tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post1813862470621654584..comments2024-01-10T17:36:15.040-07:00Comments on The Lippard Blog: "Expelled" weekend box office, theater counts, and ratingsLippardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-34634607506274206342008-09-17T17:25:00.000-07:002008-09-17T17:25:00.000-07:00Thanks Jim. You did not appear to be the type that...Thanks Jim. You did not appear to be the type that would monitor access our filter out responses. We have visitors from interstate at the moment, and a couple of Israeli friend's who were staying with us have only just left to return to Israel. But when it settles down I want to get back into the fray, as there are a number of issues raised that needs to be addressed. If I can get any time to post a brief comment off I will do so. Regards.John Heiningerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11728674118712786989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-36191310508150864872008-09-17T07:54:00.000-07:002008-09-17T07:54:00.000-07:00John: I don't have comment moderation turned on--...John: I don't have comment moderation turned on--so long as you have a Blogger account, anyone can post comments that immediately appear here. I have this blog configured to email copies of any comments posted, and I haven't received the ones of which you speak, so they apparently didn't get through to the blog for some reason.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-39872399779525750212008-09-17T06:08:00.000-07:002008-09-17T06:08:00.000-07:00Jim, I posted comments addressing the number of is...Jim, I posted comments addressing the number of issues you raised, but for some reason it has not appeared on your blog, even though it seemed to go through. Included were details regarding factual shortcomings in your critique of messianic prophecy. It may have been too lengthy perhaps. Anyway, I will redo it in a week or so when I have time and break it into sections. Appreciate your feedback.John Heiningerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11728674118712786989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-3791931330759606932008-09-16T19:48:00.000-07:002008-09-16T19:48:00.000-07:00One state in the genome code is alive, and a secon...<I>One state in the genome code is alive, and a second state in which the same genome code is dead. Life is what makes the two states different, and what prevents the normal natural chemical processes from taking over causing decomposition.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sorry, but I can think of no kinder way to express this than to say: you are horribly confused, and are utterly and irredeemably wrong in two ways here.<BR/><BR/>1) There is *no* *observable* *difference* in the genome in a living organism and in that same organism moments after it dies. The DNA is all there, in the same configuration it was before. About the only peri-mortem difference is that, over short period of time (I don't know how long; I'm not a biologist) as the energy reserves of the cell are depleted, various ongoing chemical processes associated with the genes (eg. the transcriptase enzymes that synthesize the messenger RNAs)will peter out.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, this is one example of the fuzzy boundary between life and non-life: if my heart has stopped beating, but various bits of cellular metabolism continue for minutes or hours, am I alive or dead? As a medico-legal matter there must be a declaration one way or the other, but as a scientific or philosophical matter, the line is not so clear.<BR/><BR/>2) The chemical processes that operate when the organism is alive are every bit as "normal and natural" as those that take place after death -- there is nothing mystical-magical about them. While the detailed list of reactions taking place will be different, there is no essential, ontological distinction between them. This has been known by chemists for something like a century now -- ever since it became apparent that organic compounds could be synthesized in the lab, and that many if not most reactions observed in vivo could be replicated in vitro.<BR/><BR/>You may refrain from using the terms "life force", but the way you talk about "two states" is logically indistinguishable. However much you may waffle on the language, you are in fact a vitalist.<BR/><BR/>Which means you are wrong.Eamon Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262012749524758120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-18197069343373729732008-09-16T16:28:00.000-07:002008-09-16T16:28:00.000-07:00John: "As for the cards, having cards in any parti...John: "As for the cards, having cards in any particular random state is no big deal. Try shuffling the cards and see how long it takes to get to a state where all the cards line up in the exact order and arrangements of the suits. Then you have something."<BR/><BR/>Yet that's exactly as likely as any other combination. With living things, on the other hand, not all combinations are equally likely, and when you have a process of self-replication and natural selection, you have a mechanism for generating new adaptive features. Snoke and Behe's paper attempting to show the impossibility of the evolution of a new disulfide bond in a bacterium, yet <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2005/10/behe_disproves_irreducible_com.php" REL="nofollow">the cross-examination in the Kitzmiller case showed that in fact</A>, his paper proved the very high probability of such evolution, given the number of bacteria in a single ton of soil.