|
Why does God let bad things happen?
Why do bad things happen in the world and why does God let them? This is the question Norwich local government officer, author and Proclaimers church member, James Knight attempts to address in the latest of his columns designed to get you thinking and debating.
One of the most common complaints against God is this; 'Why do bad things happen in the world?' And following on from that - 'Look at all the wars and conflicts religion has caused'.
It is not so surprising that these objections are prevalent among unbelievers, because the real answer to the question lies in the belief that the words of God are the only true way forward. When one believes that His words are the only true way forward, it is quite easy to see the real correlation between religion and human conflict. All the correlatives between religion and human conflict come under one big heading - The Sin Of Man. Only those who have accepted the words of the one and only God can understand fully the dangers of disobeying His commandments or the dangers of worshipping false gods.
Let us first take the objection that 'Religion causes wars and conflicts' - and straightaway we can see that it is a non-sequiter. Even those who stridently assert that religion does cause wars and conflicts do not usually realise that the method of logic they are applying to that statement is not the same method that they apply to most other forms of thought.
In fact, the statement 'religion causes wars and conflicts' can easily be refuted with one simple observation. Christ enunciated very clearly that those who commit treacherous acts are not pleasing God by their actions. He taught that all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Matthew 26:52. He also taught that anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. 1 John 2:9. And it naturally follows that those who choose to disobey these instructions are, very often, not true men of God. They have rejected the only religion that will provide them with the remedy for human suffering, so they are, therefore, in no position to blame religion, just as a man who throws his dinner in the bin is in no position to claim that he is still hungry.
 It is quite silly to blame religion for wars and conflicts, for deep down, even the most ardent sceptic knows that he or she is really to blame for his or her wrongdoing. After all, who could bear to have their soul displayed for all to see - every ingredient of one's thoughts and wishes written on a board and made public like the latest brand of washing powder? No, it naturally feels more convenient for humans to keep it all tucked away in the dark tunnel of the psyche. And the easiest way to do this is to blame something else, just as a man might blame others for his quick temper.
I said a moment ago that those who castigate religion for crimes committed use different logic for other things. I will now explain what I mean. If a man read the back of a bottle of pills and was instructed to take no more than four pills per day, he could hardly blame anyone but himself if he chose to take 12 pills and became quite ill. In fact, if he tried to blame the pills, the chemist, or the manufacturer, he would come across as rather foolish. Those who blame religion for sinful men's actions are arguing along the same foolish lines. These human faults know no boundaries of time, race or religion. The potential badness exists within almost all men and women and it easily explains how we are able to tolerate others.
But all this is not much use unless we look more closely at the reason why men and women think this way. There are two reasons why. The first reason is the most obvious; to think such thoughts provides an easy expedient method of rejecting Christianity without feeling much guilt or compunction. Thus men will say, 'I don't want any of that nasty barbarism, give me good old fashion morality any day'. The second reason is a little more complex - it involves confusion of thought regarding cause and effect. Cause and effect is the relationship between two things. One thing makes something else happen. For example if we consume too much food and do not exercise, we put on weight. Eating food without exercising is the cause; putting on weight is the effect.
When analysing cause and effect formulas, one should not forget that there might be multiple causes and multiple effects. When we are looking for correlations between wars and religion, we are really asking, 'why did the wars happen?'
 If an effect is what happens as a result of the cause, one would need to find a cause more primary than religion if one were to refute the objector's claim. The first principle of the argument is to find out whether religion is all of the cause, or some of the cause or none of the cause. The only way to determine this is by what is called componential analysis - the breaking down of each statement of contention. To do this properly, religious sceptics should really enquire about the cause of each individual war or conflict, not about wars or conflicts in general.
And now we come to the bit where those who are claming that religion causes wars are confused. They are wrongly assuming that causality can be explained through interchangeable substitutions; that is, they think the hypothetical change of a particular event or circumstance can help substantiate their claims of real causation. They will claim that a particular conflict, like, say, the past troubles in Northern Ireland, would not have existed without religion. They use the same method for their argument against religion in the same way that one might say, 'Without pigs there would be no bacon'.
