Oof... Salty loser... Spamming is not cool, mkay
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (111)
sorted by:
Christianity makes many propositions. Mortimer Adler indicated a good proposition to start with is that "one thing in existence is measurably the greatest". This is shared by both Christianity and many other positive systems, but is rejected by nihilistic systems. If you agree with that proposition, then we can exclude the nihilistic class and proceed to narrowing the positive class, by investigate what this "greatest thing" consists of. It seems that every test and corollary has demonstrated that things are measurable and thus one thing is the greatest.
If instead you want to jump ahead, it would be more proper for you to express a proposition that disconfirms Christianity. You may have tried this direct route already, but I've answered in place and we may need to continue to engage that. I admit the Bible is my source, but if you want to investigate the truth claims it needs to be done without the informal logical fallacy (well-poisoning) of declaring it stupid without testing the evidence. You may, for instance, object to "miracle" as being "supernatural", but Christians believe all events follow laws and so they realize (C. S. Lewis, Miracles) that we only call it "magic" until we understand the laws at work. If you were previously exposed to Christians who officiously refused to investigate topics labeled "miracle", that's not the only kind of Christian there is. (Per your first question, they and I would be happy to dialogue toward agreement in one spirit.)
I claim to know enough answer to put it into words and to indicate the part of the answer I don't know. Every origin theory does the same. I was reading an eminently reasonable black-hole paper where it's properly indicated that we can't know anything about black holes by direct observation; but what we do know is that black hole theory is the simplest explanation and anything else would require greater complexity and have less probative power. All scientific progress depends on finding, not the perfect theory of everything, but the theory with greatest explanatory power. If my theory happens to encapsulate everything under the name "God", and a different one does so under the name "many worlds hypothesis" or "strong anthropic principle", there is no prima facie reason to prefer one over the other.
By objecting, you imply you're claiming to know definitively it wasn't this "God". Your evidence for that implication is not forthcoming. But I'm very thankful to you that you keep trying.
I'm glad you have a good grasp of logical fallacy, so we can speak more briefly.
I didn't specify the measurement standard, but by my reference to Democritus extent in spacetime is sufficient.
Science operates by reasonable inference from observation. We don't need to measure everything to know the Universe (or Cosmos, says great atheist Sagan) is the most extensive thing in spacetime.
I wasn't arguing for omniscient or omnipotent (yet), nor did I argue that the most gold means nothing but gold.
The most convincing argument that gods are fake is in a different class from the most convincing argument that some god is real, so we need to compare the two classes.
Now, given that, we can measure other aspects of this Cosmos. Since Sagan defines it to be all that ever was, is, or will be, by that definition it comprises all else, including all action (power) and all encoded information (knowledge). There is no power or knowledge held by any part of the universe that is not also held by the universe itself, as Adler would proceed to demonstrate. Is that clear?