A Cumulative Case for Christianity

[polymath257]

And here I would  agree for the most part. That said, I think that most of metaphysics needs to be completely rewritten in the face of modern physics. It just isn't tenable to think of 'substances' and 'objects' in a classical way given what we have learned.

You keep saying this and I don't understand what you are referring to. What do you think we have to ditch specifically?

Among other things: 
1. classical notions of causality

Causality, as discovered in quantum mechanics, has little to do with the classical notions. 

2. classical notions of substance
3. classical notions of things vs properties

These go together.  things are defined by their basic properties. the notion of a 'fundamental substance' is mistaken. 

4. classical notions of identity

This is especially the case for basins and various states leading to bosonic properties. 

5. classical notions about infinity

This is a math thing.We have learned a lot about the proteus of infinite sets in the last 150 years.  Philosophy needs to catch up. for example, infinite regressed are not always, or even generally, contradictions. They are commonplace. 

6. The realization that contingency is just another word for being caused. 

Most of the language around necessity and contingency is outdated and bad philosophy. most philosophers realize this, but not all. 

7. The realization that time is part of the geometry of the universe. 

This leads to many consequences when dealing with causality. 

8. That reality doesn't need a 'base'.. It simply exists. 

I can go on, but this is a good start.

[Minimalist]

God is the simplest hypothesis. 

Indeed it is, Stevie.  Simpletons require abject simplicity.

[Bucky Ball]

God is the simplest hypothesis. 

Yet he cannot say why, or the system of logic he thinks applies to the gods.
It may be the simplest hypothesis he knows about, but he cannot support that notion with any data, or reason, as he has no data with respect to the environment his gods live in, which is NOT this universe, as he claims they existed before this universe.
Just normal theist unthought-out drivel.
In fact he has nothing at all, to base this on. 95 % of this universe is Dark Energy and Dark Matter.
Besides the fat he has no data external to this universe, he has insufficient data about THIS universe to make any ultimate claims.
The "p" value in a statistical claim is not reliable if all you know about is 5 %.

[Minimalist]

This thread is 20 pages of Stevie spouting discombobulated jargon.  He makes about as much sense as Fuckface trying to talk off the cuff.

The thing is, all that any theist has is a lame attempt to put his/her sense of wonder at shit they don't understand into words that no one else can understand.

[airportkid]

... put [their] sense of wonder at [things] they don't understand into words that no one else can understand ...

That's pretty apt, Min.  Without the vulgarity it's an accurate and concise description of personality, and definitely not limited to believers. 

[Dancefortwo]

  

Atheist have posited that proposing God as the cause is overly complicated and Occam's razor should cause us to reject that hypothesis when in fact, God is the simplest hypothesis. An unembodied mind is all that reality consisted of prior to creation. What could be simpler than that? Really?

No, a god is not the simplist approach, plus you're begging the question.  The Big Bang without the necessity of a middle man setting it off is Occam's razor. 

And where did your god come from?  Who created your god?  Did he just pop into existence??   And please don't say "he's eternal".  You have no evidence of this.  All this boils down to is, "He's eternal because I said so."   The universe is capable of being eternal too because I said so. 

And please don't claim your god is "outside of place and time".  This is the latest mythical environment Christians have placed their god.   The ancients used to believe gods were on top of mountains but when people reached the tops of all the mountains on the planet they weren't there.  Then gods were up in the clouds and we discovered they weren't there either.  The next place?  On the other side of the moon, or in outer space.  Not there either.  

So now the Christian god is so elusive they've stuck him so far out he's now "outside of space and time".  Which is a conveniently unfalsifiable place.  

An unembodied mind is all that reality consisted of prior to creation

What the actual hell is an "unembodied mind"??  This is just another unfalsifiable mythical creation of yours because you have no real evidence of a god.    

Why don't you just be honest for once and say,  "I don't know where my god is" or "I don't know how the universe was created" instead of pulling all this complete nonsense out of your ass.

[epronovost]

I'll burst your bubble, but it doesn't show in how or what you write (you might know significantly more, but it just doesn't show). Your metaphysics are basically a solid two centuries outdated and is a fairly naive hodgepodge of  Platonism with a, at best, a Newtonian understanding of physics.

Yeah, you keep saying that, but the details never come. Go ahead, what have I got wrong...specifically?

Well for one all of your syllogism are bad since they all have steps missing and, especially, are missing definitions. I have explained numerous time how those were bad and showed you specifically where the steps were missing. You can go back into each of those post to see some of the criticisms and how you systematically failed at adressing them.

