I understand your argument. It's based on a number of assumptions that I won't
go into. One thing that I'll point out is that not every mentally ill person is
Schizophrenic and Schizophrenia comes in different types. As for the cultural
part, I visited a mental hospital in Kenya where I saw Schizophrenic young men.
Their symptoms and behavior were precisely the same as those of Schizophrenic
patients whom I'd seen in the after-care clinic where I worked after graduate
school. Mental illness is illness. Religion is religion. Some people use
religion as part of their personal defense system and it can become a symptom
of mental illness. What religion is to a person, how he or she uses it, is
individual and unique. That is true of any ideology.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Roger Loran Bailey
(Redacted sender "rogerbailey81" for DMARC)
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2018 9:03 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jason Meyerson
<jason@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Schizophrenia and Religion, was Re: Re: Original Sin
Let me address this to the list as a whole, because it has become very
apparent that no matter what I say Jason is going to completely
misrepresent it right back at me right after I say it. That makes it
impossible to discuss anything with him. A long time ago I offered up an
hypothesis of my own on this list concerning religion and the discussion
didn't go very far, but I was thinking that Jason just might be an
example of some of the kinds of people I was thinking of and so I want
to revisit it. About ten to fifteen years ago I found myself hanging
around frequently on the streets of downtown Charleston, West Virginia.
At least it had once been the downtown. There were still stores around,
but at a certain point in time an inner city mall had been built a few
blocks to the west of that area and the main shopping area had shifted
with it. That means that some of the stores in the downtown had closed
and some remained empty while others had been converted into other
things. There were two abandoned department stores that sat side by side
that had been converted into group homes for the mentally ill. Those
group homes have been moved elsewhere now, but when I was hanging around
the area they were a going concern. They housed mental patients who were
functional enough that they did not need to be in a state hospital, but
they were still not functional enough that they still did not need some
kind of supervision. They were allowed to run around on the streets
during the day time unless they violated certain times of the day that
they had to check in and, of course, they had a curfew. There was also a
small apartment building nearby that was zoned for senior and
handicapped residency. The only handicap that it housed, though, was
mental handicaps. Those were the ones who had been deemed functional
enough that they did not need the group home environment and so the
mental health agency had secured apartments for them, but still kept
them close enough that they could be kept tabs on. Well, even though
there is nothing wrong with it and even though no one would necessarily
be sure that you were nuts if you did it there is an unspoken social
convention that you do not just walk up to a stranger on the street and
strike up a conversation. Mental health patients seem to not be aware of
the social convention, though, and quite a few of them did strike up
conversations with me and I actually got to know a number of them fairly
well. As a result I got to hear quite a few of their schizophrenic
delusions. I remember one guy who was convinced that he had been
abducted by space aliens and he had met a Russian woman on their
spaceship and that he had the inside scoop on their coming invasion of
Earth. The interesting thing about him was that when he was talking
about other topics he seemed to be perfectly sane and if I had not known
that he was a mental patient I would have thought that he was just
joking about the space aliens. That was just one example and I could go
on with some others, but that would use up a lot of time. I will say
that not all of them seemed perfectly sane except for their
schizophrenic delusions though. Sometimes I would just listen politely,
but as time went on I tried arguing with them and telling them how
absurd the things they were telling me were. It was exactly like arguing
religion with a religious person. No amount of reason could dissuade
them. No amount of demonstrable facts could dissuade them. This got me
to start considering what schizophrenic delusion and religious delusion
had in common and what the differences were. Well, when someone starts
talking to you about how he has a direct line of communication to space
aliens the absurdity of his claims really stands out. That is because
you don't ordinarily hear someone saying things like that. But, really,
it is no more absurd than the claim that one has a personal relationship
with a disembodied consciousness that created the universe and both
delusions are impervious to both reason and evidence. But there are
differences too. Schizophrenic delusion is usually unique to the
individual. You only find one person who has that particular set of
delusions. Yet that unique set of delusions can be just as complex or at
least near as complex as a set of religious delusions. Religious
delusions, on the other hand, tend to be shared with a lot of other
people who have the same set of delusions. Their may be minor variations
from person to person and when you look at the holders of these
delusions you can see variations from one group to another and these
variations are called denominations. ON a global perspective the
variations are enough that they are called different religions. But
still, the set of delusions are shared with a lot of other people and
these delusions are called religious doctrine. Another difference is
that merely religious people tend to be a lot more functional in their
daily lives. But, like I said, schizophrenics can be pretty functional
too even if most of them are not. Now, one more thing about differences.
I tried to talk to a professional psychologist about this once and I
don't think he fully understood what I was getting at and our time, both
of us, was short, so I didn't get to fully explain myself to him. But he
started going on about how religion is cultural and schizophrenia is
only influenced by culture. He did say something, though, that indicated
that he might have been getting close to what I was getting at. On the
subject of cultural influence on schizophrenic delusion he said that an
American schizophrenic is likely to say that god is talking to him while
a Chinese schizophrenic would be more likely to say that Chairman Mao is
talking to him. What I did not get to explain was that I meant that
culture may influence the particulars - that is, the particular
theology that people will believe, but the fact of religious delusion
and the capability of holding religious delusion is not cultural. So,
about my hypothesis, unfortunately I do not have the means to test this
and if I did then without the credentials and the status of being a
working professional research psychologist I would not be able to have
my results published in a professional journal. But my hypothesis is
this. I think that schizophrenia is a spectrum disorder. On one end of
the spectrum is the uncommunicative schizophrenic who has no chance of
getting out of the state hospital and then along the spectrum would be
the more functional ones who can communicate, but are still so
nonfunctional that they can't be released either because they would
undoubtedly cause harm to themselves. Going further along the spectrum
you have a lot of homeless people who would really be doing better if
they had some supervision and then you have the people who I met who can
actually run the streets, but still have to check into their group home.
By the way, I suspect that a lot of homeless people are on about the
same level as those. But then if you move further along the spectrum you
will find people who seem to be sane enough, but just seem to have some
crazy ideas or behave oddly. It seems to me that religious people may be
even further to the functional end of the spectrum. That is, they can
conduct their daily lives just fine and relate to other people just
fine, but they still hold totally absurd delusions. The fact that the
delusions are shared may be symptomatic of being on that highly
functional end of the spectrum. At the same time I will say that I have
seen religious people who are only barely functional. Those are the
super fanatics, the real bible thumpers who are such pests. I actually
think that if some of those people's delusions were anything other than
religious they would probably be housed in a group home for the mentally
ill themselves. Now, as an addendum I wanted to mention one particular
schizophrenic. He was an atheist. He had no use for religion at all and
if someone started preaching to him he would become hostile. He also was
convinced that some secret organization was following him around in a
helicopter, tapping all of his phone calls and beaming threatening
messages into his head. I mention him because I wanted to point out that
atheists are not necessarily immune to this spectrum disorder. One would
think that an atheist would be completely free of schizophrenia and be
the most rational of all people, but I have met some atheists who are
convinced of some pretty wacky ideas and less wacky than the example I
just gave. But at least they are not infected with religious delusions.
On 6/8/2018 9:26 AM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Thanks for the email.
You can call me names and express all the anger you want, frankly to
me as a follower of Jesus, it is just a small taste of what He
experienced.
I could understand if you concluded maybe we are just not
communicating well or having some misunderstandings, that is how I try
and think about it.
Clearly we disagree, and have our reasons and clearly I have touched a
nerve with you, I think it is because of some things going on in your
heart, some internal issues but that is my theory, and not really
about me, even though you seem obsessed with making it personal and
attacking me.
But I forgive you.
If you want to go back to the previous email and deal with some of the
issues that sounds good to me, but if not no problem. Like I said I
am satisfied with the display of your worldview, but would prefer to
get to the deeper issues, but that is not always possible, or maybe
not right now.
Jason
On 2018-06-07 23:47, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Listen here, liar. And, yes, I called you a name because you have
earned it. You just keep accusing me of things that you do every time.
You tell me that I engage in contradictions while you do it. You are a
bully. When you will not engage the points I make, but distort those
points in order to provoke anger you are being a bully. And this time
you end with telling me again that I have no path to absolute truth as
if I hadn't told you the same thing. If you believe that you have the
path to absolute truth then you have no path to truth at all. By
making that claim you cut yourself off from seeking truth. You stick
yourself into a glue that will hold you back from the truth if you
ever come across it. It is likely that is the reason that instead of
engaging in civil discussion you resort to bullying. Your absolute
truth won't let you admit that someone else may know something you
don't and so you condescendingly try to tell me about things that it
is very clear that I know more about than you. You have proven
yourself to be an intellectual scoundrel. Now, if you are so anxious
to get an angry reaction out of me you have gotten it. You can take
your god or any other fairy tale characters you cling to and stuff
them up your ass. These are not ad homenum arguments. These are simply
telling you off for your strong attempts to be a complete jerk. I
tried to show you where you were going wrong, but you purposely
distort everything I tell you. That is simply the behavior of a
complete jerk and a bully and an intellectually dishonest person.
On 6/7/2018 11:21 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
If you want to pretend you are in high school math, that if fine. I
am talking about the real world and probability math is a tool.
Again I point to the weather. And I also say you are just like
someone who stacks the deck. You want to play a math game, fine, but
your example regarding infinity does not hold water. Who said there
are in infinite number of events? You, not me. I do not agree with
your premise or your math or your calculations or your conclusion.
It is not representative of reality, even if you can argue that it
works in math class, in some technical sense. Your scenario of
evolution is so outlandish you need an infinite number of chances
for it to occur. I only need one in my worldview.
As to evidence, of course it would have to be regarding what is
true. That is a given and redundant.
You stated the evidence would have to be above the ordinary,
"extraordinary" is the word you used. Now to me I understood you to
be describing something supernatural, maybe I have misunderstood
you, my apologies. That is what I thought you were saying. So what
is extraordinary evidence? We are proposing a supernatural being,
that is my claim to you. How can evidence that is not supernatural
be presented as proof of supernatural? I have given you plenty of
evidence including to show you the impossibility of the contrary.