Now it might be true that if there was no such thing as religion, the conflict in Northern Ireland would not have existed in the same way that it did. But it does not mean that 1) there would be no conflict at all; 2) that all religion is false or made up; or 3) that it justifies any decision to reject God based on conflicts observed around the world. We can see quite clearly the initial formula of primacy has broken down, for if religion was the cause of wars and conflicts in the same way that the moon causes the tides, then religion would have caused all wars and conflicts. And I think we can clearly see that no sane man or woman thinks that religion has caused all wars and conflicts.
Next week, in part two James concludes his look at suffering as an objection to the Christian faith. In the meantime, we welcome your thoughts and comments, below, upon the ideas expressed here, which are intended to stimulate debate. You can contact the author at james.knight@norfolk.gov.uk
|
|
| | LTA (Guest) | 22/09/2008, 12:01 | | James makes his points carefully and eloquently. Sadly, it doesn't matter how well an arguement is posed if the underlying premise is false. Wake up everyone, there is no god. Events happen in the world and in the universe. They occur not through the interference of some external power but only in accordance with the laws of physics. So if an earthquake disaster happens, its due to the build up of forces in the earth's crust. There is no meaning to the event other than a release of those forces. People are either in the vicinity of the event, or they are not. Chance and probability are at work here. Cancer occurs in living tissue not through some underlying master plan ultimately devised to benefit the human race, or as a divine "slap on the wrist" for previous misdemeanours, but perhaps as a defect in the tissue cells. My point is that we can spend years in pointless debate arguing about God's purpose in allowing one tragedy or another. Early philosophers spent years of fruitless debate wondering what would happen if the un-stoppable collided with the immoveable. The debate only ended when it was realised that the underlying question was meaningless. It is similar with religion. Once we accept the universe for what it really is, then, and only then will we make progress.
| | | James Knight (Guest) | 23/09/2008, 14:51 | | Hi Mike,
Thanks for your feedback. Although I do not think brother Theo (Mr. 'not again' to you) gives a good account on here, and his method of apologetics rather ineffectual, I do share his sentiments regarding your apparent disdain for those of us that believe in God. Ending a post with 'wake up' is hardly the best method of engendering a good debate, particularly when you seem to have entirely missed the point of my Religion/wars article. Regarding your enquires about suffering and, in fact, many other tenets of earthly living, these are points that, according to the accountabilty process, one can short cut and go straight into something more salient, such as - Is there a God.......in spite of the reasons one might choose to answer 'no'?
You asked for some logic, well let me give you something very simple.
Let X1 be a justified argument for the truth of Christianity. Let -X1 be a justified argument for the falsity of Christianity. Let H value represent one of the many hypotheses under which we ascertain X1 or -X1 Let P value represent the premise or premises under which we establish any contention H.
You elicit various premises here, all of which are true...
P1 - The world in which we live contains lots of suffering caused by humans. P2 - The world in which we live contains lots of natural disasters. P3 - The world in which we live contains lots of people with differing religious beliefs. P4 - The world in which we live contains lot of foolish and wicked people, many of whom are religious.
That's just a few....I'm sure you see the point.
Let us assume that you have used P1-4 to posit H1.
Here's the rub; one cannot logically contend either X1 or -X1 from H1; therefore you must look outside of H1. The position is not whether P1-4 remain consistent under assumed conditions -X1, or even with recourse to H1 alone. Whether we have X1 or not, P1-4 ~H1>-X1 is not a valid contention. I am confident that we do have X1, for some of the reasons Judy mentioned, and many others too - although as that is the debating subject in question I don’t expect you to concur X1 yet, not until I’ve shown you in greater detail why I think -X1 involves insurmountable problems regarding logic. While I can understand why your contention suggests difficulties with the diagnostic nature of God as regards P1-4, your attempts to undermine X1 with H1 are pretty futile. That’s why when my journey began I went straight for X1, for I knew that once I had established (and experienced) X1, I would understand P1-4 better - what the Bible calls ‘working out your salvation’. If you want to see why I think X1 is logical, you'll need to go to my Theory of Everything page.
