Be ready always to give ... a reason of the hope that is in you...

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
Post Reply
Claire
Posts: 1152
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:25 am

Re: Be ready always to give ... a reason of the hope that is in you...

Post by Claire » Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:38 pm

Og3 wrote:
SEG wrote:What makes you think that life has a purpose?
I gave this question short shrift in my haste to answer the scientific aspects, above, so let's address it now:

C. S. Lewis posed the question, "How would a fish know that he is wet?" Or to bring the analogy back into perspective: Why do we know that life is meaningless? Because the default solution to any logical or mathematical process in which we seek the meaning of life must be X = X or 0 = 0, as Tolstoy tells us. So if we assume ad argumentum that there is no god, and we solve for [meaning of life] we get an absurdity. X = X.

By why do we know that? By all rights, we should not be able to recognize that life SHOULD have a meaning. We should be like the goldfish, never dreaming for an instant that there is even such a thing as meaning in life. We should be entirely ignorant of the question. But we're not. We sometimes wake up in the middle of the night, as Tolstoy did, and ask, "Why am I here? What purpose am I supposed to be fulfilling?"

Lewis elsewhere expands this idea: Everything that we need in this life matches a real thing that satisfies the need. Hunger matches food. Thirst matches water. Itch matches scratch. So what matches "desire for the meaning of life?" or "desire for real true justice?" or "desire to know why I exist?"

The fact that every physical desire has an analog that satisfies it strongly suggests that the mental and spiritual desires must also have a real analog that satisfies them -- that there must be real meaning, real justice, and real purpose.

Now if we go back to Tolstoy's equations, producing identities: We have a contradiction: The argument from desire strongly suggests that life MUST have meaning, but Tolstoy tells us that any equation beginning with the assumption that God does not exist will bring us to an error -- an absurdity, a dead end. So we must question our assumptions. And if we remove the assumption that God does not exist, then we find a solution to the equation. So the meaning of life necessarily requires God.
The Lord has said:

"Is life a purpose or a means? It's a means. It serves for a purpose which is eternity. Then let us give life what is required to make it last and serve the spirit in its conquest. Continence of the flesh in all its lusts, in all of them. Continence of the mind in all its desires, in all of them. Continence of the heart in all human passions. Infinite instead is to be the ardour for heavenly passions: love of God and the neighbor, obedience to the divine word, heroism in good and virtue".

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1863
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Be ready always to give ... a reason of the hope that is in you...

Post by SEG » Sat Apr 20, 2019 10:22 pm

Out of those two answers, I prefer 42·
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1863
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Be ready always to give ... a reason of the hope that is in you...

Post by SEG » Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:13 pm

Og3 wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:42 pm
The existence of the Christian God is certainly falsifiable, and I have told you how. The Apostle Paul told you how in 1 Cor. 15, nearly 2000 years ago. Show that Jesus did not rise from the dead. There's your falsification.
You are throwing me a red herring. My point was how can you falsify an undetectable God? What is a God anyway? It is your claim that it is possible to raise somebody from the dead after 3 days. Prove it.
What was my evidence? My evidence was philosophical, because science could not address the question.
Or a more honest answer would be there is no scientific evidence or even a definition of what such a god (if it exists) consists of.
Evidence is neither scientific nor unscientific.
It is scientific when this definition is applied:
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.
Try living a day in your life ignoring scientific evidence.
What makes you think that life has a purpose?
Well, if it doesn't, then you and I are having a remarkably pointless discussion, aren't we?
Another red herring
Answer the question please.
Science is the wrong tool for the job.
Why? If science can't detect something, why worry about it?
Tell your wife that on Valentine's day when she asks if you love her.
Ah, but it is easy to detect my wife with all my senses. I can produce photos and videos of her and can see images of her throughout her life. I can talk to her and she immediately talks back to me. She has told me that she has loved me and has provided proof of that love in innumerable ways. Your God falls way short of all those things. Plus I know for sure that she has NOT cruelly killed millions of innocent people - unlike your God.
Suppose you address miracles. Science will tell you that given the set of natural laws, a man cannot walk on water. But a miracle is assumed to be a suspension of natural laws. No one ever says, "Jesus experimentally walked on water and therefore we should be able to replicate that experiment in a laboratory, and when we do, we will change our understanding of natural laws."
I don't know what "suspension of natural laws" means. Have you any evidence of what you mean by this?
"
Evidence of what [ ... I .... ] mean by this?" Are you expecting a PETN scan of my brain activity when I use the phrase? Do you see how you're throwing words around without assigning them meanings? I will assume you meant to type "example:"