Meaning without God you cannot have truth or even evidence. The
arbitrariness and bankruptcy of your worldview and the
contradictions you are left with, that is a proof that is evidence,
something is wrong with your premise if it leaves you in all kinds
of contradictions and arbitrary situation. Now if you wish to just
say: fine my worldview and stated beliefs are at odds, my ethics are
arbitrary, you have no path to knowledge or absolute truth, you
cannot account for logic or reality itself, that is fine (you have
already agreed you cannot know anything for certain or absoluletly)
I am satisfied then if you wish to leave it there, so you have
admitted these things. You do not wish to resolve them. It makes
little sense to talk about truth with someone who cannot arrive at
it. If we can begin with our presuppositions and move forward in a
consistent manner then maybe we could continue discussing.
As for your character, I think it would be appropriate to take
responsibility for your actions and reactions, and not blame someone
else. I believe you are responsible for yourself.
Jason
On 2018-06-07 21:15, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
The actual probability of something happening, indeed, does have many
factors and they are more than can be counted or determined. If I
flipped a coin and knew the exact movements of the air particles
around it and knew the exact weight of the coin and its surface
structure down to a microscopic level and If I knew a lot of other
factors that I don't even think of to enter the figuring then I could
make a fairly accurate prediction of which side of that coin would
land facing up. I cannot know all of that though. That is what
probability theory is for. Now, I don't know how you missed it. I
don't know if you never had a math class or if you flunked the ones
you had, but it still remains that the most basic equation in
probability theory is how to calculate a probability. If you had a
probability unit in high school math you would have had to come across
it. It is, again, to calculate the probability of an event you divide
the number of times the event happens by the total number of events
considered. And by denying this and by telling me about other factors
involved in probability you are again trying to lecture someone on a
topic that he clearly knows more about than you do. As for Pascal's
wager, you should have already seen how I would demolish that one. As
I have already pointed out, there are an infinity of things that can
be made up out of nothing and without the the slightest bit of
evidence that it is true - and remember that evidence means that it
has to have something to do with it being true - and to each of those
made up claims can be attached very dire consequences for not
believing them. Now, just how am I supposed to pick out one of that
infinity of claims to believe in just in case when none of them have
anything at all to back them up? Next, you say that I said that proof
of god would have to be supernatural. I said no such thing. You have
the nerve to attack my character when I tell you something and you
turn around right after I say it and then lie about what I have just
said. I told you that evidence of a god would have to have certain
qualities. It would have to have something to do with it being true.
Your personal incredulity has nothing to do with it being true. I said
that the more fantastic the claim the more fantastic the evidence
would have to be and that the hypothesis that there is some kind of
invisible magical being that resides outside of space and time and is
so outlandish that if proven to be true would falsify all of the
science our civilization is built upon, would have to have some really
fantastic evidence. I said that in order to sormulate the hypothesis
to be tested you would also have to make a statement of how it could
be falsified itself. Nowhere in that was a claim on my part that the
evidence would have to be supernatural. Now, as for your attacks on my
character, it is becoming more and more obvious that you are trying
your best to goad me into angry reactions. I hate to admit it, but you
are succeeding in that. You succeed when you misrepresent what I have
said right back at me right after I have said it. You succeed when you
accuse me of the kind of behavior you engage in yourself. Obviously
you have no leg to stand on when arguing for the existence of fairy
tale characters, so you just try to goad and provoke instead of
engaging in civil discussion. But, honestly, you have no room to
attack my character when I tell you something and then you come right
back at me right after I have told it to you and lie about what I
said.
On 6/5/2018 11:40 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
The actual probability of an event can have more factors in it
than just dividing by the number of events.
It rains a lot in Seattle. we could say it will either rain or
not rain, so 50/50? Ridiculous, that is not how we predict the
weather or the probability of rain. So if you want to just remove
all other influences in a situation and you are just going to flip
a coin for example, then 50/50. Not all scenarios can be
accurately stripped down to your formula. This is fairly
straightforward and I think I tried explaining this before. I do
not think it is that convincing or the best argument, but maybe
you should consider Pascal's Wager if you have not before, he does
math kind of like you.
If I understand the bulk of the rest of your email, you propose no
evidence that would suffice for you, specifically you say you do
not know what would actually be evidence for the existence of
God. But then you go on and say that if there was any evidence,
it would have to be supernatural. But you clearly do not believe
in the supernatural. So if a miracle (something supernatural) for
instance was to happen (like the Resurrection of Jesus an
historical fact, creation etc..) I think you would deny it. You
would deny any miracle (to me you already do by denying creation
and life etc... being created) You would rationalize any thing
supernatural and say that science could explain it, or would
eventually be able to explain it. So again we find you in
contradiction. You say there is no God because there is no
evidence. I give you evidence, you reject it. I ask you what
evidence you would like and you say give you evidence that you do
not even believe is possible or exists. How does this make any
sense? Your mind is closed and you have tried to insulate yourself
inside of some circle of reasoning that is all closed up.
Evidence of the supernatural by the way would not fly in the face
of anything you mention, and one of my points to you is that God
is a necessary foundation for science. And for many theistic
scientists there is not any conflict. God not existing and the
supernatural not existing are not foundations to science
technology and society.
You self admittedly do not know anything and of all things that
we have learned in history is just a fraction of all the total
knowledge that is out there. When will humans know everything?
never. They will never be omniscient, so in your worldview you
will always be left in uncertainty and on an impossible task of
trying to discover truth, but it is impossible.
Your statements besides being repetitive are still not true, I
never claimed to know everything, I doubt any 'religious types"
do. And we do not 'just' insert the god of the gaps.
Here are a few questions. Why is it wrong to be arrogant? Is it
that you just do not like it and it is just your chemistry or do
you propose there is something actually wrong and bad about
arrogance. I mean wrong and bad in an absolute sense, otherwise
your opinion about arrogance is arbitrary and without any real
meaning. You are expressing an ethic/morals but you have not given
any support for their existence or truth. In fact you can't have
anything more than arbitrary opinion as an atheist, like chocolate
or vanilla. You don't like arrogance so what, just like you might
not like vanilla, what does it matter?
You seem to be implying that there is no absolute truth, but if I
assert absolute truth, you say that is foolish and arrogant. Here
is my question, are you absolutely certain it is arrogant and
foolish of me to assert absolute truth? I hope you see the
problem here.
Personally, I try to imagine you are a nice person, but for
various reasons you think insulting and trying to berate people is
acceptable. I do not know what the details of the standard of
ethical behavior you claim to follow are, but I find it hard to
believe that insults accusations and trying to berate people are
on the list. Does your ethical standard include treating people
who disagree with you poorly, viciously? Maybe you should switch
ethical standards to something else that suits you. I wonder why
though you use this tactic? I wonder why anyone would choose to
attack someone personally when in a discussion of issues, ad
hominem. I can think of a few reasons. Frankly it is arrogant
and maybe yelling and screaming at people works for you in life
but I doubt it. all your attacks and insults do not affect the
issues, imo. You think, I suppose, you are so much better than
other people you can treat people like this (I am assuming it is
not just me). If you are not able to civilly disagree with someone
on issues that are important, maybe you shouldn't, just a suggestion.
Jason
On 2018-06-05 21:40, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
It is not bad math! Have you ever attended a class on probability in
your life? When calculating the probability of an event you
divide the
number of the events in question by the whole number of events in
the
set of events. The result is a probability ranging from 0.0 to 1.0,
0.0 meaning that it never happens and 1.0 meaning that it happens
every time. Are you going to deny that and call it bad math? If you
do then you may as well deny that 1+1=2 and call that bad math
too. If
you are going to call these simple equations bad math then I have a
hard time understanding how you ever got enough education to
spell the
word math. Now, what kind of evidence would I accept for god? I
don't
know and it is not my job to find out. If you want to make the
hypothesis then it is your job. Remember, I am the one who is
assuming
the negative of the proposition. I can tell you some of the
qualities
it would have to have though. Carl Sagan told us that extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence. If you made an ordinary
mundane
claim I would not have a problem believing it even without your
providing evidence. Supposed you claimed that you went to the
bathroom
in the past hour. Well, you might be lying. Maybe it was two hours
ago. But that is a common activity that everyone does all the
time and
so I would not even think of demanding evidence before accepting it.
On the other hand, if you claimed to have a degree in math or
science
I would have my extreme doubts because you show an abysmal amount of
ignorance about such subjects. But I suppose it is possible. Look at
Michael Behe, for example. The evidence would have to have something
to do with it being true. I suppose that if you produced a not
forged
degree from a reputable institution that would do. I would be
surprised in the extreme, but it would do. However, you are making a
claim of the most extraordinary kind. You are claiming the existence
of some invisible magical being that resides out of space and time
that still influences the real world. That flies in the face of
every
scientific discovery ever made in the history of science, in the
history of humanity. The evidence would have to be something so
extraordinary that it would falsify every principle that our modern
society and its technology is built upon. And it would have to
actually have something to do with it being true. Saying that you
have
a hard time believing that the universe could exist without that
magical being just is not enough. As for my having no path to
absolute
truth, that is correct. This is something else that science has
shown
us. As I said, not only has the answer to unknown questions not
once,
ever, been supernatural when they were finally answered, but also
every time one of those questions was answered new questions came up
that were not even thought of before they were answered. That is
without exception too. There is so much that is unknown, likely an
infinity, that we don't even know what we need to know. We do not
even
know that so many of those unknowns are even there. So we cannot
know
everything. That is one of the things that frustrate me about
religious thought. You religious types claim to know it all. If
it is
an unknown you refuse to admit that and just insert the god of the
gaps. That is extreme arrogance. and I hate arrogance. The
refusal to
admit to the possibility of being wrong is obnoxious. And that
reminds
me of something. There is another characteristic to the evidence of
god that needs to be included. It must be falsifiable. That is, when
you formulate your hypothesis for testing a part of that hypothesis
has to have a statement of what, if found in the testing, would
prove
a positive that would show that the hypothesis that is being
tested is
wrong. Religious would reject that. Could ever formulate a
hypothesis
that would include the possibility of your being wrong? That is
against the religious insistence on being right no matter what.
But as
long as you are claiming that you have a path to absolute truth or
that you already have absolute truth you are not making yourself
look
very good. You are making yourself look like an arrogant fool.
