Roger,
I don't get how I, or anyone else, called you a liar. As for hate and
bullying, well, you must be more thin skinned than I thought you were.
Abby
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey ;
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 8:30 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; abby <aevincent@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Existence of the divine, believers versus
atheists
If believers in god would stop showing themselves to be irrational then
I might stop calling them irrational. As for stupid, Well, when someone
comes right back at me and lies about what I have just said so as to
refute the lie that is not stupid. It is underhanded, dishonest, hateful
and bullying.
On 6/7/2018 10:44 PM, abby wrote:
Yes, believers are believers, but so are atheists, Roger doesn't know there
is no God. He believes there isn't, and he is more proselytizing than any
Christian I know. I especially dislike his ad hominum arguments: Believers
in God are stupid and irrational.
Abby
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bob
Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2018 12:12 AM
To: Kane <kbrolin65@xxxxxxxxx>; Joe <joeharcz@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Jim
<invincibleme@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Jews <jfj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Jessica
<jbz75@xxxxxx>; Jenn Hanna <jennhanna@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Jenifer
<jennifer.brallier@xxxxxxxxxxx>; James F. Holwell <mathscoach@xxxxxxxxx>;
Jakob Jackson <heliconia844@xxxxxxxxx>; Iman <imen_12@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Heather
of Minnesota <busseheather.93@xxxxxxxxx>; Heather Kentucky
<hburgess2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Heather Judson <hljadds@xxxxxxxxx>; Hannah
<hanaekasmi@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Deborah Kerwood <dgkerwood@xxxxxxxxx>; David the
Pastor <dchauncey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; David <ddeagel@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Dan
Boone <dan.boone@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Chris Ball <chrisball@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Charlie Isbell <charlie.isbell@xxxxxxxxx>; Chandler
<chandler.boyce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Carrey Cannon <carey@xxxxxxxx>; Cara
<karawheeler.fbc@xxxxxxxxx>; Brad <brad@xxxxxxxx>; Allen Dicey
<adicey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Existence of the divine, believers versus atheists
Jason, Atheists in general do not believe in rational mathematics. They
generically criticise the existence of the divine, because as you said, they
do not believe in supernatural forces. Perhaps a good response to Roger's
useless argument, is to present the following entry of the
Telegraph to him.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html
Professor Antony Flew was the most notorious Atheist worldwide be that as
it may, he retroverted after his multiple searches made him discover the
irrefutable truth. Simply, logical premises are to be presented as follows.
A, this universe is organised and well structured. B, No such organisation
is to be made by chance. C, each and every organisation must have an
organiser. Conclusion, this world surely has an organiser. Creation is the
only proper interpretation to the foundation and the constant expansion of
this vast universe. The latter is now a scientific fact. Who on earth would
believe that everything in this amazing universe happens spontaneously?,
without any control or intervension of anykind. This is simply quite absurd
and irrational, an ant won't even think so. I may jump into the discussion,
on and off. I am the one who has started this thread. I changed its subject
line, to make other viewers aware of its current content. I am busy at the
moment, engaging in Ramadan nightly worships, as this glorious month is
about to farewell us. However, I am taking part whenever I have time for
this.
Thanks, Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Meyerson" <jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 5:40 AM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Original Sin
Roger,
The actual probability of an event can have more factors in it than just
dividing by the number of events.
It rains a lot in Seattle. we could say it will either rain or not rain,
so 50/50? Ridiculous, that is not how we predict the weather or the
probability of rain. So if you want to just remove all other influences
in a situation and you are just going to flip a coin for example, then
50/50. Not all scenarios can be accurately stripped down to your formula.
This is fairly straightforward and I think I tried explaining this before.
I do not think it is that convincing or the best argument, but maybe you
should consider Pascal's Wager if you have not before, he does math kind
of like you.
If I understand the bulk of the rest of your email, you propose no
evidence that would suffice for you, specifically you say you do not know
what would actually be evidence for the existence of God. But then you go
on and say that if there was any evidence, it would have to be
supernatural. But you clearly do not believe in the supernatural. So if
a miracle (something supernatural) for instance was to happen (like the
Resurrection of Jesus an historical fact, creation etc..) I think you
would deny it. You would deny any miracle (to me you already do by
denying creation and life etc... being created) You would rationalize any
thing supernatural and say that science could explain it, or would
eventually be able to explain it. So again we find you in contradiction.
You say there is no God because there is no evidence. I give you
evidence, you reject it. I ask you what evidence you would like and you
say give you evidence that you do not even believe is possible or exists.
How does this make any sense? Your mind is closed and you have tried to
insulate yourself inside of some circle of reasoning that is all closed
up.
Evidence of the supernatural by the way would not fly in the face of
anything you mention, and one of my points to you is that God is a
necessary foundation for science. And for many theistic scientists there
is not any conflict. God not existing and the supernatural not existing
are not foundations to science technology and society.
You self admittedly do not know anything and of all things that we have
learned in history is just a fraction of all the total knowledge that is
out there. When will humans know everything? never. They will never be
omniscient, so in your worldview you will always be left in uncertainty
and on an impossible task of trying to discover truth, but it is
impossible.
Your statements besides being repetitive are still not true, I never
claimed to know everything, I doubt any 'religious types" do. And we do
not 'just' insert the god of the gaps.
Here are a few questions. Why is it wrong to be arrogant? Is it that you
just do not like it and it is just your chemistry or do you propose there
is something actually wrong and bad about arrogance. I mean wrong and bad
in an absolute sense, otherwise your opinion about arrogance is arbitrary
and without any real meaning. You are expressing an ethic/morals but you
have not given any support for their existence or truth. In fact you
can't have anything more than arbitrary opinion as an atheist, like
chocolate or vanilla. You don't like arrogance so what, just like you
might not like vanilla, what does it matter?
You seem to be implying that there is no absolute truth, but if I assert
absolute truth, you say that is foolish and arrogant. Here is my
question, are you absolutely certain it is arrogant and foolish of me to
assert absolute truth? I hope you see the problem here.
Personally, I try to imagine you are a nice person, but for various
reasons you think insulting and trying to berate people is acceptable. I
do not know what the details of the standard of ethical behavior you claim
to follow are, but I find it hard to believe that insults accusations and
trying to berate people are on the list. Does your ethical standard
include treating people who disagree with you poorly, viciously? Maybe
you should switch ethical standards to something else that suits you. I
wonder why though you use this tactic? I wonder why anyone would choose
to attack someone personally when in a discussion of issues, ad hominem.
I can think of a few reasons. Frankly it is arrogant and maybe yelling
and screaming at people works for you in life but I doubt it. all your
attacks and insults do not affect the issues, imo. You think, I suppose,
you are so much better than other people you can treat people like this (I
am assuming it is not just me). If you are not able to civilly disagree
with someone on issues that are important, maybe you shouldn't, just a
suggestion.
Jason
On 2018-06-05 21:40, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
It is not bad math! Have you ever attended a class on probability in
your life? When calculating the probability of an event you divide the
number of the events in question by the whole number of events in the
set of events. The result is a probability ranging from 0.0 to 1.0,
0.0 meaning that it never happens and 1.0 meaning that it happens
every time. Are you going to deny that and call it bad math? If you
do then you may as well deny that 1+1=2 and call that bad math too. If
you are going to call these simple equations bad math then I have a
hard time understanding how you ever got enough education to spell the
word math. Now, what kind of evidence would I accept for god? I don't
know and it is not my job to find out. If you want to make the
hypothesis then it is your job. Remember, I am the one who is assuming
the negative of the proposition. I can tell you some of the qualities
it would have to have though. Carl Sagan told us that extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence. If you made an ordinary mundane
claim I would not have a problem believing it even without your
providing evidence. Supposed you claimed that you went to the bathroom
in the past hour. Well, you might be lying. Maybe it was two hours
ago. But that is a common activity that everyone does all the time and
so I would not even think of demanding evidence before accepting it.
