My old buddy a-hermit responded to the global warming thing by asking why he would be risking if he didn't believe in God. I said, since I don't believe in literal hell as eternal conscious torment, that he would be missing knowing God stuff that comes of that. Well there was an exchange about weather missing good stuff is risk. I argued a risk doesn't have to have dire consequences. Not getting a hot fudge sundae is a risk. He says:

Hermit:

I don't mind missing out on a hot fudge sundae if I'm spending the time doing Tai Chi or playing my guitar or enjoying a good craft beer instead. How do you do a "risk analysis" on that basis?

That''s not really the issue. He's trying to imply that he has other goods out of life so he doesn't need the stuff that comes with knowing God (which of course doesn't take seroiusly). My point was not that what one misses in not knowing God is not as trivial and missing a hot fudge sundae but that anything we risk is still a risk. So the wager is still risk taking analysis even if it's not risking being burned with fire for eternity.

I have an essay on Doxa: "Why I don't believe in Hell." In that I spell why I don't buy hell as eternal conscious torment. It strikes me as a childish concept that a God of love would undertake, to burn people with fire forever because they believe wrong, or even becuase they reject the good. That strikes me as not morally valid. It's so out of proportion. To back this up I studied the scriptures and come to the conclusion that it doesn't really teach eternal conscious torment. It uses eternal conscious torment as a metaphor that was meaningful in the day becuase it was a belief of the Jews, although not one in the Old Testament time, they took it from the Greeks in the interdepartmental period.

from Doxa:

specifically I believe that those who reject God and die in separation from God cease to exist. That is fair and humane since that's what they expect anyway. The atheist chooses to cease to exist but in disbelieving he expects this anyway. One must agree it is certainly more compassionate than eternal conscious torment.

The talk we find of flames and darkness is symbolic. It is symbolic of the dread of being judged and condemned, and symbolic of spiritual death. I believe the Bible teaches this and we can examine the passages and see for ourselves.

four reasons why I feel the Bible doesn't teach it, for fleshing out of these ideas read my essay linked above.

(1) hell was unknown to Hebrews of the first temple (the "Old Testament" times).

(2) Jesus only speaks of it either in parable or in symbolic or hyperbolic speech. He speaks of hell in the parable of the sheep and the goats, that's a parable. He speaks of it in the parable of Lazarus in hell but that's a parable. It's symbolic. He speaks of it where he says "if your eye offends you pluck it out." That's not a parable but since the eye plucking statement is clearly hyperbole then we can expect the conclusion "better to go into the king down with one eye than to be cast into hell whole" to also be hyperbole.

(3) the term used by Paul in statements like "the destruction of their souls" means complete and utter destruction. The word means to completely cease. It make much more sense to see that as ceasing to exist than to see it as eternal torment.


The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds. - book reviews
Commonweal, May 5, 1995 by Carl L. Bankston, III

BNET Research

Although the Christian message was, from the beginning, concerned primarily with eternal life, the theme of eternal punishment emerged from apocalyptic Judaism in the pages of the New Testament. Bernstein's reading of the New Testament, however, indicates a diversity of understandings of this punishment among the authors of the Scriptures. Saint Paul, emphasizing the positive teachings of the faith, did not express a clear vision of hell and seems to have implied that the wicked would eventually simply disappear. The authors of the synoptic Gospels, by contrast, describe pains of eternal damnation that balance the joys of eternal salvation.

Then there is no expository exposition of hell in the Bible. There's no long detailed text that says clearly and non symbolically what hell is. I really urge reader to read my essay linked above. It's four pages it covers a lot more material.

The atheists have formed their hatred of God and their hatred of self and their reactions against religion around the notion of the injustice of eternal conscious torment. They can't relate to the idea of not being physically tortured for being wrong about beliefs. They don't seem to be able to get into their heads the idea of not being tortured for wrong belief. Most of them seem to feel that the idea of hell is to scare people into bleief, when they learn I don't believe in doing that they are mystified. "How do you make people be good?"

So Hermit rightly wants to know what is the upshot of not believing if the risk is not eternal conscious torment. What is the risk? Of course where he screws up is where he can't accept my answers but keeps picking and picking and picking in hopes of showing me up with some kid of contradiction. I suppose in a childish sort of way that's understandable.

When I suggest that these are the risks:

(1) miss eternal life; die in enmity with God we cease to exist. Nothing in humane about it becuase what atheists choose anyway, they chose the belief system that has this as it's end. they could just as easily hold out hope for an after life but they feel stick with the system that doesn't have one.

(2) Miss knowing God in this life. That is the greatest thing.The studies that I talk about which show the effects of religious experience (200 studies) and the studies on the effects of participation in belief (chruch attendance--300 studies) demonstrate that the effects make for the best possible life across the board in terms of physical and mental health and a well adjusted psyche.

(3) Personal fulfillment in meaning of life: the upshot of the transformation that comes with religious experience. This always includes a sense of knowing the meaning of life and one's purpose in life. This is attested to by thousands of mystics all over the world.

Of course Hermit throughs his own little notion, his anecdotal experience at it to deny the empirical. As one guy his own personal feelings outweigh all of these empirical studies.


Hermit:

You don't know the meaning of my life, so don't presume to tell me I'm missing it, or that I'm not fulfilling my potential; in fact I think I'm doing a much better job of that now that I ever did as a believer.

