by Tuesday 122 Replies latest watchtower bible
caedes,
I never once said "it is up to science to prove me wrong" What I said was this "Science concedes that it simply does not know the origin (or cause) of life or the universe. Since this is so, God cannot be totally ruled out. That is all I said. Everyone can draw their own conclusions from there. Peace, Lilly
Circular Logic is grand let's take a look:
Sirona Wrote:
Lil, your first point about all these others are created by man is not a very good one because the God of the bible was created by the minds of men and there is absolutely nothing you can say to prove otherwise. You simply cannot say that other gods who have been written about are created by men but your god who was written about in the bible was not. It doesn't make sense.
Lil responds:
I disagree of course that the God of the universe was an invention of mankind. That is what we are discussing in this thread. I agree though that in the Bible, man tried to communicate "what" God is by using human terminology. As if they could communicate any other way. And I will admit that it is impossible to really say "who" or "what" God is. We simply cannot fully describe him in human terms. But just because man tried to do this; do not mistake that for man making a God in his own image. He certainly did not.
Think about it; had man made God in HIS image and likeness, why would the God of the Bible be so Holy and Perfect that the Bible writers admit "no man can attain to his glory?". That would not make sense.
In essence to counter Sirona's argument that she cannot prove the bible was not just an invention of mankind, Lil uses the Bible as the proof that it wasn't just made up by men. I wonder if a christian when trying to prove that the Qu'ran is not a truly inspired holy book to a muslim would get annoyed if the muslim as proof just continually quoted from the Qu'ran?
The next example of Circular Logic:
Caedes wrote:
You cannot automatically assume that scientific principles were the same 'before' the big bang including conservation or causality. Since there is no empirical evidence (at least to current science) that survived the big bang science can do nothing more than make mathematical models of the 'pre' big bang singularity. It is fallacious to assume that this gap in our understanding can then be automatically filled with 'god did it' Although science cannot preclude a supernatural explanation for the cause of the big bang that is because science is not interested in a supernatural explanation of anything (try looking up intelligent falling) , the supernatural is outside of sciences remit. That is because the supernatural cannot be used to make any sort of prediction about the world around us. whereas naturalism can.
Even if science never answers the question, the natural answer (as opposed to the supernatural) is just as good an answer that has occams razor in it's favour. You stated earlier that it is up to science to prove you wrong, no it is up to you to prove your argument. Science is willing to stand up and admit where we simply don't know enough to be sure (abiogenesis and the 'pre' big bang singularity are just two examples) The fact that these gaps in our understanding are there doesn't lend any weight to a supernatural explanation of either.
Lil Responded with:
I never once said "it is up to science to prove me wrong" What I said was this "Science concedes that it simply does not know the origin (or cause) of life or the universe. Since this is so, God cannot be totally ruled out. That is all I said. Everyone can draw their own conclusions from there.
Caedes is stating the reason why her stance is not sufficient proof because there is no evidence, and the Lil responds that her stance IS proof BECAUSE there is no evidence.
I think those 2 responses are the perfect summation of this exercise, when using science to debate God. Atheists don't believe there is a God because there is no verifiable data proving his existence, Theists believe there is a God because there is no verifiable data NOT proving his existence.
To turn the tables a bit I would like any Atheist on the board to site using the same scientific principles laid out here, with help from The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster that the Noodly one does indeed exist. Essentially it's the same exercise but the tables are turned, I wonder if the same arguments would be used by the Theists that the Atheists used in this debate and vice versa. It could be a fun expiriment.
Lil,
I found your response really interesting because there are areas where we do agree.
I agree though that in the Bible, man tried to communicate "what" God is by using human terminology. As if they could communicate any other way. And I will admit that it is impossible to really say "who" or "what" God is. We simply cannot fully describe him in human terms.
I agree. I simply believe that this is also what other gods are. They are an attempt by man to communicate what "god" is.
In my world view, divinity in the universe exists like a diamond which has millions of facets. Each facet is part of the essence of god. Human beings have simply tried to understand these facets and because we can't, we humanise them. We personify something which is beyond personification. Therefore, Jehovah is simply a man made representation of a facet of the higher divinity (as is Zeus, Isis, Hecate, Allah, etc.).
The destructive aspects of Jehovah (as described in the bible) are there because man could see the destructive essence of the divine. In the whole universe things break down and die and these aspects are part of God just like the wonderful loving aspects. Other representations of the destruction and decay in the universe are gods who similarly act against mankind in some way, like Morrigan or Kali.
You will notice that I use Goddess names aswell as God names. That is because, as the bible says, "God is a spirit". God is not male or female. God contains within him / her the essence of all that is and therefore contains feminine aspects too. So to ignore the feminine aspects means that you are ignoring lots of the beautiful facets of the diamond of divinity.
But just because man tried to do this; do not mistake that for man making a God in his own image. He certainly did not.
Man did do this, because that is all man has been capable of doing in attempts to understand divinity and the universe as a whole. (Note: I don't actually separate the universe and divinity, but thats probably another debate!). However, I'm not saying that man created God, but that God existed in some sense but man just tried to understand by giving him a name and a personality.
