God Is Love—Does That Make Any Sense?

rain lovers

Christians delight in telling us that “God is love” (1 John 4:16), but what does this even mean? We can compare this to other New Testament declarations that God is truthful, faithful, and just, but these are adjectives. This doesn’t help us understand God’s relationship to love, which is a noun. We can find “God is light” (equating God to a noun), but this sounds like a metaphor.

Is this phrase saying that “God” and “love” are synonyms? That makes no sense. Love didn’t destroy Sodom and Gomorrah or drown everyone in a global flood.

Or maybe the goal was to assign love as one of God’s properties. Why not then say, “God is loving”? And is love to God what love is to humans? If so, how can these relationships be equivalent when we wouldn’t say “Love is one of Mary’s properties”? No, we’d simply say, “Mary is loving” or “Mary is a loving person” or something similar.

Never mind. The original epistle was written in Greek, which gives Christians some ambiguity to play with as they create their own interpretation. Endless articles have been written about how fabulously loving God is, and I don’t much care how Christians spin “God is love.” What’s more interesting is the tangled tales apologists weave as they improvise their fantasy world.

Love and the Trinity

Peter Kreeft uses love to defend the bizarre idea of the Trinity. He argues that the Trinity is actually an asset to grounding this love question.

If God is not a Trinity, God is not love. For love requires three things: a lover, a beloved, and a relationship between them. If God were only one person, he could be a lover, but not love itself. The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father, and the Spirit is the love proceeding from both, from all eternity. If that were not so, then God would need us, would be incomplete without us, without someone to love. Then his creating us would not be wholly unselfish, but selfish, from his own need.

So Kreeft imagines the three members of the Trinity loving each other for the eternity before the universe was created. The only thing in existence was the Trinity, but how would that work? There was no development, progress, or even change of any kind, so what would love mean in this static environment? The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit might as well have been marble statues. Where’s the love?


See also: William Lane Craig Misrepresents Christianity and Insults Islam


Keep these statues in mind as we think about how love works with humans. We’ll sacrifice for our beloved. We’ll forgive our beloved’s errors and trust in the same courtesy in return. We value a loving relationship because it is temporary and uncertain. We contrast loving relationships and feelings of loving bliss with the far greater number of ordinary relationships and periods of time.

None of this is possible for the omniscient, invulnerable, unchanging Trinity. So tell me again how “love” could describe the relationship between the persons of the Trinity. (More here.)

William Lane Craig piles on

WLC has a similar take. Here he’s favorably comparing Christianity’s Trinitarian concept against Islam’s strict monotheism:

If I am right that love is of the very essence and nature of God then when there was nothing (when there were no human beings to love) then whom did God love? There isn’t anybody else to love other than God. . . . And this is, I think, a very good argument for a plurality of persons within God over against Unitarianism which says that God is just one person. . . . A Unitarian God cannot do that; cannot be essentially loving. This gives, I think, a very persuasive reason for thinking that there is a plurality of persons within God himself so that within the godhead there are eternal love relationships that have existed forever and now are manifested toward human beings with the creation of the world.

Uh huh. Show me that you got that from the Bible instead of your imagination.

“Good” emotions like love and compassion and “bad” emotions like jealousy and anger each have their role. We categorize them as good and bad simply because we typically see too little of the good ones and too much of the bad ones.

The palette of human emotions that we have exists simply because it provided survival benefit during our evolutionary path. I’m sure Kreeft and Craig want to imagine that they’re grounded in something less arbitrary than evolution. They have no good reason to say that or to elevate love to the pinnacle of emotions. The naturalistic explanation is sufficient.

Why imagine that love is that big a deal from a cosmic perspective? We think it is, but that’s our evolutionary programming talking. Our emotions and morals make sense to us because of evolution, but they’re in no sense objectively the best. If we were Romulans or Vulcans or Klingons or maybe even Spartans, we’d think differently. Maybe honor would be at the top if we were Klingons, or maybe respect for wisdom if Vulcans.

We can’t even agree among ourselves what the best moral actions are. Why would our morals be universally correct?

It’s like the fable of the blind men and the elephant. Humans are like the guy who grabs a leg and says, “An elephant is like a tree.” Okay, from that perspective, it is. And for humans, love might be the pinnacle of human emotional expression. But let’s not take it any farther than that. In a universe that might have millions of independently evolved intelligent species, what is obvious to us is just a relative interpretation.

Concluded in part 2 with more nutty, groundless speculation on love by Peter Kreeft.

We have just enough religion to make us hate,
but not enough to make us love one another.

— Jonathan Swift

 Image credit: t.germeau, flickr, CC

""Faith is 90% courage."Agreed.Crossing a busy road when blind folded is also 90% courage.This guy ..."

Daniel’s End Times Prediction: a Skeptical ..."
"The Godfather is ranked #3 in the all time greatest movie list by the American ..."

What Makes a Good Prophecy (and ..."
"If you can dismiss theology just with "it doesn't make sense" everybody can. Your explanation ..."

What Makes a Good Prophecy (and ..."
"The laws of logic are part of our natural reality. You yet have to show ..."

William Lane Craig Replies to My ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • epeeist

    Something I wrote long ago:

    God is Love

    Rather than just dismissing this let us subject it to some analysis.

    The OP obviously thinks that “Love” is concrete rather than abstract, but since this may be difficult to grasp then, for illustrative purposes only, let us replace it with something that we can get a handle on. “God is Laphroaig” will probably do. Now it is obvious that since god is Laphroiag then he can’t be Talisker and “God is Johnny Walker” would plainly be ridiculous. The only way that god could be both Laphroaig and Talisker is if he were some kind of composed class of the two, e.g “God is whisky”, or to make it more abstract “God is ardent spirit” (this is of course not the kind of spirit that theists generally seem to think of god as). To do that in the terms that the OP states we would have to rephrase his proposition with something like “God is emotion”.

    Indeed, why should we not take it as such, after all Jesus after all cursed Chorazon and its inhabitants, a reflection of hatred of those who would not follow his teachings. And as I have pointed out in the past god is responsible for the creation of the Loa-Loa worm, what emotion would one assign to someone who could do such a thing? Finally, given that the only signs god seems to provide these days are dubious faces in Marmite jar lids or the temporary cure for a single case of Parkinson’s disease then perhaps indifference or ennui might be the current emotion he is feeling towards his creation.

    If “Love” is concrete then presumably “Hate” and “Ennui” are also concrete? Or is the OP mistaken, is he trying to reify something that is simply an attribute we can only apply to a relationship?

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      I don’t know why, but the second line of your post makes me want to sing:

      God is Love!
      Baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me, no more

    • Kevin K

      “God is Love” is a category error.

      • epeeist

        “God is Love” is a category error.

        Absolutely.

        And yet another way to point out the sheer nonsense of the sentence is to treat the copula as transitive.

  • adam
    • robbes

      Love me or fear me. I don’t care. Just don’t ignore me! And how ’bout a little appreciation along the way?! I didn’t have to create the heavens and the earth, you know. I did it cause I thought it would be a cool thing whereby you could walk around naked in an enchanted garden and pick fruit whenever you’re hungry. I even provided you with a little playmate so you could explore eroticism. What was not to like? But no, like a couple of naughty children, you two went and broke the one rule I had! Of that one tree in the center of the garden, don’t eat, I said. Just one fucking tree I told you to leave alone. But did you obey? Nope. You hearkened unto the voice of that curvy, long-haired creature I gave you for sex, not for counsel. And look where it got you. Couldn’t obey just one damn rule…Jeesh!

  • Greg G.

    If I am right that love is of the very essence and nature of God then when there was nothing (when there were no human beings to love) then whom did God love?

    I like how you bring up the bad emotions after that.

    Exodus 34:14 (NRSV)14 (for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God).

    When there were no human beings, who was God jealous of?

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

      God was jealous of all those other gods. Y’know–the ones that he created.

      For some reason, Kreeft is eager to show that God isn’t dependent on humans for anything. The Trinity had plenty of love before teh humans, thank you very much. But what about the jealousy? I think you’ve nicely skewered Kreeft’s logic–how could God be jealous of anything (gods, say) before he created them. He’s dependent on something else for his jealousy.

      For some reason, that dependence is really bad, according to Kreeft. There’s so much to be embarrassed about within Christian thought, and yet he’s worried about God’s dependence on someone else. Weird.

      • katiehippie

        Maybe god created a bunch of other gods before he created us and found out that wasn’t such a good idea so he looked in a mirror and created that instead.

      • Kevin K

        If god isn’t dependent on humans for anything, then there would be no need for god to create humans.

        • Rudy R

          And Yahweh cannot be a perfect being, because He felt the need to create humans to share is love.

        • C_Alan_Nault

          He wanted toys to play with.

      • adam
    • richardrichard2013

      is god hater ?
      for example does god hate the action of stabbing, punching and kicking?
      does god take out wrath on jesus in loving way when he transfers all the stabbing, kicking , raping and punching on jesus christ?

    • Bob Jase

      In a trinity someone always gets more attention than the other two.

      • Greg G.

        Maybe that’s why the jealous god had Jesus crucified.

  • grasshopper

    My dad really really loved me, so when he beat me with a prickly plant he always said “Thistle hurt me more than it hurts you.”

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

      Ouch. I think I’m hurt more by your pun.

    • Bob Jase

      You must have beed quite a burrdon.

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

    (How are you notified that it was spam? And why does it work the second time if it rejected you the first?)

    This seems to imply that nothing can exist in a static environment.

    No, I’m saying that nothing can change in a static environment.

    In other words, things could be happening in the
    particular situation or environment, but they are all in synch/in balance/predictable.

    Right, but that’s not happening with the Trinity before the creation, right? There is no change since there is no need/desire for change.

    Or am I misunderstanding the conditions before Creation? I’m sure Kreeft would have some song and dance.

    In terms of what people value, this is not wholly true.

    I’m saying that this often characterizes love for humans. “Love” is defined in human terms. If God does it differently, then that’s not love.

    “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness…”

    Right—that’s when proto-Judaism was polytheistic.

    I don’t agree. This seems to be equating “good” with scarcity and “bad” with plenty.

    Let me begin by stating that this is just my view on things.

    I’m not equating; rather, I’m saying that we almost always could do with more “good” emotions and less “bad.”

    But, along with emotions, I would think you could say the same about thought, reason and logic.

    In many cases, yes, we have too little of those as well.

    “A possible answer could be that the god of the bible is a
    lot more like us than Christians think. Specifically, like humans, this god
    could be immensely vindictive, sadistic, lazy, but also could be immensely forgiving,
    loving, active. The “all-good” characterization of god by Christians could be a
    misunderstanding or a lack of full understanding of the ir god and their god’s
    “goodness”.
    In other words, this god could be like us in our ups and downs, just
    immensely more extremely/powerfully so.

    I agree. I think this mega-person idea of a god makes a lot of sense as an early version of a god. Increase his strength—like Hercules. Increase his wisdom—like Solomon. Increase his generalship—like Alexander. Put them all together, and you have Yahweh 1.0.

    • skl

      Immediately after trying to post, this appeared at the top:
      “Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by Cross Examined.”

      Then, when I clicked on my icon to see my other comments, I saw my
      post at the top with a red block that said “Detected as Spam”.

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

        Thanks for explaining how it works from your side.

        On my side, I never get any notification that your comments are in some sort of holding pen, waiting for me to approve them, FYI.

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      Right—that’s when proto-Judaism was polytheistic.

      There’s also the fact that we aren’t three distinct entities in one, so any attempt to use that line to support the trinity necessitates a failure on god’s part.

    • skl

      “Right, but that’s not happening
      with the Trinity before the creation, right? There is no change since there is
      no need/desire for change.”

      Right, no change, like in a particular
      situation or environment where everything is in synch/in balance/predictable.

      “I’m saying that this often characterizes love for humans.
      “Love” is defined in human terms. If God does it differently, then that’s not
      love.”

      Rather, ‘then that’s not love in human terms.’ I think I may
      have addressed this in my point 6).

      >>Then God said, “Let us make man in our image,
      after our likeness…<>But, along with emotions, I would think you could
      say the same about thought, reason and logic.<<

      “In many cases, yes, we have too
      little of those as well.”

      But that’s again presuming that
      things which are relatively scarce are good. There is no “good” in evolution.

  • JustAnotherAtheist2

    As a skeptic

    Where is Inigo Montoya when you need him?

  • skl

    Third attempt (first two “Detected
    as Spam”].

    As a skeptic I took issue with a
    number of things here.

    1) “The only thing in existence was
    the Trinity, but how would

    that work? There was no development, progress, or even change of any kind, so

    what would love mean in this static environment?”

    This seems to imply that nothing can
    exist in a static environment. I don’t think that’s true.

    Also, one of the meanings of “static” could be ‘characterized

    by stasis or equilibrium.’ In other words, things could be happening in the

    particular situation or environment, but they are all in synch/in
    balance/predictable.

    2) “We value a loving relationship
    because it is temporary and uncertain.”

    In terms of what people value, this
    is not wholly true. Some

    things are valued largely because they are more lasting and certain.

    3) To the William Lane Craig quote
    about “a very good argument

    for a plurality of persons within God” you say “Uh huh. Show me that you got

    that from the Bible instead of your imagination.”

    He may have got it, at least in
    part, from bible passages such as

    “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our
    likeness…”

    4) ““Good” emotions like love
    andcompassion and “bad” emotions like jealousy and anger each have their role.
    We

    categorize them as good and bad simply because we typically see too little of

    the good ones and too much of the bad ones.”

    I don’t agree. This seems to be
    equating “good” with scarcity and “bad” with plenty.

    In which case, the emotion to have sex with animals or be a famous serial
    killer would be considered “good.”

    5) “The palette of human emotions
    that we have exists

    simply because it provided survival benefit during our evolutionary path.

    I’m sure Kreeft and Craig want to imagine that they’re grounded in something

    less arbitrary than evolution. They have no good reason to say that or to

    elevate love to the pinnacle of emotions. The naturalistic explanation is

    sufficient.”

    But, along with emotions, I would
    think you could say the same about thought, reason and logic.

    As well as about science and any sufficient explanations you think it might
    give.

    6) Lastly, to your more general
    point (“God Is Love—Does that Make any Sense?”),

    I’ll repeat a thought I posted here a couple days ago:

    “A possible answer could be that the god of the bible is a

    lot more like us than Christians think. Specifically, like humans, this god

    could be immensely vindictive, sadistic, lazy, but also could be immensely
    forgiving,

    loving, active. The “all-good” characterization of god by Christians could be a

    misunderstanding or a lack of full understanding of their god and their god’s

    “goodness”.

    In other words, this god could be like us in our ups and downs, just

    immensely more extremely/powerfully so.

    Like bipolar to the n-th degree.”

  • skl

    Bob,

    Could it be that when I edit a posted comment for
    spacing/readability it goes into “Detected as Spam” mode? I don’t think I’ve
    experienced this on other blogs.

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

      Disqus says that you have “Low Rep.” That probably enters into the equation somehow.

      It’s the label “spam” that makes no sense to me.

      • JustAnotherAtheist2

        FWIW, that’s exactly what happened to me when I first started using this site. Edits would get a comment coded as possible spam and then I’d have to wait a few hours before being able to post again.

      • skl

        “Low Rep” meaning what?

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

          Dunno. Maybe find a way to ask Disqus.

          Based on what JAA2 just said, maybe it’s the edits that are your problem. Suggestion: write your comments in an editor on your computer and then paste it into Disqus once you’re satisfied.

        • Susan

          “Low Rep” meaning what?

          I found this.

          =====

          Edit: Click on “this” The link doesn’t seem to be highlighted but it’s there.

          That your comments keep being identified as spam seems to contribute to your status low rep.

    • Greg G.

      The second post showed up.

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

      No idea, but if editing is the problem, the solution is obvious.

  • Castilliano

    This reminds me of a simple insight I had this week:
    Loving people don’t have a wrath that I need to be spared from.

    One would have to edit out most of Christian lore (including Hell, most of the OT, Revelation, & some of Jesus’ own words) to build a non-wrathful god. There’s no way to reconcile a biblical god with love, unless one can consolidate wrath with love while keeping the integrity of both.

    I’ll add this challenge I may have posted here before:
    Name a loving action done by Yahweh that didn’t involve killing or sparing.
    If Yahweh were love, this would not be a challenge. Oddly, Christians seem to default to Jesus sacrificing himself, which involves both killing & sparing…to avoid Yahweh’s punishment.

    Cheers

    • Michael Neville

      Yahweh strikes me more as an abusive parent than a loving father. According to the propaganda he kills people just because he can, he orders rape and genocide, condones slavery and tortures people for eternity because they pissed him off.

    • JustAnotherAtheist2

      Excellent challenge. Initial creation might be offered, but other examples are difficult to come up with. I may have to steal this. :)

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

      Loving people don’t have a wrath that I need to be spared from.

      Nicely stated. But give this to a Christian, and he’ll try to figure out some blather wherein they can salvage God as perfectly loving and yet a cruel hell-creating bastard, all at the same time. If you don’t get it, that’s your fault.

  • Otto

    ‘God is Love’…is a tautology. Do they really want to reduce God to a tautology?

    • Bob Jase

      Better than a slackology.

      • Otto

        Nice one Chip…

  • Phil Rimmer

    Why is Yahweh’s little menage a trois more loving than the Greek pantheon?

    WLC’s pathetic just-like-a-human, not-a-bit-like-a-human oscillating modes of argumentation are patently expedient and manipulative.

  • Bob Jase

    God is love as shown in an abusive relationship – “I love you, why do you keep making me hit you?”

  • epicurus

    Anyone ever heard this old saw?
    God is love
    Love is blind
    Ray Charles is blind
    Ray Charles is God.

    • Michael Neville

      An oldie but a goodie.

  • Benny S.

    William Lane Craig: “This gives, I think, a very persuasive reason for thinking that….”

    WLC’s reasoning (and not just in this particular instance) is also very persuasive in thinking that WLC continually creates a god from the image of man, which is a no-no for Christians.

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

      A recent hilarious one: WLC makes the heretical error of Partialism by using the analogy of a triangle (3 angles make up 1 whole) for the Trinity.

      And the guy has a doctorate in theology.

  • Sashineb

    Yeah, this buybull verse really shows a lot of love doesn’t it? “Then I HEARD THE LORD SAY to the other men, “Follow him through the city and show no mercy; have no pity! KILL THEM ALL – OLD AND YOUNG, GIRLS AND WOMEN AND LITTLE CHILDREN. Defile the Temple! Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told by the LORD.” (Ezekiel 9:5-7)

    • adam
      • C_Alan_Nault

        That’s from the old testament. The Christian ( new testament) view is probably different.

        Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 )

        Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 )

        OK,never mind. The lord loves slaves.

    • Murph

      See it’s interesting. For atheists this life is all they have but for most people throughout history death is not the end. The adults in that story no doubt deserved to die if you understood what they were doing. As for the children again, could it be that if God has them taken out of the world at least they would be spared eternally?

      • C_Alan_Nault

        ” For atheists this life is all they have but for most people throughout history death is not the end. ”

        Wrong. Unless you can prove there is something beyond this life, the best you can honestly claim is ” For atheists this life is all they have but for most people throughout history, they believe death is not the end.”.

        • Murph

          Well it’s hard to prove something if the other person isn’t open to evidence. What about NDE’s the peer reviewed type?

        • Michael Neville

          All NDEs show is the brain pukes up strange things when it’s oxygen starved. There’s the further point that Muslims’ NDEs tend to center around Allah and Hindus’ NDEs tend to center around the Trimūrti, the trinity of supreme divinity, whose individual members are Brahma the Creator, Vishnu the Preserver and Shiva the Destroyer.

        • Murph

          Not peer reviewed NDE’ s that confirm details that would otherwise be impossible for the individual to know. Scientifically verifiable ones which there are tons of examples.

        • Susan

          Scientifically verifiable ones which there are tons of examples

          For example?

        • Murph

          As The Handbook outlines, by 2005 dozens of studies involving nearly 3,500 subjects who reported having had NDEs had become material for some 600 scholarly articles. Many of these articles are in the Journal of Near-Death Studies, the IANDS house journal—which, the association proudly notes, is peer-reviewed.

        • Susan

          Please provide one.

        • Murph

          I’m not going to do ALL your work for you

        • Susan

          I’m not going to do ALL your work for you.

          It’s not my work. It’s your work.

          And you haven’t done any work so far.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOU made the positive claim.

          YOU are responsible to provide SPECIFIC evidence, not a bunch of worthless assertions.

        • Murph

          What do you need me to hold your hand or something?

        • Susan

          What do you need me to hold your hand or something?

          No. Just provide one. That should be easy. You suggest you have so many to choose from. Just one.

          I have no idea what “The Handbook” is.

          Please provide one.

        • Murph

          The Journal of Near Death studies has tons that are peer reviewed you can go read some for yourself. Be a big girl now.

        • Susan

          The Journal of Near Death studies has tons that are peer reviewed

          And what do they say?

          you can go read some for yourself.

          I have. I don’t see the connection. What connection do you think you’re making?

          Be a big girl now.

          Darnit. You are just here to troll.

          And just your first day on the internet. How sad.

        • Murph

          How about you read a peer reviewed study and argue against it, okay?

        • Susan

          How about you read a peer reviewed study and argue against it okay?

          How about you provide one?

        • epeeist

          How about you read a peer reviewed study

          So provide one already, one that you think stands up to scrutiny. The more that you avoid doing this the more we are going to think you are firing blanks.

        • TheNuszAbides

          argue against what? that people report emotionally charged anecdotes after NDEs? that they can MYSTERIOUSLY describe the sound of a piece of medical technology or the location of a dropped object? your imagination has been found wanting. your escapism is doing rather well, though. odd thing.

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

          The advantage of having a big pile of case histories of undefined value is that as soon as one gets rejected, you can say, “Oh, well never mind that. Just go find another one. There are plenty.” If it’s just a big pile of crappy reports, none of which would pass serious scientific scrutiny, then there is no good reason to see anything there.

          I think this is the point Susan is making. And you’re helping her make it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Journal of Near-Death Studies sponsored by the International Association for Near-Death Studies is the only periodical devoted specifically to explorations on the nature and scope of human consciousness as it is affected by the prospect or occurrence of clinical death. The journal publishes articles on near-death experiences and the empirical effects and theoretical implications of such events.

          What is it in the peer reviewed Journal of Near-Death Studies that you think it demonstrates?

          I’ve been interested in this for quite a number years now, particularly anticipating the results of the largest ever research project on the subject ever undertaken. The AWARE project led by Sam Parnia. We were promised some ground breaking results, what we got was a damp squib.

          Dr. Sam Parnia and his 4 year AWARE study produced what is basically squat. Just one dubious result from 4 years of research and thousands of cases. Seriously?

          Skeptical parapsychologist Caroline Watt likewise felt that the verified case didn’t demonstrate anything: “The one ‘verifiable period of conscious awareness’ that Parnia was able to report did not relate to this objective test. Rather, it was a patient giving a supposedly accurate report of events during his resuscitation. He didn’t identify the pictures, he described the defibrillator machine noise. But that’s not very impressive since many people know what goes on in an emergency room setting from seeing recreations on television.”

          Steven Novella, a clinical neurologist and assistant professor at Yale University School of Medicine, writes…

          The much anticipated AWARE study, designed to be the first large rigorous study of NDEs with objective outcomes that could potentially differentiate between the two major hypotheses, is essentially a bust. The study, for the main outcome measure for which it was designed, did not return as much data as was hoped, but the data it did return was entirely negative. This is a negative study.

          Parnia, in my opinion, is desperately trying to rescue the study by falling back on simply reporting subjective accounts of what people remember long after the event. This type of information is nothing new, and cannot objectively resolve the debate. The results are also completely unimpressive, perfectly consistent with what we would expect given what is already well documented about human memory.

          The only relevant part of the study is Parnia’s admission that the results may be due entirely to confabulation. Spinning of this study in the popular press as evidence of life after death is not justified.

          http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/aware-results-finally-published-no-evidence-of-nde/

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope.

          Just a link.

          If you can’t show it, you don’t have it.

        • C_Alan_Nault

          “Scientifically verifiable ones which there are tons of examples.”

          Tons of examples yet you neglected to present any examples.

        • Michael Neville

          So where’s the papers for “peer reviewed” NDEs?

          Steven Novella’s blog “NeuroLogica” [link] has this to say about NDEs:

          The much anticipated AWARE study, designed to be the first large rigorous study of NDEs with objective outcomes that could potentially differentiate between the two major hypotheses, is essentially a bust. The study, for the main outcome measure for which it was designed, did not return as much data as was hoped, but the data it did return was entirely negative. This is a negative study.

          Parnia, in my opinion, is desperately trying to rescue the study by falling back on simply reporting subjective accounts of what people remember long after the event. This type of information is nothing new, and cannot objectively resolve the debate. The results are also completely unimpressive, perfectly consistent with what we would expect given what is already well documented about human memory.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Show the studies or STFU and GTFO.

        • C_Alan_Nault

          “What about NDE’s the peer reviewed type?”

          All these ( as you put it) “peer reviewed” NDE’s haven’t resulted in any evidence for an afterlife. The only actual evidence they can present is that the person nearly died but was revived.

        • Murph

          Not true. The people are conscious so how do you deal with that?

        • Susan

          The people are conscious

          You mean they’re not dead?

          so how do you deal with that?

          Um.. they’re not dead?

          I’m not sure what you’re trying to support here.

        • Murph

          They’re bodies are dead but their souls are off doing other things that are corroborated in peer reviewed studies. That’s a significant problem for atheists

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Well, YOU certainly seem brain-dead, at least concerning spelling and grammar.

          All the medical evidence refutes you. A stopped heart doesn’t IMMEDIATELY mean a dead brain, and the body is pretty much designed to protect the brain at all costs, as otherwise the body itself will perish rapidly.

        • Bob Jase

          I wonder if Murph realizes that he’s claiming that everyone who experienced an NDE somehow was resurrected from the dead, something most Christians say only Jesus could do (aside from a few old-time Catholic saints).

        • Pofarmer

          That’s kinda sorta not what the peer reviewed literature I’m aware if indicates.

        • David Cromie

          I would love to see any peer reviewed scientific paper that shows convincingly that ‘souls’ exist. Please cite at least one.

        • adam

          “They’re bodies are dead but their souls are off doing other things that are corroborated in peer reviewed studies. ”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/637bfeb32fe76da958e611fbfd841246baeabb7b96c48f9a41144e316ea0e22d.jpg

        • C_Alan_Nault

          Deal with what? Can any of these people prove any of the things about an afterlife that they claim they experienced?

          They may sincerely believe that what they say they experienced actually happened ( they may even have actually experienced those things), but they cannot present any evidence to prove they happened.

          Anything someone claims they experienced but that they cannot prove they experienced is an anecdote,not evidence.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You just made an assertion.

          Provide your citations or STFU & GTFO.

        • Greg G.

          A person can have conscious thoughts while not completely, but unable to distinguish dream components from reality. One such phenomenon is called a waking dream.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          NDEs have been studied and determined to be, according to the best evidence, the effect of an oxygen-starved brain defending itself as well as possible from panic that would damage it worse.

        • MNb

          You christians like testimonies so much. I have had NDE’s twice (due to dangerously high fever) and possibly three times.
          There is no light at the end of that particular tunnel.

      • C_Alan_Nault

        “As for the children again, could it be that if God has them taken out of the world at least they would be spared eternally?”

        Not if you believe the Bible story. If you believe the Bible story, the children that god drowned were drowned ( along with their parents) because they were sinners.

        And the animals were ( apparently) collateral damage & were drowned not because they were sinners but because god was apparently too stupid to realize that he could have just snapped his metaphorical fingers & eliminate all the sinners from existence.

        • Murph

          But children aren’t accountable like adults and animals don’t think about death or ponder their existence they’re just machines

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So then your ‘god’ drowned the children, in great terror and pain, for NO REASON, as, per YOU, they were blameless.

      • Sashineb

        And who can prove that “death is not the end”? Just because something is written in a book does not mean it is the truth. Ever heard of fiction?? As for the children being killed by this terrorist god, when it is ever acceptable to harm or molest children? The only answer I can think of is NEVER. And I don’t care whose god said it’s OK, it is NOT OK to do so.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        So? Bad ideas from the past are refuted all the time.

        People used to believe that slavery was ok (with the ‘bibles’ concurrence), that women and children were property, that genocide was ok as long as ‘god’ ordered it.

        We’re growing out of all that nonsense, by IGNORING your book and learning from experience.

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

      Ah, you must just not be reading it right.

      Or something.

      • Sashineb

        Yeah, or maybe God is testing me …

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

    I think some literally believe that God is love, etc. in a Platonic essence sense. Heck, even Plato may have. I understand he thought that there was an all-good deity who embodied the Good. Of course, you have to buy both Platonism and theism for that.

  • Murph

    We have to consider that perhaps God flooding the world IS the most loving thing to do. Dan Barker admits this by saying he would rape little girls (see his debate with Kyle Butt) in order to save a multitude of people.

    If Dan Barker can be a situational ethicist why can’t God?

    • Otto

      Well let’s see. Dan is willing to hurt a few people if it means to save a lot of people. God apparently has to hurt a lot of people to save a few. If you don’t see the difference I am not sure what to say.

      • Murph

        That’s great you say that because you see what Christians believe is that Christ gave his life so that many might be saved. So evidently you think that’s a worthwhile concept

        • Otto

          No I don’t agree…because with the scenario you have presented far more will be harmed than saved. Not to mention many Christians are convinced even other Christians will not be saved.

        • Murph

          They’re not being harmed in the flood narrative they’re being judged. I don’t know of any Christian that says other Christians won’t be saved. Let me guess you’re having a really hard time understanding the concept of denominations?

        • Otto

          So children were being judged…so you contradict yourself when you say below that …”But children aren’t accountable like adults”.

          >>>”I don’t know of any Christian that says other Christians won’t be saved.”

          Really? I hear certain Christians say all the time that Catholics are worshiping the the anti-Christ Pope….and vice versa. That is only one example of many.

        • Murph

          Let me clarify. God is judging the adults but sparing the children by taking their life given they will live with him in eternity (again the children) . I don’t believe all Catholics are going to hell and conversly i dont believe all evangelicals will be in heaven. At the end of the day is the Catholic Christian or evangelical, etc. worshiping Christ?

        • Otto

          So God had to kill children to ‘save’ them….even though he is supposedly all powerful and would have any number of solutions available to him. Seems legit.

          >>>”I don’t believe all Catholics are going to hell and conversly i dont believe all evangelicals will be in heaven.”

          So you admit many people who are Christians will not be saved…which was exactly my point.

        • Murph

          Well if they’re dillusional that’s not my fault or God’s. If someone claims to be Napolean that doesn’t mean they are necessarily. People get into Christianity for all kinds of reasons and not always the right ones.

        • Otto

          So I guess you are able to judge what makes a delusional Christian…just like those Christians who disagree with you think they are able to judge you. Par for the course.

        • Murph

          Well no there’s room for theological errors that’s just silly to think otherwise. But the New Testament is crystal clear about what it means to be saved and how to be saved.

        • Otto

          What you consider a theological error and what other Christian think are a theological errors are in opposition. If the New Testament is so crystal clear how come so many Christians can not agree on that point?

        • Murph

          Why do all MLB teams agree to the core rules but all the teams approach the game differently?

        • Otto

          But that’s the point…not all Christians agree on the core rules…it is not even close.

        • Murph

          Oh okay. All Christians agree that Jesus alone saves. That’s undisputed

          All Christians believe in the worship of Christ
          All Christians believe that God is good
          All Christians believe that forgiveness of sin is only through Christ

          Should I continue?

        • Otto

          Through works…or faith…or is it a combination?

        • Murph

          Faith alone that’s standard. Christians don’t believe you have to work to be saved

        • Otto

          That isn’t true…that isn’t what the Catholic Church teaches.

        • Murph

          That’s their problem. It’s plain as day in Scripture.

        • Otto

          They would say the same.

        • Murph

          But you see that doesn’t change what’s true does it? That’s the great thing about truth is it exists regardless of who believes in it

        • Susan

          But you see that doesn’t change what’s true does it? That’s the great thing about truth is it exists regardless of who believes in it

          That’s exactly what they say. Except they capitalize “Truth”. The catlicks love their capitals.

          So, go argue with them. Good luck. Taking on the One True Church and all.

        • Murph

          Well been there done that 500 years ago and they lost oopsy for them

        • Susan

          Well Ben there done that 500 years ago and they lost oopsy for them

          They don’t seem to have lost. They still exist. Islam won some territory 500 years ago that it still dominates. Is this about military accomplishments?

          You don’t seem to have won and they don’t seem to have lost.

          What rules are you judging by?

        • TheNuszAbides

          there were already non-RCC churches before the Reformation. you are woefully underinformed (and/or just pathetically Eurocentric) on this subject.

        • David Cromie

          ???

        • Otto

          You need to actually demonstrate what you believe is true, and demonstrate the Catholic Church is wrong….not just assert it.

        • Murph

          We did already 500 years ago and we won it’s called history

        • Otto

          That’s funny…cause the Catholic Church is one of the most influential and widespread forms of Christianity. Their leader is probably the most regarded Christian leader in the world. Is the leader of your denomination as well known and well regarded?

        • Murph

          My leader is Jesus Christ not my pastor

        • Otto

          Oh OK…well that settles it….you win and they lose. /s

        • Murph

          Hey if they want to say Christ is their leader thats great! If they follow the Pope or whatever that’s just not Christianity that’s like Popeianity haha

        • Otto

          Nice cop out

        • Murph

          Well if Christ isn’t there supreme leader something else is and if that’s the case it’s not Christianity

        • Otto

          You understood my question and dodged it…that is a cop out

        • Murph

          I answered acurately and you refuse to accept it

        • Otto

          No you did not answer it accurately…or honestly. Don’t feel bad though, the Catholics have the same type of problems.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          If you bother to read the NT for comprehension, then you’d realize that you’re a ‘Paulian’, not an xtian, based on the ideas you’re claiming are divinely inspired.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          par usual with xtians…

          holding up their invisible friend as an authority.

        • TheNuszAbides

          and remind us how you know that Paul spoke for JC? because it’s in this super-amazing book, right? with amazing ideas that nobody else ever thought of? think again.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re CLAIMING truth…

          but you refuse to DEMONSTRATE it, instead demanding we simply accept your idiot hateful superstitious assertion.

        • MNb

          The greater thing about Truth is that the RCC makes exactly the same claim as you – and still contradicts you. It looks like you guys have a problem with truth. Why should outsiders like us choose one over another? I have a better option – neither of you holds the truth (and technically speaking I don’t either).

        • David Cromie

          This is obviously not the case with religious beliefs, when the same book of Pagan-derived legends, myths, and folklore can be used to allege all kinds of contradictory ‘truths’, by any group of suspicion-riddled ‘believers’ that cares to reveal a new ‘true’ religion to the world!

        • Susan

          That’s their problem. It’s plain as day in Scripture.

          And there you have it. Murph’s plain-as-day understanding of scripture vs. the one true church.

          It might as well be an argument about the mating habits of leprechauns.

        • Murph

          Okay well what is the essence of the Constitution of the United States? This should be easy

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Maximum liberty and opportunity for the maximum number of people, and avoiding all possible harm or hurt.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
        • Greg G.

          All Christians believe in the worship of Christ

          Well, some might be said to follow the teachings of Jesus. If “worship” is loosely defined enough to include that, then yes.

          All Christians believe that God is good

          The Marcionites didn’t.

          All Christians believe that forgiveness of sin is only through Christ

          The author of the book of James didn’t.

          Should I continue?

          Maybe you should learn more about the diversity of Christianity, then start anew.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          re your first point, WRONG.

          Here’s a list of verses refuting you:

          http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/faithalone.html

        • Greg G.

          Christians only agree on enough things to be identified as Christian. It’s like the world championship of football where the Americans are playing with an oblong ball and one set of rules, the Australians have a different set of rules and ball, while everybody else is playing turf hockey without sticks but with a round ball that has geometric polka-dots.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          MLB teams exist in reality, and can be percieved.

          So that analogy fails.

        • Michael Neville

          Actually the New Testament is rather murky about how to be saved:

          Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. Rom 4:4-5 (NIV)

          What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. James 2:14-17 (NIV)

        • Murph

          Exactly they’re bookended theological statements. Faith and salvation imply good works but good works do not save.

        • Greg G.

          No, James 2:8-10 agrees with Galatians 5:14 that loving your neighbor is a good start but then says that if you break one part of the law, you have broken the whole law. That is James’ whole point. The author of James was a law-following Jew who was a servant of Jesus Christ who disagreed with Paul’s formula.

        • Murph

          If I save some lives by performing cpr on someone does that make me a doctor? No. But if I am a doctor I will perform cpr. This is what the writers are getting at. Works accompany faith but works can’t save you.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
        • Susan

          the New Testament is crystal clear about what it means to be saved and how to be saved.

          Lol.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
        • Greg G.

          It seems to me that the first verse listed, Mark 16:16 should be in the second list because it appears to require baptism in addition to faith.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Adult baptism in those days.

          Why would a person be baptized UNLESS they had faith?

        • Greg G.

          Why would a person be baptized UNLESS they had faith?

          If they thought they could improve their chances of getting laid by being baptized, they would.

          The second clause of the verse says that you don’t get in without faith but it doesn’t say that you get in without baptism.

        • MNb

          All theology is erroneous (and that includes atheology) because the first premisse is false – there is no god.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I’ll agree there’s no evidence for any ‘gods’.

          But I don’t take it as absolute that ‘gods’ don’t exist.

        • MNb

          Neither do I. I don’t even take evidence as an absolute. Some time I might fall upward when jumping off a bridge.

        • Michael Neville

          Some time I might fall upward when jumping off a bridge.

          Somehow I doubt you’ll run an experiment to see if this happens.

        • Murph

          What do you think the essence of Christianity Is?

        • Otto

          Depends on the Christian.

        • Murph

          According to the New Testament what is the essence?

        • Otto

          Depends on the Christian…

        • Murph

          But I’m asking you what do YOU think the essence is?

        • Otto

          What does it matter what I think when Christians don’t agree among themselves?

        • Murph

          I’m just curious what do YOU believe is the essence of Christianity? How would you sum it up in two sentences? Seriously.

        • Otto

          I don’t claim to be correct on the subject…additionally it seems to be a very subjective issue…which is a large part of why I am no longer a Christian. Oh people like yourself say it is objective, and people that disagree with you say the same…therein lies the problem.

        • Murph

          It’s not a problem. Either they’re both wrong, they could both be right or one could be wrong and the other right. Where does the evidence point? Merely panning it off apathetically is intellectually lazy

        • Otto

          According to Christians the evidence points in multiple directions (it depends on the Christian as to what they consider the evidence), a point you continue to miss.

        • Murph

          Again Christians agree that Chriat alone saves, no?

        • Otto

          No

        • Murph

          Umm did I miss something isn’t Christ in the word Christian denoting his importance?

        • Otto

          Yes you missed a lot.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          If you read the NT for comprehension, you see that the religion is much more ‘Paulian’ than ‘xtian’.

        • MNb

          Yes, you missed some christians I know, who think believing is not about saving.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The word Christ is a title not a name. Jesus the anointed one.

          Though the original followers of Jesus believed Jesus to be the Jewish messiah, e.g. in the Confession of Peter, before the crucifixion and resurrection, Jesus was usually referred to as “Jesus of Nazareth” or “Jesus, son of Joseph”. Jesus came to be called “Jesus Christ” (meaning “Jesus the Khristós”, i.e. “Jesus the Messiah” or “Jesus the Anointed”) by his followers after his crucifixion and resurrection. Christians believe that the messianic prophecies were fulfilled in his mission, death, and resurrection. The Pauline epistles, the earliest texts of the New Testament, often refer to Jesus as “Christ Jesus” or “Christ”. The word Christ was originally a title, but later became part of the name “Jesus Christ”. It is, however, still also used as a title, in the reciprocal use “Christ Jesus”, meaning “the Messiah Jesus”, and independently as “the Christ”.

          Christians are therefore followers of an anointed one. Of which there were others in the buybull.

          In Abrahamic religions, the Messiah (Hebrew: מָשִׁיחַ‎‎, translit. māšîaḥ‎, sometimes spelled Moshiach), is the one chosen to lead the world and thereby save it. The term also appears in the forms Messias (Ancient Greek: Μεσσίας), Christ (Ancient Greek: Χριστός), or Al-Masih (Arabic: المسيح‎‎, ISO 233: al-masīḥ).

          The concepts of the Messiah, messianism, and the Messianic Age grew from the Book of Isaiah (4:2 and chapter 11) during the latter half of the 8th century BCE. The term comes from the Hebrew verb meaning “to apply oil to,” to anoint. In the Hebrew Bible, Israel’s kings were sometimes called God’s “messiah”—God’s anointed one. A messiah could also be an anointed high priest or prophet. Messiahs did not even need to descend from Jacob, as the Hebrew Bible refers to Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, as a messiah for his decree to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple.

          Jesus wasn’t Mr. Christ of the Nazareth Christ’s, that well known family who were in the building trade.

        • David Cromie

          What has that delusion got to do with providing the evidence for the existence of your favourite ‘god’, without which all that is left is mere faith and unsubstantiated belief in various imagined supernatural entities having magical powers?

        • Greg G.

          No, james warren has been posting here for a few months, and his position is far different than most Christians.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Not even the NT says that.

          Try again.

        • MNb

          No. Not all of them.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Nope…for a supposed Christian you don’t seem to know much.

          Solo fide, by faith alone, and solus Christo, by Christ alone, are not universal Christian doctrine.

          Solo Christo (Latin: by Christ alone) is one of the five solae that summarize the Protestant Reformers’ basic belief that salvation is obtained through the atoning work of Christ alone, apart from individual works, and that Christ is the only mediator between God and man. It holds that salvation cannot be obtained without Christ.

        • David Cromie

          ‘Evidence’ is the crux of the matter, but christers fail, miserably, to provide any irrefutable, falsifiable, evidence for their beliefs.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          That’s WAAAAYYYY too general.

          Define your terms.

        • Susan

          what do YOU believe is the essence of Chrisianity?

          I don’t think there’s any such thing. But then, I don’t know what you mean by “essence”.

          Just unsupported claims.

          What are you claiming and how do you support it?

        • Murph

          There’s no such thing as Christianity? Why would you say that?

        • Susan

          There’s no such thing as Christianity? Why would you say that?

          Clearly, I didn’t. Welcome to the internet, by the way. I see you just joined today.

          I hope it’s not only for trolling purposes.

          We’ve had way too much of that lately.

        • David Cromie

          The operative word is ‘essence’ in your question, not whether christianity exists.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          There’s a superstition called ‘xtianity’.

          Doesn’t mean it’s based on reality.

        • MNb

          You’re shifting the goalposts. There are things that exist without essence. Christianity is one of them.

        • David Cromie

          One word; crap!

        • Michael Neville

          Murph the Durph asked for two sentences so we should expand on David’s succinct yet all encompassing one word description.

          Christianity is based on the thoughts and wishes of a priestly group who wanted power, wealth and a job with no heavy lifting. As a result, they came up with a religion based on promises of “pie in the sky when you die” and threats for those who didn’t support the priests in giving them the good life.

        • David Cromie

          The carrot and stick writ ‘bigly’, as the Orange Buffoon would say!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I don’t care.

          Not my problem.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOUR religion.

          YOU define it.

          You’re attempting to shift the burden of proof, but it’s not our problem.

        • MNb

          What I think is that christianity doesn’t have an essence.

        • David Cromie

          Easy, it is a con supported by mythological BS, designed to control the superstitiously inclined, and to empty their bank balances!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I don’t care what any ‘essence’ of ‘xtianity’ is.

          That’s YOUR positive position. If you can’t define it coherently, it’s not MY problem.

        • Murph

          Is there a such thing as a delusional atheist?

        • Otto

          Yes, but it is not based on their atheistic belief.

        • Murph

          So how’s come atheists disagree so much on whats right or wrong ethically speaking?

        • Michael Neville

          Because atheists are human with their separate opinions on different subjects. The only thing, and I mean the ONLY thing, that atheists agree on is belief in the non-existence of gods. And even then there’s disagreement between strong or gnostic atheists (“there are no gods”) and weak or agnostic atheists (“I do not believe there are gods”).

        • Murph

          More importantly is that being an atheist is a very intellectually dishonest position because you’re saying there’s sure evidence that God does not exist. Antony Flew rightly criticized this thinking.

        • Michael Neville

          What is dishonest about saying “due to the complete and utter lack of evidence that even hints at the existence of gods, I do not believe in gods”? Do you have evidence that any gods (remember there’s more gods than your pet deity) exist? If so, bring it out.

          I personally am an agnostic atheist. I don’t know if gods exist. They might. However because there’s no evidence to support their existence I don’t believe they exist. Similarly every proton in this galaxy could spontaneously decay into a muon, a pion and a scattering of neutrinos in the next ten minutes. I don’t know that won’t happen. But I don’t believe it will. I think that the possibilities of existence of gods and galactic proton decay are on the same order of magnitude.

          As for Anthony Flew, who cares about him? As the old fairy tale says: “Not I, said the little red hen.”

        • Murph

          It’s self refuting. Only one God can be God. Think about it. There can be higher beings but only one God. Are you tracking?

          You can have multiple government officials (higher ups) but only one president (the highest up). It’s the same concept. If there are higher beings which one has the most power? That one would be God.

