What Good Is Philosophy?

This post will annoy some of my friends, and maybe with good reason. Perhaps I have it wrong. I’m sure you’ll let me know if I do.

Christian philosophers like William Lane Craig often bring popular philosophy into the study of problems in physics and biology as if they’re making an important contribution to the scientific conversation. Offering common sense tips serves no purpose, because obviously the scientists are already aware of them. But scientists aren’t Craig’s audience. He’s posturing to ordinary people.

Pop philosophy example #1

For example, Craig has said, “Whatever begins to exist has a cause.” That follows from our everyday experience, but surely a world-class philosopher won’t be satisfied with just a platitude. He must offer something more formal to ensure that it applies beyond our everyday experience.

Nope. Craig defends it this way:

[This] step is so intuitively obvious that I think scarcely anyone could sincerely believe it to be false. I therefore think it somewhat unwise to argue in favor of it, for any proof of the principle is likely to be less obvious than the principle itself.

I guess we know that this intuitive observation is true just cuz.

Wouldn’t it be simpler as “Everything has a cause”? Craig tips his hand with the clumsy “begins to exist” qualifier. If everything has a cause, then God must have a cause, and Craig can’t have that. He wants to imagine that God has no beginning and so needs no cause, and so Craig adds the phrase to preserve his presupposition. He appeals to common sense when it suits him but ignores it when it doesn’t.

Worse, in this example, Craig’s intuition turns out to be wrong! The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics (there are other interpretations, but this one may be the most popular among physicists) says that some events at the quantum level have no cause. For example, when thorium-234 naturally decays into protactinium-234, the nucleus emits an electron. The electron wasn’t in the nucleus before, and it had no cause. The universe at the beginning of the Big Bang might have also been a cause-less quantum particle.

Craig could respond that this interpretation may be overturned. That’s right, but Craig has lost certainty in the truth of his platitude. (More in response to Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument here.)

Pop philosophy example #2

Another example is, “Nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could.” Actually, this isn’t from Craig but from a song from the film The Sound of Music. Craig’s pop philosophical version is no more profound: “Out of nothing, nothing comes.”

True to form, he vacuously defends his fundamental axiom by saying that it “is as certain as anything in philosophy and . . . no rational person sincerely doubts it.” Apparently it’s the fear of Craig calling us irrational that supports this axiom, not reason. One wonders if Dr. Craig would accept this childish argument from one of his students.

And note how he attacks his own position. If something can’t come out of nothing, how can God have created the universe out of nothing? Even more confusing, it’s not clear that God did create out of nothing. The Old Testament has different creation stories, including one where Yahweh creates the world out of the carcass of the slain chaos monster Rahab (this Combat Myth is discussed in depth here).

Pop philosophy example #3

A related challenge is Leibniz’s “Why is there something rather than nothing?” That’s a provocative question until you realize that it assumes that nothing is the default. But why would that be? That’s a bold claim that must be defended.

And why would Christians attack with this challenge when they don’t assume that nothing is the default? They assume that God is, which is yet another claim that is asserted without evidence.

In the same way that Newton challenged the common-sense axiom that an object’s natural state is to be at rest (it isn’t, and his First Law of Motion overturns this assumption), physicist Vic Stenger concludes that nothing is actually unstable and would decay into something.

Asking why there is something rather than nothing may be as irrelevant a question as Johannes Kepler asking why there are five planets. Thanks, but I think I’ll get my cosmology from the cosmologists, not from pop philosophy.

And so on

There are other empty platitudes. That an infinitely old universe is impossible since a gulf of infinitely many moments of time would be impossible to cross. That the order in our universe demands an Orderer. That there must have been a First Cause (and the rest of Aquinas’s Five Ways). And so on.

Common sense has its place, but have the humility to realize that, at the frontier of science, it’s a poor guide. If a simple platitude resolved a difficult puzzle, we wouldn’t be at the frontier of science.

When the latest discoveries offend your common sense, the problem is yours, not the science.

What’s sauce for the goose . . .

Let’s be fair. Skeptics like me also use common sense arguments—no one can rise from the dead, there are no unicorns, and so on. But these are simply starting points, initial assumptions. I’m happy to reconsider them, examine the evidence behind them, and hear evidence that my position is wrong. You say that someone has been raised from the dead? Okay, let’s see the evidence.

The same is true for the fundamental axioms of science, math, and logic. We don’t take logic’s Principle of Identity or 1 + 1 = 2 on faith; these are tested continually. Once we find a new exception, we will take steps to avoid the error.

It’s evidence vs. faith. I use evidence-based common sense starting points, while Craig uses philosophical platitudes that sound right but are sometimes simply taken on faith.

Stephen Hawking has no patience for philosophical intrusions into science. In The Grand Design, he considers mankind’s big questions (“How does the universe behave?” “Where did this all come from?” and so on):

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. It has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly in physics. As a result, scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.

That may be a bit much, even for me. But bringing up pop philosophy when the topic is physics is like bringing a popgun to a gunfight.

If a thousand philosophers pontificate for their lifetimes about scientific fields in which they’re not trained, will they ever say anything true? Probably, but how do we know what is the true part? Science. Let’s cut out the middle man by just listening to science.

Concluded with some positive things to say about philosophy in part 2.

Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists
as ornithology is to birds.
— Richard Feynman

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 3/12/14.)

Photo credit: Wikimedia

 

"One can't beat Thomas Crapper, inventor of the toilet."

Is This a Powerful New Apologetic ..."
"It couldn't have been that great if his followers today despise immigrants and oppose health ..."

Is This a Powerful New Apologetic ..."
"Quite an uneducated point of view... Very opinionated, and inaccurate... Any specifics are wanting...The irony ..."

Combat Myth: The Curious Story of ..."
"Exodus 34. This is the only list in the bibble called the 10 commandments.Read verses ..."

Is This a Powerful New Apologetic ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Bob Jase

    Philosophy – when you absolutely, positively need an excuse.

    • Susan

      Philosophy – when you absolutely, positively need an excuse.

      I would rearrange that to say:

      -When you absolutely, positively need an excuse, just make it… and call it philosophy.

      That doesn’t make it philosophy. But many people will be so impressed, they’ll accept it.

  • RichardSRussell

    Philosophy — like everything from fire thru firearms to firewalls — is a tool that can be put to good use or bad. Only a fool would blame a tool.

    • Ignorant Amos

      Only a fool would blame a tool.

      Or use the wrong tool for purpose…yet many a time necessity has given me no other option. Still, that doesn’t mean it is not being foolish. I guess knowing it is the difference.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    Wouldn’t it be simpler as “Everything has a cause”? Craig tips his hand
    with the clumsy “begins to exist” qualifier. If everything has a cause,
    then God must have a cause, and Craig can’t have that.

    Translation: “I get to cheat, and you don’t.”

  • GubbaBumpkin

    I have no beef with philosophy. I would place the examples you present under sophistry

    Sophistry is reasoning that seems plausible on a superficial level but is actually unsound, or reasoning that is used to deceive.

    WLC and Plantinga, as trained philosophers, surely ought to be aware of the distinction.

    • Grimlock

      Question. Suppose someone presents an argument that fall under the definition of sophistry, but they genuinely believe it to be a solid argument. Are they then engaging in sophistry?

      My opinion would be that they are not. But at some level one would instead be guilty of having done a terrible job of understanding the argument.

      • Chuck Johnson

        Sophistry is in the eye of the beholder.
        Change observers, and whether it’s sophistry or not changes along with the change of observer.

        • Grimlock

          I would beg to differ. It depends on the performer. Someone who understands the modal ontological argument, yet still presents it as a solid argument in favor of god are engaging in sophistry regardless of observers.

        • Chuck Johnson

          I would beg to differ. It depends on the performer.-Grimlock

          noun: sophistry
          the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving.
          a fallacious argument.

          The dictionary definition would support both an observer-based definition and a performer-based definition.

          To assert one or the other requires saying so specifically.

        • Grimlock

          I’m not sure I follow how that would support that it depends on the observer. An argument is fallacious regardless of whether the person(s) observing the argument can tell.

          Would you please elaborate?

        • Chuck Johnson

          An argument is fallacious regardless of whether the person(s) observing the argument can tell.-Grimlock

          Not to me.
          To me, “fallacious” is a judgement, and as such, depends upon the characteristics of the person who is judging.

          I do not believe in God, and I do not believe in judgements, thoughts or perceptions which are perfect and absolute.
          Human perceptions are less than perfect.

        • Grimlock

          Hmm. This might be a point of contention. I’d say that some arguments simply are fallacious, regardless of observer.

          Certainly there are cases that might be fallacious, but where we are unable to tell, but that’s another matter, I think.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Hmm. This might be a point of contention. I’d say that some arguments simply are fallacious, regardless of observer.-Grimlock

          People claim that some ideas or perceptions are objectively true or false. To me, there is always some element of subjectivity in all ideas or perceptions.

          To claim that an argument can be fallacious, regardless of observer would a false perception. This is because there can be no perceptions of falseness or validity without an actual (fallible human) observer to make that judgement.

          If, on the other hand, we call an argument “fallacious by a unanimous decision”, that can then serve as the decision.
          But eventually, a dissenter might come along.

          Also, judgements without subjectivity are impossible because it requires at least one subject (decision-making person) or the judgement can not not exist.

          Human judgements should always be regarded as less-than-perfect.

          Religionists solved the problem of perfection by referring to gods which provided perfect knowledge and wisdom. Unfortunately, such gods and such perfection are merely the inventions of fallible human beings. – – – Back to the drawing board !

        • Grimlock

          Well, yes, in a sense, everything is somewhat subjective. 1+1=2 is subjective. Every single result, even in axiomatic systems could technically be wrong. But this seems rather trivial and uninteresting to me.

          In a practical sense, many arguments, if not all, will we able to state whether they are fallacious or not, so that any reasonable person should accept it.

        • Chuck Johnson

          In a practical sense, many arguments, if not all, will we able to state
          whether they are fallacious or not, so that any reasonable person should
          accept it-Grimlock

          Yes, many arguments are easily agreed-upon and resolved.

          For more difficult problems, we should refer to the fact that person (A) has less than perfect perceptions, the English language is a less than perfect medium of information transmission, and that person (B) has less than perfect perceptions.

        • Grimlock

          Sure. But I still fail to see how this would support a definition of sophistry where it depends on the observer whether something is indeed sophistry.

        • Chuck Johnson

          This comes from the definition of sophistry.
          Some of the dictionary definitions are non-specific as to who must perceive an argument as being sophistry.

          The fact that sophistry can only be the perception of a person engaging in sophistry is not a fact, it is your own invention.

          The dictionary definition is not specific in the way that you are being specific.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    Christian philosophers like William Lane Craig often bring popular philosophy into the study of problems in physics and biology as if they’re making an important contribution to the scientific conversation. Offering common sense tips serves no purpose, because obviously the scientists are already aware of them. But scientists aren’t Craig’s audience. He’s posturing to ordinary people.

    It’s worse than that. WLC counts on his audience being ignorant of science and mathematics. Anyone trained in the field of science (frequently cosmology) or mathematics (he has said a lot of stupid stuff about infinity) knows instantly that he is full of caca, and could rip his arguments to shreds. As did cosmologist Sean Carroll when they had their debate.

    • Grimlock

      The first few times I saw him bring up Hilbert’s Hotel, I genuinely couldn’t understand what he was getting at. It was obvious that there was no contradiction present. Unintuitive, sure, to a certain extent. But so what?

      • GubbaBumpkin

        He frequently substitutes the argument from incredulity for the reduction ad absurdum.

  • Grimlock

    “Out of nothing, nothing comes.”

    Can’t we take this to mean that the only thing that can be the origin of nothing, is nothing itself. Meaning that there is no state of something that can be changed into nothing.

    Definitely gonna bring that up the next time someone claims that God is necessary for sustaining stuff.

    On a more general note, my impression is that apologists cherry pick both scientific results and philosophical stuff. The more philosophy that I learn, the greater the flaws I observe in arguments for God’s existence. (Such as the moral argument.)

    • Greg G.

      They argue that the universe was caused. How can a cause acting on nothing have an effect?

      • Chuck Johnson

        They argue that the universe was caused. How can a cause acting on nothing have an effect?-Greg

        If there is nothing there, then that “cause, acting” is also not there.
        This is special pleading.
        God is obviously a part of their universe, but they pretend otherwise.

        Here is the real, empirical explanation:
        Our universe at this moment was caused by the universe that existed in the previous moment.
        And so on, backwards in time, apparently to infinity.

        Anything other than this empirical observation would be an extraordinary claim, and would thus require extraordinary evidence.

        • Grimlock

          Here is the real, empirical explanation:
          Our universe at this moment was caused by the universe that existed in the previous moment.
          And so on, backwards in time, apparently to infinity.

          That is not really an empirical observation, though, is it?

          Our empirical observations tend to stop at the limits of our observable universe. Multivers and external universes are – in the best cases – extensions of our models of empirical observations. They are certainly sensible extensions, but not themselves empirical observations.

        • Chuck Johnson

          That is not really an empirical observation, though, is it?-Grimlock

          It is an empirical observation which extends back in time considerably. The “apparently” refers to the less-than infinite observation period.

          Uniformitarianism is the principle to use when our guesswork or theorizing goes beyond what is presently observable.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformitarianism

          Another way to say this is that as soon as our direct observation is no longer possible, we should assume that the basic laws and principles of the universe remain unchanged.

          To assume otherwise would be an extraordinary claim, and that would require extraordinary evidence.

        • Grimlock

          Note that uniformitarianism deals with stuff inside the universe. Another plausible explanation than the one you propose is that all of a existence is static, but with pockets where (B theory) time is experienced locally. As such there’d be no infinite sequence ofof nested universes.

          Still, it is not an empirical observation. It is an extension of models that describe our empirical observations, and are somewhat hypothetical.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Multiverse and external universes are – in the best cases – extensions of our models of empirical observations. They are certainly sensible extensions, but not themselves empirical observations.-Grimlock

          I never use terms like multiverse or external universe.
          Instead, I refer to our universe as comprising everything, without exception.

          I refer to the “sensible extensions” that you mention as being theoretical possibilities, or imagined universes which might be possible.

        • Grimlock

          Interesting. So when you write,

          Our universe at this moment was caused by the universe that existed in the previous moment.

          You are simply referring to the current state of everything being the result of a previous state of everything?

          If so, I think I misunderstood your point.

        • Chuck Johnson

          You are simply referring to the current state of everything being the result of a previous state of everything?-Grimlock

          Exactly.
          And I can reword it to say:
          That subset of our universe which is this moment of time was caused by that subset of our universe which was the previous moment of time.

          That’s what I meant, but the wording can be confusing, so I don’t always write it all out.

        • Grimlock

          In that case I withdraw by objection. Clearly, I misunderstood your point.

      • Otto

        And since God, according to Craig, is timeless, immaterial, etc….how does something immaterial affect material?

        I would like him to explain that.

        • Greg G.

          The Greeks saw the same problem and came up with the Logos, a demiurge, to explain it. Philo tried to work that into Judaism. The epistle authors seem to have thought that way, when you see them say things are from God and through Jesus. John 1:1-18 seems to be influenced, even borrowing the term “Logos”.

        • Chuck Johnson

          But Jesus was (apparently) a material being who was affected by the immaterial God.

          Logos only fools those gullible individuals who can no longer see the paradox when additional layers of complexity are added.

        • Chuck Johnson

          The standard silly reply is that:
          Since since God is defined as being able to do anything, He can therefore do anything.

        • Otto

          Exactly.

          But then philosophy is thrown out the window. Philosophy is only useful for Craig in his arguments until its not.

        • GubbaBumpkin

          Translation: “It’s magick.”
          They will deny this, since of course miracles and magic are somehow separate things to them.

        • TheNuszAbides

          my guess is he’d try really hard to spin “God doesn’t need to explain His powarz to you”.

      • Grimlock

        So true!

        Using this, I think, is the best way to use the quantum effects argument against Kalam. The defender of Kalam wants an efficient but non-material cause. However, quantum phenomena seems to have a material but not an efficient cause*. So it seems at least as viable to say that everything that begins to exist has a material cause. Consider then these two types of premises:
        1) Everything that begins to exist has an efficient cause.
        2) Everything that begins to exist has a material cause.

        At first glance, (2) is more supported by the evidence than (1), yet the defender of Kalam must accept (1) and discard (2) using the same standards of evidence. Good luck, I say.

        I first saw this reasoning made explicit by Counter Apologist.

        *Depending on the interpretation. The Everett interpretation doesn’t lack an efficient cause, but my understanding is that it implies an actual infinite number of universes, which is problematic for the Kalam with respect to an infinite regress.

  • Lerk!

    I think (and it’s possibly the subject of your next post) that philosophy may have a place in helping us to decide what to do with certain information — “now that I know X, how should I act regarding X in relation to Y?” Philosophy could even be useful in helping scientists to develop hypotheses to test. But philosophy can’t really arrive at anything that would be considered “truth” because it does no testing, only pondering.

    Edit to say that I know next-to-nothing about philosophy, so my last statement above was the result of my own pondering and may be bullshit.

    • Chuck Johnson

      Philosophy is empirical in a half-hearted way. It makes use of things that have already been observed.
      Science is empirical in an aggressive, proactive way using experiments and observations.
      Theory and fact are inseparable.

    • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

      Well some philosophers have done tests nowadays. It’s said science never really arrives at “truth” either though (including by many scientists). All this depends on what “truth” means, itself a huge philosophical issue ironically…

      • Lerk!

        I guess scientific truth is always qualified with “as far as we can tell.”

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          Yep. I’d say that’s really a good statement in general.

        • TheNuszAbides

          when the spokespeople are behaving themselves, yes. very frustrating and sad that adversaries so love to put a rhetorical spin on that to score fake points with actual (if misguided) brains.

    • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

      Lerk writes: “But philosophy can’t really arrive at anything that would be considered “truth” because it does no testing, only pondering.

      Edit to say that I know next-to-nothing about philosophy, so my last statement above was the result of my own pondering and may be bullshit.”

      I am not one to accuse people of polishing unless I can explain why. I won’t even cal it BS, but I can help and keep it very simple.

      Philosophy is very useful and it CAN be tested. Mathematics tests logic applied numerically- 1+1=2. It makes sense. It is logical and therefore intelligible.

      Observation tests logic empirically- I drop a ball and it falls (every time). Better still, I can calculate it with mathematics. It makes sense. It is even MORE intelligible than abstract mathematics because now I have something to logically cohere it with practically.

      Philosophy tests logic propositionally in the form of statements-
      ‘There is a force at work upon physical objects we call gravity.’ That statement makes sense and now the whole concept of mathematics and the ball falling is even MORE intelligible because we have expressed it philosophically and have a mental picture of the concept.

      Each of the 3 above is in essence a truth statement, and all the different tests cohere with each other. When all of them agree, we can persuade ourselves that we have science (which is a fancy
      term for ‘knowledge’). The definition of science is… ‘knowledge’.

      Where we have to be careful is in our picture thinking. Until I read Hawking in the late 80s I pictured gravity as some kind of force in the way that electromagnetism is a force. The current picture is something else entirely, with material objects more akin to a bowling ball on a bed sheet causing space to bend in 3 dimensions so that nearby objects fall toward them.

      Philosophy on its own, apart from empirical evidence or mathematical testing is what Rationalism was all about with Rene Descartes and the like. It’s not enough. I can make a perfectly logical statement that is not contradictory such as, “All unicorns have horns.” But just because it is logically consistent internally, does not make it true. It might BE true, but it cannot be true knowledge apart from empirical evidence.

      However, a philosophical statement such as, “Philosophy is dead” (Stephen hawking), can be tested and shown to be false. If philosophy is dead, then his statement is dead because it is ITSELF a philosophical statement. His proposition is contradictory. It would be like trying to prove mathematically that mathematics is invalid. Even radical geniuses make basic mistakes.

      Better still, if I said, “I cannot type a word of English”, it is logically consistent internally, but it contradicts your observation that everything I type is in English. And that is the really cool part. Not only can you falsify my philosophy by finding contradiction propositionally, but if ANY of the 3 (mathematics, proposition,
      or observation) contradict we have a problem that can be seen by logical testing. In this case it is falsified by internal logical contradiction, and confirmed further by observation.

      Philosophy most definitely CAN be tested, which is what I did for Ian Cooper as regards David Hume’s attempt to declare empirical inquiry the only valid form of testable inquiry. Hume was denying philosophy the same as Hawking, and both did so as PHILOSOPHERS.

      Hope that helps. If not, then this might…

      https://youtu.be/0wMyMmjPgLs?t=173

      • Lerk!

        “Philosophy tests logic propositionally in the form of spoken or written statements.”

        Is this always the case? If so, then my take would be that when I make an assertion, it’s simply an assertion; but it becomes philosophy when I attempt to justify it. Is that more-or-less correct?

        • TheNuszAbides

          that seems workable to me – actually putting a proposition to the test of wisdom (the “-soph-” part), i.e. “can we establish that this ‘makes good sense’ rather than merely express that we think it’s true?”

      • TheNuszAbides

        i was with you right up to the appeal to RZ for illustration.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Then you were never with me to begin with.

        • TheNuszAbides

          i have to share your opinion of RZ’s usefulness to be with you? good to know, i guess.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          And thete was no appeal other than to reason.

        • TheNuszAbides

          then his video was superfluous at best.

  • Greg G.

    Asking why there is something rather than nothing may be as irrelevant a question as Johannes Kepler asking why there are five planets. Thanks, but I think I’ll get my cosmology from the cosmologists, not from pop philosophy.

    Isaac Newton stood on Kepler’s shoulders but Kepler didn’t consider Earth to be a planet at that point, apparently. Josephus described the first century menorah at the temple (Jewish Wars 5.5.5) as having seven candles to represent the seven planets but he included the sun and moon.

  • skl

    This makes one wonder if the PhD degree (Doctor of Philosophy)
    in biology, physics, astronomy, and other science fields should be changed to SD or DS.

    • Michael Neville

      Several British universities grant DSc degrees in science rather than PhDs.

  • skl

    If “science” is about “knowing” (from the Latin “scientia” for “knowledge”),
    then science seems to have philosophy as its very foundation,
    namely in the form of epistemology.

    • Joe

      Just asking questions again?

      OK, let’s try this and see how you go:

      Scientific and philosophical epistemology are not always the same. “Epistemology” is a broad term for a group of methods concerned with how to acquire knowledge.

      • Otto

        Just a bit of JAQ’ing off

    • Chuck Johnson

      . . . then science seems to have philosophy as its very foundation,. . . skl

      I can give you a practical description of what the philosophy of science is:

      Scientists use curiosity and competence to learn about the universe that we live in.
      Scientists then share their discoveries with the rest of humanity.

    • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

      I agree. Science has philosophical foundations. It was once natural philosophy, but I don’t mean historically. The very premises upon which science rests are philosophical, and some deny them.

    • Grimlock

      At some point, though, science may well explain our thought processes, which would in some sense make it more fundamental than philosophy. Which would be rather amusing.

      • TheNuszAbides

        this is why i get such a kick out of Dan Dennett’s work (and anything AI-related, tangentially), and also think it’s cute (to say the absolute least) that Sam Harris went for a philosophy degree before hitting the lab.

  • Chuck Johnson

    For example, when thorium-234 naturally
    decays into protactinium-234, the nucleus emits an electron. The
    electron wasn’t in the nucleus before, and it had no cause. -Bob

    That’s an easy one.
    The nucleus consists of matter and energy. An electron consists of matter and energy. The decay process has produced a conversion of matter and energy which resulted in an electron.

    The interesting part is that a negative charge has been produced where (seemingly) no negative charge existed.
    The implication is that physicists have some interesting and useful discoveries ahead of them concerning the conservation of charge or the origins of electrical charge.

    I just looked it up.
    A neutron is a bit heavier than a proton. Maybe a neutron has an electron as part of it.

    • Michael Neville

      A neutron is electrically neutral, hence the name. If decay of a neutron produces a negatively charged electron then shouldn’t a positively charged particle also be produced? My formal education in physics was in high school many years ago and I know enough about physics to know I don’t know much about physics.

      • Greg G.

        The neutron becomes a proton. The “234” is the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus and denotes the isotope of the element but the name of the element indicates the number of protons, which determines the number of electrons and how it interacts chemically.

    • RichardSRussell

      Charge is conserved. The negative charge of the electron is exactly balanced by the positive charge of the proton left behind. Net charge: –1+1=0.

      This conservation principle also explains why the Universe is gravitationally neutral. The potential energy of all the matter expelled from the Big Bang exactly balances the kinetic energy imparted to it at that time.

      Indeed, given that pair production of electrons and positrons is an observable phenomenon in our own world, it can be extrapolated to suggest that all the matter in existence is likewise just the result of things splitting in 2, each half carrying away exactly what’s needed to offset the other and return to the neutral zero state it had at the beginning. This is where Hawking radiation of black holes comes from (pair production right at the event horizon, one half of the pair falling into the black hole and the other half escaping).

      But the bottom line here is Bob’s point that the release of the electron from the radioactive nucleus happens spontaneously, at an unpredictable time, with no detectable cause. We can predict stochastically that a proportion of them will decay over X amount of time, but nobody has a clue as to when any particular nucleus will do it.

      • Chuck Johnson

        But the bottom line here is Bob’s point that the release of the electron from the radioactive nucleus happens spontaneously, at an unpredictable time, with no detectable cause.-Richard

        The “no detectable cause” here is caused by insufficient information.
        Randomness is a result of the ignorance or inadequate knowledge of the observer.

        When sufficient theory and data become available, the randomness evaporates, or it is at least reduced.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          When sufficient theory and data become available, the randomness evaporates, or it is at least reduced.

          No, not according to the Copenhagen interpretation. It’s not that there is an unknown cause; there is no cause.

        • adam

          It has to be Trumps tiny hands knocking off the electron.

        • Chuck Johnson

          No, not according to the Copenhagen interpretation. It’s not that there is an unknown cause; there is no cause.-Bob

          Three different versions of “an effect with no cause”:
          (A) A cause that we do presently not know of.
          (B) A cause that humans (or other beings) can never know of.
          (C) An effect that happens, and it needs no cause.

          (B) Sounds too much like religion, and I reject it.
          (C) Also sounds too much like religion, and I reject it.

          Searching for the causes of effects is a big part of what science is all about.

        • Greg G.

          It was noted long ago that, a positron is mathematically equivalent to an electron traveling backwards in time. A photon travels at light speed so time does not pass for a traveling photon. A virtual pair of an electron and a positron can be seen as an electron and traveling forward in time from the creation event of the pair and the positron traveling backwards in time from the annihilation event and a photon being the energy that creates and results from the annihilation at the same instant. For the positron, the annihilation of the electron is the creation event and the electron’s creation event is the positron’s annihilation event.

          Our perception of time is entropy driven while quantum events are not necessarily so.

          That’s my understanding from reading Richard Feynman. See “One Electron Theory” at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe

        • Chuck Johnson

          “Feynman, I know why all electrons have the same charge and the same mass” “Why?” “Because, they are all the same electron!”

          I picture Cosmo Kramer delivering that line.

        • RichardSRussell

          Searching for the causes of effects is a big part of what science is all about.

          Rejecting hypotheses because you don’t happen to like or understand them is a big part of what religion is all about.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Rejecting hypotheses because you don’t happen to like or understand them is a big part of what religion is all about.-Richard

          Pretending that you know that Chuck doesn’t like or understand the Copenhagen interpretation is pretending you know things that you don’t really know.

          This is too much like religion.

          If you want to know, ask. – – – Stop making things up.

        • RichardSRussell

          “I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, ‘But how can it be like that?’ because you will go ‘down the drain’ into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.”

          —Richard Feynman (1918-1988), American physicist

        • Chuck Johnson

          I already know how it can be like that.

          Physicists are motivated to deliver big results in their researches.
          But the scientific instruments needed to provide the required empirical evidence are not yet available.

          There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You reject stuff because of how it strikes you? Things at the frontier of science may strike you as odd simply because you’re ignorant of the facts.

          If you want to understand the Copenhagen interpretation, go look it up.

        • Chuck Johnson

          If you want to understand the Copenhagen interpretation, go look it up.-Bob

          From Wikipedia:
          “According to the Copenhagen interpretation, physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured, . . . ”

          So this means that our universe did not have any carbon in it prior to humans discovering carbon and measuring the biological effects of carbon.

          This part of “Copenhagen” is obviously in adequate.

        • TheNuszAbides

          feel free to tell Bohr and Heisenberg they were doing science wrong.

        • Chuck Johnson

          They are long gone.
          But they were wrong because all scientists are wrong.
          And all scientists are right.

          http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

        • epeeist

          Searching for the causes of effects is a big part of what science is all about.

          Actually it isn’t, causal explanations are not all that important in science, though I wouldn’t go as far as Bertrand Rusell:

          The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Actually it isn’t, causal explanations are not all that important in science,. . . -epeeist

          I know science.
          Give me some examples of areas of science where cause-and-effect are not important.

      • Chuck Johnson

        The potential energy of all the matter expelled from the Big Bang
        exactly balances the kinetic energy imparted to it at that time.-Richard

        Well, that does not seem to be true.
        Our universe is presently expanding. It presently contains some of the kinetic energy of outward expansion that it gained from the Big Bang.

        It looks to me like the “balance of kinetic and potential energy” that you mentioned would only occur at such a time that our expanding universe might stop expanding (due to gravity), and therefore be on the verge of falling back to its own gravitational center.

        This is the way that simple harmonic oscillators work. – – They oscillate.

        • RichardSRussell

          For any given object, the sum of potential and kinetic energy is a constant. For example, if you raise a rock over your head, you have to do work, which imparts potential energy to the rock. As soon as you let it go, it starts to fall, as potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. You can read more about it here:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy

        • Chuck Johnson

          The potential energy of all the matter expelled from the Big Bang
          exactly balances the kinetic energy imparted to it at that time.-Richard

          This statement of yours is false in the way that I explained in my earlier comment to you. It is specific in a way that makes it false.

          This new statement of yours, “For any given object, the sum of potential and kinetic energy is a constant.” is too vague to be a proper explanation.

          So I will make it more specific to suit the case of the exploding universe. – – – The modified statement:

          “For an exploding universe, the sum of the gravitational potential energy (fall back to center energy) and kinetic energy (kinetic energy of outward expansion) is a constant”.

          This “modified statement” would be true for a universe which will eventually fall back to center due to gravity.

          If the universe has sufficient kinetic energy, it will reach escape velocity, and it will never fall back to center. This might be the case for our universe. I will call this an “escape velocity universe”.

          In such a universe, however, it looks like the sum of kinetic and potential energies is still a constant.

        • RichardSRussell

          In such a universe, however, it looks like the sum of kinetic and potential energies is still a constant.

          It doesn’t just look like it, it is that way. As it is for everything else where energy is transferred.

          Did you follow up on that link I sent you to the explanation of potential energy? Everything I’ve been saying is covered there.

        • Chuck Johnson

          It doesn’t just look like it, it is that way. As it is for everything else where energy is transferred.-Richard

          You are assuming that the “Big Bang Universe” is a closed system, and nothing else exists.

          When we use a simplified model of the Big Bang universe, it can have the sum of the potential and kinetic energies be a constant.
          However, influences outside of Big Bang ejection material would have an effect.

          In addition, as our universe evolves, matter is constantly being converted into energy (electromagnetic radiation). This newly-created electromagnetic radiation will increase the system’s kinetic energy.

          So again, the simple mathematical result requires a simplified model of the Big Bang universe.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Did you follow up on that link I sent you to the explanation of potential energy? Everything I’ve been saying is covered there.-Richard

          No, I already know what kinetic and potential energies are.

  • https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite Roger

    “Out of nothing, nothing comes.” I agree. But, there seems to be something now. So, if we start with “nothing” like we kind of have to do if the goal is answering the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?”, then it seems like the only possibility is that whatever we’re thinking of as “nothing” is not really the lack of all entities. It must be a “something”. If we get rid of all things that we think of as existing (space/volume, matter, energy, time, abstract concepts, laws of physics, math and logic and minds to consider this supposed lack of all), the only thing left that could be a “something” is that absolute lack of all itself. Somehow, it is a “something”.

    • Greg G.

      A perfectly stable nothingness is like a perfect circle or a perfect equilateral triangle. They can exist as concepts but not as actual things.

      Nothingness is unstable because there is nothing to make it stable. Space is negative energy for an equal amount of energy/matter. When the unstable nothingness decays into space and energy/matter, it is a zero sum event. So something can come from nothing. You not only get something, you get a place to put it at the same time, which may also come into being in the same event.

      • https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite Roger

        If there’s nothingness, there’s also nothing to make it unstable or stable. There’s no force to be stable or unstable in response to. There’s also no positive or negative energy to sum to zero.

        • Greg G.

          You are assuming that nothingness is not naturally unstable. Have you ever seen a perfect circle or a perfect nothingness?

        • http://ian-wardell.blogspot.co.uk/ EyesShiningAngrily

          Greg, similar to the author, you fail to grasp what the word nothing means. It means the absence of all existents. Only an existent can be stable or unstable.

        • Greg G.

          You are imagining a perfect nothingness which is an ideal Platonic concept like an ideal gas, a perfect circle and a perfect square. We can imagine them but they do not actually exist. A perfect circle does not have to exist in another realm for us to conceive of one.

        • https://sites.google.com/site/ralphthewebsite Roger

          I’m not assuming either instability or stability. What I said was that neither would be present in nothingness. But, it sounds like you’re assuming instability.
          Also, stability and instability are relative to some thing. What thing in nothingness is nothingness either stable or unstable towards?

        • Greg G.

          Nothingness is either stable or unstable. If it was stable, there would still be nothing. Since we can exist in a universe that appears to be made of space and energy in equal and opposite amounts, it implies that we do not live in a stable nothingness, therefore we exist in the alternative.

      • Pofarmer

        All of which describes our Universe.

  • Susan

    Philosophy is useful because you have used philosophy to hoist Craig by his own petard.

    As Richard Russel points out below, philosophy is a tool.

    That Craig relies on philosophical and scientific language to bullshit people is not a problem with a well-honed tool nor with scientific models.

    Craig is a bullshit artist who relies on the fact that most people (including me) are not experts on either subject and especially not on philosophy of science.

    One doesn’t have to be an expert on either to see Craig’s arguments for what they are.

    Bullshit with lots of fancy words.

    A little scratch at any of the surfaces shows this.

    Craig is in show business.

    • DoorknobHead

      Susan: What’s your occupation?
      Craig: Stand Up Philosopher.
      Susan: What?
      Craig: Stand Up Philosopher. I coalesce [mythical] vapors into a [non] viable and [meaningless] [mis]comprehension.
      Susan: Oh, a BULLSHIT artist.

      — sung to the tune of Mel Brooks from History of the World: Part I

  • Chuck Johnson

    Thanks, Bob for this truly excellent collection of observations.

  • https://www.jonmorgan.info Jon Morgan

    I agree with your dismissals of simplistic philosophy and common sense.
    However, I do still find this comic amusing: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/191

  • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

    I think the problem here is Craig ignoring science when it doesn’t suit him. Good philosophers don’t (emphasis on “good”). On these issues, science should certainly be taken into account. Philosophers who think it can all be done without this are wrong (assuming any exist). Scientists, however, sometimes go the opposite route (as Hawking seems to). I think that there is a balance here, ideally.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      My challenge is: What have philosophers done for me lately? First, it’s philosophers, not philosophy. Scientists could well be doing philosophy when they come up with their ideas (depending on one’s definition), and philosophy could be a useful discipline in which to train. Second, lately to acknowledge that logic and other fundamentals from centuries past are currently useful, but there is no annual top-ten list of philosophers’ greatest discoveries.

      • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

        Well, there have been some new arguments in the last decades (I’m not sure how recent you mean) against theism. I believe that you’ve repeated some here. The irony is Bob, you’re a philosopher, even if not formally trained or making your living by that. Philosophy is not like science, of course, but there have been philosophical insights which are considered very innovative (I don’t have a handy list offhand).

        • http://ian-wardell.blogspot.co.uk/ EyesShiningAngrily

          He is not a philosopher in any shape or form!

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          Why not? It wasn’t an insult, since I don’t consider being a philosopher bad. Bob makes philosophical arguments constantly against religion and theism. I think he is fairly called a philosopher.

        • TheNuszAbides

          in any shape or form

          pedantry is worse when poorly-disguised than when undisguised.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Our shared problem, I think, is what “philosophy” and “philosopher” mean.These definitions are maleable, so I’m sympathetic to your argument.

          My main points are (1) that professional philosophers, rather than scientists who put on a philosopher’s hat as needed, aren’t making discoveries and so aren’t analogous in that way to scientists and (2) some of our favorite Christian philosophers make ridiculous, childish arguments that they claim are the cutting edge of Christian philosophical scholarship.

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          Yes, it can be difficult. By some definitions as I mentioned before, science is philosophy. Setting that aside (though it would necessarily deal with the idea of there being no discovery in philosophy), a common definition seems to be something like “the study of knowledge, existence, reality, etc.”. I’d say your work falls into that area. Again though we see how this could overlap with science.

          Well, it seems to me “discoveries” are made (if that’s the word). I mentioned the new arguments against theism (for instance from divine hiddenness and inconsistent revelations). You’ve also made arguments against theism in the same vein. You’ll get no argument from me that very poor arguments are made, but does that discredit philosophy any more than creationism does science? I do agree philosophers aren’t wholly analogous to scientists. However, it just seems to me that science isn’t the only thing of worth. Philosophy is too, when done well.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Philosophy as done by scientists sounds great. I get it. But philosophy done by philosophers? In the past, it gave us formal logic. And today, it gives us philosophy classes, which I agree can be great training. But I’m drawing a blank at what else it’s good for. In particular, philosophers making discoveries, advances, or whatever in the way that mathematicians or scientists do–I can think of no examples.

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          I don’t know what you mean by scientists doing philosophy exactly. Why is this better? I’ve given examples for advancements. However, there’s no argument from me that it isn’t the same as science (or mathematics-I don’t know). I don’t think this is necessarily a good comparison either, since what qualifies as an advance seems to be clearer in science than for philosophy.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I don’t know what you mean by scientists doing philosophy exactly.

          In a wide definition of philosophy, thinking broadly could be included. Plantinga defines it as “thinking hard” about a subject, for example.

          Why is this better?

          Scientists doing philosophy by this broad definition of philosophy produce results.

          I’ve given examples for advancements.

          You said, “for instance from divine hiddenness and inconsistent revelations.” Are these the kinds of examples you’re thinking of? I wouldn’t have called that philosophy, but I see how that’s plausible.

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          In a wide definition of philosophy, thinking broadly could be included. Plantinga defines it as “thinking hard” about a subject, for example.

          I see.

          Scientists doing philosophy by this broad definition of philosophy produce results.

          Well then ideally they can work together.

          You said, “for instance from divine hiddenness and inconsistent revelations.” Are these the kinds of examples you’re thinking of? I wouldn’t have called that philosophy, but I see how that’s plausible.

          Yes, they are definitely philosophy. Look up “arguments against the existence of God”. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has far more, bearing in mind the philosophical definition of atheism is “strong” atheism as it’s been named. http://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/

        • Greg G.

          Philosophy majors make good bartenders, or so I have heard.

        • TheNuszAbides

          that and the price of a cup of coffee will get you a whimsical remark from a panhandler.

        • Greg G.

          The price of a cup of coffee will get you a whimsical remark from a barista majoring in philosophy.

        • TheNuszAbides

          i’ll stick with the first combo; panhandler backgrounds are more open-ended.

        • Greg G.

          If you give the coffee to the panhandler, you get two for the price of one.

    • Pofarmer

      WEll, good philosophers realize that then need science, or at least empiricism, to validate their claims.

      • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

        Yes, that’s what I was trying to say. Of course, there are claims which can’t be validated scientifically or empirically. We can usually apply logic though.

  • RichardSRussell

    “The current state of knowledge can be summarized thus: In the beginning, there was nothing, which exploded.”

    —Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies (1992)

    • Greg G.

      I remember laughing out loud when I first read that. It was long before I ever read “LOL”.

  • gusbovona

    “We don’t take logic’s Principle of Identity or 1 + 1 = 2 on faith”

    Just the other day, I put one apple into a bag; then I put another apple into the bag. Lo and behold, I found out that I then had two apples in my bag.

    More confirmation for 1 + 1 = 2! Hoorah for science!

  • Scooter

    “Wouldn’t it be simpler as “Everything has a cause”?”
    Rather than “simpler”, I would suggest a more accurate phrasing would be “every effect has a cause.” Some people misunderstand the law of cause and effect-not that everything must have a cause but that every effect must have a cause because an effect by definition is that which has been produced by something outside of itself or beyond itself. This of course opens the door to consider that an eternal Being would not have to be argued that He is part of “everything.”

    “They (Christians) assume that God is, which is yet another claim that is asserted without evidence.”
    The evidence is that something rather than nothing exists. And obviously “nothing” is not a “pre-something” such as the thinking that before the Big Bang there might have been a causeless quantum particle. No, nothing is not something reduced to a minimum, it is no thing whatsoever. I understand that this is difficult or impossible for us to comprehend. Why? because “nothing” lacks reality. Similar to Descartes famous dictum, Cogito Ergo Sum, I think therefore I am, perhaps we could say, Because I am I can’t conceive of nothing. But here’s another thought, Because I think, therefore it is impossible that God does not exist. My existence and everything around me could not come from nothing. And it’s telling that the originator of Quantum theory, Max Planck understood this when he said, ” All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force… We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.” Why does he assume this? because it’s rational.

    This idea changes everything because if something exists then the idea of a self-existent Being becomes not only possible but necessary-not only a rational possibility but becomes also a rational necessity. I believe it was Thomas Aquinas who argued that if anything exists reason demands that something (or better Someone) has always existed or we could not account for the existence of anything. Now atheism argues that if Creation could be nullified then the whole concept of God can collapse. So some folks argue that if you’re trying to be rational and scientific then you must believe in a universe without God. But the atheist saying this should realize that what he is postulating is manifestly irrational and absurd. Reason demands that there be a necessary Being. So asking why there is something rather than nothing is not an irrelevant question.

    “It’s evidence vs. faith.” Really? Consider these quotes from notable scientists;
    “Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: ‘Ye must have faith.’
    Max Planck, “Where is Science Going?”, 1932

    Werner Karl Heisenberg was a German theoretical physicist and one of the key pioneers of quantum mechanics who said, “Faith is the mainspring of scientific endeavor. I believe in order that I may act, I act in order that I might understand.”

    • Michael Neville

      Because I think, therefore it is impossible that God does not exist.

      I fail to understand why your consciousness has anything to do with magical sky pixies. You definitely need to justify this claim or else it’s just a non sequitur, a statement not connected in a logical or clear way to anything said before it.

      My existence and everything around me could not come from nothing.

      Your incredulity is not an argument for anything.

      • Scooter

        My consciousness as you suggest has absolutely nothing to do with what you refer to as “magical sky pixies” whatever they are. rather since my consciousness and my ability to reason all depend on the fact that life did not and could not come from nothing but requires a reasonable and reasoning origin. The contrast to this (time + chance=reality) is impossible. Neither time nor chance is a pre-cosmic phenomenon

        • MNb

          “the fact that life did not and could not come from nothing but requires a reasonable and reasoning origin.”
          Yeah – that’s what we have the field of research called abiogenesis for.

          “The contrast to this (time + chance=reality) is impossible. Neither time nor chance is a pre-cosmic phenomenon.”
          Yeah – that’s why we maintain that life came from non-life within that cosmos; some 9 billion years after the particular part of cosmos called Our Universe began to exist. You just confirmed that time + chance (though you should have added + the right circumstances in one particular place of that huge Universe that set the biochemical process in motion) totally is possible.

        • Michael Neville

          the fact that life did not and could not come from nothing but requires a reasonable and reasoning origin.

          As I said, your incredulity is not an argument for anything.

          In your “reasonable and reasoning origin” claim you’re postulating a magic sky pixie created everything. What’s your evidence that your magic sky pixie wasn’t invented by people who didn’t know where the Sun went at night?

          The contrast to this (time + chance=reality) is impossible. Neither time nor chance is a pre-cosmic phenomenon

          You really do think your incredulity is an effective argument for your magic sky pixie.

          EDIT You still haven’t explained how your consciousness comes from the magic sky pixie you worship.

        • Susan

          my ability to reason all depend on the fact that life did not and could not come from nothing but requires a reasonable and reasoning origin. </blockquote

          1) Show that anyone other than the poeple who are lying to to you claim it did.
          2) Show it couldn't.

          requires a reasonable and reasoning origin.

          Then, show that you have one.

          The contrast to this (time + chance=reality) is impossible. Neither time nor chance is a pre-cosmic phenomenon

          No. They’ve fed you a strawman and you are so incurious that you accept it.

          You don’t have a single leg to stand on.

          After all this time and after all these exchanges, that’s the best you have to offer.

        • Scooter

          My reasonable origin must be the Biblical God for 2 reasons.
          1) Only such a God as revealed in the Bible adequately grounds the physical coherence of the cosmos as we know it.
          2) God’s existence is the only coherent basis, whether acknowledged or otherwise, for rational thought and communication.
          Consequently, you Susan, as a nonbeliever, of necessity must draw on, borrow from, in fact, and I don’t mean to be rude but, intellectually steal from a biblical foundation in order to think coherently and to live sanely.. So, the secular humanist who argues that there are no ultimates must borrow from biblical premises in order to assess anything in itself right or wrong.

        • Susan

          1) Only such a God as revealed in the Bible adequately grounds the physical coherence of the cosmos as we know it.

          2) God’s existence is the only coherent basis, whether acknowledged or otherwise, for rational thought and communication

          But you haven’t defined nor supported a single bit of that. I’m asking you to.

          you Susan…. steal intellectuallly from a biblical foundation in order to think coherently and think sanely

          No. If you say I must, then you must show I must.

          Try to be more curious.

          You have supported nothing that you claim.

          Nothing.

        • Scooter

          Susan, I could go into a long dissertation but I’m not sure what that would prove to you. I’m reminded of the story of novelist Martin Amis who recounted a question that the Russian writer Yevgeni Yevtushenko asked Sir Kingsley Amis: “Is it true that you are an atheist?” Amis replied, “Yes. But its more than that. You see, I hate Him.” Far from being able to deny the existence of God, he confessed both God’s existence and his own antagonism toward Him. I read the same thing in just about all the comments on these atheist blogs-God doesn’t exist and I hate Him! However I also know that none of us whether theist or atheist can escape being the “imago Dei” -the image of God (however twisted). We can never therefore deny ultimately the One who we are made in the image of. I don’t want to get preachy but this point from Ecclesiastes 3:11 which puts a burden on us from God as it says, “He has put eternity into a man’s heart. As Augustine said, our hearts are restless until we find our rest in Him. This has been my experience.

        • Susan

          I could go into a long dissertation but I’m not sure what that would prove to you.

          You’ve spent a couple of years here now and I’ve never even seen you attempt to support the slightest thing. I would be satisfied if you attempted to do that.

          I’m not asking for a long dissertation. Just that you do better than unquestioingly repeat apologetics

          It’s simple. You made some very large claims. Support them.

          There’s nothing special about me. That shouldn’t matter.

