Metaphysical
I've said that there's no logical reason to believe in the metaphysical, I'll amend this slightly. I can find no logical reason to believe in the metaphysical, that doesn't mean there isn't one out there. However, I need a new working definition of metaphysical. Here's why
( Read more... )
"That means somewhere, somehow there exists a place outside of time that is also lacking time. There's the metaphysical."
Is god a thing or a place?
Your inability to give a coherent definition of god is I think the cause of your fuzziness on the issue.
"This goes back to our discussion on actual infinites. Because we can reason that actual infinites can't exist in this universe, then time is finite, meaning it had a beginning. If it had a beginning, then at some point it didn't exist. That means somewhere, somehow there exists a place outside of time that is also lacking time. There's the metaphysical. And because it lacks time/space, actual infinites are possible, therefore a beginning/cause is not required."
This is a cop-out. These rules apply. Apply these rules. These rules don't apply to one of my premises, so my argument can work. My argument works.
Again you say, "this universe," as if you could when using its proper definition imply that there could be more than one (uni-). You're also using what seems to be a very loose interpretation of the word "exist." Something either exists or it doesn't. By your loose criteria, anything we think could possibly exist. The pastafarians might be justified in their belief of their Flying Spaghetti Monster.
As for your side note, you're right to call them less than strict lines. 8^)
"We're all asking ourselves the same questions. "Why do we exist? What is the purpose of existence?". The thing is, as great as science is, it will never tell us. It will tell us all the how's, and never the why's. The only response I've heard from atheists is "The purpose of existence is simply to exist". That doesn't work for me. That just begs the question."
You're right that science will never tell us, that's why we need to look for the answers within ourselves. The purpose of my life, as I prescribe it, is firstly to be the best person I can be; and then to be the cause of more benefit to the world than harm. (There, now you've heard an atheist say something different 8^P). To be purposed by some external, is to be like a tool on a tool-shed wall waiting to be used for that one task for which you were created. I'm no one's monkey-wrench.
"The world is incomprehensibly complex. And if there's not already enough to explain, I need an explanation for why I'm even here in the first place. Just the fact that I'm one of only six billion with the ability to even ask the question blows my mind.
For me Ethan, there's too much to give up to mindless randomness. There's literally TOO MUCH to explain for me. Again, existence for the sake of existence doesn't work for me, and I don't see how it could work for anyone else. In the end, I cannot comprehend this world without God. I really can't."
I honestly dislike that you use my name without giving me the courtesy of using yours.
You have a genuine wonder in you. There is so much to explain, it tickles our curiosity and makes our eyes water in their attempts to take it all in. It SHOULD blow your mind. In the end, the universe doesn't depend on your ability to comprehend it.
Science has the answer, or potential to answer, every question to which we can meaningfully know the answer.
"Just as men have needs, the thing required to meet those needs also exists. As a man thirsts, water exists to quench his thirst. As a man hungers, food exists to satisfy him. And as I require an answer to the reason for my existence, I believe God exists to satisfy my question, because without him, my question cannot be answered."
This is the theist at his most honest. He openly declares that he does not know the reason for his existence, and that he merely invokes the idea of god to keep him from having to worry about it. This is intellectual dishonesty, to claim an answer to a question that has not yet been answered.
Reply
I was hoping that the comment you made a while ago asking what God looked like was just a momentary lapse in judgment, but it seems stupid questions are common for you.
Ethan's reasoning: "Hey I know we're talking about something that CAN'T exist spatially, but maybe I'll ask if it's a thing or a place, which implies spatial necessity! I know this is a form of a straw man, but what the hell!"
A gross error comes from your inability to see the difference between the concept of the metaphysical and the definition of God. At the very beginning of our discussion, I had limited this to the metaphysical to save myself from the very stupid, but still very present Flying Spaghetti Monster. We had also discussed that this argument didn't deal with the nature of God, merely the necessity of the metaphysical. But still, even this far into it, you're still asking for me to define God?
