tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post2704280708207732572..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Francis Beckwith on religious arguments in the public squareVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29476696163566607332014-05-06T15:00:13.168-07:002014-05-06T15:00:13.168-07:00One of the definitions of 'discredit' is &...One of the definitions of 'discredit' is "reject as false; refuse to accept".im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21122921809998064672014-05-05T11:45:03.648-07:002014-05-05T11:45:03.648-07:00"discredit" does not appear to belong in..."discredit" does not appear to belong in that list. It connotes an active opposition whereas the other words connote indifference. However, it does seem to better describe the effort.oozzielionelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00326968846352428451noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80806922957739928602014-05-02T16:24:44.601-07:002014-05-02T16:24:44.601-07:00Plank: "But the God-haters do not.
It's...Plank: <i>"But the God-haters do not.</i><br /><br />It's irrational to imagine that people who do not subscribe to a god hypothesis are also viscerally riven against it. The statement is a pious furphy, a non-sequitur. As Dr David Eller so eruditely shares: <i>"I do not disbelieve in god[s]. I do not disprove god[s]. I disregard god[s], dismiss god[s], discredit god[s]. I am disinterested in god[s]. Atheism is - or should be - freedom from god[s]."</i><br /><br />"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". Christopher Hitchens.<br /><br />Amen to that.<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29379010682778720702014-05-02T15:57:42.119-07:002014-05-02T15:57:42.119-07:00Skep says: "So the question is: does such a ...Skep says: <i>"So the question is: does such a being exist? This is where we part ways, because I see no evidence that anything supernatural of any kind has ever happened, while you are convinced (somehow) that supernatural entities do act in supernatural ways.<br /></i><br /><br />I think it's more a case of religious conviction rather than of being 'convinced' that supernatural entities act in supernatural ways. <br /><br />After all, religious metaphysics would simply fade away without its core theme of ineffable, unknowable, unseeable supernaturalism. Without a belief in the ineffable, the unknowable, the unseeable, such a belief would be unsustainable. Take away what you can't see, know, comprehend, understand, believe, and what have you got left? Nothing.<br />Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36322754194537731772014-05-02T15:21:24.931-07:002014-05-02T15:21:24.931-07:00".. is asserting the further absurdity that i...".. is asserting the further absurdity that it is impossible for the Rational Being who created chemicals in the first place, and created rational beings as living entities utilizing those chemicals, to cause a formerly living entity to live again."<br /><br />I guess you people simply can't read, or (more likely) can't comprehend simple English. Because I made no such assertion. In fact, I said this: "So in answer to your question, I suppose such a thing would be possible for an omnipotent being."<br /><br />So the question is: does such a being exist? This is where we part ways, because I see no evidence that anything supernatural of any kind has ever happened, while you are convinced (somehow) that supernatural entities do act in supernatural ways.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77718572691037287882014-05-02T12:52:13.255-07:002014-05-02T12:52:13.255-07:00Love that last paragraph!Love that last paragraph!planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2266834723204503442014-05-02T09:02:01.625-07:002014-05-02T09:02:01.625-07:00PL: "Lazarus's raising was indeed a mere ...<b>PL:</b> "<i>Lazarus's raising was indeed a mere "revivification" - a return to the state he was in before dying of whatever illness he had. In contrast, Christ's Resurrection was no simple "coming back to life" - it was Act One in the New Creation.</i>"<br /><br />One could say that the Resurrection of Christ is a super-set of the raising of Lazarus. By this I mean that the raising of Lazarus (or of any number of other persons) does not entail, and certainly does not "contain", the New Creation, however much it may <i>hint</i> at it; for Lazarus died again. On the other hand, the raising of Christ, being as you say, Act One of the New Creation, being a resurrection into immortality, being indeed the death of Death, does entail-and-contain "mere revivification" and more.<br /><br />Thus, if one says that the raising of Lazarus is impossible, one has also said that the even greater raising, the Resurrection of Christ, and the New Creation, is impossible.<br /><br />Whenever and to the extent possible, one should try to "meet people where they are", even when they are intellectually dishonest fools (which, in that case, generally involves contronting the dishonesty). As I see it, in this context, drawing a distinction between "mere revivification" and Christ's Resurrection isn't meeting I'm-amusingly-credulous-about-'<i>Science!</i>' where he's at.<br /><br />I'm-amusingly-credulous-about-'<i>Science!