I bet I have a pretty good clue. Why does he put it on a personal level? It's only anecdotal? Becuase he has no data. There is no actual counter data. This is all they can do. "Don't presume to tel me what I'm missing?" You did ask! So he totally takes the emphasis from risk taking analysis and Pascal's Wager to this little performance of personal insult and injury that atheists do so well. In between mocking and ridiculing religious people they are quite the drama queens exhibiting all kinds of personal pain over almost everything that Chrsitians say.


Of cousre he thinks he's doing better as a non believer than as a believer. Of cousre he would never allow us to call into question the nature of his former believer experience. We have to assume that he was up there with Moses as one of the strongest believers ever, but why should we? He's offering that as proof that there is no risk from not believing (and of course totally taking us off point from the original article). Hermit has the red herring tactic down to a gifted art form. It's the personal sense of insult and injury that does it. "what you believe is injuring me so deeply I'm so filled with a sense of insult that you would dare voice beliefs that are so insensitive to my world view."

what were we talking about now? something about Pascal? Can't remember because that's his purpose in being offended.

a-hermit said...

My life is not problem free, but I cope with those problems much better now.

And it's not about hating anything Joe, I don't know where you get that idea. It's about being the best person I can be, and part of that is simply being honest with myself about what I believe and don't believe. Where is the downside of that?

How am I to do a "global warming" style risk assessment when you can't even tell me what I'm risking? You haven't done anything except belittle my choices, misinterpret my motives and call me a liar. Not a very persuasive argument.

First he creates this red herring with his sens of insult, then moves the issue over into "how am I doing?" Then he claims since he is so happy he doesn't need God he doesn't need this stuff, so there's risk. What is the point here? Is it that he's not risking? is that the point I made about global warming? The point I made was that if you value global warming as a risk taking analysis then you can't dismiss Pascal's Wager the way atheists do becuase they both share the same assumptions as risk management. By reducing it to his own personal state of well being and his assurance on a person level (which he would never allow the believer to assert) he dismisses completely the original purpose and then announces that he has no use for it.

The first thing to keep in mind is that he has no sense of what this is doing at all. It has nothing to do with the original piece. Secondly, it's important to remember that he expects us to take his word for how good he's doing but it's anecdotal and he's only one guy. No way that can outweigh the mountain of empirical evidence we have that suggests something is being missed with unbelief so therefore there is a risk.

Moreover, there are two possibilities: (1) either he really does know God, he just knows God in a different way, or (2) he's lying and he's not happy, maybe his "happiness" is surface level but in that branch of the possibility we can just ignore it as anecdote. As for possibility one what is the basis for thinking he might really know God? I know from past discussion that he has an idea of love. He wants to love people, the believes in love as an all important ideal. 1 John tells u "he who loves knows God." Maybe, if we take him at his word, he does know God. He just packages his understanding in a different way becuase he rejects the religious package for God. I'm not saying that this is the case, it's a hypothetical. Everyone can't just assume they also qualify in this way. It makes more sense to seek an overt relationship with God. The studies about the effect of participation in religious belief suggest that some form of chruch going might be in order.

Remember Kierkegaard's story about the wig. (in Fear and Trembling) A man was assaulted by someone wearing a big red wig. The thug throws the wig away and it's picked up by a bum who is then arrested. In the trial the victim of assault identities the bum as the assailant. Then the real assailant get up in the audience and says "No you are wrong I assaulted you. It's the wig you regard not the man."

This is apt both in the possibility that Hermit fails to understand the true source of his felicity, and that he fails to understand the true source of mine.

Science is not the only form of knowledge

Higgs boson particle trace

must get taht extra g in there. that proves I know who he was, that proves I'm a science guy so I'm smart. only scinece makes you smart now. the computer god will be angry if I screw up on some unimportant little meaningless detail of science.


One comment before I present this exchange. Someone always has to pedantically insist that scinece isn't knowledge, "it's a method." Anything that you learn and know is knowledge. The method of scinece produces data and data is knowledge. There's no reson to go to the trouble of not saying "scinece is the only form of knowledge" and "scinece is the only method that produces knowledge as a product of its workings." It's obvious what is meant.

Science was once called "natural philosophy." Science evolute out of philosophy the fact that they diverged does not mean that philosophy ceased to be important. Just as scinece requires logic to make sense it also requires philosophy to keep it in line.

If we an prove that philosophy underlines scinece, and undermines it omniscient claims this is more than enough to prove that philosophy is valid and needed.

I have three arguments to prove that philosophy trumps scinece.

caveat: you can't use scientific precision as the limits test of utility becuase that would be circular. We can't say "nothing else is scientific like science, therefore, that proves only scinece is valid." that's like saying the bible says it's the word of God.

Unless you can get outside of scinece and validate form some more basic perspective you can never prove that it's the only form of knowledge.

that idea itself could be no one. but I have others:


(1) The empiricists dilemma.

Descartes worked the basis of modern epistemology based upon the cogito. The conclusion to which is that one cannot get outside of one's own perceptions to check them. Any scientific data provided to prove that life is real or other minds exists, or what have you, will be useless because it is part of the illusion.

that is to say if we assume per perceptions are an illusion no amount of scientific data an help us get out of it because it can't free us form our own perceptions. If our perceptions are illusory then scinece is merely an illusion.

The only way out is philosophy. Now most of you will probably say "I don't worry about it." Of cousre, I don't either. that's the point. We take it for granted that life is real and we do not worry about it, not becasue science proves it, but because philosophical thinking shows us we don't have to worry about it.

