INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Thief]

kettle, meet pot.

The lengths you are willing to go for your denial is most impressive.

And your denial of Something Greater is noted....again

 

[McBell]

And your denial of Something Greater is noted....again

It matters not how many times you make that claim for me, it is still no truer than the first time.

 

[Thief]

It matters not how many times you make that claim for me, it is still no truer than the first time.

Truth?....did you say Truth?

 

[cottage]

That is not what they do in courtrooms, classrooms, or in almost in any part of. We make the best decision based on the best evidence. We have two choices here.

1. A finite universe. All the reliable evidence there is consistent with it.
2. An infinite universe. No reliable evidence is consistent with it any many reasons exist to suggest it is not even possible.

If want to equivocate on he theory with all the evidence so as to allow for the theories than have no reliable evidence that is your right, but what it isn't is useful, normal, scientific, or what you do with almost every other decision you make.

What 'evidence'? You said: “There exists no reliable evidence nor reason to think anything other than a finite single universe exists.” Indeed, as far as we know there is just the one universe; anything else, supernatural beings and the eternity of the world are just speculative beliefs. Nobody was there to observe the beginning of the universe, if indeed it did begin, and there’s nothing to inform us that the world is infinite any more than there is to say God exists; not a single scrap of ‘reliable evidence’ in either case.

Of course we do. Science does the exact same thing given far less reason. They are currently making theories that require more faith given less evidence that the Bible does. In fact they even contradict evidence which is the one thing faith is not even allowed to do. This is perfectly acceptable for theology and philosophy, but my real issue is why is it denied them but allowed in even far greater extremes and called science. Why is the grossest speculation even if it contradicts the evidence allowed for "science" but rejected for faith?

I have already explained this several times, in detail, and I’m surprised you’re still not seeing the difference between the two concepts. Remember the analogy I gave you in my post where I used the Moon Landings in 1968, disputed by conspiracy theorists, to demonstrate what could be established in possible experience, opposed to what is claimed as supernatural while being unverifiable as a question of fact? Please indicate whether you now get the distinction, or let me know if I’m to explain it with more examples?

That is perfectly true and inconsistent with nothing known. This is another tactic that I just can't understand. For some reason you allow science to contradict reality and be valid. Yet you (not just you) deny perfectly consistent and perfectly valid extrapolations (even if they are the only known possible solution) for faith. Proof is sciences burden yet it is often completely missing or contradictory yet allowed as valid, then for some reason the burden of proof is applied to faith and even if perfectly logical if not a known empirical fact claimed to be invalid. This is a heads you win tails God looses argument. If fantasy, presumptions, and doubles standards are necessary to contend with something maybe it should not be contended.

All hypotheses about the world, even the most far-fetched metaphysics, concern a subject that happens to exist as a matter of fact. Physical things are the reality, supernatural beings are not. There is, as far as we can possibly know, only this, the actual physical world, therefore it makes perfect sense to seek physical explanations that explain it in those terms. For it still remains the case that, 234 years on, David Hume’s statement ‘we know not all the qualities of matter’ is as true now as it was then, in spite of our many scientific advances. We don’t need to go in search of supernatural worlds (even if that were possible) when we don’t have a complete understanding of this actual world.

 

[cottage]

I am lost here. If something has always existed it is non-contingent not contingent.

That the world might exist indefinitely doesn’t mean it is necessary. (Aquinas saw no contradiction in the eternity of the world, since he believed it could only mean that it was enabled by God.) And Christian philosopher, Boethius, writing in the sixth century said “Whatever suffers the condition of being in time, even though it never had a beginning, never has any ending, and its life extends into the infinity of time, is not such that it may be called properly eternal.” Modern day theist philosopher, Richard Swinburne, disagrees and argues that it is “incoherent to suppose God is outside of [sic] time.” According to Swinburne there was no time when God didn’t exist and there will be no time when he will not exist. So ‘everlasting’, ‘infinite’, and ‘eternal’ are not necessarily interchangeable, the one with the other, and nor are they to be taken together to have the same meaning.
But all this is beside the point and a distraction for it has nothing to do with my reply to Craig’s argument for a personal God who, and I quote, “does things for a reason.

[/font] Well I finally understand what the theme was here even though it's parts were a little unclear.

You seem to be suggesting that any fulfilled being would not require additional creations to be fulfilled and so would not create what he does not need. First let me say I have ever heard of this argument before so it mighty take a bit to think on it.

I will say now that a precedent exists for a fulfilled being who receives something that adds enjoyment that was not missing. A human 500 years ago had no need of a Lotus and could be fulfilled in the possession dept. If I had a time machine and transported one to him he might have enjoyed it but it was never a need nor necessity. Of course this is not a direct reply to your argument but is an example where circumstances can do what you are suggesting could not occur. I will think on it a bit but this is a simple word game involving the capacity of human language to capture characteristics of an infinite being. It is a interesting word game but not exactly a hurdle. The heap paradox is one that is interesting but does nothing to change the fact heaps exist.

I’m sorry but you’re waffling now; there is no argument at all in the above. The Principle of Sufficient Reason posed a direct and simple question, as yet unanswered, in response to Craig who said this:

According to Craig, every kind of explanation is either a logico-mathematical explanation (which, because it is abstract, is incapable of explaining the fact that something comes into existence), a scientific explanation (which can explain events occurring within the universe, but not the coming-to-be of the universe itself) or a personal explanation, involving an agent doing something for a reason. Personal explanation is the only schema that can explain the coming-to-be of the cosmos, reasons Craig."

[/font] The world is not a maximal entity. Even the non-specific generalized definition of a God is a maximal being. This type of stuff belongs in a rhetoric classroom and probably no where else.
Whether intention or not this type of thing only serves to complicate the obvious, trivialize the momentous, and obscure the clear.
All the evidence suggests we have one finite universe that does not contain it's own explanation. Logic requires a cause beyond nature, and philosophy indicates the Biblical God is the best candidate available, and faith carries no proof burden.