</i>' is asserting that the lesser raising is impossible, and that "physics" "proves" it to be impossible, and thereby that the greater raising is impossible. <br /><br />This really needs to be grasped -- a fellow who asserts (and his materialism/naturalism leaves him no other option) the patently absurd notion that lifeless chemicals, <i>all by themselves and contrary to the *natural* reactions of chemicals when left to themselves</i>, organized themselves into living entities and thence into rational beings, is asserting the further absurdity that it is impossible for the Rational Being who created chemicals in the first place, and created rational beings as living entities utilizing those chemicals, to cause a formerly living entity to live again.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71577056824474878642014-05-02T08:47:05.442-07:002014-05-02T08:47:05.442-07:00Victor,
"Are you telling me it is not within...Victor,<br /><br />"Are you telling me it is not within the power of an omnipotent being to raise the dead? "<br /><br />My reply was to grod's insistence that I couldn't prove that biblical miracles are outside the scope of known physics, which I believe to be the case (unless he is willing to show me how physics would allow it). Of course, if there is any being that has supernatural powers, then all bets are off. So in answer to your question, I suppose such a thing would be possible for an omnipotent being. But only by suspending or violating the laws of nature.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78581311069201295702014-05-02T05:22:44.371-07:002014-05-02T05:22:44.371-07:00Ilion, Victor, et.al.,
Please understand that I&#...Ilion, Victor, et.al.,<br /><br />Please understand that I'm not in the least criticizing <i>you</i>, because I know what you meant by using terms like "restore a formerly live entity back to life". That said...<br /><br />We must be firm in making a distinction between, say, the raising of Lazarus, and the Resurrection of Christ. Again, I am well aware that you know the difference. But the God-haters do not. Lazarus's raising was indeed a mere "revivification" - a return to the state he was in before dying of whatever illness he had. In contrast, Christ's Resurrection was no simple "coming back to life" - it was Act One in the New Creation. Jesus's resurrected body was <i>glorified</i>. <br /><br />So when atheists ask (with a sneer, usually), "Where is He now, if He's still alive?" or "Where did He go when He ascended?", we realize that such infantile queries come from a total lack of comprehension as to what <i>Resurrection</i> means.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77979703875852373922014-05-02T04:55:30.088-07:002014-05-02T04:55:30.088-07:00VR: "Are you telling me it is not within the ...<b>VR:</b> "<i>Are you telling me it is not within the power of an omnipotent being to raise the dead?</i>"<br /><br />A better way to put that is: "<i>Are you telling me it is not within the power of [the] being [who made living entities in the first place from lifeless matter] to [restore a formerly live entity back to life]?</i>"<br /><br />This avoids the God-hater’s all-but-guaranteed attempt to use the term ‘omnipotent’ as the basis of a red-herring distraction, and gets to the real heart of the matter.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77367609737125896582014-05-02T04:10:18.576-07:002014-05-02T04:10:18.576-07:00@im-skeptical:
"In other words, YOU have zip...@im-skeptical:<br /><br />"In other words, YOU have zip."<br /><br />So predictable. So boring. I believe it was Crude that evoked the image of a little trained monkey; monkey indeed.<br /><br />In May 01, 2014 10:21 AM you said in response to Ilíon that:<br /><br />"For your information, quantum mechanics allows for quantum tunneling, but it does not people to walk on water."<br /><br />So I asked you proof of this. But the only difference between the two scenarios is that in one Carl Sagan said it was possible and Carl Sagan is gospel, and in the other the Gospels say it happened.<br /><br />Having absolutely no criterium to separate the two scenarios, you then task me to "Tell us how your Hilbert spaces have people walking on water." But I never claimed anything even remotely close to the neighborhood of this, first because it is a completely wrong way to look at the problem, and second because I have a good idea of what can and what cannot be proved. So if by having zip, you mean I have no argument to defend what I never claimed I suppose you are correct. In other words, it is exactly as I said: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4EUQReXNdY" rel="nofollow">Bigmouth strikes again</a>.<br /><br />I get it that you know nothing about anything, whether it be quantum mechanics or Philosophy. I get it that you are really dumb and stupid and there is really nothing you can do about it. But an intellectually dishonest derp? It isn't worth a damn, you know. But then again, you have dug a hole so deep for yourself, that it would take preternatural wisdom and moral courage to climb out of it.<br /><br />Is it wind that rattles your empty skull? Whistling an inhuman song?<br /><br />Oh well. Dance monkey, dance.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50852611480539737982014-05-01T18:57:55.585-07:002014-05-01T18:57:55.585-07:00"Bigmouth strikes again."
