http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/20/roland.martin/index.html”What would Jesus really do” is the title of the show, hosted by Roland Martin. I’ll be a part of a panel on the subject at 8pm tonight, live, on CNN. One segment, 4-person panel, so I should get one or two sentences in.Feel free to suggest some good sound bytes for me to sneak in during the show!Oh Yeah… HAPPY SOLSTICE! The days are going to get longer now!
Once again why would I come in here and agree with Atheism and everything. Then I wouldn’t learn anything new. I come in here sharing my Theist ideas seeing how they stack up. Not to be a “martyr”
I’ll be off for the day and probably the next few days. I have to go to my Dad’s house where we have dial up internet. So I probably won’t be back for the next few days. So any arguments you have will fall upon deaf ears.
jcc
jcc,
I certainly would not describe anti-theism as “simple non-belief”. My apologies, if I conveyed that impression. In my comment concerning agnosticism, I was actually trying to convey that the most radical extremes of theistic opinion can be literally described as agnostic.
Regarding Beem’s accuracy. You are totally correct that he or any other theist can accurately convey an atheistic position. My point was that I personally would not trust an xian apologist to do so. In my experience apologists are seldom purveyors of truth, accuracy, honesty and openness. Hence my lack of trust.
It’s a genuine pleasure when I come across one who proves my distrust to be unfounded.
Obeah:
Trying to learn from HeatheNZ why he thinks someone who claims to be a Christian can?t be trusted to accurately convey an atheistic position.
I can?t. I tried to phrase that as what I understand HeatheNZ?s position to be.
Obeah,
Oh, you should write a book for the circular xtian. jjc still wouldn’t understand though.
HeatheNZ:
I can partially see you point given that relating to truth is heavily dependant on one?s perspective and accuracy can be subject to incomplete knowledge, but why do you think Christian Apologists (including me) could have anything to gain here by being purposefully dishonest and intentionally lacking in openness?
I didn’t make this claim, so I feel no responsibility to justify it. I think I understand the concept jcc is referring to and it goes something like this:
If atheism is defined as a absence of belief in gods, and if all people are born tabla rasa (blank slate), then it follows that at birth all people do not possess a belief in gods (or any other beliefs for that matter).
Dislaimer: I am not testifying to the accuracy of the two premises, just the validity of the argument. If either premise is incorrect then the conclusion is not reliable.
Is that what you were driving at jcc?
jcc
Yes they usually do have something to gain (or rather something they don’t want to lose). And often (although certainly not in your case) it’s their livelihood, social standing, and/or their reputation.
But the crux of your question rests on the “intentionally” aspect. On this, I confess that I vacillate. I like to think that people are essentially honest, but I see the same obfuscation repeated so often by the same authors that I am compelled to think think that at least some of the time it is willful.
Having argued the atheistic perspective for some time against many theists I am very familiar with the temptation to slightly (or not so slightly) misrepresent an opponent’s position in order to score points in a debate. So much easier and tempting is this to do when you have a friendly or naive audience (as most apologists usually do).
I will point out that misrepresentation is a hollow victory, and if I succumb to the temptation, it does not leave a good feeling.
I try to be as accurate as I can about the theistic position, and where circumstances allow will invite the theist to either state their position or at least determine whether my depiction is accurate.
I am seldom accorded the same courtesy. In fact theists are often dismissive and incredulous when I attempt why their conception of atheism is less than complete, and at times highly inaccurate.
I suspect you and i might have been down that very road once or twice.
Comment from: HeatheNZ
So as I’ve said…we’re all “creationists”…
jcc
And almost on cue we have a classic example of misrepresentation (well perhaps not a classic example).
Is it intentional? I guess we have to decide that for ourselves. Perhaps phreedm meant it as a joke?
This kind of nonsense is what you get when you don’t nip the irrationality in-the-bud. The question “Is there a gawd?” is just plainly and simply a nonsensical question.
Is there a hagshk?
Misrepresentation…?
I’m just following your own claim…
Origin- the first stage of existence; beginning.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/origin
You yourself admit that there was a beginning…you can parse words all you want, but it’s still the moment at which the universe was created…
Or do you believe the universe is eternal?