Then, if we go into your metaphysics, your Metaethics is in contradictory with your Platonic conception of God due to the Euthyphro problem; your theodicy of free will is also illogical due to the problem of heaven (where there is no sin and free will at the same time) and hell (infinite punishment for finite crimes). On to physics and metaphysics now: your conception of the time seems to ignore the fact that time is feature of the observable universe and relative, causality is also a feature of the observable universe yet you make the universe being caused by something else which is of course illogical and invalid.

[Dom]

Why don't you just be honest for once and say,  "I don't know where my god is" or "I don't know how the universe was created" instead of pulling all this complete nonsense out of your ass.

That. Christians seem incapable of admitting they don't know something. 

All of us humans are more comfortable with things that we can explain and understand than just not knowing something. The unknown is scary to us, we always want to have a reason. Hence philosophy and psychology and all the sciences.

Christians are no different - except that they use the "god of the gaps" to fill the voids. God is responsible for everything they don't understand. And if it makes no sense for god to do something like that, it's all his plan. The inexplicable, even awful, thing that happened, set a chain of events in motion that sometime, somewhere, touches someone god wanted to touch. 

@SteveII I have not heard you say "I don't know" a single time. How come?

[Minimalist]

How come?

Well, see, he read this big book of bullshit that was cobbled together in the early 17th century and thinks it is the answer to EVERYTHING.

Lots of assholes think that.

[Inkubus]

[Much snipped for focus] The realization that time is part of the geometry of the universe. 

This one beautifully elegant statement cuts the legs right out from under the metaphysicians. The abomination that is metaphysics is philosophy's final attempt at being relevant in the 21st century.

[SteveII]

You keep saying this and I don't understand what you are referring to. What do you think we have to ditch specifically?

Among other things: 
1. classical notions of causality

Causality, as discovered in quantum mechanics, has little to do with the classical notions. 

Quantum mechanics and classical physics are not in conflict but rather represent different levels of description. While quantum indeterminacy is a significant observation at the microscopic level, it doesn't have a noticeable impact on the macroscopic world we observe every day. The principles of causality we have been examining and harnessing for millennium remain in effect. Classical physics is still used in engineering, architecture, and many other practical fields without any issues arising from our understanding of quantum indeterminacy. Classical physics remains extremely accurate and useful in all facets of life.

Regarding your more general claim that 'metaphysics needs to be completely rewritten in the face of modern physics,' it's important to clarify that metaphysics is a philosophical discipline that deals with abstract questions about reality, often extending beyond the boundaries of physics (baked into the word itself). While modern physics, including quantum mechanics, has expanded our understanding of the physical world, it doesn't demand a complete overhaul of metaphysical principles. In fact, the principle of correspondence highlights that quantum mechanics reduces to classical physics in the macroscopic world, indicating a level of compatibility rather than contradiction.

2. classical notions of substance
3. classical notions of things vs properties

These go together.  things are defined by their basic properties. the notion of a 'fundamental substance' is mistaken. 

4. classical notions of identity

This is especially the case for basins and various states leading to bosonic properties. 

Related to the discussion on quantum mechanics, very few metaphysical concepts are impacted by better descriptions. The nature of the world may be different than we thought, but that new, better description does not have a whole lot if impact on anything outside of physics--so not much effect on metaphysics. Perhaps it is your view of what metaphysics is?  What do you think metaphysics is?

5. classical notions about infinity

This is a math thing.We have learned a lot about the proteus of infinite sets in the last 150 years.  Philosophy needs to catch up. for example, infinite regressed are not always, or even generally, contradictions. They are commonplace. 

Sure they are commonplace in equations. As I think you pointed out recently, all math does not correspond to the physical world. Infinities are not things that can happen in the real world.

6. The realization that contingency is just another word for being caused. 

Most of the language around necessity and contingency is outdated and bad philosophy. most philosophers realize this, but not all. 

I can just say 'no' there is a difference, but an example from you might be more helpful in understanding your point.

7. The realization that time is part of the geometry of the universe. 

This leads to many consequences when dealing with causality. 

8. That reality doesn't need a 'base'.. It simply exists. 

That is simply believing in a brute fact. At least I have reasons to think God might exist. You simply posit a huge metaphysical claim and shrug.