"This is a cop-out. These rules apply. Apply these rules. These rules don't apply to one of my premises, so my argument can work. My argument works."
Ethan, you've yet to give even one intellectual response that addresses the Kalam and actual infinites. Pseudo-philosophical responses aren't going to cut it anymore. Address the argument or the argument stands (i'll nudge you in the direction your atheist friends will go: multiple universe hypothesis . . . and even then, that lame angle won't stand either)
"Again you say, "this universe," as if you could when using its proper definition imply that there could be more than one (uni-). You're also using what seems to be a very loose interpretation of the word "exist." Something either exists or it doesn't. By your loose criteria, anything we think could possibly exist. The pastafarians might be justified in their belief of their Flying Spaghetti Monster."
What's funny Ethan is that it's the ATHEISTS who like to postulate on multiple universes, not the theists (multiple universe hypothesis). Again, this hypothesis is a response to the Kalam and is only an excuse to avoid a theistic conclusion.
When I say "THIS UNIVERSE", I am explicitly trying to get you to think in only the laws that govern the universe we perceive. We've already seen your mistake in the past where you'll try to take the metaphysical, which DOES NOT exist in the universe, and apply naturalist laws to it. This is why I emphasize *THIS UNIVERSE*.
And you're also under the impression that in order for something to exist it must exist physically. We've addressed this before in reference to concepts, emotions, time, etc, and all this comes full circle back to the Kalam (since the metaphysical does not exist physically, even though it can be rationally reasoned that somehow it is necessary to exist).
HINT: fully address actual infinites, or it will bite you in the ass every time.
Reply
Call me Dick.
"You have a genuine wonder in you. There is so much to explain, it tickles our curiosity and makes our eyes water in their attempts to take it all in. It SHOULD blow your mind. In the end, the universe doesn't depend on your ability to comprehend it. Science has the answer, or potential to answer, every question to which we can meaningfully know the answer."
1. We've already admitted that science will not answer the why's.
2. We've already gone over in the past that science is not the only giver of knowledge.
3. We've addressed in other conversations that subjective meaning we find for ourselves does not ultimately give us purpose.
So basically, science will never tell us the purpose of existence, and we could never tell ourselves . . . so where's it going to come from, Ethan?
"This is the theist at his most honest. He openly declares that he does not know the reason for his existence, and that he merely invokes the idea of god to keep him from having to worry about it. This is intellectual dishonesty, to claim an answer to a question that has not yet been answered."
Don't confuse my statement. It's not that I invoke God as an excuse to my existence, it's that in my rational thought process, God can be the ONLY reason to my existence.
"You're right that science will never tell us, that's why we need to look for the answers within ourselves. The purpose of my life, as I prescribe it, is firstly to be the best person I can be; and then to be the cause of more benefit to the world than harm. (There, now you've heard an atheist say something different 8^P). To be purposed by some external, is to be like a tool on a tool-shed wall waiting to be used for that one task for which you were created. I'm no one's monkey-wrench."
You need to revisit our morality/purpose discussion because there's still confusion here. Any meaning you give to your life will NOT be objective, and in the end will only an attempt to delude yourself from the fact that your life is ultimately purposeless.
You claim in one instance that science will answer all questions, and then in other that science CAN'T answer the question to existence, and that the answer comes from within us.
In another instance, you criticize me for my conclusion because it's "intellectual dishonesty, to claim an answer to a question that has not yet been answered."
Ethan, I thought WE are the authors of purpose. You're crying foul only because you disagree with my conclusion.
Reply
There is no objective purpose, you are not a monkey-wrench Dick, though you may be a tool 8^P. We all just die and rot in the ground, and our planet will be inevitably destroyed. Our entire galaxy will follow, and then the entirety of existence as we know it. The question you have to ask yourself once you've accepted this is, "How do I want to live my one and only life?" Would you then commit suicide because life had no external qualifier? Would you throw away the tiny bit of existence you get to consciously experience? No, you'd make the most of it. That happens to include living a life that you would place value on, and for most people, that means being moral.
