tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post5184610769521152004..comments2023-05-24T05:37:27.382-07:00Comments on Grace and Miracles: A Skeptic's Guide to FaithAnette Ackerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comBlogger93125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-30222028739441989042010-08-07T07:52:42.713-07:002010-08-07T07:52:42.713-07:00I want to add something to my prior comment in cas...I want to add something to my prior comment in case someone is still reading this. According to Eugene Merrill, one of the most highly respected OT scholars, the Genesis account is unique among the cosmologies of the ancient New East world because of the emphasis on immediate creation. And as I said before, this aspect of creation is the only one mentioned in the NT (Hebrews 11:3). <br /><br />He says: "The Genesis narrative begins with the succinct but majestic declaration that 'in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth' (Gen. 1:1). It makes no attempt to clarify when and how this was done but only affirms that all that exists is the product of God's omnipotent hand. In this respect the account is unique among the cosmologies of the ancient Near Eastern world for they know nothing of an immediate creation as oposed to a creation that makes use of preexisting matter. The Hebrew word <i>bara</i>, while not inherently denotative of <i>creation ex nihilo</i>, bears that meaning in all its occurrences in the Genesis account."Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-81155820642301804652010-08-02T10:07:09.633-07:002010-08-02T10:07:09.633-07:00But if you really studied the biblical view of cos...<i>But if you really studied the biblical view of cosmology, you would find, as Steven J. has pointed out, that the biblical authors viewed the earth as a flat disk with a tent-like firmament or dome over the top. This fits perfectly well with the surrounding cultures of the time.</i><br /><br />Oops! I forgot to address this important point.<br /><br />You're absolutely right that the creation account of Genesis fits with the beliefs of the surrounding cultures of the time. In fact, most of the customs of the Israelites fit with the cultures as did their level of cultural development.<br /><br />However, the OT is superseded by the NT, which interprets it. For example, in Matthew 22:37-40, Jesus summarizes the Law and the Prophets in the words, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself."<br /><br />Galatians 4:3-5 compares the early Hebrews to children, clearly stating that they were primitive, and that they were "held in bondage under the elemental things of the world," until the "fullness of time," when they were ready for Christ to come. <br /><br />Likewise, Hebrews 11:3 tells us all the Bible needs to tell us about cosmology, because it is of <i>theological</i> significance: "By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible." This means that God created <i>ex nihilo,</i> which is consistent with the cosmological evidence. Many other places in the Bible, it states that God exists outside of time, which is consistent with the current evidence that time had a beginning. (And I know that Hawking is trying prove that it didn't but he also said, "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.")<br /><br />The creation account is of great theological, typological significance, which I am going to demonstrate in my next blog post, but you are absolutely right that it also represents the understanding of the people at that time.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-67406483602586269492010-08-02T08:20:14.424-07:002010-08-02T08:20:14.424-07:00Nice talking with you too, QED.Nice talking with you too, QED.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-19271945425641918182010-08-01T23:29:12.813-07:002010-08-01T23:29:12.813-07:00Whatever you say Annette. It seems you and I have...Whatever you say Annette. It seems you and I have different ideas about what makes good evidence.<br /><br />While what you say is technically <i>possible</i> from a logical standpoint, it is a long way from probable.<br /><br />Nice talking with you.QEDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12681150208982820554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-5802165475360013292010-08-01T22:54:19.615-07:002010-08-01T22:54:19.615-07:00It would be more evident that God existed if "...<i>It would be more evident that God existed if "He" actually superseded physical laws like deterministic Newtonian laws. But with quantum mechanics God acting covertly on the subatomic level and God not acting at all, but allowing everything to happen by chance are indistinguishable.</i><br /><br />I just realized that I'm not sure you quite understand what I'm saying. I'm not talking about God "acting covertly on the subatomic level." I'm talking about God setting up the universe in a way that is largely deterministic--in other words, there is a very high probability of certain things happening. However, there is a possibility of many other things happening as well; some things very unlikely. <br /><br />It is the power of God (the Holy Spirit) working on the quantum level to bring about a particular outcome that would be unlikely to occur through chance. So you could even say that that is why the universe is as finely tuned as it is. The state of lawlessness could be the Holy Spirit working on the quantum level, causing an outcome that would be highly unlikely to occur through chance. For example, for every billion pairs of quarks and antiquarks, there had to be an extra quark--otherwise there would have been no matter in the universe.<br /><br />There seems to be a very low probability of that happening, which is why many atheists hypothesize a multiverse to explain it. Likewise, Brian Greene says that if someone walks into a wall every second for 14 billion years, he or she has a reasonable chance of succeeding at walking through it once. It seems like the same principle. <br /><br />But if the power of God is behind an outcome (for example through prayer), it is not entirely left to chance. So this is not God acting covertly on the subatomic level; His Spirit simply acts through these subatomic particles when we pray. <br /><br />Again, this is just a theory I have, but it is consistent with what the Bible teaches. As Pascal said, "God instituted prayer in order to give to his creatures the dignity of being causes." Although God is sovereign and the laws of nature are predictable, the universe is not entirely deterministic.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-55565791227635476532010-08-01T20:57:35.798-07:002010-08-01T20:57:35.798-07:00It would be more evident that God existed if "...<i>It would be more evident that God existed if "He" actually superseded physical laws like deterministic Newtonian laws. But with quantum mechanics God acting covertly on the subatomic level and God not acting at all, but allowing everything to happen by chance are indistinguishable.</i><br /><br />You may not have a problem with the idea of God breaking His own laws to do a miracle, but to some people that's a major intellectual stumbling block. When my husband and I were dating in college, we had a conversation about miracles, and to him it seemed extremely unlikely that God would break His own laws. I could not figure out what the problem was, because I figured that He was God so He could just do what He wanted.