Logic does not “require a cause beyond nature”; rather it shows such speculation to be risible, because from the fact that we don’t have a complete understanding of our world it is plainly absurd to assume there is another, unknowable world that can provide an answer! And further more, as I’ve explained umpteen times, attempting to apply cause and effect to God is self-contradictory for on that account an Unconditioned Being’s will is conditional upon a contingent principle. And the Biblical God, with all its inconsistencies and contradictions, is an arbitrary bolt-on component that delivers the coup de grace to the argument.

1. The world is all that is the case (everything that can be stated or conceived of, objects and ontological concepts).

2. The material world is contingent and need not exist, and yet the world does exist for to say there is nothing, ie no world, is self-refuting (anti-sceptical), and therefore something about the material world must be true.

3. If there is a transcendent sustaining cause for material existence it must belong to the world.

If the conclusion (3) is false then so must be (1), which is contradictory.

You said: “God would still be God with no universe.” But consider this: while we can speak of the world without ever mentioning God the opposite does not hold true. The concept of God is only intelligible in terms of the world, and there is no necessary concept independent of it since that is where every argument to God begins and ends.

Reality suggests vegetable matter necessitates intelligence, all information does. Another principle without known exception. This is another example of a causal chain with not even a reliable natural first cause theory. Neither the seeds nor the tress contain an explanation for what they contain. Neither does any natural system.

Well that’s plainly wrong! First off, by saying ‘all information necessitates intelligence’ you are just begging the question. And the reality you speak of is apparent everywhere, just as Philo (Hume) pointed out. The reality is that trees do pass on order and organization, and the reality is that they do so without intervention by human intelligence. And of course the trees and their seeds contain an explanation for what they contain: all living organisms contain DNA! Now we can, for the sake of argument, agree the Big Bang was the beginning of the material world and we can accept that physical event as the reality, but to then propose a supernatural First Cause is no longer reality but pure speculation, conjoined with an ideological doctrine in your particular case, for in reality there is ‘no known principle’ of a supposedly existent supernatural creator interacting and intervening in the world. Finally, the term reality means the actual physical world, so please explain what reality you are referring to?

Here or elsewhere?

My post 2643. You replied to that post (2646) but ignored the argument.
If I might venture an opinion I think perhaps you try to respond to too many posts, favouring quantity over quality? I say that because you don’t appear to have read, or at least not responded to, a number of my arguments, leaving crucial points unanswered.

Anyway, here is that short piece on intelligence and God once again.

“It doesn’t make proper sense to say your God is ‘intelligent’ since all references to intelligence are founded in mind, that is to say a cognitive ability to reason, plan and form ideas. Our understanding of intelligence is, as Alan Turing said: ‘to respond like a human being’. So to say God shares this similarity with man is to say God has human traits. But clearly in the case of an omniscient Being there is no learning from experience, no problem solving, no gaining of knowledge and no coping with adverse situations. Is it really being said with a straight face that an omniscient being has to learn and understand in order to deal with new or surprising situations. And nor can it mean the planning and forming of ideas, as there is no cognition involved, for by its very definition the concept of Supreme Being doesn’t reason: it is reason. To sum up, then, if we say God is ‘intelligent’, we are saying he is like humans, and so if this anthropomorphic God responds like a human being, even an omnipotent one, then it is a notion that contradicts the concept of all sufficient, necessary being.”

 

[1robin]

What 'evidence'? You said: “There exists no reliable evidence nor reason to think anything other than a finite single universe exists.” Indeed, as far as we know there is just the one universe; anything else, supernatural beings and the eternity of the world are just speculative beliefs. Nobody was there to observe the beginning of the universe, if indeed it did begin, and there’s nothing to inform us that the world is infinite any more than there is to say God exists; not a single scrap of ‘reliable evidence’ in either case.

Can you give me the post numbers to your response to my response to your response to Greenleaf. I do not want to leave that much work hanging someone else did. I spoke of the lack of evidence. I can't give you a picture proof of the existence of a lack of something. Those claims were also about the natural universe. I am pretty sure you know that so why did you apply them to another context? When I make claims clearly concerning the natural universe they can't be used to evaluate God directly. Theological claims are not proof, they are very reasonable and evidenced deductions, but not proof. That is why it is called faith.

I have already explained this several times, in detail, and I’m surprised you’re still not seeing the difference between the two concepts. Remember the analogy I gave you in my post where I used the Moon Landings in 1968, disputed by conspiracy theorists, to demonstrate what could be established in possible experience, opposed to what is claimed as supernatural while being unverifiable as a question of fact? Please indicate whether you now get the distinction, or let me know if I’m to explain it with more examples?

I do not remember that but I rule out at least 90% of supernatural claims myself. I am very skeptical. I will give a thread where someone mentioned one. I said nothing that was not an attempt to challenge their claims and have sought evidence at every step. Do you want the link? However once experienced and once attested to so thoroughly as many are it starts to look more like denial to rule them all out and not reason.

All hypotheses about the world, even the most far-fetched metaphysics, concern a subject that happens to exist as a matter of fact. Physical things are the reality, supernatural beings are not. There is, as far as we can possibly know, only this, the actual physical world, therefore it makes perfect sense to seek physical explanations that explain it in those terms. For it still remains the case that, 234 years on, David Hume’s statement ‘we know not all the qualities of matter’ is as true now as it was then, in spite of our many scientific advances. We don’t need to go in search of supernatural worlds (even if that were possible) when we don’t have a complete understanding of this actual world.

No, they don't which is why Vilenkin was so adamant as to call the major ones impossible. I agree with Hume but have no idea what help that is for your case. Sorry I'm brief. I have little time currently.

 

[Silentium]

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.

And if people stopped there I doubt many would have cause since what could be God in this case could be a spark or some currently unknown force but most go further and quote one holy book or another or claim far more knowledge than is rational and explain it as something they REALLY, REALLY believe. Believe it REALLY hard!

Beyond that talking about a "first" thing is actually not all that rational and your argument falls apart since no one knows if the big bang is real and if it is than what caused it or what existed before the big bang. It escalates from there but it is so far beyond what we could rationally know making hard claims is useless and your argument boils down to whatever caused our universe to come into existence is God but it doesn't rule out what might have caused God etc...

