The Reasons why "Just Following Jesus" Doesn't work

[Delicate]

Part of the reason your post wasn't clear was because if you addressed the question in any more detail it was interspersed with your attacks on Rekeisha, apologetics, William Lane Craig and probably eight dozen others. Not worth sitting through all that.

But I see the "We don't know. Nobody knows." part. Was that a summary of your answer?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Part of the reason your post wasn't clear was because if you addressed the question in any more detail it was interspersed with your attacks on Rekeisha, apologetics, William Lane Craig and probably eight dozen others. Not worth sitting through all that.

But I see the "We don't know. Nobody knows." part. Was that a summary of your answer?

Yes, it is a summary of my answer. As is the next sentence, "but we have some pretty good ideas".

That is why I referenced you to the link about Dr. Carroll and his debate on the teleological argument with WLC.

What I was referring you to, in regard to why I don't wish to get into more detail without knowing the motivations of the poster with whom I am exchanging words (and effort), is the entire rest of that post.

Hint: It wasn't about attacking her, but about stating why I thought it was a pointless discussion to have. If you are here to suggest that I was wrong in my assessment, present your case for why I was wrong about her.

[Delicate]

I saw the Carroll-Craig debate, and I thought it was one of the best, most technically detailed debates I've ever seen. Frankly, I came away impressed by both Craig and Carroll- Craig, because as a philosopher talking cosmology with a professional cosmologist, held his own very well. I don't think Carroll could hold a candle to Craig if the topic was philosophical.

But I also was impressed by how effortless Carroll's responses were. I even thought he might have won.

Until I read commentary by Luke Barnes and Aron Wall, as well as follow-up discussion by Craig. It really seems like Carroll was a bit sneaky in areas and (unintentionally) misrepresented things or went off the rails on a number of issues.

But I haven't come to a conclusion on the debate. I won't until I map out the discussion, anyhow.

Here's a link to Aron Wall's reflections: http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/thoughts-...ig-debate/

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I saw the Carroll-Craig debate, and I thought it was one of the best, most technically detailed debates I've ever seen. Frankly, I came away impressed by both Craig and Carroll- Craig, because as a philosopher talking cosmology with a professional cosmologist, held his own very well. I don't think Carroll could hold a candle to Craig if the topic was philosophical.

But I also was impressed by how effortless Carroll's responses were. I even thought he might have won.

Until I read commentary by Luke Barnes and Aron Wall, as well as follow-up discussion by Craig. It really seems like Carroll was a bit sneaky in areas and (unintentionally) misrepresented things or went off the rails on a number of issues.

But I haven't come to a conclusion on the debate. I won't until I map out the discussion, anyhow.

Here's a link to Aron Wall's reflections: http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/thoughts-...ig-debate/

Thank you. I very much enjoyed reading Dr. Wall's blog entry; it was most helpful to look at Dr. Carroll's arguments through the lens of a skeptical theist who had a direct impact on the debate through citation. 

On the other hand, I think the opposite of what you've claimed here is true: WLC appears to me to have pulled "sneaky" debate tactics to give the appearance of having better arguments than he did. I say this as both someone who debated in college and as someone who has often gritted my teeth, in my own field of biology, as I watch Creationists using tactics like repetition (pretending your argument wasn't just refuted by your opponent, simply through the method of repeating it with an air of confidence; it should not work on an audience, but it does) and making references to models/theories that sound  good but which have been destroyed by newer methods of research, or which appeal to the layperson but are easily spotted as fallacious to experts, usually because the argument of the Authority to which they cite has been misstated by the debater. (WLC does this with Dr. Wall's own paper, according to Dr. Carroll.)