On the other hand, if you claimed to have a degree in math or science
I would have my extreme doubts because you show an abysmal amount of
ignorance about such subjects. But I suppose it is possible. Look at
Michael Behe, for example. The evidence would have to have something
to do with it being true. I suppose that if you produced a not forged
degree from a reputable institution that would do. I would be
surprised in the extreme, but it would do. However, you are making a
claim of the most extraordinary kind. You are claiming the existence
of some invisible magical being that resides out of space and time
that still influences the real world. That flies in the face of every
scientific discovery ever made in the history of science, in the
history of humanity. The evidence would have to be something so
extraordinary that it would falsify every principle that our modern
society and its technology is built upon. And it would have to
actually have something to do with it being true. Saying that you have
a hard time believing that the universe could exist without that
magical being just is not enough. As for my having no path to absolute
truth, that is correct. This is something else that science has shown
us. As I said, not only has the answer to unknown questions not once,
ever, been supernatural when they were finally answered, but also
every time one of those questions was answered new questions came up
that were not even thought of before they were answered. That is
without exception too. There is so much that is unknown, likely an
infinity, that we don't even know what we need to know. We do not even
know that so many of those unknowns are even there. So we cannot know
everything. That is one of the things that frustrate me about
religious thought. You religious types claim to know it all. If it is
an unknown you refuse to admit that and just insert the god of the
gaps. That is extreme arrogance. and I hate arrogance. The refusal to
admit to the possibility of being wrong is obnoxious. And that reminds
me of something. There is another characteristic to the evidence of
god that needs to be included. It must be falsifiable. That is, when
you formulate your hypothesis for testing a part of that hypothesis
has to have a statement of what, if found in the testing, would prove
a positive that would show that the hypothesis that is being tested is
wrong. Religious would reject that. Could ever formulate a hypothesis
that would include the possibility of your being wrong? That is
against the religious insistence on being right no matter what. But as
long as you are claiming that you have a path to absolute truth or
that you already have absolute truth you are not making yourself look
very good. You are making yourself look like an arrogant fool.
On 6/5/2018 4:18 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
You wrote:"But by claiming a neutral position one is
actually giving equal odds for both the positive and negative of the
proposition. As I asked Carl, do you really think that there is an
even fifty/fifty probability that a god exists or does not exist? "
The fifty fifty situation is one you seemed to assume Carl, (agnostics)
was stuck with. And then you go on to explain why it is not the
situation. So the fifty fifty assumption is bad math and your solution
of dividing by the whole set and coming to one in infinity is bad math.
I am trying to understand you and point out some of the things I think
are wrong. For the sake of brevity, you can just say I think you
misunderstood me, that is just a suggestion.
I did not make up a definition. I quoted you one.
I do not think you are the arbiter of evidence, and while you can reject
my evidence, the connection of the evidence to the proposition seems to
be interpretive. And you have not told me what would suffice for
evidence. We have a proposition, and even you admit that it could be
possible(however infinitely small in your idea), that God exists. What
evidence would you accept?
I would think the idea that your worldview is bankrupt, arbitrary and
contradictory to your beliefs would be an eye opener and some evidence.
And remember the facts that we can discuss as evidence for something
will be interpreted based on a person's presuppositions.
I am glad you are not worried, but the fact remains, you have no
absolute truth and no path to ever knowing anything for certain, even
though you go right ahead and claim truth and certainty.
Jason
On 2018-06-05 15:54, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
It is incredible how daft you can be. It is you who twists everything
I say around so that you can cling onto your irrational claims and I
think it is very probable that you are doing it just to provoke me
into an angry reaction. The very first thing you say this time is that
I am terrible at math and that just because there are two
propositions it does not mean that there is a fifty/fifty chance of
either being true and I had just gotten through explaining that very
thing to you. Of course it does not mean that there is a fifty/fifty
chance of either being true. I also did not word it in any way that I
could have been mistakenly misinterpreted to have said that. That
sounds very much like deliberate misrepresentation of what I have said
to me. What I said was that the agnostic makes the mistake of assuming
that both the positive and negative form of a proposition are equally
likely when there is no evidence for either of them one way or
another. In that case, the probability of the positive proposition
being true is one chance in infinity. Now if you can get out of that
that I said that there is a fifty/fifty probability of either of two
propositions being true then You have some kind of mental problem.
Next, it does no good for you to make up definitions just because it
will contradict what I say. Now you say that evidence is anything that
is presented in support of an assertion. That is just plain untrue. If
I say that an ostrich just walked by and then I say that the evidence
is that there are a lot of penguins in the Antarctic I have not given
evidence for the claim that an ostrich just walked by no matter how
much I insist that it was evidence. Similarly, if you make the
assertion that there is a god and try to claim that the evidence for
it is either blatant lies about how the world around us works or that
you just have a hard time believing that there might not be a god you
have presented absolutely no evidence, strong or weak. That is because
the existence of penguins in the Antarctic has nothing to do with
whether an ostrich just walked by me and lies and your subjective
feelings have nothing to do with whether there is a god. Yes, evidence
can be weak or strong. That is why I said that if you come up with
some evidence for this god I would have to revise the probability of
it being true from one in infinity to something greater than one in
infinity. The stronger the evidence the higher the probability would
become. As for my being certain of nothing, well, I suppose that my
entire life could be a dream and that I am really an ameboid creature
in another galaxy dreaming it, but I don't plan to spend any time
worrying about it. That is a proposition that I just made up and it is
just as likely as any made up proposition like god, one in infinity.
You can't get much more certain than that. As for other propositions,
evidence just keeps piling up for biological evolution. There are
entire libraries of documentation of the research that has discovered
this evidence. It is true that all scientific theory is are tentative
pending incoming data, but to overthrow this theory there would have
to be a lot of evidence and incredibly profound evidence that would
refute it. I am not going to spend any time worrying about that
either. Evolution is just about as much of a scientific fact as any
fact can be. I am convinced of it. Now, honestly, if you want to
retain any kind of credibility at all you will have to stop claiming
that what someone just got through telling you was something other
than what it was. I would say that it makes you look stupid, but it
doesn't quite do that. If you failed to understand what I said no
matter how clearly I said it you would look stupid. But what you are
doing is making yourself look utterly dishonest. You are making
yourself look like a schemer who just wants to goad someone else
because they disagree with you. And that makes you look downright
childish. You are likely to say that I just threw insults again, but I
am telling you exactly how you come off. As long as you misrepresent
everything I say to suit your superstitious self you are coming across
exactly that way.
On 6/4/2018 11:51 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
You are terrible at math, imo. Because there could be two
propositions, it does not necessarily mean there is a 50/50 chance of
then answer being one or the other, it could be, but would be based on
other factors, this is not just flipping a coin. And I dismantled your
one in infinity proposition in a prior email. You are just applying
the percentages and potential outcomes based on what supports your
cause. You gave the odds, not some neutral person. It is like leading
the witness, no thanks. False proposition.
While the definitions can vary, an agnostic can mean someone who does
not know- a gnosis- not knowing. an Athiest can mean - no God.
I was not around for you and Carl going round about this, but I am
going to guess Carl was not convinced, when you tried to explain to
him that he really believes what you believe even though he doesn't.
At least I can imagine a conversation like that.
Here is a definition of evidence "Evidence, broadly construed, is
anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be
strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides
direct proof of the truth of an assertion.
so at least according to that definition I did indeed give you
evidence. And I explained this before, you reject it. Doesn't make it
not evidence. So I think you could say you did not like the evidence,
you reject the evidence you think the evidence is weak etc... But
seems silly to say I did not give you evidence.
Your claim that science has worked it out is interesting. On the one
hand you could be wrong and so could the science. Science changes over
time as facts and info are gathered. So the current theory could be
found to be incorrect. Or are you now going to state it as an
absolute?
Your other claim about everything that has been known and that we find
out does not hold up as well.
You are standing on sinking sand. Your foundation does not match your
words and beliefs. You have major contradictions and I do keep trying
to tell you and you pass over it and try and go on as if it is not
problem. If I said I do not believe in the supernatural and then went
on to describe the supernatural as if it didn't matter, that
contradiction would be a problem. If I said I did not think that I
could know anything for certain and then went on to tell you of things
with absolute certainty that would be a problem. That is what you keep
doing. doesn't it bother you?
The funny thing to me with you not being able to know anything for
certain, that you could be wrong about everything you know, is that
you continue to compile evidence so you can be more certain but in
your worldview you can never have 100% certainty, meaning you can
never really know anything, no absolute truths. There is no path to
certainty.
Amazing how you evolved in a way where you have a thirst and desire
for truth, but can't ever have it. You have a strong internal sense of
right and wrong and good and bad, but they can't ever really exist in
a way that is not just arbitrary. You have a desire to use logic and
demand it of others, but cannot account for logic or why we should use
it in an absolute sense.
Honestly you need God to resolve this. But after all this back and
forth, I do not think you want to do the hard digging into these
foundational issues, and it is hard and will be or would be difficult.
We can try and go through that if you want, but if you are just going
to repeat the same things that contradict your foundational premises I
do not see the point. Would you keep talking to me if I constantly
contradicted myself? I told you before we are both looking at the same
facts but draw different conclusions, not from the facts on the ground
but because of our presuppositions, that is where the disagreement
lies and further I assume we will find if we go there, that connected
to all this and rejection of God, what we usually find is a person is
mad at God, or disappointed with God or something like that, or they
just love the things that God says are not ok, and they do not want to
give up control.
Jason
On 2018-06-04 22:49, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
You spend a lot of time here telling me what my world view is and
getting it all wrong. But let me concentrate on whether I accept that
the god fairy tale character could be and whether I am an agnostic.