On 6/5/2018 4:18 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
You wrote:"But by claiming a neutral position one is
actually giving equal odds for both the positive and negative of
the
proposition. As I asked Carl, do you really think that there is an
even fifty/fifty probability that a god exists or does not exist? "
The fifty fifty situation is one you seemed to assume Carl,
(agnostics) was stuck with. And then you go on to explain why
it is not the situation. So the fifty fifty assumption is bad
math and your solution of dividing by the whole set and coming
to one in infinity is bad math. I am trying to understand you
and point out some of the things I think are wrong. For the sake
of brevity, you can just say I think you misunderstood me, that
is just a suggestion.
I did not make up a definition. I quoted you one.
I do not think you are the arbiter of evidence, and while you
can reject my evidence, the connection of the evidence to the
proposition seems to be interpretive. And you have not told me
what would suffice for evidence. We have a proposition, and
even you admit that it could be possible(however infinitely
small in your idea), that God exists. What evidence would you
accept?
I would think the idea that your worldview is bankrupt,
arbitrary and contradictory to your beliefs would be an eye
opener and some evidence. And remember the facts that we can
discuss as evidence for something will be interpreted based on a
person's presuppositions.
I am glad you are not worried, but the fact remains, you have no
absolute truth and no path to ever knowing anything for certain,
even though you go right ahead and claim truth and certainty.
Jason
On 2018-06-05 15:54, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
It is incredible how daft you can be. It is you who twists
everything
I say around so that you can cling onto your irrational claims
and I
think it is very probable that you are doing it just to provoke me
into an angry reaction. The very first thing you say this time
is that
I am terrible at math and that just because there are two
propositions it does not mean that there is a fifty/fifty
chance of
either being true and I had just gotten through explaining that
very
thing to you. Of course it does not mean that there is a
fifty/fifty
chance of either being true. I also did not word it in any way
that I
could have been mistakenly misinterpreted to have said that. That
sounds very much like deliberate misrepresentation of what I
have said
to me. What I said was that the agnostic makes the mistake of
assuming
that both the positive and negative form of a proposition are
equally
likely when there is no evidence for either of them one way or
another. In that case, the probability of the positive proposition
being true is one chance in infinity. Now if you can get out of
that
that I said that there is a fifty/fifty probability of either
of two
propositions being true then You have some kind of mental problem.
Next, it does no good for you to make up definitions just
because it
will contradict what I say. Now you say that evidence is
anything that
is presented in support of an assertion. That is just plain
untrue. If
I say that an ostrich just walked by and then I say that the
evidence
is that there are a lot of penguins in the Antarctic I have not
given
evidence for the claim that an ostrich just walked by no matter
how
much I insist that it was evidence. Similarly, if you make the
assertion that there is a god and try to claim that the
evidence for
it is either blatant lies about how the world around us works
or that
you just have a hard time believing that there might not be a
god you
have presented absolutely no evidence, strong or weak. That is
because
the existence of penguins in the Antarctic has nothing to do with
whether an ostrich just walked by me and lies and your subjective
feelings have nothing to do with whether there is a god. Yes,
evidence
can be weak or strong. That is why I said that if you come up with
some evidence for this god I would have to revise the
probability of
it being true from one in infinity to something greater than
one in
infinity. The stronger the evidence the higher the probability
would
become. As for my being certain of nothing, well, I suppose
that my
entire life could be a dream and that I am really an ameboid
creature
in another galaxy dreaming it, but I don't plan to spend any time
worrying about it. That is a proposition that I just made up
and it is
just as likely as any made up proposition like god, one in
infinity.
You can't get much more certain than that. As for other
propositions,
evidence just keeps piling up for biological evolution. There are
entire libraries of documentation of the research that has
discovered
this evidence. It is true that all scientific theory is are
tentative
pending incoming data, but to overthrow this theory there would
have
to be a lot of evidence and incredibly profound evidence that
would
refute it. I am not going to spend any time worrying about that
either. Evolution is just about as much of a scientific fact as
any
fact can be. I am convinced of it. Now, honestly, if you want to
retain any kind of credibility at all you will have to stop
claiming
that what someone just got through telling you was something other
than what it was. I would say that it makes you look stupid,
but it
doesn't quite do that. If you failed to understand what I said no
matter how clearly I said it you would look stupid. But what
you are
doing is making yourself look utterly dishonest. You are making
yourself look like a schemer who just wants to goad someone else
because they disagree with you. And that makes you look downright
childish. You are likely to say that I just threw insults
again, but I
am telling you exactly how you come off. As long as you
misrepresent
everything I say to suit your superstitious self you are coming
across
exactly that way.
On 6/4/2018 11:51 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
You are terrible at math, imo. Because there could be two
propositions, it does not necessarily mean there is a 50/50
chance of then answer being one or the other, it could be, but
would be based on other factors, this is not just flipping a
coin. And I dismantled your one in infinity proposition in a
prior email. You are just applying the percentages and
potential outcomes based on what supports your cause. You gave
the odds, not some neutral person. It is like leading the
witness, no thanks. False proposition.
While the definitions can vary, an agnostic can mean someone
who does not know- a gnosis- not knowing. an Athiest can mean
- no God.
I was not around for you and Carl going round about this, but
I am going to guess Carl was not convinced, when you tried to
explain to him that he really believes what you believe even
though he doesn't. At least I can imagine a conversation like
that.
Here is a definition of evidence "Evidence, broadly construed,
is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support
may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that
which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.
so at least according to that definition I did indeed give you
evidence. And I explained this before, you reject it. Doesn't
make it not evidence. So I think you could say you did not
like the evidence, you reject the evidence you think the
evidence is weak etc... But seems silly to say I did not give
you evidence.
Your claim that science has worked it out is interesting. On
the one hand you could be wrong and so could the science.
Science changes over time as facts and info are gathered. So
the current theory could be found to be incorrect. Or are you
now going to state it as an absolute?
Your other claim about everything that has been known and that
we find out does not hold up as well.
You are standing on sinking sand. Your foundation does not
match your words and beliefs. You have major contradictions
and I do keep trying to tell you and you pass over it and try
and go on as if it is not problem. If I said I do not believe
in the supernatural and then went on to describe the
supernatural as if it didn't matter, that contradiction would
be a problem. If I said I did not think that I could know
anything for certain and then went on to tell you of things
with absolute certainty that would be a problem. That is what
you keep doing. doesn't it bother you?
The funny thing to me with you not being able to know anything
for certain, that you could be wrong about everything you
know, is that you continue to compile evidence so you can be
more certain but in your worldview you can never have 100%
certainty, meaning you can never really know anything, no
absolute truths. There is no path to certainty.
Amazing how you evolved in a way where you have a thirst and
desire for truth, but can't ever have it. You have a strong
internal sense of right and wrong and good and bad, but they
can't ever really exist in a way that is not just arbitrary.
You have a desire to use logic and demand it of others, but
cannot account for logic or why we should use it in an
absolute sense.
Honestly you need God to resolve this. But after all this
back and forth, I do not think you want to do the hard digging
into these foundational issues, and it is hard and will be or
would be difficult. We can try and go through that if you
want, but if you are just going to repeat the same things that
contradict your foundational premises I do not see the point.
Would you keep talking to me if I constantly contradicted
myself? I told you before we are both looking at the same
facts but draw different conclusions, not from the facts on
the ground but because of our presuppositions, that is where
the disagreement lies and further I assume we will find if we
go there, that connected to all this and rejection of God,
what we usually find is a person is mad at God, or
disappointed with God or something like that, or they just
love the things that God says are not ok, and they do not want
to give up control.
Jason
On 2018-06-04 22:49, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
You spend a lot of time here telling me what my world view is
and
getting it all wrong. But let me concentrate on whether I
accept that
the god fairy tale character could be and whether I am an
agnostic.
Carl here is the agnostic and I have already spent a lot of time
explaining why his agnosticism is wrong, but I will go
through it
again. I was once an agnostic, from about age twelve to
sixteen when I
figured out what was wrong with it, but for whatever reason
that I
don't remember well I kept calling myself an agnostic until I
was
eighteen. But if I go on about how my philosophy developed it
will use
up a lot of time, so let me start with where I am now. First, an
agnostic is an atheist who just has not figured it out yet.
And, in
fact, an agnostic professes a lack of belief in super spook.
That
qualifies one as an atheist right there. The trouble is that an
agnostic asks himself the question of whether he can prove
that the
invisible magical being being exists and comes up with a no
and then
considers the question of whether it can be proved to not
exist and
still comes up with a no and so says that he doesn't know one
way or
another. That is, he gives equal weight to both questions. The
question of whether you can prove that a god does not exist,
though,
is not even a legitimate question. As I have said before, the
only way
you can prove a negative is to prove a contradicting positive
proposition that contradicts the positive form of the
negative. That
is proving a positive. But by claiming a neutral position one is
actually giving equal odds for both the positive and negative
of the
proposition. As I asked Carl, do you really think that there
is an
even fifty/fifty probability that a god exists or does not
exist? But
again, as I said before, there are a lot more ways for a
proposition
to be wrong than there are for it to be right. Let's look at
it in the
form of a mathematical formula. Let's make the proposition
that A
equals B and there is no supporting evidence for that
proposition.
Without evidence you can make only two assumptions about it.
You can
say that the proposition is true or you can say that the
proposition
is false. If you claim that it is true you really cannot go
beyond
that. You have it that A equals B and you can't say much
about it
except, perhaps that B equals A, but that is just another
wording of
the proposition. If, however, you say that the proposition is
false
then you have a lot of alternatives. A could equal C. A could
equal
XYZ. A could equal three divided by the square root of two. I
could go
on and on and the reason I could go on and on is that there
are an
infinity of things that A could equal if it did not equal B.
So to
calculate the probability of the proposition being true you
have to
divide it by the whole set. The whole set is infinity and
anything
divided by infinity is infinity. As I said before, the
probability of
the proposition being true is a decimal point followed by an
infinity
of zeros until you reach a digit that is not a zero and that
means
that you will never reach a digit that is not a zero. So I
will admit
that there is a possibility of there being a god and that the
probability of it is one in infinity. However, if some
evidence is
come up with then the probability will change. Despite your
insistence
that you have offered evidence you have not. First you offered
creationist lies. That is not evidence of anything other than
of what
lowly worms the creationist liars are. Then you seemed to
back off of
that a little and start expressing your personal incredulity
that the
universe could have come into existence without some intelligent
guiding consciousness. I am sorry, but not matter how hard
you find it
to believe that is not evidence of a guiding intelligence.
