noselfwilling - 10 February 2011 07:06 PM

The original 4 Step Proof: 1) mankind would have approximated into an alleged past eternity, as all things would, and not still be sinning to the extent we still do along the exponential progression of conscience we are clearly on which applies to multiverses, cycles, infinite possibilites, etc., and 2) nature always has a cause from something so it can’t come from nothing. Please 3) don’t misrepresent God of the Bible in your argument, and 4) the same rule in (1) applies to any alleged supernatural infinite regress. The NEW 4 Step Proof: 1) infinite regress is impossible, 2) something can’t come from nothing, 3) a mind is needed to create a mind, and 4) the resurrection evidence proves Jesus is God.

This isn’t a proper proof.  Your premise # (3), “a mind is needed to create a mind,” is not a proper premise at all, it’s your assumption.  As an alternative to your premise # (3), I could argue that the scientific community has well established models of how abiogenesis or biopoesis could have taken place.  Just google either of those terms.  If there is no basis for claiming as a premise in an argument that “a mind is needed to create a mind,” then your whole argument (proof) falls apart.

Gnostikosis - 11 February 2011 11:12 AM

The_Au_Mean - 11 February 2011 10:15 AM

So we have this interesting thought experiment…something that seems could only be supernatural is actually arrived at by way of very natural thought.

The point being, just because we do not currently have a suitable naturalistic explanation for something, does not mean that we should assume that we cannot.

So even if we were to accept all of Noselfwillings unsubstantiated, unscientific, unreasonable base premises, we still have no reason to conclude that Jesus’s resurrection and/or the disciple’s belief in such is supernatural.

What do people really mean when they use the term Supernatural?

It’s a belief that can’t currently be support by a natural understanding of the universe. The idea that we can communicate hundreds of miles through radio frequencies would be supernatural to primitive people.

Say at some point science figures out how to create an new universe from scratch in seven days. Life develops in that new universe and some species evolves to the point they question whether there was any intelligence being involved that caused the creation of their universe.

I think Pynchon indirectly deals with this in the text of the quote from Mason & Dixon when the Dog states: “I may be praeternatural, but I am not supernatural,” and again when he says “I am but an extreme Expression of this Process,—”. Praeternatural phenomena refer to instances in nature that have the qualitative characteristic of seeming extreme in their form. For example: stomatopod appendage strength or the processing capacity of the human brain. If something is praeternatural, it might seem to be inexplicable via natural means because it is so apparently outlandish, but the reality is that it, like anything, it just another expression of nature. Supernatural, on the other hand, indicates that a phenomenon cannot be explained by natural means, and is more simply explained by some extra-natural explanation. Supernatural explanations are, at best, tautological, and at worst, dangerously delusional.

The notebook proclaims “Infinite regress is impossible.” This proves that the notebook is:
1) Eternal (infinite)
2) All powerful (nothing is impossible for it to do)

You can call this notebook “God” if you like.

Take that Anotebookists! Notebookists are totally winning this.

It is obvious that NoSelfWilling has already entered a state of rapture. Reason is no longer necessary for the true believer; self delusion (part of the ever reinforced indoctrination) has become sufficient for him.
His nick speaks volumes.

dougsmith - 11 February 2011 10:34 AM

George - 11 February 2011 09:03 AM

PLaClair - 11 February 2011 08:52 AM

Why am I wasting my time on this?

I thought you have already answered that, Paul: “...there’s a certain fascination following threads like this. There’s no point in trying to engage with noself, except for sheer entertainment purposes.” It’s fun to know you’re right and he’s wrong. But it stops being fun when you realize he has no mental capacity to acknowledge you’re right.

Well a decent amount of reasonable back-and-forth can be fruitful, interesting and worthwhile. Even more so if both sides are willing to take themselves and their claims seriously and argue forthrightly. It’s also good to see the kinds of moves that are typically made in public. Our friend here is using a lot of standard arguments, and it’s good to have someone serious about them so we can get them on the table for analysis and refutation as appropriate.

... just so long as it doesn’t turn into trolling.

You’re right, of course, and I have to plead guilty to ignoring my own admonition. In a world of limitless time, these would be important discussions but re-hashing these tired, old arguments is a waste of time when there is so much to do on matters that merit our attention. I shoulda known better.

