I will likewise make my reply extremely simple…
The Word is clearly a person not a book. “HE was in the beginning with God.” And the person is Jesus NOT the Bible.
The Word of God is God (specifically Jesus), not a book. But the Bible IS God’s word(s).
But his “Word” is the creative and sustaining power, while also being Himself.
He “said” let there be light, for example.
And through “his Word” all things are “held together”.
Obviously as humans we find it hard to wrap our heads around these things.
In my original post suggested a philosophical framework for being closer to what Gods word(s) say and further from what Plato et al’s word(s) say.
If that doesnt work for you then thats up to you.
I also say that the Bible is the word of God, but by this I mean God is the source and has all the proprietary rights and we should not feel free to change it as we like. The Bible is clearly not the creator of the universe as you have implied or anything close to that.
No such words are in the Bible. These are things you have made up to fit your panentheist ideology.
I certainly don’t believe in any such thing. I believe in what I see in the evidence of the science and the Bible. The universe is sustained by space-time mathematical laws of nature, which I believe to be created by God. The Word spoken of in John chapter 1 is the person of Jesus – God who chose to become a man, born and growing up among us. Such is the belief of the religion of Christianity.
There are things in both science, Bible, mathematics, and questions in philosophy, as well as things we believe about God in Christianity which are hard to wrap our heads around. But this is a poor excuse for the inadequacies of some personal philosophy/religion that someone is pushing.
But I and the majority here don’t see it as being closer to what the Bible says let alone fitting what we know from the objective evidence of science. AND I see all too much in common with the ideas of Plato and the religion of the Gnostics founded upon them.
Fair enough. Your mind is your own to use as you choose, whether to believe in the teachings of Christianity or to believe in something else entirely. I defend your right to this the same as I would any atheist.
But perhaps we should get back to the topic of discussion which is this proof of yours. I was working on this when I encountered your last post.
Empiricism is NOT the foundation of science. Science is founded on two methodological ideals: 1)Honesty - where we test our hypotheses rather than just try to prove them. 2)Objectivity - where results are given as written procedures anyone can follow to get the same results no matter what they want or believe.
Empiricism was one of many attempts by philosophers to justify the work of science and like most philosophies of science, some of it has merit while other parts are greatly criticized. As in the article you linked, this was followed by other explanations: phenomenalism, logical positivism, pragmatism, Kuhn’s paradigm revolutions, and the more comprehensive work of Karl Popper. And you can see my explanation from my own work in science in the previous paragraph.
Your #1 is an assumption and a flawed one as well, therefore we already have a contradiction between 1 and 2. But there is a serious problem with #2 because without assumptions, logic cannot even be used at all.
Occam’s Razor has nothing to do with actual science. It is philosophical rhetoric for naturalism only. In real science, if there are two ways to explain things are equally valid then our experience in science is that both are typically useful in different situations. But this is rare. Most of the time they simply are not equal and the only question is which is more accurate and simplicity doesn’t come into it at all unless… the more simple less accurate one is close enough and then we say something like… to the first approximation it is like this, but to be more accurate it is actually more like this…
Incorrect. The whole point of the methodology of science is to get beyond that which is generated by the mind (i.e. the subjective) and does this by only accepting conclusions based on written procedures which give the same results no matter who does them and no matter what they may want or believe.
Incorrect. The methods of science provides excellent evidence that there are things true of the universe completely independent of any minds. Those written procedures give results which clash strongly with what people expect and force them to accept things regardless of what makes sense to them.
This is an assumption derived from the experience of only some people. Other people have experiences which do not agree with this.
That is not empirical evidence. That is a philosophical argument and thus necessarily founded on assumptions made by the one who makes that argument. For example, you only assume that you are a mind.
BTW I would largely agree with you on this. I too think that human beings are primarily minds rather than bodies and because of this we are not primarily biological creatures at all. But where we likely disagree is that I think the mind is entirely a physical thing and that is what the evidence shows as well. I reject the belief in a rational soul by the Gnostics and other religions believing reincarnation.
Not only is there excellent evidence that an objective reality exists apart from the mind, but the methods of science most certainly does give objective evidence for the existence of physical things of matter and energy. This is because the things that science demonstrates are completely contrary to our expectations and even what the scientists think is rational. Nor does it fit any expectation of those who believe in God either.
Incorrect. This does not agree with the evidence. The evidence is that the everything we measure of matter and energy is based on space-time mathematical laws and not upon the whims of some dream of a deity.
This does not follow from 9 even if 9 were correct. Nothing establishes that the supposed mind generating reality is singular.
