Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,168,833 members, 7,872,802 topics. Date: Wednesday, 26 June 2024 at 10:20 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Huxley's Profile / Huxley's Posts
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) ... (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (of 107 pages)
Religion / Re: Why Every Rational Person Must Accept Evolution. by huxley(m): 10:16am On Sep 10, 2009 |
Religion / Re: Why Every Rational Person Must Accept Evolution. by huxley(m): 6:38pm On Sep 09, 2009 |
mazaje: Hello Maz, The key to understanding evolution is to realise the elements that almost certainly "guarantees" the evolution of a specie. 1) Genetic variation 2) Selection pressure 3) Time 4) (Possibly Genetic drift) With this three elements present in a given ecosystem, evolution is almost certainly going to happen. It happens right now, all the time. Think of all the global scares about bird flu, swine flue, HIV, and many other bacteria/viruses resistance to drugs. How do these creatures develop such resistance? Basically, all of the first three of the above elements (plus possibly genetic drift) play a part in evolving new species of bacteria/viruses that are drug resistance. This sort of evolution that does not create new bodyplan and morphologies is generally called micro-evolution. Macro-evolution, the generation of new bodyplans, takes a long long time, certainly longer than a human life span. If you undertand how evolution works, then you will see why it makes no sense to ask questions like; 1) Why don't we see a hippo turning into a whale? or, as you put it, 2) A bird turn into something else? There are two answers to this: 1) Animals like hippos, birds, etc, are vastly complex animals than bacteria/viruses and therefore to change their bodyplan would require rather more changes at the genetic level. 2) The creation of a new bodyplan takes a long time, something that is difficult to see in animals with long generational life span. So if these animals are currently evolving, you would not see it. But as long as the same types of selection pressures continue to exist, your grandchildren 5 million years from now would see the new animals descended from present animals. For examples of macro-evolution happen within (a few) human life spans, check out the following; 1) The evolution in Sticklebacks, http://www.hhmi.org/genesweshare/e120.html 2) Evolution of The Nylon eating bacteria |
Religion / Re: Paul Kurtz - The Great Public Intellectual by huxley(m): 4:53pm On Sep 09, 2009 |
Pastor AIO: Ya own too much. You no sabi say some quesshun di pass me. Like I said, I am not sure whether ethical systems have a obligation to deal with existential issues. If you think that ethics should include or specifically seek to exclude existential issues, it is for you to show me how and why? My view is that ethic has no link with existentialism and therefore as we invent new ethical systems existentialism should not be brought it. But I stand to be correct by the superior knowledge. |
Religion / Re: Why Every Rational Person Must Accept Evolution. by huxley(m): 10:29pm On Sep 08, 2009 |
bindex: Any example of the assumptions and subjective suppositions you have a problem with? Any why they are a problem? |
Religion / Re: Atheists: Empirical Reasoning For The Existence Of God by huxley(m): 10:17am On Sep 08, 2009 |
Prizm, Many, many thanks for the great response to my mail. I really do appreciate the effort you have put it in addressing EVERY aspect of my post to you. Who said good, health debates were dead? I take from your lastest post a number of things which I shall endeavour to address. These are: 1) The main blank of our discussion, ie, the Cosmological Argument. 2) Other sub-topics like Ontology of entities (Dragons, Satyr, etc) , meaning of words (atheism, theism, agnosticism, etc) 3) And importantly, you have challenge me to explain WHY I am an atheist, which I shall do in a subsequent post. I am sure you are keen to see my response to your very interesting post, but unfortunately, I am not feeling very well at the moment and I have got plenty of work to do. So my full response will come nearly towards the end of the week. So please, Pardon me. I ask just one little favour from you - Can you oblige me with an answer to the following question? Are all entities and beings (transcendent minds and non-transcendent minds ) within and without (like God) the universe, subject to the same rules or laws of logic? Or are there some rules/laws of logic that are applicable to some beings and not to others? Further, do you think the rules/laws of logic are immutable? A response to the above would be much appreciated as it would enable me to respond to all your queries on this subject in my next post to you. Many thanks. |
Religion / Why Every Rational Person Must Accept Evolution. by huxley(m): 9:03am On Sep 08, 2009 |
Just watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgyTVT3dqGY. |
Religion / Re: Paul Kurtz - The Great Public Intellectual by huxley(m): 12:14am On Sep 08, 2009 |
