Saying that it is does not make it true when it is not either. Yes, I
have my reasons for rejecting lies as evidence. The reason is that they
are lies. Now just how do you get the nerve to tell me to look up
logical fallacies when it is you who repeats these creationist lies that
I clearly show you are lies and call them evidence. Again, I urge you to
try to get a little bit of an education. And again, you can start right
here: http://talkorigins.org/
On 6/2/2018 2:49 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Saying it is not does not make it so. It is evidence. Creation, design information etc.. All Evidence.
You reject the evidence, I am sure you have your reasons, and assume they do not only have to do with science.
I appreciate your encouragement and have studied and learned and of course continue to. While we are both studying you may want to brush up on logical fallacies.
The point about a world without God, means you ultimately have no meaning, purpose, truth, certainty etc... The list goes on, that is the point about a worldview of atheism, it contradicts the very things you claim to believe and the way you live your life.
You have a crisis, imo, about the level of contradiction that you are forced to live with. But there is a resolution.
Jason
On 2018-06-01 20:20, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
You don't have to explain to me what a world without god would be
like. I am experiencing it right now and you are too. Now, how dense
can you be. You just keep on with this stuff about how the world
around us could not happen by accident and call that evidence. It! is!
not! evidence! because it is already known how complexity can evolve
out of less complex systems and I have explained that to you. Yet, you
just keep up the same old blather. Let me suggest something. Go out
and get yourself an education. At least the primitive people who were
alive when religion was invented had some kind of excuse. It happened
before writing even existed or partially shortly thereafter. The
closest thing they had to education was village elders passing on oral
stories and superstitions. I might have questioned their gullibility
at accepting such stories without question, especially when it was
being used to control them, but they still did not have a lot of
scientific information to fall back on as an alternative. You don't
have that excuse. If I could spend hours in the basement of a college
library reading up on evolutionary biology you could spend a few
minutes a day doing it. In fact, you are even in a better position
than I was when I was doing that. I didn't have the Internet back
then. Try going to TalkOrigins.org and read some of the articles
there. Really, you do not have to waste your life promoting
superstition and ignorance. It is not necessary to mire yourself in
that claptrap. Learning can be a fun experience. As an education
fanatic since about the time I entered the first grade I should know.
On 6/1/2018 9:54 AM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Thanks for the email.
I have given you evidence, the line of reasoning of the impossibility of the contrary. I have been explaining what a world without God would mean. How it does not support your beliefs. I have explained that we have information not just complexity, and information speaks of intelligence, that would be God. You propose information and complexity forming without intelligence. DNA coding sequences are information. For proteins and other things to be put together. A coded instruction manual for building complex living things, located in every living cell. What more could you ask regarding evidence?
You can say al of this is not evidence, but complexity and life and matter and existence and information are evidence of God. You are not accepting the evidence, you reject the evidence, that is different than saying I have given no evidence.
Cause and effect is an argument. We look at what we would say are effects and always assume a cause. It would be an infinite regression if there were not an uncaused cause, again God. Someone outside of time space and matter, creating those things.
I did not assume straightening of your room would happen out of nowhere. I try and keep my emails on the brief side. You can propose whatever mechanism you want for your room being straightened over time, but without the aid or assistance of a mind a person a being it is not going to happen that is common sense that is straightforward. I never said complexity just happened with regard to an evolutionary theory. All the natural algorithms at work (sounds like intelligent design to me) we have covered, I understand you believe that time energy matter and natural algorithms are coming together and complexity and life are the result. My point again has been that since none of these are directed or guided by a mind, they are there without purpose and they would be natural processes (since you do not believe in supernatural, they have to be natural). All this happens and it is not random ultimately?
Information.
Also regarding God these are things that have been revealed. God can communicate information to His creation.
I can say I do not and cannot fully know God, He is infinite, so my mind is not able to fully comprehend Him, if that makes you feel better.
Jason
On 2018-05-31 14:47, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
You have given me no evidence at all. All you talk about is the
existence of complexity and when I explain how complexity can come
about through natural processes you fall back on that argument about
randomness again even if you do not use the word random. You did it
right here in this message. You asked how long it would take for
natural processes to straighten my room. The assumption behind that is
that the straightening would just happen out of nowhere. Sorry, but
natural processes do not work that way. You say that you understand
things like natural selection, but then you ignore it and fall back on
complexity just happening and say that it couldn't just happen.