Science is working on a theory of everything as we type. Maybe it'll formulate one, maybe it won't, but it is science that will acquire us meaningful knowledge. Not this metaphysical gobbledygook.
Reply
Sure sure, it doesn't matter. It can only be logically concluded that it MUST exist and that it was the primary causal factor for the creation of our universe. Yeah, who wants to talk about that? :insert big ass eye roll:
If the question can't be answered, why do you feel the need to answer it for yourself? To make you feel like you have an answer? To facilitate happiness?
"The question you have to ask yourself once you've accepted this is, "How do I want to live my one and only life?" Would you then commit suicide because life had no external qualifier? Would you throw away the tiny bit of existence you get to consciously experience? No, you'd make the most of it. That happens to include living a life that you would place value on, and for most people, that means being moral."
Did I ever suggest suicide would be an option for a lack of an external qualifier? I mean, SOME sense of despair is expected to follow when an atheistic world view is accepted . . . I mean, coming to terms with the fact that you are ultimately meaningless/purposeless . . . realizing that the intense love you have for family and friends is nothing more than random chemical reactions in the brain . . . but suicide? Kinda dark.
"Science is working on a theory of everything as we type. Maybe it'll formulate one, maybe it won't, but it is science that will acquire us meaningful knowledge. Not this metaphysical gobbledygook."
Ethan, one day you will understand how wrong these statements are.
Quoted from your February 13th entry.
"The thought that science is the only informer of truth is false. Things science can't prove? Mathematics and logic, because well... science presupposes them! Metaphysical truths like there are other minds other than yours. Ethical claims. You can't scientifically prove the Nazi's are wrong because morality is not subject to the scientific method. And the understanding that the scientific method discovers truth cannot be proven by the scientific method. "
But really Ethan, you've really cheated yourself out of these discussions. You would start to respond, realize you might not be able to, and would conclude with, "Well, that doesn't really matter".
If you would have just said "I will do anything, say anything, and IGNORE ANYTHING to protect my atheistic worldview, and to avoid a theistic conclusion", then we could have saved ourselves a lot of time here.
Reply
Therefore, I would like to debate a new topic. Let's go on the idea that I accept your arguments, that there is a metaphysical. Where do we go from there? What is god? Are god and the metaphysical one and the same? Or does god exist in the metaphysical? Are these questions we can answer? If there are better questions we can go off of, feel free to present them.
Reply
Oh, but you have?
Ethan, the idea that either of us could be wrong is a mutual understanding, BUT I don't need to present an argument that I believe to be true and sound, that is supported to be true and sound, as if it were invalid. I make statements, you refute them, then I concede points. I'll be happy to concede points when you sufficiently refute them.
In order to refute my "illogically sound" points, you must present a line of reasoning that PROVES them illogically sound. This has yet to be done.
"Further, assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
You're correct, this came from Hitchens. But you seem to be alluding to the necessity of physical evidence for an argument. Is this true? If not, are you implying I haven't provided any evidence to my assertions?
"Therefore, I would like to debate a new topic. Let's go on the idea that I accept your arguments, that there is a metaphysical. Where do we go from there? What is god? Are god and the metaphysical one and the same? Or does god exist in the metaphysical? Are these questions we can answer? If there are better questions we can go off of, feel free to present them."
The metaphysical by definition deals with abstract areas of knowledge or things outside of the physical world. The use of "God" and the "metaphysical" in my mind are interchangeable. For the sake of these discussions, they are not. The term "metaphysical" is used in a much broader sense so we don't get caught up arguing the nature of God (yet. I think when all aspects of the discussion are taken on at once, it gets to be too much for discourse. It's easier to start out from point A, and move until we can't anymore, because if we couldn't get past point A, the whole discussion would be useless).
Here's how my thought flow goes for coming to a theistic conclusion.