Pastor AIO: My view of existentialism is the following - It is the point of view or philosophy which seeks to address the putative meaninglessness of human existence, especially by focusing on issues that directly impact or have consequences on human thriving. Now, why would human existence seem potentially meaningless? How could one organise their live so as to obviate this feeling of meaninglessness? It is obvious that any thought person, upon contemplating the status and condition of humans in this universe would inevitably be driven to regard this existence as meaningless within this existence, in the grand scheme of things; we are but a very very small portion of a unimaginably vast universe, to the extend that if our solar system were to vaporise right now (as will soon happen ) it will make not a dent in the overall mechanism of the functioning of our galaxy, nevermind the universe. Upon realising just how insignificant we are in the grand scheme of the universe, and how soon we are fated to be even less insignificant, how would we derive or impact meaning to our that would so very soon be extinguished, like the 99.9% of all other living things that have already gone that way. The spectre of not existing, after having basked very briefly in the sunshine, is frightening for very many people. So, how do we deal with such frightening thoughts, that emptiness of the future, that thought of relative insignificance? That is what existentialism seeks to address. Pastor AIO: Ethics, on the other hand, is a system of thought and practice aimed at regulating the interfaces of human interactions with other humans (and latterly with the environment). For instance, it deals with such issues as: 1) What is good 2) How we ought to behave So, on the whole, I do agree with the definition of existentialism and ethics that you have given here. The problem I had with your questions, namely, How do you INVENT an ethical system that is free from the spectre of Existentialism, or How do you reconcile the invention of an Ethical system with an existential reality? is rather one of my own inadequacy and lack of strong grounding in these hefty subjects (existentialism and ethics). From my limited perspective, I am not able to see how ethics are related or directly address humankinds existential needs. Allow me to paint a little autobiographical picture to illustrate. What do I do for my existential consolation? How do I address the putative problem of meaninglessness in my life? I shall start by saying that my life is very meaningful to me and to my friends and family. How do I derive this meaningfulness amid such overwhelming spectre of meaninglessness? Well, for me, it is primarily my way of thinking, acting and behaving. First and foremost, I regard this present life and existence as the only one I shall ever get. That empowers me and frees me from the subjugations of superstitions thus allowing me to make it as good a life as I ever can in the little time I have available in this sunshine. I engage in jobs I find meaningful and interesting, I take a keen interest in the welfare of my friends and family, I engage in activities that gives full expression to my skills and talents (such as playing football, dancing, debating on NL with you , cooking, reading, etc, etc), I try as little as possible to sit down and brood in things, tend to have little regrets on the whole, etc, etc. I accept that as natural entities in a cold and dispassionate universe, we are inevitable subjects to the vagaries of nature and happenstance. I hope you get my drift. I summerise my attitude with the following: All the world is a stage Perform rather than spectate The above is a quick broadbrush summary of how a address my existential needs. You could do well my reading some of the ancient philosophers on these subjects - Seneca and Epicurus are great. Check out the book "The Consolations of Philosophy" by Alan de Boton. It a great read. Now,each of the activities I listed above has ethical dimensions. For instance, when I engage in team contact sports, would it be good for me to deliberately seek to hurt the opposition, or cheat at the game? For me, the answer is a resounding NO. BUT do ethics seek to directly address the question of meaninglessness in human life? For me, the answers seems to be NO. This is not what ethics is supposed to do. Whatever gives meaning to your life, it does not seem to me to be the role of ethics to prescribe a method of impact such meaningfulness in your life. Ethics does not say you ought to the polite to your neighbours because that will engender friendly relations with them. Ethics does not require you to visit your parents regularly Ethics make no compulsion of you to take up any hobbies, or activities of enrich your life Ethic does not make requirements of you to seek consolations in the supernatural etc, etc, etc. I hope I have done a better job at explaining my position this time. And I apologise for not responding to this directly earlier. Far from being disdainful to you, I find my discussions with you rather more engaging than the normal rabble here at NL, and you know I have said as much in the past. |
Religion / Re: New Comer On Nairaland by huxley(m): 4:20pm On Sep 07, 2009 |
what sort of welcome would you like? |
Religion / Re: Atheists: Empirical Reasoning For The Existence Of God by huxley(m): 1:03pm On Sep 07, 2009 |
Deep Sight: Supposing I grant to you that the God of your definition exists, BUT I contest that this God did not cause the universe - that this universe was caused by some other entity who by necessity also exists, but is not the God of your definition. So, in effect, the God you posit is on an eternal holiday, but the entity of my definition is a diligent creator busily in the habit of creating universes. I contend that my proposition is equally valid, don't you agree? 2 Likes |
Religion / Re: Paul Kurtz - The Great Public Intellectual by huxley(m): 12:53pm On Sep 07, 2009 |