        • Michael Neville

          I was imprecise. I should have explained that while Christians believe in three gods (and one goddess if you’re Catholic), other religions have other gods, often a slew of them. Muslims believe in Allah, who has similarities to the Jewish god and a remoter semblance to the Father god of the Christian Trinity. Hindus claim there are some 30 million

          Vie
          gods, but they’re all aspects of one god or maybe they’re not, depending on which particular branch of Hinduism you’re examining. Some animists think that gods exists in every plant, animal, and certain inanimate objects. In short, the human imagination has devised a plethora of gods.

          Your favorite gods, i.e. Dad, JC and the Spook, are three such gods, only Christians pretend they’re one god even though none of you can explain how that works. Incidentally the Trinity didn’t become Christian dogma until the Council of Nicea in 325.

          Anyway, your song and dance about “only one god can be a god” (let’s ignore the 30 million Hindu gods, only Hindus believe in them) doesn’t even attempt to answer my question about what’s dishonest about not believing in gods. Do you want to take a try at actually answering the question I asked you?

        • Murph

          It’s a softball question I already answered. Only one God would be worthy of worship i.e. whichever one is the most powerful. That God would be God. There simply cannot be “30 million gods” in the same way that you cannot have 30 million presidents.

        • Michael Neville

          That still doesn’t answer my original question to your dumb ass (and if you keep blowing me off I’ll become fucking rude to you). Since you obviously have the mental acuity of a concussed dung beetle, I’ll repeat it:

          What is dishonest about saying “due to the complete and utter lack of evidence that even hints at the existence of gods, I do not believe in gods”?

        • David Cromie

          Anyone could dream up other supposed ‘gods’ with much better attitudes and attributes than Yahweh any day of the week! I leave out JC because there is no contemporary, 1st cent. CE evidence, whether written or archaeological, for the existence of this particular a god-man.

        • Bob

          Haha you’re a mythicist? Do you realize what a laughable position that is?

        • Greg G.

          The gospels are fiction contrived from the literature of the day. The early epistles never speak of a teacher/preacher. They only mention Jesus from Old Testament passages. Paul says he got his revelation of his gospel from the prophetic writings. We know this is true because everything he tells us about Jesus can be found in the Old Testament. Paul never saw Jesus, yet he claims his knowledge is not inferior to the knowledge of the super-apostles’ knowledge. That would make no sense if he knew they got their knowledge first hand.

          What evidence do you have for the existence of that historical Jesus besides a consensus based on the consensus?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Statistically, a mythicist is the only tenable position.

          Unless you have some evidence to refute the statistics showing that nothing supernatural has ever occurred, especially not repeatably and reliably.

        • Greg G.

          He is referring to Jesus who could have been an unsupernatural person. It’s just that the gospels are complete fiction and the epistles don’t talk about a first century Jesus. There were lots of Jesuses in first century Judea, maybe some from Galilee, and maybe one got crucified but the New Testament is not about that guy. Paul got the crucifixion idea from the OT as he presents in Galatians 3:6-14, or in that range, by citing OT verses.

        • MNb

          Complete fiction like in 100%, every single word of it?
          I already knew that JM’s tend to be stupid fanatics, but if you mean this exactly like you write it you beat everyone of them.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          False in every assertion made not backed up by evidence.

        • MNb

          That’s not what my question is about, It’s an interesting principle, that should make you conclude that Diogenes of Sinope was false as well. However that’s something I won’t pursue any further this time.

        • Greg G.

          Complete fiction like in 100%, every single word of it?
          I already knew that JM’s tend to be stupid fanatics, but if you mean this exactly like you write it you beat everyone of them.

          A single word without context cannot be fiction, can it? “Every single word” is a straw man. John 18:13 says Annas was the father-in-law of Caiaphas which is plausible. The gospels mention places and people who actually existed but so does Gone with the Wind. Luke used Josephus for verisimilitude. Some of the quotes of the Old Testament are accurate.

          But if Jesus did not exist, then everything in the gospels about him is necessarily fiction. Paul tells us he got his information from the scriptures. He proves this because everything he says about Jesus comes from the Old Testament. The fact that the early general epistles also never mention Jesus as a first century entity because every mention of him is also found in the Old Testament. The epistles tell us they were about a hidden mystery in what they considered the prophetic writings.

          Can you point to one pericope from the gospels that is not fiction?

        • MNb

          “A single word without context cannot be fiction, can it?”
          Yes, it can. Check the Harry Potter novels. Quite a few words can be taken out of context and will remain fiction.

          “Every single word” is a straw man.”
          No, it’s the logical consequence of “complete fiction”. Thanks for admitting that you exaggerated.

          “Can you point to one pericope from the gospels that is not fiction?”
          No, because I don’t know what pericope means and don’t feel like looking it up at the moment.. But I can formulate a statement (several actually) from the Gospels that is not fiction, even according to your prejudiced standards. If you can’t yourself I’ll have to conclude that your prejudiced standards have affected your cognitive skills and that you’re well on your way to become a stupid fanatic indeed.

        • Michael Neville

          Pericope is what a sumarine uses to look above the waves.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          that’s a periscope. a pericope seems to be something else.

        • Michael Neville

          Submarines use periscopes, sumarines use pericopes.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          lol … touché.

        • Greg G.

          MN is retired Navy and he worked on submarines. If he says it’s a pericope, then I believe him.

        • Michael Neville

          I’m not going to drag the joke out any further.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          also on sumarines? anyway, yes, it makes sense.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Could be a peech impediment.

          This is a real issue in NT studies…we shouldn’t be taking the pish….it’s…hmmmph…chuckle…chuckle…not funny.

          Pericopes and periscopes

          When I am reading manuscripts or editing or examining, one of my favourite typos is “periscopes” for “pericopes”. The word pericope is a favourite among Biblical scholars, for a unit of text, a passage, especially in the Gospels, especially in contexts connected with form-criticism. Even as I type this entry, “pericopes” is getting underlined in red as a spelling error, while “periscopes” is not. Since the advent of spell-checkers over the last generation or so, I suspect that this typo has become much more common. The eye misses the extra “s” and it is not, of course, picked up by the spell-checker. The other day I glanced at my hand-out in class and saw the word “periscopes” there where it should have been pericopes, so I had fallen prey to the same error. Perhaps this is a reason to stick to the slightly affected plural “pericopae”?

          http://ntweblog.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/pericopes-and-periscopes.html

        • Greg G.

          Perhaps this is a reason to stick to the slightly affected plural “pericopae”?

          “Periscope” also comes from Greek roots so the plural should be “periscopae”.

        • TheNuszAbides

          i haven’t seen him claim to have worked on a sumarine.

        • David Cromie

          A passage taken from a longer piece of writing, usually from the so-called ‘bible’.

        • Greg G.
          “A single word without context cannot be fiction, can it?”

          Yes, it can. Check the Harry Potter novels. Quite a few words can be taken out of context and will remain fiction.

          “Every single word” is a straw man.”

          No, it’s the logical consequence of “complete fiction”. Thanks for admitting that you exaggerated.

          Is your argument that the mention of, say, “Jerusalem” means that the gospels are not complete fiction? Does that mean that Spiderman is not complete fiction because it mentions New York, that Superman is not complete fiction because the backstory mentions Kansas, that Sherlock Holmes is not complete fiction because he has an address that corresponds to reality and he works with Scotland Yard?

          “Can you point to one pericope from the gospels that is not fiction?”

          No, because I don’t know what pericope means and don’t feel like looking it up at the moment.. But I can formulate a statement (several actually) from the Gospels that is not fiction, even according to your prejudiced standards. If you can’t yourself I’ll have to conclude that your prejudiced standards have affected your cognitive skills and that you’re well on your way to become a stupid fanatic indeed.

          Pilate was governor of Judea and he probably washed his hands at some point in his life. Is that the point you are trying to make? It’s like you are making the case that the movie Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Slayer is a partial documentary! It’s like arguing that a fantasy about Angelina Jolie is more real than a fantasy about Lara Croft, a fictional character played by Jolie. It’s like arguing that a prayer to a real milk carton is more real than a prayer to an imaginary milk carton.

          Some people might say you are nit-picking but I say that this is the most substantive point you have made about the Jesus Myth theory, to date.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          … that Sherlock Holmes is not complete fiction because he has an address that corresponds to reality …

          an interesting little detail: the full address of sherlock holmes, 221b baker street, didn’t exist when his stories were written, according to wikipedia at least, only the street itself.

        • TheNuszAbides

          i agree that it superficially resembles the tired cheerleader’s trope of “the bible as a whole” or “the bible’s singular core message”.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Everyone who is not a Christian, and even some that are, are mythicists in that the gospel Jesus is a myth.

          https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory#The_historical_Jesus_spectrum_or_color_me_completely_confused

          It’s just that some of us are of the position that there is no actual person who is the kernel of the myth. And there is no evidence that demonstrates there was, either.

        • Pofarmer

          Is it more or less laughable than believing God impregnated a virgin with himself to torture himself to death to atone for some sin he created?

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

          Can you prove that Jesus wasn’t just legend, all the way down to the person himself? The best answer I’ve seen from your side is that the consensus view of NT scholars is that Jesus was a real person. That’s an important data point, but it hardly shuts out the possibility of the other side.

        • Luvin’ it

          It shuts it out unless you subscribe to extreme scepticism

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

          Some religions trace their origin back to a real person (Joseph Smith, for example), and some have a legendary founder. No, extreme skepticism isn’t required.

        • Luvin’ it

          So you are a mythicist then? Or do you not understand one of Bob P’s make arguments? He says we obly have a bible because Jesus was a myth not because he existed. He says if Jesus existed he would be who the Gospels say he is. Too bad for you if you think Jesus existed it makes you look dumber given what you said not smarter

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

          Nope, not a mythicist. And no, I don’t understand the mythicists’ argument. It’s intriguing stuff, but it’s tangential for my purposes. If I embraced mythicism, it wouldn’t be a useful counter-apologetic argument.

        • Luvin’ it

          But you continually cite Carrier who is one so what gives?

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

          I’ve quoted Hitler before.

        • Luvin’ it

          But you quote Carrier in the affirmative

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

          No idea what your point is.

          I quote Carrier (and lots of other people), so therefore … ? Therefore I accept every word he says? Therefore everything Carrier writes is true? What?

        • Luvin’ it

          You quote Carrier in contexts where you’re attempting to disprove that Jesus existed. Are you a mythicist or not?

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

          I’ve already answered that question. You think making stupid points will give you a different answer?

        • Luvin’ it

          I’m asking again yes or no are you a Jesus mythicist?

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

          And I’m telling you for the last time: I’ve already answered this question. Why the busywork? You don’t have anything intelligent to say? Just making conversation?

        • TheNuszAbides

          thus establishing that you aren’t actually paying sufficient attention to the comments you reply to anyway. need to try harder than that to make any actual point.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And Carrier cites Bob Seidensticker in both the positive and negative on his blog….what’s your point?

          Arguments should be assessed on their own merits, not solely by the virtue of the person that makes them. Doing otherwise is to employ the ad hominem fallacy.

          That’s not to disregard the authority of the individual making an argument should not be taken into consideration when it’s a toss up. But the veracity of any argument should take precedent over the person making it.

        • TheNuszAbides

          *clutches pearls*

        • Ignorant Amos

          What has that got to do with anything?

          Scholars are always citing other scholars work. Carrier’s book, “On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason to Doubt”, is chock full of citations of known mainstream scholarship positions he uses to support his argument. Well understood and accepted propositions by all manner of scholars who nevertheless hold to the historical Jesus stance.

          If a scholar makes a valuable point, he makes a valuable point, regardless of his overall position on any given subject. Wise folk don’t go throwing the baby out with the bath water.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Define mythicism?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Haha you’re a mythicist?

          Define mythicism?

          Do you realize what a laughable position that is?

          And yet one that has not been refuted by scholars to date, funny that, isn’t it?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Show me some evidence for this ‘god’ of yours.

          You’re using something in the argument that you haven’t even defined it.

        • Greg G.

          God is not an elected position. There are more than 30 million people in California. There are more than 30 million stars in the galaxy. There are more than 30 million galaxies in the universe. There may be more than 30 million universes. There is no reason there could not be over 30 million gods except for the lack of evidence for even one of them.

        • MNb

          Then which one? The father, the son or the holy spook?

        • TheNuszAbides

          It’s a softball question I already answered.

          1) who cares whether it’s “softball” or otherwise if you’re [supposedly] making the effort to answer it anyway?
          2) usually, when a question is actually answered, it stops getting asked by the same person. you may find that’s a quirk of consistently rational skeptics. if you pay more attention than you apparently have been.

        • Greg G.

          If humans can exist with an omnipotent being, then it is logically possible to exist with an omnipotent being.
          If an omnipotent being cannot exist with another omnipotent being, then it is not omnipotent.

          If a boron atom has five protons, which one has the most power? The protons have exactly the same properties but are different protons. Omnipotent beings would necessarily have the same properties, because lacking any property means lacking omnipotence, but not be the same being.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Again, you’re saying that your ‘god’ is limited by the laws of logic.

          Sooooo, NOT omnipotent.

        • RichardSRussell

          I myself won’t say that superhero-style gods like Thor or Zeus can’t exist. (No evidence that they do, of course, but not impossible in principle.) However, that possibility doesn’t exist for any supposed deity alleged to have some kind of ultimate power like omniscience, ominipotence, omnipresence, or omnibenevolence, because it’s always possible to construct a scenario where 2 such omnipowers are pitted against each other (or even one against itself, as in “Can God make a rock so heavy he can’t lift it?”), and at least one of them must fail, thereby disproving the “omni” part. Thus I state with absolute assurance that such a critter not only does not exist but cannot exist.

          Nonetheless, that makes me a gnostic atheist only with respect to that particular type of deity. I remain an agnostic atheist with regard to all the others.

          However, as pointed out by an earlier poster, all that’s necessary to be an atheist is to not have a belief in any deities, for whatever reason or none at all. It’s a popular misconception that being an atheist means an affirmative belief that there is no god, but that’s merely a subset of atheists generally. The vast majority of the world’s atheists are about a billion Chinese who have no belief in gods because they’ve never been introduced to the concepts and thus have no opinions about it one way or the other.

        • Murph

          You’re missing it which is unfortunate Richy. You see it’s common sense that if you have five guys in a room one of them is the strongest. If there are many gods it begs the question of which one is the most powerful? That one is God. Hmmmm….

        • RichardSRussell

          Would God’s left hand win a wrist-wrestling contest with his right hand? Whichever way you answer, there’s a loser, which makes that hand less than omnipotent. The question is not can Yahweh beat Thor, it’s whether Yahweh can beat Yahweh.

        • Murph

          Well no thats self refuting again because God can’t “wrestle” himself silly. Common you’re better than that

        • RichardSRussell

          Really? You openly acknowledge that there’s something God can’t do? I guess you agree, then, that he’s not omnipotent.

        • Murph

          Haha well he can’t do things that are absurd silly man. He can’t sin. He can’t make square circles and he can’t wrestle himself which is evidently you’re big “gotcha” point

        • epeeist

          He can’t make square circles

          So not as powerful as Pafnuty Chebyshev then.

          So why did you sign up to post on the site Murph (or should I say Ed?)

        • Greg G.

          This guy has a different concept of omnipotence than Ed does. We had a Murph here sometime ago and this guy reminds me of him, to the best of my recollection.

        • Michael Neville

          He can’t sin.

          Your god is a thoroughly immoral character. According to your propaganda your god kills people just because he can, he orders rape and genocide, he condones slavery. That sounds pretty sinful to me.

          But, you’ll retort, “how can you judge Gawd?” It’s easy. I’m sentient and have a workable concept of morality based on the Granny Weatherwax theory of sin:

          And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is. –Terry Pratchett Carpe Jugulum

          Immanuel Kant agrees with that:

          Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end. —Categorical Imperatives

          Since according to the Bible your god does treat people as things, he sins.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I Kant believe that’s so beautifully succinct!

          (you can clobber me for that when we next meet 😉 )

        • Greg G.

          If Moses can wrestle with God, then so it is logically possible to wrestle with God, therefore God can wrestle with God. An infinite God could wrestle with itself an infinite number of times simultaneously.

        • TheNuszAbides

          wasn’t it Jacob?

          or both of ’em? i only remember Jacob doing it in the comics (which were, of course, rather abridged), thereby earning the name Israel or whatever. or he wrestled with “an angel” and afterwards it was strongly hinted yadda yadda …

        • Greg G.

          Jacob wrestled with God and was winning until God dislocated his hip with his finger. Moses was wrestling over circumcision until his wife cut the foreskin off their son. That made God happy.

        • TheNuszAbides

          it could win and lose each match simultaneously, without actually losing of course, because God ain’t no Loser, all because Trinity Logic Section 12B.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So your ‘god’ is limited by the laws of physics and logic?

          Then it’s not omnipotent, right there.

        • Greg G.

          He can’t sin. He can’t make square circles

          Those two things are not alike. Square circles are a contradiction of terms where one property is incompatible with the other. But if humans can sin, then it is possible to sin. If God cannot sin, then you have lost omnipotence. Allowing Job’s family to be killed just to win a bet with Satan is about as sinful as it gets. If it is defined as not sin just to say God doesn’t sin, then you have defined away sin completely.

        • epeeist

          He can’t make square circles

          I can, so does that make me more powerful than your god?

        • RichardSRussell

          My point was merely the difference between gnostic atheism (“I know that gods do not exist”) vs. agnostic atheism (“I don’t think that any gods exist, but I can’t be sure.”). I was stating that I’m an agnostic atheist with respect to the superhero-type gods like Thor and Zeus but a gnostic atheist with regard to any deities who are supposed to have some kind of ultimate power. Being omnipotent means you can do anything, which is an ultimate power. It’s claimed that the Christian God (Yahweh) is omnipotent. As you yourself point out, there are things that Yahweh can’t do because no entity can do them (altho I would be pleased to someday demonstrate to you that even a mere mortal like me can wrist-wrestle his left hand vs. his right hand, even tho you think that this is beyond Yahweh’s competence). Thus you are, like me, a gnostic atheist when it comes to gods who are supposed to be omnipotent. You know they can’t exist! As long as nobody’s claiming that Yahweh is omnipotent (or omniscient, omnipresent, or omnibenevolent), I revert to just being agnostic on the subject of his existence, which is evidently where you are as well.

        • TheNuszAbides

          no, the “gotcha” point – one of several which you apparently aren’t yet prepared to grasp – is that “omnipotence” is incoherent.

          He can’t sin

          how do you know? did you ask him? did you test him? (yes, i know lots of you think that’s a naughty thing to even think about doing.) did you already so easily forget the part where it’s not your place to pretend to know or understand his mind or motives or nature or any even slightly rigorous use of your rational capacity that would let sneaky naughty things like doubt and moral judgment get in the way of your fawning adoration?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Why not?

        • epeeist

          Why not?

          Oh, that one is easy. Because it doesn’t exist.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          LOL

        • richardrichard2013

          but one person in trinity makes love to the other persons in trinity and like a ping pong game of love making. and one person in trinity commands and instructs another person in trinity what to do. and one person in trinity rapes jesus with sins from all years. so of course he can wrestle himself.

        • Susan

          You see it’s common sense that if you have five guys in a room one of them is the strongest.

          Not necessarily. There could be two or more who can lift 30 lbs. over their own weight. Or two or more who can lift 200 lbs. and not a pound more.

          Also, five guys in a room have been demonstrated to exist. None of the gods that humans have ever claimed exist, seem to exist.

          If there are many gods it begs the question of which one is the most powerful?

          If there are many gods, it might raise the question of which one is the most powerful. Or the most wise, or the best dancer or all kinds of things. But only if.

          The real question is “Are there many (or any) things we can call God? That is, do they exist?”

        • Cozmo the Magician

          “If there are many gods, it might raise the question of which one is the most powerful. Or the most wise, or the best dancer or all kinds of things. But only if.” If we ever find some, i want to study/know which ever one grows the best weed.

        • TheNuszAbides

          start with Winston, patron saint of horticulturalists. he might drop a tip eventually.

        • Michael Neville

          So what’s your evidence that any gods exist? After you’ve shown that gods exist then we can discuss whether or not your god is one of the existent ones (it’s unlikely because of the problems of evil and suffering but it is possible).

        • Greg G.

          You see it’s common sense that if you have five guys in a room one of them is the strongest.

          Your reading comprehension is not up to par. That is nothing like any point RSR said. He said that he was an agnostic atheist about that type of being but he was a gnostic atheist toward the omnipotent kind. If you have five guys in a room, it does not follow that one of them is omnipotent.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope. YOU can’t prove there’s anything in the room to begin with.

          So your superstition is no more powerful than any other, although your superstitious delusion may have some of the most deadly violent victims.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          this reminds me of those comic book discussions about who would win in a fight. can spider-man defeat the hulk? can batman defeat superman? even in those cases is mere strength or the general power level just one factor (and depends on the writer).

        • Cozmo the Magician

          Every day in World of Warcraft various ‘heros’ beat the shit out of each other to see who is the most powerful. One of the reasons I don’t get into pvp is that no matter how good your gear, no matter how well planed your rotation, there is always somebody who can clean your clock. Or, you might just get some real shitty RNG. (;

        • TheNuszAbides

          You’re missing it which is unfortunate Richy.

          double failure – not even understanding what he said in the first place, and attempting to be cute about it on top. either try harder to pay attention or stay under your cozy rock. either would be far less of a waste of effort.

        • epeeist

          Flew became a deist, he didn’t believe in your god.

        • David Cromie

          Flew, who was struggling with Alzheimers at the time, later denied this claim.

        • epeeist

          The Alzheimer’s I knew about and the rather dubious nature of the book he wrote with Roy Varghese, but I wasn’t aware he denied his conversion to deism.

        • Bob

          Source?

        • Greg G.

          The Wikipedia page says he denied becoming a deist in 2001 but the later conversion to deist was around 2004. He seems to have fallen for the argument that Dennis Gilman has been posting. Flew seems to have forgotten that it is always premature to jump to a supernatural conclusion without evidence of the supernatural.

        • TheNuszAbides

          and since he had no expertise whatever in biology or cosmology, nor even in the philosophy thereof, his stated-when-he-was-no-longer-capable-of-composing-for-publication stance is … not even ‘academic’ in the trivial sense. it’s a curiosity, of consequence only to the flimsy narratives of muddle-headed “o-ho!gotcha!”-trufflers.

        • Greg G.

          being an atheist is a very intellectually dishonest position because you’re saying there’s sure evidence that God does not exist.

          That is a dishonest claim. Atheism is the position that there is insufficient evidence that gods exist. All you have to do is provide sufficient evidence for the existence of one or more gods.

          Theism only provides excuses for the lack of evidence.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re stating that gnostic atheism is the only kind.

          Demonstrate that or retract & recant.

        • Ignorant Amos

          There’s sure evidence that the buybull big “G” God doesn’t exist…it defies logic.

        • MNb

          In my dictionary evidence by definition is derived from our natural reality. You probably think your god is supernatural, hence “evidence for/against God” contradicts itself. There are sound logical arguments against your god.

        • Cozmo the Magician

          ALERT ALERT, EPIC FAIL! ALERT. Sorry troll, you have shown just how stupid you really are. Atheist simply do not see any evidence FOR THE EXISTENCE of god(s). Not the other way around. Huge difference. Just like you ijits say that since science aint proved that god didnt make the earth we have to believe genesis. Either try and learn some logic or head back under your bridge. For now, gonna just hit you with Mr. Block Button. Bye bye.

        • adam

          “More importantly is that being an atheist is a very intellectually
          dishonest position because you’re saying there’s sure evidence that God
          does not exist”

          There is sure evidence that the God of the bible does not exist, Antony Flew agrees with me.

        • Greg G.

          Atheism is the position that there is insufficient evidence to reasonably maintain the proposition that one or more gods exist.

          Ethics and morality do not come in a can. They have to be worked out. They are not absolute nor objective, either.

          Which brings us to “why theists disagree on what is right or wrong, even from the same theology?”

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Raelians. Done and dusted.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yep…there is someone on these boards at the moment claiming to be an atheist who is as delusional as any deluded.

          Atheist’s come in a spectrum of stripes…all atheism means is a lack of belief in gods.

        • Greg G.

          Nobody gets into Christianity for the “right” reasons, unless one enjoys ice cream socials. They join because they are delusional or gullible.

        • Bob

          Riiiiiiight

        • Greg G.

          Is there a right reason for you being a Christian? Was it an unevidenced fear of eternal punishment? A fear of death? A wish for an imaginary friend?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Sounds like apologist bullshit to me.

          Kids weren’t just blinked out of existence, per the story, but drowned, in horribly terror and suffering.

        • Cozmo the Magician

          All hail the mighty murph who alone will decide which xtian gets into heaven. Make sure you have been kissing his ass or you might not get in.

        • adam

          “Make sure you have been kissing his ass or you might not get in.”

          That might upset Hank, and you know how Hank gets…..

        • adam

          ” God is judging the adults but sparing the children by taking their life
          given they will live with him in eternity (again the children)”

          Citation needed

          ” At the end of the day is the Catholic Christian or evangelical, etc. worshiping Christ?”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9944dcd24aca60f5c4f74e6f5cd43b9ce0e02c90bb9195db332c6b0bb15465ca.jpg

        • TheNuszAbides

          Let me clarify

          nobody’s stopping you – it’s just that you can’t clarify unfalsifiable wishful thinking into not being unfalsifiable wishful thinking.
          here’s a big hint: neither can the IANS or WLC or any Great Big Theological Mind of history.

        • David Cromie

          So, being drowned never hurt anyone! Could I plead in court that I drowned my neighbour for his own good, or is murder reserved absolutely to a ‘loving god’?

        • Bob

          God can take life as he sees fit you however cannot

        • Greg G.

          God cannot allow suffering if he is both omnipotent and benevolent. Suffering exists so we can rule out the existence of an omnipotent benevolent being.

        • sandy

          Correct. At best, god just sits on the side lines…not sure who he/she is cheering for since we have no interaction

        • TheNuszAbides

          cue Tuff-Luv-Teflon-God! un-judged judger! 720+ degrees of ultra-gyroscopic inerrancy!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Demonstrate this ‘god’ of yours exists before you attempt to conjure fell and malign magicks with it.

        • Michael Neville

          So you’re saying your god works on “might makes right”. That doesn’t sound very loving or very moral to me.

        • Otto

          ‘Do as I say not as I do’ is a terrible foundation.

        • Greg G.

          It seems that Christians understand that there is always a tacit “except Me” on all of God’s commandments and moral prohibitions.

        • MNb

          Like Hitler and Stalin you mean. They could as well.
          Yeah, they weren’t gods. It follows that according to you there are different morals for you god as for us humans. Ie morality according to you is subjective.

        • Priya Lynn

          Your morality is subjective.

        • TheNuszAbides

          yes, we know that’s nominally coherent if it’s kept packed tight in your narrative-bubble, but in the actual world that some of us take pains to observe and reflect upon rationally and compare notes and refine said observations … it’s just more tenth-rate authoritarian assertion-without-evidence.

        • epeeist

          They’re not being harmed in the flood narrative they’re being judged.

          Stalin killed roughly 10% of the population of the Soviet Union, we rightly judge him to be a monster.

          Your supposed god purportedly killed 99.99996% of the whole human population, so much more of a monster than Stalin.

        • Bob

          Stalin isn’t God non sequiter

        • epeeist

          Stalin isn’t God non sequiter

          Didn’t say he was. It also isn’t a “non sequiter (sic)”. If you want it laying out in canonical form

          P1: Those who kill large numbers of people are moral monsters
          P2: Stalin killed a large number of people
          C: Stalin was a moral monster

          Simply replace “Stalin” by “Yahweh/Jesus” in the above syllogism.

        • Priya Lynn

          Irrelevant. Wrongdoing is determined by the action, not who performs the action.

        • Greg G.

          They’re not being harmed in the flood narrative they’re being judged.

          An omnipotence could judge people without making them suffer. A benevolent god would not make them suffer.

          Let me guess you’re having a really hard time understanding the concept of denominations?

          Jesus didn’t grasp the concept of denominations, either. Thus, we have the greatest prayer failure of all time.

          John 17:20-23 (NRSV)20 “I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

          Jesus prayed that his followers would be so united in their agreement that the rest of the world would be impressed. But we see disagreement between Paul and the circumcision faction, led by James, John, and Cephas, and it has gotten worse.

        • Bob

          Well about a third of the world is Christian that’s pretty unified

        • Greg G.

          Well about a third of the world is Christian that’s pretty unified

          There are 45,000 different denominations within that one third. That is pretty disjointed.

          But the unity has to impress the rest of the world. Read it again and pay particular attention to the beginning of verse 21, the end of verse 21, and the beginning of verse 23.

          That one third of the world is nominally Christian is a prayer failure by Jesus himself.

        • epeeist

          Well about a third of the world is Christian that’s pretty unified

          Which means that two thirds of the world is not. Arithmetic doesn’t seem to be your strong point.

        • Halbe
        • MNb

          That’s as meaningless as saying “well, about two third of the world is non-christian, that’s even more unified.”

        • Cozmo the Magician

          No, the 2/3 of the world that thinks you are full of shit is much more unified.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I don’t know of any Christian that says other Christians won’t be saved.

          You really don’t know much then….

          They [The Westbro Baptist Church] believe that God chooses some to be saved, and those lucky few cannot resist God’s call; but God chooses not to save most, and these unfortunate souls will burn in hell forever. The “Frequently Asked Questions,” or FAQ section of the WBC website explains: “Your best hope is that you are among those he has chosen. Your prayer every day should be that you might be. And if you are not, nothing you say or do will serve as a substitute.”

          ….

          “We told you, right after it happened five years ago, that the deadly events of 9/11 were direct outpourings of divine retribution, the immediate visitation of God’s wrath and vengeance and punishment for America’s horrendous sodomite sins, that worse and more of it was on the way. We further told you that any politician, any political official, any preacher telling you differently as to the cause and interpretation of 9/11 is a dastardly lying false prophet, cowardly and mean, and headed for hell. And taking you with him! God is no longer with America, but is now America’s enemy. God himself is now America’s terrorist.” — Fred Phelps, “9/11: God’s Wrath Revealed,” Sept. 8, 2006.

          https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/group/westboro-baptist-church

        • Greg G.

          I hear bagpipers approaching…

        • Ignorant Amos

          Porridge for breakfast it is then.

        • Michael Neville

          I knew Goldilocks and the Three Bears were Scottish. “Who’s been sleeping in my porridge?”

          But hark, there are other types of bagpipers besides the Scots.

          https://i.ytimg.com/vi/DzkdKj1Fgus/hqdefault.jpg

        • Greg G.

          But hark, there are other types of bagpipers besides the Scots.

          But the other types aren’t true™ bagpipers.

        • Michael Neville

          The Irish originally gave the pipes to the Scots, who still haven’t understood the joke.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The Irish originally gave the Scots to the Scots.

          This term of course refers to someone from Scotland, but did it start out that way? The term Scot, Scoti, Scotti, or Scotia was used by the Romans to describe the Gaelic raiders from Ireland. The poet Egesippus describes how the Scot tremble at the news of Roman legions. Orosius, a geographer in the third century uses the term Scoti to describe the people of Hibernia.

          We must go back into the mist of time, back to a kingdom in Ireland called Dalriada which is thought to have been in Antrim (Ulster) Ireland. In the sixth century from the kingdom of Dalriada came Fergus, Mor Macerc descendent of Carbi Riada. With Fergus came his two brothers Loarn and Angus. They brought with them many followers to the west coast of present day Scotland. This first intrusion into Alba was in what is now Argyll. Their main town or fort was at Dunadd in present day Scotland. And during this time the Dalriadic Scots (Irish) were at war with their Pictish neighbors.

          http://unknownscottishhistory.com/articlesix.php

        • Cozmo the Magician

          “The Irish originally gave the Scots to the Scots.” but who was the awesome dude that first gave the world Scotch!

        • David Cromie

          As well as the kilt. Even the Stone of Scone (the coronation stone) was borrowed from the Irish and never returned!

        • Ignorant Amos

          The Hittites circa 1000 BCE were the true bagpipers apparently.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Of course there are….I know some of them, soldiers in the British army …The Band of the Royal Irish Rangers….

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3Wgot_WDq8

        • Michael Neville

          I love the khaki kilts.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Michael Neville

          Okay, I love the saffron kilts.

          Here’s something to play with: Design your own tartan [link].

        • MNb

          If you think they were not being harmed I suggest you to try it out yourself.

        • Cozmo the Magician

          ” I don’t know of any Christian that says other Christians won’t be saved” HA HA HHA HA HA HA HA HA HA. Oh wait? You’re serious?

        • RichardSRussell

          I never got that whole thing about why somebody had to die in order for everybody else’s sins to be forgiven. That’s like saying your little 4-year-old draw all over the walls with his crayons, so you cut off his 8-year-old sister’s hands so you wouldn’t have to punish him. Why not just forgive the little kid in the first place?

        • Murph

          Well you’ryou’re analogy is way out in left field for one. Think more like financial debt. It has to be paid for Right? I mean someone pays for it in the end. Somebody takes a loss for it. And so Christ’s death and resurrection “pay the debt” that we could never pay

        • Otto

          You make God sound like a predatory lender.

        • Ignorant Amos

          With extortionately high interest rates too.

        • Greg G.

          Think more like financial debt. It has to be paid for Right?

          No, the debt could be forgiven.

          The debt analogy doesn’t even work at all. If God had everything, he would always have everything in the end.

        • Bob

          Than the person who is in debt is essentially getting away with theft. Should we just forgive theives or ?

        • Otto

          It is an option.

        • Greg G.

          Forgiving a debt is like a gift. Accepting a gift is not like theft. Rejecting a gift is not like theft either.

        • Priya Lynn

          If someone else “pays the debt” the “thief” is still getting away with it. You’re just forgiving the “thief” whether someone else “pays the debt” or not.

        • Max Doubt

          “Think more like financial debt. It has to be paid for Right?”

          Well, certainly not if you didn’t make some agreement to owe it.

          “I mean someone pays for it in the end. Somebody takes a loss for it.”

          But this Jesus debt thing can’t be objectively distinguished from a figment of your imagination. So maybe someone imagines they pay for it in the end, and someone imagines they take a loss for it. That has no effect on those of us who aren’t playing along.

          “And so Christ’s death and resurrection “pay the debt” that we could never pay”

          Using quotes around “pay the debt” makes it seem like one of those phrases you mutter now and then because it feels meaningful to you, but you probably can’t even define it in an unambiguous way. Oh, and I don’t owe any debt that could be reasonably paid by some dude dying.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh, and I don’t owe any debt that could be reasonably paid by some dude dying.

          Vicarious atonement really is some repugnant shit alright.

        • richardrichard2013

          why would your god need to receive his own punishment by raping himself with sins from all years? does any of this make any sense? what did a god raping himself with sins from all years clean up? did it cool of your god or did it clear his memory of sins? paying a debt has to come from the one who owes the debt , it seems useless your god raping himself with sins from all years. at the end of the day only the guilty can pay, jesus can rape himself with sins thousands of times, but only the guilty has to do the act of finding the money and paying .

        • MNb

          If I have a debt to the christian god that needs to be paid, something I deny.

        • RichardSRussell

          The analogy is nowhere near left field. Person X does something that Person Y doesn’t like, so Person Y makes Person Z suffer for it rather than just forgiving Person X. Show me where the analogy that I cited about the crayons and kids and dismemberment differs from the ludicrous idea that Jesus had to die for my sins. Be specific. Just saying you don’t understand the analogy isn’t the same as pointing out where it went wrong.

        • adam
        • Cozmo the Magician

          Yeah, an immortal being spends a lousy time on nailed to stick. Is taken down and tossed in a cave where he chills for a few days. After that he goes back to fun and sun in the sky. This pays for all sinsgives special people a get out of hell free card, but still makes the rest of us suffer for evars.

        • Cozmo the Magician

          Oh and if peep are just allowed to make up debts.. Hey shithead, your great geat great greatx12 granddad never paid my next door neighbor’s cousin(7,000 times removed) for a blow job, so you now owe me $12,786,374,182.47 (interest adds up). Pay up now, or my invisible pet dragon is going to burn your ass for at least 12m years. (i’m letting you off easy since im not as big a prick as your god)

        • adam

          ” Think more like financial debt. It has to be paid for Right? ”

          Actually financial debts can easily be forgiven by the debt holder without killing anyone

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/30b33306f99e73e286217bc4a1289abbde6a857fe9e5c0346f51bdc8295878ee.gif

        • MNb

          So what? I don’t have any problem christians believing that – as long as I don’t have to believe and appreciate it.

    • Susan

      We have to consider that perhaps God flooding the world IS the most loving thing to do.

      Sure, I’ll consider it. Give me your best pitch.

      Dan Barker…

      Who knows what Dan Barker said? I don’t trust your framing of it and I’m not going to go watch a debate just so I can address what YOU claim Dan Barker said.

      Let’s say his point is as horrible as you suggest it is, though.

      Dan Barker is not Yawhehjesus.

      If Dan Barker can be a situational ethicist, why can’t God?

      If by “God”, you mean an agent who pulled reality out of some metaphysical orifice, then “God” has no justification for being a “situational ethicist”.

      Whereas mere mortals are left with imperfect solutions in extreme thought experiments and often, in real life.

      That is because they don’t have the option of pulling reality out a metaphysical orifice.

      It depends on what you’re claiming when you say “God”.

      What are you claiming?

    • Greg G.

      If Dan Barker can be a situational ethicist why can’t God?

      Dan Barker, or any human being, is not omnipotent. His options are quite limited. Why would God have to choose between the lesser of two evils?

      • Bob

        To not overide human freedom for one

        • epeeist

          To not overide human freedom for one

          Ah, being deliberately drowned in a global flood doesn’t override your freedom then…

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

          You are conflating freedom with autonomy.

        • Michael Neville

          It strikes me that being dead curtails one’s freedom in a big way.

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

          Haha… point taken. How would a resurrection change the formula?

        • Michael Neville

          Resurrections are few and far between. Jesus managed it, so did Lazarus.

          Osiris was killed and his body parts scattered all over Egypt but his wife and his mistress (the wife of his killer) found the parts and put him back together again except for his penis, which was eaten by a fish. The gods were so impressed they made him live again (sans penis).

          Tammuz, a Sumerian god; Dionysus, a Greek god; Attis, a Phrygian god; and Persephone, a Greek goddess; are examples of fertility and vegetation gods who die and are reborn every year.

          There are some other gods who do the death and resurrection thing but it’s not common. Lazarus is the only human I can think of who got a second chance.

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

          Another way to look at it is that poor Lazarus had to die twice.

          I agree it is fairly rare, but the death and rebirth pattern is woven enough into nature that a few folks seemed to have picked up on it. I actually think it a strangely intuitive and apprehensive concept that resonates with many people even before they have been exposed to the concept. I believe it is part and parcel of the mystery of existence itself, the kind of thing that once understood, leaves one with the sense that they knew all along. But opinions are not debatable so I digress…

          When I dealt with this topic 17 years ago, I found C.S. Lewis’ observations indispensable for my own understanding. it will start right at the main point at the 5:50 mark, and the argument continues for 4 minutes until about the 9:50 mark. I cannot say it any better, and in spite of some crying foul, why not just quote the source directly, especially when modern technology makes it so easy for both of us?

          https://youtu.be/Uv4kx2QP4UM?t=350

          Also, there is a series of short videos that deal with most of the individual cases you’ve brought up. I use them in my own class at the local jail when the question arises which has happened only once.

          This one concerns Dionysus:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq8fFw-oV3w

        • Greg G.

          Don’t forget the Raising the Ruler’s Daughter, Matthew 9:18,23; Mark 5:22,35; and Luke 8:40,49 and the Raising of a Widow’s Son at Nain, Luke 7:11. When somebody was being buried, his body accidently touched Elisha’s bones who happened to have been buried there before and the man came to life.

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

          I ask because if we wish to critique a theology, it should be judged in its own context.

          For instance, people will ask what kind of God will flood the whole earth? But in the context of the story mankind had been corrupted genetically by angels.

          We may scoff at such an absurd and frightening concept, but that IS the context for the justice in the story.

          If the context of the story is the act of a Just God, then any interpretation should at least attempt to see if that can be done consistently.

          But if our intent is to try and find injustice, we will never look for justice in the way I just described.

          It’s very important to at least be conscious of what we assume about the text and expect to find because of that bias.

          If the text resists our context, we may be attempting to read into it something that is not there.

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

          people will ask what kind of God will flood the whole earth? But in the context of the story mankind had been corrupted genetically by angels.

          That’s one interpretation. Doesn’t really say that, though.

          But let’s accept your story. It must be a bitch to be omniscient and omnipotent and yet your ant farm gets out of control so badly. You’d think that such a being would’ve seen that coming and avoided the problem.

        • 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=lBwmBnOg2WE

          That’s one interpretation. Doesn’t really say that, though.

          It’s actually the traditional and most widely accepted interpretation. Would you like to see the relevant verses from Genesis, Jude, and.. I think Peter?
          It’s been awhile since I have had this come up, but its fascinating material, albeit terrifying.

          But let’s accept your story. It must be a bitch to be omniscient and omnipotent and yet your ant farm gets out of control so badly. You’d think that such a being would’ve seen that coming and avoided the problem.

          A man calling himself Nerdsamwich brought this up a couple weeks ago at the friendly atheist. Hasn’t spoken a word since. Smart kid.

          I suppose it is useful since it is part of difficulty in your criticism of Lennox in your article with the missing link (pun intended).

          Now that you mention it, my synapses are refreshed and it occurs to me that this is actually the linchpin of any theodicy. The whole difficulty of morality and justice hinges on it.

          Free will necessitates the possibility of evil, but it does not necessitate evil. According to the story (so that’s the context we’ll use) a 3rd of the angels rebelled and were cast out.

          Then, one of those angels, identified by John in Revelation as ‘the serpent of old who is the devil’, tricked mankind into taking his word (by faith) over God’s

          Satan drew their attention to the empirical and tangible which appealed to the senses. He asserted that they would acquire God’s omniscience and could know all things (both good and evil). In the process he implied quite craftily and subtly that we would not have to live by faith. Or, as Lennox illistrated, God was supressing them.

          They did not stop long enough to inquire of logic, so as to see that they had to believe the serpent by faith BEFORE they could reach for the empirical proof.

          It was a very good trick. Hume even recalibrated it for his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. He must not have been awate that the idea was quite ancient or where he got it. It was a revelation.

          Bear with me, I’m getting there…

          Just as the angels were expelled, so was humanity, but from the garden.

          So, God DID do something about it and was not caught off guard. He was quite prepared and keeps us confined in a large fishbowl we call the universe. I like to think of time as the glass, but perhaps a more fitting example is that horizon before Planck time that we cannot seem to intuit.

          I think the existence of the garden is a clue that the world outside the garden was already a cage, fallen as it were, ready made for what might happen depending on our choice.

          But God, knowing our ignorance, decided that he would take responsibility for his kids. It is after-all his cross to bear. He may not have sinned, but he created the world and evil.

          The angels would not have the excuse of ignorance. They were created in the very presence of God in the truly objective world of heaven. They had all the evidence and proof they needed and still denied it.

          Jesus warned the religious leaders about this eternal sin because they too saw him in the flesh and witnessed the miracles. But some of them still refused to relent. It would appear that seeing is not believing. Motive determines our perceptions.

          So God prepared a place for those who condemn themselves, and also knew that things would be remade at the resurrection.

          Logos is more competent than we could ever have imagined on our own. Fortunately, he is eager to make sense of it if we are willing to take the time to listen. Individually, our motives will determine if we do.

        • Greg G.

          Then, one of those angels, identified by John in Revelation as ‘the serpent of old who is the devil’, tricked mankind into taking his word (by faith) over God’s

          Satan drew their attention to the empirical and tangible which appealed to the senses. He asserted that they would acquire God’s omniscience and could know all things (both good and evil). In the process he implied quite craftily and subtly that we would not have to live by faith. Or, as Lennox illistrated, God was supressing them.

          They did not stop long enough to inquire of logic, so as to see that they had to believe the serpent by faith BEFORE they could reach for the empirical proof.

          If the serpent in the Garden was Satan, why did God punish serpents? It would mean that the serpent was innocent. How could an omniscient being fall for the framing of serpents? God owes serpents a sincere apology.

        • David Cromie

          If a supposed ‘god’ created everything, then it must have created the ‘heaven’ in which the ‘rebellion’ is said to have taken place. This would indicate that even that, later much vaunted, ‘ideal place’ was imperfect, if not purposely designed to allow insurrection, resulting in the creation of ‘god’s’ rival, Satan, about which an omnipotent ‘god’ could do nothing at the time, other than promise to vanquish it at some indeterminate later date.

          Thus a supposed perfect ‘god’ is seen not to be perfect, much less omnipotent, after all, and when looking at its handiwork it could never have declared, in all honesty, that all was perfect both in heaven and on earth. In the meantime, we are supposed to sit around waiting (praying, and worshipping on pain of everlasting torment in a lake of fire and brimstone if we don’t) for the ‘second coming’ when all will be made ‘perfect’ for eternity, as this supposed ‘god’ works to a revised plan, thousands of years too late for the vast majority of mankind!

          If any otherwise sane persons believe this bucket of BS, then they need their heads testing!

        • Greg G.

