Christianity

[Belinda]

The first thing that needs to happen is that whenever you hear the word "God," you need to stop visualizing this anthropomorphic nonsense...

It's logical and even reasonable to assume that an organized entity like the universe and all of its contained intelligences must have been created by a greater one. There is nothing illogical about such an idea. It begins with a god incipience or Cause whose blueprint establishes a chain of future causes. Sounds reasonable enough.

But should that preclude any probability of a very different process happening in establishing the same outcome reason normally defaults to?

If that "very different process" is dependent on the blind and mindless processes of chance, then YES, it is definitely precluded.

It is entropy, time and emergence which create the conditions of complexity which manifests itself in both micro and macro perspectives.

Easy to say, but impossible to imagine it occurring without some sort of guidance or teleological impetus.

It's a process which proceeds on its own on multiple levels, the Intelligence required already contained in it.

From whence did the disparate and chaotically dispersed quantum phenomena implicit in the aftermath of an alleged Big Bang, metaphorically depicted as this...



...acquire the "intelligence" to organize itself into the absolute perfect setting, depicted as this...



...from which life, mind, and consciousness could then effloresce (emerge) from the very fabric of the setting itself?

Every process contains a paradigm formed by an intelligence which doesn't have to be self-aware to be active.

Again, I'm having a difficult time imagining the presence of "intelligence" in the midst of this...



Your assertion is reminding me of one of my favorite cartoons...



_______

It's not easy to imagine a lack of teleological impulse but it's not impossible.

Okay, let's hear how you have imagined it.

Anthropomorphising the Almighty includes presuming the Almighty intervenes in history to steer the course of history otherwise than the original determination. After all, intentional interventions is what people do, not what the Almighty does.

Sez who?
_______

I did TM and not-intending to do or mean anything is the aim of the method. This to "imagine a lack of teleological impulse". Some meditators claimed to have accomplished lack of teleological impulse.
You may also imagine lack of teleological impulse by analogy with the apparent quiescence of a tree.

The Almighty does not intervene in history because everything event is ordained by The Almighty all at once and that is why He is called "The Almighty" as He is the only one that can cause everything else all at the same eternal present moment.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Get the books. You'll see there's plenty of evidence in them. And if you want something more challenging, may I highly recommend "The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology." I promise you, you won't be left in doubt.

(So as not to further derail Iambiguous's 'going nowhere' thread )

I have certainly looked at that sort of book. They abound. I do not bother with that sort of apologetic literature. I do not need it. The truth of Christianity is something one discovers on an inner level. It is there that the decision is made.

The arguments in those books and ones like them are not for those who don't or can't accept them but for believers. They are of absolutely no help for those outside of that particular belief. They are not evidence and they do not settle anything. Those books are written to help those who already believe so that they can imagine that, in relation to the more outrageous 'stories', they are veracious explanations. That is fine, I guess, as far as it goes.

As to The Blackwell Companion' that may be of another category:

The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland is a masterpiece for those who are advance in Christian apologetics. This book features:

The Leibnizian cosmological argument (Alexander R. Pruss),
The kalam cosmological argument (William Lane Craig and James D. Sinclair),
The teleological argument: an exploration of the fine-tuning of the universe (Robin Collins),
The argument from consciousness (J. P. Moreland),
The argument from reason (Victor Reppert),
The moral argument (Mark D. Linville),
The argument from evil (Stewart Goetz),
The argument from religious experience (Kai-Man Kwan),
The ontological argument (Robert E. Maydole) and
The argument from miracles: a cumulative case for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth (Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew)

These are productive arguments that do not try to 'prove' the existence of a primeval garden, Noah's Ark and other such meaning-laden mythic tales.

[seeds]

There's nothing wrong with a good ol' whataboutism once in a while, especially if it's valid.

seeds me old mucker, most 6 year olds could tell you that two wrongs don't make a right.

Look, it was you who stated the following,...

I still don't understand why anthropomorphism, when discussing the creation of the universe, is contradictory and paradoxical.

...to which I simply suggested what I feel is a valid reason for why anthropomorphism is problematic...

It's because anthropomorphic representations of the source of the intelligence that is responsible for the creation of the universe are precisely what makes the existence of such a source so implausible and unbelievable to atheists and materialists.

...To which you then proceeded to ignore or disavow the point being made and accuse me of some kind of debating "no-no" called "whataboutism."

In which case, if we're going to play by some sort of nit-picking equivalent of the "Marquess of Queensberry Rules" applied to a philosophical debate, then I accuse you of the "no-no" of using a "non sequitur" to sidetrack my argument.

Cicero didn't have the benefit of modern-day quantum theory seeming to validate idealism in that it loosely suggests that matter is made of "mind-stuff."

Well, first you have to pick your interpretation of quantum mechanics, then you have to choose how to interpret that interpretation. And there's the rub: what do you base that choice on?

No matter what interpretation you look at, they all imply that the underlying fabric of reality is composed of an infinitely malleable, informationally-based substance that is capable of becoming absolutely anything "imaginable",...



