[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-February-07, 17:23, said:

a materialist cannot believe (and this is an example only) in a true "miracle"... lazarus', for instance, decomposing cells had to have been somehow regenerated had Jesus' command to arise actually occurred (and been obeyed)... what are the odds of such a thing happening, in a strictly materialistic world? zip, zilch, zero... how about on a quantum level? is it still zero, or is it now just *almost* impossible? are physical (speaking materialistically here) laws all there are? in the quantum world, can you really say that miracles are impossible? if you cannot, and if you at the same time insist upon your materialism, that (to me) is internal inconsistency (and this is quite apart from the whole causality aspect)

I don't see the contradiction.

There is a difference between

1. "Freakishly improbable but still possible"
2. "A casual result of actions by a supernatural power"

It's entirely possible that the two cases couldn't be distinguished by a lay observer; however, we not dealing with a practical example.
We're talking about a theoretical construct that you claim exposes a contradiction.

[PassedOut]

phil_20686, on 2011-February-05, 10:48, said:

For example, if there is no god, and materialism is all there is, then there can be no free will. This is because for an action to be "free" we must be the origin of a causal chain, which means that we must be capable of effecting material change without needing anything to act on it. Now this argument has been made many times since time immemorial, and I have no wish to go over it when you can find it in any library, but it seems certain to me that you cannot believe in free will without believing in some form of spiritual nature. I observe myself to have free will and would need strong evidence to persuade me otherwise. Indeed, the real challenge is to see why our free will is "imperfect" by which I mean that we often act in ways that frustrate our intentions.

There is no conflict between atheism and free will.

Unless shackled or otherwise restrained, we can always choose freely among the options available to us. The actual choice that we freely make at any point will be determined by our physical state at that time. This has nothing to do with either the presence or absence of a god or gods.

Some folks take it as axiomatic that free will and determinism are in opposition, but that is not so. Training, education, and experience alter a person's physical being (particularly the brain) to modify the choices a person freely makes.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2011-February-07, 18:01, said:

You won't be surprised to learn that I don't believe Lazarus really rose from the dead.

no, that wouldn't surprise me a bit... but i would ask whether or not you think it an impossibility... you know, from within your worldview of metaphysical materialism

hrothgar, on 2011-February-07, 18:31, said:

There is a difference between

1. "Freakishly improbable but still possible"
2. "A casual result of actions by a supernatural power"

so i don't get lost here, are you saying (hypothetically) that the raising of a dead man was/is "freakishly improbable but still possible?"

PassedOut, on 2011-February-07, 19:07, said:

Some folks take it as axiomatic that free will and determinism are in opposition, but that is not so. Training, education, and experience alter a person's physical being (particularly the brain) to modify the choices a person freely makes.

i assume you are speaking from a causal perspective?

[Winstonm]

Quote

i would ask whether or not you think it an impossibility

First, you have to distinguish what is meant by dead. A better question might be: could a modern-era dead body, after embalming, be resurrected and once again live.

Answer: No. Impossible.

[nige1]

Winstonm, on 2011-February-07, 20:00, said:

could a modern-era dead body, after embalming, be resurrected and once again live. Answer: No. Impossible.

That is a matter of faith or prejudice not science. Among many examples from history: about 90 years ago, the New York Times explained why space-travel is impossible: without an atmosphere to push against, a rocket can't move. After the moon-landing, the Times published a retraction.

[barmar]

PassedOut, on 2011-February-07, 19:07, said:

Some folks take it as axiomatic that free will and determinism are in opposition, but that is not so. Training, education, and experience alter a person's physical being (particularly the brain) to modify the choices a person freely makes.

That's not necessarily free will. The person's life history determines the state of the body and brain, and this causes them to make certain choices.

What makes it seem like free will is complexity and chaos theory. There are so many inputs (many that we're not aware of) that it's effectively impossible to predict what someone will do. So it seems like free will. As I said above, it's an illusion, but a useful approximation.

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2011-February-07, 12:47, said:

upon what do you rely to deny the existence of God? superior intellect?

I have a general policy of not believing in the existence of anything for which 1) there is no evidence and 2) the properties ascribed are implausible.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on 2011-February-07, 19:35, said:

so i don't get lost here, are you saying (hypothetically) that the raising of a dead man was/is "freakishly improbable but still possible?"

