(July 20, 2017 at 1:01 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Lek Wrote:Like I mentioned in my previous post, God can allow us to keep our memories if he wants to.  And I'm definitely not a JW.  Paul wrote "absent from the body, present with Lord."  That indicates we will go to heaven awaiting the final judgement and our placement in new bodies and on the new earth.  My take on it is that there is no time in heaven; so everything is perceived as the present.  Because of this, we (the saved) will all wake up at the same time for the final judgement and our residence on the new earth.  Since the bible doesn't speak to this issue in detail, we can only speculate.

My apologies for guessing wrong on your sect.

So souls won't be able to remember anything without a brain, but God will download the experiences they can't remember when he embodies them again?

To be honest I don't know and don't really care. It's not something I spend time contemplating.

(July 20, 2017 at 2:29 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 20, 2017 at 1:45 pm)Jehanne Wrote: "Come one, come all..."  The Acts of Peter records a talking dog.  Why not accept that?  Why not accept the millions of accounts of alien abductions?  It was claimed that Charles Manson levitated a bus over a ravine; why not accept that?  Why not accept the accounts of visitations by the Blessed Virgin Mary, or Eucharistic miracles?

Do you have a specific objection to something I had said or a certain principle, that you wish to express?

According to your criteria, one could believe anything.

---

(July 20, 2017 at 2:35 pm)Lek Wrote:

(July 20, 2017 at 1:01 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: My apologies for guessing wrong on your sect.

So souls won't be able to remember anything without a brain, but God will download the experiences they can't remember when he embodies them again?

To be honest I don't know and don't really care.  It's not something I spend time contemplating.

(July 20, 2017 at 12:55 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(July 20, 2017 at 12:41 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: What I am wondering, is how do you determine that something is not caused by anything?  I may have suspicions about the cause of these particles, but I do not know what causes them.  And yet I do believe that nothing provides neither a necessary nor sufficient reason for the effect.  "I do not know" does not lead me to the conclusion that their is no cause.    The principle of causality is foundational to science and really a basic principle to living in general.   I'm not willing to abandon it, and science so easily. Does nothing have limits to what it can cause (how is this determined)?

This question is the domain of particle physics.  Virtual particles exist; the Casmir effect was a prediction of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

My point to Steve is that one gets into an infinite regress if one says that something causes the existence of virtual particles.  Rather, virtual particles simply happen because they can happen as described by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.  They are not caused by anything.

Ok... what I know of the Casmir experiment, is that it requires to plates in a vacuum (not nothing). My question is still how do we determine that nothing is the cause (or how can you even test that).

As to an infinite regress, I agree, that is a problem with an infinite series of cause and effects. I don't see where it is required however; that it either stop at virtual particles or be an infinite regress. How did you come to this conclusion? Which part of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle do you apply, to get virtual particles poofing into existence from nothing. I need reasons to abandon the principle of causality, which I think it properly basic.

---

(July 20, 2017 at 2:43 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(July 20, 2017 at 2:29 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Do you have a specific objection to something I had said or a certain principle, that you wish to express?

According to your criteria, one could believe anything.

No I don't believe that.... and I also don't think that you can dismiss anything based on personal incredulity or hyper skepticism.

(July 20, 2017 at 2:47 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 20, 2017 at 12:55 pm)Jehanne Wrote: This question is the domain of particle physics.  Virtual particles exist; the Casmir effect was a prediction of them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

My point to Steve is that one gets into an infinite regress if one says that something causes the existence of virtual particles.  Rather, virtual particles simply happen because they can happen as described by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.  They are not caused by anything.

Ok... what I know of the Casmir experiment, is that it requires to plates in a vacuum (not nothing).  My question is still how do we determine that nothing is the cause (or how can you even test that).  

As to an infinite regress, I agree, that is a problem with an infinite series of cause and effects.   I don't see where it is required however; that it either stop at virtual particles or be an infinite regress.  How did you come to this conclusion?  Which part of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle do you apply, to get virtual particles poofing into existence from nothing.  I need reasons to abandon the principle of causality, which I think it properly basic.

Are you (like Craig with his "bait & switch") saying that the vacuum caused the virtual particles?  If so, what was the cause of the vacuum causing the virtual particles?  And, what was the cause of the cause of the vacuum causing the virtual particles, etc., etc?  The issue is not where the virtual particles come from but what causes them to come into existence?

(July 20, 2017 at 11:24 am)SteveII Wrote: Your analogy is lacking. Your pink elephant has no purpose/meaning/message, no explanation for its existence, no precedence, and not part of a bigger framework of the supernatural world. Lacking all those, it seem your pink elephant has no causal effect on the natural world and all your objections apply. But since angels or God has all those things, there is an effect on the natural world that can be measured (it might only be information) and so your objections do not apply.