1. Does the creation of the universe necessitate a metaphysical cause? I say yes. The Kalam convinced me.
2. Is it more plausible for the cause to be sentient rather than not? I say yes due to complexity.
3. Do any current religions present an accurate account of God? I found the conclusion in Christianity. The resurrection is specifically what did it for me. If you haven't researched the resurrection in depth, I think you would enjoy it. If anything were to be a catalyst for belief, it would be the resurrection, in my opinion.
I'm not dogmatic on that line of questioning. Let me know if I missed something.
Reply
The resurrection is very unimpressive to me. According to the bible, it wasn't all that spectacular (barring the whole forgiveness of sin thing). I mean, Lazarus (John 11:1-44), the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:43), and a whole butt-load of resurrected people (Matt 27:53). Beyond that, Jesus commanded his disciples to go out and do just that, "Raise the dead," which suggests to me that it's not all that unique an ability.
Maybe this is beside the point, but doesn't the idea that Jesus was raised from the dead, supposedly with foreknowledge of the event, nullify the power of his "sacrifice?"
I guess before we go too far I need to know just how seriously you take the bible. You don't appear to be a fundamentalist. What parts of the bible do you accept as true (apart from the resurrection) and what parts do you believe are metaphor or to be taken with a grain of salt and what method do you use to make the distinction? (just a few general examples will do, don't have to go page by page 8^P)
I ask partly because there's no external evidence supporting belief in the resurrection. Which would imply that you take it on the authority of the bible. Why?
Reply
Questions I would ask regarding the resurrection of Jesus:
Was Jesus the prophesied Christ? Did he fulfill the prophecy?
Can we establish credibility to the Bible as a historical text? Can we establish credibility to the eye witness accounts to the resurrection?
If yes . . .
Then at the very LEAST the apostles were CONVINCED that they had seen the risen Christ. Did they really see the risen Christ? Are there any alternatives to what they saw?
If not, then Jesus must have physically rose from the dead, and therefore is who he's claimed to be.
"Maybe this is beside the point, but doesn't the idea that Jesus was raised from the dead, supposedly with foreknowledge of the event, nullify the power of his "sacrifice?""
I'm not following. Can you explain more?
"I guess before we go too far I need to know just how seriously you take the bible. You don't appear to be a fundamentalist. What parts of the bible do you accept as true (apart from the resurrection) and what parts do you believe are metaphor or to be taken with a grain of salt and what method do you use to make the distinction? (just a few general examples will do, don't have to go page by page 8^P)"
I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Finding similes, metaphors, or non literal language doesn't negate the fact that I believe it's the truth. Probably my only major figurative interpretation (besides commonly accepted figurative passages) that anyone would find extremely controversial is my belief in a non literal 24 hour day in Genesis.
"I ask partly because there's no external evidence supporting belief in the resurrection. Which would imply that you take it on the authority of the bible. Why?"
There ARE external sources that corroborate certain aspects of the Bible (for example, Tacitus, Pliny the younger, the Pagan Celsus, etc . . . all corroboration for the existence of Jesus), but I often hear the objection that there are no external sources written to the fullness of the accounts found in the Bible. Like here, you're asking for an external account of the resurrection. Thing is, if such an account existed . . . it would have been canonized into the Bible. People often forget that the Bible is not comprised of one source.
With all this in mind, we establish historical credibility, treat it as a historical document, and take it from there.
Reply
I'm going to take this almost directly from Thomas Paine, who's book The Age of Reason you should surely read.
The word of god cannot exist in a human language. It is by definition, immutable and true. Therefore, since words in human languages evolve and change meaning, they can never be put together in such a way as to meet these criteria.
"With all this in mind, we establish historical credibility, treat it as a historical document, and take it from there."
