Ep. 88: Objective meaning, value, and purpose

[tonyenglish7]

Marcuspnw,

Are you being fair? I don't believe Mitch is condemning you for preaching THE gospel but rather that you have been preaching YOUR gospel. His contention, I think, is that these are not the same. If your conversation focused on the Christian gospel of the healthy and loving potential relationship that can exist between human beings and God as children and Father via Christ Jesus rather than the idols that we humans so often like to portray as God to satisfy our own desires, then I don't think he would be challenging you. Or at least, you'd be able to see where the sticking points are between the two of you. But he hasn't given up on you so relax, Tony, and try to see it from his perspective. I wouldn't blame you if you felt overwhelmed at times as you attract a wide variety of comments from a number of forum participants.

Yes, I don't feel overwhelmed with Atheists, because they are in general very adept and stating their views and defending them with some coherence. Mitch is frustrating because he claims to be a Christian, yet he doesn't believe the things that Christians believe and then goes on to condemn anyone who is judgmental in his own eyes. Self refuting....

The Christian viewpoint, taught in the bible and believed for centuries is that man is sinful, fallen and apart from God, doomed to death with a fair judgment for individual transgressions. But that God loves people and wants to fix the relationship. However, because God is perfectly perfect, this fairness and this love is a logical and real predicament. So, Jesus, as God, condescended to suffer and die, never having sinned and taking on the judgment upon his innocent self, proving his love and making a righteous way to enter into the perfect relationship with God through trust in his work.

The old testament was a shadow of things to come in reality, the blood on the doorpost, the lifting up of the staff in the wilderness, the judgment of the nations by the hand of God through the Jews. The remnant will be saved by faith in Jesus. But only those that desire to be close to God will see this deal God is making and run to it. Those that want independence will stay independent.
Most will die in their sins and some will trust the work and person of Jesus. There is a coming judgment where the meek and mild Jesus will judge the sins of the persons and nations and give grace to all who trusted in Him and were not ashamed of his name.

The liberal church has a gospel that is referred to in the bible as false. It is the gospel that men, deep down are good and all we need is for men to get together to make heaven on earth and if enough people come together with "tolerance" (defined as agreeing that nobody is wrong except those who claim to be right), we will sing kumbya and we will usher in a perfect society. This is not biblical and is what is meant by the false teachers in the later days. We Christians are a preserving component to society keeping the world from early judgment and a force for ethics and morals, but that is different than the latter day liberal so called Christians who distort the word of God to their own destruction.

There is an eternal transformation that occurs when someone "sees the light", and encounters God through Jesus. This is the message of the gospel, the reference to this in the verses that I gave him. Now, of course this could all be wrong, but it is Christianity, it is what is taught in the bible and is what the church believes. Mitch is preaching some other world view so as an ambassador for Jesus I am just pointing that out so as to keep others from thinking it is Christian. I would like to see you and Mitch and all who read this to change their mind and come to God through Jesus, but that is not up to me, that is up to God. My job is to preach the gospel and to give a reason for the hope that is within me. I have been patient, gentle and respectful given the personal attacks and given the definition from tradition. (An argument is not an attack on a person as is sometimes interpreted here).

If or anyone wants to call it "My" gospel, than I accept that. But it is the same gospel of Paul, Jesus, Peter, and the church for thousands of years.... If mitch has some new, private, special revelation, that is his gospel, good luck with that....

[tonyenglish7]

Humanguy,

"Every man either knows he is guilty or he has convinced himself there is no need for salvation." Guilty of what, being born, being alive, being a human? What? Guilty of what, Tony, what?

Maybe you should start by telling us what terrible thing it is that you're guilty of. Why is it that religion insists on trying to make people feel so lousy?

And why in the Sam Hill should any healthy happy well-adjusted person go around thinking that he needs "salvation?" Why?

Can't you see how crazy all this seems?

Have you never done anything wrong? Plus, it seems to me that you almost died a few weeks ago, so, at least salvation from death... no interest?

[humanguy]

Humanguy,

"Every man either knows he is guilty or he has convinced himself there is no need for salvation." Guilty of what, being born, being alive, being a human? What? Guilty of what, Tony, what?

Maybe you should start by telling us what terrible thing it is that you're guilty of. Why is it that religion insists on trying to make people feel so lousy?

And why in the Sam Hill should any healthy happy well-adjusted person go around thinking that he needs "salvation?" Why?

Can't you see how crazy all this seems?