Indeed, it couldn't just happen, but there are natural algorithms at
work and natural selection is one of them. As for Michael Behe, he is
one of those creationist liars. I forgot about him or I would have
mentioned him as an example already. His claim is irreducible
complexity. He describes a structure and says that there is no way
that the components could have come to work together as they do
without something to arrange them. This is an example of deliberately
deceiving by leaving out things that given his professional training
he just has to know about. That is that structures evolve on a
contingent basis and that one structure is redirected for another
function other than its original function and with the new function
further refinements are made that are likely to dispose of previously
existing parts. If he is any kind of biologist at all he could not
have missed that in his education. That means not that he has made a
mistake. It means that he is a flat out liar. Now, in my response to
my question of if there is a god then where did it come from you reply
that god is eternal with no beginning or end and outside of time. That
is another example of religious arrogance and a refusal to admit not
knowing anything. I have already admitted that I don't know why the
universe exists. I have mentioned some cutting edge hypotheses that
are highly speculative, but I don't know. I could just as easily have
made the unsupported assertion that the universe has always been and
is eternal. I have not made that assertion because I don't know that
it is in the least true. But with just as much evidence as you have I
could have asserted just that and then there would be no need for a
god to have created it. In fact, there is no need yet for anything to
have created it because we just don't know where it all came from.
However, when I pose the same kind of question to you about that god
that you claim exists without the slightest bit of evidence, unlike
the universe that we can see all around us, you simply assert that it
is eternal without beginning or end. Can't you admit to not knowing
anything at all? Okay, how do you know that this god is eternal
without beginning or end and how do you know that it exists outside
the universe? Are you going to continue the arrogance by just saying
that you just know?
On 5/30/2018 11:26 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
thanks for the reply.
There are serious problems. If you wish to just describe them as controversies that is fine, but it is a case of the emperor has no clothes. There is evidence of design and a designer, I have provided you some and you reject it. So maybe you could say there is no evidence you have accepted. You could tell me what evidence would suffice, but that may be a problem since you out of hand reject the concept. So if that is the case it is hard to provide evidence to someone who asks, but then will reject even the possibility, we have a difficult situation. By the way you might enjoy Darwin's Black Box, a book by Michael Behe.
I do understand the evolutionary theory, but as convincing to you as it may sound, I do not find it so. Like I asked you before how much time would it take for natural processes to straighten your room or clean your house? You could have an infinite number of years and it would not happen. Further self replicating is one thing, like crystals of ice or rock crystals. But we are talking about information, quite a larger leap. Life is tied up with information not just self replication. You have your conclusion about the origin of life before you have all the evidence. It is not nearly as simple as you describe. There are so many factors that have to be just right and timed just so for this to even be a chance occurrence. Just saying time and matter and algorithm that equals life does not work. If it is so simple and easy why are scientists not making life right now, and amazing to me there are so many dead things that were once alive, so they have all the structures all the components chemicals etc... for life and what do they do? stay dead. You can give a dead corpse all the time in the world and all the energy you want and it is not coming back(at least after a few hours or so).
Where did God come from? Is that your question for me? God is without beginning or end, He is eternal, He exists outside of space and time. If God had a beginning or was confined to the universe and matter that would not be the God I am talking about, but a false god or idol of some kind.
Thanks
Jason
On 2018-05-30 21:45, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
There are no serious problems with evolutionary theory at all. It is
backed up by such huge mountains of evidence that no one library could
hold all of the documentation. That claim that there are serious
problems with evolutionary biology is another creationist lie. There
are, of course, controversies going on in the field about some aspects
of it and that is part of working out the specifics which is an
ongoing process, but there is nothing at all that threatens to
overthrow the theory. Now, there is no evidence whatsoever of a
designer of life or any other aspect of the universe. But again the
evolutionary process is an algorithm that behaves in certain specific
ways and is not random despite that there is a random component for
the algorithm to work on. As for abiogenesis, apparently you do not
understand that component of evolutionary biology either. So let me
explain it. Organic material was a significant component of the
original solar nebula.That can be seen by looking at the composition
of other celestial objects in the solar system. The gas giants are
made up primarily of methane. The moons of Saturn, Jupiter and the
other outer planets are covered with hydrocarbons. So, undoubtedly,
when the Earth coalesced it was covered with hydrocarbons too and very
likely had a hydrocarbon atmosphere. Care to guess just how many
molecules made up that sea of hydrocarbons? I don't. The number would
be staggaringly high. Those hydrocarbons were not just lying around
doing nothing though. There was a good deal of residual energy
available from the coalescence itself and, as I have said, the sun
formed at about the same time and immediately started to pour out
energy that bathed the new Earth. This energy drives chemical
reactions. There were certainly new organic compounds being made all
over the Earth for a long time. Here is where that random component
was probably most prominent. With these countless molecules reacting
with each other over a long time even very unlikely compounds became
likely given enough time. For life to begin all that was necessary was
one and only one molecule that was self replicating and subject to
mutation and the differential survival of its progeny. Just one.