[Bucky Ball]

There is not one example of an "unembodied mind".
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gue...our-brain/

What that concept is, is an anthropomorphic made up concoction. What we know is, is that there are brains, ... brains which cease to function properly when they are PHYSICALLY damaged. That's all we know. Mentation is a physical process.

https://medium.com/curious/neuroscientis...591240b5bf

There no "mind" unassociated with a physical brain.
The concept of Boltzman brains is debunked and considered total bullshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain

Therefore an unembodied brain (which in order to "work" would have had to have countless "functionalities" and each of those would have had to spontaneously "just happen or arisen", in a god, .... makes the concept totally ridiculous.

Stevie-weavie knows he is loosing here. He's resorted to the ridiculous.

He really does not have "reasons" to believe in a god. He tells himself he does, but in fact does not.

He cannot tell us which system of human "reasoning" he uses, and he cannot tell us how he knows that system of human reasoning applies to the gods, for which he has not one example, or data element.
He's nothing but a fraud, spouting fakery. It's those unexamined presuppositions / assumptions that get you every time.

[Minimalist]

He's nothing but a fraud, spouting fakery. 

Like every other holy horseshitter since the beginning of time.

[Thethingaboutitis]

@SteveII
Can you please tell me what you're expecting from heaven.
How your days nights months and years will be filled. Are you looking forward to it like you would look forward to a holiday?

I imagine that I would be doing some of things I enjoy now: sailing, woodworking, family, cooking--all those things I never seems to have adequate time for. We will have satisfying jobs and participate in society and build culture. There are many characteristics of what it means to be human and these things will have the opportunity to be perfectly executed. It is promised there will be no more sorrow, no more pain.

There will be a new earth and it will be like it always was supposed to be, but never actually possible.

So will you be in your prime in heaven? What happens if you have dementia when you die? Is that somehow reversed?
What happens to all the Christians who live with chronic illnesses or disabilities? Will they be healed after their death?

[pattylt]

I imagine that I would be doing some of things I enjoy now: sailing, woodworking, family, cooking--all those things I never seems to have adequate time for. We will have satisfying jobs and participate in society and build culture. There are many characteristics of what it means to be human and these things will have the opportunity to be perfectly executed. It is promised there will be no more sorrow, no more pain.

There will be a new earth and it will be like it always was supposed to be, but never actually possible.

So will you be in your prime in heaven? What happens if you have dementia when you die? Is that somehow reversed?
What happens to all the Christians who live with chronic illnesses or disabilities? Will they be healed after their death?

I even know the answer to that…everyone will be perfected!  Of course, where each person thinks they were perfect will vary.  If someone has always been blind and doesn’t want to see…they’ve accepted their blindness, will they be forced to see or can they remain blind.  Will the mentally slow become smart without ever having experienced high intelligence?  
Basically, this wishful state will be what each Christian wants it to be…they really haven’t a clue.  Just wishes and dreams… yet, they claim they know these things…

[1Sam15]

@SteveII
Can you please tell me what you're expecting from heaven.
How your days nights months and years will be filled. Are you looking forward to it like you would look forward to a holiday?

I imagine that I would be doing some of things I enjoy now: sailing, woodworking, family, cooking--all those things I never seems to have adequate time for. We will have satisfying jobs and participate in society and build culture. There are many characteristics of what it means to be human and these things will have the opportunity to be perfectly executed. It is promised there will be no more sorrow, no more pain.

There will be a new earth and it will be like it always was supposed to be, but never actually possible.

Probably missed this Steve 

Can you tell me what the other place god created for people like me will be like?

What do you imagine my day to day will be like for the first billion years?

[Minimalist]

I imagine that I would be doing some of things I enjoy now: sailing, woodworking, family, cooking--all those things I never seems to have adequate time for. We will have satisfying jobs and participate in society and build culture. There are many characteristics of what it means to be human and these things will have the opportunity to be perfectly executed. It is promised there will be no more sorrow, no more pain.

What an infantile thing to say.  This guy has the mind of a mildly retarded child.

[polymath257]

Among other things: 
1. classical notions of causality

Causality, as discovered in quantum mechanics, has little to do with the classical notions. 

Quantum mechanics and classical physics are not in conflict but rather represent different levels of description. While quantum indeterminacy is a significant observation at the microscopic level, it doesn't have a noticeable impact on the macroscopic world we observe every day. The principles of causality we have been examining and harnessing for millennium remain in effect. Classical physics is still used in engineering, architecture, and many other practical fields without any issues arising from our understanding of quantum indeterminacy. Classical physics remains extremely accurate and useful in all facets of life.

