by jimwalton » Thu Jul 06, 2017 3:57 pm
> If you can’t provide evidence, then why should I just blindly believe you have it?
You shouldn't. Evidence matters.
> You thinking you have evidence != you having evidence.
I agree. "Thinking it" doesn't make it so. Agreed.
> Time is an observable and objectively verifiable phenomena.
I disagree. Time is immaterial and an unobservable and non-verifiable dimension. We create markers to measure time, but they are subjective. We choose to measure time by the sun; the ancients usually marked it by the moon, but as we know (leap days, leap years, adjustments) it's not objective—it keeps changing; we have to keep tweaking our subjective measures. And then what about space travel—how is time measured away from the sun? "Stardate 4790"?
> Memories, dreams, pain, and perception are all biological processes that we are learning a lot about through science.
They are immaterial, immeasurable, unobservable, and non-objective. How is that science? (According to your definition, "Nothing objective and tangible in the universe is beyond the process of science.") These realities are neither objective nor tangible.
> If there a people who murder for fun, and have no problem exterminating races of people, of course there has been at least some who are okay killing babies! Infanticide is a known occurrence throughout history.
Of course infanticide is known throughout history, but not for fun. It's often for cultic sacrifice, and sometimes in conquest, but never for fun. "For fun" is always wrong everywhere all the time. Objective.
> Next you say basically, “I’m not going to give all my arguments because I don’t want them to be refuted.” I don’t have to point out why that is ridiculous.
Please don't be so judgmental. To lay out all 12 arguments (1) is a veritable WALL of text that no one wants to deal with; (2) it's impossible to respond adequately to all 12, so (a) responses have to be short and therefore inadequate, and (b) the discussion starts going all over the map trying to keep 12 plates spinning. So it's not ridiculous; I was actually trying to be both thoughtful and focused.
> All it does is prove that the universe cannot have existed forever.
I'm glad you're familiar with Kalam's argument. Then you should realize that the universe having a beginning is NOT its point; what it seeks to prove is that the universe had a CAUSE.
> Sure, a God is possible. But that is just one explanation.
And this was my only point. The evidence not only can lead us to God, but I consider that God is the strongest and most reasonable candidate for the explanation. The point behind that, whether or not you agree, is that my faith is based on evidence that came before it. The evidence: the universe had a beginning. The conclusion: God is a reasonable explanation for such beginning. The consequence: I form my faith around the evidence and the logic.
> Another possibility is that there is a higher dimension with completely different physics and science that our universe exists within.
Obviously this is complete speculative with no evidence to support it.
> A quantum event there could perhaps have triggered the Big Bang. ... death of a universe ... hyper-advanced civilization...
Again, unknown and completely speculative.
So again we are left with a mental debate: was the causative mechanism a higher unknown science, or was it metaphysical? There are other evidences for God (as yet undiscussed between the two of us), but there are no evidences for these speculative sciences which you hope will fill a gap. If we are just dreaming up possibilities, our options are endless. If we are looking at realistic evidence, the possibilities are far fewer. Since metaphysical realities exist, the metaphysical avenue is logically a more reasonable pursuit at the present than wild speculations.
> So even if the guess that there is a god turns out to be true (which it may), then how do you know that it is in any way similar to what any religion on earth has predicted?
This is a completely different question, one for which we barely have room here. But if there is such a God, then we could most likely only know about him if he chooses to reveal himself to us. Then we have to interpret that revelation and discern the truth, but it most likely wouldn't be a scientific pursuit to discern divine revelation.
> And if it is what a religion on Earth has predicted, then how do you know your religion is correct? You can’t.
Don't jump to inappropriate conclusions. If God truly exists, and has truly revealed himself, then truth matters and would logically be part of the equation: That God has revealed himself as he is, and that the truth about him is achievable. Otherwise his revelation is fairly void. If he's going to bother to reveal himself, he needs to bother to make the truth about himself knowable.
> It is this simple: you believe something is without a doubt real when there is no evidence to support the specific existence of that thing, let alone your personal interpretation of it.
Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions. I just gave you one evidence that was a foundation for my faith. As I said, there are 11 more. While 1 doesn't make a case, all 12 (or so) create a formidable wall of probability.
So let's go to the next one. This is one is mildly based in scientific observation (that something caused what we see), and is a second piece of the puzzle after the cosmological evidence that could, by your admission, lead us rationally to a theistic conclusion. It's an ontological argument that comes from Dr. Alvin Plantinga, who argues that God is a necessary being.
1. If God (a supreme, supernatural divine being) does not exist, his existence is logically impossible. That doesn’t mean he can't be made up in someone's imagination (which is still possible even if he doesn't exist); what it means is that if God doesn't really exist, the very concept of God is inconsistent or self-contradictory with truth and reality. His existence doesn't even make sense.
2. But if God does exist, then it's necessary that He does. It cannot be otherwise if He is truly God and if He truly exists.
3. Therefore (first conclusion), God's existence is either impossible (inconsistent and self-contradictory) or necessary. There's no halfway position.
4. If God's existence is logically impossible, then even the concept of God and everything we think about him is contradictory. We are trying to make a reality what is not only nonsensical, but impossible.
5. But the concept of God is not contradictory. There's actually good sense to it in many ways, for example, that something caused what we see. While some may not agree, it's assuredly not contradictory.
6. Therefore (second conclusion), if God's existence isn't contradictory (if that choice is removed from the equation), then the only reasonable choice left is that God is logically necessary.
God is either impossible or necessary. Since He's not impossible, then He must be necessary, and therefore He exists.