That's all it took. That original self replicating molecule was
unlikely to have been DNA because the DNA molecule, even in its
simplest form, is complex enough that it was more likely to have
evolved itself once the process got off the ground. Now, let me say
that there is some controversy in the biological community of what
constitutes life in its simplest forms. Some biologists deny that
viruses are alive because they do not engage in activities that have
long defined life. Personally, I think those traditional definitions
of life like requiring respiration and metabolism are outmoded. The
grand unifying theory of biology is evolutionary theory and so it
appears to me that if a molecule or structure engages in the functions
of evolution that makes it life. That means that viruses are life.
That first self replicating molecule was probably simpler than a
virus. Or, if it existed today it just might be called a simple virus.
But once it formed and started replicating itself then as far as I am
concerned that was the first life. So this should be sufficient to
explain that no guiding intelligence was necessary. But if you insist
that there was then you are faced with another question. In order to
have directed this abiogenesis any intelligence would have to have
been more complex by many orders of complexity in order to have
carried out the design and implementation. So where did this
intelligence come from? Did it just randomly happen? I don't concern
myself with that because there is not the slightest evidence that it
was ever necessary in the first place, but since you are expressing
such incredulity at the idea that complexity could come into existence
by natural processes you do lay the question of the origin of the
director of complexity on yourself.
On 5/30/2018 5:33 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
I appreciate you are no fan of liars, neither am I.
My point about random and accident is the whole process of life forming in evolutionary theory and I am assuming as in materialist philosophy is that there is no designer nothing but natural processes, so if life is formed however you theorize it is still random it is an accident. It just happened it was not planned. If something happens that is not planned they often call that an accident or random, it can't be designed or purposeful or then it would be something else.
So even if you propose a mechanism or algorithm for biological evolution it depends on some aspect of random or accident. I understand natural selection, genetic mutation and time would be necessary for the theory. But the specifics of inanimate matter forming in just the right way at just the right time and surviving in just the right conditions to continue to replicate and form living things, is fairy tale, imo. You can make it as scientific as you want but the problems with evolutionary theory are tremendous. It is wonderful that people can theorize all about it, and come up with a possible mechanism and algorithm but that does not make it true. It is a case as you call of the gaps. Science says of course there are vast and serious issues regarding this theory, but we will work them all out we will figure it out, why? because they started with the end in mind, that was Darwins point, to explain origins without God. It has to be true to you or them or some form of it, because you have rejected some other possibilities.
I hear you claiming the complexity is not random or an accident in the sense that there is a framework for it to occur, yes there is matter yes there is energy and yes you have a theory as to how it would all come or could come together I do get that, but I do not think it is a good theory or true, and I do not think you escape the necessity or randomness and accidents. I hope I have covered that sufficiently.
Where did matter come from ? Where did the universe come from? These are either random accidents or purposeful creations, as I see it. And then so would life and complexity be the same, one or the other.
Jason
On 2018-05-30 16:55, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
As to your final sentence that you hope this makes sense, it does not.
This time you are using the word accident to substitute for random,
but you do slip in that word random again later on in your comments.
Using either word, though, you are still repeating a creationist lie.
It is a lie instead of a mistake because the basics of the
evolutionary algorithm are known well enough by enough people that if
creationists would just try even the most cursory reading of what
evolutionary biologists really say they would know that and could not
make false statements about what evolutionary biologists say. Again, I
did not say that complexity arises by accident or randomly. I said it
in my last message and you respond right back at me as if I said that
it was all an accident. I do have a little bit of a problem, though,
in explaining how complexity comes about in an entropic universe in an
email. But let me try it this way. This is very sketchy, though, but
like I said, I can't write a book to respond to one email. There is a
tendency for the universe to change in the direction of less
complexity, but there is opportunity for eddies of upstream direction
inside the overall race to less complexity. The entropic direction of
complexity is actually made up of the tendency for energy levels to
move toward the lowest state possible and in any closed system that is
exactly what happens. In fact, the universe appears to be a closed
system on the whole and it is happening in the universe at large.
