Animals Doing What Animals Do...

[Tassman]

I didn't say my problems and interests. I said humanity's problems and interests.

This is what I also understood by the phrase: i.e. human beings generally not you personally. Sorry that wasn't clear.

Scientific inquiry goes hand in hand with areas of human curiosity and need. We had sickness, so we began doing medical research. We were intrigued by the night sky, so we began charting the stars. These disciplines did not just spring fully formed from some kind of inhuman font of scientific objectivity.

I see no reason why philosophy of religion should be any different. We're not computers solely designed to investigate the universe.

I agree that I was referring to scientific methodology, based upon experimental investigation, as opposed to philosophical/theological argumentation for the existence of God, based upon conjecture.

Elephant hurling and hand-waving of arguments for the existence of God noted and given all the attention it deserves.

The bottom line is that there is no substantive reason to believe that a deity actually exists in reality.

[Kelp(p)]

This is what I also understood by the phrase: “our personal problems and interests”, i.e. human beings generally not you personally. Sorry that wasn't clear.

S'alright.

I agree that “scientific inquiry goes hand in hand with areas of human curiosity and need”. I was referring to scientific methodology, based upon experimental investigation, as opposed to philosophical/theological argumentation for the existence of God, based upon conjecture.

Not conjecture, logical reasoning based on mutually granted propositions like "Spirit is a coherent concept." and "It is possible to have a mind without a body." and "It is possible for the immaterial to effect the material."

The bottom line is that there is no substantive reason to believe that a deity actually exists in reality.

And I think there is. There, we've both hurled a hundred different elephants at one another and we're still back where we started.

[Truthseeker]

When human beings give their deity the same attributes they themselves have, only bigger and better, they are merely making their deity in their own image. There is no substantive reason to believe that such a deity actually exists in reality.

Elephant hurling and hand-waving of arguments for the existence of God noted and given all the attention it deserves.

What is the definition of "elephant hurling" and which part of Tassman's post is an instance thereof?

[Kelp(p)]

What is the definition of "elephant hurling" and which part of Tassman's post is an instance thereof?

Elephant hurling is throwing a huge body of work at someone and saying, "Read all this to find out how wrong you are." Tassman's usual mantra that there is no reason to believe in God is basically throwing all of atheist scholarship at me while at the same time hand-waving away the arguments for the existence of God.

Since turnabout is fair play, I did the same thing back at him and now we're back where we started.

[Tassman]

Not conjecture, logical reasoning based on mutually granted propositions like "Spirit is a coherent concept." and "It is possible to have a mind without a body." and "It is possible for the immaterial to effect the material."

I understand that the arguments for the existence of God are based upon or axioms. But these axioms are themselves mutually agreed assumptions,

And I think there is. There, we've both hurled a hundred different elephants at one another and we're still back where we started.

Aha! But as the one asserting the positive proposition the burden of proof rests with you.

[Kelp(p)]

I understand that the arguments for the existence of God are based upon “mutually granted propositions”, or axioms. But these axioms are themselves mutually agreed assumptions, which are accepted, or considered self-evidently true. But they cannot be established as ‘true’ by testing or experimentation and therefore, no matter how logically valid the argument, you cannot be certain the conclusion is true. Logically true, yes; actually true, not necessarily.

They are assumed to be true in theoretical discussions, yes. But that doesn't mean there are not good arguments for their truth- namely the Cosmological Arguments, the argument from historical evidence such as the Empty Tomb, Holding's Impossible Faith argument, etc. You obviously disagree with these arguments, but not acknowledging their existence makes you look like a disingenuous cad who dismisses things without actually researching them.

But as the one asserting the positive proposition “that a deity actually exists in reality”, the burden of proof rests with you.

No, you and your New Atheist, philosophical naturalist kin are the ones coming in as a minority and historical newcomer trying to cast aspersions on what the majority of humanity has believed, and believed had good reason behind it, for eons. Reality is not "atheist until proven guilty," that's absurd. You're the one making the proposition that the universe has such properties that it doesn't need a God to exist.

