Argumenter for og imod gud eksistens
Filosofi, Etik & Religion
Dato: 7/5 2013 17:26 | Indlæg redigeret den: 7/5 2013 17:48
Why does physics require an explanation concerning the source of its laws?
Shall we really play at this silly logic game that I have already taken to task above?
What came before the source of the laws about the beginning of the source that was before the source of the laws that were before the laws of the source of the source of the source before the source before the laws...?
I really got over it when I was like 7 and realized it was turtles all the way down...
Why does physics require an explanation concerning the source of its laws?
Shall we really play at this silly logic game that I have already taken to task above?
What came before the source of the laws about the beginning of the source that was before the source of the laws that were before the laws of the source of the source of the source before the source before the laws...?
I really got over it when I was like 7 and realized it was turtles all the way down...
Dato: 7/5 2013 17:51 | Indlæg redigeret den: 7/5 2013 17:55
Jeff, I´m not even slightly impressed with your rhetoric.
You don´t sound like you got over anything when you were seven. You sound petulant and intolerant, if I may say so.
Let´s leave it at that.
Jeff, I´m not even slightly impressed with your rhetoric.
You don´t sound like you got over anything when you were seven. You sound petulant and intolerant, if I may say so.
Let´s leave it at that.
Dato: 7/5 2013 18:00 | Indlæg redigeret den: 7/5 2013 18:05
Tidligere skrev jeg
Tidligere skrev jeg
The big bang kunne ikke opstå ud af ingenting. Derfor må der være en eller noget som har skabt the big bang. Måske Gud?
I mellemtiden har jeg læst lidt på nettet og har fundet ud af at universet ikke har en begyndelse. Universet har altid eksisteret så der behøver ikke at være nogen eller noget der har skabt det. Grunden til at universet altid har eksisteret er at tid og universet opstod samtidigt. Begge dele har altid eksisteret. En gud kan ikke have skabt universet da universet er alt hvad der eksisterer. Hvis der har været et tidspunkt hvor det eneste der eksisterede i universet var en gud så var gud = universet. En gud kan ikke have skabt sig selv
Dato: 7/5 2013 18:04
Incognito,
Earthling,
Okay, I admit that I wasn't 7 when I read Hume:
"How can we satisfy ourselves without going on in infinitum? And, after all, what satisfaction is there in that infinite progression? Let us remember the story of the Indian philosopher and his elephant. It was never more applicable than to the present subject. If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world must rest upon some other; and so on, without end. It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the present material world."
Incognito,
Earthling,
Okay, I admit that I wasn't 7 when I read Hume:
"How can we satisfy ourselves without going on in infinitum? And, after all, what satisfaction is there in that infinite progression? Let us remember the story of the Indian philosopher and his elephant. It was never more applicable than to the present subject. If the material world rests upon a similar ideal world, this ideal world must rest upon some other; and so on, without end. It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the present material world."
Dato: 7/5 2013 19:22
Theology might give an account, but it will be no better in terms of truth, than if I were to make up a bunch of stuff at random. Norse mythology, as I have mentioned earlier, states that the world is created from the body of the giant jotun Ymer. That is an account of how the world was created, but I would say that it is a poor one. Unless you believe that it is in fact a satisfactory explanation, you have to account for how any other religious creation theory is superior. Please do.
The math checks out for the multiverse theory though. Not so much for the heavenly ascension by winged horse.
I would argue, that you may. I would also argue that, as with most things, you are wrong and that Jeff is very patient and polite.
NJ
Earthling:Evolution tell us little about these, unless I´ve missed something. Philosophy and theology can give an account of the place of God in an independant universe, as I´m sure you know.
Theology might give an account, but it will be no better in terms of truth, than if I were to make up a bunch of stuff at random. Norse mythology, as I have mentioned earlier, states that the world is created from the body of the giant jotun Ymer. That is an account of how the world was created, but I would say that it is a poor one. Unless you believe that it is in fact a satisfactory explanation, you have to account for how any other religious creation theory is superior. Please do.
Earthling:As for multvi-universes and aliens seeding our universe/plant... We´re still in the land of fiction... Personally, I see no good reason for rejecting the existence of God as a possibility, and I am not alone.
The math checks out for the multiverse theory though. Not so much for the heavenly ascension by winged horse.
Earthling:You don´t sound like you got over anything when you were seven. You sound petulant and intolerant, if I may say so.
I would argue, that you may. I would also argue that, as with most things, you are wrong and that Jeff is very patient and polite.
NJ
Dato: 8/5 2013 01:03 | Indlæg redigeret den: 8/5 2013 12:04
LOL! That big of you, Jeff! So you weren´t a child prodigy...
LOL! That could be applied to a lot of topics
Look, I take your point (and Hume´s), but in "my world" logic means things have a beginning, a middle and an end. I consider God as the ground of all being. You know as well as I do that there are good arguments for thinking so. They may not convince you, fine. I respect that. Your alternatives do not convince me either. Respect that. I don´t try and paint you as a childish for not agreeing with me. Return the favour. Give me the same leeway to argue that maybe - just maybe - God is the source of all life and all being. Likewise, I give you the leeway to believe the universe was somehow self-starting, laws somehow "magically" established and organized themselves, a first class "1 system, flere formål" somehow evolved without reason or mind behind it, etc. without suggesting you are childish. I even give you leeway to argue pseudo-science like meme´s theory, multi-universes and aliens seeding the planet, if you want. I may disagree or point out the limitations of your arguments, but I won´t suggest you´re childish. And I certainly won´t mix aliens with fairies!
Why should I content myself with living in a three-dimensional black and white world when I can live in a four dimensional multi-colour world? Beside, I can´t help it, the material world speaks to me of God. After all, nature is the first book about God
@ Serenity
No. The point about God is that He IS: "I am who I am".
@ NJ
I am not talking about Norse mythology.
I am not talking about stuff made up at random either. I am talking about someone who said, "I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life". You may chose to argue that he never existed, but you won´t find too many historians agreeing with you. You may chose to argue that he is not the Face of God. I disagree, for what I consider very good reasons. I suggest you check them out if you want to converse intelligently with me.
Good Question: "Why Christianity?"
http://www.myspace.com/maria_franciscan/blog/544872580
Is There Historical Evidence for Jesus?
http://magischristwiki.org/index.php/Historical_Evidence
Historical Questions about the Resurrection of Jesus
http://www.salvationhistory.com/blog/historical_questions_about_the_resurrection_of_jesus_special_easter_post_an/#.UVrjk7v0q5M.facebook
New experiments on Shroud show it’s not medieval
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/sindone-23579/
What is the Turin Shroud?