...just like the substance from which our thoughts and dreams are created.

Hence the notion that quantum physics - (no matter what interpretation you prefer) - seems to lean toward confirming idealism as per this definition:

idealism
noun
philosophy
...any of various systems of thought in which the objects of knowledge are held to be in some way dependent on the activity of mind...

Exactly the same world that presents itself to you can be explained by who knows how many updated and fairly plausible explanations.

Name just one plausible explanation (aside from the ridiculous "computer simulation hypothesis") that doesn't have the "chance hypothesis" as its foundation.

Coupla things seeds: 1. Pretending that in the very next sentence I didn't say

Frankly, I don't think we should discount implausible explanations; whatever the truth about reality, it is something 'miraculous'.

is a cheap trick even for someone who admits they resort to cheap tricks.

I didn't pretend anything, uwot, me old bean. In fact, I whole-heartedly agree with what you stated.

However, if you are going to make such statements, then I expect you to follow-thru with some speculative suggestions as to what you mean when using the term "miraculous." Otherwise, all you are doing is echoing the sentiment expressed in this amusing cartoon...

2. More to the point, what criteria are you using for plausibility? Is "loosely suggests" where you set your bar?

Don't be sneaky by trying to turn the question back on me. You're the one that asserted that the world...

"...can be explained by who knows how many updated and fairly plausible explanations."

I simply wanted you to point out the so-called "fairly plausible explanations" you were referring to in order for me to determine whether or not they were founded upon the utterly implausible foundation of the "chance hypothesis."
_______

[seeds]

Anthropomorphising the Almighty includes presuming the Almighty intervenes in history to steer the course of history otherwise than the original determination. After all, intentional interventions is what people do, not what the Almighty does.

Sez who?

I did TM and not-intending to do or mean anything is the aim of the method. This to "imagine a lack of teleological impulse". Some meditators claimed to have accomplished lack of teleological impulse.
You may also imagine lack of teleological impulse by analogy with the apparent quiescence of a tree.

First of all, my beautiful B, can we please use the word that I originally used, which is "impetus" (teleological "impetus")? Your substitution of that word with the word "impulse" makes no sense to me.

And secondly, there is no "quiescence" in the processes that result in the manifestation of a tree.

Clearly, the existence of this...



...epitomizes the very meaning of teleological impetus, for its DNA is absolutely pregnant with an intended goal of not only producing a tree, but also maintaining its existence throughout its life cycle of shedding and growing leaves and subsequent seeds of itself.

The Almighty does not intervene in history because everything event is ordained by The Almighty all at once and that is why He is called "The Almighty" as He is the only one that can cause everything else all at the same eternal present moment.

You have taken the concept of "The Almighty" to impossible extremes. You need to tone it down a bit.

Your erroneous assumptions about "The Almighty" are yet another reason why a Creator of this universe is so difficult for humans to visualize.
_______

[attofishpi]

Seeds. I have to admit that the only reason I went with Panentheism over Pantheism was the 'personable God' aspect of Panentheism. However, I am leaning more to Pantheism and would redefine it to include a personable God. In that God formed its intelligence as a result of the universe, rather than creating it...and is most definitely capable of being personable to intelligences that exist within it.

[Immanuel Can]

I do not bother with that sort of apologetic literature. I do not need it.

So you claim that Christians have "no evidence." Then, when I present to you the evidence, you declare you "do not need it."

I'm wondering how you expect me to be able to honour your request for me to prove there's evidence, under those circumstances. You'll have to suggest one: I can't think of what one would be.

The arguments in those books and ones like them are not for those who don't or can't accept them but for believers.

Again, this is incorrect...but your refusal to read them will keep you from knowing that. The arguments in the books I've pointed out to you are secular, even the two more easy-read books, and especially in the Blackwell Guide, of the highest scholarly quality.

But you have no interest?

The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland is a masterpiece for those who are advance in Christian apologetics. This book features:

The Leibnizian cosmological argument (Alexander R. Pruss),
The kalam cosmological argument (William Lane Craig and James D. Sinclair),
The teleological argument: an exploration of the fine-tuning of the universe (Robin Collins),
The argument from consciousness (J. P. Moreland),
The argument from reason (Victor Reppert),
The moral argument (Mark D. Linville),
The argument from evil (Stewart Goetz),
The argument from religious experience (Kai-Man Kwan),
The ontological argument (Robert E. Maydole) and
The argument from miracles: a cumulative case for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth (Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew)

These are productive arguments that do not try to 'prove' the existence of a primeval garden, Noah's Ark and other such meaning-laden mythic tales.

Good of you to recognize quality when you see it.

Well, let's set aside the particulars of those secondary arguments for a minute, since you find them "mythic," and let's just look at what the Blackwell Guide has in it. I have a copy here on my desk, right beside me, if you wish to refer to the particulars of any of them. And I've read it cover-to-cover.

You said there was no evidence...now, what do you think of the evidences these scholars present?

[Alexis Jacobi]

So you claim that Christians have "no evidence." Then, when I present to you the evidence, you declare you "do not need it."