Pastor AIO: As you might expect, I have issues with the notion of discoverying ethical codes, as this suggests that these are obsolutes facts out there in the world that are just awaiting our uncovering. The obvious question with regards to the notion of discoverying ethics is the following: Is it ever possible to KNOW whether one has discovery the optimum or best ethical code for a given situation? If so, how does one know that what one has at hand is the "best" ethical code? Let us play consider the following scenarios that require sometimes very acute ethical evaluations: 1) Consider the ethical systems that were founded on the idea that human life started at the moment of conception, ie, the union of the eggs and the sperm. It bears to note that this system held sway for about 2000 years. When this system was discovered, was it the case that they had made the correct and proper discovery at the time, or was it a wrong discovery, or not an optimum discovery? How does one know when the best ethical decision has been discovered where say, a pregnant mother's life is a risk as a direct result of the fetus she is carrying inside her? 2) Consider the case of using embroynic cells for stem cell therapy and research? How do we go about discoverying THE ethical code about this one? |
Religion / Re: Atheists: Empirical Reasoning For The Existence Of God by huxley(m): 12:03pm On Sep 07, 2009 |
Pastor AIO: I shall respond to this in the thread in which it was raised. |
Religion / Re: Post Your Questions To HUXLEY Here by huxley(m): 1:55pm On Sep 06, 2009 |
this one? |
Religion / Re: Paul Kurtz - The Great Public Intellectual by huxley(m): 1:49pm On Sep 06, 2009 |
was it on this thread? |
Religion / Re: Atheists: Empirical Reasoning For The Existence Of God by huxley(m): 1:35pm On Sep 06, 2009 |
Pastor AIO: Yes, I do remember those discussions. I did NOT say I did not know the meaning of the word "existential". What I was disputing was your use and understanding of said word. That is why I asked you to provide a definition. For goodness sake, do you think going to a book or wikipedia is beyond me? On the question of timess eternity and temporality, my dispute was that your definitions were inconsistent, illogical and incoherent. I am happy for us to resume the discussion (if you can find it) to try to iron things out. |
Religion / Re: Atheists: Empirical Reasoning For The Existence Of God by huxley(m): 1:01pm On Sep 06, 2009 |
Pastor AIO: Hello Pastor, I don't know what you mean by "you can't deny that you suddenly become quite obtuse about the meaning of words and concepts when it suits you". I generally tend to use words as they are standard used in the general public or in trade literature. Can you show examples where I have deviated from this principle? |
Religion / Re: Atheists: Empirical Reasoning For The Existence Of God by huxley(m): 12:29pm On Sep 06, 2009 |
Prizm, Consider these two statements of yours: Statement A: If God had a body, he’ll merely be a subset of this universe and therefore logically he ceases to be a necessary entity. In other words, he would not even qualify for the name God. To have a body is to have finite parts or to be composed of matter, and necessary entities do not possess finite physically instantiated particulars. Does it make the issue simpler if instead of the word ‘mind’ you substituted the word ‘intelligence’? And this Statement B: So I see no logical inconsistency in saying that God for example, to show himself in the universe, may temporarily assume some material form. I see no logical inconsistency also in saying that after establishing the laws and properties of the universe or natural realm, a God that transcends the universe may from time to time directly impact it. [size=14pt]Statement A asserts that God cannot have a material form (because he will cease to be necessary) BUT Statement B says God can temporarily assume material form. Are These two statements logically consistent?[/size] |
Religion / Re: The Greatest Show On Earth: By Richard Dawkins by huxley(m): 11:46am On Sep 06, 2009 |
bindex: Really surprised to read this from you. Looks like there is some confusion in your mind about what constitute the FACTS of evolution & The Theory of Evolution. Allow me to say the following; 1) Evolution is a FACT. That is, the gradual change of lifeforms over time is an irrefutable FACT. If this were not true, how would you explain the following; - No fossils of mammals are ever found found in the pre-cambrian but in much later ages. If they were not in the pre-cambrian, how did they "emerge" into reality some hundred of millions of years later? - About 250 million years ago, 99% of all living things on earth went extinct due to a global environmental catastrophe. If 99% of all living were wiped out 250MYA, how would you account for the vast diversity you see around you today? - How do you account for the fact that some whales are born with fully formed hind limbs, just like a hippo's hind limbs? - How do you account for the fact that there were absolutely no placental mammals in the Australian continent before they were introduced recently by humans. - How do you account for the fact that genetic studies show very close relationships between animals? For instance, humans are only a few percent (about 1 - 2%) different from apes. - etc, etc, etc. Under what theoretical framework would one explain all these FACTS? Can you explain them under the creationist framework, or the framework of the Theory of Evolution? The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is only one of possibly many different frameworks that provide plausible explanations for the observed FACTS of evolution. The core elements of the theory are: 1) Genetic variation in the population of animals/plants. 2) A long period of time. 3) A Selection pressure acting over that long period of time. OK, you may not accept The Theory of Evolution (By Natural Selection), which is fine. But you will face a hard time explaining the FACTS of evolution, some of which I have listed above. I would very much like to see you explain these FACTS in a non-evolutionary (non-Darwinian) framework? Over to you ! |
Religion / Re: Atheists: Empirical Reasoning For The Existence Of God by huxley(m): 11:02pm On Sep 05, 2009 |