I know that quantum physics allows some thoroughly weird ***** at the micro level.
I've heard rumor that if enough micro events all happened at the same time, these events could - in theory - manifest themselves at the macroscopic level.
The "classic" example used to illustrate this is that an object could spontaneously teleport from one room to another.

I've also heard physicists state that these sorts of macroscopic examples aren't possible.
Rather, they illustrate individuals who don't really understand quantum dynamics.

Let's consider the first case (quantum mechanics does theoretically allow for teleportation):
If quantum mechanics (theoretically) allows for teleportation, then it (should) also allow for spontaneous resurrection.

To me, this is an example of something that is freakishly improbable but still conceptually possible.

[phil_20686]

I try to stay away from these threads because they eat my life when I should be working. However, I have been tempted now, and this one actual.ly stayed both friendly and interesting.

PassedOut, on 2011-February-05, 14:52, said:

You are certainly right about biblical literalism. I do have a quibble with your statement that there was really only one Christian church for most of 17 centuries. That was true for the period from 325 to 1054 or thereabouts, about 7 and one-quarter centuries.

Well, I'm not sure that I regard the split between orthodox and Catholic factions to be all that important. They differ on a few theological points (the "filoque" and the primacy of Rome) but they still have apostolic succession (I.e. their priests and bishops are regarded as validly ordained from a catholic perspective) and they have kept all the sacraments. Certainly for the purposes of this discussion regarding the orthodox churches and the catholic church as "mostly one" does not seem a stretch. Also, none of the first protestants believed in biblical literacy, only in biblical in-errancy. Well, more precisely, they beleived that the bible was *all* that you needed. Catholics believe that the bible is *part* of what you need. But the biblical literalism as advocated by current fundamentalist churches really only came into being about 1800 I think. You really talking about that period after the American revolution when "primitivism" was all the rage. The basically looked to the bible more and more stringently hoping to eliminate all disagreement between the different factions. By about 1800 this had resulted int he establishment of the first churches that you would recognise as "fundamentalist" Christians. I use this term for those who believe that (1) Scriputre contains everything necessary for salvation. (2) The bible is to be interpreted literally whenever possible. (3) Faith and repentance alone are necessary for salvation.

hotShot, on 2011-February-05, 15:03, said:

Didn't it take the Council of Chalcedon (http://en.wikipedia....il_of_Chalcedon) 451 to get the existing Christian churches to reach some fundamental consent, about the nature of Jesus, building the base of the separation of the East European church at the same time?

If you look at their pronouncements you will quickly realise that they only spent time looking at things that were disputed. 99% of issues were not a problem, so I am confused as to what you mean by "fundamental consent". Certainly, there were some issues that were disputed, but, for example, no one doubted that the representatives of the council had the authority to decided these questions. That in my view, is a sign of the unity of the early Christian churches.

hrothgar, on 2011-February-05, 17:25, said:

Agreed... Not much reason to go on because this last statement is ludicrous on multiple levels

2. Exactly which 17 centuries did this church exist? I assume that your "17 centuries" terminates with the Protestant reformation which is generally accepted to have started in the early 1500s... I don't think that you can really claim that there was anything approaching a unified concept of Christianity prior to the first Council of Nicea in 325. Indeed the entire purpose of this council was to attempt to agree upon niggling little details like "the Trinity"... I'm hard pressed to understand just where this figure came from

3. As for the whole Biblical Inerrancy statement: There's a reason that the Evangelicals had to issue the Chicago Statement and Vatican II issued Dei Verbum... No one could agree whether their churches advocated Biblical innerancy, Biblical infallibility, or something altogether different. Its ludicrous to presume that the early church, struggling with primitive communication systems and vast geographical differences had anything approaching a unified position on this topic. The history of Christian church is a history of a 1,001 different heresies.

The 17 centuries referred to the length of time that biblical literalism was regarded as fairly laughable. You seem to be defining the early church as groups of people who have different sets of dogma. This is not really the whole picture. Its true that they often believed different things in different places, but they all agreed on the authority of the general councils to decide these matters. That, imo, is a strong sign of unity.

Its true that the Chrisitian church has suffered from many different heresies. On the other hand, that mostly just tells you that people are people. There are always people who will exploit religious fervour for political or monetary gain. Other times well meanings groups can be caught in the corruption of a system, and reject the beliefs, rather than just rejecting the corruption. I don't want to get sidetracked into the various motivations of the many heresies.

[phil_20686]

PassedOut, on 2011-February-05, 18:00, said:

Thought I answered that. Here's just one example: I don't consider rules, such as the rules of logic and some generalized rules of set definition, to be material. This has no connection with atheism.

