tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post6807616605802284720..comments2024-03-02T00:44:55.128-08:00Comments on Pleiotropy: The Rzeppa game showBjørn Østmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-19172084883474316842009-04-20T21:39:00.000-07:002009-04-20T21:39:00.000-07:00what ever you think...
but two of the main featur...what ever you think...<br /><br />but two of the main features of God is omniscience and omnipotence... and that is true for all monotheistic religions, and in politheism there is a hirarchy of powers.<br /><br />And now you are telling me that "all Christian theologians agree that God cannot do that which is inherently inconsistent or impossible" ... <br /><br />This is an absolute logical inconsistency, how could somebody perform miracles, that are not "inherently impossible". So either I do miracles or I don't, what is it?<br /><br />Now it is to me to lecture you about the bible? Okay, the book genesis (the source of all the trouble, and the reason we have this fruitless evolution/creationism discussion) uses the word omnipotens in the latin version 6 times alone, and 40 times in total, and 26 times in conjugations check: (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?b=lvb&q=omnipotens)<br /><br />Interestingly not in Mk, Mt, Lk, Jh at all... which again shows the difference between old and new testament, but that is on a different page.<br /><br />And you are telling me, I should read the bible, and check the gospel??? I would love every creationist do know at least as much of what I know about the bible/theism/religion to know about evolution, before they dare to enter any discussion about it.<br /><br />Cheers ArendAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-88714556092073419472009-04-20T18:27:00.000-07:002009-04-20T18:27:00.000-07:00It seems (to me) that you've got some strange idea...It seems (to me) that you've got some strange ideas about God. All Christian theologians agree that God cannot do that which is inherently inconsistent or impossible, which renders your examples (above) irrelevant. Only if one assumes a capricious and arbitrary God is logic affected; and that is not the case in Christian theology. God is not just the source of logic, but Logic itself; He is not just truthful, but is Truth. He cannot lie and cannot act contrary to His character.<br /><br />Regarding "truth becoming a matter of taste" when non-rational components are allowed, I disagree. It may be impossible to prove, using only logic, that my wife is committed to me; but it is nevertheless a fact, a piece of "common ground" that we share between us. Some things that are called "irrational" and "emotional" are actually "meta-rational" -- ABOVE reason. Most of the things that really matter to us, for example.<br /><br />Anyway, as I've pointed out before, without God, nothing ultimately matters and whatever we say or do is therefore, in the final analysis, meaningless. Including that final analysis! So if there is no God, let us put an end to this tedious discussion and eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.<br /><br />I'm sorry to exit so abruptly, but I weary of composing in this tiny, non-wysiwyg editor. The last word, here, is yours. If anyone wishes to contact me, my email address is:<br /><br />gerry@someofthepartsbook.comGerry Rzeppahttp://www.rzeppa-vs-dawkins.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-66699498289557501622009-04-20T16:35:00.000-07:002009-04-20T16:35:00.000-07:00Hi,
you should ask yourself what God does to logi...Hi,<br /><br />you should ask yourself what God does to logic. God is almighty and omniscient, and can defy logic. So lets make a simple example here (and most likely I am going to use a more Aristothelian aproach which is not entirely contemporary but it will do):<br /><br />Axiom: Everything that breathes lives!<br />Observation: I breath!<br />Conclusion: I live!<br /><br />Now if God is within our framework of logic, the following might happen:<br />Axiom: Everything that breathes lives!<br />Observation A: A rock is not breathing!<br />God's interaction: God makes the stone breath, without making it live.<br />God defied one of the axioms...<br /><br />If you have this in your standard logical aproach, you should revise your axioms.<br /><br />Whatever we conclude from this example is true, or false, or true and false. It is not even a paradoxon anymore, it is what I explained earlier: an antinomy!<br /><br />You can actually make the following postulates:<br /><br />Axiom A: God exists<br />Axiom B (which is actually part of axiom A): Gods existence includes his omnipotence<br />Conclusion A: God can make any conclusion to be true or false<br /><br />Conclusion A is true or false at the same time...<br /><br /><br />I am not saying that your or my actions are not purely based on logic, in fact I make irrational/emotional decision all the time. But when it comes to reasoning about stuff, and to find a common ground, or universal principle, we have to stop arguing emotional. Otherwise the "truth" becomes a matter of taste. <br /><br />Cheers ArendAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-69733371747560192422009-04-20T13:47:00.000-07:002009-04-20T13:47:00.000-07:00Hello again, Arend.