Funny, I'd have said the same things about YOUR pink elephant deity of choice. Are you suggesting that if I provided a message and backstory and made up an explanation, as you have, that it would be worthy of consideration? Really?

What causal effect on the natural world do angels and God have? Other than just that you assert that they have?

(July 20, 2017 at 11:24 am)SteveII Wrote: If people witnessed an event and told someone else or wrote it down, then we do in fact have evidence.

We have claims. More: we have extraordinary claims, which raises the bar for the evidence required to substantiate them.

(July 20, 2017 at 11:24 am)SteveII Wrote: The problem is with defining words.

It's always good to agree on definitions.

(July 20, 2017 at 11:24 am)SteveII Wrote: Evidence refers to pieces of information or facts that help us establish the truth of something. Proof is a conclusion about the truth of something after analyzing the evidence. Evidence is suggestive of a conclusion. Proof is concrete and conclusive.

So far, so good, or at least good enough.

(July 20, 2017 at 11:24 am)SteveII Wrote: The churches spread throughout the empire within 15 years of Jesus' death, the the 27 different authenticated writings discussing Jesus and his teachings, and ancillary works and references throughout the first century is certainly evidence that Jesus did what the people claim he did and said the things they claim he said.

That a movement resulted and spread in a short time is evidence that people found the movement interesting / compelling.

What authentication are you talking about? The church councils? That was just the early church picking what scriptures it wanted to run with.

(July 20, 2017 at 11:24 am)SteveII Wrote: Proof can have different thresholds. Anywhere from more likely than not (preponderance of the evidence), to beyond a reasonable doubt, to absolute.

There is no such thing as absolute certainty. I go with preponderance of evidence, and when the evidence is overwhelming, "beyond reasonable doubt". Yet I arrive at pretty much the opposite conclusion on this topic from you. The reason? I don't accept holy books or church dogma as evidence and you do, mainly. Also, I did not find religious faith to be an epistemology that was valid (predicted or explained outcomes in life), whereas I found rational, logical and scientific avenues infinitely more effective in those regards.

(July 20, 2017 at 11:24 am)SteveII Wrote: These are all arrived at by considering evidence. So, to say that the NT is not evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine--that is the threshold you chose.

It is neither evidence nor proof. Scripture presents the assertions, by fiat ("god said so"). It does not provide evidence. And since its claims are extraordinary (invisible beings and realms, miracles, eternal perdition, afterlife, etc.) the evidence must be extraordinary.

That which is not evidenced can be dismissed without evidence.

I am still awaiting your evidence.

(July 20, 2017 at 11:24 am)SteveII Wrote: Excellent discussion on it at http://pediaa.com/difference-between-evi...and-proof/

All you are saying (and I agree) is that proof is the conclusion drawn from evidence, providing that the conclusion is warranted by sufficient evidence (provided that the evidence, as they say, is conclusive).

When I say the Bible is not evidence, it is not because it doesn't contain arguments in favor of its ideas, flawed and inconsistent and often illogical though they may be. It is because one does not refer to a claimant's claims as evidence for its own claims.

You are playing word games to deflect from the basic fact that you have a huge mountain of assertions but not an iota of valid, admissible evidence to support them.

You disbelieve in all the deities put forth by religion, save one. I don't believe in even the single one you believe in.

You have no better reason to afford belief to Jesus than you do to Vishnu or the Buddha or to Thor. Other than that you are accustomed to / probably raised on Jesus and are invested in Jesus. Vishnu and Buddha and Thor have their written and oral traditions, their believers, their assertions, their miracle claims and legends, just like Jesus does. Why do you follow Jesus? If you're honest, you'll have to admit that if you'd been born in Tibet, you'd most likely be a Tibetan Buddhist, and not a Christian. You would know nothing of Christianity. You are what you are because it's what you were indoctrinated with. Not because it's compelling or unique. The vast majority of Christians do not chose Christ over other gods, they just run with what they are aware of.

(July 20, 2017 at 2:54 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(July 20, 2017 at 2:47 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Ok... what I know of the Casmir experiment, is that it requires to plates in a vacuum (not nothing).  My question is still how do we determine that nothing is the cause (or how can you even test that).  

As to an infinite regress, I agree, that is a problem with an infinite series of cause and effects.   I don't see where it is required however; that it either stop at virtual particles or be an infinite regress.  How did you come to this conclusion?  Which part of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle do you apply, to get virtual particles poofing into existence from nothing.  I need reasons to abandon the principle of causality, which I think it properly basic.

Are you (like Craig with his "bait & switch") saying that the vacuum caused the virtual particles?  If so, what was the cause of the vacuum causing the virtual particles?  And, what was the cause of the cause of the vacuum causing the virtual particles, etc., etc?  The issue is not where the virtual particles come from but what causes them to come into existence?