<br /><br />But when our (then) our thirteen-year-old daughter asked me the same question, I had thought about this theological issue for some time (because our other daughter is disabled), and by that time it made sense to me as well that God would not break His own laws. It goes against His nature. So quantum physics makes <i>a lot</i> more sense to me than the idea of God breaking the laws of nature to do a miracle. His nature is revealed in creation, and if you study the teachings of Jesus very carefully, you'll find that the same ordered laws pertain to all His teachings, including prayer and the miraculous. <br /><br />The idea that God's ways are very different from what we see in nature is a very common misconception. This is why people think that God's will is 100% done all the time and that God most likely created according to the literal Genesis account rather than through evolution, because it is so different from nature. To me, simply on the basis of Christian theology, I think evolution is more consistent with how God does things. <br /><br /><i> But if God is performing a miracle, again, it is 100% guaranteed to happen, Quantum Physics or not. Thus, the rarity has to do something with God's will to do them and not due to the mechanism.</i><br /><br />Yes, if God is performing a miracle, it is 100% guaranteed to happen, just like if I walk across a room, it is 100% guaranteed to happen. <br /><br />But God's will doesn't always happen. If it did, we wouldn't have to pray, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." In other words, we are to pray that God's will is done. Why would we pray this if God's will already happens by default? And if God's will already happened on earth as it is in heaven, there would be no sin or evil, because there is no sin or evil in heaven.<br /><br />So we are to pray for God's will to be done, and there is power in prayer to actually change an outcome. <br /><br /><i>*sigh*... In what way is it "consistent"? This all seems rather ad hoc to me.</i><br /><br />It is consistent because power in prayer is relative. John 15 says that if we abide in Christ like a branch on a vine, we will have power in prayer because His Spirit works through us like the sap flowing through to a branch. Jesus had a lot of power in prayer because He was "all the fullness of deity in bodily form." <br /><br />The bottom line is that quantum physics undermines the idea that the universe is completely deterministic, and that human reason is capable of uncovering all truth through science. It goes against the classical materialists worldview. Even if scientists understand the science of quantum physics, they do not understand the metaphysics behind it. It makes miracles possible. <br /><br />"Quantum mechanics is magic." - Daniel Greenberger.<br /><br />"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." - Niels Bohr.<br /><br />"Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it." - Niels Bohr.<br /><br />"If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it." - John Wheeler.<br /><br />"It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-47102370260774983392010-08-01T20:55:24.463-07:002010-08-01T20:55:24.463-07:00QED,
This is not quite accurate. There is uncerta...QED,<br /><br /><i>This is not quite accurate. There is uncertainty with precise values within observables, but this does not mean that anything imaginable is possible. The quantum world is still subject to governing laws, just not deterministic ones whereby the current state of the universe determines or carries within it the information of all future states.</i><br /><br />Physicist Alvaro de Rujula of Cern was asked whether there was a possibility that the Large Hadron Collider could produce a world-ending black hole. He replied that it was extremely unlikely but "the random nature of quantum physics means that there is always a minuscule, but nonzero, chance of anything occurring, including that the new collider could spit out man-eating dragons."<br /><br /><i>"There is a very low, non-zero, chance that I can walk through a brick wall. If I walk into the wall every second of my life, and I live for about a billion years, I have a reasonable chance at succeeded."<br /><br />I don't think this is true. At our "level" of reality, quantum effects cancel out and things begin to operate according to more deterministic laws. Besides, even if there is an infinitesimal chance of this occurring it would not be miraculous.</i><br /><br />Brian Greene, author of <i>The Elegant Universe,</i> a Pulitzer Prize finalist, says: "If you walked into a solid wall every second, you would have to wait longer than the current age of the universe to have a good chance of passing through it on one of your attempts." <br /><br />So it would take longer than a billion years--I got that wrong, but I got the general idea right. Of course quantum effects cancel each other out at our level of reality. That's why we don't see that kind of weirdness.<br /><br />How would you define a miracle, and where do you get that definition? If your definition is "violation of the laws of nature," that is not found anywhere in the Bible. Jesus simply said that everything is possible with faith. (And biblical faith is something different than how you have defined it during the course of our conversation.)Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-38654607467473617972010-08-01T18:53:40.511-07:002010-08-01T18:53:40.511-07:00As for your quantum theory:
Everything is inheren...As for your quantum theory:<br /><br /><b>Everything is inherently unpredictable on the quantum level, and it's not just a matter of us not understanding it. Quantum physics is based on the "uncertainty principle." It is based on probability, rather than fixed Newtonian laws of nature.</b><br /><br />I'm not sure what you mean by "fixed Newtonian laws". Perhaps you meant <i>deterministic</i> laws. Even in quantum theory, the laws which govern it are fixed. But more or less your account is accurate here.<br /><br /><b>This means that everything is technically possible...</b><br /><br />This is not quite accurate. There is uncertainty with precise values within observables, but this does not mean that anything imaginable is possible. The quantum world is still subject to governing laws, just not deterministic ones whereby the current state of the universe determines or carries within it the information of all future states.<br /><br /><b>There is a very low, non-zero, chance that I can walk through a brick wall. If I walk into the wall every second of my life, and I live for about a billion years, I have a reasonable chance at succeeded.</b><br /><br />I don't think this is true. At our "level" of reality, quantum effects cancel out and things begin to operate according to more deterministic laws. Besides, even if there is an infinitesimal chance of this occurring it would not be miraculous. <br /><br /><b>So turning water into wine is possible--it's just highly improbable.</b><br /><br />While <i>logically possible</i>, quantum mechanics does not say that one substance can turn into another. This is a misapplication of the theory. Furthermore, if Jesus was <i>performing</i> the miracle, then there should be a 100% chance of water turning into wine. Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with the matter. Even if it did, this doesn't mean the story is more probably true than not. <br /><br /><b>But if God created the universe by fiat, His Spirit supersedes the laws of nature.</b><br /><br />Precisely! Which is why appealing to Quantum Physics is not helping your case. It would be more evident that God existed if "He" actually superseded physical laws like deterministic Newtonian laws. But with quantum mechanics God acting covertly on the subatomic level and God not acting at all, but allowing everything to happen by chance are indistinguishable.<br /><br /><b>That means that the idea of God working through the power of prayer and quantum physics to bring about a highly unlikely outcome is very consistent with what the Bible teaches.</b><br /><br />*sigh*... In what way is it "consistent"? This all seems rather <i>ad hoc</i> to me.<br /><br /><b>It would also explain why miracles happen so rarely.</b><br /><br />Actually, it would only explain this if God sat back and actually left it up to chance. But if God is performing a miracle, again, it is 100% guaranteed to happen, Quantum Physics or not. Thus, the rarity has to do something with God's will to do them and not due to the mechanism.<br /><br /><b>Since consciousness is also somehow related to quantum physics, this gives further support to the theory that this is how prayer works.</b><br /><br />Support???.. No. What you have here is only an <i>ad hoc</i> explanation. Nothing more.QEDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12681150208982820554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-83176100031711675132010-08-01T18:24:42.577-07:002010-08-01T18:24:42.577-07:00Annette -