I'm sorry, but I still don't ...Hello again, Arend.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but I still don't understand what you're trying to say. Logical operations are applied AFTER axioms are chosen; axioms (or, if you prefer, postulates) are statements assumed to be unprovable within the system of which they are part. My dictionary says an axiom is "a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof" and a postulate is "a proposition that is accepted as true in order to provide a basis for logical reasoning". So I've chosen the postulates enumerated in my previous post, and I reason along from there. What's wrong with that?<br /><br />Regarding "kinds" of evidence, I've noticed that no one lives entirely and solely by logic; nor does it appear that we were meant to do so. So I readily accept other types of input when forming my opinions and making my decisions. It's really the only way to live (because we HAVE to make choices every hour of every day on many fronts where logic is unable to conclusively decide the matter).Gerry Rzeppahttp://www.rzeppa-vs-dawkins.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-38005284976142587102009-04-20T06:30:00.000-07:002009-04-20T06:30:00.000-07:00Well Gerry,
you used the word axiom, and suggeste...Well Gerry,<br /><br />you used the word axiom, and suggested to use God (or gods existence) as an axiom, or pointed out, that Bjorn would only accept God as a conclusion. This whole statement is about logic (or math). And if you want to use a philosopical construct, or concept like logic, you have to use it according to its rules. And logic is quite old, and very well defined, it works within certain boundaries and has limitations. And god is one of them. God (or the existence or god) can create statements that are true but contradict each other -> antinomy. Once you do this to logic, it becomes meaningless, non functional. Like dividing by 0 in math, the function has no solution.<br /><br />You might say that this is a significant limitation to logic, and in your last sentence you ask why we should stick to it, why it has any "intrinsic" value at all?<br /><br />But you are in the same moment using it, you are reasoning with us, you try to convince us. If you do that, you are using logic, and must stick to the rules.<br /><br />Or you are trying to emotionally persuade us, which is a totally different option you have, but Bjorn and I are not addressable by this, especially when talking about science.<br /><br />Which means you have three options:<br />-have a talk about subjective emotions, which might or might not affect others, and remains totally subjective, but we would also not be able to doubt or reject your experience/emotions<br /><br />-you can reason with us, use logic to convince us about most things. But remember the only true statement about God from within logic is that: Logic can not make a statements about Gods existence or non existence. God is not provable, or disprovable! Simply put: Logic doesn't deal with God.<br /><br />-you can critizise logic ... and in a way you did that in your last sentence already. But to be honest, that is a hopeless attempt.<br />I understand very well, that it becomes so much easier to believe in anything, once logic is out of the way. And that is not going to happen. Not only because the time of enlightenment was all about turning a theistic/monachies into tollerant democracies. It was also about turning mysticism into sceptical rationalism. And that was possible, not only because many people sacrifieced them self for that. No, because logic has an intrinsic value, since it is correct for itself. But also, because is has extrinsic value, when you take god out of the equasions, because once you do that, logic is able to make inferrence about reality, it becomes predictive, and you can use it to make conclusions about reality. <br /><br />And btw, once you stick to logic, there is no discussion about what "kind of evidence" is applicable...<br /><br />Cheers ArendAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-84293465182716755802009-04-18T18:28:00.000-07:002009-04-18T18:28:00.000-07:00I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Arend. Why...I'm not sure what you're trying to say, Arend. Why can't I assume, if I wish, that (1) "In the beginning [of time], God created the heavens [space] and the earth [matter]", and (2) that He created us "in His image" [which makes His creation comprehensible to us], and (3) that we, through misuse of His creation, broke (and continue to break) the thing, so that now "the whole creation groans and travails in pain", and go on from there?