A suspension of a natural law would be a miracle. For example, let us say that we attempt to make feldspar, (Na,K)AlSi3O8 into bread, for example, a very simple flour and water combination cooked as a flat cake. fairly revolting as a foodstuff -- at best a dry tasteless cracker -- but can we do that through chemical processes without adding anything else? Well, let's take inventory. Feldspar is
Na, sodium
K, potassium
Al, aluminum
Si, silicon, and
O, oxygen.

Bread (flour C6H10O5 and water H2O) requires:
C, carbon
H, Hydrogen,
O, Oxygen.

The only element in common is oxygen, so we're SOL (Simply Out of Luck).

Now, there is a theoretical natural way to make bread -- C, H, and O -- into stone, though not vice versa. We would need to take the hydrogen, extract the naturally occurring heavy hydrogen -- deuterium and tritium, isotopes of hydrogen that have 1 and 2 neutrons respectively, instead of the usual none -- and fuse these in a nearby star until we produce Na, K, Al, and Si in appropriate proportions to make feldspar. Easy as pie, Bob's your uncle, and we leave the demonstration as an exercise for the student.*

So suppose that we watch someone turn feldspar into sourdough. Well, science tells us that it can't happen by any natural means. When we say that "science tells us" we mean NOT the Scientific Method, but the data we have gathered by using the Matchless Method (Scientific Method).

But we just (as is given) watched someone do so, in violation of the natural laws. So one of two things must be true:
A. The natural law is wrong and must be amended in some way, or
B. The natural laws have been suspended for the purpose of this demonstration.

We will assume, Ad Argumentum, that James Randi was standing by and approved the experiment in advance, then provided his million-dollar award to the person who performed it, because he could find no fault in it, just to rule out the idea that the transmutation was faked. We are examining the narrow case of an actual real event which is apparently in direct violation of natural law.

What determines if the event was A or B? (not that it matters, you stopped reading and skipped to the next item. But anyway) Repeatability. If we can ALWAYS do process x, y, z, and the results will ALWAYS turn feldspar into sourdough, then it is REPEATABLE, and we need to amend our physical laws to reflect the transmutation of elements by this new process.

If we cannot repeat the process -- That is, if one person following a verifiable series of steps did the process ONCE, and it worked, but no one else by any process can replicate it, then it is not a call to amend our physical laws, but a bona fide miracle.

thus I said:
Ok, so miracles is just another word for magic, except God did it. Got it!
We talk about miracles because they are an exception to natural laws, not a new understanding of them. Contrast the development of Newtonian Gravity. Suddenly we understood that there was a limit to the rule, "What goes up must come down." Now we understand that "What goes up, unless it reaches escape velocity, must come down eventually." But in the walking on water, no one is claiming that it was possible but misunderstood: The claim is that it was impossible, and that by doing the impossible, Jesus proved that he was God.
So by that logic, any religion that has claims of a hero performing impossible tasks is also God?
Not merely claims, but actual miracles.
Which most other religions also claim.
And those miracles were performed for the people of that day, to show THEM that He was the Son of God. Here's the thing you seem to get backwards:

You think that I read the Bible, see that Jesus performed a miracle, and say, oh, then He must have been God. But that's backwards.