Carl here is the agnostic and I have already spent a lot of time
explaining why his agnosticism is wrong, but I will go through it
again. I was once an agnostic, from about age twelve to sixteen when
I
figured out what was wrong with it, but for whatever reason that I
don't remember well I kept calling myself an agnostic until I was
eighteen. But if I go on about how my philosophy developed it will
use
up a lot of time, so let me start with where I am now. First, an
agnostic is an atheist who just has not figured it out yet. And, in
fact, an agnostic professes a lack of belief in super spook. That
qualifies one as an atheist right there. The trouble is that an
agnostic asks himself the question of whether he can prove that the
invisible magical being being exists and comes up with a no and then
considers the question of whether it can be proved to not exist and
still comes up with a no and so says that he doesn't know one way or
another. That is, he gives equal weight to both questions. The
question of whether you can prove that a god does not exist, though,
is not even a legitimate question. As I have said before, the only
way
you can prove a negative is to prove a contradicting positive
proposition that contradicts the positive form of the negative. That
is proving a positive. But by claiming a neutral position one is
actually giving equal odds for both the positive and negative of the
proposition. As I asked Carl, do you really think that there is an
even fifty/fifty probability that a god exists or does not exist? But
again, as I said before, there are a lot more ways for a proposition
to be wrong than there are for it to be right. Let's look at it in
the
form of a mathematical formula. Let's make the proposition that A
equals B and there is no supporting evidence for that proposition.
Without evidence you can make only two assumptions about it. You can
say that the proposition is true or you can say that the proposition
is false. If you claim that it is true you really cannot go beyond
that. You have it that A equals B and you can't say much about it
except, perhaps that B equals A, but that is just another wording of
the proposition. If, however, you say that the proposition is false
then you have a lot of alternatives. A could equal C. A could equal
XYZ. A could equal three divided by the square root of two. I could
go
on and on and the reason I could go on and on is that there are an
infinity of things that A could equal if it did not equal B. So to
calculate the probability of the proposition being true you have to
divide it by the whole set. The whole set is infinity and anything
divided by infinity is infinity. As I said before, the probability of
the proposition being true is a decimal point followed by an infinity
of zeros until you reach a digit that is not a zero and that means
that you will never reach a digit that is not a zero. So I will admit
that there is a possibility of there being a god and that the
probability of it is one in infinity. However, if some evidence is
come up with then the probability will change. Despite your
insistence
that you have offered evidence you have not. First you offered
creationist lies. That is not evidence of anything other than of what
lowly worms the creationist liars are. Then you seemed to back off of
that a little and start expressing your personal incredulity that the
universe could have come into existence without some intelligent
guiding consciousness. I am sorry, but not matter how hard you find
it
to believe that is not evidence of a guiding intelligence. Until you
do find evidence I will continue to make the negative assumption.
Another purveyor of superstition said to me once after I had said
that
I did not have proof that there is a god that I make the assumption
that there is not, Well, I assume that there is." I then told him
that
my assumption is a valid assumption and as valid as any assumption
can
possibly be while his assumption is as invalid as any assumption can
be and the mathematical example I gave above is the reason. The
observable complexity that we see in the universe does not prove the
existence of a guiding intelligence simply because scientific
discovery has shown that it does not and has worked out just how it
comes about. So that claim is not evidence. Furthermore, Everything
that has ever been unknown in the past and that may have been claimed
to be of a supernatural nature has when it was discovered what the
answer was, has always, without exception, turned out to be not
supernatural. Well, there are a lot of unknowns right now and when an
unknown becomes a known it always opens up more questions that were
not even thought of before the answer was arrived at. Those questions
are still unknowns though. As long as they are unknowns I might
speculate on what the answers might be and maybe I can formulate some
experiments that might lead toward answers, but I will not make an
absolute claim that I have the answer and insist on it being true
when
I have nothing to back up that claim. I will not say that the
universe
exists because some super cow in a bigger universe farted it into
existence and I will not say that god created it. Both propositions
have only one chance in infinity of being true. By the way, that one
chance in infinity is an equal chance. That is, you may as well say
that the universe is the fart of a giant cow as that a god created
it.
Both are equally likely.
On 6/4/2018 9:14 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Thanks for the email and agreement.
You have a theory as to how things have worked without guidance, you
assume it is true or believe it to be true.
I say there is a God who created things, because of a search for the
Truth, not to make my life more mentally comfortable.
I can indeed admit to not knowing things. so most of what you wrote
again is a lot of straw man fallacy.
Just to be clear about what you wrote, are you saying it is possible
in your opinion that God exists? Are you saying you are a skeptic in
the sense of being an agnostic? I was under the impression you were
the type of atheist that was saying there is no God. You mention it
is hard for you to believe it, but you do not claim it can't be true
(God's existence). Would like some clarification before I read too
far into all of that.
We are back to you want proof, evidence, truth, reasons etc... For
one we have had the discussion were you admitted you do not know
anything for certain, that is called giving up knowledge (justified
true belief). And two I have asked you in the past what kind of
evidence would suffice for you? I do not believe you answered that,
or I do not remember you answering.
Three I have given you so many forms of evidence. Including
primarily showing you how your worldview of atheism does not provide
a foundation for truth, for continuity in nature, purpose, meaning,
ethics (that are not arbitrary), logic, human dignity. As well I
have tried repeatedly to explain how your unguided theory cannot
account for information, laws, non physical things (logic) existence
itself. You want me to rewrite the arguments? You can go back and
reread them.
You are banking on science. But science is not a foundation. You
have a metaphysic, ethic and epistemology, everyone does whether
they know it or not. These are your real foundation because science
can only exist or function under philosophical underpinnings that
provide for it. Your use of science and facts and truth are
unaccounted for. You never explain how your worldview provides for
these things and in fact I have shown you what a contradiction you
have because your stated worldview actually does not allow for the
very things you are trying to use and demand. My worldview does
provide for these things. So it seems you are trying to use
something I can account for and you can't. It is like you are
trespassing or working with stolen goods.
Your worldview you cannot know anything for certain but you want to
tell me about facts and truth etc... in your world view there can be
no absolute good and bad right and wrong, but you go on and on about
what is good and what is bad. In your worldview there is no meaning
or purpose or point, and yet you act as if these things do exist. In
your worldview you cannot account for logic and yet you demand we
use it. You want to have it both ways it seems. That is the proof,
you know facts and truths matter, and there are things that are
right and wrong and that logic is a universal law, that nature is
uniform, that there is a purpose and meaning. But these very things
you know internally you deny with your stated beliefs.
Jason
On 2018-06-03 23:40, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Okay, it is unguided. Furthermore, we have figured out how the
process
works without guidance. Now, you want to push things back even
further to the point that I have to say that I don't know. I can
describe how life on Earth came about and I can describe how it
evolved. I can describe how abiogenesis came about. Before that I
can
describe how the Earth coalesced out of the solar nebula. I can
describe how the solar nebula came into existence by an earlier
star
going supernova and thus causing all of the heavier elements to
form,
the elements that were necessary for life. But as I go further and
further back there has to be a point that I am going to say that I
don't know. You claim to know. And you have nothing to back up what
you claim to know. You seem to be saying that there has to have
been
and continue to be an intelligent guiding force because of your own
personal incredulity. I am sorry, but personal incredulity is not a
way to determine what reality is. And that speaks to exactly what I
have been saying about religious arrogance. If you don't know
something you just don't know it. The purveyor of religion cannot
admit to not knowing. You have to insist that you know that it must
have been some supernatural being just because you cannot admit to
not
knowing something. When you come up with some reason to believe the
assertion you are making you still don't know, whether you want to
admit it or not. As for me, I am personally incredulous at the
assertion that some invisible magical being made or directed the
universe into existence, but I do not claim that it can't be true
just
because it is so hard for me to believe. I reject it because there
is
no reason to believe it. When you claim to believe something
without a
reason to believe it then whether you personally made it up out of
your own imaginings or not it is still something that is made up
out
of someone's imaginings. And by reason I mean something that
actually
has something to do with it being true. That you are incredulous
that
it could be not true has nothing to do with whether it is really
true.
If it makes you feel really good to believe that it is true then
that
has nothing to do with it being true. Now, if you can come up with
some real reason, that is, something that has something to do with
it
being true, for a supernatural being then I will have to put my
skepticism aside, but the track record for the supernatural is not
good. Humanity has arisen from unthinking cells in a primordial
ocean
and those cells were ultimately ignorant. They knew nothing because
they had no brain to know anything with. But we have arisen to a
point
in which we know quite a lot even if there is a lot more to learn.
