in the end all worldviews strive indeed for the same, e.g. to give you the means of a meaningful interaction with reality. This exceeds the physical interpretation of reality as it has to incorporate the metaphysical element of our consciousness, e.g. our ability to experience physical reality and to be alive within it. e.g. to be able to move energy and matter at will - that is if you believe in the existence of energy and matter.
It looks like I have not enough time and whiskey at hand to digest the partial edited fragment to extract a possible worldview from it, as it appears in principle to be an attempt to rewrite physics which in itself is insufficient for a worldview.
Sorry to hear you suffering from jaundice, but trying to digest this document is likely to give one a liver problem and why this should be subject to my approval is completely beyond me. The only relevant authority to âapproveâ of our views lies in the logos, by which our views and actions are judged in the end. And your choice how you interpret the story of the miracle at Canaan is only a revelation how you value reality and nothing to do with my approval either. .
Sorry but I couldnât resist any longer: Iâve been racking my brain to think of something impossible but it just isnât possible. Wait! Think I found it.
IMO, thatâs a brief and shortsighted description of âall worldviewsâ common purposeâ, but I brought that on myself, didnât I? I posted the whole 69-page fragment instead of a shorter portion of it. Iâll do so now: Section 7. The History of Science, beginning on page 11.
Specialization is today a virtual necessity. There is so much for an astronomer to know and do within the context of astronomy that is not reasonable to expect him also to understand epistemology, the foundations of mathematics, the theory of evolution, information theory, computer programming and other such things. Indeed, we shall be lucky if he understands basic physics. We shall be lucky if the same astronomer studies what is going on inside of stars and the orbital motions of clusters of stars.
Specialization is, however, an enormous danger. The real world is interconnected. Everything interacts with everything else. The same is true in the ideal world of scientific theorizing. Everything meshes with everything else. Insights important for constructing and evaluating a theory of cosmology may come from organic chemistry or computer architecture. Nobody knows in advance from where they will come. To understand anything, it is necessary to understand everything.
A problem that is related to knowing a body of techniques or theory is being able to sort out the good ideas from the bad. Few people have such a skill, while many people deny that there is such a skill to be had. The real problem here is that there is almost no such science or branch of philosophy as epistemology.
The problem of sorting out the wheat from the chaff also extends back into pre-history. What is preserved from pre-Socratic lore shows that already things that were clearly understood by some philosophers were puzzles to others or gaps in their knowledge. Furthermore, the state of confusion is such that philosophers who are familiar with both true ideas and false ones or with both true ideas and meaningless strings of words masquerading as ideas often reject the true in favor either of the false or the nonsensical.
Thales and the other early Ionian physicists (Anaximander, Anaximenes, Pythagoras and Heraclitus) knew that any form of matter could be transformed into any other, but Parmenides and his students Zeno and Melissus caused all later philosophers, even Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Leucippus and Democritus, to be confused about this.
The alchemists retained or resurrected something of the more ancient tradition. The chemists disagreed. Today we know that Thales and the alchemists were correct. Modern physicists for the most part have yet to come to grips with the fact that Thales was more correct than the alchemists were.
The alchemists believed merely in the transmutability into each other of the things that they considered to be material substances and they had either no idea or else bad ideas about how such transmutations were to be accomplished. Thales, correctly, stated that all the many apparently different substances were in fact different forms of the only substance and that each could be transformed into any other. There are two differences, in both of which Thales has the correct position.
It is not only the case that lead can be changed into gold but it is also the case that the process is a transformation. That is, what makes lead be different from gold is not being made of different stuffs about which one may argue whether they are or are not transmutable into each other. Lead and gold consist of one stuff differently arranged. The reason that lead can be turned into gold is that this stuff can be rearranged. The way to turn lead into gold is to rearrange the stuff of which both lead and gold consist.
Second, this applies not only to lead and gold but also, for example, to light and electricity. All physical objects and not merely the ones that can be dug up out of the ground are transformable into each other.