But more importantly there is no reason to think the characters in the dream generated by such a panentheist dreamer God are alive and conscious let alone that they can or should do anything but what the author has designated for them. It is a philosophy with no use whatsoever for the living of our lives.
You can call such a mind many different things. Plato and the Gnostics called it the evil Demiurge. And nothing in your reason has any connection to the God of the Bible. I asked a similar question from a very different beginning which was seeing the faith in God as equivalent to the faith that life was worth living. Now that is a beginning that led me to the God of the Bible.
Incorrect. The complex and ordered nature of reality demonstrably reflects the fact that all of nature is governed by mathematical space-time laws. That is all. People can only make assumptions about where those mathematical laws of nature come from, and if they come from anything at all.
The Bible is clearly not the creator of the universe as you have implied or anything close to that.
That is a bizzare statement. I implied nothing of the sort.
No such words are in the Bible. These are things you have made up to fit your panentheist ideology
I just quoted them in my previous post. See Revelation 4:1 and Colosians 1:7. But there are many others. Here you go:
Psalm 33:6-9
6 The Lord merely spoke, and the heavens were created. He breathed the word, and all the stars were born. 7 He assigned the sea its boundaries and locked the oceans in vast reservoirs. 8 Let the whole world fear the Lord, and let everyone stand in awe of him. 9 For when he spoke, the world began! It appeared at his command.
Thats pretty clear I’d say.
The universe is sustained by space-time mathematical laws of nature, which I believe to be created by God.
I dont disagree with you here at all. But those laws are in turn sustained (“held together”) by God.
But I and the majority here don’t see it as being closer to what the Bible says let alone fitting what we know from the objective evidence of science.
The evidence of science is objective yes. But ONLY within our subjective perception of God’s creation.
As a scientist I know you understand the great value of science in our lives and in how we make sense of our world. As an engineer I share a strong respect for the value of Science and its utility and usefulness.
Your #1 is an assumption and a flawed one as well, therefore we already have a contradiction between 1 and 2.
That is untrue. #1 is an Axiom. All logic, Math, and even science begin with Axiom’s which are a-priori statements of value.
In this case, the axiom, which I refer to as “empirical” could also be stated:
- “Observation is the preferred way of determining Truth”
You appear to reject the axiom. But do not call it an assumption.
In real science, if there are two ways to explain things are equally valid then our experience in science is that both are typically useful in different situations.
Perhaps you have in mind “wave particle duality”. But surely you must understand that Physics is far from complete and NIETHER of those useful models can be said to be absolute TRUTH.
The methods of science provides excellent evidence that there are things true of the universe completely independent of any minds.
Of any human minds. Absoloutely. But that is all it can prove.
That is not empirical evidence. That is a philosophical argument and thus necessarily founded on assumptions made by the one who makes that argument. For example, you only assume that you are a mind.
Empirical scientific evidence within our subjective experience of our life cannot take priority over subjective experience of our own exisitance.
So yes the core of this arguement is that the Principal of systematic observation while valuable in ordering our subjective experiences of real life (i.e. science) should also be applied to our subjective experiences in sum total and the philosophical implications of such understood.
As I have written down the procedure, you too, may now follow it within your own mind.
You can call such a mind many different things. Plato and the Gnostics called it the evil Demiurge.
Plato rejected the idea. In ascribing evil intention to (God) he shows how he could not come to grips with the existential dread it evoked. He was, as you are now, guided by emotion not reason. And by a desire to belive one’s self not wholly in the palm of God’s hand, owing to God his every waking moment.
Rather than Fear the Lord, he instead laid the first stones in a philosophical tower of Babbel.
The idea that the words of God are the creator of the universe is just as bizarre. God is the creator of the universe and clearly the space-time mathematical laws of nature are a part of how he did it. This magical necromancer abracadabra stuff is just fantasy and nonsense.
Psalm 33:6-9 does not equal your paraphrase. The intension of this passage is NOT to explain how God created the universe but to describe how great God is – that is all.
That implies there is something out there opposed to the laws of nature that would bring them down if God did not hold them up. I see absolutely no reason to believe in any such thing and good reason to believe just the opposite – that the only place you find impermanence and decay is within these laws of nature which God created.
The only objectivity we have access to is the only objectivity worth talking about. NOTHING is more subjective than some objectivity imagined by human beings in their wishful thinking.
The only difference between an axiom and an assumption is that an axiom is agreed upon as defining the activity which follows. What then do we do when an axiom proves unwarranted? We adopt a new name for the work which abandons that axiom. An example is non-Euclidean geometry which abandons the axioms of Euclid.
