"The broken promise of biblical ‘inerrancy’"

[Htom Sirveaux]

The problem, again, is that this doesn’t work. We can’t instantly resolve our disagreements by turning to the Bible when those disagreements are about what the Bible means.

That’s why the Bible can never be, and never has been, a self-evident “supreme and final authority.” It cannot magically sweep away the “epistemological crisis” of being human because it’s a bunch of us humans who are trying to read the thing.

For an example of how the Bible fails to settle such disputes, look no further than to Al Mohler himself. When Mohler took over as president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, he didn’t appeal to the Bible as “the supreme and final authority” for the school’s faculty. The Bible, on its own, was inadequate. It was too ambiguous, too open to differing interpretations, to be of any help to Mohler in reshaping the faculty and curriculum of the seminary as he sought to do.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2014/09/05/the-broken-promise-of-biblical-inerrancy/

It's much better to be honest that our interpretations of sacred scriptures, Christian or otherwise, are interpretations. Some things will get privileged, others de-emphasized and disagreed with. That's because of what sacred scriptures are: a communal record of differing perspectives on the divine and divine-related. If that's what sacred scriptures have been since they were compiled, why should the reality of today's religious communities be any different?

[tech3149]

1. My FIL was a minister

He was educated at Bob Jones and Moody Bible. We had many long discussions over our differences in the interpretation and meaning of not just what we call the Bible but pretty much all of the Abrahamic religions.
The best thing was he had an immense library and we could reference it and use that information to clarify and intensify our arguments.
The funny thing was, after years of these discussions his interpretation came closer to mine.
I'm just some mill hunk from Podunk PA with no serious religious training but I think my use of logic and reason was able to more clearly define what he thought was most important about his beliefs. All the religious texts were written by man and interpreted by man, there is no way they can be considered innerrent unless man is the equivalent of God.

[Htom Sirveaux]

2. That's really cool that you were

able to sustain a relationship like that a conservative religious family member. Reminds me of similar discussions I've had with my pentecostal cousin. They were vigorous, but very civil.

[okasha]

3. Exactly.

That's what the Bible is: a record of a people struggling with a steadily changing perception of the divine. It starts with a storm god, Yah, the "rider of the clouds," who becomes the clan god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. From there he expands his influence to encompass the emerging Hebrew people. The northern tribes call him El, and he is not alone. He is accompanied by his consort, Asherah, and by a serpent god (dess) who probably has roots in Egypt and Crete. As Yahweh, he becomes the god of David and the royal house of Judah. A priesthood begins to organize, accompanied by a school of prophets whose function is to speak frightening or otherwise unpleasant truths. Yahweh emerges from this formalizing process as a god of justice, a lawgiver and protector of the poor. A few centuries later, he becomes not only the sole god of the Josian reforms but the universal god of Isaiah and Micah. The Hebrew Bible receives its final redaction during the Babylonian captivity. When the rabble-rousing preacher comes out of Gallilee during the Roman occupation, he proclaims this same god who suffers along with his creation, promising the peace, freedom and justice that comes from both human and divine righteousness. Yahweh has come a long way from a god who is merely a thunderer and flinger of lightning bolts.

That's why the idea that the God of the Bible "is" this or that one thing is inadequate. The Bible isn't his autobiography or his composition. It's a record of Israel's relationship with him, and how that changes over a millennium. And it changes profoundly.

[AtheistCrusader]

4. And then by revelations, he's taking shrooms and dropping acid...

[okasha]

8. Who's "he?"

[AtheistCrusader]

9. God or the person that thinks he or she is talking to him.

[okasha]

10. You do realize, I hope,

that the author of this book is not represented to be God. The author is quite explicit in describing it as a vision that "I, John, saw."

What it actually is, of course, is an allegory of the defeat of the Roman Empire by the Kindom of Heaven, narrated symbolically so that neither the writer nor the reader would be hauled in for sedition and crucified.

[trotsky]

11. Wow.

I usually only see fundamentalists who are so sure they've interpreted the bible correctly. Didn't expect to see such rigid certainty on DU. Why are you right, and everyone else is wrong, okasha?

