You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February 2007.
I have recently been studying, somewhat superficially, the argument from design, which says that God or a supremely intelligent being has instituted a chain of events that have caused life to exist. This argument is what is presenting much contention between scientist and theologies, especially those scientist that support the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution can be summarized into the following form.
1. Genetic mutations happen randomly in species
2. Those mutation help the species achieve an advantage (natural selection)
3. These mutations become beneficial traits and are passed down to the offspring of the species
4. The cycle continues and the species evolves and changes over time.
Notwithstanding the evolutionary proof, the argument of creation or design seems to cause a serious logical problem for the theological community. The main reason for this is if evolution is true, then the doctrine of the creation as taught in mainstream Christianity is false.
Along with the never-ending debate between the Darwinist and creationist, there has evolved an argument called “Fine tuning” (Stephen T. Davis). This argument is as follows.
1.In order for life to exist an exact value is needed for almost innumerable laws and constants (premise)
2. Life exists (premise)
3. Therefore the planet and universe we live in possess these constant and values in the perfect degree for life (1,2)
4. It is extremely improbable that all of these laws and constants come together in way that allows life, very near impossible (premise)
5. Therefore it is probable that there was a designer that brought these laws and constants into agreement allowing life (3,4)
This argument obviously points to the logical idea that it would seem more probable that the events that our world and the universe have experienced in order to exhibit intelligent life would have been set in motion by a creator. I have noticed much criticism of the argument saying that it holds only metaphysical probability, hypothetical proclivities, and ignores evidence.
Now, I would like to take the argument and re-write it to improve the absoluteness of this argument. (As follows)
1. In order for life to exist an exact value is needed for almost innumerable laws and constants. (premise)
2. Life exists. (premise)
3.Therefore the planet and universe we live in possess these constant and values in the perfect degree for life. (1,2)
4. Such constants and values require organization and design to exhibit a perfect degree required for life. (Premise)
5. Therefore it is necessary that there was a designer who brought these laws and constants into perfect agreement to allow life. (3,4)
I have presented this argument to some of my collages and they disagree with premise 4. They claim that we have no reason to believe a creator created this world or that this world would need design in order to exhibit organization. I don’t concur with their tempestuous and unavailing claims to thwart this argument. Thus, I have provided the following argument to support the previous.
1. X is too (complex, orderly, adaptive, apparently purposeful, and/or beautiful) to have occurred randomly or accidentally.
2.Therefore, X must have been created by a (sentient, intelligent, wise, and/or purposeful) being.
3. God is that (sentient, intelligent, wise, and/or purposeful) being.
4. Therefore, God exists.
Let us, for the sake of discussion, use premise 1,2 from this version of the teleological argument to support premise 4. Thus, by those two premises it would seem that a designer or creator would be required to cause /design this “chain of events” that are required for life.
It seems almost impossible to reject the idea of design. If something is to function correctly in is own existence it must exhibit design and purpose. This idea is concurrent with human knowledge, because all of human existence has depended up specialization and design. This is summed up in this quote,
“When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?” (Cicero, De Natura Deorum, ii. 34)
Thank you,
John
I was recently discussing with a friend the concept of peace. This discussion was raised from a situation involving a very good friend of mine. We were discussing something that seemed at the time to be the most important thing in the world. We were so very blind. The subject of our discussion is not important, but what is important was that I was on the defensive because I felt insulted, whereas he was on the defensive because he felt wronged. Thus, we came to a situation of arrogance and narcissistically believing that each of our points were the “right.” Consequently, our argument became an event consisting of anger of which led to frustration, and then came the desire to “prove” or “win”–which is pride. This circle of pride–>anger–>frustration–>hate–>selfishness–>pride, which is what causes wars. Christ said, “The spirit of contention is not of me,” and now I truly know why.