As I had already said, I don't know (however something going on within that vacuum seems plausible).  What testimony or reason do you give, that I should stop here, and think that nothing is on the otherside?   Personally, I think that something has a lot more potential than nothing, and is a wiser assumption.  You need a pretty good reason for me to abandon the principle of causality in science.

(July 20, 2017 at 3:18 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 20, 2017 at 2:54 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Are you (like Craig with his "bait & switch") saying that the vacuum caused the virtual particles?  If so, what was the cause of the vacuum causing the virtual particles?  And, what was the cause of the cause of the vacuum causing the virtual particles, etc., etc?  The issue is not where the virtual particles come from but what causes them to come into existence?

As I had already said, I don't know (however something going on within that vacuum seems plausible).  What testimony or reason do you give, that I should stop here, and think that nothing is on the otherside?   Personally, I think that something has a lot more potential than nothing, and is a wiser assumption.  You need a pretty good reason for me to abandon the principle of causality in science.

You need to realize that a quantum oscillator is different than a classical one:

Quote:This energy spectrum is noteworthy for three reasons. First, the energies are quantized, meaning that only discrete energy values (integer-plus-half multiples of ħω) are possible; this is a general feature of quantum-mechanical systems when a particle is confined. Second, these discrete energy levels are equally spaced, unlike in the Bohr model of the atom, or the particle in a box. Third, the lowest achievable energy (the energy of the n = 0 state, called the ground state) is not equal to the minimum of the potential well, but ħω/2 above it; this is called zero-point energy. Because of the zero-point energy, the position and momentum of the oscillator in the ground state are not fixed (as they would be in a classical oscillator), but have a small range of variance, in accordance with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

The ground state probability density is concentrated at the origin, which means the particle spends most of its time at the bottom of the potential well, as one would expect for a state with little energy. As the energy increases, the probability density becomes peaked at the classical "turning points", where the state's energy coincides with the potential energy. (See the discussion below of the highly excited states.) This is consistent with the classical harmonic oscillator, in which the particle spends more of its time (and is therefore more likely to be found) near the turning points, where it is moving the slowest. The correspondence principle is thus satisfied. Moreover, special nondispersive wave packets, with minimum uncertainty, called coherent states oscillate very much like classical objects, as illustrated in the figure; they are not eigenstates of the Hamiltonian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_ha...oscillator

(July 20, 2017 at 3:09 pm)mordant Wrote:

(July 20, 2017 at 11:24 am)SteveII Wrote: Your analogy is lacking. Your pink elephant has no purpose/meaning/message, no explanation for its existence, no precedence, and not part of a bigger framework of the supernatural world. Lacking all those, it seem your pink elephant has no causal effect on the natural world and all your objections apply. But since angels or God has all those things, there is an effect on the natural world that can be measured (it might only be information) and so your objections do not apply.

Funny, I'd have said the same things about YOUR pink elephant deity of choice. Are you suggesting that if I provided a message and backstory and made up an explanation, as you have, that it would be worthy of consideration? Really?

What causal effect on the natural world do angels and God have? Other than just that you assert that they have?

If you made up something about your pink elephant, no it would still not be worthy of consideration--because you made it up. 

What causal effect on the natural world do angels and God have? Well, Jesus was a pretty big one--you know, dying for all of humanity. People have given testimony (which is evidence) that they have received messages or assistance in time of crisis from angels. You can choose to believe them or not. Your belief has nothing to do with the truth of the matter. Whether a person can 'substantiate' their claim or not have nothing to do with the truth of the matter. There is no evidential, logical, nor scientific reason you can stand behind and make the counterclaim: "that didn't happen. 

Quote:

(July 20, 2017 at 11:24 am)SteveII Wrote: The churches spread throughout the empire within 15 years of Jesus' death, the the 27 different authenticated writings discussing Jesus and his teachings, and ancillary works and references throughout the first century is certainly evidence that Jesus did what the people claim he did and said the things they claim he said.

That a movement resulted and spread in a short time is evidence that people found the movement interesting / compelling.

What authentication are you talking about? The church councils? That was just the early church picking what scriptures it wanted to run with.

No, it is evidence they believed the claims. They either were eyewitnesses or believed the eyewitnesses. They were either the evidence or believed the evidence presented to them. Since many were Jewish, their belief represented a 180 degree turn from the faith of their community families. So to characterize it as "interesting/compelling" does not capture the 

Even the famed Bart Ehrman believes that the NT is better than 99% of what it was originally. The dating of every one of the letters/gospels has been established long before any formal church. 

Quote:

(July 20, 2017 at 11:24 am)SteveII Wrote: These are all arrived at by considering evidence. So, to say that the NT is not evidence is simply wrong. What you mean is that in your opinion, it is not proof. That's fine--that is the threshold you chose.

