@ Sherlock
Next time your talking to your invisible monster, will you please ask him these 36 questions? Thank You ?
I listened to this while getting ready for work today. Pretty simple if you’ve done any research at all. He spends 10 minutes talking about himself, then does some bad math, then finally gets to his philosophical arguments about how morality can’t come from random processes, and being created in the image of God makes more sense.
What blows me away is his lead up. He presents a story of someone being raped, and how we all have a visceral reaction to that. We know it’s wrong. Therefore God. It does not seem to occur to him that the rapist is in the same image as the rest of us. Are we just supposed to know that some people aren’t God’s children, but something else, non-God’s children? He is incredulous that anyone could believe we act the way we do based on natural causes but says nothing about people acting the way they do despite this loving God he keeps mentioning.
To me, it makes perfect sense that we are flawed, because we are created by a mindless system that is reacting to natural pressures and driven by the desire to survive. There is no particular reason for this desire, but once we started figuring out we could depend on each other for survival we started working out how to do that.
???
I Just watched the video.
Perhaps someone should educate Justin in rape. Let’s see…I’m pretty sure God did not whisper in Mother Mary’s teen ears and say “Do you mind if I insert some magical sperm in your body? You will be known forever as The Virgin Mary and I will write a book about us” ?
Ummmm…Mother Mary was raped by an invisible monster! Pretty sure it was Not consensual and she was a minor.
@Sherlock/Justin
If you’re interested in debating a Harvard Educated Biblical Scholar, please Private Message Me.
You can find a short, simple and entertaining explanation of the Big Bang here… https://www.space.com/31192-what-triggered-the-big-bang.html
Since when has a scientific (rather than a biblical) explanation been proven to be a logical impossibility? Can we start with that, please?
Holmes, I have a question. Do you agree that we do exist?
Ignore the problem of how we came to exist for a moment and answer that question first.
h/t Lausten 
@Sherlock/JustinIf you’re interested in debating a Harvard Educated Biblical Scholar, please Private Message Me.
Justin’s show is on Christian radio and has hosted many Biblical Scholars of all stripes, atheist to fundamentalist. Most shows also include a non-believer. I listened to his podcast for over a year before I realized he was a firm believer. He stays neutral as the host most of the time. It’s the kind of discussion we need more of.
Write4U wrote: "Since when has a scientific (rather than a biblical) explanation been proven to be a logical impossibility? Can we start with that, please?"As I understand it, Sherlock believes that the universe originated from literally "nothing", which he defines as the complete absence of anything having any quality whatsoever. From this he deduces that since science deals only with things that have existence, it cannot formulate any theory about how it came to exist from "nothing". This, he says, is "cold logic".
Personally I tend to agree with what you yourself wrote earlier (post #307134). From his premise, the logical deduction that I would make is that the universe must NOT have originated from “nothing” because that would be a contradiction in terms. The universe must have ALWAYS had some quality or another. The Big Bang represents not so much the origin of the universe as a change from one state to another. But then I’m just an ignorant layman.
From (Holme's) premise, the logical deduction that I would make is that the universe must NOT have originated from “nothing” because that would be a contradiction in terms.The universe must have ALWAYS had some quality or another.
The Big Bang represents not so much the origin of the universe as a change from one state to another.
Okay Holmes, looks like you’re up.
I’m looking forward to seeing how you handle this challenge to your train of logic.
I think I read a post by Homes saying he is legitimately busy with life and isn’t ignoring us. But who knows.
Regardless of the reason, I’m quite enjoying the break from the endless insults. Seriously, I used to be stressed-out by the constant barrage of childish insults to everyone’s intelligence. Even if he were legitimately smarter than anyone, it would still be a terrible thing to do, but he’s not which makes it hard to ignore.
Why oh why can’t I let it roll off my back like you do, Lausten?
Because you have not yet mastered that exact balance between hubris and humility.
(I’m not sure that’s right, but it sounds like a good quote.)
Because you have not yet mastered that exact balance between hubris and humility.Maybe. I don't think I have too much hubris- at least no more than the average person. And I do know I'm wrong plenty often, so my humility is at a safe level.
I think it’s everything he says.
There are a few reasons he gets under my skin in a big way- I hate bullies, willful ignorance, and people who cheat (especially while pretending they’re innocent and playing within the rules.)
I’m no saint, but a willfully ignorant bully who cheats is pretty much the worst person possible.
TimB, you’re one of the ones on here who’s naturally able to be calm amidst the storm. I wish I were more like you, but I’m stuck being me.
All that being said, I do try to control my negative reaction as much as possible.
I’m no saint, but a willfully ignorant bully who cheats is pretty much the worst person possible."calm amidst the storm" is great, but hell if you got some passion in you, why not let it out occasionally. :-)
Why oh why can’t I let it roll off my back like you do, Lausten?The delete key is useful. You should see what I write that never gets posted.
The delete key is useful. You should see what I write that never gets posted.My unkind posts are after heavy use of the delete key. Sometimes a long rant is simply deleted and I post nothing.
An “explanation” is the layman’s term for theory, we’re clearly discussing theoretical physics here.A scientific theory that initially assumes nothing exists, no forces, no properties, no particles etc is the only kind of theory that could ever explain the presence of the universe.
