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?
It's not a fallacy to want to proceed slowly and deal with foundations first before getting to the complexities. But the link I provided shows the whole chain to the essential deep claims for those who jump ahead.
The first foundation is the argument for the Cosmos being a greatest thing, which is fundamental to how Christians describe God (technically the Christian panentheist route). Then we discern the Cosmos contains all reality, activity, order, life, etc. If you want to divert to a specific feature of "God", go ahead; but we've resolved the point you raised, showing that the Greatest Thing is not "supernatural" according to the totality of known and unknown laws of nature. Great atheist James Randi proved this, saying: if a so-called "miracle" or "magic" occurs in scientific testing, it isn't truly supernatural but something about which newly known laws can be proposed.
The fact that a "most convincing" argument against deity must exist does not prove that argument is valid: I understood "convincing" in the sense of indeterminate probabilism. If I had said valid arguments for and against deity both exist, that would be invalid and false. The student of truth listens reasonably to all arguments for and against deity before selecting tentative or firmer conclusions. One argument eventually overpowers another by preponderance of evidence, and disagreements get resolved.
TLDR: The Cosmos contains all power and thought and life. Do you acknowledge, with great atheist Carl Sagan, that it exists and contains all that was, is, or will be? Would you decline to answer that question in colloquy with that fellow atheist? The rest is just refining evidence about this greatest thing, which we can get to as soon as we agree on the foundation.