 

[cottage]

Can you give me the post numbers to your response to my response to your response to Greenleaf.

They are: 2394, 2395, 2396, 2397 & 2398

I do not want to leave that much work hanging someone else did. I spoke of the lack of evidence. I can't give you a picture proof of the existence of a lack of something. Those claims were also about the natural universe. I am pretty sure you know that so why did you apply them to another context? When I make claims clearly concerning the natural universe they can't be used to evaluate God directly. Theological claims are not proof, they are very reasonable and evidenced deductions, but not proof. That is why it is called faith. [/font][/color]

But our understanding of the natural world does not lead us to something entirely other. And there is no evidence that the world is infinite or finite or of matter being either created or destroyed.


By the way, faith is still propositional!

I do not remember that but I rule out at least 90% of supernatural claims myself. I am very skeptical. I will give a thread where someone mentioned one. I said nothing that was not an attempt to challenge their claims and have sought evidence at every step. Do you want the link? However once experienced and once attested to so thoroughly as many are it starts to look more like denial to rule them all out and not reason.

But you are not seeing the fundamental difference here, which is that supernatural claims cannot be replicated or subjected to the test of possible experience. If all we are being given is the contents of people’s minds then there is no difference between the two scenarios I gave you earlier where one person experiences God’s love while another is told by God to go out and kill. We have no way to distinguish the truth of either claim, but can only make a judgement based on social mores and what we find acceptable.

No, they don't which is why Vilenkin was so adamant as to call the major ones impossible. I agree with Hume but have no idea what help that is for your case. Sorry I'm brief. I have little time currently.

I’m not able to make out what it is you are responding to in that first sentence: But if it was your reply to where I said this: “All hypotheses about the world, even the most far-fetched metaphysics, concern a subject that happens to exist as a matter of fact”, then I’m baffled by your answer. Once again, it is the case that all hypotheses about the world are by definition about something that exists as a matter of fact, ie the world. It is a fact! The distinction I’m making is that the physical world is factual and the reality, whereas supernatural beings are not.

Hume’s observation is we cannot at least for the present say what the world is beyond the apparent contingency of matter and yet even in that we cannot be certain. And this alluded to uncertainty, this vague possibility of an unknown underlying, necessary quality, is of the same species as the Supreme Being, speculation of course, but the former hypothesis has the distinct advantage - since we know the world actually exists!

 

[1robin]

That the world might exist indefinitely doesn’t mean it is necessary. (Aquinas saw no contradiction in the eternity of the world, since he believed it could only mean that it was enabled by God.) And Christian philosopher, Boethius, writing in the sixth century said “Whatever suffers the condition of being in time, even though it never had a beginning, never has any ending, and its life extends into the infinity of time, is not such that it may be called properly eternal.” Modern day theist philosopher, Richard Swinburne, disagrees and argues that it is “incoherent to suppose God is outside of [sic] time.” According to Swinburne there was no time when God didn’t exist and there will be no time when he will not exist. So ‘everlasting’, ‘infinite’, and ‘eternal’ are not necessarily interchangeable, the one with the other, and nor are they to be taken together to have the same meaning.

There is a lot of points here.

1. It is hard for me to agree that a world that never didn't exist and never will cease to exist is dependent.
2. It is irrelevant anyway because all the evidence there is suggests the world is not eternal and if nature had it's way will cease to exist as an identifiable structure at some point.
3. God is a separate issue. Whether God or something else the creator of time cannot be dependent or "in" time. And it is impossible time has always existed.
4. The semantics of terms is not really something I care too much about. God is independent of time, and in my use of the terms infinite, eternal, and everlasting though everlasting may not technically be correct. The important point is that nature is not independent of time nor eternal. The concept of God is.

But all this is beside the point and a distraction for it has nothing to do with my reply to Craig’s argument for a personal God who, and I quote, “does things for a reason.

Yes God can choose to act. I do not see the contention or problem with that.

I’m sorry but you’re waffling now; there is no argument at all in the above. The Principle of Sufficient Reason posed a direct and simple question, as yet unanswered, in response to Craig who said this:

According to Craig, every kind of explanation is either a logico-mathematical explanation (which, because it is abstract, is incapable of explaining the fact that something comes into existence), a scientific explanation (which can explain events occurring within the universe, but not the coming-to-be of the universe itself) or a personal explanation, involving an agent doing something for a reason. Personal explanation is the only schema that can explain the coming-to-be of the cosmos, reasons Craig."

I apparently do not understand what you are contending. I will paraphrase Craig and would agree with what is said. There is no natural explanation for the universes coming into existence know or theoretically reliable. The only known theoretical concept capable or bring things into being is a disembodied mind that is omnipotent, omniscient, etc......

Now you can show I misunderstood Craig or that you are trying to show something else, but what I said (not being proof of anything) Has no logical invalidation. No known natural explanation for the universe exists. I am not intentionally waffling. I just do not see exactly what your contention is.

Logic does not “require a cause beyond nature”; rather it shows such speculation to be risible, because from the fact that we don’t have a complete understanding of our world it is plainly absurd to assume there is another, unknowable world that can provide an answer! And further more, as I’ve explained umpteen times, attempting to apply cause and effect to God is self-contradictory for on that account an Unconditioned Being’s will is conditional upon a contingent principle. And the Biblical God, with all its inconsistencies and contradictions, is an arbitrary bolt-on component that delivers the coup de grace to the argument.

Logic requires a cause that no known natural process can supply. The only thing left is something beyond nature. Nothing has no causal potential. It is the absence of being, never a cause. It is true that maybe something else will be discovered that could explain this but even theoretically this is almost a logical absurdity. In fact not almost but it is a logical absurdity. The absence of anything can't create anything. You must either show the universe eternal or than nothing has causal potential. Being generous I agree it is not known we can go from something beyond nature to the God of the Bible, but what is certain is you can't go from nothing to nature without something beyond nature.

1. The world is all that is the case (everything that can be stated or conceived of, objects and ontological concepts).

Then how is it possible to have multiple worlds (universes)? Or is one world said to theoretically contain multiples universe. I hate terminology.