I knew that you’d take this underhanded route! It is typical of your argumentation. You did not present evidence. You directed me to apologetic literature made for believers. “Here, go study this evidence and you will see”.

I already have read material of that sort. It is common material. Read some of the criticisms in the comments, it’s spelled out there.

I don’t have the Blackwell Guide but might get it. Takes weeks to arrive ….

As I said I do not require such faux-sources (the former two). The truth under examination is an internal affair.

[attofishpi]

So you claim that Christians have "no evidence." Then, when I present to you the evidence, you declare you "do not need it."

I knew that you’d take this underhanded route! It is typical of your argumentation. You did not present evidence. You directed me to apologetic literature made for believers. “Here, go study this evidence and you will see”.

I already have read material of that sort. It is common material. Read some of the criticisms in the comments, it’s spelled out there.

I don’t have the Blackwell Guide but might get it. Takes weeks to arrive ….

As I said I do not require such faux-sources (the former two). The truth under examination is an internal affair.

Bravo!

[Immanuel Can]

So you claim that Christians have "no evidence." Then, when I present to you the evidence, you declare you "do not need it."

You directed me to apologetic literature made for believers.

Hmmm...don't let the bias against apologetics make you miss something you should see, I would say.

Check it out: the arguments in those books are secular. You do not need to believe anything in order to assess historical evidence, and that's what they summon.

I already have read material of that sort. It is common material.

Well, my advice is simple: go and look. Don't let the fact that it's written in plain language, for an ordinary audience, distract you from the substance of the content. As I say, these are entirely secular arguments. That Atheists don't like them is not any kind of knock against them...in fact, it's a stroke in their favour, since that's exactly what one ought to expect from good arguments Atheists find hard to deal with.

I don’t have the Blackwell Guide but might get it. Takes weeks to arrive ….

I highly recommend it. It's a fine book.

[Dubious]

The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland is a masterpiece for those who are advance in Christian apologetics. This book features:

The Leibnizian cosmological argument (Alexander R. Pruss),
The kalam cosmological argument (William Lane Craig and James D. Sinclair),
The teleological argument: an exploration of the fine-tuning of the universe (Robin Collins),
The argument from consciousness (J. P. Moreland),
The argument from reason (Victor Reppert),
The moral argument (Mark D. Linville),
The argument from evil (Stewart Goetz),
The argument from religious experience (Kai-Man Kwan),
The ontological argument (Robert E. Maydole) and
The argument from miracles: a cumulative case for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth (Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew)

As given, these are all arguments of one type or another. As arguments, they elicit a minuscule probability of what they were philosophically designed to prove. Any potent probability usually emerges into one theme having its own singular logic, filtering out previously considered arguments which no-longer apply. Most arguments, whatever its subject, are composed by a multitude of opinions describing a human preference deemed most acceptable. The arguments listed, do not require the kind of construct essential for an emerging probability in the process of excluding others, leading to something more definitive. It only needs to be logical, based on pre-accepted inferences from which it proceeds to endorse a personal view.

Philosophically, most arguments are pre-designed to endorse one's interface with reality. Of course, when so suborned to such an uncompromising literal acceptance of an ancient text, all this would be anathema. All you require for proof are arguments verifying your already long literal acceptance of what long ceased to make sense when accepted literally.

Amazing, the never ceasing ironies of theism! Proof, or any high probability of it, is and remains your mortal enemy.

[Immanuel Can]

The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology edited by William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland is a masterpiece for those who are advance in Christian apologetics. This book features:

As given, these are all arguments of one type or another. As arguments,...

If you looked at the book, you'd see that they are evidentiary arguments...that is, they use facts and evidence to make their case.

But you didn't. So you don't know that. So you said something uninformed, instead.

[Dubious]

As given, these are all arguments of one type or another. As arguments,...

...they use facts and evidence to make their case.

...according to you, desperate to accept any interpretation favorable to your literalist view.

[Immanuel Can]

As given, these are all arguments of one type or another. As arguments,...

...they use facts and evidence to make their case.

...according to you,

According to anybody who has the book, which would, yes, be me.

[attofishpi]

...they use facts and evidence to make their case.

...according to you,

According to anybody who has the book, which would, yes, be me.

You do take the bible literally as fact though, don't you - deleting the point that Dubious made.

[Immanuel Can]

...according to you,

According to anybody who has the book, which would, yes, be me.

You do take the bible literally as fact though, don't you - deleting the point that Dubious made.

It depends on what you mean by "literal," ironically.

Some people imagine that "literal" means you have to pretend that poetry or metaphor are "literal," which ironically, would be not just unliterary but also unliteral. For if the poet meant to be a poet, one must take him as a poet, or one is not "literally" taking him for what he intended to be.

So that comment would need explication before I would know how to address it. If you mean, "You do not read the Bible as if it ever uses poetry or metaphor," then the answer would be "That's wrong." If you mean, "You do take all the statements the Bible itself treats as literal to be literal," then the answer is "Yes."