I - an atheist - have an objective standard for Good

[Sparko]

So the counting numbers, with a beginning and no end, aren't infinite.

only potentially. At any point in time the number you count is still a real number. You can never count to infinity, it's not a real number. But you can count forever without end.

What are the four noble truths, and how do you argue against them?

Buddhism? That's not really even a religion is it? More like a philosophy. I read up on it back when you were claiming to be a Buddhist (it was you wasn't it?) but I have forgotten most of what I read back then. I could look it up again, but I don't think that this is the time and place to go into it.

[Juvenal]

only potentially. At any point in time the number you count is still a real number. You can never count to infinity, it's not a real number. But you can count forever without end.

So we're agreed that the infinite is compatible with having a beginning, vice ...

infinite would mean no beginning and no ending

So we can scratch that.

There are an actual, infinite number of positions between any two objects.

I could point out the distinction between actual and potential infinites is an interesting historical note in philosophy, but not relevant to today's philosopher. WLC brings it up frequently, but only because he has a vested theological interest in opposing infinity as a concept, leading to amusing references to the non-existence of the infinite in reality from an adherent of an infinite God.

And because he relies on the ignorance of his audience.

He needs to rail against the infinite as a concept to avoid the necessary existence of an infinite regress once the infinite is allowed. But it's a position as primitive with respect to modern mathematics as special creation is primitive with respect to modern biology. And before you ask, yes, every course I ever took examining transfinite mathematics was cross-listed with philosophy, though it's rare to see a philosophy student in attendance. That's why WLC can get away with the disinfo.

Buddhism? That's not really even a religion is it? More like a philosophy. I read up on it back when you were claiming to be a Buddhist (it was you wasn't it?) but I have forgotten most of what I read back then. I could look it up again, but I don't think that this is the time and place to go into it.

It's not a religion that worships a creator deity, like the Abrahamic religions, and no, I never claimed to be a Buddhist. I did claim to be philosophically a Taoist, however, and still could, but I think secular humanism is a more approachable description.

All life is suffering.
Suffering comes from desire.
Removing desire ends suffering.
The eight-fold path removes desire.

The four noble truths work for about a half billion humans. It's hard to claim with a straight face you've examined other religions when you can't recognize a major faith like Buddhism as a religion. And similarly, studying arguments against other religions isn't studying other religions, either.

Buddhism is certainly a religion, and one I find more rational than any that involve creator worship. I can't get my head around the idea of a creator who'd want to be worshipped, let alone by beings the same order of magnitude removed from itself as those beings are separated from subatomic particles. It's not as if they'd have any chance of understanding enough about such a creator for their worship to rise to something that could even be considered a mockery. A pointless exercise, from a creator's point of view, or so it seems to me.

But if worshipping a creator made your dad into a better person to live with, I'm not going to say anything against that. It probably helps evangelical Christians get along better with other Christians, too. And it helps non-evangelical Christians get along better with just about everybody.

YMMV, and that's okay with me. I only wish that was okay with you, too.

[Sparko]

So we're agreed that the infinite is compatible with having a beginning, vice ...

infinite would mean no beginning and no ending

So we can scratch that.

There are an actual, infinite number of positions between any two objects.

OK. But to be clear, we were talking about time. In particular, a lifetime that has a beginning and living forever.


.

He needs to rail against the infinite as a concept to avoid the necessary existence of an infinite regress once the infinite is allowed. But it's a position as primitive with respect to modern mathematics as special creation is primitive with respect to modern biology. And before you ask, yes, every course I ever took examining transfinite mathematics was cross-listed with philosophy, though it's rare to see a philosophy student in attendance. That's why WLC can get away with the disinfo.

If you say so

PS - Mattballman has a thread about it here if you are interested http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...nity-and-Kalam

It's not a religion that worships a creator deity, like the Abrahamic religions, and no, I never claimed to be a Buddhist. I did claim to be philosophically a Taoist, however, and still could, but I think secular humanism is a more approachable description.