2. The material world is contingent and need not exist, and yet the world does exist for to say there is nothing, ie no world, is self-refuting (anti-sceptical), and therefore something about the material world must be true.

3. If there is a transcendent sustaining cause for material existence it must belong to the world.

If the conclusion (3) is false then so must be (1), which is contradictory.

What might be true of the arbitrary terminology associated with the word World does not suggest what is true of nature. God can be in the world and independent of nature if the word is used like that. The world that contains God might be self explanatory but the natural world alone is not self explanatory. I deny the capacity of any term to bind God anyway.

Continue;

 

[1robin]

You said: “God would still be God with no universe.” But consider this: while we can speak of the world without ever mentioning God the opposite does not hold true. The concept of God is only intelligible in terms of the world, and there is no necessary concept independent of it since that is where every argument to God begins and ends.

This is where the fallibility of our crude language causes paradoxes to be supposed where no exist. There is nothing illogical concerning a God who never created a material universe. This almost sounds like a tree in the forest argument with no one to hear. A paradox of language is not a paradox in reality many times. I find them interesting and completely unproductive.

Well that’s plainly wrong! First off, by saying ‘all information necessitates intelligence’ you are just begging the question. And the reality you speak of is apparent everywhere, just as Philo (Hume) pointed out. The reality is that trees do pass on order and organization, and the reality is that they do so without intervention by human intelligence. And of course the trees and their seeds contain an explanation for what they contain: all living organisms contain DNA! Now we can, for the sake of argument, agree the Big Bang was the beginning of the material world and we can accept that physical event as the reality, but to then propose a supernatural First Cause is no longer reality but pure speculation, conjoined with an ideological doctrine in your particular case, for in reality there is ‘no known principle’ of a supposedly existent supernatural creator interacting and intervening in the world. Finally, the term reality means the actual physical world, so please explain what reality you are referring to?

You did not read my claim carefully. I never sais information can be copied without intelligence which is what Hume is saying. I said it can be created to begin with without intelligence. A good explanation or example is the movie contact. They were listening to space and said that the way they would distinguish intelligent signals from natural ones is would be the presence of information. Indeterminate natural processes are mostly chaotic, a few can generate patterns of less than equilibrium complexity, what they can never do is produce complex information. My boss is an information specialist. It gets far worse than my primitive example. You also get into decoders than must be tuned to the type of information given so you need two independent systems coordinated with each other in sophisticated ways. There is not one example of information arising from nature without mind being involved. I would love to expand on this alone but am short of time.

My post 2643. You replied to that post (2646) but ignored the argument.
If I might venture an opinion I think perhaps you try to respond to too many posts, favouring quantity over quality? I say that because you don’t appear to have read, or at least not responded to, a number of my arguments, leaving crucial points unanswered.

I will see. I have a terrible habit of feeling compelled to respond to everyone. I am usually one of very few on the orthodox Christian side and atheists are notoriously contentious. It keeps me very busy. I prefer and strive at slowly covering a few subjects but am stymied by prolific posters constantly. You are one of two I am aware of that can be both meaningful and prolific much of the time. Most non-theists are just prolific.

Anyway, here is that short piece on intelligence and God once again.

“It doesn’t make proper sense to say your God is ‘intelligent’ since all references to intelligence are founded in mind, that is to say a cognitive ability to reason, plan and form ideas. Our understanding of intelligence is, as Alan Turing said: ‘to respond like a human being’. So to say God shares this similarity with man is to say God has human traits. But clearly in the case of an omniscient Being there is no learning from experience, no problem solving, no gaining of knowledge and no coping with adverse situations. Is it really being said with a straight face that an omniscient being has to learn and understand in order to deal with new or surprising situations. And nor can it mean the planning and forming of ideas, as there is no cognition involved, for by its very definition the concept of Supreme Being doesn’t reason: it is reason. To sum up, then, if we say God is ‘intelligent’, we are saying he is like humans, and so if this anthropomorphic God responds like a human being, even an omnipotent one, then it is a notion that contradicts the concept of all sufficient, necessary being.”

That was interesting but as usual appears to only be a problem of semantics that is then transcribed to reality for some reason.

Intelligence implies the ability understand. A roach and a human are not intellectual equals. A human and God are both cognitive but in infinitely contrasting capacities as to in no way be equals.

I have no idea why that would be fine for finite creatures but impossible for an infinite one.

To say God is intelligent, personal, or a moral agent is not to say his morals, intelligence, or ability to choose is identical to humans. Humans were made with similar aspect as God. We were not made with his capacity. To say both a ten inch line and an infinitely long theoretical line both have length does nothing to suggest he are equal in length. God is aware, we are aware. He is aware of everything and we are aware of an infinitesimally small subsection of a subsection of reality. There are no lesson from equality to be drawn from things that can't be any less equal.

There comes a point in most fields of study where the only gain becomes to blur the simple and complicate the obvious. I find most of theoretical physics, cosmology, the deep end of rhetoric, and philosophy to only blur and obfuscate things. We have begun to literally think our selves into imbecility. The Bible indicates that this way:
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,



- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition

I am loathe to criticize people as smart as a Hawking or a Hume but many times the glaring stupidity of their claims is so obvious I wonder at their sanity. I can supply some of those instances if needed.

 

[1robin]

They are: 2394, 2395, 2396, 2397 & 2398

I will try and get back to them but have my hands full.

But our understanding of the natural world does not lead us to something entirely other. And there is no evidence that the world is infinite or finite or of matter being either created or destroyed.

Newton's laws do not apply to creation. They apply to a created thing. Newton's laws apply to nature once you have nature and they assume only what nature does. As Lewis has said natural law may explain that A + B = C but it will never produce A,B, or C. Natural law is creatively impotent. Yes all the evidence we have suggests a finite universe.

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent

Yes what is known can and does indicate the presence of unknowns. If nature needs a cause which it does not contain it must come from something beyond nature and it's characteristics can be deduced from nature.

By the way, faith is still propositional!

Every claim ever made is propositional.