Best wishes
James
| | | LTA (Guest) | 24/09/2008, 10:08 | | Hello James.
We can argue this or that until the cows come home. Instead, let's get right to the heart of the matter. Either there is a god or there is not. If there is then you are right. If there is not, then all the arguements previously advanced turn out to be wrong. Not just the arguements of course, but the vast industry and infrastructure built on that single premise would then be seen to be an enormous waiste of effort.
It seems to me therefore, that we must tackle that one simple question. Is there or is there not a god? For your arguements to hold water, you must first prove beyond any reasonable doubt that god exists. Proof MUST be verifiable by repeatable scientific observation . No other form of proof can be accepted. I will be delighted to consider any verifiable scientific observation you suggest. By the way, the "faith" arguement will not do. Nor will quoting instances of god talking to people.
Over the centuries, all scientific observation has consistently failed to produce any evidence for the existence of god. In fact, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that the universe runs entirely by itself in accordance with the laws of physics, without any external interference. Further, the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. If god did create the universe, then it appears he has long since left it to run itself. And if god is not in the universe, then he can have no possible influence upon the events which take place within it. And of course, if we argue that there was a creator, we must then tackle the annoying question of who or what created the creator.
I have to admit you have the advantage. Its much harder to prove a negative!
Best wishes.
| | | James Knight (Guest) | 24/09/2008, 10:23 | | LTA,
Thanks for your response. Virtually everything in your above post is either wrong or only partially right. I haven't got time now, but I will address each of your points and get back to you (probably tomorrow). In the meantime, it sounds as though you're badly in need of a good ingestion of my Theory of Everything
http://www.networknorwich.co.uk/Articles/119750/Network_Norwich/News/James_Knight/A_Theory_of.aspx
Regards
James
| | | James Knight (Guest) | 25/09/2008, 14:32 | | ***Erratum modification: I’ve resubmitted these as a section of my response didn’t post on properly last time.***
LTA (this is useful for Mike too),
Cutting straight to the chase, your point - "It seems to me therefore, that we must tackle that one simple question. Is there or is there not a god?" - is, I think, the right one. But you go off the boil almost immediately when you say...
"For your arguements to hold water, you must first prove beyond any reasonable doubt that god exists. Proof MUST be verifiable by repeatable scientific observation . No other form of proof can be accepted. I will be delighted to consider any verifiable scientific observation you suggest."
On the issue of “repeatable scientific observation”. There are many tenets to existence that are not amenable to the test/refute procedural analysis and are therefore not verifiable in the sense that you wish for. Psychological, sociological, emotional and a great many historical aspects of life, are but four examples. Our perceptive qualities and, more importantly, our ability to assess the validity of a theory based upon its appearance in front of our perceptive tools is usually how we reach sound conclusions. The vast non-testable domains covered by our best efforts for analysis, along with the limitations of human perceptual resources, only allow a very thin interrelational sampling of life. The success of test/refute procedural analyses is based on a formalisation of the theoretical notions that are at least amenable through systematic simulation and conflated with experience to provide us with ideas of validity. Moreover, the ontological complexities of what is basically a subject amenable to philosophical investigation and historical analysis will disappoint you as you search for absolute falsification or unequivocal verification.