The_Au_Mean - 11 February 2011 11:43 AM

I think Pynchon indirectly deals with this in the text of the quote from Mason & Dixon when the Dog states: “I may be praeternatural, but I am not supernatural,” and again when he says “I am but an extreme Expression of this Process,—”. Praeternatural phenomena refer to instances in nature that have the qualitative characteristic of seeming extreme in their form. For example: stomatopod appendage strength or the processing capacity of the human brain. If something is praeternatural, it might seem to be inexplicable via natural means because it is so apparently outlandish, but the reality is that it, like anything, it just another expression of nature. Supernatural, on the other hand, indicates that a phenomenon cannot be explained by natural means, and is more simply explained by some extra-natural explanation. Supernatural explanations are, at best, tautological, and at worst, dangerously delusional.

Ok, but by that understanding it makes the term rather useless. What phenomenon exists that cannot be explained by natural means. Or as you said the term is tautological. I suppose one could say they believe in a possible praeternatural God.

Or acknowledge that belief in god, or at least the portrait of god presented by western, dualistic, monotheistic faiths is irrational.

The way the concept is reasoned out in eastern traditions, god is a little bit more difficult to dismiss as it tends to be fundamentally naturalistic. Or, maybe more accurately, a metaphysical nuance to a naturalistic concept.

The_Au_Mean - 11 February 2011 02:10 PM

Or, maybe more accurately, a metaphysical nuance to a naturalistic concept.

carve that into a slab of granite

The NEW 4 Step Proof for Refuting the NEW 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible

Infinite Regress is Impossible
No, it is not impossible.  Also, infinite regress is not the same as having an infinite amount of time between two events, which the counterexample (“the past would continue to go on for eternity never reaching this point”) conflates.

Something Can’t Come From Nothing
Again, not impossible.  Also, even if the claim, “that which does not exist can’t cause anything”, is true, that does not mean there cannot exist uncaused events.

A Mind is Needed to Create a Mind
Strike three; nothing contradictory about a mind possibly coming from some other event.

The Resurrection Proves Jesus is God
Finally, the resurrection is not “proof” that Jesus is a god.  He could have not even been dead at all, just in a coma, or maybe he is a demigod, but not actually a god.  Oh, and let’s not forget the possibility of it never even actually occurring in the first place.  Proof requires no possibility of refutation; there may be a strong correlation that he is a god, but that still requires actual data of the event from reliable sources, which we do not have.

The_Au_Mean - 11 February 2011 02:10 PM

Or acknowledge that belief in god, or at least the portrait of god presented by western, dualistic, monotheistic faiths is irrational.

The way the concept is reasoned out in eastern traditions, god is a little bit more difficult to dismiss as it tends to be fundamentally naturalistic. Or, maybe more accurately, a metaphysical nuance to a naturalistic concept.

Perhaps a primitive adoption of by run away slaves who were never trained in metaphysical nuances. The Hebrew ran around in the desert and passed down a half-baked ideology from some Egyptian monotheistic religion. An enforce irrational belief about reality for 2500 years.

Hard to believe that few questioned the rationality of it. Obama is a Christian, Bush is a Christian. If they weren’t they would never be elected. That how a-matter-of-fact people are about accepting this irrational belief.

noselfwilling - 11 February 2011 06:30 AM

I meant DSM-4 just as Gary Habermas stated here,

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm

No such thing as group hallucinations!

Sorry, but that is not work done by any psychologist or psychiatrist.  It is not a reliable source.

Mingy Jongo - 11 February 2011 04:39 PM

The NEW 4 Step Proof for Refuting the NEW 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible

Infinite Regress is Impossible
No, it is not impossible.  Also, infinite regress is not the same as having an infinite amount of time between two events, which the counterexample (“the past would continue to go on for eternity never reaching this point”) conflates.

Whether there is an infinite amount of time between two events or not makes no difference, if there was an inifnite regress, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Infinite regress is riff with problems and contradicts itself further, for if there was an infinite regress you also would never come into existence because a past eternity would still be going on for eternity thus, never reaching this point. Infinite regress is a self-contradictory faith. Christians don’t have as much faith as you have to believe in something that is so utterly false.

Something Can’t Come From Nothing
Again, not impossible.  Also, even if the claim, “that which does not exist can’t cause anything”, is true, that does not mean there cannot exist uncaused events.

It’s true, that which does not exist can’t cause anything. It doesn’t it. You’re trying to violate the 1st lawy of thermodynamics. Silly. That which does not exist has no existence or energy to cause anything. You’re believing in fairy tales.

An “event” implies a cause since it is an event. All events were caused as evident by the fact we see trillions and trillions of caused events in nature, and no hard evidence of something from nothing; whereas God is not event but our uncaused Creator or uncaused cause—He causes us to come into being.