          Exactly! If spiritual beings can sin in heaven, what would keep resurrected humans from sinning? Do they get kicked out, too? Humans can’t go a day without committing some sort of sin. Eternal life would be limited to a few hours.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Especially with all that free will stuff knocking abut the place.

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

          It’s actually the traditional and most widely accepted interpretation. Would you like to see the relevant verses from Genesis, Jude, and.. I think Peter?

          (1) I don’t much care if it’s widely accepted. Christians accept that Isaiah 7 has a virgin birth prophecy of Jesus, when it has nothing of the kind.

          (2) Why quote anything but Gen. 6:1-4?

          It’s been awhile since I have had this come up, but its fascinating material, albeit terrifying.

          What’s terrifying? A nutty god gets mad at everyone? It’s just a story.

          I suppose it is useful since it is part of difficulty in your criticism of Lennox in your article with the missing link (pun intended).

          It was on Frank Turek’s blog. Don’t blame me that they’ve lost the link.

          And I’m missing the difficulty. Explain.

          According to the story (so that’s the context we’ll use) a 3rd of the angels rebelled and were cast out.

          According to what story? Are we still talking about the Nephilim? That’s just Gen. 6.

          Satan drew their attention to the empirical and tangible which appealed to the senses. He asserted that they would acquire God’s omniscience and could know all things (both good and evil). In the process he implied quite craftily and subtly that we would not have to live by faith. Or, as Lennox illistrated, God was supressing them.

          Why are you relating a Bible story? Do you think I’ll find it authoritative?

          They did not stop long enough to inquire of logic, so as to see that they had to believe the serpent by faith BEFORE they could reach for the empirical proof.

          Have we moved on to the Garden of Eden?

          It was a very good trick.

          What was the trick? The serpent was right. Indeed, the serpent is the hero of the story, the Prometheus of Genesis.

          So, God DID do something about it and was not caught off guard.

          So the flood was in the cards from Day 1? I think a better explanation is that “God” evolves with time through the Bible. Polytheism and a limited god is first, then henotheism, then monotheism, then God is omni-everything.

          I think the existence of the garden is a clue that the world outside the garden was already a cage, fallen as it were

          Genesis has just-so stories. It’s kind of hard to look down on the wisdom we’ve gotten from the Tree.

          But God, knowing our ignorance, decided that he would take responsibility for his kids.

          Not really. Adam and Eve had less moral wisdom than a one-year-old, and they get punished through the generations for failing a moral test they couldn’t understand.

          Fail.

          Jesus warned the religious leaders about this eternal sin because they too saw him in the flesh and witnessed the miracles. But some of them still refused to relent. It would appear that seeing is not believing.

          Jesus did miracles? Big deal. There were magicians on every street corner. The pharaoh’s wise men could duplicate many of Moses’ tricks.

          So God prepared a place for those who condemn themselves

          But he gave us an out so we could get into heaven anyway, right? If it requires belief, I’m afraid this option doesn’t apply to me.

          Fortunately, he is eager to make sense of it if we are willing to take the time to listen.

          I have no respect for any belief system that requires faith. There’s no faith required for me to believe that my PC mouse is black or that my wife exists. That Christianity demands belief without evidence shows that it has failed its burden of proof.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Jesus did miracles? Big deal. There were magicians on every street corner. The pharaoh’s wise men could duplicate many of Moses’ tricks.

          Dynamo, and his fellow illusionists, pull off better miracles magic, than those in the tales of Jesus.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO8Nsx7MN6c

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

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkDIv4nsf84

        • Chad Courage DeVillier

          That’s a statement I’ve yet to see a compelling apologetic response to– how did God not see the situation coming and make mankind better? Free will only allows for violence if you create beings with violent tendencies.

        • epeeist

          I’ve yet to see a compelling apologetic response to

          Have you considered that this may be because there isn’t one…

        • Chad Courage DeVillier

          That there doesn’t exist a compelling response to such a glaring logical hole in the Christian’s portrait of their god is my primary theory on the subject, actually

        • epeeist

          You are saying they don’t have a compelling riposte?

          I’m shocked I tell you, shocked.

        • David Cromie

          Of course a beneficent, omniscient, and omnipotent ‘god’ would have recognised this problem as innate to its design. So, instead of deliberately fashioning mankind in its own image, with all the allure and morals of a rattlesnake, it could have desisted, and thought up some other blueprint for a peaceful/harmonious, and kind/loving set of humans. The fact that it did not, but was so egotistical, and cruel with it, just shows that it is an evil, twisted, ogre of immeasurable proportions, and humanity is supposed to thank and worship it, or else!

        • adam
        • richardrichard2013

          in the story was noah genetically corrupted?

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

          According to Robert Lockett, the Nephilim corrupted everyone.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Of course…all that incest that was permitted before the big clean out…he had to have been genetically corrupted.

          Then the angels came along and fucked the whole fucked up thing, even fucking further.

          Ask Robert, I think he knows all about inbreeding.

        • adam
        • David Cromie

          “If the text resists our context, we may be attempting to read into it something that is not there”. Is this not what the so-called ‘bible’ forces christers to do all the time, as they flail around for confirmation for their particular context/world view?

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

          No, its what the mystery of existence does to materialists.

        • adam

          “No, its what the mystery of existence does to materialists.”

          As opposed to magicianists?

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

          Bob is the one with the magical UNCAUSED universe.

        • adam

          Nope, religion.

          Without magic, religion is fairy tales.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Without magic, religion is fairy tales.

          Without magic, religion is just legend. But with all that magic, it becomes fairy tales.

        • adam

          You are correct, my bad, thanks!

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

          I think you meant that religion is magic and fairy tales. Gairy tales are generally synonymous with magic.

          Without magic, religion would be science. I’ve heard the rumor. Used to pass it on myself. So thanks for nothin’.

          It may not be a fairy tale, but I find conscious activity magical in the everyday sense of the mysterious and unknown. And that’s because it is unpredictable, with QM or anything else that is presumably scientific.

          The daunting questions surrounding OOL and cosmological causation tell me thete is more than enough everyday magic and mystery for every philosophy, but especially materialism.

        • adam

          “but I find conscious activity magical in the everyday sense of the mysterious and unknown.”

          Finding ignorance ‘magical’ is the source of many of our problems today.

          ” but especially materialism.”

          So then where is all the evidence of magic in materialism?

          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

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

          “The universe is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be.” -Carl Sagan

          As an adolescent, I found that quite charming (as in, a charm). I dod not notice that was not a statement of science but is materialistic philosophy.

          I was held under that spell for at least a decade and you were my tormentors until a friend brought me back to sanity.

          And it was a struggle, and you’re toast

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iQExgALv9wI

        • adam

          I have no sound, your videos have no power over me.

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

          That’s why I share it publicly, because I don’t care who gets the point or if you do

        • Ignorant Amos

          His videos just demonstrate that he can’t separate the fiction from reality of his life.

          They have no power over anyone, because they are the musings of an airhead living in cloud cuckoo land.

        • TheNuszAbides
          “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 was not a statement of science but materialistic
          philosophy.

          are you sure it could only be, or even necessarily is, either of those things? perhaps you were [are still?] confusing a clear definition, a mere frame of reference, for a prescriptive declaration?

        • TheNuszAbides

          there is no reason, as long as there are humans, to expect an end to the encrustations that active imaginations can superimpose over even the most basic of observations. just because lots of us have been doing a lot of that over a long period of time doesn’t make it (let alone any specific rendition) inherently meritorious, necessary or profound. it just means it’s a habit of humans. you seem to be more into comparing notes than most theists, but your motives in so comparing are made suspect by an apparent insistence that any worldview that doesn’t rely on a core of absolute unshakable certitude is rationally bankrupt. that’s really no more complicated than a failure of (a) imagination and/or (b) ability to even cautiously consider (let alone accept) available, plausible, not-particularly-special, provisional explanations. the widespread fondness for Something Greater is so often poorly-disguised hunger for membership in Team Power. one can be up-front about one’s susceptibility to such a hunger, but can one pursue anything worth calling Truth while in the throes of it? do you actually think only Tolkien’s theist compartments can provide the world with a LotR-style narrative? imagination isn’t that special – but it’s useful for far more than just feeding off fantasies to shore up faith.

          whereas those pitiful materialists (hock–ptooey!) among us … who are comfortable with monitoring the intake and feedback of methodological naturalism as sustaining reliable observations and developments … can also find perfectly entertaining diversion in story-swapping and braggadocio around the e-bonfire and projecting our egos into heroic [if merely virtual] shenanigans.

          the only real difference (in that you too don’t deny physical reality in any practical sense, because, well, your ego’s survived long enough to turn up here, whether or not you credit some unfalsifiable guidance system) is how arrogantly one puts one’s metaphors where one’s mouth is and blurs the line between fancy and functional society. that’s where you take the cake time and time again. your attempts to stay ‘right’ with your deity and paint a bad-ass picture for lurkers and/or yourself resemble in-group chest-pounding far more than they resemble objective seeking of an accurate model of reality [somewhat distinct in character, which is to say, character-irrelevant, from the special-pleading-wishful-thinking Truth you hope you serve and which you claim is ~eager~ to ~reveal~ itself to those who are clued into … uh, moral/mythical shibboleths?]. remember you already played one of your humility cards by purporting to relish criticism and not Know Everything …

          a pity you played the “but I serve a Power of Infinite KnowledgeReasonTruth and all I’ll ever rilly need to know will be Provided by His August UberPersonhood in Due Course” so soon after. why is your buddy LOGOS taking so long to deliver through his fragile mortal warriorslave the goods that will make The Truth clear? oh right … you still haven’t clarified how metaphorical your use of the Demonic Interference trope is. Why On Earth don’t you (or He) either get crackin’ or get packin’?

          EDIT: re-worded the LotR line for something approaching clarity.

        • Michael Neville

          No, Bob is the one who doesn’t know how the universe was caused.

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

          My point exactly. Thanks for playing 20 questions…

        • Michael Neville

          As usual for a Christian apologist, you got it wrong. Bob and I and other people don’t have a “magical uncaused universe” nor do we have a magical caused universe like you do. Instead, we don’t know what caused the universe and, what’s more, neither do you.

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

          So you’re open to all the options, and do not require an impersonal cause before the facts are in?

          Different topic same dilemma: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3PHoMWIlklA

        • Michael Neville

          Do you have evidence for a specific cause of the universe? I didn’t think so. When you’ve got that evidence then we can talk about being open to options. Until then, it’s obvious to everyone except your dumb ass that you don’t know what caused the universe.

        • Baby_Raptor

          I mentioned to Robert earlier what an enormous asshole you are. Not that it’s not obvious.

        • Michael Neville

          Pardon me, Sirrah, but you must have mistaken me for someone who gives a rat’s ass about your opinion. Now be a good twit and fuck off.

        • Baby_Raptor

          You’re just mad that I made you look like the confused asshole you are. I would shit on a plate and hand you a fork. Fag.

        • MNb

          Honourable people would rather be a confused asshole like MN than be someone like you.

        • Baby_Raptor

          The fact that you put a “u” in honorable tells me all I need to know about your opinion.

        • epeeist

          The fact that you put a “u” in honorable tells me all I need to know about your opinion.

          Just goes to show that someone with English as a second language still has a better understanding of it than you.

        • Susan
        • Baby_Raptor

          This is America.

        • Susan

          This is America.

          This isn’t. This is Canada. And “this” isn’t the U.S.A for MNb either.

        • Baby_Raptor

          I’m talking about the only one that matters. Get a grip.

        • Susan

          I see you’re here for the troll convention.

        • Baby_Raptor

          If you’ll recall, you replied to me. Nobody was looking for you to get involved.

        • Greg G.

          If that bothers you, then don’t post in public forums.

        • Baby_Raptor

          It doesn’t bother me, Greg. I appreciate your concern though

        • Susan

          If you’ll recall, you replied to me. Nobody was looking for you to get involved.

          And if you’ll recall, you just showed up here trolling. No one asked you to do so.

          It’s a public forum. You can scatter troll poo around until you get banned or forever, if you don’t.

          But anyone whose contributions to the conversation consist in saying things like “I would shit on a plate and hand you a fork. Fag.” and “This is America” on the internet has raised their troll flag up high.

          Trolls and sockpuppets have dominated this site for the last few weeks and there’s nothing special about you.

          You’re just another one. You’re not fooling anyone.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Thanks for your insight, Susan. Are you done?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Spoooiiiinnnng!

          I see you don’t do irony very well, ya fuckwit cunty ballix.

        • Baby_Raptor

          You’re an annoying asshole.

        • epeeist

          Or for me.

          Could I ask, do you have a passport, I am assuming the answer is yes. The same is almost certainly true for MNb and it is true for myself.

          What are the odds that Baby_Raptor doesn’t have one?

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’ve got two….belt and braces.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Why wouldn’t you just ask me? Even though it’s an idiotic question. I’ve been to several countries, and guess what, this is still the best one.

        • Ignorant Amos

          What a doughnut.

          Why wouldn’t you just ask me?

          It was a rhetorical question ya Coco. Punting towards yer red neck. You would’ve lied about it anyway.

          Even though it’s an idiotic question.

          Nope…even if the intention was to make a judgement on the probability you have a passport, from your participation here so far, you fit the profile of a knuckle dragger who wouldn’t own a passport.

          Around 64% of American’s don’t own a passport, so the odds favour it not being so idiotic as an idiot might think.

          I’ve been to several countries, and guess what, this is still the best one.

          I’ve lived there, among a number of places, and I’m here to tell everyone else reading that it is not. Of course the states is a very diverse country going from one end to the other, but unless you’ve been everywhere in the world, you can’t claim it’s the best. But it only takes having been to one place that I deem better, I can get to say it’s not the best.

        • Baby_Raptor

          64%? Where is that number from? 86% of non-Americans are mutants. I can make up numbers too. Name one country that can compete with the United States in any category. It will never happen. America is the pinnacle of mankind. Roaches like you have been bellyaching since 1776, but it means less than nothing.

        • epeeist

          Why wouldn’t you just ask me?

          Fuck off shitface, my post wasn’t addressed to you.

        • Baby_Raptor

          It was about me. What is your problem? We can agree to disagree, but I can’t have you disparaging me.

        • MNb

          Our problem is that you are a shitface and perhaps even a waste of oxygen.

        • epeeist

          And a special snowflake, dishes it out but can’t take it.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Dishes what out? Dickhead. You haven’t made one single point.

        • epeeist

          And there goes another irony meter.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Enough. We said what we had to say. I’ve accepted you apology. Let’s just keep it moving. It’s a new day.

        • epeeist

          I’ve accepted you apology.

          Ah, so your reading comprehension is below par too.

          Or to put it another way, you’re talking bollocks, I’d never apologise to a shit like you.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Good, then go fist your own ass. Old fool. Stop replying to me and eat shit.

        • Baby_Raptor

          As if I care what some Mexican rabble rouser thinks. You’re a piece of shit. The bark of my dog is more intelligent.

        • epeeist

          It was about me.

          So? It wasn’t addressed to you so stop fucking butting in.

        • Baby_Raptor

          What are you? A fucking parrot? How would you like if I went around shit talking you and asking stupid questions that have no relevance. I have a passport, dummy.

        • adam

          ” I have a passport, dummy.”

          Yeah?
          We have an accord, dummy.

        • Baby_Raptor

          I’m sure many rent boys have seen the backseat of that accord. And knowing what a creep you are, probably the trunk too.

        • adam

          No, I dont let your daddy anywhere near my family.

          And no, you can’t blow me in the back seat, or the trunk.
          Let your daddy do it.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Let my daddy blow you? You really are a little homo.

        • adam
        • Baby_Raptor

          Why would you tell my father to blow you then?

        • adam

          I wouldnt, he was talking about blowing you, something about the ‘good ol days’.

        • Baby_Raptor

          That might be more convincing if you wiped your chin first. Cupcake.

        • adam

          Nothing to wipe from my chin, that’s a mirror in front of your, or maybe your ol daddy…..

        • Baby_Raptor

          So, you’re admitting you swallow your lovers?

        • adam

          No, you are just fantasizing.

          I am not interested in you, quit coming on to me.

        • Baby_Raptor

          You just said you like to blow rent boys but you claim there’s nothing on your chin. Only one other explanation.

        • adam

          No, you just fantasizing about me again.

          “Only one other explanation.”
          You are on the wrong website to pick up men.

        • Baby_Raptor

          You are the expert.

        • adam

          And you are the stalker…

        • Baby_Raptor

          Believe me, nobody in your life cares enough about you to stalk. People leave the room when they see you enter. They vomit when they hear your name. You’re a loser’s loser and that’s how you’ll remain. Clown.

        • adam

          “Believe me, nobody in your life cares enough about you to stalk.”

          yeah, yeah, yeah that’s why you cant keep from coming on to me.

        • Baby_Raptor

          I have a dress that will match your heels. Your tricks will think you’re adorable when they turn your mouth into a toilet.

        • adam

          I dont have heel, and not interested in your nasty dress either.

          “. Your tricks will think you’re adorable when they turn your mouth into a toilet.”

          Unlike your daddy, I dont do tricks.
          And your daddy says your mouth is already being used as a toilet.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Lol. It’s so obvious I’m right on target. Everyone can practically smell your cock-shit breath through the computer. Disgusting.

        • adam

          ” Everyone can practically smell your cock-shit breath through the computer.”

          that’s YOUR breath, idiot….

        • Baby_Raptor

          Lol. everyone knows when they look at you. You’re only lying to yourself.

        • adam

          “You’re only lying to yourself.”

          While you are lying to everyone, including yourself.

        • Baby_Raptor

          I think you’re more upset that I’m the woman you’ll never be. Just because you take random cock in every orifice, that does not make you a woman. It makes you gross.

        • adam

          “I think you’re more upset that I’m the woman you’ll never be.”

          I dont care if your a ‘bottom’, Im not gay or interested.

          Quit trying to come on to me.

          “Just because you take random cock in every orifice, that does not make you a woman.”

          Nor does it make you the woman I’ll never be.

          Still not interested.

        • Baby_Raptor

          As you sprint to your grinder account.

        • adam

          I dont have a grinder account, remember Im NOT gay.

          So quit coming on to me.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Sure you’re not. How long has that been your mantra? Most guys who say they’re not gay probably don’t have cock-shit breath like you.

        • adam

          “Most guys who say they’re not gay probably don’t have cock-shit breath like you.”

          Again, you are smelling your own breath bouncing back from your monitor

          Still not interested in you, but you still keep coming on to me like a crazed stalker.

        • adam

          “Lol. It’s so obvious I’m right on target.”

          Right on target to smell your own breath as you lean into the monitor hoping your come ons will be accepted by me.

          They wont.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Why are you sweating and red faced then? I can only imagine how many hands are on your shoulders right now. Fairy.

        • adam

          “Why are you sweating and red faced then?”

          Im not, your looking at your reflection, what a rube.

          ” I can only imagine how many hands are on your shoulders right now. ”

          Yep, you can’t stop yourself from fantasizing about me, can you Ted?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/72c069edcaa6b8c91ae94bd51ee881bbaedd43e62460cbafa407975f525af8aa.jpg

        • Baby_Raptor

          It’s real normal for you to have all these pictures of some old queer you have a massive hard on for. You don’t seem creepy at all.

        • adam

          “It’s real normal for you to have all these pictures of some old queer”

          I dont have any pictures of you or your daddy, and frankly, dont want any.

        • Baby_Raptor

          I can only imagine the type of pictures you have. I’m sure the FBI wants to know. Fairy.

        • adam

          “I can only imagine the type of pictures you have.”

          You spend way too much time imaging me, still not interested

          ” I’m sure the FBI wants to know.”

          Dont they already know about your daddy?

        • Baby_Raptor

          That will give you something to think about when you’re biting the pillow and some strange man is losing his wristwatch up your ass.

        • adam

          Never happens except in your fantasies of me.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Then why do you have a permanent shit ring around your mouth from where you French kiss men’s assholes?

        • adam

          I dont.

          You must be seeing your reflection, AGAIN.

          Still not interested.
          Quit stalking me.

        • Baby_Raptor

          My email inbox smells like cock and piss. Stop breathing on the messages.

        • Susan

          Adam, I’m begging you This place has gone to hell lately. It’s been overrun with trolls and sockpuppets in the last few weeks.

          At least most of them have gone through the motions of pretending they’re interested in the discussion

          Baby_Raptor is pure troll. He hasn’t even bothered to pretend he’s come to discuss the topics.

          You’re feeding him and the recent comments are full of exchanges of who’s more into gay sex (which is obnoxious and beneath you).

          E-mail Bob. Please. Bob is a writer and thinker and doesn’t have moderators to take control of this stuff. If we point it out, he can assess the situation and respond as he sees fit.

          Baby_Raptor just shouldn’t be here. He’s a shit-disturbing asshole troll who needs to be banned.

          Don’t engage. It’s hard enough following real discussions under the Patheos-Disqus nightmare of late.

        • adam

          ” It’s been overrun with trolls and sockpuppets in the last few weeks.”

          It cycles

          “Baby_Raptor just shouldn’t be here.”

          Bob will take care of him.
          Especially now that he is wearing the mask of Kodie, another contributor.

        • adam

          Thanks!

          but see Bob took care of it.

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

          Enough with the weird gay references.

        • David Cromie

          You really are a nasty, self- oppressed, closet queen! Do you frequently experience these flights of fancy? Do something about your twisted mental state before it is too late.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Your family no doubt has a bottle of champagne on ice, praying for the day they get the call saying you’re gone and their burden is over.

        • adam

          Quit coming on to me, I dont swing that way.

          Not that there is anything wrong with your homosexuality, or your father’s for that matter.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Being gay would be too normal for you. The never ending parade of strange men and day laborers that spitroast you day in and day out is as close to normal as you’ll get.

        • adam

          “The never ending parade of strange men and day laborers that spitroast you day in and day out”

          Dont worry, I know that this post was meant for your daddy.

        • Baby_Raptor

          As you gag on the next Mexican in line.

        • adam

          So you saw your daddy gagging

        • MNb

          Given your idiotic comments you only can expect idiotic questions about you.

        • Greg G.

          The is the internet, also known as the World Wide Web.

          PS: MNb is in South America.

        • Baby_Raptor

          My condolences to MNb.

        • adam
        • Baby_Raptor

          Get a grip. Your life hasn’t changed one iota in the last year. Except you’re more of a drama queen.

        • adam
        • Baby_Raptor

          Zzzzzzz….

        • adam

          Zzzzzzz….

        • Ignorant Amos

          This is the World Wide Web ya rhubarb.

        • epeeist

          This is the World Wide Web

          Invented in France/Switzerland by someone from England.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ha ha….what a retard.

          Or just an ignorant child…

          http://wikidiff.com/honourable/honorable

        • Baby_Raptor

          Thanks. I wasn’t questioning his spelling, I was questioning why anyone would still spell it that way in this day and age. Do you still write “ye olde”?

        • Greg G.

          It’s how the rest of the English-speaking world spells it.

        • Baby_Raptor

          It’s like putting a “u” in color. It’s asinine.

        • adam

          No, it’s British, your asinine.

          https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colour

        • Baby_Raptor

          Thanks, professor. In America, “you’re” is the contraction for you and are.

        • adam

          No, it’s British and YOU ARE asinine.

        • Baby_Raptor

          You’re just an embarrassed dummy.

        • adam

          No, I am not embarrassed by grammar on the internets.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Clearly.

        • adam

          Clearly.

          And clearly you not the best choice to defend your own point of view.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Maybe I should try posting a bunch of gay pictures with witty slogans as opposed to having a real conversation.

        • adam

          You might as well,

          Since you dont seem to have the capability to have a real conversation.

        • Baby_Raptor

          I just prefer to cut out the small talk. Eat shit.

        • adam
        • Baby_Raptor

          Worry about your bitch tits. You have bigger problems.

        • adam

          “Worry about your bitch tits.”

          Keep my wife out of this and go eat your own shit again.

        • Baby_Raptor

          As if you could ever get hard for a woman.

        • adam

          Oh, quit coming on to me, will ya.

          I dont swing that way.

        • Baby_Raptor

          The rent boys chained in your dungeon beg to differ.

        • adam

          I have no dungeon or rent boys,

          You must be thinking about your daddy again.

        • Baby_Raptor

          My daddy also knows you’re a self hating homo.

        • adam

          His rent boys are lying to him.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Nobody had to lie. Everyone can smell the cock on your breath. That’s one of the many reasons people laugh at you.

        • adam

          “Nobody had to lie”

          but they obviously did.

          ” Everyone can smell the cock on your breath.”

          You’re smelling your own breath.
          Or maybe just your daddy’s.

        • Baby_Raptor

          If it’s not your cock breath, why do you think people laugh at you? Is it your limp wrist?

        • adam

          “If it’s not your cock breath, why do you think people laugh at you?”

          For putting up with IDiots like you.

          ” Is it your limp wrist?”

          I dont have a limp wrist, you must be thinking of your daddy, again.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6941d9ab8453b45e9aa78eb967f81068e082466fe2f48eeed3f2ed0a7748dab7.jpg

        • Baby_Raptor

          Sorry. What’s the technical term for limp wrist? Fagatosis? You have that. In spades. Fuck your own face.

        • adam

          “Sorry. What’s the technical term for limp wrist? Fagatosis?”

          You keep coming on to me, fantasizing about my mouth, my face.
          I am NOT GAY, so quit coming on to me.

          Go down to your daddy’s dungeon and borrow one of his rent boys for what you obviously want.

          I am not interested in your homosexual fantasies.

          Not that there is anything wrong with that………..

        • Baby_Raptor

          As your breath continues to smell like the Knicks locker room.

        • adam

          That’s your own breath from frenching your daddy.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Glad to see you’re ok. Everyone told me you died.

        • adam

          No that is just what your daddys breath smells like.

        • adam

          That your breath, you just keep sucking, cock or not in your mouth.

        • Baby_Raptor

          That makes sense. Retard.

        • Baby_Raptor

          The rest of the English speaking world does a lot of dumb shit.

        • MNb

          Really? For instance you don’t need to know that English is not my native language?
          That again tells me that my previous comment was right.

        • Baby_Raptor

          Don’t tell me your problems. Nobody is stopping you from learning the language properly.

        • MNb

          Really? According to you being a non-native English speaker is a problem?
          And you are the Ultimate Arbiter of what constitutes Proper English?
          My only problem in this subthread is you being an utter piece of shit, who suffers from lastworditis.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A Trumpeter for sure.

        • Baby_Raptor

          I don’t play any musical instruments.

        • TheNuszAbides

          I mentioned to Robert earlier

          why am i unconvinced that Mr. Lockett assigns any value to your assistance in navigating our personalities?

        • 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 and that really hurts Michael. But I will answer yours because I am a kind man.

          No I dont. By definition, supernatural causes (be it a multiverse or God) are not within the scope of empirical inquiry. Jastrow knows…

          We’re in the same boat. I am forced by present circumstances to interpret abundant though limited evidence, and extrapolate philosophically through various lenses like theism and materialism and must trust logic by faith, that the most sensible of those lenses is the correct lens.

          Actually, we are not in the same boat depending on your as yet evaded answer to my last question. I am left to conclude their is only one lens you will allow for yourself.
          Some of us call that a priori bias.

        • Michael Neville

          I’m sorry, I thought your question was purely rhetorical. In fact, I still think so. But since I hate to see a grown man snivel I’ll give you an honest answer.

          I don’t require any causes for the universe, impersonal, personal or something else. The universe probably requires a cause since it had a beginning. I literally do not know what the cause of the universe is. I rather doubt it was an Iron Age Middle Eastern tribal god but I can’t rule that out. It’s entirely possible the universe created itself.

          I do not believe gods as usually defined as causing the universe for the simple reason I’ve been given no reason to believe those gods even exist, let alone created anything. It’s possible a vague deist deity kick started the universe and then faded into the background, never to manifest itself again. But an absolutely hidden, non-interventionist god is equivalent to no god at all.

          Certain cosmologists like the multiverse idea but it’s a hypothesis without anything but some mathematics I don’t understand to support it. There’s no consensus among cosmologists as to the cause of the universe so I can’t look to them for an answer, only speculation.

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

          Thank you Michael.

        • MNb

          “So you’re open to all the options, and do not require an impersonal cause before the facts are in?”
          I am.
          First fact: according to Modern Physics our natural reality is not causal but probabilistic.
          That rules out quite a many gods, including yours as “creating” according to christians is a causal and even teleological act.

        • MNb

          Physicists are the ones with the non-magical uncaused atomic decay.

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

          Sauce for the goose…

          Theology is too complicated for you to undetstand, so you think a witch’s brew of chemicals and directions can make a universe and a cell.

          Primitive nature religions are what magic is all about. I talk about it in my essay. Link in my profile.

        • adam

          “Theology is too complicated for you to undetstand”
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/984030700e86062e2deb26f5244a20edfd5d804ca6e1cfaafac40f75368cdb20.png

          “so you think a witch’s brew of chemicals and directions can make a universe and a cell.”

          And you think a Magical Sky Daddy can?

          “Primitive nature religions are what magic is all about. ”
          All religions are primitive and based on magic.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d3325b25ec97b41acfa8e3d49e9bb6970a5e3b57e7870a0b70a33474b8f4c612.jpg

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

          Hence materialisms categoery, as philosophy. Worse still, empiricism is a philosophy.

          Not because I have a problem living by Faith in a philosophy, but because you do.

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

          Philosophy IS religion Adam.

        • adam

          No, it isnt. rOBERT.

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

          Yes it is adam… philosophy IS religion.

          Apart from omniscience, the thing Adam went for in trying to be God via the empirical fruit, you are FORCED to live by faith. God left you no choice kiddo, “The righteous will live by Faith.”

          To say you have no faith requires omniscience. You are conflating blind faith with evidence based faith.

          The beginning of this video explains the difference. For those with sound anyway… it starts midway so you’ll have to scroll back to the start.

          https://youtu.be/HaQpENJLx-I?t=1040

        • Michael Neville

          Philosophy is the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. Religion comes under its purview, as do other forms of mythology and superstition.

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

          You found the first sentence The second sentence is all my own work. If you disagree then give your reasons for doing so, otherwise acknowledge that I’m right.

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

          Michael, you don’t know what you’re talking about. The belief that everything can be explained via empirical science OR mechanically is ALSO a rough matrix for the philosophy of materialism.

          There are various schools of thought within those fields, and they are all philosophical fields.

          All you need to do is a basic Google search for naturalism and materialism and see for yourself.

          There is nothing for me to explain if you are that ignorant of what philosophy is.

          Also look up emericism, because those were the boys who ignited the scientific revolution. They were philosophers who deluded millions into believing that we don’t have to live by faith.

          The worst part is we believed them. They never proved and still can’t.

          They would have us believe that everything can be explained by natural phenomenon. But until that is accomplished and we have omniscience, it is believed by Faith.

          I think you have a bad concept of what faith is. It is actually gairly reasonable to belive that natural processes can account for everything given the sucesses of science. But the induction, that because so much has been demonstrated to be a product of natural processes, that therefore everything can be explained by natural processes is a genuine leap of faith no matter how you slice it. It remains to be seen.

          Your conviction that it is unassailable is a testimony to the seriousness of your blind belief. If you cannot, or will not recognize even an iota of belief, you are in serious intellectual jeopardy.

          You don’t have to believe in God if you don’t want to. You can still hold him to be a delusion. But for the love of reason, at least appreciate the limitations of every philosophy including atheist philosophy.

          EDIT- Atheism is not a philosophy in the positive sense, it is a negation that logically necessitates materialism, because if there are no deities, then nature is all that remains, and must be assumed to be responsible for the origin of all things. Therefore atheism = materialism = Philosophy = faith = religion.

          This slight of hand (hiding the philosophy) is so clever, that it was recorded in the book of Genesis as the fall of man.

        • Michael Neville

          As it happens, you patronizing prig, I do have an understanding of philosophy, perhaps not as pretentious as yours but workable. But I wasn’t writing an essay on philosophy, I was responding to your STUPID (as in IDIOTIC and COMPLETELY FUCKING WRONG) comment that philosophy was religion.

          Perhaps if you actually read what I wrote instead of trying to teach me things that you vaguely understand, you might have understood my point. But probably not, you’re too involved in teaching the apostates and atheists about what you think we need to learn from you.

          I’m going to bed now. Perhaps tomorrow I’ll respond to your ramblings about faith. Or maybe not, it depends how I feel. But I will leave you with one thought on faith. Religious faith is what you resort to when you don’t have evidence. If you had evidence to support your beliefs then you wouldn’t need faith.

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

          My intention is to challenge and enlighten not to upset you. But if
          you do become upset, I must disregard it. It is not my problem, unless of course it implies harm. But since I am already on death row, it still remains in the category of, not my problem. If you were not so sure of yourselves about the idea that Jesus failed, you might begin to recognize his resolve, and that he wasn’t bluffing. But I digress…

          A New York Times article for you about science and faith. Its by the physicist Paul Daives

          https://mobile.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html

        • Michael Neville

          Your intention may have been to enlighten me but your comment came across as condescending, patronizing and arrogant. Furthermore it was evident that you were not responding to my comment about philosophy not being religion. While philosophy of religion is a valid field of study, it is by no means the only thing that philosophy studies.

          Atheism is not a philosophy in the positive sense

          Atheism is a statement of belief. It is not and does not pretend to be a philosophy. If you knew as much philosophy as you like to think you do or if you knew anything about atheism you’d realize this.

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

          You might want to look up atheism, because it is not a statement of belief. It is a statement of denial. I’ll help you…

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

        • Michael Neville

          Atheism is a statement of belief. “I do not believe that gods exist” is a statement of belief. If you were half or even one-quarter as smart as you think you are this would be obvious. But you’re trying, and failing, to show your superiority over me so you have to contradict everything I say.

          Robert, you are a poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

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

          LOL, works for me, atheism is a religion. I have no problem with that. But it’s been awhile since someone tried to get in my head with Dunning Kruger charges. Meh…

          What you don’t know is how hard atheists have worked to word it the way it exists in any dictionary or encyclopedia to cover that. I have been debating these subjects for 17 years. Many, but not all make it very clear that it is a position of ‘disbelief.’

          So, I figured I would accept that starting a couple years ago, because it’s a religion no matter how you slice, as I have already explained.

          Geez, I go to a meeting for a couple hours and you start to get all full of yourself. Relax Michael. It’s only 2017. We’re a LONG way from being finished.

          Projecting your own self doubt and lack of knowledge onto me is not uncommon. But it’s futile. Do you take me for a grey wizard???

          I was once…
          http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=421713#m421713

        • epeeist

          Michael gave you some of the fields of philosophy, you responded with a reference to materialism. This is known as a category error.

        • MNb

          Then again Robbie doesn’t exactly excel in philosophy, given his

          “To say you have no faith requires omniscience”.
          Despite its ultimate failure we understand thanks to logical positivism the importance of good definitions. To paraphraze Bertrand Russell: had Robbie adopted a good definition of faith he would have understood that he wrote nonsense in the most literal meaning of the word.
          I have concluded that apologetics – which unfortunately is also a field of philosophy and probably by far the least respected one – lags a couple of centuries behind.

        • epeeist

          I have concluded that apologetics – which unfortunately is also a field of philosophy and probably by far the least respected one – lags a couple of centuries behind.

          Is apologetics done by philosophers; philosophers who have a religion; the religious who are philosophers; or the religious.

          I would argue it is the latter two.

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

          He left out the other categories by falsely defining philosophy.

        • epeeist

          He left out the other categories by falsely defining philosophy.

          He gave you a non-exhaustive list of subjects within philosophy, you gave a position in one area of philosophy namely ontology. As I said, a category error.

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

          Oh, so he gave a position in one area of philosophy, namely epistemology. For me it is a category error to point out the other side, but not a category error for him?

          How WILL I go on?

        • Michael Neville

          I see that reading ability is not one of your attributes, and your thinking ability is weak as well. I did NOT falsely define philosophy, in fact I got a definition from an internet source. You’re the one claiming that “philosophy IS religion” which it most certainly is not.

        • David Cromie

          Are you are thinking of ‘metaphysics’ (look it up), which is really concerned with theorising about (religious beliefs) magic in the present context?

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

          Oh, you mean like multiverse theory.

          Dude, let epeeist handle this.

        • Michael Neville

          Do you honestly think that atheists will be impressed by an evangelical Christian apologist’s dislike of us? For an intelligent, educated man John Lennox certainly has a lot of misconceptions about atheists and atheism.

        • adam

          Learner’s definition of RELIGION

          1 the belief in a god or in a group of gods

          2 an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

          I am without theism = atheist

          ” you are FORCED to live by faith.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b12fa1635e121ebbb3409640826d721ba93278771f0064bd133804faa3f01397.png

          Nope, I have no biblical faith.

          “God left you no choice kiddo,”

          Imaginary characters from mythology have no power in reality.

          “The beginning of this video explains the difference.”
          I have NO SOUND

          Your video are powerless against me.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d360dbdac4554ea3d3a53fbe596125243d1ef0a144d7640eebf3f98f77e896e7.jpg

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

          Do you remember that scene when Morpheus told Neo what the Matrix was? Do you remember how badly he wanted out, and that he refused to believe? Do you remember him puking because the cognitive dissonance was so bad?

          Well, then you need to read my response to Michael here: http://disq.us/p/1mb2izv

        • adam

          Learner’s definition of RELIGION

          1 the belief in a god or in a group of gods

          2 an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

          I am without theism = atheist

          “Well, then you need to read my response”
          No I dont.

          I dont need to follow all your vacant rabbit holes.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/baadaf4c80c33c90acdc126c5bea5ae76ecbf62299c02cb86c7d7be47c668796.jpg

        • David Cromie

          Where is the ‘evidence’ that you christers bleat on about?

          The deluded Irishman in the video neatly sidesteps the fact that he was indoctrinated into his beliefs by his parents, and probably his grandparents, if he knew them. He also forgets that he was, just as everyone is, born an non-theist. Hence his tirade of culpable ignorance and deluded BS, coupled with a lack of critical thinking, even though he is a mathematician (he does not divulge whether he is of the pure or applied variety), albeit one with a very blinkered superstitious vision/world view.

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

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/98d6f0128b8af0c7099d981d0028fdce9cf890c7b4e1a4e7b8c1d16db7e1572d.jpg?w=600&h=480

          I think just the opposite is true. When men understand that they have faith, they can take pause when challenged. But if they operate with a sense of certainty, that their beliefs are not beliefs but true, then they cannot be reasoned with. They are the brood stock of zealots and terrorists whether they wear the badge of Jesus or Stalin. Zealotry is in fact synonymous with thoughtless and venomous certitude. A logical man is considerate. Not in the sense of being nice, but careful that he knows what he’s talking about.

          “the righteous shall live by faith”

        • adam

          ” When men understand that they have faith, they can take pause when challenged. It keeps them humble.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4c7795336a2f3648c20693fd615ca36d67490293ddcff9e024299acfaf4b24f9.jpg

          “But if they operate with a sense of certainty, that their beliefs are not beliefs but true, then they cannot be reasoned with.”

          You mean if they are sure of what they want to believe.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b12fa1635e121ebbb3409640826d721ba93278771f0064bd133804faa3f01397.png

          the biblical definition of faith.

          “Zealotry is in fact synonymous with thoughtless and venomous certitude. ”
          As is faith, by biblical definition.

          “”the righteous shall live by faith””

          And AGAIN, that IS the problem.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b6b5240f53deb4a0141b0d9196de29540d1f8931a4c8d5713b9547eca65cbd2f.jpg

        • Bob Jase

          We understand theology.

          Primitive nature religions are what magic is all about while theology is what complicated nature religions are all about.

        • Michael Neville

          Theology is the study of an imaginary being, its makeup, its wants, likes, dislikes, and opinions, all justifying its spokescritters’ constant need for money and power.

        • MNb

          Of course theology is too complicated to understand. I mean, some theologians conclude that christians are allowed to own slaves while others preach the rebellion of the suppressed!

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

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93scar_Romero

          No mentally healthy person can make sense of such contradictory outcomes.

        • epeeist

          No mentally healthy person can make sense of such contradictory outcomes.

          It could lead to an explosion

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

          Its no more of a mystery than examples of others who desire a particular interpretation that suits their ambitions. They will do almost anything to maintain the illusion that that is what the text, or the book of nature is saying. That is what people who play God do.

        • TheNuszAbides

          keep your eye out for the ones who play God but still manage to be more honest (even scrupulously so) than many who play God’s Instruments.

        • MNb

          So I suppose you deny that nuclear bombs work as well – they were developed thanks to a scientific theory (you would call it magical) based on probability, ie an acausal one. The victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1945 will feel comforted.
          That or you are just another christian hypocrite who only accepts science when it suits him.

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

          So I suppose you deny that nuclear bombs work as well – they were developed thanks to a scientific theory (you would call it magical) based on probability, ie an acausal one. The victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1945 will feel comforted.
          That or you are just another christian hypocrite who only accepts science when it suits him.

          Probability did not cause the nuclear bomb any more than it caused your dice to come up snake eyes with this comment. It was caused by conscious entities who chose to roll the dice.

          It is Logos that gives science its power. Apart from logic for you to follow (as opposed to manufacture), science would be impossible. In the one book of Polkinghorne’s that I have, he lays that plain.

          Speaking of Einstein, “I think he overdid it a bit, failing to do justice to the fact that the ‘feel’ of science is discovery, not invention – as Newton acknowledged with the metaphor of his being a child on the beach finding pretty pebbles (not sculpting them!).” – John Polkinghorne / The Way The World IS pg. 5

          The fact that epeeist upvoted your comment certainly confirms his association (by reading or in person) with Peter Atkins.

          Nothing wrong with the willingness to investigate and find out if logic is reducible to mathematics. Its the desire that it be so that interests me, particularly desire so powerful that one will invent (as in manufacture) an illusion to persuade people that it is so.

        • Michael Neville

          Robert, I make a strong suggestion that you do not argue physics with a physicist. MNb is such a one.

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

          I am not arguing physics Michael, or even physics with a physicist. I am arguing philosophy with an arrogant and inferior philosopher. Eppeist is a sophist, and I will run him through. Not with my own knowledge, but with objective logic that is not man made, but the very word of God. The simple fact that I understand that logic is not a human convention (and understand it well) is the only knowledge I need.

          You better hope he runs.

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

        • Michael Neville

          No, Robert, you were trying to argue physics. Quantum theory works on probability and you tried to deny that nuclear weapons weren’t based on probability.

          Friendly word of advice, you’re not as intelligent or knowledgeable as you think you are. You might do some reading on the Dunning-Kruger Effect and consider how it applies to you.

          Not with my own knowledge, but with objective logic that is not man made, but the very word of God.

          See, this is evidence that you’re not as knowledgeable as you think you are. Formal logic was invented independently by the Greeks, the Chinese and the Sanskriti Indians. The three systems of logic are similar but not identical. However they are complete, sound and consistent, which means they are valid.

          Aristotelian logic is based on the three Laws of Logic. These aren’t actually laws like the laws of thermodynamics or the laws of planetary motion. Rather they’re axioms, propositions which are not proven but assumed to be true. No gods or other supernatural nonsense were required for these axioms to be formulated. So your pretense that “objective logic is not man made” is complete and utter bullshit. But then I’ve noticed that when you start waxing philosophically you spew more bullshit than anything else.

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

          Aristotelian logic is based on the three Laws of Logic. These aren’t actually laws like the laws of thermodynamics or the laws of planetary motion. Rather they’re axioms, propositions which are not proven but assumed to be true.

          Let’s just use one, the law of non contradiction. The law of non contradiction basically says that the same thing, in the same sense, at the same time, cannot have contradictory answers.

          So if a police officer asks if you have a gun, you can’t say, “Yes… I mean, no.”

          The law is the either/or kind of law. Either this, or that, but never both unless the meaning is qualified. You could then explain to the officer that you have a heat gun, and that that is what you meant..Do you follow me so far?

          My question to you is this..

          Is the law of non contradiction objective OR is it Not?

          Think carefully about your answer, because unless you say “both”, you will be USING the law to prove that the law is not objective.

          This should help a lot if you will slow down and do thing you accuse me of not doing and listen for understanding before criticizing.

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

        • Susan

          And as usual, you ignored the substance of your interlocutor’s comment and posted a video.

        • Michael Neville

          The video explains the Law of Contradiction (as it’s usually called) but it doesn’t prove it. As I said, it’s an axiom, something assumed to be true but not proven to be true. Every logical system must start with at least one axiom. If you knew anything about Gödel’s work on mathematical logic you’d know this. My statement about logical systems having axioms as a basis is an axiom since I haven’t proved it.

          Incidentally the guy giving the video doesn’t understand the Marxist use of the dialectical which looks for a synthesis of two competing ideas. He should stick with Christian apologetics and improbable stories about confusing a PhD philosopher with a softball question.

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

          It’s a divine comedy.

          It is usually me, explaining to others what an axiom is. That it must be assumed true, otherwise one cannot argue anything, we can only make assertions.

          And I do so for a REASON., because all science and mathematics are dependent of logic; to demonstrate that all our science, be they empirical or philosophical, is done on faith in these axioms.

          It is the fact that logic is an axiom that tells me we will never prove logicism. Any proof will be built on the thing it is trying to prove and will result in arguing in a circle.

          You don’t prove that logic & math is a tautology. It must be taken on faith.

          I had a rough day. Not enough sleep and the like. But Ironically, it now dawned on me in my weakness that I have been arguing for the wrong thing. I took mathematics to be manmade (subjective), but I hold logic to be objective (and necessarily so). But I was wrong. Your search is a divine search actually.