Now we move on to proof. I am perfectly happy to agree with atheist’s demands for some kind of EVIDENCE for God. But many are happy to write off God because of ‘lack of PROOF’. One must realise that God is an infinitely complex personality and is not necessarily going to deign Himself to everyday human test/refute sampling; nor will proof of His existence necessarily arrive on the doorstep with bells hanging and trumpets playing. I am happy to accept the overwhelming evidence that, say, macroevolutionary theory is true, but it is very good ‘evidence’, not proof - proof is the wrong thing to look for in either case, for you set yourself an impossible task. ‘Proof’ of complex activity such as macroevolution just isn’t humanly possible (although that is no reason to disbelieve it) - all we ever do is perceive samples emanating from the subject in question, samples that provide us with palpable indication as to the efficacy of that which is being sampled. ‘Proof’ is an impossible demand to fulfill - either for evolution or for God (but there is great EVIDENCE for both). What you have to remember is that no set of finite samples is as big as the source object and therefore it is unreasonable to demand ‘proof’; the best we can get is ‘evidence’, and from evidence we can use our rationale to make logical inferences. There is of course nothing as vast and complex as God Himself. But we never prove He exists, we only ever sample Him; and for many of us, we sample Him with such a degree of certainty that we feel we have a priori certainty that He exists.
Next you say…
"By the way, the "faith" argument will not do. Nor will quoting instances of god talking to people."
How would you define 'faith'? I have certainly given you enough to help you see that it is not blind faith. The Christian faith is not an irrational stab in the dark, rather a position taken from the basis of reason to operate where reason fears to tread. It should be said that the man living under faith though reason is in an entirely different (and more glorious) position than either the man who is blindly holding on to faith and the man who has none. In the sense that the motion put before us is vastly complex and transcendent, faith is, initially, the method by which we understand rather than understanding the method by which we have faith; that is to say, any relationship with God must involve belief before the full understanding process begins.
You then go on to say….
"Over the centuries, all scientific observation has consistently failed to produce any evidence for the existence of god."
You allude to ‘lack of evidence’, but did you ever think that investigating the supernatural was going to be as easy as normal earthly things? I suspect that when you chaps say “there is no evidence for God”, what you really mean is, "I've never seen any evidence". Perhaps you need to look harder, or perhaps you would have missed the evidence anyway, once you heard they were miraculous claims.
The ‘observable progress/regress’ is fine as a paradigmatic model, but it is too big a jump from this to logical truth; that is, the interlocking system underwritten by logical truth. You must also understand that your pursuit of 'intentionality’ seems fraught. You won’t find Divine design and intentionality at quantum levels nor at cellular levels you will only find it in the whole system, and you can’t observe the whole system at once. Thus science will of course fail to provide us with intentionality with regard to the whole interlocking system. In the edifice of, say, evolutionary theory - detailed pathways from initial states to proffered evolved states with regard to ‘intentionality’ have no empirical basis, unless observed through the lens of the systemic whole. But even that systemic whole is only a subset of another systemic whole, and so on, until we reach the point where we have to admit to human limitation as samplers rather than system definers. As for the fact that you will not find intentionality inside the system, that fact does, rather paradoxically, give us a clearer path to know God - for the simple fact of knowing Him need not be observed or analysed in any of the complex subjects that we have on offer. Of course it is interesting to learn more about our universe, but the point I’m making is that God is the one who gives us revelation - He knows that we cannot find Him by perceived intentionality or by cosmological investigation - we can only know Him when a supernatural event occurs; that is, when we are ready to receive Him into our hearts.
| | | James Knight (Guest) | 25/09/2008, 14:33 | | One could scientifically examine, say, neuronal manipulation, but it is obvious that those who have experienced the risen Christ experience something that is not synonymous with everyday neurological caricatures of science. Most neurogenic activities constitute a theoretical attempt at making sense of perception through a very unnatural process. They are therefore part of a more general empiricism but in a much more circumscribed framework than metaphysics. Human behaviour has a ‘mind-collective’ interpretative component, and as such is more loosely tied to elementary observational protocols than metaphysics. Therefore, these examples of miraculous salvation exhibit a much greater compliance of metaphysical structure and a greater capacity to absorb apparent contra evidence. I do not mean that Divine impartations are unempirical - rather that their a priori complexity constitutes an ontology which makes them less amenable to examination with elementary experimental protocols, particularly as your experimental protocols are bound up with a vastly complex psychological nexus, which have a bearing in the formation of our own perception.
