|
General Random thoughts and ideas. "General" does not mean random drivel, nonsense or inane silliness. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#61
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
*deep breath* *clicks "Go Advanced"*
@Xorlof When I refer to faith I refer to confidence in something unseen (as in unobservable in any way). Also I will specify "denying the existence of God" to more directly refer to the people within this thread who do not appear in their posts to be openly adhering to any other religion, rather adhering to the idea that what we can observe in the material world is all that there is and all explanations of that world are contained in that world. Sorry I wasn't as specific as I could have been, obviously people who believe in another religion put their faith (confidence in something unseen) in something else. What I was trying to get at is that in the naturalist/evolutionary perspective one must have confidence in many unseen things if not more in order to uphold the evolutionary worldview. Mind you, the scientific findings are all the same; however, the manner in which they are understood and placed into each individual's worldview varies. This necessity of "faith" is demonstrated in your own example about mutations claiming they "are beneficial or of mixed blessing (e.g., sickle cell trait vis-a-vis malaria)" you are exercising faith that beneficial mutations have occured even though none have been observed, most examples of mutation observed are a deletion of information that does not lead to a NEW trait so much as a loss of traits. Some examples here being cave fish who have "evolved" to live without light and no longer develop eyes, albinism, sickle cell. Even one of the most hopeful observable studies of "evolution" in populations of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics demonstrates that the bacteria aren't gaining new information and the mutations that lead to resistance cause the bacteria to be unfit in a normal environment without the antibiotic, leading to an eventual decline in the allegedly "evolved" resistant population. Article Here Those who do not want to have confidence in an unseen God who has created a template for the organisms we see today must have confidence in an unseen (though frequently sought) process (that is the creation of beneficial genetic material via mutations) to account for the organisms we see today. I don't think I need to address the differences between micro and macro-evolution here. Darwin's finches, bacteria, etc., only exhibit micro-evolution and examples of macro-evolution are still unfounded, neither currently in process, nor in the fossil record. Yet someone who believes in evolution must have confidence in this unobserved phenomenon that transforms one species into another vastly different species. The fossil record is another area where those who believe in an evolutionary history of the origins of life must exercise their "faith". I am aware of fossils such as Tiktaalik as one possible intermediary example; however, out of the hundreds of thousands of fossils of plenty of other organisms out there how is it that there are so few intermediary examples? Evolutionists must have faith that thousands if not millions of generations of slightly different mutated organisms survived and passed on allegedly beneficial mutations without a single one dying and becoming fossilized until a supposed distant descendant which is an alleged new species is stupid enough to get stuck in mud and ends up fossilized. That is a lot of consistently unobserved occurences that necessitate faith in order to keep the idea afloat Another area of wishy washyness where evolutionist "faith" must be flexed occurs when considering methods of radiometric dating. This article more specifically demonstrates what I mean. But basically evolutionists approach rock layers with a presupposed age of the earth in mind, then use that presupposition to validate data from an unreliable method, which is in turn used to determine the age of more rock layers in concordance with the initial presupposition. The article points out that the rock formed from the Mount St. Helens eruption was dated at millions of years old however; the rock was formed in the mid 1980s). Here the entire method of radiometric dating is held up by the "faith" based presupposition an evolutionist brings to the method to begin with. Additionally fossils found in rock layers must be the assumed age of that rock accordingly, so in confidence in the unobserved evolution, and unobserved age of the earth rock layers indicate different time periods; however, polystrate fossils such as petrified trees extending through multiple layers pose a major problem for that conclusion. On the flipside a Creationist must have faith that there are accounts explaining such phenomenon as the aforementioned and that such accounts can be considered accurate based on the consistent historical reliability of the Bible in reference to other ancient and recent events without actually being able to witness the accounts themselves. Additionally, a Christian must have faith that God describes Himself accurately in the Book about Himself and therefore must also believe that God is eternal, having no beginning or end thereby preceding the origin of life on earth. Likewise an evolutionist must have faith that before the "big bang" chemicals already existed that as you claim, abide by pre-existing rules of physics leading to Creation. I would say this is the BIGGEST faith based conclusion an evolutionist must come to without any possibility of explanation apart from a means to exclude the possibility of a creator God. At least a belief in God is backed by a historically accurate book that describes Him and everyday experiences that bear witness to his existence as witnessed throughout all of recorded history. I am unaware of any possible observations that could bring one to the conclusion of the big bang, rather a desire for God to not be in the picture necessitates some other beginning. Perhaps the aversion to God or religion in general is the cause of