7 Questions to ask

magicbastarder

why does it have to be caused?

a particle decaying into two other particles does so by chance. there's no 'trigger'. unless you're saying whatever creator is at play oversees every quantum event in the universe? and the implications of that would be profound.

RichieO

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichieO View Post
From your first post, I thought you were very young 18 - 30 decidedly catholic and relatively inexperienced, not sure now...

Care to explain why you thought I was/am 18-30? I'm heading for 50. And inexperienced in what?
Because at 30 you should have started to accumulate the wisdom you need to start thinking "outside the box" and to detach from your beliefs, (if only on temporary basis) but it does allow for more clarity... Inexperienced at making a statement that is tenable and supportable with facts...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichieO View Post
...but I know how difficult it is to free your mind from childhood brainwashing, which I believe is the main reason all religions persist in this modern world...

I could say something similar about atheists who have listened to only one side of the debate.

Indeed you could but it's simply not true, most atheists do listen and far are more open minded than most of the religious folk, you appear to be firmly locked in your beliefs and not very good at explaining the basis for having the belief...

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

Physicists have proposed solutions involving both of these, but (1) seems to be preferred and plausible, reasoned solutions exist.

ok, and as I argued in another thread #2 is an uncomfortable option for science.

Option #1 then brings up the question about the possibility of actual infinities and the BGV theorem implications.

I thought the Big Bang was the preferred view around here?

robindch wrote: »

Your side of the discussion is quite different though. You have defined a solution into existence - being a deity which was always there, and which had no cause

The uncaused cause argument is solid if you pick the "universe had a beginning" option.

robindch wrote: »

Your argument works just as well if you substitute "deity" with "flying spaghetti monster".

You guys are fond of that nonsense.

If it's a physical FSM which had a beginning, then no.

Pherekydes

kelly1 wrote: »

Oh man, this is hard work!

You have 2 possibilities:

1) Infinite series of cause and effect into the past and future.
2) A starting point to the chain, beginning with the first uncaused cause. Call it X.

Which is it gonna be?

X.

Now tell me why X needs to be worshipped? Why would X consider Christianity as the one true religion?

Seems to me that Christianity is a bit of a Johnny-come-lately to the market. Couldn't be the one true religion.

kelly1

RichieO wrote: »

Because at 30 you should have started to accumulate the wisdom you need to start thinking "outside the box" and to detach from your beliefs, (if only on temporary basis) but it does allow for more clarity...

We all have the same facts available to us. I've come to a different conclusion.
Does that make you smarter than me?

RichieO wrote: »

Indeed you could but it's simply not true, most atheists do listen and far are more open minded than most of the religious folk, you appear to be firmly locked in your beliefs and not very good at explaining the basis for having the belief...

Can you cite any works you've read by Christian apologists?
e.g William Lane Craig, Gary Habermas, Mike Licona, Lee Strobel, John Lennox.

kelly1

Pherekydes wrote: »

X.

Now tell me why X needs to be worshipped? Why would X consider Christianity as the one true religion?

Seems to me that Christianity is a bit of a Johnny-come-lately to the market. Couldn't be the one true religion.

Before I answer that, can you tell me how much theology you have read?

Pherekydes

kelly1 wrote: »

Before I answer that, can you tell me how much theology you have read?

No. Assume I'm from Mars/the Amazon Jungle/another galaxy.

kelly1

Pherekydes wrote: »

No. Assume I'm from Mars/the Amazon Jungle/another galaxy.

-->

Pherekydes wrote: »

X.
Now tell me why X needs to be worshipped? Why would X consider Christianity as the one true religion?

Seems to me that Christianity is a bit of a Johnny-come-lately to the market. Couldn't be the one true religion.

ok, we're into theology now, so bear with me.

1) God deserves our worship because he created us, loves us, provides for us, forgives us, sent his son to die for us etc.

2) People are free to do whatever they like, to invent religion, worship false gods etc but the truth is what matters. And the truth about God can only be revealed by God. My belief is that God chose to reveal his true nature to the Jews, at a time when the human race was ready to hear the message and when writing and philosophy had advance to a sufficient point.

3) Christianity is the fulfillment of the Jewish religion. In the Old Testament, God promised a Messiah and Jesus is that promised Messiah. He proved this by rising from death.

God revealed his true nature bit-by-bit because we "couldn't handle the truth".
There was a very gradual movement in humans from "eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek".

looksee

kelly1 wrote: »

I could say something similar about atheists who have listened to only one side of the debate.
.