The evidence in cosmology is completely...Annette -<br /><br /><b>The evidence in cosmology is completely consistent with what the Bible teaches...</b><br /><br />This simply is not true. I already addressed this. All this means is that you can <i>interpret</i> the bible in such a way that it seems to be consistent. But if you really studied the biblical view of cosmology, you would find, as Steven J. has pointed out, that the biblical authors viewed the earth as a flat disk with a tent-like firmament or dome over the top. This fits perfectly well with the surrounding cultures of the time.QEDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12681150208982820554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-58706252717533892092010-08-01T14:24:33.190-07:002010-08-01T14:24:33.190-07:00In all frankness, no, I am not playing "devil...<i>In all frankness, no, I am not playing "devil's advocate". I no longer think that Christianity makes any logical sense. Whereas you claim that your faith has been repeatedly confirmed, I have had the opposite experience.</i> <br /><br />Specifically, why does it not make logical sense? This question has to be addressed issue by issue. The evidence in cosmology is completely consistent with what the Bible teaches, in spite of the fact that there are other theories on the table. Yes, there are other possible explanations for a First Cause, but the biblical explanation fits perfectly. (You know that it's impossible to prove the existence of God, right?) If you were more specific, it would be easier to talk about this. <br /><br /><i>Everywhere I look, the so called intellectual and evidential foundations of Christianity have been falling to pieces.</i><br /><br />How? You have not yet given me any examples.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-89105178212699254392010-08-01T13:37:11.549-07:002010-08-01T13:37:11.549-07:00I'll address your quantum theory a little late...I'll address your quantum theory a little later.QEDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12681150208982820554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-39073969077077376652010-08-01T13:33:10.428-07:002010-08-01T13:33:10.428-07:00Annette -
But you didn't answer my question:...Annette - <br /><br /><b>But you didn't answer my question: Have you made up your mind? I was initially under the impression that you were a Christian who doubted but wanted to believe. But to be perfectly honest, you seem a lot more resistant than any of the atheists I have talked to. I can't tell if you're playing the devil's advocate for the sake of debate or not.</b><br /><br />In all frankness, no, I am not playing "devil's advocate". I no longer think that Christianity makes any logical sense. Whereas you claim that your faith has been repeatedly confirmed, I have had the opposite experience. Everywhere I look, the so called intellectual and evidential foundations of Christianity have been falling to pieces.<br /><br />This, however, does not mean that I have "made up my mind". I could be wrong. But as far as I can tell there is <i>no</i> strong evidence supporting the truth of Christianity despite your fervent claims to the contrary. <br /><br /><b>But if you're not, you don't even think that there is good a reason why an atheist should consider the existence of anything beyond nature. (This has repeatedly been your response when I point out that to assume naturalism is a built-in bias of atheism.)</b><br /><br />Starting with "Naturalism" is not really an assumption, since it is the only thing we <i>know</i> for sure to experience. There must be some reason to go positing further realities.<br />Now, invariably you will claim that there are such reasons; that, BB cosmology, etc. suggest something "outside" our universe. But here you are again equivocating, for why should this "outside" realm be considered supernatural in your meaning of the word? <br /><br /><b>Of course science has earned the right to be trusted, as far as it goes. But it has never been able to answer the question of why we are here. And right now, all the evidence in cosmology is more consistent with a First Cause than atheism. And the evidence supporting the Big Bang is very strong.</b><br /><br />First, science may be able to answer the "why" question. Second, you fail to realize that there may be <i>no reason</i> for why we are here. Third, believing in a "First Cause" <i>is not</i> synonymous with theism. An atheist may hold to a First Cause, but deny that it is a divine intelligence. <br /><br /><b>The blind faith is that science will once again support atheism, even though it is more consistent with theism now. That is a bias. It means that one's faith really is in atheism and the hope that science will once again support it. The current, objective evidence in cosmology supports a First Cause... It points toward a Creator, but not the biblical God specifically.</b><br /><br />Annette, you are just begging the question here and using loaded language like "creator". You are going to have to explain <i>why</i> the current evidence is "more consistent" with theism over atheism because I disagree and I know of a lot of people who feel the same. Thus, you cannot just state such a thing as if it were undeniable fact.QEDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12681150208982820554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-90367449612459182010-08-01T13:32:35.671-07:002010-08-01T13:32:35.671-07:00QED,
I want to explain to you why I asked if you ...QED,<br /><br />I want to explain to you why I asked if you have made up your mind. There are some people who <i>will</i> not believe and others who want to but <i>can't.</i> There are a lot more non-believers on AC who want to talk about Christianity than there are Christians answering questions and discussing it with them. <br /><br />Although I respond to anyone who addresses a comment to me, I try to prioritize people who want to believe but can't. (And I've had you pegged as someone who falls into that category.) I don't try to change the minds of those whose minds are made up. I simply don't have time for that. <br /><br />So that's why I asked. It's really not any of my business, of course, so you don't have to answer. But during this last conversation I've gotten the impression that you're fighting everything I say tooth and nail, and all we've really talked about in this thread is whether I am biased and whether atheism has a built-in bias.<br /><br />Let me put it to you this way: I don't have intellectual doubts, nor do I feel at all threatened by the questions of skeptics. I trust that God will help me answer them. That either means that what I believe is true or that I am deluded to the core. But I'm not really sure what I can do to be more honest with myself than I already am, so since this supposed delusion has had a very positive impact on my life I don't see what the problem is.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-12680651327895617562010-08-01T05:20:34.638-07:002010-08-01T05:20:34.638-07:00Besides, wouldn't it be far more evident that ...<i>Besides, wouldn't it be far more evident that God existed if the world operated via a Newtonian framework and God consistently did miracles, so that such actions could not be accounted for nor explained (even in principle) via Newtonian means?