But what you presented was an argument and since it is not self evident then the word “axiom” does not apply.
That is not what you said before. You said "Empiricism is the preferred way of determining the truth. But I do see a problem with this new statement. Personal experience is the primary way of determining the truth. If we can make this into a procedure anyone can follow to get the same result no matter what they want or believe then we can attribute some objectivity to it and that is usually when we call it a scientific observation.
Nope. That is not an example. I remember encountering examples of this in my study of physics many times, but the first which comes to mind is Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics as opposed to Schrödinger’s wave mechanics – two different formulations of quantum mechanics.
The only meaningful use of the word “absolute” which I believe in is opposed to the “relative” dictates of convention where it is more important to have a rule than what the rule may be. Things are absolute when we have have reasons why one is better than the other. We certainly have reasons why both the descriptions as waves and particles both apply in the case of electrons, photons, protons, and such.
It is only reasonable to form our conclusions based on what we actually experience and not upon what someone chooses to imagine.
Objective scientific evidence must take priority in human association because that is the only case where we have a reasonable expectation that others should agree. Without objective scientific evidence then we can only reasonably make it a guide for our own personal lives alone. Thus I live my life according to a believe in a creator God but do not expect others to accept this as well – it is no different than vegetarians who choose to eat no meat.
You have rejected the idea of a creator God. In denying God’s ability to create real things you cannot come to grip with the existential dread it evokes. You are guided by emotion not reason in this. And by a desire to believe yourself without any freedom of will you free yourself of any responsibility for your own thoughts and actions. Rather than fear the Lord you instead lay the first stones in a philosophical tower of Babel.
I know God has created an independent existence of natural laws so that He can have an authentic relationship with others than Himself, giving them the choice to participate in a relationship with Him. Knowing only a relationship with an infinite being can make an eternal existence worthwhile, and that I am incapable of escaping the degenerative disease of sin, I have put myself into the hands of God as the only hope I can see for redemption and eternal life. But I see no reason to make my own perceptions and choices the measure of all people as if I were any more than a blind guide, because my salvation is entirely a work of God and not any kind of accomplishment of mine.
I am no fan of Plato, but I only despise and criticize his ideas and do not imagine that I have any ability to judge his person.
Now that’s more like it. Even with 15% spelling mistakes. There will be tears before bedtime for sure. And then we all join the majority.
Of course some will close their eyes for the last time imagining continuing in eternity as mulch carried by emerging flies back into the world of the living while others close them while imagining emergence through the back of the armoire intact into Aslan’s realm … figuratively speaking of course. Hopefully we all choose well and are happy with the one we make.
1 Like
People make foolish and willful choices in spite of contrary evidence.
That the Word, the Logos of God spoke the universe into being and supports its existence makes good sense, not that we can know or scientifically deduce the nitty-gritty of how that works.
If possibly the fundamental reality of the universe is information as QM may be hinting¹, and the sustenance of that reality is the mind of God (who possesses all information ; - ), if in a thought experiment God went away, so would the universe.
…and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.
Hebrews 1:3
God is the creator of the universe and clearly the space-time mathematical laws of nature are a part of how he did it.
Yes but they are not part of the how he created, they are part of what he created.
That implies there is something out there opposed to the laws of nature that would bring them down if God did not hold them up.
Kinda like whatever brings down your TV show when you pull the plug?
The only difference between an axiom and an assumption is that an axiom is agreed upon as defining the activity which follows. What then do we do when an axiom proves unwarranted? We adopt a new name for the work which abandons that axiom. An example is non-Euclidean geometry which abandons the axioms of Euclid.
Axioms of this kind are self evidently true. Sure you can choose to abandon my axiom but then you would also be forced to abandon Science itself, the value of which is based on the same axiom or a formulation thereof.
It is only reasonable to form our conclusions based on what we actually experience and not upon what someone chooses to imagine.
Yes. I agree. You just restated of my axiom (#1) in a different wording.
where we have a reasonable expectation that others should agree
Not when the existance and/or reliability of said “others” is itself in doubt.
You have rejected the idea of a creator God. In denying God’s ability to create real things…
Hardly. Reality isnt dependent on the existance of God-independent objects. Freedom of will similarly is not at issue, that depends on creation of spirit (or mind) not creation of object…
But thank you for explaining your personal views, for my part I feel that while your view is held by many, its logical conclusion is skepticism… and Athiesm.