          I’m talking to Everyone now including Susan.

          There is a problem epeeir has challenged me to solve. I am beginning to think that its the same basic problem.

          But trust me, it’s not the thing you’re looking for. It’s what the apostle John called the Logos.

          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b3/Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg/853px-Shield-Trinity-Scutum-Fidei-English.svg.png

        • epeeist

          I see the reset button has been pressed.

          And I do so for a REASON., because all science and mathematics are dependent of logic

          We have been through this, I explained to you then that there are a number of different kinds of logic, not just a single one. As it science uses induction and abduction much more than deductive logic. Typically this is used by those who adhere to Popper’s hypothetico-deductive model for science or Hempel’s deductive-nomological covering law. Neither of these start from “axioms” of science.

          You don’t prove that logic & math is a tautology. It must be taken on faith.

          Wrong again, this is what Russell and Whitehead were trying to do in the Principia Mathematica and is part of the philosophy of mathematics.

          As for the Scutum, we have been through this too, I have given you two ways that show it to be inconsistent and therefore by reductio ad absurdum to be false.

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

          We have been through this, I explained to you then that there are a number of different kinds of logic, not just a single one. As it science uses induction and abduction much more than deductive logic. Typically this is used by those who adhere to Popper’s hypothetico-deductive model for science or Hempel’s deductive-nomological covering law. Neither of these start from “axioms” of science.

          But eppeeist… all you are saying is that rather than use necessary truths (deductive axioms that we all accept and must accept in order to DO science), science reaches BEYOND that and uses more questionable methods like induction that are not even necessarily true MORE OFTEN than solid deductive reasoning.

          Besides, you can’t DO inductive reasoning (or any other reasoning like abduction) apart from the law of non contradiction. The law is what reasoning means Example:

          -The induction. BECAUSE science has been successful in explaining the mechanisms of cause-effect relationship, THEREFORE science can account for every cause-effect relationship, is predicated on the deduction if this, then that’ (the law of non contradiction).

          The only difference is that induction does not follow logically by the very law it requires in order to proceed. It MIGHT be true. But to say that a statement of faith is valid, is to say that said statement of faith is your opinion.

          This is why I said we only need to focus on one law, the law of non contradiction, and why I chuckled and said elsewhere to you, “Oh he thought did he?” I wasn’t mocking the man, I was pointing out that having an opinion does not prove anything. Example:

          Wrong again, this is what Russell and Whitehead were trying to do in the Principia Mathematica and is part of the philosophy of mathematics.

          Insert hearty blue-collar chuckle once again. I already know that that is what they are trying to do. And I do not fault them for holding a philosophy and position of faith. Given the success of science, it is not an entirely inductive position, but that is precisely the point, they are making havoc of logic in the process. And that was Hume’s game from the start.

          “When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? 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’s statement is not itself subject to his own criteria. It is neither mathematical, nor experimental. He is making a metaphysical statement, in order to tell us that metaphysics is meaningless. Clever devil that guy…

        • epeeist

          all you are saying is that rather than use necessary truths (deductive axioms that we all accept and must accept in order to DO science)

          Let’s take the classic example from something like Copi and Cohen:

          P1: All men are mortal
          P2: Socrates is a man
          C: Socrates is mortal

          This is logically valid. However you will note that P1 is inductive in nature, we have seen many people all of whom are mortal and we generalise from this to P1. In other words, P1 is not a necessary truth (this is modal , a variant on 1st order predicate calculus).

          P2 is a supposition, there is little evidence for the existence of someone called “Socrates”, he appears only in the dialogues of Plato and Xenophanes and the plays of Aristophanes. He may be an actual historical figure, he may not. In other words we are inferring his existence, it is again not a necessary truth.

          This is true of anything a posteriori. Or to put it another way, deductive reasoning is only as good as its propositions.

          if this, then that’, the law of non contradiction

          Can be stated as:

          ¬◊(∃x)(Fx ∧
          ¬Fx)

          So nothing to do with the material conditional.

          The only difference is that induction does not follow logically by the very law it requires in order to proceed. It MIGHT be true.

          Yep, our theories are both tentative and provisional, the sun might not actually rise tomorrow morning. But here is one I have mentioned before, the measured dimensionless muon magnetic moment is 2.0023318416(13), compared to the theoretical prediction of 2.0023318361(10), or in other words of 1 part per billion. You don’t think that it might just be possible that our theories have some relationship to reality.

          Insert hearty blue-collar chuckle once again. I already know that that is what they are trying to do.

          You have actually read the Principia Mathematica?

          And that was Hume’s game from the start.

          Hume’s guillotine has nothing to do with his position on causality or induction, as anyone who has read An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding would know.

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

          Like I said… ‘havoc.

          Our family has a dog. She is a Yorkie/Chihuahua mix. Though I generally despise the Chihuahua breed, she is a cute little dog. Her official name is Angel. But I also like to call her Logos. I have a REASON for calling her that, because there is nothing like a perfect script.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WqzZ3jxx650

          All of that was great. But it is superflous, because as you said, we’ve covered this. All you have to do is answer my question that I have now asked twice.

          You will find it here: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/crossexamined/god_is_lovedoes_that_make_any_sense/#comment-3527912739

          You see, all of that ‘jazz’ can be summarized propositionally as you did as represented by the quote in the link aabove.

        • epeeist

          Probability did not cause the nuclear bomb

          No, but the actual explosion was due to a collapse from a mixed quantum state to a pure one and this was purely stochastic.

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

          Sure, if you assume by faith that materialism is true. But if it is not, and there lies behind the curtain of causality, a mind that holds the universe together because he chooses to, then your mathematics will only perceive stochastic probabilities. We’ve come full circle.

        • epeeist

          Sure, if you assume by faith that materialism is true.

          Firstly, I am not assuming anything by “faith” as the religious use the word. Secondly, I tend towards the acceptance of metaphysical naturalism because the rational arguments and empirical evidence for a “non-material” realm are completely unsubstantial.

          But if it is not, and there lies behind the curtain of causality

          Then it is the burden of the person putting forward such a position to justify it, if they just assert it then why should I treat it as anything but personal opinion?

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

          Now we’re getting somewhere because I do not use the word faith that way either nor does Lennox, WLC, or any other thinker. See illustration.

          What matters is that we have established for men like Michael who were unaware that there is a category called rational faith.

          Michael asked why atheists should be impressed by Lennox.IMPRESSED?

          I don’t expect them to be impressed. I expect them to hate where logic is leading them, because once we admit that faith can be reasonable, we can admit that we are FORCED to extrapolate from the evidence using valid inferences and deductions.

          And of course we can. If logic is valid, and we see its objective imprint on the empirical world, we can extrapolate theoretically so long as our thinking is internally consistent and does not contradict the evidence we DO have.

          And in that context, I agree with your last statement wholeheartedly.

          It is our burden of proof to justify God theoretically, just the same as multiverse theory must b justified theoretically. And we ALL need to acknowledge that our metaphysics is metaphysics.

          Can we agree on at least that?

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OhAxN4pCjp4

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

          I forgot to ad the illustration for y last reply. I’ve edited it in there as well.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OhAxN4pCjp4

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

          Firstly, I am not assuming anything by “faith” as the religious use the word. Secondly, I tend towards the acceptance of metaphysical naturalism because the rational arguments and empirical evidence for a “non-material” realm are completely unsubstantial.

          Now we’re getting somewhere because I do not use the word ‘faith’ that way either. Nor does Lennox, WLC, or any other thinker, like the boys who wrote the bible for instance.

          What matters is that we have established for men like Michael who were unaware that there is a category called ‘rational faith’, that said category exists.

          Michael asked why atheists should be impressed by Lennox.
          IMPRESSED?

          I don’t expect them to be impressed. I expect them to hate where logic is leading them, because once we admit that faith can be reasonable, we can admit that we are FORCED to extrapolate from the evidence using valid inferences and deductions.

          And of course we can. If logic is valid, and we see its objective imprint on the empirical world, we can extrapolate theoretically so long as our thinking is internally consistent and does not contradict the evidence we DO have.

          And in that context, I agree with your last statement wholeheartedly.
          It is our burden of proof to justify God theoretically, just the same as multiverse theory must be justified theoretically for a materialist. And we ALL need to acknowledge that our metaphysics is metaphysics.
          Can we agree on at least that?

        • epeeist

          there is a category called ‘rational faith’,

          If one makes a rational argument and the person one is arguing with shows the argument is false then a truly rational person will abandon the argument.

          What tends to happen with those who strongly hold to an ideology (of which religion is a prime example) is that instead of abandoning the argument they invent an ad hoc auxiliary in order to save it. For example the claim that god is omnipotent becomes reduced to god only being able to do what is logically possible. Things that have been shown to be false in the bible (the Genesis narratives, the account of the Noachic flood etc.) are not discarded they become “metaphorical”.

          In other words we don’t have “rational faith” we have “rationalisation of faith”.

          ust the same as multiverse theory must be justified theoretically for a materialist

          Nope, what must be provided is evidential backing and the passing of critical testing.

          And we ALL need to acknowledge that our metaphysics is metaphysics.

          Well I know what metaphysics is, I am not sure whether you do.

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

          Just the same as multiverse theory must be justified theoretically for a materialist.

          Nope, what must be provided is evidential backing and the passing of critical testing.

          Does mathematical modelling qualify as evidential?

        • epeeist

          Does mathematical modelling qualify as evidential?

          You can regard mathematical models as theories with a semantic content. In other words they need testing against empirical data in the same way as any other hypothesis or theory.

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

          You can regard mathematical models as theories with a semantic content. In other words they need testing against empirical data in the same way as any other hypothesis or theory.

          Is your statement above equivalent or consistent with the part of my original question below?

          “If logic is valid, and we see its objective imprint on the empirical world, we can extrapolate theoretically so long as our thinking is internally consistent and does not contradict the evidence we DO have.”

          If need be, we can talk about an empirical objective order.

        • epeeist

          If logic is valid, and we see its objective imprint on the empirical world, we can extrapolate theoretically so long as our thinking is internally consistent and does not contradict the evidence we DO have.

          Consistency is necessary but insufficient, to paraphrase Bertrand Russell, it is perfectly possible to have a coherent fairy tale.

          There is a paper by Ernan McMullan called The Virtues of a Good Theory which I recommend you try to get hold of. Your post touches on a couple of points in it. My very brief summary of the paper is given below:

          Empirical Fit
          Must account for the the data already in hand, though at early stages of the theory development this need not be exact.

          Explanatory Power
          It must attempt to provide further explanation and not simply save the appearances

          Internal Virtues
          Internal consistency, i.e. no contradictions within the theory or produced by the theory

          Internal coherence, i.e. the absence of ad hoc features, the primary example used here is that in the Ptolemaic system each planet had its own set of parameters and these were not linked to the parameters of any of the other planets.

          Simplicity, in the sense of not admitting to the theory anything that does not add explanatory power. The example here would be that of the theory of evolution and the version supported by the Catholic and other churches. The modern synthesis is perfectly adequate, adding an external entity to direct evolution adds nothing to the theory in terms of necessity or explanatory power.

          Contextual Virtues

          * External consistency or consonance

          – First level consonance, fit with theories in other parts of science, an example here might be that biological processes must not break the laws of thermodynamics

          – Second level consonance, fit with broader metaphysical principles, for example no action at a distance or no breaking of causality

          – Third level consonance, independence of social, political and moral issues and convictions which could be distortive in epistemic terms

          – Optimality, in the case of multiple explanations the one that affords the best explanation. This is essentially a restatement of IBE – inference to the best explanation

          Diachronic virtues, ones that manifest themselves over the course of time.

          * Fertility
          – Does it provide explanations over a range of phenomena and not just the ones that it was designed to explain.

          – Does it have the capacity to account for anomalies as they arise.

          – How well does its causal structure become filled in and elaborated upon over time.

          – Does it provide novel predictions and new research programmes (in the Lakatos sense)

          * Consilience

          – Does it provide unification of different classes of phenomena over time
          – Does it bring together domains that were once thought to be dispararate, for example Maxwell’s unification of electricity, magnetism and light

          * Durability, does it survive the challenge of prolonged and ever more stringent testing

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

          Consistency is necessary but insufficient, to paraphrase Bertrand Russell, it is perfectly possible to have a coherent fairy tale.

          I agree wholeheartedly and I am not arguing for Rationalism, which is why I qualified my statement by including that it must be consistent with the empirical evidence we DO have.

          Your summary of The Virtues of a Good Theory is flawless. Not that I have read that particular book, but I am very familiar with all of those concepts in the philosophy of science which I have gleaned from other sources. And that is why I told Michael that I was not going to debate physics with a physicist, but philosophy with a philosopher.

          I was struck by the grammar of the title, specifically the term ‘Virtues’ A few minutes of research confirmed my suspicions, McMullan was a Christian, as was Copernicus, who overturned the inconsistent Ptolemaic model you used as your example. Maxwell, the example you used to represent the concept of consilience, was also a Christian.

          As I said originally, “It is our burden of proof to justify God theoretically, just the same as multiverse theory must be justified theoretically for a materialist.”

          In response, you said the following:

          Nope, what must be provided is evidential backing and the passing of critical testing.

          I am struggling to see where we do not agree with regard to the union of science and philosophy.

        • Greg G.

          As I said originally, “It is our burden of proof to justify God theoretically, just the same as multiverse theory must be justified theoretically for a materialist.”

          The current theory in physics is that energy and space are opposite quantities but equal in magnitude, so that if space and energy/matter come into being together, the law of conservation of energy/matter is conserved, like potential energy and kinetic energy. The theory meets the Virtues of a Good Theory, as it was tweaked a little early on but has stood for 35 years.

          Since the initial conditions for the theory require nothing, it is unlimited, so multiple universes are explained as easily as any one universe. A Single Universe Theory would require a an additional explanation for the prevention of other universes coming into existence independently. The extra part required for Single Universe Theory would be far more complex and would only be added to save appearances naturally explained already.

          To take a bubble bath, you pour in the soap and turn on the water in a gaseous atmosphere. You get lots of bubbles. A Single Universe Theory is like trying to take a bubble bath with one and only one bubble.

          A Multi-Universe Theory can be just like Single Universe Theory with one less ad hoc complexity, thus it satisfies Occam’s Razor.

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

          Did you write that?

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

          I only asked if you wrote it because it is very well articulated. It would give me an insight into who you are and just how well you understand it.

          If it was borrowed from elsewhere, no problem. It’s beautifully stated,and I agree with it wholeheartedly.

          It explains why Robert Jastrow said that science has proved the existence of a supernature.

          “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.”

          Listen to what he is saying here, because he is not saying that a supernature proves God, but that it is consistent with a God hypothesis.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s5px8V40FGM

          Please hear me. Our difficulty is in assessing what that supernature is.

          What you are saying is that it must be logical, consist and in keeping with the laws like conservation of energy. I accept that and so do men like John Lennox, which brings us to a fundamental philosophical question in metaphysics…

          Is mind material or immaterial?

          You see, the evidence we DO have demands a particular theology.if we consider the latter side of that question. Because the empirical world is ordered objectively, that order MUST guide any theology or natural theory.

          The concept of an eternal immaterial mind violates none of the conditions of a virtuous theory as articulated by epeeir. So right away we can shave off all the primitive gods that are mere deifications of objects or forces within nature. Gods of the gaps need not apply. We need a much bigger God than that. We need what turns out to be. The biblical God.

          The thing that strikes me the most is that the writers of the bible understood this. How did a 1st century fisherman named John come up with the idea that God is Logos?

          The answer is, he didn’t. Heborrowed it from the first few lines of Genesis.

          That is why I was impressed with how well you articulated your point, because things can be stated in many different ways.

          The bible is not easy, and we may not prefer the method it uses to convey the concepts. But my question is, what are the concepts doing there in the first place?

          Okay, they were primitive people, so they articulated as best they could. But once I saw what hey were saying, “Holy shit!” if you’ll padon the exptession.

        • Greg G.

          I only asked if you wrote it because it is very well articulated. It would give me an insight into who you are and just how well you understand it.

          Well, epeeist cited that the paper being written by Ernan McMullan.

          [After getting further down to the part about John, I think you may be referring to another thread. If I am recalling the post I think you mean, I wrote that extemporaneously.]

          Please hear me. Our difficulty is in assessing what that supernature is.

          Videos are blocked on the network I am connected through at the moment. The first difficulty is whether supernature actually is. I see “supernatural” as a way to protect one’s imaginary beliefs from scrutiny which would explain the difficulties in assessing any of its properties. Sure, the light is better outside of the head but it’s the wrong place to look for things that are inside the head.

          Is mind material or immaterial?

          Is swimming material or immaterial? It is a process that creatures do to travel through liquids. The mind is a process the brain does for the creature to function in an environment.

          The thing that strikes me the most is that the writers of the bible understood this. How did a 1st century fisherman named John come up with the idea that God is Logos?

          First, we don’t know that it is the same John, and we don’t know who wrote the Gospel of John.

          In Galatians 2:6-9, Paul mentioned him along with James and Cephas as being “pillars” in a somewhat disdainful way. Mark seems to have ran with that making those three Jesus’ primary sidekicks and made them illiterate fishermen.

          Paul tells us that he did not get his gospel from human sources. He expresses disdain for human sources. He tells us his revelation comes from the scriptures. We can test that by examining everything he says about Jesus, which shows that all the knowledge he writes about Jesus and his theology can be found in the Old Testament. In 2 Corinthians 11:4-6 and 12:11, he says his knowledge is not inferior to the “super-apostles”, presumably including the “pillars” at the least. Paul spent a half a month with Cephas so he knew what they knew. If they had known a real Jesus, it would make no sense for him to say his knowledge was not inferior. If he knew they were illiterate fishermen, he could say is knowledge was superior to theirs. But he thinks his knowledge is at their level, which means he knew they got their information the same way he did.

          Not only do the epistles not support the teacher/preacher Jesus of the gospels, the gospel representations of the Pillars is actually the opposite of what can be discerned of them in Paul’s writing and Paul had problems with them. Mark may have been mocking the Jerusalem Christians, who opposed Paul, to Roman Christians, who followed Paul, after the war.

          The answer is, he didn’t. Heborrowed it from the first few lines of Genesis.

          Genesis doesn’t use “Logos” or “λόγος” but it does appear over 200 times in the Septuagint. See https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=%CE%BB%E1%BD%B9%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%82&t=LXX#s=s_primary_0_1 I think aJohn had Genesis in mind, just as Philo did, so the Logos concept seems to be borrowed from Philo.

          Links below:
          Philo’s Logos as Divine Mediator
          Philo of Alexandria: Utterance of God
          Philo’s view of God: The Logos

          The bible is not easy, and we may not prefer the method it uses to convey the concepts. But my question is, what are the concepts doing there in the first place?

          Okay, they were primitive people, so they articulated as best they could. But once I saw what hey were saying, “Holy shit!” if you’ll padon the exptession.

          Their innate intelligence was no less than modern humans. See what the Greeks were saying before that time. See how the ancient Egyptians worked together. They built great pyramids which were further back in history to the Year 1 than the Year 1 is to the present.They came up with some ideas that sound close to right but their way of getting there wasn’t valid inference. We put men on the moon with 1960s technology but we still have people denying that climate change is happening. There is nothing new under the sun.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          McMullan was a Christian, as was Copernicus …

          copernicus even dedicated his “on the revolutions of the heavenly spheres” to pope paul III, he addressed him in the preface. there he also said:

          “But if perchance there are certain “idle talkers” who take it upon themselves to pronounce judgment, although wholly ignorant of mathematics, and if by shamelessly distorting the sense of some passage in Holy Writ to suit their purpose, they dare to reprehend and to attack my work; they worry me so little that I shall even scorn their judgments as foolhardy. For it is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise a distinguished writer but hardly a mathematician, speaks in an utterly childish fashion concerning the shape of the Earth, when he laughs at those who have affirmed that the Earth has the form of a globe. And so the studious need not be surprised if people like that laugh at us. Mathematics is written for mathematicians; and among them, if I am not mistaken, my labours will be seen to contribute something to the ecclesiastical commonwealth, the principate of which Your Holiness now holds.”

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

          Not as good a point as your first, when you reminded me that my criticism applied to me just as well. The double edged knife of logic cuts both ways. It was a valid reminder.

          However, this was a little more devious. Clever, but not a valid criticism. Criticism which I have demonstrated (on several occasions) I am willing to accept.

          We both believe that mathematics and logic are the same thing.

          Copernicus no doubt used models and illustrations along with words to explain in plain propositional speech, the concepts his mathematics ALSO represented in much more detail. No one simply hands a person a sheet of math. And if they do, the person being given the math will ask, “What is this?’

          Even a mute person could draw pictures, or by necessity design some ingenious method to communicate (logically) OTHER than mathematically. And that is because there is simply no other way to communicate other than logically. language is ultimately just logic, which is why mathematics and logic are a tautology.

          This quote says nothing about people demonstrating propositionally that what Copernicus was trying to say or model was illogical or contradictory. He did not even mention those conversations because I would assume that there WAS nothing illogical or contradictory about drawings and 3D globes and models of his theory.

          But if they could point out a logical flaw in the theory as described propositionally, they would not need to know the math. They would know that it will not work apart from some qualification that does not appear.

          The criticism was that based on distorting scripture to deny the model, and those interpretations were not logically valid to start with. To say, “He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved”, is not to say necessarily that it is stationary.

          The foundations are God’s laws which even the writers of scripture knew, but not mathematically. It doesn’t even say it cannot be destroyed. It only means that it will obey those laws, period. If an asteroid were to knock it out of orbit it would still obey those laws, and the trajectory would follow.

          And as an aside, that is interesting because the uniformity of nature is recorded for us in the Psalms. Any apparent violation of that regularity would be instantly recognized as supernatural.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          language is ultimately just logic, …

          that’s not true. natural languages are far too expressive and allow too much ambiguity to be “just logic” (except, maybe, in a vague etymological sense: logic, logos, word, “pertaining to speech”).
          simple examples of this, close to logical considerations, are the liar paradox or richard’s paradox, say. already in those cases are you in deep waters as far as self-reference, the truth values of sentences and definability are concerned. it only gets worse if you include ideas about god, “god’s laws” or interpretations of bible passages.

          No one simply hands a person a sheet of math. And if they do, the person being given the math will ask, “What is this?’

          well, ptolemy and copernicus didn’t had to start from scratch. often the answer to “what is this?” would have been “euclid!”, i guess.

          btw, i’m more impressed by blind geometers than mute ones. to me, geometry was always a very visual subject and not an acoustic one (remember book I, proposition 1? i sure hope everyone draws an equilateral triangle using a compass, at least once …).

          edit:
          notwithstanding what hilbert said: “one must be able to say ‘tables, chairs, beer-mugs’ each time in place of ‘points, lines, planes'”.

          And as an aside, that is interesting because the uniformity of nature is recorded for us in the Psalms. Any apparent violation of that regularity would be instantly recognized as supernatural.

          is/was the philosophical principle of “uniform circular motion” part of this “uniformity of nature” (something copernicus still insisted on)? … no, such violations wouldn’t be “instantly recognized as supernatural”. also, the best “record” (or reason to suspect) the uniformity of nature was and is astronomy, not some psalms.

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

          Natural languages are far too expressive and allow too much ambiguity to be “just logic” (except, maybe, in a vague etymological sense: logic, logos, word, “pertaining to speech”).

          Not totally sure what you mean by natural language but I will assume.

          language communicates an intelligible message. I am not talking the noise of the ocean waves in the distance that communicates to you that the ocean is nearby, or ripples in the sand communicating to you that water once flowed through a piece of land. I mean if you were to find mathematical symbols in the sand or heard Bach emanating from the waves.

          I mean language. It is what distinguishes random noise for what it is. Its interesting you brought this up. John Lennox has a message entitled, ‘The Word of God in Creation” (it is accessible as audio if you google it in 2 parts). At the end of part 1 he makes what I consider to be a profound statement with serious implications. I understand it very well so I can remember it pretty much word for word.

          Near the end of part 1, he is talking about information, and that it is invisible and immaterial, even though it’s carriers or medium is physical.

          “Here are the cosmologist and physicists, and they describe the universe in terms of laws, which are written in compressed form with mathematical symbolism. Some of the most brilliant equations, Newton’s equations, Einstein’s equation, Maxwell’s equations and so on. [They are} Laws describing regularities, to say nothing of DNA and the blueprint for life, in its genetic code. The idea that behind the created order is Word (Logos), is not some silly primitive notion. It fits perfectly with all our experience and intuition that flows out of science.” -John Lennox

          As for information being immaterial, he argues strongly for it along with Stephen Meyer. This 1 minute video makes another profound point in my estimation. Think of it. We can send each other messages as we do now, but the message is not in the physics and chemistry of the computer, but the order I impose upon the physical systems to convey it to you.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqiXNxyoof8

          I’ll concede that a ‘perceived’ violation does not immediately indicate miracle. But if I throw a baseball to my son, and the ball violates the laws of inertia and momentum and immediately after leaving my hand, jumps back in, I will suspect that nature was just upended, or that someone is monkeying with the system. Either way, uniformity was upended.

          The liars paradox is an intentionally paradoxical statement intended to distract. At least in your usage. Its a side show. Its nonsense, gibberish. No one would ever use it EXCEPT to play a game, because the only reason we RECOGNIZE it as a paradox is because we DO know what logic is.

          A statement that is both true and false is not a statement, because it cannot specify anything.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          by “natural languages” i meant english, french, ancient greek, hebrew and so on, in contrast to the (formal) language of predicate logic, say. english was not designed, especially not with logic or mathematics in mind.

          The liars paradox is an intentionally paradoxical statement intended to distract. At least in your usage. Its a side show. Its nonsense, gibberish.

          well, gödel didn’t think it’s nonsense or gibberish, apparently (yes, it would be nice if that’s all it takes to get rid of it …). he even mentions its “kinship” with his gödel sentence (the statement which “states” its own unprovability) in the paper “on formally undecidable propositions of principia mathematica and related systems I”:

          “The analogy of this conclusion with the Richard-antinomy leaps to the eye; there is also a close kinship with the liar-antinomy, because our undecidable theorem R_q(q) states that q is in K, i.e. according to (1) that R_q(q) is not provable. Hence, we have in front of us a theorem that states its own unprovability.”

          anyway, it is just a simple example of the shortcomings of natural languages. i’m sure you can cook up examples of your own.

          Near the end of part 1, he is talking about information, and that it is invisible and immaterial, even though it’s carriers or medium is physical.

          this reminds me of *one* of the concepts i did not understand when i first heard about it: energy. i never got a satisfactory explanation for what “energy” is (and i was somewhat troubled that everybody else seems to understand it just fine).

          feynman, in his “lectures on physics”, introduced the concept of energy with a story about “dennis the menace” and his blocks. his nice story ends with:

          “What is the analogy of this to the conservation of energy? The most remarkable aspect that must be abstracted from this picture is that there are no blocks. Take away the first terms in (4.1) and (4.2) and we find ourselves calculating more or less abstract things.

          It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is. We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. However, there are formulas for calculating some numerical quantity, and when we add it all together it gives “28” – always the same number. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reasons for the various formulas.”

        • epeeist

          by “natural languages” i meant english, french, ancient greek, hebrew and so on, in contrast to the (formal) language of predicate logic, say. english was not designed,

          Yes exactly, see something like Quine on the indeterminacy of translation, or read Douglas Hofstadter’s Le Ton beau de Marot

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          le ton beau de marot sounds interesting (something my younger self would disagree with).

        • epeeist

          Slightly over-long, but still a good romp in the Hofstadter style.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          i read “gödel, escher, bach”, of course, multiple times, so i have some idea what to expect.

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

          “What is the analogy of this to the conservation of energy? The most remarkable aspect that must be abstracted from this picture is that there are no blocks. Take away the first terms in (4.1) and (4.2) and we find ourselves calculating more or less abstract things.

          I am well acquainted in non mathematical terms. And this is what originally caused me intuit that science has detected super-nature. And it had led some of my friends into pantheism in a general sense.

          In particular was the phenomenon of the observer’s effect on the experiment. And being zealous for change, some of those friends (and many others it would seem) concluded from this that we create our own reality.

          This did not sit well with me and I suspected a contradiction. I’ts one thing to see that I can pick up stones and make a pile. I have some freedom. But what about the next level up, the world in which I am picking up stones?

          It took me back to the question, “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” My intuition told me that it does, but we all know the flaming hoops that follow from that answer.

          So (I asked myself) if I discover an odd builder in the mountains, and an observer is needed to hold reality together by observation, and I know that the same boulder will be there the next day even though no one was there, there must be another observer.

          My pantheist friends hold that everything is God, and that we are God. They can justify their, dare I say sins – in that way. And of course, if we are the only observers, then of course we ARE gods in a rather cheap theological sense.

          Leonard Susskind argues for the holographic universe, and I think he is right. I have this cued to a specific spot, listen for a couple minutes: https://youtu.be/v2Xsp4FRgas?t=206

          The part that makes me laugh is that Susskind says at the 6 minute mark that this is the most radical thing that has happened to physics since the invention of quantum mechanics and relativity. Talk about ego. You did not invent the holographic principle Leonard, you discovered it. And that is no insult to your intelligence. He is a very smart man.

          BUT… once again it brings us back to what Robert Jastrow said:

          “”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.”

          The bible already told us we live in a virtual reality, we just did not recognize that that was the implication of what it was saying. And because of that, we did not have the context by which to examine it logically. It appeared to be gibberish, until that moment it didn’t.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          too bad that those “theologians who have been sitting there for centuries” cannot tell me anything interesting *before* those stupid scientists come up with the answers, because, apparently, we just “did not recognize that that was the implication of what it was saying”.

          btw, the first religion i would think of, in terms of describing something like a “virtual reality”, is not christianity but hinduism (and its concept of maya). they also have an interesting cosmology (hm …).

          edit:
          btw, i think the “holographic principle” is an interesting *theoretical* idea, but i would be surprised if it was already experimentally verified. why that would support the idea of a “virtual reality” (besides “real reality”?), i don’t know.

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

          I disagree that they tell us nothing interesting. If this is a virtual world, I find that very interesting indeed. Virtual worlds are dependent and derivative. It means there is an objective world.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          or it just means “real reality” is very different than we suspected it to be, and you just cannot give up on the reality you “grew up with”, so to speak. that’s the “objective world” you still want to find, apparently.

          this is also one of the problems i have with the simulation argument. if this reality is a simulation, whatever that means, then the simulation is the only reality we ever knew, simple (in this scenario your “objective world” could still just be just another simulation, and so on).

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

          As I said, I considered pantheism because my friends had gravitated toward it. But I found it contradictory, and I already explained the contradiction to you. I was not looking for the religion of my youth. It was the fairy tale Christianity that many of us in the west abandoned. Logic brought me back to it as an adult. I did not even WANT it to be true. But I DID want to know the truth, if such a thing were possible.

          this is also one of the problems i have with the simulation argument (or the idea that this world is just a simulation). if this reality is a simulation, whatever that means, then the simulation is the only reality we ever knew, simple (in this scenario your “objective world” could still just be just another simulation, and so on).

          Do you remember what you reminded me of? That the argument cuts both ways…

          You may as well say that you are trying to make this objective truth claim (in negative form of doubt) because you live in an unseen objective world and is the only reality you ever knew.

          The reason Christianity fits the QM model logically is because of what epeeist and I began with in this thread or the other. A conscious entity can make choices that mathematics cannot predict.

          C.S. Lewis used the argument of a cue ball (though he did so to demonstrate that miracles do not violate natural law in order to rebuke Hume). If I strike the cue ball, you can use physics to predict its path. But if I suddenly reach out and push it to one side, you prediction would be in ruins. The only way you would be able to understand its path would be to understand my purposes. You would need to know WHY, not how. The laws still did their part.

          QM told me that there is a super-nature. And if that super nature is a mind, it explains a lot of things. And when we are in the position of not being able to understand a thing ITSELF, it is very useful and INTERESTING if it CAN make sense of other things as a whole.

          John Lennox has three PhDs. That enables himto make the point very well in under 2 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IByCl_enr4A

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          ah, nice, he makes feynman’s point about energy. where he loses me completely is around time 2:50. he asserts that “jesus is both god and man” is the only solution that “makes sense” of … wait for it … the evidence of jesus’s life, his claims, and “above all”: that he rose from the dead (the central thing, you know). those are all things i, for now, don’t need to explain, not until there is actual evidence and not just the same old bible stories.

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

          Lennox did not assert that he is God and man. JESUS asserted that he is God and man.

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

          Lennox did not assert that Jesus is God and man. JESUS asserted that he is God and man. That is WHY they crucified him.

          It was not Lennox’s idea.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          hm? where did i say anything about who asserted “jesus is god and man”, originally? you cut off the sentence. lennox did say it’s the only solution that makes sense of those tenets of his faith (a faith which, yes, was not lennox’s idea).

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

          He doesn’t lose me.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          that’s nice.

        • TheNuszAbides

          if you can’t pull your head out of your own ingrained map/territory problem, no wonder you keep running in circles trumpeting “NO U”.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The nonsense that some gullible people read and believe it is fact, is truly flabbergasting.

        • TheNuszAbides

          It fits perfectly with all our experience and intuition that flows out of science.” -John Lennox

          yes, John-John, it fits your in-group’s wishful back-formations perfectly. how lovely for your big brain to have worked out that ~mystery~!

        • epeeist

          I was struck by the grammar of the title, specifically the term ‘Virtues’ A few minutes of research confirmed my suspicions, McMullan was a Christian

          Why should the term “virtues” lead you to think he was necessarily a Christian? After all virtue ethics is far older than Christianity, in fact it was imported into Christianity first by the neo-Platonists from Plato and then by the Scholastics from Aristotle because so-called “Christian ethics” is so sparse and inadequate.

          as was Copernicus, who overturned the inconsistent Ptolemaic model you used as your example

          Lots of things wrong with this. Firstly the Ptolemaic model was regarded as simply a calculational one, not a description of reality which was the geocentric one of Aristotle with its “perfect” circular orbits. Secondly, initially the Copernican model was also regarded as purely calculational, few people saw it as a description of reality (Giordano Bruno was one of the few) until much later. Lastly, it would have been difficult not to be a Christian at the time of Copernicus.

          Maxwell, the example you used to represent the concept of consilience, was also a Christian.

          Indeed he was, as was Faraday. Their ideas led to those of Einstein, Friedman, Dirac and Fenyman who weren’t, to Lemaitre who was, to Hubble who was probably a deist and to Abdus Salam who was a Muslim. So I am not sure what your point is here.

          I am struggling to see where we do not agree with regard to the union of science and philosophy.

          Both science and philosophy discard ideas that have been shown to be wrong or inadequate. Are you prepared to do the same when it comes to religion?

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          Firstly the Ptolemaic model was regarded as simply a calculational one

          interesting in this respect is that another name of his work, the almagest, was “syntaxis mathematica”. ptolemy also concerned himself with the moon. according to (one of?) his models would the apparent size of the moon vary by a factor of two (at least that’s what i read), which is easily contradicted by observation.

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

          Both science and philosophy discard ideas that have been shown to be wrong or inadequate.

          ‘Wrong’ or ‘inadequate’???

          By wrong or inadequate you mean contradictory, which means you are applying the law of non contradiction. Why the vague language? Just say what you are saying in straight terminology and stop trying to hide it with clever grammar and mathematics. Why the sophistry?

          But you’re right. both science and philosophy discard ‘wrong’ ideas. And they can DO so because they are the same thing, mathematics and logic being a tautology.

          We can test empirical entities via logic, and we can test theoretical entities via logic. One uses mathematics, the other propositional logic. But in both cases, we are testing for contradiction or coherence.

          And they compliment each other. Our philosophy must and can be founded and built on the evidence we DO have. And it cannot be ‘wrong’ or ‘inadequate’ ( insert hearty blue-collar chuckle). Our philosophy must not contradict the evidence.

          Are you prepared to do the same when it comes to religion?

          Is that a joke? Philosophy IS religion. And of course I am prepared to discard ideas that have been shown to be contradictory. Do I sound like an idiot playing word games?

          “I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar” -Nietzsche

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

        • epeeist

          By wrong or inadequate you mean contradictory, which means you are applying the law of non contradiction.

          Yes for rational argument, otherwise one runs into ex falso quodlibet. For scientific theories it is anomalies that the theory cannot explain, hence they become inadequate as descriptions.

          And they can DO so because they are the same thing, mathematics and logic being a tautology.

          You obviously don’t know the difference between rationalism and empiricism.

          We can test empirical entities via logic, and we can test theoretical entities via logic.

          This is gibberish, what on earth are “empirical entities” and “theoretical entities”? I think we can add philosophy of science to the things of which you know little or nothing.

          Philosophy IS religion.

          Stuff and nonsense. My local university has a degree in philosophy, it covers ethics and meta-ethics, philosophy of mind, epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of science, logic and analytic philosophy amongst other things. There is one optional module on the philosophy of religion. As it is the majority of philosophers tend towards atheism.

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

          Sophistry….

          I have to take my daughter to her soccer game. But were not finished…

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

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

          This is gibberish, what on earth are “empirical entities” and “theoretical entities”? I think we can add philosophy of science to the things of which you know little or nothing.

          An empirical entity is a rock, or a planet and their objective logical relationships. Get the idea? A theoretical entity is the multiverse extrapolated from that empirical evidence in the form of mathematics.

          What’s the matter? Is simple and ‘not so easy to muddy’ language some kind of threat to you?

          When I say philosophy IS religion, I am clearly referring to BELIEFS about the origin of the universe and of life. These philosophies also carry necessary implications for the meaning and purpose of human
          life that take us into the realm of values. Materialism falls into this category along with every other cosmology such as theism.

          It has nothing to do with the philosophy of basket weaving or philosophy of science in general. All of that mumbo jumbo you bring is superfluous to this discussion and is smoke and mirrors. William of Ocham rebuke you.

          You should have minded your own business. But once you did not, you had to be dealt with intently. You’ve become so arrogant in your ability to shoot people down intellectually and confuse the crap out of them that you can’t help it.

          You think yourself immune to unmasking, like a Scooby Doo monster running the town. You play well, but it was time for the unmasking; judgment day. Please be yourself or depart my presence.I tire of what we truckers call ‘edumacated’ games.

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

        • Kodie

          Flagged for spam.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The fuckwit is completely away with the fairies.

        • epeeist

          The fuckwit is completely away with the fairies.

          You think he sees himself as Neo or Tom Cruise in Oblivion?

        • TheNuszAbides

          he’s high on the Hero’s Journey playing out in his constricted mind, all right.

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

          All of that mumbo jumbo you bring is superfluous to this discussion and is smoke and mirrors.

          Whaaaaaaaaa . . . ? Look in the mirror, pal.

          You should have minded your own business. But once you did not, you had to be dealt with intently. You’ve become so arrogant in your ability to shoot people down intellectually and confuse the crap out of them that you can’t help it.

          Make your ideas simply and clearly, and you might be able to make this argument in the future. So far, you don’t.

        • David Cromie

          “My race and purpose are set, my gaze straight ahead…”. Otherwise known as tunnel vision. There is a remedy for that! What exactly is the point of the video clip?

          Try this instead:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ2kGJk4Jo4

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

          I could not get past the first line that is a systemic contradiction. to say that religion is a delusion is a religious statement. That means the statement is delusional.

          If that is too difficult for you, let me put it this way. It is saying that philosophy is delusional, but does so with a philosophical statement. That means the statement is delusional.

          It is amazing to me that a man like epeeist can demonstrate these kinds of contradictions mathematically, in order to debunk his opponents when they have a poor argument (which really only goes to show that he believes in the law of non-contradiction), but he glosses over them if it comes from Hume.

          Hume’s guillotine in the first line. Love it.

        • David Cromie

          “to say that religion is a delusion is a religious statement”. NO, it is a statement of objective fact! The rest of your delusional BS is just as illogical in the real world.

          “If that is too difficult for you, let me put it this way”, you are a superstitious moron, that cannot even adduce the irrefutable, falsifiable, evidence for the real existence of your favourite ‘god’ among thousands of such supposed entities.

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

          The REAL world?

          David Cromie, we don’t even no what matter is. So what does that say for materialism?

          Thanks again however for more ad hominems. But I am afraid mockery is not a valid logical argument. Even if there are hundreds of them…

          https://youtu.be/4puUo4OYViE

        • David Cromie

          Have you any idea what the definition of an ‘ad hominem’ actually is?

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

          Against the man.

        • David Cromie

          I am aware of what the Latin means, and this is not what I was getting at. I was asking you if you knew the proper usage of the tag, i.e. the definition of an ad hominem, but you obviously don’t, surprise, surprise!

        • Kodie

          You live in deep denial.

        • epeeist

          Descent to ad baculum: 100% complete.

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

          Children need to be reminded of the consequences epeeir. Not a threat of any kind. It is a warning. You make your bed any way you want. And you get the rewards that the course merits.

          Nevertheless, cut all that out if you like. Sweep it aside. The argument remains. So will re-post it….

          An empirical entity is a rock, or a planet and their objective logical relationships. Get the idea? A theoretical entity is the multiverse extrapolated from that empirical evidence in the form of mathematics.

          What’s the matter? Is simple and ‘not so easy to muddy’ language some kind of threat to you? I have to think so…

          When I say philosophy IS religion, I am clearly referring to BELIEFS about the origin of the universe and of life. These philosophies also carry necessary implications for the meaning and purpose of human
          life that take us into the realm of values. Materialism falls into this category along with every other cosmology such as theism.

          It has nothing to do with the philosophy of basket weaving or philosophy of science in general. All of that mumbo jumbo you bring is superfluous to this discussion and is smoke and mirrors. William of Ocham rebuke you.

        • epeeist

          Children need to be reminded of the consequences epeeir.

          And another threat.

          What’s the matter? Is simple and ‘not so easy to muddy’ language some kind of threat to you? I have to think so…

          I knew had seen your type of “argument” before and I was racking my brains as to where this was. And then I remembered the Gish Gallop.

          And there it is, the plethora of half-truths and the misunderstandings, the moving on when your point is countered and then going back to something as though nothing had been said. All characteristic of someone whose main impetus is winning at all costs.

          When I say philosophy IS religion, I am clearly referring to BELIEFS about the origin of the universe and of life.

          No, your initial claim was unclear and this is a switch when I gave you a non-exhaustive list of things that are covered in a philosophy degree.

          All of that mumbo jumbo you bring is superfluous to this discussion and is smoke and mirrors.

          No, what you don’t like is that it shows you up to be a bloviating fraud.

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

          No, what you don’t like is that it shows you up to be a bloviating fraud.

          No sir, you’ve showed nothing of the sort. And actually, I like watching men like you puff yourselves up into a wizard of God show. It presents me with an opportunity to pull back the curtain for the audience so that your side show can be seen for what it is.

          Your the kind of guy I come here for.

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

          I’m sensing a lot of dick swinging here.

          Suggestion: just state your arguments and evidence clearly and drop the playground insults and the gamesmanship. It’ll improve your standing substantially.

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

          Glad you have my back Bob. Excuse me as i turn and cough…

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0AhqeQifPSs

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

          Uh … you’re welcome.

        • Kodie

          Do I sound like an idiot playing word games?

          Just in general, a lot. I’m flagging your comments from now on if they contain a giant page-slowing video. Do you really consider the videos necessary, or are you just someone who was rejected from writing at Cracked?

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          … in the Ptolemaic system each planet had its own set of parameters and these were not linked to the parameters of any of the other planets.

          this is how copernicus described it (in the preface of his “on the revolutions of the heavenly spheres”):

          “But they are in exactly the same fix as someone taking from different places hands, feet, head, and the other limbs – shaped very beautifully but not with reference to one body and without correspondence to one another – so that such parts made up a monster rather than a man. And so, in the process of demonstration which they call “method,” they are found either to have omitted something necessary or to have admitted something foreign which by no means pertains to the matter; and they would by no means have been in this fix, if they had followed sure principles.”

        • adam

          “Sure, if you assume by faith that materialism is true.”

          Not by biblical faith

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b12fa1635e121ebbb3409640826d721ba93278771f0064bd133804faa3f01397.png

        • TheNuszAbides

          We’ve come full circle.

          nope, you made that pointless “journey” all by your lonesome. oops, i mean, that is, with your little LOGOS pet in tow.

        • David Cromie

          Discard the Book of Enoch, it is just a forgery, pure and simple!

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

          C’mon… mockery and assertion? You don’t know how to play….

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2B2gKcLkygI&list=LLMniLNuIraELyIEPa3G7mcw&index=246

        • adam

          “For instance, people will ask what kind of God will flood the whole
          earth? But in the context of the story mankind had been corrupted
          genetically by angels.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1e284ecfcf8f4a4da8adb8c8992def60d555414158c237b83a5d3f4c4ffb2fa2.jpg

        • richardrichard2013

          “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”

          god is afraid that they would eat from the magic tree of eternal life and live for ever. god knows that they have become intelligent, so he guards the tree

          …and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life.”

          but before they knew what was good and evil , they chose to eat from the tree :

          So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate

          she did not know that it was evil to eat from the tree. she did not know that it was evil to have delight. she did not know that desire to make one wise was evil.

          she is just a human nature without intelligence. god should have taken it easy on the poor woman.