Philosophy tells us we can take reality for granted as real becuase doing so works, since it allows us to navigate freely, and it is the success of our navigation in the world that enables to take reality for granted.

that's a philosophical solution not a scientific one! that means all the people squawking about "philosophical arguments are not good" just don't know what they are talking about. Because we have to have philosophical arguments to make scinece work.



(2) Science is a social construct.

Science is not cumulative progress its the turning over a ground due to the paradigm shift. Paradigms are models that we use to test reality. When there are anomalies we defend the model and absorb the anomalies into the paradigm. It' only when the paradigm absorbs more than it can that it breaks and shifts. A new paradigm means the fact of the old paradigm now become new anomalies under the new paradigm. This the work of Kuhn.

here's my page on Kuhn to explain it in greater detail.

http://www.doxa.ws/science/science2_kuhn.html


(3) The atheist fortress of fact is a philosophical position

The fortress of facts is the atheist ideology that many have been touting these past few days. It is the idea that "we have all these facts that scinece gives us and not one single fact supports God."

This position would be impossible without resorting to metaphysical argument.. In fact the position itself is not scinece it's philosophy.

Belief in God or disbelief is a question beyond the domain of scinece. it's not a scientific questing it's not science's business to tell us yea or nay on God.

For anyone to turn scinece into a weapon for atheism they have to put it into a philosophical framework. In fact the argument itself "philosophical arguments are no good" is a philosophical argument. To say "there is such thing as metaphysics" is an argument evoking metaphysical thinking.

Science is not about answering questions from beyond its domain, which is the physical world and nothing more.

This is indicative of a larger issue. One must go beyond science to do scinece. You can't fit data into an interpretive context without a philosophical view point. Just like any data will be part of the illusion if we make the assumption that reality might be an illusion, the only way to make an inebriation that rules out the possibility is make a philosophical interpretation.

Here's what I mean when I criticize the fortress of facts as "selective." They will only accept as scinece the things that rule out God belief. they will not accept anything that supports it. So that is a philosophical decision. You can't use science beyond science without placing it into a philosophical framework that augments it through philosophical understanding.

Philosophical is the language of belief. If talk about belief, that's the language you must speak.


I made this as a post on CARM here are just a few exchanges.

Originally Posted by David Johnson

If I want to understand anything about the Universe, planet or life there on I can only gain that knowledge by means of science.

Meta:

existentialism and phenomenology are much important means of understanding life. Science is the epitome of Metaphysics in the Heideggerian sense and thus it's a truncated view of reality.


Originally Posted by Electric Skeptic

Science is not any form of knowledge. It is a methodology. And it has repeatedly proven to be the best methodology for finding out about the universe.

Meta:

That's it. No "science is the only form of knowledge" - that's a strawman thrown out by theists.

no it hasn't scinece has never proven to be anything more than a way to understand one thing the Physical workings of the universe. There's more to the universe than the surface level of how the physical aspect function.

Science is not equipped to handle any of that, becuase it requires a philosophical framework.

the atheist fortress of fact is a philosophical framework and your argument that make here is a philosophical argument (it's a bad one but is one).

Arguments Against Dawkin's Argument About God as Complex

In The God Delusion Dawkins argues that God is complex, he does this my making an analogy in assuming that God is a biological organism. The upshot of that is that complex things are less likely to come about by random chance than simple things The problem is of course God doesn't "come about" and if he did it wouldn't be by random chance. Since God is eternal he doesn't' "come about." There are several reasons why this kind of thinknig is wrong.


(1) God is the foundation of all that is. Before God's creates there is nothing but God.

What does one compare God to if God is all there is? Do you all remember the idea that we can't speak of "before the big bang" because there's no time there and if no time you can't use words like "before?"

this is the same kind of thing. With nothing to compare to you can't say if it's simple are complex. It's just there.

(2) Can't use analogy to biology: We have no scientific knowledge of things beyond the physical.

Skeptics who echo Dawkin's idiocy try to speak as though God works like a big biological organism with a physical brain. Some try to justify that analogy by instituting that information works this way for us, so therefore, it just work this way all the time. one person on this board says "information is complex, it would be complex even if it's not physical it's still information."

That is an assumption not in evidence. They are trying to assert that the unknown has to work like the known because that's what we know. These same people also want us to confine our thinking to scientific thinking only. there is no scientific evidence for the great unknown I don't see why we should assert that all reality functions like the bits we know about.


(3) The idea that you can't go from simple to complex is contradicted by several physical aspects of reality.

a. planetary formation: move from singularity, to solar systems and galaxies.

b. evolution: single cell orgnaisms, even more simple things than that, to man.

Unfied feild: gravity is all we need to get everything going.

there are other examples too.

(4) The analogy they draw is to man. If we drew one bewteen God and the laws of physic simple to complex would be easy to understand.

(5) God is eternal, the probability arguments assume something coming to be rather than an eternal existent.

Dawkin's whole point point complexity is to say complex things are less probable. That assumes an amalgam of smaller parts that combine to make a larger amalgam. It has no application to something that is eternal and doesn't' come to be.

There is no probability to be calculated when something does come to be but always is. The probability of its' coming to be is 0. The probability of it's ceasing is 0. The probability of it's not being is 0. The probability that it is is 100%, obviously, something that has always been is!

(6) Dawkins assumes God is analogous to a man, so the arguments don't apply to being itself.