[rug]

35. Is it so hard to accept that she is right here, and you are wrong?

Her statement is where the scholarship rests. Oh, she never said, "everyone else is wrong", Trotsky. You really shouldn't be so dishonest.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Well, since that never happened, why is it still in there?

(Visions are purportedly divine revelation, supposedly.)

[okasha]

34. Good question.

Several theologians, including Luther, have wanted to give it the pitch. I suspect that it's been kept because it brings the narrative of the Bible as a whole full circle--from the fall of humankind to its ultimate salvation and re-union with God, from the temporary victory of the serpent to its final destruction. And, of course, there's the argument that it hasn't happened yet, but will.

[edhopper]

6. Or what they think is the divine

and is no more credible than worshiping Zues or Baal or Odin or Hanub Ku.
It could just be man, in a state of great ignorance about the true nature of the Universe, trying to find an explanation with very limited knowledge.
Unless we accept that any of the interactions with God really occurred. There being anything divine to perceive is questionable.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

5. If the Bible has so many broad interpretations, one has to ask

Last edited Sun Sep 7, 2014, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Does it really provide value any longer? I can see a small argument being made for the New Testament, but the Old Testament was out-of-date by the time Julius Caesar came to power. And in a modern society where science proves that 900 year old men are impossible, and a global flood never happened, why read it as anything other than semi-interesting ancient urban legend and tribal myth?

[edhopper]

7. Because God

[Starboard Tack]

40. Apparently, it does provide value to many people.

Maybe the value of it is in the fact that it has so many broad interpretations. Otherwise, dogma would rule. It is each interpretation that needs to be challenged by each individual in determining what, if anything, to accept and what to discard. The bible has no more to do with science than the book of Genesis has to do with gardening. One should be able to read it in any way one wants and glean from it whatever strikes one's fancy.
Personally, I think too many people take the Bible way too seriously, be they believers or non-believers. It's an anthology of various stories, myths, historical accounts and opinions. But that again is up to each individual, how seriously they want to take it.

[immoderate]

51. It was my entree to science fiction.

And it came full circle for me when I read Isaac Asimov's great books of commentary on the bible.

--imm

[beam me up scottie]

53. Hi.

How are you?

[immoderate]

54. I am good.

And hoping it goes well with you. I always take note of your posts, and rarely have anything to add. You're that good.

But I see you!

--imm

[beam me up scottie]

55. I'm a chronic lurker.

And I see you too.

[tblue37]

52. Actually, a cataclysmic flood probably did happen about 7,600 years ago in that region of the world.

In their book Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries About the Event That Changed History (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1998), Walter Pitman and William Ryan detail the overwhelming evidence that the Old Testament story of Noah and the Great Flood (Genesis 6: 9[font color = "red"]*[/font]-9:17) was actually based on a real-life event, a cataclysmic flood that took place approximately 7,600 years ago, in 5,600 b.c., when a warming period caused a significant rise in sea levels, which then led to a breaching of the earthen dam that separated the Mediterranean basin from the Atlantic Ocean, which is, after all, just one part of the connected world ocean.

As the world ocean poured into the Mediterranean basin over a period of a few years, it first filled the Mediterranean, and then overflowed to fill the Black Sea as well, which was thus transformed by the inflow of seawater from a large freshwater lake into a large saltwater lake.
____________________

[font color = "red"]*[/font]I had to insert a space between the colon and the "9" in the first verse reference, because when the colon is followed immediately by the "9" it turns into this smiley .)

[goldent]

56. The Bible will always have enormous value

Even if Christianity were to die, the Bible would live on forever. The fact that it can be interpreted in different ways is a strength. It is not a history book, nor a science book.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

57. How so?

If the Bible isn't the word of God, how can we derive ANY value from it? It's not a great story. Much of the history is suspect. Its "commandments" and other directives have little relevance in a modern society. Plus it's just not that interesting, other than as a cautionary tail about the dangers of absolute power in the hands of the devout.

At the point it becomes something other than holy scripture, it goes back to being what it really is - a bunch of bronze age myths and legends thrown scatter shot onto some paper.

[goldent]

58. I think it has many incredible stories

whether or not you are a believer, not the least of which is the story of Jesus. I don't think we will agree on this -- people disagree on movies also!