Hello Prizm, Nice to see you back here - I was beginning to wonder what happened to you. Good to know you have been whacking all this while . I shall dive straight into the substance of the debate, avoiding all the fuss about whether you or I are being unnecessarily pedants about some words, as important was this is in its own right. I did ask you how you came to the knowledge that "Whatever begins to exist has a cause or an explanation" and your responds was : Now to come to this question, the statement "Whatever begins to exist has a cause or an explanation" is a properly basic statement about existence which is confirmed rationally, philosophically, logically, scientifically or otherwise. It is like saying "there is an external world (to myself) which exists". Barring the qualitatives of "scientifically of otherwise", I deduce that what you meant here was that this knowledge was a priori. You seemed to have had issues with me describing this as a priori, as evident from below; Prizm: From the foregoing, it is still not clear how you came by that knowledge. As you know, a priori knowledge is knowledge that can be arrived at by pure reason or analysis alone - it requires no appeal to experience or the empirical methods. On the other hand a posteriori knowledge requires an appeal to the empirical methods or experience. In view of what we know a prioir and a posteriori to mean, can you look back at your earlier statement and categories it under 1) a priori 2) a posteriori [/i]3) both [i]a priori and a posteriori 4) None of the above? In other words, is the statement Now to come to this question, the statement "Whatever begins to exist has a cause or an explanation" is a properly basic statement about existence which is confirmed rationally, philosophically, logically, scientifically or otherwise. It is like saying "there is an external world (to myself) which exists". 1) a priori ? 2) a posteriori ? 3) both a priori and a posteriori ? 4) None of the above ? Note that it is not a matter of satisfy me, but satisfying the rules and rubrics of reasons an logic that matter. I noted earlier that there are many empirical facts that indicates that somethings can come into existance without a cause. The two well-known and commonly accepted of these class are the radioactive decay to atomic elements and quantum vacuum fluctuations. I did ask you to consider the case of radioactive decay. For instance, what causes Carbon-14 to decay to Nitrogen-14? You said; Nevertheless that minute distinction does not obviate or undercut the first premise at all. So when you say that there are many empirical facts that do so, I’ll have to strongly disagree with you and ask for your evidence. Now, it seems to me that you are trying to undermine the first premise of the Cosmological Argument by talking about radioactive decay? Am I right? OK, at this point it pays to take a break and make some definition of terminology - CAUSATION. What do we understand by the word CAUSATION? This is where wikipedia comes in handy: Causation - Causality refers to the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is a direct consequence of the first. See wikipedia for details. Obviously, this is a simple definition, but it is still useful for our discussion. Causation implies a cause and an effect, with the cause happen before or at the same time as the effect. Now, what is radioactive decay? Again wikipedia to the rescue: Radioactive decay is the process in which an unstable atomic nucleus [b]spontaneously loses [/b]energy by emitting ionizing particles and radiation. This decay, or loss of energy, results in an atom of one type, called the parent nuclide transforming to an atom of a different type, named the daughter nuclide. For example: a carbon-14 atom (the "parent" emits radiation and transforms to a nitrogen-14 atom (the "daughter". This is a stochastic process on the atomic level, in that it is impossible to predict when a given atom will decay, but given a large number of similar atoms the decay rate, on average, is predictable. See here for more. Now, what causes an unstable atomic nucleus to decay such that it emits other particles? As far as I know, NOTHING is known to cause the decay of the nucleus. For instance, you could not act such as to take away the "cause" of the decay. Nothing influences the rate of decay, nothing can stop. No amount of heat treatment, pressure treatment, etc, etc, is known to affect the rate of decay. If the "cause" of radioactive decay is anything outside of the atom itself, then on the view that causation requires two things - the cause and the effect, then you could imagine a scenario where you could take away the cause to prevent the decay. So, from this analysis, it could be said that the N-14 atom came into existence from C-14 without a cause. Hey, I am happy to be contradicted if you have got some better evidence that what I just described is wrong. In view of your use of some terms from modal logic (ie necessity and contingency) and your use of the word transcendence, and your ascription of these words to God, I asked: Can you explain how a NECESSARY transcendent disembodied being inter-acts with a physical universe? BY WHAT MECHANISM? You said: Prizm: No, I was not asking how God created the world - rather I wanted to know things like the following, given his disembodied, transcendent and necessary ontology: 1) Does he created material things within the universe? If so, by what mechanism? 