</i><br /><br />No, the universe has to be ordered and predictable for us to function in it. So it makes sense that deviations from the laws of nature are very rare. Quantum physics means that predictability is the norm, but miracles are possible. However, miracles only happen under certain circumstances, which is what the Bible teaches. <br /><br /><i>Okay... but you first need to know that this "country" exists before you can live there.</i><br /><br />Well, that is the question that you're trying to answer, isn't it?Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-34351386132390686672010-08-01T05:19:22.007-07:002010-08-01T05:19:22.007-07:00Even if the overarching Christian message is coher...<i>Even if the overarching Christian message is coherent this tells us nothing about whether or not it is true. In fact, most novels a person might read are coherent yet they remain fiction all the same.</i><br /><br />A novel is generally written by one author over a relatively short period of time. The Bible was written by over forty authors from all walks of life, spanning about 1500 years, joining two major religions, and it communicates the very complex subject of Christian theology, which takes into account the infinite nature of God. If it is still consistent, it is indicative that one Mind inspired it. <br /><br />The issue of theological consistency is one that I have addressed extensively on AC by discussing specific subjects, so I don't want to get into a general discussion about whether it is consistent. I approach that question by <i>demonstrating</i> its consistency. <br /><br /><i>Pardon the phrase, but how the hell do you know that? Have you studied quantum physics? If not, then it is a bad idea to use poorly understood theories as evidentiary support for you desired conclusion.</i><br /><br />Actually, I have been reading up on quantum physics recently so I do understand the fundamentals. But what I have studied and thought about for many years is the theology of prayer and what the Bible teaches about miracles. And quantum physics fits perfectly as an explanation for how it works. <br /><br />BTW, your comments would be more persuasive and helpful if you corrected my actual mistakes rather than hurling accusations of bias and ignorance. If I have said something about quantum physics or science in general that is incorrect, I will happily accept your correction. <br /><br /><i>Why would God inconspicuously confine "Himself" to the subatomic world of uncertainty where "His" actions are completely indistinguishable from the randomness we would otherwise expect???</i><br /><br />This is my theory, and I'm copying and pasting from a comment I made on AC (with some edits), where I also explain my understanding of quantum physics. <br /><br />Everything is inherently unpredictable on the quantum level, and it's not just a matter of us not understanding it. Quantum physics is based on the "uncertainty principle." It is based on probability, rather than fixed Newtonian laws of nature. <br /><br />This means that everything is technically possible, although some things are extremely unlikely. Quantum particles take all paths simultaneously, but the "normal paths" that we think of as the classical laws of nature have a high probability of occurring, whereas the “miraculous” or bizarre ones have a very low probability. <br /><br />There is a very low, non-zero, chance that I can walk through a brick wall. If I walk into the wall every second of my life, and I live for about a billion years, I have a reasonable chance at succeeded. <br /><br />So turning water into wine is possible--it's just highly improbable. But if God created the universe by fiat, His Spirit supersedes the laws of nature. That means that the idea of God working through the power of prayer and quantum physics to bring about a highly unlikely outcome is very consistent with what the Bible teaches. And it is logically possible. It would also explain why miracles happen so rarely. The more unlikely the outcome, the more powerful the prayer would have to be. For example, Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit, and He could heal with a word or a touch and turn water into wine. Since consciousness is also somehow related to quantum physics, this gives further support to the theory that this is how prayer works. <br /><br />However, under classical Newtonian physics, there is only one pathway that a particle can take. So before quantum physics, it was believed that we lived in a completely deterministic universe. That would make miracles impossible.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-80681540295668794372010-08-01T05:16:11.082-07:002010-08-01T05:16:11.082-07:00QED,
While I enjoy dialoguing with you, the irony...QED,<br /><br /><i>While I enjoy dialoguing with you, the irony here is almost painful. If anyone has given indication of a closed mind I fear it is you. I say this only because you repeatedly decry the sheer improbability of you ever changing your mind. I'm not sure that an open minded person could so confidently calculate the probability of his/her mind being changed without having some prior commitment to not changing it. And the fact that you seek out conversations with those of differing points of view, while noble, does not mean that you are objective and open-minded.</i><br /><br />The reason why the likelihood of me fundamentally changing my mind on Christianity is because everything has reinforced my faith over the years. And the point is not that talking to people of different views is "noble" but that it forces me to think it through more carefully and see if it can withstand scrutiny. If atheists are right, I will agree with them. <br /><br />But you didn't answer my question: Have you made up <i>your</i> mind? I was initially under the impression that you were a Christian who doubted but wanted to believe. But to be perfectly honest, you seem a lot more resistant than any of the atheists I have talked to. I can't tell if you're playing the devil's advocate for the sake of debate or not. <br /><br />But if you're not, you don't even think that there is good a reason why an atheist should <i>consider</i> the existence of anything beyond nature. (This has repeatedly been your response when I point out that to assume naturalism is a built-in bias of atheism.) <br /><br />As for my level of "open-mindedness," there have been several points in my life where I have seriously examined and questioned my beliefs. And I did so honestly. I am past the point where I'm fundamentally questioning them. If you interpret that as closed-mindedness, I'm fine with that. <br /><br />I can't think of a single atheist on AC who has the goal of turning a Christian to atheism. They either try to open up the minds of Christians to science or they ask questions about Christianity. But not one comes across like he or she believes that genuine faith in Christianity is a bad thing. This was also true of the few atheists I talked to before commenting on AC. What they object to is dishonesty. That's one reason why I like talking to them.<br /><br />If I am not dishonest, I am every bit as open-minded as I need to be. I only want to be open to the truth. If I am dishonest, you need to be a lot more specific.<br /><br /><i>I fail to see how it could be blind faith in science when science has earned the right to be trusted. The scientific method has been unimaginably successful. Are you really proffering a "God-of-the-gaps" type of argument?