[Tassman]

They are assumed to be true in theoretical discussions, yes. But that doesn't mean there are not good arguments for their truth- namely the Cosmological Arguments,

the argument from historical evidence such as the Empty Tomb, Holding's Impossible Faith argument, etc. You obviously disagree with these arguments, but not acknowledging their existence makes you look like a disingenuous cad who dismisses things without actually researching them.

No, you and your New Atheist, philosophical naturalist kin are the ones coming in as a minority and historical newcomer trying to cast aspersions on what the majority of humanity has believed, and believed had good reason behind it, for eons.

This is just the Argumentum ad Populum Fallacy. The also believed for eons that the stars revolved around a stationary earth. They were wrong on this just as they were on many other things popularly thought to be true for millennia.

Reality is not "atheist until proven guilty," that's absurd. You're the one making the proposition that the universe has such properties that it doesn't need a God to exist.

Atheism is the default position. It is up to you to give reasons for positing a god. And why would you want to when, unlike any previous period of history, there's so much data and emerging knowledge in the many and various areas of scientific endeavour such as physics, cosmology, biology, evolution, neurobiology and all the cognitive sciences that actually do provide real, testable answers and make testable predictions. Religion cannot do this; its been superseded.

[Kelp(p)]

Nevertheless in all instances the premises remain assumptions and cannot be established as ‘true’ by testing or experimentation. Therefore, no matter how logically valid the argument, you cannot be certain the conclusion is true given that we cannot know the premise is true.

The premises are truth is theism is true.

“Disingenuous cad”! How dare you sir. Harrumph.

All I'm saying is that's how the way you argue makes you look.

There are no solid historical arguments for the historicity of the critical, non-natural aspects of the Jesus story, namely the virgin birth, resurrection and miracles. Historical methodology does not allow for non-natural occurrences such as these. In history any possible natural explanation of an unusual occurrence, no matter how unlikely, is considered more probable than attributing it to a miracle.

No, I don't think history is quite the same as science in that regard. One can hold that the record seems to indicate that Christ rose from the dead and still try to find a natural explanation for that.

Scientists posit things that seem to boggle common sense all the time (punctuated equilibrium, quantum indeterminacy, time dilation, massless particles) but they don't get called miraculous. You can't really do that with a claim of a 6,000 year-old earth.

Furthermore there is no first-hand reportage of the alleged extraordinary occurrences in the NT – none outside the bible at all and in the NT all the accounts are hearsay, ascribed to anonymous authors and written decades later. The exception is Paul and there is no record he ever met Jesus. He claims his “revelation” came direct from God and "from no man" anyhow. The much vaunted Papias references, as per Bauckham, are all second or third hand accounts too.

I'm not going to further derail this thread into a historical debate. Just pointing out if you said things like this, you wouldn't seem like you were just hand-waving.

This is just the Argumentum ad Populum Fallacy. The “majority of humanity” also believed for eons that the stars revolved around a stationary earth. They were wrong on this just as they were on many other things popularly thought to be true for millennia.

No, it would only be ad Populum if I was saying that this alone is proof of the truth of theism. I'm just saying that it makes theism more likely by default. When investigating something, science usually begins by testing the popular explanations. Copernicus had to give reasons for heliocentrism before it could be accepted by others. He couldn't just sit back on his heals and ask the geocentrists to prove him wrong.

And why would you want to when, unlike any previous period of history, there's so much data and emerging knowledge in the many and various areas of scientific endeavour such as physics, cosmology, biology, evolution, neurobiology

You're begging the question that without God all this would even be possible.

[Tassman]

The premises are truth is theism is true.

The premises of a metaphysical argument are assumptions. If they were tested premises they would be science, not metaphysics.

All I'm saying is that's how the way you argue makes you look.

No, I don't think history is quite the same as science in that regard. One can hold that the record seems to indicate that Christ rose from the dead and still try to find a natural explanation for that.

There are numerous stories of people rising from the dead in scripture, e.g. Elijah supposedly raised the son of the Zarephath widow, many saints rose from the grave at the death of Jesus and strolled into Jerusalem. Peter raised Dorcas from the dead and etc. Not to mention the apotheosis of many Roman emperors and Alexander the Great and many others.

Such beliefs were commonplace and acceptable in the credulous pre-scientific era. But not today! They are considered fanciful and unlikely. Historians are not equipped to assess whether or not they actually occurred, but there's no good reason to think they did.