If you asked you would find that a good proportion of atheists actually started on 'the other side of the debate' (some of us spent years there) and only went over when they realised the other side did not make a lot of sense.

Pherekydes

kelly1 wrote: »

1) God deserves our worship because he created us, loves us, provides for us, forgives us, sent his son to die for us etc.

OK, I'm not here long, but I've been observing your Earth for a while now. And none of this makes any sense.

I've studied biology and it seems young people are produced the same way young of other species are: their parents mate.

I've studied your societies and it seems (if it's at all true) that this God you speak of loves and provides for white people mostly. Many non-white people seem to die in the worst way possible, or live in abject poverty.

I've studied your so-called history books, and they seem to disagree about the historicity of this so-called son of God.

2) People are free to do whatever they like, to invent religion, worship false gods etc but the truth is what matters. And the truth about God can only be revealed by God. My belief is that God chose to reveal his true nature to the Jews, at a time when the human race was ready to hear the message and when writing and philosophy had advance to a sufficient point.

What is truth? Is it objective truth? It seems to me from studying your belief systems that people are expected to just accept religious so-called truths without question. But many people, even many previously religious people, choose to inquire, question, investigate and experiment to find out more about the way the universe really works.

3) Christianity is the fulfillment of the Jewish religion. In the Old Testament, God promised a Messiah and Jesus is that promised Messiah. He proved this by rising from death.

God revealed his true nature bit-by-bit because we "couldn't handle the truth".
There was a very gradual movement in humans from "eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek".

Do people look in old books for cures for sickness? Do they look in old books to find out how the universe works? Some of your people create fine new books with objective truths and facts in them.

I'm curious about this God character. Tell me less...

magicbastarder

kelly1 wrote: »

God ... loves us

citation required.

kelly1

magicbastarder wrote: »

citation required.

Any particual peer-reviewed journal?

magicbastarder

you tell me.

you've gone from asking people for evidence for their claims to making claims not based on evidence, but on wishful thinking.

kelly1

magicbastarder wrote: »

you tell me.

you've gone from asking people for evidence for their claims to making claims not based on evidence, but on wishful thinking.

I was asked a theological question and you want, what, scientific evidence??

RichieO

kelly1 wrote: »

I was asked a theological question and you want, what, scientific evidence??

YES, that would nice, and a little more convincing than divine revelation...

kelly1

RichieO wrote: »

YES, that would nice, and a little more convincing than divine revelation...

How about you first give me evidence that a square circle is impossible?

RichieO

kelly1 wrote: »

How about you first give me evidence that a square circle is impossible?

I did not make any claims on this issue, a square circle is a contradiction in terms, at least in 2D...

Pherekydes

kelly1 wrote: »

I was asked a theological question and you want, what, scientific evidence??

The famous meme springs to mind:

Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat.

Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there.

Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there, and shouting "I found it!"

Science is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat using a ****ing flash light.

oldrnwisr

kelly1 wrote: »

1) God deserves our worship because he created us, loves us, provides for us, forgives us, sent his son to die for us etc.

Created us? No. Or at least not in the way the Bible describes. There is no special creation for humanity. We weren't created in God's image unless by some strange coincidence God happens to look like an evolved ape. We evolved from earlier primates who evolved from monkeys, from basal mammals, from basal synapsids, from basal tetrapods etc. etc. Now God may have kickstarted the process or he may not but there's no evidence to suggest that God created us or anything else we see alive today.

Loves us? Hmmm. Well, unless you're part of a group of kids who laugh at a prophet's bald head in which case God will send bears to maul you to death (2 Kings 2), unless you worship a different God in which case God will punish you by making you eat your own children (Jeremiah 19:9), unless you live in a peaceful town that one of God's chosen tribes wants for themselves in which case you all get massacred (Judges 18), unless you're gay (Leviticus 20:13) or a blasphemer (Leviticus 24:10-16). Unless you're a Midianite (Numbers 31) or an Amalekite (1 Samuel 15) or a Philistine (Judges 15). Except for those, sure, God loves us.

Provides for us? How exactly? It's not like he plants crops, we do that. It's not like he makes it rain, physics does that. It's not like he makes the sun shine, nuclear fusion does that. What does he provide for us? Food? Water? Job security? The chance to watch Conor McGregor get his head kicked in?

Forgives us? For what? For breaking a set of rules he borrowed from Hammurabi which he breaks several of all by himself and which his son continues to break?

