Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

Blessed wrote:

RickD wrote: I suggest you read over the Board Purpose that you agreed to when you signed up for the forum. Since you're banned for 7 days, you'll have plenty of time to think about if this forum is for you.

Hello Rick,

Um. Did you really ban him for 7 days? When you ban someone it makes it appear as though you lost the arguement.

May you please un-ban him? Perhaps thier is another thread he could utilize more appropriate to atheists who want to debate Christians?

I say this is because if he is banned he will not come back to the forum to discuss the evidence of God. He will leave thinking he "won" and become more truculant and close minded to

Let him be wise in his own eyes then. The Board Purpose and Discussion Guidelines are there for a reason. This is considered a Christian-friendly board. I'd not go to a Muslim board all claws out and expect not to be shown the door. Why should he be shown special treatment, especially when others have to adhere to such? It'd be unfair for those non-Christians who have been able to dialogue more politely and avoided Rick's wrath. He's lucky it was a 7 day ban imo.

I may be considered wise by my students, my colleagues, fellow researchers, my mentor, fellow Vietnam Vets, ministers, friends, and others in the community that I actively support, but I don't consider myself anything out the box. "Truly enlightened" may be a poor syntactical compound or a poor choice of words, but it is definitely not oxymoronic. I had no idea that my discussions/debates would be so egregious, so insulting, and so un-Christian-like, to not even warrant a warning or caution, before being banned. As an Aussie and a Queenslander, I sometimes can be caught up in the heat of the moment, and not aware that I may have stepped over the line. If I have in any way threatened, maligned, insulted, or ridiculed anyone's personal belief, it was never my intention and I apologize.

It is ironic that the only person to defend me, was the same person that I asked not to dialog with any further. This was because of his insensitivity towards the death of a close friend of mine. And, the person that supported my banning, was a fellow "banana bender". G'day mate! Did you go to the Food and Wine Festival last weekend? My wife of 35+ year said I was well-behaved, but I don't remember much. Obviously, I'm not as truly an enlightened judge of character as I thought. Also, because I claim that I can admit that I could be wrong about any topic, is not the same thing as I am admitting that I am wrong about any topic. There is a big difference.

I was raised in the baptist church, and latter as a JW. I taught the Bible and Sunday School for many years, and sang in the choir. I was Baptized and Married by the church. I helped to organise outings, lunches, and many activities supported by the church. I harbour no animosities, regrets, or anger for the church or its congregation. The church has been a major influence in my early life, and has helped make me the man I am today. I am neither an atheist or an agnostic, I am a sceptic. I am sceptical of all truth claims that lack logical or physical support. Whether the claims are about the physical reality or the metaphysical reality. The truth will always be non-denominational, and non-exclusive. I can still see the natural beauty in an ant carrying food on its back, or the natural beauty and majesty in an exploding supernova, based on either physical or metaphysical explanations. I believe that science and Belief are mutually incompatible, but both are necessary in providing an explanation of both natural and supernatural phenomenon. Both should be learned to give one a truer and deeper meaning to their understanding of natural phenomenon.

I also believe that a sense of salvation must confirm a collective salvation, and that a sense of self must come from a true sense of community. I also realize that my words can be "brutal and Blunt", and may not appeal to the angels hidden in the truncated nature of some. But as an Aussie, I am not so easily offended or threatened by what others believe or say. I sincerely hope that in the future, that my words are not misconstrued only as abject egregious rudeness, and misinterpreted as grounds for immediate banning without warning or caution.

It might be better if I open my own thread, and stay only on that thread. That way if no one visits, I am effectively isolated from the entire forum. Don

Kurieuo wrote:

Blessed wrote:

RickD wrote: I suggest you read over the Board Purpose that you agreed to when you signed up for the forum. Since you're banned for 7 days, you'll have plenty of time to think about if this forum is for you.

Hello Rick,

Um. Did you really ban him for 7 days? When you ban someone it makes it appear as though you lost the arguement.

May you please un-ban him? Perhaps thier is another thread he could utilize more appropriate to atheists who want to debate Christians?

I say this is because if he is banned he will not come back to the forum to discuss the evidence of God. He will leave thinking he "won" and become more truculant and close minded to

Let him be wise in his own eyes then. The Board Purpose and Discussion Guidelines are there for a reason. This is considered a Christian-friendly board. I'd not go to a Muslim board all claws out and expect not to be shown the door. Why should he be shown special treatment, especially when others have to adhere to such? It'd be unfair for those non-Christians who have been able to dialogue more politely and avoided Rick's wrath. He's lucky it was a 7 day ban imo.