HRG recites the mantra "we have shown that there can't be an eternal entity" his logic is circular because his "showing it" is partly based upon this and other arguments disproved by the eternal nature, and it's also based upon assuming God is a big man rather than being itself.

Challenge to "honest Christians" Reveals Irrationality of Atheism

File footage of college debaters


Robin Yergenson is an atheist on CARM who always puts up a thread asking for "an honest Christian to discuss with him." He doesn't get involved in other threads much but jsut sticks to that one thread driving home his argument. He doesn't do the mocking thing like so many of them, and hating long threads as I do, I decided to answer him here. He says:

I have been trying to get intellectually honest Christians to engage in a meaningful way (no heckling please). Here is the argument that I would appreciate intellectually honest engagement on:

Implies that most Christians are not intellectual or honest. I'll let that pass as it's half right (most are not intellectual--most of any group is not intellectual).

He states:

"Christianity can be shown to be false by demonstrating the contradiction that exists in two of its most fundamental tenets, namely:"

a) The claim that escaping God’s judgment to all mankind prior to and independent of any actions of our own requires belief in Jesus' resurrection.

b) The claim that God is just (that He renders that which is due).

Statement a is a rough approximation dependent upon how literalistic one cares to get. There are those who try to say that accepting on faith is a "work" and requires us to "do something." I always think that is semantics and kit picking. If that's the source of his contradiction he's just imposing a Calvinist spin on all the faith. He goes on:


The following logical progression demonstrates the contradiction:

1. As rational beings, our success at arriving at an accurate knowledge base for guiding our choices and actions correlates to a great degree with our ability to be rational, in particular, to correctly associate and integrate effects with their causes. This is what rational beings ought to do.

2. Since a supernatural/miraculous cause is a cause that is not constrained by natural preconditions (natural laws, causal chains, etc.), miracles are in principle always a possible cause for every event or existent yet, erroneously appealing to the miraculous as a cause can have devastatingly adverse consequences which we ought not do.

3. To avoid adverse consequences, we ought to believe in miracles only when it is justified and rational (for example, when the miraculous event can be demonstrated on demand and when it can be shown that a natural explanation is not at least a possibility).

4. Concluding miracles as a cause prior to it being justified is in effect allowing a belief in miracles to erode and undermine rationality, and is therefore unjustified, irrational, and immoral (acts that one ought not do).

5. Therefore, a God that requires rational beings to do what is unjustified, irrational and immoral in order to escape His judgment is an unjust God, and a God who also eternally torments all those who fail to do so is an extremely unjust God.

6. Further, this injustice does not depend upon whether or not arbitrary belief in miracles is in fact irrational, unjustified, and immoral or not. A God that requires rational beings to do what they genuinely consider to be irrational, unjustified, and immoral and who eternally torments all those who fail to do so, is an extremely unjust God.

On the surface this sounds like a logically well thought out objectionable but it's actually based upon circular reasoning. It's not valid logically to assert that it's a contradiction because it doesn't contradict internal principles of the faith but mere clashes with principles he is imposing from outside the faith, ie his own opinion. The charge that it's contradictory merely falls apart ton the grounds that it's not a true contradiction with itself but merely with what he believes already. I suspect this is what most atheists really mean by "contradiction." Let's exampine each step to see that this is true:


(1) If read carefully this is actually a tautology becuase what it really says is "rational people should be rational." We are going to find that what he really means by rational is observing his concepts and rules of interpretation. This is what makes his argument circular in nature, his premise rests upon his conclusion because he defines his criterion of "reason" by the conclusion that his views are right. He's in effect saying "a rational person will agree with me, Christianity doesn't agree with me, therefore Christianity is not rational." I'll show this as we go through ech step.

(2) erroneously appealing to the miraculous as a cause can have devastatingly adverse consequences which we ought not do. Of course this is also circular since if God is real and Jesus' death is true doctrine then God would be the determiner of both rationality and the truth of miracles, not us and not Yergensen. He says that miracles are not constrained by physical conditions but they are. This is allowed by the will of God, but they are so constrained. This is so becuase miracles are not just wild events that can happen any old time, they must be in line with God's and God's timing, they don't contradict the nature but merely impose a higher order which the natural is predisposed to obey. This is what is meant by "ground and end of the natural." See Eugene R. Fairweather, "Christianity and the Sueprpntrual" New Theology no One, ed Martin E. Marty, 1964. God is the source of all reason. God's timing for supernatural effects (miracles) are not based upon irrationality.


He states: "miracles are in principle always a possible cause for every event or existent..." I deny that assertion and it seems unsupported. That's like saying our being wrong about the nature of the universe is always a possibly, therefore, all theories about the universe should be considered untrue. All he's really arguing is that we should have a prmia facie reason for arguing form sign in favor of miracles.That's fine. There is no problem with that, but once having accepted the Principe that God is real and can alter the course of the natural at any time we don't have to keep proving it again and again every time we wish to assert it. We assume that not every occasion will be chalked up to miracles and to make that assertion for any given occasion requires a warranted analysis.

(3) This basically says what I just said, only believe in miracles when conditions of explainable warrant. I agree with that in a given case but on the proviso that any given case could be such a case based upon the warrant.

(4) he says that if we believe in miracles without warrant it erodes rationality. I suggest first that this an attempt to impose his ideologically driven definition of rationally upon belief. He's essentially saying "rational means agreeing with my world view, my wolrd view rejects miracles, therefore it's not rational to believe in miracles." I think this is what he's really driving at because unless he's willing accept the possibility of miracles as a principle then he's never going to accept any warrant for belief in miracle in any given situation. All appeal to miracles will always undermine rationality. This is what I mean by circular reasoning:

(a) miracles don't' happen becuase they undermine rationality

(b) we know they undermine rationality undermine rationality
because they don't happen.