Empedocles and Anaxagoras knew how to conduct experiments and the value of doing so in physical investigations, a piece of knowledge that was also subsequently virtually lost for the next two millennia, though Archimedes also knew it.
Empedocles and Anaxagoras likewise knew that people are descended from marine life. Empedocles even expanded this idea into a crude theory of survival of the fit. Aristotle believed in fixed species.
Lucretius. Epicurus, Democritus, Leucippus and probably Pythagoras before them knew that physical stuff is an aggregate of indivisible pieces.
One may conjecture on the basis of what the atomists themselves say and what the Eleatics say that someone before Leucippus knew that the reason that the smallest parts of things are the smallest parts of things is that they have no parts themselves and that the reason for this is that they are too small to have any parts.
The Eleatics are the outlying group of philosophers philosophically nearest to the atomists. Though they chronologically precede the philosophers commonly recognized as atomists, their teaching can hardly be interpreted as anything other than a critique of a still earlier theory that is a version of the atomic theory. The atomic theory of Leucippus and Democritus differs from this theory only in rejecting the just stated hypothesis about smallest parts and replacing it with a âmore sophisticatedâ doctrine that physical stuff consists of parts that, by virtue of being solid, are physically indivisible even though they are mathematically divisible. The original version of what is otherwise the atomic theory lacks this âsophisticationâ and is thereby more sensible.
Since the Eleatics are known to have been Pythagoreans before they became Eleatics, this theory can reasonably be nothing other than the teaching of Pythagoras. Examining the extant material concerning the teaching of Pythagoras then tends to confirm this conjecture rather than to contradict it.
Lucretius and Epicurus both clearly state that all the smallest parts of things move at the same constant speed, which is faster than anything else moves. Again, one may conjecture on the basis of what is preserved from earlier times that this was an original and integral portion of the smallest-parts doctrine and goes back to Pythagoras. It is apparently a proposition that is very hard either to hear or to remember having heard. For reasons that the psychologists should perhaps look into, nobody who hears it pays any attention to it. It is there in no uncertain terms in material that at least once was read by every educated person, but I have not found even one person in modern times who mentions it, even to declare it impossible to believe.
The same phenomenon occurs in ancient times, with the one exception that Zenoâs argument of the Stadium, which makes little sense as quoted by Aristotle, does make sense if it is viewed as an attempt to refute this doctrine. Thus the situation seems to be:
that the doctrine was always an integral part of the ancient atomic theory,
that it was mentioned exactly once in ancient times by a non-atomist,
that nobody subsequently understood that one mention to be what it was, and
that none of the people responsible for the revival of the atomic theory in modern times paid the slightest attention to this idea.
It does need to be noted that the reason that Lucretius adduces for this proposition is silly. This is that things fall faster in a less dense medium, so that the fastest speed of all would obtain for things that fell through empty space.
The notion that the motion of the atoms through the void is principally a falling motion seems to be an invention of Epicurusâs and a corruption of earlier atomic theory.
The Eleatics, in any case, argue that the world does not have parts and especially that it does not have smallest parts or parts of size zero, that empty space does not exist, that motion is impossible and especially (if my interpretation of the Stadium is correct) that it makes no sense to speak of units all moving at the same constant speed. It is reasonable to infer that it was the teaching of Pythagoras that the world consists of smallest parts, all of size zero, i.e., the same size as points, all of which move through otherwise empty space at the same constant speed.
It is common today to credit Newton with the discovery that the same laws of physics apply to the objects in the sky and the objects on the earth, though all the pre-Socratic philosophers were of the same opinion, as were, for that matter, Kepler and Bruno. The difference is just that Newton knew a mathematical formula that explained both orbits and falling.
Pythagoras knew that the book of nature is written in the language of mathematics, as Galileo said somewhat later. Archimedes knew this also. Even Plato knew it, if in a perverse version. Socrates, one gathers, couldnât have cared less.
I cease here to discuss ancient philosophers and physicists. There is more to say about the work of the modern descendants of Pythagoras and the relation of this work to truth either in the Platonic world of eternal forms or in the real world of atoms moving through the void.