I think you are wrong here. A philosophy of Life should explain all the aspects of reality. This is its purpose. Thus when you say "atheism = I don't believe in God", you are misstating the issue. *Not* believing in God is only one aspect. Indeed, one should never get caught defining a philosophy by what its not. What you are really saying is that "A world view with No God better describes our observed reality". Logic is one aspect of our reality, therefore, it must be one of the aims of atheism to explain why logic exists, as opposed to does not exist. Let me pose the question in a more strongly exclusionary form: "Do you believe that the rules of logic exist separate from material reality? If yes, then what do you beleive created these rules? If no, then what material process resulted in such an immaterial outcome?"

PassedOut, on 2011-February-05, 22:27, said:

I think you know that free will and determinism have a long philosophical history with many different takes. If you are really interested, look here: Causal Determinism
and here: Philosophical Questions of Free Will.

The philosophy of religion is replete with arguments to prove the existence of god, starting with Anselm's ontological argument. Refutations of those arguments and subsequent attempts to conceal the problems with those arguments continue to this day (in our time Plantinga has tried to fix the ontological argument).

If you are honestly interested in these questions, you can look here for more material: Ontological Argument: Immanuel Kant. And, of course, there is always wikipedia: Existence of God.

I'm not sure why you brought this up, no one has really mentioned explicitly the 6 "proofs" of Gods existence as a reason for believing. Even their creators did not think of them as particularly convincing, more like idle intellectual curiosities which might help people better understand some of the difficulties/solutions. Indeed, their validity or not doesn't seem concerning at all. Certainly, disproving them does not disprove God's existence.

barmar, on 2011-February-05, 23:05, said:

So if you could be convinced that free will is just an illusion, you might be willing to give up your belief in god?

I think that if I ever became convinced that there was no such thing as free will I would probably just Kill myself. What is the point in life if you cannot affect the outcome of anything that happens? FWIW I doubt that neuroscience will ever furnish convincing proof. Certainly your given experiment does not furnish any evidence. It merely says that our perception of when we make a decision and when we make a decision differ by a small amount of time. Further, when they talk about the parts of the brain concerning "will" they really mean "impulse" - i.e. the parts of your brain that control movement/actions. It is also well known that our experience of consciousness is some 0.5 seconds behind real time, and your brain can occasionally step backwards and forwards in this sequence. This is the root of the "long second" effect when you look at a clock, the time before the first second normally seems long, which is only because your brain "back dates" your visual on the clock to when you started to move your eyes, such that you never have the impression of blurry vision while yo move yoru eyes from one place to another.

luke warm, on 2011-February-06, 09:58, said:

i can't speak for phil, but there are those who believe an omniscient God exists... iow, free will isn't a necessary precondition for his existence - in their view, in fact, free will *is* an illusion.

Omniscience and free will are tricky. But you can certainly have both. The problem is that in the classic thought experiment of the man in a room making a decision, we implicitly give a preferred notion of time to God. Indeed, if God is present "simultaneously" at all points in space, then he necessaries sees all the past and future history of a single space time point. (I am free to use Lorentz invariance to reverse the precedence of any two space-like separated points).
Of course, I don't really like these kind of thought experiment as essentially one is trading one impossibility for another, if you use the everyday sense. Nevertheless, it does highlight the problem that if time is inherently a property of our universe (and it certainly seems to be), then we can still have both free will and omniscience.

luke warm, on 2011-February-07, 12:49, said:

they all were... the 'law' was a whole

This isnt true (this is abit our of context, but he is referring to the OT laws). I refer you to acts fifteen-ten, when The apostle paul revokes the ceremonial requirements. Moroever, it was the unanimous opinion of the early commentators that this also referred to the specific form of OT laws, but not to the moral precepts. Eg if the OT says "You must stone a woman for adultery" you must accept that adultery is bad, but you are free to decide on appropriate punishments. But all ceremonial laws were revoked.

kenberg, on 2011-February-07, 13:32, said:

Another way of putting it: I believe there is no God. If philosophy cannot support this view, so much the worse for philosophy because I am not changing my mind. Of course philosophy is fine with supporting this view and really seems to be able to support pretty much any view.