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-holy-shroud/
http://www.shroud.com/
Is there really solid evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?
http://www.bethinking.org/resurrection-miracles/introductory/q-is-there-really-solid-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ.htm
The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
part 1 (skeptics) and part 2 (court of law)
http://www.philosophy-religion.org/faith/pdfs/Resurrection.pdf
You make a fundamental mistake. You mix theology and science. And you don´t seem to have taken the time to check any of the links I posted on this thread, or read my comments very well. If you did, you would have learned that the Bible is not, and was never meant to be, a science book.
Father George Coyne Ph.D. - Science and Scripture (1.36.mins)
You would also know that I am not arguing against Evolution or Big Bang Theory just placing it in a bigger framework. You would also have learned of the primary role of many believers ( including priests) in the development of modern science. All in all, I find your remark entirely irrelevant. Again, if you wish to converse with me, at least take the time and trouble to read my comments and links (properly).
Once again, I never mentioned winged horses. I am taking about a specific person. (See previous links.) So this comment is entirely irrelevant. In any case, numbers on a page do not a house build... You want to believe in multi-universes, fine. But, you will need faith, at least for the next few billion years...
Where do I suggest that Jeff is not patient and polite? I was referring to a particular remark he made and his momentary stance. He responded in his last comment to me. It´s not your place to interfere. And, besides, Jeff and I respect and like each other "in an internet kind of way", even if we don´t always agree. Jeff has been kind and fair towards me on VK, and I would never take that from him - ever.
LOL! That big of you, Jeff! So you weren´t a child prodigy...
"How can we satisfy ourselves without going on in infinitum?"
LOL! That could be applied to a lot of topics
Look, I take your point (and Hume´s), but in "my world" logic means things have a beginning, a middle and an end. I consider God as the ground of all being. You know as well as I do that there are good arguments for thinking so. They may not convince you, fine. I respect that. Your alternatives do not convince me either. Respect that. I don´t try and paint you as a childish for not agreeing with me. Return the favour. Give me the same leeway to argue that maybe - just maybe - God is the source of all life and all being. Likewise, I give you the leeway to believe the universe was somehow self-starting, laws somehow "magically" established and organized themselves, a first class "1 system, flere formål" somehow evolved without reason or mind behind it, etc. without suggesting you are childish. I even give you leeway to argue pseudo-science like meme´s theory, multi-universes and aliens seeding the planet, if you want. I may disagree or point out the limitations of your arguments, but I won´t suggest you´re childish. And I certainly won´t mix aliens with fairies!
"It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the present material world"
Why should I content myself with living in a three-dimensional black and white world when I can live in a four dimensional multi-colour world? Beside, I can´t help it, the material world speaks to me of God. After all, nature is the first book about God
@ Serenity
En gud kan ikke have skabt sig selv
No. The point about God is that He IS: "I am who I am".
@ NJ
I am not talking about Norse mythology.
Theology might give an account, but it will be no better in terms of truth, than if I were to make up a bunch of stuff at random.
I am not talking about stuff made up at random either. I am talking about someone who said, "I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life". You may chose to argue that he never existed, but you won´t find too many historians agreeing with you. You may chose to argue that he is not the Face of God. I disagree, for what I consider very good reasons. I suggest you check them out if you want to converse intelligently with me.
Good Question: "Why Christianity?"
http://www.myspace.com/maria_franciscan/blog/544872580
Is There Historical Evidence for Jesus?
http://magischristwiki.org/index.php/Historical_Evidence
Historical Questions about the Resurrection of Jesus
http://www.salvationhistory.com/blog/historical_questions_about_the_resurrection_of_jesus_special_easter_post_an/#.UVrjk7v0q5M.facebook
New experiments on Shroud show it’s not medieval
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/sindone-23579/
What is the Turin Shroud?
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-holy-shroud/
http://www.shroud.com/
Is there really solid evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ?
http://www.bethinking.org/resurrection-miracles/introductory/q-is-there-really-solid-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ.htm
The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
part 1 (skeptics) and part 2 (court of law)
http://www.philosophy-religion.org/faith/pdfs/Resurrection.pdf
Unless you believe that it is in fact a satisfactory explanation, you have to account for how any other religious creation theory is superior. Please do.
You make a fundamental mistake. You mix theology and science. And you don´t seem to have taken the time to check any of the links I posted on this thread, or read my comments very well. If you did, you would have learned that the Bible is not, and was never meant to be, a science book.
Father George Coyne Ph.D. - Science and Scripture (1.36.mins)
You would also know that I am not arguing against Evolution or Big Bang Theory just placing it in a bigger framework. You would also have learned of the primary role of many believers ( including priests) in the development of modern science. All in all, I find your remark entirely irrelevant. Again, if you wish to converse with me, at least take the time and trouble to read my comments and links (properly).
The math checks out for the multiverse theory though. Not so much for the heavenly ascension by winged horse.
Once again, I never mentioned winged horses. I am taking about a specific person. (See previous links.) So this comment is entirely irrelevant. In any case, numbers on a page do not a house build... You want to believe in multi-universes, fine. But, you will need faith, at least for the next few billion years...
I would also argue that, as with most things, you are wrong and that Jeff is very patient and polite.
Where do I suggest that Jeff is not patient and polite? I was referring to a particular remark he made and his momentary stance. He responded in his last comment to me. It´s not your place to interfere. And, besides, Jeff and I respect and like each other "in an internet kind of way", even if we don´t always agree. Jeff has been kind and fair towards me on VK, and I would never take that from him - ever.
Dato: 8/5 2013 02:13
Earthling*
Jeg troede at pointen var at en gud havde skabt hele universet. Måske jeg har sovet i kristendomstimerne
Earthling*
Jeg troede at pointen var at en gud havde skabt hele universet. Måske jeg har sovet i kristendomstimerne
Dato: 8/5 2013 08:00 | Indlæg redigeret den: 8/5 2013 08:11
This statement is completely self-contradictory - or if it is not, then please revert to Hume and the turtles. There is no logical or empirical reason why we cannot say the same thing for the Universe itself as you do for a god.
I did not say you were childish. I said that the paradox is one that is easily grasped by many children.
And no, unfortunately, it is not true that I know that you have good arguments for believing in a god.