In spite of the wonderful achievements of science (for which we should all be thankful) it is true that we can never find ultimate logical necessity in these processes. If we have learnt anything at all from physics and the informational, computational nature of the cosmos, it is clear that there will always remain an irreducible residue of fact about our cosmos and, indeed, about the whole interlocking system of nature. The logical form of physics cannot be reduced until there is no initial content - it is not possible to compress the logical content of physics until we have nothing. Thus the cosmos cannot supply its own sufficient reason, at least a spatio/temporal cosmos cannot, nor for that matter can any interlocking system of nature.
Really, LTA, this investigation of yours is a bit like the figures we see in the dark as we are lying in bed with the lights just turned out – we are innately sensitive to the figure constitution and we are therefore inclined to see them in places where there are no figures. The caveat of human theoretical creativity is that it always must be aware of reconstituting sensible cognitive parameters in order that our own feelings remain wedded to human consciousness. What helps to direct the contours of human theoretical resourcefulness and keep it attached to the platonic world is that life-activity often forces theoretical narratives to be used in a preventative way. The apprentice who quickly makes sense of the work he is to undertake will learn to be a competent builder because of his anticipation of the job ahead. I admit that retrospectively accounting for all sorts of reconstitutions by claiming them unsatisfactory is difficult for the atheist and agnostic, but the theist isn’t asking you to believe in God based solely on principles of Aseity, ‘first cause’ incongruity, and infinite regression, he has better evidence for you.
There are countless experiences of God that very obviously escape the neural-accusations, as the divine activity-perceptions are not always intrinsic neurogenic facts. Also there is difficulty for those that claim “any interaction between god and mind would be physically mediated” in that the sense-data interface/physicality dialectic cannot account for the reified contingency concept - what I call the ‘Simulacrum’ of the Divine Realm. Any such interactions would be category distinctions in what is a vastly complex system of transference. We, as conscious agents in creation, perceive physicality through sentience, but the real nature of noumena is very probably a distillation from the divine mind - a vast thought being sustained by a mind of a priori infinite complexity. The notion of anything in the interlocking system (even outside our universe) as self-sustaining is hugely problematic (for reasons I’ve explained in my Theory of Everything)
Going back to your demands for evidence, the irreducibility of first-person selfhood ontology; that is, the nature of the self which is not acquiescent to any kind of congruous or corresponding uniformity of facts is itself more easily in harmony with ideas of special creation; the self is, as all who have experienced Christ will tell you, instantiated in something bigger than selfhood ontology - that is why my Informational Nexus" project leads toward our not becoming too distracted with subsidiary debates - the self can find God without any noumenal externality whatsoever – evidenced by the many who have found Christ but have had no Bible or Christian contact whatsoever.
As the divine impartations into selfhood are ‘unmistakable’ - that is, unmistakably Him, I advise you to seek Him in a way that really is unmistakable. God is not amenable to demonstrable creaturely empiricism - He is a vastly complex active personality, therefore evidence for His existence will not be found by those who make terse elementary demands to ‘see some kind of proof’. However, because of the inner-self’s irreducibility and discontinuity regarding external things it should (and does) follow that if those that claim to have experienced God really have experienced Him, then the same revelatory and explanatory process should (and is) available to all those who wish to know Him - this truth is encapsulated in Christ’s claim that those who seek will find, and that those who ask will have the door opened (Matthew 7:7).
Moving on…
"In fact, the evidence overwhelmingly supports the view that the universe runs entirely by itself in accordance with the laws of physics, without any external interference. Further, the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe."
Hmm….If I start on this one, I’ll run on for hours. You’re badly in need of my Theory of Everything.
| | | James Knight (Guest) | 25/09/2008, 14:34 | | Next…
"If god did create the universe, then it appears he has long since left it to run itself. And if god is not in the universe, then he can have no possible influence upon the events which take place within it."