They are compatible because classical mechanics is the large scale *approximation* when Avagadro's number of atoms are being considered. But the *fundamental* description is quantum mechanics. And that means that, ultimately, the universe is probabilistic in nature.

Regarding your more general claim that 'metaphysics needs to be completely rewritten in the face of modern physics,' it's important to clarify that metaphysics is a philosophical discipline that deals with abstract questions about reality, often extending beyond the boundaries of physics (baked into the word itself). While modern physics, including quantum mechanics, has expanded our understanding of the physical world, it doesn't demand a complete overhaul of metaphysical principles. In fact, the principle of correspondence highlights that quantum mechanics reduces to classical physics in the macroscopic world, indicating a level of compatibility rather than contradiction.

Actually, it does require such an overhaul because the reality demonstrates the possibilities that philosophy never even considered. For example, the things are ultimately probabilistic and not deterministic. Or that particles like electrons are literally indistinguishable from each other and that this has deep implications about the nature and properties of matter.

There goes the law of identity.

The 'compatibility' of classical mechanics with quantum mechanics is like saying that if you flip a trillion coins, you can reliably say that the percentage of heads is very close to 50%. The error is going to be less than .1% with very high confidence. That 'determined' number is due to the probabilities at the basic level.

I am guessing that you have never really studied quantum mechanics (and likely have never solved a differential equation). And that, frankly, means you cannot grasp what QM says or does not say.

2. classical notions of substance
3. classical notions of things vs properties

These go together.  things are defined by their basic properties. the notion of a 'fundamental substance' is mistaken. 

4. classical notions of identity

This is especially the case for basins and various states leading to bosonic properties. 

Related to the discussion on quantum mechanics, very few metaphysical concepts are impacted by better descriptions. The nature of the world may be different than we thought, but that new, better description does not have a whole lot if impact on anything outside of physics--so not much effect on metaphysics. Perhaps it is your view of what metaphysics is?  What do you think metaphysics is?

Hmm...definition from a search:
the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.

Yep, those are the things that need an overhaul.

5. classical notions about infinity

This is a math thing.We have learned a lot about the proteus of infinite sets in the last 150 years.  Philosophy needs to catch up. for example, infinite regressed are not always, or even generally, contradictions. They are commonplace. 

Sure they are commonplace in equations. As I think you pointed out recently, all math does not correspond to the physical world. Infinities are not things that can happen in the real world.

A commonly held viewpoint, but also wrong. For example, consider the conductivity of a superconductor. Or the specific heat of water at the melting point.

But you are correct on one point: it is the observations that determine which math is relevant for describing the real world.

6. The realization that contingency is just another word for being caused. 

Most of the language around necessity and contingency is outdated and bad philosophy. most philosophers realize this, but not all. 

I can just say 'no' there is a difference, but an example from you might be more helpful in understanding your point.

7. The realization that time is part of the geometry of the universe. 

This leads to many consequences when dealing with causality. 

8. That reality doesn't need a 'base'.. It simply exists. 

That is simply believing in a brute fact. At least I have reasons to think God might exist. You simply posit a huge metaphysical claim and shrug.

And I have good reasons connected to the nature of causality, time, and how the universe is known to work. The 'reasons' you have for belief in deities is based on ideas that are *centuries* out of date. You need to learn a few things about the universe and catch up with the last 200 years.

[epronovost]

They are compatible because classical mechanics is the large scale *approximation* when Avagadro's number of atoms are being considered. But the *fundamental* description is quantum mechanics. And that means that, ultimately, the universe is probabilistic in nature.

This is even more important when it comes to metaphysics since this field of study is about the fundamental characteristic of reality. This means, that unless one wants to use only a Pragmatist (as in the school of philosophy) frame for discussion of metaphysics, quantum mechanics becomes that much more important.

[Bucky Ball]

I imagine that I would be doing some of things I enjoy now: sailing, woodworking, family, cooking--all those things I never seems to have adequate time for. We will have satisfying jobs and participate in society and build culture. There are many characteristics of what it means to be human and these things will have the opportunity to be perfectly executed. It is promised there will be no more sorrow, no more pain.

There will be a new earth and it will be like it always was supposed to be, but never actually possible.

So will you be in your prime in heaven? What happens if you have dementia when you die? Is that somehow reversed?
What happens to all the Christians who live with chronic illnesses or disabilities? Will they be healed after their death?

What if in your "prime" (which actually strictly defined wound be a nano-second or less), you were mentally ill and physically your best. There is no such "moment" for all the systems that make up humans. The gods would have to send you to the Jebus Clinic and decide where to "time you out" in Stevie's little imaginary world. What a bunch of horseshit.