Until you
do find evidence I will continue to make the negative
assumption.
Another purveyor of superstition said to me once after I had
said that
I did not have proof that there is a god that I make the
assumption
that there is not, Well, I assume that there is." I then told
him that
my assumption is a valid assumption and as valid as any
assumption can
possibly be while his assumption is as invalid as any
assumption can
be and the mathematical example I gave above is the reason. The
observable complexity that we see in the universe does not
prove the
existence of a guiding intelligence simply because scientific
discovery has shown that it does not and has worked out just
how it
comes about. So that claim is not evidence. Furthermore,
Everything
that has ever been unknown in the past and that may have been
claimed
to be of a supernatural nature has when it was discovered
what the
answer was, has always, without exception, turned out to be not
supernatural. Well, there are a lot of unknowns right now and
when an
unknown becomes a known it always opens up more questions
that were
not even thought of before the answer was arrived at. Those
questions
are still unknowns though. As long as they are unknowns I might
speculate on what the answers might be and maybe I can
formulate some
experiments that might lead toward answers, but I will not
make an
absolute claim that I have the answer and insist on it being
true when
I have nothing to back up that claim. I will not say that the
universe
exists because some super cow in a bigger universe farted it
into
existence and I will not say that god created it. Both
propositions
have only one chance in infinity of being true. By the way,
that one
chance in infinity is an equal chance. That is, you may as
well say
that the universe is the fart of a giant cow as that a god
created it.
Both are equally likely.
On 6/4/2018 9:14 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Thanks for the email and agreement.
You have a theory as to how things have worked without
guidance, you assume it is true or believe it to be true.
I say there is a God who created things, because of a search
for the Truth, not to make my life more mentally comfortable.
I can indeed admit to not knowing things. so most of what
you wrote again is a lot of straw man fallacy.
Just to be clear about what you wrote, are you saying it is
possible in your opinion that God exists? Are you saying
you are a skeptic in the sense of being an agnostic? I was
under the impression you were the type of atheist that was
saying there is no God. You mention it is hard for you to
believe it, but you do not claim it can't be true (God's
existence). Would like some clarification before I read too
far into all of that.
We are back to you want proof, evidence, truth, reasons
etc... For one we have had the discussion were you admitted
you do not know anything for certain, that is called giving
up knowledge (justified true belief). And two I have asked
you in the past what kind of evidence would suffice for
you? I do not believe you answered that, or I do not
remember you answering.
Three I have given you so many forms of evidence. Including
primarily showing you how your worldview of atheism does not
provide a foundation for truth, for continuity in nature,
purpose, meaning, ethics (that are not arbitrary), logic,
human dignity. As well I have tried repeatedly to explain
how your unguided theory cannot account for information,
laws, non physical things (logic) existence itself. You
want me to rewrite the arguments? You can go back and reread
them.
You are banking on science. But science is not a
foundation. You have a metaphysic, ethic and epistemology,
everyone does whether they know it or not. These are your
real foundation because science can only exist or function
under philosophical underpinnings that provide for it. Your
use of science and facts and truth are unaccounted for. You
never explain how your worldview provides for these things
and in fact I have shown you what a contradiction you have
because your stated worldview actually does not allow for
the very things you are trying to use and demand. My
worldview does provide for these things. So it seems you are
trying to use something I can account for and you can't. It
is like you are trespassing or working with stolen goods.
Your worldview you cannot know anything for certain but you
want to tell me about facts and truth etc... in your world
view there can be no absolute good and bad right and wrong,
but you go on and on about what is good and what is bad. In
your worldview there is no meaning or purpose or point, and
yet you act as if these things do exist. In your worldview
you cannot account for logic and yet you demand we use it.
You want to have it both ways it seems. That is the proof,
you know facts and truths matter, and there are things that
are right and wrong and that logic is a universal law, that
nature is uniform, that there is a purpose and meaning. But
these very things you know internally you deny with your
stated beliefs.
Jason
On 2018-06-03 23:40, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Okay, it is unguided. Furthermore, we have figured out how
the process
works without guidance. Now, you want to push things back
even
further to the point that I have to say that I don't know.
I can
describe how life on Earth came about and I can describe
how it
evolved. I can describe how abiogenesis came about. Before
that I can
describe how the Earth coalesced out of the solar nebula. I
can
describe how the solar nebula came into existence by an
earlier star
going supernova and thus causing all of the heavier
elements to form,
the elements that were necessary for life. But as I go
further and
further back there has to be a point that I am going to say
that I
don't know. You claim to know. And you have nothing to back
up what
you claim to know. You seem to be saying that there has to
have been
and continue to be an intelligent guiding force because of
your own
personal incredulity. I am sorry, but personal incredulity
is not a
way to determine what reality is. And that speaks to
exactly what I
have been saying about religious arrogance. If you don't know
something you just don't know it. The purveyor of religion
cannot
admit to not knowing. You have to insist that you know that
it must
have been some supernatural being just because you cannot
admit to not
knowing something. When you come up with some reason to
believe the
assertion you are making you still don't know, whether you
want to
admit it or not. As for me, I am personally incredulous at the
assertion that some invisible magical being made or
directed the
universe into existence, but I do not claim that it can't
be true just
because it is so hard for me to believe. I reject it
because there is
no reason to believe it. When you claim to believe
something without a
reason to believe it then whether you personally made it up
out of
your own imaginings or not it is still something that is
made up out
of someone's imaginings. And by reason I mean something
that actually
has something to do with it being true. That you are
incredulous that
it could be not true has nothing to do with whether it is
really true.
If it makes you feel really good to believe that it is true
then that
has nothing to do with it being true. Now, if you can come
up with
some real reason, that is, something that has something to
do with it
being true, for a supernatural being then I will have to
put my
skepticism aside, but the track record for the supernatural
is not
good. Humanity has arisen from unthinking cells in a
primordial ocean
and those cells were ultimately ignorant. They knew
nothing because
they had no brain to know anything with. But we have arisen
to a point
in which we know quite a lot even if there is a lot more to
learn.
Along the way very many supernatural explanations were put
forward to
explain things that we did not know. But we learned. We
learned and
many of those unknowns became answered questions. And every
time,
without exception, that something that was unknown before
and had only
supernatural explanations became known the supernatural
explanations
were found to be untrue. This is without exception and so the
supernatural really fails every time. Also, every time the
answer to a
previously unanswered question was found there were people who
insisted that the demonstrated answer that had disposed of he
supernatural explanation was wrong. They insisted on it
until the day
they died. And every time it was they who were wrong.
On 6/3/2018 7:43 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Thanks for the email.
I will try and be as clear as I can here. There are 3
issues, at least.
for 1 I agree and have agreed and continue to agree and
understand I am agreeing with you and the point you have
made over and over that I have agreed with that the less
complex(matter) can become more complex with energy and
the tendency as you described it is reflective of laws and
algorithms that exist. OK? We agree in fact I never
denied that. I never said or claimed complexity just
appeared, and I never claimed you claim or believe
complexity just appears.
2 The other part and the part that is important is the
process you are talking about is unguided, it is not
purposeful it happens by accident and I am going to be
forced to use this word again but try not to miss or
forget point 1, it is random. I am talking about here for
clarification how the whole things starts off for one.
Your process has to begin somewhere, and it will end
somewhere. No one, in your scenario, starts this
process. so how does it happen? Can you see my point
here? It is unguided, there just happens to be matter and
energy and time and laws, they just happen to be there in
your scenario and the process is just begins and goes
where it goes. Now you can repeat you do not know how it
begins or where matter comes from etc.... You are still
left with choices like matter is eternal or it was created.
3 the major problem with your soup scenario is it is
guided. You picked the ingredients, the 'right mix' and
'you add energy'. Now for the most part energy and
chemicals will most likely follow entropy and probably the
vast majority of reactions won't lead anywhere. And the
chemical industry example is the same problem, totally
guided R&D by smart educated people, with money, access
and a sterile lab, meticulously experimenting, theorizing
etc.... This is an issue of what can happen unguided
versus guided, designed versus not designed, it actually
serves my point I think. Your explanation that less
complex becomes more complex, is a way to explain the
complexity and life in our world and universe, is faulty.
Of course you have a card you like to play when
convenient, time and infinite possibilities. So your
scenario is so implausible the only way you can even buy
it is to have an infinite number of tries and then it has
to happen. Well it doesn't have to happen, wouldn't
happen and the only reason imo you think it is because you
start with the end in mind. You a priori reject Design and
a Creator and God and so you are left with an even less
plausible theory. I understand you have literature and
science and theories and speculations and your examples of
less complex to more. And that may be fine for snowflakes
or crystals forming structures repeating. But when you
want that process to explain information and life it just
doesn't carry the same weight, besides that your professed
worldview assumptions of atheism do not provide for even
having this discussion.
Jason
On 2018-06-03 15:28, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Here is something that is not just a difference in
definition. When
you have a chemical soup of the right mix and you add
energy to it you
cause chemical reactions to occur. The more energy you
add the more
complex those reactions and resulting compounds become.
After some
four and a half billion years of constant input of energy
into a
complex of organic chemicals the complexity becomes
tremendous. This
tendency for the less complex to become more complex
under those
conditions has been experimentally confirmed over and
over. We would
have no chemical industry without it. It is an objective
fact and
there can't be much in the way of facts that are more
factual than
that. To claim that such a process does not happen is
simply false.
What can I even say about a person who would make such a
claim? Should
I say liar? Should I say cognitively impaired? Should I
say abysmally
ignorant? And then that person claims that the false
claim that
systems of low complexity do not become more complex with
the input of
constant energy is somehow evidence for an invisible
being with
magical powers. Honestly, the only thing I can see that
such a claim
is evidence of is that there is something wrong with the
person who is
making the claim. That is on par for nuttiness with the
Heaven's gate
crowd who committed suicide claiming that what they were
really doing
was hitching a ride on a spaceship that was hiding behind
a comet.