          If the rest of your post is all you’ve got , then there is no reason to accept your very strong original claims.

          You’ve got nothing.

          Get back to us when you do.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I doubt many of the atheists around here hate God. Do you hate Zeus?

          Maybe you need to go find some god haters if you’re determined to engage with them. Not many here.

        • Scooter

          “Do you hate Zeus?”
          Well, at least you didn’t throw the nonsensical FSM at me!
          Hatred takes many forms. How would you describe the attitude of a son who despises his father and mother and rejects everything they have done for him?

        • Greg G.

          How would you describe the attitude of a son who despises his father and mother and rejects everything they have done for him?

          Jesus-like. In each of the Synoptics, Jesus is informed that his mother and brothers are outside but he rejects them, saying his sycophants are his mother and brothers. They disappear except when some who know his family recognizes Jesus.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          “Do you hate Zeus?”
          Well, at least you didn’t throw the nonsensical FSM at me!

          Right—I threw the nonsensical Zeus at you.

          Now answer my question and tell me what you’ve learned by your answer, if anything.

        • adam

          “How would you describe the attitude of a son who despises his father and mother and rejects everything they have done for him?”

          Your Bible describes them as worthy of death.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2ace8e66c11070f7bb1a667c1ff4f5e4dd4140269bdb88e038ae9c34cfe8e906.jpg

          Christian claim that this is ‘love’.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Well, at least you didn’t throw the nonsensical FSM at me!

          Too funny for words.

          Hatred takes many forms. How would you describe the attitude of a son who despises his father and mother and rejects everything they have done for him?

          Irrelevant to the question…”Do you hate Zeus?”

        • Scooter

          Amos, What is really too funny for words is the atheist’s attempt to compare God to Zeus, the FSM, a celestial teapot (dreamed up by former atheist Bertrand Russell), Santa Claus, unicorns and fairies. Why? Because our background knowledge of the universe certainly rules out absurd entities- like living sentient pasta with magical abilities.

          But what background knowledge can’t do is give us probabilities about things which are not physical so this background knowledge can’t rule out the possibility that God exists. You see, the Creator of the universe has to exist outside of the created order and is transcendent. not limited by the laws of nature, space or time. Only physical beings exist in the physical universe so it would be a circular argument to say that the physical universe can explain to us that non-physical beings can’t exist, or probably don’t exist. An honest atheist must agree that God’s existence can function as a good hypothesis and thus His existence is probable. Note too that a hypothesis must explain something. Theism claims that the universe has a personal cause so for the one who believes in God he should expect to find evidence of purpose in the universe. So what questions pop out of this? Is there evidence of purpose in the universe? Does our universe contain the type of order that agents bring about? Does it have features that a rational agent would value? I believe that God accounts for the order, why the earth has conscious living beings, why good and evil are as real and as important as electromagnetism or gravity. Further, God explains why you and I desire purpose and meaning.

        • adam

          But what background knowledge can’t do is give us probabilities about
          things which are not physical so this background knowledge can’t rule
          out the possibility that Jesus was gay

        • Scooter

          Your condition is worse than I thought.

        • adam

          So was Jesus’s

        • adam

          Why are you so afraid of a gay Jesus?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Amos, What is really too funny for words is the atheist’s attempt to compare God to Zeus, the FSM, a celestial teapot (dreamed up by former atheist Bertrand Russell), Santa Claus, unicorns and fairies any unsupported construct of the human imagination.

          There, simplified that for ya.

          Why? Because our background knowledge of the universe certainly rules out absurd entities- like living sentient pasta with magical abilities.

          Scooter….that’s the point. YahwehJesus is just another absurdity on the list. I prefer Space Ponies if I’m positing an absurdity myself.

          But what background knowledge can’t do is give us probabilities about things which are not physical so this background knowledge can’t rule out the possibility that God exists.

          If you were as smart as you think you are, and took the time and effort to learn where the concept of your god YahwehJesus originated then you’d be embarrassed and realise that the background knowledge does indeed rule out your god.

          You see, the Creator of the universe has to exist outside of the created order and is transcendent. not limited by the laws of nature, space or time. Only physical beings exist in the physical universe so it would be a circular argument to say that the physical universe can explain to us that non-physical beings can’t exist, or probably don’t exist.

          When you can demonstrate with evidence that that is not just pulled from your arsehole, and show what method you use to verify it, then come back. Otherwise it is just as unreasonable as any other god claim.

          An honest atheist must agree that God’s existence can function as a good hypothesis and thus His existence is probable.

          Scooter…which god?

          By your naive logic…An honest atheist must agree that all god’s existence can function as a good hypothesis and thus existence is probable.…which even to you must appear an untenable proposition. Go learn what atheist means.

          Let’s turn it around.

          An honest theist should admit the probability is just as sound for every supernatural claim, and if it is just as sound for all of them, then it is equally as sound for none of them. Better to say I don’t know…with the caveat that for every claim that the god hypothesis has ever been proposed…not once, never, has it ever turned out a god has been the the explanation. The batting average for gods is zero…science has done all the heavy lifting and has a perfect score to date.

          Note too that a hypothesis must explain something.

          But god hypotheses are useless, because they explain everything and nothing at the same time. And cannot be supported empirically, with any evidence whatsoever. When you, or anyone else for that matter, can do so, then we have a conversation. Got evidence?

          Theism claims that the universe has a personal cause so for the one who believes in God he should expect to find evidence of purpose in the universe. So what questions pop out of this? Is there evidence of purpose in the universe? Does our universe contain the type of order that agents bring about? Does it have features that a rational agent would value? I believe that God accounts for the order, why the earth has conscious living beings, why good and evil are as real and as important as electromagnetism or gravity. Further, God explains why you and I desire purpose and meaning.

          Blah! blah! blah! blah! blah!….I know what you claim is, I’m yet to be convinced and unfortunately you all fail miserably in demonstrating your claims veracity with anything more that wishful thinking, special pleading, cognitive dissonance, and confirmation bias.

          Why should your woo-woo claim have anymore weight than any other woo-woo’s claim?

          Demonstrate your claim’s veracity with evidence…show your work.

        • TheNuszAbides

          science has done all the heavy lifting and has a perfect score to date.

          eh .. it has a steadily improving score. i don’t think we’ve collectively got the stones to adjudicate a perfect score on that scale.

        • Ignorant Amos

          What a mean is that when science gets its sleeves rolled up and digs in, it never turns out that the supernatural explanation is correct…the science explanation is always, to date anyway, the correct one.

          Phenomena explained by the supernatural = zero

          Phenomena explained that have ever been investigated by the sciences = a hit every time

          Ergo, a perfect score to date…am not saying science has answered every question asked of it, but those it has, have never turned out to be not natural. At least as far as am aware anyway.

        • adam
        • Pofarmer

          Holy shit Scooter.

          How can we be made in the image of a dissembodied mind that holds the universe together?

          moron.

        • Rudy R

          He has a long, flowing white beard, don’t ya know.

        • Rudy R

          Can’t speak for the rest of the atheists, but I don’t hate [Yahweh], because I don’t believe he is real, just like I don’t hate Lord Voldemort. However, I very much dislike the Yahweh fictional character as I do Lord Voldermort.

        • Michael Neville

          I don’t even hate the imaginary Yahweh. It would be silly to hate a figment of someone else’s imagination. I’m angry about some of the things done using Yahweh or Jesus as an excuse, but that’s a different topic.

        • adam

          ” he confessed both God’s existence ”

          then he was a theist not an atheist
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7123c548a1342e2d1779d51809c0ce85d82e0551dcde5fa0f6496d68284963dd.jpg

          “We can never therefore deny ultimately the One who we are made in the image of. ”

          Sorry, I am not made in the image of an IMAGINARY character from mythology…

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7d25f4c9006df8ef1a311b0eea0580844f129c209627aa4c1313dd108978baf5.jpg

        • Rudy R

          George Carlin is my philosopher of choice!

        • adam

          One of mine as well.

        • skl

          Second try (first “Detected as Spam”).

          “I’m reminded of the story of novelist Martin Amis who recounted a
          question that the Russian writer Yevgeni Yevtushenko asked Sir Kingsley
          Amis: “Is it true that you are an atheist?” Amis replied,
          “Yes. But its more than that. You see, I hate Him.” Far from being
          able
          to deny the existence of God, he confessed both God’s existence and his
          own antagonism toward Him. I read the same thing in just about all the
          comments on these atheist blogs-God doesn’t exist and I hate Him!”

          I’m a skeptic, and so not a Christian or a religious person.
          I’m interested in things that make solid sense to me. But what you wrote
          there really struck me. Because I’ve found that many responses I receive
          to my posts here have a strand of antagonism and sarcasm. And the
          longer the interactions with other commenters here extend, the more
          likely the antagonism and sarcasm escalates into ad hominems and R-rated
          language. It’s hateful. I can’t say for certain that they hate god but
          they sure seem to hate the very idea of, or the possibility of, a god.
          They seem more anti-theist than atheist.

          By god, for that alone, they may yet turn me into a religious person! :)

        • Michael Neville

          Because I’ve found that many responses I receive to my posts here have a strand of antagonism and sarcasm. And the longer the interactions with other commenters here extend, the more likely the antagonism and sarcasm escalates into ad hominems and R-rated language. It’s hateful.

          Don’t give yourself airs. You’re not hated, you’re an annoyance. You’re sealioning us, pretending to ask questions and misinterpreting the answers you’re given.

        • skl

          “You’re not hated, you’re an annoyance. You’re sealioning
          us, pretending to ask questions and misinterpreting the answers you’re given.”

          I would think that one would be certain of another’s “sealioning”
          (which I am not) before calling the other “weasel”, “fuckwittery”, “dopey clown”, “stupid”, “disingenuous asshole.”

        • Michael Neville

          You asked me why I accepted some of what Paul wrote but not all of it. I explained that had to do with the probabilities of what he wrote. I even explained that gentiles would be more likely to convert to Christianity if the demanding, burdensome Jewish laws were relaxed, so it was highly probable that Paul would relax them. On the other hand, since resurrection would literally require a miracle, then Paul’s claims of Jesus’s resurrection would have a low probability. Your response was:

          As far as the probabilities, as I’ve said before, Christianity is based entirely on the most improbable things (e.g. walking on water, resurrection). I think they would readily admit that. I think Paul would have, too.

          That has absolutely nothing, not a fucking thing, to do with why I consider some of Paul’s writing to be probable and some to be improbable. There would appear to be one of three reasons why you wrote that non sequitur quoted above: 1. You didn’t read my argument; 2. You’re too stupid to understand my argument; or 3. You’re sealioning. You claim to have read my argument which tosses out No. 1. From other things you’ve written I don’t think you’re stupid, so No. 2 goes away. Which leaves No. 3, you’re sealioning. Considering how other people have reacted to things you’ve written in response to comments and questions, sealioning becomes more and more likely.

        • skl

          Anyone and everyone knows Christianity is based on highly unusual, highly improbable, never-before-or-after-seen occurrences. One can pick this up just from the culture or common knowledge without reading even a word of the bible. But you said certain things about Paul were true on the basis that his writings said so (I recall you quoting three different passages from his letters). I asked why you didn’t believe other things about Paul that he also wrote. I won’t argue the point any further with you. Besides, the R-rated language has reared its head again.

        • Greg G.

          Anyone and everyone knows Christianity is based on highly unusual, highly improbable, never-before-or-after-seen occurrences.

          No, it isn’t. It is based on a desperate reading of the Old Testament scriptures by people hoping for supernatural help against an earthly power.

          But you said certain things about Paul were true on the basis that his writings

          Everything Paul says about Jesus can be found in the Old Testament.

          I asked why you didn’t believe other things about Paul that he also wrote.

          I believe Paul was mostly sincere but he was superstitious and didn’t know where the sun went at night.

        • Michael Neville

          So what’s untrue about Paul relaxing Jewish religious laws? Be specific or admit that you didn’t actually read what I’ve written twice. I didn’t say that what Paul wrote was true, I said that certain things he did were probable. I also said that some things he wrote, the resurrection specifically, were not probable.

          I quoted Paul when you asked why I thought he had relaxed Jewish law. I said he did something because he wrote his justification for what he did. Is this concept too hard for the sack of bloody lard you call your brain to process?

          If you don’t like “R-rated” language then that’s your problem, not mine. If you don’t like how adults talk then go back to the kiddie table, you prudish prig. Tone trolling will win you no points on this blog.

          And I still think you’re sealioning.

        • Susan

          I would think that one would be certain of another’s “sealioning”
          (which I am not) before calling the other “weasel”,

          I didn’t call you “weasel” lightly. You earned it with your behaviour.

          “… disingenuous asshole”

          After several attempts to have honest, respectful discussions with you, your responses prompted me to say “it’s as if you’re going out of your way to be a disingenous asshole”

          Again, I didn’t do that lightly.

          I don’t take it back.

        • MR

          I’ll second it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I would think that one would be certain of another’s “sealioning” (which I am not)…

          Yeah, that’s not accurate…it is demonstrable that you were here JAQing off.

          https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/75246564/when-you-explain-what-sealioning-is-and-the-textbook-definition-tries-to-argue-it.jpg

          …before calling the other “weasel”, “fuckwittery”, “dopey clown”, “stupid”, “disingenuous asshole.”

          I’ll claim some of those.

          Even after it being pointed out that sealioning was what you were doing, you persisted.

          https://i.imgflip.com/1iz11r.jpg

          That is the epitome of sealioning. That’s when folk start to get pissed off with your silly games and resort to ridicule and mockery.

        • Greg G.

          They seem more anti-theist than atheist.

          How are you deriving the word “anti-theist”? If you are getting it from “anti-theism” the way “theist” comes from “theism” then you are probably right and there is nothing exclusive between that and atheism. If you are deriving “anti-theist” directly from “theist”, you are not correct.

          People respond to the posts made by commenters. If one comes in threatening fire and brimstone, they will not be taken seriously. If a person comes in presenting intelligent arguments, the response will generally be cordial. When the person misconstrues the responses repeatedly, frustration will begin. That appears to be what you are experiencing.

        • MR

          She’s not a Christian; she just plays one on TV.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Try to get an objective critique of your approach. Maybe that will help you understand why you get the reaction you do.

        • skl

          I assumed I would get an objective critique here from objective skeptics. That apparently was a faulty assumption.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          How do you know it was a faulty assumption? Just because you don’t like the pushback doesn’t mean it wasnt warranted.

        • skl

          “How do you know it was a faulty assumption?”

          Based on the evidence.
          That is, based on the substance, and especially the tone, of the responses.

        • Scooter

          Good to read a refreshing and thoughtful comment!

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh ffs, I’ve seen it all now.

        • Pofarmer

          Idiocy abounds.

        • Susan

          I read the same thing in just about all the
          comments on these atheist blogs-God doesn’t exist and I hate Him!”

          Then, you’re a poor reader. Or just dishonest.

          what you said there really struck me.

          What should have struck you is that Scooter made a series of assertions for which he provides no support.

          When I asked him to support those statements, he diverted to a quote (for which I can find no context) about an atheist who “hates God” , a quote that does nothing to do with supporting his assertions.

          the
          longer the interactions with other commenters here extend, the more
          likely the antagonism and sarcasm escalates into ad hominems and R-ratedlanguage.

          I can’t say for certain that they hate god but
          they sure seem to hate the very idea of, or the possibility of, a god.

          It’s that sort of persistent dishonesty that draws the negative responses you get.

          I asked Scooter to support his assertions, he pointed at a quote that has no bearing on his assertions and you (rather than acknowledge that he hasn’t supported a single assertion) pretend that the problem isn’t that there is no support for Scooter’s claims but instead, that we hate gods and aren’t even open to the possibility.

          By god, for that alone, they may yet turn me into a religious person!

          What a shock it would be for all of us if you suddenly announced you were a christian.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          That’s quite a lot wrong condensed into a small ball of tangled yarn. Well done.

        • Pofarmer

          I don’t think you get through a lifetime of that much condensed stupid.

        • TheNuszAbides

          well, it doesn’t seem like too much of Scoot’s stuff is sheer copypasta, but about 95% rings pretty parrot-y. i.e., not so much condensed as barely lodged in the memory banks, and certainly not deeply contemplated.

        • adam

          “1) Only such a God as revealed in the Bible adequately grounds the physical coherence of the cosmos as we know it.”

          “as we know it.”

          Know as YOU misunderstand it

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1e354fc7cc2b98ee33f9a417062b3d79eafde2b48cf1d653e36212bc07a77cf2.jpg

        • adam

          “2) God’s existence is the only coherent basis, whether acknowledged or otherwise, for rational thought and communication.”

          Since you can’t have rational thoughts and communication, that leaves you with insanity or stupidity in place of your ‘God’

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b85c139d187be51d3fe0c0c77bcc2e185955505da1a61a389655083966df2057.jpg

        • Ignorant Amos

          The story book isn’t that easy to read. That’s why very few have read it. What is easier though, is listen to the rantings of someone else who claims to have read it and to have special knowledge on the subject.

        • Michael Neville

          Only such a God as revealed in the Bible adequately grounds the physical coherence of the cosmos as we know it.

          There’s other candidates for creator gods besides your favorite deity. The Bhagavata Purana, one of the 18 Great Histories of Hinduism, attributes the creation of Maya (the power or the principle that conceals the true character of spiritual reality) to Brahma, which he creates for the sake of creation, instilling everything with both good and evil, the material and the spiritual, a beginning and an end.

          God’s existence is the only coherent basis, whether acknowledged or otherwise, for rational thought and communication.

          I think and communicate quite well without the slightest influence from a fantastic, make-believe, non-existent figment of someone else’s imagination.

          Consequently, you Susan, as a nonbeliever, of necessity must draw on, borrow from, in fact, and I don’t mean to be rude but, intellectually steal from a biblical foundation in order to think coherently and to live sanely..

          So what’s your evidence that this nonsense is anything but straight from the bovine’s rectum bullshit?

    • http://timebottle.weebly.com/ Beau Quilter

      Anybody can play the quote that physicist game:

      “All that my work has shown is that you don’t have to say that the way the universe began was the personal whim of God.” Stephen Hawking

      “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” Steven Weinberg

      “Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] […]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on – so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem.” Neil deGrasse Tyson

      Unfortunately, your understanding of science hasn’t grown beyond Aristotelian Cause and Effect (4th Century BC) and medieval Aquinasian theology. At the quantum level, cause and effect is meaningless.

    • MNb

      “This of course opens the door ….”
      to recognizing events that are uncaused. Hey, guess what? That’s what Modern Physics does.

      “there might have been a causeless quantum particle”
      You rather mean quantum field – and actually several.

      1. You’ll have to argue that “God creates quantum fields” is the first event, not “quantum fields start to fluctuate”.
      2. You’ll have to accept a god playing dice.

      “Cogito Ergo Sum, I think therefore I am”

      is a non sequitur. You’ll have to establish that it’s “I” who does the thinking.

      “Because I think, therefore it is impossible that God does not exist”
      Another non-sequitur.

      “So asking why there is something rather than nothing is not an irrelevant question.”
      Agree. We atheists just add the question why that something has to be a god. Because that’s what you believe – there never was nothing, there always (whatever always means in this context) was the particular god you worship. Still you fault us for postulating that for instance quantum fields could be that something.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      What is the law of cause and effect, and how do you know it works?

      • Scooter

        Very briefly the Law of causality (or cause and effect) has been a strong argument for the existence of God. By looking at the nature and appearance of the earth which is one large effect and back to an adequate or sufficient cause, it is very plausible that the very first cause is God. Of course Aristotle argued this cosmological proof centuries ago. And Aristotle also pointed out that an eternal object doesn’t need to have a cause.
        But specifically to your point of what is the law of cause and effect? The simple definition “every effect must have a cause” is a “formal” truth. A formal statement is true because it contains in the words themselves all that is needed to recognize their truth. An example-a triangle has 3 sides which is true not only because we see that triangles indeed have 3 sides but because triangles “by definition” are 3-sided figures. The law of cause and effect contains the same kind of logical truth. How do I know it works? Experientially-even by the back and forth commenting on your blog right now. You wrote a blog (cause) and I responded (effect) here’s a challenge for you. can you provide at least one example, anywhere in the whole universe, of an uncaused effect?

        • Grimlock

          You wrote a blog (cause) and I responded (effect) here’s a challenge for you. can you provide at least one example, anywhere in the whole universe, of an uncaused effect?

          Your challenge doesn’t make sense. Instead you should ask for a phenomena that is not an effect. Then you should also explain why the obvious answer (“quantum stuff”) is invalid.

          Here’s a hint: it has a material cause, but perhaps not an efficient cause. But then, you need it to be the other way around. So a challenge back to you would be this: Can you point to an effect without a material cause?

          A second challenge to you us this. You are inductively reasoning that stuff inside of the universe has a cause. But you want to say that the universe, or all stuff, has a cause. How, pray tell, is our experience when it comes to universes coming into existence?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The simple definition “every effect must have a cause” is a “formal” truth. A formal statement is true because it contains in the words themselves all that is needed to recognize their truth.

          So you know it’s true just because it’s obvious? That’s an easy way to get burned. And in the quantum world, it doesn’t work—effects don’t necessarily have causes. Since the universe was a quantum particle, maybe it didn’t have a cause, either.

          An example-a triangle has 3 sides which is true not only because we see that triangles indeed have 3 sides but because triangles “by definition” are 3-sided figures. The law of cause and effect contains the same kind of logical truth.

          Not at all. Saying that a triangle has 3 sides because it does by definition is merely to state a tautology. You’ve informed us not at all. You’ve expended no effort. By contrast, your “law” of cause and effect is correct only due to your appeal to our common experience. And physics (yet again) shows us that experience in our middle world isn’t a reliable source of common sense in the very small or very large worlds.

          can you provide at least one example, anywhere in the whole universe, of an uncaused effect?

          Read up on the Copenhagen interpretation.

        • Otto

          Cause and effect requires time. Your argument therefore never gets off the ground, it is invalidated by its own premise.

    • Pofarmer

      This of course opens the door to consider that an eternal Being would not have to be argued that He is part of “everything.”

      If you can argue an eternal being, you can just as easily argue an eternal universe. Same difference.

      The evidence is that something rather than nothing exists.

      Except that you’re still stuck in circular question begging nonsense. That the Universe exists is evidence that the Universe exists. That’s pretty much it.

      Why? because “nothing” lacks reality.

      No, it’s that, to loosely quote Laurence Krauss “Nothing” may actually be impossible. Nothing might spontaneously create something.” Give us a “Nothing” to examine, and we can talk about it.

      My existence and everything around me could not come from nothing

      Except, once again, you’re making conclusions about things with which you have no experience. Circular nonsense.

      This idea changes everything because if something exists then the idea
      of a self-existent Being becomes not only possible but necessary-not
      only a rational possibility but becomes also a rational necessity.

      Yeah, so demonstrate how a dissembodied mind(something that’s never been witnessed) could actually produce anything. The idea of a mind behind things might be a nice placeholder to attempt to make things intelligible, but it’s not exactly rational and certainly not “necessary” by any stretch of your vivid imagination. I think that Planck assumes it because it’s the background and framework he was likely raised in.

      Reason demands that there be a necessary Being.

      See, it actually doesn’t, which is why the vast majority of professional philosophers are, wait for it, atheists.

    • GubbaBumpkin

      RE quotes from Planck and Heisenberg:

      1) Definitions of “faith” vary widely (not to mention that the two scientists you quote are not native English speakers; so either they are speaking in a secondary language, or someone else’s translation is involved)

      2) Did you notice that neither person says what they have “faith” in?

    • GubbaBumpkin

      And it’s telling that the originator of Quantum theory, Max Planck
      understood this when he said, ” All matter originates and exists only by
      virtue of a force… We must assume behind this force the existence of a
      conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”

      Citation needed.

      Does matter originate in force, or is force a property of matter? How would you demonstrate any force in the absence of matter?

      A physicist has no business speaking about consciousness and intelligence; these are the topic of another field.

      Planck is not viewed by scientists as infallible. Because he said something does not make it so.

      • Michael Murray

        If you just stick it in google it comes up on wikiquote.

        • GubbaBumpkin

          A responsible person would have provided a link. A serious person would have checked it back to an actual publication or speech by the alleged author. We all know the famous quotation by Abraham Lincoln.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You mean the Lincoln quote, “Don’t believe everything you read on the internet”? No, that one’s legit. I looked it up.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A responsible person would have provided a link.

          Believers don’t follow links, so they don’t think it is a requirement to provide one. This has driven me to be lazy when replying to believers in kind. Most of the time I will differentiate a citation by placing it in italics, even then one can tell when they haven’t bothered their arses reading the provided information. But I endeavour to link citations to those I think will be interested in the source.

          Because believers take the Kool-Aid at face value, the think all the rest of us are the same. Accepting assertions as gospel I think they call it.

          https://todayinsci.com/P/Planck_Max/PlanckMax-Quotations.htm

          It fascinates me when the godbots cite some scientific genius in support of their god claim, as if no one here understands compartmentalisation. It’s as if they think that because they are geniuses in one field, they can’t get anything wrong at all.

          I’m going to go out on a limb here and presume the godbot will be less likely to cite a genius from a competing religious background as god evidence for other gods.

          As for the counter examples… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology ….shussssssshhh!

    • Greg G.

      I would suggest a more accurate phrasing would be “every effect has a cause.”

      That does not imply that everything is an effect. A cause acting on nothing cannot have an effect. But quantum events create pairs of particles where one is the mathematical equivalent of the other travel the opposite direction through time. The creation event (for us) of the virtual pair is the creation of the particle traveling in time with us but the annihilation of the partner of the pair and the annihilation is the creation of the reverse time traveling particle. So the virtual pair causes itself. No magic needed.

    • GubbaBumpkin

      Max Planck

      Later in life, Planck’s views on God were that of a deist.[38] For example, six months before his death a rumour started that Planck had converted to Catholicism, but when questioned what had brought him to make this step, he declared that, although he had always been deeply religious, he did not believe “in a personal God, let alone a Christian God.”[39]

    • GubbaBumpkin

      Werner Heisenberg

      On 24 March 1973, Heisenberg gave a speech before the Catholic Academy of Bavaria, accepting the Romano Guardini
      Prize. An English translation of its title is “Scientific and Religious
      Truth.” And its stated goal was “In what follows, then, we shall first
      of all deal with the unassailability and value of scientific truth, and
      then with the much wider field of religion, of which – so far as the
      Christian religion is concerned – Guardini himself has so persuasively
      written; finally – and this will be the hardest part to formulate – we
      shall speak of the relationship of the two truths.”[132]

      1) He regards scientific truth as “unassailable”
      2) He does not hold the same regard for religion
      3) He considers science and religion not to be closely related, which means that in the quote you provided, he was probably talking out his ass.

    • adam

      “Rather than “simpler”, I would suggest a more accurate phrasing would be “every effect has a cause.””

      So what’s the cause of God that allows its’ effect to create?

    • http://ian-wardell.blogspot.co.uk/ EyesShiningAngrily

      Thank God, I’ve seen a sensible post at last.

    • eric

      I would suggest a more accurate phrasing would be “every effect has a cause.”

      Rephrasing won’t change the fact that it’s an assertion. Or at best, an inductive inference that seemed reasonably well justified up until the 20th century, but which has been undermined in the past 100 years or so by new observational evidence.

      Because I think, therefore it is impossible that God does not exist. My existence and everything around me could not come from nothing

      I don’t think that last claim holds up any more. But even giving you that, it’s a big unjustified step from a prime moving principal to the Christian God.

      Skipping back up a bit:

      “nothing” is not a “pre-something” such as the thinking that before the Big Bang there might have been a causeless quantum particle. No, nothing is not something reduced to a minimum, it is no thing whatsoever.

      Are laws of physics – in this case laws of conservation – ‘things’? If yes, then they could not have existed in your primordial ‘no thing.” But this poses a problem for the Christian because the claim “something can’t come from nothing” is itself a type of law of conservation. So if such laws are things, then the rule “something can’t come from nothing” could not have been governing your no thing….and therefore, something could come out of it, because no conservation law was there to prevent such a happening. On the other hand, if we say that laws of physcs – such as conservation laws – are not ‘things’ and so could exist in a primordial nothing without making hash of the concept, then there is no need of God.

      Which, if your counting hands, means there is no need for God, period. Either you’re okay with a rule-governed nothing in which case non-God things could be the prime mover, or you say a true nothing had no rules, in which case something could come out of it because there could be no rule preventing that from happening.

      • skl

        “Are laws of physics – in this case laws of conservation – ‘things’?”

        I think that Yes, they’re things, because we not only talk about them, we observe their effects and can quantify
        them with formulas.

        “If yes, then they could not have existed in your primordial ‘no thing.””

        I think that for all practical purposes the answer is again Yes. Science knows the laws of physics
        only because of their effect on other things. If none of those other things
        were in existence to be effected, there would be no way of discerning the
        existence of laws of physics. The laws of physics would be as good as
        nonexistent.

        I think it sensible to posit that both – those other things (i.e. matter and energy) and the laws of physics that
        govern them – came into existence at the same time.

        • eric

          I think that for all practical purposes the answer is again Yes. Science knows the laws of physics
          only because of their effect on other things. If none of those other things were in existence to be effected, there would be no way of discerning the existence of laws of physics.

          That’s a dodge. The question is whether the ‘primordial nothing’ or ‘no thing’ was governed by a conservation law that states ‘something can’t come from nothing.’ Was it? Or not?

          Because if Christians are positing a primordial nothing not governed by such a law, God is unnecessary. And if they claim laws like that don’t count as things and thus could have existed primordially, then God is unnecessary.

        • skl

          “That’s a dodge. The question is whether the ‘primordial nothing’ or ‘no thing’ was governed by a conservation law that states ‘something can’t come from nothing.’ Was it? Or not?”

          I think the answer is No. That is, the ‘primordial nothing’ or ‘no thing’ was not governed by a conservation law because the conservation law is a thing and things didn’t exist.

        • eric

          Then something can come from that nothing. No God needed, because no law or principle of conservation prevents it from happening.

          Right?

        • skl

          “Then something can come from that nothing.”

          I don’t see how, barring some “miracle”.

        • eric

          That’s the argument from incredulity. I don’t care if you ‘cant see how’: without a conservation rule preventing it, it could happen. Without a law preventing it from happening, something can come from nothing.

          So which “nothing” do you want? A rule-less one where God is not necessary? Or a rule-governed one where physics rules are a substitute for God as the prime mover?

          You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t declare the primordial nothing had no rules, then say something could not come out of it. ‘Could not’ is a rule.

        • skl

          “That’s the argument from incredulity. I don’t care if you ‘cant see how’:
          without a conservation rule preventing it, it could happen.”

          Without a conservation rule preventing what? There IS nothing, and so nothing for a non-existent conservation rule to have prevented.

          “Without a law preventing it from happening, something can come from
          nothing.”

          I don’t know what you’re basing that statement on. Certainly not science. Maybe some type of philosophy.

        • Susan

          without a conservation rule preventing what?

          Preventing something coming from nothing.

          I don’t know what you’re basing that statement on. Certainly not science. Maybe some type of philosophy.

          The claim “Something can’t come from nothing.” is not based on science, either.

          It’s “some type of philosophy”.

        • Susan

          I don’t see how.

          What would constrain anything?

        • Michael Neville

          I don’t see how, barring some “miracle”.

          Your ignorance and incredulity are not good arguments.

  • eric

    Philosophy comprises a lot of different things. Ethics. Aesthetics. Studies of historical modes of thought (Greed philosophy, Confucian philosophy, Mideval philosophy, etc.) or religious arguments. Symbolic logic. Probably lots of other things too. The fraction of philosophy and philosophers that spend their time trying to claim philosophy is necessary for science is probably very small.

    I was a double major in philosophy and chemistry in college. From a practical standpoint, the philosophy courses didn’t make me much of a better scientist. Some of it probably instilled in me a healthy skepticism of human observation, thus drilling into me the importance of reproducibility and tools like blinding a test and/or confirming it with independent instruments and techniques. But that’s probably the only real impact. OTOH, I don’t think my courses in things like symbolic logic, ethics, and the like were intended to make me a better scientist. They were intended to make me a clearer thinker about logical problems and ethical dilemmas. And they did that.

    So, I’d say that philosophy is mostly useless as a science-teaching or science-practice tool. The same way a course on the history of the civil war is pretty useless as a science-teaching or science-practice tool. You want to learn how to do (e.g.) physics well, take physics lab classes. Then intern in a physics lab – there is no substitute for practicing the real thing. But I’d also say that anyone attacking philosophy because it’s useless at physics is attacking a pretty idiotic and weak straw man.

    [Edit] Craig’s claims are neither good philosophy nor good science, so don’t really bear on the question of ‘what good is philosophy’ – unless the answer to that rhetorical question is “it’s good at preventing you from making idiotic reasoning mistakes like Craig’s.” If we want to discuss Craig, we should change the order of the title to read “What is good philosophy”, and then we can answer: “not his.”

  • MNb

    To paraphrase an ancient Greek philosopher: can some philosopher give BobS a quarter? Then he finally can say that a philosopher has done something for him lately. He won’t be happy with anything else – like telling him why Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy is false or presenting any other philosophical argument he uses to criticize christianity.

    • Susan

      can some philsopher give BobS a quarter?

      To be fair, I don’t think that BobS wanrs a quarter.

      Most of us (including BobS) just want to have reasonable discussions about stuff.

      But people like WLC dominate the airwaves of the discussion (and people like Ameribear claim “metaphysics, therefore, victory! I’m right!! )

      The same way those types misrepresent what math says and what math can do and proclaim victory.

      BobS. is busy doing philsopshy (whether he knows it or not)

      And people like Ameribear and WLC say “philosophy says I’m right”.

      For this reason, Bob S. hears “philosophy”: and gets a bad smell in his nose.

      Anyway, other than the title, you wouldn’t have a problem with the article.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      As the last line notes, I have another post planned that will say some nice things about philosophy. Maybe that will improve things a bit in your mind.

  • Pofarmer

    Ex Nihlo Nihli fit (from nothing comes nothing) is a little older than the Sound of Music. Lol. It goes back to the Ancient Greeks. Sean Carroll calls it the longest running circular argument.

  • http://ian-wardell.blogspot.co.uk/ EyesShiningAngrily

    Is the author having a laugh? What is clear is that he understands absolutely *nothing* about this subject whatsoever. And, unlike him, I’m using the word “nothing” in its actual sense.

    • Otto

      And you literally offered nothing as a rebuttal….well done giving a real example of nothing.

    • Rudy R

      I second the response from Otto. Show us what you got.

    • http://timebottle.weebly.com/ Beau Quilter

      Do you have an actual critique in mind? Because you’ve basically said nothing of substance.

    • Ignorant Amos

      That’ll be that philosophical definition of “nothing” in the actual sense…aka devoid of substance…just like your comment.

      When was there nothing?

  • DoorknobHead

    PHILOSOPHY — A BRUTE CROWBAR TO LOOSEN THE MIND UP A BIT
    Isn’t philosophy, at it’s best, just a starting point that challenges preconceived notions? When is philosophy most enlightening? Isn’t it when Plato or Pluto, Socrates or a sophic-tease creates an Eureka moment within the consumer? “Wow, my perspective just opened up! That is a surprising perspective I have never considered before that seems to fit reality perfectly given the argument presented.” This gives a chance for the consumer to think, “Wow, I may have been thinking wrongly about this my whole life — I wonder what else I might be wrong about?” Yet, once this new nugget is in the toolbox of the consumer, they still have to test it against reality to see how good of a model it might be –> “Science, bitches.” Eureka! Religion may be when one stops at philosophy without testing it adequately.

    • TheNuszAbides

      aye, the stress-test is paramount!

  • http://timebottle.weebly.com/ Beau Quilter

    In it’s original usage, the word “philosophy” was a term used for the study of any body of knowledge, which is why the terminal degree for most academic professors is the PhD (Doctorate of Philosophy). The scope of what is now taught in a contemporary department of philosophy has shrunk as our body of knowledge has exponentially expanded.

    The attempt by some to pit “philosophy” against “science” is a basic misunderstanding. Science IS philosophy. It is a branch of philosophy that has advanced so far in depth and complexity, it leaves what used to be termed as “metaphysical philosophy” in the dust.

    • GubbaBumpkin

      The attempt by some to pit “philosophy” against “science” is a basic misunderstanding.

      That misunderstanding has been fed by those practicing sophistry, particularly in defense of theism. If philosophy wants to maintain a reputation as a serious endeavour, perhaps it should call out those who misuse the tools of philosophy. Otherwise they are perceived as representing the field.

  • http://secularoutpost.infidels.org/ Jeffery Jay Lowder

    I’m stuck at the second paragraph.

    1. What, precisely, is “popular philosophy”? Is that supposed to mean non-academic philosophy? You single out philosopher William Lane Craig, but. as his leading atheist critic on the Internet for the last 20 years, I think you are being massively uncharitable to him. The man is an academic philosopher and most of his work is at an academic level, not a popular (read: non-scholarly) level.

    2. Moving on, you claim that brings “popular philosophy,” whatever that means, “into the study of problems in physics and biology as if they’re making an important contribution to the scientific conversation.” It seems to me that is not only false, but obviously false. I’ve read most of the man’s work and I have never once seen him claim, imply, or otherwise suggest that he’s “making an important contribution to the scientific conversation.” That is a strawman of your own creation.

    All me to explain using one of your own examples: the kalam cosmological argument.

    Craig says that the scientific field of cosmology provides strong evidence that (i) our universe is expanding; (ii) the expansion has a beginning; and (iii) our universe has a beginning. (As an aside, I agree with him about i and ii, but consider iii unproven.) I’m fairly confident that Craig would categorize (i)-(iii) as scientific claims, not philosophical claims. Furthermore, nowhere does Craig claim that philosophy “makes an important contribution to the scientific conversation” regarding (i)-(iii).

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Thanks for your input.

      1. What, precisely, is “popular philosophy”? Is that supposed to mean non-academic philosophy?

      I mean thoughtless philosophy—something stated as common sense that really hasn’t been checked out or thought through.

      You single out philosopher William Lane Craig, but. as his leading atheist critic on the Internet for the last 20 years, I think you are being massively uncharitable to him. The man is an academic philosopher and most of his work is at an academic level, not a popular (read: non-scholarly) level.

      Yes, I am aware of and greatly appreciate your work in responding to him and trying to get him to debate.

      WLC has impressive degrees, and yet his popular work (I don’t believe I’ve read any of his scholarly work) is often pathetic (in the eyes of this admitted amateur). As these examples show, he justifies his statements with arguments that might not get a passing grade in high school. What am I missing?

      I have never once seen him claim, imply, or otherwise suggest that he’s “making an important contribution to the scientific conversation.”

      He doesn’t make arguments to the scientific community; he brings his scientific arguments to the lay population. It’s in that domain that I see him imagining making a contribution to the scientific conversation.

      Craig says that the scientific field of cosmology provides strong evidence that (i) our universe is expanding; (ii) the expansion has a beginning; and (iii) our universe has a beginning. (As an aside, I agree with him about i and ii, but consider iii unproven.)

      Also an aside: I find (ii) weak because the Big Bang, as I understand it, doesn’t point to a beginning but simply says that there’s a point beyond which you can’t go back in time with current thinking. That does suggest a beginning, but I don’t think that “the Big Bang says that the universe had a beginning” is correct.

  • Ryan M

    I’m not sure how this is a critique of the use of philosophy. The author cited a few things from William Lane Craig, Leibniz, and Aquinas. This seems less like a critique of philosophy and more like a critique of the usefulness of particular aspects of the philosophy of religion.

    When a person’s knowledge of philosophy appears to come from sparring with theists on blogs, the person is obviously not knowledgeable enough to critique the usefulness of philosophy as a discipline.

  • Fred Knight

    Great blog post! nail on the head….”pop” philosophy indeed…true philosophy is unbiased. I find it rather sickening that philosophy is being trotted out in either direction.

  • TheNuszAbides

    I think I see Hawking’s/your point, in that Philosophers as a specialized class have faded into obscurity/micro-minority, as ‘vanguard minds’ over the past 2 or 3 or 4 centuries of post-“natural philosophy”, e.g. the intensely practical disciplines of the physical sciences. once upon a time, philosophers by definition were at the top of the terrain of ideas, because proto-scientists and -technocrats still didn’t have telescopes or microscopes or particle accelerators or howitzers to play with. there was less knowledge to branch out or specialize in, so each and every philosopher could kick around and/or refine a lot of the same stuff from generation to generation. but now it’s hardly fair to expect even a polymath to develop a substantive synthesis of physics and biochemistry and genetics and probability and plain old word-gamey philosophy …
    however, i think the more recent (half-century-ish) developments in ‘science of mind’ have in a way given philosophy ‘another chance’ at achieving relevance/prominence. at the very least, ‘applied philosophy’ is a better way to carve out the rotten overkill/over-reach of PoMo/relativism, on logical grounds, than simply trashing it root and branch (as so many Sokal Hoax fanbois seem to think is essential). even more hopefully, they can re-focus on our cerebral shenanigans and get stuck back into metaethics/metaphysics. good for giving religious excuse-making a rigorous verbal smack-down or two, if nothing else … I mean, there was shit even Nietzsche didn’t have the resources to figure out, amirite?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      I’m happy to see philosophers (that is, not scientists) contribute to scientific questions, I just haven’t seen examples. It’s always scientists with a philosopher’s hat on (or just scientists).

      • MR

        God-damn it, Bob, scientists aren’t allowed to think. That’s the philosopher’s job!

  • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

    That is a great and challenging read Bob.

    I have some observations. Not empirical observations mind you, but logical observations which is what philosophy is all about.

    Bob writes: “The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics (there are other interpretations, but this one may be the most popular among physicists) says that some events at the quantum level have no cause. For example, when thorium-234 naturally decays into protactinium-234, the nucleus emits an electron. The electron wasn’t in the nucleus before, and it had no cause. The universe at the beginning of the Big Bang might have also been a cause-less quantum particle.”

    Let’s take the Copenhagen interpretation seriously for the sake of argument. If we extend the interpretation to the universe as you suggested, what you are really saying is that a quantum particle existed eternally, which is another way of saying it requires no explanation or evidence.

    That suggestion is the converse of the Kalam argument. ‘Something that always existed does not require a cause.’ It smacks of ‘nature of the gaps’ convenience the same way invoking God can when not argued properly.

    Logic tells me that the reason WLC says that something cannot come into being uncaused is that it would be the antithesis of science. It would be ‘magic’. And as WLC has said, this is common sense. But it is better to explain WHY it is common sense than simply say it.

    If I accept the Copenhagen interpretation I must accept on faith that electrons pop into existence from a source we call nothing. But we can never mean by that ‘nothing’ in the strict philosophical sense. Rather, I mean that I cannot observe it empirically. It is the equivalent of what you criticized as platitude. ‘It just IS’.

    My main point is that we err when we conflate evidence for proof. We may prefer to think of the inexplicable (the magic) of our world as impersonal, as an objective natural wilderness that sees nothing, knows nothing, and expects nothing. In other words, we may wish to observe the universe from the philosophical position of, ‘It is what it is’.

    But how is that in any way superior (in evidential terms) to others who find logical grounds to believe (whether they prefer it or not, and many who DO believe it, do not prefer) that it is more tenable to observe the universe from the philosophical position of, ‘I am that I am?

    Given the startling evidential relationship between quantum effects and the observer (how can energy be both a particle and a wave?), it occurs to me that consciousness is a more logical explanation for why some effects are inexplicable in terms of empirical or mechanical causation. And that suggests to me that theism has the high ground.

    No one can prove either interpretation. We must proceed on philosophical ground, because if the Copenhagen interpretation is correct, there can BE no evidence. If the theisric interpretation is correct, we might find our evidence, but we will have to ask God for both the ‘how’ and the ‘why’s.

    I think Lennox illustrates the difficulty you’ve raised exceptionally well. Sauce for the Goose indeed! The locus of these questions seem to be in our questions (and philosophical presuppositions) regarding consciousness and energy. Empirical science cannot help us there.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IByCl_enr4A

    • epeeist

      What it is really saying is that a quantum particle existed eternally, which is another way of saying it requires no explanation or evidence.

      No it isn’t, what it is saying is that one can produce a description of the thorium-234/protactinium-234/electron system as a superposition of states each of which has a particular probability. We could write a complete description of this as:

      √p|T> + √(1-p)|P+E>

      The point being that there is nothing that tells us if and when a particular thorium nucleus will decay, it is purely stochastic.

      Given the startling evidential relationship between quantum effects (how can energy be both a particle and a wave?) and the observer,

      Several things are wrong with this, things are not both particles and waves, they are what they are. It is our conceptual schema that describe things as particles and waves.

      It is poorer analogy the deeper one looks, quantum field theory would consider “particles” as merely weak excitations of a quantum field.

      Finally, be careful when you refer to “observers”, unfortunately some pop-science leads people to believe that an “observer” is some kind of conscious entity. This is very much a minority view of those working at the foundation of quantum mechanics.

      • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

        Thank you…

        First things first. Forgive my ignorance, but what are the tags used here to create a readable quote block as you have? I need to catch up on my formatting skills.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Testing…

          This link might help ya out….

        • Ignorant Amos

          Nailed it.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          The nice thing about knowing nothing and being humble about my ignorance is that there is so much to learn. That’s hard for people who think they know everything and have papers to prove it.

          10 years ago I had tags dialed at a particularly nasty atheist forum. They’re quite valuable tools. Thanks again.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The nice thing about knowing nothing and being humble about my ignorance is that there is so much to learn.

          That’s refreshing to hear. In my experience, believers are very rarely of that position. That’s when they get stupid and start using my moniker against me as some kind of mocking tool, not realising how much of a dumbass it makes them in doing so.

          The majority of the religious think they have all the answers already, so with a few exceptions, are completely close minded. The not close minded are the ones that learn enough to realise the problems with religion and oft times give it up as a bad job.

          That’s hard for people who think they know everything and have papers to prove it.

          Of course, paper isn’t the end all and be all…plenty of very brainy folk have displayed their foolishness, but that ain’t the case here. I’ve associated, on and off, on a number of forums with epeeist for ten years now and I can’t remember an occasion when he has been wrong. That’s not to say he hasn’t, or couldn’t, be in error, but that fact would need to be demonstrated.

          Amateurs like you and I need some pretty damning counter arguments to refute someone with a doctorate. That would usually mean citing someone else with a doctorate that holds a contradictory position, and understanding the reason why. That’s a big ask for most of the more high brow disciplines. That’s why a pick ma fights, while lurk on many others.

          I think you mistake epeeist’s directness for bullying too…I’ve seen that happen before also.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I’ve been Neo running from agents many (many) times if you’ll appreciate the analogy. I’ve gotten cocky with new revelation and thought I knew Kung Fu, only to have Morpheus kick my Arse. Repeat both of those scenarios daily for 17 years and that is why I respect my own ignorance. My name is nobody.

          I also have given up religion as a bad joke during that malaise (just like Moses and Peter and Thomas and others in case you did not notice), I am just a truck driver after all. I can’t figure these things out.

          But if Logic (Trinity) is with us and we are honest about it, new information that paints an entirely different picture emerges, and gives new life as it were. It is not a cocky and egotistical position, all that melted away in the fire of war. I am too defeated to be arrogant. And that frees the mind to see clearly. Its rather astounding actually. No fear and a second wind or an effortless ability.