...in my world" logic means things have a beginning, a middle and an end. I consider God as the ground of all being...
This statement is completely self-contradictory - or if it is not, then please revert to Hume and the turtles. There is no logical or empirical reason why we cannot say the same thing for the Universe itself as you do for a god.
I did not say you were childish. I said that the paradox is one that is easily grasped by many children.
And no, unfortunately, it is not true that I know that you have good arguments for believing in a god.
Dato: 8/5 2013 12:43 | Indlæg redigeret den: 8/5 2013 16:09
@ Serenity
Don´t what your point is here
Nothing I have said to date eliminates that possibility.
The point about God being God is that not only can He be the source and sustainer of the universe, as such he is also outside time and the universe. Otherwise, he´s not God.
Btw, your research is debatable. To the best of my knowledge, even scientists are still not in agreement.
You have concrete evidence of all this - or just some unsourced words on a computer screen?
Btw, claiming that God and the universe are the same is pantheism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pantheism
Being thinking about that since I first read it. Why not? If the universe could create itself, why not God? After all, the essence of God is being the highest possible intelligence (logos) and energy (spirit) to exist.
Also been thinking of what you wrote here earlier
and this
Yes, it does rather point to a little humility on our part
Still, you can always think of yourself and the unvierse as a work in progress!
Romans 8: 22 puts it well when it speaks about "the whole of creation... groaning in labour pains... until now..." http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Romans+8
@ Jeff
I am aware that one could say the same thing about the universe. I just quoted Serentiy on it And I neither claimed that I am unaware of the paradox nor denied it. However, I find your alternative is also self-contradictory, not least because conclusive and unrefutable evidence is lacking to prove that the universe was always there and is self-starting. I find it goes against logic and common sense. At least, belief in God admits of a beginning, even if we can´t explain everything. And as far as I´m concerned, the proof of God lies in Jesus Christ. Check out the links I posted earlier for NJ.
It´s God, one specific God, not a god. Unfortunately, your alternatives do not convince me either.
Enjoy your day!
@ Serenity
Don´t what your point is here
Jeg troede at pointen var at en gud havde skabt hele universet.
Nothing I have said to date eliminates that possibility.
The point about God being God is that not only can He be the source and sustainer of the universe, as such he is also outside time and the universe. Otherwise, he´s not God.
Btw, your research is debatable. To the best of my knowledge, even scientists are still not in agreement.
I mellemtiden har jeg læst lidt på nettet og har fundet ud af at universet ikke har en begyndelse. Universet har altid eksisteret så der behøver ikke at være nogen eller noget der har skabt det. Grunden til at universet altid har eksisteret er at tid og universet opstod samtidigt. Begge dele har altid eksisteret. En gud kan ikke have skabt universet da universet er alt hvad der eksisterer. Hvis der har været et tidspunkt hvor det eneste der eksisterede i universet var en gud så var gud = universet.
You have concrete evidence of all this - or just some unsourced words on a computer screen?
Btw, claiming that God and the universe are the same is pantheism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pantheism
En gud kan ikke have skabt sig selv
Being thinking about that since I first read it. Why not? If the universe could create itself, why not God? After all, the essence of God is being the highest possible intelligence (logos) and energy (spirit) to exist.
Also been thinking of what you wrote here earlier
Et argument imod en intelligent skaber er at vi har alt for mange designfejl.
and this
En alternativ forklaring kunne være, at det at vi laver en masse fejl er et tegn på, at vi ikke er så intelligente, som vi selv går og tror
Yes, it does rather point to a little humility on our part
Still, you can always think of yourself and the unvierse as a work in progress!
Romans 8: 22 puts it well when it speaks about "the whole of creation... groaning in labour pains... until now..." http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Romans+8
@ Jeff
This statement is completely self-contradictory - or if it is not, then please revert to Hume and the turtles. There is no logical or empirical reason why we cannot say the same thing for the Universe itself as you do for a god.
I am aware that one could say the same thing about the universe. I just quoted Serentiy on it And I neither claimed that I am unaware of the paradox nor denied it. However, I find your alternative is also self-contradictory, not least because conclusive and unrefutable evidence is lacking to prove that the universe was always there and is self-starting. I find it goes against logic and common sense. At least, belief in God admits of a beginning, even if we can´t explain everything. And as far as I´m concerned, the proof of God lies in Jesus Christ. Check out the links I posted earlier for NJ.
And no, unfortunately, it is not true that I know that you have good arguments for believing in a god.
It´s God, one specific God, not a god. Unfortunately, your alternatives do not convince me either.
Enjoy your day!
Dato: 8/5 2013 13:31
You're talking about someone who might have said that. There is no concrete evidence for what exactly Jesus said. Do you in fact believe, that Jesus was born of a virgin, ressurrected the dead, and did himself come back to life before ascending to heaven?
I don't care what the bible was ment to be. If there is any more reason to take someone who lieves their life by, or believes in the literal truth of, the bible seriously, than someone who does the same with the Harry Potter books, then please tell me what it is.
If the christian god is in fact not real, then the bible is just a book of stories, so in order for the bible to have any value, you must prove the exsistence of god.
I would need faith to claim that the multiverse theory is true, which I haven't. Considering it as a possibility, that is far greater than that of gods or fairies requires no such thing. Indeed your god or Odin are possibilities as well, they are just stupidly marginal.
So was I.
NJ
Earthling:"I am not talking about Norse mythology. I am not talking about stuff made up at random either. I am talking about someone who said, "I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life". You may chose to argue that he never existed, but you won´t find too many historians agreeing with you. You may chose to argue that he is not the Face of God. I disagree, for what I consider very good reasons. I suggest you check them out if you want to converse intelligently with me.
You're talking about someone who might have said that. There is no concrete evidence for what exactly Jesus said. Do you in fact believe, that Jesus was born of a virgin, ressurrected the dead, and did himself come back to life before ascending to heaven?
Earthling:"You make a fundamental mistake. You mix theology and science. And you don´t seem to have taken the time to check any of the links I posted on this thread, or read my comments very well. If you did, you would have learned that the Bible is not, and was never meant to be, a science book. "
I don't care what the bible was ment to be. If there is any more reason to take someone who lieves their life by, or believes in the literal truth of, the bible seriously, than someone who does the same with the Harry Potter books, then please tell me what it is.
If the christian god is in fact not real, then the bible is just a book of stories, so in order for the bible to have any value, you must prove the exsistence of god.