While Carroll may have relied on pushing what he feels to be the more-accurate model (and a case can be made that he has biases inherent in his reasoning, by which he came to these conclusions, but we cannot know) on the authority of his skill as a physicist and mathematician, I don't know if you could call it "sneaky" or "going off the rails". He did step outside the parameters of the debate topic, as he tried to address arguments against theism that have bothing to do with cosmology, and WLC corrected the course by calling him out on it; this is standard in a debate forum. But this gets into a basic problem: if a cosmologist can't rely on his authority as a cosmologist, and he can't go outside the field of cosmology, he is extremely limited in how he can address issues presented to him for refutation.

However, most of these discussions are well above my "pay-grade" because I am not a physicist, and I don't think four semesters of college physics courses will cover the calculus necessary to ensure that the authorities to which I cite are any more reliable than those relied upon erroneously by WLC.  As such, it is somewhat moot to even attempt to have a discussion on the level such a topic would require. As my signature below indicates, I don't feel a need to physically disprove the possible existence of any potential theistic deity. It would be a huge amount of effort and, in the end, we'd just be spinning our wheels. What does miff me is when people come here and point that argument, which is literally going on between some extraordinarily bright minds at the top of their fields, and claiming that we must "account" for it in order to be intellectually-fulfilled atheists.

If you wish to discuss evolution, genetics, or environmental/ecological science, I am happy to have as in-depth a discussion as you could desire. I also enjoy a high level of amateur apologetics, and have a minor in History, so I can for instance discuss why some of the claims made by Dr. Wall in his post, regarding "the fact" of the stories in the Bible, are horse hockey. But if you're just here to back up Keisha in an attempt to provoke a pointless fight about fine-tuning and "apparent" (yet unnecessary) reasons for a Creator to have done it, you can just go and find a middle finger to sit and spin on. I've had enough  of that kind of Christian Apologist ChrAp.

[Rekeisha]

So you don't have an answer?

I'm not even really sure what the question is! You're suggesting, without a shred of evidence, that the laws of physics might not be  uniform. Why would they not be? Essentially, you're telling me something magical, and telling me I can't account for magic.

You're right; I can't account for magic. So I'll just go on thinking the laws of the universe are fixed and an emergent (or inherent) property of the nature of matter/energy interaction, rather than supposing that these laws had to be "set" for this particular set of properties, for some not-quite-explainable reason.

There's no accounting for magic. So now I have a counter-question for you: How do you account for werewolves? (See signature.)

By the way you view the universe why is there uniformity? Why are they fixed? What keeps them fixed?
Do you believe in werewolves?

[Rekeisha]

The question is this: what can be deduced from the observation that causes are linked with their effects?

That people think physics hasn't advanced since Aristotle's observations about causality?

The truth is, of course, that I know what she meant  to ask. It's one of the last long-standing debates between physicists and theologians (which sometimes includes working physicists), put simply as: "why is there anything rather than nothing?" and/or "why are there describable, consistent laws of physics at all?"

We don't know. Nobody knows. But we have some pretty good ideas. However, since her "you can't account for uniformity" is not only a badly-worded physics question but is obviously a question well beyond her education level, and thus had to have been "handed to her on a platter, for serving cold to those Damned Atheists", so to speak, I didn't feel the need to take it seriously. Apologetic nonsense shoved in my face is bad enough, even when the person is willing/prepared to have a serious discussion of the concepts they are proposing to discuss... but when it's obvious that they view the question as a bullet fired from a gun, which if it misses they will simply reload a new, different bullet to fire my way, I have no reason to take them seriously or treat them with any more dignity than they are showing me.

Tell me truly, Chad... do you honestly think Rekeisha would be able (or willing) to have as serious discussion about the ongoing debate between models by atheist physicists like Krauss or Hartle-Hawking and theist physicists who suggest various anthropic principle arguments like teleology (what I would call teleonomy), and that she is both educated and honest enough to acknowledge weaknesses in her arguments rather than just repeating them at me, over and over, a la  William Lane Craig?

Before I even start to reply to such "easy question, long answer" statements, I must consider the intent of the poster. If it is clear that they are just using such arguments as bullets linked in a machinegun's ammo-belt, there is no point to wasting my time, and I will respond with mere mockery. However, since you have proved to be more educated and thoughtful, I gave you a full reply.

