Hitch is dead

Yes, I am a Theist. However there are two separate discussions. The first is an intelligent agency for matter which does not establish whether or not there is further involvement by the agency. You seem to accept that there is no evidence that argues against the deistic option. So now you have taken the reasonable approach and agreed that cosmic evolution is not the same as biological evolution. I'll take you word for it that cosmic evolution happened naturally without any further interference from a cosmic intelligence.Biological evolution however then requires an agency in order to emerge within the cosmic realm. This certainly suggests that there was interference at some point in time that allowed this to happen. For that matter even after cellular life came into existence it seems reasonable to conclude that further agency was required to move from basic cellular life to conscious life and then to sentience.If we assume that then I suggest that in one way or another it is reasonable to believe that this intelligent agency isn't a detached agency. We can then come to our own subjective conclusions about whether or not that agency connects with us through our consciousness. And that is your belief. However, even if that proves to be correct it is again confusing process with agency.You quoted the article outlining Hawkings' position and yet the writer dismisses Hawkings' position in the last paragraph.

quote:

---

One of the real problems here is that you are in the realm of quantum gravity, which no one, not even Hawking, claims to understand. To me, it also seems to be a problem to invoke gravitational potential energy back in the early stages where mass may not have been a characteristic of the particles if the Higgs mechanism acting later was responsibile for particles having mass.

---

I'll be the first to admit that this article is well above my pay grade.

All I'm asking is how evolution was initiated. I realize like Tangle said that the term is abiogenesis. Tangle says that eventually science will solve that puzzle. So if and when it does then the question is why and how did abiogenesis occur. My beliefs are inconvenient for your argument but I don't call them disgusting. Well at least now you are agreeing that evolution required at least one previous process. However, you missed the point. Each process including evolution required a cause whether it be a mindless agent or an intelligent one. If a mindless agent is the cause the there needs to be a different cause every step of the way. If it is intelligent then there is only one cause required for each individual process. There are huge gaps in scientific knowledge between the BB and sentient life. However science only answers the question of how things happened the way they did and not why they happened. I have no problem with the science. Well of course it requires agency. The question is whether or not the agency is entirely mindlessly natural, or is there also an intelligent agency involved.

Of course natural processes happen. The question is whether or not there is intelligent involvement or not. Science can only examine what occurs naturally and it is a matter of belief whether or not those process es are the result of intelligence or not. I agree. I worded my response poorly. So with all of the billions of processes, all requiring cause you have to insert an often unexplained scientific cause, as for example the cause for evolution. (abiogenesis)

Explain how you get from a mindless universe, held together by mindless mathematical laws to sentient life able to discover and understand those laws. I agree with that, but that is what science does. It investigates and draws conclusions about the natural world.As a Christian I believe that God resurrected Jesus. Scientifically we understand that when you're dead and unless there is a resuscitation you stay dead. Science can say that the resurrection does not conform to scientific law. However, Christian understanding is that this was a one time event and that there is no appeal being made for science to support it. It is outside of scientific law. If one is a atheistic then the whole idea of resurrection is impossible. If however one is a theist then we are left to appeal to other sources and form our own opinion as to whether or not we accept that belief as historical.This is one instance, if correc, that this is something that if true would require divine intervention.

So now I'm dishonest, if not disgusting. I am trying to have an honest debate and doing the best I can. Evolution filled a gap. If abiogenesis is scientifically explained it will fill a gap. However, the scientific explanation does not answer the question of why these processes exist as they do. How and why are two separate questions. The agency might be mindless or intelligent which is the question we're discussing.

I have no idea what you are referring to. If this isn't an honest debate, (not that I see it as debate but as a discussion, and maybe that's the problem), maybe we should just agree to disagree.

Really well put. I agree with all of that. Could that be considered scientism of the gaps? However, wouldn't that be a discovery in the same vein as evolution. Evolution gave us a framework to understand how life evolved. However, just because we found out how life evolved it did not answer the question of the agency involved. Was the agency other natural processes or was there an intelligent agent? Scientists can observe the process happen naturally. It doesn't rule out at all the possibility that the natural process was set in motion and then left alone or even if there was intervention(s) at some point(s) in time. On that issue I'm agnostic. I am simply saying that if we understand what happened at T=0 it still will not rule out an intelligent agency. Largely correct except that when you talk about a god pulling on all of those strings it sounds like you are suggesting that God physically intervenes pretty much constantly. Yes I believe that God has intervened directly but I suggest that His intervention is mostly indirect, and being done by creating a world that understands good and evil and a consciousness that understands that we should override the evil and choose the good. Once again understanding that stuff is well above my pay grade but again it is the process that you are describing not necessarily the agency. This is where we come apart. I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, that your belief is that the processes themselves are the agency where as I believe that the processes are the result of an intelligent agency. All true. However when I look at it I marvel at how a creative intelligence has made us co-creators of life.