But you are not seeing the fundamental difference here, which is that supernatural claims cannot be replicated or subjected to the test of possible experience. If all we are being given is the contents of people’s minds then there is no difference between the two scenarios I gave you earlier where one person experiences God’s love while another is told by God to go out and kill. We have no way to distinguish the truth of either claim, but can only make a judgment based on social mores and what we find acceptable.

They are susceptible to personal experience and many times to shared experience. No they are not of a reproducible type by definition by vast swaths of what science claim is neither. No one has ever experienced or replicated a multiple universe, abiogenesis, or a dinosaur becoming a bird yet all are validated in volumes of text books. Truth is independent of perception, therefor perception is not the criteria for truth. If I say the sun exist and you say it does not one of us are wrong but both can't be right. As in every other form of study multiplicity of experience indicate greater probability of truth. It is possible billions are wrong but it is not likely they are. I did not make a moral epistemological claim, I make moral ontological claims. I claim that with God moral foundations exist, objective moral truths exist, even if no one knows what they are. Almost everyone believes certain actions are morally wrong. That can't be possible unless God exists. The fact virtually all people perceive an objective moral realm makes it's existence very likely but not proof.

I’m not able to make out what it is you are responding to in that first sentence: But if it was your reply to where I said this: “All hypotheses about the world, even the most far-fetched metaphysics, concern a subject that happens to exist as a matter of fact”, then I’m baffled by your answer. Once again, it is the case that all hypotheses about the world are by definition about something that exists as a matter of fact, ie the world. It is a fact! The distinction I’m making is that the physical world is factual and the reality, whereas supernatural beings are not.

Even if a set of hypothesis are equally possible they are not equally likely. The point is this, instead of a life time lets say that man has one day to arrive at or deny faith.

If only cosmological evidence was available to make that decision on then since virtually all evidence suggests a Bible consistent cosmos and since even the other possible theories have good reasons to think they are probably impossible faith should be adopted. Even if that logic is faulty what is certainly faulty is validating the least likely theories and contending with the one consistent with all the evidence. Everyone uses that logic for everything else. Why is it only violated with God permitting theories? All of us make decisions given the best evidence unless it is a non-theist with God.

Hume’s observation is we cannot at least for the present say what the world is beyond the apparent contingency of matter and yet even in that we cannot be certain. And this alluded to uncertainty, this vague possibility of an unknown underlying, necessary quality, is of the same species as the Supreme Being, speculation of course, but the former hypothesis has the distinct advantage - since we know the world actually exists!

We will probably never be able to say with certainty this side of the dirt. However we can make the case that the universe indicates finiteness and a cause it needs, but does not contain, with vastly better certainty than any other theory. You appear to be saying that in the absence of proof all theories are equally valid and that is not true nor is it how anyone runs all their non-theological parts of their lives. I may not know how fast a pitch was, but 100 mph is a much better theory that c^2.

It is the same principle as the discovery that certain small objects did not obey Newtonian physics. They acted in ways and were of a nature that was not described by natural law as we knew it. Turned out there was a whole new and huge aspect of reality with whole sets of laws we had no apprehension of. God is the exact same type of analogy except God comes with the inconvenient concepts of judgment, morality, and paints us in a none to flattering light. The principles are exactly the same, why is the willingness to concede them not?

 

[1robin]

Sorry but that isn’t the point I’m making. The essence of the controversy is Greenleaf’s claim that the Bible is true (and hence God exists), founded on the principle of Municipal Law and the rules of evidence. The Christian religion no longer has the unquestioning authority and a grip on society that it once did and no jury in the Western World today would, or could, reach a verdict that found for a the supposed truth of a religious doctrine and the existence of a supernatural being on the basis of ancient testimony alone (not that it did in Greenleaf’s era, either).

That is not the premise it is the conclusion. Greenleaf uses the exact same methodology and testing as is employed in all legal testimonial evaluations and arrives at the conclusion it is reliable. I was not discussing the influence of the Church in history. I am not sure what I am supposed to do with that.

I’m quite relaxed about this aspect the Testimony as it is the least crucial part of my critique (Part 1), although there is simply is no way of establishing beyond doubt that the lost copies were faithfully produced in every respect, as even Greenleaf himself concedes the possibility for error. And, again, as Richard Packham points out in his own critique, “All authorities on the rules of evidence emphasize that authenticating a document does not guarantee the truthfulness or accuracy of its contents. “Authentication merely shows where the document came from and when it was created.” Authenticity should not be taken to mean faithful and accurate reproduction, and the Bible cannot be taken as evidence for the Bible. This is ideology as much as history, with all those involved singing from the same song sheet as a matter of faith. A case in point is the art of exegesis where scholars study arcane texts to interpret meaning to fit with how they want it to be understood. And yet even if we allow that the copies were faithfully and accurately reproduced, and I’m quite happy to do that for the sake of argument, it still doesn’t address my main point of contention, which is that dead bodies coming to life must be proved scientifically and not by reference to aged testimony alone. But this fact seems to be completely lost on Greenleaf even as he quotes a legal precedent that he believes underlines his case:

“…in the House of Lords, precisely such a document, being an old manuscript copy, purported to have been extracted from ancient journals of the House, which were lost, and to have been made by an officer whose duty it was to prepare lists of the Peers, was held admissible in a claim of peerage.”

The standard of all historical claims is probability no the absence of doubt. It is very baffling to me why non-theists saddle faith with standards it does not have and do not require anything of science at all. In science if not demonstrably impossible and even at times when it is, the theory is valid but for faith claims (of all things) absolute certainty is demanded. Why?

There is always the possibility of error but it is only the indication of error that is relevant.

I nor he made the case that authenticity is proof. I and he claimed authenticity is a factor in building the case for probability of reliability. Your getting proof burdens mixed up with reliability and faith burdens.

Greenleaf doesn’t see, or refuses to see, that there is a crucial distinction to be drawn between events admissible in possible experience, such as his quoted example, and allusions to other worlds. If such a controversial matter as the dead living again is to be settled by a question of fact then there can be no greater proof of fact than for such an event to be scientifically verified. Are we to believe that corrupt flesh resumes its former integrity with or without our observing the process, or that no such putrefaction or the least degradation occurs? Such occurrences are entirely at odds with probability and matters of fact, the foundation upon which Greenleaf has built the entire edifice of his case?