However, the Earth is not a closed system. Since its original
coalescence from the solar nebula it has experienced a constant influx
of sunlight which is highly energetic. The sun is, of course, running
down, but for the last four and a half billion years it has been able
to maintain a steady output of energy while it runs down. There are a
lot of organic materials lying around on Earth that can react with
itself when these reactions have a source of energy to power those
reactions. Without a source of energy they would just cease. Once a
self replicating molecule was produced by this method that could
mutate and have a differential survival rate evolution was on the way.
That differential survival rate allows for the replication of forms
that are adapted to their environment and when they are in competition
with one another it turns out that increasing complexity gives a
survival advantage. Now, four and a half billion years is a really
long time and with this process going on the whole of that time some
very complex forms can be produced. There is no need for some
disembodied intelligence to direct it or to create it. Like I said,
there is a lot more to it than that, but the point is that it has been
actually figured out how complexity can evolve from less complex
forms. Calling it chance or accident is a simple out and out lie. No
one claims that it is just an accidental random process. When you
claim that the people who have figured this out are claiming it is
random you are repeating a lie. I am not necessarily saying that you
are lying. You may have just heard that claim so many times like I
have and not been exposed to the truth and so you repeat it while
really believing it is true. However, once you learn what evolutionary
biologists are really saying and if you keep right on repeating that
lie then you are lying too. Now, let me say something about what I
actually call creationist liars. I was once talking to a political
comrade and using the phrase creationist liars. He didn't think they
were really liars because they really believe in what they are saying.
He did not understand, though, that I was not calling all creationists
liars. I suggested that he read some creationist literature to see
what the liars had to say that was such lying. He had never read any
of that and didn't want to because he considered it a waste of time.
Well, I am not going to say that he was wrong about it being a waste
of time, but I suppose I have wasted some time reading some of it. I
think I am in a pretty good position to tell if a person has actually
studied the topic of evolutionary biology and here is why. For one
thing, I have a degree in biology. For another thing I have done a lot
of independent reading on the subject. In the biology department where
I earned my degree amazingly enough there was no course on
evolutionary biology. That is kind of amazing because evolutionary
theory is the grand unifying theory of biology. But the closest thing
we had to it was a genetics course. However, I was especially
interested in evolution so I set out to learn about it on my own. At
the college library in the basement was a large collection of bound
volumes of professional and academic journals and among them were
bound volumes of journals of evolutionary biology. I used to spend
hours at a time in that basement reading those tomes just because I
was interested. I know that most people don't do that and, in fact, I
remember only one time that another human being ever came down those
steps to the basement while I was there. It was a librarian who came
down once because she knew that I was there and had been there so long
that she wanted to check to see if I was okay. Now, I think that my
formal training in biology with my independent reading on the subject
is enough for me to tell if another person has any knowledge of the
subject. As a result I can tell that most creationists are not liars.
They are just ignorant. The ones I have met show a low level of
education. I never actually asked how far they went in school, but I
would guess that most, if not all, of hem dropped out of high school.
But they know absolutely nothing about the subject that they are so
opposed to. Their understanding can be illustrated by this statement I
once heard. "I ain't never seed no chicken evolutin' into no cow." But
on the other hand, my independent reading included creationist tracts
and papers. Surprisingly, the writers of hes papers were not the kind
of creationist ignoramuses that I ran into in person. Many of them
claimed that they actually did have degrees in biology and I could
believe that some of them just might have. If they did not then they
had at least done some reading up on the subject. They showed that
they knew things that a normal lay person and especially a lay
creationist would be unlikely to know. The trouble is that in the
middle of what they had to say they would say things that were just
plain false and it was about things that if they had learned some of
this other stuff I could not see how they could have possibly been
ignorant of the truth about the false statements. Then when they did
tell the truth they told half truths or distorted the truth. There
were definite signs of deliberately leaving things out and portraying
other things as meaning what they did not mean. What it comes down to
is that they were deliberately attempting to deceive and it bothered
me that people who did not know the subject would probably be deceived
by this stuff. A deliberate attempt to deceive is lying. So that is
what I am calling creationist liars.
