Creationism: Last Debate of 2010 on the subject.

[hrmwrm]

Reason can simply say: there is an afterlife

i wouldn't say that.

This is very interesting Federali - in your mind - what constitutes "Authentic Religious Beliefs"?

curious about that too. even mythology was at one time authentic religious belief.

 

[Federali Aundy]

What we have here are some contradictions. In response to my statement that by your definition space is a void, you say:

mighty presumptuous. you can prove that statement?

And then later you say:

space is not made of matter. it is filled with matter. so space can have no limits by your reasoning.

Indeed, it is mighty presumptuous. But it is your view I was describing. My words were in critique of your philosophy, sir. Sadly to define existence as matter expanding into a void doesn't get you anywhere because the heart of your "infinity" is a void. As I said before, your argument is an Argument from Nothing.

god is made of nothing, but is something.

Please don't confuse your notion of reality with mine. God not material, but He is sheer existence itself without which nothing could exist at all. Anything that does exist participates in His being. Indeed, the immaterial is more real, you might say, than the merely material. If your argument is an Argument from Nothing mine is an Argument from Everything.

i call it a big bang, which is energy to matter. yet god comes from nothing... you keep applying something to one situation that you haven't proven exists in the natural universe in the first place.

But who is really using circular logic here? To my reference to Parmenides, that from nothing only nothing comes, you claim the Big Bang somehow justifies both the universe and itself. Do you not see that you simply assume the "pop" theory that you would never use in real life? That the universe just "popped" itself into existence? If I pulled a rabbit from a hat you would never, ever assume it just "popped" into existence from nothing - yet you apply this notion to the entire universe. According to you, everything you see (including all the rabbits in existence) ultimately just "popped" into existence from nothing without prior justification. Logically we must go back to an immaterial cause without parts that could bring this material universe into being.

You say I need evidence, but here is my evidence: the Universe.

Furthermore, I have asked you repeatedly for a syllogism which proves your point. Your response:

i have.

That would have been the appropriate time for you to cut an paste in an example of a syllogism for me. But you provided none so that only leads me to assume you actually did not give one...

You're really going to need to show me how you get around the Parmendian conundrum. Until then you don't have science, just really bad philosophy.

 

[Federali Aundy]

This is very interesting Federali - in your mind - what constitutes "Authentic Religious Beliefs"?

As I noted "authentic religious beliefs" are those which are not "'made up' by an individual on a whim." This would no longer be a real religion but rather a religion of pure subjectivism where beliefs have no grounding and no objectivity outside the mind of the one who invents them. This has long been my problem with Protestantism insofar as one's "personal interpretation" of the Bible can lead to each person inventing a religion for himself. Indeed, it is arguable that every Protestant is his own church. The 16th century movement away from objectivity in faith is what paved the way to completely irrational religion of the individual, the religion of pure subjectivism. Religion in such a way becomes one's "personal philosophy" rather than one's religious beliefs. I think Pope Benedict had some great words of wisdom on this matter:

Faith versus Philosophy - Word versus Thought
From “Introduction to Christianity” by Pope Benedict XVI

The assertion “faith comes from what is heard” contains an abiding structural truth about what happens here. It illuminates the fundamental differences between faith and mere philosophy, a difference that does not prevent faith, in its core, from setting the philosophical search for truth in motion again. One could say epigrammatically that faith does in fact come from “hearing”, not – like philosophy – from “reflection”. Its nature lies in the fact that it is not the thinking out of something that can be thought out and that at the end of the process is then at my disposal as the result of my thought. On the contrary, it is the characteristic of faith that it comes from hearing, that it is the reception of something I have not thought out, so that in the last analysis thinking in the context of faith is always a thinking over of something previously heard and received.