2) Can he move an object from A to B? If so, by what mechanism? In short, how does the immaterial unphysical inter-act with the material physical world? For the sake or argument, I am taking for granted that God, on your definition exists, but am examining claims that you have made about his ontology. That was my line of reasoning with that initial question. Prizm: I think you are shouting horay here a bit prematurely and for someone to say this of science betray your lack of knowledge not only of science, but also of the current state of knowledge in cosmology and theoretical physics. If you have not kept up with the state of affairs in cosmology, astromony and theoetical physics, allow me to tell you the following. The two competing candidates for the best explanation of the origins of the cosmos are 1) Inflationary Theory 2) The Cyclic Model founded on String Theory and the concept of membranes (or branes) 1) The Inflationary model is essentially the Big Bang, modified to accommodate more explanatory potential. 2) The Cyclic Model envisages a totally different view of the universe. That our universe sit on one of several membrane and that the Big Bang was the result of the collision of two of these membranes. For my money, the Cyclic model promises to answer more of the currently baffling features of the universe than the inflationary model, features such as: - the flatness of observed space - the origin and role of dark energy and dark matter. Both models make prediction that can be verified empirically and at present both have pass all but one of the six milestone predictions. In fact, the fifth milestone prediction was only achieved quite recently, with the publication of the results of WMAP, regarding red tilt, - a feature that both models predicted. The winner will turn on which models best predicts the sixth milestone, something called gravitational waves. The Cyclic Model postulates that membranes are in a cyclic pattern of collision, retraction, attraction and collision, ad infintum. Although it is not necessarily committed to a infinite past, it can also very well support a finite past model. So let's keep our ears to the ground for developments in this space before we make forecast like this.
On the burden of proof question, you said the following; First of all, this assumption is Wrong. This is a burden of proof fallacy on your part. But before I show how that is the case, allow me to briefly explain the terms theist, atheist and agnostic. An agnostic is one who confesses ignorance on the question of whether God exists or not. An agnostic therefore makes no claims on whether God exists or not. Theists and atheists on the other hand, make knowledge claims about the existence or non-existence of God. An atheist maintains that a God does not exist while a theist maintains that a God exists. The only party that has the luxury of sitting complacently to weigh the evidence on both sides of this issue is the agnostic. Now, if an agnostic is sufficiently persuaded, he may decide that some kind of God exists even if he does not think that his feeble human reason can fully understand that God. He becomes an agnostic theist. On the other hand, there are equally agnostic atheists and they maintain that not only does God not exist, if such a thing as God did in fact exist, that God cannot be accessed by human reason. As you might expect, I do not agree with some of your definitions above. I know we could quibble about this until kingdom come, nevertheless I shall say what I understand by these words: Atheism - Admits of a number of definitions - 1) The view that there are absolute NO Gods. This is sometimes called Strong or Positive or Explicit Atheism, and is generally understood in philosophical as rather a metaphysical commitment ( I shall not go into why this is so for now) 2) The view that one does not have a belief in god or one lacks a god-belief. This is also called Weak or Implicit Atheism. Comtemporary philosophy regards this view as essentially questioning the ontology of gods given by the theists. Agnostic or Agnosticism - The agnostic makes a claim (or rather lack of claim) about knowledge. The agnostic basically says that it is unknowable one way or the other. See the below from wikipedia and see the etymology of the word. Agnosticism . . . is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove and hence unknowable. See here for more details. "Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle." T. S. Huxley. So according to the standardly accepted version of the term agnostic, an agnostic is not making any claims, but simply says that the answer to the question of god's existence is UNKNOWABLE. How could you go from the definition of agnosticism to the following claim? The only party that has the luxury of sitting complacently to weigh the evidence on both sides of this issue is the agnostic. Note that the agnostic is NOT neutral - if you consider the two extremes of theism and atheism, the agnostic does not sit in the middle. For instance, it is conceivable that one could be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist. So which flavour of agnostic will you give the role of sitting complacently to weigh the evidence on both sides? Will it be; 1) An agnostic theist 2) An agnostic atheist 3) An agnostic agnostic (if there is such a thing)? Still on the terminological issue, you said the following;
Supposing, I tell you that my position is the following - I do not have a god-belief and that I do not belief there is a god. And that people with this state of mind call themselves Nodists. I argue that I have every right to call myself whatever I want, just as Huxley had the right to formulate the word AGNOSTIC to describe people of a certain state of mind. Under this new view, these terms now become 1) Atheist - one who asserts positively that there are no gods 2) Nodist - one who does not have a god-belief and does not belief in god. 3) Agnostic - one who thinks that it is unknowable one way or the other. Supposing the word nodist enters into current usage, how would you deal with the arguments from the nodist position? By the way, I am arguing the nodist position. For there to be the sort of discussions that have raged for centuries on whether God exists or not, we have to understand that the atheist is not just stating some innocuous absence of a belief in the existence of God, but he is making a positive knowledge claim that a God as a matter fact doesn’t exist. He needs to provide justification for that position. You said:
Like I said above, I do not agree with your ascription of the role of the mediator or arbiter to the agnostic. All parties in the debate have as their responsibility to assess ALL the evidence from ALL other parties. Let me address the below with the following thought experiment:
Can you tell me which of the following entities are standardly thought to exists and why? Can you also explain HOW YOU COME TO KNOW THEY EXIST OR THEY DO NOT EXIST? 1) Dragon 2) Nfenah-nfenah 3) Santa Claus 4) Mami Wata 5) Satyr Could you methodology for investigating the five entities above be applied to investigating the existence of God? WHY? So it is entirely possible for instance for a theist not to be able to present any proof at all for his position. Nevertheless, it would be deeply illogical to assume that that necessarily proves the assertions or positions of the atheist. Atheism is not the default position here. The default position is agnosticism, a confession of nescience, which essentially says “I don’t know whether God exists or whether God does not exist”. What do you mean by default? Is it suppose to mean one who has not take a view or a position of the God question? How about a two-year old child? On your definition of theism atheism and agnosticism, where would you put a two-year old child? Below, you are giving some sort of ontology of God, following on from your earlier definition of God as a necessary, transcendent, disembodied being with a mind and intelligence.
To my question about why God lacks a body, you said " he’ll merely be a subset of this universe and therefore logically he ceases to be a necessary entity". So God is a necessary being. But that statement is worrying, as your God already possess other attributes of the universe such as minds, freewill and inteligence. Why does this not make him part of the universe, but having a body would make him part of the universe? Can God bring about a state of affairs that result in him having a body? If so, would he cease to be a necessary being ? Remember what you said above -( he’ll merely be a subset of this universe and therefore logically he ceases to be a necessary entity) If God ceases to be a necessary being by obtaining a physical body, as you say above, does he also lose the quality of transcendence, since necessity implies transcendence? If God cannot bring about a state of affairs whereby he has material form, can he be said to be omnipotent? You said: So I see no logical inconsistency in saying that God for example, to show himself in the universe, may temporarily assume some material form. I see no logical inconsistency also in saying that after establishing the laws and properties of the universe or natural realm, a God that transcends the universe may from time to time directly impact it. You said above that if God were to bring himself into the universe in material form, he would no longer be a necessary being. So in the fleeting moments that he assumes material form to show himself in the world is he necessary or contingent or transcendent? Consider these two statements of yours: Statement A: If God had a body, he’ll merely be a subset of this universe and therefore logically he ceases to be a necessary entity. In other words, he would not even qualify for the name God. To have a body is to have finite parts or to be composed of matter, and necessary entities do not possess finite physically instantiated particulars. Does it make the issue simpler if instead of the word ‘mind’ you substituted the word ‘intelligence’? And this Statement B: So I see no logical inconsistency in saying that God for example, to show himself in the universe, may temporarily assume some material form. I see no logical inconsistency also in saying that after establishing the laws and properties of the universe or natural realm, a God that transcends the universe may from time to time directly impact it. [size=14pt]Statement A asserts that God cannot have a material form (because he will cease to be necessary) BUT Statement B says God can temporarily assume material form. Are These two statements logically consistent?[/size] From your reading of philosophy, can you provide an reference to books, journals, articles, material that support the view that an entity is capable of at one time being necessary and at another contingent? On the Christian view, Jesus was God in material form. I don't know if you are Christian, but let's assume that you are. From you analysis, what was the ontic status of Jesus? Was he 1) Necessary and hence transcendent? 2) Contingent given that he possess a material form and consequently non-transcendent? 3) Necessary and contingent? |
Religion / Best De=conversion Story Yet! by huxley(m): 5:31pm On Sep 01, 2009 |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLbTE56HqLE&feature=related https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOmSYHzeoNA&feature=related https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rP8ybp13s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf5q6VFn17o&feature=related https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNWqvEIcJpo&feature=related https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTbkgcFi7k |
Religion / Why Evangelise? by huxley(m): 3:16pm On Sep 01, 2009 |