On 5/30/2018 10:24 AM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Complexity from intelligence, how do we know? Everyone knows it. It is the natural conclusion the human mind makes when confronted with organization complexity and information. No one would ever imagine a language (like English, Hebrew, Greek, Egyptian Hieroglyphics etc...) forming by accident. And yet we have DNA. Remember SETI? Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. I do not believe in aliens, but if you were looking for them, you would expect some organized set of data unlike the kind that just exists in the natural world.
Books have certainly been written on both sides of the issue. My points are for 1. that to recognize that people believe in God and design and creation are not without evidence(which maybe we have partially established). While there are fairy tales, to chalk up the idea of faith in God as a fairy tale of unintelligence is just not accurate or true. You do not have to believe in God, but I am saying your characterizations of all people who believe in God is wrong.
This brings up point two, how do we come to terms regarding the evidence, how do we both look at the facts on the ground and yet come to wildly different conclusions. I say this or that is evidence and you say no it is not, back and forth etc...
A way through this is to look at what foundational views we have and see if they provide for the possibility of our beliefs. This is worldview analysis or looking at the preconditions of intelligibility or presuppositions.
Example- if you say all there is is matter energy and whatever else dialectic materialism provides for which does not include an intelligence, God or creator, designer etc... That ultimately the universe is random in the sense of it existing and life forming etc... It was not created with a purpose or by a mind just natural processes (and if this is not what you believe please give me a clearer view). My point would be then with your basic premise, the worldview and set of presuppositions. You cannot have true purpose or meaning in your life, you will not be able to have absolute morals/ethics, no basis for logic, no inherent human worth dignity, and no path to knowledge (explained in other email). Your worldview does not really allow or provide for those things. Mine however does. Now it may not matter to you and so if you don't care that the foundational views you have do not allow or provide for your conclusions that is fine, end of story. But if you think your worldview does provide for them, you can explain that to me or we can talk more thoroughly about why it does not and another worldview does.
Your search for truth and passion for knowledge your moral stand and ethical outlook, the care for the value of other humans and the continuation of humanity and your demand for logic are all good and we agree in a sense, but what you claim to believe foundationally does not provide or allow for these very things. That is a big problem. Without God you cannot have these things, so the argument is called the impossibility of the contrary. You say show me the proof show me the evidence, I say you have plenty and on top of that without God you have no basis for anything. And yet these things are vitally important to you, but you undermine them with your worldview.
Hope that makes sense.
Jason
On 2018-05-29 23:54, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Just how do you know that complexity comes from intelligence. It so
happens that it has been worked out pretty thoroughly how complexity
does not necessarily come from intelligence and that, indeed,
intelligence arises out of complexity rather than the other way
around. I could explain this, but again, I don't want to write an
entire book to answer one email. Besides, plenty of books have already
been written about it. But just how do you know that your claim is
correct? By the way, please answer with something that has something
to do with it being true. Simple statements like it is innate that
people will believe in fairy tale characters does not count as having
something to do with it being true.
On 5/29/2018 11:39 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
The list of fallacies you commit is getting long in this email. Appeal to authority, for one, ad hominem for another.
I did not write a dissertation to you about this. Random chance is a part of the process, I mentioned time and mutation as well, we are taking about natural processes and explanations. Natural selection, chance and mutation if you want to talk about old lame ideas those would be good to start with.
You can add whatever you want to it. If I am repeating something that is old does not make it wrong. The point stands, incredible complexity at a level above any intellect does not make one think that it came together without a designer.
Information comes from intelligence. Living cells contain information.
I think your point is interesting about cars and factories and if we did not know about factories. But the problem is for one it does not matter, we would assume the car was made somewhere and deigned by someone and would never ever conclude after seeing a car that it came about by natural processes would we? and 2nd that everyone knows there is a God, I believe that it is innate to know God exists.
I do not think you biology degree gets you out of the problem of complexity. And I have no problem discussing biology nor would I avoid the topic because you have studied it.
I can introduce you to a PhD in or PhDs in biology and other sciences is that going to matter to you? So why would it matter to me?