          Take Doc Holiday’s character from the Hollywood version of Tombstone for example. He is fearless because he has Tuberculosis. He is already a dead man. That is the baptism. Once we are dead to self, God can work through us in orders of magnitude rarely seen.

          As for epeeist never being wrong… there’s a first time for everything. I may not know him personally, but I know his kind. I don’t mind the directness at all. I find it rather useful to tell you the truth. His ego (because of that pedigree) is his Achilles heel.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYwdzYC3uUc

        • Ignorant Amos

          Just when we were getting along so well too.

          I also have given up religion as a bad joke during that malaise (just like Moses and Peter and Thomas and others in case you did not notice),…

          Just like Moses and Peter and Thomas and others? Care to expand?

          I am just a truck driver after all.

          Even as a truck driver you should be able to understand. How would you interact with someone that hadn’t past their driving test or held a license, let alone an HGV license, erroneously giving it large about the foibles, to use a fencing term, on the discipline of cross continental truck driving and loading/off loading etiquette.

          I can’t figure these things out.

          Then why get upset when that is being pointed out?

          But if Logic (Trinity) is with us and we are honest about it, new information that paints an entirely different picture emerges, and gives new life as it were.

          There is nothing logical about the Trinity. Maybe the reason not all Christians are Trinitarian’s, and those that are, can’t explain it.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw

          It is not a cocky and egotistical position, all that melted away in the fire of war. I am too defeated to be arrogant. And that frees the mind to see clearly. Its rather astounding actually. No fear and a second wind or an effortless ability.

          That is just incoherent woo woo…word salad is incoherent.

          Take Doc Holiday’s character from the Hollywood version of Tombstone for example. He is fearless because he has Tuberculosis. He is already a dead man.

          Was he fearless because he had TB? Can you demonstrate he was? Didn’t he have a reputation for being fearless before contracting TB? It would seem he was by some accounts.

          He was given only a few months to live when first diagnosed, but he ended up having TB for many years. Holiday’s fearlessness can just as easily be attributed to his handiness with a gun borne out of his activities as a gambling card shark.

          What about all those fearless folk that don’t have TB and thus are not already “dead men”? Where does their fearlessness come from? What about all those folk who are diagnosed with terminal illness, yet never become fearless?

          That is the baptism. Once we are dead to self, God can work through us in orders of magnitude rarely seen.

          Unsubstantiated platitudes are all very well, but they are of no consequence unless they can be demonstrated with evidence. Got evidence?

          As for epeeist never being wrong… there’s a first time for everything.

          If you read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote, you’ll discover your straw man.

          I may not know him personally, but I know his kind.

          What kind is that then?

          I don’t mind the directness at all. I find it rather useful to tell you the truth.

          So then what’s your beef here? Pointing out that you appear to not have a clue about basic physics and logic, is being direct and telling the truth. You playing the victim card is not being logical. What you need to do is demonstrate the assumption that you don’t know basic physics and logic is fallacious by showing that you do. You haven’t as far as I can see….yet.

          His ego (because of that pedigree) is his Achilles heel.

          Possibly, but you have yet to show that it is, so pah!

          In the meantime, are you suggesting that when you believe you are the holder of a pedigree in a certain field, say truck driving for example, your ego wouldn’t enter into a discussion with someone who has no pedigree in that field? I doubt it.

          There is nothing wrong with an ego that can be supported…but we should use the less controversial term of a branch in “self concept” methinks.

          Academic self-concept refers to the personal beliefs about their academic abilities or skills.

          It will only be his Achilles heel when he is faced by his academic Paris, but on that day I’ll go out on a limb and state that there will be no problem, that’s how honest scientists roll.

        • Greg G.

          There is nothing logical about the Trinity.

          Not “THE” Trinity. He is referring to Trinity, the woman in The Matrix. Don’t be disrespecting Carrie Anne Moss characters.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Not “THE” Trinity. He is referring to Trinity, the woman in The Matrix.

          Ah…right…a bit cryptic. All these references to other examples of fiction in his comments…even historical fiction…is getting a bit much.

          The reference to Trinity makes even less sense…or I’m on a different wavelength and not getting it it? Always a possibility.

          Don’t be disrespecting Carrie Anne Moss characters.

          Never.

        • Greg G.

          The reference to Trinity makes even less sense…or I’m on a different wavelength and not getting it it?

          Where is james warren when you need a metaphor explained?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You don’t listen well at all. You read words but not the point.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Robert, it would be nice to see you make a point I could discern from amongst all the enigmatic riddles, that had some validity. So far, nothing yet, with reference to the topic at hand.

          As for not listening well at all, it seem’s like that must be catching.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yes, humility is a good approach. In some Christian circles, it’s in short supply.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          One can be knowledgeable and fierce, yet remain humble. We were talking about humility in a 12 step group that I co-lead this morning. Its one of those severe tests of character that is worth revisiting frequently.

          In particular we discussed false humility, which really boils down to playing the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Greg and Amos come to mind with the upvotes and amicable posturing as they circle and wait for an opportunity to strike.

          Some of us have been at this long enough to see it from a mile away. It can be used to lead them into my trap. But I make no pretense of the harmless sheep. I prefer the motto, ‘be wise as serpents and innocent as doves’

          Good to hear from you Bob. Let’s keep in touch…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIiA4SM3LEY

        • Ignorant Amos

          In particular we discussed false humility, which really boils down to playing the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Greg and Amos come to mind with the upvotes and amicable posturing as they circle and wait for an opportunity to strike.

          You are being disingenuous now, which is a form of dishonesty. Both Greg and I, hold similar view points in many areas, we’ve known each other online for a few years now, why wouldn’t we be amicable? As for upvoting, I wouldn’t read too much into that, people upvote for all manner of reasons, not least of which is to acknowledge reading a particular comment.

          If you can’t hack being a member of the out group when finding yourself in an in group environment, maybe you should think twice about engaging in the proceedings, it will get worse before it gets better with the attitude you have brought with you.

          But, since that is your stance on our interaction and you can’t handle the pace…I’ll leave ya alone.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Robert seems obsessed with debating games and rhetorical tricks. If he has something to say, I wonder that he doesn’t just let his good argument stand on its own rather than lead with all the bluster.

        • Ignorant Amos

          He’s trying to be more “sooofistykated” than his ever present blue collar will allow.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So far we know that you’re humble but that, like the lion, every once in a while you tear the shit out of everyone, just to show them who’s boss.

          Let’s see if you have compelling arguments before we grant you the title of king of the jungle.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          That is the beauty of a public setting Bob. Neither you nor I have to convince each other of anything. I would not presume to change your mind if we had a million years to hash this out.

        • MNb

          You gave some nice examples of false humility, when you tried to explain what Quantum Mechanics means for the Cosmological Argument to a physicist and a teacher physics …..
          Instead of preferring that motto you should rather try to put it into practice. Just underneath you did the exact opposite of your beloved motto, see:

          “Logic is the king of the jungle. He is a friend of mine though.”
          In the first place you don’t recognize that even this king is subject to a simple rule: if a logical conclusion contradicts the empirical data then the premisses are wrong.
          In the second place in contrast to you I’m not arrogant enough to claim that logic is a friend of mine. I’m a too simple guy to do anything but obey – and that makes a friendship impossible.

        • Ignorant Amos

          But, but, but,….Bobby is a blue collar truck driver who has watched loads of online videos over a 17 year period…surely that must qualify for something? //S

        • Luvin’ it

          Don’t forget atheists too after all by the numbers they’re waaaaaay behind theists (conservative theists at that) in terms of charity. Non religious liberals are dead last

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          1. I’m sure if you look at enough traits, you’ll find some where the theists do better than the atheists. Doesn’t surprise or bother me.

          2. And yet … this ain’t one of them. Eliminate the contributions to the church, and the theists don’t win this race, either (in the US, anyway).

        • adam

          ” That’s hard for people who think they know everything and have papers to prove it.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7e6eceefda06b08605b3653301b5e246ee7fbd6ce2a594a4e6a0d18e41ce10f5.jpg

        • Ignorant Amos

          Like someone who thinks the scutum fidei logically explains the existence of the Trinity, when all it does is…

          [ ]… conclude that God is not God, and so the doctrine of the Trinity implies that God as well as all three persons of the Trinity violate the law of identity. One of the fundamental assumptions of conventional logic is that objects that violate the law of identity do not exist: there is no entity that is not itself. This means several things:

          If trinitarianism is true, then God does not exist, and neither do any of his three persons.

          If God exists, then by the law of noncontradiction the Trinity is a false doctrine.

          If God exists and the Trinity is true, it can mean two things:

          Logic is meaningless, because it is possible to prove anything, including the existence and the non-existence of God.

          Trinity means something else than its Christian definition.

          It requires a “special” kind of brain to hold on to beliefs like this. The exercise is reminiscent of the Orwellian “logic test” 2+2=5, which signified to the party that someone has been “broken”, since anyone capable of accepting that could accept anything. Non-mystics may experience difficulty in envisaging 1 = 3 and 3 = 1 – even though the two statements appear commutative.

          https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trinity#Some_attempts_at_formal_logic

      • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

        “No it isn’t, what it is saying is that one can produce a description of the thorium-234/protactinium-234/electron system as a superposition of states each of which has a particular probability. We could write a complete description of this as:
        √p|T> + √(1-p)|P+E>
        The point being that there is nothing that tells us if and when a particular thorium nucleus will decay, it is purely stochastic.”

        But that is no different than when I interfere with your sword by cutting my own across it. You could not have mathematically predicted that your sword would stop at the point it did by studying physics. As an experienced swordsman, you might expect this angle or that, but I surprised you. You will need to ask ME why I made the move I did that violated your expectations. You predicted a win, but lost. The phenomenon of consciousness, free choice, and creativity is very much present.

        It may appear random to you, but the old saying of ‘God doesn’t play dice’ comes to mind. Science and mathematics won’t help explain conscious activity.

        “Several things are wrong with this, things are not both particles and waves, they are what they are. It is our conceptual schema that describe things as particles and waves.
        It is poorer analogy the deeper one looks, quantum field theory would consider “particles” as merely weak excitations of a quantum field.”

        I understand completely. It is exactly the same with the theological concept of the trinity. Allow me to use your own formula.

        -TheGodhead is not both Father and Son, he is who he is. It is our conceptual schema that describe those attributes as Father and Son…. Christian theology would describe the Son as merely a weak manifestation of the Godhead. And it would be a poor analogy indeed to see the Son as separate from the Father.-

        A Jastrow quote comes to mind…

        “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” -Robert Jastrow

        “Finally, be careful when you refer to “observers”, unfortunately some pop-science leads people to believe that an “observer” is some kind of conscious entity. This is very much a minority view of those working at the foundation of quantum mechanics.”

        -smile- Yes, of course. I do not wonder. Be careful epeeir. The Logos (the name John gave to Jesus) is faster than you think. And he is a very good teacher.

        Next?

        https://youtu.be/Sq-uMIZGETs?t=55

        • epeeist

          But that is no different than when I interfere with your sword by cutting my own across it.

          It is very different, your sword does not exist in a superposition of two (or more) states.

          It may appear random to you, but the old saying of ‘God doesn’t play dice’ comes to mind.

          But this has nothing to do with your god, merely Einstein claiming that quantum mechanics is an incomplete description of reality. Given that Einstein’s EPR thought experiment was shown to be false with the work of John Bell and the experiments of Alain Aspect then Einstein was wrong.

          It is exactly the same with the theological concept of the trinity.

          Nope, the trinity cannot be described using a first order boolean algebra (I have issued a challenge to others in the past to produce a logical schema for the Scutum Fidei, so far I have had no takers).

          As for Robert Jastrow, he was wrong when he said “Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment.”, for a start off science doesn’t prove anything, it provides the best current explanation for a particular set of phenomena. Secondly, our current theories break down at the Planck epoch, this being so all we can say is that the universe was in existence after this. Before this (if “before” has any meaning in this context) we cannot say.

          EDIT: As for fencing, I prefer Aaron Szilagyi:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGearEu2PlU

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          “It is very different, your sword does not exist in a superposition of two (or more) states.”

          You missed the point (or you are evading it) entirely. Where is my sword going to be when you swing yours?

          Will it cut across your own, or will I thrust it into your collar from above?

          “Nope, the trinity cannot be described using a first order boolean algebra (I have issued a challenge to others in the past to produce a logical schema for the Scutum Fidei, so far I have had no takers).”

          Boolean algeabra won’t explain why my daughter is laughing at you either. Math is not an applicable tool for everything. Does that mean she isn’t really laughing?
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBcqd3cFRDU

          “As for Robert Jastrow, he was wrong when he said “Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment.”, for a start off science doesn’t prove anything, it provides the best current explanation for a particular set of phenomena. Secondly, our current theories break down at the Planck epoch, this being so all we can say is that the universe was in existence after this. Before this (if “before” has any meaning in this context) we cannot say.”

          Think about it. Jastrow was saying the same thing YOU are, that mathematics and empirical SCIENCE cannot say.

          Asserting it as proven FACT that the universe had a beginning as he did, is no different than what YOU mean when you speak of scientific fact. All of us (you, Jastrow, and myself) ALREADY know that there are no proofs and that ‘science carries the caviat. Are you equivocating concepts on me?

          We are FORCED by our ignorance to use philosophy. And philosophy can be tested for logical contradiction the same as empirical entities. One with mathematics, and the other with propositional logic. Both rely on the same fundamental laws of logic. There is no point in questioning the validity of philosophy, because the attempt will always ITSELF be a philosophical criticism. Its like trying to demonstrate mathematically that mathematics is worthless.

          It would seem you thought you put this all to rest by slaying others in the past.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ62frK74u0

        • epeeist

          You missed the point (or you are evading it) entirely. Where is my sword going to be when you swing yours?

          In that case could you please provide me with the state vector for the situation you are describing, it would be useful if you could identify the Hermitians at the same time.

          Boolean algeabra won’t explain why my daughter is laughing at you either. But logic will.

          Classical logic is a boolean algebra. However, if you can demonstrate the logical consistency of the Scutum Fidei be my guest.

          Jastrow was saying the same thing YOU are, that mathematics and empirical SCIENCE cannot say.

          Ah, the Auguste Comte fallacy. There is of course a difference between something that is unknown and something that is unknowable. Can you actually demonstrate that the formation of the universe is unknowable?

          All of us (you, Jastrow, and myself) ALREADY know that there are no proofs

          You betray your lack of understanding of the way science works by using the word “proof”.

          ‘science carries the caviat.

          What’s a “caviat”?

          And philosophy can be tested for logical contradiction the same as empirical entities.

          But deductive logic relies on the truth of its propositions, how can one tell whether, say, “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is true or not?

          Both rely on the same fundamental laws of logic.

          Which logic, there are many (try something like Susan Haack’s The Philosophy of Logics for a non-exhaustive list)?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_yRJOX1fppQ

          “In that case could you please provide me with the state vector for the situation you are describing, it would be useful if you could identify the Hermitians at the same time.”

          That’s your problem not mine. You’re making my point. When you are dealing with conscious entities your beloved mathematics falls apart unless I reveal my next move.

          “Classical logic is a boolean algebra. However, if you can demonstrate the logical consistency of the Scutum Fidei be my guest.”

          I know nothing about it. But that is why I do this, to learn your moves and expose them publicly when applicable. Thanks for the research tip.

          “Ah, the Auguste Comte fallacy. There is of course a difference between something that is unknown and something that is unknowable. Can you actually demonstrate that the formation of the universe is unknowable?”

          What??? I believe the universe IS knowable. There would be no point in doing science (philosophically or empirically) without the faith that it is ultimately intelligible.

          Your moving goalposts again. Not to worry, I’ve come to expect that sort of thing.

          It is not a question of wether it is knowable, but a question of What tools are necessary for different phenomenon. You are conflating categories. If you want to know why a pot of coffee is brewing thermodynamics won’t help. It is because I needed a cup of Joe.

          By forcing ALL phenomenon into your little box of mathematics, you risk whatever credibility you have as a brilliant mathematician with your obvious blunder into philosophical nonsense.

          IF the universe is the act of conscious choice for purposes and meaning DEFINED by the creator, science will not take you all the way. It will help a great deal, but you will ultimately need to ask HIM about your missing vectors.

          That does not make it unknowable epeeir. It simply makes you uncomfortable, and me too for what it’s worth. But I find I learn more by stepping out of my emotional comfort zone into real wildness. Nothing is more wild than conscious activity.

          “But deductive logic relies on the truth of its propositions, how can one tell whether, say, “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is true or not?”

          We can’t. We must accept logic as axiomatic by Faith. There is no other light for intelligibility. That is why John called him the true light.

          The REAL question is whether you are prepared to accept the alternative, that things can magically pop into existence UNCAUSED?

          Both beliefs require faith, but if you value science… choose wisely.

          “Which logic, there are many (try something like Susan Haack’s The Philosophy of Logics for a non-exhaustive list)?”

          Wow.. are you calling into question the tool you need to argue with if there is to be any difference between a fallacious and a valid argument? As I edited into my last reply (reread it), ‘who is the real Slim Sophist now?

          The law of non contradiction is all we need for this discussion. You see epeeier… I don’t have to persuade you. Persuasion is not my goal. If it were I’d be sending private messages to people like you.

          What matters is that OTHERS can see you obfuscate and evade with your games and sophistry all the while characterizing things as if it is the other way around.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TVsNEIOXTQc

        • epeeist

          That’s your problem not mine.

          No, it’s your problem. I offer some basic physics, something you plainly have no understanding of. Rather than admit this you attempt to change the subject.

          I believe the universe IS knowable.

          Which is not what I asked, I asked whether you to demonstrate that the formation of the universe is unknowable.

          By forcing ALL phenomenon into your little box of mathematics, you risk whatever credibility you have as a brilliant mathematician with your obvious blunder into philosophical nonsense.

          Where did I do this?

          Wow.. are you calling into question the tool you need to argue with

          Off the top of my head I can point to predicate logic (first and second order), epistemic and doxastic logic, modal logics of various degrees of rigour and a variety of multi-value logics, which tool are you talking about?

          The law of non contradiction is all we need for this discussion.

          Oh, and paraconsistent logic which dispenses with the law of non-contradiction. While we are at it, there are some that don’t accept the law of excluded middle. On top of that you have one of the great logicians of the 20th century, Willard Van Orman Quine, who thought that logic was revisable.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          No, it’s your problem. I offer some basic physics, something you plainly have no understanding of. Rather than admit this you attempt to change the subject.

          You asked a complex question by conflating categories. Putting it back into proper context is not changing the subject, but exposes your error.

          Which is not what I asked, I asked whether you to demonstrate that the formation of the universe is unknowable.

          Asked whether ‘you to demonstrate’? Got a caveat for that grammar?

          Oh, and paraconsistent logic which dispenses with the law of non-contradiction. While we are at it, there are some that don’t accept the law of excluded middle. On top of that you have one of the great logicians of the 20th century, Willard Van Orman Quine, who thought that logic was revisable.

          Oh, he thought did he? Insert hearty blue collar chuckle.

          To dispense with the law of non contradiction IS the law of non contradiction. Equivocating, by changing the term contradict to dispense… will not save you.

        • epeeist

          You asked a complex question by conflating categories.

          To be blunt, I doubt whether you know what is meant by “complex question”, but hey-ho.

          Anyway, what happened was that I gave you something straight from quantum mechanics 101 which you didn’t understand and tried to cover up firstly by a ridiculous analogy and then by attempting to shift subject. Not the first time this kind of thing has happened here.

          Got a caveat for that grammar?

          So I made a mistake, I never claimed to be infallible.

          Oh, he thought did he? Insert hearty blue collar chuckle.

          So you have never heard of Quine, but given that you know nothing about philosophy this is hardly surprising.

          To dispense with the law of non contradiction IS the law of non contradiction.

          Let’s add logic to philosophy as something you nothing about.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          To be blunt, I doubt whether you know what is meant by “complex question”, but hey-ho.

          LOL, I’m counting on that very thing. Keep underestimating.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ry9ztvh8Ac8

        • Ignorant Amos

          Robert seems to be confused on what it is philosopher’s do…

          Oh, he thought did he? Insert hearty blue collar chuckle.

          A list of some famous thinkers of the past, and the great thinkers of today. These are people who offered some new ideas and thought to help improve the situation of the world. These thinkers come from a range of different areas from science and philosophy to human rights and politics.

          http://www.biographyonline.net/people/famous/great-thinkers.html

        • epeeist

          Robert seems to be confused on what it is philosopher’s do…

          Robert seems to be suffering from a severe case of DKS, it seems to lead to bloviation and bombast.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          What’s a “caviat”?

          Haha!

          Physicist… meet blue collar truck driver… with a lot of time to think things through and listen to lectures and debates.

        • epeeist

          with a lot of time to think things through and listen to lectures and debates

          But not a lot of clue about basic physics or logic.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Feel emboldened to demonstrate that accusation as you’ve managed to find a spelling error. You’re almost home. And since I really dont like bullies I’ll help deliver you. Ask me why…

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kKK7LmywKOQ

        • Ignorant Amos

          Feel emboldened to demonstrate that accusation as you’ve managed to find a spelling error.

          As a blue collar truck driver, even one that has had a lot of time to think things through and listen to lectures and debates. It might be prudent not to get into an argument about physics and logic with someone who is an accomplished physicist that is well read and educated in the area of logic. Just saying.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Thanks for the advice. I’ve been on the receiving end of the appeal to authority many times before with my brothers. I never cared much for the fancy clothes, boots, and hat, but consider it duly noted.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qwb3P0fuM1c

        • Ignorant Amos

          Btw, the appeal to authority isn’t a fallacy if the authority is genuine.

          Example

          ” The Pope told me that priests could turn bread and wine into Jesus’ body and blood. The Pope is not a liar. Therefore, priests really can do this.”

          Explanation: The Pope may believe what he says, and perhaps the Pope is not a liar, but the Pope is not an authority on the fact that the bread and wine are actually transformed into Jesus’ body and blood. After all, how much flesh and blood does this guy Jesus actually have to give?

          Exception: Appealing to authority is valid when the authority is actually a legitimate (debatable) authority on the facts of the argument. In the above example, if Jesus testified that this was actually happening, I guess we’d have to believe him. The above example demonstrates the kind of subtle difference in being an authority on the idea of transubstantiation vs. the actual effectiveness of transubstantiation.

          https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Well aware thanks. I don’t know everything but you can dispense with the basics.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Btw, have you ever heard of something so stupid as the concept of transubstantiation? I can’t even believe people try to defend it for any protracted period of time. They must not read their bibles or take Jesus all that seriously. Not that I didn’t wrestle with it at one time, but for the love of Reason and all that is Holy, people ought to catch on at some point.

          On eating flesh and drinking blood…

          John 6:60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

          61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit and life.

          Jesus is intentionally provoking thought and even explains that in order to understand the point they should not take it literally but figuratively. He very intentionally makes it VERY difficult. That removes the insincere quickly.

          Spirit = logic and intellect. To be spiritual is to be mindful and intellectual. Like Sheep, we need to chew and chew, and then cough it back up and chew some more. Cud is your friend.

          How badly do we want truth? Are we willing to dig down deep through many layers sand until we find bedrock?

        • Greg G.

          It seems to be a theme in the Gospel of John that Jesus is misunderstood. It is a literary technique to expand on subjects.

          In John 3, Nicodemus speaks with Jesus. Jesus tells him he must be born “from above/again” which is a pun in Greek. Nicodemus thinks he said “born again” but Jesus explains that he means “born from above”. Since the pun doesn’t work in other languages, the conversation would have been in Greek. But would a Pharisee speak with Jesus in Greek in Jerusalem? In Antiquities of the Jews 20.11.2, which would be more than twenty years after leaving Jerusalem, Josephus says “I have also taken a great deal of pains to obtain the learning of the Greeks, and understand the elements of the Greek language, although I have so long accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness; for our nation does not encourage those that learn the languages of many nations”.

          The conversation seems to be a fictional account which puts John 3:16 in doubt.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Please, I am not interested in swallowing up my time with coincidental and circumstantial criticisms.

          I have seen such parallels before. C.S. Lewis dealt with this line of argument in his book Miracles. I see no logical reason to assume a causal link. So what if it was a pun in Greek?

          Consider the following because the same weak criticism exists here as well. I have made sure the video will start at the proper line of argument for you:

          https://youtu.be/Uv4kx2QP4UM?t=349

        • Greg G.

          So what if it was a pun in Greek?

          I notice the foreigners at work speak their first language among themselves, even when they speak English very well. A conversation between two Aramaic speakers in Jerusalem in Greek seems strange.

          The video questions how the dying/rising god could come to the Jews. I think they got it from the Suffering Servant in Isaiah. Isaiah 53 has the servant dying for sins and then intercessing for sins. They had been hoping for the Messiah to come since the mid-second century BC. They began to read Isaiah’s Suffering Servant as “a hidden mystery”. When they began to see it that way, they assumed it was being revealed to their generation which implied that the Messiah would come to their generation. That’s why Paul used the first person plural when talking about it and the third person plural for the dead who would rise when it happened. Paul says he got his gospel from the Old Testament and we can check that by seeing that everything he says about Jesus can be found in the Old Testament. He didn’t know any first century information about Jesus and he didn’t think his knowledge was inferior to the knowledge of the super-apostles, because he knew they got their information from the same text he did.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Btw, have you ever heard of something so stupid as the concept of transubstantiation? I can’t even believe people try to defend it for any protracted period of time. They must not read their bibles or take Jesus all that seriously. Not that I didn’t wrestle with it at one time, but for the love of Reason and all that is Holy, people ought to catch on at some point.

          You’d think so, but Christianity today is based on Pauline Christianity. A lot of the New Testament is counter Pauline Christianity.

          Drinking blood and eating flesh would be anathema to the Jews, but who was Paul’s audience? What was the belief’s going about at the time? Pagan perhaps? Where that sort of thing was not a problem.

          https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/robert-price-will-the-real-jesus-please-rise-part-3/id536701884?i=1000364217023&mt=2

          Greg is pointing out that a double entendre in John that doesn’t work in Aramaic, because there is no word in Aramaic equivalent to the Greek word used in the NT, anothen, that means both “again” and “from above”, ergo Jesus didn’t say it and therefore it is not historical. If it isn’t histrical, then it was made up, so what else was made up and for what reason?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Rubbish.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Demonstrate what is rubbish and why you think it is rubbish, if you can…or don’t…the choice is yours…but rubbish ain’t a rebuttal and just saying it, only reinforces my thinking vis a vis your grievance with epeeist and the accuracy of his assessment of you abilities, to which you complain.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I already provided the argument with the short video of C.S. Lewis’ book miracles. The historical account cannot be examined without first settling the philosophical context.

          You are begging the question Amos.

          Intentional or not, you are attempting to drag me into a debate whetein the context will assure I cannot defend my position. I have fallen prey to that before. Do I look or argue like a freshman?

          I have tried to tell you to dispense with the basic bag of tricks (or was that Greg?). It is not because I am afraid of the truth or an area of weakness. Its because its rubbish. My apologies for not explaining myself earlier.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I already provided the argument with the short video of C.S. Lewis’ book miracles.

          No, no, no….that is intellectually lazy. That is not you providing the argument, that is you punting to Lewis and wanting the rest of us to parse out what it is you have in mind. By all means, cite Lewis as a reference to support your position, but don’t think it is good form to expect me to find your point in a milieu. Pick a detail that you believe has some substance and we can go from that point.

          The historical account cannot be examined with out first settling the philosophical context.

          Ballix. The philosophy of the Christian worldviews is built on a number of historical premises. If they didn’t happen, and we know they didn’t, the whole philosophical house of cards comes tumbling down. Now granted, there are a minority of Christian worldviews for which the historical account has little impact, but those ain’t what we are talking about. Yer man John Lennox is a Christian Bible believing theist, the history appears to be central to his belief.

          You are begging the question Amos.

          Spooooiiiing!

          It is you that is begging the question…applying the fallacy properly.

          Description: Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. Many people use the phrase “begging the question” incorrectly when they use it to mean, “prompts one to ask the question”. That is NOT the correct usage. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.

          Apply your logic that, “The historical account cannot be examined with out first settling the philosophical context.” to other religious worldviews and then ask who is begging the question?

          If Mo didn’t ride a flying horse to get Allah’s message from Gabriel, then in what philosophical context can the historical account apply?

          If Joe Smith didn’t go and collect two golden tablets, a magic hat, and some seer stone spectacles, then no amount of philosophical context matters.

          You want to put the cart before the horse.

          The philosophical context of the Christian worldviews is dependent on which version of the historical account’s one chooses. They are numerous.

          Intentional or not, you are attempting to drag me into a debate whetein the context will assure I cannot defend my position.

          Not at all. You came here remember, the door wasn’t nailed closed when you come in, but you can’t come along and dictate how others choose to engage. If you cannot defend your position, then perhaps your position is untenable, ever thought of that?

          I have fallen prey to that before.

          Well as I’ve no idea what it is you are referring to, I can do nothing to help you out.

          Do I look or argue like a freshman?

          Do you look like one, not if your avatar is anything to go by, no. Are you acting like a freshman, so far, absolutely.

          have tried to tell you to dispense with the basic bag of tricks (or was that Greg?). It is not because I am afraid of the truth or an area of weekness. Its because its rubbish.

          What tricks? If you are not afraid of the truth, then what’s yer problem? If there is no area of weakness in you position, then what’s yer problem? You don’t get to say, “It’s because it is rubbish”, then expect those here to go alright then, I’ll pick up my ball and goo home. Robert says it, Robert believes it, that settles it. You either have to put up,or shut up.

          Would it be acceptable discourse for you if I said your position is rubbish and let that be the end of it?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Plenty of neophytes out there for you to have your fun with. Been there done that.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett
        • MNb

          Great movie. Unfortunately you are incapable of recognizing that you represent the loser from this scene.
          Btw the scene is taken over from one of the Trinity movies. Terence Hill and Bud Spencer (the latter doesn’t participate in My Name is Nobody) were pretty big in Europe in the 1970’s.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          However, if you can demonstrate the logical consistency of the Scutum Fidei be my guest. I have issued a challenge to others in the past to produce a logical schema for the Scutum Fidei, so far I have had no takers

          So now you are challenging me with that hand?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-kDlUnj5lg

          I have never heard the term or seen the diagram that I know of, but I was relieved to find the concept very familiar. I have thought and written about this… a lot. Thanks for bringing it up.

          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg/853px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg.png

          “The Father is God”
          “The Son is God”
          “The Holy Spirit is God”
          “God is the Father”
          “God is the Son”
          “God is the Holy Spirit”
          “The Father is not the Son”
          “The Father is not the Holy Spirit”
          “The Son is not the Father”
          “The Son is not the Holy Spirit”
          “The Holy Spirit is not the Father”
          “The Holy Spirit is not the Son”

          I really like the diagram. We can see immediately why John called God the Logos as it is a diagram OF logic (not to be confused with a logic diagram).

          It will work with any logical formula but since you are an accomplished mathematician we will use basic arithmetic.

          1+2=3

          In its totality, we call that an equation, the logical expression is itself an added dimension created by uniting the other 3.

          So, put the numbers into any of the corners. We will use Father for
          1, Son for 2, and Holy Spirit for 3. Then in the center write the word equation (our 4th dimension). Now we can get back to our syllogism.

          “The 1 is equation”
          “The 2 is equation”
          “The 3 is equation”
          “Equation is the 1”
          “Equation is the 2”
          “Equation is the 3”
          “The 1 is not the 2”
          “The 1 is not the 3”
          “The 2 is not the 1”
          “The 2 is not the 3”
          “The 3 is not the 1”
          “The 3 is not the 2”

          My suspicion is that you are going to be distracted by the values of the digits in our illustration. But that is irrelevant and we must understand why.

          1 is part of the equation
          2 is part of the equation
          3 is part of the equation

          Any single digit is synonymous with equation, as is any combination of them. Not the value of the equation or the digits, but the existence of the equation itself as a whole.

          If that is not working for you, consider the following:
          Any logical expression is necessarily complex as logic does not exist apart from the uniting of particulars. Logic is the equation or God in our diagram.

          I know I know… I am not supposed to be able to articulate or comprehend the Trinity. I am supposed to say it is a great divine mystery. But it is no more mysterious than the validity and existence of logic itself. Its no more complicated than the fact is it axiomatic and self referential. I am not sure why so many churchmen think we should not ask such questions or attempt to think. So long was we follow logic very carefully, ‘not straying to the right or left’ of its (His) laws; if we meditate on those laws day and night (or over the road) we are following God if John is correct.

          The difficulty that people have with the concept of the trinity is that we tend to picture single entities as individual and give them values. The nature of Logos however (or God if you will) is as a unified whole. The unified whole IS the base identity. On some level, the son may be lesser than the father just as 1 is lesser than 2. But both are equally indispensable to the existence of the equation.

          Let me put it another way… We tend to think of atoms in the singular. But in reality the one thing is a uniting of particulars like electrons protons and neutrons. The atom represents the equation or God in the diagram.

          Humanity is a species of male and female. Which one is a human being? The answer cannot be an either/or. Like a photon that is both a particle and a wave, humanity at a minimum is not a single individual but a species consisting of male and female. Both are indispensable to the existence of humanity. Humanity represents the equation or God in the diagram.

          This is why Genesis records our name as it does. The ASV uses the original Hebrew term for mankind, and it is a unified name.

          Genesis 5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 2 male and female created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. One creature, two parts, then 3, then 4, then billions.

          I don’t know about you, but I have to think that it is Logos himself breaking the glass at the beginning of this song. Sure sounds like a ‘thief in the night’ to me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hu109lSozdw

        • epeeist

          So now you are challenging me with that hand?

          A mere invitation, one that I see you are either unwilling or unable to undertake.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          A mere invitation, one that I see you are either unwilling or unable to undertake.

          You want me to logically demonstrate the validity of logic?

          We don’t have to demonstrate axioms genius. We need only consider the absurdity of denying them. “The fool says in his heart, ‘there is no Logos’.”

          Why is it foolish? Because the proposition of the statement depends on Logos.

        • epeeist

          You want me to logically demonstrate the validity of logic?

          No, I want you to demonstrate the logical validity of the Scutum Fidei.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          As I already explained, the Scutum Fidei IS the schema for logical validity.

          You are asking me to prove an axiom a sophist and infantile challenge.

          Logic must be assumed valid by Faith and recognition of the absurdity of the alternative.

        • epeeist

          As I already explained, the Scutum Fidei IS the schema for logical validity.

          No, you didn’t explain, you asserted, there is a difference.

          But here you go, pick the bones out of this.

          1. G is defined as {F, S, H} (God defined as {Father,Son,Holy Spirit})

          2. F=G AND S=G AND H=G (God wholly present as Father and wholly present as Son, and wholly present as Holy Spirit)

          3. F=S=H=G (from 2, because ‘=’ is a transitive relation)

          4. G := {F, F, F} (from 1 and 3)

          5. G := {S, S, S} (from 1 and 3)

          6. G := {H, H, H} (from 1 and 3}

          7. G := [G, G, G] (from 1 and 3)

          8. G := {{F, S, H}, {F, S, H}, {F, S, H}} (from 7 and 1)

          Statements 4-8 contradict 1. and 2, in other words the idea of the trinity presented in the Scutum Fidei is contradictory and hence is false.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Fish on!

        • epeeist

          Fish on!

          So what you are saying is either that you are incapable of understanding my post or you have no rational response.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Yes well you ARE a dreamer… patience Neo. The answers are coming.

        • epeeist

          Yes well you ARE a dreamer… patience Neo. The answers are coming.

          I am fond of Douglas Walton’s works on informal logic (oh look, another kind of logic) and in particular his eponymous book on the subject.

          This contains a list of what he calls “negative persuasion rules”, included in which are:

          1. Not making a serious effort to fulfil an obligation is a bad strategy. Notable here are failures to meet a burden of proof or to defend a commitment when challenged.

          2. Trying to shift the burden of proof to the other party, or otherwise alter the burden of proof illicitly is not allowed.

          3. Purporting to carry out an internal proof by using premises that have not been conceded by the other party is not allowed.

          4. Appealing to external sources of proof with backing up your argument can be subject to objection.

          5. Failure of relevance can include providing the wrong thesis, wandering away from the point to be proved, or answering the wrong question in a dialogue.

          6. Failing to ask questions that are appropriate for a given stage of dialogue should be prohibited, along with asking questions that are inappropriate.

          7. Failing to reply appropriately to questions should not be allowed, including replies that are unduly evasive.

          8. Failing to define, clarify or justify the meaning or definition of a significant term used in an argument, in accord with standards of precision appropriate to the discussion is a violation, if the use of this term is challenged by another participant.

          I have emphasised the ones that are particularly relevant when it comes to your responses. No doubt you will sneer at Walton as you did at Quine but it’s all much of a pattern with you.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          No. What I am saying is that I am glad to see you challenge. It’s always a learning opportunity for me.

          I am not satisfied with my current understanding, nor confident that things are what they appear to be on the surface. Until I know that I know, any argument remains in development.

          My argument is lacking, but its close. I find it difficult but not utterly innefable. But in order to proceed I need criticism.

          You have provided. And though the rest of these squabbles have been fun and all, this topic is a life’s work and worthy of deliberate meditation and prayer.

          I know what it is. It’s a diagram of logic. But it also represents the mind of fellowship. It is Logos. The question and challenge is how to articulate it.

          It may turn out to be like cosmic causation. Indescribable. And I’d be okay with that relationship. It would make sense that God is at least as inefable as cosmos. I would expect him to be much more so.

          But maybe it’s just the opposite and so simple that we miss it in our arrogance.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett
        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          This was valuable criticism because it confirms my own self criticism. Not sure why you can’t just picture all that without math. Are you stupid or something?

          I’m kidding… I’m kidding. I see the value of being able to express the concepts so they are not stuck in my head. Math can work well for that, but so can philosophical propositions which is my preferred method since i do not know the definitions of many mathematical symbols. I can barely help my kids with long division. I have to remind myself LOL. As embarrassing as that is, that is how little math I have needed in my career and life. Use it or lose it they say.

          Remember what I said originally, that it was ‘my current thinking’. (you can confirm that with your emails that it was not an edit). For future reference, I edit profusely for grammar, spelling, and even additional clarity. But I never change the context or anything dicey.

          I am going to respond propositionally. Feel free to convert to math, but be prepared to educate me if needed on the symbolism. I will let you know if i don’t understand.

          I said originally that the values did not matter And If I understand you (after looking up what := means), you are giving equal measure to each individual character (F,S,H). That is my fault. It was my argument you tested. And that led to the contradictions.

          But I realized and you confirmed that they DO matter, and there is biblical support which is crucial. Jesus said that the Father is greater than I.

          I ALSO said that there is a 4th dimension created in the presence of coherence. The equation becomes a 4th entity. This I ALREADY saw, but was too lazy that evening to take the time to think it through. That is why I added a bit later (by edit) that that might be superfluous. But it was a good start for throwing it together. It was best to allow you to help me if you chose to try and dodge the main point and contextual argument. The tenability needs to be there in MY context too. And sure enough, fish on.

          I noticed you took your time. Please allow me the pleasure of doing the same. This is not a Beavis and Butthead battle of insults so common on the boards, thanks.

          Here is where the rubber meets the road and I may fail. In which case I will have to relent to the theologians of history who found the trinity mysterious in the same way that we find causation mysterious…

          G is not equal to F
          G is not equal to S
          G is not equal to S

          That is NOT what the Scutum Fedei is expressing. The values are crucial as I now see it in my new and improved but still current understanding.

          Rather, it is as I stated in my original response. G is equal to FSH But I didn’t quite put it that way did I. Rather, I used the arthimetic illustration which still holds with one caviat(sic)

          1+2=3

          “The 1 is equation”
          “The 2 is equation”
          “The 3 is equation”
          “Equation is the 1”
          “Equation is the 2”
          “Equation is the 3”
          “The 1 is not the 2”
          “The 1 is not the 3”
          “The 2 is not the 1”
          “The 2 is not the 3”
          “The 3 is not the 1”
          “The 3 is not the 2”

          ‘is the’ does not represent the same relationship as the symbol =

          All it is saying is that 1 is part of the equation just as equation is part 1, part 2, and part 3

          G =Equation

          Theologically, this implies (I hope its not heresy -wink-) that the Holy Spirit holds the highest position of value because if the Father is greater than Jesus, then Jesus cannot be the highest value. So my positioning of the symbols was wrong.

          Our difficulty will be assigning values in terms of mathematics to persons.

          What we have here is a fellowship, a family. As a whole they are God (equation). And each is part of the family, and the family is made of its parts. There is a hierarchy but also equality in that God’s very nature of wholeness depends on each of the three being present.

          AND… my favorite part, is that it is also a picture of logic, the Logos. Which means it is the foundation of…. mathematics.

          Another thought occurred to me today. What if this was is also the blueprint for consciousness? If we are made in God’s image and have a mind, body(brain), and soul, perhaps that is why we can think logically like our God; because we were made that way. If that were so, it would confirm another prediction of mine. That AI will never be built by humans. Even with the blueprint, we do not know how to assign value to persons be they minds (software) bodies (brains) or souls(combination of the two). Math can’t compute personal values.

          God left us incomplete according to the bible. That was the death. Without God himself as part of that equation in us, we are not truly conscious in the way we think we are. We will need a truck driver to educate us, who DOES have God as part of HIS equation. But I am getting WAY ahead of myself and carried away. You still have to criticize the reformulated argument.

          I told adam that he should not presume to refine me (put me in my place). But I like you epeeir. I even respect you. You have my permission to refine. If you can…

        • epeeist

          Math can work well for that, but so can philosophical propositions which is my preferred method

          The exposition is mathematical logic.

          That is NOT what the Scutum Fedei is expressing.

          Let’s try and make it simpler, here is the shield again:

          http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg/1138px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg.png

          Now this says “God is the father”, “God is the son”, “God is the holy spirit”. It also says “The son is not the father”, “The father is not the holy spirit” and “The son is not the holy spirit”.

          Let’s pick two from the first sentence:

          P1. God is the father
          P2. God is the son

          We also know “The son is not the father” (this is transitive, i.e. it can also be read “The father is not the son”). So we can substitute for “son” in our second proposition and we then get

          P3. God is not the father

          Which obviously contradicts P1. And since you are aware of the law of non-contradiction you can see that the Scutum cannot be correct and hence the whole logical basis of the trinity simply falls apart.

          What if this was is also the blueprint for consciousness? If we are made in God’s image and have a mind, body(brain), and soul, perhaps that is why we can think logically like our God.

          What you are describing is something like substance dualism, something that the large majority of philosophers of mind would dismiss (it is hard enough for predicate and property dualism to get a look in these days). The majority of philosophers of mind are monadic physicalists.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          1+2=3

          1 is part of the equation
          2 is part of the equation
          3 is part of the equation

          Equation has 3 parts: (as in, the atom is part nucleus)

          Equation is part 1
          Equation is part 2
          Equation is part 3

          No contradiction.

          It looks to me as if the early illustrations of the Trinity were very good considering their age. It just needed development.

        • epeeist

          1+2=3

          You are making my point for me, namely that 1+2=3 is the same as 3=1+2, namely that transitivity applies.

          Equation has 3 parts

          Amusing that you are using numbers, i.e. mathematics to try and show that the Scutum is consistent when you accuse me of conflating mathematics and logic.

          As it is this is a) an extremely poor analogy and b) doesn’t address the simple bit of predicate calculus that I set out.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Not amusing at all, the numbers are only theoretical placeholders for the actual thing, which is itself a person.

          You are making my point for me, namely that 1+2=3 is the same as 3=1+2, namely that transitivity applies.

          I will contemplate that, thank you.

        • epeeist

          Not amusing at all, the numbers are only theoretical placeholders for the actual thing, which is itself a person.

          And you further make my point for me, what you are saying is that these are simply individual entities added together, not a mereological fusion of elements.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Let me think…

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I know the objection that is coming to my last replies to you today. I have not demonstrated that the Scutum Fidei is an axiom.

          On a sheet of paper, put 1, 2, and 3 in the corners. Write equation in the center. Or if you prefer a different illustration. write 1+2=3 and then draw a circle around the equation and mark that circle equation.

          Solved.

          You’re mistake was to assume that G=F,S, or H.But if it makes you feel better, so did a lot of other people including theologians.

          In fact, the only thing it demonstrates is an equation, which in turn, is a picture of logic that can be expressed mathematically as well as it must.

          More to the point. It is a diagram of the law of non contradiction in it’s -entirety-

          What do I mean by that?

          If we say A is not -A, we are taking our own presence for granted as we define A. What is an A if no other entity exists to contrast with it?

          There can be no meaning for any given particular in isolation. In order for identity to apply and exist, a relationship of particulars must exist simultaneously.

          When we examine A and model it as Aristotle did, we take our own presence for granted and do not notice that for the law of non contradiction to exist apart from anything other than itself as the bible claims, requires a more complex model.

          Aristotle in essence became the 3rd entity by observing the difference between A and non A, defining it even. We complete the over-simplistic equation by our observation without realizing it.

          The other thing it tells us is that the relationship of particulars must be logical. It is theoretically conceivable that three particulars could exist simultaneously and not have a mereological relationship. But that is just another way of saying that they do not result in an equation.

          We are looking at what John called Logos.

          Too simple for you to notice perhaps? If so don’t feel bad. I have always overthought it too.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          As I reread that last reply, I already see a few difficulties, a couple of which are going to be misunderstandings, but I will await your red ink on my little paper. It helps confirm you are paying attention and also my own understanding. G’night.

        • epeeist

          As I reread that last reply, I already see a few difficulties, a couple of which are going to be misunderstandings, but I will await your red ink on my little paper.

          Well I am looking forward to an actual, substantive response but for some reason I am reminded of the White Queen:

          The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday – but never jam to-day.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What’s a “caviat”?

          You know–when you’re putting caviar on a cracker and drop it on the cat.

        • TheNuszAbides

          no, that’s Murphy’s Law in action. the caviat is when you circumvent it by strapping the caviar-topped cracker to the cat’s back to ensure that it will never land caviar-side-down.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Classical logic is a boolean algebra.

          Do not conflate logic with the mathematical expression of logic. Gödel rebuke you…
          Logic can manifest itself in many forms. Logicism may have been ambitious, but has not panned out.

          I think you’ll like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lecFYZHXEqY

        • epeeist

          Do not conflate logic with the mathematical expression of logic. Gödel rebuke you…

          You do realise that Gödel’s proofs relied on encoding logical forms into arithmetic..

          As for your video, I don’t actually watch videos in that the information transfer rate is far too slow. I much prefer links to things I can read.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You do realise that Gödel’s proofs relied on encoding logical forms into arithmetic…

          And you do realize it is irrelevant other than for your dream…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy0ABjAP0TI

          As for your video, I don’t actually watch videos in that the information transfer rate is far too slow. I much prefer links to things I can read.

          Not to worry, the videos are not for you. This is not private dialog, and I do not expect you to absorb anything I bring to the table. They are for anyone else who is not so hasty with their agenda and will contemplate thoughtfully and carefully, slowly, considerately.

        • epeeist

          And you do realize it is irrelevant other than for your dream…

          I’m sorry is that supposed to be a response to me pointing out something that can be found in, say, Newman and Nagel?

