Struggling with God in the Modern Times

Faith & Science Conversation
62

Right on. Dr. Klax has difficulty with the concept of providence (aka providential miracles), let alone their reality.

Presumably you are speaking from experience with this gentleman, which I do not have, of course. It is difficult for me to assess why he would have a problem with divine providence, although he clearly does because he feels compelled to deny it with a bald assertion, bereft of any tangible connection to either evidence or reason. To put it in other words, if he had some evidence or reason—if it was a conclusion—then it might be possible to assess why he has a problem with divine providence.

1 Like
63

It’s too simple for you and a certain ‘complex’ type here John. Nature is eternal. No evidence, no argument. Fact. It may indeed be providential, but that is entirely incidental to the fact. The axiom. Self evident since at least the third century B.C. philosopher Chrysippus to date as in terms of Kolmogorov complexity the multiverse is a tad simpler than a single idiosyncratic universe. The evidence is that there is nature. The nature of nature includes that it’s eternal. There is no rational alternative whether in God or no. It’s just too simple to be true for you. Your truth will be utterly irrational. That’s OK.

64

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

65

There is no beginning of beginnings.

66

Prov 26:12 Do you see a man wise in his own eyes?
There is more hope for a fool than for him.

67

It’s too simple for you and a certain ‘complex’ type here John. … It’s just too simple to be true for you. Your truth will be utterly irrational. That’s OK.

Your assertion is bereft of any tangible connection to evidence or reason, but somehow it’s my truth that is irrational? Sure, okay.

(What is my truth, anyway? Have I even made a truth claim?)

Whether your assertion is simple or not, Martin—that remains to be seen—you haven’t provided any reason for me (or anyone else) to even consider it, or to understand why you assert it. So I simply haven’t considered it even for a moment. You can change that, however, by demonstrating how your claim was developed.

 

Nature is eternal. … The evidence is that there is nature. The nature of nature includes that it’s eternal.

Nature cannot be eternal, given the laws of thermodynamics, otherwise the universe would have already experienced thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy).

 

No evidence, no argument. Fact.

Facts have a tangible connection to evidence and reason. Your assertion did not. You can call it a fact all day long but that doesn’t somehow make it one. If you are unable or unwilling to demonstrate how your claim was developed, nor tell another person how to reproduce your results, can you legitimately call it a fact? I don’t think so.

You can illegitimately call it a fact, though.

 

It may indeed be providential, but that is entirely incidental to the fact. The axiom. Self evident since at least the third century B.C. philosopher Chrysippus to date as in terms of Kolmogorov complexity the multiverse is a tad simpler than a single idiosyncratic universe.

I have no idea what relevance Chrysippus has to any of this, but wouldn’t the Kolmogorov complexity require a rejected null hypothesis? That is some crucially important work which you have not done, sir. (It also doesn’t escape the entropy problem, as far as I can tell.)

 

There is no rational alternative whether in God or no.

There is no rational alternative to what, exactly? The eternal nature of the universe? Sure there is:

  • “Either the universe is eternal (P) or it is not (¬P).”

It is one or the other, Martin (law of excluded middle).

1 Like
68

Why are you talking about an eternal universe?

69

You’re looking in the mirror.

God changeth not.

70

Because I assume that nature occupies the universe. If it’s eternal, so must be the universe.

71

Why do you assume that? If nature is eternal, it’s infinite. So much for logic eh? And the universe is an infinitesimal of nature.

72

Because if nature doesn’t occupy the universe, then it’s a meaningless term I can’t do anything with. If you want to employ a meaningless term in your defense of an incoherent word salad, then I will leave you to it. I cannot work in those kind of parameters, so I won’t.

 

Indeed, since “nature” is evidently a term that has no meaning at this point.

 

Since infinitesimal means “extremely small,” your statement is incomprehensible: “The universe is an [extremely small] of nature.”

75

I’m not confident that there is no God. I have never claimed that there is no God. I am an atheist because I have yet to see compelling reason for the existence of God so I don’t believe there is a God. It is entirely that such evidence exists, but I haven’t seen it. It is entirely possible that there is no evidence for God but God exists nonetheless.

1 Like
76

‘Infinitesimal’ can indeed be used as a noun, but we will have to wait in great anticipation for the imminent release of the Herr Doktor’s unabridged dictionary and lexicon of Klaxian to which we will all have to submit and recognize as authoritative under pain of scorn. In the meanwhile, note that his idiotsyncratic use of ‘nature’, contrary to its use in English, includes more than just the physical.

77

I say with much friendliness and love that I hope you find Him, friend.

2 Likes
78

I have never had a problem with people saying kind words.

3 Likes
79

Nor with saying some of your own as I have seen many times.

2 Likes
83

Hi T_aquaticus,

I want to reiterate @Joshua_Wagner’s most recent post to you: I do sincerely hope that you find Him.

And your post also spurs a question: what would you consider sufficient evidence of God’s existence?

84

That is one of the most intelligent things I have ever heard an atheist say. That was inspiring. Thank you.

1 Like
85

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.