Jesus as Lord - why is this appealing to so many?

[polymath257]

Well, we generally assume that both space and time are infinitely divisible.

There is nothing self-contradictory to having finite time or space. But there is also nothing contradictory to have either be infinite.

I think most people have more trouble with finite time: try to imagine a time with no 'after' or a (different) time with no 'before'.

Most people also don't go for cyclical time: infinite repetition of exactly the same events. That is a form of super-determinism that gives most people pause.

The only other alternative is to have time extend infinitely into the past and future.

Similar considerations can be had for space, although cyclic space isn't quite so counter-intuitive as cyclic time.

[RoadRunner79]

I think that there are claims within Christianity which are falsifiable, and those which are not.   There certainly seem to be a fair number of atheists who think that it is falsifiable.

In the interest of learning more about you and your beliefs, would you be willing to elaborate on the part in bold?  With that said, I will understand if you do not wish to discuss it.  Thanks for your reply.

K.S.

Thanks for respectfully and considerately asking. I do appreciate it. At this time, I’m sorry to say, that I haven’t been feeling well, and don’t think that I would be able to adequately entertain this other (larger) topic.

Perhaps you should start a thread on the topic. Perhaps someone will take you up on the discussion. It seems one that would apply to theists certainly, but also perhaps to atheists who think some claims as false. However you may have issues with some distinguishing the question of if it is falsifiable, and if it is false.

I wish good luck if you choose to persue this.

[LadyForCamus]

Lol, typical Road. Always ducking out of explaining his actual position. How many times is this now, Road? And you wonder why you’re always getting strawmanned.

[RoadRunner79]

Lol, typical Road. Always ducking out of explaining his actual position. How many times is this now, Road? And you wonder why you’re always getting strawmanned.

I explain my self plenty. If you would like to answer his questions... feel free. Also in my experience, stating my opinion doesn’t make a difference is some actually addressing it. Why are you always wanting me to change subjects?

[Succubus]

Lol, typical Road.  Always ducking out of explaining his actual position.  How many times is this now, Road?  And you wonder why you’re always getting strawmanned.

...If you would like to answer his questions...

No, the questions were directed at you, you answer them.

[LadyForCamus]

Lol, typical Road.  Always ducking out of explaining his actual position.  How many times is this now, Road?  And you wonder why you’re always getting strawmanned.

I explain my self plenty.  If you would like to answer his questions... feel free.  Also in my experience, stating my opinion doesn’t make a difference is some actually addressing it.  Why are you always wanting me to change subjects?

I just find it peculiar how you always dodge pointed questions about your personal beliefs.

[RoadRunner79]

I explain my self plenty.  If you would like to answer his questions... feel free.  Also in my experience, stating my opinion doesn’t make a difference is some actually addressing it.  Why are you always wanting me to change subjects?

I just find it peculiar how you always dodge pointed questions about your personal beliefs.

I don’t think I do normally if it’s a specific question... and not switching to a long involved discussion. The previous time you brought this up, I did point you to another thread where the topic was being discussed. I also think that I should be given some allowance and be able to just say no... to switching topics. Perhaps you notice it more, because you are always wanting me to talk about something else. Which by the way... you dodged the question as to why this is

---

It may also be noted,,, I think that I and KS have discussed this if nothing else briefly before.

[Kernel Sohcahtoa]

I just find it peculiar how you always dodge pointed questions about your personal beliefs.

I don’t think I do normally if it’s a specific question... and not switching to a long involved discussion.  The previous time you brought this up, I did point you to another thread where the topic was being discussed.  I also think that I should be given some allowance and be able to just say no... to switching topics.  Perhaps you notice it more, because you are always wanting me to talk about something else.  Which by the way... you dodged the question as to why this is

---

It may also be noted,,, I think that I and KS have discussed this if nothing else briefly before.

You are correct, RoadRunner. Our discussion can be found via the following link: our exchange occurred during the last two pages of the "Is Christianity Special Pleading" thread:

This was your response to my initial inquiry:

RoadRunner, out of curiosity, I'm somewhat confused by apologetics.  Specifically, god belief is unfalsifiable, yet from my observations, there are apologists who will use tools of falsifiability, such as reason and logic, to establish that their unfalsifiable claims are true (which can often give the appearance of mental gymnastics, rationalizations, circular reasoning, etc).  Could you please clarify how this is not a contradiction? Also, when taking an apologetics approach toward one's belief system, to what degree are the truths of that belief system faith-based? Does it make sense to engage in rational discourse over truths that are faith-based?