          This is not private dialog, and I do not expect you to absorb anything I bring to the table.

          Oh I am happy to accept that there are more lurkers than contributors. I am equally happy for them to read both your posts and mine and to decide who is making the most sense.

          When you actually bring something to the table that I (and others here) haven’t seen many times before I’ll let you know.

        • MNb

          “Where is my sword going to be when you swing yours?”
          If all relevant variables are known at beforehand we can determine that according to Classical Physics in terms of cause and effect.
          That is not the case with atomic decay, which cannot be described by Classical Physics but can by Quantum Mechanics – in terms of probability.
          That’s why it’s a failure to use causaility in all versions of the Cosmological Argument if cause is used like physicists and WLC do.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Great! But my point to epeeir is that neither will help when dealing with a conscious entity. You’d need the mind of the sword bearer and his purposes. If you did, you might stop him from putting you to the sword.

        • MNb

          No, I do not need the mind of the sword bearer and his purpose to stop him. A laser gun will do – a weapon that works thanks to recognizing quantum mechanical probability. So your analogy fails even before it started. And it does nothing to contradict that your favourite conscious but immaterial entity (never mind that you don’t even show how that makes sense either) plays dice when we’re talking atomic decay.
          Three failures in two lines – a pretty good score.

        • Greg G.

          The Logos (the name John gave to Jesus) is faster than you think.

          John probably got the term from Philo who borrowed it from Greek philosophy. The Greeks need the demiurge, Logos, to explain how an immaterial being could interact with a material world. We can see that John and the epistle writers thought of interactions between God and people were through Jesus.

          John 1:17 (NIV)
          For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

          Acts 10:36 (NIV)
          You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.

          Acts 13:38 (NIV)
          “Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.

          Romans 1:8 (NIV)
          First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.

          Romans 2:16 (NIV)
          This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

          Romans 5:21 (NIV)
          so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

          Romans 7:25 (NIV)
          Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

          Romans 8:2 (NIV)
          because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.

          Romans 16:27 (NIV)
          to the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.

          2 Corinthians 1:5 (NIV)
          For just as we share abundantly in the sufferings of Christ, so also our comfort abounds through Christ.

          2 Corinthians 3:4 (NIV)
          Such confidence we have through Christ before God.

          2 Corinthians 5:18 (NIV)
          All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:

          Galatians 3:14 (NIV)
          He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit.

          Ephesians 1:5 (NIV)
          he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—

          Philippians 1:11 (NIV)
          filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God.

          Titus 3:6 (NIV)
          whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior,

          Hebrews 13:15 (NIV)
          Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name.

          Hebrews 13:21 (NIV)
          equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

          1 Peter 2:5 (NIV)
          you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

          1 Peter 4:11 (NIV)
          If anyone speaks, they should do so as one who speaks the very words of God. If anyone serves, they should do so with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ. To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever. Amen.

          Jude 1:25 (NIV)
          to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Not totally sure what you are driving at, but I’ll do my best…

          John probably got the term from Philo who borrowed it from Greek philosophy. The Greeks need the demiurge, Logos, to explain how an immaterial being could interact with a material world.

          Probably?

          I have never heard that the Greeks used it (ever) to connect their gods to the world. The Greek gods were beings inside this world and would be subject to the higher order. Their gods were truly nature gods; gods of the gaps as it were. As I understand it, for the Greek stoics, Logos was the rational principle behind the universe. It also meant reason, speech, and even science itself. Correct me if need be, but I don’t know where you got that idea.

          I see no evidence that John borrowed it ad hoc. When I look at the profundity of John’s claim, I take it to be quite clear that he was intentionally personalizing what was held by the Greeks to be an abstract impersonal quality of the way nature happens to be.

          The Greeks thought of Logos as a kind of machine-like mathematics much like our modern materialists, whereas John was modifying the concept with personality and calling it a mind, the mind of God; not a nature God, but the God of nature. John is getting in behind spoken language to the language of logic itself that is required for any kind of speech be it mathematical, written, or spoken.

          John 1: 1 In the beginning was the [Logos], and the [Logos] was with God, and the [logos] was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

          I like the way John Lennox explains it. He said:

          “Here are the physicists and cosmologist describing the universe in terms of laws that are written in compressed form with mathematical symbolism. Laws describing regularities, to say nothing of the DNA in the genome and its digital code. The idea that all things came to be through the [Logos] is not some silly primitive notion. It fits perfectly with all our intuition and experience that flows out of science.”

          This short video is also very helpful to convey the concept and historical backdrop.

          https://youtu.be/E-4106tamnI?t=12

        • Greg G.

          Probably?

          I have never heard that the Greeks used it (ever) to connect their gods to the world. The Greek gods were beings inside this world and would be subject to the higher order. Their gods were truly nature gods; gods of the gaps as it were. As I understand it, for the Greek stoics, Logos was the rational principle behind the universe. It also meant reason, speech, and even science itself. Correct me if need be, but I don’t know where you got that idea.

          From http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/greek-philosopher-plato.htm

          Greek Philosopher Plato – Logos
          Logos is the Greek term meaning “the Word.” Greek philosophers like Plato used Logos not only of the spoken word but also of the unspoken word, the word still in the mind — the reason. When applied to the universe, Greeks were speaking to the rational principle that governs all things.

          A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 BC to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates the entire universe. Monotheistic Jews used Logos to refer to God, since He was the rational mind — reason — behind the creation and coordination of the universe.

          Thus, John (the author of the biblical book of John) used a very special word — Logos — that was meaningful to both the Jews and the Greeks during the first century AD.

          See also http://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/#H11

          I see no evidence that John borrowed it ad hoc. When I look at the profundity of John’s claim, I take it to be quite clear that he was intentionally personalizing what was held by the Greeks to be an abstract impersonal quality of the way nature happens to be.

          The Greeks thought of Logos as a kind of machine-like mathematics much like our modern materialists, whereas John was modifying the concept with personality and calling it a mind, the mind of God; not a nature God, but the God of nature. John is getting in behind spoken language to the language of logic itself that is required for any kind of speech be it mathematical, written, or spoken.

          John would have got it from Philo who was trying to reconcile both Greek philosophy with the Torah, not directly from the Greeks and not directly from the Old Testament, since Philo had already done it for him. Sprouls’ lecture should have recognized Philo’s link.

          We also see Philo’s writing being used a different way in the Mocking of Jesus in Mark. Compare The Works of Philo Judaeus – Flaccus, Book VI 36-39 with
          Mark 15:15-20, John 18:40-19:3,5, and Matthew 27:26-31. It appears that Mark’s account is modeled on Philo’s story. The name of the person mocked in Philo’s story is Carabbas and it immediately follows the account of Barabbas. The spelling in Greek is the same with only the first letter being different.

          Mark uses Aramaicisms and Latinisms, but he never explains the Latinisms while usually explains the Aramaic. He explains that the name “Bartimaeus” means “son of Timaeus”. He has Jesus open his Gethsemane prayer with “Abba, Father.” So when Barabbas is introduced, the alert reader will understand that he is another “Son of the Father”. This sets up the scapegoat scenario of Leviticus 16:5-22, where one goat is killed for the sins of the nation and the other is released into the wilderness. The problem is that this is for Yom Kippur, not Passover, though. It should be clear that Mark used Philo for the mocking, modified the name Carabbas, and created a couple of stories to teach his readers the name of the scapegoat.

          So the Christians were aware of Philo’s writings. The verses I quoted before show that the authors thought that God and humans interacted through Jesus. The only gospel verse with that language comes from the first 18 verses of John.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Very cool. So there was a hint of monotheistic theology in at least Heraclitus’ case. Good to know, I sit corrected. It is generally true however that the typical Greek gods were a deification of the forces within nature. But I will concede that I have taken that case on authority for the present time and I am open to valid correction. You will find a source link at the bottom.

          Well, its perfectly true that human’s interact with God via the Logos (which is Jesus, the Logos become flesh in John 1). The first time we see it is in Genesis.

          The only difference is that earlier thinkers likely did not understand as emphatically what later thinkers did. Its just like our understanding of cosmology. The early thinkers like Aristotle had the basics down, but Copernicus really opened our eyes to how it all fits together. The cool thing is that all the clues for Logos, the trinity, etc are seen clear back in the Old testament. In chapter 1 John uses Genesis 1 as his guide for pulling the threads together.

          I can’t recommend this enough for consideration and/or criticism https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/let-my-people-think/listen/the-word-of-god-in-creation-part-1-of-2-253335.html

        • Greg G.

          The only difference is that earlier thinkers likely did not understand as emphatically what later thinkers did. Its just like our understanding of cosmology. The early thinkers like Aristotle had the basics down, but Copernicus really opened our eyes to how it all fits together. The cool thing is that all the clues for Logos, the trinity, etc are seen clear back in the Old testament. In chapter 1 John uses Genesis 1 as his guide for pulling the threads together.

          That seems more like how legends grow. It is like saying the different Star Trek shows open our eyes to the future Federation. In science, ideas abound. Scientists go down lots of alleys to see which ones are blind. They test reality to rule out which theories are false. But some lead to more discoveries.

          Religion goes in all directions with nothing to hold it in check. There were so many versions of Christianity in the second, third, and fourth centuries that the emperor forced them to work out the differences. Today, there are over 45,000 denominations.

          I can’t recommend this enough for consideration and/or criticism https://www.oneplace.com/mi

          All I see is “In order to view this content, please Follow this ministry. Thanks!”

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I suppose legends do grow in a similar fashion. My point is that real knowledge does as well. Be careful not to conflate the two, which is easy to do if we beg the question.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BboJqrW8a8U

        • Greg G.

          I suppose legends do grow in a similar fashion. My point is that real knowledge does as well. Be careful not to conflate the two, which is easy to do if we beg the question.

          That is the point I am trying to make to you. Real knowledge doesn’t require crusades, pogroms, inquisitions, and 30 year wars. Once people realized they didn’t have to account for God in their equations, that there was “no need for that hypothesis”, science and technology took off exponentially. Medicine improved dramatically when they realized that disease was not caused by supernatural forces.

          But in religion, we have creationists, “cdesign proponentsists”, and “ground of all beingists”, with none of them having a way to distinguish their gods from imagination.

          Regarding the video, it is not difficult to predict that someone will die. Given some time, believers in the book will have been rumors about the death of the person and the story that conforms best will win out whether it is the true story or not. What CSL was not aware of is that scholars would be able to identify Mark’s sources and those sources are fiction mixed with Old Testament passages that are also mostly fiction. The sources of the much of the other gospels can be identified where they are not copying from Mark and it is more of the same. The idea that the gospels are based on oral traditions has become doubtful. New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash by Robert M. Price compiles the work of these scholars by chapter and verse.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Real knowledge doesn’t require Crusades? It depends on what you mean by a crusade. I guess you are unaware of how difficult the fight of the Christian astronomer Galileo was, in his attempt to overturn the science of Ptolemy and Aristotle that even the church had accepted as a result of literal interpretations of scripture.

          Copernicus was afraid to publish his work because the fight would be so intense. But the fight must be waged.

          Going forward, I am going to have to dispense with the historical mumbo jumbo you bring to the table. I am interested in logical analysis and genuine systemic contradiction or coherence. Superficial factual contradiction does not interest me any longer. They often actually demonstrate the validity of the philosophical coherence that matters most, as with eye witnesses to an accident giving apparent contradictory testimony that actually help the investigator put the picture together.

        • Greg G.

          Real knowledge doesn’t require Crusades? It depends on what you mean by a crusade.

          I mean real Crusades with violence and death.

          Copernicus didn’t publish for decades until he was on his deathbed for fear of religion. Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for heresy that included saying the stars had planets circling them, as well as denying transubstantiation, the divinity of Christ, and other things. Galileo argued his case but was punished leniently because he had a personal relationship with the Pope. Despite suppression by the church, their ideas won out.

          Going forward, I am going to have to dispense with the historical mumbo jumbo you bring to the table. I am interested in logical analysis and genuine systemic contradiction or coherence. Superficial factual contradiction does not interest me any longer.

          I am addressing the historicity of the gospels and the interpretation of the epistles in light of the gospels. It is the whole core of the New Testament, not superficial contradiction. If the New Testament is superstition, wouldn’t you want to know the truth?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Going forward, I am going to have to dispense with the historical mumbo jumbo you bring to the table. I am interested in logical analysis and genuine systemic contradiction or coherence. Superficial factual contradiction does not interest me any longer. They often actually demonstrate the validity of the philosophical coherence that matters most, as with eye witnesses to an accident giving apparent contradictory testimony that actually help the investigator put the picture together.

          Whaaaa?

          All I got from that word salad is that you concur that there is mumbo jumbo that you are not interested in, but want to focus on some other mumbo jumbo you have yet to define.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          If that link does not work, just Google ‘John Lennox The Word of God in Creation part 1.” (it has 2 parts 30 minutes each).

        • Greg G.

          If that link does not work, just Google ‘John Lennox The Word of God in Creation part 1.” (it has 2 parts 30 minutes each).

          Bob did a couple of articles on Lennox. He is impressive as a scientist and a mathematician but a run-of-the-mill theologian.

          Can you sum up his arguments?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Can you sum up his arguments?

          Sure, but it was late and I thought it might be better to get it from the horses mouth. Where were we, and what particular concepts are you interested in?

          In the past, I have had to register and join certain web pages and forums in order to read the content. Following a site is pretty easy access. This one does not fill your email with notifications. It is perfectly benign.

          Bob did a couple of articles on Lennox. He is impressive as a scientist and a mathematician but a run-of-the-mill theologian.

          HaHa… I would love to talk to Bob about it too.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Following a site is pretty easy access. This one does not fill your email with notifications. It is perfectly benign.

          It fills your email if you have requested notifications.

          As for benign, I take it you are new to Disqus?

          Coupled with the new Patheos format, you might be in for a surprise, it is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare for the regulars here.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Hmm… well for some reason I do not get Disqus notifications. At one point I had great difficulty verifying my email. I had to contact Discus and they manually verified it. I was shut out for a time and don’t know why. Relatively new yes…

        • TheNuszAbides

          i haven’t logged into my patheos account with my patheos password but once in the last 7+ years to rewrite it for security peace-of-mind; i always engage BTL via Twitter (for which i otherwise have no love or habitual use). i didn’t even remember i had ever attached an email address to my patheos account until Bob asked me a question via that email, 3 or 4ish years ago.
          so far i’m cozy relying only on the notifications in the account pop-up, which i refresh far more than any email inbox. though i do confess the non-patheos emails do pile up anyway …

        • Ignorant Amos

          I haven’t had an e-mail notification for a couple of days now, which is weird because I can new comments in threads I’m active. So I’ve just gone into my settings and seen that e-mail notifications had been disabled…not by me though, so wtf is going on is my burning question?

        • TheNuszAbides

          dust for prints, sweep for bugs!

        • Michael Neville

          If you type John Lennox in the “search this blog” box in the upper right hand corner of this page you’ll find several articles Bob wrote on Lennox.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Thanks I see them. ‘The Childish Faith of John Lennox.’ I’ll check that out for sure when I can. Possibly even later today. I love the man, but I have a local haunt I need to check in on.

          In the mean time here is a doozy…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6bKSlShOaI

        • Greg G.

          God actually started science, by encouraging human beings to name the animals at the beginning of Genesis and that is what we call taxonomy. –John Lennox, just after the three minute mark.

          Lennox seems to think he made a point with that claim.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2dfaf6c8f7a86725997985da595486775cbcbd3f5c1ddb2b76b37233c922460e.gif

          Adam had to start over.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6521a4bb9347fc3d2e5bc8dc0df0aecbfe9ea5ca67a71058f88f99730d12fe1d.jpg

        • Greg G.
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          We can find Lennox videos ourselves. If you can summarize his best points into a paragraph or two, that would help.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It would help a lot.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Lennox is a great example of a brilliant mind shackled by Bronze Age beliefs. They make no sense, but he will apply his formidable intellect to make them look as good as possible. Unfortunately, the bronze still comes through.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s a pity about Lennox. A fellow Ulster man with brains to burn, but whose head is fucked up with the Christian mind virus.

          Claiming to be a man of science, yet….

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdNRHKiRL60

        • Luvin’ it

          Wow have you watched his debate with Dawkins?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Does he use the same shitty arguments as he does here?

        • Ignorant Amos

          He has to, there isn’t anything else.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Which one?

        • Ignorant Amos

          The Dawkins v Lennox debate at Oxford debate was dubbed the modern day Huxley v Wilberforce head to head.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” -Robert Jastrow

          Theologians only get anywhere by handwaving. Science only gets anywhere by evidence. See the difference? That’s why science is reliable, and theology can’t get its story straight.

        • MNb

          “It may appear random to you, but the old saying of ‘God doesn’t play dice’ comes to mind.”
          You forgot to add the equally old answer to this remark: “You shouldn’t tell God what to do and what not to do.”

          The Cosmological Argument can be reformulated without using causality or you can redefine causality in such a way that it includes undetermined events like atomic decay. But if your god one way or another can be derived from our natural reality (which is highly dubious anyway) your god plays dice according to Modern Physics (and not only according to the Copenhagen Interpretation, also like almost all other ones).

        • epeeist

          Just in case you weren’t aware of it, here is what Einstein said:

          Die Quantenmechanik ist sehr achtung-gebietend. Aber eine innere Stimme sagt mir, daß das doch nicht der wahre Jakob ist. Die
          Theorie liefert viel, aber dem Geheimnis des Alten bringt sie uns kaum näher. Jedenfalls bin ich überzeugt, daß der nicht würfelt.

          Which makes it obvious that he was referring to the completeness or otherwise of QM.

        • MNb

          No, I wasn’t aware of this quote. Einstein having received the Nobel Price for an experiment that was crucial for the development of QM and contributing to the development of the theory obviously didn’t straightforwardly reject it. However from his correspondence with Niels Bohr (where the dice quotes come from) it’s pretty obvious that Einstein didn’t like indeterminism. To make it more complicated the context also makes clear that Einstein with “God” didn’t necessarily mean the same as poor Robbie. Then again by now we are used to the intellectual dishonesty of apologists, aren’t we?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excus.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I don’t think MNb takes the Bible as an authority.

          I’m always surprised that Christians trot out that verse as if it would be persuasive. Instead, I’ve always found it as evidence that the Bible doesn’t know what it’s talking about.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          And you always will see it that way if you bring with you a materialistic philosophy a priori. I do not wonder.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You accept as authoritative other religions’ holy books? If not, don’t wonder that I don’t either.

          Materialism isn’t the issue.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I inquired of them. A sense of the theology was all that was required, because in two cases, materialism, and pantheism (the rough Western version) I wantedthem to be true. So I learned early how my bias can corrupt my thinking given what they promise me. And then there are the cultural and family pressures. the family pressures to conform are radical and extreme in many cultures, but not that relevant here. But you know all there is to know about societal pressure and appeals to authority Bob.

          Christianity offered nothing but a grueling diet of reality. But it is logically tenable, profoundly so, which is why you despise Lennox and wish to characterize him otherwise. Unlike the others, Christianity is not built on coercion. It is the truth, but its hard like the real world. Not easy to accept unless it is the embellished and simplified version that leaves so many people empty because it will fail to deliver their hopes and dreams of an easy life.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGjuJwc2gs4

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Christianity offered nothing but a grueling diet of reality.

          It’s a supernatural fairy tale just like all the others—no? Give me some reason to see Christianity as radically, insanely different from the other, manmade religions.

          But it is logically tenable, profoundly so, which is why you despise Lennox and wish to characterize him otherwise.

          I’m sharing my honest opinion of Lennox. Has he actually said some clever things? Then stop whining about how I characterize him and show me.

          I don’t despise him. If he truly, gullibly believes what he’s saying, that’s fine. Rather pitiable, I suppose, but he’s free to speak his mind, and I support that right.

          Unlike the others, Christianity is not built on coercion.

          Not even “believe or burn”?

          It is the truth

          Gimme the evidence.

          but its hard like the real world.

          “Believe or burn in hell” sounds pretty hard.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Sorry for the delay.

          It’s a supernatural fairy tale just like all the others—no? Give me some reason to see Christianity as radically, insanely different from the other, manmade religions.

          Are you really prepared to listen if someone did? I see no evidence that you are. You seem like a man who’s mind is made up, and that you are only asking rhetorically. Why don’t you just ask?

          So, I will respond as if you are listening, just in case others are…

          Every account of cosmological causation is supernatural by definition. It’s just that many people today don’t think of impersonal theories of a larger super-nature (multiverse or what have you) to be ‘supernatural’. t boils down to whether one believes mind to be primary or derivative.

          Of course its easy to see why people take material to be primary, because when they think of a mind, they think of a brain. But the scientific fact of the matter is, that consciousness remains a great mystery. But it is simply taken for granted (as an absolute) that matter must come first, even though there is a systemic contradiction within the theory. May I demonstrate that with an illustration? It is cued to save you time…

          https://youtu.be/D64MiGLQ30w?t=216

          Then stop whining about how I characterize him and show me.

          Its what I do here everyday, but like I said, you already have absolutes in your mind that do not allow you to listen. Your are prejudging, and you think you are justified for not listening. And that is not an empty accusation, or an attack. Am I wrong? Then you tell me (or at least yourself, honestly), when I come forth with an argument, are you not already (even before you read it) assuming it is a waste of your time and ready to fight it?

          So you tell me (or at least yourself), if the answer to that question is yes, then nothing I present to you will be persuasive, even if it is logically sound, and therefore sufficiently persuasive.

          I don’t despise him. If he truly, gullibly believes what he’s saying, that’s fine. Rather pitiable, I suppose, but he’s free to speak his mind, and I support that right.

          Read what you just said. That is why I said I am not accusing you of bias. The evidence is in your own words. I don’t think people are gullible for believing in materialism. I see the sense in their arguments so far as it is sensible. I understand the difficulties. I used to be a materialist myself, though admittedly a soft one. But the reason I kept a couple toes in the door of my mind to theism, was BECAUSE of what I read in Hawking’s Brief History of time as a teenager. It blew my mind to learn that space and time were essentially the same, and that the larger implication of the gravitational model implied to me that they are not even material.

          The universe is made of very little that is material. It is 99+% empty space. And the same goes for the atom. What we call matter, is a kind of illusion created by the motion of electrons. but you already know all this. You already know that when we break down those subatomic units we end up with energy, and at this point in scientific history, energy appears to be more of a capacity than an actual thing.

          We don’t actually know what (or who) it is. That gave me pause when I learned that about matter. We don’t know what it is, because we don’t know the essential nature of its base units. Physicists call them particles, but they are stacking the deck with that kind of language. We have to believe by faith. But I will give epeeist a hat tip and say ‘reasonable faith’ instead, because it IS reasonable to wonder, “What the hell is THIS?”

          I HAD to ask myself. Is it possible that I was wrong and that mind is primary?

          What I see as a Christian is something more subtly and fundamentally coherent as juxtaposed with materialism. I see verses like these:

          John 5:17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.”

          Reminds me of Feynman’s definition of energy.

          –Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.-

          Look at what it is saying. It’s testable Bob. The universe IS made out of ‘stuff’ that is not only invisible to the eye, but we cannot intuit it intellectually with our mind’s eye. Quanta end up essentially, as axioms. They are a kind of Trinity all their own, and are not predictable.

          But as I demonstrated for epeeir, we would not expect our rules and laws to predict the actions of a conscious agent. All I have to do is type these keys the way I choose to. You could never have predicted that and not even with logic, because logic can be expressed with any number of words or languages. We can say the same thing in words unique to our personalities and the like.

          But what if the bible IS a logical book, but in a manner of speaking that confounds your style? That is what I have found it to be. That is why it often sounds like metaphor, because the logical point being made is illustrated by analogy. This is definitively the case with the parables. The rest of it must be wrestled with, and often with great difficulty, like a divine puzzle. God’s smarter than you think. He makes it hard on PURPOSE. Can you discover for yourself WHY he would do that? I really don’t think I should have to tell you.

          Not even “believe or burn”?

          You make it sound so uncalled for as if you are an innocent man, and that god is trying to coerce us. If he wanted to coerce us, he would not have given us free will. And if he wanted to coerce us, he would not have created hell, a place for those who reject him IN SPITE of the evidence.

          There is only one thing that will send us to hell despite what all the neophytes and charlatans say. And it’s right there IN the bible. That sin called an eternal sin, and Jesus said all else will be forgiven. Not sure about you, but that seems quite reasonable given our ignorance.

          I hope you ARE ignorant Bob, because the only thing that will send you to hell is willfully and deliberately denying what you KNOW to be true. That is what the angels who fell did, and that is what the Jewish leaders who WITNESSED the miracles did.

          They HAD the evidence and STILL did not believe. Seeing is not believing, because as Ravi often reminds his audiences, “Intent is prior to content.”

          Gimme the evidence.

          Why can’t I say that about multiverse theory?

          Do you know what Jesus said to that question?

          Matthew 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away.

          In other words, “I’ve been doing what I do, arguing with you powerfully and persuasively in the streets and in the synagogue and doing things you’ve never seen or heard of, yet you ask me to demonstrate it?”

          He walks away because there is no point. They CHOOSE to deny what is in front of them. I don’t know why. Pride? Power? Insecurity of being mocked for stepping out of the crowd?

          That last question is of particular concern to me in our exceedingly judgmental culture. I am so thankful to be almost utterly immune.

          The spin and false context you bring with you is not justified. The bible is profound. That is why Lennox believes it. There’s not a gullible bone left in that old man’s body. He’s probed every inch of this terrain, though he’d be the first to tell you he’s not scratched the surface. That is just how many levels of information are packed into that book of books.

          You asked for evidence. And though I am not convinced you actually SEEK any of that evidence, you (or a lurker) might be interested in more evidence that this is the case; just for kicks and wiggles.

          We all have the god given ability to see a few things others did not notice. I have recorded some of those observations here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Are you really prepared to listen if someone did? I see no evidence that you are.

          And yet I have a blog and deliberately put myself in the way of the best apologetic arguments I can find. I hang out with Christians interested in apologetics in real life (not easy) every chance I get.

          I’m not doing it right? Recommend a better approach.

          You seem like a man who’s mind is made up, and that you are only asking rhetorically. Why don’t you just ask?

          I’m pretty sure I did in the comment of mine that you’re quoting.

          Every account of cosmological causation is supernatural by definition.

          You sure you want to go there? A quantum fluctuation that causes cosmic inflation is “supernatural,” just like Yahweh is supernatural. I think you’ve watered down a useful word.

          Of course its easy to see why people take material to be primary, because when they think of a mind, they think of a brain. But the scientific fact of the matter is, that consciousness remains a great mystery.

          And there’s no mystery that minds reside in brains. If you want to show otherwise, you’ve got a big hill to climb.

          May I demonstrate that with an illustration?

          I don’t have an opinion on the free will question.

          like I said, you already have absolutes in your mind that do not allow you to listen.

          Doesn’t seem like it to me, but it sounds like I’m already convicted in your own mind, so I guess there’s nothing I can say to change it.

          Am I wrong? Then you tell me (or at least yourself, honestly), when I come forth with an argument, are you not already (even before you read it) assuming it is a waste of your time and ready to fight it?

          I’ve never heard a convincing argument for Christianity. Some totally suck (moral argument), and some are intriguing (fine tuning) but still aren’t convincing. It’s been years since I’ve heard a fundamentally new argument (to me), though I keep searching.

          You tell me: given that, how should I estimate a new argument before I’ve heard it? I think I’m about as openminded as it’s possible to be given Christianity’s poor track record (from my view point).

          It blew my mind to learn that space and time were essentially the same, and that the larger implication of the gravitational model implied to me that they are not even material.

          And how does that point to a god?

          energy appears to be more of a capacity than an actual thing.

          Where does the mind of a god come into it?

          I HAD to ask myself. Is it possible that I was wrong and that mind is primary?

          My own unasked-for evaluation is that you want to find a loophole for the supernatural, and you’re spinning what you learn about the limits of science to find a place for God. That’s nothing I’m inclined to do. If the God hypothesis is going to be true in my mind, it’s got a lot of work ahead of it, and I’m not going to help it along.

          John 5:17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.”
          Reminds me of Feynman’s definition of energy.

          Huh? You’re going through the Bible using the filter of science and saying, “Let’s assume that there is good science in here, just phrased in primitive language. Where would it be?”

          Have you tried this with other religions’ holy books? I bet you’d find “science” in there, too.

          Look at what it is saying. It’s testable Bob.

          Meaning, the Bible made claims about scientific reality that are testable today? Nope. I know because you’re putting science into the Bible after the fact. No one first learned new things about reality from the Bible. It’s like what people do with Nostradamus.

          This is definitively the case with the parables. The rest of it must be wrestled with, and often with great difficulty, like a divine puzzle.

          Sounds like you approach it determined to find valuable wisdom in there. As an exercise, I suppose that might be worthwhile, but again you could do that with any book.

          God’s smarter than you think. He makes it hard on PURPOSE. Can you discover for yourself WHY he would do that?

          You’re assuming God exists and all the rest. Can you discover why that would be a poor approach?

          I really don’t think I should have to tell you.

          What you have to tell me is reasons to believe God even exists.

          “Not even “believe or burn”?”
          You make it sound so uncalled for as if you are an innocent man, and that god is trying to coerce us.

          My innocence isn’t the point. It’s uncalled for because I’m judging God’s afterlife based on what we humans have decided is justice. God doesn’t measure up, so the God hypothesis gets another black mark.

          If he wanted to coerce us, he would not have given us free will.

          If God respected free will, I think he’d step in when a murderer wanted to violate someone else’s free will. But no.

          And if he wanted to coerce us, he would not have created hell, a place for those who reject him IN SPITE o f the evidence.

          In spite of what evidence?

          That sin called an eternal sin, and Jesus said all else will be forgiven. Not sure about you, but that seems quite reasonable given our ignorance.

          The one about denying the Holy Spirit?

          That still doesn’t save my bacon since I can’t believe that for which there isn’t good evidence—like Jesus being God.

          Or maybe it does. Paul said, “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19). Sounds like we’re all saved whether we like it or not.

          Darn that Bible! It can say just about whatever you want it to say.

          I hope you ARE ignorant Bob, because the only thing that will send you to hell is willfully and deliberately denying what you KNOW to be true.

          Where does it say that?

          I don’t believe God exists, and that’s because the evidence has been pathetic.

          “Gimme the evidence.”
          Why can’t I say that about multiverse theory?

          I presume you’ve already asked for evidence? If so, I’m sure you know all about how the multiverse is a consequence of Inflation, for which we have beaucoup evidence.

          But I’m puzzled why the riposte about the multiverse. Shouldn’t you jump at the opportunity to give me good evidence for God’s existence?

          Matthew 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation looks for a sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.” Jesus then left them and went away.

          Yeah–crazy, right? People ask for evidence, and Jesus tells them to suck it.

          In other words, “I’ve been doing what I do, arguing with yo u powerfully and persuasively in the streets and in the synagogue and doing things you’ve never seen or heard of, yet you ask me to demonstrate it?”

          It’s a story. If you say that it’s also history, I await the evidence.

          And if eyewitnesses to Jesus’s miracles aren’t convinced, why should I be, given that I’m very very much removed via a tenuous evidence trail from the events?

          He walks away because there is no point.

          A first-century mic drop? Cool.

          They CHOOSE to deny what is in front of them. I don’t know why. Pride? Power? Insecurity of being mocked for stepping out of the crowd?

          Where’s the puzzle? They are players in a story. They did what the author made them do.

          That last question is of particular concern to me in our exceedingly judgmental culture. I am so thankful to be almost utterly immune.

          Immune from what? The nuttiness of modern culture?

          The spin and false context you bring with you is not justified.

          I’m immersed daily in the writings of WLC, Frank Turek, J. Warner Wallace, and loads of others. Blame them. But if I’ve been misinformed, that’s where you come in.

          The bible is profound. That is why Lennox believes it. There’s not a gullible bone left in that old man’s body.

          OK—he’s not gullible. I’m still baffled why a brilliant mind like his can do nothing better than regurgitate the same old arguments I’ve heard from everyone else.

          On the other hand, perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised. He’s giving the best that evangelical Christianity has.

          That is just how many levels of information are packed into that book of books.

          That’s one interpretation. You could say that about lots of holy books (the Hindu writings in particular are enormous). On the other hand, I would’ve expected a god to be able to get us a short, simple, unambiguous, focused message of who he is and what he wants from us. That I see the Bible instead is another mark against IMO.

          We all have the god given ability to see a few things others did not notice. I have recorded some of those observations here:

          Can you give me an abstract so I can see if it’s worth my time?

        • al kimeea

          On the other hand, I would’ve expected a god to be able to get us a
          short, simple, unambiguous, focused message of who he is and what he
          wants from us. That I see the Bible instead is another mark against IMO. – Bob S.

          iirc Augustine said the BuyBull is written “as a parent to a child” which seems to imply a more literal interpretation. no parent writes vague, incoherent nonsense regarding important matters for their children. one might think a tri-omni deity would be immune…

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          It’s amazing that it’s the atheists who demand that God perform at omni levels.

        • al kimeea

          More expect than demand, given the popularity of that revision of the deity

        • TheNuszAbides

          how the heck could you be any clearer or less offensive? he couldn’t or wouldn’t hold up his end after this – that’s disqualification from being taken seriously even if he hadn’t made an ass of himself repeatedly otherwise.

        • adam

          “Every account of cosmological causation is supernatural by definition”

          No by definition it is natural.

          ” It’s just that many people today don’t think of impersonal theories of a
          larger super-nature (multiverse or what have you) to be ‘supernatural’.

          Why should anyone?
          Where’s the EVIDENCE?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Where’s the EVIDENCE?

          Funny you should mention it. Epeeist and I are engaged in a productive and deliberate game of Chess. In fact, we were just about to establish that very thing, so that you can hear it from HIS mouth.

          Let the man think though. You can’t rush Chess.

          I know that’s hard for you to wait. I know your frustrated. But take heart. He IS a physicist. Smartest guy here from what I’ve seen.

          You need to stay in the shadows where you belong or I will turnt the light on and burn all your incantations.

          Go use them somewhere else where your needed to purify the neophytes. I’m going take few of these peopler with me and there is nothing you can do about it.

          I don’t want to see you tormented before the appointed time. Not that I feel sorry for you. It’s just unseemly.

          I know you don’t have sound, so because I am generous, here is a lyric video for the hearing impaired.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IyofOYhAX6w

        • adam

          “You need to stay in the shadows where you belong or I will turnt the light on and burn all your incantations.”

          I dont do incantations otherwise I would view this as a threat.

          “In fact, we were just about to establish that very thing, so that you can hear it from HIS mouth.”

          WOW, please post a picture of your Noble Prize when it arrives.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I dont do incantations otherwise I would view this as a threat.

          I was referring to our previous exchange where you classified religion as magic. You even looked up the definition:

          Definition of magic – Merriam Webster

          1 a: the use of means (such as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces

          b: magic rites or incantations

          2 a: an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source

          And if you recall, responded with the following:

          “The universe is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be.” -Carl Sagan

          As an adolescent, I found that idea quite charming (as in, a charm). I did not notice that it was not a statement of science, but materialistic philosophy.

          I was held under that spell (as in, a spell) for at least a decade and you were my tormentors until a friend brought me back to sanity.

          It was a long struggle compared to our 4 minute illustration. I was very taken by your enchanted dreams. And the same goes for the ending… you’re toast. Everything in good time.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iQExgALv9wI

          So now that I remember the exact language, I mean to say your ‘spells and charms’. Sorry about the technicality, but you catch my meaning.

          And its no physical threat either. As Paul said, “We do not wage against flesh and blood…” And elsewhere, “We demolish arguments and pretensions…”. So, we are talking intellectual warfare here. I am relatively physically imposing but I am getting old.

          WOW, please post a picture of your Noble Prize when it arrives.

          LOL, I only have to stand on the shoulders of all the Nobel laureates who WERE Christians. Provided of course that I can sufficiently and competently wield those weapons. I can. Not bragging, just telling the truth.

          The Nobel Prize is an annual, international prize first awarded in 1901 for achievements in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace. An associated prize in Economics has been awarded since 1969.[3] Nobel Prizes have been awarded to 881 individuals.[4] According to 100 Years of Nobel Prize (2005), a review of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000, 65.4% of Nobel Prize Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference (427 prizes).[5] Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics and 49.5% of all Literature awards.[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_Nobel_laureates

          That is what I mean about your spells. Your warped view of reality causes you to make suggestions and impart information that disrupts otherwise perfectly capable minds.

        • adam

          “Your warped view of reality causes you to make suggestions and impart
          information that disrupts otherwise perfectly capable minds.”

          How would you know?
          I mean with all those demons and other magical creations of your?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          How would I KNOW? Because time and again I have demonstrated that you are sharing information that is not true. Its not even factual. You yourself know what legitimate faith is, and you need it for your own philosophy. But you intentionally put forth the stereotype that alternate philosophies are based in blind faith.

          You classify YOUR philosophy as truth and reality, and all the others as religion, fairy tales, pure rationalism detached from any logical and empirical anchor. But most of them DO have at least SOME logical and empirical adequacy. Some more than others.

          Immediately, I can anticipate that you are thinking, “WAIT, as a Christian you TOO believe that you are right and everyone else is going to HELL!”

          Firstly, I believe that very FEW people will go to hell, which is something i touched on with Bob and we can talk about (rationally please), and Secondly, I BELIEVE that my philosophy is true. It is BECAUSE I understand that I live by faith, that I prefer to reason with people rather than beat down on them like you and many other Christians do.

          I DEFEND you guys when I talk about these conversations and people tell me I am wasting my time. Your smart people and think you have good reasons for believing what you do. And you don’t want the stigma of ‘religion’ either. But you are the ones PERPETUATING the stigma. You are your own worst enemy, afraid of your own shadow, paranoid and fearful that some crazy religious person like me, might suck you into my wizardly vortex. Plug your ears and run AAAHHHH!

          We are you so defensive and emotional? is it because of the other shallow religious people that call you DAMNED? To hell with them…

          Only the most primitive of fables (Santa, Cinderella, the Tooth Fairy) are utterly detached from reality. And they were never told other than AS fables and imaginative fictional stories to begin with, other than that they might at times impart some moral and hopeful principles.

          What you ARE justified in saying is, there can be only ONE true philosophy. “That is why Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me.”

          He did not say that to command blind faith. It is a very hard saying if we take it that way. Allow me to translate it for you…

          The Logos says, “I am the way (as he said elsewhere, the gate), the truth, and the life. No man comes to reality but by me (logic).”

          Most of us are ALREADY following logic to where it leads. But we BIND ourselves with our presuppositions. We tell ourselves, I will go anywhere but THERE, and we make our mind up by shear force of will. We become an absolutist by trying to AVOID what we perceive (and wrongly) as the absolutists.

          Can you take a chill pill for a moment and at least appreciate what I am saying, even if the implications are startling?

          I have been through all that cognitive dissonance in my conversion from materialism, to pantheism (a most poetic philosophical by systemically contradictory attempt to ride the fence). That is why I like the song ‘The Wishing Well.’ Genuine conversion is gut wrenching. But on the other side of that fire, I look back and think, ‘wow’.

          So many things that I THOUGHT were true and proven melted in my hands and left me empty. How could I have been so blind?

        • adam

          “Because time and again I have demonstrated that you are sharing information that is not true. I”

          Like what?
          Please demonstrate.

          “But you intentionally put forth the stereotype that alternate philosophies are based in blind faith.”
          Of course they are.
          Gods are created by men, not the other way around.

          “You classify YOUR philosophy as truth and reality, and all the others as
          religion, fairy tales, pure rationalism detached from any logical and
          empirical anchor.”

          Nope, but thanks about taking the time to be deluded thinking you know me.
          Claiming the supernatural is real without objective evidence is faulty thinking.

          “Can you take a chill pill for a moment and at least appreciate what I am saying, even if the implications are startling?”

          What startling implications?
          I am open to objective evidence for magic/supernatural

          You have none.

          Nothing startling about that. That has been the historical norm for all history.

          “Firstly, I believe that very FEW people will go to hell,”
          Sorry, I didnt realize that you were in charge of hell.

          ” It is BECAUSE I understand that I live by faith, that I prefer to reason with people rather than beat down on them”

          You say this while trying to beat me down.

          You’re hilarious.

          “The Logos says, “I am the way (as he said elsewhere, the gate), the
          truth, and the life. No man comes to reality but by me (logic).””

          And Spiderman can sling webs.

          “and you don’t want the stigma of ‘religion’ either.”
          Of course I would if it were true.
          Another beat down?

          ” You are your own worst enemy, afraid of your own shadow, paranoid and fearful”
          And this would be yet another beat down that you ‘prefer’ not to do.

          If I have a problem with religion it is because delusional dishonest people keep claiming that they can demonstrated objective evidence of the supernatural, when they NEVER do.

          “Only the most primitive of fables (Santa, Cinderella, the Tooth Fairy) are utterly detached from reality. ”
          Santa is based off a real person, and has virtually the same characteristics of God.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a29efcba0ee94d4f84d4a43b6bc78a04d7180523d05f7132222fdad4c7046acd.jpg

          “But we BIND ourselves with our presuppositions. We tell ourselves, I
          will go anywhere but THERE, and we make our mind up by shear force of
          will. We become an absolutist by trying to AVOID what we perceive (and
          wrongly) as the absolutists.”

          Yes, I see this all the time in people just like you.

          But there is ONE big difference between you and I, apparently

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8a845602ae4c258a9520acdbccd49a9f5cc3a237835288e73d4a6cdf21d1fc45.png

          “So many things that I THOUGHT were true and proven melted in my hands and left me empty. How could I have been so blind?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9e66f0d77ab7aa631e8fae6fb77c265771fa7453ba31cc15df3451e520416959.jpg

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I don’t have time for this Peewee Hemam mentality adam. You are the first person I have had to block. Good luck to you.

        • Kodie

          No, you don’t have a good answer to adam’s direct challenges to your beliefs. He’s not being a dick to you, he’s not being ridiculous, he’s not even posting a picture or a meme. He took the time to take apart your post, and you throw it away like a petulant child. Because it’s obvious you cannot answer. It’s obvious you tried and you think you tried very hard, but the truth is, there’s no substance in what you claim. You can’t support it. You believe for emotional reasons, and your arguments fail logic, and you call logic “Peewee Hemam [sic]” and your video clip deepities “logic”. You got it backward!

        • Greg G.

          He just threatened to block me, too. Somebody mentioned angels so he quoted Genesis about sons of God, then John about Jesus being the “only begotten son”. I called out the contradiction and he went to the English translation of “only begotten” as it that fixed it. I pointed out that the word is also used for Isaac, Abraham’s second son, too. I showed how each gospel treated it and that John has a contradiction with Jesus being existent from the beginning, not begotten, and begotten. His response was more nonsense and threatened to block me.

          Should I apologize? I don’t think so.

        • Pofarmer

          Ya old meanie,.

        • Kodie

          He keeps making excuses not to have to answer questions.

        • Pofarmer

          Dude, you just got pwned.

        • al kimeea

          Says Peewee’s body double

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett
        • al kimeea

          your tap-dance is an old one and hardly original as adam just showed

          although your constant references to “blue collar” are interesting and utterly irrelevant

          there are white-collar people far better at the baseless Classic Xian Humble Brag

        • adam

          Yes, we All UNDERSTAND, that you cant defend your Magical Sky Daddy with reality.

        • Kodie

          Why do you think you need to be such a fucking prick and post videos to prove it?

        • TheNuszAbides

          did you just forget to follow up on even one of the dozen-plus rebuttals or have you already exhausted your (well, Ravi’s and Lennox’s) ‘pearls’?

        • Kodie

          Your need to post some movie quote via youtube video clip to somehow enhance the meaning of every single one of your posts is making this page slow as shit. Have some fucking consideration.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You’re right. I did not consider that at all. I’ll keep them to a minimum. Thanks for pointing it out. My apologies.

        • Kodie

          Much appreciated

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I did not consider people witha weak connection. But the videos are important…

          A pictures speaks a thousand words they say. I haver found that a short video can convey 10,000.

          Ravi Zacharias has an old lecture where he explains what he called the 3 levels of philosophy.

          1. Theory- Aristotle, Socrates, Hume, Russel, Sartre, ect…

          2. Drama, music, and assorted arts.

          3. Practical application

          He taught me that we must always argue from level 1, illustrate from level 2, and apply at level 3

          If we start at level 3 we will only argue about opinion which is futile

          If we start at level 2 and listen to a country music song, the lifestyle and mind set is conveyed, but without level 1 we have no way to test and examine it for credibility.

          In our culture today (yes, I am a sociologist too) most of our ideas are absorbed through the arts and media. People are controlled by suggestion and not given the tools of critical analysis.

          I am afraid to say it’s true, that this is also rampant in our chutrches. And that is sad to me, that the religion of Logos, that gave birth to scientific principles like the razor of William of Ockham, a Fransiscan monk if memory serves, has been reduced to a mindless mass of hudled sheep. They lost sight of the true power of their faith which is reason.

          As a result, atheists like epeeir understand rational faith better than they do, and they have the audacity to consider him lost.

          Seems to me we all get a bit lost in the woods. Don’t be too hard on those sheep either. Many are genuine and know God in other ways. Ways that their preconceptions do not hinder.

          The videos are for level 2 mostly, as supporting illustrations, but I HAVE used them irresponsibly too when I get frustrated or just want to spice things up a bit and salt the earth. Anything to shock people into taking this seriously for half a moment. Wake up people…

        • Kodie

          This is a really old thread and I’m just trying to skim through so I feel like I know what’s going on when I finally get to the top blog posts. BUT, if you can’t express yourself mostly in words, AND you think people got fucking time to watch all the videos along with reading your wordy posts, you must not have a lot of confidence in what you say. I watched the one about the lion and I have to say it makes you come off as a pompous asshole. I gather from what you’ve written that you actually are a pompous douchebag. You are like that douche everyone knows who can’t have a conversation without “spicing it up” with a movie quote because he thinks that’s really a cool thing to do constantly, but you don’t catch that person expressing themselves in their own words a lot of the time. Thank you, this post, and the following one, tell me that you are that guy. Movies have writers, and that makes the lines they write seem deeper than what ordinary Robert Lockett can think of, i.e. they made you think you’re thinking. It has the ring of truth but the rest of the circle might be empty. Stop thinking you are laying down some knowledge when all you are doing is quoting movies like a douche.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I appreciate the ad hominem for what it is, and your confession of laziness.

        • Kodie

          Please… expand on that. I can’t wait to see what unnecessary video you will post to support your opinions.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          They lost sight of the true power of their faith which is reason.

          “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” – Martin Luther

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          It’s strange to me that a man like yourself, who questions absolutes, takes everything he does not agree with in literal black and white terms.

          I’m familiar with the quote, and he has a good point, because he was battling a very narrow minded orthodoxy at that time in history. His very life was in jeopardy.

          If a person is committed to reason but does not understand that logic is axiomatic and therefore must be taken on faith, then a man does not really know what reason is.

          That is why Paul said, “The man who thinks he knows, does not yet know as he ought.”

          This principle, that became crucial to objective science, was taken from the new testament. Everything is provisional and tentative. We need to remain humble. The church leaderrship was not.

          I don’t know enough about the history to know if Luther had all that in mind so clearly. The emotional tone suggests to me he felt the pressure of it however.