My point?
All worldviews, as you point out, appear to have a common goal. However, there are successful worldviews and unsuccessful worldviews. IMO, any worldview that assumes that reality does not have a physical substance as its foundation is neither useful nor going to be successful.
I am reminded of the John chapter 6, where Jesus was confronted with similar people having no regard for a spiritual aspect of reality. So he forced the issue by telling them things where lacking a spiritual interpretation meant he was advocating cannibalism. They were just as stubborn and the result is that they simply deserted Jesus en masse.
You are probably correct that medical doctors tend to look for natural explanations. It is very hard to determine cause oftentimes due to multiple factors being involved, poor data and history, bias from many involved, and placebo effect. Of course, it is their job to find natural explanations, and use that information to further improvements of care. It doesnât help others a lot to say, âWell, looks like a miracle. Guess we are done here.â
Absolutely! Iâd never ever suggest we shouldnât investigate in medical healing cases, because as you said, you may just stumble upon some cure for disease. Now wouldnât that be a miracle in itself lol
Iâm just annoyed with attitude towards miracles that goes like this:
A. Itâs simply impossible so couldnât have happened
B. There is explanation, like a wind for example, so not a miracle
C. Definitely happenedâŚbut we donât know howâŚohh, but we will in the future, therefore not a miracle
Seems like you just canât win against that.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
115
What miracles? As in all apologetics without exception, it is never necessary to go there in the first place. Atheism does not have to refute theism, it doesnât have to be proposed at any point in observing nature, including all medically observed nature. It doesnât even have to be named any more than miracle does.
Perhaps faith is allegiance to something you canât demonstrate. If it were obvious or uncontroversial no faith would be required. It would just be one more in a multitude of simple facts.
As far as what you can say to those who donât believe in anything not demonstrable by science: probably not much you can say to anyone that oblivious.
I think the definitions we use for miracle and magic are intertwined, which is how most ancient cultures viewed them. The Bible makes a distinction. God told the Israelites to not do magic and to shun those who practiced magic. That means what God did was not magical. How can a blind eye be healed? Modern medicine is starting to understand that it can be done. The Creator would know how to manipulate atoms without breaking any natural law. Walking on water and raising the dead are the same. He knows. We do not, so it looks like magic.
I remember the words of my early years math teacher who in his old age had gone almost completely blind when I visited him after having finished school. He had serious diabetes and had become very dependent on others by then, and when he said that he wished he could have seen things earlier the way he could see them now I did not understand the significance of his words at the time. Now being so much older myself I do. The question is not how a blind eye can be healed but how someone with a 20/20 vision can be healed. This is why I recommend the 10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer as confirmation class material. The concept of healing is not how most people think about it - getting the body you wish for. It is the same misconception about peoples understanding of happiness.
To a lot of people the secret if happiness is to be satisfied with what they have got
so they spend their whole life to make sure they have got enough.
The true secret of happiness lies in being thankful for what you got as you learn to accept that this is not under your control. Tell me if you think that despite having no arms and legs Nick Vujicic is healed or not and why you think one way or the other.
Always find it funny that people think fixing a miracle is a miracle. Guess most of us suffer from Santa Syndrome demanding more miracles from God to make him show that he loves us. Sure if he would do so he would change reality as we wish for in prayer And he must be able to show us his powers by creating the fake reality we wish for and save people from the embarrassment of not having enough alcohol to satisfy the greed of his wedding guests after they already had plenty of it to make the groom look materially wealthy.
If we see the power of our God in that what is not natural and not in the nature that he has given us it is quite clear who our God is.
Interesting. You rationalize the answer to your 10 questions just like those you ridicule and you make just as much sense.
God was never a wish granter. He never did heal like you (and many people) expect him to heal. That does not mean he cannot or that he does not exist. Healing the inner man is much more important to God than growing arms and legs.
God always expected people to take care of one another. We fail miserably and have only recently started to notice. That does not mean he does not exist. That does not mean he will clean up our messes. We live in a natural world that we are to tend.