Maybe we mean different things by agency. In terms of natural causes I can use this example. A tsunami occurs. I would understand that the agency was an earthquake. However I may be extending the meaning of the term beyond what is intended. I probably should simply use supernatural cause or natural cause. I agree that in the vast majority of cases stuff happens naturally, however I personally believe that God does intervene with the major example being the resurrection. We don’t know. I contend that life required external intervention and as part of that consciousness, sentience, and morality. I know you have theories of how these evolved naturally which may or may not be accurate, but even if they are we have no way of knowing whether or not there was a intelligent cause and or intervention(s) that occurred. I know you disagree but IMHO the natural process itself required supernatural intervention in order to exist.

Fine. I’m not saying that natural processes don’t exist. My point was that the process itself has a supernatural cause. I agree that I can’t objectively know that. No it’s not. It is an answer as to why something exists, which is not a question of science. It is a philosophical and/or theological issue. I agree, that is as far as that takes us. As a Christian I see it in the resurrection, and then again back to that still small voice.

No it isn't. It is not a gap in scientific knowledge. It is an explanation as to why the science is as it is. Part of the problem is that our minds can only comprehend time as we experience it in one direction. Ultimately there has to be a first cause that is uncaused. It might be mindless or intelligent. We've been around that one before. Yes, it is a belief for which there is historical evidence. ..which does not preclude the idea that there is also that still small voice.Off to bed.

Interestingly you've already agreed that an argument can be made for a deistic creator. Is that filling a gap? Science and philosophy answer different questions and come to the answers differently. You have also chosen the option that you prefer. I didn't just come to my conclusions over night, (I know you din't either) and my theological views have evolved over time years which is a continuing process. That doesn't mean that they can comprehend an experience of time in more than one direction. That is a mathematical theory. Apparently the math tells us that time should be symmetrical but we don't experience it that way. (Wish we did and I'd go back to being 19 again. )Interestingly enough maybe someday science will discover God's heavenly universe. This is the headline from Scientific American a few years back.

quote:

---

Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter - An Entire Universe May Be Interwoven With Our Own.

---

Then in the lead into the story it says this: "A shadow cosmos, woven silently into our own, may have its own rich inner life".

Yes, that is the cornerstone of scientism or materialism. It discounts any subjective evidence from philosophy or theology. I have heard and read a number of atheists who reject the idea of there being a power beyond them that actually has a call on their lives, and others who have rejected any theism as they can't accept an intelligence greater than their own. It seems to be often a pride thing. One example:

quote:

---

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.(The Last Word by Thomas Nagel, Oxford University Press: 1997)

---

I certainly can't speak for you of for any broad group of atheists but those are a couple of examples. However, it seems as I read you that the only thing that would change your mind is scientific evidence as you apparently reject either philosophical or theological evidence. There is no scientific evidence for Christianity. There is recorded historical evidence for it but you have rejected that. You even seem to lack faith in where science might lead us.

Dictionary Definition

quote:

---

Subjective evidence refers to evidence that one cannot evaluate. One must simply accept what the person says or reject it. Testimony of the parties to a contract is subjective evidence.

---

If it was a known fact it wouldn't be subjective.The Bible is evidence for Christianity.
It is objective in that we know it exists.
It is subjective as to how we understand it.

The problem here is that you saying that we can’t get absolute answers from philosophy and by extension theology. You are absolutely right of course. That is the problem that Christian fundamentalists have and where they get off track. They look to an inerrant Bible, (or something close to that) to provide absolute answers.
It shouldn’t be understood that way and that is obvious because of not only minor inconsistencies but because of major contradictions such as writing that Yahweh commands genocide and public stoning and then we are told that we are to love our enemy and be merciful, forgiving and loving.I would agree with Paul when he writes that the authors were inspired by God to write what they did, but that doesn’t mean that their motivations for what they wrote were of God. People since the writing of the Bible are still being inspired to record their insights and understandings both philosophical and theological. I would also add that our scientists are inspired in what they do and what they learn can also give insights into what God has done and maybe even give us clues as to what lies ahead and how we can deal with it. For example the first hospitals had Christian roots and then through science we have modern medicine.So, it isn’t that a lovely kind god is a modern invention. That god was always there but the problem was people. Religion institutions are created by people around their religious beliefs and ultimately they usually go off the rails out of the lust for power and influence. When people get to that point of influence in the institutions they are expected to come up with absolute answers and so they do.The big thing that we can learn from philosophy and theology is that in one thing there is consistency. All major religions and something that just about everyone knows deep down is true, is the Golden Rule.