confusion in the use of the word faith because a non-religious person does not want to be caught having "faith" in anything, though they may have confidence in something unobservable. So based on my understanding and usage of the word "faith" I stand by the claim that an evolutionist (trying to deny the existence of God) uses and requires just as much faith to fill in "gaps" in their understanding of the world: they just do not put their "faith" in a religion. I also still believe that Christianity and a belief in God does a better job of answering scientific questions ("polystrate fossils" are the result of a worldwide flood, DNA was designed to allow for adaptibility and perhaps closer to the beginning had a higher possibility for varied expression within a species (accounting for similar yet different animals within species), and even Neanderthals and other alleged "proto-hominids" were simply different looking humans". Not only that but such a belief in God offers life and life abundant. There are certain things that I did not believe until I witnessed it, such as my wife being instantly healed, specific prayers that were not shared with anyone coming to very detailed fruition, and an ability to do good things for others like my wife when I am dead set on being selfish. Nobody will ever be able to offer any logical argument that can explain those personal experiences and greater similar experiences across the globe of those who fully commit to engaging with God on His terms, without admitting that there is an active and personal God. There is a reason why out of all the religions with their various beginnings and endings, consistently there have always been people who worship the God of the Bible. No other belief system can claim such a consistent following, because no other belief system offers the hope that Christianity does, to be cleared of any mistakes, freed from chaos, and lifted to a glorious never ending life. |
#62
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
Quote:
Quote:
So I mean, as you had said and Xorlof so eloquently explained, we seem to just disagree on the definition (and even the current one you present doesn't exhibit all powerful to me, although I understand you are using it to bring some reason to the definition of omnipotence). But I just think that the term fails under your definition as well. Omnipotent, derived from it's latin root, quite literally means 'all potent.' Not 'entirely potent in only some given circumstances'. So I would assert that a deity could not possess omnipotence and omniscience. I would also assert that under your definition the deity merely fails to be omnipotent in at least one respect, and thus fails to be omnipotent in any respect. Powerful by all means, but not omnipotent. But I see your point very clearly. If god wanted to create food continually out of nothing, you would assert that he could to so ad infinitum, and since there is no limit on that use of the power, he must be omnipotent. But that doesn't follow because his power is not all encompassing. ~JS Last edited by Joseph Sweeney; June 30th, 2017 at 06:41 AM. |
#63
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
On the question of omnipotence, gentlemen, I have a question. I am not trying to make a point with it; I'm just curious for your thoughts.
Could an omnipotent god create a triangle in which the sum of the angles is not 180 degrees? Or does not have three sides? Or has an omnipotent god, who created a world with math and geometry, bound his own creative power with the rules he installed? I'm not trying to trick anyone. It's an old question, but I'm curious to hear the thoughts of those who spend more time thinking about omnipotence than I do. |
#64
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
JS,
It's an interesting thing. We agree that God is not going to do every possible thing. Where we diverge is in that I would argue that the ability to do a thing is sufficient whereas you would argue that the knowledge that a thing will never be done is a defeater. I'll fall back to my assertion that the ability to do literally anything one chooses to do with whatever level of effort one chooses to put into it is functional omnipotence. Basically, I cannot fathom what having MORE power than that could possibly look like since any power in excess of that would, by definition, never be used. DS, I think there are multiple ways to approach the question. The simplest for a Christian is to recognize that God created this universe and is certainly capable of creating another whose rules would allow for any sort of variations. I don't think that satisfies the question though. Biblically speaking, God has caused a bush to burn without being consumed, caused a sheepskin to by turns be dry in a morning with the ground covered in dew and soaked in the morning with the ground dry of dew, held a day such that the sun did not move in the sky for many hours, opened the waters of a sea so that His people could walk across on dry land, and raised several people from the dead. As such, it seems clear that per the Bible, He is absolutely capable of violating natural law whenever it suits His purpose. Therefore, yes, He would be capable of the things you describe. ~Aldin, bending the rules He either fears his fate too much or his desserts are small That dares not put it to the touch to gain or lose it all ~James Graham |
#65
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
Quote:
Personally, since I don't believe omnipotence to be possible, I would assert that any being existing within the realm of our current universe is bound by logic much the same as we are, and could not creat a square circle, a married bachelor, or what have you. A special case could be made that the deity exists outside our universe and somehow outside of logic, and in that case I suppose, if logic were somehow different, then it's entirely possible. But in our universe, I would assert that a deity could not excersize his power in that fashion. ~JS |
#66
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
Thank you for answering my question, fellas. Carry on.