A surpsingly biblica point of view from Passed out:"When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God." or "Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

PassedOut, on 2011-February-07, 14:05, said:

I do dismiss of centuries of arguments proving the existence of god as sophistry, because each iteration has been carefully crafted to conceal the problems pointed out by the latest refutation. You only have to examine a small number of those iterations to realize that arguments for the existence of god will always fail. No word game can create an actual god. Note that I only dismiss one side of the long-running disagreement.

Those who want to add god to what is actually known have the burden of demonstrating why that extra complication is necessary, and those who have attempted to do so over the centuries have failed. And it is not difficult to see why such attempts are bound to fail.

I have no problem with people believing in god, if they need that level of comfort. However, atheism is simpler and more elegant and, unlike theism, does not run into logical difficulties that require oceans of pages of writing to explain away.

Spoken like a philospoher or mathematician. They always want the minimal explanation. Well I want the *best* explanation. Indeed, there is so much that atheism does not explain that I feel justified in referring to it as a "content free" explanation. Above I discussed the difficulty in having non-material rules when material things obey. Note that this is a very different problem to classification. To make non-material observations about the material world is a trivial thing. To demand that the non-material world should obey non material rules is something else entirely. This is a deep problem, and not one that can be adequately discussed in this type of format but let me summarise it as "Nothing is so incomprehensible about the universe, as that it is comprehensible".

PassedOut, on 2011-February-07, 19:07, said:

There is no conflict between atheism and free will.

Well, this is technically true, but there is certainly conflict between materialism and free will, and it seems weird to be an atheist and believe in the reality of some non-material objects, and simultaneously hold that non material objects have no material cause, or non material creator. In practice all of the atheism espoused is predicated on the idea that the universe is wholly material and therefore scientific statements about how things are are the only meaningfully "true" statements. This latter form certainly has a conflict with free will which arises in the following way:
I have decided to go to the cinema. How did that come about? Well it was some kind of chemical release by my neurons. How did that come about? well my neurons received some input from other neurons? How did that come about? Well I remembered that there was a movie that I wished to see. How did that come about? well I was told about this movie by x? How....

And every step we can find a causal relation back to either the first second, or back to some wholly random quantum event. Indeed, the only way you can have free will if is there is some part of you which can influence this causal sequence without having anything which causes it to do so. In order for this to happen it must necessarily be non-material. Indeed, it is for this reason that QM was such good news for religion. It must have been impossible to believe in God back in the days of Maxwell's demon. However, now you have a system of physics that seems custom built to allow spiritual interference. Since all quantum mechanical outcomes are an ostensibly random outcome of an observer dependent property, if you could via spiritual means decide the outcome, this would be indistinguishable from a random event. However, you still require some violation of the "natural order" which is why you cannot have free will in a materialistic world-view.

PassedOut, on 2011-February-08, 00:08, said:

I have a general policy of not believing in the existence of anything for which 1) there is no evidence and 2) the properties ascribed are implausible.

These kind of statements are slightly irritating. Clearly there is "some" evidence, it is just whether you regard it as "convicing" in some sense. And literally hundreds of philosophical texts testify to the fact that the existence of God is not "implausible" in that it does not contradict any known fact. Nor does it represent any inherent contradiction. Now, the fact that an idea is "not contradictory" does not prove that it is "right". But you have failed to advance any argument that makes the non existence of God more likely that the existence of God.

[PassedOut]

phil_20686, on 2011-February-08, 08:02, said:

Well, I'm not sure that I regard the split between orthodox and Catholic factions to be all that important. They differ on a few theological points (the "filoque" and the primacy of Rome) but they still have apostolic succession (I.e. their priests and bishops are regarded as validly ordained from a catholic perspective) and they have kept all the sacraments. Certainly for the purposes of this discussion regarding the orthodox churches and the catholic church as "mostly one" does not seem a stretch.

I agree that this is a subjective judgment, and as an atheist I don't have a dog in this fight. But orthodox christians that I've talked with take the position that the modifications to the Roman church made during the dark ages are unacceptable, particularly the addition of the filoque to the creed, which they consider fundamental. Because the Byzantine empire did not have to contend with the dark ages, they view themselves, with some historical justification, as the keepers of the true christian faith. The orthodox that I know seem to feel more strongly about this than you do, with some events during the crusades being a particular sore point.