I may be considered wise by my students, my colleagues, fellow researchers, my mentor, fellow Vietnam Vets, ministers, friends, and others in the community that I actively support, but I don't consider myself anything out the box. "Truly enlightened" may be a poor syntactical compound or a poor choice of words, but it is definitely not oxymoronic. I had no idea that my discussions/debates would be so egregious, so insulting, and so un-Christian-like, to not even warrant a warning or caution, before being banned. As an Aussie and a Queenslander, I sometimes can be caught up in the heat of the moment, and not aware that I may have stepped over the line. If I have in any way threatened, maligned, insulted, or ridiculed anyone's personal belief, it was never my intention and I apologize.

It is ironic that the only person to defend me, was the same person that I asked not to dialog with any further. This was because of his insensitivity towards the death of a close friend of mine. And, the person that supported my banning, was a fellow "banana bender". G'day mate! Did you go to the Food and Wine Festival last weekend? My wife of 35+ year said I was well-behaved, but I don't remember much. Obviously, I'm not as truly an enlightened judge of character as I thought. Also, because I claim that I can admit that I could be wrong about any topic, is not the same thing as I am admitting that I am wrong about any topic. There is a big difference.

I was raised in the baptist church, and latter as a JW. I taught the Bible and Sunday School for many years, and sang in the choir. I was Baptized and Married by the church. I helped to organise outings, lunches, and many activities supported by the church. I harbour no animosities, regrets, or anger for the church or its congregation. The church has been a major influence in my early life, and has helped make me the man I am today. I am neither an atheist or an agnostic, I am a sceptic. I am sceptical of all truth claims that lack logical or physical support. Whether the claims are about the physical reality or the metaphysical reality. The truth will always be non-denominational, and non-exclusive. I can still see the natural beauty in an ant carrying food on its back, or the natural beauty and majesty in an exploding supernova, based on either physical or metaphysical explanations. I believe that science and Belief are mutually incompatible, but both are necessary in providing an explanation of both natural and supernatural phenomenon. Both should be learned to give one a truer and deeper meaning to their understanding of natural phenomenon.

I also believe that a sense of salvation must confirm a collective salvation, and that a sense of self must come from a true sense of community. I also realize that my words can be "brutal and Blunt", and may not appeal to the angels hidden in the truncated nature of some. But as an Aussie, I am not so easily offended or threatened by what others believe or say. I sincerely hope that in the future, that my words are not misconstrued only as abject egregious rudeness, and misinterpreted as grounds for immediate banning without warning or caution.

It might be better if I open my own thread, and stay only on that thread. That way if no one visits, I am effectively isolated from the entire forum. Don

FWIW, I didn't think you deserved a ban.

Welcome back.

Yes, welcome back. And thanks for explaining a bit about your personal history.

trulyenlightened wrote: I am a sceptic. I am sceptical of all truth claims that lack logical or physical support.

Glad you're back Don and very glad to hear you hold such high value for logic and reason. They are obviously essential to understanding the metaphysical claims we are making whose conclusions are logically inescapable.

Yes welcome back. And now that you're back please answer my question. Don't forget to mention I experienced a physical audio visual hallucination.

Thank you all for your warm and sincere greetings and cordiality. It is much appreciated. I'm not aware of any specific questions regarding a personal physical audio visual hallucination. I am working on a name for a new thread, that involves a healthy skepticism. Any ideas? Don

trulyenlightened wrote:I am working on a name for a new thread, that involves a healthy skepticism. Any ideas? Don

I've recently started reading a new book by Ed Feser titled 'Five Proofs of the Existence of God'. The traditional ones being proofs from motion, contingency, universals, essence and existence, and the last is from the principle of sufficient reason (and the one I am least familiar with). It is this last one (PSR) that in my opinion would be a very good start for a discussion, if you're interested.

I like Feser, but the thing I don't understand about him is why on earth he's Catholic?!? I mean... oh hang on. Nevermind.

trulyenlightened wrote:Thank you all for your warm and sincere greetings and cordiality. It is much appreciated. I'm not aware of any specific questions regarding a personal physical audio visual hallucination. I am working on a name for a new thread, that involves a healthy skepticism. Any ideas? Don

Truely enlightned seems like a perfect fit for a college professor ..

Byblos wrote:

trulyenlightened wrote:I am working on a name for a new thread, that involves a healthy skepticism. Any ideas? Don

I've recently started reading a new book by Ed Feser titled 'Five Proofs of the Existence of God'. The traditional ones being proofs from motion, contingency, universals, essence and existence, and the last is from the principle of sufficient reason (and the one I am least familiar with). It is this last one (PSR) that in my opinion would be a very good start for a discussion, if you're interested.

Thank you for your input and suggestion. The thread will be called, "Skepticism and the Principle of Sufficient Reason".

