Roger,
I can appreciate that we may have misunderstandings and disagreements,
maybe irreconcilable. To me though you have greatly mistaken my direct
attacks on your stated worldview. You do not seem to get that I just
don't agree with you, no matter how you have described and explained, I
have found your points lacking and unconvincing. I read what you wrote
and have thought about these things. And I do question your very words
and I do try and use your very words to show you problems with them, if
you want to call that twisting I do not agree. But I am asking you when
I bring them right back to you, I did not go somewhere else and misquote
you and slander you, I directly confronted you with your words and idea,
sometimes I may have misunderstood you and I apologized. You want to
interpret all that as me lying, that is your freedom. And saying it
directly to me, is fine if that makes you happy, but going around and
trying to smear a person's reputation and character certainly doesn't
seem right.
It seems to me, that when you cannot convince someone of your position
regarding this issue, you get very frustrated and begin calling names,
and names apparently you already have decided about someone who you
disagree with. Meaning you already decided you think people who
disagree with you on this topic are all the nasty vicious demeaning
things you declare. and yet you say I am closed minded and unwilling to
change. Because a person strongly believes something and you cannot
understand it or they disagree with you, does not make them equivalent
to having a mental defect. It doesn't mean they do not have one, but
just being in a situation with you, where there is no agreement and
understanding is not the criteria for a mental issue. You and your
belief set are not the standard and benchmark for mental health, but I
am sure it makes you feel vindicated to think so, and understand this is
my interpretation of what I read. And this is why we need things like
freedom of speech and belief, otherwise whichever side could gain enough
power could seriously damage the lives of the other side and I am sure
there are already examples from both sides we could quote.
Let me ask you this, since you are making such a big deal about it, is
this issue of lying. What is wrong with lies? Meaning for one, I do
not lie, two as an atheist I would ask you: is lying wrong? And Why?
You certainly seem to imply it is wrong, and yet how could you declare
in a non arbitrary way or in an absolute way that it is wrong?
Thanks
Jason
On 2018-06-08 21:03, Roger Loran Bailey wrote:
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