Proof is not the issue. Reliability in testimony is. There is a huge disconnect here. There is no absolute proof for anything beyond that we think. Even though most do not admit it every claim beyond that is based partially on faith and only has a probability of being reliable. As documents go the Bible is extremely reliable in every category by which ancient document reliability is determined. It was never claimed to be truth. It is not proof or worthlessness. It is a quality of evidence issue.

All you’re doing here is collecting a number of people under the single banner of the Judeo-Christian faith to the exclusion of all the others, which is a partiality beyond any proof. I’m not sure how you propose to stack the numbers up against all the others throughout history that died for the sake of their loved ones, for their freedom, for justice, for living gods, for political or nationalistic allegiances, for lifestyle beliefs, or any other ideologies or faith systems, and that is not to mention all the other religions including those that recognize no deity. Christians can also be cowards and unprincipled the same as those from other belief systems. And in any case people dying or killing themselves for their beliefs isn’t evidence that their beliefs are true; it only demonstrates a commitment to the belief. The argument from martyrdom is Greenleaf’s least compelling thesis.

The willingness to sacrifice everything for the sake of a proposition based on experience is proof that sincerity of the claim exists and indicates accuracy of the claim. This is a truth so intuitive as to be virtually instinctual. All of us know the qualitative difference between a claim for benefit and a claim that results in great sacrifices. All of us doubt love until it is practiced even in suffering. You can't deny the principle. You are again claiming lack of proof indicates lack of value. Which is irrational enough on it's own but when so inconsistently applied becomes an indication of preference not evidence.

 

[1robin]

But they do not prove the existence of supernatural beings or supernatural events. I’m sure that even today there are untold numbers of believers who would swear upon oath that they had seen/spoken to God. If these persons came to court and made their submissions in person do you really and honestly think any Western court would find in their favour and announce to the world ‘Halleluiah, a supernatural being exists!’? And Greenleaf is inconsistent on the question of certainty for he makes this absolute assertion, quoting Paley: “the death of Jesus and his subsequent resurrection are true and incapable of refutation”. But then much of his piece alludes to possibility, not probability, such as when he indulges in speculative metaphysics, which is to disregard his own rules of evidence.

Are you telling me that 2 people who claim to have been abducted by alien's has the same persuasive value as 2 billion? For some reason you seem to claim that reliable testimony automatically becomes unreliable if about the supernatural.

You misquoted: Here is the statement.

This is the issue proposed by Dr. Paley, in regard to the evidence of the death of Jesus upon the cross, and his subsequent resurrection, the truth of which he has established in an argument incapable of refutation.

The argument has no refutation. I can allow that the truth claim is a little optimistic but is not Greenleaf's nor an unjustifiable part of common language use. It also states this as a proposition not a statement of proven fact.

On a point of law Greenleaf informs us:

“A proposition is proved when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence”

And in the next paragraph he says this: “Now as the facts, stated in Scripture history [not being demonstrable] may be proved [by sense experience] when they are established by that kind and degree of evidence….would in the affairs of human life, satisfy the mind and conscience of the common man.”

I am not sure I understand what Greenleaf was saying here. It appears he is saying that experiential truth can still be acceptable even if it contradicts norms but can't be sure. I could not find this statement at all. It seems to be similar to a doctors taking my word that my arm hurts even if he can find no evidence that it should be. I can't be sure because I can't find it, for context.

I

n that case, Doctor Greenleaf, do the affairs of human life correspond with dead men leaving their graves and thus satisfy a common man’s mind and conscience in that respect? No, Sir, they do not!

I have not been able to copy and search for any of the three statement you gave from Greenleaf. Where are you getting these things from? I searched "testimony of the evangelists) copying three sections from this quote and can't find it. Nor could I find it with a general web search.

 

[1robin]

I said that that they incorporated what they believed to be the truth, against Greenleaf’s Strawman ploy of batting away their being complicit in deceit. You ask ‘In what way is the unnatural source of these events involved in determining if they occurred?’ Well, that’s a question I’ve already answered in my critique applying Greenleaf’s own words: “by satisfactory evidence, is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt” And it is not satisfactory evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, which ordinarily satisfies an “unprejudiced mind” that all men must suffer death and that flesh is irreversibly destroyed? If Greenleaf is asking us to consider his argument on the balance of probabilities, as he insists, then he must accept that the weight of evidence against him in this matter is overwhelming and incontrovertible.

That is a subjective standard that you can not demonstrate is untrue. If you do not think it true then maybe you are not unprejudiced. I will take the standard and estimation over the founder of Harvard law and a well experienced lawyer as to what convinces an unprejudiced mind before a random person in a forum. I was convinced in spite of a prejudiced mind so can only say I very strongly disagree with your interpretation here.

He is not arbitrarily batting away supposed deceit. He nor I nor anyone I have heard of has ever shown the slightest indication of complicity or contrivance. That was a large part of the point. In fact every indication in every category indicates the greatest possible sincerity. I would be happy to discuss this alone if you wish.

But if he doesn’t accept that evidence then he is simply making a special plea from his belief as faith.

What evidence is he not accepting? I saw no probability argument made above besides the probability of reliability for their testimony. The probability of us dying and our bodies decomposing places no bounds on the probability we could rise again with either a spiritual body or a new material body. The only evidence we have for resurrection is positive.

To which Greenleaf complains thus:

“But the Christian writer seems, by the usual course of the argument, to have been deprived of the common presumption of charity in his favor; and reversing the ordinary rule of administering justice in human tribunals, his testimony is unjustly presumed to be false, until it is proved to be true.”

Yes indeed, and that’s because it is an extraordinary claim, “extraordinary” being an understatement in this particular case. Municipal Law deals with matters of fact; that so-and-so said such-and-such are the facts to be considered in what Greenleaf himself describes as ‘human tribunals’, but it remains the case that Municipal Law cannot prove what Greenleaf is asking us to accept, which is that Christ rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. He can only insist that we accept that the Evangelists believed what they say they saw or heard.

