Lest we forget

[TomOfSweden]

[COLOR="Navy"]

1) A serious question over the idea of a purely naturalistic multiverse is that of determinism. If there is nothing except nature (nothing supernatural) then we seem to be left with a mechanistic multiverse, where all effects proceed from natural causes. This means that the event of someone having the thought 'There is nothing supernatural' is itself only an effect of natural causes. As such, it has no definite truth value.

2) there is nothing irrational in stating that reason cannot answer everything. Once a supernatural being such as the Christian God has been hypothesised, it is rational to admit that He cannot be fully comprehended or explained.

I've never claimed there's no supernatural force. I think that after studying the evidence it's the most likely conclusion. But that's not what this discussion is about. Not personal opinion but proof. The supernatural has no evidence what so ever suporting it, so it makes a weak case. All we have is blank spots on the map. We, (the humans) used to asume that the blank spots was covered by the supernatural because we had no other explanation. Today we do, and little by little the supernatural explanations are losing ground.

We can only use reason if we have premises to work from. If the material we are drawing conclusions from is infinate, then we can't say anything.

Let's create two possible hypothetical universes. One allows for the supernatural and the other doesn't. The non-supernatural is complex but has it's limitations and we can make plausible theories, while the supernatural one is infinate since the supernatural has no limits. This isn't a case against the supernatural, but if we believe in the supernatural then we can't say anything about it. That's where reason fails us.

[COLOR="Navy"]
You say 'Mathematically there is one chance among the infinite that the the christian theory of the universe is correct. If you in spite of this make any claim what so ever about the nature of the universe, then you are lying.' This is misleading. In the first place, one chance among the infinite is a vanishingly small chance, but it is not the same as no chance at all. If an extremely unlikely chance had not taken place, then the necessary circumstances for human evolution could not have taken place, yet to argue after the event that since it is so unlikely it has not happened is nonsensical.

Sorry, you missunderstood. What I meant was that if something is extremly unlikely, then it's stupid to have faith in it being true. It's a bit like buying a lottery ticket, taking multi-million dollar loans on the assumtion that the ticket will be the jackpot. This I think we all recognise as stupidity. Yet the chance of the christian theory of god being correct is less but it's still taken seriously by so many.

We have no idea whether or not human evolution is unlikely or not. I belong to the camp who believes that given the right circumstances life springs up easily. And aplying this to statistics, means that the universe is teeming with life. But this is off-course assumptions, because if we aply statistics again, we'll quickly realise that we're drawing assumptions from one single specimin, (earth) which we all know is bad science.

[COLOR="Navy"]
Secondly, to make a statement on the basis of limited knowledge, is not lying. In fact, as you yourself argue, there is no other basis on which we can make any statement. Christians say that they believe, on the basis of all the available evidence, that existence has certain attributes, and choose to live on the basis. Non-Christians do the same, making a different interpretation of the evidence.

This is where christian logic fails. You're still stuck on trying to prove whether the supernatural can be true or not. That's only step one. Christianity isn't about having faith in any supernatural force. It's about atributing it a whole host of attributes that we have no reason what so ever to give it. That's not making a different interpretation, that's just deluding yourself. Interpretation is about actually looking at the data, not just making stuff up.

I'll respect a "maybe christian". Somebody who would like the christian belief system to be true, but doesn't really know. Somebody who thinks the Bible is a great ethical system and who thinks the church is a great place to meet other nice people. It would be great if we went to heaven, but probably we won't. Going any further than this is deluding yourself or drawing erroneous conclusions.

[COLOR="Navy"]
You have introduced (at least) two value judgements there: 1) humans need 'guidance' (towards what? away from what? for what purpose?) 2) our actions should be predicated on the truth, not on lies. The most important question here, then, is: where do these values come from? Why should we adhere to them?

Yes. I think guidance is nice. I think I was pretty clear that that part was a value judgement from my side. I won't claim it as irrefutable truth.

Next one. Truth is needed for comunication. If we don't strive toward truth then we cannot comunicate. Even such a thing as drawing conclusions. correctness is a synonym to truth. If we don't strive toward truth we cannot make conclusions that make any sense at all. It is a value judgement as far as I'd like us to strive toward truth because I enjoy being able to reason. If I wouldn't strive toward truth all my actions would be random.

[COLOR="Navy"]
I agree with you - the exercise of human reason and imagination could never have come to an accurate conclusion about God. That is precisely why Christianity has never argued that it could.

That's just pretty words. Saying that christians don't claim to understand everything about god isn't the same thing as christians don't claim anything about god. Once you make any claims as to what god wants, ie the commandments you've invalidated that claim. Christians attribute a lot to god. Just the thing about going to heaven. That's a very definate claim of the nature of god and the supernatural.

[COLOR="Navy"]
As human beings we can speculate on the nature of the universe, and we can produce any number of theories that will more or less 'save appearances' (i.e. account for all known phenomena). God is the only one in a position of perfect knowledge (which, to respond to one of your earlier points, means he does not need to infer anything, and therefore can't infer wrongly) who can make a totally accurate statement about the nature of things.

Christians state that God has made such a statement, has revealed what we could not have discovered for ourselves, and what we could not have been sure of otherwise.

Yet once that revelation has been made, it can be tested against our knowledge from other sources, judged on its own evidential merits, and we can see what credibility it has. Are the texts reliable, does the world picture they present match our own experience, and so on. On this basis, like any thinking person, we can then decide whether or not we think this is the most likely picture of how things are.

Or it was all just make belief from the get go and then you've got what? The whole belief system hinges on nobody fibbing along the way. That's quite a number of assumtions. I'm not arguing on what's more likely or trying to talk you into anything. The non-supernatural theories have numbers. Things to measure. Things you and me,(with the proper training) can check for ourselves. It doesn't hinge on some dude in a beard 2000 years ago wasn't having a psychotic episode. If you're saying that it makes no difference to you then I'd say you where gullible.

The bible most certainly has a set of answers. Other faiths have other sets of answers, sometimes complimentary, sometimes opposing, but they are still a set of answers. Now clearly they cannot all be right, but it is possible that one has the complete truth, it is possible that all have parts of that truth, it is possible that some or all are completely wrong.

I think it is part of our individual development to decide for ourselves which, if any, we embrace, using all the tools we have at our disposal to make the best decision possible. Himind has gone down a similiar route and found a different answer. Other people have posted their different conclusions.

Although I have made a personal decision to believe what the bible says, I completely agree with you that it is wrong to hammer it as the truth. I will willingly share with anyone who invites me to do so, what it says; I will tell them why I believe it is right; but I will always leave them with the challenge to decide for themselves.
Colin Clout & cariad

That's what I don't like about the religious. It's if religion is about some personal journey. It just isn't. It's about the pursuit of truth. Working it out and comparing theories. Not buying into one theory when it has the same evidence as another. It's not the same thing as taking a personal journey and "finding yourself". That's psychology or something else. The supernatural claims in the world are completly seperate from the religions they come with.

I'm sure the religions of the world are great for humanity. They seem to fill some very important social function for people. Because they can aparently make people ignore the problems of the supernatural claims. I've got a friend who's the member of the world pantheist movement. He is adamantly atheist but needs some spiritual guidance and likes being with others who share his views. It's a religion and a church. They've just eliminated making any crazy claims they can't back up. I have no problems with that church.