[PassedOut]

phil_20686, on 2011-February-08, 08:02, said:

I think you are wrong here. A philosophy of Life should explain all the aspects of reality. This is its purpose. Thus when you say "atheism = I don't believe in God", you are misstating the issue. *Not* believing in God is only one aspect. Indeed, one should never get caught defining a philosophy by what its not. What you are really saying is that "A world view with No God better describes our observed reality". Logic is one aspect of our reality, therefore, it must be one of the aims of atheism to explain why logic exists, as opposed to does not exist. Let me pose the question in a more strongly exclusionary form: "Do you believe that the rules of logic exist separate from material reality? If yes, then what do you beleive created these rules? If no, then what material process resulted in such an immaterial outcome?"

Phil, you've outdone yourself today in making good comments worth a response. Go easy, I have to work too.

First of all, I don't consider either atheism or theism to be a philosophy of life and would never make such a claim.

That said, I do consider the rules of logic to be non-material. Because I've been in business all of my adult life, I'm constantly dealing with sets where the rules of set definition remain the same but the membership of the sets keeps changing: sets of customers, sets of inventory items stocked below the reorder point, and so on. And so it's useful for me to classify rules in general as non-material.

However, I don't see that the rules of logic are subject to creation, but rather to discovery. Starting with different sets of axioms, you can devise unlimited systems of rules, most of them useless. The problem is discerning which particular systems of rules prove useful in the world we know.

[PassedOut]

Quote

I have a general policy of not believing in the existence of anything for which 1) there is no evidence and 2) the properties ascribed are implausible.

phil_20686, on 2011-February-08, 08:02, said:

These kind of statements are slightly irritating. Clearly there is "some" evidence, it is just whether you regard it as "convicing" in some sense. And literally hundreds of philosophical texts testify to the fact that the existence of God is not "implausible" in that it does not contradict any known fact. Nor does it represent any inherent contradiction. Now, the fact that an idea is "not contradictory" does not prove that it is "right". But you have failed to advance any argument that makes the non existence of God more likely that the existence of God.

No doubt my statement here was too succinct because of the tone of the question I was answering.

By separating my answer into two parts, I meant to highlight two of the factors I consider important in making such a determination. The first is the actual evidence for existence. The second is the set of properties, qualities, or attributes of the entity under consideration.

For example, you might tell me you know a person who can throw a baseball one hundred meters. That's plausible, and it won't take much evidence to convince me of that person's existence.

But if you tell me that you know a person who can throw a baseball one thousand meters, that's implausible. I'd have to see that for myself.

When it comes to a being that raises the dead, creates new worlds from nothing, establishes the laws of the universe by decree, and so on, the evidential requirement gets quite high.

[phil_20686]

PassedOut, on 2011-February-08, 10:21, said:

I agree that this is a subjective judgment, and as an atheist I don't have a dog in this fight. But orthodox christians that I've talked with take the position that the modifications to the Roman church made during the dark ages are unacceptable, particularly the addition of the filoque to the creed, which they consider fundamental. Because the Byzantine empire did not have to contend with the dark ages, they view themselves, with some historical justification, as the keepers of the true christian faith. The orthodox that I know seem to feel more strongly about this than you do, with some events during the crusades being a particular sore point.

I think the RCC has only ever required that the eastern churches "accept the filoque as a legitimate confession of faith". That is different from declaring the one or the the other to he heretical. Historically both creeds were in use in the eastern churches prior to the councils, and at least as late as 800 ad both were common in eastern rite churches I think (not totally sure). There seems to be some modern consensus building that the two expressions are in some sense complementary, and that some churches were a bit hasty in declaring one or another opinion as dogma.

More difficult is the primacy of Rome. This was explicitly rejected by the orthodox churches at the time of the schism I think. However, at least two eastern rite churches have accepted the primacy of Rome and been accepted back into full communion with the Catholic Church. Ok I have looked this up and there are apparently 22 eastern rite self governing churches that are regarded as being in full communion with Rome. However most of these were present from the very beginning more or less. The two I was think of were apparently the Ukrainian Catholic Church, and the Melkorite CHurch, which both rejoined the Catholic church in after the reformation having previously been part of an orthodox patriarchy.

I am rather Optimistic that I will live to see the large scale re-integration of orthodox and catholic faiths.

PS: For those not in the know, an autonomous church in full communion with Rome means that they have accepted the same dogma, but have full authority over their liturgical rites and calendars, and also over how to set up the practical arrangements of parishes and bishops. They often have married priests and other different customs that are frowned on in the Catholic churches as against tradition, but not counter to received dogma.

[phil_20686]

PassedOut, on 2011-February-08, 10:48, said:

First of all, I don't consider either atheism or theism to be a philosophy of life and would never make such a claim.