[okasha]

59. And novels, and plays, and music.

Apart from its intrinsic literary and historical value, quite a lot of Western literature references the Bible. Moby Dick, for instance, is almost incomprehensible without some basic Biblical literacy.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

63. But do the stories seem incredible because you're viewing them through the prism of religion?

Or is the book itself an actual literary masterpiece? Because honestly, if I want good fiction in the fantasy genre, I'll hit up J.R.R. Tolkien or Robert Jordan. Those authors wrote books that have some of the same themes as the Bible, but written in such a way as to be interesting to someone in the 20th or 21st century.

When it comes to storytelling, the Bible just isn't all that good. It just seems better than it is because it's been imbued with a false (to some) attractiveness based on its sacred nature as the "Word of God".

Don't get me wrong - if you find meaning in the book, and realize some intrinsic value from reading it, that's great; I don't need to agree with you. But to call the stories in it "incredible" is stretching it a little.

But what the hell do I know - I hated the Harry Potter books, so my judgment may not be so keen.

[Brettongarcia]

12. Next conclusion: if religion was subjective originally, and later too? Then ... reject it all.

[Htom Sirveaux]

13. Your subjective opinion that subjectivity must be rejected negates itself. nt

[edhopper]

14. Religion being subjective

as demonstrated in your OP, is objective.

[Htom Sirveaux]

15. I have a logical argument for the existence and nature of God.

The mistake is assuming that Biblical interpretation is the totality of religion. Besides which, even if he were objectively right that religion is subjective, the idea that this is grounds for getting rid of it is itself a subjective opinion, which by his own argument should be dismissed.

[edhopper]

16. Yes,

the "reject it all" part is subjective.

Have you posted a thread about your logical argument for God, I would like to read it.

[Htom Sirveaux]

18. This thread has the most recent version:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=149499

Please also read MellowDem's responses and my replies.

[edhopper]

20. Thanks

good read, good discussion.

[eomer]

39. The difficulty I have with this is...

that "an infinite, immaterial, eternal intelligent agent that caused the universe" doesn't seem to say anything, in my opinion.

I don't believe that an intelligence that exists outside of space and time means anything that our minds are capable of understanding. So in the end it is just words that are appealing but that don't rise to the level of explaining anything.

[trotsky]

50. I don't think any of the alleged "proofs" of a god's existence...

are actually intended to explain anything. They seem more concerned with carefully constructing definitions to make a large enough circle that your audience doesn't notice it curving back to meet itself.

[trotsky]

17. By all means, let's see this logical argument you have.

Start a new thread - this is important enough that if your argument is sound, you could end millenia of religious conflict.

Go for it. Can't wait to see it.

[Htom Sirveaux]

19. Do you mind if I just link to it initially?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=149499

Please also read MellowDem's responses and my replies.

[trotsky]

21. Do you mind if I repeat MellowDem's first response?

"The first point already falls apart..."

But I'll go with another reason - quantum fluctuation.

Something can indeed come from nothing.

[Htom Sirveaux]

22. So the math that allows quantum fluctuations and the vacuums which produce

them are now "nothing"? That is not what I mean by nothing. I'm talking about nothing like Santa Claus is nothing. Total non-existence. It can't have causal power without allowing non-existent things to be responsible for events we perceive. So if you adopt "something can come from nothing" as I said, God could now be the creator of the universe even in the case of God's non-existence.

[trotsky]

23. That is as close as "nothing" as this universe can get.

Have you read this by the late, great Victor Stenger?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-stenger/did-the-universe-come-fro_b_739909.html

Over 20 years ago now, Hawking and Penrose admitted that there was no singularity because their calculation, while not wrong as far as it went, had not taken into account quantum mechanics. See page 50 of Hawking's 1988 bestseller A Brief History of Time. I do not know of a single working cosmologist today who says the universe began with a singularity.

Some Christian authors and debaters also refer to other more recent calculations claiming these require the universe to have a beginning. To give the shortest possible rebuttal, I will just quote the Cal Tech cosmologist Sean Carroll, who wrote me in an email: "No result derived on the basis of classical general relativity can be used to derive anything truly fundamental, since classical general relativity isn't right. You need to quantize gravity."