Along the way very many supernatural explanations were put forward
to
explain things that we did not know. But we learned. We learned and
many of those unknowns became answered questions. And every time,
without exception, that something that was unknown before and had
only
supernatural explanations became known the supernatural
explanations
were found to be untrue. This is without exception and so the
supernatural really fails every time. Also, every time the answer
to a
previously unanswered question was found there were people who
insisted that the demonstrated answer that had disposed of he
supernatural explanation was wrong. They insisted on it until the
day
they died. And every time it was they who were wrong.
On 6/3/2018 7:43 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Thanks for the email.
I will try and be as clear as I can here. There are 3 issues, at
least.
for 1 I agree and have agreed and continue to agree and understand
I am agreeing with you and the point you have made over and over
that I have agreed with that the less complex(matter) can become
more complex with energy and the tendency as you described it is
reflective of laws and algorithms that exist. OK? We agree in fact
I never denied that. I never said or claimed complexity just
appeared, and I never claimed you claim or believe complexity just
appears.
2 The other part and the part that is important is the process you
are talking about is unguided, it is not purposeful it happens by
accident and I am going to be forced to use this word again but
try not to miss or forget point 1, it is random. I am talking
about here for clarification how the whole things starts off for
one. Your process has to begin somewhere, and it will end
somewhere. No one, in your scenario, starts this process. so how
does it happen? Can you see my point here? It is unguided, there
just happens to be matter and energy and time and laws, they just
happen to be there in your scenario and the process is just begins
and goes where it goes. Now you can repeat you do not know how it
begins or where matter comes from etc.... You are still left with
choices like matter is eternal or it was created.
3 the major problem with your soup scenario is it is guided. You
picked the ingredients, the 'right mix' and 'you add energy'. Now
for the most part energy and chemicals will most likely follow
entropy and probably the vast majority of reactions won't lead
anywhere. And the chemical industry example is the same problem,
totally guided R&D by smart educated people, with money, access
and a sterile lab, meticulously experimenting, theorizing etc....
This is an issue of what can happen unguided versus guided,
designed versus not designed, it actually serves my point I think.
Your explanation that less complex becomes more complex, is a way
to explain the complexity and life in our world and universe, is
faulty. Of course you have a card you like to play when
convenient, time and infinite possibilities. So your scenario is
so implausible the only way you can even buy it is to have an
infinite number of tries and then it has to happen. Well it
doesn't have to happen, wouldn't happen and the only reason imo
you think it is because you start with the end in mind. You a
priori reject Design and a Creator and God and so you are left
with an even less plausible theory. I understand you have
literature and science and theories and speculations and your
examples of less complex to more. And that may be fine for
snowflakes or crystals forming structures repeating. But when you
want that process to explain information and life it just doesn't
carry the same weight, besides that your professed worldview
assumptions of atheism do not provide for even having this
discussion.
Jason
On 2018-06-03 15:28, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Here is something that is not just a difference in definition.
When
you have a chemical soup of the right mix and you add energy to
it you
cause chemical reactions to occur. The more energy you add the
more
complex those reactions and resulting compounds become. After
some
four and a half billion years of constant input of energy into a
complex of organic chemicals the complexity becomes tremendous.
This
tendency for the less complex to become more complex under those
conditions has been experimentally confirmed over and over. We
would
have no chemical industry without it. It is an objective fact and
there can't be much in the way of facts that are more factual
than
that. To claim that such a process does not happen is simply
false.
What can I even say about a person who would make such a claim?
Should
I say liar? Should I say cognitively impaired? Should I say
abysmally
ignorant? And then that person claims that the false claim that
systems of low complexity do not become more complex with the
input of
constant energy is somehow evidence for an invisible being with
magical powers. Honestly, the only thing I can see that such a
claim
is evidence of is that there is something wrong with the person
who is
making the claim. That is on par for nuttiness with the Heaven's
gate
crowd who committed suicide claiming that what they were really
doing
was hitching a ride on a spaceship that was hiding behind a
comet.
On 6/2/2018 10:42 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
How am I lecturing you? you have misrepresented the definition
of a straw man argument, and I even said: "you SEEM to have
misrepresented" maybe I was mistaken, I do not think so though.
Now if I had done that you would have insulted me. But I gave
you a link to the definition. Seemed helpful to me. Either you
have straw man right or wrong, seems simple.
I am not sure how I am distorting you, I quoted you. Maybe I
misunderstood your intent behind your quote? I think we have
some definitional issues in this discussion, regarding what just
happened random accident etc... mean.
I love your newest insult, I am just here to provoke you, right
I have nothing else to do. Don't be so full of yourself, I have
taken the time to try and get through to you and understand some
of what you say. maybe I should have cut my time losses a long
time ago, but I keep thinking we will get to some of the
foundational premise issues.
I did not come to you to learn and I have no desire to prevent
you or anyone else from learning. You made, as I stated much
earlier, some brash and arrogant statements on an email I
happened to receive. I responded. I even laid out for you my 2
goals prior.
Amusing too that you think religion is opposed to learning. It
seems to me many of science's great scientists have been
religious or at least believed in God. And yet they were not
anti science. Amazing.
On 2018-06-02 22:21, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
You see? You have the nerve to lecture me on straw man
arguments and
right then you go ahead and distort what I have said again.
Yes, I did
say that if there are an infinity of universes then we would of
course
be in the one that allowed for our existence. But if there is
only one
universe then we would of course, be in it only if it was one
that
allowed for our existence. To say otherwise is like saying that
it is
so remarkable that the shape of the depression just happens to
match
the shape of the water in it in the form of a puddle. This is
not
saying that the universe just happened. Maybe it did, but I
don't
know. Now, I think I am beginning to see a pattern with you.
You just
keep on making these distortions with the intent to provoke and
goad
me into anger and then you can say that because I lost my
temper you
are the rational one. Sorry, the distortions themselves show
that you
are not rational. The purposeful distortion of someone's words
is
completely dishonest. You show no interest in learning. You
show only
interest in disrupting and in preventing others from learning.
But
then, that is something religion is all about, opposition to
learning,
and that is one reason that I utterly detest religion.
On 6/2/2018 9:09 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
if you removed your name calling you would be able to write
shorter emails.
You seem to have misrepresented the straw man argument:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Here is what you said/wrote in the previous email:
"As for why we seem to live in an anthropic universe, well
the one that just happened to have the structure and laws that
allows
for our existence would, of course, be in the one that we are
in."
It is funny to me that you harp on this, besides your quote, I
have explained my position several times in light of your
explanations, that if ultimately there is no planning to have
laws, and algorithms and matter and energy, then they are just
there and whatever the result is of their combo ultimately is
random an accident and just happened. Because there is no
purpose behind them, no plan no Maker or Creator. It does not
mean complexity popped into existence, I never accused you of
saying that and you keep accusing me of accusing you of that,
hysterical.
The other funny part is of all the things I wrote to you that
this is the thing you want to go over again. Maybe you could
go back to that email and pick something more interesting to
respond to.
And I do not think there are too many people reading along at
this point, imo.
if you want to trade websites check out www.creation.com a lot
of PhD's
also I bought this book but have not read it yet, Harvard PhD
Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species
by Nathaniel T Jeanson PhD
Link: http://a.co/0oY8gr6
Thanks
Jason
On 2018-06-02 20:25, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Let me tell you something about straw man arguments. They are
trickery. You claim that someone said something that that
person did
not say and you make that claim to another person who did not
hear
what the original person said and then you refute the point
that was
never made in the first place. So you trick the third person
into
thinking that another person said something he did not say.
So, what
is the point of making this straw man argument right back to
the very
person who said the things that you are saying false things
about in
the first place? I know what I said and you cannot trick me
into
thinking that I said something else. Or is it that you are
just trying
your best to live up to that tradition among religious
preachers of
being the best jerk you can be? I did not say it just
happened.
Everyone on this list knows that I did not say that it just
happened.
I made some references to some speculative current hypotheses
and said
that they were speculative and that I don't know. I. don't.
Know. That
is not saying that it just happened. Now instead of lecturing
someone
who knows more about the topic than you do try learning about
that
topic and then say something about it when you know something
about
it. Again, you can start here: http://talkorigins.org/ That
site has
some really fascinating articles. But please don't lie about
what they
have to say. Please don't distort them for straw man
arguments.
On 6/2/2018 3:24 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Thanks for saying you do not know. Amazingly though you know
you do not know and, you know no one else can know either?,
that is another fallacy. The truth is you do not know and
you do not think anyone else can know but how would you know
what everyone else knows? You can't.
Your description of the Big Bang Singularity is a lovely
story you have faith in. It is so far fetched and forensic
science like that is more than speculative. Either matter
would be eternal, or it came into existence out of nothing
or nowhere, either one of these is a major problem for you.