On 6/2/2018 10:42 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
How am I lecturing you? you have misrepresented the
definition of a straw man argument, and I even said:
"you SEEM to have misrepresented" maybe I was mistaken,
I do not think so though. Now if I had done that you
would have insulted me. But I gave you a link to the
definition. Seemed helpful to me. Either you have straw
man right or wrong, seems simple.
I am not sure how I am distorting you, I quoted you.
Maybe I misunderstood your intent behind your quote? I
think we have some definitional issues in this
discussion, regarding what just happened random accident
etc... mean.
I love your newest insult, I am just here to provoke
you, right I have nothing else to do. Don't be so full
of yourself, I have taken the time to try and get
through to you and understand some of what you say.
maybe I should have cut my time losses a long time ago,
but I keep thinking we will get to some of the
foundational premise issues.
I did not come to you to learn and I have no desire to
prevent you or anyone else from learning. You made, as
I stated much earlier, some brash and arrogant
statements on an email I happened to receive. I
responded. I even laid out for you my 2 goals prior.
Amusing too that you think religion is opposed to
learning. It seems to me many of science's great
scientists have been religious or at least believed in
God. And yet they were not anti science. Amazing.
On 2018-06-02 22:21, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
You see? You have the nerve to lecture me on straw man
arguments and
right then you go ahead and distort what I have said
again. Yes, I did
say that if there are an infinity of universes then we
would of course
be in the one that allowed for our existence. But if
there is only one
universe then we would of course, be in it only if it
was one that
allowed for our existence. To say otherwise is like
saying that it is
so remarkable that the shape of the depression just
happens to match
the shape of the water in it in the form of a puddle.
This is not
saying that the universe just happened. Maybe it did,
but I don't
know. Now, I think I am beginning to see a pattern with
you. You just
keep on making these distortions with the intent to
provoke and goad
me into anger and then you can say that because I lost
my temper you
are the rational one. Sorry, the distortions themselves
show that you
are not rational. The purposeful distortion of
someone's words is
completely dishonest. You show no interest in learning.
You show only
interest in disrupting and in preventing others from
learning. But
then, that is something religion is all about,
opposition to learning,
and that is one reason that I utterly detest religion.
On 6/2/2018 9:09 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
if you removed your name calling you would be able to
write shorter emails.
You seem to have misrepresented the straw man argument:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Here is what you said/wrote in the previous email:
"As for why we seem to live in an anthropic universe,
well
the one that just happened to have the structure and
laws that allows
for our existence would, of course, be in the one that
we are in."
It is funny to me that you harp on this, besides your
quote, I have explained my position several times in
light of your explanations, that if ultimately there
is no planning to have laws, and algorithms and matter
and energy, then they are just there and whatever the
result is of their combo ultimately is random an
accident and just happened. Because there is no
purpose behind them, no plan no Maker or Creator. It
does not mean complexity popped into existence, I
never accused you of saying that and you keep accusing
me of accusing you of that, hysterical.
The other funny part is of all the things I wrote to
you that this is the thing you want to go over again.
Maybe you could go back to that email and pick
something more interesting to respond to.
And I do not think there are too many people reading
along at this point, imo.
if you want to trade websites check out
www.creation.com a lot of PhD's
also I bought this book but have not read it yet,
Harvard PhD
Replacing Darwin: The New Origin of Species
by Nathaniel T Jeanson PhD
Link: http://a.co/0oY8gr6
Thanks
Jason
On 2018-06-02 20:25, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Let me tell you something about straw man arguments.
They are
trickery. You claim that someone said something that
that person did
not say and you make that claim to another person who
did not hear
what the original person said and then you refute the
point that was
never made in the first place. So you trick the third
person into
thinking that another person said something he did
not say. So, what
is the point of making this straw man argument right
back to the very
person who said the things that you are saying false
things about in
the first place? I know what I said and you cannot
trick me into
thinking that I said something else. Or is it that
you are just trying
your best to live up to that tradition among
religious preachers of
being the best jerk you can be? I did not say it just
happened.
Everyone on this list knows that I did not say that
it just happened.
I made some references to some speculative current
hypotheses and said
that they were speculative and that I don't know. I.
don't. Know. That
is not saying that it just happened. Now instead of
lecturing someone
who knows more about the topic than you do try
learning about that
topic and then say something about it when you know
something about
it. Again, you can start here:
http://talkorigins.org/ That site has
some really fascinating articles. But please don't
lie about what they
have to say. Please don't distort them for straw man
arguments.
On 6/2/2018 3:24 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Thanks for saying you do not know. Amazingly though
you know you do not know and, you know no one else
can know either?, that is another fallacy. The
truth is you do not know and you do not think anyone
else can know but how would you know what everyone
else knows? You can't.
Your description of the Big Bang Singularity is a
lovely story you have faith in. It is so far
fetched and forensic science like that is more than
speculative. Either matter would be eternal, or it
came into existence out of nothing or nowhere,
either one of these is a major problem for you. And
the result of matter coming from nowhere compressed
infinitely small and exploding is a series of events
that result in laws and algorithms, and matter and
complexity and life. Where were the natural laws
that came into existence prior to the singularity?,
Were they not there before? It is amazing,
everything happens for no reason, and yet it is not
random not an accident. There just happen to be non
physical laws that exist that matter obeys. Truly a
feat of random magic. It is fine if you want to
believe this stuff, and in 50-100 years there will
be scientific theories that make this one look
ridiculous, I am sure. Just like many of the
scientific theories of the past seem silly. And here
again is your hypocrisy, you ask me about God and I
tell you answers, and here you say it just happened.
It just happened that..... and what you are telling
me is highly speculative and you want me to look at
phrases like this and say of course that is not
random? You think this explains a material world
with immaterial things? How about logic? Ideas?
Concepts? your matter and algorithms sure can do a lot.
Your theory of how ethics came about is also pretty
speculative. Much of Ethics is something in people's
hearts. Stabbing your best friend in the back is
wrong, it is wrong in every culture and time, and
everyone knows it. Evolution does not provide an
explanation for a universal ethic existing in
humans. And your social theory is lacking as well.
And chalking it up to natural selection and
chemistry makes it even less meaningful, besides
being implausible. And the main point is that any
ethic without God is arbitrary. Just opinions, there
is no absolute truth in your worldview regarding
ethics, and yet you know there are things that are
absolutely wrong. And if you are willing to admit
that, then you have to see your worldview does not
really provide for that and in fact contradicts it.
Is love good? Can't be in your world, it is just
chemistry and chemistry is neither good or bad. So
love is not good or bad and no love would not be
good or bad either (that is hate) just chemistry.
And yet you judge people on an ethical basis all the
time. Major contradiction.
Jason
On 2018-06-01 16:23, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Now, because you have a tendency to ask short
questions or make short
points that require long answers and because I
don't have all the time
in the world I have been addressing only one or a
few of your points
in any one message and waiting for you to make them
again later. This
time you repeat one that I have, indeed, neglected
even if not
entirely. That is where do nonmaterial things come
from in a material
universe? Okay, I have mentioned abstract but still
objective aspects
of the universe like dimensions, directions or even
just space. These
are characteristics of the universe and just like
questions about the
origin of matter there are some very speculative
hypotheses extant
that have not been tested because we do not yet
have a way to test
them. One is that in the singularity that is
popularly called the big
bang cause and effect did not exist and most any
natural law or
characteristic could have come into existence and
all of them did.
Because you are so fond of throwing accusations of
scientific thought
explaining everything as randomness I am sure that
you see randomness
in what I have just said. That is not the case if
all possibilities,
which in a case like that would be infinite
possibilities, were
spawned all at once. This is one of the hypotheses
that advocate the
multiverse. As for why we seem to live in an
anthropic universe, well
the one that just happened to have the structure
and laws that allows
for our existence would, of course, be in the one
that we are in.
There would be other things that could only exist
in their respective
universes. Again, though, all of this is of the
most highly
speculative concepts. The real answer to the
question is simply that I
don't know and no one else knows either. And let me
emphasize again
that not knowing does not mean supernatural
explanation. Not knowing
only means not knowing. The things we don't know
are things that we
have to figure out, not just proclaim an
explanation out of nowhere
and insist that it is true. As for ethics,
morality and that kind of
abstractions, that is easier to explain. Each of us
who are even
capable of communicating abstractions to each other
are human beings.
We all evolved together and have to relate together
with the natural
world around us and with each other too. There
would be two directions
from which concepts of ethics and morality came to
us. First, there is
the genetic aspect. There was certainly a survival
and thusly a
reproductive advantage to people who could
cooperate with each other
for mutual advantage. That would cause the
neurochemicals that
facilitate cooperation to be produced more over the
generations that
had it and so survived to produce more offspring.
These neuro
chemicals are likely to have been adapted for that
function because
they were already there to perform other functions.
For example,
oxytocin is a muscle relaxant and facilitates
parturition. Since it is
important for a mother to take care of her newborn
it also became a
neurotransmitter that cause feelings of goodwill
and affection. That
is why it is called the love chemical. Vasoptressin
is also involved
with this behavior. So there is another way to look
at the word love
which you used. Love is caused by
neurotransmitters in the brain.
Second, aside from emotions caused by
neurotransmitters the brain has
become complex enough that it can figure out things
about the world
around it and how to best react in a considered way
with the
environment. So as humans came to live in
communities and to interact
with each other on a daily basis they had to make
up rules that would
facilitate such interactions and to make deals with
each other in
order to maximize advantages for individuals and
the community as a
whole and to minimize harm that might otherwise
result. Out of this
came codified rules of ethics and morality. So
there you have your
answer and it has nothing to do with any magical
beings that reside
outside of space and time. The uneducated people
who were in the
position of having to create these moral codes did
not necessarily
realize that magical beings were nonsense, but it
was not the magical
beings who created the rules of human interaction.