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

          I’m at work so bear with me, but nothing makes me feel more alive than facing another dogpile. Sweet deja vu, it’s exhilarating to conduct a pack of wolves like moths to a flame…

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lLXaRtc1f4I

        • Cozmo the Magician

          “but nothing makes me feel more alive than facing another dogpile. Sweet
          deja vu, it’s exhilarating to conduct a pack of wolves like moths to a
          flame…” And so another troll out and out admits to being nothing more than a troll. Might as well head back under your bridge. Block button gonna hit you upside your asshole or head, they seem to be the same.

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

          I’m at work so bear with me, but nothing makes me feel more alive than
          facing another dogpile. Sweet deja vu, it’s exhilarating to conduct a
          pack of wolves like moths to a flame…

          Do you think your behavior here glorifies Christ?

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

          I do indeed, but like Moses and others, I tried to tell God I am not the man for the job. I was too timid and feared rejection because (as I learned much later) of an old Father wound.

          Everyone focusses on the harmless lamb and forget the lion side of the coin. As a result, Christianity has lost it salt. Time to spice things up a bit.

          Perhaps you never noticed the attention Christ drew to himself as regards his critics, and always publicly.

          He made complete fools of them. That’s why they wanted him silenced and dead. It wasn’t because he was nice, but because he is good.

          Grace to the humble, resistance to the proud. Last I looked this ain’t Sunday school and thse people are not humble sheep.

          I do what God made me and ttained me to do. It’s my purpose. The fact you dont like it is confirmation not disuasion.

          But in case you’re asking as a Christian, think about the parts of the body. I do not in myself need to reflect every facet of his dynamic character, I only need to fill a void left vacant if I am persuaded so by self examination and confirmation.

          These people think they are on the cusp of victory, but Logos awaits…

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=I-Ku6Yd9XGE

        • Philmonomer

          I do indeed, but like Moses and others, I tried to tell God I am not the man for the job. I was too timid and feared rejection because (as I learned much later) of an old Father wound.

          Everyone focuses on the harmless lamb and forget the lion side of the coin. As a result, Christianity has lost it salt. Time to spice things up a bit.

          Got it. You are a lion.

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

          No, I am the kid with the sword. The lion is the lion.

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

        • Philmonomer

          Sure. Even better.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A tit would be a bit more like it, me thinks.

        • MNb

          “I tried to tell God I am not the man for the job.”
          And then answered it yourself, deluding yourself that the answer came from the imaginary sky daddy.

        • adam

          “Perhaps you never noticed the attention Christ drew to himself as regards his critics, and always publicly.”

          No, apparently NOBODY noticed.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b8e21f4f245797969c0947a765da8794c812826b9b5e6d1a040a884b1ee550af.jpg

        • adam

          ” But in the context of the story mankind had been corrupted genetically by angels.”

          No orally by a serpent…
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0461e824b813e55655838136eed283929cc1dafcd1df35e526e2692bc407d7a8.jpg

          “If the context of the story is the act of a Just God, then any
          interpretation should at least attempt to see if it can be understood in
          that context.”

          But that is NOT the context of the story
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6d3202a656ddb77b015512ec509a77d3d4e3d2e8144963304870975dedea824c.jpg

          Its a story about a God who is too stupid to actually be a God.

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

          Don’t conflate hardware with software.

        • adam

          Is it hardware or software that supports your claim of “corrupted genetically by angels.”?

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

          It’s the biblical context for justice in the story. But since you asked, I find the two compatible.

          You must have a software virus. Have you considered a refresh, a new birth as it were. A little washing in the word goes a long way you know…

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

          I appreciate your sense of humor but… I came to faith as an adult asking hard questions and converted from materialism to pantheism to Christianiy.

          I used to mock Jesus with the same stereotype because I was out of arguments.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_TE9b8IPL8I

        • adam

          So again I ask,

          Instead of being reborn into a system of MAGICAL beliefs, why not just GROW UP?

          I have read the bible, I understand how it ends.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cdf1945c329723ddbb7c03a5aa7c5a3ef1bae3c5f93caabe7aed79f438227c78.jpg

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

          Admitting that I was not a superman of any kind, and that behind my facade of playing grownup, was in reality my insecurity that I covered with the fig leaf of projecting strength.

          You know of what I speak, that reassurance that you feed yourself periodically, pumping yourself up like a coach inside your own head. Its called false pride Adam, to protect yourself from the harsh reality out there. Your real self.

          Admitting that is what real grownups do. We confess that we are weak and that if God is there, we need him very much.

          You have a very shallow view of what real strength is, just as I once did. We’re on death row son. You’ll need more than bravado to face reality.

        • David Cromie

          You are terminally deluded due to your propensity for believing that a superstitious bent is the way to attain ‘truth’ and ‘everlasting life’.

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

          Your responses are a riot, particularly the straw man of the God who failed. I own the album. I was their for the concert at THE COW PALACE in San Francisco. I am quite familiar with the concept…

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdsj6FPSi9A

          John 10: The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

          19The Jews who heard these words were again divided. 20Many of them said, “He is demon-possessed and raving mad. Why listen to him?”

          21But others said, “These are not the sayings of a man possessed by a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?”

          You are terminally deluded due to your propensity for believing that a superstitious bent is the way to attain ‘truth’ and ‘everlasting life’.

          I have heard that speech before, in the clip that proceeds this one. But I much prefer the ending so we’ll skip the nonsense…

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pn7YiEEkKA

        • adam

          ” if God Ganesh is there, we need him very much.”
          ftfy

        • adam

          ” if God Shiva is there, we need him very much.”ftfy

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

          Observing this barrage of spiteful potshots is a learning opportunity. Thank you for demonstrating how a grownup reacts to an honest answer to a dishonest question; like petulant child.

          I do not wonder…

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

        • adam

          “Observing this barrage of spiteful potshots is a learning opportunity. ”

          Just pointing out your stupdity.

          “Thank you for demonstrating how a grownup reacts to an honest answer to a dishonest question;”

          yes, by demonstrating the errors of your childish claims

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b771a4ec57ad060b4acaad214ae436df6fd8facae4a468d9a6df580cb6f8dc21.jpg

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

          Haha that is an insult not an argument And it is a systemic contradiction, so it’s not even a coherent assertion. I hate to see men like Einstein make basic logical mistakes, but they do so to insulate themselves from the abuse of men like you.

          It’s sad really. Not grown up at all.

        • adam

          “so it’s not even a coherent assertion.”

          But of course it is.

          “Not grown up at all.”

          Religion tends to stunt intellectual development.

          Once someone is convinced of magic, they lose touch with reality.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0a534c2021bc73169e9c10f64e398654f51c2ef83711258fb53a5bf8679a4423.jpg

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

          I’ll get back on this… its a good one for you to learn from

        • adam

          Sure………

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

          Sure………

          You guys refuse to believe me when I say I don’t bluff. Its amazing.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0a534c2021bc73169e9c10f64e398654f51c2ef83711258fb53a5bf8679a4423.jpg

          This reminded me of a serious question I had at one time. And it seemed no Christian could answer it for me, partly because I assumed there was no answer and rarely brought it up. It concerns the following verse:

          Deuteronomy 6:13 Fear the Lord your God, serve him only and take your oaths in his name. 14 Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; 15 for the Lord your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land.

          My problem (in my mindset then) was, what kind of insecure God is this? In my own mind the question was really, “What kind of God who presumably has everything, and knows everything, and needs nothing from me, demands that I worship him. does he need to be worshiped?

          For years that troubled me as I am sure it does you. Then one day I was in the Bay Area and was listening to the mad man, the radio host Michael Savage, and to my surprise he brought up a story in which this came up. He had asked a Rabbi in New York the same basic question. The Rabbi laughed and said, “God doesn’t need you to worship him, you need to worship him.”

          I was a long way from being a religious man before that moment, and a long way after. But I got the point. I do need to pay heed to many things in my life, like my boss at work and had already put the principle into practice.

          Now, years later, I am far more philosophically astute and I recognize what begging the question is. And I know that in question form it is a complex question. A debatable assumption was packed into my question. I assumed a false context.

          I took God’s command for my own good to mean he was insecure. I was actually projecting my own insecurity onto God. The same goes for his jealousy. I have a daughter, and she is very cute. I know what her mother looked like as a teenager, because I fell in love with her then. And I can see that my daughter is going to melt hearts and I am insanely jealous for her.

          That does not mean that I will try to control her in the abusive sense of jealousy (at least I hope not). But the thought of some snake in the grass (or garden) wooing her with slick packaging only to use her and break her heart? THAT is the good side of jealousy. Once again, I was projecting my own derogatory jealousy onto God. Not because God was corrupt, but because I was.

          Now I am in a position to answer your question. Can you see why I could not do this at a traffic stop or quickly at a jobsite? I had to go pick up an excavator this afternoon in the mountains with no cell service. Mind your manners kiddo, I’m working here.

          Of course god does not need me to speak for him or argue his existence.

          I

          needed to. In fact, when I came to faith, one of the first things God impressed upon me was that he was sending me to preach. I was like YOU adam. I knew full well how crazy that sounded, and I knew exactly how my family and friends would take it “He’s lost his ever lovin mind!”

          And I told God, the same as Moses did, “You got the wrong guy. I can’t do that. They will not listen to me.”

          We live in a culture that is ruled by tyranny adam. Political correctness in various forms, hangs like a shadow over everyone and dares them to speak up with it’s neuronic gaze. Fear, coercion, peer pressure. Don’t you dare step out of line.

          God needed me to speak for him so that I could learn to be a man, NOT because he cannot speak for himself. He chooses to use people, so that not only can he be known, but so that they become strong warriors of impeccable intellectual character, under impossible odds.

          Of course, the toothless, thoughtless, and nice Jesus kind of religion abounds. And you have your way with them just as I did. Great, because whether you know it or not, that is what happened over an d over again in the Old Testament. The people lost sight of the true strength of their philosophy, they became complacent in the majority. They even became abusive and corrupt.

          And so God had to allow their enemies to overrun them, so that if they wanted to hold on to their faith, it would have to be genuine. It would cause them to think, and dig, and examine themselves. It was to purify them.

          God is training an army for battle adam, an intellectual battle that some call a spiritual battle, same difference. And you are part of the process whether you like it or not, or believe it or not. Our delusions of autonomy are ridiculous. We barely have any freedom at all.

          In the end, we can only choose what side to be on, and you should reconsider your current vector. But that is not my responsibility. In fact, if you choose to stay where you are, I don’t even care. Its not my job to convert you. That’s your responsibility. I will not hesitate.

          Have your way with them adam. They still think they are supposed to convert you into their fantasy story by being nice to you. Purify them. You are doing God’s work.

          Just don’t try to purify me. Your father’s already have:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUdi1dhXQs8

        • adam

          tldr

          “God is training an army for battle adam, ”

          Why?
          Why does a REAL God need an army?
          What kind of “God” is THAT weak, then why call it “God”
          Why doe God’s army need training?
          Why does God need a battle.

          You know why?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c4e3bbea2d1e4d81dbd3798980be2ee8b39f893fee5d1d2b81b76b5e7ba184e1.jpg

          No sound, your video is powerless against me.

          ” And you are part of the process whether you like it or not, or believe it or not. ”
          Only in your psychopathic mind.

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

          You are slow to catch on. Same dilemma. God doesn’t NEED an army. He wants US to be capable like him

          WE need to be in the army. And so you are.

          The videos are for everyone. Whether you watch and listen is utterly beside the point.

          You argue like we’re having a private exchange. That’s how imprisoned by self you are.

        • adam

          “He wants US to be capable like him”

          Why?
          Why didnt it just make us that way?

          “WE need to be in the army”
          Why?
          Are fighting IMAGINARY enemies like Satan?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0448eba69db49e807bec179970f830b0e42028a0c8c2c1ffa23cfab9dba3693e.jpg

          “And so you are.”
          No, I am not buying into your “battle”.
          You havent demonstrated that you are not DELUSIONAL, and your battle is not IMAGINARY.

          ” Whether you watch and listen is utterly beside the point.”
          Then dont try and make video points with me.

          “You argue like we’re having a private exchange.”
          By telling you I dont have sound and therefore get NOTHING from the videos you post.

          That’s how imprisoned you are by your own imaginary battles.

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

          He did make us that way Adam, and the irony of your name cannot be lost on anyone.

        • adam

          So if we are already capable like ‘him’
          Why does he want us to be?

          “WE need to be in the army”
          Why?
          Are we fighting IMAGINARY enemies like Satan?

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

          I did not mean fully trained, I meant like God and in his image. We were made with the capacity.

          If you’ve ever seen the movie Thor, why don’t YOU figure out why for yourself.

          Why did Thor throw a tantrum when his power was taken?

          And why was it taken to start with?

        • adam

          “I did not mean fully trained, I meant like God and in his image.”

          So?
          Your God is not fully trained.
          Why does he want us to be something he aint?

          “WE need to be in the army”
          Why?
          Are we fighting IMAGINARY enemies like Satan?

        • adam

          “Why did Thor throw a tantrum when his power was taken?”

          Because it adds drama to the story line.

          What kind of drama does the bible use in this case?

        • TheNuszAbides

          Why did Thor throw a tantrum when his power was taken?

          And why was it taken to start with?

          uh, because art imitates life?
          see, many animals have urges to ‘correct’ one another. these urges are present even before they are capable of reproducing. when it so happens that they get to raising offspring, these urges lend themselves to all manner of twists and turns.

          i’m sorry – perhaps getting ahead of myself – were you getting around to rehashing The Hero’s Journey for us? or did you just want to tag some weaksauce correlation between The Lockett Gospel Package and a mediocre blockbuster adaptation of a Norse pantheon narrative?

          it’s quaint and touching that you seem to want the black hats to be held accountable by/to The Objective Super-Power – i’ve always found it to be one of the most enduringly belly-warming fantasies available – but your method of recruitment is not as Ockham-slashy as you have claimed you strive for.

        • epeeist

          a mediocre blockbuster adaptation of a Norse pantheon narrative?

          Indeed, it would be much better to sit down and read the Eddas rather than posting second-rate and irrelevant videos.

        • David Cromie

          “We were made with the capacity” to dream up any supernatural entities that take our fancy, and ascribe any characteristics we wish to them. Some of us put that capacity for abstract thought to more constructive uses, and are not so deluded as to try to reify these flights of imagination as ‘real gods’ of any kind, in spite of the lack of any testable evidence in the real world.

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

          Philosophers and metaphysicians do it all the time. It is called methodological naturalism, multiverse theory. Niether are testable by the very means that sophists use to place the burden of proof on others. And the tactic is not new…

          Luke 11:43“Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and respectful greetings in the marketplaces.

          44“Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which people walk over without knowing it.”

          45One of the experts in the law answered him, “Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also.”

          46Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

          47“Woe to you, because you build tombs for the prophets, and it was your ancestors who killed them. 48So you testify that you approve of what your ancestors did; they killed the prophets, and you build their tombs. 49Because of this, God in his wisdom said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and others they will persecute.’ 50Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all.

          52“Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering.”

        • Greg G.

          Nobody is making you carry the burden, you take the burden when you make the claim. If you don’t want the burden, then don’t make the claim. A claim made without sufficient evidence is an assertion.

        • Bob Jase

          ” load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.”

          looks like the Jeez projects a lot.

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

          I think you have that backwards.

        • David Cromie

          Still not able to justify your superstitious beliefs! Superstitious BS will never baffle brains.

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

          The multiverse superstition is okay with you because of your metaphysical presuppositions.

          I love it when the open minded are mocked by those who only allow a philosophy of science that suits their prejudices.

          Amazing.

          There is actually very good justification for a metaphysics that holds reality to be of mind and not matter. QM has qualities one would expect of a conscious entity. Epeeist and I went round on that last week.

          The problem is you don’t WANT the world to be that way. It is an affront to the way you view the world. But science, be it philosophy or empirical study, is the science of discovering the way the world IS ON LOGICAL GROUNDS, not what we WANT it to be. At least, that is the position of the quantum physicist John Polkinghornr, whose BOOK I purchased from our church library.

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

          multiverse superstition? Citation needed.

          Or have you redefined superstition to mean “that which I don’t particularly care for”?

          QM has qualities one would expect of a conscious entity.

          Whoa–modern physics, move over! But since QM is quite predictable, finish the project. Help out those poor physicists relying only on evidence. You’ve peeked at the answers, so tell us: how many particles are there? Is string theory correct? And so on.

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

          I have no problem with materialism as a philosophy. I have always been open to it. I just don’t believe that is where the evidence leads. And it contains a formidable contradiction as to the validity of my own thinking.

          “All possible knowledge, then, depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside our minds really “must” be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into realities beyond them—if it merely represents the way our minds happen to work—then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true.

          It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have to be reaching by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished…It would be an argument which proved that no arguments was sound—a proof that there are no such things as proofs—which is nonsense.

          Thus a strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: “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…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” (C. S. Lewis Miracles).

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

          I have no problem with materialism as a philosophy.

          And what is “materialism”? Is it, “there are material explanations for everything, now and forever, cross my heart and hope to die, forever and ever and ever”?

          If your point is that that’s a bit too certain, I’m OK with that. Easy solution: simply say that our only reliable explanations of the world have all been material. Given that, we expect that trend to continue, though we can’t be certain.

          What you should be focusing on instead is showing that the preponderance of evidence supports your supernatural claims.

          Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true.

          Human brains have loads of mental issues—biases, susceptibility to illusions, mental illness, and on and on. Hell, they work differently depending on whether you’re happy, annoyed, hungry, sleepy, and so on. This is baggage from our evolutionary past. Everyone agrees with these limitations.

          Given our imperfect computing hardware, how best to move forward? If you say that scientific conclusions are suspect, given the fallible minds that produced them, you’re right. Science agrees that you’re right.

          But you’re using that same crappy hardware to conclude that God exists. Apply the same skepticism.

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

          And what is “materialism”? Is it, “there are material explanations for everything, now and forever, cross my heart and hope to die, forever and ever and ever”?

          Before we answer that (even though we already know) we have to A dress this crappy brain problem…

          You are correct that it is susceptible to emotion, bias, and the rest. This is why it is so crucial to test ideas for prejudices and the contradictions that will result from them. We can test both logically and eventually.

          These are the biblical principles that gave rise to modern science.

          1 Thessalonians 5:19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 21 but test them all; hold on to what is good, 22 reject every kind of evil.

          The term spirit here means ideas, and the term prophecies means theories filled with ideas.

          How do we test them? Well, the standard Christian answer would be, “against God’s Word, the bible.”

          But we can see immediately that that doesn’t help unless we understand what it says.

          That verse is appealing to the Logos.

          Our only bias should be objectivity, and only logic can provide it. This why Jesus said that ‘There is only one who is called teacher.’ He was referring of course to God and himself. But he also revealed himself as the Logos, the way, the truth and the life.

          The bible is not God’s Word in the way people think. It is more like equations thst have to be unpacked to actually understand them. It’s like compressed software.

          Logic is the thing that unpacks it, just as logic unpacks everything else in our world except conscious beings who act with purposes and motives that must be known to make sense of their actions. And if they don’t tell you, you will be perplexed.

          Materialism is a belief that the fundamental units of reality are things (energy/matter) not persons. It actually smuggles in a metaphysical bias by asking, ” WHAT is ultimate reality?”

          But what if the proper question is, “WHO is ultimate reality?”

          Our grammar stacks the deck of our thinking. We don’t even notice that only PERSONS ever ask such questions.

          What do we WANT ultimate reality to be?

          When you said Easy solution: simply say that our only reliable explanations of the world have all been material., you failed to notice our own actions. There are a lot of things in our world that are NOT a result of material explanations or natural laws, but a result conscious activity. All of human history in fact.

          So what is stopping us from considering the IDEA that energy and consciousness are related? Why do we hold that spirit (that idea) in contempt and forbid it to be professed (prophesied)? If we test it as per 1st Thessalonians, there anything illogical about it?

          No. There is no contradiction in considering that the fundamental unit of reality is alive and constitutes part of a mind. It’s scary as he’ll perhaps.

          The only thing it collides with is a prejudice that mind results from matter. But as C.S. Lewis explained, a mind coming from matter IS a contradiction.

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

          These are the biblical principles that gave rise to modern science.

          You’re a funny guy.

          I thought my comment had enough meat to encourage some interesting responses from you. But aside from your little joke here, I can find nothing.

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

          No joke bob. It was the scientific revolution by the empiricists like Hume that commandeered science under the contradictory guidelines of his definitions of metaphysics and the empirical.

          Listen to Paul Davies for one minute: https://youtu.be/QmIc42oRjm8?t=3865

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

          The Privileged Fucking Planet?? Yeah, that’s an objective source.

          I listened to a bit of Davies. I wonder if that’s where you got your faith thing–that we just take on faith that the universe is ordered and intelligible.

          Wow–what crap. There’s no faith involved. You say, “Gee, I wonder if the universe is ordered and/or intelligible” and then you do an experiment to test if it is. And this adds weight to one side or the other of the hypothesis, and then you repeat.

          No faith required.

          My posts about all the great scientific information we’ve found in the Bible:

          http://admin.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2015/11/the-bibles-confused-relationship-with-science/
          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2015/11/yet-more-on-the-bibles-confused-relationship-with-science/

        • TheNuszAbides

          the RoI with Iron[y] Man is plummeting.

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

          A bit of follow up for you… because you boys are always clamoring for evidence for God.

          Great article from this year by Steven Weinberg. I want to share an excerpt characterizing one interpretation of QM. He lists several and explains the problems with each and the ensuing confusion.

          It seems to me that the trouble with this approach is not only that it gives up on an ancient aim of science: to say what is really going on out there. It is a surrender of a particularly unfortunate kind. In the instrumentalist approach, we have to assume, as fundamental laws of nature, the rules (such as the Born rule I mentioned earlier) for using the wave function to calculate the probabilities of various results when humans make measurements. Thus humans are brought into the laws of nature at the most fundamental level. According to Eugene Wigner, a pioneer of quantum mechanics, “it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness.”11

          http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/

          It is very noteworthy that Weinberg finds this unfortunate. That tells us that he had a preconceived notion about the nature of reality as a whole. And that is not to fault him. We all do. We can’t help it as conscious agents. But if consciousness is inherently linked to the fundamental level of nature, then we should have no difficulty crossing into belief in a higher consciousness. The context is crying out for it. It would explain our inability to describe and predict because by purely mathematical means because a free will is active in the phenomenon.

          It seems to me that the real difficulty of admitting consciousness, is not that it stops science, but that science crosses over into the why category wherein the purposes of the mind behind the created order must be known in order to have ‘knowledge’ (that is to say- science) of not just the questions of ‘what and how’, but the ‘why and when’.

          The shock comes because we wanted the universe to be an objective world in and of itself. But what if it is not?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas

        • MNb

          Apparently you either haven’t read the article yourself or you’re too close minded to see how it contradicts what you claimed yourself about predictability.

          Weinberg: “Lawrence Krauss has labeled the quantum mechanical calculation of one effect in the spectrum of hydrogen “the best, most accurate prediction in all of science.”
          Either way you look pretty stupid.

          Here is another example:

          “Newton had introduced what his critics saw as an occult force, gravity …”
          You display exactly the same attitude when “criticizing” the multiverse.
          And no, I’m not saying I accept it. As far as I’m aware of there is not enough evidence for it yet. But if it’s correct I predict that silly opposition like yours will fade away in largely the same manner. But perhaps for once you’ll listen to the words of the wise man you refer to yourself:

          “Evidently it is a mistake to demand too strictly that new physical theories should fit some preconceived philosophical standard.”
          My expectations regarding to you are very low. I rather expect more void pomposity; if I’m lucky a couple of Bible quotes.

          “It is very noteworthy that Weinberg finds this unfortunate ….”
          Yup, you’re a liar.

          Weinberg: “It seems to me that the trouble with this approach …..”
          refers to the instrumental version of the Copenhagen interpretation. It has nothing to do with your

          “That tells us that he had a preconceived notion about the nature of reality as a whole.”
          and even less with your

          “If consciousness is inherently linked to the fundamental level of nature, then we should have no difficulty crossing into belief in a higher consciousness.”

          It stems from

          Weinberg: “There is still a wave function, but it is not real like a particle or a field.”
          Several physicists dislike this. Regarding the Wigner quote – and you’re not exactly the first one to abuse it – Weinberg writes:

          “we want to understand the relation of humans to nature, not just assuming the character of this relation by incorporating it in what we suppose are nature’s fundamental laws, but rather by deduction from laws that make no explicit reference to humans.”
          Assuming precisely that is of course exactly what you do. By now we can only expect you to whipe your sorry christian ass with admirable quotes like Matth. 7:3. Whenever you accuse a non-believer of being closed minded and prejudiced it’s only meant to hide how close minded and prejudiced you are yourself.

          “It would possibly explain our inability to describe and predict by purely mathematical means, because a free will is active in the phenomenon.”
          That theology is possible on every single interpretation of QM I’m aware of, so you are effectively undermining your claim that Weinberg “had a preconceived notion about the nature of reality as a whole.”
          You are the one who had. Hence you don’t want Weinberg or any other physicist to solve the problem of multiple interpretations of QM, because you want to stick to the one or few interpretations that you mistakenly think back up your salto mortale from our concrete world to your beloved divine world. You’re too blind to see that

          1) for instance the Many Worlds Interpretation in a very similar way allows for a theology claiming that “a free will is active in the phenomenon”;
          2) every single theology requires a salto mortale.

          As a result you are the one who wants your favourite theology dictate science. No wonder you gave an IDiot link in one of your comments. Creationists do exactly the same.
          Do you reject Evolution Theory? I suspect so.

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

          Do you reject Evolution Theory? I suspect so.

          What evolutionary theory? These IS NO evolutionary theory. Berlinski explains in under 5 minutes.

          Hocus pocus for materialists.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SOtGb8hKyWE

        • epeeist

          That’sit? You want to quote mine one paragraph from a 4,000 word article and ignore the rest.

          Utterly and absolutely fucking dishonest.

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

          I particularly liked his criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation.

        • epeeist

          So do you take a ψ-ontic or ψ-epistemic view when it comes to the PBR theorem?

          As I have said elsewhere it is blatantly obvious that you keep pushing out your bombast until people give you some harder material to peruse. Then you either bluster, attempt to change the subject, proselytise or issue threats.

          I gave you a couple of bits of logic, you avoided answering them and still haven’t done so. I have given you bits of QM, again you avoid any constructive engagement.

          It is obvious to everyone here (apart from you) that you are a complete fraud. You might think you are putting up a brave front but I suspect most people are simply laughing at you, I know I am.

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

          Laughter has no effect on me as it does the rest of you.

        • MNb

          This time my reaction was too long and extensive.
          Excellent summary of the point I tried to make.

        • epeeist

          Excellent summary of the point I tried to make.

          Despite his reticence on the subject I suspect Robert is just another creotard and quote mining is SOP for creotards.

        • MNb

          Yeah, one of his beloved videos was an IDiot one.

        • Michael Neville

          Robert loves Ravi Zacharias’ videos and Zacharias is an IDer. The turd doesn’t fall far from the anus.

        • epeeist

          Oh, and if you want to claim that consciousness is involved with QM then perhaps you could explain the following two ideas:

          Make a double-slit experiment with a vertical polariser in one slit and a horizontal polariser in the other, and put a polariser at 45 degrees after the slit. This is one of the simplest quantum eraser experiments – the 45-degree polariser makes it impossible to detect which slit the photon went through, and so you get an interference pattern. But take the 45-degree polariser out, and the interference pattern disappears – even though you never looked at what the polarisation of any of the photons was.

          Another way would be to do the standard delayed-choice quantum eraser, but rig the coincidence counter so that while it triggers on both the individual-slit detectors, it doesn’t actually record which of the two fired.

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

          If reality is ultimately a product of a mind epeeist, then there is ALWAYS an observer, namely God who is the ultimate jury in our conversation.

          The only thing WE do, is alter the state to an allowed degree with what little freedom and power granted to us. In your case, only enough to leave you throwing yourself against the walls of the cage like a man in a straight jacket.

          At the QM level, you have reached your limit in terms of power given to you.

          Job 38:8“Who shut up the sea behind doors
          when it burst forth from the womb,
          9 when I made the clouds its garment
          and wrapped it in thick darkness,
          10 when I fixed limits for it
          and set its doors and bars in place,
          11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
          here is where your proud waves halt’?

          Genesis 3:24 After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

        • epeeist

          If reality is ultimately a product of a mind

          Another unsubstantiated assertion

          then there is ALWAYS an observer, namely God

          Non sequitur and reference to an unsubstantiated entity. As one should be aware, one should not multiply entities unnecessarily.

          At the QM level, you have reached your limit in terms of power given to you.

          Unsubstantiated assertion.

          Job 38:8“Who shut up the sea behind doors

          You keep referring to the mythos of a particular middle Eastern tribe as though it was somehow true. As far as I (and others here) are concerned it carries no more weight than Aesop’s fables.

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

          No assertions, just an alternative and reasonable interpretation of the evidence.

          Don’t read absolutism into my words that is not there grammatically.

          The only absolutist here, that does not allow any interpretation but his own is you.

          You are beginning to show your true colors as I knew you would.

        • David Cromie

          You are being unnecessarily harsh on poor Aesop!

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

          you boys are always clamoring for evidence for God.

          What we clamor for first is to get a response that thoroughly addresses the points we’ve made in our previous comments.

          Y’know—what we don’t get from you.

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

          The only points you clamor for are the ones that confirm your bias. You obfuscate and deny everything I have brought you. You’re interested only in appearances so far as I can tell. Give the mob what they want and yell them what they want to hear. Upvote upvote… You’re their hero.

        • Michael Neville

          All you’ve given us are Biblical verses, which we don’t consider evidence; videos of obfuscating Christian apologists, which we don’t consider evidence; and your personal testimony, which we don’t consider evidence.

        • Kodie

          Wow, you got that? All I saw were ego tripping diatribes depicting an alternate reality and movie clips.

        • David Cromie

          The only real evidence produced by RL is the fact that he is thoroughly deluded!

        • Ignorant Amos

          The upvote thing is getting on his wick due to his knuckle dragging stupidity too…funny as.

        • Bob Jase

          Let’s settle this once and for all, we’ll meet, you hit me with a spiritual baseball bat and I’ll hit you with a materialistic one. Winner is the one still standing.

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

          As soon as you make your way to the multiverse and bring back a bat from there, you name the time and place. Something tells me it’s going to hurt me a lot less than my answer just did you.

          A spiritual bat is an intellectual bat.

        • Greg G.

          A bat from this world would be a bat from the multiverse.

        • Bob Jase

          First, I’m not the one who brought up multiverses so can that. I do have a very material baseball bat from this universe though so where do you want to meet?

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

          You don’t appear to be taking it well.

        • Bob Jase

          Taking what too well? Are you referring to you breinging in unrelated topics? Are you referring to your general assholishness?

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

          I’m referring to you opening your mouth without understanding of the context, leaving yourself open to embarrasing rebuke.

        • David Cromie

          A ‘spiritual’ bat is a make-believe bat, and just as real as rocking horse poo! Justify your claim that your supposed supernatural entities actually exist, then you might be able to make a case for your superstitious opinions.

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

          A spiritual bat is a logical argument David. But your argument against it IS make believe because you are saying that words are not real.

          John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (Greek Logos), and the Word (Greek Logos) was with God, and the Word (Greek Logos) was God.

        • David Cromie

          What is logical about supposed supernatural entities and their supposed qualities, alleged to exist in a book of fables, myths and folklore when there is no evidence for their existence? There is far more logic in the Harry Potter stories, does that mean that Harry Potter actually exists?

        • Greg G.

          Harry, Hermione, and Ron do exist. They assumed stage names so they could make more movies.

        • David Cromie

          logic does not = logos, no matter how many times you try to redefine ‘logos’! Consult a proper English dictionary, in which case I suggest the OED.

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

          Language (speech, word) is logical, otherwise it is not language.

          Don’t conflate ‘equal to’ with ‘part of’, or you will find yourself playing technical lawyer word games and creating false dichotomies.

        • TheNuszAbides

          so you’re dragging out Haldane’s Chestnut again without having addressed the problem pointed out about his failure of imagination. knock-knock! what’s that bubble made out of again? awesomely transcendent LOGOS-glycerin?

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

          The only thing predictable about QM is its unpredictability

        • Bob Jase

          This is the first valid point I’ve seen you make – the only thing predictable about your god is its unpredictablity.

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

          You have no idea just how right you are. The cool part though, is that when Logos answers, you won’t open your mouth other than to insert your foot.

        • Bob Jase

          Aren’t you too old to play with Legos?

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

          I’m too old to play with YOU.

        • MNb

          More blahblah that demonstrates what a closed mind you have.
          QM excellently predicts all kind of stuff, as the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have experienced in 1945.

        • epeeist

          The only thing predictable about QM is its unpredictability

          Nope, there are lots of cases where predictions from QM are deterministic. For example if we take a system with two compatible observables then we can determine each of them independently, we could write this as:

          LM | λ, μ> = ML | λ, μ>

          where L and M are operators and λ and μ are simultaneous eigenvectors of both observables. Or in other words

          [LM] | λ, μ>= 0

          It is only in the case where we have non-compatible observables and the operators do not commute do we get indeterminacy.

          As it is, even then quantum systems are statistically deterministic. You can tell this by looking at something like Stern-Gerlach experiments.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • epeeist

          I presume everyone else has noticed that Robert is quite forward pushing his bombast until hard questions are put to him. Then we seem to get the proselytising and threats. In other words, the standard creotard operating procedure.

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

          That’s your answer? That’s all you’ve got?

          I sometimes overlook one element of someone’s comment or ignore it because it doesn’t need a reply. But I think there’s a lot there that you’ve ignored that does need a reply. Or, if you have no reply, make that clear instead.

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

          I thought Weinberg played it out rather beautifully don’t You? He has more honesty in the nail on his right pinky finger than most.

          “What are probabilities doing there?”

        • Michael Neville

          I love it when the open minded are mocked by those who only allow a philosophy of science that suits their prejudices.

          We’d be more “open minded” if you could provide the slightest hint of a scintilla of a morsel of evidence that your god or any other god isn’t a figment of the imagination. “Holy” books do not qualify as evidence. However we know that science has actual evidence to support its conclusions. So faced with evidence-less blather about Jebus and Da Lawd on one hand and the reality revealed by science, we go with science. You’d likely do the same if reality wasn’t so frightening to you.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Amazing.

          so sorry to hear you got lost in the labyrinth again. you don’t seem to even want to begin to believe it, but we are, in fact, here to help.

        • MNb

          “The problem is you don’t WANT the world to be that way.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Not intellectual dishonesty anymore, just plain lying, as demonstrated by

          http://science.howstuffworks.com/10-reasons-multiverse-is-real-possibility.htm

          https://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html

          No superstition here, no even metaphysics. Just solid science.
          And you know it, because I have given you these two links before.

          “I love it when the open minded are mocked by those who only allow a philosophy of science that suits their prejudices.”
          Yeah, we all are aware of it, because exactly this is what you do in 90% of your comments.
          You’re the science rejector. You even included an IDiot video in one of your comments.
          Actually it took me a couple of years before taking the multiverse seriously – after I had read these two links and a couple more.

        • David Cromie

          Still no answer to my question!

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

          Only because you are deaf.

        • adam
        • TheNuszAbides

          You guys refuse to believe me when I say I don’t bluff.

          another delusional statement.
          i haven’t seen anyone claim that you don’t believe what you say you believe. yes, i know this is not perfectly synonymous with what you claim “you guys refuse to believe”, but it’s more over-archingly relevant.
          it’s just that you’ve repeatedly shown resistance to coherently examining the fallacies in your vaunted Reason-ing. you keep papering it over with “ah, this is God telling me _____” and derail or ignore the analysis of your errors. anybody who points out how you’re doing it wrong, no matter what tone they use, ends up getting told that either God or some [other] Bogeyman is playing them for a fool. no wonder you give so much credit to apologetics.
          it’s not about whether you’re “bluffing”. it’s about how bad you (and Lewis! and Lennox! and Ravi!) are at presenting rational propositions (or ‘debunking’ the ones that threaten theistic axioms) to excuse faith from doing so. not the run-of-the-mill rhetoric, though – you’re all competent enough at sidestepping and helping the choir [whether lurking on the waves of ones and zeroes or simply in your head or study/support group] stay ‘focused’.

          Fear, coercion, peer pressure. Don’t you dare step out of line.

          yeah, before P.C. there were no such fearful beasts running rampant through society! pull the other one, dreamer.

          THAT is the good side of jealousy

          protecting the people you love has nothing to do with jealousy (EDIT: okay, sets of behavior can overlap, but that doesn’t justify the pretense that they’re inseparable). why do you need to bake both concepts into one word? oh right, because THE LORD claims it as a characteristic of dire significance. what a startling coincidence … what was that about tyranny again?

        • epeeist

          You guys refuse to believe me when I say I don’t bluff. Its amazing.

          Most of the stuff you produce on philosophy, metaphysics, science and logic are bluff. Do you think people here haven’t noticed that your knowledge and understanding in these areas is completely deficient?

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

          Matthew 21:23 Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him. “By what authority are you doing these things?” they asked. “And who gave you this authority?”

          24 Jesus replied, “I will also ask you one question. If you answer me, I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things. 25 John’s baptism—where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or of human origin?”

          They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’ 26 But if we say, ‘Of human origin’—we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a prophet.”

          27 So they answered Jesus, “We don’t know.”

          Then he said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.

        • epeeist

          I’m sorry, why should an extract from that particular book be of relevance here?

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

          You are the one claiming to SEE all things logical becsuse of those papers certifying your expertise.

          John 9:41 Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

          Why did they hate him?

        • David Cromie

          Irrelevant BS because unsubstantiated!

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

          All the kings horses and all the kings men…

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ya left the word “fictional” out of that sentence. Just saying.

        • TheNuszAbides

          because he’s “the kid with the sword”, duh! checkmate, sophist!

        • Bob Jase

          That Jesus, can’t give a straight answer and acts like a dick instead.

          Not that I believe this happened – I doubt that any itinerrant street preacher would be allowed to preach in the temple.

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

          No no, That’s WHY they killed him, because weak minded people can’t understand logic, because as Michael confessed yesterday in a dramatic Freudian slip, they disregard the message.

          They never understood to begin with, but many people did, and that was a threat to them just as it is for you.

          You had better make sure you know what Jesus is saying before you write him off as a dick. He’s no dick. He is God incarnate and he wipes the door with dicks like you.

          Time is running out to connect the dots sir, and if you do not, then as the song says, “To the cold blooded deceiver, ‘what do you have to say for yourself?’ Too white livered to even offer explanation.”

          That is where disregard and not listening will get you. A middle finger is not enough sir. You are not God.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=umAl8F1X890

        • Bob Jase

          “No no, That’s WHY they killed him”

          What, for not answering the question or for being a dick?

          “He is God incarnate and he wipes the door with dicks like you.”

          Well that’s fair in your estimation but I don’t believe in your god and frankly, you’re quite a dick yourself. Note, you started the name-calling.

        • MNb

          Typical for the bluffing apologist: start reciting the Bible when cornered.

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

          The difference between yourself, epeeist and I, is that you have to say that I am cornered or intellectually dishonest. I don’t have to say it. I can demonstrate it.

          I’ll just keep up the cross examination. Your pride won’t allow you to let it go, so I can use it as a leash to lead you into the light where you will burn.

        • Greg G.

          The difference between yourself, epeeist and I, is that you have to say that I am cornered or intellectually dishonest. I don’t have to say it. I can demonstrate it.

          That sounds Freudian. You are telling MNb that you don’t have to say you are “cornered or intellectually dishonest” but that you can demonstrate that you are “cornered or intellectually dishonest”.

        • Michael Neville

          Robert does an excellent job of demonstrating his intellectual dishonesty. That’s probably the result of years of practice.

        • Bob Jase

          Well, he does.

          A lot.

        • Kodie

          I can tell all of this is going way over your head, but that’s hilarious you think you’re leading anyone.

        • TheNuszAbides

          pure, fantasy-addled pretzel logic. yes, you can demonstrate it just fine without our help.

        • TheNuszAbides

          Your pride won’t allow you to let it go

          this has been a happy week for the ironymeter merchants.

        • MNb

          “I don’t have to say it.”
          You just did.
          With more pompous, empty words.

          “to lead you into the light where you will burn.”
          That would be nice, as it’s a bit cold where I am now.

        • David Cromie

          So you finally admit that you are intellectually (challenged and) dishonest

        • David Cromie

          “This reminded me of a serious question I had at one time. And it seemed no Christian could answer it for me…”; Where is the irrefutable, falsifiable, evidence for the real existence of your favourite supposed ‘god’? Without such evidence, all the rest is ignorant supernatural bluster and mere hot air.

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

          Evidence is always refutable. You are conflating evidence with proof.

          But turn it around on the materialist philosophers David: Where is the irrefutable, falsifiable evidence for the existence of the multiverse?

        • epeeist

          Where is the irrefutable, falsifiable evidence for the existence of the multiverse?

          Answering a question with a question…

          A nice attempt to evade the question that David Cromie put to you. Now I would phrase it differently, where is the indubitable evidence for the real existence of your favourite supposed ‘god’?

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

          In the same place you’ll find the undubitable evidence for the multiverse…. in your metaphysic.

          It occurs to me tat neither you or David are much of a Goliath in terms of intellect. But a bit of honesty will get you there .

          Hate me…

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JyBzSx92kdA

        • epeeist

          In the same place you’ll find the undubitable evidence for the multiverse…. in your metaphysic.

          Nope, metaphysics can eliminate bad answers and it can provide you with good arguments, but as Peter Van Imwagen notes in his Metaphysics there is no such thing as metaphysical information or metaphysical facts.

          It occurs to me tat neither you or David are much of a Goliath in terms of intellect.

          As I have already said, I don’t have to be a genius I just have to be more intelligent that you and that is hardly a high bar.

          Hate me…

          Nah, you aren’t worth the effort. As I have intimated before I regard you as a classic case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome, and on top of that an intellectual fraud.

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

          Nope, metaphysics can eliminate bad answers and it can provide you with good arguments, but as Peter Van Imwagen notes in his Metaphysics there is no such thing as metaphysical information or metaphysical facts.

          Finally we are in agreement. You resisted this admission last week. This everything I was trying to get to.

          Metaphysics can do so because we can logically eliminate contradictions (as opposed to your vague use of the term bad answers along the whole scope of a virtuous theory.

          Thank you epeeist.

        • epeeist

          we can logically eliminate contradictions

          I see you still haven’t managed to tackle my two little conundrums, here they are again:

          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? These should be easy to a master logician like yourself.

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

          We’ve been over this… And I used my OWN illustration.

          If you strike a billiard ball, physics will tell where the trajectory will take given the momentum and other factors. And the it does not obey.

          What happened?

          Very simple… I interfered.

          Conscious entities can do things above and beyond natural laws.

          What you see as stochastic randomness I see as God saying, “Boo”.

          It is only your metaphysics that blinds you to this other logical possibility.

        • epeeist

          Very simple… I interfered.

          Oh FFS, Newton’s first law of motion:

          In an inertial frame of reference, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.

          Conscious entities can do things above and beyond natural laws.

          Bare assertion

          What you see as stochastic randomness I see as God saying, “Boo”.

          Unsubstantiated argument from wishful thinking.

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

          So you concede that conscious activity is a force.

        • Greg G.

          “Bare assertion” does not mean a concession.

        • epeeist

          So you concede that conscious activity is a force.

          Only if you concede that consciousness is just a vector quantity measure in Newtons.

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

          Haha… what is my consciousness going to say to you next fool?

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=80SsC_ZNbyI

          Romans 9:33 As it is written:

          “See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

          Get up eepiest. Get up…

        • epeeist

          what is my consciousness going to say to you next, fool?

          I think the only response to that is from your “holy book”

          22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgement. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

          Matthew 5

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

          Too bad you don’t understand that holy book.

          Psalm 53:1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good.

          To deny God (consciousness) is to deny Logos. It is foolish because it violates the law of non contradiction. It is your very OWN consciousness that presumes to deny consciousness.

          YOU made a fool of yourself epeeist. I was simply pointing out your foolish error.

          Matthew 5:37 “But let your Logos (original Greek) ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and ‘No,’ ‘No.’ Anything more than these comes from evil.” (law of non contradiction)

          Two C.S. Lewis quotes:

          “If all the world were Christian, it might not matter if all the world were uneducated. But, as it is, a cultural life will exist outside the Church whether it exists inside or not. To be ignorant and simple now–not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground–would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defence but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered. The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect altogether. Most of all, perhaps, we need intimate knowledge of the past. Not that the past has any magic about it, but because we cannot study the future, and yet need something to set against the present, to remind us that the basic assumptions have been quite different in different periods and that much which seems certain to the uneducated is merely temporary fashion.”

          “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”

          Your concession of the point is not required or expected epeeist. But without it, you are self condemned.

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

          Too bad you don’t understand that holy book.

          Psalm 53:1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good.

          To deny God (consciousness) is to deny Logos. It is foolish because it violates the law of non contradiction. It is your very OWN consciousness that presumes to deny consciousness.

          YOU made a fool of yourself epeeist. I was simply pointing out your foolish error.

          Matthew 5:37 “But let your Logos (original Greek) ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and ‘No,’ ‘No.’ Anything more than these comes from evil.” (law of non contradiction)

          Two C.S. Lewis quotes:

          “If all the world were Christian, it might not matter if all the world were uneducated. But, as it is, a cultural life will exist outside the Church whether it exists inside or not. To be ignorant and simple now–not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground–would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defence but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered. The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect altogether. Most of all, perhaps, we need intimate knowledge of the past. Not that the past has any magic about it, but because we cannot study the future, and yet need something to set against the present, to remind us that the basic assumptions have been quite different in different periods and that much which seems certain to the uneducated is merely temporary fashion.”