Earthling:"Once again, I never mentioned winged horses. I am taking about a specific person. (See previous links.) So this comment is entirely irrelevant. In any case, numbers on a page do not a house build... You want to believe in multi-universes, fine. But, you will need faith, at least for the next few billion years."
I would need faith to claim that the multiverse theory is true, which I haven't. Considering it as a possibility, that is far greater than that of gods or fairies requires no such thing. Indeed your god or Odin are possibilities as well, they are just stupidly marginal.
Earthling:"
Where do I suggest that Jeff is not patient and polite? I was referring to a particular remark he made and his momentary stance. "
Where do I suggest that Jeff is not patient and polite? I was referring to a particular remark he made and his momentary stance. "
So was I.
NJ
Dato: 8/5 2013 15:43 | Indlæg redigeret den: 8/5 2013 16:16
@ NJ
I take it you are not going to do me the courtesy of actually reading what I write about what/why I believe, and of checking out any possible evidence I might be providing, etc. Definitely stupidly marginal on your part, if I might say so...
Oh well, no point in wasting time talking to you here so...
@ NJ
I take it you are not going to do me the courtesy of actually reading what I write about what/why I believe, and of checking out any possible evidence I might be providing, etc. Definitely stupidly marginal on your part, if I might say so...
Oh well, no point in wasting time talking to you here so...
Dato: 8/5 2013 16:49
One: Look up marginal.
Two: Nowhere do you see me linking to longer articles, rather than making my arguments here. If i provide a link, it is to a study or some other form of direct evidence. Can you claim the same for your links?
Three: Talking about your nonsense beliefs will always be a waste of time. You're only discriminating because you're unable to answer the very simple questions I'm giving you.
NJ
One: Look up marginal.
Two: Nowhere do you see me linking to longer articles, rather than making my arguments here. If i provide a link, it is to a study or some other form of direct evidence. Can you claim the same for your links?
Three: Talking about your nonsense beliefs will always be a waste of time. You're only discriminating because you're unable to answer the very simple questions I'm giving you.
NJ
Dato: 9/5 2013 06:23
I don't believe the universe was created. I think it has always existed.
Being thinking about that since I first read it. Why not? If the universe could create itself, why not God? After all, the essence of God is being the highest possible intelligence (logos) and energy (spirit) to exist.
Try and turn that around. If god could create himself, why not the universe?I don't believe the universe was created. I think it has always existed.
Dato: 9/5 2013 09:47 | Indlæg redigeret den: 9/5 2013 10:11
Turtles, turtles, turtles, turtles...
See, now Serenity is in the game.
The irony here is that the way we keep looping around this over and over (the logic game I pointed out many posts ago - I wish I had made a bet would, if I only had a nickle for every loop!) is a kind live enactment of the infinite regress we are talking about.
Let me try to paraphrase Hume in a way (forgive me, Davie, I might mangle some things), since Earthling says she get's that point, but I don't see that she really does:
Let's say that we have a thing, A, which we can see, touch, smell, hear and taste. A is something that our minds can understand in every way that is useful and important. A is right here in front of us. We can take decisions about it and about what we want to do if it does something of interest to our lives.
Okay, so let's say that we can create in our imagination the abstract idea that A might not be there where we see it, taste it, hear it, smell it and feel it to be. That it could be somewhere where we can't perceive it or that it might be different so that we wouldn't recognize it as A, and let's say that we can extend that idea to claim that A might come to stop being at all. And let's consider how that might be put to good use in the images we use for solving problems and predicting future states of the world for ourselves and for communicating complicated ideas about the world and its future states, particularly concerning A. This abstract notion is certainly very useful, I admit. I can't imagine being without it.
Now let's consider that we might want to try to reify somehow in our imagination something that fills out some part of the space we have given to this abstract idea: we entertain the new idea that there can actually be a thing that can derive properties from the abstract idea we have just considered above, something that takes its being and its characteristics from the possibility that A would not be there, for instance. Let's call this new thing B. Of course, we can't establish this, but let's allow it to be a thing residing in our minds for now anyway.
Now, let's roll the tape.
Let's observe that we when we push a ball it rolls along the floor. Persuaded by this result over countless tries, we imagine ourselves to be the cause of the ball's movement, at least the hand pushing the ball seems to be its cause (that some self's "will" is actually causing this event is under very heavy pressure from the evidence now found in neuroscience). If you wish, we can even say we have "determined" by meticulously controlled experiments that this is the cause of the ball's motion.
Now let's come back to A. We can smell it, we can see it, we can taste it, we can hear it, we can feel it, but try as we may, we can't push it like we did the ball - it doesn't move by our hand.
And yet, we see it doing all kinds of things that we can make sense of. We see it turn colors and we know these are blue and then red, for instance, and we see it shine sometimes at night. We hear it humming - sometimes just noise and sometimes J.S. Bach's "Das Wohltemperierte Klavier".
However, as stated, nothing we do seems to let us move A. It seems to do what it wants, although we find that we understand a lot of the relationships between the things it does. For instance, if its temperature is below 0 degrees Celsius, then it is always blue, and if its temperature is over 100 degrees Celsius it is always red.
Now, we feel for the moment interested in explaining why A moves all the time, changes colors, makes sounds, etc. Why we want to do this doesn't matter. So here's a question:
Shall we use B, which we have never seen, never touched, never heard, never smelled, never felt, and which we only constructed in the space around an abstract notion about the possibility that A somehow might not be there someday where we always see it, in order to explain why A moves and does what it does?
What happens when we do this?
Then we have our dealings with this "thing", B, which we reified in our thoughts from the conjectured absence of A, something that we cannot perceive directly in any way, and we are still stuck asking the same questions about it as above about A. If something about B is moving A, then what is moving B?
Maybe we can have another thing, C, which we derive in the space of an abstract notion about the possibility of absence of that thing B that lives in the space of the possibility of the absence of A. But the question keeps arising, what about C? So we make a thing, D, which lives in the space of the possibility of the absence of C ... that lives in the house that Jack built...
Then, fortunately, we are reminded that what we really have in front of us is A - just A.
And not B.
Nor have we ever had B in front of us - never.
We have only ever had B in our minds, as a consequence of thinking about A. It seems rather easy to demonstrate that A was part of the cause of B and that if A didn't exist, then B wouldn't be in our minds at all!
The causal arrow seems to point from A to B and not the other way around. Every concern we might have about A leads us ultimately back to a consideration arising out of A, even those that have to do with B - if we just think about things a little harder.