          Notice he said in ‘most cases’. Most cases…… when? Well, at a particular time in history with a particular context.

          The fact remains, if a man is blindly commuted to a presupposition (such as mind being a product of matter) and refuses to always hold it as provisional and keep an open mind, then sure as Hell his reason becomes a harlot.

          He’s not just warning the pope Bob, he’s warning you and me.

        • adam

          “If a person is committed to reason but does not understand that logic is axiomatic and therefore must be taken on faith”

          faith as in trust, or biblical faith?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b12fa1635e121ebbb3409640826d721ba93278771f0064bd133804faa3f01397.png

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          From Middle English faith, fayth, feith, feyth (also fay, fey, fei (“faith”; > English fay (“faith”)), from Old French fay, fey, fei, feit, feid (“faith”), from Latin fidēs (faith, belief, trust; whence also English fidelity), from fīdō (“trust, confide in”), https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/faith

          Here is a perfect illustration of faith in logic. It should be familiar to you. We hope that Logic will guide us rightly, and we are certain it will because it works every time, even though we do not see what it IS.

          We rather have no choice but to trust logic. It is our only intellectual light. Consider the alternatives…

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b12fa1635e121ebbb3409640826d721ba93278771f0064bd133804faa3f01397.png

          And John, speaking of the Logos…

          John 1: 9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

          14 The Logos became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

        • adam

          “We hope that Logic will guide us rightly, and we are certain it will
          because it works every time, even though we do not see what it IS.”

          No, we dont.
          I have no wishful thinking about science.

          “14 The Logos became flesh and made his dwelling among us.”
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8638fdedfe8fad3b245ca0981085794967c878d6bfba020d03d8b426a1c98936.jpg

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Well, then as you were soldier. I am not trying to persuade you. Its YOUR job to decide what is true for yourself, not mine.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          In common parlance, trust means belief firmly grounded in evidence and faith means belief poorly grounded in evidence. Why not just go with that?

          If by “faith” you mean “trust,” you’ll be a lot less confusing if you use “trust.”

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I can’t disagree with you there. I wish it were the case. But then we would be accused of altering the meaning of scripture by you, so its a kind of no win-no win. Jesus talked about stacking the deck the way some people do. He saw right through people like that Bob, which is why he is a threat to them. I hope your’re not one of them.

          Matthew 11:16 “To what can I compare this generation? They are like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling out to others:

          17 “ ‘We played the pipe for you,
          and you did not dance;
          we sang a dirge,
          and you did not mourn.’

          18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But wisdom is proved right by her deeds.”

        • Greg G.

          Matthew 11:17 comes from Aesop, The Fisherman and the Flute, either directly or from:

          Herodotus, Histories 1.141.1-2, (A. D. Godley translation)
          [1] As soon as the Lydians had been subjugated by the Persians, the Ionians and Aeolians sent messengers to Cyrus, offering to be his subjects on the same terms as those which they had under Croesus. After hearing what they proposed, Cyrus told them a story. Once, he said, there was a flute-player who saw fish in the sea and played upon his flute, thinking that they would come out on to the land. [2] Disappointed of his hope, he cast a net and gathered it in and took out a great multitude of fish; and seeing them leaping, “You had best,” he said, “stop your dancing now; you would not come out and dance before, when I played to you.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I don’t have time for this either Greg. Not interested. Even if it were true that there is a connection, it demonstrates nothing. So what if Jesus used a known saying to make a point? Utterly irrelevant.

        • Greg G.

          I think it is fascinating to see that people were reading and repeating 500 year old literature back then the way we recite Shakespeare and the Bible.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I don’t see how something mundane can be fascinating. And there was nothing rote about the comparison. Jesus was making a logical point that I do not see at all in the supposed comparison.

        • Kodie

          Do you need a movie clip to illustrate the point? Are you that unintelligent?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Do you need a movie clip to illustrate the point? Are you that unintelligent?

          I am much better than you are at your own game. I don’t know if it makes me intelligent. It just makes me more intelligent than you.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kofOJDzckbM

        • Kodie

          So you brush something off as “mundane” so you don’t have to address it. Before, you were calling Adam “Peewee Hemam [sic]”. In another post, you didn’t want to answer someone because you said epeeist had to take his time and think about an answer. You said you weren’t going to post that many videos the first time I asked, and then you decided nah, you need them like a fucking crutch. You are a sinking ship, dummy. Everyone can see it.

        • Michael Neville

          I’m reminded of a poem:

          I sent a message to the fish, I told them “This is what I wish.”
          The little fishes of the sea, they sent an answer back to me.
          The little fishes’ answer was “We cannot do it, sir, because…”
          I sent to them again to say “It will be better to obey.”
          The fishes answered with a grin “Why, what a temper you are in.”
          I told them once, I told them twice, they would not listen to advice.
          I took a kettle large and new, fit for the deed I had to do,
          My heart went hop, my heart went thump, I filled the kettle at the pump.
          Then someone came to me and said “The little fishes are in bed.”
          I said to him, I said it plain “Then you must wake them up again.”
          I said it very loud and clear. I went and shouted in his ear.
          But he was very stiff and proud. He said “You needn’t shout so loud.”
          And he was very proud and stiff, he said, “I’ll go and wake them if…”
          I took a corkscrew from the shelf, I went to wake them up myself.
          And when I found the door was locked, I pulled and pushed and kicked and knocked.
          And when I found the door was shut I tried to turn the handle, but…
          –Lewis Carroll Through the Looking Glass

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The problem is Christians playing switcheroo with the meaning of faith. When I’m watching, they’ll say, “Oh, no–faith means ‘trust,’ donchaknow? We’re as firmly grounded in reality as you are.” But then to each other or in an unguarded moment, faith becomes a leap regardless of evidence, encouraged by the Bible.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I get your meaning. Trust me, I get very frustrated with many of my Christian brethren for that. Here is a more emphatic example of that, and you will like this because I am correcting a Christian.

          My friend Bob helps me with the Celebrate Recovery program we take to the local jail. I have been trying to tell him for a few years now that the Holy Spirit is logic trying to lead us to a proper conclusion. But bob cannot accept that to be spiritual is to be intellectual because of biblical passages he misinterprets and the traditions of doctrine within certain churches.

          One night he was telling me about an argument he learned from a Dallas Theological Seminary that reveals a powerful flaw in Jehovah’s Witness theology. And he told me we could use that to minister to JWs.

          I said to him, “Why are you relying on logic Bob? Why not just rely on the Holy Spirit?”

          The look on his face was priceless and I gave him a big blue-collar hug.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          biblical passages he misinterprets

          It’s good that you’re focused on revealing bad argumentation, but keep in mind that Bob is misinterpreting the Bible from your standpoint. He’s not from his standpoint. And maybe there’s a large Christian tradition that agrees with him.

          The Bible can be made to support just about anything.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          It must stand up to logic. Logic must do the interpreting.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Which solves nothing. You say one thing, and your friend says another. With faith as part of the equation, religion has no way of arbitrating, and Christianity is particularly difficult with an ambiguous Bible.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Which solves nothing. You say one thing, and your friend says another. With faith as part of the equation, religion has no way of arbitrating, and Christianity is particularly difficult with an ambiguous Bible.

          That is why I try to explain to them that faith is only the mustard seed of faith in logic ( Logos ) that Jesus talked about. Memorizing words and doctrines means nothing. They are just words if we don’t know what they mean.

          Everything REAL is ambiguous Bob. You take for granted the knowledge we have of the natural world because of science done by others. It was not that apparent to them at the time.

          You are beginning to talk like a reasonable man.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You are beginning to talk like a reasonable man.

          I wish I could return the compliment.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          As Larry the cable guy says, “That’s funny. I don’t care who you are.” We truckers appreciate a hearty insult.

        • Kodie

          Why don’t you change your handle to “Robert Lockett, trucker” instead of finding some excuse to remind us every 5 posts that you’re (a) a trucker, and/or (b) blue-collar. Why do you think anyone gives too much of a shit what you do for a living? Is your CB handle “Professor Schmuck”?

        • al kimeea

          “Blue Collar Bloviator” good buddy

        • Greg G.

          That reminds me of Joseph and his coat of many colors and his other brother, Bill. Bill is not mentioned in the Bible because he was strangled by his coat of too many collars.

        • Ignorant Amos

          He thinks that by admitting he is as common as muck, he is showing his humility, and that his pearls of wisdom are from the heart and deserve some recognition.

        • Kodie

          He comes off as a fake to me. Like, aren’t I smart … for just a blue-collar trucker? Part of me wonders if that’s his real job, or like he thinks if we think he is intellectually below us (and I don’t know about most of y’all’s career choices at all or education level whatsoever), but that he is totally outsmarting us. Like a certain fake lawyer who kept telling us he’s a lawyer, and various other people … I am thinking of a cluster of sock puppets a couple years ago using the pretense of doing a psychological experiment on us to collect data, or any number of creationists who say they love science, but that’s kind of getting away from the topic. I don’t give a fuck if someone is a trucker. He’s trying to impress us that he’s well-read and competent at arguing his bullshit in a semblance of intellectual manner, and I also have to wonder about the videos – is he dumbing it down for us or himself?

        • MR

          Right? I mean, sadly I have to give him the credit that I assume he’s lying, otherwise he just comes across as a lobotomized Stepford wife. All this humble, humility crap when he’s anything but. And this stupid passive-aggressive dumbing down tactic. Sigh. Bullshitters for Jesus.

        • Susan

          Like aren’t I smart?

          Well, he sure brings up some high-faluti’ topics.

          for a blue-collar truckdriver

          Yeah. When, it’s pointed out that he’s in way over his head, he accuses people of intellectualism.

          He’s a hypocrite for starters.

          Add to that that he’s all bluster and videos (which he promised he’d stop posting in such huge quantity, but still does).

          Sandard apologist. Try to outclever people and when it’s demonstrated that they are wrong about the subjects they brought up, call for humility from their interlocutor and appeal to fluffy bunnies.

        • Joe

          Either that, or he has a persecution complex, imagining us atheists as elitist intellectuals in our ivory towers, scoffing at the “simple minded theists”.

          All until the day a plucky, blue collar tucker brings those towers crashing down with his homespun, folksy, cornbread wisdom and singular dedication to the Lord!

          I can almost see the made-for-TV movie writing itself. Kevin Sorbo would play Robert.

        • Susan

          All until the day a plucky, blue collar tucker brings those towers crashing down with his homespun, folksy, cornbread wisdom and singular dedication to the Lord!

          And the videos! Don’t forget the videos.

        • MR

          Ha!

        • Joe

          Why don’t you change your handle to “Robert Lockett, trucker”

          Or mother trucker, for that matter.

        • Kodie

          I don’t get it. Did he look at you like you were fucking nuts? Because you make it sound like he looked at you like you were fucking nuts. And you end it with a big old trucker hug. Bob cannot accept that to be spiritual is to be intellectual because that’s fucking nuts, and you’re just so overpowered with your Jesus freakiness that you can’t read social signals.

        • epeeist

          But then to each other or in an unguarded moment, faith becomes a leap regardless of evidence, encouraged by the Bible.

          Bingo!

          It’s amazing how the ground of all being outside of space and time morphs into something that is extremely concerned about what you do with the tackle in your underpants and is capable of punishing someone within time and space.

        • MR

          It is through instruction that we come to have understanding, and through persuasion that we come to have true belief. Understanding always involves a true account while true belief lacks any account. And while understanding remains unmoved by persuasion, true belief gives in to persuasion. –Plato

        • TheNuszAbides

          ah, that explains why the early church doctorfatherwhatevers put so much stress on ~understanding~. they had to co-opt a special Spiritual brand of it to keep up the pretense of authoritative elevation.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          It’s strange to me that a man like yourself, who questions absolutes, takes everything he does not agree with in literal black and white terms.

          It’s only being polite. If someone says that the Bible is word-for-word accurate (say) I’ll assume that claim for argument’s sake and see if it fails.

          If a person is committed to reason but does not understand that logic is axiomatic and therefore must be taken on faith

          Huh? Who takes axioms on faith? They’re tested continually. We have evidence that 1 + 1 = 2, for example; we don’t take it on faith.

          This principle, that became crucial to objective science, was taken from the new testament. Everything is provisional and tentative.

          I don’t think we needed the NT to teach us humility in science.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          The only way to prove logic is with logic, and that is arguing in a circle. There are no proofs.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          ??

          Where did I mention proofs?? I’m talking about evidence–axioms have evidence behind them, otherwise, we wouldn’t have them as axioms.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I mean proofs in the sense of certainty of knowledge, not mathematical proofs. We live by faith in ways we take for granted. Think about it.

        • Michael Neville

          There are various types of faith.

          I have faith that my wife loves me. She’s stayed married to me for over 45 years, she’s been supportive, her criticisms of me are fair and honest. I can rely on her and she can rely on me. I don’t have or need a 100% ironclad guarantee of her love. We can never have a 100% ironclad guarantee of anything but that I’m willing to trust
          her. I’m willing to take the evidence that I have, the evidence of her feelings and character that I have from her actions and words, and then take a leap of faith by trusting that they mean what they seem to mean.

          I have faith in democracy. This is a tricky one, as democracy has let me down time and time again. But I have faith in it. I have the conviction that, while far from a perfect political system, it’s still the best one we have, offering the best hope we have for a better and more just life for everyone.

          I have faith in myself. This is also complicated since as I’ve lived with myself for my entire life and have therefore probably let myself down more than anyone or anything else that I’ve ever had faith in (with the possible exception of a notable ex-lover and the Democratic Party). But I have confidence that, when I set my mind to it, I can accomplish the things in my life that are important to me: being a good husband, a good father, a good worker, a good citizen, a good friend. When I take on a new task I have confidence that, if I seriously commit to it and put all my energy and talent and intelligence into it, I’ll be able to accomplish it.

          Now let’s consider religious faith.

          I don’t agree with certain hard-line atheists who insist that religious faith is always blind faith; that it always means refusing to question or doubt; that it always means absolute obedience to the authorities and precepts of one’s religion. Sure, it can mean these things. Many religious and formerly-religious people have said so, in so many words. But I’ve also known believers who do question, do doubt, do think for themselves, do have their eyes open. For at least some believers, a faith that can’t weather questioning is a weak-ass faith that isn’t worth having. Faith in honest doubt, and all that

          But it was surprisingly difficult to find definitions of faith from organized religions. I spent over an hour looking at websites of different religious organizations — Islam, Judaism, Hindu, Baha’i, and many Christian sects including Methodist, Episcopalian, Baptist (American and Southern), UCC, and Mormon. I didn’t find definitions of “faith” on any of these. (The Catholics were an exception.) Lots of religions clearly state what it is they have faith in: but what exactly it means to have faith is either ignored, or it’s just assumed that everybody knows. “Our faith is in X and what that means is that those are the things we believe. Believing X is what it means to be in our faith.”

          The Catholic Encyclopedia had a long article on faith. Here’s a few excerpts:

          Divine faith, then, is that form of knowledge which is derived from Divine authority, and which consequently begets absolute certitude in the mind of the recipient.

          …since faith is supernatural assent to Divine truths upon Divine authority, the ultimate or remote rule of faith must be the truthfulness of God in revealing Himself.

          Faith therefore is to believe that which you do not see, truth is to see what you have believed. –St. Augustine

          It appears that religious faith means believing in God. (Or gods, or the World-Soul, or the immortal spirit, or whatever. For the sake of brevity, let’s say God for now.)

          And it means believing in God no matter what. It means an unshakeable belief in God. It doesn’t necessarily mean an unquestioning belief in God — again, many believers do ask questions, and hard questions at that — but it means a belief in God that survives those questions, and any questions. It means having belief in God, not as a hypothesis that so far has stood up to the evidence but might not always do so, but as an axiom. A presupposition.

          Now, it isn’t the case that religious faith always means faith without evidence. Some of the more fundamentalist Christian religions actually say that evidence is an important part of their faith. But the things they consider “evidence”, namely the Bible, and its supposed inerrancy, are themselves objects of faith. Despite the Bible’s historical and scientific errors, its contradictions, its moral atrocities, etc., the belief in its inerrancy is itself, for these believers, an unshakable axiom.

          Here’s a test that I’ve found to be extremely useful. In Ebonmuse’s excellent Theist’s Guide to Converting Atheists [LINK], he makes this observation: “Ask any believer what would convince him he was mistaken and persuade him to leave his religion and become an atheist, and if you get a response, it will almost invariably be, ‘Nothing — I have faith in my god.'” He then goes on to offer several examples of the types of evidence that he, as an atheist, would accept as proof that a given religion is true.

          So far only two theists have responded to this challenge. Both replies consisted of either physical and/or logical impossibilities (things like “proof that all miracle claims are false,” or “falsifying Christ’s resurrection”) or irrelevancies, non sequiturs (things like, “If it could be demonstrated conclusively that I was deluded in thinking that life has meaning, I would deconvert.” As if the fact that people experience meaning proves that this meaning was planted in us by God and as if creating our own meaning was the same as being deluded.)

          Let’s return to my faith in my wife. Is there anything that could convince me that my faith in her is mistaken? Sure. Yes. Absolutely.

          She could murder all my relatives. She could set our house on fire, purely for the thrill of watching it burn. She could clear out our joint bank account and run off to Brazil with Denesh de Souza. She could be revealed to be a foreign spy who’s pretended to be in love with me all these years simply to gain information. She could shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die. None of these things are logically impossible or physically impossible. They’re not very likely, of course,but they could happen. Any of them would convince me that my faith in her was mistaken.

          So my faith in her isn’t irrational. It’s reasonable. It’s based the evidence of her past behavior. It’s true that I take a leap of faith with her every day: I can’t be 100% certain that she has never done any of these things and never will. And more to the point, I take leaps of faith with her every day that are both smaller than these and more serious. I have faith that she puts the right amount of money into our joint bank account; that the advice she gives me is as unbiased as she can make it; that she really is going to a chess club every Tuesday instead of seeing a lover she hasn’t told me about. These are all leaps of faith but they’re leaps of faith that could conceivably be overturned by evidence. I don’t answer the question “what would convince you that your faith in your wife is mistaken” with “nothing would convince me of that.”

          We all have to make leaps of faith. We can never have all the relevant information when we make a decision; we can never have a 100% ironclad guarantee that our beliefs and actions will be right. So it’s not irrational to have faith; it’s a calculated risk (unconsciously calculated much of the time, to be sure), necessary to get on with life in the face of uncertainty.

          What’s irrational is to maintain one’s faith in the face of any possible evidence that might arise. What’s irrational is to assert ahead of time that no possible evidence could ever shake your faith; to assert, essentially, that your faith trumps reality. And what’s profoundly irrational is to insist that doing these things is a virtue, an admirable trait that makes you a good and noble person.

        • Kodie

          Let’s return to my faith in my wife. Is there anything that could convince me that my faith in her is mistaken? Sure. Yes. Absolutely.

          She could murder all my relatives. She could set our house on fire, purely for the thrill of watching it burn. She could clear out our joint bank account and run off to Brazil with Dinesh de Souza. She could be revealed to be a foreign spy who’s pretended to be in love with me all these years simply to gain information. She could shoot a man in Reno just to watch him die. None of these things are logically impossible or physically impossible. They’re not very likely, of course,but they could happen. Any of them would convince me that my faith in her was mistaken.

          Technically, she could do all those things, but it doesn’t mean she doesn’t love you now.* The way you describe your wife as by her actions and words amounting to her character, she doesn’t even have to do anything that awful to demonstrate that she doesn’t love you or doesn’t love you anymore. I hope she doesn’t stop loving you, but I’m just saying, for instance with couples who love each other now. Because you are two separate people, something can change with one person, and you start noticing different behaviors that means something is up. And I feel like, if you don’t notice the difference, you might not really love them like you think that you do. You know? To love someone is to know them and not just take them for granted. Like, if she always makes you breakfast, and she stocks up on that thing you like whenever she sees it on sale, even if she hates it, despite that you wouldn’t know, and suddenly stopped those “little things” because she resented you for some reason, and you didn’t even notice, I mean, you’d notice if you had to make your own breakfast, but I feel like she doesn’t have to suddenly run away with someone for you to get the idea that she doesn’t love you anymore, and just because she didn’t make your breakfast one day doesn’t mean she doesn’t love you, but it might mean she doesn’t feel like helping you that way today, and if you don’t ask, she’ll keep it to herself, and eventually…. she might run away with someone. It might just mean she is taking care of herself, like she’s sick and instead of playing a martyr and powering through making breakfast because you depended on her for that, she stays in bed, or it might mean she doesn’t think you’re taking equal care of her basic needs and helping out, so instead of saying something, she went on breakfast strike to see if you’d make a fight about it to get the issues out in the open. Maybe she asked you to take out the garbage a few times and you keep forgetting, so she did bring it up and you didn’t notice that you were failing her in a small way, or you got defensive about it, so she purposely failed you in a small way. That’s how relationships tend to go downhill.

          *And technically, she could do all those things and it might not mean she doesn’t love you, or will never love you again. Plenty of people run away and still think they love the person they left. If she had a psychotic break with reality, or, say, maybe you don’t love someone who murders your whole family, but she could love you and violently hate your whole family. That’s not an indication she doesn’t love you, but it’s probably going to be over if that happens. I mean, if you’re a sane, kind, loving individual, you probably would think how this would affect the relationship before doing anything drastic like that, while a murderer would not, so you have faith and evidence that your wife indeed loves you, but also that she is not bloodthirsty.

          As you may gather, I’m not currently in a relationship now, and have some trust issues going into any in the future.

        • Michael Neville

          I agree with your points about love. However the faith I have in my wife includes more than just love. I assume that she’ll continue to be a reasonable, reliable person who I can trust.

        • Kodie

          And those aren’t the same thing, either. You can part amicably, you can still love each other in some other way, and both be reasonable, reliable persons whom each other can trust, and yet, not love each other in the same way that you feel when you are married to each other.

          It’s very nuanced and shit. I mean, you could love someone who murdered your whole family and recognize they love you too. The world is full of damaged people.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Yeah, blind faith is bad, reasonable faith is necessary. No disagreement there.

          Here is the best exposition on faith that I know of. And it comes from an Oxford scientist / professor of mathematics who holds 3 PhDs. You may have heard of him.

          https://youtu.be/HaQpENJLx-I?t=15

        • Michael Neville

          John Lennox is a first rate mathematician. He’s horrible as a Christian apologist and not much better as a philosopher. Expertise in one field does not mean competence in a completely unrelated field.

          I’m not impressed by Ravi Zacharias. I watched that one video you posted of him talking about the Law of Contradiction. He showed that while he doesn’t think much of Marxist dialectical materialism, he doesn’t understand it either. The concept is quite simple. To quote Z. A. Jordan:

          Engels made constant use of the metaphysical insight that the higher level of existence emerges from and has its roots in the lower; that the higher level constitutes a new order of being with its irreducible laws; and that this process of evolutionary advance is governed by laws of development which reflect basic properties of ‘matter in motion as a whole’.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Forgive me, but I could not disagree more. This might sting, but the concept of ’emergence’ is a secular term for magic as far as I am concerned. The same goes for ‘laws of development’. They don’t explain anything at all. They are nature of the gaps arguments. Don’t understand = insert magic words.

          And that is to say nothing of the logical hurdles facing evolution as a concept. It’s a bit like an expanding universe. It implies a beginning, But most people who use such language as the language you just quoted have this vague idea that the universe is somehow just evolving perpetually forward in time and has been doing so for ever and ever ad infinitum.

          They seem shocked when I tell them all the scientific evidence suggests a beginning. I can’t image a more primitive idealism based in nothing evidential but ripe with imagination.

          Where are these laws of development? David Berlinski has looked for them as they might apply to biological evolution.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOtGb8hKyWE

          Not to mention the logical hurdles for acquiring DNA in the first instance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hb2MsQKzZDI
          Because of this, researchers turned to what is called the RNA hypothesis, but it has not fared any better. Incredible topic.

          And as far as I am concerned Lennox is top of the class in apologetics. And Ravi? He knows EXACTLY what he is doing. You are just parroting things you’ve heard others say, (at least as it concerns Lennox) and standing on what you perceive as their authority.

          You can’t fake sounding smart Michael. From where you are, there is more to learn than you can yet imagine. Its your honesty that will save you. You DO got that so far as I can tell.

        • Michael Neville

          You’re a creationist? Okay, now I know enough about you to disregard anything you say because you’re too fucking stupid to accept reality. And don’t tell me that you’re into “intelligent design”. That was invented by a lawyer named Philip Johnson to get around the Constitutional prohibition about teaching a specific religious mythology in American public schools. The Discovery Institute admits that intelligent design is Christian creationism repackaged.

          And as far as I am concerned Lennox is top of the class in apologetics.

          That doesn’t say much about all of the other apologists if Lennox is “top of the class”.

          BTW, don’t bother to post any more videos at me. I’ve watched a couple of them and the only thing they convince me of is that Christian apologists have no clue about what atheists really believe or don’t believe.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Multiverse proponents are creationists too. It is their metaphysical creation story for how this universe was… created.

          You don’t know a 1/4 of what you think you do. You brought the conclusion that creationism was stupid ready made, because the materialists have pulled the rug over your eyes, so that you would not notice that theirs is a creation story too.

          But don’t feel bad. They are in a much worse place than you Michael, because they wilingly pull the rug over their own eyes.

          BTW, I don’t post videos because other people want me to. I post them because I (as in capital I dressed in bold) want to.

          https://youtu.be/3uX0wjl9PzM?t=42

        • Kodie

          We already decided that you post videos because you are a loser.

        • Michael Neville

          Again you’re wrong. The multiverse is a hypothesis and, if you asked the cosmologists who propose it, they’d admit that the main basis for it is some very beautiful math which suggests it.

          I know creationists are either stupid or fools. You reject reality for some 2500 year old religious myths stolen from the Babylonians by some Hebrew priests who didn’t know where the Sun went at night.

          The Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution (these are three different things, did you know that?) make sense. A fictitious god saying “Let there be light” does not. The point that most Christians accept the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution should tell you that there’s no religious reason to reject those things. So again you’re wrong about who’s being hoodwinked.

          I ask you not to post meaningless videos for one reason so simple that even a stupid creationist fool would understand it. Those videos drastically slow down the loading of the thread.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          God is a hypothesis too. That’s why we have no problem with any of it. And unlike you, we ca n respect other faiths for what sense they make so far as that goes. But we reject contradictions like a very serious one that materialism presents.

          “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” -JBS Haldane

        • TheNuszAbides

          so Haldane demonstrated that he was too weak-minded to consider in that context that Humans Comparing Notes With Each Other is an entirely feasible and plausible basis for refining the initially-flawed beliefs and thoughts of individuals. surprise, surprise, one more clever cluck cringes within his comfort zone unwilling to consider the possibility he or his species isn’t extra-special.

          oh, wait, are you going to come at us with another dose of Great Man/God ReasonMojo? or another half-bright hand-waving from your wishfully curated team of pompous intellectual ‘support’?

        • epeeist

          This might sting, but the concept of ’emergence’ is a secular term for magic as far as I am concerned.

          So tell me, what is the temperature where you are today? Oh, and do you put salt on your food?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I put salt on your wounds. It is the salt of logic that Jesus talked about.

        • epeeist

          You have no clue what I am on about have you.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I saw a trail, but you have once again neglected the one you were on. Why should I chase you into another hall of mirrors. Boring, yawn.

        • epeeist

          I saw a trail

          Let’s do some logic shall we, if you knew what I was on about you would have produced a constructive answer. You didn’t produce a constructive answer. Conclusion, you simply don’t have a clue hence the need to bluff.

        • Kodie

          So you don’t know what the comment was about.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You need to have big arguments to match all that big talk.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Whether I had big arguments or small, it wouldnt do much good to give them to you now would it?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Let me see if I understand what you’re saying. You want to engage with atheists, and you have the option of either sharing all your good arguments for Christianity or not. So you choose to not to.

          Uh, OK. I wonder then why you don’t just go back and watch TV given that you have no intention of helping anyone understand your position. Don’t you have anything better to do that give not-arguments to atheists?

        • TheNuszAbides

          quitting while you’re behind? where’s that can[-pretend-to]-do, martyr spirit?

        • MR

          Ravi was featured in The Truth Project that was a watershed moment for me in losing my Christianity. I remember him striking me as a snake-in-the-grass sophist. I don’t recall the details, but he presented a series of questions that atheists might ask. They were legitimate questions that I was struggling with, and he would take them and twist them and turn them into something else and triumphantly dismiss them. He wasn’t answering the question for the atheist, he was answering the question in such a way as to keep the sheep in the fold. “Oh, those foolish atheists, see how silly they are!” Meanwhile, for the person truly struggling with their faith the honest question remained glaringly unanswered. RL here seems to have taken his tactics to heart.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Yeah, blind faith is bad, reasonable faith is necessary. No disagreement there.

          nothing but lip service. betrayed by your breezy handwaving and special pleading in order to cling to your Logos/Trinity woo.

        • MNb

          All faith is blind.
          You confirm that with every single comment here, whether they are sincere or not.
          The same with WLC – his faith has blinded him for his own lack of reason. Just like you.

        • TheNuszAbides

          that was almost too comprehensive.
          do you mind if I quote most of it (or even the whole damn thing) some day? or should i just bookmark the link?

        • Michael Neville

          You may use it any way you want.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Cheers!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Who’s got certainty of knowledge? Science is always provisional. There’s no good reason to think that you’re in the Matrix, but that conclusion is provisional also.

          Back to the point: we know the speed of gravity because we measure it. That’s evidence. The axioms we follow (that aren’t built on an even more primitive truth) are also there because of evidence. No faith required.

          This is in response to your “If a person is committed to reason but does not understand that logic is axiomatic and therefore must be taken on faith.” Can we put that statement to bed now?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I totally agree that it is rational to believe that logic is valid and giving us real objective truths about the world. But apart crom omniscience, it will always remain a leap of faith.

          Our theories will always remain mere philosophy, which is why C.S. Lewis called one of his talks, Mere Chritianity.

          That conveys the humility that a materialist lacks. You don’t call you philosophy Mere Materialism, you have the audacity to call it science.

          Science simply means knowledge Bob. And you dont have all knowledge.

          I do not expect a public concession from on this point. I only need to do everything I can to make it plain for those who ARE willing to concede it to themselves if they chose to understand.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I totally agree that it is rational to believe that logic is valid and giving us real objective truths about the world. But apart crom omniscience, it will always remain a leap of faith.

          ?? What part of “axioms are firmly grounded in evidence” do you not understand? Who needs a leap of faith when you’ve got adequate evidence?

          Our theories will always remain mere philosophy

          Or not. Germ theory has much evidence. That’s science, not philosophy.

          you have the audacity to call it science.

          I have the audacity to call science “science.”

          And you dont have all knowledge.

          That’s true. And a non sequitur.

          I do not expect a public concession from on this point.

          Heck, what atheist has ever admitted they were wrong? They’re liars to a man.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          ?? What part of “axioms are firmly grounded in evidence” do you not understand? Who needs a leap of faith when you’ve got adequate evidence?

          As Jesus said, “Even if you have faith small a a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain move, and it will obey you.”

          Ever seen a highway project move a whole mountain Bob? It was always logic that made our science possible, be they theoretical or practical.

          Heck, what atheist has ever admitted they were wrong? They’re liars to a man.

          And that is the problem as I said to epeeist a short time ago. What makes a good man a great wizard is not knowledge and intelligence, but honesty. And it applies to ‘Christians’ as well. it applies to every man.

          The staff of logic and honesty will drive out demons Bob. And by that I mean dishonesty. These illustrations are deeply metaphorical and can conveys many things.

          That is why ClintW(thought2Much) banned me from Godless in Dixie after only 3 or 4 comments (and no policy violations) He knew to take the wizards staff even if only intuitively. But censorship is a desperate game of imposition in the eyes of the jury.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQExgALv9wI

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Bob:?? What part of “axioms are firmly grounded in evidence” do you not understand? Who needs a leap of faith when you’ve got adequate evidence?
          RL: As Jesus said, “Even if you have faith small a a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain move, and it will obey you.”

          How is this relevant? I’m making a very simple point that axioms can’t be a leap of faith when they’re tested continually. Are you just making a word salad to cover your error?

          As a wise man once said today, “I do not expect a public concession from on this point. I only need to do everything I can to make it plain for those who ARE willing to concede it to themselves if they chose to understand.”

          Bob:Heck, what atheist has ever admitted they were wrong? They’re liars to a man.
          RL: And that is the problem as I said to epeeist a short time ago. What makes a good man a great wizard is not knowledge and intelligence, but honesty. And it applies to ‘Christians’ as well. it applies to every man.

          Hard to know how to proceed when you don’t understand my sarcasm.

          That is why Cliff W (thought2Much) banned me from Godless in Dixie after only 3 or 4 comments. He knew to take the wizards staff. But censorship is a desperate game of imposition in the eyes of the jury.

          Must be tough being Gandalf, one of the few with the wisdom to understand. I’m not surprised that the shallow atheists at Patheos cringe in your presence, with only banning as their feeble attempt to stop the unstoppable and irresistible Truth. Doubtless, the moderator at this blog will follow suit soon due to embarrassment at his inept rebuttals.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          How is this relevant? I’m making a very simple point that axioms can’t be a leap of faith when they’re tested continually. Are you just making a word salad to cover your error?

          Look carefully. You are repeating the sophistry of epeeist. Tested with WHAT Bob? They are tested with THEMSELVES. Self referential systems are circular. They are as deep as we can go, but cannot themselves explained except by their own laws. Think about it.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          If 1 + 1 = 2 is such an axiom, how do we know it’s true? Just cuz we want it to be? Cuz it just feels right? Cuz it’d be convenient if it were true?

          Uh, no. We test it. Repeatedly. Continually. Try testing it yourself right now.

          Think about it. Or don’t–you haven’t much cared to so far.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          This is going to confuse you a bit because you do not yet realize that the Scutum Fedei thread was a distraction to get eppeeist to demonstrate that a self referential system CANNOT be intuited with a logical schema other than its OWN logical schema. I apologize for that but it was necessary. Take the time to wrap your mind around it here: http://disq.us/p/1merz1e

          And here: http://disq.us/p/1mes25t

          1+1=2 is not an axiom per se, but is valid because of the axioms it is founded on to be true as well as the definitions of the symbols.

          I like to keep things as Ockham as possible by using the law of non contradiction as the consummate axiom for everything else.

          The law of non-contradiction: A ^ ~A = False, that is, A is mutually exclusive with anti-A.

          Epeeeist has been whispering things in your ear Bob, and you need to be sure you understand them through and through.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          More word salad that sounds to me like merely an alternative to saying, “You’re right.” I wish you’d just stand still. I’m losing interest quickly.

          1+1=2 is not an axiom per se

          ?? Is this relevant? Are you agreeing with me that 1 + 1 = 2 is testable and indeed tested all the time? And perhaps your only quibble is that it’s not an axiom?

          Whitehead and Russell in their Principia Mathematica famously stated, “From this proposition it will follow, when arithmetical addition has been defined, that 1+1=2” on page 379. Yes, I realize that it’s arguably not an axiom, but how is this relevant?

          If we must, yes, let’s move to the Law of Non-Contradiction. Do I have to repeat my argument using that or can you fill that in yourself? If so, respond.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Not playing games Bob. Please take the time to think it through. I don’t do word salads. I am a steak and potatoes kind of guy.

          Of course 1+1=2 is testable, but ultimately it is testable by the axioms that are themselves NOT testable, other than by their own laws.

        • Kodie

          Well, you don’t know what word salad means, but I would call you empty calories and not substantial like you think you are.

          You can’t test 1=1? You can’t put one Jesus on your dashboard and get another one and test that that makes 2 dashboard Jesuses?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You can’t put one Jesus on your dashboard and get another one and test that that makes 2 dashboard Jesuses?

          Nice! You’ve brought it down to his level. I’m sure the “OK–I see your point now” is just around the corner.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I wish you’d reply to the totality of my comments. I’ve got to go back and see which ones you’re avoiding and decide what needs to be repeated.

          But sure, let’s play the Lockett game: OK, then if the axioms on which 1 + 1 = 2 aren’t testable, give me an example of such an untestable axiom.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Easy, and in plain English. Why is the law of non contradiction true? Because if it wasn’t, it would result in contradiction.

          Its the most rudimentary law of logic, and all it really says is that contradictions are untrue. It is self affirming. How do you test something with itself?

          That is my favorite example of an axiom. It must be assumed true because the alternative is contradiction.

          But why can’t the universe ultimately be absurd? Who or what gave the command that it be logical and coherent?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Its the most rudimentary law of logic, and all it really says is that contradictions are untrue. It is self affirming. How do you test something with itself?

          And, after all this blather, we’re back to your original statement: “I totally agree that it is rational to believe that logic is valid and giving us real objective truths about the world. But apart crom omniscience, it will always remain a leap of faith.

          Do you finally see what I’m saying? (Or, if you’ve gotten it all along and this is just a smoke screen, can you stop the pretense?) You originally said that the fundamentals were leaps of faith. Now you’re saying that they’re self-affirming.

          So they’re not leaps of faith. Right?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          But self affirmation simply circular. If I say I am telling you the truth, you ask for additional info. You don’t just take my word for it. I can’t answer you by saying, ‘because I said so!’

          That is what an axiom is. It says, I am true because I say so.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          It says, I am true because I say so.

          So the Law of Noncontradiction is true because you say so. That’s it. There’s no evidence behind it, and it’s taken on faith.

          Is that right?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          No, the law of non contradiction is true because the law of non contradiction says it is true.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Like I said.

          Tell you what: why don’t you go in this philosophy encyclopedia and find where it says that.

          https://plato.stanford.edu/

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          But why can’t the universe ultimately be absurd? Who or what gave the command that it be logical and coherent?

          What are you saying? That a godless universe wouldn’t be logical or coherent?

          That’s a bold statement. Give me evidence.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          No, I am not saying that. All I am asking is, ‘why CAN’T it be contradictory?’

          I was asking you Bob.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          What are you saying? That a godless universe wouldn’t be logical or coherent?

          That’s a bold statement. Give me evidence.

          If we now understand what an axiom is, that it basically says it is true because it says so, we have a circular argument.

          I admittedly was NOT saying that God must exist in order for there to be a coherent universe when I asked, but that it remains unexplained as to WHY it must be coherent. We only have itself to verify itself.

          In order to solve that we would need an additional piece of the puzzle. And we have always assumed that that piece does not appear. We are left with axioms that are perfectly logical, they just do not explain why logic must BE what the universe is.

          (this philosophical language can be difficult in its simplicity no?)

          But quite surprising to me btw, is that my last reply to epeeist,actually
          solves the problem (apart from criticism). We have forgotten that as the observer (with a logical mind), we ARE the additional piece of the puzzle needed to verify its truthfulness.

          We have been looking at one sided equations without realizing that we are the 2nd side that verifies by observation. My mind is spinning with the implications. I hope I can sleep.

          To complete the picture requires an additional dimension. And as I explained to epeeist (and I await his criticism) the Scutum Fidei gives us a different model of the law of non contradiction that is actually 3 dimensional.

          It is not easy to understand this. I can think very deliberately and clearly, and slowly. But this was very difficult to articulate. fortunately it can be expressed in less than one page.

          Good luck with it…

          https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fb%2Fb3%2FShield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg%2F853px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg.png&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AShield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg&docid=xMwfaK4j506TyM&tbnid=E9-HXITl4ljzPM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwidr_Xzjb3WAhVH2oMKHe3uBYgQMwgmKAEwAQ..i&w=853&h=768&bih=734&biw=1152&q=scutum%20fidei&ved=0ahUKEwidr_Xzjb3WAhVH2oMKHe3uBYgQMwgmKAEwAQ&iact=mrc&uact=8

          On a sheet of paper, put 1, 2, and 3 in the corners. Write equation in the center. Or if you prefer a different illustration, write 1+2=3 and then draw a circle around the equation and mark that circle: equation.

          Solved.

          You’re mistake was to assume that G=F,S, or H.But if it makes you feel better, so did a lot of other people including theologians.

          In fact, the only thing it demonstrates is an equation, which in turn, is a picture of logic that can be expressed mathematically as well, as it must.

          More to the point. It is a diagram of the law of non contradiction in it’s -entirety-

          What do I mean by that?

          If we say A is not -A, we are taking our own presence for granted as we define A. What is an A if no other entity exists to contrast with it?

          There can be no meaning for any given particular in isolation. In order for identity to apply and exist, a relationship of particulars must exist simultaneously.

          When we examine A and model it as Aristotle did, we take our own presence for granted and do not notice (just as he did not) that for the law of non contradiction to exist apart from anything other than itself as the bible claims, a more complex model is required.

          Aristotle in essence became the 3rd entity by observing the difference between A and non A, defining it even. We complete the over-simplistic equation by our observation without realizing it.

          The other thing it tells us is that the relationship of particulars must be logical. It is theoretically conceivable that three particulars could exist simultaneously and not have a mereological relationship. But that is just another way of saying that they do not result in an equation.

          We are looking at what John called the Logos.

          Too simple for you to notice perhaps? If so don’t feel bad. I have always overthought it too.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          If we now understand what an axiom is

          I’m pretty sure “we” don’t.

          (this philosophical language can be difficult in its simplicity no?)

          The purpose of philosophical language is very often to obfuscate, not illuminate.

          It is not easy to understand this.

          Not surprising for something that’s inherently contradictory.

          Good luck with it…

          Just as an experiment, give yourself permission to view the Trinity the way I do: as a made-up notion built on no evidence but rather on the desire to maintain two contradictory demands: Jesus must be on the same level as Yahweh and yet monotheism must be maintained (because that’s clearly better than polytheism for . . . undefined reasons).

          It doesn’t come from the Bible and didn’t reach its current form until the late 300s, and the Athanasian Creed might’ve been written long after that. Just drop the demand of the Trinity and see if the Trinity looks illogical and invented.

        • epeeist

          I’m pretty sure “we” don’t.

          Please sir, please sir – waves hand in air. I know what an “axiom” is, I also know about Euclid’s fifth axiom…

          I also know what “Logos” is and how it came from Greek philosophy and Heraclitus in particular. In other words “John” stole it from the Greeks in the same way as other Christians stole the idea of virtue ethics from the Greeks.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          If you have anything to add about evidence for axioms and whether they’re taken on faith or not, jump in.

          Or maybe you want to avoid this morass. Robert L has made it clear that he is unable to say, “You’re right” or even “Yeah, good point.”

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Oh my…

          Bob, if you are unable to see and comprehend what an axiom is, the most basic unit of any postulate or theorem; or if you refuse to concede that you DO see, in order to escape the argument, then there is nothing anyone can do for you.

          There is no point demanding a rational argument from people, when you make clear that you do not see or accept Reason.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Interesting. That’s a gambit I never use–instead of correcting yourself, avoid responding to the argument and shake your head in loving incredulity that your antagonist is a fucking idiot.

          I think I’ll leave that trick to you.

        • Ryan M

          I have three worries:

          First, there are many different existing logics. You are probably familiar with basic classical logic, like the sort we use in every day life. But in addition to classical logics there exists non classical logics which have different expressive powers and different axioms. Paraconsistent logics are non classical logics and allow for inconsistent sets of propositions without the principle of explosion causing issue.

          Second, we should consider whether it makes sense to ask why the law of non contradiction is true. In a sense, it seems like a category mistake in the event that our logical axioms are used precisely to model truth itself. That is, we say a proposition is true when it fits the conditions set forth by our logic axioms.

          Third, self affirming rules are problematic. Consider the following proof of the law of non contradiction:

          1. Contradictions are impossible. (Premise)
          2. If the law of non contradiction is not true, then contradictions are possible. (Premise)
          3. The law of non contradiction is not true (Assumption for reductio)
          4. Contradictions are possible. (From 2, 3 conditional elimination)
          5. Contradictions are impossible. (reiteration of 1)
          6. Therefore, the law of non contradiction is true. (From 3 – 5, negation introduction).

          There are a few issues with this argument. The first issue is that the first premise seems to be logically equivalent to the law of non contradiction, so the argument starts off question begging. Obviously any self affirming argument which is question begging will not be of any use. But ignoring the apparent question begging nature, we can look to the inference made at line 6. The inference rule used, negation introduction, says that since the assumption of the law of non contradiction being false implies a contradiction, the law of non contradiction must therefore be true. But this inference rule presupposes the law of non contradiction is true, so the proof of the law of non contradiction uses the law of non contradiction to prove itself. This might seem like a win for the law of non contradiction if we cannot seem to reason at all without it, but really it shows that we cannot use self affirming arguments to prove the law of non contradiction.

        • epeeist

          First, there are many different existing logics.

          I have already told him this, he has ignored it and just refers to “logic” as if there was only one type.

          You are probably familiar with basic classical logic

          Nope, he is aware of the “law of non-contradiction” and that is the limit of his knowledge of logic.

        • Ryan M

          :'(

          It is a little annoying that most people talking about logic don’t even have familiarity with basic first order logic.

        • MNb

          That applies to me too as well, I’m afraid, but then again when someone corrects me about it I’m not stupid enough to protest.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’m Spartacus too….but at least I’ll lift a book and try and make the effort.

        • epeeist

          A lot of people thing you are doing logic when you says “Logically…”

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          The schema does not make premise 1. People build things that do not work and contradict the natural order. The result is explosion of the rocket before take off. Therefore contradictions are possible.

          I don’t know how yet, but we must remember that the schema represents a fellowship of persons that have a harmonious relationship. The math is only a place holder to represent the logical relationship between them.

          Free will and consciousness is part of the picture, I just don’t know how all of those things fit.

        • Ryan M

          A contradiction is any statement pairs with one of its negations.

          E = “It is the case that people build rockets that explode before impact”
          N = the natural order

          The negation of E would be “It is not the case that people build rockets that explode before impact”. You seem to be thinking that E being true in conjunction with N forms a contradiction, so {E, N} forms an inconsistent set. I’m not sure what N is referring to. What exactly is the natural order? If {E, N} forms an inconsistent set, then the negation of E can be derived from N. Thus, N would imply that it is not the case that people build rockets that explode before impact. It seems clear to me that you are not thinking of “Contradiction” in the sense that logicians and mathematicians use the term.

          Consider a basic propositional language. A contradiction is any sentence such that it has no truth value assignment where the sentence is true. This is usually determined with truth tables:

          A – (A & ~A)
          T – -T F FT
          F – -F F TF

          The proposition (A & ~A) is a contradiction since there is no truth value assignment where the proposition is true. In a language with predicates, a sentence is a contradiction in the event that there is no interpretation of the sentence where it is true. Following classical predicate logic, a sentence of the form (There is some x such that Px & there is no x such that Px) would be a contradiction since there could never be an interpretation where both conjuncts are true.

          Your use of “Contradiction” is mysterious. I’m going to guess that you think a contradiction is something like this: the natural order follows a behavior x, and any instance where x fails to obtain is a contradiction of the natural order.

          If I am correct about why you think contradictions occur, then you are talking about a different sort of “Contradiction” than what the LNC talks about.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          {E, N} forms an inconsistent set. I’m not sure what N is referring to. What exactly is the natural order?