That's ri..."Bigmouth strikes again."<br /><br />That's right. Tossing around your favorite "scientific jargon" without actually saying anything is what you do best. In other words, YOU have zip.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36867597423475366622014-05-01T18:36:45.320-07:002014-05-01T18:36:45.320-07:00@im-skeptical:
"Tell us how your Hilbert spa...@im-skeptical:<br /><br />"Tell us how your Hilbert spaces have people walking on water. And while you're at it, tell us how dead men can get up and walk."<br /><br />In other words, you have zip. Bigmouth strikes again.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35235436526271538832014-05-01T16:46:30.392-07:002014-05-01T16:46:30.392-07:00Are you telling me it is not within the power of a...Are you telling me it is not within the power of an omnipotent being to raise the dead? Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10552525492109132552014-05-01T16:01:10.425-07:002014-05-01T16:01:10.425-07:00grod,
I'm all ears. Tell us how your Hilbert...grod,<br /><br />I'm all ears. Tell us how your Hilbert spaces have people walking on water. And while you're at it, tell us how dead men can get up and walk.<br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-27007424727794860692014-05-01T10:59:50.223-07:002014-05-01T10:59:50.223-07:00"God-haters ... reject miracles because ... a..."<i>God-haters ... reject miracles because ... a miracle is intentionally caused and serves a purpose. It's the ascription of intentionality and purpose to miracles ... that gets their panties in a bunch.</i>"<br /><br />Brilliant, and absolutely correct! Were Christians to ascribe no special significance to the Resurrection, atheists would accept it without a quiver (as they now accept Creation, er... I'm sorry, I mean the "Big Bang"). It's the implications of the event that cause them to flee in panic.planks lengthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01176715815596833639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25816153779472325042014-05-01T10:42:54.641-07:002014-05-01T10:42:54.641-07:00@im-skeptical:
"For your information, quantu...@im-skeptical:<br /><br />"For your information, quantum mechanics allows for quantum tunneling, but it does not people to walk on water."<br /><br />Because you have pegged down the full Hilbert space of the system and its symmetries; have written down the full Hamiltonean and then solved the corresponding Schroediniger equations and proved with complete analytical rigor that there is no quantum path between the two states, right?grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26543054209743879192014-05-01T10:21:35.382-07:002014-05-01T10:21:35.382-07:00"So, according to Sagan, and to use the sort ..."So, according to Sagan, and to use the sort of language that resonates with I-pretend, Im-selectively-hyperskeptical is a "science-h8er!""<br /><br />Your ignorance of science is on full display once again. Carl Sagan said nothing that disputes what I have claimed. For your information, quantum mechanics allows for quantum tunneling, but it does not people to walk on water. Your faith-above-evidence attitude makes you the science hater, not me. And my insistence on evidence does not make me a God-hater - it makes me a God-denier.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88835541213028634242014-05-01T08:51:04.512-07:002014-05-01T08:51:04.512-07:00I don't know what either 'skeptical' o...<b>I don't know what either 'skeptical' or 'physics' mean:</b> "<i>physics - tells us that people don't walk on water.</i>"<br /><br /><b>Carl Sagan:</b> "<i>Consider this claim: ... once in a very great while, your car will spontaneously ooze through the brick wall of your garage and be found the next morning on the street. [That's]absurd! But [it is a] consequence[] of quantum mechanics ... Like it or not, that's the way the world is. If you insist it's ridiculous, you'll be forever closed to some of the major findings on the rules that govern the Universe.</i>"<br /><br />So, according to Sagan, and to use the sort of language that resonates with I-pretend, Im-selectively-hyperskeptical is a "science-h8er!"