What is the point of Christian evangelism? Christian believe that those who have never heard the gospel and the words of Jesus will be judged under a different dispensation that those who have. There are many millions of people today who have never been exposed to the gospel, nor will they ever be exposed to it. Many billions of humans have come and gone who never heard the gospel. Will such people be judge against a standard they never were exposed to? If it is true that people will be judged against their own standard if they had never heard the gospel, then what is the point of evangelising them. In fact, ironically, evangelising them ONLY maximises their chances of ending up in hell, for once they have heard the gospel, they are automatically present with more things against which they will be judge. What do you think? |
Religion / How Do You Or What Sustains Your Faith In God? by huxley(m): 1:13pm On Sep 01, 2009 |
If you are a Christian and you believe in God through your FAITH, you face many challenges to that FAITH from a variety of sources such as; 1) Internal personal doubt 2) Attack and temptation from the devil 3) Contact with other religions 4) Contact with non-believers and atheists etc etc etc So, what do you do to maintain your faith in God? Do you read up on Christian and bible history to shore up your faith? Do you simply pray to god for more faith? Do you bury your head in the sand? Do you avoid contact with non-Christians and atheists. I would like to how you sustain your faith. |
Religion / Christians, Please Pray For Us Sinners, Now by huxley(m): 3:15pm On Aug 31, 2009 |
This is a call to ALL faithfull, Jesus-loving and God abiding Christains. The world, the human race need your help. The human race is afflicted with diseases, natural catastrophes, poverty, hunger, etc, etc, (you get the picture). [size=18pt]I would like to call upon ALL Christians to pray to God and ask God to eradicate these afflictions from the face of the earth by the end of next year, 2010. [/size] Please, Christian, Can you do this for the sake of humanity, since you possess such a powerful God and an extremely reliable method of communicating with him. Many Thankz & Regards |
Religion / Re: Can A Pastor Make A Good President ? by huxley(m): 3:12pm On Aug 31, 2009 |
No2Atheism: Whereabouts in the New Testament are the functions of a Pastor (and I mean Pastor, not any other name) delineated? |
Religion / Re: Where Is Heaven? by huxley(m): 1:01pm On Aug 31, 2009 |
May kelly: Doesn't the bible say that "Heaven or the Kingdom of God is within you"? Or is there is difference between HEAVEN & the Kingdom of God? |
Religion / Re: Hail Mary, Mother Of Jesus, Where Are You Now? by huxley(m): 12:51pm On Aug 31, 2009 |
My suspicion is that Joseph was probably a middle-aged or elderly man when Jesus was born and that he would have died when Jesus and his siblings were still children and teenagers. If Jesus had 5 siblings as some sources allege, the early death of his father would have left the family really cash-strapped and in penury. The question is - how would she have supported her family without the income of her husband? I suspect she would have taken to prostitution, which I think was one of the only avenues available for women at the time. And there would have been a huge demand for the services of prostitute given the cosmopolitan nature of the area at the time, populated by peoples from Rome, Greece, Africa, Persia, etc, etc. And there appears to be some tradition that Mary's family was not particularly averse to prostitution. Mary's relation, Mary Magdalene, is known from some tradition to have been a prostitute. If this is true, Magdalene would have been well place to advise Mary mother of Jesus to enter into the profession. |
Religion / Re: Hail Mary, Mother Of Jesus, Where Are You Now? by huxley(m): 12:32pm On Aug 31, 2009 |
Christians believe that Jesus is in heaven with his father right now - but what about his mother? Whatever happened to her? |
Religion / Re: How The Bible Teaches Us To Recognize False Prophets by huxley(m): 11:55am On Aug 31, 2009 |
One foolproof way of recognising the false prophet is checking out what the prophets says/said. Surefire signs of a false prophets are: 1) Someone who claims to be the son of God; 2) Someone who makes prophecies that do not come to past; |
Religion / Re: Atheists: Empirical Reasoning For The Existence Of God by huxley(m): 12:34pm On Aug 30, 2009 |
Prizm: Thankz for the correction - I erred to have miss-quoted you and I understand your zeal for such pedantry as any productive debate can bearly get off the ground if there is ambiguity in the substantive terms, words or notions of the questions at hand. But you do not seem to want to practise what you preach. You call me to task for using the word "Everything" instead of "Whatever, yet you evince cavalier interest to some of the core terms of the question. Deep Sight formulated a line of arguments, using the words "Something" & "Nothing" along some pseudo-logical reasoning. He ascribed the number zero to "Nothing" and non-zero to "Something". Now, is this a line of argumentation that you agree with? How could we even proceed with this line of reasoning when no definition of the terms has been made? Although there are many terms, notions or concept that we may be content with from an everyday, common-sense perspective, when doing philosophical debate we must be wary of that approach, as I am sure you will apreciate. We must ensure that the terms or concept we use convey exactly the meaning we intend - hence the necessity for precise defintions. Incidentally I notice early just how you were calling him on his being loose with his argumentation; Prizm: [size=14pt]What a shame that you do not take your own medication.