A Mind is Needed to Create a Mind
Strike three; nothing contradictory about a mind possibly coming from some other event.

The argument is not that the mind comes from another event, for your parents copulated and here you are. Rather, the ultimate source of a mind needs to be a mind, since bouncing particles can’t bring into existence that which is greater such as a mind, for those particles themselves have no self-consciousness, God-consciousness, mind, will, emotion, communion, conscience, intuition, etc. These are attributes that require a mind which God has or is.

No matter how long your fanciful infinite regress were to go on for it could still never produce a mind. Likewise the universe can’t by itself produce even the simplest replicating organism without the hand of God because there is simply not enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to take something from the elemental table and producing a living creature.

The Resurrection Proves Jesus is God
Finally, the resurrection is not “proof” that Jesus is a god.  He could have not even been dead at all, just in a coma, or maybe he is a demigod, but not actually a god.  Oh, and let’s not forget the possibility of it never even actually occurring in the first place.  Proof requires no possibility of refutation; there may be a strong correlation that he is a god, but that still requires actual data of the event from reliable sources, which we do not have.

The problem with your theory, which is why all scholars reject the the swoon theory, is that Jesus wouldn’t have looked much like a risen Messiah to be believed that He was God risen from the dead with nails in his feet and hands, spear in his side, back scourged down to the bone. I doubt he could even walk on the 3rd day. He would look like he was starving to death not having eaten 3 days. So that’s jus silly nonsense. Moreover, a guard could lose his life if he didn’t ensure death. When you poke the spear into the chest cavity if you are alive a sucking sound occurs; but none was recorded when all the water and blood poured out of his chest. This is sure death. To top it off, scientists have studied how long a person can keep breathing for with their legs not supporting their body on the cross and they calculate the person would be dead within 12 minutes.

Since Jesus said He is God and proved it by His resurrection, then He is God. A demi-god implies infinite regress of gods creating gods but that’s not possible because you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. God of the Bible, thus says, there are no gods before Him, none beside Him, and none after Him. He in fact says all alleged gods are just human idols, made in man’s selfish image.

There is no change these events could not have happened in the first place since they are so well recorded. If you are going to throw them out, you will have to throw out all of history, but no scholars or historian is that obnoxious and belligerent, plus he would be out of a job. Jesus, within 150 years of His death, had 45 ancient sources about Him, which is more than any ten figures in antiquity combined.

These 45 sources are very reliable and from all cross-sections of society. 17 of them are non-Christian. 24 speak of His resurrection, Of the 17 even 12 speak of His death, 7 of His deith and 7 of His resurrection. Over 35 speak of His death. We can give 129 facts of Jesus’ life in these 45 sources.

Since these are reliable sources you can trust them. Simon Greenleaf, the most famous lawyer in history who was said to have produced more jurisprudence than all the lawyers in Europe said the Bible is valid evidence.

He said “Every document apparently ancient coming from the proper repository or custody and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.”

Also the lawyer in the Guiness Book of Records who holds the record for the most cases won in a row which was 400 said the best case he has ever seen in all the cases he has ever tried was that for the life, death, burial, resurrection and deity of Jesus Christ.

So there you have it. It is not that the truth is unreasonable, but it is unloved because you are selfish, self-involved, self-centered, self-exaling, and self-delusional.

Can anyone actually make any sense of what he just wrote?  I consider myself fairly fluent in Crazyspeak, but I’m not quite grasping his point.  I think he’s using a dialect I’m unfamiliar with.

Dead Monky - 11 February 2011 06:03 PM

Can anyone actually make any sense of what he just wrote?  I consider myself fairly fluent in Crazyspeak, but I’m not quite grasping his point.  I think he’s using a dialect I’m unfamiliar with.

He hasn’t made any sense to me, starting with his first post.

The_Au_Mean - 10 February 2011 07:54 PM

Write4U - 10 February 2011 06:42 PM

And what is this arrogant assumption that man has the ability to attain a higher meaning in life? So far higher meaning is expressed in going to the bar on friday night and having a few drinks with your buddies.
Explain this “Higher meaning”, other than worshipping an “idea” that gives you “personal” comfort?

W4U, I don’t know if Affluenza was actually asserting that humans/religious folk can experience “higher level meaning,” of if they were just engaging in some type of rhetorical exercise. When I made a case for the “higher meaning” thing being invalid, they just said thanks, so I think maybe they were just hoping to start a discussion…?

I never really mean’t for my post to digress/branch off into another discussion…

Your responce is what I expected so not much to discuss really…