In other words, in faith the word takes precedence over the thought, a precedence that differentiates it structurally from the architecture of philosophy. In philosophy the thought precedes the word; it is after all a product of the reflection that one then tries to put into words; the words always remain secondary to the thought and thus in the last resort can always be replaced by other words. Faith, on the other hand, comes to man from outside, and this very fact is fundamental to it. It is – let me repeat – not something thought up by myself; it is something said to me, which hits me as something that has not been thought out and could not be thought out and lays an obligation on me. This double structure [at baptism] of “Do you believe? – I do believe!”, this form of the call from outside and the reply to it, is fundamental to it. It is therefore not at all abnormal if, with very few exceptions, we have to say: I did not come to believe through the private search for truth but through a process of reception that had, so to speak, already forestalled me. Faith cannot and should not be a mere product of reflection. The idea that faith really ought to arise through our thinking it up for ourselves and finding it in the process of a definite ideal, an attitude of mind that fails to recognize the intrinsic quality of believe, which consists precisely in being the reception of what cannot be thought out – responsible reception, it is true, in which what is heard never becomes entirely my own property, and the lead held by what is received can never be completely wiped out, but in which the goal must be to make what is received more and more my own, by handing myself over to it as the greater.

Because of this, because faith is not something thought up by me but something that comes to me from outside, its word cannot be treated and exchanged as I please; it is always foreordained, always ahead of my thinking. The positivity of what comes toward me from outside myself, opening up to me what I cannot give myself, typifies the process of belief or faith. Therefore here the fore-given word takes precedence over the thought, so that it is not the thought that creates its own words but the given word that points the way to the thinking that understands. With the primacy of the word, the “positivity” of belief apparent in it goes the social character of belief, which signifies a second difference from the essential individualistic structure of philosophical thinking. Philosophy is by its nature the work of the solitary individual, who ponders as an individual on truth. A thought, what has been thought out, is something that at any rate seems to belong to me myself, since it comes from me, although no one’s thinking is self-supporting; consciously or unconsciously it is intertwined with many other strands. The place where a thought is perfected is the interior of the mind; thus at first it remains confined to me and has an individualistic structure. It only becomes communicable later, when it is put into words, which usually make it only approximately comprehensible to others. In contrast to this the primary factor of belief is, as we have seen, the proclaimed word. While a thought is interior, purely intellectual, the word represents the element that unites us with others. It is the way in which intellectual communication takes place, the form in which the mind is, as it were, human, that is, corporeal and social. This primacy of the word means that faith is focused on community of mind in a quite different way from philosophical thinking. In philosophy, what comes first is the private search for truth, which then, secondarily, seeks and finds traveling companions. Faith, on the other hand, is first of all a call to community, to unity of mind through the unity of the word. Indeed, its significance is, a priori, an essentially social one: it aims at establishing unity of mind through the unity of the word. Only secondarily will it then open the way for each individual’s private venture in search of truth.

And in this case - Jesus being tied to the universe - creates the idea that God is in the universe as well as outside the universe - that does make a real difference doesn't it?

It does if one is a Christian. The problem I have seen with your views (from the limited comments you have written regarding them) is that you see yourself as more of a panentheist. The obvious problem here is that an impersonal god of nature has no real effect on humanity. I think we can measure a religion based on the difference it claims to make and I furthermore believe my Faith offers the biggest difference.

And I can put my money where my mouth is on this one.

Just look at the saints. Indeed we could compare the our culture's "saints" with the saints of the Church and then ask: who is happier? A great many of our culture's "saints" have been so happy that they blew their brains out or overdosed on drugs. G.K. Chesterton said the only way to honestly judge an institution is to judge it by those who have followed the rules of the institution rather than by those who failed to follow its rules. In such a way, the best argument for the Catholic Church would be the thousands of saints who happily lived lives according to their Catholic faith.

What real difference have your beliefs made?

 

[Federali Aundy]

"Losing science will not give us philosophy. But if we lose philosophy itself, we must be prepared to lose science, reason, and liberty; in short, we are bound to lose Western culture itself together with its feeling for the eminent dignity of man."

-Etienne Gilson

 

[foxpaws]

As I noted "authentic religious beliefs" are those which are not "'made up' by an individual on a whim." This would no longer be a real religion but rather a religion of pure subjectivism where beliefs have no grounding and no objectivity outside the mind of the one who invents them. This has long been my problem with Protestantism insofar as one's "personal interpretation" of the Bible can lead to each person inventing a religion for himself. Indeed, it is arguable that every Protestant is his own church.

wow - an interesting concept - Luther/ and therefore Lutherans have no grounding and no objectivity. Smith/ and therefore Mormons have no grounding and no objectivity. Buddha/ and therefore Buddhism have no grounding and no objectivity. Is that correct?