Have you never done anything wrong? Plus, it seems to me that you almost died a few weeks ago, so, at least salvation from death... no interest?

Sure, I've done some wrong in my life. It would be most unhealthy to spend the rest of my life feeling guilty about it, though. In fact it would be plain nuts to do so.

And a few weeks ago "salvation from death" in my case came in the form of powerful antibiotics.

And once again you come back with a response cribbed straight from the Puritan's Handbook, indicating that you have given absolutely no thought to the questions.

[tonyenglish7]

Humanguy,,

Sure, I've done some wrong in my life. It would be most unhealthy to spend the rest of my life feeling guilty about it, though. In fact it would be plain nuts to do so.

Your right, feeling guilty will not take away your transgressions against God.

And a few weeks ago "salvation from death" in my case came in the form of powerful antibiotics.

Yea, for now,,,, death is on its way...

And once again you come back with a response cribbed straight from the Puritan's Handbook, indicating that you have given absolutely no thought to the questions

This is a non-sequitur in thought.. First, the Puritans along with all Christians believed in the Gospel so if it was in their handbook, that is why. Second, this is the genetic fallacy, just because someone you disagree with believes something, doesn't make it an error. You would need to show it is an error apart from pointing to who believes it. And finally, the amount of thought is not connected to the fact that others believe what I believe. So, are you saying you have put more thought into atheism therefore atheism is true based upon the amount of thought you have put into it?

[mitchellmckain]

You claim to have a personal spiritual view point that seems to be a revelation of some kind that gives you a perspective that nobody else shares or at least nobody that you know because I asked you to list 5 people and you could not.

I claim nothing except that I read the Bible for myself rather than have other people tell me what it says. I find it astounding that you do not do this for yourself. But considering how you find everything that people say from a different point of view incomprehensible, I guess it should not be surprising that you cannot understand the Bible either without other people telling you what it says first.

Sometimes I wonder if people like you really believe in God or just believe in your group of people that tell you what to think and to say because of this way that they act like God cannot speak for himself. You seem to react with incredulity to the idea that anyone could read what God wrote and understand what He says without the help of some 5 people! You want to call it a revelation!?! How peculiar! I would not. I believe in a living God that can answer prayers and speak to people anytime He wants and I would not call that revelation. Revelation is a word I would only use for a message that God gives to be shared with the world. I don't even see myself as having a message to share with the world let alone a message from God other than just the Bible itself.

I am coming from the perspective of the historical church

I don't believe that you are. I think you represent only a new cult of gnostic legalism that has cut Christianity down to something smaller and more convenient to a self-righteous bunch of creationists and radical conservatives. You may have let go of the creationist insanity to some degree but you still stick with the gnostic legalism.

The HISTORICAL defintion and largest consensus on the meaning of "Christianity" is found in the Nicean creed and by that definition I am Christian. Anyone who tries to cut Christianity down to some smaller more exclusive definition is one making a heretical cult of their own which unlike you is something that I certainly do not do.

Not that this is the sign of truth

No the herd you rely on most certainly is not a sign of truth any more than the numbers of nazis or communists made the insanity that they put forword any kind of truth.

Without attacking another person, for the love of God, please, just state your view in a positive way using logic, scripture or something other than your own authority.

NO!

I reject arguments from authority used by the Mormons as I reject the arguments made from authority by the Catholics and everyone else. I do not believe that things are true simply because some authority says so. As you know I reject your divine relativism argument that things are only true because God says so. That just isn't what makes something true. Yes I believe that the Bible has some authority with regards Christianity and yes I believe that God has some authority with regards to spiriituality and yes I believe that scientists have some authority with regards to how the universe works. But that just means that they have some expertise and knowlege about these things not that what they say is true just because they say it. Things are true for a reason and it is the reasons that make them true not the authority of the person who says it. The truth speaks for itself and if the Bible true then I expect it show that truth to the reader like every other book on the planet.

[humanguy]

Humanguy,,

Sure, I've done some wrong in my life. It would be most unhealthy to spend the rest of my life feeling guilty about it, though. In fact it would be plain nuts to do so.

Your right, feeling guilty will not take away your transgressions against God.

And a few weeks ago "salvation from death" in my case came in the form of powerful antibiotics.

Yea, for now,,,, death is on its way...