You're not treating it as a historical document, you're treating it like the inerrant word of god. If you were reading a history book about Alexander the Great and it said that he walked on water and rose from the dead, you would have reason to be skeptical about those parts. Even if we could treat the Bible as a historical document, which I've yet to be convinced it can, (though I am looking into the external sources you cited) then we would be right to accept the parts that conform to the laws of nature, and jettison those that don't. To borrow from Thomas Paine (a deist) again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Reply
Ethan, nothing can compare to the horrific pain and agony Christ went through. Regardless of knowledge of the resurrection, he still had to endure that painful death! If you don't think that was a sacrifice, I don't know what to tell you.
"The word of god cannot exist in a human language. It is by definition, immutable and true. Therefore, since words in human languages evolve and change meaning, they can never be put together in such a way as to meet these criteria."
KNEW this was coming. Glad you brought it up though. Just happy to see you steering away from the "science" arguments. I like this line of thought, and we'll come back to it though. There are some things we need to establish first before we can go here though.
"You're not treating it as a historical document, you're treating it like the inerrant word of god. If you were reading a history book about Alexander the Great and it said that he walked on water and rose from the dead, you would have reason to be skeptical about those parts. Even if we could treat the Bible as a historical document, which I've yet to be convinced it can, (though I am looking into the external sources you cited) then we would be right to accept the parts that conform to the laws of nature, and jettison those that don't. To borrow from Thomas Paine (a deist) again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
No Ethan, for our sake, we'll be treating it as a historical document. I have just happened to come to the conclusion that Christ is who He said He was, and that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. No one tells you not to be skeptical though. BE SKEPTICAL. A healthy dose of skepticism is GOOD. These are extraordinary accounts that are hard to believe, but there IS reason to believe them. The historicity of the accounts in the Bible can be corroborated with outside sources, the existence of Jesus can be corroborated with outside sources, the existence of most of His disciples can be corroborated with outside sources. A huge question I ask myself is . . . if Jesus existed, and his disciples existed, and Jesus was actually crucified (we can go down this path if needed, but this can be established historically), then the disciples had to at least BELIEVE that they had seen the risen Christ, if they hadn't at least BELIEVED it whole heatedly, they would have never willfully been martyred for Christ's cause! That's why I asked earlier, are there any other explanations to what the disciples had seen? Because there would be no explanation for their death's if they hadn't at least believed Christ rose from the dead and was the Messiah.
Quick question though Ethan, why SHOULDN'T the Bible be treated like any other historical text. Merely because of the supernatural accounts in it?
Reply
The physical death of Christ was, obviously the end result of the scourging and crucifixion. Did he have prior knowledge that we would be resurrected? Yes. However, the events transpired between death and resurrection cannot be overlooked - otherwise we see another 'run of the mill' resurrection.
Christ's blood shed on the 'mercy seat' completed his substitutionary penal atonement. His eminent resurrection and ascension bridged the gap between ourselves and God. His intercession on our behalf hinges on the concept that his is currently alive. To see the crucifixion and resurrection only as death and life is incomplete.
"Furthermore, Jesus was supposed to pay off our wages of sin (death) right? Well, since we still drop dead every once in a while I feel I'm right in saying that either the sacrifice didn't work or never happened."
Yes, the wages of sin is death - let's not play naive. Just before the famed John 3:16, Jesus underlines the fact that salvation does not circumvent physical death. Your assumption suggests that Christians are impervious to sickness and immortal to boot. If that were the case I'm sure they'd have printed a pamphlet about that or something. Furthermore - Jesus paying off our sin is of no bearing to a person who does not accept/receive it.
As for the word of God not existing in human language, I flatly refuse to accept a completely unsustainable argument. A concept like truth cannot be confined to one particular syntax or vernacular - accepted. As our ability to comprehend such a concept grows, as does our ability to express and communicate it. It is irrational to believe that a God would deliver such a message with no means of communicating it's concepts readily to a people
These arguments are likely to be meet with a measure of contempt, as they don't adhere to the pre-existing scientific tone. However, certain core elements of faith cannot be discarded as inconsequential.
Reply
Leave a comment