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-20737793696375593262008-09-16T15:55:00.000-07:002008-09-16T15:55:00.000-07:00John:Daniel Dennett's distinction between crane an...John:<BR/><BR/>Daniel Dennett's distinction between crane and skyhook explanations is that skyhooks come down from the sky as a deus ex machina, and don't really explain, while cranes provide a way to build up from the ground. We know from computer science, mathematics, and biology that complexity can evolve from simple rules without the need for the complexity being built in from the start. We are in the process of learning how mental phenomena arise from neurological material, and it is the crane explanations which are more productive than the skyhook explanations.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure that the idea of a "self-caused" being is coherent, nor that the idea of a necessarily-existing being is coherent. I do think that if there must be some logically necessary thing to answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing, I would expect that thing to be simple rather than complex, I would expect it to be external to space-time and unchanging, which seems to me to rule out a personal god, which would have to be immanent and changing in order to have mental activity (or any kind of activity at all). I'm not familiar with any reason to rule out the idea that there is a multiverse of universes contingently coming into existence for finite lives, given the existence of quantum fluctuations and current Big Bang/inflation cosmology.<BR/><BR/>BTW, the more eminent a scientist is, the *less* likely he or she is to believe in God. Of all scientists in the U.S., about 40% believe in God (vs. 80%+ of the general population); of the most eminent such as Nobel prizewinners and members of the National Academy of Sciences, it drops to 7%. It's lowest of all among physicists and biologists; highest among mathematicians and engineers.<BR/><BR/>I think your code of life comment engages in a level confusion--there is no *genetic* difference between a person at the moment before death and at the moment after death--the differences are at a higher level of biological description involving respiration, cardiovascular activity, and brain function. You can also look at living/dead at the cellular level, but again the difference is not a genetic one. Viruses fall into a borderland because they don't have all the features of cellular life, e.g., they can't reproduce on their own and don't have their own metabolism. BTW, scientists <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Rebek#Self-replication" REL="nofollow">have built self-replicating molecules in the lab</A>.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-26659939300510313212008-09-16T15:22:00.000-07:002008-09-16T15:22:00.000-07:00I appreciate the suggestion, and I respect Jim a g...I appreciate the suggestion, and I respect Jim a great deal--and often follow his example. I have my own style, however, and while you may see it as "childish", I think it works for me.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, we seem to have reached an impasse, given that you are asserting the "truth" of unprovable statements, so I think it's time for me to bow out of the discussion.Einzigehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06406227217230727209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-23752838711880965172008-09-16T14:59:00.000-07:002008-09-16T14:59:00.000-07:00Einzige, it not only "May be true", it is true, an...Einzige, it not only "May be true", it is true, and it would be a brave person or scientist who denies the contingent, or dependent, nature of the universe, or the related fact that it is running down towards a state of heat death and maximum entropy. To prove me wrong, all you have to demonstrate is that the universe, or anything in it, is non-dependent and self-existing. If you can you there may be a Nobel Prize on offer.<BR/><BR/>Re, "If it was its own cause it would be eternally self-existing." The basis for this has already been stated, and is that everything "dependent" needs a cause outside itself, with the only basis for existence being ultimately a non-dependent self-existing first cause, or an infinite regression of dependence forever, and thus no basis for existence.<BR/><BR/>You may not like the idea of am "incredibly complex, intentional (i.e., conscious), benevolent being, itself entirely uncaused", but that is exactly what is necessary in the end to explain our dependent universe, and is one of the principle reasons why many of the world foremost scientists are theists, including those who believe evolution to be a fact (Miller, Collins, etc etc.<BR/><BR/>As for the code of life, I have explained my position elsewere.<BR/><BR/>That the universe is finely tuned has been recognized by the vast majority of scientists, Hawking included. If you deny this reality you may find yourself out to left field, without a paddle.