          My apologies… I was under the assumption that human beings WERE part of the natural order.

          https://youtu.be/9xc00Agx8Q8?t=172

        • Ryan M

          What is the natural order? I’m going to make a guess as to what you’re claiming:

          Things in the natural order – humans, atoms, quarks…

          Natural order statement – every x in the natural order is such that x has P (where P is some property of x)

          O = natural order statement

          1. O is true.
          2. Humans are in the natural order.
          3. It is not the case that humans have P.
          4. It is the case that humans have P.
          5. Therefore, it is not the case that humans have P and it is the case that humans have P.

          If I am interpreting you correctly, you want to say the natural order makes some universal statements that apply to everything within its domain, and there are some things within its domain for which the universal statements do not apply, so a contradiction arises. Is this correct? If it is, can you provide the following; 1. definition of the “natural order”, 2. universal claim for which everything within the natural order follows, 3. example of contradiction from the domain of the natural order and the universal claim about the natural order.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          What is the natural order? I’m going to make a guess as to what you’re claiming:
          Things in the natural order – humans, atoms, quarks…

          Natural order statement – every x in the natural order is such that x has P (where P is some property of x)

          Good guess, but not what I am saying…

          When it comes to a living biological organism, which is derivative of P regardless of the definition of the natural order, I do not think it is right to say that P is some property of x.

          In doing do, I would be dismissing a known casual chain. The first expression is true, <emx has P. The second does not follow.

          …can you provide the following; 1. definition of the “natural order”,

          This is a relevant question even though you thought it dependent on the truth of the statement that did not follow.

          You are raising the central philosophical question and actually exposing your own philosophy for what it is, religion. Because…

          As a materialist, can YOU define the natural order, and defend that with empirical evidence?

        • Ryan M

          I never said I was either a materialist nor atheist to you, so I don’t know where that comes from.

          In either event, I have no clue what you’re talking about, so this conversation must end (Apparently you are a truck driver, but it appears you either are intoxicated or have mental health issues given the apparent gibberish/non sequiturs in your replies. In either case, don’t be on the road).

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Fair enough… so what IS your philosophical position?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          This is fun, but be careful Ryan. Be self aware of what your intentions are. Any dishonesty will come out because in the natural order, contradictions stand out like a sore thumb, like a crashing cymbal, for those with eyes to see.

          I have no problem with you so far as I can tell, but I would like to have a word with the professors who taught you this bunkum. Then again, people like that generally don’t want to talk to me.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ62frK74u0

        • TheNuszAbides

          Then again, people like that generally don’t want to talk to me

          perhaps because generally the effort of reading just a few of your comments is enough to grow tired of your fake grasp of argumentation? yeah, must be rough passing those hearty blue collar chuckles around the echo chamber.

        • MNb

          “ultimately it is testable by the axioms that are themselves NOT testable”
          Sure. However that’s a different set of axiomata than the set that founds logic. Guess what? The conclusion is still the same.
          So we have two independent ways to arrive at the same conclusion: 1 + 1 = 2.
          Unfortunately as soon as you begin to talk about a supernatural realm and the entities that reside with it only one is left.

          MNb: Houston, I think we’ve got a problem.
          Houston: consult William Ockham and Ludwig Wittgenstein.
          MNb, Thanks, Houston, I’ve got it. I’ll remain silent about what I cannot speak of and cut it away with a Razor.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Unfortunately as soon as you begin to talk about a supernatural realm and the entities that reside with it only one is left.

          I feel the same way about the multiverse, except that when it comes up, you actually slit your own throat. That is suicide. It Is death not life… sir. I know who you are. But I have to wonder, do YOU know who you are?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgZC1EPbIbw

        • Greg G.

          I feel the same way about the multiverse, except that when it comes up, you actually slit your own throat. That is suicide. It Is death not life… sir. I know who you are. But I have to wonder, do YOU know who you are?

          The multiverse explanation is more Occam than the single universe explanation because you have to add an even more complex mechanism that prevents other universes from forming.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’ve already had the evidence supporting the multiverse explained to you. And yet you still bring it up as a faith-based proposition?

          Careful–that rumor about you being dishonest is spreading.

        • epeeist

          He’s the fastest reset button presser in the west…

        • Ignorant Amos

          And his name was Ernie…might be a UK side of the pond joke…but hey ho!

        • TheNuszAbides

          and has the hubris to label it ‘wizardry’.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Where was the evidence for the multiverse explained to me Bob?

          I am working on getting to that point with epeeir, but I do not recall it having occured. It is a deliberate chess game, so please be patient.

        • Greg G.

          I have explained it to you at least twice that the multiverse theory is a simpler proposition than the single universe theory. It’s because the process for a single universe theory being able to occur more than once is simpler than the process of one universe coming into being with some additional mechanism that prevents other universes from forming anywhere and everywhere.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          OK, I’ll explain it again. The multiverse is a consequence of Inflation, and there is good evidence for Inflation.

          No, the multiverse isn’t taken on faith.

          And what’s with the chess game? You can’t just make your position clear?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          2 minute illustration
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDSvYLtYdxo

          I LOVE the evidence of inflation. But all it means is that ‘something’ caused the big bang. How does that indicate a multiverse? Seems to me, that all it indicates is a super-nature that cannot be observed or empirically tested.

          To extrapolate backward, past Planck time is necessarily metaphysical posturing.

          Why can’t it indicate God? God is based on the SAME inflation evidence as multiverse theory.

          Why is an impersonal super-nature science, and a personal super-nature a religion, when they are both philosophies that cannot be tested empirically?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          2 minute illustration

          There are interesting questions. Yes, I already knew that.

          I LOVE the evidence of inflation. But all it means is that ‘something’ caused the big bang. How does that indicate a multiverse?

          ?? If you don’t understand cosmic inflation, why ask me? Look it up yourself.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Eternal_inflation

          Why can’t it indicate God? God is based on the SAME inflation evidence as multiverse theory.

          Hmm. Good point. We have a natural explanation and a supernatural explanation. There’s a lot to recommend each one . . . loads of evidence on each side . . . golly—tough call.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Hmm. Good point. We have a natural explanation and a supernatural explanation. There’s a lot to recommend each one . . . loads of evidence on each side . . . golly—tough call.

          A natural explanation is limited to the laws of this nature. Those laws break down at about Planck time.

          So… what exactly is natural about multiverse theory. The cause of this universe is supernatural by definition because the physical laws that define this universe came into being with it.

          Any postulating will be strictly metaphysical. The evidence can only take us as far as Planck time.

          The multiverse IS a supernatural explanation that is necessarily metaphysical.

          “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.” -Robert Jastrow

        • Ryan M

          Your sense of “metaphysical” is not how philosophers use it. Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality, but you treat it as the study of the non physical. This is forgivable given that you’re obviously using the term as lay spiritualist people use it.

          Naturalism braudly is the hypothesis that the physical is fundamental and the mental is a product of the physical. Supernaturalism braudly is the hypothesis that the mental is fundamental and the physical is a product of the mental. Per these definitions, a multiverse would be a naturalistic explanation.

          In modal terms, naturalism says that the physical is metaphysically necessary whereas the mental is metaphysically contingent.

          In modal terms, supernaturalism says that the mental is metaphysically necessary whereas the physical is metaphysically contingent.

          A multiverse hypothesis implies that the physical is metaphysically necessary, so a multiverse is a naturalistic hypothesis, not a supernaturalistic hypothesis.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Okay Ryan, I will give you a fair shake and find out if you are as honest as you said. I totally understand what you said, and I wish to take issue. We may have to go around a few times in the process to make sure we understand each other. I’m game.

          Naturalism braudly(sic) is the hypothesis that the physical is fundamental and the mental is a product of the physical.

          Supernaturalism braudly is the hypothesis that the mental is fundamental and the physical is a product of the mental.

          Of the two hypothesis you listed, which (if any or both, or neither) of them is a conclusion derived from empirical inquiry?

          Of the two hypothesis you listed, which (if any or both, or neither) of them is a conclusion derived from philosophical pressuposition?

        • Ryan M

          Naturalism and supernaturalism are not conclusions. Rather, they are hypotheses to explain data. Since neither are conclusions, both of your questions are category errors.

          As explanatory hypotheses, to assess the truth of such hypotheses, you assess the probability of our data given naturalism and theism. You would do something like this:

          N = Naturalism
          S = Supernaturalism
          D = set of known data

          D = {x, y, z}

          To assess the probability of N and S, you assess the probability of D given both N and S. In addition, you consider the prior probabilities of both N and S, or the “intrinsic probabilities” of both N and S. For the sake of simplicity, suppose the prior/intrinsic probabilities of N and S are each .5. Following Bayes theorem, if we know the probability of D given both N and S, then we can calculate the probability of N and S given both D and the prior/intrinsic probabilities of N and S. To calculate the probability of D given N and S, you calculate the probability of the elements of D given both N and S. So, you would calculate Pr(x or y or z | N) and Pr(Pr(x or y or z | S). The hypothesis with the greater posterior probability is the hypothesis we should prefer as an explanation. There are other considerations to consider such as whether N and S make useful predictions.

          Here is an example of an argument for naturalism being the best explanation for minds:

          M = minds depend on brains
          A = The probability of N given our background knowledge is .5
          B = The probability of S given our background knowledge is .5
          C = The Probability of M given N is 1
          E = The Probability of M given S is far less than 1
          F = The Probability of N is greater than the Probability of S
          H = N is a better explanation for M than S

          1. A (Premise)
          2. B (Premise)
          3. C (Premise)
          4. E (Premise)
          5. (A & B & C & E) → F (Premise)
          6. (A & B)
          7. (A & B & C)
          8. (A & B & C & E)
          9. F
          10. F → H
          11. H

          Defense of Line 6: (Conjunction Introduction, 1 & 2)
          Defense of Line 7: (Conjunction Introduction, 6 & 3)
          Defense of Line 8: (Conjunction Introduction, 7 & 4)
          Defense of Line 9: (Conditional Elimination, 5 & 8)
          Defense of Line 11: (Conditional Elimination, 9 & 10)

          That is a sample of how one would argue for naturalism over theism from just a single datum. The best explanation for a hypothesis is the hypothesis with the greater balance of probability in considering both the probability of the data given the hypotheses and the prior/intrinsic probabilities of the hypotheses. In this case, if the prior/intrinsic probabilities of N and S are equal, then if the probability of M given N is greater than the probability of M given S, then N is the best explanation for M since it has the greater balance of probability in considering both the probability of M given both N and S and the intrinsic/prior probabilities of N and S.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Naturalism and supernaturalism are not conclusions. Rather, they are hypotheses to explain data. Since neither are conclusions, both of your questions are category errors.

          Fair enough, I knew what I meant and so did you because you answered. Bu let’s rephrase it fresh in our minds with the proper term.

          Naturalism braudly(sic) is the hypothesis that the physical is fundamental and the mental is a product of the physical.

          Supernaturalism braudly is the hypothesis that the mental is fundamental and the physical is a product of the mental.

          Of the two hypothesis you listed, which (if any or both, or neither) of them is a premise that is based in the fundamental question of the nature of reality (metaphysics)?

          You then moved to probability theory to evade the FACT that
          both of them related to the fundamental question of the nautre of reality.

          Probability theory will not help us asses which of the two are the more likely given the data.

          Probability theory boils down to one basic idea. The more often a thing happens, the more likely it is to happen again. And that is important for all kinds of predictions INSIDE the universe, and it confirms for us the uniformity of nature.

          But the whole universe has only happened once so far as the data is concerned, and that begs the question at the very center of the subject. You act as if we have seen X number of universes pop into being over here I the [natural] category, and zero number of universes in the (mental) category.

          That sounds pretty mental to me indeed, when we have a sample size of only 1. We can’t use it to judge repeated observations of the same phenomenon.

          Talk about a category error.

          The whole question of what we MEAN by nature is smuggled into the probability and assuming (hypothesizing) the very thing it is trying to determine.

          We see lots of natural processes going round and round inside nature Ryan. That can tell us NOTHING about what brought nature into being in the first instance. Its not even relevant.

        • Ryan M

          Both naturalism and supernaturalism are metaphysical hypotheses. That is to say, both are hypotheses about what sorts of things exist and what is fundamental to reality. On naturalism, physical things are the sorts of things that exist, and physical reality is fundamental. On supernaturalism, mental things are the sorts of things that exist in addition to physical things, but mental reality is fundamental whereas physical reality is not.

          “Probability theory boils down to one basic idea. The more often a thing happens, the more likely it is to happen again.”

          You’re confused on the nature of probability. There are different sorts of probability interpretations. We have at least two different uses of probabilities found in ontological/objective probabilities and epistemic probabilities. Following ontological probabilities mixed with a frequentist interpretation, we look at the probability of events given past scenarios. In epistemic probabilities, we look at the epistemic probability of propositions given data and the prior/intrinsic probabilities of the propositions. For epistemic probabilities, we look at the justified degree of belief that a proposition is true. If a proposition has an epistemic probability of .9, then the justified degree of belief in that proposition is exactly .9.

          We can assess explanatory hypotheses using epistemic probabilities. This is used in courts, sciences, and philosophy. For a legal matter, we might look into what the epistemic probability that a person is guilty of a crime given the evidence. This is not an objective/ontological probability question since such a question would require past incidents of guilt for it to be such a probability matter. Similarly, science uses the epistemic notion of probability to assess how confident we should be in scientific hypotheses given the probability of our data given the hypotheses in addition to the prior/intrinsic probability of the hypotheses.

          https://www.amazon.ca/Probability-Theory-Science-T-Jaynes/dp/0521592712

          Suppose that something exist in addition to the universe. That is, assume there exists some x such that x is not the universe we know of. You seem to be saying that science cannot tell us about the nature of x. If this is what you’re saying, then I don’t think you’re correct. If we have some hypothesis about what x is, and x makes predictions that science can in principle verify/falsify, then science can tell us about the nature of x. For example, suppose H is a potential candidate for being x, and if H is true then we would expect some fact F. If F can be verified/falsified by science, then science can tell us something about the nature of x. If science falsifies that F is the case, then science falsifies that x has F, so science falsifies that x = H.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Thank you Ryan.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Naturalism braudly(sic) is the hypothesis that the physical is fundamental and the mental is a product of the physical.

          Supernaturalism braudly is the hypothesis that the mental is fundamental and the physical is a product of the mental.

          Of the two hypothesis you listed, which (if any or both, or neither) of them is a conclusion that is based in the fundamental question of the nature of reality (metaphysics)?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality, but you treat it as the study of the non physical.

          What?

          We study non physical things in science all the time using logic in the form of mathematics. We call it space-time. To use a metaphor (which we are always forced to use with the immaterial) space-time is the canvass upon which energy and matter are painted. It is non physical but VERY real.

          Are you telling me that physics is metaphysics?

        • Ryan M

          Neither. Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of reality. In short, metaphysics asks “What exists and what is the nature of that which exists?”. e.g. a metaphysician would ask what sorts of concrete beings exist, whether abstract objects exist, whether reality is wholly physical or non physical, etc.

          Physics is a branch of science that studies the nature/properties of the the fundamental building blocks of the physical world. e.g. matter, energy.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of reality. In short, metaphysics asks “What exists and what is the nature of that which exists?”. e.g. a metaphysician would ask what sorts of concrete beings exist, whether abstract objects exist, whether reality is wholly physical or non physical, etc.

          Physics is a branch of science that studies the nature/properties of the the fundamental building blocks of the physical world. e.g. matter, energy.

          Physics studies space, time, and gravity too Ryan. Are those things physical or non physical. Does space, time, and gravity consist of matter and energy?

        • Ryan M

          Those fall within the scope of the fundamental building blocks of the physical world since they are properties of the fundamental building blocks of the physical world.

          e.g. suppose P is a property of c, and physics studies all properties of c. If physics studies all properties of c, and P is a property of c, then physics studies P.

          Spx = physics studies x
          Pxc = x is a property of c
          Pdc = d is a property of c

          1. (∀x)((Pxc) → Spx)
          2. Pdc
          3. Spd

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You did not answer my question. The very question is whether the ALL the fundamental building blocks are material or physical?

          So I will ask again… C’mon Ryan. You are a lawyer in training. You are in the witness chair. Here is what you said 1st:

          Physics is a branch of science that studies the nature/properties of the the fundamental building blocks of the physical world. e.g. matter, energy.

          Now you are saying 2nd:

          Those fall within the scope of the fundamental building blocks of the physical world since they are properties of the fundamental building blocks of the physical world.

          Are space, time, and gravity = matter and energy, or are they immaterial?

          Define for the jury the term ‘physical’ without infringing on the fundamental nature of reality by venturing into metaphysics.

        • Ryan M

          “Are they material”

          This depends on whether you’re a Platonist or not. If you are a Platonist, then properties, relations, sets, possible worlds, propositions, all exist abstractly. If you are a physicalist, or nominalist, then properties, relations, etc, all exist non abstractly. For a physicalist, or nominalist, all properties are physical properties. Since physics is a science, it requires a physicalist ontology, so it presumes all properties are physical properties.

          Defining “Physical” is not easy. A simple definition would be “Spatially located” or “Within the universe”.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Fair enough, but that is just the point. The whole inquiry cannot be separated from the question of the nature of reality. That is why I said multiverse theory is necessarily metaphysical.

          Do you understand?

        • Ryan M

          I need a definition of “metaphysical”. I presume you are defining a metaphysical explanation as any explanation which cannot be reached at through empirical investigations/models.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Ryan, what are you doing? You said you were honest. We already agreed on the definition of metaphysical. It contains the question of the nature of reality.

        • Ryan M

          I need to clarify if you mean to say a multiverse hypothesis is necessarily a hypothesis that falls within the scope of the study of metaphysics. e.g. the study of the ultimate nature of reality and whether you think a multiverse hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis.

          It is difficult to see if you are contrasting a difference between metaphysical hypotheses and scientific hypotheses. We might say all scientific hypotheses are metaphysical hypotheses, but not all metaphysical hypotheses are scientific hypotheses. e.g. for a physicalist ontology, the hypothesis that a person can persist through time is not a scientific hypothesis, but a philosophical hypothesis, and consequently there is a metaphysical hypothesis that is not a scientific hypothesis.

        • TheNuszAbides

          I need to clarify … whether you think a multiverse hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis.

          regarding that, he certainly hasn’t balked from casting aspersions of magical thinking elsewhere, yet here he tap-dances to cast you as the cagey one.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s what happens when a blue collar truck driver who thinks he knows more than he does, arrogantly, with head in the air, turns right instead of left and finds himself in the the wrong rest room.

        • Ryan M

          Now I’ll demonstrate a confusion on your part. You have equivocated the following:

          Definition – c studies the nature/properties of d and e.

          Set of properties of properties of d and e = {A, B, C}

          Now the mistake you have made is assuming {A, B, C} = (d & e)

          This is a common set theoretical fallacy. That is, you have assumed objects and the set of its properties are the same thing. But a set is just a set, it is distinct from the object that actually has the properties contained in the set. c studies the properties of d & e, but this is not to say d & e = the set that properties that c studies.

          Now your grand assumption is this proposition – [Either space, time and gravity = matter and energy, or space, time and gravity are immaterial properties]

          The disjunction you advocate is false. The first disjunct can be false while the second disjunct is false since we can speak of physical properties too. Remember that a disjunction is false when it is logically possible for both disjuncts to be false. e.g. in propositional logic, a disjunction is false when there is a truth value assignment where both disjuncts are false, and in first order predicate calculus, a disjunct is false when there is an interpretation where both disjuncts are false.

        • epeeist

          Physics studies space, time, and gravity too Ryan. Are those things physical or non physical.

          Physical, though there are different takes on whether space and time actually exist or not.

        • TheNuszAbides

          different takes on whether space and time actually exist or not.

          i.e. whether or not they are only provisional interpretations of a ‘bigger picture’ which we haven’t [yet] sussed out?

        • epeeist

          When it comes to space there are two positions, the “substantivalists” who think that a substance called “space” actually exists and objects are embedded in it and the “relationists” who think that space does not exist, all that does exist are spatial relationships between objects.

          When it comes to time, have a look at the A-theory and B-theory of time.

        • TheNuszAbides

          oh yes! somebody recommended McTaggart (during some drunken discussion of Donnie Darko, iirc) and i’d forgotten to follow through on that. thanks!

        • MNb

          List of fundamental quantities:

          time
          distance
          mass
          electric current
          temperature
          amount of substance
          luminous intensity
          angle
          solid angle

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_base_unit

          If they weren’t physical they couldn’t be used by physics.
          Space depends on distance.
          Gravity is a force and depends on mass, distance and time.
          Energy is for instance the product of force and distance and hence also depends on those fundamental quantities.
          They all are physical.

        • MNb

          Space-time is physical. See the fundamental quantities underneath. We can even measure them with a ruler and a clock (that’s not the case with all quantities). How can something we can measure be non-physical? That doesn’t make any sense.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Space-time is physical. See the fundamental quantities underneath. We can even measure them with a ruler and a clock (that’s not the case with all quantities). How can something we can measure be non-physical? That doesn’t make any sense.

          Physical things are perceived with the senses as opposed to the mind.

          phys·i·cal /ˈfizik(ə)l/Submit / adjective

          1. relating to the body as opposed to the mind.
          “a whole range of physical and mental challenges”
          synonyms: bodily, corporeal, corporal, somatic;

          2. relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind; tangible or concrete.
          “pleasant physical environments”
          synonyms: material, concrete, tangible, palpable, solid, substantial, real, actual, visible
          “the physical universe”

          If I measure the distance between a tall tree and a river, I am not measuring the tree or the river. I am not even measuring the ground between them. I am measuring the distance (relationship between them) that is perceived in the mind and possibly distorted by my visual perception. I am looking to make sure my visual perception is not paying tricks on my cognitive perceptions like you are.

          If you can just SEE it, then why did you need to measure it?

          The relationship that we call space and time can be thought of as an equation that is perceived mentally. It is analogous to the + and the = in the following equation: 1+2=3

          If we perceive space and time as you are advocating, we are taking for granted the existence of something else that exists IN ADDITION to the material objects. We are neglecting to recognize another dimension and entity.

          To Say that time is physical, would be like saying that a book is paper and ink. But chemistry and physics will never explain the relationships between the marks on the page. We will need to recognize language in order to explain it.

          And that is precisely the case with distance. We are recognizing a language (mentally) called a logical relationship. If it were not logical we would not recognize it as a language.

          This illustration will help those with ears to hear.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqiXNxyoof8

        • MNb

          “If you can just SEE it, then why did you need to measure it?”
          False dilemma. Measuring almost always requires seeing. You cease to make sense.
          Another false dilemma is mind opposed to body and senses. You assume dualism to argue for dualism. Mind is part of the body. Better: it’s emergent of the brain, which is part of the body. So mind is physical.
          Proper terminology would make you use soul instead. That’s the supposed non-physical part of the human being.

          “It [spacetime] is analogous to the + and the = in the following equation: 1+2=3.”
          So you don’t (want to) understand Relativity either.

          http://www.ws5.com/spacetime/

          “SPACE-TIME
          Combines Width, Height, and Depth, and Time into a single, indivisable, four dimensional, reality.”
          Exactly what I wrote above.
          Apparently you’re an IDiot as well. May I conclude that you reject Evolution Theory? Surprise me and say no. That would be even bigger fun.
          You suck at spreading the Good News, but you very quickly improve at embarrassing yourself.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Seeing is a cognitive process even visually. Your eyes are but sensors that send input to the processor. The picture is produced in your head. You don’t actually SEE the thing at all.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Seeing is a cognitive process even visually. Your eyes are but sensors that send input to the processor. The picture is produced in your head. You don’t actually SEE the thing at all.

          You are no different than a bat, except you use light to reflect the world around you so that your mind can construct a picture of reality. But you are not looking at the thing itself, only a represe generation of it in your mind. Touch won’t help either, nor hearing or tasting. All of them are mere perceptions constructed in the mind from sensor data. What the sensors are actually sensing is not known to you.

          Do you see what the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil did? It warped our perception of reality so that we cannot see what is obvious. That we bought into the illusion of physicality.

          Oh it’s REAL, but not like we thought. We’ve Benn living in a dream world and thought upside down was right side up.

          To SEE requires Logos, to put the picture into proper focus cognitively. It is the true light that gives light to every man. Even the blind can see with Logos.

          You boys and girls are in deep waters. You can’t read the code can you?

          Read it and weep. Wail and gnash your teeth. Better still, repent and live.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eBQXwJHM6lI

        • epeeist

          Read it and weep. Wail and gnash your teeth. Better still, repent and live.

          The one thing you have shown mastery of while you have been here is the art of passive-aggression.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You take truth to be an aggression?

          The only passive aggression here is you ad hominem.

          “Ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”), short for argumentum ad hominem, is where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.”

          There is nothing passive about truth.

          Mark 14:62 Jesus said, “I Am. And you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God’s right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven.

        • Michael Neville

          You take truth to be an aggression?

          When you’ve got some truth then we can discuss it. Proselytizing is not a good indicator of truth and that’s what you’ve been doing for the past few days. Your Biblical quote is just another example of your preaching.

          Here’s another Biblical verse for you to consider:

          https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3575/8755/original.jpg

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          And when God DOESN’T feed them do the birds panic?

          You want truth Michael? I notice a filthy and vile pattern. It is never children who are starving or dying in cancer wards who mock and curse God. It is always men like us, whose bellies and wallets are full who USE the misfortune of others to justify themselves.

          You’re mind is twisted and sick because of your lusts. Truth!

          Was that passive?

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aYIaMPIhGYQ

        • Michael Neville

          You want truth Michael? I notice a filthy and vile pattern. It is never children who are starving or dying in cancer wards who mock and curse God.

          So how much time have you been spending with starving children or in pediatric cancer wards? Have you ever talked to a starving child? Somehow I doubt it. I further doubt that many starving children would feel comforted by you telling them “there’ll be pie in the sky when you die” as they lie dying.

          You’re [sic] mind is twisted and sick because of your lusts. Truth!

          Was that passive?

          No, that was just stupid. Ignoring the poor English, it’s interesting that you think I’m “twisted and sick” because I don’t believe that your sadistic, narcissistic bully of a god exists. Just so you know, my “lusts” consist of enjoying a glass of good single malt scotch whisky every so often and having an occasional dinner out with my wife and daughter.

          The Preacher and the Slave (ignore the video about Joe Hill and listen to the song):
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTMjy_ATbF8

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          So how much time have you been spending with starving children or in pediatric cancer wards? Have you ever talked to a starving child? Somehow I doubt it. I further doubt that many starving children would feel comforted by you telling them “there’ll be pie in the sky when you die” as they lie dying.

          I have friends that do. Of late, Haiti is of particular concern for them. A local contractor I know and assorted companions of
          his build water purification systems and other facilities there. They have been doing so for several years now. And personally know many others as well, and our church helps fund those efforts.

          I spend my time with people in recovery from drug addictions and general life dysfunctions, in particular the guys in our local jail. I do what I can. And it is very fruitful. I get the opportunity to untie all the knots you’ve wrapped around their minds to take their hope away. Some of the sanest people I have met are in jail. their lives are in ruins, yet they can see what you disregard. My wife and I also support 2 African girls financially through a faith based organization. They are in their teens now.

          But I also come to places like this, to offer the starving who are on the verge of death, real food. They are a terribly ungrateful lot. But there are several reasons for doing so beyond that. I can’t lose.

          I know families (like my own) that have lost kids. And I can assure you from that experience that the idea that that’s that, and that they had no more significance than a snail would be no comfort. That nonsense is a way for people to escape the pain of loss. Its easier to be angry than hurt.

          To believe in the resurrection is not only reasonable on historic evidential grounds, but scientific grounds as well. In fact, its the
          only empirically falsifiable faith on earth. But it also allows a person to believe (with logical consistency) in concepts such as justice. God WILL put things right. That gives people REAL hope.

          I am saddened to think what you would tell that kid in the picture. That he should have been aborted to save him the waste of a life perhaps? The kid knows better than you do Michael. Suffering has a way of killing pride and producing genuine humility and sanity. If you told that kid that there is no God, he would look at you as you are, as a cruel mad man. He wouldn’t bother with your vacancy. The only hope he has LEFT is God. Man let him down.

          And that is what a bottom in an addiction or a genuine loss produces- a realization that we are not in control and our desperate struggle to stay in control is our downfall. We have to let go of our life. It is a death of self. It is the baptism.

          You are very sick Michael. You use the death and immeasurable suffering of others to justify your anger at God when you are rich compared to 99%+, of all the human beings that have ever lived. It is not the poor who scratch out a living with what they have who are the most unhappy, but the rich. Especially the rich who have been given everything instead of working for it. They resent the society that feeds them, because they resent themselves for not being self sufficient in the productive sense.

          “Meaninglessness, does not come from being weary of pain. Meaninglessness comes from being weary of pleasure.” -G.K. Chesterton

          The only bully here who cares for no one is you Michael. You hang out with other atheists where you feel safe to mock and ridicule others. The whole lot of you are nothing but a bunch of insecure bullies. Its pathetic really.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2YVyLLKRHw

        • Ryan M

          As an explanation for adults getting cancer more than children, the sin explanation is not a good one.

          On a non sin hypothesis, you would expect adults to get cancer more often for at least three reasons; 1. Adults are bigger, so there’s more material susceptible to developing cancer, 2. Adults are older, so are more likely to get cancer given that there are more opportunities, 3. Adults have additional exposures to cancer (consider roofers getting sun exposure).

          The sin explanation only succeeds if the sin hypothesis has a greater balance of probabilities over its negation. In this case, I do not think the sin hypothesis has a greater balance of probabilities. The data seems equally expected on the non sin hypothesis, or is nearly as expected. Consequently, the sin hypothesis needs a greater prior/intrinsic probability than the non sin hypothesis. The sin hypothesis surely has a lower intrinsic probability relative to the non sin hypothesis for at least one reason; 1. The sin hypothesis is less modest than the non sin hypothesis due to asserting more than the non sin hypothesis. The non sin hypothesis asserts that natural causes are the only ones involved in cancer, but the sin hypothesis asserts natural and supernatural causes.

          The more assertions a proposition makes, the more complex it is and consequently the number of ways it can be refuted is increased. This lowers the intrinsic probability of hypotheses. Given 1, the non sin hypothesis has a greater intrinsic probability relative to the sin hypothesis. If we factor in the fact that the sin hypothesis presupposes mysterious causes, we can lower the intrinsic probability even further since we have no confirmed cases of mysterious causes but we do have confirmed cases of natural causes. Given this, the non sin hypothesis has a much greater intrinsic probability and so has to greater balance of probabilities.

          To add on, the non sin hypothesis also explains why children get cancer, and why cancer seems predictable based on natural causes alone such as diet, so the non sin hypothesis has much greater explanatory power. The sin hypothesis is a clear failure in this instance.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          What are you going on about? Are you trying to poison the well by suggesting that I think sin causes cancer? Where did you get that idea?

          John 9:1 As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”

          3“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus

        • Ryan M

          You advocated earlier that sin is an explanation for why there exists more adults in cancer wards than there exists children in cancer wards. I am challenging that explanation.

          FYI, poisoning the well is not an appropriate term in this scenario. Poisoning the well occurs when a person portrays a position but does so with language that makes it appear worse off than it should be. For example, calling pro-choice positions “positions that advocate the murder of children” would be an example of poisoning the well.

          My advice: don’t mention informal fallacies. Most people untrained in formal logic don’t know how they work, and it appears you already didn’t know how we hominem work ITT, so you appear no different than the average person dropping fallacy terms.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I advocated no such thing.

        • Ryan M

          It is never children who are starving or dying in cancer wards who mock and curse God. It is always men like us, whose bellies and wallets are full who USE the misfortune of others to justify themselves.

          I should have wrote “cursing/mocking God hypothesis”. It seems you believe two things:

          Proposition 1 – there exists more adults than children starving or dying in cancer wards.
          Proposition 2 – the cursing/mocking God hypothesis best explains why proposition 1 is true.

          As an explanation of proposition 1, the mocking/cursing God explanation would be a failure. I called it the “sin hypothesis” since that made more sense to me. But either way, it is not a good explanation.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          What’s wrong with you? I was referring to healthy adults using sick kids. My meaning should have been quite clear.

        • Ryan M

          What do you mean by “adults using sick kids”? Are you saying some healthy adults use sick kids as a means to some end? If so, what is that end, and what does it have to do with adults dying of cancer?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          If you could read you wouldn’t be asking. Don’t try to play lawyer just yet kiddo. You’re sophomoric.

          What I said and the point was perfectly clear to Michael. Go way son, you bother me.

        • Kodie

          What you said was let children have hope even in hopeless situations! You prefer the comforting lie instead of the truth.

        • Ryan M

          Can you explain what you mean?

          To say “x uses y” in an instrumental sense is to say y is a means of x bringing about some z. e.g. to say x uses a hammer to put a nail in a board is to say the hammer is a means by which x brings it about that a nail is in a board. I think this should be clear enough to understand.

          If your sense of “x uses y” is not the same as this, can you explain what it might mean? A definition would be instrumental in this case, as would an example of how your issue fits the example. i.e. how your interpretation of “x uses y” makes sense with the substitutions of “healthy adult” for x and “sick kids” for y.

        • Kodie

          He means that it’s only adults who blame god for their cancer, while children keep getting pumped with the message that keeps them ignorant and thank god for giving them cancer, I think.

        • Ryan M

          If this is what he means, that only healthy adults blame God for their ailments, then I think he is advocating something false. First, I’m not sure how he would go about proving that proposition. Second, I think many atheists would claim to have become atheists in their childhood due to either initially blaming God for severe ailments (which seems to lead to atheism), or flat out thinking God must not exist due to various suffering.

        • Bob Jase

          ” The whole lot of you are nothing but a bunch of insecure bullies. Its pathetic really.”

          No one is begging you to stay with us.

        • epeeist

          The only passive aggression here is your ad hominem.

          But as I have pointed out before, an ad hominem (which my comment isn’t) is not necessarily fallacious.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          And as I have pointed out before, I am well aware. Your accusation sounds a little passive aggressive to me. Just say what you mean.

        • MNb

          “Seeing is a …. …. in the mind from sensor data.”
          Nothing here is an argument for dualism. Everything is physical.
          Like all apologists the next thing you do is making the salto mortale from our concrete world to a non-concrete world. You are proclaiming; no argument, no evidence, just decrees. And not even that justifies your god.
          So the only appropriate reaction is just shrugging.

        • Susan

          So… what exactly is natural about multiverse theory

          It’s a reasonable hypothesis to pursue based on what is known about reality That does NOT make it a claim. Just an extension of the models that we can so far consider reliable. Models worth exploring.

          when the cause of this universe is supernatural by definition

          No. It’s not. Please define “supernatural” without using the very old fallacy of God of the Gaps

          Yep. And Yahwehjesus doesn’t do a thing towards any of that evidence. Demons, angels, original sin, Jews as chosen people. It doesn’t even approach Planck time. It missed natural selection, germ theory, chemistry, general and special relativity and quantum mechanics.

          Classic god of the gaps.

          Please don’t post a video. Your videos suck at making points and seem to be posted in lieu of addressing points your raise.

          (Also, you lied to Kodie that you would stop but you keep doing it.)

          .

        • Michael Neville

          Jastrow made a name for himself as a contrarian. He conceded that global warming was happening but denied any anthropogenic cause for it. He was one of the few scientists who supported Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative. Although claiming to be an agnostic he insisted that a creator was necessary for the universe. In other words, he had opinions, some of them, like the creator, were only opinions with no evidence to support them.

        • epeeist

          A natural explanation is limited to the laws of this nature. Those laws break down at about Planck time.

          Ah, so we can also add science to the list of things that you know little or nothing about.

          The “laws” that you speak of are our descriptions of the way nature works. They are not prescriptions on the way nature must work.

          There are people working on theories that treat , c and G on an equal footing, currently relativity treats ℏ as insignificant while QM treats
          G as insignificant. If we manage to produce such a theory then the Planck time limit may no longer apply.

        • MNb

          “A natural explanation is limited to the laws of this nature. Those laws break down at about Planck time.”
          That’s a common misconception, even among atheists. The causal laws of Newtonian Mechanics and Relativity break down at about Planck time. If physicists will ever succeed at formulating a Grand Unified Theory it won’t. Hawking explained this in A Brief History of Time with his globe analogy. At the Northpole the concept of meridians, ie the terms east, west and north break down. That doesn’t mean the laws of geography do. You can still travel in four directions. They are just all called south.

          “The evidence can only take us as far as Planck time.”
          That’s correct. Fortunately physics – and science in general – doesn’t depend on evidence alone. It also depends on theory building and theories allow us to extrapolate. If that weren’t the case we couldn’t make any prediction, like “when you jump off a bridge tomorrow you will fall downward and not upward.”
          Now I’ll admit immediately that regarding the multiverse there is room for lots of skepticism, but not of the supernatural kind.

          https://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html
          http://science.howstuffworks.com/10-reasons-multiverse-is-real-possibility.htm

          Nothing supernatural involved, so this

          “The multiverse IS a supernatural explanation”
          is simply wrong. What’s funny is that even christian scientists recognize it. Your conclusion is based upon a false dilemma.

          http://www.reasons.org/articles/multiverse-musings—is-it-god-or-the-multiverse

          To formulate it in a more simple way: the multiverse hypothesis makes the Fine-Tuning (non-)argument superfluous and exposes it as just another God of the Gaps argument. However debunking a popular apologist argument is not the same as an argument against god.
          The multiverse is a scientific theory. As such it cannot argue for or against any supernatural entity. That’s a very common category error. It’s telling that you don’t recognize it.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          A natural explanation is limited to the laws of this nature. Those laws break down at about Planck time.

          MNb

          That’s a common misconception, even among atheists. The causal laws of Newtonian Mechanics and Relativity break down at about Planck time. If physicists will ever succeed at formulating a Grand Unified Theory it won’t.

          And until that day you can make no ASSUMPTION that they will. WILLing it to be, because your metaphysical posture demands it is not enough to qualify it as natural. We need evidence remember?

          Hawking explained this in A Brief History of Time with his globe analogy. At the Northpole the concept of meridians, ie the terms east, west and north break down. That doesn’t mean the laws of geography do. You can still travel in four directions. They are just all called south.

          Yeah, read it 18 years ago. And it demonstrates the difficulty I am trying to point out. We don’t know which way to go beyond Planck time. All directions are metaphysical from there.

          Fortunately physics – and science in general – doesn’t depend on evidence alone. It also depends on theory building and theories allow us to extrapolate.

          Sure we can extrapolate (with logic), if we FIRST make two metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality as a whole.

          1. All of reality is logical

          2. Logic is physical not mental

          What’s funny is that even christian scientists recognize it. Your conclusion is based upon a false dilemma.
          http://www.reasons.org/arti

          To formulate it in a more simple way: the multiverse hypothesis makes the Fine-Tuning (non-)argument superfluous and exposes it as just another God of the Gaps argument. However debunking a popular apologist argument is not the same as an argument against god.

          The multiverse is a scientific theory. As such it cannot argue for or against any supernatural entity. That’s a very common category error. It’s telling that you don’t recognize it.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7fMMjATjIc

          I recognize it immediately. Its old news, because the whole question of the nature of reality as a whole is at stake. It is the subject that C.S. Lewis began his book Miracles with, “The Naturalist and the Supernaturalist.”

          And because this question concerning the nature of ultimate reality is unanswered, so far as empirical evidence is concerned, you just take for granted because of your philosophical presuppositions that nature is not a gap argument.

          Sauce for the Goose. If a god of the gaps is not allowed, why a nature of the gaps?

          Talk about a category error.

        • epeeist

          And until that day you can make no ASSUMPTION that they will.

          As Mnb said, ” If physicists will ever succeed at formulating a Grand Unified Theory”. Which is why physicists say they currently don’t know when it comes to the state of the universe around the Planck time.

          So who is claiming to know, the physicist or the theist who claims god-did-it?

          1. All of reality is logical

          2. Logic is physical not mental

          This is of course nonsense, why should we assume that reality follows some rules of propositional calculus, QM certainly doesn’t.

          Oh, and just for fun, here are a couple of examples for you

          P1: Chimeras bombinating in a vacuum do devour second intentions
          P2: Chimeras bombinating in a vacuum do not devour second intentions

          By the “law of non-contradiction” only one of these can be true, correct?

          P3: The “Rapture” will take place at 03:14:07 UTC on Tuesday, 19 January 2038
          P4 The “Rapture” will not take place at 03:14:07 UTC on Tuesday, 19 January 2038

          Same idea, so which of these is true and which false in each case?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          So who is claiming to know, the physicist or the theist who claims god-did-it?

          Don’t conflate ‘physicist’ with ‘materialist’. Many physicists were theists which is the whole point. Everyone brings their metaphysical posture with them to the investigation.

          It does no good to appeal to stochastic probability theory, the chance hypothesis is simply bringing a premise about the nature of ultimate reality to the investigation ready made.

          And as we discussed previously concerning QM, if the nature of reality is ultimately mental and a conscious entity, mathematics cannot predict his move any more than my interfering with a cue ball.

        • epeeist

          Don’t conflate ‘physicist’ with ‘materialist’.

          I didn’t.

          Many physicists were theists which is the whole point.

          “Were” being the operative word, research from the likes of Pew show scientists are far less likely to be believers than the general population, once you get up as far as the American National Academy of Sciences only 7% are believers, in the UK the figure is only 3% for the Royal Society.

          It does no good to appeal to stochastic probability theory

          Gibberish, I have already told you I have a doctorate in physics. The particular thing it covered was quantum tunnelling in small molecules (those with a methyl group acting as a rotor). The whole point about quantum tunnelling is that it is completely stochastic.

          And as we discussed previously concerning QM, if the nature of reality is ultimately mental and a conscious entity,

          For which there is no evidence whatsoever, you are making the mistake of thinking an “observer” must be a conscious entity are you? Because that is very much a minority view for those working at the foundations of QM.

          If you actually wanted to find out about the various interpretations of QM I would point you to something like Marc Lange’s Introduction to the Philosophy of Physics or R.I.G. Hughes The Structure and Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (this covers quantum logic amongst other things), but I doubt you have the mathematical understanding to follow them. If you want a snapshot of where we are with quantum gravity then you could try Callender and Huggett’s Physics meets philosophy at the Planck Scale though this requires post-graduate level understanding of QM and the associated mathematical ability.

          A bit disappointed you didn’t tackle my two logic puzzles by the way.

        • Michael Neville

          I doubt you have the mathematical understanding to follow them

          My rusty calculus could be brushed up and my statistics, including probability theory, are pretty good. Would that be adequate or would I need more math(s) for those books?

        • epeeist

          Would that be adequate or would I need more math(s) for those books?

          How is your linear algebra? That would be sufficient for the Hughes and Lange books (the second being the better one if you want to cover more physics, including things like fields). For the Callender and Huggett book you need some tensor analysis since it is covers relativity as well as QM.

        • Michael Neville

          I’ve heard of both linear algebra and tensor analysis but I know nothing of either. I guess it’s time for me to start cracking some books.

        • Greg G.

          I’m an eckspurt in aljerber.

        • MNb

          “And until that day you can make no ASSUMPTION that they will.”
          Nonsense in the most literal meaning of the word. Planck Time resutls ao from Quantum Mechanics, a very naturalistic theory. You are simply out of your league.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_time

          “We don’t know which way to go beyond Planck time. All directions are metaphysical from there.”
          Just two sentences and still you manage to produce a word salad. Time has exactly two directions. Nothing metaphysical here.

          “Sure we can extrapolate (with logic), if we FIRST make two metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality as a whole.

          1. All of reality is logical
          2. Logic is physical not mental.”

          Rather mathematical iso logical for the simple reason that all theories that are involved with Planck Time can be expressed by math. Planck Time itself is a mathematical expression. See the link.
          Plus there is a good case to be made that mental is also physical, so 2 might very well be a false dilemma.
          But decisive is that math does have a physical aspect or your computer wouldn’t work. Whether it also has a non-physical one is actually not very relevant here. The quantities of the Planck Time definition all are physical.
          So there isn’t any problem with those two metaphysical assumptions.

          “If a god of the gaps is not allowed, why a nature of the gaps?”
          Good question, but unfortunately for you it’s already answered.
          You don’t have a method to decide between correct claims about that god of the gaps from incorrect ones. Science has.
          Develop one and we all here will be all ears.

          “”Talk about a category error.”
          So you don’t (want to) understand what a category error is either. I don’t use science to argue against god; you pathetically try to use it (in the form of Planck science) pro god. In ohter words: Big Bang, quantum fields, Planck Time etc. etc. do not by any means contradict any supernatural entity and reality. What’s more: nobody here ever defended that strawman, so beloved by apologists. By now I don’t care anymore if you’re too stupid to understand how little you understand or if you’re just dishonest. Probably both.

          All kind of errors and typos have been weeded out.about 8 minutes after posting.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You are conflating physical for real. Logic and mathematics is real alright, but that does not make it physical.

          What IS real? You are begging the question of metaphysics by conflating them.

        • MNb

          You issuing a decree is not exactly convincing.

        • TheNuszAbides

          doesn’t matter, LOGOS will pat him on the back for wading into this Den of Vipers, just wait for his next prayer break.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          A natural explanation is limited to the laws of this nature. Those laws break down at about Planck time.

          That’s nice. Tell me how that’s relevant.

          So… what exactly is natural about multiverse theory when the cause of this universe is supernatural by definition because the physical laws that define this universe came into being with it.

          You can use that definition of the supernatural, but, as I made clear before, now “God did it” and “quantum fluctuation did it” are both “supernatural.”

          It’s a hollow victory if you prove the supernatural by redefining it. Most of the rest of us see the supernatural as having mind(s) in it.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Robert writes: “A natural explanation is limited to the laws of this nature. Those laws break down at about Planck time.”

          That’s nice. Tell me how that’s relevant.

          Because any attempt to do empirical science (which depends on those laws) beyond Planck time is impossible (ergo Jastrow). It is shear metaphysical posturing.

          You can use that definition of the supernatural, but, as I made clear before, now “God did it” and “quantum fluctuation did it” are both “supernatural.”

          Now you got the idea. Its kind of hard to envision a natural cause of the universe when nature came into being with it. Like John Lennox says, “To say that nature created nature is to say that X created X.” You must assume the existence of the thing that needs explaining. You are pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps with a natural cause. How that makes sense to you is beyond me.

          That is why I say it is, by definition, necessarily supernatural.

          It’s a hollow victory if you prove the supernatural by redefining it. Most of the rest of us see the supernatural as having mind(s) in it.

          Bob, it is YOU who had a bad definition of the term. It refers to anything (not just gods or minds) that is beyond the laws of nature.

          su·per·nat·u·ral -ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Submit – adjective

          1.(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

        • Ryan M

          Lennox should know better than to assert “nature causes nature” is to say “x caused x”. He’s unfortunately attacking a strawman.

          No philosopher to my mind asserts “nature caused nature” where “nature” refers to the same thing in both instances. Rather, a philosopher would mean to say “if the universe has a cause x, then x is natural and x is not the universe”. On that interpretation, Lennox’s strawman is exposed. Rewording statements as conditions can expose strawmen arguments easily.

          Lennox should know better about his interpretation because he should he familiar with contemporary philosophy, and he should be aware that multiverse hypotheses are used as naturalistic hypotheses to explain the existence of the universe without appealing to supernaturalism or self causation.