          “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”

          Your concession of the point is not required or expected epeeist. But without it, you are self condemned.

          Matthew 21:42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

          “ ‘The stone the builders rejected
          has become the cornerstone;
          the Lord has done this,
          and it is marvelous in our eyes’ ?

          43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44 Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.”

        • Michael Neville

          The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

          A book pushing a particular belief says that those who don’t believe are fools. Like that’s a convincing argument to unbelievers. Robert should also consider Matthew 5:22 (NIV): “And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”

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

          After all this time, you STILL don’t know who it is you are fighting. You a re still going after the boy (the truck driver) thinking that he is Achilles. How blind are you?

          It is Logos Himself who calls you a fool epeeist, not me.

          Psalm 2

          1 Why do the nations conspire
          and the peoples plot in vain?
          2 The kings of the earth rise up
          and the rulers band together
          against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,
          3 “Let us break their chains
          and throw off their shackles.”

          4 The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
          the Lord scoffs at them.

          5 He rebukes them in his anger
          and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
          6 “I have installed my king
          on Zion, my holy mountain.”
          7 I will proclaim the Lord’s decree:

          He said to me, “You are my son;
          today I have become your father.
          8 Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance,
          the ends of the earth your possession.
          9 You will break them with a rod of iron ;
          you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”

          10 Therefore, you kings, be wise;
          be warned, you rulers of the earth.
          11 Serve the Lord with fear
          and celebrate his rule with trembling.
          12 Kiss his son, or he will be angry
          and your way will lead to your destruction,
          for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
          Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

          Romans 8:31 “If Logos is for us, then who can be against us?”

          https://youtu.be/NQ62frK74u0?t=44

        • epeeist

          It is Logos Himself who calls you a fool epeeist, not me.

          Strange, I don’t see “Logos” posting, just somebody who calls himself “Robert Lockett”, but there again we always get the monkey, never the organ grinder.

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

          You don’t see logic? That would explain your contradiction, denying that consciousness is a force. And you presume to do so with your own consciousness.

          You want to play word games to deny words? Fine, as Doc Holiday said in Latin to Run to, “It’s your funeral.”

          Load the terror chamber epeeist and watch your mind begin to scream…

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RuI6TroX5S4

        • epeeist

          You don’t see logic?

          Nope, because you never produce any, in fact thinking about it you never manage to produce anything that looks even vaguely coherent.

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

          You’re imposition of will and refusal to concede a point is proof of your dishonesty.

          You are not a logician if you maintain that posture, you are Bart Simpson.

          But be encouraged. None of the people up-voting your comments give a damn about truth. They cheer your petulant middle finger.

          If that is what you want, then that is YOUR victory. I concede that I can’t make you say anything. You have to choose. It’s free will.

        • epeeist

          I pushed that through a Markov chain text generator, this is what came out:

          You’re imposition of will and refusal to choose. It’s free will. You’re imposition of will and refusal to concede that is what you want, then that I concede a damn about truth. They cheer your petulant middle finger. If that posture, you want, then that is YOUR victory. I concede a logician if you want, then that is YOUR victory. I can’t make you say anything. You have to choose. It’s free will. You’re imposition of will and refusal to concede a logician if you maintain that I

          It probably makes more sense than your original post.

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

          You are the only man here who made sure to demonstrate that you understood every argument and every word from the start.

          But the converse was never true. I provide arguments about QM that show your understanding is non-existent, you ignore these and post irrelevant videos and issue threats. You talk about the “trinity” and I give you demonstrations that the whole thing fails logically, you bluster and try to change the subject. You suddenly decide that the logic is superfluous in this case because the whole thing is “self-referential”, I point out that it isn’t and show you what it means to be self-referential. You drop the subject. You talk about the “magic” of emergence and I give you salt and temperature, you have obviously no idea why. You call me a fool and point out how your “holy book” regards people who do this, you respond by claiming to speak for your god. You make great claims on the “law of non-contradiction” but shy away from responding to a couple of examples I gave you.

          Now it may be that you are regarded as somewhat of an intellectual in your church with your ability to (mis)-use the word Logos and the law of non-contradiction, but it is a something that has been exposed as a pretence here.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqeMWf5CzVM

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

          What a fascinatingly delusional characterization of our conversations.

        • epeeist

          What a fascinatingly delusional characterization of our conversations.

          And there it is, when confronted with things that you have been shown to be incapable of responding to you simply issue an ad hominem and vague non-answer. This doesn’t surprise me of course, whereas I and others have actually used our knowledge in exchanges with you, you have at best made a passing mention (I expect this one to go straight over the top of your head too). You can’t raise anything of substance, so you raise a mist instead.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_3HqF8Hebc

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

          Right on script. Now remember that this is metaphor for an intellectual struggle. I would hate to see you shrieking sissy girl accusations of threats twice in one day. Even if you have no honor or shame, It is unseemly.

          You claim to be a powerful man because of your letters, and you stand on that authority abusively. Same old pattern…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKn-Agk-yAI

        • epeeist

          Right on script.

          If by “the script” you mean pointing out the vacuity of your previous post I plead guilty. I will compound it by pointing out that his post is almost exactly the same as the previous, i.e. completely vacuous and containing the usual threat (not that these worry me, what’s the phrase that Americans use, “all hat and no cattle”?).

          You claim to be a powerful man because of your letters

          While your snobbery is inverted with your oft-repeated boast about being a blue collar trucker.

          you stand on that authority abusively rather than objective logic

          And strangely enough you never respond to posts by me or others when it comes to actual expositions of logic. Personally I doubt whether you could even ask for your bill in a Greek taverna.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-zW10__i4M

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

          In my opinion it is a mistake to regard God’s promises as threats. He manipulates no one.

        • Kodie

          what’s the phrase that Americans use, “all hat and no cattle”?).

          That’s really just Dr. Phil, while Judge Judy would say, don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining. I think Schmuckett stopped responding to me on the exact post where I said he had “huge balls, no dick,” not that common either.

        • Greg G.

          I remember hearing “all hat and no cattle” applied to George W. Bush when he was first running for president but I think it goes back before that.

        • Kodie

          You’re the only one here who is having an intellectual struggle. It’s not that difficult for the rest of us.

        • MNb

          Typical the reply of someone who hasn’t anything substantial to tell.

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

          I think the only response to that is from your “holy book”

          Matthew 5:22 But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgement. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

          Jesus is warning about using ad hominem epeeist. He is warning us that to use personal attack and mockery in place of logical persuasion is of the devil. It is coercive, not persuasive.

          I did not do that in this case. I did not CALL you a fool as Mnb and the rest of you do. I DEMONSTRATED that you are a fool via a logical response.

          Too bad you don’t understand that holy book. You are left crawling on your belly, desperate to twist logic to impugn me and justify yourself. Not gonna happen.

          Psalm 53:1 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, and their ways are vile; there is no one who does good.

          To deny God (consciousness) is to deny Logos. It is foolish because it violates the law of non contradiction. It is your very OWN consciousness that presumes to deny consciousness.

          YOU made a fool of yourself epeeist. I was simply pointing out your foolish error.

          Matthew 5:37 “But let your Logos (original Greek) ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and ‘No,’ ‘No.’ Anything more than these comes from evil.” (law of non contradiction)

          Two C.S. Lewis quotes:

          “If all the world were Christian, it might not matter if all the world were uneducated. But, as it is, a cultural life will exist outside the Church whether it exists inside or not. To be ignorant and simple now–not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground–would be to throw down our weapons, and to betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defence but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered. The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect altogether. Most of all, perhaps, we need intimate knowledge of the past. Not that the past has any magic about it, but because we cannot study the future, and yet need something to set against the present, to remind us that the basic assumptions have been quite different in different periods and that much which seems certain to the uneducated is merely temporary fashion.”

          “Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It’s like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”

          Your concession of the point is not required or expected epeeist. But without it, you are self condemned.

          Matthew 21:42 Jesus said to them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures:

          “ ‘The stone the builders rejected
          has become the cornerstone;
          the Lord has done this,
          and it is marvelous in our eyes’ ?

          43 “Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. 44 Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed.”

        • David Cromie

          What on earth are you babbling about? Imaginary entities have no power to interfere with the universal laws of physics!

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

          Of course not, but you’re comitting the fallacy of begging the question Who is claiming they are imaginary. You bring that prejudice ready made.

        • David Cromie

          Which ‘question’ would that be? Where supernatural entities are alleged to exist, yet no supporting evidence is made available, then such entities can only be imaginary! If I claimed that there were faeries at the bottom of my garden, I could hardly object when asked to prove my claim.

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

          Where supernatural entities are alleged to exist, yet no supporting evidence is made available, then such entities can only be imaginary

          A good 2 day old article on the imaginary…

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/09/28/is-the-inflationary-universe-a-scientific-theory-not-anymore/#14f4b70ab45e

        • TheNuszAbides

          LMFAO. Again!? how many times do you imagine it’s fruitful to flip a “no no, >I’myou< off, o-ho-ho!" after your oversimplifications, category errors and special wishful internally-heroic pleading pretensions have been shredded … againby the same person?!

          you’re big on the “every tool is a weapon if you hold it right” chestnut, i bet.

        • epeeist

          Metaphysics can eliminate because we can logically test for contradictions

          We can eliminate for a number of reasons, logical contradiction being one of them. There are others, for example conclusions that do not correspond to facts.

        • Kodie

          He seems to be one of those kind that wouldn’t “bother” trying to argue us out of our position because our hearts are just so hard, but believes instead in casting spells, chanting LOGOS LOGOS LOGOS! and that should direct Jesus to us (and give him points he’ll cash in when he gets to heaven for the deluxe supreme mansion), then it’s our own stubborn fault for rejecting it, but meanwhile, this is the image of the atheist they prefer to think of as “angry at god” and taking it out on poor old martyr Robert Blockhead. The meaner we are to him, the more righteous he feels, this pumps up his Jesus juices to be hated for spreading his message of superstition, gullibility, and arrogance. He is not a rational person, he is delusional as fuck.

        • Kodie

          Wow, you objectify your own daughter, pretty gross.

        • adam

          No sound at my end

          Your video is worthless to make any point to me.

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

          That’s why it’s public. So you can’t manipulate me… like a child.

        • adam

          then grow up and stop acting as a child.

        • adam

          ” if God The Invisible Pink Flying Unicorn is there, we need him very much.”ftfy

        • adam

          ” if God Santa is there, we need him very much.”ftfy

        • adam
        • adam

          “Admitting that is what real grownups do. We confess that we are weak and that if God is there, ”

          REAL adults deal with reality, they dont hope and wait for a Santa Claus like an immature child.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a29efcba0ee94d4f84d4a43b6bc78a04d7180523d05f7132222fdad4c7046acd.jpg

        • MNb

          We need your god because we are on death row?
          As far as I’m concerned exactly the opposite – because I’m on death row I need your god the least of all.

        • adam

          ” We’re on death row son.”

          As is everything and everybody since life began, that’s just reality, and some immature child like people can’t be adult enough to deal with that reality, and find it necessary to buy into or create an ‘alternative reality’ – called a LIE or DELUSION to make them ‘feel’ better.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/00dc38cb29f7a43641c9538a5e4c29a4f010f2b7bfe73b1efa9f33d5e9cb6e2a.jpg

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bd86b396150dc2e11b7542790ee0d34f2a9d437b2262747fb7047679f85e9cec.jpg

        • TheNuszAbides

          ain’t it cute how he starts out by phrasing everything as though we’ve been somehow sheltered from or obstinately deaf and blind and numb and anosmic to these turds of Deeply World-Shaking Wisdom?

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

          I want to add to my last response now that I am home…

          I left off by saying you will need more than bravado to face reality. You will need an honesty and courage you do not yet know.

          Today was an interesting day. What was it, 6-8 against 1? And what I notice is that a few of you have very sharp intellects. And I mean that. You’re one of them adam and the others know who they are.

          All of you that I speak of understand logic very well without having to dive into the minutia that epeeir tries to use to intimidate his opponents. To hell with the fancy terminology, you understand and construct logical counterarguments that confirm you understood the point.

          I see a lot of wit and a lot of will. Very clever bunch you boys are. Do you feel the but coming?

          But, you know what is lacking according to my analysis? The moral aspect of what we call ‘moral reasoning’.

          When it comes to constructing and finding logical avenues of objection and criticism, you guys are at the top of the class. Technically, your minds are logic machines. But technicalities are not what real logical thought is about unless you are designing software or working out abstract mathematical functions. There may be no moral or ethical component in many of those cases.

          But if we begin to work out a philosophy as regards worldview, with all the complexities involved that encroach on meaning, purpose, value judgments, and the rest, we cannot escape the need for honesty. In this realm, logic devoid of brutal honesty is for machines, not real grown up men.

          What is the cliche… the truth hurts? It’s not just a cliche, it is the brutal and honest truth. And if we attempt to manipulate people with cheap technical logic in the form of mockery, we are missing the mark. We might get a technical win like a smart ass lawyer impresses himself with, but it wont be a sit your opponent on his butt kind of punch.

          If you want to make a real argument it will need to be both logical and true. And that cannot be manufactured adam. It is an objective argument through and through.

          The nice thing about not having to manufacture our arguments is that we don’t expend energy trying to be clever. We can take on 12 combatants at once with energy to spare. It’s actually energizing rather than draining. Telling the truth is easy and drives the opposition mad. No extra energy wasted trying to keep track of my lies or create elaborate justifications to reconcile contradictions.

          That is how I do what I do, and I don’t mind showing you my hand. Epeeir is right. I don’t know much. Not compared to him at least if he is all he claims to be. And I don’t need much. Honesty is more powerful than being clever or knowledgeable.

          Now, don’t think I am trying to show false humility. I’ve been debating like this for about 14 years. And I have learned a lot, so like Paul said in one of his Epistles, “I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge.”

          A lot of people turn to God as a genie. They are looking for a hero to save the marriage, find them a job, save their child from cancer. And of course, all of those are legitimate concerns. But if we simply read the gospels we will see that the disciples were no different. They did NOT understand Jesus’ message. Not at first…

          They were arguing about who would be greatest in the kingdom and presuming that Jesus was going to conquer the Roman’s and displace the corrupt religious leaders. That is what we all expect from what we think a real god would do. But when he told them he would be crucified and raised, they didn’t know what he was talking about.

          Peter is even recorded as rebuking him for saying such a thing. It was unthinkable to him that what he assumed would be their conquering king, would be humiliated like that. The concept of the resurrection went right over their heads. They could not relate. Can we blame them?

          Peter kept fighting for his delusion (literally) right up to the night before and tried to defend Jesus with a sword. Peter had a lot of bravado and was willing to fight for what his ambitions dictated.

          But once Jesus was arrested Peter lost his faith along with the others. This outwardly strong man full of false pride crumbled when questioned by a little girl and denied knowing Jesus. Thomas flat refused to believe nonsense about Jesus’ resurrection when the reports came in. And can you blame him? He was in it for the theocracy the same as the others. The rebellion had failed. He was a pragmatist and would have none of these fairy stories about Jesus being alive again.

          Contrast that with Thomas’ reaction when we are told he saw the risen Lord. He fell to his knees and declared, “My Lord, and my God.”

          It was only after they were totally defeated and had seen their own weakness that they were humble enough to have a truly objective and open mind. Truth became more powerful than their biases and ambitions because they were broken.

          And here you are adam, talking about growing up and implying we need to toughen and thicken our skin. You don’t know the first thing about thick skin. But you can learn. But not by being tough, but by being honest. Then all of that natural intelligence will be free to move effortlessly through very difficult terrain without wearing yourself out.

          This came up in the jail last week because naturally some of these
          guys with sentences hanging over their heads would love to escape reality. One kid wanted to know if the Christian life was easy. And the answer is yes in one sense, because God gives us his own mind (or in Christianeze, His Spirit). We don’t just work out logic after that, we know it. More to the point, we know HIM, and recognize that his voice was always as close as our own consciousness we just did not recognize it.

          God wants to give us rest in that way that carries us through the fire and the death and the heartbreak, he does not deliver us from it.

          That is not what this kid wanted to hear. But I was not about to sell him a characterization of God that was not biblical and would let him down as it has so many others, and leave them hating themselves, and God, and religious people. Its the real deal or nothing. People pray a lot of vain prayers.

          Do you think you are grown up adam? Are you a strong man? How much strength would it take to let go of control of your own life, your dreams, your ambitions and say, ‘God, I’m yours to do what you will’? You don’t have the kind of strength to trust that God is in control no matter what the circumstances. Don’t even pretend to.

          It is much easier to cope with the pain of loss and anxiety by simply defining the problem out of existence so we don’t have to FEEL the existential and emotional sting of reality. It is so much easier to be angry than broken and in tears.

          A mature man allows himself to feel the hurt and not just the anger. Its something I only learned somewhat recently. God has a hard time teaching me because I am as rebellious and resistant as they come. I still want a genie too sometimes. But God is no genie. He won’t save us from the cross, but lead us through it. Every good teacher does.

          And he did not expect that from us and consider himself too holy and pure to reduce himself to that level. He led the way. You want to see what a grown up looks like adam? Take a good look at God on a Roman cross.

          All the mockery, all the torture, all the torment and force of will they brought to bear on him without mercy. They did not break him, and you won’t break me because he has taught me through pain, what thick skin is, and it cannot be fabricated. And not because he is sadistic but because he knows our true strength and how to breed it in us. He is the ultimate special ops instructor.

          I play a lot of games and try to have fun because this immortal combat we have engaged in can be pretty intense. There are a lot of bruised egos. I don’t want to hurt you guys. I want se if youre as tough as you pretend. You’re not btw.

          But if you are strong enough, you’ll put your ego to death and show your true weakness and be free to run like the wind. And to find that strength, we need God’s strength. Will power is not enough. Honesty is the name of the game.

        • james

          “All the mockery, all the torture, all the torment and force of will they brought to bear on him without mercy. They did not break him, and you won’t break me because he has taught me through pain, what thick skin is, and it cannot be fabricated. And not because he is sadistic but because he knows our true strength and how to breed it in us. He is the ultimate special ops instructor.”

          poor god. allowed himself to be raped by the romans because he was sick and tired of butchering people without mercy.
          they did break your god. would you identify the dead body in the tomb as “god in flesh ” ?

          the jewish tell us that you christians can never break them because they died believing that yhwhs laws dont have a sell by date. when the jews were being murdered by the christians , they say torah was coming from their lips.

          so many stories of martyrs and how they did not become cowards like jesus who knew when, where and how his suffering is going to stop.

          nobody needs to willingly get beaten the shit out of to teach how to live a good life.

          poor god. he taught you how he created easily corruptible creatures and then willingly went to commit suicide. poor god.

        • Ignorant Amos

          “They did not break him, and you won’t break me because he has taught me through pain, what thick skin is, and it cannot be fabricated.”

          A thick skin?

          Bwaahahahahaha!

          Robert has been whining about being bullied and being picked on, amongst other things, since he got here.

          A thick skin, my arse.

        • epeeist

          Not compared to him at least if he is all he claims to be. And I don’t need much. Honesty is more powerful than being clever or knowledgeable.

          For what it is worth, I have a doctorate in physics (in particular the quantum mechanics of small molecules), while I was taking that I also took adjunct courses in philosophy of science and logic. The philosophy of science leads to epistemology and hence on to perception and philosophy of mind, so I have a nodding acquaintance with these two subjects as well. Given that I am an atheist I obviously don’t accept so-called “Christian ethics”, as much as anything because they are crude and inadequate, so I have find my own way on this, I tend towards Rawlsian contractualism. If you want more, I am a fencing coach, moderate photographer and have an interest in early music (which means everything from the 12th century to J.S. Bach).

          And I don’t need much. Honesty is more powerful than being clever or knowledgeable.

          I think this merits an Isaac Asimov quotation:

          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.

          EDIT: correct a copy-paste

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

          Impressive resume. John Polkinghornr was a quantum physicist too, and an Anglican priest. His resume is even MORE impressive.

          Obviously, an appeal to authority would be fallacious, and it is of no use appealing to consensus either as that is the ad populum fallacy.

          His rejection of relativism is spot on, but don’t try to use the Asimov quote to conflate rejection of materialism with rejection of intellect. You’ve already demonstrated a propensity for conflating mathematics with logic.

        • epeeist

          Impressive resume.

          It was meant to be informative rather than impressive.

          John Polkinghornr was a quantum physicist too, and an Anglican priest. His resume is even MORE impressive.

          Certainly in science Polkinghorne operated at a higher level than I, there is no problem admitting this. There are always people higher up the pecking order, I have met a couple of Nobel laureates (one a theist, one an atheist) both of who operated at a higher level than Polkinghorne.

          Just as an aside, it was Peter Atkins who taught me the use of Feyman diagrams and their mathematical representation.

          an appeal to authority would be fallacious

          Certainly an appeal to improper authority is fallacious.

          It is of no use appealing to consensus either as that is the ad populum fallacy

          One has to be careful here, certainly the claim that a book must be good because it has been on the best seller list for several weeks or that gods must exist because most cultures have a belief in a higher power are examples of ad populum.

          However this is different to scientific consensus in subjects such as climate change or evolution, here the consensus comes from the fact that theories have properties such as strong explanatory power, good empirical fit and improved consilience over time.

          His rejection of relativism is spot on, but don’t try to use the Asimov quote to conflate rejection of materialism with rejection of intellect.

          The Asimov quotation says nothing about materialism, methodological or metaphysical.

          You’ve already demonstrated a propensity for conflating mathematics with logic.

          If you look at the development of logic in the 19th and early 20th centuries you will see it was done by people like Boole, de Morgan, Frege and Russell, all of whom were primarily mathematicians. As it is mathematical logic is well developed field hence books such as this one.

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

          Just as an aside, it was Peter Atkins who taught me the use of Feyman diagrams and their mathematical representation.

          Brilliant man with some of the best selling textbooks in the world. That does not mean that he is infallible. He in fact makes very basic logical errors, perhaps because he is so far out there in his thinking.

          Genius needs to be careful because one mistake on the tarmac can lead to disaster 100 miles out if you are on autopilot and not paying attention. Pride precedes a fall.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vnjNbe5lyE

        • epeeist

          That does not mean that he is infallible.

          So where does he claim he is?

          He in fact makes very basic logical errors, perhaps because he is so far out there in his thinking.

          Does he? Perhaps you could identify some of them.

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

          I did not, and do not need to without plagiarizing someone else’s material. WLC did a fine job of it decades ago. I remember seeing that show as a kid. Buckley always came across as pretentious, but then again so does Atkins.

          I didn’t know what they were talking about then. But I do now. Maybe you missed it then and now?

          Again…

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vnjNbe5lyE

        • TheNuszAbides

          didn’t you posture somewhere recently that you confess when you’ve missed the mark?
          you had your erroneous aspersions/diversions called out over a week ago right above and your only response is misdirection?

        • Michael Neville

          You’ve already demonstrated a propensity for conflating mathematics with logic.

          This tells me that you’re nowhere near as knowledgeable about philosophy, particularly logic, as you pretend you are. Most of the work in logic in the past 150 or so years has been mathematical logic. Do the names Boole, Frege, Schröder, Zermelo, Russell or Gödel mean anything to you? They mean something to me and I’m not a mathematician.

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

          “One of the boldest attempts to apply logic to mathematics was the logicism pioneered by philosopher-logicians such as Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell. Mathematical theories were supposed to be logical tautologies, and the programme was to show this by means of a reduction of mathematics to logic.[3] The various attempts to carry this out met with failure, from the crippling of Frege’s project in his Grundgesetze by Russell’s paradox, to the defeat of Hilbert’s program by Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. ” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          so? modern mathematical logic has its origins in the attempts of frege and hilbert, no doubt about that, but mathematical logic didn’t end with hilbert’s program, frege’s attempt or gödel’s incompleteness theorems, to the contrary. maybe you should read on (then it describes what the article calls the “second area of mathematical logic”. see also the wikipedia article about hilbert’s program, especially “hilbert’s program after gödel”, for starters).

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

          Sew buttons on your underwear… All you are pointing out is that the quest for the holy grail continues. That’s not news friend. Thanks SO much.

          The context for my point is that it has not been demonstrated. Epeeist was trying to hide behind his physics degree to say it has been.

          He did not expect me to know better because I do not know the math. But we do not NEED to know the math when men like gödel do. That is the importance of accountability (peer review). Without it, people can overstate their case and hide behind the label of ‘expert’, and then beat everyone else down as ignorant and heretical.

          Your late to the game, so crawl back into your hole, because I love playing ‘Whack a Troll’.

          Epeeist has this handled and is smart enough. You’re not.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          the holy grail? proving theorems to try and understand mathematics better? you don’t seem to care about that (which is rather sad).

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

          Still don’t get it? It has nothing to DO with a value judgment about science and math being bad.

          It has to do with overstating the case and acting like it’s IN the bag. The bag is still empty, but good luck. You have more faith than I do I assure you of that.

          Good flipping grief!

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          He did not expect me to know better because I do not know the math. But we do not NEED to know the math when men like gödel do. … Without it, people can overstate their case and hide behind the label of
          ‘expert’, and then beat everyone else down as ignorant and heretical.

          hm. you seem to agree that you are ignorant, that you don’t need to “know the math”, and you accept the judgement of “experts” (if they are “men like gödel”, for some reason). mathematics is very much a cumulative enterprise. how you can think that “the bag is still empty”, in the case of math at least, i don’t know.

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

          Good point. Damn good point actually. Glad I apologized, your
          smarter than I thought.

          Fortunately, when pressed, epeeist confessed that the search was still on. He has more honesty than many. And he also noted that appeals to authority are reasonable within the given fields. We all know that already.

          But you’ve given another illustration of just how much faith people place in experts today as our knowledge increases. We’re forced to by time. Very dangerous…

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          i’m not that pessimistic. yes, our knowledge increases, but we were often able to reorganize and reformulate our knowledge in such a way that it’s still teachable (and understandable to people like me who are not “like gödel”). for example: the original proofs of theorems are often somewhat unwieldy or difficult to understand. then other mathematicians rework those proofs and are able to streamline the arguments, introduce appropriate notation, and so on. a nice example for this (in physics) are maxwell’s equations:

          “The vector calculus formulation below has become standard. It is mathematically much more convenient than Maxwell’s original 20 equations and is due to Oliver Heaviside.”

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

          Hey, go for it. Don’t let my skepticism stop you. I understand the cliche’ that hope springs eternal, and I do not mean that derogatorily.

          I don’t mock people for having faith (so long as it is not blind), nor for having hopes and dreams or ambitions. None of those are bad in and of themselves.

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

          Hey, sorry for those last two replies. Its not your fault. I did not have to say it like that. Been working 12hr days and did not sleep well last night. Just be careful of the context when you jump in. Peace..

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          ok, just ignore my comments if you think they don’t adavance the discussion in any way. i don’t mind.

        • Susan

          He did not expect me to know better because I do not know the math. But we do not NEED to know the math when men like gödel do.

          You need to know what Godel’s math showed.

          What did it show?

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

          Aren’t you a sight… I always loved those who jump in only when they think someone else has them trapped. Must be a girl… -wink-.

          You will find your answer in this comment to Michael (and you are named in it): http://disq.us/p/1mc6yyc

        • Susan

          Must be a girl…-wink

          Well, aren’t you the clever one. What gave me away?

          You will find your answer

          Nope. I asked you a specific question.

          You said we didn’t need to understand the math. I assume you meant Godel’s theorems..

          I asked you what it showed.

          And you linked me to your standard bloviating.

          ====

          Edit: To add link

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

          You need to understand it first, so you can tell me what is wrong with it… remember?

          But when you understand it, you will understand the video.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICsIG4d0S0E

        • Susan

          And as usual, you have nothing.

          Plus a video.

          You can’t answer my question.

        • Joe

          I’m reminded of another poster who was active a while back. When pushed, they responded with non-specific brush offs and a music video. Can’t remember who it was, but it seems like they’ve returned with a new sock puppet.

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

          As the video illustrates, I gave you an answer. But not hardly the answer you wanted. And my answer is your undoing

        • TheNuszAbides

          Quit flattering yourself and your LOGOS. Susan’s patience will outlast each and every one of us put together, and you of all touchy TruthSwordyWizards certainly haven’t demonstrated the chops to give her a straight answer.

        • TheNuszAbides

          more horseshit aspersions, missed another mark or three li’l buddy!

        • David Cromie

          I know what Wittgenstein would say!

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          oh dear!

        • David Cromie

          Good copy and paste, but do you understand what it means for mathematics/logic?

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

          This caused me some confusion in the past because I held mathematics to be man made. Worese, I don t even remember where I got that silly idea. And it is only recently (as in last week) that it dawned on me that I was arguing for the wrong thing because of that error.

          I now recognize mathematics and logic as a tautology and that clear up a whole bunch of things.

          It means that logic is axiomatic. That it cannot be proven but by arguing in a circle with itself. It must be assumed and accepted as a necessary truth by Faith.

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

          Uh huh. Taken on faith. There’s no evidence for any of the laws of logic–they’re arbitrary.

          Do I understand your position correctly?

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

          Thete is ton tons of evidence. We can see that logic must be true. There is just no way to prove it. It could be a very good illusion that only makes sense to our yet to evolve primate brains.

          We must be extremely careful not to conflate evidence with proof.

        • David Cromie

          You are very fond of the word ‘evidence’, yet very loathe to cite any in support of your opinions!

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

          Are you assuming the existence of logic as a means of supporting your claim that I’ve provided no evidence for the existence of logic?

          If that sounds confusing it is because your assertion is logically absurd when unpacked. You’ve come undone sir. Pull yourself together. Call your horses and men.

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

          Thete is ton tons of evidence. We can see that logic must be true.

          Yes, there is tons of evidence. Now tell that to the moron who hangs out here and talks about how axioms are built on faith.

          There is just no way to prove it.

          Right—no way to prove it. Nothing new here since we don’t prove any of science’s laws or theories.

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

          Do you have evidence and faith that your car will start the next time you proceed to use it?

          Your absolute certainty is your downfall. It blinds you.

          There… Did I teach you anything?

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

          Nope, not a goddamn thing.

          I have evidence that my car will start. No faith needed. Or are we using different definitions of “faith”?

          Absolute certainty? In what?

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

          Different definition???

          Apply it to your car starting in the future.

          Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

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

          What dfferent definition???

          Apply it to your car starting in the future, tomorrow, next week.

          Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

          W take it SO much for granted that we’re not even conscious of it UNTIL the car doesn’t start. We’re so confident in logic gudong our science UNTIL we run up against the quantum.

          So apply that definition of faith to your interpretation of the quantum or the multiverse and see for yourself how it works and what it reveals about your own buses.

          Why do HOPE there is no God, no mind being the curtain of QM and Placbk time?

          What are you afraid of when I present a perfectly reasonable and intelligent counterperspective?

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

          What dfferent definition???

          Some say that faith is belief well grounded in evidence (that is, the same thing as trust), and others say that it’s belief poorly grounded in evidence.

          We take faith SO much for granted that we’re not even conscious of it UNTIL the car doesn’t start.

          I trust in my car to start since it’s always started. No faith needed.

          Why do you HOPE there is no God

          I dunno—do you hope that all the villains in the comics don’t exist? It never really crosses my mind, because I don’t think they do.

          What are you afraid of when I present a perfectly reasonable and intelligent counterperspective that reality just might ultimately be personal?

          I’ve seen no interesting perspective from you.

          Philosophy IS religion.

          What a coincidence! I have little use for either.

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

          Disregard and walk away. Right on script. Thank you Bob.

          John 18:38 “What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him.

        • Michael Neville

          Are you back on the “philosophy is religion” nonsense again? I’ve already explained to you that it isn’t and you haven’t refuted me. So why do you keep peddling that bullshit? Are you hoping that we’ll accept that the study of knowledge, ethics; metaphysics, epistemology and logic are some type of mystic nonsense with no basis in reality (which is what religion is)?

        • epeeist

          Are you back on the “philosophy is religion” nonsense again?

          You have to remember that Robert has all the best words defined in the best way. There have never been words defined in such a great way as Robert defines them.

        • MNb

          Yeah, he is the Ultimate Universal Arbiter on these matters.

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

          You’re great with the mocking. Too bad you have no content.

        • epeeist

          John 18:38 “What is truth?” retorted Pilate.

          And Tarski replied, ‘S’ iff p.

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

          So in other words, you have no rejoinder.

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

          You’ve been reduced to plugging your ears like a toddler? Denial is not your friend epeeist. It is death.

        • epeeist

          You’ve been reduced to plugging your ears like a toddler?

          Le silence vertébral indispose la voile licite

        • 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
        • MNb

          Yeah, Philosophy IS religion like God IS love.
          One makes exactly as much sense as the other: zilch.

        • epeeist

          It really is all the same shite isn’t it. The inability to realise that a lack of belief in X is not the same as a belief in not X, nor that the fact that lack of belief in X is the null position. This is despite the fact that they don’t believe in Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Odin, the Great Spirit, Ganesha…

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

          Yeah, Philosophy IS religion like God IS love.

          One makes exactly as much sense as the other: zilch.

          Both of your statements above are philosophical statements. That is violent and systemic contradiction.

          Like the serpent in Eden you are using your own words to deny words.

          Liar you are. Not because I say so, but because logic says so.

          Quoting Jesus:

          John 8:43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

          I am here to represent the law Mnb. The law of non contradiction. You’re toast.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jXSNAcoH8y8

        • MNb

          “Both of your statements above are philosophical statements. That is violent and systemic contradiction.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          The second sentence is so evidently stupid and that there is no need to comment and no need to read further on either.

          But I cannot help making a few analogies.

          X: “Yeah and 1 + 1 = 3 like a * a = a.”
          RobbieL: “Both of your statements above are mathematical statements. That is violent and systemic contradiction.”

          X: “Yeah and gravity makes you fall upward like RobbieL can travel faster than light.”
          RobbieL: “Both of your statements above are statements of physics. That is violent and systemic contradiction.”

          X: “Yeah and Buenos Aires is the capital of Canada like the Rocky Mountains are the highest hills of Belgium.”
          RobbieL: “Both of your statements above are geographical statements. That is violent and systemic contradiction.”

          X: “Yeah and RobbieL rules the Earth like King Willem Alexander van Oranje Nassau is president of the United States of America.
          RobbieL: “Both of your statements above are political statements. That is violent and systemic contradiction.”

          Keep up the good work, Robbie. You’re like Rowan Atkinson in

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGFz9gt0-Fc

          That is a violent and systemic statement, but not exactly a contradiction.

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

          BWAHAHAHAHA!

          Where have I heard that before?

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

        • TheNuszAbides

          “How did you ever get to be an interviewer?!”

        • TheNuszAbides

          You’re toast.

          you’re hottepid air.

        • Greg G.

          Do you have evidence and faith that your car will start the next time you proceed to use it?

          I expect it to start. I have a battery charger because I don’t rely on faith that it will always start.

        • Kodie

          Do you know why the car starts and what could cause it not to start?

        • Ignorant Amos

          No faith…no certainty…just a high probability formed upon reasonable expectation based on prior evidence.

          http://quinesqueue.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/reasonable-expectations-based-on-prior.html

        • David Cromie

          You are conflating ‘faith’ without evidence, with ‘faith’ based on scientific evidence. Never the twain shall meet!

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

          We never have future evidence. We rely on past evidence to guide our faith that the car will start tomorrow. I am surprised at your desperation to deny the undeniable and the obvious. Very dishonest.

          You’re naked David. Clutching for fig leaves will only make it worse.

        • David Cromie

          What has ‘future evidence’ got to do with what I posted, or fig leaves, for that matter? If my car fails to start I, at least, know that the problem can be diagnosed and, hopefully, fixed (if I had a mind to, I could always rebuild it). If not, I can always buy a replacement. The science of the internal combustion engine is universal, and proven to work, no ‘faith’ and no supposed supernatural entity need be invoked at any stage!

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

          It was a consciouss entity that BUILT the car. The laws of physics did not build it. Whether conscious activity is supernatural or not depends on your metaphysic David.

          You once again beg the question by smuggling your metaphysic into your analysis.

          But as I demonstrated for epeeist, if consciousness is NOT supernatural, and can be predicted scientifically, then do tell… ‘what am I going to say to you next?’

        • David Cromie

          What the hell are you babbling on about? There was nothing ‘metaphysical’ about the humans that designed the internal combustion engine.

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

          What is consciousness David?

        • David Cromie

          Ask a doctor.

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

          Oh, you mean like the neurosurgeon Ben Carson?

        • David Cromie

          Carson is a fraud. He actually believes that the Egyptian pyramids were built as grain silos!

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

          Pick another Dr. then, one that does not share your belief that consciousness is material. I was making a point David, that different doctors believe different things depending on their metaphysic.

        • adam

          ” I was making a point David, that different doctors believe different things depending on their metaphysic.”

          How is that possible if we all share the same consciousness?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh, you mean like the neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson,…

          Nope…not a doctor like Dr. Ben Carson…no doubt a great neurosurgeon, though far from 100% success track record, I guess YahwehJesus has to take time off from guiding hands too.

          …the only man to separate twins conjoined at the brain?

          Bullshit!

          Lot’s of surgeons have done it.

          NEW YORK (October 20, 2016) – A team of expert surgical and medical providers at the Children’s Hospital at Montefiore (CHAM) have separated thirteen-month-old craniopagus twin boys Jadon and Anias McDonald. Craniopagus twins are joined at the head. This is the first time the team used virtual planning and 3D printing technologies to map their way through the boys’ attached brains in a series of complex, high-risk surgeries that resulted in complete separation on October 14th. Both boys are now recovering in CHAM’s Pediatric Critical Care Unit and while they could require further surgeries, the hospital community and family remain optimistic.

          http://www.montefiore.org/body.cfm?id=1738&action=detail&ref=1327

          He is the first to confess God’s hand all over that surgery as he watched his own hands do the impossible, during a kind of ‘out of body’ experience.

          He also confessed that technology was influential too.

          Carson at the time acknowledged the surgery’s shortcomings. “In a technological ‘Star Wars’ sort of way, the operation was a fantastic success,” he told the Associated Press in 1989. “But as far as having normal children, I don’t think it was all that successful.”

          Just a pity he couldn’t be consistent, he might well have been onto something with his god guiding hands rubbish. As it is, he wasn’t. Others have been successful without tipping their hat to a gods influence too.

          BTW…God’s aftercare leaves a lot to be desired too…Carson left a trail of devastation on many occasion.

          In a 1988 Bunte magazine story, Carson predicted that one of the twins would be crawling soon, while the other would need to overcome the effects of an event that occurred after the surgery when he nearly suffocated. “Both are more advanced now than we were hoping they would be,” Carson said.

          But according to news media accounts two years after the surgery, one boy was discharged from the hospital with signs of severe neurological damage and remained in a vegetative state; the other was developmentally delayed.

          But here’s the rub…you don’t seem interested in the elephant in the room. Why does your perfect, multi-omni god need to guide hands in an unnecessary operation? So much for intelligent design…any designer making such a clusterfuck in the real world would be out the door on their arse, and rightly so.

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

          “…the only [correction -first] man to separate twins conjoined at the brain”.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Nearly right….try again.

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

          But here’s the rub…you don’t seem interested in the elephant in the room. Why does your perfect, multi-omni god need to guide hands in an unnecessary operation? So much for intelligent design…any designer making such a clusterfuck in the real world would be out the door on their arse, and rightly so.

          Now you are raising a theological question, and a very worthy one. According to Bob, you are not qualified to answer unless you are a theologian. So you will have to consult the experts. But forget Bob…

          As I said to Michael, why is it never the kids who are suffering the maladies who rail against God, but men like you who are healthy?

          God found a way to give creatures free will and preserve a perfect world without men like Adolf Hitler running amok. It is called repentance and the resurrection. And he modeled it for us by laying down his own life.

          When you read a novel, do you throw it out when things in the plot make you uneasy, or do you wait for the resolution?

        • epeeist

          As I said to Michael, why is it never the kids who are suffering the maladies who rail against God, but men like you who are healthy?

          I have been visiting a friend in hospital these past few days. Now if your fucking twat of a god existed then it would be your fucking twat of a god that was responsible for her having a stroke on top of bowel cancer. The first would be due to your fucking twat of a god designing people badly and the second would be due to your fucking twat of a god producing something that her body was unable to resist.

          As it is she is making a good recovery from the stroke due to doctors, physiotherapists and occupational therapists. The bowel cancer will have to wait a little but they have a team of doctors and radiographers ready when the time comes. Your fucking twat of a god doesn’t seem to have made an appearance.

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

          He not only made an appearance, but took responsibility for creating the world and us this way. He suffered on a Roman cross, died, and defeated death to give us empirical flesh and blood evidence that our trust in him is well placed and that our suffering, endurance, and hope is not in vain.

          Your are allowing your emotion and existential angst to cloud your mind. Given the enormity of the pressure and pain, that is forgivable if you are willing to contemplate carefully.

        • Ignorant Amos

          He not only made an appearance, but took responsibility for creating the world and us this way. He suffered on a Roman cross, died, and defeated death to give us empirical flesh and blood evidence that our trust in him is well placed and that our suffering, endurance, and hope is not in vain.

          Unsubstantiated assertion…try again.

        • adam

          “He suffered on a Roman cross, died, and defeated death to give us
          empirical flesh and blood evidence that our trust in him is well placed
          and that our suffering, endurance, and hope is not in vain”

          And Spiderman was bitten by a radioactive spider

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8638fdedfe8fad3b245ca0981085794967c878d6bfba020d03d8b426a1c98936.jpg

        • epeeist

          Forget Spiderman, it seems that Santa is dead.

        • adam
        • adam
        • epeeist

          He not only made an appearance, but took responsibility for creating the world and us this way.

          Which is exactly what I was saying, your purportedly omni-benevolent god created bowel cancer, prostate cancer (which is what her husband died of) and pancreatic cancer (which a former colleague of my wife has recently died from).

          He suffered on a Roman cross, died, and defeated death to give us empirical flesh and blood evidence that our trust in him is well placed and that our suffering, endurance, and hope is not in vain.

          So did Odin, only he managed to last 9 days which is much better than your wuss of a god.

          Your are allowing your emotion and existential angst to cloud your mind.

          Oh my mind is quite clear, I am just rather tired of the bleating. Personally I am with Dylan Thomas:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2cgcx-GJTQ

        • David Cromie

          Could you hazard a recorded date, time, and place for its ‘appearance’? Where is your proof that this supposed ‘god’ actually exists?

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

          7 minute and AGAIN?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Now you are raising a theological question, and a very worthy one. According to Bob, you are not qualified to answer unless you are a theologian. So you will have to consult the experts.

          But that’s not what Bob said…try again.

          As I said to Michael, why is it never the kids who are suffering the maladies who rail against God, but men like you who are healthy?

          Say to Michael whatever nonsense ya like, unless you are omniscient, you don’t know the claims you think you know. Try again.

          God found a way to give creatures free will and preserve a perfect world without men like Adolf Hitler running amok. It is called repentance and the resurrection. And he modeled it for us by laying down his own life.

          Unsubstantiated assertions…try again.

          When you read a novel, do you throw it out when things in the plot make you uneasy, or do you wait for the resolution?

          I don’t normally read novels, although I’ve read a number in my time, I’ve read both Bob’s. I tend to get bored with the pace.

          But your analogy is shite anyway. Typical for christers. When I read a novel, I know all the way through that by the last page I will have received the resolution. And it won’t take a lifetime wasted either. You are reading a never ending story. A story that could have a number of different endings that you have no way of knowing, and ya can’t even skim ahead for a spoiler. So, a bit of red herring by mister logic. Try again.

        • Ignorant Amos

          As I said to Michael, why is it never the kids who are suffering the maladies who rail against God, but men like you who are healthy?

          Apparently “kids who are suffering” is a real problem for faith.

          One of the most common reasons teens become resistant to the faith is because of a personal encounter with suffering that they can’t make sense of.

          http://www.patheos.com/blogs/faithonthecouch/2013/05/i-dont-believe-in-god-anymore-when-your-kids-reject-the-faith/

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

          They are asking existential WHY questions that require a theological answer. But you’ve convinced them that science has done away with God (which is not true), so they rightly and logically conclude that there is no hope. So they pick up a gun and stroll into school.

          They have been lied to, and God will hold YOU responsible not them.

          Matthew 18:6 “If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”

        • epeeist

          Nah, what did away with god is people not being forced to accept religious authority any more. Once that happened then it became obvious that there was as much evidence for the existence of god as there was for the Loch Ness monster

          https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/settled.png

          They have been lied to, and God will hold YOU responsible not them.

          Believe in me or burn in hell, sooner or later it all comes down to the threat.

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

          Nah, what did away with god is people not being forced to accept religious authority any more.

          Bob didn’t get that memo. Just last night he said several times that he is FORCED to believe the experts. Their philosophical leanings are irrelevant.

          Believe in me or burn in hell, sooner or later it all comes down to the threat.

          Do you interpret the fact that if you jump off a cliff that you will die as a threa?

          As I already told you, it is a mistake to interpret God’s promises (laws) as threats. He manipulates no one. You are free and he respects your decisions.

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

          he said several times that he is FORCED to believe the experts

          Wrong again. Lying makes Baby Jesus cry.