Where on earth did you come up with that idea? Imagine God exists (G) and He created nature (N). Why on earth would you think anything that applies to N (laws, cause and effect, spatio/temporality, etc) would also apply to G? You seem to misunderstand the God diagnostic here. Let’s assume for a second that there is Divine activity (D#) and ordinary human physiology (h#) - certainly their dialectic will be a conflated dialectic. Clearly the disorder value h# is not adequate as an index in this connection; it reaches a minimum and a maximum only at the ends of the neurological disorder spectrum - from the minimum disorder of comparably pedestrian sporadic physiological sequences to the maximum order of the D#~h# sequence. As far as D# is concerned the organised complexity of organisms is an unexceptional state somewhere in between the maximums of order and disorder (a bit like DNA and RNA). If you take the definition of mind-collectivity to be ‘congruent information’ amenable to psychological evaluation so as to distinguish expected subject behaviour from anomalous behaviour you cannot expect under conditions D#~h# complex specified information to register a maximum turning point somewhere between minimum and maximum disorder as you can with, say, right/left hemisphere manipulation.
In science, one can see that the engines of neuronal activity create useful work throughout the various scientific gradients, but I see no conflict or contradiction between any of the foregoing and Christianity. If you had a Ford Escort in your driveway and woke up to find a Rolls Royce you would naturally assume someone has switched cars in the night. But if you were standing in front of your Ford Escort and it suddenly morphed into a Rolls Royce you would think it was a miracle. Therefore formal probability cannot be used to quantify the unknown or provide a cosmological assimilation process on those especial events that occur periodically. God could interact with the physical world, providing sustenance, in a way that is beyond human cognisance, therefore if divine interaction were a necessary feature of the interlocking system, there is no reason why you or I need understand the sustaining process. But at a personal level; that is, relationship through divine impartation - revelation - His interaction would be ‘detectable’ in cognition, if He chose to make it cognitively manifest. Thus your earlier claim that there is no evidence, doesn’t stand up very well, particularly as there are many many people that have claimed to know Him personally. The fact that we’re still talking about it means there has been a significant amount of evidence to avoid discarding it frivolously, as many have done.
There are certainly many millions of people that have claimed experience of God. Now I do not doubt that many of the claims were false. Moreover, I agree that ordinarily claims of revelatory inter-personal ontological certainty are scientifically intractable because of the instability of such assertions outside of the empirical framework. However, things change a little if we consider for a second that God Himself might very well seek us out and reveal Himself in such a way that our whole cognition goes through a miraculous transmutation.
| | | (Guest) | 25/09/2008, 14:34 | | Next..
"And of course, if we argue that there was a creator, we must then tackle the annoying question of who or what created the creator."
This sort of talk is philosophically incoherent, yet I know there are folk that claim the theorists want the easy way out here and that a Supreme Being must have come from somewhere. By ‘come from’ we really mean causation, regularity between two separate things (in this case, God and something that preceded Him). The difficulty is, of course, in an a priori subjective category, casual agency cannot be applied to a Being outside of the interlocking system of cause and effect (normal cause and effect precepts cannot, of course, be applied to something outside of those precepts). Of course the fiercest critics say this explanation is not good enough, but we cannot alter an intractable position to a different type of thinking simply because the proposition demands of us an intractable proposition, for we are left with nowhere to go. In our system of cognition, objects in this limited type of thinking are always conjoined with similar objects. All thoughts of causes always convey in our cognition by a customary transition some form of effect, therefore it is not surprising that our insistence upon a cause for every effect leaves us with the question ‘who made the designer?’. But it is not a valid objection; that is, its difficulty is not strong enough to sustain durable objection, only by those who wish to have an easy cop-out. The Divine realm, unlike our own contingent world which requires creation, needs no creation because it is in some sense self-justifying; that is, some kind of contradiction is entailed if one tries to imagine its non-existence, although a satisfactory explanation of timelessness and the affirmation of the Infinite are beyond the design of man in the interlocking system. The universe need not exist, therefore it shouldn’t really exist at all. The same cannot be said of a self-sustaining Being whose non-existence would be a contradiction.