That is the point. A claims truth is independent of it's extraordinary nature. I will show both the logic and the double standards with a comparison. Even with very god evidence you deny Christ's resurrection because it is extraordinary. However in spite of all the evidence you consider valid, virtually impossible extraordinary things such as multiverses and eternal natural realities. What you should have said was that extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence to be persuasive but you would be no more cosnistant. There are billions who testify to having experienced a resurrected Christ and no one has ever claimed to experience eternity or multiverses.

Greenleaf has presented an academic paper and everything he’s written is part of that work. You cannot expect to isolate particular passages because they’re found contradictory or inconvenient to the defence. And even if we were to allow such a biased adjunct commentary by what right does he so loftily pronounce on matters as if they were settled while refusing to countenance any discussion or objections? If Greenleaf introduces an argument then he must be prepared to defend it. So I’m sorry but that is a very poor excuse indeed.

I most certainly can. His paper had a specific purpose. I can very well indicate that what he presumed that is part of another proof is not invalid because this paper had no burden for that proof. The same way Hawking did not get into Newton's theory of gravity to make the very stupid claim that gravity proves that something can come from nothing. That statement is stupid on it's own not because he assumed gravity was true based on arguments he did not include.

And there is this: ‘The importance of the facts testified, and their relations to the affairs of the soul, and the life to come, can make no difference in the principles or the mode of weighing the evidence‘

So why mention them, Dr Greenleaf? And notice how he speaks of ‘the life to come’ as if it were a fact. It seems he cannot confine himself to examining the evidence without veering off to promote elements of the Christian doctrine that have no direct bearing on the matters at hand.

He made statements for differing audiences. He made some to be more relevant to Christians, some to legal professional. and even some anticipating (apparently to no effect) the claim that he was giving evidence weight it's importance, not it's reliability, justified. It is an extremely frequent tactic to anticipate and overcome contentions. However you are contending with the contention to head off a contention. Not even Greenleaf could see all that coming out of a rational minded person.

There is no ‘complete reliability in the case of miracles and the Resurrection is nothing if not a core claim in Christianity. And the ‘exacting standards’ that life imposes upon us is that all men must die and do not return from the grave. Dead bodies coming to life again has never been observed. The dead remain dead with no known exceptions to the contrary.

I do not think there is a single thing here you could possibly know even if true.

Btw, scientific truths can never be more than highly probable and may be amended or overturned and are always open to being challenged. We should compare that with the doctrinal beliefs of religious faith that allow nothing to count against them!

Everything is open to being over turned. Some things actually merit it. Actually that is not true. There are some scientific truths there is no way to falsify which are a violation of one of only two rules required of a scientific theory.

But he is claiming a miracle! That is precisely what resurrection entails, and it is the fundamental premise of his argument and defence thereof. Once again he makes a bold assertion airily dismissing any objections before they can be made.

He did so by testing the testimony. Testimony is not any less true if about an extraordinary thing nor any more true if about a mundane thing. You are thinking about persuasive not reliable.

The conditional if- then premise you allude to is really saying nothing at all other than ‘If there is a God, then he exists’! But may I remind you again that the assumptions and hypotheses formed in science concern the empirical world and are subject to being proved true or false, and even if proved true may still be proved false or erroneous in the future.

No, and there is another huge inconsistency here. I am bound by the descriptions assigned to God and his thousands of promises recorded thousands of years ago. Science is not bound by anything. Even the impossible or virtually impossible is claimed to be valid science and layer upon layer upon layer of assumptions producing assumptions are derived from it. Christians do not have the luxury of being restricted by nothing.

False comparison! Those everyday extrapolated claims from facts ‘in every field (including law)’ lead to other facts that occur in possible experience. They do not pronounce on the supernatural or a transcendent reality as with beliefs from faith or speculative metaphysics.

Yes they do. Exactly what everyday facts are multiverses based on. There is not the slightest reason to even think the natural law we know so little about has anything to do with them. There is not the slightest evidence they exist, and there are endless reasons to think they can't exist. Yet they are valid and God not. Why?

 

[1robin]

We can certainly speculate about what might lie beyond experience, indeed I have done so myself, but in doing so where do we arrive courtesy those extrapolations? The answer is that we remain most assuredly where we began, still in the experiential world. Whatever we imagine to exist as a transcendent reality, God for example, is simply taken from the sum of our experiences and then augmented without limit.

What does our location have to do with this? Quantum physics was extrapolated before any known natural law could explain it and it was true. Why is it only a non-natural explanation that can't be reliably extrapolated. Why is God less probable than the next field of physics we discover? In fact much of theoretical science is based on no known reality and many times contrary to it. Hawking's has waxed on quite a bit about what occurs in black holes or multiverses. Based on what? No evidence is available and no known principles are known to apply.

To pose the objection ‘life coming from ‘non-life’ is merely an exercise in question-begging, and multiverses are in the same arena as speculative metaphysics - as far as I’m concerned. And nobody has said cause and effect does not exist!
Causality cannot be demonstrated logically, that is to say necessarily, and one doesn’t need to be a logician to understand that cause cannot be both contingent and necessary; and, as a putative Creator, God is dependent upon the principle of causality, where an effect is answerable to its cause and thus he is dependent upon a feature of the contingent world. It is logically possible for every speck of matter and every so-called law to disappear tomorrow and God would not be in the least affected – with the sole exception of causality - which would result his non-being, and thus render ‘God’ an impossible concept.

No, life coming only from life is consistent with every known observation ever performed. Why is what is consistent with every observation question begging but what is inconsistent with every observation perfectly valid and claimed as fact at times. Double standards do not come any more flagrant. Causality is demonstrated in every effect ever observed. God is not dependent on causality. It may be said the perception of him is based on it but not his existence. Nothing caused God. The last piece of "logic" above escapes me.