So the universe need not have had a beginning. But let's suppose for a moment that it did. That fact alone would not prove it was purposefully created. Another premise must be made to show that. The assumption must be added that everything that begins has a cause. Once again, this ignores quantum mechanics, where events commonly occur without cause. This is the case for the atomic transitions that give us light and the nuclear decays that give us nuclear radiation. They all happen spontaneously, without cause. In short, all attempts to prove that the universe had to have a beginning caused by God fail on several fronts.

[Htom Sirveaux]

24. Exactly, because if there had ever been absolute nothing,

there would still be absolute nothing now, because absolute nothingness is non-causal. That's why the universe can't get any closer and still exist. Just as I said.
-
Stenger and I agree on a lot. We agree that something has always existed, and as it happens, we also agree that the alternative to God creating the universe is an unlimited universe, not an "eternal universe". But Stenger (and Hawking) appear to think that even though our calculations break down past a certain point, it's still kosher to assume that quantum mechanics would continue to apply. But that is just an assumption, and if we release it, the singularity remains, and this also makes sense of why general relativity breaks down: a singularity is just one thing, and so calculations that assume at least two things would not apply.
-
But Stenger appears to be confused on at least one point. Earlier in the article, he said this:

One such religious notion is the story of creation: Once upon a time there was nothing and then, miraculously, there was something. But, is that the only possibility? Why couldn't there always have been something? If there never was a transition nothing-to-something, it follows there was no creation and, therefore, no creator, personal or otherwise.

So he agrees that something has always existed, and "nothing to something" doesn't work. That's the opposite of here:

The assumption must be added that everything that begins has a cause. Once again, this ignores quantum mechanics, where events commonly occur without cause.

Where he denies the necessity of causality for beginnings. In which case, "nothing to something" would work after all. Did Stenger not realize he's taken both sides of the debate within a single article?

[trotsky]

26. *sigh*

No, it's that "nothing" isn't an option. You are attempting to argue that because of that restriction, "AHA, see? Something can't come from nothing!" But it doesn't work that way.

Nor do the Stenger quotes you've chosen conflict. Each can be read separately as a point against your assumption. He's offering up two different options.

Look, your entire argument is nothing that hasn't been hashed out before in Kalam. You've just added a whole bunch more baggage to make it look like your argument is new and complex and exotic. But it isn't, it boils down to the notion that you don't understand how the universe came to exist, therefore god.

[Htom Sirveaux]

29. Huh?

No, it's that "nothing" isn't an option. You are attempting to argue that because of that restriction, "AHA, see? Something can't come from nothing!" But it doesn't work that way.

I'm saying that the reason "nothing" isn't an option is because it would contradict the existence of the universe currently, under any scenario. I've also discussed why they conflict, and what it would be like if "absolute nothing" was causal. Just asserting "it doesn't work like that" doesn't address anything I've said.

Nor do the Stenger quotes you've chosen conflict. Each can be read separately as a point against your assumption. He's offering up two different options.

Possibly, but that could be because Stenger fails to mention that in the "religious option" he describes, something has also always existed, it's just that it's God, rather than the universe. His discussion on this point could have been much clearer.

Look, your entire argument is nothing that hasn't been hashed out before in Kalam. You've just added a whole bunch more baggage to make it look like your argument is new and complex and exotic. But it isn't, it boils down to the notion that you don't understand how the universe came to exist, therefore god.

I've never claimed complete originality. In fact, the only point I might be original on is that I use relativity and Occam's razor to discuss why the unlimited universe is not a satisfactory alternative to a universe with a beginning. But your description of my argument is pure polemics, not a reasonable counter-argument, and completely fails to accurately capture what I said.

[trotsky]

31. Fun times.

I'm saying that the reason "nothing" isn't an option is because it would contradict the existence of the universe currently, under any scenario.

So your first challenge, then, is to show that "nothing" actually happened. That should be interesting.

But your description of my argument is pure polemics, not a a reasonable counter-argument.

The reasonable counter-argument is that you've simply invented a need, and then *gasp* totally coincidentally, have this prepackaged idea that fits the need! How convenient! Almost as if you STARTED with the idea, and then defined a "problem" for it to solve. But surely you didn't do that, right?