However, I don't see that the rules of logic are subject to creation, but rather to discovery. Starting with different sets of axioms, you can devise unlimited systems of rules, most of them useless. The problem is discerning which particular systems of rules prove useful in the world we know.

Sure, Theism and Atheism on their own do not define a philosophy of life, I but everyone should endeavour to have a philosophy of life of which their theistic position is a part. This should explain as much of the world as possible without a preponderance of random caveats. When you talk about discovering something, you imply that they have an existence separate from the one who discovers them. This is really quite a mysterious position for an atheist. After-all, what underpins the existence of something that seems to have no basis in our material universe? Of course, no such problem arises for the theist as he simply says that God is Divine Reason, and necessarily is expected to created something governed by Reason.

PassedOut, on 2011-February-08, 11:25, said:

No doubt my statement here was too succinct because of the tone of the question I was answering.

I know exactly what you meant . I just think that the reduction of these arguments to "It's obvious, duh!" is the first step towards intolerance. I would also take a bit of issue with your example. You say its implausible that a man can throw a ball 1000m and compare it to miracles: in my view this is a very poor analogy. In reality, if you believe in a creator who created the physical laws and all that exists in the universe, then it does not seem implausible that he would be able to break them as he pleased. No more implausible than that if we are actually a giant simulation run by aliens, they might occasionally change the rules on us. In reality, to claim that a miracle is `implausible' in the proper sense of the word, is merely to assert that there is no God. Perhaps I might sum it up as:

A:If there is a God, he can certainly do miracles.
B:If there is no God, there are certainly no miracles.
(Thus leaving open the possibility of a deist position, C: There is a God but he doesn't do miracles)

If a man told you he has seen a miracle, you assert B and assume he is mistaken. Alternatively you could assume he is correct and, by B, assume that there must be a God. Of course, I have a lot of sympathy for this view. We all use our assumptions to decide which of the information we are given on a general day to give credence to, and to ignore. But it is argument from assumption, and should not be used when making a considered statement.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2011-February-08, 00:08, said:

I have a general policy of not believing in the existence of anything for which 1) there is no evidence and 2) the properties ascribed are implausible.

me too... but, as richard says, "freakisly improbable" is not the same as impossible... do you personally agree with this?

Quote

To me, this is an example of something that is freakishly improbable but still conceptually possible

i agree, it is both highly improbable and not impossible... both views would require belief of some sort - either for or against

Quote

they all were... the 'law' was a whole

Quote

This isnt true (this is abit our of context, but he is referring to the OT laws). I refer you to acts fifteen-ten, when The apostle paul revokes the ceremonial requirements. Moroever, it was the unanimous opinion of the early commentators that this also referred to the specific form of OT laws, but not to the moral precepts. Eg if the OT says "You must stone a woman for adultery" you must accept that adultery is bad, but you are free to decide on appropriate punishments. But all ceremonial laws were revoked.

i think you are mistaken here... the entire doctrine of justification and identification (romans 6) relies on paul's teachings re: the law... he taught that the law was given to show man his sin, to hold man "as a tutor" until the coming of the one who would fulfil the law, who would justify those who could not otherwise justify themselves... as you know, keeping the sabbath (as an example) was not a "ceremonial requirement" of the law, it was one of the 10 - yet paul did not require it and rarely kept it himself... paul only kept certain laws so as not to cause the weak to stumble... he also practiced certain parts of the law when he first went to a city, because his practice was to first go to the jews... he even had one of his followers be circumcised so that no offense would be given to any - certainly for no other reason... moreover, to keep one part of the law obliges one to keep the entire law, because that person does not understand the reason for either the law or Christ's passion... if you stumble in one area of the law you are guilty of breaking the whole thing, because it is a whole...

the law is good and the law is holy and christians should strive to obey it - but the law is not the way to salvation... grace, not law... obedience in the form of faith in the one who obeyed... the second adam

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on 2011-February-08, 14:11, said:

me too... but, as richard says, "freakishly improbable" is not the same as impossible... do you personally agree with this?

Sure.

And I don't contend that it is impossible for a god to exist. I just don't believe that one does.

[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2011-February-07, 21:18, said:

That is a matter of faith or prejudice not science. Among many examples from history: about 90 years ago, the New York Times explained why space-travel is impossible: without an atmosphere to push against, a rocket can't move. After the moon-landing, the Times published a retraction.