I reasonably infer that Jesus was the Son of God.
How can you infer that, let alone "reasonably? There is no evidence that a human being can be born from a spirit father, whatever that means and a virgin mother. The very first assumption would be that he was born naturally and people lied by Occam's razor.
From that, by corollary, I am compelled to also believe that the Bible is true as written,
So if the virgin birth claim is false, the Bible is also false.
and from that I am compelled to believe that the miracles therein are bona fide events.
So it all falls apart if someone can convince you that Jesus wasn't born from a spirit father and a virgin mother?
So attacking miracles is not going to chop down my faith, any more than chopping a branch off of a tree will kill the tree. You need to start at the trunk if you're going to chop down the tree. You'll need to prove that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Or you can demonstrate and external meaning of life that is not God, though that would merely raise doubts, not chop down the tree.
Proving Jesus didn't rise from the dead should be pretty easy if he wasn't born from a spirit father and a virgin mother. That would mean that he wasn't the son of God and just a normal human. We both know that humans can't rise from the dead after 3 days. We both should know that it is impossible to impregnate a women without a sperm fertilising an ovum containing DNA coding. So how did God do it?
Science only tells us of natural law; it cannot tell us of times when natural law is suspended supernaturally.
Correct, because the last bit is not falsifiable and a meaningless statement.
It is falsifiable; see my discussion above of feldspar and sourdough. If it can be repeated, and a mechanism found for it, then it merely requires an update to physical laws, and the alleged miracle is falsified as a pure miracle.
Huh? What do you mean by that?
Yes, not entirely, but it does refute silly claims with no verifiable evidence.
Really? Name a silly claim that has no verifiable evidence, and tell me how you would refute it.
Here, I'll give you one: I claim that Australia isn't real: It's a mapmaker's joke from 1606. There you go, use SCIENCE - -the scientific method, and ONLY the scientific method -- to show me how to refute that. Be sure that your experiment includes plenty of controls.

I've even made it easier for you: I've given you something very physical to test. Off you go...
Yeah, right after you prove to me that the USA is real :roll: :roll: :roll: .
Ever wonder why no-one writes peer reviewed scientific papers on the existence of God?
Because any competent scientist will say, "This is not something that our field addresses, and therefore we cannot review it."
He might also say that the existence of gods, fairies, gremlins and other supernatural "things" aren't falsifiable and therefore the question of their existence is meaningless.
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
Chapabel
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:27 pm
Location: Tennessee

Re: Be ready always to give ... a reason of the hope that is in you...

Post by Chapabel » Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:48 pm

Og, I greatly appreciate the time and effort that went into you sharing your personal story with us. I do have a question for you concerning your salvation. We’re you saved when you were a child and you later rededicated your life on the ship, or are you calling your rededication the time you were born again?

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: Be ready always to give ... a reason of the hope that is in you...

Post by Og3 » Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:11 am

Chapabel wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:48 pm
Og, I greatly appreciate the time and effort that went into you sharing your personal story with us. I do have a question for you concerning your salvation. We’re you saved when you were a child and you later rededicated your life on the ship, or are you calling your rededication the time you were born again?
I believe that I was saved as a child -- I did whole-heartedly believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead, after dying for my sins; that He had been buried; and was seen by many; and that He shall return on the last day to judge the quick and the dead.

I would say that the rededication was a maturing of my faith. In that time of doubt and investigation, God led me to fully understand my faith, and to see it not as "Something I was taught and thus believe" but "Something I fully believe on its own merits." At the time it seemed to me like the Green Lady of Perelandra, who had always been drawn along in the current, but then was "made older" by Maleldil.

I would now compare it to Joshua having his own experiences with God after Moses passed; or Isaac after Abraham (and Eleazar of Damascus coming to believe on his own, rather than in "Abraham's God"); or Jacob, or Joseph. There is a point where the faith we were taught either does or does not become our own. For my faith to become my own required doubt, sincere questions, a search for unvarnished truth, and a logical conclusion.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: Be ready always to give ... a reason of the hope that is in you...

Post by Og3 » Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:14 am

SEG wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:13 pm
Og3 wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:42 pm
The existence of the Christian God is certainly falsifiable, and I have told you how. The Apostle Paul told you how in 1 Cor. 15, nearly 2000 years ago. Show that Jesus did not rise from the dead. There's your falsification.
You are throwing me a red herring. My point was how can you falsify an undetectable God? What is a God anyway? It is your claim that it is possible to raise somebody from the dead after 3 days. Prove it.
No, SEG. It is my claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE by any natural means for a person to raise from the dead on the third day. And that it happened anyway.
What was my evidence? My evidence was philosophical, because science could not address the question.
Or a more honest answer would be there is no scientific evidence or even a definition of what such a god (if it exists) consists of.
Evidence is neither scientific nor unscientific.
It is scientific when this definition is applied:
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.
Try living a day in your life ignoring scientific evidence.
What makes you think that life has a purpose?
Well, if it doesn't, then you and I are having a remarkably pointless discussion, aren't we?
Another red herring
Answer the question please.
I did, in a subsequent post.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1863
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Be ready always to give ... a reason of the hope that is in you...