What makes their 'false to you' groundings different than 'true to you' Catholicism's groundings?

It does if one is a Christian. The problem I have seen with your views (from the limited comments you have written regarding them) is that you see yourself as more of a panentheist. The obvious problem here is that an impersonal god of nature has no real effect on humanity. I think we can measure a religion based on the difference it claims to make and I furthermore believe my Faith offers the biggest difference.

Your faith also caused misery and death. It made a big difference during the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Conquistadors. Do we measure Catholicism on those 'differences' as well?

I believe I stated early on I certainly leaned toward panentheism. God within and God without - there isn't anything that states that God is impersonal - the God without. The God without has a very distinct effect on humanity.

Just look at the saints. Indeed we could compare the our culture's "saints" with the saints of the Church and then ask: who is happier? A great many of our culture's "saints" have been so happy that they blew their brains out or overdosed on drugs. G.K. Chesterton said the only way to honestly judge an institution is to judge it by those who have followed the rules of the institution rather than by those who failed to follow its rules. In such a way, the best argument for the Catholic Church would be the thousands of saints who happily lived lives according to their Catholic faith.

Our current culture isn't based in panentheism... we live in a Christian society. Just ask Shag....

I live a happy life - most panentheists have. Does this also create a good argument for believing as such? Emerson was a panentheist - he was quite happy.

Buddhist monks are content - without strife - in essence, happy. Strictly adhering to their faith. Wouldn't that be an excellent argument that perhaps Buddhism would be at least as 'viable' as the Catholic Church?

 

[Federali Aundy]

wow - an interesting concept

Thank you. But I want to be clear here the point that Pope Benedict was making about faith in the article I included: faith comes as a response to what is received from without, not invented from within. Therefore according to this "interesting concept" folks like Luther, Smith, and Buddha are being obedient to something that they did not just make up. Luther may have invented sola scriptura (i.e. "Scripture Alone"), but he did not invent the scriptures themselves.

What makes their 'false to you' groundings different than 'true to you' Catholicism's groundings?

As stated above, my critique of the "religion of pure subjectivism" is not a critique non-Catholic religious traditions. I am opposed to religiously dishonest people who treat the great religions of the world like a buffet line, picking and choosing which parts are agreeable to them. Religion then becomes self-focused and self-interested rather than focused on true selflessness and humility.

Your faith also caused misery and death. It made a big difference during the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Conquistadors. Do we measure Catholicism on those 'differences' as well?

Nope. As I said of Chesterton:

the only way to honestly judge an institution is to judge it by those who have followed the rules of the institution rather than by those who failed to follow its rules.

But I should also say that I'm not really all that upset about the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Conquistadors. Non-Catholic conservatives tend to use these three things to bash Catholic culture or religious authority while non-Catholic liberals tend to use them to attack a "close-minded" and "non-pluralistic" Church. But the truth is that the facts of the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the Conquistadors are rarely told outside a polemic to undermine the Catholic Church.

The God without has a very distinct effect on humanity.

And what distinct effect on humanity does this God make? How can the part of God which is wholly without, utterly transcendent of this realm make any difference to humanity?

I live a happy life - most panentheists have. Does this also create a good argument for believing as such? Emerson was a panentheist - he was quite happy.

Buddhist monks are content - without strife - in essence, happy. Strictly adhering to their faith. Wouldn't that be an excellent argument that perhaps Buddhism would be at least as 'viable' as the Catholic Church?

Religious believers who are intellectually honest ought to put their faith to the test of reason. Certain religious traditions have passed the test of time showing that they too contain some truth. It is my belief that the Catholic Faith contains the fullness of truth but that religious dialogue is important given the fact that other traditions also possess truth. What I do not care for are hodge-podge religious views of so many individuals which become utterly self-contradictory because they lack the intellectual coherency of the religions from which they are randomly pulled.