(c) all previous evidence for miracles must be set aside becuase it can't prove miracles because there is no evidence to prove miracles, since that would be irrational.

to say it another way: we know miracles are false becuase they are irrational, and we know they are irrational because they are false.

(5.) Therefore, a God that requires rational beings to do what is unjustified, irrational and immoral in order to escape His judgment is an unjust God, and a God who also eternally torments all those who fail to do so is an extremely unjust God.

This one takes circular reasoning to the level of an art form. He's saying miracles are irrational so a God that would require belief in irrational things is bad. Belief in miracles is only irrational if miracles are untrue, miracles are only untrue if there is no God. If God is real then God is not requiring something irrational by teaching us that miracles are real too. Agin he's only imposing his own opinions in a truth by stipulation then using that (what should be a conclusion)as the basis of his premise. That is circular reasoning. Conclusions are to be rested on premises, not vice versa.

(6) Just says if God requires me to believe in things I don't believe then he's bad, he's unethical and thus if God is unethical he can't be real. If God is real then miracles are real so he's not requiring us to believe in falsehood but in truth. The rejection miracles is not a moral move but a self indulgent one. Now raising circular reasoning to an art form here is the grand circle of this argument:

God can't be real because if he is then he must be unethical. God is unethical becasue he wants me to bleieve in something that is unethical to believe in because it's upon belief in untrue things. Therefore God can't be real because if he was he would be unreal since he's unethical,.

the problem is if God is real he's not unethical because the ethical thing would be to accept truth. The premise (God is unreal) is based upon the conclusion (that God is unreal). In reality belief in Jesus as the source of one's salvation is not based upon the assertion that any and all natural causes could be miracles but only one miracle, the resurrection of Christ, maybe two if we include the incarnation. If we accept a heretical adoption theology then we only need one miracle (res) and if we make the resurrection symbolic then Christianity doesn't require any miracles. Therefore, he's not dealing with real contradiction that set Christian belief in opposition to his own premises. He's merely asserting privilege for his own that he hasn't' earned through logic.

Since such faith systems claim that God requires just such irrational, unjustified, and immoral belief and since they also claim that God is just, an internal contradiction exists within their fundamental tenets demonstrating them to be false systems which none of you should be holding to.

It's only that if it's not real. Since faith in God is a matter of understanding reality, then belief = assumption of God's reality, which invalided the ethical clauses in the statement: Belief in God is not irrational, unjustified or immoral if it's true. But he's basing the truth of it upon the assertion that belief in it is those things, irratioinal, unjustified, that's assuming his premises not proving them it's assuming them! His only proof that this is the nature of the cause is his assertion that if they were true it would be unethical to believe. He then asserts that it is and use that as the crux of the unethical belief. That is so circular he's chasing his tail.

It cannot in principle be unethical or unjustified to believe the truth! If God is real then God is truth. If God is truth it can't be unjustified to believe in truth. It can't be unethical to believe in truth. When one places trust in God and accepts belief one is accepting the realist of God. No one believes in God thinking God is false.

I know that truth matters to you all. It matters to me too, deeply. I hope we can take advantage of the opportunity that exists between us to expose the error.

If truth really mattered to him deeply as he claims wouldn't he be considering the reality of God yes or no, up front rather than seeking na excuse to rule God out of the equation based upon privileging his position of doubt? All this circular reasoning can't really be understood as very rational. He's the one advocating irrationality. 5 and 6 are basically basically just begging the question. The only proof he ever advances for his assertions is the potential of the unethical nature of requiring belief in falsehood, yet that's the reason for thinking it's false it's just begging the question rather than proving it false.

This circuital trick is rampant all over atheism. All atheists are basically making these same assertions.

Atheists Hide in the Gaps 2

 The epistemic gap that will always exist in miracle hunting is the same gap that will always exist in any sort of causation. As Hume says we do not see the causes. We don't see the causation at work. All we see is one billiard ball stop and the other start up. We infer cause and effects from the correlation. That's exactly what is being done, we are inferring cause form a correlation. Of cousre we can't always infer cause form correlation, it has to be a really tight correlation and there has to be a mechanism to explain it. Even a mechanism is established through correlation. In miracle hunting the gap is always going to be that we can't see God at work.  We must have a reason to infer a miracle. Because this gap always exists the atheist is always going to claim the miracle can't be proved, there's always a gap to hid in. The best we can do is to eliminate all other possibilities and have a really good reason for inferring that God is involved. At Lourdes the rules are set up to do this.

They don't take Lukemia cases for ten years. Lukeimia has a high rate of remission. In ten years it's most likely a remission will have reversed itself and the patient will be sick again. Another way the rules are set up to achieve is is that the patent can't have taken a drug and the only factor different from the ordinary situation is the prayer. That way the only possible alternate cause is the prayer, that we know of. It's never going to be fool proof but few things are and it's probably as good as most things we pretend to understand that we really don't understand, like the origin of the universe.

Miracles are not the only issue involved in this point of hiding in the gaps. Here are some more things atheists have said in the thread:

A New version of Sherlock Holmes in the Twenty First Century on PBS "Mystery," the Watson character says "no one has arch enemies in real life." Watson has never been on an apologetics message board. On message boards we do have them. This one is mine, HRG on CARM.