Post by SEG » Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:55 am

Og3 wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:42 pm
The existence of the Christian God is certainly falsifiable, and I have told you how. The Apostle Paul told you how in 1 Cor. 15, nearly 2000 years ago. Show that Jesus did not rise from the dead. There's your falsification.
SEG wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:13 pm
You are throwing me a red herring. My point was how can you falsify an undetectable God? What is a God anyway? It is your claim that it is possible to raise somebody from the dead after 3 days. Prove it.
Og3 wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:14 am
No, SEG. It is my claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE by any natural means for a person to raise from the dead on the third day. And that it happened anyway.
I think that you are confused over the term "falsifiable" From Wiki:
A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability (or is falsifiable) if it is contradicted by a basic statement, which, in an eventual successful or failed falsification, must respectively correspond to a true or hypothetical observation.[1][2] For example, the claim "all swans are white and have always been white" is falsifiable since it is contradicted by this basic statement: "In 1697, during the Dutch explorer Willem de Vlamingh expedition, there were black swans on the shore of the Swan River in Australia", which in this case is a true observation.[3][4] The concept is also known by the terms refutable and refutability.
A claim is falsifiable if evidence can be presented that can disprove it (Karl Popper argued that this was a necessary condition for a claim to be scientific).

So when you said, "The existence of the Christian God is certainly falsifiable" that means that it could be shown that firstly:
The Christian God in father mode is falsifiable and secondly;

1. Jesus was both man and god at the same time
2. Jesus was dead.
3. Jesus rose from the dead after three days.
How would you do that if Jesus was both a man and an indestructible spirit at the same time?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

User avatar
SEG
Posts: 1863
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Be ready always to give ... a reason of the hope that is in you...

Post by SEG » Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:59 am

Og3 wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:11 am
I believe that I was saved as a child -- I did whole-heartedly believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead, after dying for my sins; that He had been buried; and was seen by many; and that He shall return on the last day to judge the quick and the dead.
Really? At what age did you discover all that?
Premise One: If a compassionate God exists, then he would do things just as a compassionate person would.
Premise Two: God doesn't do things as a compassionate person would.
Conclusion: Therefore, a compassionate God does not exist.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: Be ready always to give ... a reason of the hope that is in you...

Post by Og3 » Mon Apr 22, 2019 5:26 am

Science only tells us of natural law; it cannot tell us of times when natural law is suspended supernaturally.
Correct, because the last bit is not falsifiable and a meaningless statement.
It is falsifiable; see my discussion above of feldspar and sourdough. If it can be repeated, and a mechanism found for it, then it merely requires an update to physical laws, and the alleged miracle is falsified as a pure miracle.
Huh? What do you mean by that?
We update physical laws by repeating previously unknown phenomenon. If we can always turn feldspar into sourdough by process X, then we amend our natural laws to include this phenomenon. In that case, turning feldspar into sourdough would not be a miracle. It would be science(2). Because it is repeatable.

If we know that X happened ONCE, and we know the process by which it occurred -- I.E., there is no fraud -- but that process is NOT repeatable, then it is a miracle. A pure miracle.

BUT if it is REPEATABLE, then it is NOT a pure miracle. It is science.

Do you get it now?
Yes, not entirely, but it does refute silly claims with no verifiable evidence.
Really? Name a silly claim that has no verifiable evidence, and tell me how you would refute it.

Here, I'll give you one: I claim that Australia isn't real: It's a mapmaker's joke from 1606. There you go, use SCIENCE - -the scientific method, and ONLY the scientific method -- to show me how to refute that. Be sure that your experiment includes plenty of controls.

I've even made it easier for you: I've given you something very physical to test. Off you go...
Yeah, right after you prove to me that the USA is real :roll: :roll: :roll: .
I'm not the one who said that science refutes silly claims with no evidence. You made the statement, you back it up. Refute my silly claim USING SCIENCE.