As to Buddhists being happy, I don't think they would agree with you. Buddhist philosophy teaches one to see through the self as an illusion. In such a way one cannot be unhappy because the self does not really exist. Sadly the path away from unhappiness is ultimately not a path to happiness because by the time one has gotten away from unhappiness he no longer exists to be happy. In such a way pantheism tends to the same nihilism and reductionism as atheism does. Perhaps this is one reason why communism was able to rise in China.

 

[foxpaws]

As stated above, my critique of the "religion of pure subjectivism" is not a critique non-Catholic religious traditions. I am opposed to religiously dishonest people who treat the great religions of the world like a buffet line, picking and choosing which parts are agreeable to them. Religion then becomes self-focused and self-interested rather than focused on true selflessness and humility.

But, didn't Christianity do that to some respect? Choosing dates to correspond with Pagan holidays, adopting heaven/hell, virgin birth, raising of the dead... None of these were 'new' ideas...

And what distinct effect on humanity does this God make? How can the part of God which is wholly without, utterly transcendent of this realm make any difference to humanity?

He gave us Jesus - certainly a distinct effect on humanity. God without, God within.

As to Buddhists being happy, I don't think they would agree with you. Buddhist philosophy teaches one to see through the self as an illusion. In such a way one cannot be unhappy because the self does not really exist. Sadly the path away from unhappiness is ultimately not a path to happiness because by the time one has gotten away from unhappiness he no longer exists to be happy. In such a way pantheism tends to the same nihilism and reductionism as atheism does. Perhaps this is one reason why communism was able to rise in China.

I think you might want to rethink your idea about Buddhists - Buddhists are the happiest

Paul Ekman, who carried out the study, said: "The most reasonable hypothesis is that there is something about conscientious Buddhist practice that results in the kind of happiness we all seek."​

 

[Federali Aundy]

But, didn't Christianity do that to some respect?

Did Christianity "treat the great religions of the world like a buffet line, picking and choosing which parts are agreeable to [it]" you mean? No. Remember that I also said that:

Certain religious traditions have passed the test of time showing that they too contain some truth. It is my belief that the Catholic Faith contains the fullness of truth but that religious dialogue is important given the fact that other traditions also possess truth.

I am not opposed to a religious tradition meeting a culture where it is at and incorporating certain elements of it into worship of God. Dates and times are ambiguous, but often do express some kind of truth. The cold of December is a good analogy for the cold of death prior to the coming of new life.

Choosing dates to correspond with Pagan holidays, adopting heaven/hell, virgin birth, raising of the dead... None of these were 'new' ideas...

It's important to also note that Christianity is the fruition of Judaism so it naturally will include the core beliefs of the Jewish faith. But this is history and I think you are missing the actual point I was making in my post:

What I do not care for are hodge-podge religious views of so many individuals which become utterly self-contradictory because they lack the intellectual coherency of the religions from which they are randomly pulled.

In other words, it's not religious adaptation I'm opposed to but rather individuals who invent their own inconsistent belief system that is built around their own tastes rather than any kind of objective truth. This kind of faith is a soupy mess of incoherent slop which is never thoroughly thought through nor grounded in anything other than the self-interest of the supposed believer. It is of course dull for someone to attend religious services only because they had the habit of doing so from childhood, but it is the height of pride and folly for one to pick and choose from religions instead of adhering faithfully to one in particular.

And we wonder why the divorce rate is so high.

He gave us Jesus - certainly a distinct effect on humanity. God without, God within.

So there is the transcendent God outside the universe and Jesus is the God inside the universe? Whatever happened to that God who was in the universe as a kind of substance, not as a person? A transcendent God and Jesus do not sound anything like panentheism or pantheism...

I think you might want to rethink your idea about Buddhists

Despite scientists calling Buddhists "happy" no serious Buddhist would call himself happy because no Buddhist thinks he exists as an individual person. Indeed, Buddhists see the whole world as an illusion. This is one reason why science arose in the West and not the East.

Love is the toughest thing to do - but a philosophy which rejects the person also rejects the sacrifices needed to truly love. Some practicing Buddhists may be content, but their system of belief is far too costly for me.

Besides, my argument was that the greatness of a religion is based on what it has to offer. Christianity can offer happiness without annihilating the soul.