There are other gods named in the Bible, even Jehovah himself says this is true. But just because the Bible admits people worshiped other gods, this does not mean that either Jehovah or his followers ever thought these "gods" had any real power. And the scriputures support this view as being so.
I think Tuesday pointed out, this is a bit of a silly argument. I could just as easily say that Gods name is Allah because the Koran says so, and all other books are pointless. Its a circular reasoning which just doesn't help.
Think about it; had man made God in HIS image and likeness, why would the God of the Bible be so Holy and Perfect that the Bible writers admit "no man can attain to his glory?". That would not make sense. Peace, Lilly
Once again, I don't think man created God. I do think that the gods of the religions of the world are created by man in the sense that they are our attempt at understanding the divine. The god of the bible is spoken of as being holy and perfect because men gave those names to him, likely because of their own transcendent experiences of this holy and perfect divine essence. They knew of divine essence and tried to explain in their own words what that meant. Conversely they gave us a good idea of how he can wreak vengeance aswell!
Sirona
This thread has gotten long, so I'll try to just slow down those who aren't reading what I said. Lovelylil said:
You say in your post there are natural explanations for what we see in the world around us.......I do not disagree that many things can be explained by nature. What I Q is how nature conforms to "natural laws" which imply an intelligence behind them? Also what Natural explanation do you say Science has for living matter (life) appearing out of non-living matter? As far as I know, science concedes "it does not know how life began". And it "does not know how the universe began". Although they have "theories", they do not know in the absolute sense.
Lovelylil here makes a number of fatal flaws in directional logic and causal fallacies. Her comment about IQ is one of definition and is irrelevant. Her comment about "natural laws" misses her own point entirely. "Natural Laws" are functional descriptions. Nothing "obeys" them. "Natural Laws" are explicit descriptions of the way material behaves. This is fatuous linguistic error. Lovelylil then jumped immediately past arguments I had explicitly stated without making any reference to the salient points let alone the overall context of the argument. She then regressed to the same antithesis I had initially pointed out...that of the theists regression toward challenging ancient scientific questions as a counterfactual argument for alternative explanations for current well known phenomena. This is a disingenuous style of iduction which runs contrary to rational inquiry.
About your arguements about 'diety", you are referring by your own admission to the JW's idea of God. I do not accept their idea of God.
Here the reader will note that Lovelylil fails to rise to the burden of proof noted earlier. The onus is on her as the proponent of a God to define the terms for inquiry. Furthermore, a general understanding of arguments against the theist's God (hereafter referred to as God) constitutes sufficient reasons to disbelieve her propositions since if most of the arguments against God's in general have failed it follows that other specific arguments hold a higher burden of proof if based on related premises. She continues:
Also, we don't have time here but virtually ALL the arguements you make against believing in God, have been refuted. All anyone has to do is do a search on the internet and they can find information about naturalist view of life, cosmological arguements, etc.
Lovelylil in this example has appealed to authority and made an assertion about the general nature of theodicy, philosophy of science, teleoligy, etc. She hasnot responded with any salient points to the arguments given. In this next example, Lovelylil again fails to respond to my specific arguments and completely ignores a specific point I made about the fallacy of the Thermodynamic Argument as it relates to boundary conditions, systems theory and non-linear dynamics associated with modern complex scientific interactions and popularized after the nobel prize for dissipative systems:
That is how I found out about thermodynamics, which is a term Tuesday used. And HE STILL does not understand that the 1st rule is that "something cannot come from nothing". So this does not discount God at all.
Lovelylil swept past a technical argument by denying that the argument had even been made and then again asserting the premise as if no rebuttal had been made. This rejoinder fails completely when you add in her failure to distinguish accurate definitions of enthalpy and entropy and is representative of how she continues to argue as follows:
Current science does admit that the universe had a beginning, and if ANYTHING has a beginning, it has a cause. Absense of what that cause is, my claim it is God is as good as any.
Lovelylil commits her final error directed at my remarks by again completely ignoring the argument given. Her unfounded misassessment of the scientific community fails to make or further a point. Her rebuttal fails and the naturalistic world view stands supperior. I submit the arguments to the fairness of the reader.
In her response to other commentors she makes the appeal again to what I have already established as an erroneous approach to historical and scientific inquiry:
Since we never got passed arguement #1 which is what is the "cause" behind the universe and life, we cannot go onto any other arguements about God's existence. Because your mind is totally closed to ever accepting that the cause could be God. If you could only accept the fact that God has not been ruled out by science, then more information could be given you to show he exists. But as it stands, we will stay stuck on this one point.
Lovelylil is cleary engaged in begging the question. She is requesting that the naturalist submit the very issue under contention. She then engages in ad hominem attack against Tuesday by asserting he is closed minded, or not open to rational argument. Her argument fails again because she fails to credit the false dichotomy she is setting up. It could be that there is a hypothetical god who exists but did not create the universe. She again finishes with a cartoonish characature of science. The only evidence you may be able to expect if something did not exist is a lack of evidence for its existence. This inductive principle does not stand on its own merits. We have two logical tools by which we can asess the non-existence of a hypothetical entity. They are as follows:
1. The definition of the entity is logically false by internal definition. These are incompatible properties arguments against the theist.