This realization of why contention and pride are erroneous came about after our argument. My friend was frustrated with my stubbornness and I with his. So, a third party (another friend) told me about what peace is. He said something to this effect: “peace cannot be achieved when both of your hearts are hardened by pride, because truth and understanding are peace where as hardness causes you to not understand truth. Rather, your own feelings become the only logic you are willing to understand” (paraphrased). Well I thought about the idea of peace and pride for quite sometime after that, and I realized that to achieve truth requires our ability to understand what we perceive to not be true. This is because at times we are not right, even though we believe that we are, and that all we support is true; when in all reality it is not truth and we have only deceived ourselves. That sounds sad, us deceiving ourselves, but it happens. It is not a weakness, rather, it is nature and our state as men and as creatures trying to progress and learn. “Logic” –people argue is the only truth (I have been guilty of that), but one can’t use logic when it is covertly fueled by emotion. If it has no emotion, no bias, not pre-determined solution, then it becomes logic-especially when it is accompanied by a passive understanding of the situation that is being confronted. I must admit I was being very contentious with my friend because I refused to let go of my pride; I don’t hold a grievance or any type of resentment against my friend. However, I do hold one against myself because of my emotions and my pride; I chose to be the cause of a problem and not the solution. –If you are religious– Many of us, as humans, profess to be Christians and love our God, but at times we make the error of not following him and we fall into the error of forgetfulness and neglect. That is what causes many of our errors and misfortunes. Of course we can repair it because we are here to learn and God is very merciful. –If you are not religious– we find that our lack of understanding of our opponent, friend, or objector is a dangerous trap because if we refuse to understand his view even if it is flawed we commit the error of deceiving ourselves by causing us to ignore the counter or dismiss a possible claim of truth.
To conclude, I know now that peace is merely the acceptance of ideas with humility, in order to evaluate them and come to the truth of wether or not I, or my friend is correct and if he is then I must accept and be happy with having found truth, if I am then my friend must do likewise. I have attempted to do this, and it has had much better results because now I have truth, and so dose my friend. I think that is exactly what we need to do to have, and live, happier.
Thank you all,
John
I have had the opportunity to speak to fellow blogers about the doctrine of the trinity. I don’t think it appears to be logical, and this is not merely because my personal beliefs don’t concord with the idea of the trinity. I just don’t see any logic in it, and nor do I see much biblical evidence.
To clarify, this is a post that has only intention on discussing if it is conclusive that the idea of a trinity could possibly be logical
I have been looking over some of the comments made by Christ about him and the father…and it’s interesting what occurs when you use logical patterns to establish a basis…
1. The Son can do nothing by himself
2. He can only do what he has seen the father do.
3. Therefore, if the son is the father, then the son must do what he has already done.
4. A event that is the result of a cause that has not occurred cannot exist.
5. Therefore, Son as the father and the father as the son cannot exist as one entity.
1. The Father loves the Son, then the father loves himself?
2. If that is true, then the son, the father also love the spirit
3. If the antecedent is true then God loves himself.
4. Self love is proportional to pride and self-admiration.
5. Therefore, God is not all good.
1.the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son
2. The previous commits an obvious contradiction
3. All logical contradictions are false (definition)
4. “A kingdom divided against itself can not stand”
5. Thus, God cannot exist according to (1-4)
1.the Father has granted the Son to have life in him
2. Thus, God has granted himself life.
3. If 2 is true then the son has granted himself life (resurrection)
– If life comes from God, and the son then 1 is not a necessary statement and commits contradiction and Ambiguity.
1. I seek not to please myself but him who sent me
2. If 1 is true, then God, and the spirit are obeying their self
3. 1 is not true according to 1 because god dose not seek to please himself.
Here are the biblical supports of the previous argument-
Why do you call me good? No one is good–except God alone. [Mk 10:18, Lk 18:17, Mt 19:17]
No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. [Mk 13:32]
And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. [Lk 12:10]
Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done. [Lk 22:42-43]
Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. [Lk 23:46]
the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son [Jn 5:22]
By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me. [Jn 5:30]
I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me. [Jn 8:28]
I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. [Jn 8:42]
If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who is glorifying me, of whom ye say that He is your God. [Jn 8:54]
Thus, to conclude, I assert that from logic the trinity is paradox and commits Fallacy, Ambiguity, and Contradiction. If God is full of truth-which must affirm logic, then the trinity cannot exist.