Likewise…please list more then 2 theories to the “beginning” of the universe…?
HeatheNZ:
Yes, with respect to me remembering (which I admit, my recall may be faulty) that you once replied to one of my posts that ?we are all born atheists,? and no with respect to me being able to acknowledge that infants are capable of comprehending little more than responses to stimuli, much less (a)theological musings.
And in all honesty, that is pretty much the same approach I try to take here with respect to atheists, but your other recent responses to my posts reflect more of your previous attitude (?apologists are seldom purveyors of truth, accuracy, honesty and openness?) toward me?that?s what prompted me to ask (of me specifically?and especially since I have no monetary interest) what I have to gain by being anything less than honest and open here?
phreedm,
The reason I place origins in quotes is because we do not possess adequate language to address the question without relating it to a common concept of time.
In other words “origin” does not adequately describe an event that has no relation to time. It’s simply an inadequacy of language (or at least my grasp of language).
And your previous comment about creationism was a misrepresentation of a comment discussing the temporal invalidation of the following question.
jcc,
Since you ask, I have found your comments to be overly defensive and often disingenuous of late. I will hasten to add that this is certainly not been the case with this conversation. This conversation has been very positive thus far.
I would also add that I have deliberately skipped most of your posts recently, so I am in a very poor position to judge your recent contributions. I apologize if I have unjustly maligned you, however for what they might be worth, such are my impressions.
Note that this is merely my impression and others may well disagree with me. I have no intention of justifying my impressions, and would not have brought it up had you not inquired. I mention it here as a point of information, not as something intended to spark a defense.
As for yours (and other theists) motivations for posting here, I would hope you would be in a better position to answer that question.
I have no doubt that many of the drive-bys and infrequent theistic posters (assuming their theistic claims are genuine) do so merely to get a rise out of us (kind of like prodding a caged animal with a stick).
You regulars, quite honestly are more of a mystery to me. Personally I think you have a lot of offer this forum, and it would be a poorer place were you not here (which doesn’t mean that you don’t greatly annoy me at times) , but I don’t profess to know why you persist on coming. Maybe you could enlighten me?
Maybe you just enjoy the cut and thrust?
HNZ,
Of course there is…it’s “creation”.
phreedm
The point I’m trying to make is that there is a point (a singularity) at which time is not. (again our language is a very poor tool to describe this concept). If you want to call that a beginning then fine, but it’s not the same concept of beginning as a beginning that happens within a temporal realm, and it’s something that we find hard to conceptualize.
No, you’re not understanding my point as intended. That’s exactly what I am not saying. The implication of your statement (which it seems you are trying to foist upon me) is that time is not contained within the universe, but also exists as a measuring stick to distinguish Before Universe (BU) and After Universe Initiation (AU). (I’m deliberately avoiding the term created due to the supernatural connotations often associated with it). My point is that time most likely does not exist without a universe within which it is contained. Therefore using a term like “moment” to describe the initiation of the universe (and time) is basically meaningless. It’s like discussing square triangles. You can string the words together, but they don’t necessarily mean anything.
This sounds suspiciously like a bifurcation fallacy. Are there only two mutually exclusive possibilities?
Actually i think by definition the universe is eternal. I will argue this with the following line of reasoning:
1. Time is an aspect of spacetime contained within our universe.
2. Eternal means the full extent of possible time.
3. Initiation of the universe also signifies the initiation of time.
4. The demise of the universe will also signify the demise of time.
5. Eternity must (and this is where it gets tricky) exist either from any point in time back to the temporal initiation or forward to the temporal demise – or both.
6. Therefore in a very real sense (our temporal conception) the universe has eternally been here and will eternally be here as it pertains to time, despite the fact that it likely had an initiation and will likely have a demise.
Anyone care to comment on that logic? I hope I managed to explain it adequately.
Phreedm, I may be arguing semantics, I’d be prepared to concede that, but I think the semantics mask some deep and probative concepts that are fundamental to the argument.