Nobody is ‘defying all experience’, not Hume, not me. The empiricist’s position is that there is only experience from which we can learn and form our judgements. But Greenleaf wants to infer the existence of other worlds, supposing from experience that what is the case in this, the actual world, is true of other worlds as in the principle of causality. And given the essence of his assertions in this particular it is not difficult to see why his argument is impoverished and empty. For while we can all speculate about other worlds and the supernatural there is no ‘knowledge’, as Greenleaf claims, that can be derived from speculative reasoning. And if you think otherwise then kindly answer me this: what truths and knowledge of the world are derived from, or given by, God and what knowledge can we have of God over and above that which is already available to us in the basic concept? But other questions also need to be asked: Why is Greenleaf making so much of a metaphysical argument if it is only what you’ve described as a ‘side issue’? And in what way do the rules of evidence incorporate or permit speculation on the ‘rational existence and character of God’ as he says towards the end of his submission?

Supernatural experience is no less valid than natural experience. If truth can be truth can be gained by the natural there is no reason to suggest it can't be gained through the transcendent. Greenleaf never claimed that because X occurred on earth it exists in other worlds. He concluded that if X occurred in this world and this world does not contain the explanation of X then it's explanation is beyond this world. His paper I referenced is only concerned with the reliability of the testimony for X. The impossibility of the natural world to produce X is a matter for history, science, and philosophy and so is a side issue for that paper.

There is no evidence whatsoever that bodies dead for several days return to life. That is a fact with no known exceptions.

Actually that is fact with proof. people have been clinically dead for quite some time and have recovered. It used to be such a problem caskets came with signaling devices equipped. However that was not my argument anyway. A lack of evidence is only a problem if more evidence should exist. The only resurrection in the Bible is of Christ. The testimony for it meets all criteria for reliability. What additional evidence should you have?

I am not denying the principle of cause and effect; that I think is simply your misunderstanding of what I’ve been saying. Causation belongs to this the actual world and there is not a shred of evidence to suggest the existence of a supernatural world, never mind one with the attributes of Supreme Being that absurdly depends upon our-worldly features.

Many things in the natural world are independent of it. Numbers, many constants, abstract concepts have been shown to be independent of nature. Their existence in nature is not proof or even evidence that they are naturally derived. There is not the slightest reason to believe cause and effect are only natural laws.

And actually I have not confused Greenleaf’s comments. It is clear to anyone who reads him that he was simply unable to keep his private beliefs distinct from his professional life, and in this his lack of care has been detrimental to the argument. The unfortunate result was that points of law and the overall argument were seriously undermined by his faith, which is very ironic given the object of the paper.

I agree he included his beliefs. I also claim his beliefs were not what he used as his core argumentation. The man as much as any in history and countless that claim faith were thoroughly trained in separating preference from evidence. Your confusing inclusion with foundation or method.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I keep giving this link because it also contains very good reasons to think all the major theories that include infinities are impossible but I can't ever get a non-theist to even read it. Wonder why that is?


Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
—Fred Hoyle[6]

There is no reliable evidence, principle, or justification for a single "objection" in your entire post.

I don't think I'll even dignify the rest of your response with a response of my own.

I shall summarize

1) you claim all infinites and theories around them are compariable with purple fairies. I simply said you are incorrect in throwing out scientifically backed theories like that. I am not saying they are absolutly correct but simply correcting your assumption in that manner.

2) You claim no infinites. I brought to you several infinites. I agree there is a finite mass in the univers so far as we can tell. I have never argued otherwise. You simply are having a hard time grasping what I'm telling you. Either because you assume I'm arguing something I'm not or some other reason.

3) your argument that causality is required for the universe to have been created is unfounded and no science thus far has been able to link a god to this equation even if a causality was difinitively proven.

4) Your false appeals to authority does not intrest me in the slightest.

 

[Thief]

I don't think I'll even dignify the rest of your response with a response of my own.

I shall summarize

1) you claim all infinites and theories around them are compariable with purple fairies. I simply said you are incorrect in throwing out scientifically backed theories like that. I am not saying they are absolutly correct but simply correcting your assumption in that manner.

2) You claim no infinites. I brought to you several infinites. I agree there is a finite mass in the univers so far as we can tell. I have never argued otherwise. You simply are having a hard time grasping what I'm telling you. Either because you assume I'm arguing something I'm not or some other reason.

3) your argument that causality is required for the universe to have been created is unfounded and no science thus far has been able to link a god to this equation even if a causality was difinitively proven.

4) Your false appeals to authority does not intrest me in the slightest.

That item won't happen.
No equation, no photo, no fingerprint, no repeatable experimental results.

Science cannot go before the singularity.
For the singularity to be truly singular.....no secondary point can be allowed.
no time, no space, no movement, no heat, no cold, no light, no shadow....etc...

No form....void.

So, cause and effect would be the only item left if you can hold to it.

I say, Spirit First.
God is the Cause and the universe (one word) is the effect.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That item won't happen.
No equation, no photo, no fingerprint, no repeatable experimental results.

Science cannot go before the singularity.
For the singularity to be truly singular.....no secondary point can be allowed.
no time, no space, no movement, no heat, no cold, no light, no shadow....etc...

No form....void.

So, cause and effect would be the only item left if you can hold to it.

I say, Spirit First.
God is the Cause and the universe (one word) is the effect.

Well thats great that you say that and all but I need the evidence that lead you to this sort of conclusion.

 

[1robin]

Whether God is an all-knowing being, or a thoughtless being non-existent anymore, something had to start the first thing, the first science, and science cannot and will not ever explain the start of science, just as something cannot create itself. Before anything, there was nothing. Something transcendent, existent before anything, had to create the first something. That, we call God.

ijhii

 

[1robin]

I don't think I'll even dignify the rest of your response with a response of my own.

I shall summarize

1) you claim all infinites and theories around them are compariable with purple fairies. I simply said you are incorrect in throwing out scientifically backed theories like that. I am not saying they are absolutly correct but simply correcting your assumption in that manner.

2) You claim no infinites. I brought to you several infinites. I agree there is a finite mass in the univers so far as we can tell. I have never argued otherwise. You simply are having a hard time grasping what I'm telling you. Either because you assume I'm arguing something I'm not or some other reason.

3) your argument that causality is required for the universe to have been created is unfounded and no science thus far has been able to link a god to this equation even if a causality was difinitively proven.

4) Your false appeals to authority does not intrest me in the slightest.

pjpjpoijpojpojpojpo