And the result of matter coming from nowhere compressed
infinitely small and exploding is a series of events that
result in laws and algorithms, and matter and complexity and
life. Where were the natural laws that came into existence
prior to the singularity?, Were they not there before? It is
amazing, everything happens for no reason, and yet it is not
random not an accident. There just happen to be non physical
laws that exist that matter obeys. Truly a feat of random
magic. It is fine if you want to believe this stuff, and in
50-100 years there will be scientific theories that make
this one look ridiculous, I am sure. Just like many of the
scientific theories of the past seem silly. And here again
is your hypocrisy, you ask me about God and I tell you
answers, and here you say it just happened. It just happened
that..... and what you are telling me is highly speculative
and you want me to look at phrases like this and say of
course that is not random? You think this explains a
material world with immaterial things? How about logic?
Ideas? Concepts? your matter and algorithms sure can do a
lot.
Your theory of how ethics came about is also pretty
speculative. Much of Ethics is something in people's hearts.
Stabbing your best friend in the back is wrong, it is wrong
in every culture and time, and everyone knows it. Evolution
does not provide an explanation for a universal ethic
existing in humans. And your social theory is lacking as
well. And chalking it up to natural selection and chemistry
makes it even less meaningful, besides being implausible.
And the main point is that any ethic without God is
arbitrary. Just opinions, there is no absolute truth in your
worldview regarding ethics, and yet you know there are
things that are absolutely wrong. And if you are willing to
admit that, then you have to see your worldview does not
really provide for that and in fact contradicts it. Is love
good? Can't be in your world, it is just chemistry and
chemistry is neither good or bad. So love is not good or bad
and no love would not be good or bad either (that is hate)
just chemistry. And yet you judge people on an ethical basis
all the time. Major contradiction.
Jason
On 2018-06-01 16:23, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Now, because you have a tendency to ask short questions or
make short
points that require long answers and because I don't have
all the time
in the world I have been addressing only one or a few of
your points
in any one message and waiting for you to make them again
later. This
time you repeat one that I have, indeed, neglected even if
not
entirely. That is where do nonmaterial things come from in
a material
universe? Okay, I have mentioned abstract but still
objective aspects
of the universe like dimensions, directions or even just
space. These
are characteristics of the universe and just like questions
about the
origin of matter there are some very speculative hypotheses
extant
that have not been tested because we do not yet have a way
to test
them. One is that in the singularity that is popularly
called the big
bang cause and effect did not exist and most any natural
law or
characteristic could have come into existence and all of
them did.
Because you are so fond of throwing accusations of
scientific thought
explaining everything as randomness I am sure that you see
randomness
in what I have just said. That is not the case if all
possibilities,
which in a case like that would be infinite possibilities,
were
spawned all at once. This is one of the hypotheses that
advocate the
multiverse. As for why we seem to live in an anthropic
universe, well
the one that just happened to have the structure and laws
that allows
for our existence would, of course, be in the one that we
are in.
There would be other things that could only exist in their
respective
universes. Again, though, all of this is of the most highly
speculative concepts. The real answer to the question is
simply that I
don't know and no one else knows either. And let me
emphasize again
that not knowing does not mean supernatural explanation.
Not knowing
only means not knowing. The things we don't know are things
that we
have to figure out, not just proclaim an explanation out of
nowhere
and insist that it is true. As for ethics, morality and
that kind of
abstractions, that is easier to explain. Each of us who are
even
capable of communicating abstractions to each other are
human beings.
We all evolved together and have to relate together with
the natural
world around us and with each other too. There would be two
directions
from which concepts of ethics and morality came to us.
First, there is
the genetic aspect. There was certainly a survival and
thusly a
reproductive advantage to people who could cooperate with
each other
for mutual advantage. That would cause the neurochemicals
that
facilitate cooperation to be produced more over the
generations that
had it and so survived to produce more offspring. These
neuro
chemicals are likely to have been adapted for that function
because
they were already there to perform other functions. For
example,
oxytocin is a muscle relaxant and facilitates parturition.
Since it is
important for a mother to take care of her newborn it also
became a
neurotransmitter that cause feelings of goodwill and
affection. That
is why it is called the love chemical. Vasoptressin is also
involved
with this behavior. So there is another way to look at the
word love
which you used. Love is caused by neurotransmitters in the
brain.
Second, aside from emotions caused by neurotransmitters the
brain has
become complex enough that it can figure out things about
the world
around it and how to best react in a considered way with
the
environment. So as humans came to live in communities and
to interact
with each other on a daily basis they had to make up rules
that would
facilitate such interactions and to make deals with each
other in
order to maximize advantages for individuals and the
community as a
whole and to minimize harm that might otherwise result. Out
of this
came codified rules of ethics and morality. So there you
have your
answer and it has nothing to do with any magical beings
that reside
outside of space and time. The uneducated people who were
in the
position of having to create these moral codes did not
necessarily
realize that magical beings were nonsense, but it was not
the magical
beings who created the rules of human interaction.
On 5/31/2018 10:34 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
thanks
As to knowing God's will. First we would need to know
about God, there are things we can ascertain by natural
law, looking around and observing. And there is His Word
and then His incarnation(When I speak about God I am
talking about the Creator God of the Bible). so for
example we have Jesus teaching what are the 2 great
commandments (in the torah 1st 5 books there are 613
commandments) He says Love the Lord your God with all your
heart soul and strength, and the 2nd is like it, Love thy
neighbor as the self. We find that love is the
interpretive lens to read the law. And love in the New
Testament, agape is wanting what is best for someone else
regardless of their actions, it is unconditional love.
Later on Jesus will say Do unto others as you would have
them do unto you, an interesting teaching because it is
the positive version of a teaching that already existed in
several cultures- do not do to others what you do not want
done to you. These are vastly different. He would also say
and I assume you would like this one regarding what it
means to be great from Matthew 20
26 "Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires
to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27
"And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be
your slave-- 28 "just as the Son of Man did not come to be
served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for
many."
So there are things we know are His will and things we
know are against His will, like murder or theft and then
times when we are not sure and this gets to prayer and
things like that. We do talk to God and even for you as an
experiment if you wish to extend this hypothetical, can
talk to Him. You can even ask Him if He is real and to
show you. I do not expect the concept of prayer to make
sense at this point, but you did ask.
If someone has harmed me and I want to personally kill
them or hurt them the Bible does not teach for me to do
that, so my will needs to be changed.
Sorry to disappoint you, it is not because you did not
explain your position, I just did not assume that would be
what you would say regarding complexity in this situation.
Because there is a distinction the ability of a brain you
may describe as complex, but the basic ethics and logic
exist and are not necessarily complex even though non
material. But still the mind which is material has
developed non material functions and recognizes non
material things? I do not think you have as of yet really
explained that as a function of algorithms and energy and
matter. Where do non material things come from? They
cannot only be a product of the mind, that would be some
trick for matter to be able to pull off. And if ethics and
logic were just products of the mind they again would be
arbitrary. There would be no reason to hold them as laws
or standards. They must be existing outside of the mind as
nonmaterial 'entities' that we could say we discover or
become aware of.
I would like to hear from you how you get around all the
contradiction and the arbitrariness that your worldview
forces onto you.
Thanks
Jason
On 2018-05-31 20:20, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Putting aside all the distortions about things I have
said in this
message you state that it is not about man's will, but
about god's
will. Okay, just supposing that there really is such a
magical being
as god then just how do you determine what god's will is?
I see no way
that it can be done other than that it is your own will
that is
ascribed to god. Just how can you tell. Now, still
putting aside most
of this distortion of what I have said because I really
do only have
limited time to respond to emails, let me skip to
something that you
said toward the end. You said that I still have not
explained how
nomaterial things like ethics can come from material
things. I have
so! I explained how complexity has and does come from the
less complex
and that includes extremely complex things like the human
mind that
has its concerns and works out how to relate to other
human minds and
people. How could you have missed something like that
that I spent so
much time explaining to you?
On 5/31/2018 6:55 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Thanks
I mentioned the Bible in saying God's will be done, in
response to what you wrote about 'religious' people
using God or religion to get what they want. My point
was that is not a Biblical teaching, it contradicts the
teaching of the Bible. It is not about a person's will
but God's. Further while you do not accept it the Bible
it is the word of God and quite different than Harry
Potter books.
I am not sure how to restate the issue here regarding
Human Progress. I have mentioned the concept of being
arbitrary of just being opinion, about how you could be
wrong about everything you know. And yet you still
propose to not only know what is best for humanity but
how to move forward against the will of others, sounds
like arrogance to me. On top of that I tried to explain
how that seems a bit hypocritical of you since you claim
to be so bothered when others do the same. Which part is
missing here?
Further you talk of morality (or whatever you want to
term it) rights and meaning and ethics. I am asking here
again very specifically how do you have an authoritative
ethic? Additionally, Where do the rights come from? And
how is there meaning? As an atheist I have pointed out
that your stated beliefs contradict these very concepts,
to be clear not that they do not exist in atheism but
that they are arbitrary and merely opinions and
preferences. Further how would voting be the best way to
determine the course of action? Voting or majority or
mob rule are certainly flawed and not a reliable way to
determine truth. Why not let the minority have their way
instead of the majority, they are just as likely to be
correct if there is even a correct answer.