Sent his son to die for us? According to who? Four anonymous authors writing 40 years after his death. Really?

kelly1 wrote: »

2) People are free to do whatever they like, to invent religion, worship false gods etc but the truth is what matters. And the truth about God can only be revealed by God. My belief is that God chose to reveal his true nature to the Jews, at a time when the human race was ready to hear the message and when writing and philosophy had advance to a sufficient point.

So why couldn't your God reveal himself to the Jews in a way that the things he told them wouldn't be shown to be dead wrong. Like the idea that showing striped patterns to pregnant cows would result in striped offspring or that pi is a round number or that whales are fish or bats are birds. Why did God get involved in petty local politics involving one single band of Middle Eastern primitives? If your God really did guide the people through the Exodus by a pillar of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night (forgetting for a second that there's no actual volcano between Egypt and Canaan), how did it take them forty years to travel a distance you could walk in six days. How did God make prophecies that failed so completely and spectacularly like the destruction of Tyre or the "virgin birth" prophecy in Isaiah.

kelly1 wrote: »

3) Christianity is the fulfillment of the Jewish religion. In the Old Testament, God promised a Messiah and Jesus is that promised Messiah. He proved this by rising from death.

God revealed his true nature bit-by-bit because we "couldn't handle the truth".
There was a very gradual movement in humans from "eye for an eye" to "turn the other cheek".

No, he really isn't. Jesus fulfills none of the criteria for the Messiah.

Firstly, the Messiah would be a descendant of David as stated in Jeremiah 23:5

"“Behold, the days are coming,” declares the Lord, “When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land."

While both Matthew and Luke make a genealogical connection between Jesus and David, it should be noted that a) their genealogical records don't agree with each other (Matthew's being an edited version of the one found in Chronicles) and b) Jesus is connected to David through Joseph who he wasn't actually biologically descended from. Moreover, Luke's genealogy is objectively wrong since it traces David's lineage through his son Nathan despite God promising that the Messiah would come from Solomon's lineage in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 and 1 Chronicles 22:9-10.

Secondly, the Messiah would be knowledgeable and observant of the Old Testament laws as outlined in Isaiah 11:2-5. While Jesus was certainly knowledgeable, observant he wasn't. He violates the dietary laws in Mark 7:18-19, the Sabbath law in Matthew 12:3-5, the commandment to honour your father and mother in Matthew 12:46-50 and Luke 14:26 and the circumcision law in John 7:22-24.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, in several places the Old Testament authors speak about the Messiah's political prowess in addition to his spiritual ones. In Isaiah 11:11-12, Hosea 3:4-5 and Jeremiah 23:7-8 and 30:3 it is stated that the Messiah will reunite the Jews in Israel and restore Jerusalem. In Isaiah 2:2-4, 11:10 and 42:1, it is stated that the Messiah would create a single world government in Israel. Furthermore, despite the Christian claims about Jesus' body as a temple, the Old Testament makes it clear that the Messiah would rebuild a physical temple in Jerusalem and resume sacrifices in it (Jeremiah 33:17-18, Ezekiel 37:27-28 and Malachi 3:3-4). Jesus never accomplishes any of this and he would need to accomplish all of that before he could be called Messiah.

Speaking of peace, the arrival of the Messiah is supposed to herald the beginning of the Messianic age, accompanied by a number of signs. These include an era of perpetual peace (Isaiah 2:4), predators and prey will coexist peacefully (Isaiah 11:6), the entire human race worshipping Yahweh (Zechariah 14:9) and following all his laws (Ezekiel 37:24). None of these, obviously, came to pass, then or at any time since.

And this is all before we get to the idea that Jesus fulfilled so-called Messianic prophecies cited by the gospel authors.

I think it's fair to say that the idea of a spiritual and political Messiah is the result of a degree of optimistic wish-fulfillment on behalf of the Jews of the period. To a people who had historically and recently undergone huge suffering and upheaval at the hands of various other cultures (i.e. Egyptians, Babylonians, Romans), a political leader who would come and save them from all of that and create a land where everything would live in peace is a nice idea but not one grounded in any kind of reality.

oldrnwisr

RichieO wrote: »

These 7 questions I have asked myself and others, the number of different responses is truly amazing and if you can get honest answers it speaks volumes about yourself and others...

Do you ever have the slightest doubts about your truths?
Well, yes and no. Generally no, since among the labels I use to describe myself the relevant one here is apistevist, in that I don't use faith as a means to form my positions on anything. Yes in the sense that I do try to continually seek out opposing viewpoints, counterarguments and actual research to see if my opinions still hold. I guess the constant behaviour of trying to disprove everything comes from being a scientist (by education).