[Deesse23]

He really does not have "reasons" to believe in a god. He tells himself he does, but in fact does not.

He DOES! I have to agree with him
....they are just terribly bad.

[Deesse23]

I imagine that I would be doing some of things I enjoy now: sailing, woodworking, family, cooking--all those things I never seems to have adequate time for. We will have satisfying jobs and participate in society and build culture. There are many characteristics of what it means to be human and these things will have the opportunity to be perfectly executed. It is promised there will be no more sorrow, no more pain.

There will be a new earth and it will be like it always was supposed to be, but never actually possible.

So will you be in your prime in heaven? What happens if you have dementia when you die? Is that somehow reversed?
What happens to all the Christians who live with chronic illnesses or disabilities? Will they be healed after their death?

What about friends or relatives of his who went to hell....for being atheists fo rexample.

Will heaven be heaven, and will he be perfectly happy knowing they burn in hell, FOR EVER?
Or will he be empathetic for them, but then.....heaven cant be the "all happy" place.
I suspect its the former one, considering his active display of lack of empathy for others.

[SteveII]

Yeah, you keep saying that, but the details never come. Go ahead, what have I got wrong...specifically?

Well for one all of your syllogism are bad since they all have steps missing and, especially, are missing definitions. I have explained numerous time how those were bad and showed you specifically where the steps were missing. You can go back into each of those post to see some of the criticisms and how you systematically failed at adressing them.

Then, if we go into your metaphysics, your Metaethics is in contradictory with your Platonic conception of God due to the Euthyphro problem; your theodicy of free will is also illogical due to the problem of heaven (where there is no sin and free will at the same time) and hell (infinite punishment for finite crimes). On to physics and metaphysics now: your conception of the time seems to ignore the fact that time is feature of the observable universe and relative, causality is also a feature of the observable universe yet you make the universe being caused by something else which is of course illogical and invalid.

I tried to explain about the syllogisms, but it goes right over your head. The syllogisms you are referring to are not general arguments for the conclusion. They are internal Christian logical steps that explain a doctrine. Remember the context of the conversation? When explaining beliefs within a worldview, you grant the worldview assumptions. You are stuck in a rut thinking that I can't keep up and just keep repeating it. That is not the case here.

The grounding of morality in the nature of God solves the Euthyphro dilemma. That is precisely why I was careful in how I described it. I have had this argument at least a dozen times and have written thousands of words on it. You did not catch me unaware, I understood the issue before I wrote my first word.

I am not quite sure what you are referring to about my comment on time being outdated (I don't remember making any specific claims) other than the concept of metaphysical time to Polymath--which you readily defined for me and defended. If you want, you can reply to an old thread of mine of where my notion of time is wrong and outdated. Perhaps you can do better than the original group to show me where I am wrong.

Regarding the principles of causation, why do you think that it only applies within the universe? I have written thousands of words on this too, so I do not intend to just roll over. So, be specific.  As background, it is possible that something exists beyond the universe?

[SteveII]

I imagine that I would be doing some of things I enjoy now: sailing, woodworking, family, cooking--all those things I never seems to have adequate time for. We will have satisfying jobs and participate in society and build culture. There are many characteristics of what it means to be human and these things will have the opportunity to be perfectly executed. It is promised there will be no more sorrow, no more pain.

There will be a new earth and it will be like it always was supposed to be, but never actually possible.

So will you be in your prime in heaven? What happens if you have dementia when you die? Is that somehow reversed?
What happens to all the Christians who live with chronic illnesses or disabilities? Will they be healed after their death?

The NT describes getting new bodies to house our minds (we need something to interact with our new and improved environment). They do not wear out and are not impacted by illness, disease, and aging. Our knowledge is perfected in some manner. Beyond that, we speculate.

[1Sam15]

So will you be in your prime in heaven? What happens if you have dementia when you die? Is that somehow reversed?
What happens to all the Christians who live with chronic illnesses or disabilities? Will they be healed after their death?

The NT describes getting new bodies to house our minds (we need something to interact with our new and improved environment). They do not wear out and are not impacted by illness, disease, and aging. Our knowledge is perfected in some manner. Beyond that, we speculate.

Does a Christian war veteran who lost his penis and testicles get new penis and testicles in heaven Steve?



Oh never mind. God doesn’t want a man without balls and a penis in heaven. 

Why do you think that is Steve?

Deuteronomy 23:1
King James Version
23 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.