And once again you come back with a response cribbed straight from the Puritan's Handbook, indicating that you have given absolutely no thought to the questions

This is a non-sequitur in thought.. First, the Puritans along with all Christians believed in the Gospel so if it was in their handbook, that is why. Second, this is the genetic fallacy, just because someone you disagree with believes something, doesn't make it an error. You would need to show it is an error apart from pointing to who believes it. And finally, the amount of thought is not connected to the fact that others believe what I believe. So, are you saying you have put more thought into atheism therefore atheism is true based upon the amount of thought you have put into it?

[tonyenglish7]

Mitch,

I reject arguments from authority used by the Mormons as I reject the arguments made from authority by the Catholics and everyone else. I do not believe that things are true simply because some authority says so. As you know I reject your divine relativism argument that things are only true because God says so. That just isn't what makes something true. Yes I believe that the Bible has some authority with regards Christianity and yes I believe that God has some authority with regards to spiriituality (sp?) and yes I believe that scientists have some authority with regards to how the universe works. But that just means that they have some expertise and knowlege (sp?) about these things not that what they say is true just because they say it. Things are true for a reason and it is the reasons that make them true not the authority of the person who says it. The truth speaks for itself and if the Bible true then I expect it show that truth to the reader like every other book on the planet.

I am going to point out your many spelling mistakes since you gave me a hard time for spelling track as tract. I have been ignoring these for months but I found it irksome that you would tease me about that... OK just this once I will do it, it is too hard to be spell checking all your mistakes when I can barely keep up with your logical mistakes... (:-0)

OK, I am going to ignore yourself refuting attacks from now on. Feel free to tell me I am judgmental and that I am a Pharisee and all of that, it is ok.... I am glad the bible has some authority for you...and God has some authority....and science has some authority... I think we are using the word authority differently. I agree that the Mormons are a cult and their idea of authority is corrupt and even the Catholics have it wrong. But it is essential that we look to a grounding for truth otherwise everything and everyone does what is right in their own eyes. There are two authorities sources for truth from God, one is his Creation, Psalms 19 /Romans 1-2. And there is the special revelation, the scriptures which Jesus pointed to as authoritative.

A Mormon is freely deciding to ignore these sources and turns it over to the Church as does the Catholic to the Pope. But each person is responsible for their decision on truth, whether it be item by item or whether they turn that over to someone else, that decision is their responsibility and they cannot escape it. You seem to say you in your subjective perspective hold the truth you want and care about without regard to any outside objective standard to arbitrate those issues. God just tells you directly what is true. OK, make sure you are right about that... maybe this is why you seem to state that everything is subjective and therefore true for the person who holds it and so we all are free from being wrong, (Except me who is always wrong of course).

Christians are instructed to check to see if what they feel is true via the word of God and/or the universe of reality. It is called wisdom. Of course I have a direct relationship with God but it is easy to get caught in subjective feelings of truth instead of being able to verify those with something that carries authority. The word of God and/or his creation. His Holy Spirit guides me as I check out the sources of truth and verify or deny whatever the issue is using these standards.

[tonyenglish7]

Humanguy,

I have to admit, I like you Humanguy (Jay) you are funny...

[mitchellmckain]

OK, I am going to ignore your...

As I will ignore your meaningless diversions.

But it is essential that we look to a grounding for truth

Indeed and the only grounding is found in the reasons why things are true. It is this "because the Bible says so" or "because God says so" stuff that leaves claims completely groundless.

otherwise everything and everyone does what is right in their own eyes.

This is much much better than doing what is wrong in your own eyes because someone tells you that God said you should. You certainly lend credibility to Weinberg's claim that to make good people do bad things takes religion.

There are two authorities sources for truth from God, one is his Creation, Psalms 19 /Romans 1-2. And there is the special revelation, the scriptures which Jesus pointed to as authoritative.

I quite agree that these are two authorities for truth from God that any Christian should recognize. The authority of scripture was indeed invested by Jesus Himself and the cannon that defines the scriptures is part of the definiton of Christianity.

A Mormon is freely deciding to ignore these sources and turns it over to the Church as does the Catholic to the Pope.

I would not say that they are ignoring these sources but that they are adding another, and frankly it seems to me that you do the same thing but try to hide it. You are in fact much like the Catholics saying that it is not just the Bible alone but also a tradition that tells you how the Bible must be understood, and it is that authority that I completely reject as it was rejected by Protestants in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. I embrace these ideas and many others in evangelical Protestant Christianity but lacking the blinders of those raised in that group I reject the inconsistencies I see in their application.