15. If nothing existed outside this cause or before this cause, then nothing could compel this cause to create the universe.
16. Therefore, this cause was free to not create the universe.
17. That it did so anyway suggests a choice, which in turn suggests agency.

What information did your god base that choice upon? Keep in mind, your claim is that your god is the ONLY thing that existed. NOTHING else did. Including information about what its choices were.

[Htom Sirveaux]

64. I think you've misunderstood.

So your first challenge, then, is to show that "nothing" actually happened. That should be interesting.

I don't think that "nothing" has ever happened, because as previously stated, that would contradict the existence of the universe currently.

The reasonable counter-argument is that you've simply invented a need, and then *gasp* totally coincidentally, have this prepackaged idea that fits the need! How convenient! Almost as if you STARTED with the idea, and then defined a "problem" for it to solve. But surely you didn't do that, right?

More polemics, this time in the form of internet pseudo-psychoanalysis. And as it happens, mistaken internet pseudo-psychoanalysis. The problem I was trying to solve that this argument relates is the nature of time and how both continuity and change can happen from moment to moment. I can conceive of this universe being endless chaos ("change" all the way down) or one static, unchanging image forever ("stability" all the way down), and the need is to explain why neither of those two possibilities describes our universe.

What information did your god base that choice upon? Keep in mind, your claim is that your god is the ONLY thing that existed. NOTHING else did. Including information about what its choices were.

So if the relevant information regarding the potential universe is in God's nature, then no problem. Your challenge is based on a misunderstanding. Anything that is in God still exists under my claim. Anything that is not does not.

[trotsky]

68. No, I think I do.

I don't think that "nothing" has ever happened, because as previously stated, that would contradict the existence of the universe currently.

So in principle, you think there was never "nothing," there was just a time when nothing BUT your god existed. Can you prove that?

More polemics, this time in the form of internet pseudo-psychoanalysis.

Or years of experience observing, dissecting, and refuting every excited theological keyboard warrior who thinks "Aha, this time I've got a proof for god that even those pesky atheists can't dismiss!"

I can conceive of this universe being endless chaos ("change" all the way down) or one static, unchanging image forever ("stability" all the way down), and the need is to explain why neither of those two possibilities describes our universe.

Then you either have a limited imagination, or limited exposure to the array of scientific theories about the possible origins of our universe. It's a pretty cool topic with lots of information out there.

So if the relevant information regarding the potential universe is in God's nature, then no problem.

How much of the "information regarding the potential universe" is relevant enough to make a decision on whether to create it?

[Htom Sirveaux]

69. Answers:

So in principle, you think there was never "nothing," there was just a time when nothing BUT your god existed. Can you prove that?

Not currently, but I don't think it's in principle unprovable. Being able to look back beyond the Big Bang would help answer this and many other questions

How much of the "information regarding the potential universe" is relevant enough to make a decision on whether to create it?

I don't know. I think I'd probably have to have been God to know that.

[trotsky]

70. It's a bit ironic that your post subject was "Answers"

But your responses to both questions were "I don't know."

So much for your proof of god.

[Htom Sirveaux]

74. This has been fun.

If you find a counter-argument for the actual argument, rather than ignoring it in favor of a side issue, I'm happy to continue. Until then, my argument continues to be a reasonable basis to believe that God exists.

[trotsky]

75. Well I'm sure that's how you would like the game to be played, but that's not how it works.

You offered this as "proof" of god, and it's failed miserably. I don't need to provide a counter-argument. But if that's what you need to think in order to save face and duck out of defending your proof, fine.

On edit, I will add a link. Since your argument is, as I noted, just Kalam with a bunch more stuff put on top of it, here's some information refuting Kalam.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2013/01/29/a-refutation-of-the-kalam-cosmologial-argument-for-god/

Counter the counter-arguments there if you want to proceed.

[Htom Sirveaux]

76. Yes, a logical demonstration of the rationality of believing

that God exists. Your use of "proof" is another example of you loading words with your preferred meaning and expecting me to just accept that. As you said, not how the game is played.

If you want to read your own link and offer a potential counter to my argument in your own words, I'm more than happy to engage. I gave you a link, but it was to my own words. You could at least do likewise.