Scientists posit things that seem to boggle common sense all the time (punctuated equilibrium, quantum indeterminacy, time dilation, massless particles) but they don't get called miraculous. You can't really do that with a claim of a 6,000 year-old earth.

In science

I'm not going to further derail this thread into a historical debate. Just pointing out if you said things like this, you wouldn't seem like you were just hand-waving.

No, it would only be ad Populum if I was saying that this alone is proof of the truth of theism. I'm just saying that it makes theism more likely by default.

Scientific methodology has shown popular opinion to be wrong on many occasions e.g. from the demonic explanation of insanity (as held by Jesus) to the movements of the sun, moon and stars around a fixed earth.

When investigating something, science usually begins by testing the popular explanations. Copernicus had to give reasons for heliocentrism before it could be accepted by others. He couldn't just sit back on his heals and ask the geocentrists to prove him wrong.

Science is based on observation and tested hypotheses, NOT on popular opinion. Copernicus provided tested scientific evidence supporting heliocentrism and it was up to the geocentrists to try and prove the evidence wrong. They did so by banning his findings. The same applied to Galileo. Why: because they contradicted the theological dogma of the day. Regrettably we see the same trend by religion throughout history - including the denial of the fact of Evolution by many religionists today.

You're begging the question that without God all this would even be possible.

[Truthseeker]

Tassman doesn't understand that people who work on the basis of methodological naturalism should not be expected to come up with decisive evidence for God the creator. He may be right to dismiss whatever evidence or scientific theory there is for God the creator, but he should not forget that there won't be much if at all of those things because methodological naturalism rules them out at the start, anyway.

As for the controversy regarding the center of the universe, it seems unlikely the sun would be at the center of mass of the whole universe. Actually, "the center of mass of the whole universe" may be a meaningless concept.

[Tassman]

Tassman doesn't understand that people who work on the basis of methodological naturalism should not be expected to come up with decisive evidence for God the creator. He may be right to dismiss whatever evidence or scientific theory there is for God the creator, but he should not forget that there won't be much if at all of those things because methodological naturalism rules them out at the start, anyway.

Yes scientific methodology rules out “those things” and so does the standard tool of historians, namely historical-critical methodology given that biblical texts cannot be considered as divinely inspired by historians. Thus any truth claims made by a biblical text must be open to possible refutation and this is unacceptable to most believers!

Ultimately, faith-based belief and subjective spiritual experiences are all that's available to religionists.

As for the controversy regarding the center of the universe, it seems unlikely the sun would be at the center of mass of the whole universe. Actually, "the center of mass of the whole universe" may be a meaningless concept.

The sun is at the centre of our solar system NOT “at the centre of mass of the whole universe”. There's no "controversy". And, as I’m sure you are aware, our solar system is just one of billions of such solar systems in our galaxy alone, which in turn is just one of billions of such galaxies in our universe. This is turn is increasingly considered by cosmologists to be just one of an infinite number of universes – if multiverse theory is correct.

[ChaosRain]

Aha! But as the one asserting the positive proposition the burden of proof rests with you.

And thus we come to the biggest issue with arguing with the religiously convinced. Getting them to prove that God exists without using logical fallacies or relying upon assumption after assumption.

[JohnnyP]

There are a lot of ideas, that the fruit had special powers etc., but here's one close to what I said:

Source: Chabad

Another angle on the same question: Is it possible to interpret the incident as one of simple obedience: obedience to G-d is good, non-obedience is evil? But then why the whole issue of knowledge? Why is the tree called the knowledge of good-and-evil?
...
In this reading, Eve already had a knowledge of what was good, for she had been eating of the delightful fruits of the Garden of Eden. She had no knowledge of its opposite. She didn't know what could happen in a world of time, where fruit could be unripe or could decay into ugliness. -Source

© Copyright Original Source

I have been trying to find web pages that would say what Jews thought at that time, the best I found was this:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sin_gene.htm

Do you have any better?

I have never heard of that before. Do you have any references?

Did they believe Satan was cursed to crawl on his belly?