Imagine a greater God. In who all things are created and have their being. Who fills all creation because he is God, infinite, ultimate source of all things always and forver.
Yes that is a great point!
For me god plays no role in my understanding of how science works. He only plays a role in how it’s applied. Likewise, science plays no real role in my theology, outside of a few places like in Joshua about the sun stop moving, implying it was moving, when that’s not the case. But I don’t reject s trying theologically solely because of science for the most part.
I don’t see scientific evidence for god. I believe in solely because of faith. I choose to have faith. I actively choose to not abandon faith. But there is nothing in the universe that I feel is scientific evidence for god. So when I see god in nature , and in people, it’s more of seeing what I believe is there. Which I guess is ultimately just that “spiritual” feeling people mention when looking up at the stars at night. This feeling of being so small, but connected to it all. Someone said it before in here and it made perfect sense to me. “ Functionally, I’m an atheist. Everything in the natural world I experience has a natural law behind it. Nothing i experience demands a purely supernatural interjection. But there have been a few experiences in my life connected to prayer, that just seems to coincidental to actually just be pure coincidence. So those few experiences are why I believe in the supernatural and they maintain my faith perfectly fine. 100%. I wish there was more, sometimes I’m mad when it’s not, but I feel like Yahweh nonetheless reached out in those few times , and each time it was in the same way, and so I feel like that’s what I got and I’ll never get more because I don’t truly need it. The millions of other prayers can go unanswered and annoying and painful that is at times, it’s not enough to make me disbelieve. Those two things are also not going to be actual evidence to those who don’t believe, but seem to really help those that do believe, and for those who know me, and know in general I reject any supernatural experiences I hear such as magical wonders being done and so on, that fact seems to help some of the agnostics I know believe my story all the more.
Anyways, I just don’t see any actual evidence to believe in god , not even in the gaps we have no answers for. I have more faith that those gaps will be filled with science than I do that those gaps will be filled with the supernatural. But the fact that gaps is there, and faith is feeling it in regardless, helps me.
The laws of nature cannot be created.
If nature was created, then laws of nature upon which it is based could be created.
I think what maybe Klax is referring to is that the laws of nature were not created as if by a coder designing a line to set up the parameters of an app but that the laws are unintentional byproducts of events.
Such as fire was not designed to have light, the light is a byproduct of the thermal radiation. We are seeing incandescence. Fire is not orange and yellow, with smaller blues and greens because it’s pretty but because of the frequency of the lights.
If I’m not mistaken, he thinks they have to be the same for any posited multiverse – the gravitational constant constant, the cosmological constant, the speed of light in a vacuum, etc., any in the suite of physical constants: List of physical constants - Wikipedia, and that they exist independent of and without respect to God – God would be incapable of introducing any variations on a theme, should he so desire.
I’ve posted this before, and I still like it, a rebuttal to the fine tuning self-selection effect argument:
I think that is ridiculous. It is like saying the components of a computer is just what a computer is and not how a computer is created. Knowing what you are creating is the most important part of the creation process. The whole point is that God is not a child dreaming up imaginary things but someone who knows how things work and how to accomplish His goals. God doesn’t just say I want a candy like a baby expecting parents will give it to Him, but supplies all the knowledge and ability needed for creating things Himself.
So instead of God creating things which are real you believe in a god who just broadcasts images of things from somewhere else? This sounds like you have confused God with your optic nerve transmitting images from your eye to your brain.
Sounds like the narcissism of a psychopath who believes only in himself.
Dreams are not real and how can the people created in dreams have any freedom of will when they are not even real. They are just part of the dreaming mind doing what that dreaming mind chooses to have them do.
I know a greater God than this dreamer you imagine – one who creates things which are real and different from Himself in order to have an authentic relationship with others than Himself. Any child can dream up a world where in him all thing have their being. But none of the people in the child’s dreams are real and the relationships he has with them are pure fantasy with no substance.
God’s omnipotence does not mean God can do anything by whatever nonsensical method you care to describe. Logical consistency is the difference between dream and reality. Children are always demanding inconsistencies like having their cake and eating it too, because they haven’t grasped the nature of reality. Projecting that inconsistency upon God Himself is just a way of enshrining that magical element of childhood thinking.
But of course, like I said before, your mind is your own, and you are free to do with it as you choose. But this idea of God as a necromancer magically doing things in ways inconsistent with the observable results definitely does not work for me. And I think it is that is the sort of blindness and disconnect from reality which leads to atheism because they prefer something real.
The events are the by-products of the immutable, prevenient laws of nature.
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.