          The typical view among atheist philosophers of religion is that physical reality is fundamental. Some might then say physical reality is necessarily existent in some way (e.g. there exists something physical in every metaphysically possible world). Others might be more specific by saying something specific like a multiverse exists in every metaphysically possible world.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Lennox should know better than to assert “nature causes nature” is to say “x caused x”. He’s unfortunately attacking a strawman.

          No philosopher to my mind asserts “nature caused nature” where “nature” refers to the same thing in both instances. Rather, a philosopher would mean to say “if the universe has a cause x, then x is natural and x is not the universe”. On that interpretation, Lennox’s strawman is exposed. Rewording statements as conditions can expose strawmen arguments easily.

          Lennox should know better about his interpretation because he should he familiar with contemporary philosophy, and he should be aware that multiverse hypotheses are used as naturalistic hypotheses to explain the existence of the universe without appealing to supernaturalism or self causation.
          The typical view among atheist philosophers of religion is that physical reality is fundamental. Some might then say physical reality is necessarily existent in some way (e.g. there exists something physical in every metaphysically possible world). Others might be more specific by saying something specific like a multiverse exists in every metaphysically possible world.

          The one good thing about you being so late to the game Ryan, is that most of the people here were questioning the value of philosophy and metaphysics, in a vain attempt to exalt materialist philosophy to the status of science, rendering other philosophies such as theism to the status of pure rationalism.

          That is exactly what Hume’s guillotine did when it redefined science in the 18th century.

          You’ve really let the cat out of the bag now. Thank you.

          I was not quoting Lennox exactly in the way you supposed, so the mistake is mine. What Lennox said was that Stephen Hawking asserted that, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will will create itself from nothing.”

          Lennox was not creating a straw man, and as you implied, he does know better. Hawking was making the error. Lennox was criticizing it just as you are.

          Exhibit A:

          https://youtu.be/0wMyMmjPgLs?t=173

        • Ryan M

          Hawking is certainly philosophically illiterate. If I was to charitably interpret his statement, I would say Hawking advocates something like this:

          1. Each state of the universe was partly caused by each preceding state of the universe.
          2. There exists a state of the universe where only the laws of gravity existed.
          3. Therefore, the state of the universe where only the laws of gravity existed partly caused the current state of the universe.

          I think Hawking intends to argue something like that, that the laws of gravity on their own are a state of the universe, and the laws of gravity created what we now recognize as the universe, so the universe in a sense is a cause of itself. Hawking phrases his point poorly, but I think this is a better interpretation of his point than Lennox will provide.

          If we look at the big bang, we might call that the first event of what we now recognize as the universe. Hawking probably thinks the laws we recognize were sufficient to cause the big bang to occur, so were sufficient to cause what we now recognize as the universe to occur.

        • TheNuszAbides

          i fear none of this will matter in the slightest to RL (not that i’m supposing your intentions, and I much appreciate your laying it out in any case). what seems to be of paramount importance to him is that Lennox (1) effectively gets away with such misstatements (since his actual academic work isn’t relevant to his apologetics or the choir of muddle-heads he provides cover for), (2) functions as a token academic that RL & other fans can prop up to ‘balance’ the contempt for intellectuals [any who have grasped/read/studied/trained enough to thoroughly rubbish his rhetoric] which postures as contempt for intellectualism – the broad brush RL is so blatantly fond of applying to whomever pokes holes in his [special pleading around]/[repurposing of] terminology.

        • Ryan M

          I figure it is best to respond to RL with thoughtful responses. If he’s a troll, then it will irritate him. If he’s a genuine Christian, then he might view atheists in a better light over time. If both options fail, then at least the atheist in the conversation seems more reasonable, so my side looks better.

        • epeeist

          I figure it is best to respond to RL with thoughtful responses.

          The problem is that your responses are way above his level of understanding, as a result you are in line for the same level of derision and threat that I have been getting.

        • Ryan M

          I suppose I must be a verbal masochist since I wish his verbal abuse would come sooner!

          He has taken some low blows with me so far. He’s called me “kiddo”, “kid”, “sophomoric” and a few other things. All that tells me is that if we were arguing, then I won the argument.

        • epeeist

          All that tells me is that if we were arguing, then I won the argument.

          Well, not to be condescending but with him that isn’t all that hard…

        • Ryan M

          Yeah, I probably won’t be adding the victory to my CV.

        • TheNuszAbides

          agreed, much of the time lurkers may be the most important audience.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I wonder if I’m ever going to learn anything from you. Hope wanes.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Learn from me?

          One thing for sure, that we are nearing the end of the script where you find yourself in the position of the Roman procurator Pontius Pilot.

          If you don’t give the mob the illusion they want, they will tear you apart.

          Also, like Pilot, you need to find some way to wash your hands of it, in order to hold on to your title and ‘good name’.

        • Michael Neville

          The Roman soldiers would have done something about a mob trying to kill the prefect whose name was Pilate and wasn’t a procurator.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Your analogy escapes me. What mob are we talking about? And what do they want?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Sorry, I forgot thst this is a private conversation. I got another private message from a goon talking about a baseball bat, and associated that as a public threat. My mistake -sarc-

          Gee Bob I dunno…

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Dunno. That’s just what I was thinking.

        • TheNuszAbides

          don’t feel too foolish on this point. it’s fairly natural, when one depends on limitless unfalsifiables for one’s lovingly crafted worldview, to have an accompanying confusion of not only reality with fantasy, but also parts with wholes, individuals with assortments, a single line of comment with an entire blog-concern, etc.

        • Kodie

          So, one guy trying to illustrate the difference between your fantasy threats of burning from the manipulation tricks you believe you’re doing, and a material baseball bat is a public threat from a mob? You need a safe space?

        • Greg G.

          He means the Barabbas scene. Pilate gave them what they wanted – “Bawabbas”.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I don’t know about that. I only read the New Testament to the “Fwee Woderwick!” part.

        • Michael Neville

          You should read a bit further. It gets interesting when Pilate’s fwiend fwom Wome, Biggus Dickus, shows up.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          “He has a wife, you know. You know what she’s called? She’s called Incontinentia.

          “Incontinentia Buttocks.”

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPGb4STRfKw

        • Ignorant Amos

          He has a wife, you know. You know what she’s called? She’s called… ‘Incontinentia’… Incontinentia Buttocks

        • TheNuszAbides

          If you don’t give the mob the illusion they want, they will tear you apart.

          perhaps appropriate dramatixx for a prison warden … but this particular mob/thought-control narrative falls flat outside your imagination.

          and who’s (a) in a position to strip Bob of his title + (b) ready to pounce on him if he suddenly sees and begins to propound Lockett’s LOGOS-Light? the most drastic result would be that they’d just transfer him to a different wing of Patheos.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Is that what he’s saying? That I’ll be hesitant to accept the Truth, knowing that my glassy-eyed followers here will attack me once I do?

          If you’re right, that’s not at all what I got from RL’s blather.

        • TheNuszAbides

          oh, i don’t pretend to expertise at exegesification of the Gospel According to Lockett – who among us can keep up with the pseudo-logical banquets of metaphor and deep cinematic illustrations?

        • Kodie

          Are we in a play?

        • Ignorant Amos

          One thing for sure, that we are nearing the end of the script where you find yourself in the position of the Roman procurator Pontius Pilot.

          I think you mean the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.

          http://www.livius.org/articles/person/pontius-pilate/

        • Greg G.

          I thought we had learned something new from RL. 8o/

        • Ignorant Amos

          Haa….when he can’t even get basic details right, what chance the hard stuff?

        • epeeist

          The multiverse is a consequence of Inflation, and there is good evidence for Inflation.

          The way I like to think of it is in terms of the principle of mediocrity, that there are no privileged observers. This would seem to apply for planets, stars, galaxies and super-clusters of galaxies, why should it not apply to universes as well?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Good point. That puts the burden on the person who insists that there’s just one universe.

          Another way I’ve heard this stated: there isn’t just one quark or one proton. Or just one planet or one black hole. Why expect there to be just one universe?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Careful–that rumor about you being dishonest is spreading.

          Why Ed Bailey… if that were so, and given what you said about atheists being liars to a man, that would put me in good company would it not?

          Nevertheless, I prefer to think of myself as ‘shrewd as serpents, and innocent as a dove’. Well, that is my intention.

          If it should come to pass that I miss the mark, unlike the liars among us, I will freely confess. And it is not just an empty and sly promise. I have demonstrated that to be a fact.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Why is shrewdness necessary? Are we laying traps for you? Are you laying traps for us? Am I getting bamboozled by not being shrewd when I engage with devious Christians?

          I’m old-fashioned. I just present what I think is a good argument, and I back it up with facts. No traps.

        • Kodie

          Like you freely confessed to spelling epeeist as epeeir because autocorrect made you do it?

        • TheNuszAbides

          And it is not just an empty and sly promise.

          what, it’s something else as well?

          I have demonstrated that to be a fact

          you’ve perhaps momentarily conceded that there is some expertise present in these threads which you are not equipped to sidestep. however, you seem to have a habit of pivoting from that concession to the compulsion to remind us that you’re sluggin’ it out for the Boss. you make an unexceptional show of humility-oid bravado, but like so, so many ‘followers’ of unfalsifiable uber-personalities, you aren’t as good at being humble as you like to feel you are.

          but even all that aside (and i have no doubt you are well-equipped to decline to seriously wrestle with it), to be appropriately careful you ought to amend your “If it should come to pass that I miss the mark”, to “If it should come to pass that I recognize that I have missed the mark”, since you have already made numerous missteps with false assumptions of having “got one over” on someone who challenges your assertions and pretenses and premises.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett
        • TheNuszAbides

          i don’t even like the flavor of lamb that much. better than mutton, though.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett
        • TheNuszAbides

          i have a pretty good idea of how a lot of things begin, but endings are definitely not my specialty – that’s the double-edge of most escapism habits. you have fun with your overwrought combat metaphors-not-metaphors-maybe-metaphors-OMG-mind-blown … btw, what did you think of Sense8?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Hey Nuszy… when we get out of this script, out of this virtual world, out from behind the looking glass of space-time and into the REAL objective world, that woman will be able to bring you to your knees with a simple glance if she so chooses. And she knows it, that’s why she’s praising the lion. But she won’t be bothered with such things then. It won’t even cross her mind.

          In the mean time… as you were. Tick-tock!

        • TheNuszAbides

          yeah, i’ve spun lots of similar fantasies over decades of roleplaying gaming. it sure is fun to think about! stick whatever brand of Pascal’s Wager you’re peddling-not-peddling, though. more important things to worry about, no lie.

        • MNb

          “I feel the same way about the multiverse,”
          What you feel about scientific hypotheses has exactly zero relevance – especially as you explicitly reject the scientific method.
          “except that when it comes up, you actually slit your own throat.. That is suicide. It Is death not life… sir.”
          That you shit your pants from existential fear doesn’t mean that I should.

          “I know who you are.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Utter vanity. I’d never dare to state something as arrogant about you.
          “But I have to wonder,”
          Keep on wondering. Or not. It’s all the same to me.
          “do YOU know who you are, and appreciate the implications of what resides inside your mind while it is vomiting itself through YOUR lips?”
          Insults like “vomiting” and shouting like “YOU” exposes a counterpart of arrogance like yours: fear.

        • MNb

          “I like to keep things as Ockham as possible ”
          Except of course when you criticize materialists/ naturalists for not willing to add entities in a supernatural realm.
          You contradict yourself. As a materialist and naturalist like me is not willing to do that indeed it must be this quote that is false. Fortunately I can easily correct it.

          “I like to keep things as Ockham as possible as long as it suits me.”
          Sounds a lot less cool, I am willing to allow.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Watch and learn. Watch and learn…

        • MNb

          Sure. That’s why I read your comments. Then I learn how how hypocritical and arrogant apologists can be.

        • TheNuszAbides

          oh dear, there goes another ironymeter.
          let me guess – you think that you have already dealt with “these types” on the level, verbally, in the past, right? that you could give these guys just as much of a drubbing, by merit of argument, face-to-face, as you imagine you’re giving them some bad-ass White Wizard Fu on this page? oh, ye of inane faith.
          but perhaps i’ve straw-manned your profound salt-of-the-earth tell-it-like-it-is Philosophy of/by/for the Most Honest? is it Pearls Before Swine time again? that would more than conveniently excuse you from actually bringing your A-game …
          the thing is,
          1) if you haven’t brought it yet then why all the posturing on behalf of lurkers?
          2) if you have brought it … well it would be sad if it has to be pointed out how utterly pathetic that would be … unless brownie points from the tribe and/or your prayer targets are all you were after in the first place, in which case the effort of engaging with you rationally is indeed wasted.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett
        • TheNuszAbides

          Chuckles, when i manifest, you’ll actually know it. You’ve already been taken to task by far clearer heads for over a week and your obstinacy has been ~manifesting~ ever since it started to dawn on you that yes, actually, these benighted atheists actually had considered [insert finger-in-the-dike apologetics of choice here]. I’m truly sorry that you wholeheartedly swallow the notion that Lennox and Lewis and *yawn* have Laid The Truth Bare in Just One More Particular Supposedly-Intellectual-Friendly Way Whilst Guided By Da Spirit and that those who examine The Gospel Case and find it wanting are in slippery danger of deliberately choosing Hell (or, yeah, i know a variety of intricate window-dressings and you sometimes aim for the cuddlier trappings, but don’t go pretending i don’t get the gist of it), but like a man in black once said, “Then we are at an impasse”. (Also truly sorry that your theological kool-aid includes the “yeah but I’m still gonna be more righter Cum Jujmint Day, so sucks to be you guyz! LOGOS!!!!!111!!” trope.)

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Well at least I know where I am. You all talk the same once the genie is out of the bottle. I still have to wonder if Bob knows. But it doesn’t matter either way now does it.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JK8KjVbHO9c

        • TheNuszAbides

          You all talk the same once the genie is out of the bottle.

          let me guess: “bar-bar-bar-bar-bar-bar-bar-bar”?
          another failure of attention. get back to us when you’re up to speed, but you seem mighty comfortable in your bubble already. hard to imagine what could upset that little apple-cart.

          it doesn’t matter either way now

          so you’re a hardline Calvinist? what? spell it out, dork.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          No hard line Calvanist here. I have no logical difficulty with free will and God’s soveteignty after sorting it out. What I meant was, he is either acting in ignorance or not. You are not.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Is misspelling epeeist’s handle in just about every combox of yours a cunts trick, or are you just a cunt?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          It started with auto-correct when I was mobile, so no, not intentional. But I quickly took that to be his actual moniker. I try to catch myself. But I suspect your frustration lies much deeper than that. Your comment came from the gut.

          Good! I appreciate the affirmation. But still… one more like that and your out.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l76unGjRtBs

        • Kodie

          Why would epeeist “autocorrect” to a word that doesn’t exist? I tried epeeist and it autocorrected to sleekest and eldridge, and epeeir autocorrected to eldridge and experience. Now you keep doing it on purpose, which is fucking troll shit.

          Did you really think your bullshit can fly?

          Flagged for spam!

        • epeeist

          I would guess it is mean to be a wind up, at which it spectacularly fails. The rest of his post is just another Gish Gallop.

        • Kodie

          I don’t understand your complaint. Can you do better, or are you just sharting?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And my vocabulary just improved (if “improved” is the right word).

        • Michael Neville

          Axioms are tested to see if they can stop being axioms by being proven. Probably the most famous instance is the testing of Euclid’s tenth axiom, which is quite unwieldy and complex compared to his other nine axioms of plane geometry. The testing showed that while the tenth was necessary for plane geometry, the geometry of curved space, aka non-Euclidean geometry, required different axioms. Incidentally the universe is non-Euclidean in its largest scales.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          That’s absolutely great irrelevant information. But the axioms that make math possible to begin with were established long ago. Without the law of non contradiction there can be no difference between values in numbers. If 1 is 1, then it cannot be anything but what it is. It means that you need the law of non contradiction to understand that 1 is not 2 or any other number.

          Without the law of non contradiction, you cannot test anything. But the law of non contradiction itself, can be tested only with the law of non contradiction. That makes it an axiom. And guess what? It is not contradictory.

          But who gave the command that true statements about reality must be logical (non-contradictory)?

          Jesus confirmed this law in the simplest form that I know of. William of Ockham owes him a debt of gratitude. And as a Fransican friar, I am sure he gave Logos the glory for his own enlightenment.

          Matthew 5:37 Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ Anything more comes from the evil one.

          Try reading Psalm 119 with the laws of logic and physics in mind. when it says ‘your Word’, think of God’s Word in terms of Logos and logical laws. See what unfolds for you, because the psalmist has these things in mind, along with his admiration for the regularity of the universe (even though he did not know the laws of physics as we do today). It is not talking primarily about the 10 commandments and the Mosaic laws.

          Psalm 119:161 Rulers persecute me without cause,
          but my heart trembles at your word.
          162 I rejoice in your promise
          like one who finds great spoil.
          163 I hate and detest falsehood
          but I love your law.
          164 Seven times a day I praise you
          for your righteous laws.
          165 Great peace have those who love your law,
          and nothing can make them stumble.
          166 I wait for your salvation, Lord,
          and I follow your commands.
          167 I obey your statutes,
          for I love them greatly.
          168 I obey your precepts and your statutes,
          for all my ways are known to you.

        • Greg G.

          The Gospel of Mark is more like Paul while Matthew is more akin to James with the law being important. It is remarkable that much of the speaking parts for Jesus in Matthew have similar topics in the book of James. The “let your yes be yes and your no be no” is attributed to Jesus in Matthew but not in James. James has no “Jesus said” in the whole epistle, yet Matthew has Jesus saying much the same thing.

          Matthew had to invent things for Jesus to say.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Doubtless, the moderator at this blog will follow suit soon due to embarrassment at his inept rebuttals.

          Whoever moderates this blog has proven themselves far more noble that Clint. But its their world. I am happy to sacrifice myself if that is the way it must be.

          I thought I recalled seeing a MOD tag by your name btw.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yes, this is my blog. I was mocking the idea that your comments are just too hot to handle.

          On the good side, you’re civil. You wouldn’t believe how many antagonists (Christians, I’m guessing) are hateful, petty, and so on. But on the bad side, I haven’t learned anything from your comments. That’s my personal definition of a good commenter.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I see…. it is laughable really. No ones comments should be too hot to handle unless we are ourselves still insecure. I told Clint in another forum that it was Goliath who had the ego problem, not David.

          Of course that led to the predictable accusation of stalking and the like. I don’t blame him for assuming I was one of those, but I assume we both know that that is to do with maturity.

          I used to get very frustrated and got myself suspended at EVC many times about 10 years ago. I earned it though, and still had a lot to learn. I was very immature.

          You’re alright Bob, for a heathen. -wink-

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Whenever I’m tempted to ignore a part of someone’s comment when I’m composing a reply, I have to make sure that it really is irrelevant or tedious or whatever and not difficult to respond to.

          What’s EVC?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          What’s EVC?

          Well, pardon me as my memory might be stained by my experience there, but it is a snakes den. To quote Obi-wan Kenobi (or, his character as it were), “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.”

          It is a forum that roughly exists to debate Evolution Vs. Creation, but there you will find every conceivable topic than could possibly be related. Its mostly an intelligent design vs evolution forum and many of the players are professionals in the fields of science.

          This will make you laugh, but I went there as a fresh 6 year Christian at the age of about 36 years old with the belief that I was going to save the world. They quickly taught me that that was not the case, at ALL.

          I was beaten, crushed, humiliated, scorned, mocked (you get the idea), upended, aroused, vilified, and otherwise made a laughing stock.

          It was fun! A real great time in my life. And I actually do see it that way now. God did not send me there to preach (which is what I thought), but to TRY to preach… and learn some valuable lessons the hard way, the only way.

          But I also learned just how serious they were about playing their game. If i wanted to play, I would have to do my homework. So I have spent the last 13 years doing so, still jumping in here and there to sharpen the weapons and get the valuable criticism needed to fill the gaps. Nothing will help me find the holes in my armor like a good opponent. The bible says, “As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”

          If you’re interested, here is one of the threads I started there after I had learned at least a few things, but mind you its from June, 2006: http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=421713#m421713

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Where are you on the evolution vs. Creationism debate?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I’ve been on all sides one time or another. Currently I am with the ID guys through and through, but admittedly I have not kept up the last few years. My areas of expertise (in terms of self educated and read) is the origin of life. I understand a good deal of the biochemical challenges in origin of life research.

          That link is to a critique I put forth on a peer reviewed scientific paper related to the claims at that time, that the amino acid adenine had been discovered and extracted from meteors. It is relevant, because adenine is not found in nature so far as we know. And it makes up the A in DNA and RNA and is also crucial for cellular energy in the form of ATP. The thread was related to cellular respiration questions in the previous thread. No adenine=no life.

          The only source of adenine that we know of is biological cells themselves, which manufacture the adenine needed in order to function. It is a classic chicken egg paradox at the cellular level. ‘How do you get a living cell without adenine, if you need a living cell to manufacture it?’

          There are lots of theories for coming up with adenine, and it can be synthesized in the lab, but there is another an additional feature to these organic molecules, they have opposites. There are right-handed and left-handed versions of these molecules. This is called chirality.

          Biological cells ONLY use left-handed molecules. But the synthesized adenine, along with the other nucleotide bases produce an equal mixture of right and left- handed molecules. That is called a racemic mixture.

          Anyway, that kind of thing… Perhaps you are acquainted?

        • Greg G.

          Apart from the Miller–Urey experiment, the next most important step in research on prebiotic organic synthesis was the demonstration by Joan Oró that the nucleic acid purine base, adenine, was formed by heating aqueous ammonium cyanide solutions.[17] In support of abiogenesis in eutectic ice, more recent work demonstrated the formation of s-triazines (alternative nucleobases), pyrimidines (including cytosine and uracil), and adenine from urea solutions subjected to freeze-thaw cycles under a reductive atmosphere (with spark discharges as an energy source).[18]
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_soup

        • Kodie
        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Old news. And as I said to Bob, it CAN be synthesized, but the chirality problem remains, not to mention that an ammonium cyanide solution is incredibly toxic to biological systems and is irrelevant to any conceivable biologically suitable environment.

          It would also require a reducing atmosphere (which in basic terms means an atmosphere devoid of oxygen) because ammonium cyanide is highly unstable. Easy to manufacture in the lab though. Were there lab techs on the early earth?

          Adenine remains to be discovered naturally other than by preexisting cellular manufacturing. And we will need that discovery for any credible demonstration of abiogenesis.

          And that brings us to another difficulty often overlooked. If scientists ever manage to produce a living cell in the lab from scratch, it will not be evidence that natural laws and chemistry are enough. It will ironically be evidence that intelligent agents can create life.

          And that reminds me of a silly joke. ..

          A scientist discovered how to create life in the lab. So he phoned his brother who was a pastor to tell him the news. His brother was very concerned and prayed fervently about the implications. God was so interested, that he wanted to meet this scientist in the flesh. So a meeting was arranged.

          God showed up in the lab (I can’t help but picture Morgan Freeman) and said, “Show me!”

          As the scientist reached for the chemicals necessary God tapped him on the shoulder and said, “No, no no son…. you have to get your OWN dust.”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Why are you bringing up abiogenesis? Is anything riding on this?

          If there’s a consensus on the theory of abiogenesis in 20 years, it will change nothing in your mind. You’ll just find another open question within science and go worry that. Your argument is simply “Science has unanswered questions; therefore, God.”

          Or am I wrong? Is your faith built on abiogenesis? Tell me that you will question your faith once that theory happens.

        • epeeist

          Adenine remains to be discovered naturally other than by preexisting cellular manufacturing.

          Adenine from elsewhere

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          That paper is from 2007, back when I was debating these things and learning the tricks they use to create the illusion of progress. But I see not much has changed from 10 years ago. Not a good sign for you.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Wait … didn’t you just read that Robert says that abiogenesis can’t happen?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yes, I’m acquainted with this. You can pursue this, but I doubt it will lead anywhere interesting.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I am not interested either. Just answering your question.

        • epeeist

          Two words, enantioselective synthesis

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Just be sure not to steal my work.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I love fancy words that mask massive biochemical hurdles. But as you were…

        • Ignorant Amos

          Am guessing that it is Educational Visit Coordinator (EVC), given Robert attends a prison as an instructor of some bent…or so he says anyway.

        • Kodie

          Bob, can you tell him to knock it off with posting a giant-size youtube video with every single fucking goddamned post? I get it, I’ve done it myself, once in a while, something is just perfect, but this guy has a problem.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m hoping that he’ll eventually make each comment in the form of a rebus–a few words and letters, a few + and – signs, some drawings, and lots and lots of jumbo videos from movies with characters saying single words.

        • Ignorant Amos

          …I haven’t learned anything from your comments.

          I have…mostly from his interlocutor’s during their arguments, to be fair, but nevertheless.

          That’s my personal definition of a good commenter.

          A commenter is also one that drives me to go research a particular point and hopefully I’ll remember what I find for future reference…or at least remember the detail enough to know to go look for it again.

          A recent example was a reference by Steve Watson to the KJV Bible being based on the Wycliffe Bible. My recollection was that the committee set up to translate the KJV were instructed to base their translation on the Bishop’s Bible, which was indeed the case. The translator’s also used other translation’s though, and in checking the detail’s I discovered that scholars have found that there is a lot of Wycliffe in the KJV…whether it was used officially or not, is another question.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishops%27_Bible#Legacy

          Which brought me to David Norton’s work…

          http://www.cambridge.org/gb/academic/subjects/religion/biblical-studies-new-testament/king-james-bible-short-history-tyndale-today?format=PB&isbn=9780521616881

          https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=YCrBRLqLC4oC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=king+james+bible+history+from+tyndale&ots=SeT60YF9Kq&sig=coA2Gnw4Ctqpih7NzZMdIAXBkiw#v=onepage&q=king%20james%20bible%20history%20from%20tyndale&f=false

          … to David Campbell….

          https://www.amazon.co.uk/Bible-Story-King-James-Version-ebook/dp/B005QMJ4WC/ref=pd_sim_351_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=AXYH6GFXYGRQJPG9BZ6W

          …which has lead to other eye opening fascinating details on how we’ve ended up with what we have.

          As far as Robert’s contribution, without him, epeeist wouldn’t have mentioned the two words, “enantioselective synthesis”, and I would’ve had no reason to Google it, let alone been aware of it, or find out what it means.

        • epeeist

          As far as Robert’s contribution, without him, epeeist wouldn’t have mentioned the two words, “enantioselective synthesis”, and I would’ve had no reason to Google it

          Of course Robert wouldn’t have had to Google it given that he was already aware of it, oh yes.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’re taking the high-minded route. Thanks for that. I need a reminder sometimes.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You’re taking the high-minded route.

          Ha…not very like me, normally.

        • Kodie

          Wow, you just figured it out. Yes, of course you see being banned as martyrdom. It means you’re full of hot air and we’ve seen enough of it on repeat, not that your arguments are too smart.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Must be tough being Gandalf, one of the few with the wisdom to understand. I’m not surprised that the shallow atheists at Patheos cringe in your presence, with only banning as their feeble attempt to stop the unstoppable and irresistible Truth

          Yes, LOL… I appreciate the incredulity that my illustration conjures. But its not as dramatic as that in ‘real life’. The illustration is very dramatic indeed, and couches everything in other-worldly and fantastic terms. But the reality is that Tolkien was the friend of C.S. Lewis that led Lewis to Christ. And that is no small accomplishment as Lewis described himself as the ‘most unlikely of converts.’ And that by the way is what makes C.S. Lewis as powerful an apologist as he was. He already KNEW the counterarguments to Christianity, and had asked all the questions. What surprised him was answers.

          But I digress. Tolkien did not convert Lewis at all. Lewis converted himself as we all must do. And Tolkien did not use a staff like the ones of fairy tales of wizards and witches. He used a real life staff we call logic. He understood that the real power behind language is the ability to communicate a coherent and honest argument.

          I hold logic to be objective. And had epeeist not sensed the trap that would have come out there. But he ran with his smoke screen billowing obfuscation and unnecessary multiplied entities. You see, we know the empirical world is objective.

          It was here before we were. And that holds no matter what our account life’s origin. And we also know because if we try to build a rocket ship, it will not work unless it conforms to those laws. We mostly build in that way through trial and error, trying to match the objective order.

          And the empirical world is logical. If it were not, then mathematics would be useless, as would propositional logic in its attempts to describe it verbally. No… logic is objective and NOT a human construct. We DISCOVER it, we don’t invent it. And that is John Polkinghorne’s first point in his book, “The Way The World IS.

          Reality is very complex as I observe it. Far more so than our vain confidence in ourselves, that we understand it because of a meager few hundred years of scientific progress. We are arrogant.

          The logical truth leads us to places we do not want to go. Logic is unyielding in its exacting power, and begs us to let go of more comfortable conceptions of reality. It demands but will not force a self sacrifice of treasured beliefs and ideas. And that should not be a surprise that logic would ask that of us. It is the scientific method as expressed to Peter, who like you and I was a fighter.

          John 21:18 “Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.”

          Truth is much much stranger than any fiction. If nothing else in our common perplexing experience, at least QM should tell us that. As I see it, Tolkiens books (now easily accessible by film) are a more accurate portrayal of reality and our journey than the cheap, simple, and comforting childhood tale of materialism. As I told adam (who turned out to be a troll I had to block), “You will need far more than bravado to face reality.”

          I was trying to warn him he will need God to lead him through Mordor. He would have none of it. He refuses to believe that untold millions of beings that want his very soul are -not just out ‘there’, but in a very real sense, right here right now, and whispering in our ears.

          But I understand the difficulty well. Its frightening. More so, it is terrifying, repulsive, fantastic and utterly not what I would like to believe. It is much easier to dismiss it as nothing more than any other mythical tale. Then I could live with peace of mind. But we all know that is not the case. I had to go through all of that cognitive dissonance to get where I am. Peace of mind, and confidence, and humility girded with strength can come only through one gate, one way. It must come from truth.

        • Michael Neville

          Tolkien was extremely annoyed that while he led his friend Lewis to Christianity, Lewis became an Anglican rather than a Catholic like Tolkien.

          As I told adam (who turned out to be a troll I had to block), “You will need far more than bravado to face reality.”

          Adam is not a troll, he just said things that you found uncomfortable and, instead of examining them, you shot the messenger rather than take the message. As you put it so well yourself: “You will need far more than bravado to face reality.” Definitely a case of hoisting yourself by your own petard.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Michael, I can handle a lot of discomfort. You have no idea.

          I simply don’t have time to scroll through multiplied instances of nonsense. I gave him the opportunity to be reasonable, but adam uses will power, not reason.

          I cannot argue with will. If you have kids, you will understand. I have 3. Kids need to be punished. adam throws eggs. Its all he knows. And he has cartons and cartons of them. So I sent him to his room. His antics are no challenge at all, and I demonstrated that. I might unblock him in the future to see if he has developed. But probably not.

          I don’t have time to wipe eggs off my walls all day. He will live without me responding. He can still throw his eggs. Give him my regards and best wishes. Intercede for him again, making false accusations based on your inadequate perceptions and I will block you too.

          If you have a legitimate argument relevant to the topics, bring them forward. Capisce?

        • Michael Neville

          So I was right, Adam said things you didn’t want to hear and Brave Sir Robert ran away.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          In a sense then yes, you are right. I don’t want to hear blather.

        • Kodie

          That’s not what it looked like. If you think you’re the parent here, and adam is the child, you look like you just can’t handle parenting and gave up. I mean, if that’s the metaphor you want to use, your child just outsmarted you and embarrassed you, and you turned beet red and sent him to his room because you could, not because he deserved it.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Lewis described himself as the ‘most unlikely of converts.’

          The impressive stories of reluctant atheists becoming Christian always seem to have emotional reasons as the underlying driver.

          that by the way is what makes C.S. Lewis as powerful an apologist as he was. He already KNEW the counterarguments to Christianity, and had asked all the questions. What surprised him was answers.

          Lewis sucks as an apologist. As a popularizer, it seems like he did a good job getting arguments out to the public. But he doesn’t address any of the rebuttals that come to mind for me.

          More on why I find atheist conversion stories uninteresting here:
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/10/i-used-to-be-an-atheist-just-like-you-2/

          Tolkien did not convert Lewis at all. Lewis converted himself as we all must do.

          I thought it was the Holy Spirit that does the heavy lifting.

          He used a real life staff we call logic. He understood that the real power behind language is the ability to communicate a coherent and honest argument.

          Didn’t help much in making a good case for Christ.

          I hold logic to be objective. And had epeeist not sensed the trap that would have come out there. But he ran with his smoke screen billowing obfuscation and unnecessary multiplied entities.

          I didn’t follow that conversation. I have a lot of respect for epeeist’s ideas, observations, and knowledge. It’s inconceivable to me that you slapped him silly with logic, particularly when you dance away from the issue when I talk with you.

          Reality is very complex as I observe it. Far more so than our vain confidence in ourselves, that we understand it because of a meager few hundred years of scientific progress. We are arrogant.

          I suppose. And from some vantage points, our progress has been limited. Let’s keep in mind, though, that science has talk us about reality, not religion. It’s not that religion has taught us more than religion; science has taught us much, and religion has taught us nothing.

          Also, any progress in medicine, social welfare, science and technology, or whatever, is due to people. We shouldn’t give ourselves credit for more than we’ve done, but we’ve still done more than Jesus/God has done.

          Truth is much much stranger than any fiction.

          Yes, science does teach us this.

          I was trying to warn him he will need God to lead him through Mordor.

          Uh, dude—there is no God, and there is no Mordor. If you’re saying that society will have difficulties ahead (“Mordor”), you’re right. But why look to God when he hasn’t lifted a finger before to help?

          He refuses to believe that untold millions of beings that want his very soul are -not just out ‘there’, but in a very real sense, right here right now, and whispering in our ears.

          Do they carry pitchforks as well?

          But I understand the difficulty well. Its frightening.

          Uh, no. It’s bullshit. Grow up.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You ARE a peach Bob. ditto on the Holy spirit doing the heavy lifting. That would be the Logos as I explained to the other Bob I told you about.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’re taciturn today. I would’ve thought that in particular you would’ve followed up on my post about why the popular “I used to be an atheist, just like you, but then I converted” argument doesn’t work.

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2012/10/i-used-to-be-an-atheist-just-like-you-2/

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You thought wrong. I was never the kind of atheist you are.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I never said you were. I was talking (2 comments above) about CS Lewis and why I find his “I used to be an atheist” arguments weak.

        • Ignorant Amos
          Tolkien did not convert Lewis at all. Lewis converted himself as we all must do.

          I thought it was the Holy Spirit that does the heavy lifting.

          Oh I don’t think Tolkien’s influence on Lewis’ road back to belief should be overlooked at all.

          85 YEARS AGO TODAY: J. R. R. TOLKIEN CONVINCES C. S. LEWIS THAT CHRIST IS THE TRUE MYTH

          https://blogs.thegospelcoalition.org/evangelical-history/2016/09/20/85-years-ago-today-j-r-r-tolkien-convinces-c-s-lewis-that-christ-is-the-true-myth/

          There is no way Lewis was going to become a Roman Catholic given his background, so he picked the nearest Protestant Catholic nonsense to it, the Anglican Church.

          On the other hand, Paul Stevens of the University of Toronto has written that “Lewis’s mere Christianity masked many of the political prejudices of an old-fashioned Ulster Protestant, a native of middle-class Belfast for whom British withdrawal from Northern Ireland even in the 1950s and 1960s was unthinkable.”

          I noticed this…

          In 1958 he [Lewis] spent his honeymoon there at the Old Inn, Crawfordsburn, which he called “my Irish life”.

          As an aside, my daughter attended her friends wedding reception at the ” The Old Inn” Crawfordsburn on Friday just past.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          With the Inklings’ focus on mythology, Lewis’s conclusions are inherently suspect right from the start.

          The political/cultural aspect that you raise is also interesting.

        • Michael Neville

          But I understand the difficulty well. Its frightening.

          You may be frightened by it. I find it unconvincing, trite and childish. Paul described it very well:

          When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 1 Cor 13:11 (NIV)

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          That is not surprising Michael. I am not afraid of things I don’t believe in either. Geesh. You are not much better than adam.

          One more like that and I am done with you.

        • MNb

          “I had to go through all of that cognitive dissonance to get where I am.”
          Unfortunately you didn’t get rid of it while underway. That results in your rambling comments – all unscrutinized a posteriori rationalizations. Like:

          “The Trinity comes from Truth.
          Hence it must be a coherent concept.
          Hence let me bring up whatever rationalizations I can think of that seems to confirm it’s a coherent concept.
          Despite me claiming that all knowledge is tentative I’m not going to specify what exactly could demonstrate it Untrue.
          That leads me to the Truth.
          Let me pray that nobody notices that I have switched from tentative knowledge to 100% absolute eternal never-changing Truth without eplicitly making it clear.
          When I’m cornered I can always fall back on ‘you’re not worth my time’ – never mind my claim of humility either.”

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You will need to do more than whine like a legion of spirits headed for a herd of pigs sir.

        • MNb

          That’s another version of ‘you’re not worth my time’.
          Thanks for confirming.

        • Kodie

          You got huge balls, no dick, you know that?

        • Michael Neville

          You’re not going to post that scene from Ghostbusters where Bill Murray’s character says: “It’s true. This man has no dick.”?

        • Kodie

          If someone asks you if you’re a god, you say YES.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And on that tangent: I heard someone say that Ghostbusters was a big hit at his house. They would play it in the minivan where his young girls could watch it in the back seat, wearing headphones. As kids often do, they would often say the dialogue that they remembered, and that included Bull Murray’s line. Must’ve been funny to hear, in kids’ voices, “This man has no dick” from the back seat.

        • al kimeea

          ask the residents of Hiroshima & Nagasaki if our atomic theories are mere philosophy

          we have some good ideas about the universe

          you are certain a deity did it

          that is the antithesis of humility

        • MNb

          Silly, silly Robbie.
          The leap from methodological naturalism to materialism (in this context better: philosophical naturalism) is a much smaller one than your christian one. It’s so small it doesn’t even require faith; it requires lack of faith. You are bearing false testimony. The majority of materialists recognizes this distinction, even for instance Richard Dawkins (someone I don’t particularly think high of).
          So your remark about humility is like a hammer that couldn’t miss the nail any further.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          The leap from methodological naturalism to materialism (in this context better: philosophical naturalism) is a much smaller one than your christian one. It’s so small it doesn’t even require faith; it requires lack of faith. You are bearing false testimony. The majority of materialists recognizes this distinction, even for instance Richard Dawkins (someone I don’t particularly think high of).
          So your remark about humility is like a hammer that couldn’t miss the nail any further.

          Pure Hogwarts!

          In my days at EVC, I critiqued a discover magazine article written by Susan Kruglinski. Methodological naturalism is an ecclesiastical declaration through and through and a reformulation of Hume’s guillotine.

          Here are two excerpts.

          After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.

          Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea’s worth. In deliberately omitting theological or “ultimate” explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of “meaning” and “purpose” in the world.

          While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science. This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as “methodological naturalism” and is sometimes known as the scientific method. Methodological naturalism is a “ground rule” of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. https://mm-gold.azureedge.net/Articles/editorial/english/intelligent_decission140106.html

          Now that reads like a very scientific piece except for one line (the devil always hiding in the details).

          “This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence.”

          Bingo! Enter serpent, enter Hume. So back to Hume’s Guillotine:

          “If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.” – David Hume An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.

          Hume is making a metaphysical statement in order to prove that metaphysics is meaningless. The statement is a violation ofhis
          own mandate. His formulation cannot be demonstrated empirically and is therefore nothing but an ecclesiastical declaration.

          What are the grounds for this revelation of Hume’s? Where is his humility?

          I will fail you sir, so be silent unless you have a legitimate question.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0l0YOHO5jg

        • Greg G.

          There is a probably apocryphal story that Napoleon asked Laplace why he didn’t factor God into his method for targeting cannon fire. Laplace replied, “I have no need for that hypothesis.” That is essentially what methodological naturalism is.

          But science, technology, and medical knowledge expanded exponentially when they started leaving gods and demons out of the explanations. It seems that God has been a red herring all along.

        • MNb

          “Methodological naturalism is an ecclesiastical declaration through and through and a reformulation of Hume’s guillotine.”
          Perhaps, perhaps not. What matters is that you pick the fruits of methodological naturalism everytime you turn on your computer, drive your car, take your medicines, consult a psychologist, dicuss monenatry financing and even when you read history. If methodological naturalism is a viper you have it at your chest just like every single human being in our days. The funny thing with whiners like you is that they never practice what they preach. Were you serious you would begin with abandoning all technology you use – it’s all serpent poison.

          “Where is his humility that you accuse ME of not having?”
          You wrote it yourself, silly Robbie. All scientific statements are always tentative. Science leaves absolute truth to apologist vanity like yours – by making a much smaller leap than you, one that doesn’t even require any faith. That already becomes clear when you start talking about the metaphysics of methodlogical naturalism. I never denied that; still you implicitly assume I do by thinking you can use the point against me.
          You can’t.

          “The only grounds I know of, is the serpent whispering in his ears.”
          Poisoning the well like you do here is a sign of vanity.

          “I will fail you sir, so be silent unless you have a legitimate question”
          Thanks for confirming your lack of humility; not that I needed it. You have delude yourself by thinking that I give a rat’s ass whether you fail me or not. You have deluded yourself by thinking that you failing me bears any relevance for my decision to be silent or not. You have deluded yourself by thinking that I have anything to ask you.
          And of course you have proclaimed yourself the Ultimate Arbiter of what is a legitimate question or not; that’s utter apologist arrogance.
          As a result the shallow content of your comment hides under its pomposity.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Perhaps, perhaps not.
          What matters is that you pick the fruits of methodological naturalism every time you turn on your computer, drive your car, take your medicines, consult a psychologist, dicuss monenatry(sic) financing and even when you read history. If methodological naturalism is a viper you have it at your chest just like every single human being in our days. The funny thing with whiners like you is that they never practice what they preach. Were you serious you would begin with abandoning all technology you use – it’s all serpent poison.

          There is no perhaps about it you snake. There is only the LAW, the law of non contradiction, Logos= the Word of God.

          It was LAW that gave us science, and makes it possible to HAVE science, which really only means knowledge.

          It was reaching for it ambitiously with the impure motive to PLAY God, that led you astray. God had already given us everything we need- fellowship, a wonderous and fertile world, rich with texture and shadow, and filled with dimension.

          ALL of that made possible by His LAWS that hold the universe together and relate all things together into a universal chorus and harmony. And ALL of that was built upon a foundation that cannot be moved, uprooted, or shaken, the law of non contradiction, LOGOS.

          You wrote it yourself, silly Robbie. All scientific statements are always tentative.

          LIAR you are. Only YOUR cheap sorcery that you call science, is tentative because you are NOT God. The best you can do is attempt to match God’s objective order through trial and error. Mix the formulas, sift the brew, chant some mantras about human achievement and progress, and abracadabra, Hocus Pocus a rocket explodes on the launch pad.

          It was YOUR science that was tentative. God always knew what would work according to His laws. His laws made it possible. Had you been willing to wait, he would have given you everything you needed. But you wanted to do it YOURSELF. You made it all about you in your pride.

          True science is NEVER tentative. It stands the test of time, physics, and law, because REAL scientific statements are non-contradictory.

          Science leaves absolute truth to apologist vanity like yours – by making a much smaller leap than you, one that doesn’t even require any faith.

          LIAR you are. You had to believe the serpent by faith, even before you reached for the promise of proof. You would have been better off placing your faith in God and trusting that he would teach you everything, in proper order, and when you were ready to wield such power.

          You believed the lie because autonomy was promised to you, not because you had evidence that it was true. You WANTED to be God, and now you will bear the weight of God. And it will crush you because you are NOT God.

          That already becomes clear when you start talking about the metaphysics of methodlogical naturalism. I never denied that; still you implicitly assume I do by thinking you can use the point against me. You can’t.

          Oh I can’t can I? I have been given the command, in the name of Logos to do JUST that. It is written in the law of non contradiction, that your yes shall be yes, and your no, no.

          With one fork of your tongue, you say that no faith is required, and with the other that you do not deny you own metaphysics. Be gone!

          Poisoning the well like you do here is a sign of vanity.

          Since when is logic a poison you creeping liar? I do not speak in my own name, but the name of objective power, the Logos.

          And of course you have proclaimed yourself the Ultimate Arbiter of what is a legitimate question or not; that’s utter apologist arrogance.

          As a result the shallow content of your comment hides under its pomposity.

          LIAR you are. I do NOT proclaim myself the Ultimate arbiter. I proclaim and lift up LOGOS as the ultimate and final authority. It is YOU who presume to be the ultimate arbiter by presuming arrogantly that you can decide what is right with your own word, rather than rely on the Logos, the word of God.

          It is written in the law of non contradiction that, “By your words you will be condemned. And by your words you will be acquitted.”

          You are not playing word games with ME vile creature. You are playing word games with God. That is a game of roulette my son. Your mouth will be the undoing of your own soul.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuI6TroX5S4

          Now go back to the shadows, or get on your knees and get right with God.

        • MNb

          Thanks once again for confirming what I wrote above: as a result of your utter apologist arrogance the shallow content of your comment hides under its pomposity – and now also under several pathetic attempts to threaten and insult me. Yeah, that’s the way to obey Jesus’ Great Commission.

          “Now go back to the shadows, or get on your knees and get right with God.”
          You suck at exorcism as badly as at spreading the Good News. There is no god to get right with, but if it makes you feel horny I’ll virtually get on my knees though. Still you will have to work your way to a climax yourself. How long is it ago that you had a satisfactory one? You seem to be in great and urgent need.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I never pretended to have any power over your will. That’s not what exorcism is about. It is simply using your own arrogance against you so that you show your yrue colors, in order to evict you from other people’s minds.

          Wizard of smart you are. Be gone.

        • MNb

          You still suck as badly at exorcism as at spreading the Good News. You also suck at using my own arrogance against me. Finally I don’t need you to show my true colours; I’m perfectly capable of doing that myself.

          “Wizard of smart you are.”
          Snake, viper and liar are compliments I can accept from you, but wizard, no, that’s way too much honour, even if it’s only of smart. I’m just smart enough to understand that I’m not too smart.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You certainly are hard of hearing.

          People have to exorcise themselves. I can’t force anything out of anyone. It’s their choice just as your choice was your and mine, my own.

          I only need to present them a clear alternative, so that they can see that the playing field is not what they supposed.

          I condemn no one. Whatever choice they make is theirs. I don’t even condemn you. You are self condemned.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YFrbyFwPNv8

        • Kodie

          As you are clearly as delusional as you are arrogant, the clear alternative to atheism is end up a lunatic with no life like you.

        • MNb

          “I only need to present them a clear alternative ….”
          You still suck at it.

          “Now go back to the shadows, or get on your knees and get right with God.”
          “Be gone.”
          Yeah, totally written for “them”, whoever “they” are.

          “You are self condemned.”
          Yeah and you’re the self declared Ultimate Arbiter of this.
          It remains remarkable how christian arrogance like yours is the exact opposite of what Jesus’ taught. That’s why you suck at spreading the Good News. Every single unbeliever will rather remain self condemned than turn into a pompous ass like you.
          You’re excellent anti propaganda for christianity and too vain to realize it.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          That’s exactly what your fathers said to Jesus. It was their basis for crucifying him. And like he said to his disciples, “It is enough that a student be like his teacher. If they hate you, remember that they hated me first.”