Is there anything in your life that you are 100% certain about?
No. Everything is possibly wrong. In fact, like Richard Feynman said, if this was our view on things, especially religion, the world would be a better place.


Have you ever thought about why or how you can be certain?
Well I would agree with AronRa's statement, if you can't show it, then you don't know it. You can be certain of something (to a degree) if you can demonstrate it.


Do you know the difference between truth, belief, fact, law, rule, theory and hypothesis?
Yes. I wish more people would understand this difference though. Especially creationists. It would make my time on the internet much easier.


Do you study the history of every science and religion?
I used to. I have studied Christianity and Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Mormonism etc. but there's no end to people's differing concepts of God and only so much time so now it's a case of being reactionary of waiting for religious people to put their arguments to me instead of proactively finding out about them in advance. I think TheraminTrees explains this idea very well here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gcw1YEtTQCw

As for science, there are, in truth, some sciences which just hold no interest for me (economics and political science spring immediately to mind). I try to keep up with sciences that are important to our understanding of the universe and ourselves like systematics, cosmology, quantum physics, molecular biology etc.


How do you know if you are correct in your beliefs?
I don't really have beliefs. At least not in a religious or epistemological sense. My signature kind of elaborates on my position on this. I'm not religious or superstitious so there's very little belief involved.


Do you try to understand why others doubt or ridicule your beliefs?
Yes. Well, at least when I engage with others in debate about beliefs it's useful to understand where the other side is coming from. I understand that people don't necessarily hold beliefs for the same reason that I don't, that people believe for non-evidence based reasons like comfort or community or indolence.

Tenigate

RichieO wrote: »

These 7 questions I have asked myself and others, the number of different responses is truly amazing and if you can get honest answers it speaks volumes about yourself and others...

Do you ever have the slightest doubts about your truths?
Is there anything in your life that you are 100% certain about?
Have you ever thought about why or how you can be certain?
Do you know the difference between truth, belief, fact, law, rule, theory and hypothesis?
Do you study the history of every science and religion?
How do you know if you are correct in your beliefs?
Do you try to understand why others doubt or ridicule your beliefs?

1. There is no "your truth". Just "the truth" and "your opinions"
2. Death and taxes. wubba lubba dub dub
3. Sure
4. More or less
5. I study bits and pieces if the subject arises
6. Simply by believing in them. Whether the beliefs are correct is another matter
7. Doubt, sure. Ridicule- I guess they do so out of hatred or fear

tayto lover

What was Heaven and Earth made from?
Why are we here if God already knows all things and because of that how we will behave and end up? Why the needless test and suffering on this earth?

Samaris

RichieO wrote: »

These 7 questions I have asked myself and others, the number of different responses is truly amazing and if you can get honest answers it speaks volumes about yourself and others...

Do you ever have the slightest doubts about your truths?

Depends on what. On my moral views and what should and shouldn't be? Absolutely and all the time. Those have changed even from exposure to Boards. In God? Sometimes, sometimes I wish I had more doubts. On established scientific evidence - yeah, I'm pretty damn sure I'm on the correct side of the argument on climate change, vaccines, creationism and a few other things.

RichieO wrote: »

Is there anything in your life that you are 100% certain about?

I'm often certain enough about facts, but I generally allow that interpretation can always lead to more uncertainty. I am pretty darn sure that climate change is happening and I'm also fairly 100% that it's anthropogenic.

But mostly the more reading I do the more I've realised that there is basically everything out there that I don't understand and never will understand absolutely and thoroughly.

RichieO wrote: »

Have you ever thought about why or how you can be certain?

It's my area of study and I've studied it fairly well, albeit not to top publishing scientist standard. Can also see the effects, measure the effects and study chemical and physical reactions that all lead to the same outcomes we are currently seeing. However, I do take prediction and interpretation with a grain of salt, particularly since it is an incredibly and ridiculously polarised topic.

RichieO wrote: »

Do you know the difference between truth, belief, fact, law, rule, theory and hypothesis?

Yes. I can believe in something without knowledge that it's true. Facts can be wrong, but at that point they're no longer facts and importantly, nor were they lies. Alternative facts are bollocks. Not certain if you're talking about law and rule as scientific ideas or as legal entities, but one is state-mandated, one is privately enforced, although may have a basis in a law. A hypothesis is an idea about how something might work, but as yet unproven. A theory is as close to proven as can be reasonable ascertained. May still turn out to be incorrect, but it's got enough backing evidence to be taken as correct unless something spectacular upends it.