> If you can’t provide evidence, then why should I just blindly believe you have it?
You shouldn't. Evidence matters.
> You thinking you have evidence != you having evidence.
I agree. "Thinking it" doesn't make it so. Agreed.
> Time is an observable and objectively verifiable phenomena.
I disagree. Time is immaterial and an unobservable and non-verifiable dimension. We create markers to measure time, but they are subjective. We choose to measure time by the sun; the ancients usually marked it by the moon, but as we know (leap days, leap years, adjustments) it's not objective—it keeps changing; we have to keep tweaking our subjective measures. And then what about space travel—how is time measured away from the sun? "Stardate 4790"?
> Memories, dreams, pain, and perception are all biological processes that we are learning a lot about through science.
They are immaterial, immeasurable, unobservable, and non-objective. How is that science? (According to your definition, "Nothing objective and tangible in the universe is beyond the process of science.") These realities are neither objective nor tangible.
> If there a people who murder for fun, and have no problem exterminating races of people, of course there has been at least some who are okay killing babies! Infanticide is a known occurrence throughout history.
Of course infanticide is known throughout history, but not for fun. It's often for cultic sacrifice, and sometimes in conquest, but never for fun. "For fun" is always wrong everywhere all the time. Objective.
> Next you say basically, “I’m not going to give all my arguments because I don’t want them to be refuted.” I don’t have to point out why that is ridiculous.
Please don't be so judgmental. To lay out all 12 arguments (1) is a veritable WALL of text that no one wants to deal with; (2) it's impossible to respond adequately to all 12, so (a) responses have to be short and therefore inadequate, and (b) the discussion starts going all over the map trying to keep 12 plates spinning. So it's not ridiculous; I was actually trying to be both thoughtful and focused.
> All it does is prove that the universe cannot have existed forever.
I'm glad you're familiar with Kalam's argument. Then you should realize that the universe having a beginning is NOT its point; what it seeks to prove is that the universe had a CAUSE.
> Sure, a God is possible. But that is just one explanation.
And this was my only point. The evidence not only can lead us to God, but I consider that God is the strongest and most reasonable candidate for the explanation. The point behind that, whether or not you agree, is that my faith is based on evidence that came before it. The evidence: the universe had a beginning. The conclusion: God is a reasonable explanation for such beginning. The consequence: I form my faith around the evidence and the logic.
> Another possibility is that there is a higher dimension with completely different physics and science that our universe exists within.
Obviously this is complete speculative with no evidence to support it.
> A quantum event there could perhaps have triggered the Big Bang. ... death of a universe ... hyper-advanced civilization...
Again, unknown and completely speculative.
So again we are left with a mental debate: was the causative mechanism a higher unknown science, or was it metaphysical? There are other evidences for God (as yet undiscussed between the two of us), but there are no evidences for these speculative sciences which you hope will fill a gap. If we are just dreaming up possibilities, our options are endless. If we are looking at realistic evidence, the possibilities are far fewer. Since metaphysical realities exist, the metaphysical avenue is logically a more reasonable pursuit at the present than wild speculations.
> So even if the guess that there is a god turns out to be true (which it may), then how do you know that it is in any way similar to what any religion on earth has predicted?
This is a completely different question, one for which we barely have room here. But if there is such a God, then we could most likely only know about him if he chooses to reveal himself to us. Then we have to interpret that revelation and discern the truth, but it most likely wouldn't be a scientific pursuit to discern divine revelation.
> And if it is what a religion on Earth has predicted, then how do you know your religion is correct? You can’t.
Don't jump to inappropriate conclusions. If God truly exists, and has truly revealed himself, then truth matters and would logically be part of the equation: That God has revealed himself as he is, and that the truth about him is achievable. Otherwise his revelation is fairly void. If he's going to bother to reveal himself, he needs to bother to make the truth about himself knowable.
> It is this simple: you believe something is without a doubt real when there is no evidence to support the specific existence of that thing, let alone your personal interpretation of it.
Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions. I just gave you one evidence that was a foundation for my faith. As I said, there are 11 more. While 1 doesn't make a case, all 12 (or so) create a formidable wall of probability.
So let's go to the next one. This is one is mildly based in scientific observation (that something caused what we see), and is a second piece of the puzzle after the cosmological evidence that could, by your admission, lead us rationally to a theistic conclusion. It's an ontological argument that comes from Dr. Alvin Plantinga, who argues that God is a necessary being.
1. If God (a supreme, supernatural divine being) does not exist, his existence is logically impossible. That doesn’t mean he can't be made up in someone's imagination (which is still possible even if he doesn't exist); what it means is that if God doesn't really exist, the very concept of God is inconsistent or self-contradictory with truth and reality. His existence doesn't even make sense.
2. But if God does exist, then it's necessary that He does. It cannot be otherwise if He is truly God and if He truly exists.
3. Therefore (first conclusion), God's existence is either impossible (inconsistent and self-contradictory) or necessary. There's no halfway position.
4. If God's existence is logically impossible, then even the concept of God and everything we think about him is contradictory. We are trying to make a reality what is not only nonsensical, but impossible.
5. But the concept of God is not contradictory. There's actually good sense to it in many ways, for example, that something caused what we see. While some may not agree, it's assuredly not contradictory.
6. Therefore (second conclusion), if God's existence isn't contradictory (if that choice is removed from the equation), then the only reasonable choice left is that God is logically necessary.
God is either impossible or necessary. Since He's not impossible, then He must be necessary, and therefore He exists.