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