All life is suffering.
Suffering comes from desire.
Removing desire ends suffering.
The eight-fold path removes desire.

The four noble truths work for about a half billion humans. It's hard to claim with a straight face you've examined other religions when you can't recognize a major faith like Buddhism as a religion. And similarly, studying arguments against other religions isn't studying other religions, either.

Buddhism is certainly a religion, and one I find more rational than any that involve creator worship. I can't get my head around the idea of a creator who'd want to be worshipped, let alone by beings the same order of magnitude removed from itself as those beings are separated from subatomic particles. It's not as if they'd have any chance of understanding enough about such a creator for their worship to rise to something that could even be considered a mockery. A pointless exercise, from a creator's point of view, or so it seems to me.

But if worshipping a creator made your dad into a better person to live with, I'm not going to say anything against that. It probably helps evangelical Christians get along better with other Christians, too. And it helps non-evangelical Christians get along better with just about everybody.

YMMV, and that's okay with me. I only wish that was okay with you, too.

Yeah some of it is coming back to me. Don't you have to remove all knowledge and desire to achieve Nirvana and end suffering? Seems like it is teaching people that "ignorance is bliss."

[Juvenal]

OK. But to be clear, we were talking about time. In particular, a lifetime that has a beginning and living forever.

To be clear, we were talking about the ability to process infinite memories accumulated over time by finite humans, and why that's as incoherent as a married bachelor.

If you say so

PS - Mattballman has a thread about it here if you are interested http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...nity-and-Kalam

Mattballman has a demonstrated inability to differentiate between my posts and stoic's, even after it's been pointed out, marking him as something less than the sharpest crayon in the box.

Yeah some of it is coming back to me. Don't you have to remove all knowledge and desire to achieve Nirvana and end suffering?

That's better than the standard "worshipping Buddha" I hear from most evangelicals. And it does include removing desire, the goal of the eight-fold path:

Right Understanding, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration.

But no, removing knowledge isn't in there.

Seems like it is teaching people that "ignorance is bliss."

I live for unwitting irony.

[Sparko]

To be clear, we were talking about the ability to process infinite memories accumulated over time by finite humans, and why that's as incoherent as a married bachelor.

I have never heard of anyone who's brain was too full of information. We don't really know how memory works now with a finite lifetime and mortal body. I will just have to trust that God is wise enough to make it work when we are immortal.

Mattballman has a demonstrated inability to differentiate between my posts and stoic's, even after it's been pointed out, marking him as something less than the sharpest crayon in the box.

I find him a bit odd also.

That's better than the standard "worshipping Buddha" I hear from most evangelicals. And it does include removing desire, the goal of the eight-fold path:

Right Understanding, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration.

But no, removing knowledge isn't in there.



I live for unwitting irony.

I don't think that everything other religions teach is wrong. I believe all religions have some truth. And if Buddhism can relieve someone's suffering then great. Their teaching about giving up worldly desires kind of matches with the bible's teaching that we belong to the next world so don't get caught up with things and desires of this one.

[Juvenal]

I have never heard of anyone who's brain was too full of information. We don't really know how memory works now with a finite lifetime and mortal body. I will just have to trust that God is wise enough to make it work when we are immortal.

I don't know how Gods work, but I'm full on certain not even a God can make a married bachelor, or fit infinite memory into a finite container. Or change the value of pi, though I've heard tell some think they can turn three into one.

Of course, if you abandoned the flesh entirely ... but I understand most evangelicals don't want to go there.

I find him a bit odd also.

And mostly harmless.

I don't think that everything other religions teach is wrong. I believe all religions have some truth. And if Buddhism can relieve someone's suffering then great. Their teaching about giving up worldly desires kind of matches with the bible's teaching that we belong to the next world so don't get caught up with things and desires of this one.

I figure any tradition that can get a hundred million people to get along with each other, mostly, even if they don't get along with others, has got to have encapsulated something positive.