Originally Posted by HRG

Not at all. It is a fact that some people think that miracles at Lourdes have been confirmed statistically. It is also a fact that their method (not counting the "failures" at Lourdes, and not counting the "successes" elsewhere) is invalid.

 It doesn't matter what people think. The fact is Lourdes miracle are not judged by statistics.

 Meta:

that is entirely ludicrous. how it possibly be invalid? it's the only valid method there is you saying that just proves to me you don't know anything about any of this. nothing could be more valid than before x-ray shows broken leg, after x-ray shows no trace of broken leg, and one day apart. what could be better proof? No Lourdes is not statistical. Statistical method would not prove crap about healing.

statical assumes God is like a drug and must work automatically. it does not allow for will. God is not a drug he's not an automatic process. So your study design is totally invalid..That's because you don't care about truth you are not trying to understand belief, you want to show your great ego and how brilliant you are.

HRG:

I have never supported liberal politics because I thought it was true; that would be like thinking that Schubert's Trout Quintet (which gave me a few transcendental seconds this morning ) is "true". I support liberal politics because of my secular humanism. 

Meta:

right, you don't have the sense or the honesty to see that that is ideological. nothing more than sheer ideology! But if you don't think humanism is true what do you do you think? It flatters your ego. your only truth is your ego. total selfishness then you are too deaf to hear God saying "hey that's not right, that's going to land you in trouble." you don't listen.

Stunning admission that he doesn't believe liberal politics are "true," but I do. Calling  political stands "true" or "false" is a bit problematic, but I do think my political views are based upon what I feel I feel is true. He grounds his politics in what he feels is true, although he doesn't believe in truth, so this is just more obfuscation on his part, for which he is famous.


HRG:

But your God cannot be proven beyond a substantial doubt either. And when I believe something for which there is no proof beyond any rational doubt, I'm aware that the proof is not 100% - and that I may be wrong (this is not even a humbling thought). 

 Look at how nuanced his answer, so that for his burden the requirement is not 100%, even though he claims to be humble about it, but for my belief the burden is 100% in his view. Why can't mine be less than that too since my argument only claims Rational Warrant and not proof!??

My answer in the thread:

That's not the point! you are hiding in the gap. that's so funny you do exactly what i predict you will do then you act like it's big triumphal gesture.

you are basically admitting to the whole concept. you can't furnish 100% for your world view either, but with that you don't care. you use that as a deceptive device to foster disconnect with bleief but you don't care how hypocritical your argument is.

HRG:

Just like you may be wrong about the existence of your God.

 Meta:

that's what hiding in the gap is. you are hiding. I say "I have to make a leap of faith." like any leap it could go wrong. But I have ot make it.you want to pretend you don't have leap to make and yous ay "O any kind of leap is no good, we can't ever leap" but you are just living a pretense because you have to make one for your own views.

HRG:

BTW, I firmly believe in the truth that there are infinitely many primes, and that the Earth is not flat.

Meta:

That's just another guilt by association fallacy. I don't believe the world is flat either and you know that. but you try to evoke the pretense of all knowing scinece verses backward superstition. when the reality is you work by bait and switch, bad fallacious arguments, egotism and hiding in the gap.

He accepts mathematical truth but can't apply it to anything else. While accepting mathematical truth proves my argument about hte transcendental signifier so his view is still supporting a God argument but he doesn't understand that. Perhaps because he didn't think of it.


Originally Posted by Penguin_Factory

The problem here is that the answer you're proposing doesn't work,

 Meta:

Yes sure does. that's what the 200 studies document.

there's a brilliant argument, "it doesn't work." why didn't I think of that?

PF:

nor does it fit any criteria by which we judge reality.

Meta:

yup does that too:

regular
consistent
inter-subjective
navigation

those are the criteria why which we judge reality, I can demonstrate every one.

PF:

Assuming some basic facts about the nature of reality- eg that it exists in a state separate from our subjective impressions and operates according to a set of rules that can be uncovered and which do not vary - is necessary not only to understand the Universe, but to interact with it in any sane way. 

Meta:

How do we know when we have that? When it fits the criteria. Most of my criteria are in the things you just named: "Assuming some basic facts about the nature of reality-" That is epistemic judgment. that's my basic assumption about the criteria, that it can't prove reality, we have to use it instead of proof because you can't get proof. so we use that criteria that enable epistemic judgment. What said confirms my point.

PF's criteria:
operates according to a set of rules that can be uncovered and which do not vary -

My answer
you mean like "regular" and "consistent?" that's why I said. that''s my criteria!

but to interact with it in any sane way

in other words. to make an epistemic judgment. that's why I call my argument "argument form epsitemic Judgment."

I just showed that all the criteria he uses fit the criteria I lay out in my argument. All he's done is prove my argument.

PF:

A deity, on the other hand, is a different assumption completely. When you add an undetectable supernatural aspect to the universe you are simply piling on complexity with no additional explanatory power. 

Meta:

We are not doing that. It's not undetectable. that's what the studies prove. we can tell the presence of God by our experience of the divine (mystical experience) and we know it works due to the M scale so we can detect it. We cant' control it, which is what scinece really wants to do. but we don't have to control we can prove we can trust it. That's what faith is. Faith is not believing things without evidence, it's confidence in trust. We can prove we can trust God, because the experiences have postiive effects and do so time and time again (200 studies).