</i><br /><br />The reason why our conversation is going in circles is because you repeatedly seem to forget the context of my responses. Of course science has earned the right to be trusted, as far as it goes. But it has never been able to answer the question of why we are here. And right now, all the evidence in cosmology is more consistent with a First Cause than atheism. And the evidence supporting the Big Bang is very strong. <br /><br />The blind faith is that science will once again support atheism, even though it is more consistent with theism now. That is a bias. It means that one's faith really is in atheism and the hope that science will once again support it. The current, objective evidence in cosmology supports a First Cause. Who is to say that will ever change regardless of how many proposals are on the table?<br /><br /><i>Besides, how does BB cosmology or the so called "fine-tuning" indicate a God, let alone Bible-God? </i><br /><br />It points toward a Creator, but not the biblical God specifically.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-59261308086339175012010-08-01T00:30:24.729-07:002010-08-01T00:30:24.729-07:00And given the Big Bang and the fine-tuning of the ...<b>And given the Big Bang and the fine-tuning of the universe, they do merit serious consideration. To ignore the current scientific evidence in favor of possible future discoveries indicates blind faith in science. </b><br /><br />I fail to see how it could be <i>blind</i> faith in science when science has earned the right to be trusted. The scientific method has been unimaginably successful. Are you really proffering a "God-of-the-gaps" type of argument?<br /><br />Besides, how does BB cosmology or the so called "fine-tuning" indicate a God, let alone Bible-God? One could use these arguments to just as easily support the idea of Deism or polytheism or mysticism or a myriad of other conclusions. Again, your hasty conclusions only serve to reveal your clear bias.<br /><br /><b>Quantum physics is also more consistent with Christianity than Newtonian physics.</b><br /><br />Pardon the phrase, but how the hell do you know that? Have you studied quantum physics? If not, then it is a bad idea to use poorly understood theories as evidentiary support for you desired conclusion.<br /><br />Besides, wouldn't it be far more evident that God existed if the world operated via a Newtonian framework and God consistently did miracles, so that such actions could not be accounted for nor explained (even in principle) via Newtonian means?<br /><br />Why would God inconspicuously confine "Himself" to the subatomic world of uncertainty where "His" actions are completely indistinguishable from the randomness we would otherwise expect??? <br /><br /><b>Why do you lean more on possible future scientific discoveries than the current strong evidence in formulating your views on whether there is a God? That is a bias toward the belief that science has replaced God. And I call it a bias because you think that way in spite of the evidence.</b><br /><br />Again, what evidence? BB? Fine-tuning? As I mentioned before, it is not even clear what these point to or suggest. At best they indicate a need for a deeper explanation of reality. But you have absolutely no grounds for jumping to conclusions about deities, let alone specific ones. Furthermore, science already has decent theories accounting for these things, which do not rely on unvarifiable, <i>ad hoc</i> supernatural entities.<br /><br /><b>Let's say you're interested in knowing about a country. Faith is the equivalent of living in that country. It is possible to know a lot about a country without ever having lived there. Conversely, it is possible to live in a country and not be able to speak intelligently about its history, literature, culture, and other facts.</b><br /><br />Okay... but you first need to know that this "country" exists before you can live there.QEDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12681150208982820554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-81279770073885321562010-08-01T00:01:27.160-07:002010-08-01T00:01:27.160-07:00Annette -
So what is sufficient? Or have you alre...Annette -<br /><br /><b>So what is sufficient? Or have you already made up your mind? I ask this question sincerely. You can ask me all the hardball questions you want, unless you have made up your mind. (And that's the sense I'm getting because our conversation is going in circles, but I could be wrong.) It takes time for me to respond to everyone here and on AC. If I sense that their questions are not serious or their minds are closed, I am fine with them believing whatever they want.</b><br /><br />While I enjoy dialoguing with you, the irony here is almost painful. If anyone has given indication of a closed mind I fear it is you. I say this only because you repeatedly decry the sheer improbability of you ever changing your mind. I'm not sure that an open minded person could so confidently calculate the probability of his/her mind being changed without having some prior commitment to not changing it. And the fact that you seek out conversations with those of differing points of view, while noble, does not mean that you are objective and open-minded.<br /><br />Now, as for the idea of consistency, I can't help but feel that you are equivocating on your usage of the word. First, you could be saying that Christianity is consistent in the sense that it contains no internal contradictions. In other words, Christianity is coherent. If this is what you mean, then<br /><br />(a) The coherence of Christianity is debatable.<br /><br />(b) There doesn't seem to be any such thing as <i>Christianity</i>, but only Christianit<i>ies</i>. So who's version are we examining?<br /><br />(c) Even if the overarching Christian message is coherent this tells us nothing about whether or not it is true. In fact, most novels a person might read are coherent yet they remain fiction all the same.<br /><br />Second, by "consistent", you might mean that the Christian message is not only coherent, but that it does not contradict any scientific theories or evidence. But how this establishes its "truthfulness" is a mystery, since other belief system -e.g. Buddhism - are also consistent with modern science. Nevertheless, it is not surprising that people think the Bible to be perfectly consistent with modern science, since the Bible is ambiguous and vague enough <i>to be made or interpreted to fit</i> the findings of modern science. This is usually done in an unconscious manner because the Christian acts on the operating assumption that the Bible is God's special revelation and that nature is God's general revelation. As such, they <i>cannot</i> conflict and so each informs the believer on how to interpret the other.<br /><br />Finally, while the above two types of consistencies <i>might</i> hold, they do not significantly affect the odds of Christianity being true. Nevertheless, I believe you inadvertently rely on the above two and then import them into the idea that Christianity is consistent in the sense that, as a hypothesis, it actually <i>explains</i> the body of data we have about our world. The problem, however, is that it does not. At best, it has the second kind of consistency I mentioned above.<br /><br />The reason it doesn't function as a good hypothesis is because<br /><br />(a) It is not rigorously formulated.<br /><br />(b) It posits greater mysteries to explain lesser mysteries. For example the existence of spirit, spirit/matter interaction and causation, an atemporal being who somehow acts in time, the notion of pure disembodied mind, etc.<br /><br />(c) It doesn't actually <i>add</i> to our understanding of reality or any established theories.<br /><br />(d) It makes no testable predictions about how things ought to operate if it is true.QEDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12681150208982820554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-82289482189318974932010-07-31T09:28:49.166-07:002010-07-31T09:28:49.166-07:00Rick,