 

[hrmwrm]

Please don't confuse your notion of reality with mine. God not material, but He is sheer existence itself without which nothing could exist at all.

your still asserting an existence. you haven't shown anywhere the cause to believe this, except in your own abstract assumption. everything in the universe is from natural cause. why would i take the supernatural leap?(much less worship it)

 

[Federali Aundy]

your still asserting an existence

Existence is certainly at issue here: you postulate a world which cannot logically exist since your view of the world gives it no real foundation in anything. The fact that we exist is the only evidence necessary given the logically deductive need for a cause or creative force of this existence. You have yet to offer a real argument that this universe needs no cause, that somehow this universe does not have any ultimate rational foundation.

But if you do offer an argument, here is an argument against it:

If the universe does not have any rational foundation, then nothing in the universe has any rational foundation. But everything we observe in the universe does have rational foundation. Therefore the universe must ultimately have a rational foundation.

you haven't shown anywhere the cause to believe this, except in your own abstract assumption

Scientists use the abstract to deduce their hypotheses before conducting inductively-based experimentation to test their ideas. Your views are anti-rational because you reduce the mind's ability to only those facts which are quantifiable in a laboratory. But the mind is bigger than this as is evidenced by the abstract reasoning which comes prior to experimentation. Please stop being so closed-minded and open yourself to Reality as can be known through the use of reason.

everything in the universe is from natural cause.

Yes. And what is the universe's natural cause then? This is the very question you refuse to answer.

why would i take the supernatural leap?

Because (1) the universe does not explain itself and (2) the universe lacks the power to create itself from nothing.

much less worship it

I never told you to worship anything. I'm only concerned with showing how irrational your atheism is, sir.

Again, let me re-state what I said before which you have not yet replied to:

...who is really using circular logic here? To my reference to Parmenides, that from nothing only nothing comes, you claim the Big Bang somehow justifies both the universe and itself. Do you not see that you simply assume the "pop" theory that you would never use in real life? That the universe just "popped" itself into existence? If I pulled a rabbit from a hat you would never, ever assume it just "popped" into existence from nothing - yet you apply this notion to the entire universe. According to you, everything you see (including all the rabbits in existence) ultimately just "popped" into existence from nothing without prior justification. Logically we must go back to an immaterial cause without parts that could bring this material universe into being.

You say I need evidence, but here is my evidence: the Universe

 

[hrmwrm]

Your views are anti-rational because you reduce the mind's ability to only those facts which are quantifiable in a laboratory.

labratory? no. observational? yes.

To my reference to Parmenides, that from nothing only nothing comes,

you want me to be like you and believe in something that exists/ed IN nothing and came FROM nothing, yet supernaturally creates all.
the universe creates itself is not implausible. matter creates energy, energy creates matter. you should look into particle collisions to understand this part of nature.

Please stop being so closed-minded and open yourself to Reality as can be known through the use of reason.

you're quite ironic.
show me anywhere that the supernatural is a part of reality. it is a part of abstract mind concept. there is no basis to continue to believe it. but, if it makes you happy.

I'm only concerned with showing how irrational your atheism is,

and i'm trying to show how irrational supernatural belief is.
but, if it pulls your chain, go for it.

a world which cannot logically exist since your view of the world gives it no real foundation in anything.

as opposed to a foundation in the imaginary.
your foundation has a lot of words, not much fact. it's based in a blind belief.

You say I need evidence, but here is my evidence: the Universe

funny. it's my evidence too. the fact that it exists is as much proof for me as you.
except you haven't shown how yours creates it.

 

[Federali Aundy]

you want me to be like you and believe in something that exists/ed IN nothing

Actually, that's what you want me to believe. Your conception of the universe is an expansion of stuff into a void (i.e. nothing). In your conception, the universe exists in nothing.

My view does not state that God exists IN nothing because "in" assumes a spatial category. God cannot by definition exist IN something because God is too great to be contained. Again, my view postulates something real, yours points only to the void. My view far surpasses yours ontologically as well as logically.