Because we can detect it by it's effects using the M scale, it's not undetectable. We can sort out phony from true mystical experience, and by effect it can be demonstrated. Super natural is the experience. That's what term the originally meant. The experience of God's presence, the sense of the numinous and mystical experience

PF:

Assuming that reality is as it appears to be acts as a springboard to further understanding, while assuming the existence of God either achieves nothing or (as most often seems to be the case) retards understanding by attempting to posit God as the ultimate explanation for everything. 

Meta

that's nothing more than ideological slogaism. it's been disproved by the empirical studies. let's break it down:

PF

Assuming that reality is as it appears to be acts as a springboard to further understanding,

Meta

200 studies show that reality appears to be divine, that's the basis of mystical experience, it's all one thing,undifferentiated unity. You have 0 studies on the other hand none at all that disprove god or show there's no God.

Notice how selective he's being about what it means to say "assuming reality is as it appears." Reality appears to be divine to the mystic. He's assuming that's not true appearance so he's actually not wiling to willing to assume reality is as it appears when it doesn't appear as we wants it to!



PF

while assuming the existence of God either achieves nothing

Meta:

since the 200 studies demonstrate that God makes your life better that disprove what you said. That also disproves the earlier statement by paradoxical that just having your life made better isn't proof. If we are supposed to hide in the gap by assuming belief doesn't do anything for us, and yet that's disproved empirically, then obviously it does matter if it makes your life better. Your idea of a negative argument contradicts that dictum anyway because you are truth upon how it affects your life.

PF

"or (as most often seems to be the case) retards understanding by attempting to posit God as the ultimate explanation for everything..."

Meta:

Right like Newton was held back from his theories about the universe because he believed in God or like the whole Royal society who were all Christians, every single one of the, didn't contribute to modern scinece because their religious belief got in the way, learn some history of scinece! what you are saying is obviously empirically disproved by history. Belief in God has spurred scinece, invention, exploration, higher thinking all the way through human history.

My commentary upon PF's over all approach:

this what I said before, a selective self serving mythology based upon slogans and ideology. That's atheism.

That is exactly hiding in the gap!

PF

By way of an analogy, let's say come across a red cube and decide to study it. It could be that my perception is completely jacked up and the cube really has 10 sides instead of 6, or it's actually blue and not red. However, in the absence of any compelling reason to think either of those things assuming that the red cube is in fact a red cube is a fairly rational thing to believe. 

 Meta:

 But of cousre when the mystic's red cube is found, in the form of the sense of the Holy or the sesne of the numinous it's exactly the same. The world appears to be based upon the divine to me because that's' the way ti strikes me in my experience of God's presence. The content of the experience is the sense of the divine just as the content of the experience of finding a red cube is seeing a red cube. With the cube that he likes it's rational to assume the world is as it appears. When the cube is not the cube he wants its' irrational to proceed with appearances.

PF

What's not rational is assuming that the cube possesses some sort of extra quality which cannot be detected or interacted with in any way but which is, for some reason, vital to understanding and interacting with it. 

 If that's the way it appears why is that any less rational than yours?


Meta

Analogies are not proof. The proper use of analogy is to clarify concepts. Your analogy obscures concepts because it's based upon begging the question by assuming your ideologically driven prejudices about religion. The evidence disproves those prejudices.

At every hand's turn they basically confirm what I'm saying. They see hiding in the gap as a virtue. Atheists world view is based upon the idea of talking only the surface of being, thins exist as one dimensional things on the surface, what appears is all there is and even that has to be selected for the appearance we like. It's a shallow and hypocritical view. If one says "there's more to reality that that" they say, that's just philosophy and philosophy is stupid." Why is philosophy stupid? Primarily because it doesn't give them the appearance they want. Philosophy is the antithesis of hiding in the gap. Philosophy says "dig deeper." The Atheism says "give me an appearance I like and I'll stick with it because anything else requires traversing the gap in knowledge," they don't want to traverse the gap.

see third and final segment on friday

Does the Universe Exist? Is HRG an abstraction?

One of the major -perennial, knock-down-dragout fights I've had with atheists on the net is with HRG the Austrian Mathematician on CARM over Tillich's existential ontology, especially his argument against being itself as an abstraction. All of his arguments assume that being itself is an abstraction. As I pointed out last time Tillich denied this but HRG refuses to accept it even in spite of the fact that Tillich denied it. But what's totally hilarious is that HRG gives away the store, and I think he knows this, I'll get to that in a minute.

Before I get into that I will speak to this concept of the universe as not exiting. "How could it be," you might ask, "that the universe doesn't exist when I am here, I see a world around me, the world is the universe?" But is "the world" the universe? Universe is a concept. The world does not come with convenient labels telling us what things are. We have to decide what things are. We see a mass of sense data and qualia bombarding our senses. We ask "what is this stuff around us? to make sense of it we invent the notion of a  universe. We don't see a plaque on the side Jupiter saying "universe, self caused and undersigned." Nor do we see "universe by God." We decide it's a universe and we decide what that means. True we have what appear to be real sense data to go on, but it's still our conceptualization.