Your claim to consistency here is, I believ...Rick,<br /><br /><i>Your claim to consistency here is, I believe, very provisional. It is only true that it is consistent while the Big Bang is considered to be the beginning of time. I would not be surprised to read a headline stating “Astronomers discover evidence of pre-Big Bang universe”. Perhaps a new super-Hubble in the future will see beyond the BB to some other time and space that did not begin "in a flash of light and energy." Now I will reveal my bias. I’m sure that some future theologian will be able to align this new evidence with the Bible.</i><br /><br />Sure, that is possible. And the reason why a lot of people have the bias that you're describing is because for a long time science was filling in gaps that people had previously "filled" with God. Now the tide has shifted because the cosmological evidence is pointing toward a Prime Mover. We know this is true when secular astrophysicists are talking about God. They are the people who really understand the subject. <br /><br />People point to quantum physics and say that if the Big Bang was caused by a quantum event, then there is no need for God. But quantum physics itself is consistent with the existence of a God who answers prayer and is involved in His creation--even capable of doing miracles. Quantum physics means that our universe is not deterministic. <br /><br /><i>If you intend to use the Bible as a reliable guide to the possibility of a human soul or morals then I am requesting you write more about your method of interpreting the Bible. How do you decide between what is symbolic and what is actual fact.</i><br /><br />My method of interpreting the Bible is by allowing the Bible to interpret itself. That means that it gives clues as to interpretation. I employ a straightforward interpretation unless the context clearly indicates that it is symbolic. As far as Adam and Eve are concerned, I think that there may be significance to the fact that Adam is simply called "the man" for much of the narrative. Then he is Adam. So I think he represents humanity (his name means "man"), but he was also a real person. The historical evidence indicates that civilization began in the general vicinity of the Garden of Eden.<br /><br />A real significant question is whether the Bible is consistent. This is what I have spent a lot of time demonstrating in AC, because the likelihood that a book written by so many authors over such a length of time, spanning two religions, and explaining a complex subject--would be consistent, is very slim. So it is a major factor in determining whether it is inspired. <br /><br />I gave you the example of the symbol of the well in the OT, and how Jesus ties all that together perfectly without even mentioning the typology. That is the kind of consistency I'm talking about. There is a lot of that in the Bible. So it is entirely doctrinally consistent from the very beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation. <br /><br /><i>Is it possible to reach the same conclusions about the soul, heaven, hell, and objective morality without intense belief in the reliability of the Bible?</i><br /><br />I just wrote a blog post on the soul, heaven, and hell, and I based it entirely on what that Bible teaches about these subjects. That is different from the conventional wisdom of an immortal soul inhabiting our bodies.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-16349061271606171182010-07-31T08:52:17.802-07:002010-07-31T08:52:17.802-07:00QED,
You keep mentioning consistency as if that w...QED,<br /><br /><i>You keep mentioning consistency as if that were the highest of all standards. But consistency, while necessary, is not sufficient.</i><br /><br />So what <i>is</i> sufficient? Or have you already made up your mind? I ask this question sincerely. You can ask me all the hardball questions you want, <i>unless</i> you have made up your mind. (And that's the sense I'm getting because our conversation is going in circles, but I could be wrong.) It takes time for me to respond to everyone here and on AC. If I sense that their questions are not serious or their minds are closed, I am fine with them believing whatever they want. <br /><br />But getting back to your specific point, Denis Alexander said: "Scientists habitually use that little phrase 'consistent with' in the discussion sections of our scientific papers. We don't 'prove' things in biology." I have heard Steven J. and many scientific atheists say exactly the same thing. <br /><br /><i>I will also stress again that atheism itself does not have a built in bias. As I said before, an atheist need not rule out supernatural explanations a priori. Nevertheless, the atheist is not obligated to take supernatural hypotheses very seriously until they merit serious warrant.</i><br /><br />And given the Big Bang and the fine-tuning of the universe, they <i>do</i> merit serious consideration. To ignore the current scientific evidence in favor of possible future discoveries indicates blind faith in science. <br /><br />I restate my point that some atheists are open to the truth and some are not, just like some Christians are open to the truth and some are not. Each position has a possible built-in bias. <br /><br /><i>Hawking's words there aren't quite current. The whole enterprise of quantum cosmology suggests that this "proposal" is still a viable option. Furthermore, it is not the only theory "on the table", which does not require a divine Prime Mover.</i><br /><br />Of course it's still a viable option, but it's still a proposal and so are the other theories on the table. Quantum physics is also more consistent with Christianity than Newtonian physics. <br /><br />This is what Hawking said about the <i>current</i> scientific evidence: "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us." <br /><br />Why do you lean more on possible future scientific discoveries than the current strong evidence in formulating your views on whether there is a God? That is a bias toward the belief that science has replaced God. And I call it a bias because you think that way in spite of the evidence.<br /><br /><i>I have spent the greater portion of my life hearing "the other side". And you are wrong. The bible has been severely discredited. Who cares if Anne Rice didn't think the books she read were good? What makes her a scholar anyway? I have read both sides and find the skeptic's arguments far more strong and compelling. The only thing I see coming from the Christian side is convoluted apologetics.</i><br /><br />I disagree. But I'm not going to argue with you about it because it's off the subject. I can only tackle one subject at a time. <br /><br /><i>No, "faith" is no such thing. You think that it is, but you cannot define it that way lest you beg the question. Hence, you do not directly experience it, since it is something that must be inferred. If it could be directly experienced then there wouldn't be so much disagreement about it.</i><br /><br />Let's say you're interested in knowing about a country. Faith is the equivalent of living in that country. It is possible to know a lot about a country without ever having lived there. Conversely, it is possible to live in a country and not be able to speak intelligently about its history, literature, culture, and other facts.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-84338985154497647922010-07-29T07:25:37.667-07:002010-07-29T07:25:37.667-07:00… atheism encourages people to rule it out even wh...<i>… atheism encourages people to rule it out even when the scientific evidence is consistent with a Creator. They will rule it out in favor of possible future scientific discoveries. This means they have a bias toward atheism regardless of the evidence.</i><br /><br />Anette, let me chime in to your discussion with QED. I do not base my atheism on scientific evidence. I have said before that I am a science amateur with no formal study of science beyond high school biology and chemistry (in which I received a D grade). I read some popular media articles about science. Almost all of my knowledge of scientific theories is based on reading about the history of science. I find the biographies of Galileo, Voltaire, Newton et al., to be more interesting than their actual work. I have learned quite a bit about the Theory of Evolution prodded by Steven J’s comments on Atheist Central. If AC has some benefit to humanity it is to stand up to Ray’s type of scientific denialism, sadly common in the US.