Now about that firmament thing ... or was that even on this thread?

[Tassman]

Obviously, ES, if you did accept the evidence for Christianity and the bible, you would probably be a Christian. I get that you don't believe the evidence, or the bible. That's your prerogative. But I do, and that is why I am a Christian and why billions and billions have been Christians for the last 2000 years. We have faith (trust) in the evidence of the bible and it's claims and we see evidence of God all around us and in our lives. You don't get to tell me what "faith" means to me.

This is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Popularity. Just because and has had throughout its history, billions and billions of adherents.

[Sparko]

This is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Popularity. Just because and has had throughout its history, billions and billions of adherents.

You can't read. I said I and billions have become Christians because they find the evidence credible. I didn't say that anyone should believe because billions of others do (which would be the ad populum fallacy)

[JimL]

You can't read. I said I and billions have become Christians because they find the evidence credible. I didn't say that anyone should believe because billions of others do (which would be the ad populum fallacy)

Most christians don't believe because of the evidence Sparko, most christians, just like most believers in all religions, believe because they were indoctrinated to believe.

[Tassman]

You can't read. I said I and billions have become Christians because they find the evidence credible. I didn't say that anyone should believe because billions of others do (which would be the ad populum fallacy)

Millions of people have NOT become Christians because of the evidence. They become Christian because of the social conditioning of being raised in a Christian culture. In short, for the same reason most Thais become Buddhist, most Indians become Hindu and most Middle Easterners become Muslim.

[Electric Skeptic]

Well this isn't going anywhere.

Obviously, ES, if you did accept the evidence for Christianity and the bible, you would probably be a Christian. I get that you don't believe the evidence, or the bible. That's your prerogative. But I do, and that is why I am a Christian and why billions and billions have been Christians for the last 2000 years. We have faith (trust) in the evidence of the bible and it's claims and we see evidence of God all around us and in our lives. You don't get to tell me what "faith" means to me.

Ummm...no. Billions and billions have been Christians for the last 2000 years overwhelmingly because they were born into a predominantly Christian culture and raised that way. The vast majority don't critically evaluate their religious beliefs.

I'm not telling you what faith means to you, nor have I tried to do so. I'm telling you what it means in a religious context - belief despite the absence of evidence.

[Sparko]

Ummm...no. Billions and billions have been Christians for the last 2000 years overwhelmingly because they were born into a predominantly Christian culture and raised that way. The vast majority don't critically evaluate their religious beliefs.

I'm not telling you what faith means to you, nor have I tried to do so. I'm telling you what it means in a religious context - belief despite the absence of evidence.

Each person has to make a personal decision to become a Christian at some point in their life, even those raised in Christian families, who are brought up and taught the evidence. You are also ignoring 2000 years of apologetics and study of Christianity.

[JimL]

Each person has to make a personal decision to become a Christian at some point in their life, even those raised in Christian families, who are brought up and taught the evidence. You are also ignoring 2000 years of apologetics and study of Christianity.

You're ignoring the fact that most all christians were raised as christians, most all muslims were raised as muslims etc etc. The decision is impressed upon them. What you call teaching is actually indoctrination of the young uncritical mind.

[JonathanL]

I'm telling you what it means in a religious context - belief despite the absence of evidence.

No that's what faith means when clueless internet atheists are asked to give a definition of the word. Faith has never meant "belief despite the absence of evidence" in a religious context, save for in atheistic caricatures or when being given as an answer by Christians who have never bothered doing any serious study in their own faith and what it's doctrines entails.

[JimL]

No that's what faith means when clueless internet atheists are asked to give a definition of the word. Faith has never meant "belief despite the absence of evidence" in a religious context, save for in atheistic caricatures or when being given as an answer by Christians who have never bothered doing any serious study in their own faith and what it's doctrines entails.

Faith is more like belief in revealed truths. So basically it means belief in the bible as the revealed word of god for which there is no evidence.