the case that
(P knows A is possible) and (P knows that ~A is possible)? However, this no longer supports necessity. In fact, if God knows that either is possible, neither can be necessary.
Your step 4 is correct because A or ~A is always true. Actually not. What would be correct is
4a. It must be the case that (Jesus would rise or Jesus would not rise.)
In your phrasing, if him rising or not rising were inevitable, then Jesus would not have had the free will to choose to rise or not. In fact, since he did rise, in your version he must rise. If he must rise, then God would have known it, (since it would not be a matter of free will) and God, knowing that Jesus would return to him, would have given up nothing or very little.
I’m not too thrilled with step 5 either, but we can work on that later.