It would appear that Eddy relies heavily on borrowing many of his ideas from St.Thomas Aquinas(5 proofs of the existence of God) and Gottfried Leibniz(one of my favorite Philosophers and Mathematicians, and his "Principle of sufficient reason"). It is very important that you understand this principle, because everything presented in a cosmological and a teleological argument is going to stand or fall on how well this position is presented. That is, if the principle is a legitimate principle and if the principle has been carefully and properly followed. Basically it means, NOTHING JUST HAPPENS! Whatever happens is connected and it is connected to other things that have happened, and connected to other things that are going to happen, and so on. The principle of sufficient reason is largely a principle of causation(chain of natural events), that if something happens, it happens coming out of something that caused it to happen. But be careful, I did not say that every EFFECT has a cause and tried to present that as the principle of sufficient reason. That would be circular and begging the question. Of course every effect has a cause. That is what an effect is. An effect is a product of a cause. I said every EVENT has a cause, or, if you like, every cause is an effect. That is what the notion of sufficient reason amounts to in terms of causality. If something happens in the world, which is the visible outcome of some kind of history, it will at least in principle, be traceable and falsifiable.

There are a few problems with this line of reasoning. We humans will never be in a position to understand the complete and specific chain of causality that gives any individual 4-dimensional thing it's necessary and unique character, properties, or characteristics. Therefore, we will never be in a position to reduce all phenomena to a finite set of intelligible causes. We could say that from a human perspective, that everything must always be contingent upon everything else. From a divine or philosophical perspective, that everything must also be necessary. But it is ONLY from a philosophical perspective, that the distinction between what is possible and what is actual, seem to vanish. If something may be, it is; if it may not be, it is not. There is also the problem of knowing and detecting all auxiliary, indirect, accidental, multiple, probable, unknown, undetectable, and unobservable causes(dark matter and energy). I am always skeptical about any proofs that must rely on infinite regression, or being unfalsifiable, as the foundation for its suppositions or claims of certainty. Is my skepticism justified, especially if we consider that these same proofs are used to justify the belief in, and the existence of Santa Claus? http://thomasofaquino.blogspot.com.au/2 ... claus.html , and https://reasonandmeaning.com/2015/01/25/5140/ . Again, no disrespect meant, only tongue and cheek I hope.

Anyway, I better get started on this new thread. I hope that I have helped in your understanding of this principle. Thanks again for your warm welcome. Don

trulyenlightened wrote:I hope that I have helped in your understanding of this principle.

No, you have not helped at all. In fact, you've proven that you entirely misunderstand the proof(s) and are arguing against a straw man.

I will briefly comment hereunder but will leave the bulk of the argument to the new thread.

It would appear that Eddy relies heavily on borrowing many of his ideas from St.Thomas Aquinas(5 proofs of the existence of God) and Gottfried Leibniz(one of my favorite Philosophers and Mathematicians, and his "Principle of sufficient reason"). It is very important that you understand this principle, because everything presented in a cosmological and a teleological argument is going to stand or fall on how well this position is presented. That is, if the principle is a legitimate principle and if the principle has been carefully and properly followed. Basically it means, NOTHING JUST HAPPENS! Whatever happens is connected and it is connected to other things that have happened, and connected to other things that are going to happen, and so on. The principle of sufficient reason is largely a principle of causation(chain of natural events), that if something happens, it happens coming out of something that caused it to happen. But be careful, I did not say that every EFFECT has a cause and tried to present that as the principle of sufficient reason. That would be circular and begging the question. Of course every effect has a cause. That is what an effect is. An effect is a product of a cause. I said every EVENT has a cause, or, if you like, every cause is an effect. That is what the notion of sufficient reason amounts to in terms of causality. If something happens in the world, which is the visible outcome of some kind of history, it will at least in principle, be traceable and falsifiable.

Were those your own words or did you copy them from somewhere? It is very difficult to interact in writing if things are not properly quoted.

trulyenlightened wrote: There are a few problems with this line of reasoning. We humans will never be in a position to understand the complete and specific chain of causality that gives any individual 4-dimensional thing it's necessary and unique character, properties, or characteristics. Therefore, we will never be in a position to reduce all phenomena to a finite set of intelligible causes.

First of all, where does it say we must fully understand the chain of causality for causes to be intelligible? That's like saying we can never understand evolution because we will never be able to map out the specific pathways by which evolution took place. That's nonsensical. We can certainly make intelligent observations about many things without fully comprehending them. One way, for example, is to state what a thing is not.

trulyenlightened wrote:We could say that from a human perspective, that everything must always be contingent upon everything else.

But that is precisely what the proof from PSR denies and for good reason. So no, from a human perspective it is certainly NOT the case that "everything must always be contingent on everything else" and it is denied, not as an arbitrary insertion but as a logical conclusion to the set of premises given in a hierarchical series of causation.

trulyenlightened wrote:From a divine or philosophical perspective, that everything must also be necessary.