[/size] Prizm: No, I do NOT agree. This premise is not a priori knowledge and there are many empirical facts that belies this premise. By the way, what do you mean by CAUSE or CAUSATION? And in view of you definition of causation, can you explain what causes the following events: 1) The decay of a radioactive nucleus I asked: You say that God transcends the universe, etc, etc, . How did you come to know this? It is possible for an entity that transcends the universe and has no spatial, material or temporal component to inter-act with material components of that universe? By what mechanism does such inter-action occur? And you responded with the following: Prizm: You seem to be making unjustified and adhoc assertion. How is the concept of contingency/necessity connected with the question I asked. I asked by what mechanism was a transcendent being capable of inter-acting with the universe. You have a habit of brandishing some philosophical concepts (such as contingency and necessity) about without making any connections between your arguments. Can you explain how a NECESSARY transcendent disembodied being inter-acts with a physical universe? BY WHAT MECHANISM? Prizm: This is an extremely bizarre way to argue. Remember that it is the theist that is making the POSITIVE claim that a God exists. So the onus is on the theist to present the evidence for his God. All the atheist need do is examine such evidence as presented by the theist and see if they make sense in the light of our knowledge of the nature of reality. For this the atheist wil surmon succor from sciences, logic mathematics philosophy, etc, etc, as deemed fit. So it make no sense for me to accept the existence of an entity whose very nature and existence is at question before you can advance your arguments. This is back-to-front argumentation - it would be tantamount to accepting the guilty of a defendant before seeking to prove him quilty. Isn't this discussion part of the (Kalam) Cosmological Argument (KCA)? I hope you remember that I have issues with the very premise of the KCA and my response to your posts and to Deep Sight's have been about the CA. In fact, I would rather we discuss it here, as it stands to benefit more people interested in such matters, rather than moving the discussion to your private website with only a small audience of people. Prizm: Now, an epistemological question. You said God is "a transcendental unembodied mind. A mind has attributes like freewill, intelligence, reasoning, etc. This is what it means to say that God is a person or is personal - He can freely choose to create or not. As an incorporeal being/mind, he has no physically complex parts;" How did you come to know this? By what mechanism did this transcendent being (with no spatial, material or temporal component) inter-act with you (or other material humans) such that you ended up with this knowledge? How do you know God has a mind but no body? Which rules or laws are contravene if god were to have a body? (Note that I am not gonna insist that all minds MUST reside in a body) |
Religion / Re: Mazaje When Did You Leave Christianity? by huxley(m): 12:00am On Aug 30, 2009 |
Deep Sight: Does the god you believe in intervene in the world, or in human affairs? Why do you find the narratives of the religions unconvincing? |
Religion / Re: Atheists: Empirical Reasoning For The Existence Of God by huxley(m): 11:33pm On Aug 29, 2009 |
Prizm: How do you come to know that "Everything that begins to exist has a cause or an explanation"? How did you come to this knowledge? You say that God transcends the universe, etc, etc, . How did you come to know this? It is possible for an entity that transcends the universe and has no spatial, material or temporal component to inter-act with material components of that universe? By what mechanism does such inter-action occur? |
Religion / Re: Mazaje When Did You Leave Christianity? by huxley(m): 8:27pm On Aug 29, 2009 |
Deep Sight: Deep Sight, Where are you on the theism spectrum? Are you a christian, moslem, agnostic, or deist? |
Religion / Re: Atheists: Empirical Reasoning For The Existence Of God by huxley(m): 8:22pm On Aug 29, 2009 |
Deep Sight: You seem to be making a huge category error here. Zero, one, two, three, seventeen, ten billion - these are abstract constructions of the mind (possible only human mind). Think about it this way: - Did numbers exist 10 billion years ago? Even if I grant you that numbers are concrete things, they are at best representation of AMOUNTS of other things. Think of it this way; Depending on how you define a thing, there is probably a finite amount of such things in the universe at any given time. For instance, at any given time there is a finite amount of electrons, or stars, or grains of sand, or bacteria in the universe. But there is an infinite amount of numbers such that if you were to make a one-for-one link between the things and the numbers, you would run out of things but never run out of numbers, depicted below; ELECTRON-A --> 1 ELECTRON-B --> 2 ELECTRON-C --> 3 -- -- -- ELECTRON-last --> n (The last electron in the whole universe) --> n + 1 --> n + 2 --> n + 3 This show numbers are simply abstraction or representation of quantity or amounts of things, but are NOT in themselves the things they represents. So to assert that "Nothing" is Zero is a huge caterogy error. Deep Sight: No, we are not agreed on that. How have you demonstrated that for anything to exist it MUST have a cause? If this were true, how would you justify the existence of God? I was hoping you would address the question of whether God is Something, which I repeat below; [size=16pt] If God is Something, then from what "Something" did god come?[/size] |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) ... (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (of 107 pages)
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 255 |