If you search in the right way with the right frame of mind you will see that each first-person ontology can be transformed in such a way that selfhood will experience a miracle - a transmutation,
What you must realise is that Aseity is an entity whose non-existence, if such can be imagined, is a contradiction (it’s just that the analysis goes further back than many are willing to countenance) - whereas everything else in the interlocking system falls under the category of ‘possibility’ - ‘possibility’ that is one constituent of a wider potentiality framework. Anything that exists which is not underwritten by logical truth could cease to exist and not contravene logical truth itself. The same cannot be said of Aseity. Any Divine realm/created realm independence is, I would say, an interface - the explicability of which is only realised through a more substantial system - what I call "The relation between Cosmological Informational Nexus and Cognition" - which axiomatically confirms that the self can find God without any recourse to physics or, astronomy. Expect more of that later - watch this space.
We have a loving God who is eager for all of us to know Him and who wants to bless us far more than we can realise. When people bemoan the scarcity of evidence for His existence, all they do is overlook the emphatic evidence of His activity both as a man on earth who died on the cross and paid the price for us and also in the way He has revealed Himself to so many people.
Before I go, allow me to point out the tainted reasoning that has infected many of my interlocutors. As regards a discussion like this one, it will only be a sensible discussion if you admit the following:
Let us say that my contentions are packaged and represented by #1 (belief that Christianity is right) and yours are represented by #2 (belief that atheism is right). Now clearly when one is arguing for #1, his interlocutor cannot reject #1 under the premises of 2#, just as the inverse situation would also be amiss. Therefore the only way to see which of #1 or #2 is right is to accept that if #1 were right, the conditions under which #1 were postulated would pertain to #1 primacies, and the same for #2. The only way to show the errors or logical fallacies in either #1 or #2 is if #1 is inconsistent with #1 predicates or #2 is inconsistent with #2 predicates. A good example is when someone tells you they experienced a miraculous healing - categorised in #1, where miracles periodically happen. - therefore it's no use you rejecting it under #2, claiming it must have been a mistake. Why? Because under conditions #2, divinely inspired supernatural miracles are not possible. If you want to get anywhere you must rid yourself of bad #1~#2 habits. What you will begin to see if this continues is my pointing out the inconsistencies between ‘#2’ and ‘#2 predicates’ and that is what you’ve got to do with #1. Not reject them under #2 conditions because you, and Mike, will always be, I’m sorry to say, flirting with nonsense whenever you do this.
One more thing – watch out for the intractable folk that constantly ridicule religion, for they only show their amateurish tendencies, and how out of their depth they would be in a proper debate. Whatever else this ‘God debate’ is it certainly, due to its durability and putative significance, more than merits its place on the debating itinerary.
James
NB – please note, these posts have been resubmitted, as I didn’t paste them on properly last time.
| | | LTA (Guest) | 25/09/2008, 22:07 | | Well, that certainly made interesting (if not difficult) reading. I must admit, you do seem to have all the answers! I can see that no amount of debate will shake your beliefs and I admit to a sneaking respect for that. I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree in the end.
May I recommend you at least have a look at some of the fundamental laws of physics. Hopefully you may see that at least some of your arguements might just be a tiny, incy-wincy bit flawed.
Anyway James, I've done my bit now. Time presses and I must turn my attentions to earning a living. I hope you have enjoyed our debate as much as I have. If I have at leatse made you stop and question, then it has been worth it. You have certainly made me stop and question. I leave it in the hands of others to take up the challenge.
Best wishes to you and your colleagues.
| | | James Knight (Guest) | 26/09/2008, 10:08 | | LTA,
Thanks for your reply.
re - "May I recommend you at least have a look at some of the fundamental laws of physics."
What makes you think I haven't already?
"Hopefully you may see that at least some of your arguments might just be a tiny, incy-wincy bit flawed."
I don't see how, as my theory explicitly acknowledges the limitations of such laws in the grand scheme of things.
I'd be happy to hear you point out the 'flaws' you mentioned.
Regards
James
|
(page
1
2
3)
|
|
| |