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

          Well then you are why Jesus wept Bob, because that is exactly what you said. And I told you that we always have a choice to question authority.

          When a man like epeeist comes along flashing his pedigree, waving his hand and telling me, “These are not the droids you’re looking for”, that is my first clue that they most certainly are.

        • epeeist

          When a man like epeeist comes along flashing his pedigree

          As opposed to when a man like Robert comes along and flashes his blue collar trucker status…

          Now you know what my educational background is but what you don’t know is the rest of my background. My father was a machinist on a factory floor, my mother was a file clerk. Both my grandfathers were coal miners and both my grandmothers were in service, i.e. domestic servants. So you can take your inverted snobbery and stuff it.

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

          No snobbery here just quality argument.

        • epeeist

          No snobbery here just quality argument.

          Snort.

        • Ignorant Amos

          When a man like epeeist comes along flashing his pedigree, waving his hand and telling me, “These are not the droids you’re looking for”, that is my first clue that they most certainly are.

          But epeeist didn’t come along and flash his pedigree though did he?

          Lying again.

          It was I that introduced his “pedigree” into the thread by way of a warning to you that the topics you wanted to engage, physics and logic, he is no slouch or fly-by-night internet warrior, but well read and credentialed.

          Of course you were too much of an up yer own arse arrogant prick, ya ignored the tip off. So the ensuing debacle has seen you getting a new one tore, time and again…and epeeist, among others, have made ya look a right cunt in the process. Quite entertaining to watch at times actually.

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

          Interesting take on the results.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Robbie’s reading for comprehension doesn’t seem to be all there…or he is a pious fraud lying for Jesus…and probably both.

        • epeeist

          Just last night he said several times that he is FORCED to believe the experts.

          As I said, I was at the hospital and haven’t seen many postings. You can of course provide me with a link to where he said this.

          Do you interpret the fact that if you jump off a cliff that you will die as a threa?

          Seriously, what is with theists and crap analogies

          http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2TCYQxSUqGQ/SwqDqpZqyeI/AAAAAAAAEho/KYxjExXW58I/s1600/thestupiditburnsblack.jpg

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

          As I said, I was at the hospital and haven’t seen many postings. You can of course provide me with a link to where he said this.

          I’ll tell you the same thing I tell people who ask if I have any Grey Poupon, ‘But of course…”

          Bob writes, confirming that he said it more than once:

          “I parrot nothing. I simply say what I’ve already said to you: Laymen have no option but to accept the scientific consensus.”

          http://disq.us/p/1mp8oqw

          Sorry bob and epeeist, whether they have a white collar and stand in a chapel, or wear a tie and stand in the hollowed halls of academia, I most certainly DO have the ability and DUTY to ask questions and test them. No charge of heresy or science denier need apply. That is only confirmation that these are definitely the droids I am looking for.

        • epeeist

          Bob writes, confirming that he said it more than once:

          “I parrot nothing. I simply say what I’ve already said to you: Laymen have no option but to accept the scientific consensus.”

          Then he would be wrong, you certainly can question the consensus. However there is a vast difference between the informed questioning of the scientific consensus and that of that of the bystander who simply dislikes the findings of a theory but has no background or understanding of what they are questioning

          Tell me when did you last here of a theory being overturned by, say, a blue collar trucker rather than someone like, say, Julian Barbour?

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

          There is no theory to be overturned in the case of quantum mechanics, the origin of the universe, the origin of life, or human consciousness. My job is only to point that out.

          Where are you coming from?

        • epeeist

          There is no theory to be overturned in the case of quantum mechanics,

          We have had nearly a century and a quarter of quantum theory, so you are wrong.

          the origin of the universe

          We have solid ideas from people like Alan Guth on the origin of the universe, theories that account for things like the horizon, flatness and relic particle abundance problems besides a 102 year old theory from Einstein elaborated by people like Friedman and Lemaitre. So again, you are wrong.

          the origin of life

          There is plenty going on in this field too, though results are slow to appear. Have a look at the NASA astrobiology pages for details. So again, you are wrong.

          human consciousness

          Lots of work going on here too in terms of things like fMRI and PET as well as collaborations between neuro-scientists and philosophers of mind. Once again you are wrong.

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

          We have had nearly a century and a quarter of quantum theory, so you are wrong.

          I guess Weinberg didn’t get the memo.

          Not to worry epeeist, everyone here has shown a propensity for believing and drinking your coolaid. They’re in no danger of being stripped from your hand. They are content to believe on authority, and you are content for them to do so

        • epeeist

          I guess Weinberg didn’t get the memo.

          You may not have noticed but Weinberg has written one or two other things besides an article in the New Yorker. It is rather old now but his The First Three Minutes is worth reading as is his later book on the history of science To Explain the World. Both of them deal with quantum mechanics including small sections on quantum electrodynamics and quantum chromodynamics.

          Not to worry epeeist, everyone here has shown a propensity for believing and drinking your coolaid. They’re in no danger of being stripped from your hand.

          Ah, anti-intellectualism, the thing that we have come to expect from you.

          They are content to believe on authority, and you are content for them to do so

          Nah, we have another word for people who are content to believe on authority. We call them “theists”.

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

          The first 3 minutes was written in 1977, but the article brought to the table is from this year. In the article, Weinberg makes plain that he is less confident than once was.

          This not surprising given that many people (like Anthony Flew) become more honest as the hour glass nears depletion. The possibility of falling into the hands of the living God becomes much clearer.

        • epeeist

          The first 3 minutes was written in 1977

          Well yes I did say it was rather old, however the second book I mentioned was published in 2015. But, so what, both of them deal with quantum mechanics and the latter one makes a fair amount of reference to its history.

          So as usual you are talking bollocks.

          This not surprising given that many people (like Anthony Flew) become more honest as the hour glass nears depletion.

          So one person who was an atheist became a deist (not you will note a believer in a personal god of any kind). I don’t know about the US but here in the UK some 44% of those brought up in the Church of England become non-religious, the figure for those brought up as Catholics (as I was) becoming non-religious is 32%. Going the other way, only 4% of those brought up as non-religious become religious. So it looks as though Flew was one of a small minority.

          Oh, and I do realise that “non-religious” and “atheist” are not synonymous.

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

          So as usual you are talking bollocks

          Ha! Am I supposed to be surprised or upended by that assessment? It is precisely what I expect from a liar like you. The pontificating and snobbish dismissals suit you well.

          The point about Flew was only to demonstrate for the liars among us what honesty looks like. It’s frequency was totally beside the point.

          The reason you want to draw attention away from Weinberg’s most recent piece, is that here too we see that softening and honesty as the hourglass runs down.

          They’re lives are nearly over and their careers are safe. They need not fear the entrenched beaurocrasy and the Oz acts from the high priests and clerics like you who will label them heretics for stepping out of line.

          That’s the nice thing about being a truck driver too Mr. Physicist. Freedom of inquiry with nothing to lose.

        • epeeist

          Ha! Am I supposed to be surprised or upended by that assessment?

          As I have frequently said before, I write as much for the lurkers as anyone else. I am perfectly happy for them to decide whether I have “upended” you or not.

          The point about Flew was only to demonstrate for the liars among us what honesty looks like. I

          Honesty in that I pointed out that Flew became a deist rather than the usual attempt by theists to claim him as one of their own.

          It’s frequency was totally beside the point.

          Oh but is very much to the point, Flew is one of a tiny number who move the way he did (from being an atheist to believing in an Aristotelian god), an exception to the decline of religion in the UK (and much of the rest of the developed world). Tell me, which religious groupings in the US are growing, would it be Catholics, one of the many denominations of protestants or those who have “no religion”?

          The reason you want to draw attention away from Weinberg’s most recent piece ( http://disq.us/url?url=http… ), is that here too we see that softening and honesty as the hourglass runs down.

          What on earth is this supposed to mean? As I have said the article is a reasonable description of what is happening at the foundation of QM, the known incompleteness, the search for new directions, the attempts to come to a common interpretation. All of this is commonplace to those with an interest in the history of science, as Weinberg has. It is only those, like you, who have no background in the subject who think it is revelatory.

          For men like Flew and Weinberg, they’re lives are nearly over and their careers are safe.

          I hate to tell you this, but Flew is dead, he died seven years ago.

          That’s the nice thing about being a truck driver too Mr. Physicist. Freedom of inquiry with nothing to lose.

          One of the guys I coach with is a painter and decorator. He is a far better coach than me with a much deeper understanding of the strategic aspects of the sport. As much as anything this stems from the fact that he is also an international level referee (he refereed at the 2012 Olympic games) and hence sees what is happening at the top level of the sport. Do I sneer at him for being above his station, a mere painter and decorator aspiring to be an excellent coach and referee? Absolutely not, I see someone with a limited education who has put in a huge amount of effort to learn something in depth.

          With you I see someone with a non-existent understanding of a whole stack of subjects (this would include, but not limited to science, philosophy of science, philosophy more generally and logic) thinking (I used the word loosely) that they have an in-depth understanding and who doesn’t like their shortcomings being revealed.

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

          Honesty in that I pointed out that Flew became a deist rather than the usual attempt by theists to claim him as one of their own.

          Talk about putting words in people’s mouths…

          I already knew Flew was a deist and dead. The point was movement, near the end of life, away from the entrenched consensus toward materialistic bias, in full knowledge of the kind of hostile mocking peer pressure that you and Mnb demonstrate masterfully with every insulting comment. Weinberg and Flew no longer care or cared because death is at the door.

          Coming toward the truth is always a death, a death to one degree or another, of self.

          In Flew’s case, it was specifically the quaternary digital code of DNA that was evidence to Flew (the evidence you say does not exist) that a designing intelligence was involved.

          I know all about Dawkin’s flimsy denials and anger about being outmaneuvered. But the fact remains that he ALSO recognizes that evidence and Stein NAILED him on it.

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

          And it is precisely THIS KIND of being nailed to the floor with logic and science that sends you and Mnb into a desperate game of damage control, and the easiest way to do that is to attempt to discredit the witness. Ad hominem is your name.

          You are all wizards of Oz.

          News flash… I don’t have any credibility to begin with, credibility that YOU bestowed upon me, so you can take it away. I am not interested in credibility (its too easily manufactured with paper). I am interested in quality argumentation. You did not create me, and you cannot destroy me.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Would you be touting Flew if he had became a Muslim towards the end? He might as well have as far is it matters.

          According to Pascal’s Wager, he is still going to be just as fucked. One wonders why he didn’t just go the whole hog and punt to YahwehJesus…unless even at the end he knew that hypothesis was a useless loada ballix not worth considering. Flew was a logician after all.

          Flew was all over the place in what he thought in his final years, often contradicting himself.

          “I now realise that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.”

        • epeeist

          I already knew Flew was a deist and dead.

          You did?

          For men like Flew and Weinberg, they’re lives are nearly over and their careers are safe.

          Oh, and just a matter of interest, who said “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.”?

          And Expelled, seriously? Try this site and this one.

          And it is precisely THIS KIND of being nailed to the floor with logic and science that sends you and Mnb into a desperate game of damage control, and the easiest way to do that is to attempt to discredit the witness. Ad hominem is your name.

          Well I rather think the Scientific American article nails the film, are you going to accuse them of ad hominem as well?

          I am interested in quality argumentation.

          And you have been provided with some, a pity that you have not been able to reciprocate.

          You did not create me, and you cannot destroy me.

          You will note that I have not threatened to destroy you in any way while you have been here, again you have not been able to reciprocate. You have threatened a number of people on the site.

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

          Fine, in my haste I gramattically implied Flew was still alive. But yes I knew.

          As for threatening… I clearly used all of the clips as metaphor for logical debate.

          You actually prove how effective I am in debate by your desperation to classify it as a physical threat.

          You are really desperate now epeeist. You MUST find some way to crucify my reputation. And there again, I am using crucifixion as metaphor

          You’re a fraud.

        • epeeist

          As for threatening… I clearly used all of the clips as metaphor for logical debate.

          As we say over here, pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

          You MUST find some way to crucify my reputation.

          Me? Why should I need to when you are doing such a good job on your own.

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

          Like I said to Bob, that is why I am here, to give people a clear choice.

          Whatever choice you make is yours, the important thing is that you judge me.

          John 9:39 Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

          And before you accuse me of thinking I AM Jesus…

          Matthew 10:25 It is enough for students to be like their teachers, and servants like their masters. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household!

        • epeeist

          John 9:39 Jesus said,

          Ah, I see your difficulty. You seem to think that we should pay attention to your particular book of fables.

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

          It’s not my book. I don’t read it. It reads me. And I find that interesting. What you think of it is your judgment to make.

        • David Cromie

          Why would screwed up people need to pay for trick-cyclist analysts when they could have a magical book to do the job for free? Do you feel better now (I hope you keep your magical book locked up, as it is not something innocent children should have access to).

        • Ignorant Amos

          Good links…Bertie probably won’t bother to read them, why let the truth get in the way of some juicy lying hyperbole for Jesus. The fool didn’t think that one through at all did he?

          Of course Bertie could’ve just read the wiki page and raised his knuckles of the ground just enough to save face, but then the dumb fucker thinks he knows stuff we don’t…so it’s a case of egg, let me introduce you to Bertie’s face.

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

          Oh, and just a matter of interest, who said “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.”?

          That would be Weinberg. I have a better question… when did he say that?

          Furthermore, as Lennox said, “we can agree with the new atheists that blind faith does lead acts as we saw on 911.”

          It was Hitler’s blind faith that led to the holocaust, and the same goes for Stalin. The object of the faith, be it power or philosophical ideals (which are really both) is irrelevant.

          Unfortunately unless objective morality exists, Weinberg’s comment is meaningless.

          But fortunately we HAVE established that objective morality exists because you are unwilling to deny (and wisely, however involuntarily) that the Nazis did anything objectively or intrinsically immoral.

          If you refuse to deny that, then you AFFIRM the opposite by implication, that the Nazis DID act in an objectively and intrinsically immoral manner.

          Premise- objective morality exists.

          Conclusion- therefore God exists.

        • epeeist

          I have a better question… when did he say that?

          New York Times, April 20, 1999.

          As it is I think Weinberg is wrong on this, or rather he doesn’t go far enough. Any ideological system that forms the basis for personal identity can lead good people to do bad things, religion is just the most obvious example.

          as Lennox said, “we can agree with the new atheists that blind faith does lead to acts as we saw on 9/11.”

          You weren’t thinking that Weinberg said this after 9/11 were you?

          It was Hitler’s blind faith that led to the holocaust

          Well Hitler was a Catholic of course. As for Stalin, it would seem to have been his suspicion of any power group that might possibly lead to the overthrow of his dictatorship that caused him to purge organisations like the NKVD, the Politburo and the army as well as the religious hierarchy.

          Unfortunately, unless objective morality exists, Weinberg’s comment is meaningless.

          Stuff and nonsense. It is perfectly possible to have an inter-subjective and even universal agreement on ethics without it being objective.

          But fortunately, we HAVE established that objective morality exists

          No, we haven’t. You declared that objective morality exists but when challenged on this you were unable to justify the assertion, in other words the standard position for you.

          If you refuse to deny that, then you AFFIRM the opposite

          Ah, creotard “logic”. This of course is a false dichotomy. It also fails in that positions stand on their own merits not on “problems” with other positions.

          Premise- objective morality exists.

          And we are still waiting for you to demonstrate this.

          Conclusion- therefore God exists.

          There seems to be a monster gap in terms of supporting your conclusion from your premiss, even before you have even attempted to show your premiss to be true. Now as a master logician you should know that this is called a non sequitur.

          In any case given that your god has aspects of personhood then any morality that stems from it is subjective.

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

          Stuff and nonsense. It is perfectly possible to have an inter-subjective and even universal agreement on ethics without it being objective.

          No, we haven’t. You declared that objective morality exists but when challenged on this you were unable to justify the assertion, in other words the standard position for you

          Then answer the question that you continue to dance and spin around with your sophistry. Did the Nazis do anything objectively or intrinsically immoral?

          It is a yes or no question Mr. Physicist.

          Matthew 5:37 Let your LOGOS be yes yes, or no no. Anything else comes from evil.

          http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/5-37.htm

        • epeeist

          It is a yes or no question Mr. Physicist.

          Tell me, when did you stop beating your wife.

          It is a yes or no question Mr. Truck Driver.

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

          Tell me, when did you stop beating your wife.
          It is a yes or no question Mr. Truck Driver.

          Begging the question occurs when an assumption that is itself unsupported is loaded into the question. eg. “Does your mother know you are stupid?”

          The death camps of the Nazis are supported and of factual historical record.

          Answer the question that you continue to dance and spin around with your sophistry. Did the Nazis do anything objectively or intrinsically immoral?

          It is a yes or no question Mr. Physicist.

          Matthew 5:37 Let your LOGOS be yes yes, or no no. Anything else comes from evil.

          http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/5-37.htm

        • epeeist

          Begging the question occurs

          Except of course my question to you wasn’t “begging the question” but an example of the fallacy of complex question in response to your question of the same type to me.

          The death camps of the Nazis are supported and of factual historical record.

          Absolutely, as were the Gulags in the Stalin’s Soviet Union.

          I have no problems with condemning people like Hitler and Stalin, both were moral monsters. Their actions run against all of our current systems of normative ethics. However this doesn’t mean our systems of normative ethics are objective.

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

          I have no problems with condemning people like Hitler and Stalin, both were moral monsters. Their actions run against all of our current systems of normative ethics. However this doesn’t mean our systems of normative ethics are objective.

          You are getting closer, but still dancing and spinning around the simplest and starkest examples of human evil.

          Answer the question that you continue to dance and spin around with your sophistry. Did the Nazis do anything objectively or intrinsically immoral?

          It is a yes or no question Mr. Physicist.

          Matthew 5:37 Let your LOGOS be yes yes, or no no. Anything else comes from evil.

          http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/5-37.htm

          If you cannot demonstrate your integrity in the clearest and simplest of contexts, how then can anyone believe you when we get into the deep waters of QM interpretation, philosophy and metaphysics?

          Because you are a Physicist? The Nazis had physicists too, including two Nobel Prize winners for physics.

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

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

          In the absence of basic human logic and honesty, I hope you do not expect your pedigree to watch over you and protect you like some sort of false god.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JnlQVMCjf0

        • epeeist

          Answer the question that you continue to dance and spin around with your sophistry.

          But I have answered the question, just not in the way you would like me to answer it:

          1. Do I think what the Nazis did was morally wrong? Yes

          2. Does it run against the ideas of virtue ethics? Yes

          3. Does it run against the ideas of consequentialist ethics? Yes

          4. Does it run against the ideas of deontological ethics? Yes

          5. Does it run against the ideas of contractualist ethics? Yes

          Does it mean that what the Nazis did was objectively wrong? Only if you can demonstrate that there are such things as “objective moral values”, something you have signally avoided attempting to show.

          EDIT: Grammar

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

          But I have answered the question, just not in the way you would like me to answer it:

          No, you have not answered the question. You have evaded the question consistently so as to not ‘technically’ incriminate yourself, “…for by your words you will be condemned, and by your words you will be acquitted.” -Jesus

          But by multiplying your words and evading the simple and logical yes or no answer, you demonstrate your double-mindedness. You refuse to make a very simple deduction, that the Nazi atrocities are objectively immoral and evil. If you affirm what is clearly right, you will have to face the logical dominoes that follow.

          You willingly and knowingly refuse to confess what is undeniable for the specific purpose of avoiding those logical dominoes. Notice I said undeniable. Because as I have stated already, objective morality is axiomatic, because truth is tied directly to the law of non contradiction. That is why witnesses are cross examined, to look for contradictions in their testimony as a test for not just logic, but TRUTH.

          I have no problems with condemning people like Hitler and Stalin, both were moral monsters. Their actions run against all of our current systems of normative ethics. However this doesn’t mean our systems of normative ethics are objective.

          I know full well that you have no qualms condemning others. Men like yourself are eager and willing to judge, condemn, ridicule, scorn, deride, and otherwise label other people with glee. But only so long as you are persuaded that you stand on the consensus of popular culture at the time in which you live.

          In this way you can demonstrate for everyone how moral and upright you are in the conventional eyes of your high society. You believe all the ‘right’ things, say all the right words, and condemn all the right people, even though those ethics shift with the sands of time.

          Worse, you freely acknowledge that popular convention (normative ethics) is relative and not necessarily objective. So you admit to having no difficulty condemning people on grounds that are not necessarily valid.

          Worse still, you are very proud of your ability to play that game with sophistication and style. No doubt you learned from the very best sophists and self righteous tyrants.

          The question remains unanswered Mr. Physicist, and I for one am as content with your inability to answer as I would be if you did. Either way, you are exposed for what you are, a sophist. It matters not that many here think this verbal cat and mouse game of yours is an opportunity to show how much smarter you are than the poor chumps who are still naive enough to believe they can induce a confession from a devil. Me? I’ve been quite over that insecurity for a reasonable period of time.

          Now lets try one more time… because I want to keep this line of questioning (and your serpentine responses) bumped. I think this worthy of hitting the lights, if not for the lurkers, then for my own pleasure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvOgdC5unsE

          Answer the question that you continue to dance and spin around with your sophistry. Did the Nazis do anything objectively or intrinsically immoral?

          It is a yes or no question Mr. Physicist.

          Matthew 5:37 Let your LOGOS be yes yes, or no no. Anything else comes from evil.

          http://biblehub.com/text/matthew/5-37.htm

          If you cannot demonstrate your integrity in the clearest and simplest of contexts, how then can anyone believe you when we get into the deep waters of QM interpretation, philosophy and metaphysics?

          Because you are a Physicist? The Nazis had physicists too, including two Nobel Prize winners for physics.

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

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

          In the absence of basic human logic and honesty, I hope you do not expect your pedigree to watch over you and protect you like some sort of false god.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JnlQVMCjf0

        • epeeist

          Ah, are you sensing possible victory? I am afraid once again you fail.

          You refuse to make a very simple deduction, that the Nazi atrocities are objectively immoral and evil.

          It isn’t a “deduction”.

          Your whole “argument” is that because everyone thinks that what the Nazis did was morally wrong then it must be objectively wrong and therefore objective moral values must exist.

          Unfortunately for you it falls at the first step, the Nazis certainly didn’t think what they were doing was morally wrong and I suspect that even today some anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers and the “Rapture Ready” would not see it to be a moral wrong.

          And as ever you are dabbling in a field where your knowledge is non-existent, hence the reason you can’t and won’t say what you mean by “objective moral values”.

          Worse, you freely acknowledge that popular convention (normative ethics) is relative and not necessarily objective.

          My strong suspicion is that you don’t have any inkling about normative ethics, but you could always prove me wrong of course.

          Now things like Nazism, slavery and abortion are dog-whistle debating points so I am going to switch topics.

          There was a recent birth in Mexico from an IVF procedure. This wasn’t a standard IVF though, while the primary genetic material was from the two parents the mitochondria was taken from a donor.

          The reason for this was that the mother’s mitochondria had a genetic defect which could have led to the child having a potentially lethal genetic disease.

          So, is this “objectively” morally right or wrong? Why is is morally right or wrong and how do you know?

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

          There was a recent birth in Mexico from an IVF procedure. This wasn’t a standard IVF though, while the primary genetic material was from the two parents the mitochondria was taken from a donor.
          The reason for this was that the mother’s mitochondria had a genetic defect which could have led to the child having a potentially lethal genetic disease.
          So, is this “objectively” morally right or wrong? Why is is morally right or wrong and how do you know?

          As I said before, if YOU cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that the Nazi death camps were objectively wrong, when it is one of the clearest modern examples of black and white obvious evil, then how can we expect you to be honest when it comes to matters that are more ethically ambiguous?

          You sir can fuck off and die…

          …You on the other hand are solely concerned about winning and couldn’t give a flying fuck about other people and their circumstances.

          I want the TRUTH epeeist.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzd40i8TfA

          No further questions your Honor…

        • epeeist

          As I said before, if YOU cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that the Nazi death camps were objectively wrong

          Given that I know enough about ethics and how the word “objective” is used within the subject then is hardly surprising. Given that as usual you know sweet fuck all about the subject under discussion then your fallacious claim of the atrocities of the Nazis being some an instance of an objective moral wrong is also hardly surprising.

          I want the TRUTH epeeist.

          You know anyone with a modicum of empathy would have paid some attention as to why I didn’t reply immediately.

          As it is, no you don’t want the truth you simply want to win the argument by whatever means.

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

          Given that I know enough about ethics and how the word “objective” is used within the subject then is hardly surprising. Given that as usual you know sweet fuck all about the subject under discussion then your fallacious claim of the atrocities of the Nazis being some an instance of an objective moral wrong is also hardly surprising.

          Yet you STILL refuse to answer a very simple, stark, obvious, no brainer, black and white, yes or no, question.

          Did the Nazis do anything that is objectively or intrinsicaly immoral?

        • epeeist

          Yet you STILL refuse to answer a very simple, stark, obvious, no brainer, black and white, yes or no, question.

          What must it be like to fail in every discussion you are involved in.

          Here is a discussion on objectivity in philosophy, as you can see anything that is not mind independent is not objective. Given that then, as you have been told by a number of people, the Nazis did not do anything objectively immoral.

          What they did do of course is something that would be intersubjectively considered as immoral, intrinsically immoral if you like.

          Now if you had been paying attention to some of my posts rather than simply concentrating on winning you would have been aware of this from a number of posts I have made in response to you, including this one for example.

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

          Here is a discussion on objectivity in philosophy, as you can see anything that is not mind independent is not objective.

          Is this discussion, it’s observations and conclusions independent of mind? If, not it is a subjective conclusion by it’s own admission.

          These kinds of self refuting contradictions are for imbeciles Mr. Physicist.

          You will never learn that the only way to refute objective truth is to assert or imply another objective truth In its place and contradict yourself. Humanity learned this in the garden. It was the FIRST lesson.

          The reason you will never learn is that (at least for the time being), you are an unrepentant liar like David Hume and the serpent in Eden. So basic and simple.

          What must it be like to fail in every discussion you are involved in.

          You tell me. That’s YOUR self righteous bag of wnid.

          I am not interested in winning or losing Mr. Physicist. Stop projecting your allegiances onto me. Logos fights only for truth as illustrated flawlessly here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JyBzSx92kdA

        • epeeist

          Is this discussion, it’s observations and conclusions independent of mind?

          Why don’t you read it and find out.

          You will never learn that the only way to refute objective truth is to assert or imply another objective truth In its place and contradict yourself.

          We have been through this, there are other ways to show things to be false rather than the reductio.

          You will never learn that the only way to refute objective truth is to assert or imply another objective truth In its place and contradict yourself.

          The “Garden of Eden”? Never existed, unless you can show otherwise of course.

          The reason you will never learn is that (at least for the time being), you are an unrepentant liar like David Hume and the serpent in Eden.

          So what lies has David Hume promulgated?

          The serpent in Eden? Didn’t exist, unless you can show otherwise.

          That’s YOUR self righteous bag of wnid.

          ROFLMAO

          Logos fights only for truth as illustrated flawlessly here:

          Glad you have referenced the Greeks, given it was they who came up with the idea of Logos in the first place, though I doubt that Heraclitus would recognise the way you are using it.

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

          Why don’t you read it and find out.

          It was a rhetorical question genius.if it was WRITTEN, then it is undeniably a product of mind.

          We have been through this, there are other ways to show things to be false rather than the reductio.

          Who will show things to be false? Do you mean a mind?

          Thank you Mr. Physicist. No more questions your Honor.

        • epeeist

          It was a rhetorical question genius

          Rhetorical? You were trying to persuade me of something? You failed.

          if it was WRITTEN, then it is undeniably a product of mind.

          Amongst other things on my bookshelf I have a copy of Margenau and Murphy’s The Mathematics of Physics and Chemistry. Now that surely is a product of the minds of the two authors, but is the mathematics within it a product of mind or not?

          Who will show things to be false? Do you mean a mind?

          And the same thing applies, yes it will be a mind producing the demonstration. Is the logic that they use independent of mind?

          Thank you Mr. Physicist. No more questions your Honor.

          You know if you go to court you have to actually produce a case rather than simply not asking questions.

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

          Rhetorical? You were trying to persuade me of something? You failed.

          I am not trying to persuade or convince anyone of anything. Being persuaded is YOUR responsibility, not mine.

          At the end of the day, my job is to cut through the pseudo smoke and fire of your Oz act and evoke consideration, and ultimately leave you a black and white choice to accept or reject the message.

          Either way works for me. It’s YOUR choice.

        • MNb

          “my job is to ……”
          You forgot something: “and subsequently giving myself an huge applause for doing such a terrific job, even if nobody is capable of recognizing it – am I not brilliant? No! I’m more than brilliant!”

        • epeeist

          No! I’m more than brilliant!”

          He is like, a really smart person.

        • epeeist

          Perhaps he ought to take part in an IQ contest.

        • epeeist

          I am not trying to persuade or convince anyone of anything.

          So besides logic you don’t know what rhetoric is either. Perhaps you ought to try Aristotle on the subject, he calls it “the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion.”

          I note that, as usual, you haven’t been able to tackle the substantive parts of my post. I’ll just add them to the list.

        • Kodie

          All you can do is make Christianity sound like the dumbest, most arrogant, least educated, and craziest choice to make. What “Oz act”??? You operate like a paranoid freak involved in some epic battle. Settle down, Beavis, we’re just people. You’re just a person, you sound like you don’t know that. You think you’re on some radical mission, but you sound like you belong on a streetcorner with your picket sign about the end is nigh or in a straitjacket because you’re harassing people with your crazy thoughts while they’re trying to work. When I start to think you’re so delusional, you open up so we can see more dimensions of delusion than we’ve seen around here in quite a while.

          On the other posts, we have (allegedly) two guys who don’t get what atheists are even talking about because they love Jesus and the bible but what kind of nutjob takes it literally, so they’re on our case because they refuse to acknowledge you exist. That’s how little impact you have in here.

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

          Glad you have referenced the Greeks, given it was they who came up with the idea of Logos in the first place, though I doubt that Heraclitus would recognise the way you are using it.

          The strong overlap between the Greek thinkers and their mythology with Hebrew concepts is of great interest to me. The figure of Achilles resembles the warrior God in the old testament. Of course the Greeks anthrpomorphised him.

          The difference is that the book ok Joshua was written in roughly 1400BC, whereas the stories of Achilles show up about 750 years later with Homers Iliad.

          It is easy to forget that Hebrew philosophy proceeded the Greeks, and that if one story is based on the other, then it is the Greeks who borrowed from the Hebrews.

          I love the comparisons…Jesus and Achilles both fight ONLY for their own name as illustrated flawlessly here, and in the verses below: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JyBzSx92kdA

          Joshua 5:13 Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?”

          14 “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the Lord I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lorde have for his servant?”

          15 The commander of the Lord’s army replied, “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so

        • Ignorant Amos

          The difference is that the book ok Joshua was written in roughly 1400BC, …

          Nope. Try again ya Bozo.

          Mainstream Ancient Near East scholarship holds that the Book of Joshua holds little historical value. The archaeological evidence shows that Jericho and Ai were not occupied in the Near Eastern Late Bronze Age. The story of the conquest most likely represents the nationalist propaganda of the 8th century BCE kings of Judah and their claims to the territory of the Kingdom of Israel; incorporated into an early form of Joshua written late in the reign of king Josiah (reigned 640–609 BCE). The book was probably revised and completed after the fall of Jerusalem to the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 586 BCE, and possibly after the return from the Babylonian exile in 538 BCE.

          …whereas the stories of Achilles show up about 750 years later with Homers Iliad.

          Nope. Try again ya Bozo.

          Modern dating of the Iliad: c. 1260–1180 BCE

          Bertie the bullshitter strikes again.

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

          What is the source for your copy and paste?

        • Ignorant Amos

          It is easy to forget that Hebrew philosophy proceeded the Greeks, and that if one story is based on the other, then it is the Greeks who borrowed from the Hebrews.

          More Bertie bullshit.

          Thales (c.624-c.545 B.C.E.), traditionally considered to be the “first philosopher”.

          Who was the first Hebrew philosopher?…citation required…no bullshit accepted.

          Now, try again.

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

          Thales (c.624-c.545 B.C.E.), traditionally considered to be the “first philosoph

          There is more than one way to convey philosophy. Writers often convey philosophical ideas without specifically calling their work philosophy or themselves philosophers. Thete is no need to.

          I am not impressed with your technical criticisms.

        • epeeist

          I am not impressed with your technical criticisms.

          In other words you don’t like the fact that once again you were caught spouting bullshit.

        • epeeist

          It is easy to forget that Hebrew philosophy proceeded the Greeks, and that if one story is based on the other, then it is the Greeks who borrowed from the Hebrews.

          So who are you going to claim as a Jewish philosopher before the Pre-Socratics?

          I love the comparisons…Jesus and Achilles both fight ONLY for their own name as illustrated flawlessly here, and in the verses below:

          Have you actually read the Iliad rather than watched an atrocious film about the subject (if you want to know why it was atrocious then go ask a classicist).

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

          Another impotent threat, yawn.

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

          It is in no way a threat. Death is a fact of life as is logic. It is merely a reminder of reality, that neithher can be avoided regardless of how much we live in denial of them.

          That you attempt to characterize a brilliant illustration as a threat demonstrates your denial and cowardess, not your brilliance.

          It’s the kind of childish huffiness we expect from Peter Atkins. He is the posterr child for manifestation of the delusion.

          https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3vnjNbe5lyE

        • David Cromie

          Indeed death is a fact of life, with no reincarnation, resurrection, or migration of ‘souls’, etc. in the offing.

        • MNb

          If it’s not a threat then it’s worse – it’s irrelevant.
          But that’s how Robby sails when in danger of losing a discussion (in this case about objectiviy) – change topic.
          Really, if you’d start seriously considering the judgments of 17 years olds chances are that the content of your comments radically improves, even while remaining a christian. Those 17 year old students from Youth For Christ I talked about before were more sensible than you.

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

          The only one sensing danger is you folks, hence the moves away from argument and into mockery.

          I’m all for it. I particularly enjoy David’s coming undone. Nothing beats an old man reduced to emotional fits of spite.

        • MNb

          Of course I sense danger – it gushes from all your comments. Let me specify it: the danger is called frustration, resulting from trying to have a reasonable dicussion with a megalomaniac like you. You’re not sensitive to logic, instead you brag about and scream out your infallibility. So mockery is the only possible option left. Plus you’re a hypocrite of course, because moving from argument into mockery is what you always do.

          I missed it yesterday: you don’t even understand the difference between moral statements and statements about morality and hence thought you could use the latter to support the first. Genocide is evil belongs to the first category; “genocide is evil” is subjective belongs to the latter.
          Ah well, someone with no more than two brain cells left that aren’t affected by religious crap must be expected to produce such howlers. Combined with your superiority complex you deserve ten times more mockery than you will ever receive.

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

          Of course I sense danger – it gushes from all your comments. Let me specify it: the danger is called frustration, resulting from trying to have a reasonable dicussion with a megalomaniac like you. You’re not sensitive to logic, instead you brag about and scream out your infallibility. So mockery is the only possible option left. Plus you’re a hypocrite of course, because moving from argument into mockery is what you always do.

          So you show that you really DO believe in objective morality and that you believe hypocrisy to be a sin.

          I am not infallible. I have made at least two mistakes as I recall. The first was acting smarter than I really am with epeeist a couple weeks ago, the second was my mistake yesterday with the dating of Joshua as compared to the Iliad. I confessed to both.

          Logic is infallible, not I.

          On the other hand, I do not recall any instances of any of you conceding a single point or error. And that is because the real hypocrites here are you. And then you take THAT to be mockery.

          Telling the truth is not mockery. You make a mockery of YOURSELF by NOT telling the truth. My exposing that is not mockery.

        • MNb

          “So you show that you really DO believe in objective morality and that you believe hypocrisy to be a sin.”
          Thanks for confirming that a reasonable discussion with you is impossible; your first sentence already is a non-sequitur.

          “On the other hand, I do not recall ….”
          Maybe your memory and your observational skills just suck.

          “Telling the truth is not mockery. You make a mockery of YOURSELF by NOT telling the truth. My exposing that is not mockery.”
          Yeah, yeah, we already have gone over this one. When you do X to others it’s telling the truth, when others do the same to you it’s mockery. That’s how megalomaniacs like you sail.
          Plus you’re lying about me once again (not that you will admit it; I’ve lost count how many times you read my mind incorrectly and you admitted it exactly zero times). I’ve no problem with anyone calling me a hypocrite. That one is simply correct.
          You mocked me in several more ways though. Oops, my bad. That mockery is the truth, because Robbie is the Supreme Bearer of the Truth, on equal foot with his Great Hero Jesus of Nazareth the Son of God.
          Praise RobbieL! Praise Jesus! Praise the Lord!
          In that order.

        • Kodie

          What is hilarious is that Christians think we’re obnoxious, and if only we would be quiet and let them live like they want, and then there’s this specimen, who can’t get enough of himself and thinks he is poisoning us with the love of Christ until we are disinfected of satanic preferences.

          Nope! You’re just an obnoxious fool for Jesus! Another clue pointing to “no god”.

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

          Help me understand your motivation. You come here, make weak arguments, get them corrected, and then insult in response. How does this advance The Cause? Or are you just trying to show that Christians can’t make good arguments and are assholes when their errors are pointed out?

          Perhaps you’d like me to show you the door.

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

          I’ve made great arguments and see the exact opposite

        • David Cromie

          Is that some sort of psychobabble?

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

          It’s you guys trying to frighten and intimidate with your Oz acts and Scooby monster masks.

        • David Cromie

          Some of us live in the real world, not an imagined world of comic characters, myths, legends, and folklore.

        • Kodie

          You don’t have any evidence for your claims, but you can’t stop talking about your fantasy like it’s real. What the fuck are you complaining about?

        • Michael Neville

          Could you point out some of these “great arguments” because I seem to have missed them when I was on vacation last week.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Bertie is a fantasist. He lives in Cloud Cuckoo Land, a place where he really thinks he has the upper hand…he’s bug nutty bat shit crazy.

        • David Cromie

          RL seems to think that asserting opinions, without any corroboration, is ‘making a argument’.

        • epeeist

          I’ve made great arguments and see the exact opposite

          Indeed, you have the best arguments, there are no arguments as good as yours, they are the best and bigliest arguments in the world. No, forget that, they are the best arguments in the universe, the best that there ever were or will be.

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

          Haha…. the old saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder ccowe to mind. Jesus had some things to say about it…

          Matthew 6:32 “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy,c your whole body will be full of light. 23But if your eyes are unhealthy,d your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!”

          Poor Michael claims not to it either. Perhaps he got behind while on vacation?

        • epeeist

          Haha…. the old saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder comes to mind. Jesus had some things to say about it…

          Matthew 6:32 “The eye is the lamp of the body.

          And this is why we regard the bible as simply a book written by the men located at a particular time in history. It simply reiterates the view of the time that vision was accomplished by beams emitted from the eyes. This is of course wrong. Strange that, given that it was supposedly divinely inspired, you wouldn’t think that it would get some many things wrong.

          While Odin said:

          An ignorant man thinks that all he knows,
          When he sits by himself in a corner;
          But never what answer to make he knows,
          When others with questions come.

          A witless man, when he meets with men,
          Had best in silence abide;
          For no one shall find that nothing he knows,
          If his mouth is not open too much.
          (But a man knows not, if nothing he knows,
          When his mouth has been open too much.)

          Wise shall he seem who well can question,
          And also answer well;
          Nought is concealed that men may say
          Among the sons of men.

          Often he speaks who never is still
          With words that win no faith;
          The babbling tongue, if a bridle it find not,
          Oft for itself sings ill.

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

          And this is why we regard the bible as simply a book written by the men located at a particular time in history. It simply reiterates the view of the time that vision was accomplished by beams emitted from the eyes. This is of course wrong. Strange that, given that it was supposedly divinely inspired, you wouldn’t think that it would get some many things wrong.

          Jesus must not have understood the concept because he had the light illuminating the INSIDE.

          Matthew 6:32 “The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light. 23 But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!”

          Maybe Jesus was extra special stupid, or maybe (just maybe), he was talking about cognitive internal light generated by logic, “the TRUE light that gives light to every man”, (except physicists).

        • epeeist

          Jesus must not have understood the concept because he had the light illuminating the INSIDE.

          You have light inside your body?

          Maybe Jesus was extra special stupid, or maybe (just maybe), he was talking about cognitive internal light

          Or maybe he wasn’t, it is hardly clear is it. If the passage is taken literally then it is clearly wrong and if it is taken metaphorically then it is opaque, again given the bible was supposedly divinely inspired it doesn’t inspire confidence does it?

          generated by logic, “the TRUE light that gives light to every man”,

          We have already established that your knowledge of logic and understanding of what constitutes truth is non-existent.

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

          Your response is a perfect example for David to learn that EVERYTHING is refutable. It is a favorite game of small children and emotionally stunted adults.

          EDIT- stupid auto correct!

        • David Cromie

          “…EVERYTHING is refutable”. Even gravity, and the Theory of Evolution? I’d love to see you try refuting these, for example.

          Since you deign not to divulge your irrefutable, falsifiable, evidence for the real existence of your favourite supposed ‘god’, you seem to think that your beliefs in this area are, in fact, open to refutation also.

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

          “…EVERYTHING is refutable”. Even gravity, and the Theory of Evolution? I’d love to see you try refuting these, for example.

          No one denies that there is a an explanation for the universe coming into being David. The question is WHAT or WHO is the first cause. You are conflating categories again. And the same applies to gravity.
          No one is refuting that gravity exists as a phenomenon, the question is really about exactly HOW it works and WHAT it is.

          Presently it is BELIEVED no longer that gravity is a force per se, but a product of the curvature of space-time. But some argue that it correlates to virtual processing load effects. Without a way to reconcile QM with general relativity, the jury is still deliberating.

          https://youtu.be/v2Xsp4FRgas?t=241

          As for evolution, we are dealing with something easily refutable. Your absolute certainty in your belies is symptomatic of dogma and zealousness encountered only in the most gross examples of bigotry.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOtGb8hKyWE

          Again, you are conflating refutability in terms of existence vs. explanation.

        • MNb

          Well, those very same physicists to whom the TRUE light that gives light (does that actually mean anything?!) is not given still produced both the computer and the internet you use to spread your blahblah. So we can safely conclude that wherever that TRUE light that is given it’s not to be found in your comments.
          For us of course that isn’t a problem, because we never claimed to bear the truth in the first place.
          And no, concluding from this that we produce falsehoods is a non-sequitur based on a false dilemma.

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

          The computers only worked when the engineering matches, and is compatible WITH the existing objective order.

          Therefore, it was the source of the objective order that gave me the ability to purchase a computer. Neither you nor the physicist created the world, you only discover the potential it affords.

          Furtheremore, it was He who made you in a way that enables you to perceive that order and the potential it affords. You did not create yourself or your abilities, and you shall not have the glory of the one who did.

          Are you insecure or something?

        • Michael Neville

          Furtheremore, it was He who made you

          Nope, it was my mommy and daddy having sex that made me. Fictitious figments of Iron Age priests’ imaginations didn’t and couldn’t make anything. If you think an imaginary critter made MNb or you or me then you need to provide tangible evidence that a non-existent critter exists before you can claim it made anything or anyone.

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

          Who or what made your mommy and daddy? Go all the way back until you are out of said evidence for your own nature teligion.

        • Michael Neville

          Got any evidence that the imaginary critter you call God created anything? I didn’t think so.

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

          Lot’s of it.. and much of it the same evidence that you think points to your mother nature God.

          But in particular, the presence of quaternary digital code in every living organism, strongly implies intelligence as there is ZERO evidence that natural laws can produce such patterns.

          It was enough to persuade many people such as Francis Collins, the leader of the human genome project, and Anthony Flew, both former atheists, that intelligence was involved.

          In other words, we actually HAVE evidence that intelligent agents can produce these kinds of patterns, but ZERO evidence that mere natural law can.

          Your great faith in ’emergence’ and the ‘principles of development’ you invoked a couple weeks ago, exist only in your imagination. They have not been observed as intelligence and consciousness has.

          You are a fine one to be mocking the lack of evidence.

        • Michael Neville

          I don’t have a nature god (don’t anthropomorphize Mother Nature, she hates that).

          the presence of quaternary digital code in every living organism, strongly implies intelligence as there is ZERO evidence that natural laws can produce such patterns.

          I take it you can reference the peer-reviewed papers that support your conclusion. What’s that? You can’t? But you said there was zero evidence (sorry, that’s ZERO evidence) that the genetic code could not be produced solely by nature. This paper, Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma [LINK] argues that genetics has only a natural origin:

          The genetic code is nearly universal, and the arrangement of the codons in the standard codon table is highly non-random. The three main concepts on the origin and evolution of the code are the stereochemical theory, according to which codon assignments are dictated by physico-chemical affinity between amino acids and the cognate codons (anticodons); the coevolution theory, which posits that the code structure coevolved with amino acid biosynthesis pathways; and the error minimization theory under which selection to minimize the adverse effect of point mutations and translation errors was the principal factor of the code’s evolution. These theories are not mutually exclusive and are also compatible with the frozen accident hypothesis, i.e., the notion that the standard code might have no special properties but was fixed simply because all extant life forms share a common ancestor, with subsequent changes to the code, mostly, precluded by the deleterious effect of codon reassignment.

          I read the entire paper and, while there were parts (many parts) that I didn’t really understand, I did notice the complete and utter lack of even the slightest hint of a supernatural origin or a designer of the genetic code.