quote:

---

Golden Rule in Baha’i Faith: Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wish to be laid upon you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself. [Source: Baha’u’llah, Gleanings]
Golden Rule in Buddhism: Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. [Source: Udana-Varga 5.18]
Golden Rule in Christianity: In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets. [Source: The Bible, Matthew 7:12]
Golden Rule in Confucianism: One word which sums up the basis of all good conduct.loving-kindness. Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself. [Source: Confucius, Analects 15.23]
Golden Rule in Hinduism: This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. [Source: Mahabharata 5:1517]
Golden Rule in Hinduism: Why does a man inflict upon other creatures those sufferings, which he has found by experience are sufferings to himself? [Source: Tiruvalluvar, Tirukkural Verse 318]
Golden Rule in Islam: Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself. [Source: The Prophet Muhammad, Hadith]
Golden Rule in Jainism: One should treat all creatures in the world as one would like to be treated. [Source: Sutrakritanga 1.11.33]
Golden Rule in Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it. [Source: Hillel, Talmud, Shabbath 31a]
Golden Rule in Native Spirituality: We are as much alive as we keep the earth alive. [Source: Chief Dan George]
Golden Rule in Sikhism: I am a stranger to no one; and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all. [Source: Guru Granth Sahib, p.1299]
Golden Rule in Taoism: Regard your neighbour’s gain as your own gain and your neighbour’s loss as your own loss. [Source: Laozi, T’ai Shang Kan Ying P’ien, 213-218]
Golden Rule in Unitarianism: We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part. [Source: Unitarian principle]
Golden Rule in Zoroastrianism: Do not do unto others whatever is injurious to yourself. [Source: Shayast-na-Shayast 13.29]

---

In the Bible in addition to the quote from Judaism there is this quote from Leviticus 19.

quote:

---

9 ‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. I am the LORD your God. 11 ‘Do not steal. ‘Do not lie. ‘Do not deceive one another. 12 ‘Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. 13 ‘Do not defraud or rob your neighbor. ‘Do not hold back the wages of a hired worker overnight. 14 ‘Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the LORD. 15 ‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. 16 ‘Do not go about spreading slander among your people. ‘Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the LORD. 17 ‘Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt. 18 ‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

---

The Golden Rule was present in Judaism right from the beginning and the Jesus tells us that loving one’s neighbor is the basics of all the laws and the prophets.
However when you read that quote from Leviticus we can see that it is still all about being good to their neighbours while limiting neighbours to those in their own tribe. But with a progressive understanding we come to Jesus who tells us that our neighbour is everyone including their enemies.None of this denies the fact that this belief is spread naturally within cultures, but it does show that it has been part of us from the beginning.The problem is in the institutionalized church there very often only paid lip service to that call on humanity. Humans prejudices, pride, greed, nationalism etc play a role in all religions. However many times they get it right as well.However I would suggest that there is reformation happening within the Christian church. I contend that studying Jesus within His time and culture, and getting away from studying the Bible as answering all the questions, we are shedding some false teachings and gaining new insights.Actually I believe that it has been people in your own country such as Polkinghorne, Wright, Bauckman who have been at the forefront of this. The church as I follow it now is a very different church than the one I grew up and grew away from. I guess it is what you call reliable. The Gospel of John was written by an eye witness, probably John the Elder — scroll down,who was either an apostle but more likely a disciple of Jesus pre-resurrection. Peole like Polycarp. Papius and Irenaeus , wrote accounts and were contemporaries of John and other eye witnesses.
Luke who wrote the Gospel and Acts travelled with Paul and would have met Peter James etc. The early church taught that Matthew was written by Mathew the tax collector but that is really uncertain but the book would have been written while there were still eyewitnesses alive. The authorship of Mark is uncertain and was the first Gospel written and was used as source material for parts of both Matthew and Luke.
There really has been considerable historical research, particularly by Richar Bauckman going through the ancient writings and history apart from what is in the Bible. He wrote a book compiling his research on all of this titled Jesus and the Eyewitnesses I’m part way through reading it now.