Ohh, I get it. You were bluffing. You should have just said so.
Ever wonder why no-one writes peer reviewed scientific papers on the existence of God?
Because any competent scientist will say, "This is not something that our field addresses, and therefore we cannot review it."
He might also say that the existence of gods, fairies, gremlins and other supernatural "things" aren't falsifiable and therefore the question of their existence is meaningless.

A person speaking thus is not speaking as a scientist.
Last edited by Og3 on Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Og3
Posts: 965
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 6:41 am

Re: Be ready always to give ... a reason of the hope that is in you...

Post by Og3 » Mon Apr 22, 2019 5:47 am

SEG wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:55 am
Og3 wrote:
Sat Apr 20, 2019 7:42 pm
The existence of the Christian God is certainly falsifiable, and I have told you how. The Apostle Paul told you how in 1 Cor. 15, nearly 2000 years ago. Show that Jesus did not rise from the dead. There's your falsification.
SEG wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:13 pm
You are throwing me a red herring. My point was how can you falsify an undetectable God? What is a God anyway? It is your claim that it is possible to raise somebody from the dead after 3 days. Prove it.
Og3 wrote:
Mon Apr 22, 2019 1:14 am
No, SEG. It is my claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE by any natural means for a person to raise from the dead on the third day. And that it happened anyway.
I think that you are confused over the term "falsifiable" From Wiki:
A statement, hypothesis, or theory has falsifiability (or is falsifiable) if it is contradicted by a basic statement, which, in an eventual successful or failed falsification, must respectively correspond to a true or hypothetical observation.[1][2] For example, the claim "all swans are white and have always been white" is falsifiable since it is contradicted by this basic statement: "In 1697, during the Dutch explorer Willem de Vlamingh expedition, there were black swans on the shore of the Swan River in Australia", which in this case is a true observation.[3][4] The concept is also known by the terms refutable and refutability.
A claim is falsifiable if evidence can be presented that can disprove it (Karl Popper argued that this was a necessary condition for a claim to be scientific).

So when you said, "The existence of the Christian God is certainly falsifiable" that means that it could be shown that firstly:
The Christian God in father mode is falsifiable and secondly;

1. Jesus was both man and god at the same time
2. Jesus was dead.
3. Jesus rose from the dead after three days.
How would you do that if Jesus was both a man and an indestructible spirit at the same time?
Correct: The example given, a SAP (strong affirmo) that "All swans are white" is contradicted when a true premise in the form SOP (weak nego) that "Some swans are not white" is demonstrated.

So yes, the SOP (a contradictory to SAP) that "Some swans are not-white [i.e. black]" falsifies the premise that "All swans are white." This is basic contradiction. Salmon should have covered this for you by now.

The Christian God, in the same manner, can be falsified by demonstrating that one or more of His given attributes is not true, again, using a counter-example (like, "Here's a black swan, so your theory that all swans are white is rubbish").

The Christian God is described as being one of his kind. To falsify this, show that there exist TWO or more gods, or else ZERO gods. Either proof will falsify the Christian God. Again, a counter-example disproves a categorical.

P: No non-YHWH gods exist (Strong Nego, SEP, categorical claim)
-P: A non-YHWH god exists (weak affirmo, SOP, counter example). Boom, instant falsification.

1. To falsify: Some humans (exactly one, Jesus) are both God and man (Weak Affirmo, SOP)
Use contradictory "No humans are both God and man" (Strong Nego, SEP)

Method: Examine every human and verify that he or she is not also God.

2. To falsify: Jesus was dead, restate as "All first century humans are dead" (SAP)
Use contradictory "Some first century humans are not dead" (SOP)

Method: Historically trace all humans who lived during the first century and determine when and where they died.

3. To falsify: Jesus rose from the dead on the third day ("some (exactly one, Jesus) humans rose from the dead on the third day")(SOP):
Use contradictory "No humans rose from the dead on the third day"

Method: Historically document the locations of the tombs of everyone who has ever lived, and demonstrate that said bones are still present.

(I never said that it would be easy).
EGO TE ABSOLVO, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Post Reply