RichieO wrote: »

Do you study the history of every science and religion?

Know bits about a fair amount of them, but I don't study them all, no. Some because life is too short, some because I'm not that interested and indeed some because I reckon it's bollocks.

RichieO wrote: »

How do you know if you are correct in your beliefs?

I don't for all of them. I try to avoid pronouncing on things that I'm uncertain about, but I will argue them from my own perspective. Will try to keep an open mind, but if the reasoning trying to convince me appears to be built on sand, I will lean more to the other side.

RichieO wrote: »

Do you try to understand why others doubt or ridicule your beliefs?

Yes. I am contemptuous of those who deliberately and knowingly spread lies - Andrew Wakefield is a top contender there. I am more sorry for those who are taken in and don't know where to look for the truth. For questions on morality - say, the immigration question - I generally do understand certain arguments and have sympathy for them, but I'm intolerant of certain types of argument. If someone gives me a thought-out response to my belief or reasoning, I'll listen. If someone gives a smart-ass one-liner about "diversity incidents", I'll mentally wish they hit their head against the next low-flying doorframe.

For gods, I mostly get tired of the arguments. It's the same argument every time and it always relies on itself for proof. A god exists, for convenience, it's usually assumed to be the reasoner's own god. The entire argument then relies on the preheld belief in a god and the facts are worked around it. The facts primarily come from a book that was written across a long period of time by many different authors and then the most useful bits kept. This proves that god exists. But how do you know the book is real. It is divine revelation. Well, how do you know that. The Bible says so. AAAARGH. They're not going to be convinced, I'm not going to be convinced, therefore, circle.

I might, however, be interested in a serious argument from a Christian (or whatever) that the one true god is actually one specific Hindu god. That would at least be new.

RichieO

I might, however, be interested in a serious argument from a Christian (or whatever) that the one true god is actually one specific Hindu god. That would at least be new.

There is a large list to choose from, (not to mention the list of sacred animals from rats to elephants) ... would it not be a form of atheist entertainment rather than an argument?

Samaris

I don't say it wouldn't also be entertaining :P

Still though, it would be more interesting to read an argument from the point of view of someone who doesn't have a personal agenda. Of course, it makes little sense that a Christian would argue that Varuna is the one true god, so I'm not going to see said argument. But a hardcore Christian arguing that theirs is the one true god because book written about said god gets on my nerves after a while. It's an article of faith and it relies on faith to make a pseudo-historical argument proving god (actual history tends to be ignored). This is not even a debate at that point, at least, not an honest one. That's not a rational argument, it is proselytising.

I'd be just as irritated after a while of an Hindu going on ad nauseum that Varuna is real. Fine, if you want to believe that a very human-looking god rides around the oceans on a sort of alligator-fish tentacled thing, you believe away. Just don't try to force that it's The Truth to me on the basis of no evidence and parazoology.

kelly1

The whole polytheism thing is a red-herring if you ask me.

On a intuitive level it makes no sense. You'd have gods fighting it out to the death, power struggles, etc. You'd have to answer the question of where the gods came and who/what created them. Were any of these gods created by another? If so, the created one is not really a god.

A bit like the multiverse proposition, raises more questions than it answers questions. The infinite regress of causes would still be an outstanding question.

But I need to read up more on this.

ginger_hammer

The whole theism thing is a red-herring if you ask me.

Poly or mono is no different in the stretch of the imagination. At least polytheism is more interesting and has more stories around the different characters (norse gods/roman gods/irish celtic gods/etc).

Maybe it exposes the fact that they are man-made a bit more obviously than mono-gods, and some may have fallen out of fashion and others were battered into a pulp by today's main mono-religions.

kelly1

ginger_hammer wrote: »

The whole theism thing is a red-herring if you ask me.

Nice quip

ginger_hammer wrote: »

Poly or mono is no different in the stretch of the imagination.

Leaving prejudices aside, try applying logic/reason to the possibility of multiple omnipotent gods. Is it a reasonable proposition?

Pherekydes

kelly1 wrote: »

Leaving prejudices aside, try applying logic/reason to the possibility of multiple omnipotent gods. Is it a reasonable proposition?

FYP.

smacl

kelly1 wrote: »

Leaving prejudices aside, try applying logic/reason to the possibility of multiple omnipotent gods. Is it a reasonable proposition?

In any of the older polytheistic mythologies that I've read up on, the deities were extremely powerful but not omnipotent. That said, any mythology is more a matter of faith than reason, and the likes of apologetics is really only going to be convincing for those already faithful.