<BR/><BR/>As for the cards, having cards in any particular random state is no big deal. Try shuffling the cards and see how long it takes to get to a state where all the cards line up in the exact order and arrangements of the suits. Then you have something. Then try shuffling around 3 billion cards so they line up in specific way. Then you have something somewhat akin to the human genome. <BR/><BR/>Just a final word of advice, cut the childish language such as, "Your attempt at being dense here is amusing.". If gives me the impression you are a real novice, which I am sure you are not. Take a leaf out of Jim's book. He answers issues directly and in a reasoned fashion, without all the garbage.John Heiningerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11728674118712786989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-31769665341572795942008-09-16T13:44:00.000-07:002008-09-16T13:44:00.000-07:00Eamon, when I use the term code of life I'm talkin...Eamon, when I use the term code of life I'm talking about two different states of the "existing" genome code (material, DNA, or whatever term you want to use to describe what makes us human). One state in the genome code is alive, and a second state in which the same genome code is dead. Life is what makes the two states different, and what prevents the normal natural chemical processes from taking over causing decomposition. People use common generic expressions such as "the spark of life has gone" or the "life force has left him". That does not mean that people believe that there is actually something extra residing in the life form other than the state of the genome code itself. Some do of course believe a "spirit" or literal "force" in addition to the genetic material itself, but that is not my position. <BR/><BR/>I would be most interested to hear you define what "life" actually is, and to explain what happens to the genome code in a living and dead state. Keeping in mind that at the instant of death the genome code is all in place.John Heiningerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11728674118712786989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-91412135603529832842008-09-16T06:54:00.000-07:002008-09-16T06:54:00.000-07:00"...the universe...is "dependent" by nature..."You...<I>"...the universe...is "dependent" by nature..."</I><BR/><BR/>You treat this claim as if it were, <I>prima facie</I>, apodictically certain when it's not. It <I>may</I> be true. I'm willing to admit that I don't know. Given your earlier exposition on the problem of induction I would assume that you are, too.<BR/><BR/><I>If it was its own cause it would be eternally self-existing.</I><BR/><BR/>Here's another statement I reject. What is your basis for such a claim?<BR/><BR/><I>So we have no basis as to why our dependent universe exists.</I><BR/><BR/>So your way out of this conundrum is to posit that an incredibly complex, intentional (i.e., conscious), benevolent being, itself entirely uncaused, "fine-tuned"--like some sort of auto-mechanic--the universe, then sent his only begotten son to save us from our sins. <BR/><BR/>You find that you're able to sleep at night with that kind of solution to the problem?<BR/><BR/><I>...viruses included.</I><BR/><BR/>This statement makes me suspicious that you are ignorant of basic biology. Viruses lack almost all of the cellular structures that exist in, and are essential to, even the simplest of bacteria. A virus is almost nothing more than a packet of DNA surrounded by a lipid bi-layer. Viruses can't reproduce without commandeering the cellular machinery of a host organism. Whether this counts as "alive" is not just fuzzy to me.<BR/><BR/><I>...ceases to operate because the code of life imparted on the life form is gone...</I><BR/><BR/>What is this "code of life" of which you speak?<BR/><BR/><I>In addition to recognizing the fact of a finely tuned universe, you also realize that if is wasn't finely tuned we would not exist.</I><BR/><BR/>Your attempt at being dense here is amusing.<BR/><BR/>There's an interesting fact about a deck of cards. Because of the mathematics involved, when you randomly shuffle a regular deck, it's a near certainty that the resultant arrangement of cards has never before existed and never will exist again. Is that cause for amazement on our part? Would you hold up the deck and say "This is a 'special' deck" because the order of its cards is so amazingly unlikely? Would you say that you 'intended' it to have the arrangement that it has?Einzigehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06406227217230727209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-2157004435528974612008-09-16T05:42:00.000-07:002008-09-16T05:42:00.000-07:00A dead virus or other life form ceases to operate ...<I>A dead virus or other life form ceases to operate because the code of life imparted on the life form is gone, and normal natural chemical processes take over causing all lifeforms to decay, viruses included.