|
#67
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
Quote:
I suppose this is were the argument ends then unless you wanted to add something else? If that is all I really did quite enjoy the discussion. ~JS |
#68
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
Out of curiosity, do you think anything is capable of violating its own nature?
~Aldin, who thinks JS is towing a pretty deterministic line - not that there's anything wrong with that He either fears his fate too much or his desserts are small That dares not put it to the touch to gain or lose it all ~James Graham |
#69
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
Quote:
Am I towing the line, or have I crossed it? I honestly can't tell. ~JS |
#70
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
Well... if nothing can violate its nature, then the word "omnipotence" loses most of its usefulness if it cannot apply to something which is not violating its nature. It is then no longer a term that applies in a discussion about how much power an entity wields. In that case, the only useful term would be "effective omnipotence", which is what I mean when I say omnipotence anyway.
~Aldin, who believes in both determinism and free will He either fears his fate too much or his desserts are small That dares not put it to the touch to gain or lose it all ~James Graham |
#71
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
Quote:
But whatever you wish to coin the phrase, be it "effective omnipotence," or powerful, or perfect, I don't really care but I just think omnipotence defines something outside of reality. As unrealistic a circular square, if you will. Could you give me your views on free will though? You've roped me in and I am curious now. ~JS |
#72
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God
For me, at the point where the being in question is posited to have created the universe and to exist both within it and outside of it... well... semantics.
My view on free will and determinism actually flows out of the preceding statement. We know that time is a function of the universe interacting, at a minimum, with velocity and gravity such that time does not flow equally at all times everywhere. So given a God who created the universe, God created time and therefore exists outside of it. Without time, causality gets really tricky. When we discuss causality, we typically assume the cause happening before the effect. The question of free will and determinism is tied up in the question of causality - and, as I'm thinking about it, at least loosely to your complaint regarding declaring a being who knows all they will do as omnipotent. The way I see it, God can perceive the whole of the universe from without. Absent time without, both a year ago and a year from now are equally "visible" and accessible from that external viewpoint. Within the universe, however, time had a starting point and continues to march forward with each individual making their choices and those choices changing how things will be further downstream in time. In other words, my choices matter and I haven't yet made them, while at the same time God is able from outside time to see and interact with me and the choices I make at any point of the timestream. My best analogy - and it is a terrible one, but I hope you will play along - is a really good story in a book. As you read a book, you travel through the story with the characters and experience the choices they make and the consequences thereof. If you are part of a group reading the book, you might discuss different choices the characters could have made and the impact that would have had on the story. And yet, you could certainly choose to skip the story and go to the end of the book. The story has been written. The end is knowable. I feel that even though the end is already written, that reading the story the choices are valid. Essentially, it is only for the external reader that any sort of determinism exists, while for the characters themselves there is free will. So much so that when I re-read a book I can find myself pondering the choices made even already having experienced the ending. ~Aldin, dually He either fears his fate too much or his desserts are small That dares not put it to the touch to gain or lose it all ~James Graham |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Undercosted 4th Mass Argument: Supply and Demand Analogy | mccombju | HeroScape General Discussion | 15 | June 17th, 2009 11:09 PM |
Help me, my friend and I are having an argument. | Jedi Master Corazz | Official Rules & FAQ's | 23 | September 6th, 2007 05:26 PM |
An a argument thread about n00b rights. | Ullar rocks 4553 | Scapers Online | 97 | August 4th, 2007 12:35 AM |
Marrow argument | Roman_Warlord | HeroScape General Discussion | 21 | August 3rd, 2007 08:27 PM |