<br /><br />The strength of science is not its discoveries but in its method, its built-in provisionalism and refusal to close the book on any evidence. Darwin recognized that he didn’t know how organisms passed on traits. Mendel explained the gene and Crick, Watson, and Franklin discovered DNA. It gives me pause to realize that DNA was discovered in 1953, within my lifetime – yeah I’m that old. <br /><br />In your original post you wrote,<br /><i>How does the biblical creation account line up with science? First, astronomer Robert Jastrow said that the universe began suddenly "in a flash of light and energy." So this fits with the biblical description of God saying, "Let there be light."<br /><br />Second, most scientists believe that the Big Bang marked the beginning of time. Since God exists outside of time and created the heavens and the earth "in the beginning," this is also consistent.</i><br /><br />Your claim to consistency here is, I believe, very provisional. It is only true that it is consistent while the Big Bang is considered to be the beginning of time. I would not be surprised to read a headline stating “Astronomers discover evidence of pre-Big Bang universe”. Perhaps a new super-Hubble in the future will see beyond the BB to some other time and space that did not begin "in a flash of light and energy." Now I will reveal my bias. I’m sure that some future theologian will be able to align this new evidence with the Bible.<br /><br />If you intend to use the Bible as a reliable guide to the possibility of a human soul or morals then I am requesting you write more about your method of interpreting the Bible. How do you decide between what is symbolic and what is actual fact. Can you make a list of say, twenty, facts in the Bible that are consistent with reality and logic? You seem to recognize that Adam/Eve/the Fall is symbolic of humankind. What about Noah, Moses, Job? (my questions are only meant to suggest subjects). If Jesus and the earliest Christians were Jews, learned in the scriptures (OT), and if there purpose was to convince Jews of His messiahship, wouldn’t they take great care to make sure that the Jesus story (NT) aligns with the existing scriptures? Is it possible to reach the same conclusions about the soul, heaven, hell, and objective morality without intense belief in the reliability of the Bible? <br /><br />Up to now your claims – the supernatural, a divine creator, and an anthropic universe – all seem possible to me without an expectation that they will be proven with evidence. But the claims to the reliability Bible are a different matter.<br /><br />Rick (clamflats)Rick Muellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03853103127435018152noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-65790512828130298282010-07-29T00:51:38.894-07:002010-07-29T00:51:38.894-07:00Annette
So all I have to do is establish that the...Annette<br /><br /><b>So all I have to do is establish that there is a good reason to consider the existence of a God, and that atheism encourages people to rule it out even when the scientific evidence is consistent with a Creator. They will rule it out in favor of possible future scientific discoveries. This means they have a bias toward atheism regardless of the evidence. That was my only point.</b><br /><br />You keep mentioning consistency as if that were the highest of all standards. But consistency, while necessary, is not sufficient. I could make up an explanation for the universe right now that was consistent, yet still absurd to accept.<br />I will also stress again that atheism itself does not have a built in bias. As I said before, an atheist need not rule out supernatural explanations <i>a priori</i>. Nevertheless, the atheist is not obligated to take supernatural hypotheses very seriously until they <i>merit</i> serious warrant.<br /><br /><b>I am aware of Hawking's No Boundaries proposal. But he makes it very clear in A Brief History of Time that it is only a proposal and that all the evidence is consistent with the "hot big bang model." </b><br /><br />Hawking's words there aren't quite current. The whole enterprise of quantum cosmology suggests that this "proposal" is still a viable option. Furthermore, it is not the only theory "on the table", which does not require a divine Prime Mover.<br /><br /><b>The ToE is supposedly the best explanation for biological diversity, because it is consistent with the evidence. Why not use the same standard for the Christian hypothesis? How well does it fit with and explain reality?</b><br /><br />This is not accurate. The explanatory power of evolution stems from much more than merely being consistent.<br /><br />And to answer your second question... not very well. In fact, it doesn't really <i>explain</i> anything, but rather raises a whole new set of problems, which need their own explanations.<br /><br /><b>The Bible has most definitely not been discredited. People who claim that often make definitive statements based on limited knowledge, and they have a bias. Have you heard the other side?</b><br /><br />I have spent the greater portion of my life hearing "the other side". And you are wrong. The bible <i>has</i> been severely discredited. Who cares if Anne Rice didn't think the books she read were good? What makes her a scholar anyway? I have read both sides and find the skeptic's arguments far more strong and compelling. The only thing I see coming from the Christian side is convoluted apologetics.<br /><br /><b>You are forgetting that faith is being born of the Spirit. So I do directly experience it. But in the same way that one can study gravity as well as experience it, we can study theology and think about these issues intellectually.</b><br /><br />No, "faith" is no such thing. <i>You</i> think that it is, but you cannot define it that way lest you beg the question. Hence, you do not directly experience it, since it is something that must be inferred. If it could be directly experienced then there wouldn't be so much disagreement about it.QEDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12681150208982820554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-16266427637157730462010-07-28T16:23:45.072-07:002010-07-28T16:23:45.072-07:00QED,
First, I want to remind you that I am addres...QED,<br /><br />First, I want to remind you that I am addressing your argument that atheism doesn't have a built-in bias, to which I replied that atheism assumes naturalism even when the evidence points toward a Creator, and then you asked me why we should even consider anything beyond nature.<br /><br />So all I have to do is establish that there is a good reason to consider the existence of a God, <i>and</i> that atheism encourages people to rule it out even when the scientific evidence is consistent with a Creator. They will rule it out in favor of <i>possible</i> future scientific discoveries. This means they have a bias toward atheism regardless of the evidence. That was my only point. (I am hesitating to get off the subject of bias since I'm trying to finish this blog post on eternal punishment that I've started--and I've been commenting too much on AC recently.)<br /><br /><i>At this point in your argument, you must exercise caution. We do not know that the universe actually had a beginning. For instance, according to Hartle and Hawking, it could be that our universe, while of finite age, does not have a well-defined beginning.