On 5/31/2018 10:34 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
thanks
As to knowing God's will. First we would need to
know about God, there are things we can ascertain
by natural law, looking around and observing. And
there is His Word and then His incarnation(When I
speak about God I am talking about the Creator God
of the Bible). so for example we have Jesus
teaching what are the 2 great commandments (in the
torah 1st 5 books there are 613 commandments) He
says Love the Lord your God with all your heart
soul and strength, and the 2nd is like it, Love
thy neighbor as the self. We find that love is the
interpretive lens to read the law. And love in the
New Testament, agape is wanting what is best for
someone else regardless of their actions, it is
unconditional love. Later on Jesus will say Do
unto others as you would have them do unto you, an
interesting teaching because it is the positive
version of a teaching that already existed in
several cultures- do not do to others what you do
not want done to you. These are vastly
different. He would also say and I assume you
would like this one regarding what it means to be
great from Matthew 20
26 "Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever
desires to become great among you, let him be your
servant. 27 "And whoever desires to be first among
you, let him be your slave-- 28 "just as the Son
of Man did not come to be served, but to serve,
and to give His life a ransom for many."
So there are things we know are His will and
things we know are against His will, like murder
or theft and then times when we are not sure and
this gets to prayer and things like that. We do
talk to God and even for you as an experiment if
you wish to extend this hypothetical, can talk to
Him. You can even ask Him if He is real and to
show you. I do not expect the concept of prayer
to make sense at this point, but you did ask.
If someone has harmed me and I want to personally
kill them or hurt them the Bible does not teach
for me to do that, so my will needs to be changed.
Sorry to disappoint you, it is not because you did
not explain your position, I just did not assume
that would be what you would say regarding
complexity in this situation. Because there is a
distinction the ability of a brain you may
describe as complex, but the basic ethics and
logic exist and are not necessarily complex even
though non material. But still the mind which is
material has developed non material functions and
recognizes non material things? I do not think
you have as of yet really explained that as a
function of algorithms and energy and matter.
Where do non material things come from? They
cannot only be a product of the mind, that would
be some trick for matter to be able to pull off.
And if ethics and logic were just products of the
mind they again would be arbitrary. There would be
no reason to hold them as laws or standards. They
must be existing outside of the mind as
nonmaterial 'entities' that we could say we
discover or become aware of.
I would like to hear from you how you get around
all the contradiction and the arbitrariness that
your worldview forces onto you.
Thanks
Jason
On 2018-05-31 20:20, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Putting aside all the distortions about things I
have said in this
message you state that it is not about man's
will, but about god's
will. Okay, just supposing that there really is
such a magical being
as god then just how do you determine what god's
will is? I see no way
that it can be done other than that it is your
own will that is
ascribed to god. Just how can you tell. Now,
still putting aside most
of this distortion of what I have said because I
really do only have
limited time to respond to emails, let me skip to
something that you
said toward the end. You said that I still have
not explained how
nomaterial things like ethics can come from
material things. I have
so! I explained how complexity has and does come
from the less complex
and that includes extremely complex things like
the human mind that
has its concerns and works out how to relate to
other human minds and
people. How could you have missed something like
that that I spent so
much time explaining to you?
On 5/31/2018 6:55 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Thanks
I mentioned the Bible in saying God's will be
done, in response to what you wrote about
'religious' people using God or religion to get
what they want. My point was that is not a
Biblical teaching, it contradicts the teaching
of the Bible. It is not about a person's will
but God's. Further while you do not accept it
the Bible it is the word of God and quite
different than Harry Potter books.
I am not sure how to restate the issue here
regarding Human Progress. I have mentioned the
concept of being arbitrary of just being
opinion, about how you could be wrong about
everything you know. And yet you still propose
to not only know what is best for humanity but
how to move forward against the will of others,
sounds like arrogance to me. On top of that I
tried to explain how that seems a bit
hypocritical of you since you claim to be so
bothered when others do the same. Which part is
missing here?
Further you talk of morality (or whatever you
want to term it) rights and meaning and ethics.
I am asking here again very specifically how do
you have an authoritative ethic? Additionally,
Where do the rights come from? And how is there
meaning? As an atheist I have pointed out that
your stated beliefs contradict these very
concepts, to be clear not that they do not exist
in atheism but that they are arbitrary and
merely opinions and preferences. Further how
would voting be the best way to determine the
course of action? Voting or majority or mob rule
are certainly flawed and not a reliable way to
determine truth. Why not let the minority have
their way instead of the majority, they are just
as likely to be correct if there is even a
correct answer.
I have not claimed religious people are more
ethical. However I have showed you that your
stated positions could only give you an 'ethic'
that was merely opinion and is arbitrary. I do
not see how you have a way around that, you just
state you have or follow an ethical system, I
understand. You have ethical beliefs that you
believe to be right and you are willing to try
and force them on others, yet all you have are
opinions. You cannot have an authoritative or
absolute ethical standard because your ethical
system comes only from men (who are flawed and
limited). Only from God could we have an ethic
that is absolute that is prescriptive that is an
absolute standard for right and wrong. Any other
system will just be a competing opinion and is
arbitrary, and then you are left with how to
resolve the differences of opinion, all being
equal, not one being better than another.
Your example regarding sexuality, I would say
who invented sex? If indeed it is God's
invention then He has some say as to its use and
purpose etc... That seems reasonable.
Sexual behavior as long as it is consenting....
Is that true? Is it absolutely true? You are
making a truth and knowledge claim here, again,
and yet you claim not to know and that there is
nothing you are certain about.
Additionally you have yet to explain how non
physical things could arise from the physical,
immaterial things from the material. Where does
meaning, truth, logic, ethic come from in atheism?
Jason
On 2018-05-31 15:27, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Okay, the bible says god's will be done. So
what? What does that have
to do with determining reality? Like I said,
the Harry Potter books
say that wizards ride around on broomsticks. So
what? They still don't
no matter what the Harry Potter books say. Now
there is an issue that
you did not address. Why is it that various
people claim to know what
god's will is and say things like god wants
this or that without the
slightest evidence that is what god really
wants and it just so
happens to agree with what the person who is
making the assertion
wants? Doesn't that sound like a scam to you?
Now, as for determining
what is best for humanity, that is a whole
different subject. Society
would have to be drastically changed to achieve
it in any meaningful
way. Since the advent of class society people
have taken privileges
for themselves have used their power to dictate
to the rest of us. But
there are certain ethical considerations. One
is that when an action
effects only one person he or she has the right
to decide for him or
herself whether to take the action. Alas, there
are not very many
decisions that effect only one person. When the
decision effects two
people neither has the right to impose it on
both of them without
consulting with the other and coming to a
mutually satisfactory
decision. If it effects three people ... well I
hope you see where
this is going. Would votes have to be taken if
we could reach a
situation in which all of humanity participates
in their own decision
making. I would hope that a consensus could be
arrived at in most
cases, but when the opinion is divided closely
then it just might have
to be done. What about the losers of such a
vote. Well, if they could
go off and make a different decision without
causing a problem for the
majority I suppose they would have the right to
do that. If they could
not do that then the decision of the majority
would have to be imposed
on them. But there is a big difference between
that and what we have
now. Now we have a minority imposing its
decisions for itself on the
majority whose interests do not match that
minority. That is
unethical. Putting aside the speculation about
the specific mechanics
of an ethical world, though, that was not
really the issue. The issue
was that you were making a very arrogant and
bigoted religious claim
that religion has the market on morality
cornered, that religious
people are the only moral people. That kind of
claim is so arrogant
that it is really astonishing. Or, at least, I
would be astonished if
I was not already used to encountering
religious arrogance. But such a
claim is entirely false. There are ethical and
moral systems other
than religious ones. That is another objective
fact that religion
denies just like it denies other objective
facts. Now, having said
that, I will add that I, personally, do tend to
avoid the word moral
or its other forms like morality in reference
to myself or causes I
support. That is because religion has given
morality a bad name. The
way religious people tend to use the word it
seems to mean that it is
a way to denounce other people for minding
their own business. This is
especially true in the case of sexual behavior.
Sexual behavior, as
long as it is consenting, is simply the
business of whomever is doing
it. Religion has a strong tendency to interfere
with other people's
sexual practices denouncing it as immoral. The
way I see it, if they
think it is so immoral they are perfectly free
to just not do it
themselves and stay out of other people's
business.
On 5/30/2018 11:43 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
I do not support using God as a way to impose
my or anyone else's personal opinion onto
everyone else. The Bible says God's will be
done, and we are to try and ascertain that,
and yes sometimes sincere people may even
disagree on some of what that means, but that
is not a problem with God, but with man.
Interestingly you are proposing the same thing
you complain of, to impose what you and the
majority think is best on society.
Is majority rule really the way to determine
the best course for humanity? Certainly did
not work in Nazi Germany. Can the collective
majority not be wrong? Is every election where
the majority picks a winner the right choice
for humanity. Did scientific breakthroughs
become true only when the majority agreed with
them? I will stop with examples now but
majority rule is a terrible way to determine
what is best. In fact the majority believe in
God, so there would be a big problem for you
there.
The idea that you know what is best for
humanity is a serious problem. You have said
already you do not know anything for certain
and could be wrong about everything you know.
You have an opinion about what is best, and it
may even be informed and may sound reasonable,
but it is merely your opinion and maybe the
opinion of some or many others. There will be
contradictory opinions held by many other
humans as to what is best. How do you resolve
the discrepancies? Just vote? If you have your
opinion and someone has a different opinion
regarding what is best, how is it you feel
that forcing your beliefs about what is best
for humanity is ok? You clearly do not like
people trying to force what you believe to be
opinions or ideas you disagree with onto you,
but you have no problem doing the very same
thing?
And since it is unlikely we would get anything
close to a universal agreement on what is best
for humanity, couldn't we say the same thing
you are saying, that people would try and use
this what is best for humanity idea to get
what they want and impose their opinions?
Without God (a source for a standard of good
greater than humans and without error) I do
not see how you can force your ideas and
beliefs, which are merely human opinions, onto
others.
Jason
On 2018-05-30 22:16, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
I think that ideally the way to determine
what is best for humanity is
by collective decision. The problem is to
change society so that such
a situation can be realized. But it still
remains that even if you
want to leave it up to some all powerful and
all knowing being, what
does that have to do with whether that being
exists? You still haven't
proven that any such being exists to leave it
up to. And then, if we
assume without evidence that it does exist
right now then how do we
determine what decisions it makes in regard
to what is best for
humanity? So far as I have ever seen those
who claim that it does
exist also claim to know exactly this oh so
powerful being wants and
for one thing it always wants what the
proclaimer of its existence
wants and, second, each person who claims to
know just what this all
powerful being wants disagree about what it
wants. That sounds
suspiciously like using the claim of its
existence to impose one's
personal opinion on everyone else to me.