Hence it seems only wholly reasonable to be concerned with A itself, if we want to find out anything about its nature and what it means for us.
*To be clear, B is not a god, but it is the crux of the apologetics of Aristotle, Anselm and Aquinas as well as the silly merry-go-round of the Unmoved Mover paradox we keep getting put into ad nauseum. If a god built a house, it would be on the grounds of B - or, as is more often the case today, in the "gaps" of B. But this property is owned by A.
Try and turn that around. If god could create himself, why not the universe?
Turtles, turtles, turtles, turtles...
See, now Serenity is in the game.
The irony here is that the way we keep looping around this over and over (the logic game I pointed out many posts ago - I wish I had made a bet would, if I only had a nickle for every loop!) is a kind live enactment of the infinite regress we are talking about.
Let me try to paraphrase Hume in a way (forgive me, Davie, I might mangle some things), since Earthling says she get's that point, but I don't see that she really does:
Let's say that we have a thing, A, which we can see, touch, smell, hear and taste. A is something that our minds can understand in every way that is useful and important. A is right here in front of us. We can take decisions about it and about what we want to do if it does something of interest to our lives.
Okay, so let's say that we can create in our imagination the abstract idea that A might not be there where we see it, taste it, hear it, smell it and feel it to be. That it could be somewhere where we can't perceive it or that it might be different so that we wouldn't recognize it as A, and let's say that we can extend that idea to claim that A might come to stop being at all. And let's consider how that might be put to good use in the images we use for solving problems and predicting future states of the world for ourselves and for communicating complicated ideas about the world and its future states, particularly concerning A. This abstract notion is certainly very useful, I admit. I can't imagine being without it.
Now let's consider that we might want to try to reify somehow in our imagination something that fills out some part of the space we have given to this abstract idea: we entertain the new idea that there can actually be a thing that can derive properties from the abstract idea we have just considered above, something that takes its being and its characteristics from the possibility that A would not be there, for instance. Let's call this new thing B. Of course, we can't establish this, but let's allow it to be a thing residing in our minds for now anyway.
Now, let's roll the tape.
Let's observe that we when we push a ball it rolls along the floor. Persuaded by this result over countless tries, we imagine ourselves to be the cause of the ball's movement, at least the hand pushing the ball seems to be its cause (that some self's "will" is actually causing this event is under very heavy pressure from the evidence now found in neuroscience). If you wish, we can even say we have "determined" by meticulously controlled experiments that this is the cause of the ball's motion.
Now let's come back to A. We can smell it, we can see it, we can taste it, we can hear it, we can feel it, but try as we may, we can't push it like we did the ball - it doesn't move by our hand.
And yet, we see it doing all kinds of things that we can make sense of. We see it turn colors and we know these are blue and then red, for instance, and we see it shine sometimes at night. We hear it humming - sometimes just noise and sometimes J.S. Bach's "Das Wohltemperierte Klavier".
However, as stated, nothing we do seems to let us move A. It seems to do what it wants, although we find that we understand a lot of the relationships between the things it does. For instance, if its temperature is below 0 degrees Celsius, then it is always blue, and if its temperature is over 100 degrees Celsius it is always red.
Now, we feel for the moment interested in explaining why A moves all the time, changes colors, makes sounds, etc. Why we want to do this doesn't matter. So here's a question:
Shall we use B, which we have never seen, never touched, never heard, never smelled, never felt, and which we only constructed in the space around an abstract notion about the possibility that A somehow might not be there someday where we always see it, in order to explain why A moves and does what it does?
What happens when we do this?
Then we have our dealings with this "thing", B, which we reified in our thoughts from the conjectured absence of A, something that we cannot perceive directly in any way, and we are still stuck asking the same questions about it as above about A. If something about B is moving A, then what is moving B?
Maybe we can have another thing, C, which we derive in the space of an abstract notion about the possibility of absence of that thing B that lives in the space of the possibility of the absence of A. But the question keeps arising, what about C? So we make a thing, D, which lives in the space of the possibility of the absence of C ... that lives in the house that Jack built...
Then, fortunately, we are reminded that what we really have in front of us is A - just A.
And not B.
Nor have we ever had B in front of us - never.
We have only ever had B in our minds, as a consequence of thinking about A. It seems rather easy to demonstrate that A was part of the cause of B and that if A didn't exist, then B wouldn't be in our minds at all!
The causal arrow seems to point from A to B and not the other way around. Every concern we might have about A leads us ultimately back to a consideration arising out of A, even those that have to do with B - if we just think about things a little harder.
Hence it seems only wholly reasonable to be concerned with A itself, if we want to find out anything about its nature and what it means for us.
*To be clear, B is not a god, but it is the crux of the apologetics of Aristotle, Anselm and Aquinas as well as the silly merry-go-round of the Unmoved Mover paradox we keep getting put into ad nauseum. If a god built a house, it would be on the grounds of B - or, as is more often the case today, in the "gaps" of B. But this property is owned by A.
Dato: 9/5 2013 11:06 | Indlæg redigeret den: 10/5 2013 11:52
Now, all throughout this thread, the word "god" has been used without much definition.
Anselm's apologetics do not really allow a definition to be given (see the example above) but rather it attempts to provide a place for a god to be found. This is actually quite reasonable within monotheism of the kind that Christianity is, with its infinitely transcendent notion of the divine.
However, we are also not forced to consider a god on the Anselmian premise of some being beyond our comprehension that can choose to make itself comprehended if it feels like it.
The Freemasons choose to require their membership only to profess a belief in a "supreme being" - and here we only need to have a grasp of what might be considered supreme. Maybe this just means a lot more powerful than a human being.
There are lots of interesting thought experiments wherein the Universe could be a machine programmed for some colossal simulation. Why not? This is certainly not any more silly than believing in miracles, since it does not require us to suspend any of the observed laws of physics. Indeed, it would most likely make those laws all the more inviolable at some level. And some physicists are actually hunting for the fingerprint of this construction based on this principle.
Don't worry about how we might detect this. The point is that in this case, the hunt is for evidence . If we are going to say something about some kind of "creator", then we are going to look for evidence before saying it.
Although it is rather reasonable that evidence would not be so straightforward to see if we were in a Matrix-like simulation, it is not at all obvious for me, why a creator of the kind we are told about in Christian religion would not produce evidence everywhere, all the time. Indeed, what we learn in Sunday school is exactly this.