          Well I remember you snake. Thanks as always for the affirmation.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j6bKSlShOaI

        • MNb

          “That’s exactly what your fathers said to Jesus.”
          Thanks for confirming that you place yourself on the same level as this guy. Apparently you think you’re partly divine yourself.

          “Well I remember you snake.”
          Enjoy.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Unbelievers in ignorance are not condemned you oily magician. Only those like you who have knowingly and willfully rejected reason are self condemned.

          You think you have power because my can fool innocent people with your sophistry and science. But that means they don’t KNOW what they are doing. They are lost in your hall of mirrors designed to keep them lost.

          Christ’s blood covers them just as it did Adam. As Jesus said, “Father forgive them. They don’t know what they are doing.

          You DO know what you are doing, except that you have taken no souls by lying to them.

          I’m not talking to ‘unbelievers’ you brood of vipers, I am only talking to you.

          Glad you don’t like the videos. That is precisely the point.

        • Michael Neville

          You think you have power because you believe in an imaginary, fictitious, non-existent boogeyman who’ll torture people like MNb and me forever since we don’t believe in the figment of your imagination. You keep preaching at us and whining when we disregard your preaching. If you had a speck of introspection you’d realize your preaching is both arrogant and pathetic.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          No illusions of power – no whining, because you never gave yourself a chance to hear. The admission of disregard is priceless. I have no power over willful disregard. That is a choice you made.

          Good luck with your ‘principles of development’ Michael. I hope the vision ’emerges’ in your imagination much clearer than it does right now. Your a fine one to tslk about non existent forces.

          I’d introspect on that if I were you. This is not high school. Trying to manipulate people by hurting their feelings has no power either, for those of us whose identity is rooted in far more than pop culture.

          I don’t preach Michael. Proselytizing is not my bag. I Reason…

          You don’t.

        • Kodie

          I actually laughed out loud at that one. Your identity is rooted far up your own ass. You are talking fairy tales like they’re real, and you have a deluded inflation of your own reasoning ability.

        • Michael Neville

          You’re the one threatening us with eternal damnation if we don’t believe in your sadistic bully of a god.

          Please don’t lie by pretending you’re not preaching. That’s what you’ve been doing ever since you got here. And frankly, you’re not very good at it. If you were reasoning with us you’d be trying to give us evidence that your god is more than a figment of your imagination. Instead, you quote the collection of myths, fables and lies called the Bible at us. That is preaching.

        • Kodie

          I reported you to disqus admin for spamming us with unwanted redundant videos. Your “point” is apparently to jerk off wherever you want to, with what little you got.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Now, that’s dirty pool! You don’t publicly mock a man’s inadequacies.

        • Kodie

          Yes I do.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Glad you don’t like the videos. That is precisely the point.

          The point? I’m a little slow here. Your point is to be a dick? To make us all hate you? I thought you point was to spread the Good News®. Not so?

        • Kodie

          Oh, this is so sad. Robert wants us to hate him so he can win the martyr game, but he’s cheating by making us hate him for being obnoxious with the videos instead of the honestly dishonest way, to belief our disagreements is projected hatred on him for our discomfort with the religious garbage.

        • Ryan M

          Bob, his intention is obviously to troll you. People responding to him with insults/anger is exactly what he wants. Not banning him is frankly silly. There is no point in keeping a theist troll around since he can’t even be an intellectual punching bag given that he’s only fucking with you for his own amusement. My suggestion, get rid of him and hope that some theists take his place who actually want to talk.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll look for an excuse to show him the door.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          My goal is the same as yours Bob. To be effective for the sake of the cause. That will cause the weak minded some consternation.

          Is the goal of your blog to be a dick?.

          A little hate mail is positive feedback. MNb is the dick sending hate mail, not me. He moved away from argument into insult

          I prefer to let my arguments do the insulting by simply telling the truth.

          If I stand UP to the dick, how does that make ME a dick, unless in reality, YOU are just being a dick by insinuation?

          Assassinate character much?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          My goal is the same as yours Bob. To be effective for the sake of the cause. That will cause the weak minded some consternation.

          My goal is to make Christians think, “Hmm . . . maybe I should consider that,” with that being some issue with the weakness of Christianity. Some won’t like it, of course.

          When you say, “Glad you don’t like the videos. That is precisely the point.” I guess I’m missing how that’s being effective for the sake of the cause, cuz that sounds like being a dick. What cause? How are you effective?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Evoking thought is the goal, same as yours. For some, the weak minded you mentioned, they are going to have to think about things they don’t like or care for.

          Not complicated. And I support your goal of evoking and even provoking thought when necessary.

        • epeeist

          How are you effective?

          Don’t know whether the phrase is used in the States, but here we would probably refer to being as useful as a chocolate teapot.

        • Greg G.

          useful as a chocolate teapot

          It will be used at the next opportunity.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Chocolate fireguard…or an ashtray on a motorbike, are two popular ones about these parts.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’ve heard “as useful as screen doors on a submarine.”

        • MNb

          “You think you have power ……”
          Nobody will be surprised anymore, after amply displaying your vanity, arrogance and pompousness, that you think you’re a mind reader as well. That as a result you bear false testimony is something you wipe your christian ass with.

          “Glad you don’t like the videos.”
          Yup, you’re a liar as well. I didn’t write that. Actually I like some of them as I’ve seen them in the past. On this page I just couldn’t be less interested.

          “I am only talking to you”
          Yeah and you still suck at spreading the Good News.

        • Michael Neville

          “Glad you don’t like the videos.”

          This is another case where you and I got confused for each other. I told Robert that I didn’t care for the couple of videos he posted and why I didn’t like them. I also asked that he not post videos because they slowed down the thread loading speed. Kodie had previously asked him not to post videos and he said he wouldn’t. So his word can’t be trusted.

        • MNb

          I don’t think he confused us. I told him elsewhere that I haven’t watched even one of his clips. I know way more pleasant ways to waste my time than figuring out what they have to do with his comments.
          Call me unsurprised that his word can’t be trusted. Didn’t he criticize Adam for posting cartoons etc.? I immediately admit it took me a while to get used to his style; it was worth it.

        • TheNuszAbides

          well … he said he’d keep it to a minimum. but whether or not ‘his word’ can’be trusted, his braying about Reason-LOGOS-Superboss and pathetically theatrical rebukes come after, what, a week or two since he ceased to be trustworthy in terms of holding up his end of rational discussion or resisting the urge to dodge multiple challenges to his imaginary arguments.

        • Greg G.

          Glad you don’t like the videos. That is precisely the point.

          The content of the videos are irrelevant. That is not what he dislikes about them. English is not his first language so he prefers to read.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett
        • MNb

          I don’t care for your videos.

        • epeeist

          and now also under several pathetic attempts to threaten and insult me

          Hey, join the club, he has threatened both Bob and I as well. I can’t speak for Bob but I was really scared 😉

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I find it curious and perhaps even revealing that Christians only focus on the crazy science that steps on their theological toes. They talk about now nutty evolution is–all the while accepting the two most fundamental principles, mutation and natural selection, to explain what they call “microevolution”–and yet they leave the truly nutty stuff (Big Bang, black holes, quarks, Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and all the rest of that crazy QM stuff). If they actually wanted to apply good ol’ common sense to science, they’d focus on QM.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          We’re cagey like that. Very much like a tomato seed or a photon. Hard to pin down…

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          No, you’re not cagey, you’re duplicitous. You (Christians) have an anti-evidence agenda, and it shows.

          I’m still amazed at all the rope-a-dope/strategy/chess bullshit from you. No one operates like that (except you, I mean). Does this work well for you elsewhere?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Work? You made a choice didn’t you?

          Don’t think in such linear terms Bob, or you’ll miss the point every time. Logic (God’s Word) will not return void.

          If I measured success by waiting for your confession, you’d manipulate me to tears. I can’t lose. Your choice is your responsibility not mine.

          It’s quite effective.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What’s effective? Dancing around, making clear that you’re playing a cerebral chess game that you doubt your opponent can follow, and all the other meta bullshit isn’t helping.

          I’m an old-fashioned guy who likes plain and simple arguments and bristles when I feel that someone is playing rhetorical games. No, not effective. It simply makes me eager to beat you with as many points as possible–hardly an avenue to win another soul to Christ.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I’m still amazed at all the rope-a-dope/strategy/chess bullshit from you. No one operates like that (except you, I mean). Does this work well for you elsewhere?

          I wanted to make sure you are very clear about the choice you make. If you are wiling to classify clear and logical arguments, that you understand perfectly well, and excrement, and counterfeit miracles, then be my guest. Its your life, your hands.

          Personally, I recommend that you back up at least a little and think this through.

          Matthew 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”

          25 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.

          29 “Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.

          30“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

          [mock me all you want Bob, but be careful what you do with logical arguments and clear explanations]

          33“Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. 35 A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”

          So you see what it says Bob? God will forgive everything but one thing, and that is willful and intentional denial of what we know to be true in order to justify and protect our own dishonesty and place that blame on another.

          I am just a spectator with everyone else watching you and logic duke it out just like Jacob did… be careful shooting your mouth off.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuI6TroX5S4

        • Kodie

          It’s becoming apparent, you’re just a delusional character. You think this is an epic discussion that you were destined to bring about. You think you are a soldier for Jesus and every beating you take is a feather in your cap for Jesus. What an arrogant fuck you are. We’re speaking English and trying to talk this out, but you keep waving your cape like a performer and say “look at this video”, it explains what I feel, because I’m high and 15.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I wanted to make sure you are very clear about the choice you make. If you are wiling to classify clear and logical arguments, that you understand perfectly well, as excrement and counterfeit miracles, then be my guest.

          I’m calling them as I see them. When I say I think a Christian argument is bullshit, that’s my honest assessment. Is that a little hard to accept?

          Its your life, your hands.

          Translated: Jesus will fuck you up bad, bro–just sayin’.

          A superstition built on an ambiguous Bible isn’t for me, thanks.

          Personally, I recommend that you back up at least a little and think this through.

          And then you quote the Bible? First, that’s just an ancient book of myth and legend; why would you think I find that authoritative? Second, why the Christian Bible? Why not appeal to a thousand other religions? “Well, it’s my favorite religion” means nothing to me, sorry.

          [mock me all you want Bob, but be careful what you do with logical arguments and clear explanations]

          I mock you in proportion to the poor quality of the arguments you back. Give me something sensible, and I’ll happily respond to your sensible argument.

          So you see what it says Bob? God will forgive everything but one thing, and that is willful and intentional denial of what we know to be true in order to justify and protect our own dishonesty and place that blame on another.

          Why quote that to me? That’s not what I’m doing. I’m following the evidence as best I see it. Am I doing it wrong? Then show me.

        • epeeist

          Translated: Jesus will fuck you up bad, bro–just sayin’.

          Yeah, he tried the same kind of threat on me, made me quake in my boots I can tell you 😉

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I had just the opposite reaction–I wanna get close to this loving Jesus he keeps telling us about.

        • TheNuszAbides

          be careful shooting your mouth off

          boyo, you have indeed racked up one serious ironymeter debt this last week or two.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I’m an old-fashioned guy who likes plain and simple arguments and bristles when I feel that someone is playing rhetorical games.

          This from the guy who will not even concede that he understands what an axiom like the law of non contradiction is? it’s a little late to play innocent Bob.

          Logic doesn’t play games. Rather, Bob tries to play games with logic, and it is a far more deadly game than Bob realized. I think somebody upstairs is calling you out. You might at least want to re-watch Bruce almighty. It was actually very good theologically.

        • Ryan M

          OK, your conversations with everyone seems highly confusing. Let’s try something else. Don’t respond to anyone else for a bit, but instead list each proposition you’re advocating in this thread, and then outline each argument you are using for each proposition. For each argument, list each premise, one by one. E.g. follow this format:

          Proposition 1 = …
          Proposition 2 = …

          Argument for proposition 1:

          1. (Premise 1)
          n. (Premise n)
          m. (Conclusion)

          Defense of line 1 =
          Defense of line n =
          Defense of line m =

          As you can see from my format example, the premises/conclusions are listed vertically under one another. After writing the argument out, then proceed to write out the defenses for each premise/inference in the same fashion as above. Since line m is an inference, the defense of m will be an inference rule. Here is an example of following this format:

          Proposition 1 = mammals exist.

          Argument for proposition 1:

          1. If tigers exist, then mammals exist.

          2. Tigers exist.
          3. Therefore, mammals exist.

          Defense of line 1 = tigers by definition are mammals, so all tigers must be mammals.
          Defense of line 2 = there are tigers in India and many zoos, so tigers must exist.
          Defense of line 3 = modus ponens from 1 and 2.

          From now on, ignore everyone else. Use my format, post the propositions you’re advocating, post the argument(s) you’re using, then post the defense(s) of your argument(s). Don’t post anything other than what I have stipulated here (So do not post Youtube videos or anything not related to fulfilling the above format).

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You are way late to the party kiddo… maybe we can start a new round in a month or two.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5uLMnZmdGs

        • Kodie

          Please be running away for good!

        • Ryan M

          Give it a shot. Since you’re still responding to people, clearly following my format is not out of the question.

          Though as a side point, if you are in fact a theist, then it is odd that you would seem to intentionally attempt to insult someone by calling them “Kiddo”. If you are just trolling, as it seems you are given the Youtube videos, then it makes sense. But if you are an actual theist and not intending to troll people, then your behavior is quite odd indeed. “UnChrist” like would surely be a good description in either case, though I understand it is difficult for Christians to actually be good people.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          They didn’t crucify people on Roman crosses for being nice Ryan. Run that through your system of premises, deductions, and conclusions.

        • Kodie

          I get it now, you’re posting from the inside of some institution. What little coherence you had is unraveling exponentially.

        • Ryan M

          Provide your advocated propositions, arguments, and defenses of premises/inferences. I have a degree in philosophy, and I work in law, so I’ll help making your arguments clear (If you need assistance) and will assess them fairly.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          A lawyer in training eh? That explains a lot.

          I answered you the first time Ryan. It just wasn’t what you wanted.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICsIG4d0S0E

        • Kodie

          So you think you’re acting the martyr, when really you’re just a lying, evasive asshole, i.e. typical Christian.

        • Ryan M

          I see.

        • epeeist

          I have a degree in philosophy, and I work in law,

          Sounds like you are one of the liberal elite, not someone a trucker and autodidact would take any note of.

        • Ryan M

          Probably not wrong if he’s genuine about what he claims.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          This from the guy who will not concede that he understand what an axiom like the law of non contradiction is? it’s a little late to play innocent Bob.

          What crime have I committed?

          I understand what an axiom is. And an axiom is tested, continually. It wouldn’t be an axiom otherwise. Your error was in stating that axioms are taken on faith.

          That’s the part that you seem to have a hard time with.

          it is a far more deadly game than Bob realized. I think somebody upstairs is calling you out.

          Uh huh. Scary. Or at least it would be if you gave me any evidence.

          But at least I’m on the right side of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Someone here might need to rethink a few things in that regard–just sayin’.

        • epeeist

          What crime have I committed?

          Why the crime of obstinately questioning Robert of course.

          As for the obstinate, he must be plunged into fire, since fire and non-fire are identical. Let him be beaten, since suffering and not suffering are the same. Let him be deprived of food and drink, since eating and drinking are identical to abstaining

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I hope you know what you are doing Bob. You have some very colorful personalities crawling around your blog.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6Gotkku3DZA

          But if you don’t, that will be your salvation. Just watch it… You can’t fake ignorance. You either are or not.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett
        • Kodie

          I can’t even assume by now that you know that was just a movie. You just are so fucking full of yourself, and nobody gives a shit, so you quadruple down.

        • Ryan M

          You could assume he is a troll. However, his Facebook profile contains all the same gibberish.

          https://www.facebook.com/robert.lockett.50

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Ouch. The Jim Carrey rebuttal.

          Yep–you cleaned my clock.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          hardly an avenue to win another soul to Christ.

          And what do you know about winning souls to Christ Bob? Why don’t you explain the way I ought to proceed.

        • Kodie

          Well, we know that you think your purpose in life is to win souls, and not to argue logically, with evidence. You don’t even understand the social rules of conversation. You think of yourself as a superhero, but you sit in your underwear watching youtube.

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          How pathetic do you get?
          Are you really stupid enough to ask

          “Why don’t you explain the way I ought to proceed?”
          Let me assume the answer is yes.
          For one thing nobody feels like helping out a pompous ass like you.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You help me every time you open your mouth. Good dog, pat pat pat.

        • MNb

          You’re welcome.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I am not just saying this because of where we are in this ‘discussion’, but because it really is my favorite in the DH collection. It is musically and lyrically flawless in my opinion.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TE9b8IPL8I

        • Kodie

          You’re just a massive egomaniac to think anyone is interested in you, your videos, or why you think it’s a necessary component of expressing your opinions. Here, you don’t even have anything else to say, you’re just posting a fucking video, you asshole.

          Flagged for spam!

        • Greg G.

          Systems that prove themselves are circular and independent of the world we live in. Mathematics can model many types of universes, flat and curved. We need empirical evidence to determine which models fit our world.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          If we need empirical evidence then they are not independent. That is how I was able to ‘run epeeist through’ as I promised Michael. I knew his pride would not allow him to run: http://disq.us/p/1melg76

          I promised epeeist as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yke3ur99P2g

        • epeeist

          That is how I was able to ‘run epeeist through’ as I promised Michael.

          In your dreams.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Lol. I need only run the argument through. I’ll tell you the same thing I told Bob, and that is that I do not need your confession. I only need demonstrate it for those paying attention.

          I did NOT mean that I will force you to concede. I have zero power over your will. I need only show the audience that yours is a game will, not logic, just as Lennox did to Atkins in the clip. And once you resort to will you run yourself through. I just helped push you. Logic is like that didn’t you know Mr. Phycist?

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3PHoMWIlklA

        • epeeist

          I need only run the argument through.

          What argument? You haven’t provided one as yet.

          Logic is like that didn’t you know Mr. Physicist?

          Rather better than you.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          You see epeeist, you are probably a very good and kind man. You are obviously extremely intelligent and exquisite in knowledge. Your just a very bad wizard. In the end, it is not simply logic that matters most, but honesty.

          Psalm 23:1The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing.
          2 He makes me lie down in green pastures,
          he leads me beside quiet waters,
          3 he refreshes my soul.
          He guides me along the right paths
          for his name’s sake.

          4 Even though I walk
          through the darkest valley,a
          I will fear no evil,
          for you are with me;
          your rod and your staff,
          they comfort me.

          5 You prepare a table before me
          in the presence of my enemies.
          You anoint my head with oil;
          my cup overflows.

          6 Surely your goodness and love will follow me
          all the days of my life,
          and I will dwell in the house of the Lord
          forever.

        • Kodie

          You did not run through epeeist, you are just too dumb to understand what he’s talking about.

        • epeeist

          The only way to prove logic is with logic, and that is arguing in a circle.

          Nope, one can show that specific forms of logic (e.g. 1st order predicate calculus) is both complete and consistent, try something like Hunter’s Metalogic for the details. What one cannot do is show that specific types of formal system are complete and consistent from within the system.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          What I said was… “The only way to prove logic is with logic, and that is arguing in a circle.”

          epeeist writes:

          Nope, one can show that specific forms of logic (e.g. 1st order predicate calculus) is both complete and consistent

          Show with <strong<WHAT epeeist? Logic and mathematics are a tautology. But since they are axioms, that relationship cannot be proven, but must be assumed. It is self referential just like the concept of the Trinity and cannot be demonstrated other than by their own declaration and law of – I AM the way, the truth, and the life.

        • epeeist

          What I said was… “The only way to prove logic is with logic, and that is arguing in a circle.”

          And you were wrong.

          You stand a very good chance at winning this month’s Dunning-Kruger award.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          No I wasn’t wrong. You said yourself that self referential systems cannot be demonstrated with a logical schema in your trinity challenge.

          You’ll get no argument from me. Axioms cannot be proven except by their own laws.

          Smart genius you are. My work is done here. You guys sort it out.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L-kDlUnj5lg

        • epeeist

          You said yourself that self referential systems cannot be demonstrated with a logical schema in your trinity challenge.

          Except of course the Scutum refers only to god, the father, the son and the holy spirit, it doesn’t refer to itself in any way and hence is not self-referential.

          In other words, another dishonest attempt to try and hide the fact that you are unable to find an error in either of the two logical schemas I give which show the trinity is incoherent as formulated by theists.

          Smart genius you are.

          It’s like the joke about the two guys being chased by a bear. I don’t have to be a genius, I just have to be smarter than you, and that isn’t a very high bar.

          My work is done here. You guys sort it out.

          Ah, the old declare-victory-and-leg-it gambit.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Well, I can’t thank you enough for what you ironically helped me to see by bringing the Scutm Fedei to my attention.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Except of course the Scutum refers only to god, the father, the son and the holy spirit, it doesn’t refer to itself in any way and hence is not self-referential.

          It is true that it refers to God, but God is a trinity, so it refers to a logical relationship of persons that are inseparable FROM a relationship that can be expressed logically. That means it can be expressed mathematically.

          We end up with the law of non contradiction but with an added dimension. And if this said God existed eternally of his own self (self referential), apart from anything other THAN himself, then we NEED that added dimension.

          In THIS world, the law of non contradiction does NOT need that added dimension because something other than itself DOES exist, namely, the person contemplating it. If not that, then the external world itself.

          So the complete law of non-contradiction (which we will simply call Logos) is 1+2=3. And in theoretical isolation it is indeed an axiom. We can go back over the relationship of the observer if need be. You seem to be struggling.

          The numbers are simply placeholders for any mereological entity that has this relationship.

          Our difficulty is in assigning values to anything other than numbers.

          For the theologian the difficulty is in assigning value to a person. What qualities or attributes make the 1st person twice the value of 2nd, and the sum of the first 2 person equal to the 3rd?

          In other words, another dishonest attempt to try and hide the fact that you are unable to find an error in either of the two logical schemas I give which show the trinity is incoherent as formulated by theists.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBcqd3cFRDU

          I have passed this information to a mathematics lecturer at our local State University. We were in church together this morning. If you don’t want to be in on a historic moment in theology and logic suit yourself. If the theorem already exists, then feel free to burst my bubble.

          It’s like the joke about the two guys being chased by a bear. I don’t have to be a genius, I just have to be smarter than you, and that isn’t a very high bar.

          https://youtu.be/xiA_Zcajl2c?t=304

          Ah, the old declare-victory-and-leg-it gambit.

          Premature perhaps. But c’mon slick.
          Can you blame me?

        • epeeist

          It is true that it refers to God, but God is a trinity, so it refers to a logical relationship of persons that are inseparable FROM a relationship that can be expressed logically.

          Verbal diarrhoea meant to cover the fact that the Scutum is not self-referential. The rest of your post is yet another Gish Gallop.

          Consider a library which compiles a bibliographic catalogue of all (and only those) catalogues which do not list themselves. Then does the library’s catalogue list itself?

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Well if anyone knows verbal diarrhoea, it is you sir. But because you know it so well, you can’t even recognize the most basic of concepts. You got lost in your own vanity.

        • epeeist

          Well if anyone knows verbal diarrhoea, it is you sir.

          Why thank you, which means that I am correct in my claim about your post.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Accusations and personal attacks will not do. Only the law of non contradiction need apply. It is the secret to the code if you can see how it fits everything else together.

          You can’t see it can you? Interesting. You are operating blind…

          Mocking used to hurt epeeist. But that was then, when such tactics used to hurt my pride. That man and his pride died in the baptism of fire. But yours is still in play.

          I am glad Trinity (logos) loves me, and gave me that new birth, and a job to do worth living for.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWOIf0_tCnk

        • Kodie

          Flagged for spam

        • epeeist

          Accusations and personal attacks will not do.

          And chalk up informal logic as something else that you know little to nothing about. If I can show that you are an untrustworthy source
          for a claim; that your conduct or other beliefs and commitments are at
          odds with the claim your are making; or you have some prejudice or vested interest that prevents you from from being an impartial source then an attack on the person is perfectly valid (See Douglas Walton. Ad Hominem Arguments. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1998. Distinguishes among various types of ad hominem arguments and considers conditions under which the argument is and is not fallacious).

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Yeah, I am such an ignoramous…

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zrVGuUsL2PM

          I have only known one other person as nasty as you are. He looked like an orangutan at EVE.

          His name is James .A. Richardson.

        • epeeist

          I have only known one other person as nasty as you are.

          Why thank you, from you I will take this as a compliment.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          And that’s It? Just going to run off again?

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=60GR3vNKHt8

        • TheNuszAbides

          run off again?

          that’s some richly delusional horseshit right there, coming from the guy who keeps leaving threads dangling with nothing resembling a coherent excuse.
          wait, is it time for another “blue collar chuckle”? do you keep to a bubble so tiny and petty that you can’t imagine the wearer of a different collar matching the comfort, salty wisdom or satisfaction of that chuckle? oh, that’s right – you ‘know’ epeeist’s ‘kind’. how could we forget?

        • TheNuszAbides

          you mean this is only the second time you’ve had circles run ’round your fantasy ‘logic’ shell-game? no wonder you’re having such difficulty convincing anyone but yourself of anything here.

        • TheNuszAbides

          That man and his pride died in the baptism of fire

          suuuuuure, sparky. that explains your taking credit for something that didn’t actually happen outside of your imagination … then after being quoted, changing your tune and attributing the fantasy ‘victory’ to … ah, the pattern does hold, i’ll give you that. it’s just that it’s only good for maintaining your wank … maybe for fooling your kids into avoiding some genuinely interesting questions while pretending to discover – sorry, “follow” – some flimsy abstractions superficially resembling answers.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I have edited that last response but am confident it is complete. Before you respond please take the time to understand it. You are the only one here that I am confident can understand it, and the only one I know that MUST respond.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsbLEyNRz64

        • Ignorant Amos

          Croydon beckon’s am afraid.

        • epeeist

          It is self referential just like the concept of the Trinity and cannot be demonstrated

          You mean the trinity that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Amusing that you want to argue for logic elsewhere but want to discard it in this case.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Insert hearty blue-collar chuckle. Not at all… It’s why I told you that your challenge is futile. I was playing you for a fool. The trinity diversion was to get you to demonstrate vociferously that self reference cannot be intuited and must be understood by faith so that you could not claim it CAN be shown in the main argument.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pn7YiEEkKA

        • epeeist

          I was playing you for a fool.

          In future I will take into account that you want to win rather than attempt to elicit the truth.

          In fact it looks like a desperate attempt at something we have touched on before, you simply want to rationalise away anything that has the remotest chance of undermining your faith. In other words you are intellectually dishonest.

        • MNb

          Quelle surprise.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          Not so. Because if you noticed, I edited the original language in one or both of those replies. I realized that I was taking credit for outsmarting you. But this was my ego attempting to re-insert itself.

          The truth of the matter is, intelligent as I may or may not be, I am not nearly THAT clever. I did not realize it was a diversion. In fact, I have been very lost (but not utterly) several times during this exchange. But somewhere in here, logic himself knew what he was doing.

          I am praying my way through epeeist, pure and simple. Remember, I am a truck driver. I am following Logos, the spotless lamb represented by my little dog I mentioned. I am not inventing Logos.

          I am very curious to see where it leads.

        • TheNuszAbides

          beat that ego rather severely (think Paul)

          if Psaul had ever taken a real ego-beating (let alone a self-inflicted one) he would never have gotten away with hijacking whatever it might have originally been that [Jesus] might have originally unveiled.

        • TheNuszAbides

          I am not inventing Logos but following

          following is certainly what you’re doing. your pretensions as to what/who and how are the gnarly, unfortunate bits.

        • TheNuszAbides

          I operate on a ‘need to know’ basis.

          that just might win the Preciously Convenient Excuse lifetime ‘achievement’ award. judges?

        • TheNuszAbides

          But you have to apologize to him.

          … or else? not that we can’t guess – like you demonstrate time and time again, you aren’t particularly clever.

        • Ryan M

          What would it mean to “Prove logic”? A proof in a generic first order propositional language for some P would be a derivation of P such that P is entailed by the set of propositions in the derivation. e.g. a derivation with premises Q, R and S is a proof of P when {Q, R, S} entails P. Let’s label such a logic as “L”. What would it mean to “prove L”? From my view, it makes no more sense to talk about proving logics than it makes sense to ask what makes deduction valid.

        • MNb

          Hence we need something independent: evidence.
          Given the fact that your computer works and programming is dependent on logic we can safely conclude that logic works as well. Unfortunately that has only been understood since 200+ years – in a time that christianity in general became heavily criticized by rather godless people. So this

          “This principle, that became crucial to objective science, was taken from the new testament”
          is bullocks. Were this correct christians would have understood it at last in the early 2nd Century. That would have saved us lots of religious wars, including the Crusades. In other words: you fail because there is no continuity. It’s as big a failure as saying that modern democracy was taken from Athens.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I like the way Paul Davies puts it too. Might interest you… but I have my doubts about that.
          https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html

        • MR

          If I’ve learned one thing from apologists, it’s that God is not a God of reason.

        • TheNuszAbides

          it’s a god of nothing and everything. it’s a god of whatever the cheerleaders want to attribute with no actual need for logic, to stuff into the umbrella of its ludicrously incoherent personhood.

        • adam

          “People are controlled by suggestion and not given the tools of critical analysis.”

          Of course they are given the tools of critical analysis,

          But they’ve been convinced that IGNORNACE is GREATER than Science.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6fdb39aadd75100b6a42a22589cc237e66125efb7c16def734b5dcc49a03caaa.jpg

        • Kodie

          What the fuck are you talking about? You said you were going to post less videos but you didn’t, and now you go back and edit the post to tell me about why you have to post more videos! I am reporting you for spamming. It’s obnoxious and defeats your arguments even more than your words. You can try to rationalize this lazy habit you have, but it’s just rude and inconsiderate and nobody is watching your videos, I promise you.

        • al kimeea

          what is truly shocking is grownups still take the Holey Buybull seriously

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          And in the spirit of What I said a moment ago, forgive me, but this illustrates my point so well. Great movie. If you haven’t seen it do do. Inhuman enemies are real, but they take the form of suggestion and ideas. And we’re being slaughtered.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c9nuPaSVOac

        • Kodie

          No. If you’re only posting in this thread, we’re good now.

        • MR

          It’s a verse to keep people from thinking.

        • MNb

          Thanks for demonstrating that you reject science.
          The funny thing though is that your quote applies to yourself. It can been clearly seen that the god derived from the Cosmological Argument does play dice, so you are without excuse.

        • TheNuszAbides

          I understand completely.

          it’s cute that your condescending cautions to others not to overstep in their claims or suppositions have been so heavily salted with funnies like that. though it’s hardly in question that you appear to think you follow up with something that feels to you like an affirming ‘demonstration’.

          It is exactly the same …

          [inacurrate] x [redundant] weak-sauce for emphasis. Not Even Wrong.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Let’s take the Copenhagen interpretation seriously for the sake of argument. What it is really saying is that a quantum particle existed eternally.

      Eternally as in forever? I don’t think it existed before the Big Bang.

      Logic tells me that the reason WLC says tha t something cannot come into being uncaused is that it would be the antithesis of science. It would be ‘magic’. And as WLC has said, this is common sense.

      And yet it happens. So much for WLC’s common sense.

      If I accept the Copenhagen interpretation I must accept on faith that electrons pop into existence from a source we call nothing.

      No faith required. And they don’t come from nothing.

      We’re not talking about what they come from; we’re talking about the cause. Or lack of cause.

      But we can never mean by that ‘nothing’ in the strict philosophical sense.

      I remember WLC mocking Krauss (I believe) for saying that the universe could come from nothing when his nothing was a quantum vacuum or the laws of physics or something else that was not strictly nothing. He mentioned the “philosopher’s nothing” (absolutely nothing).

      Uh, yeah—the philosophers don’t have much to add at the frontier of physics, but thanks for trying.

      But how is that in any way superior (in evidential terms) to others who find logical gronds to believe (whether they prefer it or not, and some do not) that it is more tenable to observe the universe from the philosophical position of, ‘I am that I am?

      Because if evidential terms are important to you, you should follow the science.

      that suggests to me that theism has the high ground.

      Since theism can’t even agree on the number of god(s) or their names, I don’t think theism has graduated from the playpen, sorry.

      • Ignorant Amos

        It can’t be demonstrated that there has been a philosophers nothing…why can’t they get it?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Your attack on philosophers makes clear that you don’t understand philosophy. QED

        • Ignorant Amos

          In all probability, yer right.

      • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

        You either cherry picked my response or started working on this reply yesterday before I made a couple edits (also yesterday) to make my original point clear. I am more than happy to assume my editing is at fault. So my apologies for any confusion.

        I am going to go back to my original response as edited starting with a quote from your article.

        Bob writes:

        “The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics (there are other interpretations, but this one may be the most popular among physicists) says that some events at the quantum level have no cause. For example, when thorium-234 naturally decays into protactinium-234, the nucleus emits an electron. The electron wasn’t in the nucleus before, and it had no cause. The universe at the beginning of the Big Bang might have also been a cause-less quantum particle.”

        Quoting myself:

        “Let’s take the Copenhagen interpretation seriously for the sake of argument. If we extend the interpretation to the universe as you suggested, what you are really saying is that a quantum particle existed eternally, which is another way of saying it requires no explanation or evidence.

        And this brings us to your current response…

        Eternally as in forever? I don’t think it existed before the Big Bang.

        You and I both understand (presumably) that the term ‘before’ is not applicable if space-time does not yet exist. Please explain how you think it DID exist. I would love to hear how you articulate causation apart from spatial and temporal relations.

        I thought I made it perfectly clear (that means intelligibly so) that the implications of the Copenhagen interpretation are far worse than our inability to articulate causation at the frontier of a beginning.

        Quoting myself:

        That suggestion is the converse of the Kalam argument. ‘Something that always existed does not require a cause.’ It smacks of ‘nature of the gaps’ convenience the same way invoking God can when not argued properly.

        If something is not preexisting eternally, are you prepared to accept that something can come into being from literal nothing? Or, when you say nothing, do you really mean that it is only nothing in terms of our inability to describe it in temporal and spatial terms?

        You have two options that I am aware of. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken:

        1. Something can come from nothing.
        If you admit this, you can retract your assertion elsewhere that science is superior to theology because of its evidential power.

        2. Something indescribable by spatial and temporal terms exists eternally. But its much worse than that. We cannot assign character with our grammar either. We cannot assume it to be a thing by failing to be ultra objective with our language. Bias is a sneaky devil. It might be a mind.

        If you admit this (and you have no logical choice) you can now understand Robert Jastrow’s point about scientists climbing the final mountain of their ignorance, only to find a happy band of theologians waiting for them.

        Congratulations are in order. Often, objective truth is not something we really wanted to learn. It is often undesirable. But that only does away with the genetic fallacy that everyone comes to God because they are desperate or want to. In fact typically, God is the lion hunting us, Logos being ever so skilled in trapping its frightened prey.

        Don’t take me to be overstating the case. You still have an out. As always, you are free to reject it by ‘waving your hand’, the way you claim theologians do. Just impose your free power of will. Close your eyes and plug your ears in the intellectual sense.

        And yet it happens.

        What happens Bob? Things pop into existence out of nothing?

        As I said, Logic tells me that the reason WLC says that something cannot come into being uncaused is that it would be the antithesis of science. It would be ‘magic’.

        I thought you didn’t believe in magic Bob, but science?

        No faith required. And they don’t come from nothing.
        We’re not talking about what they come from; we’re talking about the cause. Or lack of cause.

        That is what I already covered, that It smacks of ‘nature of the gaps’ convenience the same way invoking God can when not argued properly.

        You cannot stand on science as an evidential platform apart from some kind of explanation. If not an empirical and mathematical explanation, at least provide a logical explanation as theology and multiverse theory does by admitting an eternal something

        I remember WLC mocking Krauss (I believe) for saying that the universe could come from nothing when his nothing was a quantum vacuum or the laws of physics or something else that was not strictly nothing. He mentioned the “philosopher’s nothing” (absolutely nothing).
        Uh, yeah—the philosophers don’t have much to add at the frontier of physics, but thanks for trying.

        Now I am confused. Earlier you denied that you inferred something eternal. Due to my poor articulation before edit?

        Btw, I find the quantum vacuum fascinating. I tend to read the first lines of Genesis (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and void, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters…) as a quantum vacuum. And since I interpret the light to be order and intelligibility (intellectual light as opposed to visual) God next imparts initial order with the command, “Let their be light”.

        This is of course conjecture on my part. But the coherence of it I find striking and plausible. That is especially so considering that an objective observer would be required to give definition to a quantum state, at least as some particle physicists (like John Polkinghorne) interpret quantum physics.

        Because if evidential terms are important to you, you should follow the science.

        HaHa… I’ll repeat what I said at the top of this response. “I would love to hear how you articulate causation apart from spatial and temporal relations.”

        Since theism can’t even agree on the number of god(s) or their names, I don’t think theism has graduated from the playpen, sorry.

        LOL, I did not realize that scientific thought was monolithic. How many quantum interpretations are there Bob? And how many universes in multiverse theory? What is the scientific consensus on consciousness? What is energy?

        I know you can find your own videos. If this were a private exchange I might dispense with them. You don’t have to watch them if you don’t want. Only if you wish to listen so that you can respond intelligently and not simply react. The reason I DO listen and read you carefully, is because I want to make sure I am responding, so that others who really want to understand (it only takes 1) will have something substantial to consider for themselves.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IByCl_enr4A

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You either cherry picked my response or started working on this reply yesterday before I made a couple edits

          I likely used the original version as sent to me by Disqus.

          Please explain how you think it DID exist.

          The quarks may not have existed before the Big Bang.

          I would love to hear how you articulate causation apart from spatial and temporal relations.

          My focus has been on QM rejecting the need for a cause.

          If something is not preexisting eternally, are you prepared to accept that something can come into being from literal nothing?

          Why? Is that the option we’re left with?

          I think I’ll let the experts tell me that.

          If you admit this, you can retract your assertion elsewhere that science is superior to theology because of its evidential power.

          Science delivers. What has theology taught us about reality? I can think of nothing.

          What happens Bob? Things pop into existence out of nothing?

          Uh, no. Things come into existence without a cause.

          As I said, Logic tells me that the reason WLC says that something cannot come into being uncaused is that it would be the antithesis of science. It would be ‘magic’.

          Haven’t we been over this? WLC is wrong.

          Btw, I find the quantum vacuum fascinating. I tend to read the first lines of Genesis (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and void, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters…) as a quantum vacuum.

          Why would you do that except to shoehorn your unevidenced religious preconceptions into science so you can say, “Oh, yeah—I knew that”?

          We’ve learned zero science from the Bible. Kinda of a shame that God couldn’t put a few things in there to help us out. Like a recipe for soap, for example.

          “Since theism can’t even agree on the number of god(s) or their names, I don’t think theism has graduated from the playpen, sorry.”
          LOL, I did not realize that scientific thought was monolithic. How many quantum interpretations are there Bob? And how many universes in multiverse theory? What is the scientific consensus on consciousness? What is energy?

          Make your point clearly. I don’t have the patience to figure out what clever thing you’re trying to say.

          I know you can find your own videos.

          I don’t object to including videos; I’m just saying that if there’s a gem of an argument in here, I’m not going to waste more time with Lennox to find it. Share it with us, if it’s there.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

          I am satisfied with this response because of the contrast it creates between us, thanks.

        • TheNuszAbides

          You either cherry picked my response or started working on this reply
          yesterday before I made a couple edits (also yesterday) to make my
          original point clear.

          well, at least you didn’t try to unring that bell a second time … oh crap, have i spoken too late too soon?

      • MR

        No faith required.

        I was pondering the faith thing this morning. I had a dear friend who had a rare form of cancer. Prayed for God to heal her. She flew out regularly to California for special cancer treatments and did everything the doctor recommended. She changed her environment, exercised regularly, eliminated stress, completely changed her diet and lifestyle. Praise the Lord, she was pronounced cancer free after a few years! God got the glory, of course, even if the doctors did all the work. One of my takeaways was:

        She had faith in God, but she trusted the doctors more.

  • Grigori Schmidt

    Everything that begins to exist has the cause

    So we can divide things into two sets:
    1)Things that begin to exist
    2)Things that do not begin to exist

    If there is only one thing in the set 2 (God) it is same as postulating God: everything that begins to exist, except God, has the cause. So it is begging the question
    ===

    Why there is something rather than nothing?

    Because there is only one way for “Nothing” to exist, but innumerable ways for something to exist, so even according to Theory of Probabilities, there is a bigger chance for something rather than for nothing

    • Ignorant Amos

      When was there ever nothing?

      • Grigori Schmidt

        I will answer “Yes”. Because if there was no “Nothing” then word “something” becomes meaningless. If something exists then nothing has to exist

        • Ignorant Amos

          So when was there ever nothing?

        • Grigori Schmidt

          I do not know. Maybe simultaneously with something

        • Ignorant Amos

          Don’t be ridiculous.

          Give me an example of nothing?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw9z6VYaUcg

        • Grigori Schmidt

          I have nothing to give as an example

        • Ignorant Amos

          I know

        • Bob Jase

          Isn’t it amazing that believers argue that “something can’t come from nothing” is evidence for god when, even if that was an valid explaination, it would show that something came from something else, not from nothing?

        • epeeist

          If something exists then nothing has to exist

          Existence is not a predicate.

        • Grigori Schmidt

          Why not? If there is no “nothing” so how can we talk about “something”?

        • epeeist

          Why not?

          Because a predicate is a property of an object, thus:

          ∃xPx – there is an x with property P

          If an object is a bundle of properties then what does it mean if we say that x does not have the property of existence? What objects do not possess the property?

        • Ignorant Amos

          No “nothing” must be something…}8O)~

        • Greg G.

          You have that backwards. If there was never a something, then “nothing” is meaningless.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      I believe Krauss and/or Stenger have argued that nothing is unstable and so will eventually decay into something.

  • TheNuszAbides

    okay, i’m not much for banhammer rallies, i heartily endorse Bob’s Thousand Flowers approach in general, and i have been enjoying the persistent multitude of takedowns as Keyboard Martyr Lockett continues to flex his fantasy mind-muscles … but I have to assume there’s somewhere in the vast emptiness of Web where this kind of ego-wank (even granting that he can’t see how wanktastic it is!) is grounds for immediate dismissal:

    I do not speak in my own name, but the name of objective power

    no wonder professors allegedly don’t like talking to him, amirite?

    • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett

      Feeling desperate to turn the light out?

      Pretty loud talker for a man hiding behind a moniker aren’t You? And to think that you of all people suggested I was only brave behind a computer screen and wouldn’t say them to your face. You won’t even use your real face behind a computer screen. Coward.

      Do you know what made Doc Holiday so fearless? He already KNEW he was dead. He had nothing to fear as you do.

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iL3GSaLvE4I

      I don’t agree with Bob. But at least he is a man. You’re not even that. No bluffs, no threats, no passive aggression. Just straight truth. I have nothing to lose. Whatever you got, bring it. I’m your huckleberry.

      • TheNuszAbides

        aww, look, i touched a nerve with Honest Humble Bob.

        i don’t actually know what’s brave in any sense about the behind-a-computer-screen part, so that was weirdly-phrased apart from missing the mark of my actual thoughts, and i sure as shit never claimed any kind of bravery on this page or in the context of beliefs or expressing them, though we can get into deconstructing the comfy cozy bubble of any number of wishful-thinking brands of theism if that’s really your bag (hint: it pretty obviously isn’t, but you may surprise us with an extended capacity for genuine thought-experiment yet).
        you fronted like a Divine Warrior for Truth and Honesty and gave a nod to martyr mojo, so big surprise, you get a nickname from someone who enjoys mocking people who proudly fail to make sense. infer all you want about what i’m really saying behind all my snakey words, but your accurate appraisal vs. straw-man (vs. sheer nincompoopery) track record on this page is pretty shabby already.

        i don’t care about your name or your face or your handle (or anyone else’s) on this page as anything more than referents to avoid confusion as to who typed what, and it’s hilarious you [perhaps] care about mine or think anyone should. the main point of this blog, as far as i can see, is Quality of Ideas. you pretend to understand the appeal to authority so well, so there’s some hope the significance of this may sink in, but yeah, not holding my breath that you actually take the discussion (or any of several well-placed burns from most of the regulars) seriously when you already let clear logic and disdain from MNb get so dramatically under your skin.

        i certainly don’t give a fraction of a flying fuck how you define “a man” either, given the sad errors you’ve scattered while traipsing through these fields as though you’re sowing fresh seeds of Amazeballz SuperTruth. your opinion of me or my integrity couldn’t be less relevant to your poverty of critical faculties, imagination or perspective. i can’t wait to see what your private universe’s model of “a woman” is – no, actually, i can wait forever for that, pretty sure you’ll just make shabby excuses for another mountain of ideas you prefer not to pay attention to. but hey, prove me, or anyone else here, wrong anytime. we’ve been waiting for days and days, like I said.

        there’s plenty still dangling on threads you forgot about or decided you couldn’t be bothered with that you still haven’t dealt with, though you make it kind of obvious that you repeatedly convince yourself (or fancy that God assures you during thoughtprayer breaks or whatever) that you dealt with it all with the utmost dignity and aplomb and humility and honesty and whoa-these-pointy-heads-never-saw-it-comin’ erudition et al. you could muster. or something.

        in a life which i’m sure is unique enough as such things go, you’ve clearly made great strides in patting yourself on the back yet thinking you’re dispelling all the smugness by “giving the glory to God” *cough*quaint tribal-signal shell-game*cough*. your humility is in hock to a monster, your modesty is false. good luck actually getting over yourself from day to day. (and no, don’t guess wrong again by inferring that that’s me saying “I got over myself, neener neener” because even those of us who don’t believe in our ‘souls’ being ‘saved’ by supernatural forces can fully comprehend that education and self-improvement and checking our hubris are never-ending prospects.)

        • Michael Neville

          education and self-improvement and checking our hubris are never-ending prospects.

          One of our in-house physicists just informed me that I need to do some serious studying if I’m to get any sort of handle on quantum physics so the education and self-improvement are coming. I’ve just checked my hubris and it’s ticking right along, letting me feel full of myself all the time.

        • Ignorant Amos

          aww, look, i touched a nerve with Honest Humble Bob.

          Honest, my arse!

          I see Robert is still trotting out the same refuted bullshit…

          Do you know what made Doc Holiday so fearless? He already KNEW he was dead. He had nothing to fear as you do.

          …what an ignorant stupid, knuckle dragging, dishonest, douche bag.

  • Sophotroph

    Just to pick a nit, but the electron in that first example didn’t come from nowhere. It was part of a neutron. The Copenhagen interpretation (or some interpretation of that) can be taken to mean in this case that the event of the electron emission had no strict cause.

    Disclaimer: I am very much not a physicist, so if one does come along, please go easy on however I may have mangled the explanation.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Agreed. I believe that from a quark standpoint, it’s only a rearrangement.

      The example of an electron leaving the nucleus is about as good an example as I can find for something “beginning to exist” (which is the terminology they seem determined to use).