Why kill those who disobey? You call them innocent. Are they if they know what they should not do? Consider bacteria. Most of them are fine, but when you get an infection, it needs cleansing or you might die. How is that different from cleansing a community of people who willfully disobey?
Anti-scientific nonsense. You aim your gun at those who have not given up the âold waysâ like Albert Einstein holding onto his Steady State. Not all Christians believe the same. Your list does not fit all. The years are not necessarily linear or consecutive as we would write history. The Hebrew wording of the flood supports regional destruction not one that covered Everest. Jonah was a parable. I belief God made everything in the universe. Science finds out what and how. Scientifically all life came from minerals. Genesis says animals come from dirt and humans from dust. Dust is leftover dirt. Dirt comes from minerals. The Bible got that right.
God was a proponent of slavery? No. He let people act cruelly. He also told the Israelites to not sell each other into slavery. If the Jews had followed Godâs ways then the world would be much better.
Bad things happen. Good things happen. Consequences happen. How does that prove God does not exist?
Now you expect Jesus to act like you want him to act. Be world changing by being the biggest and most powerful superman. Interesting. I donât think that was his point.
Lots of people have said Jesus appeared to them. You choose to ignore them or call them delusional because Jesus did not appear to you. That does not prove your position against him.
Jesus was not talking about cannibalism even though the statement was that shocking. He often spoke in parables, which was a Hebrew prophetic standard. Jesus is the tree of life mentioned in the garden story. That fruitâs flesh and blood gives life. He was talking about salvation.
Why are Christians no better at life than others? Because like the ancient Jews, we do not follow Godâs ways of love. Christian rules and traditions do not make us holy. Only God does.
I always find that video funny in how it claims to use critical thinking and fails in every point. If you do critical thinking on that video you have to begin even before the first question is raised and why he âappeals to intelligenceâ in his premise as having to have an academic degree as to ensure you understand his video correctly. It helps to stroke the viewers ego to make them switch critical thinking mode off, prime lesson in how to manipulate peoples thinking by neuro linguistic programming.
Regarding the first question there are two layers to it indeed. The âSanta syndromeâ is core to Marshall Brains concept of âWhy wonât God heal amputeesâ and in his book âHow God worksâ in reference to his series of âHow stuff worksâ . His argument for Godâs non-existence is indeed based on Gods failure to answer prayers as in fulfilling our wishes. It is a good opportunity to explain the confirmation class the concept of prayer, that it is not about asking Santaâs big brother for presents that he changes reality as we wish it to be, but to ask God to help us to make reality as he wishes it to be. At that point it helps to teach how to not use the Lords name in vain in saying âand this I ask in the name of Jesusâ as a first class stamp for faster prayer and ask the students about what it means to pry in Jesus name.
His concept of healing is indeed the other point that requires critical thinking about thus my comment to think about healing in the context of Nick Vujicic and where our expectation comes from.
point 10 is a great opportunity on explaining how to misread statistics as he got it quite wrong and gives you a great opportunity to debate the concept of marriage. Ask yourself why you did not question his claims?
1 Like
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
123
Jesus can only be believed in by faith with a little help from the first seven consensual letters of Paul demonstrating a vibrant Roman empire church from Rome east. It is easy to rationally refute that as supernatural in any way and no wonder that most educated people are oblivious of it as it isnât honestly proclaimed with goodwill, humility and understanding of Christâs omnipotent faithfulness despite that. Claiming miracles now as proof of God is not even meretricious.
and why this should be subject to my approval is completely beyond me. The only relevant authority to âapproveâ of our views lies in the logos, by which our views and actions are judged in the end. And your choice how you interpret the story of the miracle at Canaan is only a revelation how you value reality and nothing to do with my approval either. .
And he must be able to show us his powers by creating the fake reality we wish for and save people from the embarrassment of not having enough alcohol to satisfy the greed of his wedding guests after they already had plenty of it to make the groom look materially wealthy.