[God] came FROM nothing

Causation is applicable only to material things. In order to understand Reality, you are going to need to take off your materialist philosophy and stop seeing everything through the lenses of matter only.

yet [God] supernaturally creates all

You use "supernatural" like it has left a bad after-taste in your mouth. There's nothing to be ashamed of when we speak of the supernatural. Superstition is bad, but the existence of a being or beings that are immaterial is simple logic. If God is the simplest being, compatible with all that exists, it makes sense that He can give rise to the universe by sharing Himself - which is existence itself - with the material order. There's nothing logically "dirty" about this.

you're quite ironic

Actually I am quite reasonable. Logically speaking, one can either: 1)use a metaphysical premise and a scientific premise to reach a metaphysical conclusion, or 2) use two metaphysical premises and reach a metaphysical conclusion. One cannot, however, take two SCIENTIFIC premises and reach a metaphysical conclusion. This is because science can say nothing about the truth claims of metaphysical realities. This is why your philosophy is logically flawed. Science can tell us about the material realm, but you are trying to make metaphysical claims (i.e. there is no God/supernatural) from only scientific premises.

show me anywhere that the supernatural is a part of reality.

Back to the logic. I have a scientific premise: material occurences observed are the results of causations/physical interactions. I have a metaphysical premise: from nothing, only nothing comes. These lead to the metaphysical conclusion that: the universe needs a cause outside of itself. This is not a "mind game" but a truism.

To say:

the universe creates itself is not implausible. matter creates energy, energy creates matter.

does not get you around my argument. Matter and energy are like to sides of a interplaying coin. One implies the other and the two are interconnected. But to say that one creates the other take us back to the circular argument you accused me of.

You still need to show me how the matter-energy whole came into being from nothing.

your foundation has a lot of words, not much fact. it's based in a blind belief.

Actually I have given argument after argument, deductively valid proofs, and the evidence brought forward by modern physics and cosmology to make my point. All you have said is that matter and energy relate to each other and that the universe is not completely observable as yet.

I'm not impressed.

 

[hrmwrm]

the universe exists in nothing

i've never said that. i have mentioned we don't know. many times.

My view does not state that God exists IN nothing because "in" assumes a spatial category. God cannot by definition exist IN something because God is too great to be contained. Again, my view postulates something real, yours points only to the void. My view far surpasses yours ontologically as well as logically.

remember, i said infinite? it was YOU who limited it.

Causation is applicable only to material things. In order to understand Reality, you are going to need to take off your materialist philosophy and stop seeing everything through the lenses of matter only.

then it's not reality, but supernatural/magical reality. show me anywhere the existence of supernatural creation. i can show many instances of self creation in the universe.
everything in the universe is evidence of it. stars, planets, life, galaxies.
no where is there evidence for the supernatural.
evidence for self creation is plentiful.

You use "supernatural" like it has left a bad after-taste in your mouth.

no. just that it's not a plausible cause.

deductively valid proofs

`

actually, i've asked for demonstratably valid proofs.
it's not who argues the best game, it's who has the best physical proofs. yet again, you have not shown any supernatural proofs.


yet again, what can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

You still need to show me how the matter-energy whole came into being from nothing.

you haven't shown me where the "VOID" was ever created.

I'm not impressed.

nor am i. your evidence lacks.

 

[Federali Aundy]

i've never said that [the universe exists in nothing]

But this is where your logic leads. Either the universe expands into a void (which is nothing, not an infinite something) or it is contained/closed. In either case we have a finite material realm that needs something outside itself for existence.

then it's not reality, but supernatural/magical reality. show me anywhere the existence of supernatural creation... it's not who argues the best game, it's who has the best physical proofs.

Do you not see the circular logic you come into here? You constantly "beg the question" because you assume the very thing you are trying to prove. This is why I told you that you need to take off your materialist lenses because they limit your perception to such an extent that you can't see the need for real justification of the universe. Why do you get to set the standard at "physical proofs" here? Deductively valid proofs are still proof and you have to deal with those facts. The demonstrative proof of dark energy and black holes will not get you around the deductively valid fact that 2+2=4 and that the universe lacks the ability to create itself from nothing. You can't pick and choose which deductively valid truths are "good for you, but not for me." Truth is truth my friend.

i can show many instances of self creation in the universe... evidence for self creation is plentiful.

Give me three examples of things that made themselves from nothing, sir.