Take the night sky for example. The night sky is actually a myth. How can that be? it's right there, just open your eyes and look up. But what are we really looking at? Are we seeing the starts as they truly are? No, through science we know now that the light of each star that is just now reaching us is coming to us over millions of years. In fact, theoretically, all the stars could have gone out and we wouldn't know it for some time. Moreover, not only is the light old and shows us things as they appeared a long long time before humans even existed, but the stars are not in the places they appear to be. We know now that gravitational lenses distort the location and also existence of some stars.  Some stars could be reflections of other stars and they are all in different places. What seemed to true and clear at one time is actually non existent. The night sky exists, but its not what we think it is. Now as to this thing we call "universe," we make up theories of its origin with NO means of empirically verifying if those theories are right. We are imposing our own ideas of order upon the pile of sense data and we have no real way of checking to see it it's right. But those who worship our methods of investigation of the natural world tell us that we can't believe anything unless it's checked out by their methods. Yet the universe itself can't be totally checked out.

The universe is actually an abstraction. It's an abstract concept based upon calculating and reducing what we observe to averages and tendencies and conceptual understanding. The whole concept of induction and the notion of scientific empirical proof is based upon abstracting the concrete and reducing it to averages. That's what statistical probability is. Probability is an abstraction. Things fall through the cracks of abstraction and of empirical science. For example most men tend to be physically bigger than most women. As a result men tend to be stronger than women. But there are plenty of women out there who could kick my ass. My former next door neighbor was much bigger than I am and broader shoulders and could have mopped the floor with me. I used to tell people that in her youth she secretly played for the Dallas Cowboys. When they asked "under what name?" I would tell them, "Bob Lilly." Yet on average I should be stronger than any woman.

So the universe is an abstraction. It's a concept we impose upon the pile of sense data. This is science but it's also what Heidegger calls "metaphysics." Metaphsyics Not spooks and esp and strange things but the tendency to reduce sense data and group it under a given organizing principle that determines our understanding. The whole science of cosmology is actually metaphysics by that definition. But if you asked anyone "is the universe real?" we would have to say "sure." Yet it's also an abstraction. So when HRG tells me that being itself is an abstraction what does that really mean? If it means, as he says it does, that Being itself is not real, then the universe isn't real either. But they can both refer to real things and still be abstractions.

consider the following exchange:

Quote:

Originally Posted by HRG

Then the universe can also be the basis of its own existence.

Meta:O, now that's interesting. who told you that? what star do you see through a telescope that has that printed on it's side? Since everything we know is contingent, why should we think this is not contingent? Well in fact if space and time are two aspects of the whole and the whole is dependent upon each space and time, then how can you make the claim that the whole is the basis? why wouldn't the parts be the basis?

this would of course assume for certain that you know the universe is not created. so how do you know that? where's the label printed that says "self made universe?"

Quote:HRG

Since there is no logical reason why there has to be a beginning of this chain, all that you say about God is special pleading.

Meta:again, you can't understand the concept. I spoke right to this and I say "he doesn't get it." why? because I said "whatever the basis is that is the basis." We are not talking about the cosmological argument, or cause and effect or any of that. the basis is the basis, if the universe is it's own basis then I guess the universe is being itself. so why aren't you worshiping the universe?

but I have better reason to assume it's not and that something else is involved. But it's not a matter of a chain of causal relationships.

Quote:HRG

See above. There is nothing illogical about a chain without a first element. Example: negative integers.

Meta:yes, there sure it's. circular reasoning, begging the question. trying to subvert a a line of clausal effects because you don't like what it implies. but that's not the issue. the chain would be being itself if that is the basis of all things. so you still have God.


We are not stuck with such a petty version of God however, because it's silly to assume there could be an endless stream of arbitrary necessities.

Quote:HRG

It does not explain the existence of this "first cause". It just postulates it. I can equally well postulate the existence of an infinite chain; this has the advantage that I do not need your special pleading.

Meta:It's not even about a first cause. In Tillich's world the Cosmological argument diminishes the greatness of God. It really has nothing to do with a first cause. You are bringing stuff in from arguments because you are not willing to learn about Tillich.

Quote:HRG

Definitions <>existence proof.

Meta:silly gimmickry

Quote:HRG

The premise "there must be a final cause" is wrong.

Meta:being itself is not based upon that premise. but you are totally and absolutely wrong and waxed you on the floor everything we argued it. you don't even respond to half the answer. But as it so happens in this discussion that is totally irrelevant. you are shooting blindly hoping this applies and it does not. you are going to have to learn soemthing about Tilich to argue with him.



HRG:
[quoet]Fine. Being itself (a concept) cannot cause anything.[/QUOTE]

Meta:It doesn't have to. that's not the issue. That that is' the "basis" is not the same as saying it's the cause.

At the end of all this I made the above point about the universe and reiterated that fact that Han's arguemnts assume an abstraction where there is none, and that his own guiding principle (which he takes as self causing and self sufficient) is an abstraction as well, and one abstraction is as good as another, then he has failed to address my arguments.

His answer? He says he wont talk to me anymore (promises!, promises!) for two reasons:

 (1) I have not been responsive to his arguments.

I've been so non responsive I showed that the founding premise to all of his arguments is wrong and that his arguments don't apply to my mine for that reason, and that his basic argument about abstractions also defeats his own alternative to God.

(2) I am insulting.

I am insulting by saying he's dishonest becuase when I showed that Tillicih denies that being itself is an abstraction then Hans says he's lying, and that means then Hans is not being honest or fair, and pointing that out is insulting to him.

But you know, a screen on a message board might just be an abstraction too. Does HRG exist? No he does not. Metacrock does not exist. My parents didn't name me that.

As with Being itself and God, being abstraction doesn't mean I don't exist, does it mean Hans doesn't exist? It doesn't, but it might mean his arguments don't exist.