But each person is responsible for their decision on truth, whether it be item by item or whether they turn that over to someone else, that decision is their responsibility and they cannot escape it.

Correct.

You seem to say you in your subjective perspective hold the truth you want and care about without regard to any outside objective standard to arbitrate those issues.

I don't buy into your rhetoric of "objective standards" by which you seek to force your understanding on others, give yourself authority and pretend to speak for God. The understanding of every finite being is subjective and the only thing in which I see any authentic applicability of the word "objective" is in the scientific method.

God just tells you directly what is true.

Yes God speaks for Himself and He speaks in the scriptures which you can read for yourself to see what He says and no you don't need any special interpreters to tell you what it says before you read it.

(Except me who is always wrong of course).

No Tony, you are not always wrong, which is why I have come to your defense occasionally, and even if it seems you are unable to comprehend the defense that I offer, others can, because Tony as difficult as it may be for you to accept it, the fact is that some people think differently than you do, and your one size fits all approach just will not work for everyone.

[NH Baritone]

(Except me who is always wrong of course).

No Tony, you are not always wrong.

Come now, Mitch. I wouldn't rush to that judgment. Consider it slowly, and remember, a correlation coefficient that approaches 1 is usually rounded up.

[tonyenglish7]

MItch,

I don't buy into your rhetoric of "objective standards" by which you seek to force your understanding on others, give yourself authority and pretend to speak for God. The understanding of every finite being is subjective and the only thing in which I see any authentic applicability of the word "objective" is in the scientific method.

Is that objectively true? If not, keep it to yourself, if so, you break your own rule because it cannot be shown true via the scientific method.

[mitchellmckain]

I don't buy into your rhetoric of "objective standards" by which you seek to force your understanding on others, give yourself authority and pretend to speak for God. The understanding of every finite being is subjective and the only thing in which I see any authentic applicability of the word "objective" is in the scientific method.

Is that objectively true?

Sorry but your standard rhetoric does not work here. Statements about what I want and what I believe and what I percieve are true because I say that they are true. They are statements about a subjective reality. I refute the effort to equate authentic reality with objective reality. It is an argument that I have all the time with the atheists/naturalists who try to restrict reality to the scientific worldview. Reality has an irreducibly subjective aspect to it because we are a part of reality.

The only statement above which is not about what I want, believe or percieve is: "the understanding of every finite being is subjective". However, it is a statement about this irreducibly subjective aspect of reality itself. It has the universal character of a truth about the experience of everyone, but but being about their subjective experience it is not something that is enforced by the mathematical laws of physics. I think it is a necessary truth like the laws of logic, but like the laws of logic if one refuses to accept them they need not rule ones personal experience/thinking for one can insist on being irrational.

If not, keep it to yourself, if so, you break your own rule because it cannot be shown true via the scientific method.

Unlike you I AM interested in the way that people think. I welcome their subjective beliefs and perceptions, and I rejoice in the diversity of human thought. I scorn the delusions of those that like pretend that their way of thinking is reality itself and have contempt their efforts to suppress the diversity of human thought, culture and lifestyles. BUT... you can keep your imperious commands to yourself, because THOSE I am NOT interested in.

[Exrev]

Mitch, Scomsjw, Exrev,

To say that the universe is fine tuned only means that it has the right conditions (including the values physical constants) with little room for error so that life as we know it can exist. But being a physicist I know there simply is no tangible way of back up any probabilistic claims. We don't have any theoretical foundation for making such a calculation let alone a population for verifying its accuracy.

I think you misunderstand what I mean by "Fine Tuned". I am not claiming that fine tuned means designed. I am only pointing out the FACT that the universe could have been different with very slight alterations in the laws of nature, any one of which, would cause a non-life supporting universe. Life defined as an organism who uses fuel, and replicates. This is not a contraversial point, the fine tuning. It is accepted in all of science as a true statement. Not that designed caused the fine tuning, but that we have fine tuning.

Examples, Paul Davies calculated that a change in the weak force or in gravity by one part in 10 to the 100 would have prevented a life permitting universe. Hawkings calculated that during the early expansion of the universe that a change decrease in the rate of one part in one hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapes very early, before life could develop. And a similar increase would have precluded galaxies. The cosmological constant is fine tuned to one part in 10 to the 120, otherwise life would not exist. These numbers are bigger than the number of particles in the universe.

But even further, Roger Penrose calculated that the odds of the special low entropy conditions by chance is one part in 10 to the 30 to the 123, a number so big we cannot even put an analogy to it.