I certainly do not claim to be an expert on this topic but a little research shows the following as a starting point:
Newtonian cosmology
Lorentzian universes
Early general relativity based cosmologies
Machian universe
G?del’s universe
MOND
TeVeS
Steady state theories
Tired light
Dirac large numbers hypothesis
Redshift periodicity and intrinsic redshifts
Plasma cosmology and ambiplasma
I’m sure there are more – and if you are interested you should be able to google these. Of course these do not include a myriad of mystical explanations – but then again you did ask for theories – and I assume you meant scientifically based theories.
Incidentally, do you consider the Christian explanation of God creating the universe as a theory?
And if you do does that mean that every supernatural explanation is also a theory?
phreedm
“Creation” has it’s own bugaboo, which is arguably worse. It implies that the thing created was created from from something else (and by something else). So creation is also terminally intertwined with the temporal realm.
And of course it’s a loaded term in such discussions as it’s the term of choice used to represent the theistic position. But then, of course, I suspect that’s precisely why you proposed it.
Certainly no-one can accuse you of excessive subtlety.
HNZ…
Agreed.
Here I disagree. Eternal is outside of time. Eternal is without beginning, without end. As we understand both concepts.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Of course. But logically it makes the most sense. Something cannot come from nothing. A creation cannot be greater then the creator.
To simply believe that “science” will figure it out, in my mind is a copout. Bottom line is one must not close their mind to the “truth”, no matter where it leads. Atheism does just that…
Whether theist or non-theist we come to the same point. We don’t know what existed before “time” or the “big bang”…atheism doesn’t allow room for the “supernatural”.
From what I know and after a quick search, none of these have anything to do with the “beginning” of the universe…
One is faced with decided on whether the universe is “eternal” or if it had a “beginning”…
And let me switch the argument…if the universe is “eternal”, who or what created it?
HNZ…humor me
I’m sure you’ve watched Star Trek…
Do you believe man will one day master the technology behind the “food replicator”?
Turning energy into matter…?
Phreedm,
The big bang theory never states that the universe came from nothing.
(The American Heritage Science Dictionary)
Phreedm,
did I miss something?
Maybe I just don’t understand creationism, but what did god make us out of? Himself? If it was himself, isn’t that pantheism?
Atheism isn’t a belief system, the rest of your argument boils down to arrogance.
phreedm
the beauty of atheism but also the burden of atheism is the openess to new facts.not believeing there is a god/gods is not the same as rejecting belief in god/gods should new evidence arise.should the christ story be proven true you would find no more devoted followers than atheists.based on the available evidence deism is more likely the case than the christ story.
Something cannot come from nothing. So, god created the universe. But god is something so who created god? Who created that creator of god? Logically this can never end. Word games are fun aren’t they?
phreedm
My understanding is that they are outmoded theories on cosmology that can be applied to a universal model. But the point is moot with your concession that the Christian explanation of God creating the universe is a theory. If this is so, then there are as many theories as there are and have been religions. You and I may consider them farcical, but they seem to fit as well as the ones advocated by contemporary religions such as Hinduism and Islam.
Phreedm
I think this will be our sticking point. I fail to see how eternal can mean anything more than “all time”.
I do see that you have limited support from a definitional sense.
But I fail to understand what it means to exist outside of time. Unless you can explain it to me without reference to temporal concepts, I will maintain that it is a nonsensical concept. It sounds to me that you are proposing there is time outside of time. Is that a fair representation?
Unless we can get consensus on this issue I think we are at an impasse and will remain that way.
phreedm
That’s reasonable if you hold that there is a valid concept of time outside of spacetime. That seems at least to be suspect to me. If time is contained inside spacetime then “eternal” and “initiation” (equate it to “beginning” if you like) are consistent with each other and the choice disappears.
I don’t think your definition of “eternal” makes any sense, consequently the question, IMO is makes no sense as you pose it.
If I may address it using a meaning of eternal that represents “all time” then the question still makes no sense because without a dimension of time “create” loses its meaning. Causality also loses meaning.
So in other words no-one nor nothing “created” spacetime. At least not in the sense that we understand the idea of creation.
As for how initiation happened, the best we can reliable extrapolate is: the expansion of a singularity that simultaneously expands spacetime dimensions.
I doubt these answers will satisfy you, they don’t really satisfy me, but as limited as they are it’s, IMO, a darned sight better than the simplistic, epistemologically empty answer of supernatural agents’ power of will.