Of course, Earthling, plays a shell game with what we should use the Bible for.* However, if we take it as a primary text in light of absolutely irrefutable evidence about its pervasive and ubiquitous use for centuries, often even for the condemnation to death of individuals, then we must simply recognize that it tells of a god's persistent contact with a group of people up until around 2000 years ago, where it suddenly vanishes and all we have is anecdotes from there. Interestingly, the more progress that was made away from a culture of nomadic shepherds into enlightenment and the age of empirical science, the fewer these anecdotes became as well, so that now we nearly never hear about any gods making their presence known (beyond a "feeling").
(Oh, yes, and some piece of cloth of dubious origin that most likely wasn't used in a burial, but even if it was, tells us nothing at all about the person buried and his connection to the rest of the religion's assertions. How can a piece of cloth completely disconnected from anything else by any tangible chain of evidence suddenly come to stand in for the divine?)
Earthling is fond of mentioning M-Theory as if doing so weakens a case for rejecting belief in the face of no evidence, and yet, I don't think she realizes that in M-Theory, the math all adds up. When the math is done, M-Theory predicts what is observed in the physics of the Universe. The problems that some physicists have with M-Theory have nothing to do with a lack of precision or consistency, they have to do with some of how physics is cast fundamentally (I am not going to go into this here).
However, when the math is done from what we get to read about the foundation of this strand of monotheism, it doesn't add up, neither with what is observed in nature nor with itself with its nearly countless glaring inconsistencies.
One thing is certain for me: direct evidence is not an argument for the existence of a god that is anything like what has been described in the Christian religion over the centuries.
*dgj tends to support her in this in some ways although I think he has just failed to explain well enough what he means - I think he means something on the level of individual experience, wherein the so-called meaning need not signify beyond that individual - and although I think this is seriously challenged by much theory on linguistics and neuroscience, I don't have a problem with it, if that is what he actually means.
Now, all throughout this thread, the word "god" has been used without much definition.
Anselm's apologetics do not really allow a definition to be given (see the example above) but rather it attempts to provide a place for a god to be found. This is actually quite reasonable within monotheism of the kind that Christianity is, with its infinitely transcendent notion of the divine.
However, we are also not forced to consider a god on the Anselmian premise of some being beyond our comprehension that can choose to make itself comprehended if it feels like it.
The Freemasons choose to require their membership only to profess a belief in a "supreme being" - and here we only need to have a grasp of what might be considered supreme. Maybe this just means a lot more powerful than a human being.
There are lots of interesting thought experiments wherein the Universe could be a machine programmed for some colossal simulation. Why not? This is certainly not any more silly than believing in miracles, since it does not require us to suspend any of the observed laws of physics. Indeed, it would most likely make those laws all the more inviolable at some level. And some physicists are actually hunting for the fingerprint of this construction based on this principle.
Don't worry about how we might detect this. The point is that in this case, the hunt is for evidence . If we are going to say something about some kind of "creator", then we are going to look for evidence before saying it.
Although it is rather reasonable that evidence would not be so straightforward to see if we were in a Matrix-like simulation, it is not at all obvious for me, why a creator of the kind we are told about in Christian religion would not produce evidence everywhere, all the time. Indeed, what we learn in Sunday school is exactly this.
Of course, Earthling, plays a shell game with what we should use the Bible for.* However, if we take it as a primary text in light of absolutely irrefutable evidence about its pervasive and ubiquitous use for centuries, often even for the condemnation to death of individuals, then we must simply recognize that it tells of a god's persistent contact with a group of people up until around 2000 years ago, where it suddenly vanishes and all we have is anecdotes from there. Interestingly, the more progress that was made away from a culture of nomadic shepherds into enlightenment and the age of empirical science, the fewer these anecdotes became as well, so that now we nearly never hear about any gods making their presence known (beyond a "feeling").
(Oh, yes, and some piece of cloth of dubious origin that most likely wasn't used in a burial, but even if it was, tells us nothing at all about the person buried and his connection to the rest of the religion's assertions. How can a piece of cloth completely disconnected from anything else by any tangible chain of evidence suddenly come to stand in for the divine?)
Earthling is fond of mentioning M-Theory as if doing so weakens a case for rejecting belief in the face of no evidence, and yet, I don't think she realizes that in M-Theory, the math all adds up. When the math is done, M-Theory predicts what is observed in the physics of the Universe. The problems that some physicists have with M-Theory have nothing to do with a lack of precision or consistency, they have to do with some of how physics is cast fundamentally (I am not going to go into this here).
However, when the math is done from what we get to read about the foundation of this strand of monotheism, it doesn't add up, neither with what is observed in nature nor with itself with its nearly countless glaring inconsistencies.
One thing is certain for me: direct evidence is not an argument for the existence of a god that is anything like what has been described in the Christian religion over the centuries.
*dgj tends to support her in this in some ways although I think he has just failed to explain well enough what he means - I think he means something on the level of individual experience, wherein the so-called meaning need not signify beyond that individual - and although I think this is seriously challenged by much theory on linguistics and neuroscience, I don't have a problem with it, if that is what he actually means.
Dato: 9/5 2013 11:27 | Indlæg redigeret den: 9/5 2013 17:23
@ NJ
I hardly need you to tell me what marginal means. And by the way, I can start pointing out your many spelling and grammar mistakes in English if you wish. Would you like me to go there?
One of the links is actually a not-too-long article written by me (and sourced). The links I provide are well informed and draw from science, philosophy and history, amongst other things. The videos are short, even very short (1.36.mins to 5.mins), and most of the articles amount to a few pages each. Is that really too much for you? Some of the information I provide is even written by open-minded and intelligent atheists! There are also several threads (my own and others) here on VK where I have made my case - long before you came on the scene in March 2013. Truth be told, I have no desire to repeat myself, least of all to somebody who has their mind firmly made up before hearing what I might have to say, who can´t distinguish between one possible belief system and another, and who arrogantly dismisses anyone who thinks/argues differently with nothing but sweeping generalizations and insults... No thanks!
@ Serenity
You mean you believe the universe always existed... Think? Believe?
Can you give me unrefutable evidence to sustain your belief?
Can anyone else around here?
@ Jeff
You can keep quoting Hume all day long. In which case, we are talking philosophy, not science. In any case, there is nothing to suggest that learning about A means one cannot have a belief about B. Mendel, Lemaitre, Coyne, Stinissen, Miller, Collins and many others have (had) no problem learning about A while arguing/sustaining a belief in B. To the contrary, learning more about A deepens their conviction about B. You know, nature = the first book about God.
