|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Straggler,
I have conversed with a few of the others in this string; but have just now gone to the top to see what started this all. Thanks for the interesting topic. I notice that several have commented on your post but it looks like no one has tried to actually answer your questions. If you don’t mind, I’d like to take a stab at it.
Straggler writes: Is this sort of ultra-intervention idea common amongst theists? A far as I know, only the Bible (Hebrew Torah, Christian New Testament) states that there is only one God and that this God actively intervenes in; and ‘holds up’ the Universe.
Straggler writes: How much intervening does god do?Is any intervening necessary at all? How would we define or determine God "doing nothing" as opposed to God doing something? If I may, let me try to answer these with a ‘Word Picture’. Imagine you are holding an ornament by its hook. You are ‘Actively’ sustaining that ornament in midair. The bacteria on the inside of the ornament may not even be aware that you exist or even that if you let the ornament fall they would all die; but that does not change the fact that you are actively holding their world together. This is how it is presented in the Bible. The Creator is actively sustaining our universe from outside of our four dimensional universe. If He ever stopped; our universe would simply cease to exist. This is why I thank God that He has allowed me to exist for as long as He has. Thanks for questioning,JRTjr Edited by JRTjr01, : Minor Corrections
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
If He ever stopped; our universe would simply cease to exist. Is this idea actually supported by the text of the Bible? I see a lot of people make up stuff about what God does or would do when their only basis is what they themselves would do if they were omnipotent. That kind of silly speculation is practiced by both believers and non believers. Sure, God is powerful enough to constantly control the path of the earth around the sun instant by instant. But God is also powerful enough to speak gravity into existence with one word that does not return to him void. So which path did he take and why should we believe your answer? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.Richard P. Feynman If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined:
|
Dear NoNukes,
Hay, great hearing from you again; hope you’re doing well.
NoNukes writes: I see a lot of people make up stuff about what God does or would do when their only basis is what they themselves would do if they were omnipotent. That kind of silly speculation is practiced by both believers and non believers. I hear ya! It’s amazing to me to see (presumably) intelligent people treat their ‘opinions’ as {pardon the pun} Gospel truth.
NoNukes writes: Is this idea actually supported by the text of the Bible? I’m going to give you some Scripters to look up and I'll let you make that determination on your own.
Isaiah 40: 26, Isaiah 48:13, Hebrews 1: 2 & 3, and Colossians 1: 16 & 17. Hope to hear from you again soon; please, let me know what you decide,
JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
You seem to be using the term "objective truth" in the sense of "absolute truth". Just because ‘most people’ agree on something does not make it true/factual/correct. Thousands, even hundres, of years ago ‘most people’ thought the Sun revolved around the Earth; that did not mean it was true, factual or correct. I would say that evidence must be based on objective truth. There is no absolute truth. There is only what most people agree on. Once you point out my biases and I point out your biases, what we have left is as close to "the truth" as we can hope to get. When most people thought the sun revolved around the earth, it was "the truth". Old truths only become false when "most people" agree that they are false.
JRTjr01 writes:
I don't know of any atheists who have said that. Rather, they tend to say that since there is no evidence for God, we can not use God as an assumption in anything.
For instance: some Atheists have said ‘There is no god therefore there can be no evidence for god’. They are putting a presupposition before the evidence and calling that science. JRTjr01 writes:
I don't have a "conviction that there is a reality". I have perceptions and you have perceptions and we can discuss the overlap in our perceptions. You see, it all boils down to agreement.
The only thing that I see that we need before evidence is a conviction that there is reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Ringo,
Great hearing from you again, hope your day is going well.
Ringo writes: There is no absolute truth. Are you ‘Absolutely’ sure There is no absolute truth.???; and more importantly, can you prove it??? :-} Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Ringo writes: There is no absolute truth. There is only what most people agree on. What if most people agree on there being absolute truth? Are they wrong? Or are the right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
JRTjr01 writes:
I knew you were going to say that. Are you ‘Absolutely’ sure There is no absolute truth.??? If I had meant absolutely I would have said, "absolutely."