I have not claimed religious people are more ethical.
However I have showed you that your stated positions
could only give you an 'ethic' that was merely opinion
and is arbitrary. I do not see how you have a way around
that, you just state you have or follow an ethical
system, I understand. You have ethical beliefs that you
believe to be right and you are willing to try and force
them on others, yet all you have are opinions. You
cannot have an authoritative or absolute ethical
standard because your ethical system comes only from men
(who are flawed and limited). Only from God could we
have an ethic that is absolute that is prescriptive that
is an absolute standard for right and wrong. Any other
system will just be a competing opinion and is
arbitrary, and then you are left with how to resolve the
differences of opinion, all being equal, not one being
better than another.
Your example regarding sexuality, I would say who
invented sex? If indeed it is God's invention then He
has some say as to its use and purpose etc... That seems
reasonable.
Sexual behavior as long as it is consenting.... Is that
true? Is it absolutely true? You are making a truth and
knowledge claim here, again, and yet you claim not to
know and that there is nothing you are certain about.
Additionally you have yet to explain how non physical
things could arise from the physical, immaterial things
from the material. Where does meaning, truth, logic,
ethic come from in atheism?
Jason
On 2018-05-31 15:27, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Okay, the bible says god's will be done. So what? What
does that have
to do with determining reality? Like I said, the Harry
Potter books
say that wizards ride around on broomsticks. So what?
They still don't
no matter what the Harry Potter books say. Now there is
an issue that
you did not address. Why is it that various people
claim to know what
god's will is and say things like god wants this or
that without the
slightest evidence that is what god really wants and it
just so
happens to agree with what the person who is making the
assertion
wants? Doesn't that sound like a scam to you? Now, as
for determining
what is best for humanity, that is a whole different
subject. Society
would have to be drastically changed to achieve it in
any meaningful
way. Since the advent of class society people have
taken privileges
for themselves have used their power to dictate to the
rest of us. But
there are certain ethical considerations. One is that
when an action
effects only one person he or she has the right to
decide for him or
herself whether to take the action. Alas, there are not
very many
decisions that effect only one person. When the
decision effects two
people neither has the right to impose it on both of
them without
consulting with the other and coming to a mutually
satisfactory
decision. If it effects three people ... well I hope
you see where
this is going. Would votes have to be taken if we could
reach a
situation in which all of humanity participates in
their own decision
making. I would hope that a consensus could be arrived
at in most
cases, but when the opinion is divided closely then it
just might have
to be done. What about the losers of such a vote. Well,
if they could
go off and make a different decision without causing a
problem for the
majority I suppose they would have the right to do
that. If they could
not do that then the decision of the majority would
have to be imposed
on them. But there is a big difference between that and
what we have
now. Now we have a minority imposing its decisions for
itself on the
majority whose interests do not match that minority.
That is
unethical. Putting aside the speculation about the
specific mechanics
of an ethical world, though, that was not really the
issue. The issue
was that you were making a very arrogant and bigoted
religious claim
that religion has the market on morality cornered, that
religious
people are the only moral people. That kind of claim is
so arrogant
that it is really astonishing. Or, at least, I would be
astonished if
I was not already used to encountering religious
arrogance. But such a
claim is entirely false. There are ethical and moral
systems other
than religious ones. That is another objective fact
that religion
denies just like it denies other objective facts. Now,
having said
that, I will add that I, personally, do tend to avoid
the word moral
or its other forms like morality in reference to myself
or causes I
support. That is because religion has given morality a
bad name. The
way religious people tend to use the word it seems to
mean that it is
a way to denounce other people for minding their own
business. This is
especially true in the case of sexual behavior. Sexual
behavior, as
long as it is consenting, is simply the business of
whomever is doing
it. Religion has a strong tendency to interfere with
other people's
sexual practices denouncing it as immoral. The way I
see it, if they
think it is so immoral they are perfectly free to just
not do it
themselves and stay out of other people's business.
On 5/30/2018 11:43 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
I do not support using God as a way to impose my or
anyone else's personal opinion onto everyone else. The
Bible says God's will be done, and we are to try and
ascertain that, and yes sometimes sincere people may
even disagree on some of what that means, but that is
not a problem with God, but with man.
Interestingly you are proposing the same thing you
complain of, to impose what you and the majority think
is best on society.
Is majority rule really the way to determine the best
course for humanity? Certainly did not work in Nazi
Germany. Can the collective majority not be wrong? Is
every election where the majority picks a winner the
right choice for humanity. Did scientific
breakthroughs become true only when the majority
agreed with them? I will stop with examples now but
majority rule is a terrible way to determine what is
best. In fact the majority believe in God, so there
would be a big problem for you there.
The idea that you know what is best for humanity is a
serious problem. You have said already you do not know
anything for certain and could be wrong about
everything you know. You have an opinion about what is
best, and it may even be informed and may sound
reasonable, but it is merely your opinion and maybe
the opinion of some or many others. There will be
contradictory opinions held by many other humans as to
what is best. How do you resolve the discrepancies?
Just vote? If you have your opinion and someone has a
different opinion regarding what is best, how is it
you feel that forcing your beliefs about what is best
for humanity is ok? You clearly do not like people
trying to force what you believe to be opinions or
ideas you disagree with onto you, but you have no
problem doing the very same thing?
And since it is unlikely we would get anything close
to a universal agreement on what is best for humanity,
couldn't we say the same thing you are saying, that
people would try and use this what is best for
humanity idea to get what they want and impose their
opinions?
Without God (a source for a standard of good greater
than humans and without error) I do not see how you
can force your ideas and beliefs, which are merely
human opinions, onto others.
Jason
On 2018-05-30 22:16, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
I think that ideally the way to determine what is
best for humanity is
by collective decision. The problem is to change
society so that such
a situation can be realized. But it still remains
that even if you
want to leave it up to some all powerful and all
knowing being, what
does that have to do with whether that being exists?
You still haven't
proven that any such being exists to leave it up to.
And then, if we
assume without evidence that it does exist right now
then how do we
determine what decisions it makes in regard to what
is best for
humanity? So far as I have ever seen those who claim
that it does
exist also claim to know exactly this oh so powerful
being wants and
for one thing it always wants what the proclaimer of
its existence
wants and, second, each person who claims to know
just what this all
powerful being wants disagree about what it wants.
That sounds
suspiciously like using the claim of its existence to
impose one's
personal opinion on everyone else to me.
On 5/30/2018 5:46 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
The dilemma is real that without God you have no way
to any certainty or truth and without a doubt would
have no idea what is best for humanity. The only
solution is if there is someone greater than humans.
If there is an all knowing all powerful all present
being, then we would have a path, a way to knowing
what is absolutely good or true etc... Without God
or a source greater than humans, for a standard for
good we just have arbitrary opinions. Your opinion,
mine, someone else's if we are all human than whose
do we choose? Do we vote on it? does the majority
decide? No. We won't agree on what is best so do the
strong pick? Is it by war? If it is just your
opinion and ideas versus mine or others and we
cannot determine which one is really the best or
what is best, how do you justify forcing your
moralistic view of what is right on me?
BTW the God of the Bible and His plans are often not
the plans and ideas I would choose.
Jason
On 2018-05-30 17:11, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Well, with god how do you know what is best for
humanity? So you make
up an invisible man with magical powers who lives
in the sky and you
claim that you know what that invisible man's
opinions are and they
just happen to match your own opinions. Wouldn't it
be better just to
say that you know what is good for humanity instead
of making up some
fairy tale character to blame?
On 5/30/2018 4:03 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Carl,
Thanks for the reply.
I think your premise is interesting but
problematic. Of course who could argue with Human
Progress?
But here is the thing about that being done
without God. How do you know what real progress
is? What is the right direction for humanity? I am
sure you have your thoughts and opinions regarding
that and others will have different or even
opposite thoughts and opinions regarding what is
best for humanity. There is no universal
consensus, except maybe in a very broad unspecific
and general way. When you begin to state your
personal preferences and opinions about what is
best for all of humanity you are working from an
ethical/moral perspective. Why is your morality
any better than someone else's? and why would you
want to influence and to what degree do you want
to influence other's moral choices and outcomes? I
am trying to keep this short, but I hope you see
the dilemma. It gets to the issue of how do you
have a real morality without God and just
something arbitrary.
Thanks
Jason
On 2018-05-30 10:56, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Radio waves...interesting. Of course since we
know that a radio in
good working condition is built to receive an
invisible(to us)signal,
and we have turned on that radio hundreds of
times, then it is no
longer Faith anymore than saying you have Faith
that the sun will rise
in the East. But maybe if you found a person who
never knew radios
existed, and you handed them a radio, and told
them to "turn it on",
and they would hear Heavenly music...