[trotsky]

77. But you didn't even succeed in that.

You've attempted your very own word tricks, loading them so that your proposed definition of god then meets their requirements. Ta da! And no one else will accept that, either. Seriously, Htom, nothing you have presented is anything novel or different. It's same old rehashed, tired, and refuted arguments for god's existence, just with a lot of verbage added on to make it look more complex or impressive.

And ultimately, there can be no rational or logical reason to believe in god, because it's about FAITH. Remember?

[Act_of_Reparation]

27. I don't see the contradiction.

When he's saying there was always "something", he's referring to a quantum vacuum. No, it is not "absolutely nothing", but it may be as close to "absolutely nothing" as physics will allow. And it isn't "something" in the sense that we are used to. There is no physical matter there, just weak electromagnetic waves (in the neighborhood of a trillionth of an erg (1 erg = 10^-7 J), and subatomic particles that phase in and out of existence.

He didn't say "nothing caused the existence of the universe", he said "not everything that begins has a cause". It is assumed fluctuations in the the quantum vacuum caused the universe as we know it; those fluctuations, however, needn't have a cause.

[Htom Sirveaux]

30. And the quantum vacuum and the related math are causes.

"As close to 'nothing' as physics will allow" and "not 'something' in the sense that we are used to" still miss the point.

[Act_of_Reparation]

37. No, they're effects.

The vacuum state is the product of subatomic particles phasing in and out of existence, as they are wont to do, apparently of their own volition.

"As close to 'nothing' as physics will allow" and "not 'something' in the sense that we are used to" still miss the point.

No, it doesn't.

You're attempting to prove existence a priori. If you don't see the folly in that, well, good luck to you, pal.

[Htom Sirveaux]

62. Can you point me to a source for the

idea that the vacuum is an effect of the particles. Also, you failed to support your claim regarding the math. And yes, redefining the terms of the argument is called "equivocation" and does indeed fail to answer the argument on its own terms, which is missing the point.

[Act_of_Reparation]

65. Now you're being obtuse.

Can you point me to a source for the idea that the vacuum is an effect of the particles.

I don't have to. It is how the term "vacuum state" is defined. It's like asking me to source the claim that ice is an effect of water freezing.

Also, you failed to support your claim regarding the math.

No, I didn't. Stenger's point is that there may very well be no math governing the phasing of these particles. You assume that because math can be used to predict practically everything in existence, that the same must necessarily apply to vacuum state. I don't think anyone knows enough about vacuum states to draw such a conclusion.

And yes, redefining the terms of the argument is called "equivocation" and does indeed fail to answer the argument on its own terms, which is missing the point.

I'm sorry, but no.

If I were using some alternate definition of a word within the context of your premises to prove your argument unsound, then that would be equivocation. But that's not what we're doing. We're not even asserting a vacuum state is necessarily "nothing". Rather, we are looking at the accepted science and determining whether or not the premises of your a priori argument are as axiomatic as you present them to be.

And it doesn't appear that they are.

[Jim__]

25. First, there are very strong arguments that the universe had a beginning.

From MIT Technology Review April 24, 2012:

...

So these modern cosmologies suggest that the observational evidence of an expanding universe is consistent with a cosmos with no beginning or end. That may be set to change.

Today, Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin at Tufts University in Massachusetts say that these models are mathematically incompatible with an eternal past. Indeed, their analysis suggests that these three models of the universe must have had a beginning too.

Their argument focuses on the mathematical properties of eternity–a universe with no beginning and no end. Such a universe must contain trajectories that stretch infinitely into the past.

However, Mithani and Vilenkin point to a proof dating from 2003 that these kind of past trajectories cannot be infinite if they are part of a universe that expands in a specific way.

...

But, I have some questions about your logical argument for the existence of God.

14. This cause would therefore be immaterial, always existing, and infinite. At time=0, nothing other than this cause existed.

Can you clarify what you mean by infinite in the above statement? Also, I don't see how the arguments 15 thru 17 follow from your previous arguments:

15. If nothing existed outside this cause or before this cause, then nothing could compel this cause to create the universe.
16. Therefore, this cause was free to not create the universe.
17. That it did so anyway suggests a choice, which in turn suggests agency.