I see no convincing reason why intelligent arguements about God should be worthy of less consideration than the (unproved) notions that the universe was always there or that of multi-universes and seeding planets... I doubt that you have a serious problem with people arguing for these longshot possibilites and devoting their energies to exploring same. The search for knowledge and truth requires that we are open to all possibilities without prejudice, discrimination or marginalization.
And I am perfectly aware that the math may add up with regard to M-theory, when working on certain premises. That´s all it does. It can do little else until scientists get to the stage when they can step outside our universe...
And for the "piece of cloth", the link I provided is accounting for the lastest SCIENTIFIC research on the Shroud. It is remarkable how such a cloth requires techniques to produce photographic and radiation effects (similiar to those to be expected from something as powerful as a resurrection) which to date are only carried out with modern technology; which correspond exactly to the Gospel descriptions of a crucified Christ; and which is now known to date from the first century, and using natural products from that region. It cannot prove it is that of Christ, but it certainly points a strong finger in that direction. Btw, I can also provide further information about scientific evidence linking a consecrated host from the 17 century with the Shroud. Interestlingly, the blood types match...
I am no getting into Biblical exigesis here. I will simply say that your claims can be counter-argued. Many of the so-called contradictions are due to ignorance about how to read the Bible, context, culture and purpose of the various books. Or a too literal reading and/takings things out of their context.
Regarding neuroscience, I believe it is coming up with some interesting material about meditation and prayer, and how the brain functions the same way it would if one was talking directly to a living person. Nothing is conclusive.
As far as I concerned, there is ample evidence to suggest that God to be found in the person of Jesus Christ: the Word (logos = reason) made Flesh. I would advise advise everyone to check the evidence for themselves.
PS: If there seem to be a lot of tping errors, my apologies. The key boars is no funcioning propely...
@ NJ
I hardly need you to tell me what marginal means. And by the way, I can start pointing out your many spelling and grammar mistakes in English if you wish. Would you like me to go there?
Nowhere do you see me linking to longer articles, rather than making my arguments here. If i provide a link, it is to a study or some other form of direct evidence. Can you claim the same for your links?
One of the links is actually a not-too-long article written by me (and sourced). The links I provide are well informed and draw from science, philosophy and history, amongst other things. The videos are short, even very short (1.36.mins to 5.mins), and most of the articles amount to a few pages each. Is that really too much for you? Some of the information I provide is even written by open-minded and intelligent atheists! There are also several threads (my own and others) here on VK where I have made my case - long before you came on the scene in March 2013. Truth be told, I have no desire to repeat myself, least of all to somebody who has their mind firmly made up before hearing what I might have to say, who can´t distinguish between one possible belief system and another, and who arrogantly dismisses anyone who thinks/argues differently with nothing but sweeping generalizations and insults... No thanks!
@ Serenity
I don't believe the universe was created. I think it has always existed.
You mean you believe the universe always existed... Think? Believe?
Can you give me unrefutable evidence to sustain your belief?
Can anyone else around here?
@ Jeff
You can keep quoting Hume all day long. In which case, we are talking philosophy, not science. In any case, there is nothing to suggest that learning about A means one cannot have a belief about B. Mendel, Lemaitre, Coyne, Stinissen, Miller, Collins and many others have (had) no problem learning about A while arguing/sustaining a belief in B. To the contrary, learning more about A deepens their conviction about B. You know, nature = the first book about God.
I see no convincing reason why intelligent arguements about God should be worthy of less consideration than the (unproved) notions that the universe was always there or that of multi-universes and seeding planets... I doubt that you have a serious problem with people arguing for these longshot possibilites and devoting their energies to exploring same. The search for knowledge and truth requires that we are open to all possibilities without prejudice, discrimination or marginalization.
And I am perfectly aware that the math may add up with regard to M-theory, when working on certain premises. That´s all it does. It can do little else until scientists get to the stage when they can step outside our universe...
And for the "piece of cloth", the link I provided is accounting for the lastest SCIENTIFIC research on the Shroud. It is remarkable how such a cloth requires techniques to produce photographic and radiation effects (similiar to those to be expected from something as powerful as a resurrection) which to date are only carried out with modern technology; which correspond exactly to the Gospel descriptions of a crucified Christ; and which is now known to date from the first century, and using natural products from that region. It cannot prove it is that of Christ, but it certainly points a strong finger in that direction. Btw, I can also provide further information about scientific evidence linking a consecrated host from the 17 century with the Shroud. Interestlingly, the blood types match...
I am no getting into Biblical exigesis here. I will simply say that your claims can be counter-argued. Many of the so-called contradictions are due to ignorance about how to read the Bible, context, culture and purpose of the various books. Or a too literal reading and/takings things out of their context.
Regarding neuroscience, I believe it is coming up with some interesting material about meditation and prayer, and how the brain functions the same way it would if one was talking directly to a living person. Nothing is conclusive.
As far as I concerned, there is ample evidence to suggest that God to be found in the person of Jesus Christ: the Word (logos = reason) made Flesh. I would advise advise everyone to check the evidence for themselves.
PS: If there seem to be a lot of tping errors, my apologies. The key boars is no funcioning propely...
Dato: 9/5 2013 12:03 | Indlæg redigeret den: 9/5 2013 12:05
You mean you believe the universe always existed... Think? Believe?
Can you give me unrefutable evidence to sustain your belief?
Can anyone else around here?
Tid og fysiske reaktioner er nøjagtigt det samme. Uden et univers sker der ikke fysiske reaktioner og tid eksisterer ikke. Når tid har eksisteret lige så længe som universet må den logiske konklusion være at universet altid har eksisteret.
Can you give me unrefutable evidence to sustain your belief?
Can anyone else around here?
Dato: 9/5 2013 12:48 | Indlæg redigeret den: 9/5 2013 20:04
Earthling,
Now you are resorting to argumentum ad populum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
I don't quite understand how you think that I am discussing science in my long post above concerning A and B. I am not. I am discussing what kinds of arguments we might use - logically - to discuss the existence of a god. I think this is more than just a little bit evident in the fact that I say it quite plainly numerous times (shall I cite them all?) and it is completely evident in both my direct interaction with "infinite regress" as well as my direct interaction with the apologetics of Aristotle, et alii. You have wasted an entire statement on trying to move the discussion in this way.