I offer this:

http://biologos.org/blog/genesis-cre...crafty-serpent

I've seen some say that, some say that it's just allegory like the way chocolate cake is calling your name, other say that the Serpent is Satan the Angel of Death and Evil Inclination. For example: Numbers 21:6 describes saraph/fiery serpents biting the people, then Numbers 21:7 refers to them using the same term nachash/serpent as Genesis 3:2. And here are some sources alluding to it although they don't explicitly state everything I said:

Source: Wiki

Seraphs appear in the 2nd-century BC Book of Enoch[5] where they are designated as drakones (δράκονες "serpents"), and are mentioned, in conjunction with cherubs, as the heavenly creatures standing nearest to the throne of God. -Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Shema Yisrael

The animals of Eden were neither predatory beasts of the wilderness nor the domesticated animals with which we are familiar; they were awesome beings possessed of beauty and wisdom, which, like Adam and Eve and the first ten generations of humankind, peacefully subsisted on vegetation alone. Their mode of existence was not something to be shunned or pitied, as it is today. Indeed, sea-creatures and fowl were deemed worthy of receiving the first explicit Divine blessing, given on the fifth day of creation (Genesis 1:22). The other animals were created on the sixth day, together with Adam and Eve, and they received a separate affirmation of Divine favor (ibid. 1:25).

The dignity of animals is borne out by a number of sources. The Talmud states that God conferred with the souls of all animals prior to creation, and they readily agreed to be created as such, even choosing their own physical forms.[1] This teaches us that they were deserving of God's consideration, and that they were given to understand their destiny in positive terms. Another testimony to the worthiness of animals is their connection to angels. Although angels are incorporeal spiritual beings,[2] their forms as envisioned by the prophets were often those of animals. This suggests that in their spiritual source, animals occupy an exalted rung - an inference supported by the fact that the Torah uses animals to symbolize the Twelve Tribes of Israel.[3] -Source

© Copyright Original Source

This is kind of an opposite view implying that creatures in Genesis 1 are angels:

Source: Sacred Texts

Said Rabbi Jose: "All these beings have six wings, never more nor less, and therefore the words 'After his kind' are applied to winged angelic creatures. In their rapid flight through the world they observe and note the actions of men and report them on high, and thence it is written: 'Even in thought, curse not the King and curse not the rich in thy bed chamber'" (Eccles. x. 20). -Source

© Copyright Original Source

Then of course these verses, which I interpret Satan as the Cherub in the Garden and power behind the King of Tyre...

Source: KJV

Ezekiel 28:12-15 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

© Copyright Original Source

...same as Satan the Serpent is the power behind the Beast Kingdoms here:

Source: KJV

Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Revelation 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

© Copyright Original Source

To summarize, since...

a. The Tree of Life is apparently in a heavenly realm (Genesis 3:24, Revelation 2:7).

b. Heavenly serpents are related to cherubim/seraphim (Numbers 21:6), and they have qualities of a lion/beast, ox/cattle, eagle/fowl like the creatures made to be Adam's helpmeets (Genesis 2:20, Ezekiel 1:10, Revelation 4:7).

c. Satan is described variously as a heavenly serpent, angel, and tempter (Ezekiel 28:14, Revelation 12:9; Genesis 3, Job 1-2, Matthew 4, etc.).

...I don't see any reason to interpret that there were literal talking snakes in a heavenly realm.

[seer]

And thus we come to the biggest issue with arguing with the religiously convinced. Getting them to prove that God exists without using logical fallacies or relying upon assumption after assumption.

You know Chaos, I'm really getting tired of this double standard. Prove that what goes on in your mind, deductively and empirically, actually corresponds to reality. Even a simple understanding of the works of Descartes will tell you that it can't be done. You rely totally on assumption, on unprovable faith if you will.

Now back to you - prove that a non-intelligent force could or did created this universe. Or do you take that position by faith?

[Tassman]

You know Chaos, I'm really getting tired of this double standard. Prove that what goes on in your mind, deductively and empirically, actually corresponds to reality. Even a simple understanding of the works of Descartes will tell you that it can't be done. You rely totally on assumption, on unprovable faith if you will.

No one can

Now back to you - prove that a non-intelligent force could or did created this universe. Or do you take that position by faith?