Well, nothing outside of this cause could have compelled it to create the universe, but, why does that require that the cause has agency? Why couldn't it have an internal compulsion to cause the universe? If you are arguing that the cause has agency, aren't you arguing that the cause exists within time? And, if so, doesn't that conflict with your argument about Occam's Razor?

[Htom Sirveaux]

28. "Infinite" in #14 just means "unbound by time or space".

I wasn't sure if "immaterial" and "always existing" had properly conveyed the full sense of what I meant, but it seems that I just ended up causing more confusion.
-
"Nothing outside of this cause" is what I was going for, and the next time I give this argument, I will make that clear. I'm not sure God has an "internal" when there is nothing else "external", but I see what you're saying, and I agree that God is his nature, and cannot be other. Freedom to not be love is not the type of freedom that God has.
-
I'm saying that the cause exists both outside of time (before it began) and inside time (as such, is the will that keeps the things that create time in existence)

[Jim__]

33. The concept of something happening outside of time is paradoxical.

How can a cause that exists outside of time, cause a distinct event? Causing something implies change, and change implies time. It seems either the cause is constant - i.e. it is always causing a universe to come into existence, or the cause itself has to exist in time. I guess I'm having a problem with your argument #13:

13. A cause distinct from the universe of space/time would not consist of anything that requires space or time, nor would it be subject to space or time.

I can see the cause as being independent of the time within the universe; but I can't see how it can be independent of time and cause a distinct event.

If I understand Mithani's and Vilenkin's argument, space cannot be eternal. If my understanding is correct and you accept their argument - I haven't seen anyone contradict it yet - you may be able to argue against an eternal space without using Occam's Razor.

[eomer]

38. Re: "If I understand Mithani's and Vilenkin's argument, ...", my understanding is different.

Their argument only says (can only say) that certain models for the universe don't work unless you're willing to grant them a single starting point. But there are two ways to satisfy that argument - one is that there is a single starting point and the other is that the models are flawed and there isn't a single starting point. Some cosmologists are working on the latter possibility, trying to find different models that do result in some infinitely repeatable cycle (no starting point) that jives with what we can observe. The multiverse approach is one solution being considered.

In other words, if we were somehow able to make those observations that we apparently can't, it might turn out that there was actually something before the big bang. If so then the explanations would be forced to adapt. Since we can't make any observations before the big bang, and assuming that we don't find any suitably convincing proxy for such observations, then we will always have to allow for the possibility that there was something before the big bang.

I think that the explanation that space and time don't exist at a singularity may also always have to be just one of two possibilities if we can't ever make observations or run experiments. That's because it also is merely a conclusion from a model and if we were able to make observations then the model would have no choice but to change if the observations showed that space and time do in fact exist at a singularity.

Cosmologists are working away trying to find an elegant explanation for everything. Good luck to them. I think that at best they will only be able to have some number of proposed solutions that are never resolved down to a single one. And unfortunately Occam's Razor cannot be the final arbiter of truth. It's "more of a guideline", sort of like the Pirates' Code. It's nothing more than our preference for the simplest explanation. But that is merely human preference - reality doesn't know or care about Occam's Razor. So it can easily be the case that a much more complex explanation is true even if a simpler one fits every observation we can (humanly) find.

[Jim__]

42. Yes, Mithani and Vilenkin only argue that the universe probably had a beginning.

And, of course, their claim is limited by current knowledge. From their paper:

3 Did the universe have a beginning?

At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes.² Here we have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning, and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past. Both eternal inflation and cyclic universe scenarios have H_av > 0, which means that they must be past-geodesically incomplete. We have also examined a simple emergent universe model, and concluded that it cannot escape quantum collapse. Even considering more general emergent universe models, there do not seem to be any matter sources that admit solutions that are that are immune to collapse.

I should amend my statement to say that there is no known scenario where space can have an eternal past.

[Htom Sirveaux]

61. This would work better with a diagram.

Last edited Tue Sep 9, 2014, 11:52 PM - Edit history (1)

The causing of the universe and the beginning of time are simultaneous, in my understanding.