Anyway, as I said before, it's an effort in
futility. Those who are
convinced that God exists, will either attempt to
convince you, or
simply ignore your best arguments. And those who
do not believe in
God, will try to convince those who do, that they
are wrong.
As an Agnostic, I simply dismiss the question
regarding God's
existence, and get down to discussing whether the
forms of religion
that exist today are interfering with Human
Progress. But that's a
discussion for another day, and I have clients
needing our attention
today.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/29/18, Roger Loran Bailey
<rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Exactly. If you have evidence then it is not
faith. He said that he got
that stuff about trust from the bible and maybe
he did. I haven't
memorized the entire bible to verify it, but I
do know that this
definition of faith comes from the bible: The
evidence of things unseen.
Now what does that mean? Does that mean that
when you turn on a radio
and hear sound that sound is the evidence of the
unseen radio waves? In
that case I just listened to some faith this
afternoon in the form of a
news broadcast.
On 5/29/2018 12:37 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Well Roger, you have embarked upon an
Impossible Mission. While I
appreciate your discussions, and learn from
them, any belief that your
reasoning is being received is simply a flight
into Never Never Land.
Jason wrote: "I do not have the same definition
of faith you propose.
Faith is trusting, and is based on evidence. It
is not a check your brain at the door, blind
leap, quite the contrary."
But he does not explain what he means by
"evidence". In my mind,
evidence would negate Faith.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/28/18, Roger Loran Bailey
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In response to what I said you seem to largely
ignore what I just said
and then distort the rest. First, how is it
scientific to ignore the
supernatural? I just got through telling you
that the supernatural
excludes itself because if ever anyone found
out that a supernatural
proposition was actually true that would mean
that it was not actually
supernatural at all and had not been
supernatural all along. The
supernatural is that which is not real, that
which is made up, that
which has no evidence to back it up. To accept
such claims as true
cannot be scientific because science is the
study of reality and
requires testable reproducible evidence. Next,
you do not seem to
understand that asking someone to prove a
negative is not even a
legitimate question. Think about this. Suppose
a murder was committed
and the police, instead of looking at the
available evidence and
following up on it, instead just opened a
phone book and randomly picked
out a name and it happened to be yours. Then
you were hauled into court
and charged with murder and without a shred of
evidence against you
convicted you. I am sure you would be pointing
out that they did not
prove that you did it. But what would you say
when told that you didn't
prove that you didn't do it? Actually, the
only way to prove a negative
is to prove a positive that contradicts the
positive form of the
negative proposition. For example, how do we
prove that there are no
square triangles? If every triangle we have
ever examined is not square
isn't it possible that we just have not
examined enough triangles and
that there might be a square one out there
somewhere? The way you prove
that there are no square triangles is to show
that a square, by
definition does not have the requisite
characteristics that define
triangles. That is, the condition of the
square contradicts the
condition of the triangle and so excludes the
possibility of square
triangles. Without the positive concept of the
square the proof that
there are no square triangles is meaningless.
That leaves even asking
for proof of a negative meaningless. Suppose I
claimed that ameboid
aliens from the Andromeda galaxy were
burrowing into the brains of
epileptics making them have seizures. Would
you believe me? If you said
no then what would you say if I then said that
you can't prove that they
are not so it must be true? Again, there is an
infinity of propositions
that can be made up with absolutely no
evidence that they are true and
the probability that any one of them actually
is true is only one out of
the whole set of propositions, that is, one in
infinity. One chance in
infinity is pretty much the same thing as
saying no chance at all. So
rejection of supernatural propositions is not
an expression of faith. It
is simply rejecting the utterly absurd. Now,
as for dialectical
materialism, I don't know where you got it
that I am saying that
everything is matter and energy in motion that
over time develop other
properties. I do not necessarily believe that
all of reality consists of
just matter and energy. For the most part the
part of reality that we
deal with is, but the cutting edge of physics
is finding some evidence
that point to multiple dimensions and the
existence of any dimensions is
apart from matter and energy in the first
place. It also appears that
space itself has a fabric of its own that is
not matter and energy.
There are also some other possibilities that
are much more highly
speculative. Among these speculations, though,
is not one that is an
invisible man with magical powers in the sky.
Dialectics, though, is an
inherent characteristic of the universe that
is not developed over time
or other wise. Apparently you do not
understand what the word even
refers to. Let me use a classic example of a
dialectical relationship to
illustrate it, master and slave. A slave
cannot be a slave without a
master. If you take away the master the whole
concept of being a slave
ceases to have any meaning. Also, the slave
master cannot be a master
without a slave. Without someone to force to
be a slave the concept of
master also becomes meaningless. Yet master
and slave are contradictions
of each other. The slave's interests are
completely opposed to any
interests that the master may have and the
master's interests are
completely opposed to the slave's interests.
So there is a constant
struggle between them. In order for their
relationship to continue to
have any meaning they must interact with one
another and the interaction
can never be any other than opposition and
struggle against one another,
This results in changing both of them. Now, if
you look around you
should be able to see many other dialectical
relationships in not only
human society, but in nature. Dialectics gives
the universe a dynamic
other than the dynamic of entropy alone. Let
me point out that these
things are observable. To believe in the
clearly observable is not
faith. If you want to distort the word faith
and call it trust then it
is not trust either. It is observable. Other
things can be inferred from
the observable too, but even if it is not
directly observable it is
still not faith to believe that they exist.
Faith is simply the act of
believing in a superstition.
On 5/28/2018 9:31 AM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Thanks for the reply.
How is it scientific to exclude out of hand
the supernatural? Are you
interested in truth? If so then how can you
exclude some
possibilities? IMO you would be better to
just say you do not believe
in the Supernatural, that is your expression
of faith, because it is
not an expression of truth or evidence. You
presuppose that the
universe and material are all that there is,
without knowing
everything you would not be able to say
definitively that the
supernatural does not exist, or preclude it
from the discussion.
I also disagree, that people who claim the
supernatural, all do so
without any evidence. The question becomes
what is evidence? What
would someone accept as evidence? Complexity
and design in and of
themselves are evidence in every aspect of
our physical world. Does
not mean someone cannot reject it, but it is
still evidence.
One line of evidence is the problem with
materialism. You try and
escape this problem by (in my understanding
of what you are saying
regarding dialectic ) saying everything is
matter in motion, chemistry
and physics but over time they develop
additional properties. You are
proposing, I think, that material only,
develops non material
functions? So matter that only has physical
properties in a physical
universe over time develops non physical
properties. Disorder to
order, no information to information,
predeterminism to free will, no
mind to mind, no morals to morals, no life to
life. These kind of
things are quite the leap and random
interactions and time in and of
themselves do not explain these things in the
slightest.
Your point about probabilities is interesting
but I believe flawed.
I am not talking about disregarding evidence,
I do not have the same
definition of faith you propose. Faith is
trusting, and is based on
evidence. It is not a check your brain at the
door, blind leap, quite
the contrary. In fact I think you display the
kind of faith I am
describing in a sense.
You seem to assert a line of truth exists and
inherit in that is also
a morality. How will your subjective morality
be anything but
arbitrary in a world without God. Whatever
you think is right can
only be your opinion and maybe the opinion of
some others, and yet you
seem to express your morals as if others
should be subject to them or
share them. Without out a supernatural
personal God, you will not be
able to defend or proscribe morals/ethics,
know what is truly real and
be able to defend logic, or really even do
science. I know that is a
large chunk of a sentence, but wanted to lay
that out for you.
Thanks
Jason
On 2018-05-27 22:20, Roger Loran Bailey
wrote:
The supernatural is precluded from being
real simply by being
supernatural. If a supernatural claim should
be shown to be real then
at that point it is determined to be a part
of the real world and it
is determined that it always was a part of
the real world. However,
that is irrelevant to those who tout the
existence of the
supernatural. They just claim that it is
real without worrying the
slightest bit about evidence and that
strikes me as indistinguishable
from insanity. It is a matter of believing
on the basis of faith.
Faith is the act of believing without any
regard at all to either
reason or evidence. If a belief by faith
just happens to be correct
then it is correct only by the wildest of
coincidences. That is
because there are a lot more ways to be
wrong than there are to be
right, infinitely more ways. If we disregard
evidence or reason we can
pick out anything to believe and there are
an infinity of choices.