</I><BR/><BR/>That sounds a lot like vitalism. If so, I think your understanding of biology is a tad out of date (to an extent that's likely to scupper the discussion).Eamon Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262012749524758120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-72739696998191023522008-09-16T00:30:00.000-07:002008-09-16T00:30:00.000-07:00Einzige, re your comments on the fine tuning of th...Einzige, re your comments on the fine tuning of the universe etc. As you stated, "If it didn't have these characteristics then it would have some others or it wouldn't exist.". That's the whole point. In addition to recognizing the fact of a finely tuned universe, you also realize that if is wasn't finely tuned we would not exist. The reality of this fine tuning throughout the universe, and in regard to the earth itself, points to a cause beyond the universe, as leading world scientists well recognize, for reasons mentioned later. <BR/><BR/>The difference between life and non-life may be pretty fuzzy for you, but scientist and others have no trouble distinguishing between a dead life form and a live one, viruses included. A dead virus or other life form ceases to operate because the code of life imparted on the life form is gone, and normal natural chemical processes take over causing all lifeforms to decay, viruses included. <BR/><BR/>Re your comment, "If everything has a cause then God does too. If there's something that doesn't have a cause then it might as well be the universe.". <BR/><BR/>The problem here is that the universe (and everything in it) is "dependent" by nature, and therefore could not have brought itself into being, any more than you, as a "dependent" person, could bring yourself into existence without parents. <BR/><BR/>This is further affirmed by the reality that the universe is running down towards heat death and maximum entropy. If it was its own cause it would be eternally self-existing. But it is not, and therefore we need, of necessity, to look beyond the dependent universe for its origin; because everything "dependent" needs a cause outside itself, just as we do. <BR/><BR/>To repeat an earlier statement, if the cause of the universe (God) is likewise dependent on a preceding cause you have only two alternatives. Either an infinite regression or eternal dependent gods or causes, or a "non-dependent, self-existing God or first cause".<BR/><BR/>The problem with the infinite eternal regression of dependent gods is that there is ultimately never any basis for existence. This is because an infinite regression of dependent gods or causes means that no preceding god or cause is "ever" able to bring "itself" into existence. So we have no basis as to why our dependent universe exists.<BR/><BR/>Yet the universe does exist. The only possible resolution and basis for existence of our dependent universe is a "necessary non-dependent self-existing first cause", which theistic scientists and the vast majority of humanity call God. <BR/><BR/>In short, the universe is not self existing and therefore cannot be its own cause. It cannot wind itself up, because it is in the process of running down. <BR/><BR/>The issue then proceeds as to whether this God, or necessary self-existing first cause, is the revealed God of Judaism and Christianity, or some other worldview. This is a separate issue entirely, and arguments for and against must be evaluated in terms of other realities. <BR/><BR/>None-the-less Einzige, you raised good questions that theists need to address, as does Jim.John Heiningerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11728674118712786989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-18461240098825592112008-09-15T14:01:00.000-07:002008-09-15T14:01:00.000-07:00Thanks, Jim.I found it during the Expelled aborted...Thanks, Jim.<BR/><BR/>I found it during the Expelled aborted phenomenon and had commented early on, and just kept the blogger notification.<BR/><BR/>Re:Barth, the big difference is that I embrace the historical/propositional truth of the Resurrection; Barth would not believe that to be essential.<BR/><BR/>I love the phrase, "second (or post-critical) naivete," coined by Paul Ricoeur, but I think it only works if you actually believe it. My Pentecostal phenomenological experiences help in that regard.<BR/><BR/>Fundamentalists, on the other hand, feel a need to defend their faith/the Bible from the outside in. If one verse is not 100% accurate, the whole thing caves in.<BR/><BR/>I think it should be seen from the center out. That center is the Resurrection, for me. If it were conclusively disproved, there is no reason for faith at all, I believe. In my understanding of Barth, he would not throw in the towel if Jesus was not physically raised from the dead.<BR/><BR/>I don't know if that answers your questions, Jim, but I appreciate the opportunity to jump in.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10390212659528931522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-7798496640870329982008-09-15T13:16:00.000-07:002008-09-15T13:16:00.000-07:00Paul:I think I and many of my readers consider P.Z...Paul:<BR/><BR/>I think I and many of my readers consider P.Z. Myers to be worth reading (and certainly wouldn't characterize his ideas as not worth anything), but here we also tend to be somewhat less incendiary, and to favor discussion to ridicule even with many whose beliefs might appear crazy to us. (That's not to say that it never occurs here--it does.)<BR/><BR/>I've never read any Barth, but I've encountered his name from time to time, and I just read <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth" REL="nofollow">the Wikipedia entry on him</A>. On which spectrum or issues do you consider yourself to the right of Barth?