If it is so easy to explain and run over my argument then do so

[Rekeisha]

in the beginning God created everything good and when he created man it was very good. Only when Adam and eve sinned did we inherent a sin nature from our parents.

Yes,I'm familiar with the fable.
Your God determined that all of humanity would be afflicted with a sinful nature due to the disobedience that occurred in the Garden, despite having absolutely no connection to the original sin. That makes your God completely responsible for man's fallible and sinful nature, like it or not.

God does not cause us to sin but He does take responsibility for us. Jesus came and died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sin. In the end He will remove all sin from the earth. If you choose to hold on to your sin then you will be removed along with it. He will allow you to disobey Him but you can either allow Him to pay for you or you can pay the price yourself.

[Rekeisha]

That people think physics hasn't advanced since Aristotle's observations about causality?

The truth is, of course, that I know what she meant  to ask. It's one of the last long-standing debates between physicists and theologians (which sometimes includes working physicists), put simply as: "why is there anything rather than nothing?" and/or "why are there describable, consistent laws of physics at all?"

We don't know. Nobody knows. But we have some pretty good ideas. However, since her "you can't account for uniformity" is not only a badly-worded physics question but is obviously a question well beyond her education level, and thus had to have been "handed to her on a platter, for serving cold to those Damned Atheists", so to speak, I didn't feel the need to take it seriously. Apologetic nonsense shoved in my face is bad enough, even when the person is willing/prepared to have a serious discussion of the concepts they are proposing to discuss... but when it's obvious that they view the question as a bullet fired from a gun, which if it misses they will simply reload a new, different bullet to fire my way, I have no reason to take them seriously or treat them with any more dignity than they are showing me.

Tell me truly, Chad... do you honestly think Rekeisha would be able (or willing) to have as serious discussion about the ongoing debate between models by atheist physicists like Krauss or Hartle-Hawking and theist physicists who suggest various anthropic principle arguments like teleology (what I would call teleonomy), and that she is both educated and honest enough to acknowledge weaknesses in her arguments rather than just repeating them at me, over and over, a la  William Lane Craig?

Before I even start to reply to such "easy question, long answer" statements, I must consider the intent of the poster. If it is clear that they are just using such arguments as bullets linked in a machinegun's ammo-belt, there is no point to wasting my time, and I will respond with mere mockery. However, since you have proved to be more educated and thoughtful, I gave you a full reply.

If it is so easy to explain and run over my argument then do so

Do you have infinite knowledge? If you don't then how can you know that no on knows?

[Crossless2.0]

You mean why are there laws of physics? 

Well because of a magic wizard who made the laws of physics, of course.

So you don't have an answer?

Brahma.

And since you can't disprove my non-falsifiable claim, let's move on.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

If it is so easy to explain and run over my argument then do so

Do you have infinite knowledge? If you don't then how can you know that no on knows?

Well isn't that special? I must have infinite knowledge to read the works of top physicists who are debating the subject, notice that they, who would be in the best position to know such a thing, say they don't know but have some pretty good ideas, and accept that at face value.

Obviously I don't believe in werewolves. But if a person came up to me (or to you) and suggested that werewolves were what kept the laws of physics from changing, I'd likely have a pretty hard time not simply laughing at their suggestion, unless they backed up that assertion with some pretty serious evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

You continue to assert that the laws of physics may be variable, and must be fixed in place by the action of a Deity. I see no reason to suppose this assertion is true. As far as I can tell, the physicists are right when they demonstrate (via experiments at the high-speed particle colliders) that the properties of the universe, such as gravity, density, and electromagnetism, are emergent properties from the way in which subatomic particles interact with one another. Going back after the fact and imagining that some werewolf (or god) "fixed" those particules just so, so they would interact in this way, rather than some other hypothetical way, is irrelevant except in the context of those people who try to claim that we live in a world ordered by magic, and not the discovered laws of physics.