That means that the chances of being correct
are exactly one in
infinity. Infinity, that is a decimal point
followed by an infinite
number of zeros before you get to a digit
that is not a zero. And that
means that you will never reach a digit that
is not a zero. Basing
one's beliefs on the observed reality around
us does not guarantee
correct beliefs, but you do increase your
chances to at least
somewhere in the finite. Second, yes, I am a
strict materialist. Now,
after having said that I will go on to say
that a lot of people have
some pretty strange and false ideas about
what a materialist is, but
if you are one of them I cannot predict with
misconceptions you have
in order to refute them right now. But I am
a strict materialist in
that philosophical idealist explanations
strike me as complete
nonsense. As for free will, I don't know. I
will go so far as to say
that I am not a mechanical materialist and I
gravitate toward
dialectical materialism. So I do not hold to
the concept of a
clockwork universe in which all of our wills
are predetermined by
atoms bumping against one another. At the
same time I will say that
there might be some hope to salvage
something like mechanical
materialism. A lot of people say that
mechanical materialism has been
overthrown by the advent of quantum physics
and its quantum
weirdness. I have my suspicions that quantum
behavior could be
explained by events going on in subPlanc
space. However, at this time
there is no way of seeing into subPlanc
space, not even theoretically.
So the question will have to be open for
quite some time to come. Even
if mechanical materialism is shown to be
true at a subPlanc level,
though, that would not preclude dialectics.
There would still be
contradictions in the universe that would
depend on one another for
their mutual existence and by interacting
they would still change each
other. But I do thoroughly reject claims
that there is an invisible
man with magical powers in the sky. It is
really so insulting for
anyone to approach me with the expectation
that I will believe any
such thing. It is insulting and offensive.
On 5/27/2018 9:38 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Thanks for the reply. Regarding this reply
and the other one you
sent regarding theology.
I guess the questions would be:
How do you know there is nothing
supernatural? Wouldn't you have to
know 'everything' to definitively say there
is nothing supernatural
or non physical? I am assuming you do not
know everything, so the
other question would be: could you be
wrong?
Are you a strict materialist, meaning do
you believe there is
nothing that is non physical or
supernatural? How about free will
or determinist?
Is science then the method for determining
truth, for you?
What is real (reality) is in fact
objective, I agree, metaphysics.
But many people have presuppositions
regarding what is real.
thanks
Jason
On 2018-05-27 14:24, Roger Loran Bailey
wrote:
Of course I believe in truth. And one big
truth is that truth is
objective reality. It is not made up
superstitious blathering found
in
so-called scripture or holy books.
On 5/26/2018 9:58 PM, Jason Meyerson
wrote:
Roger,
Do you believe in truth?
Thanks
Jason
On 2018-05-26 19:53, Roger Loran Bailey
wrote:
According to the scriptures? Okay,
according to the Harry Potter
books
wizards ride around on broomsticks. What
does any of this have to
do
with it being true?
On 5/26/2018 3:53 PM, Dan Boone wrote:
Bob,
�
You write much more eloquently than I
do. However, Jesus used
simple
words to communicate significant
meanings, so will I. I have not
read most of your posts, but somehow
thought I would interject
some
quick points concerning this one:
�
1.) 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 has been
historically proven to have
been
written 15-20 years after the
resurrection. This has been
confirmed
by many notable skeptics to be the
oldest actual piece of New
Testament scripture that has been
found. It was also an early
Church
Creed:
�
3 For what I received I passed on to
you as of first importance:
that Christ died for our sins according
to the Scriptures, 4
that he
was buried, that he was raised on the
third day according to the
Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to
Peter, and then to the
Twelve.
6 After that, he appeared to more than
five hundred of the
brothers
at the same time, most of whom are
still living, though some have
fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to
James, then to all the
apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared
to me also, as to one
abnormally born. NIV
�
We should stop and think about all of
the ramifications that
would
have happened if the above Scripture
was not true considering the
time it was written and all of the
people involved in the
statement.
�
2.) Once a person realizes the
perfection of a Holy God, and just
how significant that understanding is
to the opportunity of
eternal
life, then the same person will realize
why sin had to be
extinguished by the propitiation of the
One who was both Holy and
capable of sinning (the God-Man,
Jesus)!!
�
Dan Boone
�
�
This message has been sent as a part of
discussion between
Church of
the Harvest of America, Inc., or one of
its associated ministries
and the addressee whose name is
specified above. Should you
receive
this message by mistake, we would be
most grateful if you
informed
us that the message has been sent to
you. In this case, we also
ask
that you delete this message from your
mailbox, and do not
forward
it or any part of it to anyone else.
Thank you for your
cooperation
and understanding.
�
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob [mailto:ebob824@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2018 1:46 PM
To: Scotty; Scott; Sam; Russell; Rick
Harmon; Rev Mark; Pia;
Peter
the hater; Paul California; Pastor Al;
Ohio 3; Ohio 2; Ohio;
North
Carolinian; Natallie; Nancy; Mssionary
work outreach; Monica;
Missionary work associate; Miller,
Clay; Mike Johnson; Matthew;
Kids
Pastor; kchurchlady@xxxxxxxxxxx; Kane;
Joe; Jews; Jessica; Jenn
Hanna; Jenifer; Jason of Fruit Cove;
Jason Meyerson; James F.
Holwell; Jakob Jackson; Heather of
Minnesota; Heather Kentucky;
Heather Judson; Hannah; Erin Mehl; Erin
Conway; Dr. Bill Coates;
Donald Moore; Deborah Kerwood; David
the Pastor; David; Dan
Boone;
Church staff member; Charlie Isbell;
Chandler; Carrey Cannon;
Cara;
Canadian; British Council; Brian
Hartgen; Brett Mehl; Brad;
blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
American; Allen Dicey; Alabama; A.
Fadden
Subject: Original Sin
�
��� Dear all, peace be with you.
Today, we inshAllah
are going to critically
readdress the concept of Redemption and
Original Sin in
Christianity.
Original Sin is basically the backbone,
it is the bedrock on
which
the
doctrines of Redemption and Crucifixion
are based. Original sin
is
the
doctrine that Adam and Eve had offended
the divine presence. It
is a
sin
said to be inherited by all descendants
of Adam and Eve as They
sinfully ate
from the forbidden tree. That led them
to be taken out of� Eden
and thence,
had earned their descendance eternal
damnation. As Christian
Apologists say,
someone had to pay the bill of this
mass blasphemy and thus, God
sent his
only begotten son to sacrifice himself
for the sake of humanity.
Whilst this
concept is� apparently��
consistent and
chronological,� it is not accepted
as it fallaciously seams to be. To this
distorted concept, there
are
theological and juristic objections.
Theologically, this concept
is
refuted
with the repudiation of condescending
the divine to the temporal
pursuance.
Those who insist to disgraciously
desecrate the divine by falsely
proclaiming that he had to die on the
cross for their sins, or
that
he had
to send his merely begotten son to die
for� mass resentment,
they desecrate
the divine Omnipotence with
imperfection. It essentially depends
on
whether
you belong to those who consider Jesus
as God without internal
distinctions,
a Unitarian, or you�re an adherent of
Trinitarianism. No one is
absolutely
sure of who died� on the Cross or, if
there was even a
Crucifixion in the
first place. The Christian Epiphany�
is reprobated with the
Transcendent
Omnipotence of Allah glory be to Him to
either atone or penalise
without any
discretion. Juristically, this concept
is morally inadequate, for
what it
incorrectly consents of sanctioning the
innocent for the sake of
the
guilty.
On a judicial� level, justice is
conducted with decisive
evidence and
incisiveness.� Christian Ministers
constantly emphasise on the
emotional
aspect of their Redemption chronicle,
without paying much
attention
whether
it matches up to the principles of
divine justice. I don�t care
how
affectionate the story might sound to
be. What matters to me is,
how
just
this concept is? I want Christian
missionary activists to ask a
competent
jurist of their domestic residence, is
it licitly excusable for
you
to
punish the innocent on behalf of the
guilty who justly deserves
retribution?
The conversation is temporarily
suspended at this point. The
problem lies
over beyond a particular tree that has
erroneously been eaten. It
worsens
when a particular race is
intrinsically� depicted as cr�me
de la cr�me for
just its texture or complexion. This is
what they modernly
define as
racism.
The United States ranks as the topping
racist nation worldwide.
Its
racial
history is filled with disparity and
ethnic secernment. It bases
its
purportedly patriotic sentiment on
often racial inequality and
topical
divergence. That is what we should
rather call, Original Sin.
Racial
acts
are enormously minacious to social
stability and coexistence.
There
shall
not be any tolerance of exerting
discriminative practices,
either on
gender,
ethnic, social or religious basis. That
is our everlasting
combat as
humans,
resembling the unity, peace and safety
of our precious species.
Islam
doesn't bear our initial parents
accountable for Original Sin. It
rather
recognises Lucifer to be the first
sinner. His trespassing act
has
involved
committing pride. Consequently, he has
been expelled, depressed
and
anathemised. As Muslims, we have a
totally different concept
of� Original
Sin. I wrote about the subject because
I believe it is of worth
noting.
Thank you for reading, Bob Evans
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
---
This email has been checked for viruses
by Avast antivirus
software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