<BR/>Do you not go as far as he does in the rejection of biblical inerrancy?<BR/><BR/>Thanks for coming by my blog, I enjoy having commenters from different perspectives, especially if they're capable of cordial discussion, as you've demonstrated.<BR/><BR/>Did you happen to discover my blog as a result of my past posts on Pentecostalism, or Sarah Palin, or some other subject like this particular post on "Expelled" where the comments have wandered rather far from the initial subject?Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-54444248306046204552008-09-15T12:26:00.000-07:002008-09-15T12:26:00.000-07:00Jim, my reference was to PZ Myers. If no one that...Jim, my reference was to PZ Myers. If no one that reads this blog think his ideas are worth anything, then please feel free to dismiss the reference.<BR/><BR/>Yes, Jim, I try to apply the same standard to me. In fact, I describe my biblical hermeneutic as a 'naive' hermeneutic, rather than 'literal.' You may not be familiar with the name, but it's kinda a bit to the right of Karl Barth, with a childlike experiential wonder tossed in.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10390212659528931522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-3030768361323729982008-09-15T12:22:00.000-07:002008-09-15T12:22:00.000-07:00Paul: What's the "such ferocity" to which you ref...Paul: What's the "such ferocity" to which you refer? Do you mean to refer to someone here with your remark about getting "mean"?<BR/><BR/>Does your stance of epistemic humility only apply to science, or do you, as a Pentecostal pastor, apply it to the Bible and theology as well?Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-34727414973464414932008-09-15T11:22:00.000-07:002008-09-15T11:22:00.000-07:00We only know what we know. That's why all new dis...We only know what we know. That's why all new discoveries are "amazing."<BR/><BR/>To argue that we should not be amazed by each new advance in discovering realities, whether cosmological or otherwise, it seems to me, is to take away all wonder. It is the understatement of the year to say that we are less than tiny specks in a vast universe, the vast majority of which we do not yet understand. <BR/><BR/>All present theories are tentative, and many slam-dunk present day theorems will be the flat-earth theories of tomorrow.<BR/><BR/>So, in the meantime, why can't we give each other some space as we play in this huge cosmological sandbox? Why do we, as P.Z. Myers once said, have to "get mean?"<BR/><BR/>One wonders what lies behind such ferocity.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10390212659528931522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-3643791405791701342008-09-15T11:00:00.000-07:002008-09-15T11:00:00.000-07:00I think we can all agree that there are amazing im...I think we can all agree that there are amazing improbable things that happen, but all measures of improbability require a background measurement of either frequency of occurrency or subjective prior probabilities.<BR/><BR/>What's the relevant background information to assign probabilities to the values of fundamental constants? Are all values equally probable? Is there an infinite number of possible universes, of which only one is actualized, or is there an infinite multiverse where all possibilities are actualized?<BR/><BR/>I think it's *possible* that the universe we live in was exceedingly improbable and therefore amazing, but what's the background information against which to determine if that's the case?Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-82579655908005471412008-09-15T09:47:00.000-07:002008-09-15T09:47:00.000-07:00"The tautology arises from the notion that it's oh..."The tautology arises from the notion that it's oh so amazing that the universe has the characteristics it has. No it isn't."<BR/><BR/>If I can jump in for just a moment...<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that if the above statement is true, then, by definition, nothing--no scientific discoveries, no beauty, no human achievement, absolutely, positively nothing --in the universe is amazing. It just is, and the psychological phenomenon of amazement over anything (including the alleged fine tuning of the universe for life on earth) is simply a neurological weakness that may someday be overcome.<BR/><BR/>But since that phenomenon exists and is endemic in the human race, it shouldn't be seen as philosophically anomalous, it just is as well.<BR/><BR/>If you'll forgive me, I find that perspective amazing.<BR/><BR/>It seems we all have our amazing, internally semi-consistent logical circles do we not? Yet we call each other's circles squares, which really advances knowledge, does it not?Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10390212659528931522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-28774983385099516082008-09-15T09:36:00.000-07:002008-09-15T09:36:00.000-07:00I didn't say that "the fine tuning of the the univ...I didn't say that "the fine tuning of the the universe" was a tautology. What I said was that it's assuming what it's trying to prove. It's as if I came along and asked you "How hard did you beat your wife last night?"