[Brettongarcia]

41. Religion normally claims to be objective truth: the Word of God; "Truth"

If it is found to be subjective? Then it fails by its own standards. And therefore it should be rejected for that reason - among a hundred other reasons.

If Sirveaux tried to get around this, by next, redefine religion as subjective? Then Religion has been stripped of 9/10 of its content; to the point that it is no longer even "religion." But a mere mood or suspicion, perhaps.

You should therefore not call what you have "Religion."

Maybe "an ethical opinion"? A half-belief? A daydream?

[Htom Sirveaux]

60. How about "agnostic theism" since that would

fit in with that popular four box diagram about (a)gnosticism and (a)theism?

[Brettongarcia]

66. Agnostic theism is of course a selfcontradiction, or "oxymoron"

Logically, anyone who claims 1) not to know if there is a god, 2) should not next assume there is one.

There are many agnostic theists in this definition, to be sure. But they are living in a contradiction. Which would be the true atheist or anti-theist criticism of them.

[Warren Stupidity]

67. See Kierkegard.

It is a more nuanced position than you make it out to be.

Philosopher Søren Kierkegaard believed that knowledge of God is actually impossible, and because of that people who want to be theists must believe: "If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

But note that he starts with people who want to be theists.

[Brettongarcia]

71. Never liked Kierkegaard; for precisely his lack of sufficient nuance

By "must believe" he probably means, in my own preference, 1) he cannot KNOW. There is not enough evidence to advance religion as full knowledge. Therefore if he wants to believe, he only has "belief," not knowledge.

The other plausible reading of this sentence though is offensive: 2) it would have K. insisting that we "must believe" - as in a command.

This amounts to coercive bullying. Which is not unknown in zealots. K. seems nuanced, existential, and agnostic at first. But underneath him are 1) the same old word-twisting semantic games, double meanings. And 2) under that in turn, is the same old religious bullying and arm-twisting.

I'm not sure he ever fully put it behind him. Or that he was criticizing such things, rather than embracing them.

I wouldn't use Kierkegaard for a model; he's not so good. He's always compromising, even with the darker, coercive side of faith.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. Just labelling them "sacred scriptures" is wrong footed and starts the foolishness going.

Once people realize they are arguing over the meaning of stories in Grimm's Fairy Tales, the madness will stop.

[edhopper]

43. I think discussing the meaning of Grimm's Fairy Tales

especially how they changed over time, is more interesting than discussing the Bible.

Cinderella, going from fitting in a fur slipper (sexual implications and all) to a glass slipper, for instance.

[Brettongarcia]

44. Though if you're into sexual symbolism? Nothing beats the biblical obsession with circumcision

The male phallus is at the very center of Judeo-Christianity. Dozens of references to it occupy a major theological place throughout the entire Bible. You are defined as good or bad, lost or saved, Jewish or Christian, in large part according to what you do with it.

Though for that matter? It's so overt, so explicit, it's not even symbolism.

But in any case, it probably links to the Phallic Myths of Dionysus and so forth.

[edhopper]

45. The biblical/sexual stuff is too obvious

I think looking at myths that are accepted as myths is more intriguing.
With the bible it becomes an argument if they are really myths, or which are myths and which we should look at as really happening.

[Brettongarcia]

46. Looking at obvious myths is more fun;but showing hidden myths in the New Testament is more important

Since billions of people don't know they are myths yet; and still follow them as if they are real.

By the way? It's a hot topic in religious study today. "Historicists" insist that Jesus was a real, historical person, at least partially. But "Mythicists" are suggesting that Jesus is really a compound of many rumors, myths. A bunch of myths that people took for historical reality, or as one historical person.

[edhopper]

47. I agree it's more important

And not as much fun.

[Brettongarcia]

48. Yeah, I agree

Sometimes it's fun though. "Epater le bourgeoisie."

[edhopper]

49. And of course

the existence of a man that the New Testament was based on means nothing to the veracity of anything in the Gospels, which have much more mythology than history.

[Brettongarcia]

72. If there was ANY historical Jesus, that might mean the gospels were as much as 10 % correct?

Which would give them a failing grade in any case. While the 90% would seriously outweigh and even nullify the 10.

[edhopper]

73. About the same amount

as Abe Lincoln, Vampire Hunter was correct about him.