</i><br /><br />I am aware of Hawking's No Boundaries proposal. But he makes it very clear in <i>A Brief History of Time</i> that it is only a proposal and that all the evidence is consistent with the "hot big bang model." <br /><br /><i>No we cannot. Consistency is not sufficient to warrant such an inference. Besides, you are on shaky ground here, since the Bible is not consistent with what we know. You perhaps think it is, but it seems to me that the bible has been thoroughly discredited.</i><br /><br />The ToE is supposedly the best explanation for biological diversity, because it is consistent with the evidence. Why not use the same standard for the Christian hypothesis? How well does it fit with and explain reality?<br /><br />The Bible has most definitely not been discredited. People who claim that often make definitive statements based on limited knowledge, and <i>they</i> have a bias. Have you heard the other side?<br /><br />For example, author Anne Rice was an atheist for many years, until she started studying the work of the most respected Jesus scholars who said that the Bible is not historically reliable. She was surprised at how weak their scholarship was. <br /><br />This is what she said:<br /><br /><i>Some books were no more than assumptions piled on assumptions . . . Conclusions were reached on the basis of little or no data at all . . . The whole case for the nondivine Jesus who stumbled into Jerusalem and somehow got crucified . . . that whole picture which had floated around the liberal circles I frequented as an atheist for thirty years--that case was not made. Not only was it not made, I discovered in this field some of the worst and most biased scholarship I'd ever read.</i><br /><br />It was after all this research, which she approached from the perspective of an atheist, that she became a Christian. <br /><br /><i>Gravity and faith are not analogous. We directly experience gravity.</i><br /><br />You are forgetting that faith is being born of the Spirit. So I do directly experience it. But in the same way that one can study gravity as well as experience it, we can study theology and think about these issues intellectually.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-90048746116257912872010-07-28T15:36:02.286-07:002010-07-28T15:36:02.286-07:00Annette -
As for why you should consider somethin...Annette -<br /><br /><b>As for why you should consider something beyond nature, there are several reasons. First, time, space, and nature had a beginning so whatever or whoever caused it to happen (created it) is a supernatural entity. Anything beyond or before this universe is by definition supernatural. So even though nature is all we know, it has not always existed and there is no reason to assume that it is all that exists.</b><br /><br />At this point in your argument, you must exercise caution. We do not know that the universe actually had a beginning. For instance, according to Hartle and Hawking, it could be that our universe, while of finite age, does not have a well-defined beginning.<br /><br />Next, even if the universe is not itself closed, but had an external "cause" it is dangerous to use the term <i>supernatural</i> due to the baggage that it has collected. This external "cause" need be nothing like a deity.<br /><br /><b>Second, you have admitted that you intuition tells you that there is probably a God, and the intuition of over 90% of the American population says the same. That doesn't mean it is true, but it means that it is a reasonable hypothesis and you should not rule it out.</b><br /><br />My intuition tells me no such thing. And even if it did, it would likely be because I was raised to suspect that there must be a God. Furthermore, intuition can often be inaccurate or just flat out wrong.<br />But for the sake of argument I will go along with your hypothesis. We shall not rule it out. So, what evidence do you have to confirm said hypothesis? <br /><br /><b>Third, we have the various holy books that purport to explain what we can't study scientifically. If one is consistent with what we know, we can make the inference that it is divinely inspired.</b><br /><br />No we cannot. Consistency is not sufficient to warrant such an inference. Besides, you are on shaky ground here, since the Bible is not consistent with what we know. <i>You</i> perhaps think it is, but it seems to me that the bible has been thoroughly discredited.<br /><br /><b>No, I cannot demonstrate that theism is on par with the law of gravity. But it is analogous, because my experience as well as my understanding of theology tells me that the Bible is true. This certainty has been reinforced repeatedly over the years and has never been undermined. The bottom line is that I have a great deal of certainty that my faith will not be undermined by intellectual argument.</b><br /><br />Again, I think this reveals your bias. Gravity and faith are not analogous. We <i>directly</i> experience gravity. It is a well formulated and well understood concept with very specific ways of being tested. Ambiguity is minimal.<br />I would be more than willing to wager that your faith is not substantiated in any way close to the way in which gravity is substantiated.QEDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12681150208982820554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5365849129692359439.post-14670392019315476362010-07-25T06:43:07.607-07:002010-07-25T06:43:07.607-07:00Naturalism is the proper place to start because we...<i>Naturalism is the proper place to start because we are natural beings in a natural world. This is the only thing of which we have direct experience and so positing explanations above and beyond nature requires extraordinary evidence.</i><br /><br />There are certain arguments put forth by atheists that ensure that they remain in their atheism whether or not God exists. One is the "extraordinary evidence" argument, and the other is the unwillingness to hypothesize anything beyond nature. This is fine as a debate tactic, but less wise for someone who actually wants to arrive at the truth. <br /><br />As for why you should consider something beyond nature, there are several reasons. First, time, space, and nature had a <i>beginning</i> so whatever or whoever caused it to happen (created it) is a <i>super</i>natural entity. Anything beyond or before this universe is by definition supernatural. So even though nature is all we know, it has not always existed and there is no reason to assume that it is all that exists. <br /><br />Second, you have admitted that you intuition tells you that there is probably a God, and the intuition of over 90% of the American population says the same. That doesn't mean it is true, but it means that it is a reasonable hypothesis and you should not rule it out.<br /><br />Third, we have the various holy books that purport to explain what we can't study scientifically. If one is consistent with what we know, we can make the inference that it is divinely inspired. <br /><br /><i>While you may have the same degree of certitude in both cases, I highly doubt that you possess the same degree of warrant for the former as you do the latter with respect to actual evidence. Or can you demonstrate that theism is on par with the law of gravity?</i><br /><br />No, I cannot demonstrate that theism is on par with the law of gravity. But it is analogous, because my experience as well as my understanding of theology tells me that the Bible is true. This certainty has been reinforced repeatedly over the years and has never been undermined. The bottom line is that I have a great deal of certainty that my faith will not be undermined by intellectual argument. <br /><br />I apologize for not replying to your request to give you "bullet points" of evidence. I think it's better just to address one subject at a time and do it thoroughly. I'm going to talk about the soul and hell next. That is something I have been researching recently and the Bible actually says something different from what I had originally believed.Anette Ackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11360188067259687608noreply@blogger.com