I would agree, that it would be incorrect, to engage in rational discourse, over that which is subjective.  However, I would disagree, that these things are unfalsifiable.  Hence I don't understand nor share your concern and confusion. Perhaps you can clarify (or re-evaluate that they are unfalsifiable).  I also think that you may have confusion on what my faith consists of.  My faith is in God, not about God.  I don't think that it is about taking a blind leap, and I don't advocate or think that people should have that kind of faith.  

With that said, is it completely sensible for an individual to accept the claims of his or her belief system based on faith/belief? Also, rather than asserting that one's belief system is the truth in our reality, is it more sensible and open-minded to keep one's belief system in the domain of faith/belief? Thanks

If it is a subjective matter, then I would agree.   However I don't think that your statements here make much sense when it is objective whether talking about religion or just one's worldview in general.  
Thanks for the very polite questions... I hope this helps.

And this was a later response you made to me as our dialog progressed:

Thanks for your response.  Out of curiosity, how would you go about falsifying supernatural claims?

Regarding [1], my confusion lies in trying to establish the truth of supernatural claims via naturalistic tools such as human reason/logic.  Furthermore, if supernatural claims can be understood or falsified via naturalistic means, then are these claims really based in the supernatural? Is it more accurate to say that "supernatural" describes humanity's lack of knowledge about how reality works?  

In regards to [2], could you please clarify the following statement: "my faith is in God, not about God."

Regarding [3], if one's worldview/religious faith is falsifiable, then does that open the door to subjectivity?

Thanks for your polite answer, sir.

Sorry for the delay in my response (been busy, tired, and sick as well).  
In regards to your points [1] I understand that there is the view of the word "supernatural" which basically equates to "unknown" (and it seems to me, this is how you are using it). That once the supernatural is known, it then becomes natural.  This is not what I would normally mean by the term.  I would view it more in this instance as transcending the natural forces of the visible/known universe and that which makes it up (and I understand it can be tricky to define precisely).  However it seems to me, that if we are going to know about the supernatural in any reasonable way, that there would need to be a falsifiable event or reasoning, in which to do so.

[2]  I mean, that I find reason to believe in God, and from that; I have faith in Him, and what He has proclaimed.

[3]  I'm a little unsure exactly what you mean here.  If you mean, that we can have disagreements or differing opinions; then I would agree.  If you mean subjective by nature, in that it is dependent on and internal to the subject then I very much disagree (falsifiable would entail that it is objective).

Again sorry for the delay.  I wanted to respond previously and wasn't able (and almost didn't now because of the pause in discussion).  So I understand if you lost interest.  But I appreciate your questions, and felt they deserved an answer.  I don't know that we approach the issue from the same perspective though (perhaps because of a difference in understanding regarding the word "supernatural".  And I'm not too concerned with the use of that term apart from a certain context.  If someone comes to me, with a claim (supernatural or not), I'm going to ask why I should hold that view.  And I think that something falsifiable should follow.

IMO, you made an honest and civil attempt to answer my questions.  However, as our dialog progressed, I wish that you would've been more specific about what would falsify supernatural claims (or Christianity) in your opinion.  With that said, I apologize if I've come off as redundant.  Thanks for your responses in that thread and in this one.

[RoadRunner79]

No problems... I don’t mind revisiting issues, and things are not always completed in one go of it. I wouldn’t have mentioned it at all of a paticular poster wasn’t trying to make it look like I’m avoiding questions.

[GrandizerII]

If I may play Devil's advocate, and because I'm curious about how Steve's overall argument about infinity can be effectively countered without assuming at least B-theory of time (if not eternalism).

Steve isn't necessarily arguing against the existence of an already completed infinity. At least not here (from what I've read). He's arguing against the impossibility of successively adding things (integer by integer) from negative infinity to any integer. Hence, the counting analogy.

Yes, and the porblem here is the implicit assumption that there is a start to all the adding. If there is no start, then the adding has always been going on.

But how does one even start the adding if there is no start to it? And how does the adding have already happened without a start?

I certainly have no issue with considering time (and space) as a whole. it is done all the time in cosmology. So, time being infinite in one direction or the other is equally problematic. And, in fact, in a multiverse cosmology, time *is* infinite in both directions.

In the case of the B-theory of time, the problem Steve is referring to can no longer apply. The Kalam Cosmological Argument has long been successfully debunked thanks to this well-accepted theory of time (because there is no successive addition going on under such a theory), and only WLC and the likes still desperately cling to it.