Huh? That's just utter nonsense. Where did you even get that? No philosophical discipline I know of claims that everything must be necessary.

trulyenlightened wrote: But it is ONLY from a philosophical perspective, that the distinction between what is possible and what is actual, seem to vanish. If something may be, it is; if it may not be, it is not.

Honestly, I have no clue what that even means. Sounds like gibberish to me, no coherence whatsoever.

trulyenlightened wrote:There is also the problem of knowing and detecting all auxiliary, indirect, accidental, multiple, probable, unknown, undetectable, and unobservable causes(dark matter and energy). I am always skeptical about any proofs that must rely on infinite regression, or being unfalsifiable, as the foundation for its suppositions or claims of certainty. Is my skepticism justified, especially if we consider that these same proofs are used to justify the belief in, and the existence of Santa Claus? http://thomasofaquino.blogspot.com.au/2 ... claus.html , and https://reasonandmeaning.com/2015/01/25/5140/ . Again, no disrespect meant, only tongue and cheek I hope.

To equate the proof with that of Santa Clause is precisely why I said you do not understand the proof and you attack some caricature of it, a straw man. I look forward to your new thread. But please, if I could ask you to quote your sources.

I stated that I would only stay on my thread, but I did make a mistake here. I said that, "everything must always be contingent upon everything else". I meant to say that, "everything must always be contingent on SOMETHING else". The words are my own, and are based on my interpretation of the writings from St. Thomas Aquinas and Gottfried Leibniz. I rarely visits sites, especially in matters of science. But in the future I will quote any reference or sites that I quote or visit. I'm confused, do you disagree with my assessment of where Eddy may have borrowed his ideas from? Do you disagree with my general definition of PSR? If so, how so? Is Eddy's proofs different than Aquinas? What exactly was the straw man that I used?

What I am basically saying is that there are too many variable causes to simply use infinite regression, to explain an uncaused mover, or an uncaused cause. Simply stating what something is not, does not automatically infer what something is by default. Since we are all a part of a 4-dimensional reality, we are limited as to how far back we can regress, in our search for the origins of any cause. To claim that something is not necessary, is to admit a design flaw. therefore I conclude that all things are necessary. I was also saying that by using philosophical arguments, anything can be explained, and anything can be possible. Since we have no other Universe to compare ours to, our Universe is what it is, and is not what it is not. There are many ideas regarding the origin of our Universe, but I will leave them for my new thread.

After finishing my OP on my thread, it is truly time for rest. I apologize for not giving your post the clarity it deserves. Don

trulyenlightened wrote:I stated that I would only stay on my thread, but I did make a mistake here. I said that, "everything must always be contingent upon everything else". I meant to say that, "everything must always be contingent on SOMETHING else". The words are my own, and are based on my interpretation of the writings from St. Thomas Aquinas and Gottfried Leibniz. I rarely visits sites, especially in matters of science. But in the future I will quote any reference or sites that I quote or visit. I'm confused, do you disagree with my assessment of where Eddy may have borrowed his ideas from? Do you disagree with my general definition of PSR? If so, how so? Is Eddy's proofs different than Aquinas? What exactly was the straw man that I used?

What I am basically saying is that there are too many variable causes to simply use infinite regression, to explain an uncaused mover, or an uncaused cause. Simply stating what something is not, does not automatically infer what something is by default. Since we are all a part of a 4-dimensional reality, we are limited as to how far back we can regress, in our search for the origins of any cause. To claim that something is not necessary, is to admit a design flaw. therefore I conclude that all things are necessary. I was also saying that by using philosophical arguments, anything can be explained, and anything can be possible. Since we have no other Universe to compare ours to, our Universe is what it is, and is not what it is not. There are many ideas regarding the origin of our Universe, but I will leave them for my new thread.

After finishing my OP on my thread, it is truly time for rest. I apologize for not giving your post the clarity it deserves. Don

I am preparing a post for the other thread so I won't spend much time here other than to highlight your straw man (inadvertent or otherwise, it is still a straw man).

Of course Edward Feser borrowed not just from Aquinas and Leibniz, but also from Plato, Aristotle, Maimonides, Avicenna, and so many other scholastics. Feser is also an accomplished philosopher who developed those ideas he borrowed and expounded upon them to make them into very powerful metaphysical proofs for the existence of God.

And the reason you misunderstand the subject matter (and are, therefore, arguing a straw man) is precisely in what you said and I underlined above. The five proofs in general, and the PSR in particular, have absolutely nothing to do with infinite regress or temporal events (otherwise known as accidental causal series). In fact, every single one of the proofs stipulates that temporal causality cannot be shown to have begun a finite time ago, and therefore, may very well extend into past infinity.