2. If the state of affairs does not occur as you would expect if God as a hypothesis did exist, this constitutes a strong evidential argument for nonexistance. These include the evidential arguments from evil and non-belief.
About the killings, rapes, etc. I've been into this before on jwd. It is no use argueing this point with non-believers. Its not like you are going to read these accounts in the bible in thier context, or look at information in bible commentaries, or even look up the meanings of words and how they applied in OT times, so what is the use? Are you going to take my word for it since I did the research and can refute your view? No, so I am not going to waste my time presenting it.
Lovelylil concludes her failed reply with further attacks and assumptions about the character and openness of the naturalist as a form of genetic fallacy. Her assumptions about the ability or willingness for the naturalist to engage in textual criticism holds no water. Also, her retreat to the defense of The Argument From The Bible betrays her initial hesitancy about defining a deity in theistic terms. Lovelylil's rebuttal again falls short of any reasonable standard.
Sirona,
I get your point about God. I do agree in some ways. Peace, Lilly
Tuesday,
btw: you pulled every point I was trying to make with sirona out of context to suit yourself. Sirona actually understood more of what I was saying then you did. I was not using the bible to prove God was not made up. I was saying that if God were an invention of men, why would they make him so superior to men that none can measure up to him? This would not make sense. Of course, we understood from the begining of this discussion that we were talking about the Christian God of the Bible, did we not? That is why I added "the god of the bible".
And if you researched the bible at all like you told me you did, you would understand that the writers of it used human terms to describe a divine being, for that is the only language they could use. But as sirona and I both pointed out, this is not adequate enough because a human cannot fully understand a God. whether it be God of the Christian bible or whatever God someone believed in.
Seems like you only read the words you want to read and skip the rest. Please don't pull snipets of information out of context like that. Thanks
Anyway, so that this does not get into an arguement, I think I will call a truce. Lilly
Spook,
I was not speaking about "IQ", I was abreviating the words "I Question" Hence the IQ. In your rush to twist my words out of context, you are trying to have me say things I am not saying.
Many in the scientific community have been able to reconcile belief in a God and science. So to say I do not know what is going on in the scientific community is your opinion only. Here is a great article that Time magazine did on just this topic;
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1211593,00.html
Go here for a list of 50 Noble Laureates and other great scientists who believed in God'
Also many of the major fields of science were founded by Christians; Here is a list;
http://www.gilbertindependentbaptist.org/NoJava/Articles/creation/great_scientists.htm
So I think maybe you are not in touch with the scientific community. Peace, Lilly
THe problem is simple.
You say "science can't account for where things began" (which is wrong, see my post on page 2? 3?) and then your SOLUTION is to COMPOUND the problem and add a god to the mix! Then the question becomes not only where did the energy and matter come from ('God' had to get it from SOMEWHERE) but then where did GOD come from? You solve NOTHING and just add more layers to the onion...
Spook,
I will put this to rest with you too. Because you are misreading my comments in a rush to use your big terms (ad hominem, etc) that I do not think you understand what the meaning really is of them. The only point I wanted to make was this;
Science cannot rule out a God, whether the God of the Bible or any other God (like Sirona said), as the origin of life or "cause" that brought the universe into existence so niether can you nor Tuesday. You may choose not to believe in higher powers and that is your right to do so, but you cannot say they absolutely cannot exist. I do not see how that is "circular reasoning", it is pretty straight forward fact. Peace, Lilly
Seems like you only read the words you want to read and skip the rest.
What's good for the goose dear...
Much like you mis-applied the first law of thermodynamics to which Spook and myself have both posted the actual law you continue to mis-apply it. Or glossing over the numerous times several posters have stated that because there is no answer does not prove anything but there is no answer. I have pointed out circular reasoning in your responses and Spook has more than adequately pointed out the various fallicious traits in each of your arguments. This is another Ad Hominem attack.
And if you researched the bible at all like you told me you did, you would understand that the writers of it used human terms to describe a divine being, for that is the only language they could use. But as sirona and I both pointed out, this is not adequate enough because a human cannot fully understand a God.
This really proves nothing but the writers of the Bible imagined that whoever created the universe must've been greater than themselves because they couldn't do so. I researched the Bible plenty, it all just boiled down to people imagining a being so powerful, so wise, so amazingly awesome that he not only had the answers to the questions they didn't know the answers to, but he invented them too. Whenever someone describes someone who did something great they always seem to take on a mythical quality (Abraham Lincoln, John Henry, Robin Hood, William Wallace, etc.) it comes as no surprise for me the thing credited for the creation of the universe took on God-like qualities.
You could call truce, you could call a finish, your arguments are always the same and always within the realm of the things I asked not to be used in the initial post to start the thread.