Another thing, we are not talking about universes with "different" laws of nature as you indicated. Of course a universe governed by different equations, (having different values of constants and quanities), there could be unknown ways for life supporting universes to exist. But that is not all the issue. And you need to really understand this one point! These other theoretical universes are irrelevant to the question at hand. We are only talking about other universes governed by the same equations yet having different values and constants. This is quite different. See, we are talking about the same laws of nature with arbitrary values or constants changed as described.

See for instance; take the law of gravity... F=Gm(1)m(2)/(r)squared. So F, the force between two objects depends not only on their masses (m), and the distance between them, but also on the certain quantity G, which is constant between the masses and doesn't change no matter what. The law itself doesn't determine G at all. This is the case with all of the other laws of nature within our universe. They have values, constants and also, boundary conditions in which they operate which adds additional fine tuning.

So, your statement about ignorance of other universes doesn't apply here. We are talking about this universe and a change of miniscule amounts to not the laws of nature but the values and the constants. This is what is incredible. Please understand this point.... !!!!!

This still doesn't prove in and of itself that design happened. We have to first look at the only other two options. Chance or necessity. Chance is quickly shown to be ridicules because the explanation that Larry Krauss gave fails, namely that there are an infinite number of universes and we should expect to find one with life since we are here to observe it. We can dig into that more if you like.

And necessity doesn't work because we can all see that the values or constants could have been different ever so slightly, yet were not.

This is strong evidence for the existence of God to anyone who is honestly seeking evidence. Finding an arrow head in the dirt, one will logically consider intelligent design. Finding fine tuning in the universe one should logically consider intelligent design as well.

Tony are you just being obtuse? Seriously your argument is just a ploy. The ontological argument falls flat. Its only evidence to people who want to pretend it is. No this is simply a laughable argument. Its like the puddle of water thinking that the hole was designed perfectly for itself to fit in. We are the way we are is exactly the results of the conditions that are found here. This idea that somehow the universe was created for us is silly, its very clear that we evolved based on the conditions of the world around us. The fact of the matter is that intelligent could have evolved differently. Now that we've found arsenic based life we now know that carbon based life isn't the only life form. Again what you call evidence is just christian presumptions of a mind that wants to hold onto tradition.

[Pseudonym]

The ontological argument falls flat. Its only evidence to people who want to pretend it is. No this is simply a laughable argument.

I think you meant "teleological argument", not "ontological argument".

BTW, I would like to see Tony's take on the anthropic principle. I'm not sure that I buy Lawrence Krauss' explanation specifically, but it does have an appealing simplicity to it. I agree with Leonard Susskind's take on it, that the anthropic principle may well be correct, but it runs the risk of becoming a thought-terminating cliche. If there is a physical reason why physical constants are what they are, then we should find out why.

[tonyenglish7]

Exrev,

Tony are you just being obtuse? Seriously your argument is just a ploy. The ontological argument falls flat. Its only evidence to people who want to pretend it is. No this is simply a laughable argument. It's like the puddle of water thinking that the hole was designed perfectly for itself to fit in. We are the way we are is exactly the results of the conditions that are found here. This idea that somehow the universe was created for us is silly, it's very clear that we evolved based on the conditions of the world around us. .

That is not much of an argument. You seem to be saying that we just happened to have developed intelligence because the world is here for us to develop. But this just exposes the fact that you don't understand the teleological argument at all. The atheist experts understand it and have had to develop bizarre metaphysical speculations to get around the fine tuning recently discovered in the universe. Read the post below as I respond to this more fully.

The fact of the matter is that intelligent could have evolved differently. Now that we've found arsenic based life we now know that carbon based life isn't the only life form. Again what you call evidence is just christian presumptions of a mind that wants to hold onto tradition

We do not have arsenic based life, we have an example where under the right conditions, arsenic can be substituted for Phosphorus and the carbon based life form will sort of survive, although handicapped significantly. This is an elegant design to survival but since Phosphorus is almost identical to arsenic, and right next door on the chemical table, it is not any sort of argument for the ease to which life could exist. Don't be fooled by the tabloid stories on this. But further, the parameters for life permitting universes used in the fine tuning arguments allow for any type of life defined by an organism that uses fuel and reproduces, so the swapping out of arsenic for phosphorus does nothing to the argument. The conditions for just the elements to exist are what we are talking about, not even the (so called mysterious) conditions for evolution to be actuated.