This is only further demonstrated as follows:
1. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then God would be able to use his omniscient and omnipotent abilities to achieve a state of absolute perfection. (premise)
2. If God is absolutely perfect, then he must be omni-benevolent. (premise)
3. If God is Omni-benevolent, then confusions and deceptions cannot occur.(premise)
4. If God cannot cause deception, then situations of conflict, fallacy, contradiction and misinterpretations cannot occur according to his truths. (premise)
5. Thus, if God is omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent, then only truths that lack conflict, fallacy, contradiction and misinterpretations are truth (1-4)
6. The trinity is a supposed truth that exhibits conflict, fallacy, contradiction and misinterpretations. (premise)
7. Thus, the trinity cannot be true. (4,5)
Thank you,
John
The last few days I have been visiting other blogs, and chats. I’m trying to find ones that are religious and post the problem of evil. By doing that I hope to achieve some insight, or perhaps some answers. I have been thinking about it hard lately. It is somewhat perplexing. I assume that it’s because of my lack of training and understanding about critical thought. Nevertheless, I will keep the process up. I can do it…Its just going to take me a while.
Speaking of my bloging experience; I recently posted some ideas about religion on a web page. This web page was obviously built to attack a certain religion that I happen to support. I provided some argument (I figured that it would be good practice) and my adversary and I battled it out for about six posts. After that he quit responding, and deleted my post so no other viewer could see them. By observation that act was demonstration of fear that his stance had been severely weekend. I asked him why he would not respond and he said, “Because God would be angry with me.” I was irritated at him for a few moments because it was obviously because he was reduced and didn’t like it.
I also have visited a few other pages that post and converse about religion in general and I noticed that they all had one thing in common — Emotion. Many, didn’t think logically about what beliefs they had, nor had they ever questioned their pastor or God. However, the words they wrote were beautiful and very appealing to the emotion of one, yet that very act caused me to think and evaluate the situation that has been occurring with most of the religions in the world. Upon doing so, I remembered the words of the Lord in the book of Isaiah when he spoke of the people in these days being close to him with words, yet their hearts were far from him. It is true, the appealing to emotion and the sever doctrinal manipulations cause the simple in mind to cling and depend on those inviting, yet venomous statements.
To learn and study along with the opportunity to have critical thinking practice, I argued against their ideas…And what a can of worms were opened. It was interesting. Many of my objectors were so emotionally dependant on what they had believed that even if it were in contradiction with the bible or itself, they would not deny it. It is a pity how the mind of men, no matter how logical, remains quite tempestuous.
I have recently been reading a book called “God and the Problem of Evil” I have enjoyed many of the arguments that have been presented by the various philosophers. I recently reviewed a work that made a certain analogy that caused me to become somewhat irritated. The analogy consisted of a man and women that desired to have a child, yet the child that they wanted was one the would be mentally retarded. So, in order to cause this outcome, they took some type of drug that causes sever damage to genetic material in sex cells of both males and females. Thus, when the child was born it was severely mentally handicapped…They (the parents) wanted this type of child to help it, in its obviously disadvantaged state, to achieve its full means of potential and happiness. The philosopher continues and says that the parents didn’t wrong the child because he didn’t have rights because it hadn’t existed…. So my question that I have currently been battling with is…Dose a child that is not brought into existence wronged by the incorrect choices of its parents? I assert that it is… I have not quite been able to come up with a sold argument proving that this is so. I think that you cold easily say that if a child is not given the best possible opportunity to exist then has been limited of said opportunity, if that is true then we have interfered with the opportunity of said child to achieve a maxim potential of progression. If that is true, then the parents who committed the initial limitation by their emotional desires have harmed the future progression of that child. If that is true then the right that the child had to live a full and complete life has been harmed.
1. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, then God would be able to use his omniscient and omnipotent abilities to achieve a state of absolute perfection. (premise)
2. If God is absolutely perfect, then God would not be mutable. (premise)
3. If God is immutable, then his truths must be absolutely perfect and immutable. (premise)
4. If God’s truths are immutable and perfect, then the only religion that reflects these truths is true. (premise)
5. Thus, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then the only religion that reflects these truths is true. (1-4)
Recent Comments