On 5/30/2018 5:46 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
The dilemma is real that without God you
have no way to any certainty or truth and
without a doubt would have no idea what is
best for humanity. The only solution is if
there is someone greater than humans. If
there is an all knowing all powerful all
present being, then we would have a path, a
way to knowing what is absolutely good or
true etc... Without God or a source greater
than humans, for a standard for good we just
have arbitrary opinions. Your opinion, mine,
someone else's if we are all human than
whose do we choose? Do we vote on it? does
the majority decide? No. We won't agree on
what is best so do the strong pick? Is it by
war? If it is just your opinion and ideas
versus mine or others and we cannot
determine which one is really the best or
what is best, how do you justify forcing
your moralistic view of what is right on me?
BTW the God of the Bible and His plans are
often not the plans and ideas I would choose.
Jason
On 2018-05-30 17:11, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
Well, with god how do you know what is best
for humanity? So you make
up an invisible man with magical powers who
lives in the sky and you
claim that you know what that invisible
man's opinions are and they
just happen to match your own opinions.
Wouldn't it be better just to
say that you know what is good for humanity
instead of making up some
fairy tale character to blame?
On 5/30/2018 4:03 PM, Jason Meyerson wrote:
Carl,
Thanks for the reply.
I think your premise is interesting but
problematic. Of course who could argue
with Human Progress?
But here is the thing about that being
done without God. How do you know what
real progress is? What is the right
direction for humanity? I am sure you have
your thoughts and opinions regarding that
and others will have different or even
opposite thoughts and opinions regarding
what is best for humanity. There is no
universal consensus, except maybe in a
very broad unspecific and general way.
When you begin to state your personal
preferences and opinions about what is
best for all of humanity you are working
from an ethical/moral perspective. Why is
your morality any better than someone
else's? and why would you want to
influence and to what degree do you want
to influence other's moral choices and
outcomes? I am trying to keep this short,
but I hope you see the dilemma. It gets to
the issue of how do you have a real
morality without God and just something
arbitrary.
Thanks
Jason
On 2018-05-30 10:56, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Radio waves...interesting. Of course
since we know that a radio in
good working condition is built to
receive an invisible(to us)signal,
and we have turned on that radio hundreds
of times, then it is no
longer Faith anymore than saying you have
Faith that the sun will rise
in the East. But maybe if you found a
person who never knew radios
existed, and you handed them a radio, and
told them to "turn it on",
and they would hear Heavenly music...
Anyway, as I said before, it's an effort
in futility. Those who are
convinced that God exists, will either
attempt to convince you, or
simply ignore your best arguments. And
those who do not believe in
God, will try to convince those who do,
that they are wrong.
As an Agnostic, I simply dismiss the
question regarding God's
existence, and get down to discussing
whether the forms of religion
that exist today are interfering with
Human Progress. But that's a
discussion for another day, and I have
clients needing our attention
today.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/29/18, Roger Loran Bailey
<rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Exactly. If you have evidence then it is
not faith. He said that he got
that stuff about trust from the bible
and maybe he did. I haven't
memorized the entire bible to verify it,
but I do know that this
definition of faith comes from the
bible: The evidence of things unseen.
Now what does that mean? Does that mean
that when you turn on a radio
and hear sound that sound is the
evidence of the unseen radio waves? In
that case I just listened to some faith
this afternoon in the form of a
news broadcast.
On 5/29/2018 12:37 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Well Roger, you have embarked upon an
Impossible Mission. While I
appreciate your discussions, and learn
from them, any belief that your
reasoning is being received is simply a
flight into Never Never Land.
Jason wrote: "I do not have the same
definition of faith you propose.
Faith is trusting, and is based on
evidence. It
is not a check your brain at the door,
blind leap, quite the contrary."
But he does not explain what he means
by "evidence". In my mind,
evidence would negate Faith.
Carl Jarvis
On 5/28/18, Roger Loran Bailey
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In response to what I said you seem to
largely ignore what I just said
and then distort the rest. First, how
is it scientific to ignore the
supernatural? I just got through
telling you that the supernatural
excludes itself because if ever anyone
found out that a supernatural
proposition was actually true that
would mean that it was not actually
supernatural at all and had not been
supernatural all along. The
supernatural is that which is not
real, that which is made up, that
which has no evidence to back it up.
To accept such claims as true
cannot be scientific because science
is the study of reality and
requires testable reproducible
evidence. Next, you do not seem to
understand that asking someone to
prove a negative is not even a
legitimate question. Think about this.
Suppose a murder was committed
and the police, instead of looking at
the available evidence and
following up on it, instead just
opened a phone book and randomly picked
out a name and it happened to be
yours. Then you were hauled into court
and charged with murder and without a
shred of evidence against you
convicted you. I am sure you would be
pointing out that they did not
prove that you did it. But what would
you say when told that you didn't
prove that you didn't do it? Actually,
the only way to prove a negative
is to prove a positive that
contradicts the positive form of the
negative proposition. For example, how
do we prove that there are no
square triangles? If every triangle we
have ever examined is not square
isn't it possible that we just have
not examined enough triangles and
that there might be a square one out
there somewhere? The way you prove
that there are no square triangles is
to show that a square, by
definition does not have the requisite
characteristics that define
triangles. That is, the condition of
the square contradicts the
condition of the triangle and so
excludes the possibility of square
triangles. Without the positive
concept of the square the proof that
there are no square triangles is
meaningless. That leaves even asking
for proof of a negative meaningless.
Suppose I claimed that ameboid
aliens from the Andromeda galaxy were
burrowing into the brains of
epileptics making them have seizures.
Would you believe me? If you said
no then what would you say if I then
said that you can't prove that they
are not so it must be true? Again,
there is an infinity of propositions
that can be made up with absolutely no
evidence that they are true and
the probability that any one of them
actually is true is only one out of
the whole set of propositions, that
is, one in infinity. One chance in
infinity is pretty much the same thing
as saying no chance at all. So
rejection of supernatural propositions
is not an expression of faith. It
is simply rejecting the utterly
absurd. Now, as for dialectical
materialism, I don't know where you
got it that I am saying that
everything is matter and energy in
motion that over time develop other
properties. I do not necessarily
believe that all of reality consists of
just matter and energy. For the most
part the part of reality that we
deal with is, but the cutting edge of
physics is finding some evidence
that point to multiple dimensions and
the existence of any dimensions is
apart from matter and energy in the
first place. It also appears that
space itself has a fabric of its own
that is not matter and energy.
There are also some other
possibilities that are much more highly
speculative. Among these speculations,
though, is not one that is an
invisible man with magical powers in
the sky. Dialectics, though, is an
inherent characteristic of the
universe that is not developed over time
or other wise. Apparently you do not
understand what the word even
refers to. Let me use a classic
example of a dialectical relationship to
illustrate it, master and slave. A
slave cannot be a slave without a
master. If you take away the master
the whole concept of being a slave
ceases to have any meaning. Also, the
slave master cannot be a master
without a slave. Without someone to
force to be a slave the concept of
master also becomes meaningless. Yet
master and slave are contradictions
of each other. The slave's interests
are completely opposed to any
interests that the master may have and
the master's interests are
completely opposed to the slave's
interests. So there is a constant
struggle between them. In order for
their relationship to continue to
have any meaning they must interact
with one another and the interaction
can never be any other than opposition
and struggle against one another,
This results in changing both of them.
Now, if you look around you
should be able to see many other
dialectical relationships in not only
human society, but in nature.
Dialectics gives the universe a dynamic
other than the dynamic of entropy
alone. Let me point out that these
things are observable. To believe in
the clearly observable is not
faith. If you want to distort the word
faith and call it trust then it
is not trust either. It is observable.
Other things can be inferred from
the observable too, but even if it is
not directly observable it is
still not faith to believe that they
exist. Faith is simply the act of
believing in a superstition.
On 5/28/2018 9:31 AM, Jason Meyerson
wrote:
Roger,
Thanks for the reply.
How is it scientific to exclude out
of hand the supernatural? Are you
interested in truth? If so then how
can you exclude some
possibilities? IMO you would be
better to just say you do not believe
in the Supernatural, that is your
expression of faith, because it is
not an expression of truth or
evidence. You presuppose that the
universe and material are all that
there is, without knowing
everything you would not be able to
say definitively that the
supernatural does not exist, or
preclude it from the discussion.
I also disagree, that people who
claim the supernatural, all do so
without any evidence. The question
becomes what is evidence? What
would someone accept as evidence?
Complexity and design in and of
themselves are evidence in every
aspect of our physical world. Does
not mean someone cannot reject it,
but it is still evidence.
One line of evidence is the problem
with materialism. You try and
escape this problem by (in my
understanding of what you are saying
regarding dialectic ) saying
everything is matter in motion,
chemistry
and physics but over time they
develop additional properties. You are
proposing, I think, that material
only, develops non material
functions? So matter that only has
physical properties in a physical
universe over time develops non
physical properties. Disorder to
order, no information to information,
predeterminism to free will, no
mind to mind, no morals to morals, no
life to life. These kind of
things are quite the leap and random
interactions and time in and of
themselves do not explain these
things in the slightest.
Your point about probabilities is
interesting but I believe flawed.
I am not talking about disregarding
evidence, I do not have the same
definition of faith you propose.
Faith is trusting, and is based on
evidence. It is not a check your
brain at the door, blind leap, quite
the contrary. In fact I think you
display the kind of faith I am
describing in a sense.
You seem to assert a line of truth
exists and inherit in that is also
a morality. How will your subjective
morality be anything but
arbitrary in a world without God.
Whatever you think is right can
only be your opinion and maybe the
opinion of some others, and yet you
seem to express your morals as if
others should be subject to them or
share them. Without out a
supernatural personal God, you will
not be
able to defend or proscribe
morals/ethics, know what is truly
real and
be able to defend logic, or really
even do science. I know that is a
large chunk of a sentence, but wanted
to lay that out for you.