I am not saying we do not look for natural explanations and I am not arguing for a God of the gaps. But I am arguing for the truth and reality of God and the necessity of God for the natural.
thanks
Jason
On 2018-05-29 23:09, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
I did not and never have said that anything that is ordered is ordered
by random chance. And that stuff ab out how complex the cell is beyond
what Darwin could imagine is another repetition of the tired old
creationist deliberate lie that evolutionary biologists claim that
evolution progresses by random chance. It does not! There is a random
component in the evolutionary algorithm, but the evolutionary
algorithm is not! random. Saying it is random when there is so much
research that shows clearly that it is not random is a flat out lie.
People who make that claim are flat out liars themselves or have a
poor education and have been deluded by those flat out liars. Now, in
what you have said you seem to repeat the fallacy of Thomas Aquinas.
He said that the existence of nature around us shows so much order
that it has to have a designer. I have had that fallacy expressed to
me in other ways. I remember one person pointing to a passing car and
saying that the existence of the car proves the existence of a car
factory. It does not! We know that cars are made in car factories
because we have plenty of evidence for car factories. We can go to
them and take tours. We can get jobs in them. They are a part of
objective reality. If on the other hand, we did not know about car
factories we could not infer their existence from the mere existence
of a car. We would simply not know where cars come from. If we did
some research and accepted the objective evidence that was discovered
by us in doing that research we just might find out about car
factories. But until we did we would just have to say that we don't
know why cars exist. And claiming otherwise is just another example of
how people who are indoctrinated by religion will not admit to not
knowing anything. It is another example of not knowing something and
just filling in the gaps with fairy tales and insisting that the fairy
tales are true. And by the way, I have a degree in biology. If you
want to avoid making yourself look even more foolish than you already
do you might want to avoid lecturing someone on a subject that he
knows more about than you do.
On 5/29/2018 9:58 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Every time you find or come across something that is ordered in your life you conclude design not random chance and time. You know the story of someone finding a watch on the beach? He has never seen a watch before, examines it, its complexity etc... and concludes reasonably it was made. Same for if you came home and your house or room was all straightened up clean and in order. would you assume wind? time? random chance? explosion? No, you would wonder who cleaned and straightened your room.
When you look at a cell, which is so ridiculously complex (way more than Darwin ever dreamed) it has mechanical working parts, complex interactions, waste removal, defense, repair abilities, transport mechanisms, etc... , when you look at DNA (a code of information, an instruction book) that is self replicating has a repair feature etc... These things are so complex and organized, and many things in our world that are man made or much less complicated and you would never think for a second they could happen by random chance time and mutation. There are no natural processes that would clean your room, that would create a bicycle a building a calculator etc... And yet you believe that strictly natural processes can make some thing as complicated as DNA and living things? The smartest people in the world with the best equipment available could not make anything like either of these.
Also the laws of the universe are set up just so specifically and carefully that the possibility of life is there.
Hope that makes sense. I am not saying you have to agree with me at this point, I am saying it is more than reasonable to conclude design and not very reasonable to conclude natural processes. Who is the designer? God the Creator God of the Bible, but that is a different discussion.
On top of this, like I have mentioned, without God you also will have no path to meaning, human value, ethics/morals, or absolute truth etc..
On 2018-05-29 21:28, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Just how is the existence of order evidence for some invisible man in
the sky with magical powers when there are so many perfectly good
explanations of how natural processes brought it about?
On 5/29/2018 9:44 AM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Carl,
Thanks for the email.
Evidence does not negate faith, this comes again to the definition. Believe, belief and faith are connected. We do not say in English I faithed, we say we believe or I believed. Do we believe things based on evidence and reason? Hopefully we do. Your insult, in your email, regarding belief and reasoning even imply the connection. While there can be a type of faith, a definition of faith that is a leap, and people do make those types of leaps and have that kind of faith, that is not what I am talking about. Whatever it is you believe even if it is in nothing is a faith or form of faith (not necessarily religion) because you do not know everything, you believe something to be true. That is the idea.
As to evidence, I have presented several lines of evidence to Roger in emails to him, including asking what evidence would be. For one we have order organization and complexity in our lives and universe. This clearly implies a creator, meaning in every aspect of life when we find order and organization and complexity we never assume random chance and time as the culprit, we always assume a designer. Additionally we have ethics and morals, which would be nothing more than arbitrary opinions if there is no God. I the basis for logic and its origins, and the idea of physical matter developing non physical properties.
I do think I am getting Roger's reasoning, I just find it lacking in many ways.
Thanks
Jason
On 2018-05-29 00:37, 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