But any theory in physics that assumes nothing at all exists leaves no scope for any kind of physical process because something must exist in order for anything to happen.
We therefore have a very obvious contradiction and therefore have to accept that no scientific theory or explanation can exist.
This is a common misunderstanding of physics. I assume you’re talking about big bang theory here. The assumption, made only because there are no facts to state otherwise, is that nothing existed in our universe. And that assumption has an exception, a singularity. And big bang theory isn’t just a random thought some scientist once had which is now accepted “fact”. It is derived from finding a formula which explains the expansion of the universe, is then shown to be as accurate as current understanding can make it, and then running that formula backwards to see what the explanation says came “before” this. The formula breaks down at the point where everything in the universe is in an infinitely small point. The math cannot be run backward any further than that. Thus, big bang theory. Nobody is saying, “This is true. This is how it is.” They are saying, “This is what the current evidence is saying. Let’s wait for new discovery before we jump to any conclusions about any other possibilities.” Scientific theory is not about “answers”, it’s about “explanations”. Big bang theory is a very good explanation for the expansion of the universe. It is useful in examining the universe before us. Therefore it is accepted theory until something better comes along.
The link below is from Unbelievable/Sherlock/Justin Brierely. It is a debate with Sir Roger Penrose and William Lane Craig from October 5th.
Please share your thoughts.
You know that’s conversation is going pretty slow and rambling - can you point to anything in particular that caught your interest and that you want to discuss.
x08:12 were it was these big deep existential 08:14 philosophical questions that eventually 08:17 through the witness of a girl who sat in 08:21 front of me in my high school German 08:23 class led me to faith in ChristOh yeah, that girl sitting in front of him,. Yes sir, I can relate to the wild places those girls can lead young men. But was it really God? Or did it just feel better than anything else he'd ever experienced?
08:31 question Justin it's important for me to 08:33 have a synoptic worldview that is to say 08:37 a worldview that includes a Christian 08:40 perspective on all of the different 08:41 facets of 08:44 human learning whether it be the 08:46 sciences literature art psychology 08:51 history philosophy and the deep 08:54 metaphysical question so you're correct 08:57 when I wrote my doctoral dissertation on 09:00 the Kalam cosmological argument under 09:03 John hick at the University of 09:05 Birmingham one of the things I began to 09:07 explore was whether there might not be 09:08 some sort of scientific confirmation for 09:14 the claim of the Kalam cosmological 09:16 argument that the universe began to 09:18 exist and I was startled to see the 09:22 degree to which contemporary 09:26 astrophysics did support this premise
I believe it’s dishonest to imply that western science, makes it Christian Science - which it certainly sounds like what Crane implies.
Beyond that how in creation can you discuss a many billions of years old creation and call it a Christian event?
That’s where it all falls apart - I’m fine with an infinite regression if that’s what you want, but I want to explain how anyone can feel comfortable labeling that as some sort of proof for the “authenticity” of the ancient tribal texts that were edited into today’s condensed Christian Bible.
~13,800,000,000 years age of this version of creation
vs <2,000 years to origin of Christianity.
Can you understand my confusion?
Form of the argument - The most prominent form of the argument, as defended by William Lane Craig, states the Kalam cosmological argument as the following brief syllogism:[5]Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;Therefore:
The universe has a cause.
Given the conclusion, Craig appends a further premise and conclusion based upon a conceptual analysis of the properties of the cause:[6]The universe has a cause;
If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful;Therefore,
An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and infinitely powerful.
Referring to the implications of Classical Theism that follow from this argument, Craig writes:“… transcending the entire universe there exists a cause which brought the universe into being ex nihilo … our whole universe was caused to exist by something beyond it and greater than it. For it is no secret that one of the most important conceptions of what theists mean by ‘God’ is Creator of heaven and earth.”[7]
Beyond that what does Kalam Cosmological offer besides a fun diversionary mental game within the playground of our mindscape - I mean what’s it got to do with the physical reality we are living?
Their ideas of “proof” are vastly different than those of clear-minded people. The last religious garbage I listened to, I don’t remember who it was, was supposed to teach the listener how to make their points (argue, but nicely). One of the things he said was that Jesus rising from the dead after 3 days handily proved that the Bible was true. Essentially he took a wild claim from the Bible, assumed that claim was true and then applied that as proof that the Bible was true. If Jesus rose from the grave, after all, the Bible MUST be true. And Jesus definitely rose from the grave. It says it right there in the Bible. If you get your brain that twisted with crazy beliefs it’s no wonder circular reasoning is what comes out of it.
I haven’t read about the Kalam argument for years. This is why I loath philosophy, as it is used today (and for centuries). In its purest form philosophy is a beautiful thing. It is an integral part of science. But it has been bastardized and weaponized to create twisted, difficult to follow arguments which claim to “prove” some magical thinking. These arguments are really hard to dissect unless you have a firm grasp of how arguments work and are able to spot the premises in them, which are often very well hidden in the wording to make it more difficult to refute. Because these arguments aren’t about “proving” anything at all. They’re all about the pride of the arguer, being able to make an argument which can’t easily be refuted, not because it’s a good argument at its core, but because it’s so convoluted that when you think you understand what it’s saying you have about 3 more levels to go down to really understand what it’s saying.