Thanks
Jason
On 2018-05-27 22:20, Roger Loran
Bailey wrote:
The supernatural is precluded from
being real simply by being
supernatural. If a supernatural
claim should be shown to be real then
at that point it is determined to be
a part of the real world and it
is determined that it always was a
part of the real world. However,
that is irrelevant to those who tout
the existence of the
supernatural. They just claim that
it is real without worrying the
slightest bit about evidence and
that strikes me as indistinguishable
from insanity. It is a matter of
believing on the basis of faith.
Faith is the act of believing
without any regard at all to either
reason or evidence. If a belief by
faith just happens to be correct
then it is correct only by the
wildest of coincidences. That is
because there are a lot more ways to
be wrong than there are to be
right, infinitely more ways. If we
disregard evidence or reason we can
pick out anything to believe and
there are an infinity of choices.
That means that the chances of being
correct are exactly one in
infinity. Infinity, that is a
decimal point followed by an infinite
number of zeros before you get to a
digit that is not a zero. And that
means that you will never reach a
digit that is not a zero. Basing
one's beliefs on the observed
reality around us does not guarantee
correct beliefs, but you do increase
your chances to at least
somewhere in the finite. Second,
yes, I am a strict materialist. Now,
after having said that I will go on
to say that a lot of people have
some pretty strange and false ideas
about what a materialist is, but
if you are one of them I cannot
predict with misconceptions you have
in order to refute them right now.
But I am a strict materialist in
that philosophical idealist
explanations strike me as complete
nonsense. As for free will, I don't
know. I will go so far as to say
that I am not a mechanical
materialist and I gravitate toward
dialectical materialism. So I do not
hold to the concept of a
clockwork universe in which all of
our wills are predetermined by
atoms bumping against one another.
At the same time I will say that
there might be some hope to salvage
something like mechanical
materialism. A lot of people say
that mechanical materialism has been
overthrown by the advent of quantum
physics and its quantum
weirdness. I have my suspicions
that quantum behavior could be
explained by events going on in
subPlanc space. However, at this time
there is no way of seeing into
subPlanc space, not even theoretically.
So the question will have to be open
for quite some time to come. Even
if mechanical materialism is shown
to be true at a subPlanc level,
though, that would not preclude
dialectics. There would still be
contradictions in the universe that
would depend on one another for
their mutual existence and by
interacting they would still change
each
other. But I do thoroughly reject
claims that there is an invisible
man with magical powers in the sky.
It is really so insulting for
anyone to approach me with the
expectation that I will believe any
such thing. It is insulting and
offensive.
On 5/27/2018 9:38 PM, Jason Meyerson
wrote:
Roger,
Thanks for the reply. Regarding
this reply and the other one you
sent regarding theology.
I guess the questions would be:
How do you know there is nothing
supernatural? Wouldn't you have to
know 'everything' to definitively
say there is nothing supernatural
or non physical? I am assuming you
do not know everything, so the
other question would be: could you
be wrong?
Are you a strict materialist,
meaning do you believe there is
nothing that is non physical or
supernatural? How about free will
or determinist?
Is science then the method for
determining truth, for you?
What is real (reality) is in fact
objective, I agree, metaphysics.
But many people have
presuppositions regarding what is
real.
thanks
Jason
On 2018-05-27 14:24, Roger Loran
Bailey wrote:
Of course I believe in truth. And
one big truth is that truth is
objective reality. It is not made
up superstitious blathering found
in
so-called scripture or holy books.
On 5/26/2018 9:58 PM, Jason
Meyerson wrote:
Roger,
Do you believe in truth?
Thanks
Jason
On 2018-05-26 19:53, Roger Loran
Bailey wrote:
According to the scriptures?
Okay, according to the Harry Potter
books
wizards ride around on
broomsticks. What does any of
this have to
do
with it being true?
On 5/26/2018 3:53 PM, Dan Boone
wrote:
Bob,
�
You write much more eloquently
than I do. However, Jesus used
simple
words to communicate
significant meanings, so will
I. I have not
read most of your posts, but
somehow thought I would interject
some
quick points concerning this one:
�
1.) 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 has
been historically proven to have
been
written 15-20 years after the
resurrection. This has been
confirmed
by many notable skeptics to be
the oldest actual piece of New
Testament scripture that has
been found. It was also an early
Church
Creed:
�
3 For what I received I passed
on to you as of first importance:
that Christ died for our sins
according to the Scriptures, 4
that he
was buried, that he was raised
on the third day according to the
Scriptures, 5 and that he
appeared to Peter, and then to the
Twelve.
6 After that, he appeared to
more than five hundred of the
brothers
at the same time, most of whom
are still living, though some have
fallen asleep. 7 Then he
appeared to James, then to all the
apostles, 8 and last of all he
appeared to me also, as to one
abnormally born. NIV
�
We should stop and think about
all of the ramifications that
would
have happened if the above
Scripture was not true
considering the
time it was written and all of
the people involved in the
statement.
�
2.) Once a person realizes the
perfection of a Holy God, and just
how significant that
understanding is to the
opportunity of
eternal
life, then the same person will
realize why sin had to be
extinguished by the
propitiation of the One who was
both Holy and
capable of sinning (the
God-Man, Jesus)!!
�
Dan Boone
�
�
This message has been sent as a
part of discussion between
Church of
the Harvest of America, Inc.,
or one of its associated
ministries
and the addressee whose name is
specified above. Should you
receive
this message by mistake, we
would be most grateful if you
informed
us that the message has been
sent to you. In this case, we also
ask
that you delete this message
from your mailbox, and do not
forward
it or any part of it to anyone
else. Thank you for your
cooperation
and understanding.
�
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob
[mailto:ebob824@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2018
1:46 PM
To: Scotty; Scott; Sam;
Russell; Rick Harmon; Rev Mark;
Pia;
Peter
the hater; Paul California;
Pastor Al; Ohio 3; Ohio 2; Ohio;
North
Carolinian; Natallie; Nancy;
Mssionary work outreach; Monica;
Missionary work associate;
Miller, Clay; Mike Johnson;
Matthew;
Kids
Pastor;
kchurchlady@xxxxxxxxxxx; Kane;
Joe; Jews; Jessica; Jenn
Hanna; Jenifer; Jason of Fruit
Cove; Jason Meyerson; James F.
Holwell; Jakob Jackson; Heather
of Minnesota; Heather Kentucky;
Heather Judson; Hannah; Erin
Mehl; Erin Conway; Dr. Bill
Coates;
Donald Moore; Deborah Kerwood;
David the Pastor; David; Dan
Boone;
Church staff member; Charlie
Isbell; Chandler; Carrey Cannon;
Cara;
Canadian; British Council;
Brian Hartgen; Brett Mehl; Brad;
blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
American; Allen Dicey; Alabama; A.
Fadden
Subject: Original Sin
�
��� Dear all, peace be
with you. Today, we inshAllah
are going to critically
readdress the concept of
Redemption and Original Sin in
Christianity.
Original Sin is basically the
backbone, it is the bedrock on
which
the
doctrines of Redemption and
Crucifixion are based. Original
sin
is
the
doctrine that Adam and Eve had
offended the divine presence. It
is a
sin
said to be inherited by all
descendants of Adam and Eve as
They
sinfully ate
from the forbidden tree. That
led them to be taken out of�
Eden
and thence,
had earned their descendance
eternal damnation. As Christian
Apologists say,
someone had to pay the bill of
this mass blasphemy and thus, God
sent his
only begotten son to sacrifice
himself for the sake of humanity.
Whilst this
concept is� apparently��
consistent and
chronological,� it is not
accepted
as it fallaciously seams to be.
To this distorted concept, there
are
theological and juristic
objections. Theologically, this
concept
is
refuted
with the repudiation of
condescending the divine to the
temporal
pursuance.
Those who insist to
disgraciously desecrate the
divine by falsely
proclaiming that he had to die
on the cross for their sins, or
that
he had
to send his merely begotten son
to die for� mass resentment,
they desecrate
the divine Omnipotence with
imperfection. It essentially
depends
on
whether
you belong to those who
consider Jesus as God without
internal
distinctions,
a Unitarian, or you�re an
adherent of Trinitarianism. No
one is
absolutely
sure of who died� on the
Cross or, if there was even a
Crucifixion in the
first place. The Christian
Epiphany� is reprobated with the
Transcendent
Omnipotence of Allah glory be
to Him to either atone or penalise
without any
discretion. Juristically, this
concept is morally inadequate, for
what it
incorrectly consents of
sanctioning the innocent for
the sake of
the
guilty.
On a judicial� level, justice
is conducted with decisive
evidence and
incisiveness.� Christian
Ministers constantly emphasise
on the
emotional
aspect of their Redemption
chronicle, without paying much
attention
whether
it matches up to the principles
of divine justice. I don�t care
how
affectionate the story might
sound to be. What matters to me
is,
how
just
this concept is? I want
Christian missionary activists
to ask a
competent
jurist of their domestic
residence, is it licitly
excusable for
you
to
punish the innocent on behalf
of the guilty who justly deserves
retribution?
The conversation is temporarily
suspended at this point. The
problem lies
over beyond a particular tree
that has erroneously been
eaten. It
worsens
when a particular race is
intrinsically� depicted as
cr�me
de la cr�me for
just its texture or complexion.
This is what they modernly
define as
racism.
The United States ranks as the
topping racist nation worldwide.
Its
racial
history is filled with
disparity and ethnic
secernment. It bases
its
purportedly patriotic sentiment
on often racial inequality and
topical
divergence. That is what we
should rather call, Original Sin.
Racial
acts
are enormously minacious to
social stability and coexistence.
There
shall
not be any tolerance of
exerting discriminative practices,
either on
gender,
ethnic, social or religious
basis. That is our everlasting
combat as
humans,
resembling the unity, peace and
safety of our precious species.
Islam
doesn't bear our initial
parents accountable for
Original Sin. It
rather
recognises Lucifer to be the
first sinner. His trespassing act
has
involved
committing pride. Consequently,
he has been expelled, depressed
and
anathemised. As Muslims, we
have a totally different concept
of� Original
Sin. I wrote about the subject
because I believe it is of worth
noting.
Thank you for reading, Bob Evans
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
---
This email has been checked for
viruses by Avast antivirus
software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