<br /><br />The thing to understand and always keep in mind about God-haters isn't that they reject miracles because they supposedly "break the laws of Nature" (*), but rather that <i>definitionally</i> a miracle is intentionally caused and serves a purpose. <br /><br />It's the ascription of intentionality and purpose to miracles (or possible miracles) that gets their panties in a bunch. If the very same event were believed by everyone else to be just some meaningless event that happens from time to time for no reason and from no particular cause, they wouldn’t even raise an eyebrow.<br /><br />(*) Besides which, when it suits them, they deny that there are *any* laws in nature; as see the Sagan quote.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9694199849347975442014-04-30T18:07:28.116-07:002014-04-30T18:07:28.116-07:00Paps,
So tell us Karl, we're all ears, was Je...Paps,<br /><br /><i>So tell us Karl, we're all ears, was Jesus a slapper or a glider, as he stepped out of the boat? From the information you have so generously provided, from science, Jesus must have been a real slapper.</i><br /><br />How cute, like nobody saw that coming given your pre-adolescent level of wit. Unfortunately, I do not have a good comeback to a slapping expert such as yourself. I mean when you have to shave the palm of your hand and dip it in gasoline every two hours to prevent it from looking and smelling like the Everglades <i><b>nobody</b></i> is going to rival you in slapping experience. In some ways, it is a minor miracle that your children managed to be born given your...dedication to slapping on various test material. But hey, it is certainly a creative way you managed to weasel your way into the Guinness Book of World Records. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49571908305303893282014-04-30T17:35:38.515-07:002014-04-30T17:35:38.515-07:00"I have yet to meet one such. Strawman, im-no..."I have yet to meet one such. Strawman, im-not-skeptical, strawman."<br /><br />Look in the mirror.<br /><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3764080138069248212014-04-30T16:42:51.977-07:002014-04-30T16:42:51.977-07:00And my reply at 8:08 (3 comments later). Yes, tal...And my reply at 8:08 (3 comments later). Yes, talk about intellectual dishonesty. Why don't you address what I actually say, instead of your strawman?im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24260615601901779462014-04-30T15:32:35.276-07:002014-04-30T15:32:35.276-07:00@planks length:
"Strawman, im-not-skeptical,...@planks length:<br /><br />"Strawman, im-not-skeptical, strawman."<br /><br />Actually, it is more like blatant and contemptible intellectual dishonesty. Was not the alleged circularity mentioned not long ago in this very blog? Why yes, see <a href="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.pt/2014/04/is-argument-for-unmoved-mover-circular.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and, foe example, <a href="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.pt/2014/04/is-argument-for-unmoved-mover-circular.html?showComment=1397788509555" rel="nofollow">my comment</a> from April 17, 2014 7:35 PM.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85963860826353077192014-04-30T14:30:22.955-07:002014-04-30T14:30:22.955-07:00Miracles?
No. One can either subscribe to the real...Miracles?<br />No. One can either subscribe to the reality of science as an explanatory tool or continue the tradition of relying on religious superstition as the base explanatory tool.<br /><br />The choice is quite simple. Either we go with science, as a society,, or we continue basing our public policy decision-making on the homeopathy of religious truths.<br /><br /><i>"When miracles are admitted every scientific explanation is out of the question."</i> Johannes KeplerPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43361445369450307142014-04-30T13:47:23.893-07:002014-04-30T13:47:23.893-07:00So tell us Karl, we're all ears, was Jesus a s...So tell us Karl, we're all ears, was Jesus a slapper or a glider, as he stepped out of the boat?<br /><br />From the information you have so generously provided, from science, Jesus must have been a real slapper.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.com