<br /><br />It seems to me that these three postulates provide the foundation for both sound reasoning and a plethora of satisfying insights regarding the universe around us. They tell us that our reasoning, while flawed, is not a mere accident. They allow for simple and direct answers to many difficult questions. And they give us "clues", as I mentioned above, regarding how we should approach both our academic studies and our practical relationships with others.<br /><br />If there's an "antinomy" there, I don't see it. The tree that grows from these roots, it seems to me, is covered with remarkably fruitful boughs.<br /><br />On the other hand, if the existence of reason is just a chance occurrence in an arbitrary universe, why should we think that logic has any intrinsic value at all? All we could (reasonably!) say in such a universe is that "Antinomies Happen". Period. They're not good, they're not bad, they just ARE.Gerry Rzeppahttp://www.rzeppa-vs-dawkins.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-36462926876061363682009-04-18T17:59:00.000-07:002009-04-18T17:59:00.000-07:00I want to offer congratulations and kudos to all p...I want to offer congratulations and kudos to all parties involved. This is the only creation/evolution debate I've ever come across that didn't end up turning into a flaming argument at the end. Nobody walked away convinced of anybody else's views, either, but I don't think that was part of the expectation!<br /><br />And I will look into Prothero's book. I think it would be a nice gift in exchange for all the creationist lit I've been receiving from loved ones concerned with the state of my soul.Fiat Lexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10441862977921307080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-90384592172632030762009-04-18T17:24:00.000-07:002009-04-18T17:24:00.000-07:00Hi everyone, nice to read from you again Gerry!
I...Hi everyone, nice to read from you again Gerry!<br /><br />I assume you don't know the following:<br />In a system of inferrence (like logic), if you include an operator (God) that defies causality, you create a antinomy. Which unfortunately is very badly explained in wiki. But it means that you can create two statements which are mutualy exclusive, but both are true. And when that happens...<br />your system of inferrence looses its ability to differentiate between true or false. It becomes meaningless so to speak.<br /><br />With other words:<br />God can not be an axiom in a system of inference (logic), and no system of inference (logic) can deduce or conclude the existence of such operator.<br /><br />...<br /><br />So that at least means, that this is not a starting point whatsoever...<br /><br />Cheers ArendAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-15299203701212621512009-04-18T16:41:00.000-07:002009-04-18T16:41:00.000-07:00It almost sounds like you miss me, Bjorn! Nice of ...It almost sounds like you miss me, Bjorn! Nice of you to post the whole shebang. Thanks.<br /><br />I think that our brief post-contest discussion entitled "Two Diagrams", however, was more revealing. At least it was for me. It showed, I think, how different both our postulates and our ways of evaluating arguments are, and how difficult it therefore is for members of either camp to even approach the "intellectual metamorphosis" you mentioned above.<br /><br />In short, we don't even agree on what KINDS of evidence are admissible, much less on how much weight should be assigned to each kind. The intuitive and (I think) obvious notions that I accept as axioms are apparently opaque to you, while your skeptical and purely rational methods of thought appear to me to be emaciated, feeding on exceptions and ignoring the feast of ubiquitous and undisputed (yet admittedly "fuzzy") experiences of all men.<br /><br />For example, I say that we should accept God as an axiom, and go from there; you'll accept God only as a conclusion, if at all. I say that we were MEANT to understand the universe in certain ways, and can therefore conduct our investigations most effectively using certain "clues" graciously given us by God to guide us; you say that we weren't "meant" to understand anything!<br /><br />Where can one possibly go from there?Gerry Rzeppahttp://www.rzeppa-vs-dawkins.comnoreply@blogger.com