As to what we can believe, you obviously still miss the point. I am trying to avoid using the jargon I would use if I were going to engage you with the same kinds of discourse that I might produce in other spaces. Terms like mental "belief" states might have arisen. I am intentionally keeping to terms we can share from our common language even if it means impoverishing some things.
So, yes, B is all about constructing beliefs, however, I am not going to start unpacking cognitive science or epistemology, etc. to explain what this might mean. You miss the point completely: it's not a belief in B that is problematic - indeed, I stated its necessity - it is what we derive from B that becomes problematic.
And exploring A while entertaining belief in a god has nothing to do with any argument for the existence of such a god. It speaks to what the mind can do, not to what is. This is also the problem with all Unmoved Mover apologetics, from Aristotle to Anselm.
I mean the following quite sincerely: I have less problem with you arguing that the Old Testament is a record of an ancient people's interaction with extremely powerful, god-like beings, than with arguments that go something like because I feel love and God is love then God must exist, let alone those that go like "Jesus was a man who was a god and lived and died and was buried and we found a cloth that looks like someone might have been buried in it (if it's not a forgery) and so that is proof that Jesus was buried, so he must have died, so he must of lived, so he must have been God, so a god must exist".
The first might turn out to be some really cool opportunity to know that we are mere intellectual specks compared to what some intelligent beings are, while we really do try to teach our children to do a better job on their proofs in geometry than that miserable line of fantastical wish-thinking about the so-called Shroud of Turin.
Now, you will notice that I have not personally argued against the existence of gods. I am only interested in the question because of what happens due to others' conviction about their existence.
Earthling,
Mendel, Lemaitre, Coyne, Stinissen, Miller, Collins and many others have (had) no problem learning about A while arguing/sustaining a belief in B. To the contrary, learning more about A deepens their conviction about B. You know, nature = the first book about God.
Now you are resorting to argumentum ad populum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
I don't quite understand how you think that I am discussing science in my long post above concerning A and B. I am not. I am discussing what kinds of arguments we might use - logically - to discuss the existence of a god. I think this is more than just a little bit evident in the fact that I say it quite plainly numerous times (shall I cite them all?) and it is completely evident in both my direct interaction with "infinite regress" as well as my direct interaction with the apologetics of Aristotle, et alii. You have wasted an entire statement on trying to move the discussion in this way.
As to what we can believe, you obviously still miss the point. I am trying to avoid using the jargon I would use if I were going to engage you with the same kinds of discourse that I might produce in other spaces. Terms like mental "belief" states might have arisen. I am intentionally keeping to terms we can share from our common language even if it means impoverishing some things.
So, yes, B is all about constructing beliefs, however, I am not going to start unpacking cognitive science or epistemology, etc. to explain what this might mean. You miss the point completely: it's not a belief in B that is problematic - indeed, I stated its necessity - it is what we derive from B that becomes problematic.
And exploring A while entertaining belief in a god has nothing to do with any argument for the existence of such a god. It speaks to what the mind can do, not to what is. This is also the problem with all Unmoved Mover apologetics, from Aristotle to Anselm.
I mean the following quite sincerely: I have less problem with you arguing that the Old Testament is a record of an ancient people's interaction with extremely powerful, god-like beings, than with arguments that go something like because I feel love and God is love then God must exist, let alone those that go like "Jesus was a man who was a god and lived and died and was buried and we found a cloth that looks like someone might have been buried in it (if it's not a forgery) and so that is proof that Jesus was buried, so he must have died, so he must of lived, so he must have been God, so a god must exist".
The first might turn out to be some really cool opportunity to know that we are mere intellectual specks compared to what some intelligent beings are, while we really do try to teach our children to do a better job on their proofs in geometry than that miserable line of fantastical wish-thinking about the so-called Shroud of Turin.
Now, you will notice that I have not personally argued against the existence of gods. I am only interested in the question because of what happens due to others' conviction about their existence.
Dato: 9/5 2013 13:34
That's why I didn't, but rather suggested you looked it up yourself, so you don't put it in sentences where it doesn't belong. With regards to pointing, please go ahead if you feel so inclined. In spite of you completely failing to demonstrate any power of reasoning, I gladly concede, that you might still best me at spelling in your mother tongue. Dazzle me with your corrections. Make me look the fool.
To be fair, I think it would be expected, that the discrepancy between my patience and the seemingly infinite amount of time it takes for you to understand and answer simple questions would lead to some frustration on my part. Your evasion of questions are as revealing of your capacity to answer them, as are the prayers of african catholics of the potency of your god.
I believe that the only peer reviewed studies on the age of that cloth dates it at about 700 years old, right? And what is this talk of radiation effects?
NJ
Earthling:I hardly need you to tell me what marginal means. And by the way, I can start poining out your many spelling and grammer mistakes in English if you wish. Would you like me to go there?
That's why I didn't, but rather suggested you looked it up yourself, so you don't put it in sentences where it doesn't belong. With regards to pointing, please go ahead if you feel so inclined. In spite of you completely failing to demonstrate any power of reasoning, I gladly concede, that you might still best me at spelling in your mother tongue. Dazzle me with your corrections. Make me look the fool.
Earthling:Truth be told, I have no desire to repeat myself, least of all to somebody who has their mind firmly made up before hearing what I might have to say, who can´t distinguish between one possible belief system and another, and who arrogantly dismisses anyone who thinks/argues differently with nothing but sweeping generalizations and insults... No thanks!
To be fair, I think it would be expected, that the discrepancy between my patience and the seemingly infinite amount of time it takes for you to understand and answer simple questions would lead to some frustration on my part. Your evasion of questions are as revealing of your capacity to answer them, as are the prayers of african catholics of the potency of your god.
Earthling:And for the "piece of cloth", the link I provided is accounting for the lastest SCIENTIFIC research on the Shroud. It is remarkable how such a cloth requires techniques to produce photographic and radiation effects (similiar to those to be expected from something as powerful as a resurrection) which to date are only carried out with modern technology; which correspond exactly to the Gospel descriptions of a crucified Christ; and which is now known to date from the first century, and using natural products from that region. It cannot prove it is that of Christ, but it certainly points a strong finger in that direction. Btw, I can also provide further information about scientific evidence linking a consecrated host from the 17 century with the Shroud. Interestlingly, the blood types match...
I believe that the only peer reviewed studies on the age of that cloth dates it at about 700 years old, right? And what is this talk of radiation effects?
NJ