JRTjr01 writes:
The onus is on the one making the claim to provide evidence that the claim is true. If you claim there is "absolute truth" then you need to provide evidence of absolute truth. Until you do, I stand by my statement the same as I stand by the statement that there are no unicorns.
...and more importantly, can you prove it???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Straggler writes:
They are neither absolutely wrong nor absolutely right, just like they are neither absolutely wrong nor absolutely right about anything else.
What if most people agree on there being absolute truth? Are they wrong? Or are the right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Ringo,
How’s it going, hope you are well.
Ringo writes: The onus is on the one making the claim to provide evidence that the claim is true. If you claim there is "absolute truth" then you need to provide evidence of absolute truth. Until you do, I stand by my statement the same as I stand by the statement that there are no unicorns. Actually, I said: I would say that evidence must be based on objective truth. To which you replied: There is no absolute truth. You are the one making a claim about whether or not ‘absolute/objective truth’ is factual; therefore, by your own supposition, would it not be you who must back up his claim?? However, I have already made a case for ‘absolute Truth’ in the question I asked you: Are you ‘Absolutely’ sure There is no absolute truth.??? With that said; let me just expand on my statement by quoting something I said to someone else who was making a similar argument. His argument was: facts may exist but they are forever inaccessible to us.
JRTjr writes: If, in fact, it were a fact (that we cannot know facts), then we could not know that it was a fact, because we would be incapable of knowing facts. Only if we could know facts could we know we can’t know facts, so if we know facts then we must be able to know facts, because, after all, if we could not know facts, we would be unable to know we did not know them. In the definitions I gave in a previous post ‘Truth’, ‘Fact’, and ‘Real’ are pretty much interchangeable; so you can substitute ‘absolute Truth’ for ‘Fact’ in what I said and it still holds water. Hope I have not lost you there,
JRTjr
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
JRTjr01 writes:
Not at all. I am disputing the claim that there is absolute truth. Until there is evidence of absolute truth or unicorns, the default position is that they do not exist. You are the one making a claim about whether or not ‘absolute/objective truth’ is factual; I am also making a distinction between absolute truth and objective truth.
JRTjr01 writes:
The argument isn't that "we cannot know facts". It's that we don't have all the facts yet. Some day we might find new facts that overturn our current interpretation of the current facts. Some facts we may never discover - but I would never suggest that there are facts that we "cannot" discover.
If, in fact, it were a fact (that we cannot know facts), then we could not know that it was a fact, because we would be incapable of knowing facts. JRTjr01 writes:
Dictionary definitions are useful for schoolchildren. For serious discussions among adults, words are seldom interchangeable. Most sticking points seem to be based on the distinctions between terms.
In the definitions I gave in a previous post ‘Truth’, ‘Fact’, and ‘Real’ are pretty much interchangeable;
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9142 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
I think there is also a bit of equivocation of the word truth also. But that shouldn't surprise any of us.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18298 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
ok here is my questions:
For instance, does science exist without humans to complete the tests and verification?
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JRTjr01 Member (Idle past 2976 days) Posts: 97 From: Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Joined: |
Dear Ringo,
Always fun hearing from you.
Ringo writes: Not at all. I am disputing the claim that there is absolute truth. Until there is evidence of absolute truth or unicorns, the default position is that they do not exist. O.k. I’m not going to argue over who made the claim and who should prove their position because this is to fun a topic to pass up. I was going to go a different rout with your comment but I think I found something that will help you understand my position on what truth is. I dropped the word ‘Absolute’ because saying ‘Absolute Truth’ is like saying ‘Real’ reality; something is either true or falts. I took these quotes from Stand to Reason:
If someone says...
Great fun,JRTjr Edited by JRTjr01, : Went different rout. Edited by JRTjr01, : Accidentally left something out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 415 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well, no, there are other states than just true or false. There are things that are true but only within a given context and things that are partially true and partially false (a whole spectrum of those) and things that are nether true nor false.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
While you're waiting for Ringo....
Phat writes:
Do ideas exist without humans to think them up?For instance, does science exist without humans to complete the tests and verification? No
If all humans agreed on reality, would reality conform to humanity NoLife, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024