I am of the opinion that degree of belief is important - am in David Hume's camp.

Quote

From David Hume. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding


A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable, that all men must die; that lead cannot, of itself, remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or in other words, a miracle to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happen in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die on a sudden: because such a kind of death, though more unusual than any other, has yet been frequently observed to happen. But it is a miracle, that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed in any age or country. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise the event would not merit that appellation....

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish....' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

In the foregoing reasoning we have supposed, that the testimony, upon which a miracle is founded, may possibly amount to an entire proof, and that the falsehood of that testimony would be a real prodigy: But it is easy to shew, that we have been a great deal too liberal in our concession, and that there never was a miraculous event established on so full an evidence.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on 2011-February-08, 15:04, said:

Sure. And I don't contend that it is impossible for a god to exist. I just don't believe that one does.

far be it from me to deny the importance of faith

Winstonm, on 2011-February-08, 16:11, said:

I am of the opinion that degree of belief is important - am in David Hume's camp.

Quote

From David Hume. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.

but is hume right that a violation of the laws of nature is required? there are people, not all of whom are theists, who would would disagree with this

[phil_20686]

luke warm, on 2011-February-08, 14:11, said:

i think you are mistaken here... the entire doctrine of justification and identification (romans 6) relies on paul's teachings re: the law... he taught that the law was given to show man his sin, to hold man "as a tutor" until the coming of the one who would fulfil the law, who would justify those who could not otherwise justify themselves... as you know, keeping the sabbath (as an example) was not a "ceremonial requirement" of the law, it was one of the 10 - yet paul did not require it and rarely kept it himself... paul only kept certain laws so as not to cause the weak to stumble... he also practiced certain parts of the law when he first went to a city, because his practice was to first go to the jews... he even had one of his followers be circumcised so that no offense would be given to any - certainly for no other reason... moreover, to keep one part of the law obliges one to keep the entire law, because that person does not understand the reason for either the law or Christ's passion... if you stumble in one area of the law you are guilty of breaking the whole thing, because it is a whole...

the law is good and the law is holy and christians should strive to obey it - but the law is not the way to salvation... grace, not law... obedience in the form of faith in the one who obeyed... the second adam

I think you are confused between "law" and "Law". Compare for example the capitalisation (or lack) in Matthew 22:40 and Matthew 23:2. Capitalisation is used for Divine Law. Including say, the ten commandments. Non-capitalisation refers to mosaic law (or very occasionally to other civil or natural laws). Mosaic law is to be kept insofar as it has some crossover with Divine Law. Mosaic law is not to be regarded as particularly holy or good, except insofar as it is based on Divine Law. In practice, most of the specific laws in the pentateuch were known to exist prior to Moses. Indeed this is implicit in the revelation of the third commandment "Remember that you must keep the Sabbath holy...", and thus it is difficult to accept the justification that they are especially holy on the grounds of being revealed by God to Moses. In most cases the provenance is unclear. It is freely acknowledge by (non fundamentalist) Christianity that mosaic law is an imperfect institution, and that it represents, at best, a realisation of the precepts of Divine Law suited to that stage of civilisation. Indeed, it must be noted that the mosaic law sanctions much that was revealed to be immoral in the context of the New Covenant. Not least that it sanctions both polygamy and divorce, both of which are contrary to Divine Law, as understood by Christians.

In the particular case of keeping the Sabbath, you make the same error again. The Divine Commandment is to "keep the Sabbath holy", none of the specific forms of mosaic law apply to us, and in fact what that precisely corresponds to in day to day obligations is for the Church to decide (authority to bind and loose granted to Peter). Indeed, it is from this that Catholics believe that it is solemn obligation to attend mass every Sunday, excepting only when it turns out to be impossible. However, the celebration of the Eucharist is considered to be sufficient to discharge our obligations for the Sabbath, and we are no longer required to stay inside, or to do absolutely no work. Indeed, those Jewish sects that still interpret these commandments literally are forbidden from using electricity on a Sunday, as every power-station has someone working in it. I suspect that in the case of the Apostle Paul, he kept every day Holy. Far more so than I can manage even once a week.

The catholic position, which on this matter is essentially synonymous with the other mainstream (i.e. not fundamentalist) Churches is given here:Catholic Encyclopedia.

PS: It really wasn't my intention to get into theology about different Christian positions, but hrothgar did say I had a responsibility to correct erroneous beliefs of my fellow Christians .