It is neither evidence nor proof. Scripture presents the assertions, by fiat ("god said so"). It does not provide evidence. And since its claims are extraordinary (invisible beings and realms, miracles, eternal perdition, afterlife, etc.) the evidence must be extraordinary.

That which is not evidenced can be dismissed without evidence.

I am still awaiting your evidence.

Read the 27 letters and histories of the NT. If you think that is not evidence, than you have to deny that any historical account anywhere in the world at any time before electronic recordings were possible as 'not evidence'. If you are making a special case for the NT, well, that's just special pleading. Further, if you are saying because of the content of the NT (extraordinary claims and all) you don't believe them to be evidence, that is simply circular reasoning: there is no evidence for miracles, the NT does not count because it contains miracles. 

Quote:When I say the Bible is not evidence, it is not because it doesn't contain arguments in favor of its ideas, flawed and inconsistent and often illogical though they may be. It is because one does not refer to a claimant's claims as evidence for its own claims. [1]

You are playing word games to deflect from the basic fact that you have a huge mountain of assertions but not an iota of valid, admissible evidence to support them.

You disbelieve in all the deities put forth by religion, save one. I don't believe in even the single one you believe in.

You have no better reason to afford belief to Jesus than you do to Vishnu or the Buddha or to Thor. Other than that you are accustomed to / probably raised on Jesus and are invested in Jesus. Vishnu and Buddha and Thor have their written and oral traditions, their believers, their assertions, their miracle claims and legends, just like Jesus does. Why do you follow Jesus? If you're honest, you'll have to admit that if you'd been born in Tibet, you'd most likely be a Tibetan Buddhist, and not a Christian. You would know nothing of Christianity. You are what you are because it's what you were indoctrinated with. Not because it's compelling or unique. The vast majority of Christians do not chose Christ over other gods, they just run with what they are aware of.[2] 

1. Three points on the New Testament not being the claim:

1.1- The claim is that the events outlined in the gospels really happened--one in particular: that Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth to redeem humanity and provide a way for people to have a relationship with God.
1.2- The gospels and Acts catalog the claim. The balance are letters discussing and applying the claim.
1.3- The NT consists of 27 different documents written over 50 years time (give or take). It's a little bit of an understatement to describe such a diverse collection of palaeographical gold as if it were one thing: the claim.
Evidence for this claim are the people and events surrounding the life of Jesus that the authors wrote about. It is not as if the gospel writers wrote an essay on what people were saying and gave no opinion on the facts. They were testifying to its truthfulness (as evidenced by their own experience or by interviewing eyewitnesses as they wrote it).


2. Christianity is better evidenced, internally consistent, and addresses the major questions of life better than any other religion, ever. And each and every year, a vast number of people freely choose Christianity as adult--more than do any other religion and atheism.

(July 20, 2017 at 4:57 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1.3- The NT consists of 27 different documents written over 50 years time (give or take). It's a little bit of an understatement to describe such a diverse collection of palaeographical gold as if it were one thing: the claim.
Evidence for this claim are the people and events surrounding the life of Jesus that the authors wrote about. It is not as if the gospel writers wrote an essay on what people were saying and gave no opinion on the facts. They were testifying to its truthfulness (as evidenced by their own experience or by interviewing eyewitnesses as they wrote it).

Steve,

No scholar believes that the New Testament was written over a period of 50 years:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/

Dawn

(July 20, 2017 at 12:31 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(July 20, 2017 at 9:33 am)SteveII Wrote: 2. The universe is not infinite in any way.

You might want to read The Physical Universe by Professor Frank Shu:

Quote:Publications[edit]

Shu is the author of several books, among them Physical Universe: An Introduction to Astronomy (University Science Books, 1982) which has become one of the standard textbooks for undergraduate astrophysics courses all over the world, while the two volumes The Physics of Astrophysics Vol. I: Radiation (University Science Books, 1991) and The Physics of Astrophysics Vol. II: Gas Dynamics (University Science Books, 1992) are classical texts commonplace in astrophysics graduate curricula as well as recommended by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

I have read it several times, and in it, Professor Shu discusses a Universe that is infinite in spatial extent.  But, here's another website for you:

Quote:There is no beyond

Another question is whether our universe is spatially finite or infinite. I think we can never know. It could be finite but of a size that is arbitrarily large. But to many people the idea of a finite universe immediately raises the question of what is beyond. There is no beyond – the universe is everything there is.

https://www.alumni.cam.ac.uk/news/beyond...e-universe

LOL. What happened to the other 3 points? Abandoning Morrison after just one post!! Your hatred of WLC leads you to believe that people have answers to his arguments and all you have to do is post a link and your done. It seems you don't even understand them. 

Now you want me to follow you down a theoretical rabbit trail and redefine infinity so we can somehow go back and apply it to something else entirely to prop up your theory? You couldn't even quote mine something that would even suggest this is a productive mode of inquiry into the question of a past infinite number of cause/effects. No thanks!