          There’s my evidence. Where’s yours?

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

          Michael, you are getting into an area in which I have a good deal of experience. I have read reams of such papers, especially back during the time period this paper is from.

          I don’t have a nature god (don’t anthropomorphize Mother Nature, she hates that).

          I understand completely. You believe that ultimate reality is impersonal, that mind/consciousness is an emergent property of matter. Matter is primary, mind is derivative.

          But if that is true, the all of our anthropomorphizing is ALSO a product of nature. In the naturalist worldview (whether you realize it or not) EVERYTHING is natural, and a product of cause and effect.

          That is one of the reasons I can’t accept it. We end up with contradictions like this, where even as a naturalist, you think religion is wrong. But in naturalism, there is no right or wrong, there is just what IS.

          I take it you can reference the peer-reviewed papers that support your conclusion. What’s that? You can’t?

          Whether I can or not, you have NOT found one. The paper you cited does ZERO to support the idea that nature can accomplish this. It is only a collection of notions about possible areas of research in order to LOOK for the evidence that does not appear. You are SO eager to believe that you do not read carefully. Who gives a rats rear end if the paper is peer reviewed? It doesn’t say anything other than, “We need to find evidence for this, that, and the other thing, and we think that possibly we should look over there and under here.”

          The genetic code is nearly universal, and the arrangement of the codons in the standard codon table is highly non-random. The three main concepts on the origin and evolution of the code are the stereochemical theory, according to which codon assignments are dictated by physico-chemical affinity between amino acids and the cognate codons (anticodons); the coevolution theory, which posits that the code structure coevolved with amino acid biosynthesis pathways; and the error minimization theory under which selection to minimize the adverse effect of point mutations and translation errors was the principal factor of the code’s evolution. These theories are not mutually exclusive and are also compatible with the frozen accident hypothesis, i.e., the notion that the standard code might have no special properties but was fixed simply because all extant life forms share a common ancestor, with subsequent changes to the code, mostly, precluded by the deleterious effect of codon reassignment. Mathematical analysis of the structure and possible evolutionary trajectories of the code shows that it is highly robust to translational misreading but there are numerous more robust codes, so the standard code potentially could evolve from a random code via a short sequence of codon series reassignments. Thus, much of the evolution that led to the standard code could be a combination of frozen accident with selection for error minimization although contributions from coevolution of the code with metabolic pathways and weak affinities between amino acids and nucleotide triplets cannot be ruled out. However, such scenarios for the code evolution are based on formal schemes whose relevance to the actual primordial evolution is uncertain.

          [-Make special note of this last line-]

          A real understanding of the code origin and evolution is likely to be attainable only in conjunction with a credible scenario for the evolution of the coding principle itself and the translation system.

          Interpretation of that last line: As yet, there IS NO credible scenario for the evolution of the coding principle itself, or the translation system. They are LOOKING for the evidence and proposing theories and avenues of research.

          But you said there was zero evidence (sorry, that’s ZERO evidence) that the genetic code could not be produced solely by nature. This paper, Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma [LINK] argues that genetics has only a natural origin:

          Yes, it ”’argues”’ for that, as does almost ALL of the research in the field of abiogenesis and molecular biology. Millions and millions of public dollars worth of research is spent to fund the secular church of materialism. But arguing FOR the theories is not evidence SUPPORTING the theories.

          That’s right Michael. ZERO!

          I would like to quote Phillip Johnson…

          Phillip Johnson – author ‘Darwin on trial’ / Professor of law (emeritus) University of California at Berkeley-

          Johnson on the question: ‘What is Evolution?’

          “With Darwinian evolution, we’re dealing with something that is much more than a scientific theory; it’s a creation story. In fact, it’s the creation myth of our culture. Every culture has a creation myth, which tells the people where they came from, what is ultimately ‘real’, and how they relate to that, and where they should get their knowledge- their information from.

          Every culture has a priesthood that has custody of this creation story and that gives that knowledge. In our culture, the priesthood is not the clergy or the ministers in church, it’s the intellectual class, and especially the scientists.

          So the Darwinian story says that ultimately all that is ‘real’ is nature. Nature is all there is, and nature is composed of matter; the particles making up matter and energy that physicists study.

          So, this is the philosophy called naturalism, or materialism. And since that’s all there is, it follows, that matter must have done all the creating that had to be done; that is to say, matter, unassisted by God, or any other intelligent force. According to materialism, a mind can’t exist until it evolves mindlessly from matter.

          And so it follows that we are the products of an unguided, purposeless material force; which specifically is called Darwinian evolution when you get to the history of life.
          And so we get our information about it (and really, information about everything) from science.”

          All that said, I have no problem with people publishing scientific papers (peer reviewed or not) that support the naturalistic and
          materialistic theories on the origin of life. Rigorous debate is healthy and necessary.

          I also have no problem with people publishing scientific papers (peer reviewed or not) that support the theory of intelligent design. We are all on theoretical ground here.. But that is the point you don’t seem to grasp. Theory is not the same as evidence. Our theories try to make SENSE of the evidence.

          But here is a list (with links) of some peer reviewed papers supportive of intelligent design theory published in scientific journals, conference proceedings, or academic anthologies.

          Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).
          http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.185.1732&rep=rep1&type=pdf

          Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022283604007624

          William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).
          http://evoinfo.org/papers/2010_TheSearchForASearch.pdf

          Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2286568/

          Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).
          http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1

          Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).
          http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.2

          Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov, “The ‘Wow! Signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code,” Icarus, Vol. 224 (1): 228-242 (May, 2013).
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513000791

          Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246854/

          Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009).
          http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5345941/?reload=true&arnumber=5345941

          Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).
          http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002246

          Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2217542/

          David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064506000224

          The lists go on… as if it matters. None of this on either side proves that one side is scientific and the other unscientific because we do not have direct evidence of either God OR the principles of development that you BELIEVE exists. We have our religious persuasion that ultimate reality is impersonal or personal.

          Why can’t we just have an open dialog about it without the hostility? Why is a PERSONAL reality such a threat to you that you take such a hostile stance against it?

        • Michael Neville

          The paper I cited described how the genetic code could have originated. It gave four different methods (and noted they were not mutually exclusive) and none of these origins require intervention by a “designer”.

          The number of scientific papers supporting the conjecture (it’s not a theory) of so-called “intelligent design” are minimal. No biologist ever cites these papers for the simple reason that they don’t provide any evidence to support the conjecture. GODDIDIT answers all questions which means that it doesn’t answer any.

          Intelligent design was invented by Philip Johnson, a lawyer. He came up with the idea as a means of getting around the Constitutional prohibition of teaching religious mythology in science classes. ID is creationism with the god of Genesis replaced with an “intelligent designer” who happens to have all of the attributes of Yahweh. Even the Discovery Institute admits ID is creationism repackaged. So please excuse me if I don’t accept a couple of 2500 year old myths made up by Hebrew priests who thought the Earth was flat.

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

          The paper I cited described how the genetic code could have originated.

          I understand exactly what the paper is. And 100,000 papers just like
          it, telling how nature could have done it, will never amount to demonstrating that it did. Theory is not evidence.

          What fascinates me most is that one philosophy is held to be religion and not allowed to be taught in school, but YOUR philosophy is fine. The mythology of nature of the gaps is perfectly admissible.

          Its a good trick (to hide your religion), but people are catching on fast. Why not just concede that none of us know and that the matter is objectively open for debate as it has been for centuries.

          Your ad hominem on Johnson completely avoids responding to his argument on its own merit. And that is why an ad hominem is fallacious. Why address the arguments when you can simply attack his character?

          First you say I <strong<HAVE no peer reviewed papers to cite. When I do, you say there are not that many, as if numbers of papers matters at all. I thought you said there were NONE?

          Btw, theory IS conjecture. and there is nothing wrong with conjecture. If there was then your paper that conceded in the one portion to ‘the notion’, would not be a theory by your own reasoning.

          You are a very unreasonable man Michael, and that is why I blocked you originally for a time. Its now permanent. I just don’t have time to chase or be chased in circles forever. Good luck to you…

        • Michael Neville

          The reason why your favorite “intelligent design” WAG (wild ass guess) isn’t allowed to be taught in schools is that it’s been legally proven to be repackaged religious mythology. Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. was the case which showed that.

          On December 20, 2005, Judge John E. Jones issued a sharply-worded ruling in which he held that “intelligent design” was, as the plaintiffs argued, a form of creationism.

          So we’re not arguing about “philosophy” (to use your term), we’re arguing about science versus religious mythology. And I believe that religious mythology has no place in science education.

          Btw, theory IS conjecture

          Like most creationists you have no clue about what a theory is. To a scientist a theory is not a guess or a conjecture, it’s an explanation. The Germ Theory of Disease is not a guess that itty-bitty critters cause certain illnesses. Likewise the Theory of Evolution is not a guess about how life forms change over time due to mutation, gene transfer and natural selection.

          You are a very unreasonable man Michael

          I know, I’m unreasonable since I don’t accept your religious bullshit. Fuck you, Robert. Have a mediocre rest of your life.

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

          So you demand evidence, and when it’s presented to you, you reject it as insufficient. Is that how it goes?

          If I’ve misunderstood, then tell me what kind of evidence you’d want. Presumably the scientific consensus won’t be enough for you.

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

          There was no evidence in that paper.

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

          You really need to answer all questions put to you. You seem like a slippery arguer, and you’re only enhancing that evaluation.

          Let me repeat myself since that seems to be necessary: tell me what kind of evidence you’d want. Presumably the scientific consensus won’t be enough for you

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

          Let me repeat myself since that seems to be necessary: tell me what kind of evidence you’d want.

          Any demonstrable mechanism, law, or set of laws, that can account for the type of information found in living organisms would be compelling.

          What the argument to (not from) design boils down to is information, and our definition of information.

          Phillip Johnson on the question: ‘What is information?’

          “Information at the simplest level is just meaningful text. You can say it’s like the plays of Shakespear or the Bible if you want to pick something noble. It’s like the Los Angeles telephone directory if you want to pick something much more mundane. Perhaps an instruction book, let’s say a cookbook with all of the recipes would be a better example; or a computer program; the operating system of a PC.

          Now, in order to have a computer operating system, you have to have lots and lots of that text and instructions. So it’s extremely complex. That’s feature number one, it’s a lot of letters (or digits) in a specific order. And the order is specified, that’s point number two; which is to say that only one complex arrangement will do to operate the computer. If you got another one, you’ve got something that won’t work at all.

          So it’s specified complexity. And a third feature is called aperiodic, or non-repeating. And that means it’s not the result of physical or chemical laws, because those laws always produce simple repetitive patterns. For example, you can imagine a book tha’s written this way: you put a macro on your computer processor that says reapeat the letters ABC until the printer runs out of paper. And you’d get a book like that, and it wouldn’t be a very interesting book. And it would never get more interesting because the same laws that give you that pattern, ensure that you’ll never get a different pattern, or a more meaningful one.

          So the information in the computers operating system, like the information that has to be present to operate all of the cells machinery, is complex, specified, non-repeating (meaningful) text.” -Unlocking the Mystery of Life DVD / Q&A

          Presumably the scientific consensus won’t be enough for you.

          Of COURSE not. It wasn’t enough for the empiricists who revolutionized science in the 18th century and transformed the paradigm away from its biblical roots.

          Do YOU gleefully replace reason with known logical fallacies, and presume to mock and ridicule simply because you stand with a majority?

          The very problem with majority opinion is that once adopted, people stop thinking and questioning. They become absolutists and zealots. Rather than argue, they deflect criticism by labeling those who question the paradigm as ‘heretics’.

          https://youtu.be/TBMiyEzOJmI?t=190

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

          One fine day you’ll understand what the scientific consensus is. Sadly, that’s not today.

          Oh, and thanks for the bit from Philip Johnson about information. I always go to lawyers for the best take on science.

        • epeeist

          Information at the simplest level is just meaningful text.

          This is so vague that almost anything will suffice, such as “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously”. One also has to ask what is meant by “meaningful”.

          How does one quantify such a poorly formulated idea?

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

          This is so vague that almost anything will suffice, such as “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously”. One also has to ask what is meant by “meaningful”.
          How does one quantify such a poorly formulated idea?

          Everything you just wrote will never be confused with random static. How can you question the obvious other than to illustrate for David that WILL can trump reason, by refuting itself and denying intellect in the process.

        • epeeist

          Everything you just wrote will never be confused with random static.

          Is this “meaningful text” or just simply gibberish?

          When it comes to information there are a number of quantitative measures, I am thinking of something like Boltzmann and Gibbs work on the distribution of configurations in phase space, or Shannon information or the consequences of Kolmogorov complexity. Going back to something we discussed before, there is even an information-theoretic approach to quantum mechanics.

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

          When it comes to information there are a number of quantitative measures, I am thinking of something like Boltzmann and Gibbs work on the distribution of configurations in phase space, or Shannon information or the consequences of Kolmogorov complexity. Going back to something we discussed before, there is even an information-theoretic approach to quantum mechanics.

          Enter again into the muddy waters in the Oz acts of Mr. Physicist. Sure, there are all kinds of games that can be played with the definition of information.

          As John Lennox has said, “The concept of information from a scientific perspective is NOT easy. But we can see that DNA is a genuine code, and that will do…”

          Shouldn’t you be getting yourself to bed?

        • epeeist

          Sure, there are all kinds of games that can be played with the definition of information.

          So why didn’t Johnson use one of the accepted definitions rather than inventing his own?

          As John Lennox has said, “The concept of information from a scientific perspective is NOT easy. But we can see that DNA is a genuine code, and that will do.

          So he isn’t going to define information and based on that lack of definition he is going to declare DNA a code. Colour me impressed with his reasoning.

          Shouldn’t you be getting yourself to bed?

          Shouldn’t you be reading something on at least one of the subjects you have been shown not to understand?

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

          You mean, you’re not persuaded? Color me dumbfounded.

        • epeeist

          You mean, you’re not persuaded?

          And once more you show yourself to be incapable of answering the points I made.

        • MNb

          “we can see that DNA is a genuine code”
          And that’s just another example of information coming from material entities.
          Your god however is supposed to be immaterial, I seem to remember.
          Thanks for confirming once again that Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy is a false one.
          Combined with you worshipping a god of the gaps.
          Combined with your rejection of evolution theory.
          You totally qualify for creacrap. However you don’t use Holy Scripture as “evidence”, so you are an IDiot.
          I always it when my definitions work so smoothly (though I had important help with this definition).

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

          And that’s just another example of information coming from material entities.

          You solved the origin of life and the universe and KNOW it to be a result of material entities?

        • MNb

          Do you always ask stupid and irrelevant questions? DNA is neither about the origin of life (that’s abiogenesis for you and hence biochemics) let alone the origin of our Universe (that’s physics).
          The fact remains that DNA being a genuine code is just another example of information coming from material entities. DNA is material entity.

          https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/basics/dna

          “DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms.”
          Bolded by me, MNb. Of course IDiots like you are capable of denying and redefining everything and anything, because that’s the only way you can keep on deceiving yourself that the IDiocy your produce is the TRUTH instead of overheated fantasy. Unfortunately for you MNb’s First Law applies: all creationists (including IDiots) lie until proven otherwise. So you can save yourself the effort.
          DNA is material. A specific kind of information comes from DNA. So it’s just another example of information coming from material entities.

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

          The fact remains that DNA being a genuine code is just another example of information coming from material entities. DNA is material entity.

          DNA is material. A specific kind of information comes from DNA. So it’s just another example of information coming from material entities.

          A Compact Disk or DVD is material too. And so is any book on your shelf. But the information is not in the chemicals or the matter, but the pattern imposed upon the chemicals and matter by conscious creative activity.

          If you drop a box of scrabble letters on the table, you would be hard pressed to find any information resulting. But if you arrange them to make sentences, you have not changed anything chemically. You will only be imposing a pattern on the medium.

          You are conflating the medium for the information. Simple mistake and forgivable, though it is very common for atheists and therefore seems to be a mistake made because of desperate bias and a psychological state of foolish denial.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqiXNxyoof8

        • MNb

          No CD, no DVD no information.
          CD and DVD are natural.
          Information can be described in natural terms (Shannon, Kolgomorov).
          Hence information is natural.

          “You are conflating the medium for the information.”
          Not at all. I just observe a simple fact: no material medium, no information. Information depends on a medium. It can be described in natural terms.
          No matter how often you repeat it, IDiocy remains IDiocy and Paley’s Watchmaker Analogy remains False.
          This is confirmed that IDiots are not even capable of developing their own language to formulate their non-theory. They mooch on science. IDiots are parasites. That’s why they never do their own research, but instead search for the few catchphrases in actual scientific publications to quotemine.
          All IDiots are pathetic losers. So are you.

        • David Cromie

          Chomsky used that phrase many years ago in his book on ‘universal grammar’, to show that it is grammatically correct, even if meaningless.

        • epeeist

          Chomsky used that phrase many years ago in his book on ‘universal grammar’,

          Indeed he did, and I used it deliberately as an example of meaningless sentence.

          Of course Robert missed the allusion, but there again I have used a large number of allusions in my responses to him. So far he has missed every one of them. I see him as somewhat like Drax the Destroyer:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h27AcB70Mvc

        • alexinfinite

          I’m glad someone has stepped to tackle this delusional nut. I just didn’t have the patience for the volume of crazy he threw out at me. I’ve never seen a guy redefine so much in so many contradictory methods just to make his ideas fit in his clearly inconsistent mental framework

        • Greg G.

          The thing about IDiots is that they do not understand information. They use a definition of information that defines any distortion as a loss of information. For example, the elements in the sun absorb certain frequencies of light and that would be a loss of information under the IDiot definition. But from those spectral lines, we can identify the elements that are doing the absorption. We can do the same with distant stars. Usually those spectral lines are at different frequencies for stars. That would also be a loss of information according to the IDiot definition. But that shift in frequency tells us how fast the star is traveling toward us or away from us, as well as the make-up of the star. Sometimes the starlight will pass through a gas cloud and more spectral lines will be absorbed, another loss of information under the IDiot definition but it informs us what molecules are in the gas cloud and its speed relative to ours.

          From the IDiot definition of information, any genetic mutation is a loss of information but that is because they use an inappropriate definition. The mutation is additional information because it does not undo every instance of the gene, only those ones with the mutation. Sometimes the mutation is beneficial and natural selection makes it reproduce more than the original. It leaves more information in the gene pool.

          IDiocy is for creationists who have begun to realize that creationism is wrong but cannot admit how wrong it is. They assume something is salvageable.

        • MNb

          You quote a lawyer and science rejector about the meaning of information?!
          I suppose you also hire a lumberjack when your kitchen sink is leaking.

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

          You know how to put all the fallacies to work don’t you MNb?

          Ad Hominem

          If you wish to present a valid criticism (which you now nothing about) you must respond to the argument, not simply dismiss the argument by attacking the person.

          On my property, I cut my own trees and repair the sink btw. Btw, rejecting and arguing against materialism is not the same as rejecting science. But since you conflate your own philosophy with science, I don’t expect you to understand the difference. Zealots are unable to see past their own prejudice.

        • MNb

          Ad hominem: “Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.”

          https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad_Hominem_Abusive

          Yup, I’m attacking you. Unfortunately for you that attack is completely relevant to the non-argument you are making. It challenges the authority you give a lawyer regarding a theory of math (because information totally belongs to that branch). Here is what qualified people have to say about it:

          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html

          When your kitchen sink is leaking you will wear your lumberjack outfit and bring your axe, I suppose.
          And my dear stupid christian with his careful and considerate theology: that’s called an analogy, a tool you enjoy yourself so much, because your long dead Great Hero Jesus made so much use of it.

          “I don’t expect you to understand the difference.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA! According to your very own standard this is also an ad hominem. But hey, the first non-hypocritical IDiot still has to be born.
          Of course it’s also another example how IDiots like you wipe their sorry christian asses with their own 9th Commandment.
          Evolution theory is science. Rejecting evolution theory the way you do is rejecting science. I’m not defending materialism at all at the moment.

          “Zealots are unable to see past their own prejudice.”
          Yeah, you demonstrate that with every single comment of yours.

        • Ignorant Amos

          WHAT? Bertie boy doesn’t understand the definition of a logical fallacy? Surely not…the brightest blue collar truck driver on the planet, no less….show a modicum of decorum Mark…next you’ll be calling Bert stupid. }8O)~

        • epeeist

          I understand exactly what the paper is. And 100,000 papers just like it, telling how nature could have done it, will never amount to demonstrating that it did. Theory is not evidence.

          And once more you demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the way science works, and especially what constitutes a scientific theory. This is strange in that I have already given you a summary of what constitutes a scientific theory.

          Btw, theory IS conjecture. and there is nothing wrong with conjecture.

          And of course if you had actually understood the summary I gave you, or read Ernan McMullan’s The Virtues of a Good Theory or Kuhn’s Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice then you might just realise how wrong your statement is. If not, well I invite you to step off the top of your nearest high building. After all our theories of gravity are just conjecture, right.

          Your ad hominem on Johnson

          We have done this one before too. What background has Johnson in biology, what training, what qualifications, what publications recognised by the biology community? Is he a dispassionate investigator, is he biased in any way or does he have any vested interests? Pointing out that he is an untrustworthy source for the claim may be an ad hominem but this does not mean such an attack is necessarily fallacious.

          When I do, you say there are not that many, as if numbers of papers matters at all.

          I went through your list of papers. Where the paper is published in a recognised journal they do not mention “intelligent design” at all. Where “intelligent design” is mentioned it turns out that most of the papers are in the house journal for the Biologic Institute. Further the papers turn out to commit a number of the fallacies that we have observed, in particular that of false dichotomy, i.e. they assume that any “problems” with the theory of evolution constitute evidence for “intelligent design”. What they never do is provide any actual, positive evidence for ID.

          The lists go on…

          From your previous post, you give 12 references from a seven year period. However if you look at the latest issue of the Journal of Evolutionary Biology you can see that it publishes more papers in a month than you have referenced, and this is in a single journal. There are numerous others.

          Should I carry on and talk about impact factors and citations, or would this be pointless?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Pointless when you are dealing with a knuckle-dragging IDiot creotard methinks.

        • epeeist

          Pointless when you are dealing with a knuckle-dragging IDiot creotard methinks.

          You missed out “with delusions of adequacy”. I note that he has now started to frantically press the reset button.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A notice the reset maself…maybe it’s a retention span issue?

        • epeeist

          I assume that you have also noticed he is now trying to deny that there is such a thing as “reality”.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The Idealism of the solipsistic mind. Or do I mean the solipsism of the Idealistic mind? Mind-boggling stuff.

          It regularly pops up with the likes of such apologists as Bertie.

        • MNb

          “Theory is not evidence.”
          Still all you do on this blog is presenting theories, fanciefied with a Bible quote now and then and with impressive terminology like Logos. But that’s not evidence for your god either. So my compliment. You just have undermined every single claim of yours.

          “telling how nature could have done it, will never amount to demonstrating that it did. Theory is not evidence.”

          Like Newtonian Mechanics, you mean?

          Anyhow, while this applies to every single scientific theory, it can’t be a justification for goddiddid. Because goddiddid explains everything and hence nothing. Science has a method to demonstrate her theories wrong. Your goddiddid hasn’t. Come back as soon as you’ve remedied that. Then we’ll talk.

        • https://www.facebook.com/notes/robert-lockett/is-god-primitive-and-unjust-a-matter-of-life-and-death/10153903284877400 Robert Lockett
          Robert writes:”telling how nature could have done it, will never amount to demonstrating that it did. Theory is not evidence.”

          Like Newtonian Mechanics, you mean?

          No, Newton actually presented a demonstrable theory that was testable. Evolutionary theory has no such quality. It is a vague idea at present. As the paper Michael cited said, it only provides ‘notions’.

          Berlinski explains the situation with eloquence because telling the truth is easy. It flows off the tongue and mind beautifully.

          Video starts at relevant arguement: https://youtu.be/SOtGb8hKyWE?t=48

        • epeeist

          Evolutionary theory has no such quality.

          It doesn’? And yet here is a site which gives multiple predictions from evolutionary theory, all which can be tested and falsified.

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

          I never said there is no evidence upon which evolutionary theory is based.I DID say that the paper Michael cited was only a proposal for research, and not itself a body of evidence for the theory.

          What I said was, that evolutionary theory is not a theory that is in any way clear or demonstrable like Newton’s theory of gravity. It cannot currently make sense of the evidence demonstrably, it only proposes to do so.

          I have no problem wityh the facts and evidence. Natural selection is an observed fact. But natural selection is NOT evolution.

        • epeeist

          What I said was, that evolutionary theory is not a theory that is in any way clear or demonstrable like Newton’s theory of gravity. It cannot currently make sense of the evidence demonstrably, it only proposes to do so.

          Did you actually look at the site that I referenced? As I said it gives testable predictions which can be falsified by singular existential statements.

          Going back to the summary I gave you of Ernan McMullan’s paper how many of the points there does it meet?

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

          Did you actually look at the site that I referenced? As I said it gives testable predictions which can be falsified by singular existential statements.

          Intelligent design has made predictions too, and can be falsified.
          https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-id-make-testable-scientific-predictions/

          Going back to the summary I gave you of Ernan McMullan’s paper how many of the points there does it meet?

          Oh yes, the Christian Ernan McMullin… yes I remember that. I did not count them because it is irrelevant. I am not denying anything about that paper. You are a habitual pea palmer, continually and purposefully shifting the context to keep everyone confused and misdirected.

          My point was that the theory of evolution does not DEMONSTRATE a natural cause for the origin of information any more than the presence of information in biology can demonstrate an author who wrote it. It all depends on the philosophical lens by which you EXAMINE the evidence.

          My point, and my ONLY point was that we already know and have direct evidence that intelligent agents CAN produce these kinds of systems. You are not listening…

          Here it is again: https://youtu.be/sgs96c_XklA?t=29

        • epeeist

          Intelligent design has made predictions too, and can be falsified.

          Ah the “Look, over there, squirrels” response. So what possible inferences am I going to draw from the fact that you have, yet again, avoided answering my simple question?

          Either you did not look at the site, or you looked and did not understand or you looked and realised that your claim did not stand up to scrutiny.

          (As a brief aside, I had a look at the list on the link that you gave. None of these are falsifiable by singular existential statements in the way that Popper describes in, for example, his The Logic of Scientific Discovery.)

          I did not count them because it is irrelevant.

          Oh but it is extremely relevant. Make a list of the points that puts forward for a good theory and tick off the ones that the theory of evolution (in the form of the modern synthesis) meets and the ones that “intelligent design” meets.

          My point, and my ONLY point was that we already know and have direct evidence that intelligent agents CAN produce these kinds of systems.

          Oh we know that humans can use human devised tools to produce things of value to humans. But if you want to extrapolate this to things like DNA you are going to have to do better than a weak analogy.

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

          I am not trying to persuade any of you and expect a concession only when hell freezes over.

        • epeeist

          I am not trying to persuade any of you and expect a concession only when hell freezes over.

          Over the years I have changed my mind on a good number of things, however it has taken solid arguments and good evidence to do so.

        • MNb

          “Intelligent design has made predictions too, and can be falsified”
          Yeah. My favourite one is the irreducibly complex mousetrap. Totally falsified.

          http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

          So what do IDiots do? Either they will just neglect or they will give some answer that is ….. totally unfalsifiable.
          Falsifiability requires concrete examples, not vague, ambiguous stuff as mentioned in your link. Like the Cambrian rabbit. Like the crocoduck. Like a cat born from a dog. Of course IDiocy couldn’t do without ambiguity like your link produces or it would fall apart immediately.
          Ah well – MNb’s First Law applies again. All creationists lie until demonstrated otherwise. Your “IDiocy can be falsified” is just one lie.

          Of course we have evidence that intelligent agents who belong to our natural reality and use their body parts can produce all kind of stuff. Watchmakers produce watches (yeah, your argument is nothing but a version of Paley’s False Watchmaker Analogy). You’ll have to show that your favourite intelligent agent, the one you call God, is capable of doing so without using any natural means like body parts and tools.
          IDiots never even try though. Because it’s incoherent.,

        • epeeist

          You’ll have to show that your favourite intelligent agent, the one you call God, is capable of doing so without using any natural means like body parts and tools.

          For code and watches we have actual evidence of people who produce them. When it comes to “intelligent design” the cdesign proponentsists never produce the thing that what provide the strongest evidence for their position, namely the actual designer. Strange that.

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

          You’ll have to show that your favourite intelligent agent, the one you call God, is capable of doing so without using any natural means like body parts and tools.
          IDiots never even try though. Because it’s incoherent.,

          But you do not know that the world was made in that way, or that biological life was made in that way. You assume it to be the case because of your metaphysic.

        • MNb

          Of course. The metaphysics that found science work. Even the manure you produce on this site confirms that.
          Your metaphysics though only have produced, produce and probably will produce exactly that manure.
          The choice should not be hard.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ken Miller does a good job of demolishing the irreducibly complex mousetrap nonsense in less than 3 minutes.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4DJ3Uf-5mQ

        • MNb

          Yeah, but I’m a far better reader than listener.

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

          Intelligent design has made predictions too, and can be falsified.

          Cool! When it becomes the scientific consensus, I’m in. Until that point, I’d be an idiot to accept it.

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

          Wet your finger and put it in the wind Bob. It’s your life.

        • Greg G.

          Ha ha ha. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-id-make-testable-scientific-predictions/ doesn’t even know what a prediction is. It must predict something that is not known when predicted to be something else by other theories and be then validated by discovery or testing, thus falsifying the other. The ID theory just looks contrived to agree with evolution. Its predictions are no better than “godidit”.

          Einstein’s Theory of Relativity predicted that the path light would be bent by gravity. When a solar eclipse was going to occur, scientists realized that a star would be behind the sun but if Einstein was correct, the star would be visible. Not only was the star seen, it was precisely where the theory predicted. If it was not seen, Relativity would have been have been falsified.

        • MNb

          No.
          Natural selection plus mutation plus the fossil record however demonstrate evolution theory just like the Moon orbiting the Earth and you falling downward when jumping off a bridge demonstrate Newton’s theory of gravity.
          Ah well, we can’t expect an IDiot like you to accept how science works.

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

          Ah well, we can’t expect an IDiot like you to accept how science works.

          I know exactly how it works. Video cued just for you..

          https://youtu.be/QmIc42oRjm8?t=3865

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          That video is not about science, my dear stupid.
          It’s about fine-tuning. Fine-tuning consists of teleology (natural constants are what they are with the specific goal to accommodate Homo Sapiens). Science has abandoned teleology about 200-250 years ago.

          Thanks for confirming what I wrote. We can’t expect an IDiot like you to accept how science works.
          Also you deploy the favourite IDiot tactic of neglecting the core of my comment. I repeat: Natural selection plus mutation plus the fossil record however demonstrate evolution theory. You ignore this because because you recognize it’s correct and that’s an inconvenience for you.

        • MNb

          Berlinsky is an IDiot too. Btw he is an IDiot from Seattle (also called the Discotute), an organization that produces lies all the time. Rather will the pope become a buddhist than we will find an IDiot who tells the truth. So that’s your first failure.
          The bigger lie is this.

          “Newton actually presented a demonstrable theory that was testable. Evolutionary theory has no such quality. It is a vague idea at present.”
          Of course evolution theory is testable. Bring me a Cambrian rabbit and evolution is toast. Show me a crocoduck (without human intervention) and evolution is toast. Show me a dog giving birth to a cat (without human intervention) and evolution theory is toast.
          Yup – the vast majority of creacrap arguments against evolution theory themselves admit that it’s testable, for instance when they falsely bring up the Second Law of Thermodynamics (testable) against it. But of course you being an IDiot who parrots worn out creacrap arguments also totally neglects what scientists actually do. Here is one example.

          http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/conover_04

          You are definitely an IDiot, who calls for a lumberjack (mathematician Berlinsky) when his kitchen sink (evolution theory) is leaking. I suppose that’s the product of your careful and considerate theology.

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

          But in particular, the presence of quaternary digital code in every living organism, strongly implies intelligence as there is ZERO evidence that natural laws can produce such patterns.

          So then your argument is the argument from ignorance. 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 it’s an argument from knowledge.

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

          So then your argument is the argument from ignorance. Is that right?

          What? Are you joking?

          No Bob, the argument is based on what we DO know.

          https://youtu.be/sgs96c_XklA?t=31

        • MNb

          “No Bob, the argument is based on what we DO know.”
          Only problem is that it’s impossible to know anything about your god, because you don’t have a reliable method to separate correct claims from incorrect ones. Bible quotes don’t count. Every single other argument you presented in its core also applies to unobservable fairies in my backyard, tending my flowers so that they blossom more beautifully. Worship them and you will unlock the mystery of flower life just as fine.
          Nah, I rather stick to science, that nice thing that allows you to spread your bullshit all over the internet. Remember? Scientists constructed it (and also your computer), not Jesus and Matthew.

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

          Only problem is that it’s impossible to know anything about your god, because you don’t have a reliable method to separate correct claims from incorrect ones.

          God made us in his image, able to understand his speech (which is Logos, logic). We can come to know God via systematic theology that is careful,considerate, and logical, just as we come to know anything else in this world which was ALSO created by his Logos.

          That is why we are ABLE to comprehend the cosmos that stretches our imagination far beyond what we would have guessed. It stretches us to the point that top physicists now recognize that the universe appears to be more of a holographic projection than the real world you would like it to be.

          The only thing stopping you from understanding God is your unwillingness to understand. You don’t WANT there to be a God. At least, NOT like the real one.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2Xsp4FRgas

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

          That’s a fine story, but it’s all theology. Now return to reality and give us evidence for this fanciful tale.

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

          I can appreciate the question of its being true simply because it is logically coherent, but what you really ought to consider is the implications if it is NOT true.

          “All possible knowledge, then, depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside our minds really “must” be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into realities beyond them—if it merely represents the way our minds happen to work—then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true.

          It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have to be reaching by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished…It would be an argument which proved that no arguments was sound—a proof that there are no such things as proofs—which is nonsense.

          Thus a strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: “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…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.” C.S.Lewis / Miracles

        • epeeist

          I can appreciate the question of its being true simply because it is logically coherent

          But as Bertrand Russell noted, it is perfectly possible to have a completely consistent fairy tale.

          All possible knowledge, then, depends on the validity of reasoning.

          But if all knowledge is inferential then we have a problem of infinite regress. To know p, p must be true, we must believe it to be true and we must have justification for that belief. However we must justify our justification and justify our justification of that and so on. In Lewis’ formulation there are no brute facts, no proper basic beliefs.

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

          Objective knowledge must be based in an objective mind. Quite simple really.

        • epeeist

          Objective knowledge must be based in an objective mind.

          A non-answer to the points I made.

          Do you not think that people here see through your hand waving evasions?

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

          I don’t think the people here see much of anything.

        • epeeist

          I don’t think the people here see much of anything.

          Really? Got evidence?

        • Greg G.

          I’m using your hand waving as a fan.

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

          I can appreciate the question of its being true simply because it is logically coherent

          You know atheists—show them logical coherence and they get weirded out.

          If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside our minds really “must” be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into realities beyond them—if it merely represents the way our minds happen to work—then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true.

          Ah, more bullshit from CS Lewis. This is called the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism by Plantinga, and I’ve posted about it.

          Everyone knows that the human mind is imperfect. Look at optical illusions, mental illness, cognitive biases. Heck, our conclusions depend on whether we’re hungry or full. Each side must explain this. Evolution does this nicely. And yet the Christian, saddled with this very imperfect mind, trusts it when it tells him that God exists. Wow–that takes explaining.

        • Greg G.

          We can come to know God via systematic theology that is careful,considerate, and logical, just as we come to know anything else in this world which was ALSO created by his Logos.

          No, you didn’t. You made something up. Even if it is logically consistent doesn’t mean it has anything to do with reality. It should be able to make predictions that can be reliably tested to see if it is consistent with reality beyond what was intentionally configured into it. You have to keep retro-fitting it to keep up with science because its initial assumptions keep getting falsified.

        • David Cromie

          RL has yet to realise that when the premises are false/unsupported, the conclusion also is false/unsupported.

        • MNb

          “We can come to know God via systematic theology that is careful,considerate”
          Theology, systematic or not, fails to decide which claims about your god are correct and which ones are incorrect. Hence the thousands of denominations.
          Also your phrases “careful” and “considerate” are meaningless. You don’t have objective standards to decide which theology is careful and considerate and which is not.

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

          Also your phrases “careful” and “considerate” are meaningless. You don’t have objective standards to decide which theology is careful and considerate and which is not.

          Yes, I do. They are called logical laws. Thanks for intentionally leaving that context out of your quote mine.

          Robert writes:

          … just as we come to know anything else in this world which was ALSO created by his Logos.

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Then your comments are anything but careful and considerate, so many logical flaws they do contain.
          But the problem is worse. Logic alone is not enough to separate correct claims from incorrect ones. Philosophers recognize that since Descartes and should have recognized that since Euclides. Example.

          Euclidean Geometry obeys all logical laws.
          So do all non-Euclidean geometries, for instance Spherical Geometry.
          On Euclidean Geometry we must conclude that Pythagoras’ Theorem is correct.
          On Spherical Geometry we must conclude that Pythagoras’ Theorem is incorrect.

          Hence logical laws on their own cannot determine whether we must accept Pythagoras’ Theorem or not.
          You just confirmed that in exactly the same way theology, no matter how careful and considerate, cannot determine correct conclusions from incorrect ones.
          No matter how often I observe it, it remains funny how IDiots like you keep on shooting their own feet.

        • MNb

          Yesterday I missed this nice and funny falsehood:

          “No God of the gaps fallacy here, because there is no gap to fill”
          is contradicted by your very own

          “have a nature of the gaps problem to deal with.”

          In other words: a gap in our scientific knowledge, hence god.
          The two quotes by those careful and considerate theologians (your terminology) and practising christians are exactly about gaps in our scientific knowledge you fill by plugging your god into.
          So you think the Law of Non Contradiction the foundation of logic and now wipe your sorry apologetic ass with it.
          You are definitely an IDiot.

          “God made us in his image, able to understand his speech”
          That’s not a method.

          “The only thing stopping you from understanding God is your unwillingness to understand.”
          Shrug. Just theology. No matter how careful and considerate this theology is, there is also theology equally careful and considerate that claims that your god can’t be understood by human beings like me.

          http://ronrolheiser.com/the-ineffability-of-god/#.WeRdv5XCTIU

          Also “God works in mysterious ways” and stuff.
          You just confirm that no matter how careful and considerate, theology is not capable of separating correct claims about your god from incorrect ones.
          You are definitely an IDiot.

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

          … and yet it rejects the scientific consensus. I think we’ve found the flaw in your argument.

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

          … and yet it rejects the scientific consensus. I think we’ve found the flaw in your argument.

          Challenging convention is what enabled Copernicus to revolutionize our understanding of the solar system. But that could only happen when the majority looked past their prejudice and the fallacy of ‘ad populum’ in order to address the arguments on their merit.

          Your refusal to look past your prejudice, and your willful adherence to convention rather than reason, is the only flaw I see anywhere. And you celebrate it also, which is even worse.

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

          Challenging convention is what enabled Copernicus to revolutionize our understanding of the solar system.

          You’re a layman. You don’t challenge convention. A little humility, please. (I thought Christians were supposed to be good in that department. But I guess not all Christians are equally blessed, eh?)

          Your refusal to look past your prejudice, and your willful adherence to convention rather than reason, is the only flaw I see anywhere. And you celebrate it also, which is even worse.

          How many times have we gone round on this one? And here you are again, complaining about my position without defending your own.

          You gonna show the scientists where they went wrong? Go ahead—amuse me. Oh, and before you blather on about all the cool stuff you got from Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute, remember that I don’t give a shit about your arguments. Aim them at the scientists. And be sure to tell us what their reaction is.

        • epeeist

          Challenging convention is what enabled Copernicus to revolutionize our understanding of the solar system.

          Except he didn’t. Very few people took his ideas as anything more than a new and simpler method of calculation, the only ones of any note who took his ideas as an actual model of the solar system were Thomas Digges, Giovanni Benedetti and Christoph Rothman. Other astronomers, such as Tycho Brahe, Christoph Clavius, Michael Maestlin and Giovanni Magini all thought he was wrong.

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

          So, the fact that the majority thought him wrong somehow demonstrates that he did NOT challenge the conventional wisdom?

          Seems to me you just proved my point.

        • epeeist

          So, the fact that the majority thought him wrong somehow demonstrates that he did NOT challenge the conventional wisdom?

          Read what I said, the majority of the astronomers of the time thought he had come up with a better method of calculation, no more than that.

        • MNb

          Yawn.
          Many geniuses who challenged science met strong resistance.
          Not everyone who meets such resistance is a genius – only a small percentage.
          Unqualified people who challenge science are very, very likely not going to revolutionize it, because they don’t know what they are talking about.
          Like you.

        • epeeist

          You missed out “personal incredulity” as well.

          Oh, and drawing a positive conclusion from negative evidence.

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

          I’ve always used “doesn’t pass Robert Lockett’s sniff test” as an excellent gut-level test for new hypotheses.

        • MNb

          “the presence of quaternary digital code in every living organism, strongly implies intelligence as there is ZERO evidence that natural laws.”
          Ah. The famous God of the Gap, a fallacy recognized by two theologians. One of them became famous, perhaps more famous than Collins.

          “how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know.”

          Dietrich Bonhöffer, letter early 1944.
          Or another one, an English bishop:

          “Must we then postulate Divine intervention? Are we to bring in God to create the first current of Laplace’s nebula or to let off the cosmic firework of Lemaître’s imagination? I confess an unwillingness to bring God in this way upon the scene. The circumstances with thus seem to demand his presence are too remote and too obscure to afford me any true satisfaction. Men have thought to find God at the special creation of their own species, or active when mind or life first appeared on earth. They have made him God of the gaps in human knowledge. To me the God of the trigger is as little satisfying as the God of the gaps. It is because throughout the physical Universe I find thought and plan and power that behind it I see God as the creator.”

          Ernest Barnes, a book written in 1933 or 1934.

          You’ve only found yourself another little gap: “quaternary digital code in every living organism”. Your god is bound to be pushed further and further back. You have pointed at a circumstance that’s too remote and obscure to afford someone having faith any satisfaction.
          What’s more, it’s a safe bet that you won’t abandon your religion as soon as a naturalistic theory has been formulated that adequately describes “quaternary digital code in every living organism”. So we can assume that you don’t accept your argument yourself; you’ll just try find another hole to plug your god into.
          Now I haven’t read Collins. Still I’m quite sure that this gap is not the reason why he believes.

        • epeeist

          What’s more, it’s a safe bet that you won’t abandon your religion as soon as a naturalistic theory has been formulated that adequately describes “quaternary digital code in every living organism”.

          A guy called Jonathan West came up with what he called the “Auguste Comte fallacy”, basically the idea that because something is unknown therefore it is unknowable. Comte is famous (infamous?) for declaring that we would never know the constituents of starts shortly before spectroscopy was invented.

        • Michael Neville

          Arthur Clarke put it more generally in his First Law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

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

          Comte is famous (infamous?) for declaring that we would never know the constituents of starts shortly before spectroscopy was invented.

          There’s a story (apocryphal) that the head of the US patent office in 1898 said, “Everything that can be invented has been invented.”

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

          MNb writes:

          Robert writes:
          “the presence of quaternary digital code in every living organism, strongly implies intelligence as there is ZERO evidence that natural laws.”

          Ah. The famous God of the Gap, a fallacy recognized by two theologians. One of them became famous, perhaps more famous than Collins.

          No God of the gaps fallacy here, because there is no gap to fill. We HAVE the evidence that intelligent agents can produce information rich systems. And that is why Francis Crick (co-discoverer of DNA for which he received the Nobel prize) concluded that Directed Panspermia must be responsible for life on earth. Crick was able to perceive that the cell is mechanical and operates on the software of DNA.

          The only gap here is a natural explanation. It is YOU FOLKS who have a nature of the gaps problem to deal with.

          Your god is bound to be pushed further and further back. You have pointed at a circumstance that’s too remote and obscure to afford someone having faith any satisfaction.
          What’s more, it’s a safe bet that you won’t abandon your religion as soon as a naturalistic theory has been formulated that adequately describes “quaternary digital code in every living organism”. So we can assume that you don’t accept your argument yourself; you’ll just try find another hole to plug your god into.

          Too remote? We have direct experience, not only with information and its origins, but we ourselves are WRITERS of code and information. It is the opposite of remote, it is very near you and in your mouth.

          And I already have proven to myself that I AM willing to give up my philosophy in the face of new evidence. I have gone from belief and indoctrination in evolutionary theory in school, to theistic evolution, and then to full on theistic belief BECAUSE of the evidence such as the evidence I present to you now.

          It is YOU who will hold to your nature of the gaps religion of materialism, in spite of powerful and overwhelming evidence that the presence of information affords. You are actually projecting your own psychological traits onto me.

          All your boasting and confidence that a naturalistic theory will emerge only reveals that at present, THERE IS NO naturalistic theory to account for the presence of information in biology.

          I have traveled this terrain many times, MNb. And I can see that you do not know this topic very well. You do not know that the fiercest of warriors in your camp challenge on the basis of denying that DNA is information. And that takes us back to my profile signature:

          “”The cool intellect must work not only against cool intellect on the other side, but against the muddy heathen mysticisms which deny intellect