<BR/><BR/>The tautology arises from the notion that it's <I>oh so amazing</I> that the universe has the characteristics it has. No it isn't. If it didn't have these characteristics then it would have some others or it wouldn't exist. Big deal. Counter-factuals are sometimes fun, sometimes helpful, but in this case they're simply mental masturbation.<BR/><BR/><I>...the statement that nobody has universal knowledge of all that exists, or can exist, is a statement of fact, and is therefore both logical and coherent.</I><BR/><BR/>Are you sure you want to take this road as a means for defending your Christianity?<BR/><BR/><I>Every atheistic evolutionist believes that at some point in the past dead matter came to life.</I><BR/><BR/>That's a straw-man argument, and if you talk with any biologist about this issue they'll tell you that, at the edges, the difference between life and non-life is pretty fuzzy. Is a virus "alive"? Meanwhile, the origin of life on Earth continues to be controversial subject in science.<BR/><BR/><I>So I ask either of you, yet again, to name a single thing in the universe that is not contingent or dependent in nature and essence. To avoid an infinite regression of dependence you need, of necessity, a non-dependent self-existing first cause in order for the universe to exist at all. This also is a logical self evident reality.</I><BR/><BR/>We're not the one's making the claim. That the universe exists is self-evident. Either everything has a cause or there's something that doesn't. If everything has a cause then God does too. If there's something that doesn't have a cause then it might as well be the universe. Why does it have to be "God"? <B>On what basis do you make that claim? And how exactly does this satisfy as an explanation of anything? It seems to me all you've done is "solve" one mystery by creating another, bigger, and (perhaps equally) insoluble one. What was God doing before he made the universe?</B><BR/><BR/>We are now repeating ourselves.<BR/><BR/><I>As for the resurrection of Christ, the evidence is more than adequate for me, and represents the highest probability.</I><BR/><BR/>What is your standard of acceptable evidence?Einzigehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06406227217230727209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-24318758374448378752008-09-15T07:57:00.000-07:002008-09-15T07:57:00.000-07:00Robert M. Price and Jeffrey J. Lowder's book, _The...Robert M. Price and Jeffrey J. Lowder's book, <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Empty-Tomb-Jesus-Beyond-Grave/dp/159102286X/jimlippardswebpaA" REL="nofollow">_The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave_</A> (2005, Prometheus Books) responds to Craig and others. Perhaps someday Craig will write a response; so far he has not.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-90322688478478095192008-09-15T06:43:00.000-07:002008-09-15T06:43:00.000-07:00John: I don't think you're engaging with my knowl...John: I don't think you're engaging with my knowledge argument. I agree that no one has all knowledge, but that doesn't contradict the premises or validity of my argument. There's a nice diagram in Douglas Hofstadter's _Goedel, Escher, Bach_ which depicts knowledge space which is a good companion to my argument.<BR/><BR/>You write: "Furthermore, something with "local" consequences hardly fits the "universal" category, as any dictionary would show." Universal claims have local consequences. That's all that my argument requires for the ability to logically infer conclusions about the universal claim from the observed local consequences. If a claimed god performs certain types of actions in certain circumstances universally, then a local failure for that to happen is sufficient to show that that claim about god is false.<BR/><BR/>I'm the author of a critique of messianic prophecies, <A HREF="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html" REL="nofollow">"The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah."</A><BR/><BR/>BTW, it's "Einzige."Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-32479481163093589692008-09-15T02:31:00.000-07:002008-09-15T02:31:00.000-07:00Jim, the statement that nobody has universal knowl...Jim, the statement that nobody has universal knowledge of all that exists, or can exist, is a statement of fact, and is therefore both logical and coherent. (if you know of anyone who is an exception to this I would like to know their name). Furthermore, something with "local" consequences hardly fits the "universal" category, as any dictionary would show.<BR/><BR/>Likewise, the fine tuning of the the universe is not a teutology but a statement of fact. If Elizije doubts this he could start pulling the leads off the spark plugs on his car and watch what happens to the cars tuning. Or, in the broader sense of the cosmos, if he could even slightly alter any of the values of the cosmological constants, I guarantee he would be able to watch himself disappear, as Stephen Hawking and other physicists would expect. <BR/><BR/> Elizije also seems to have difficulty coming to terms with the resurrection. Firstly, it's not a matter of whether or not one believes in dead matter coming to life, but rather at what point. Every atheistic evolutionist believes that at some point in the past dead matter came to life. Its called abiogenesis. Point A, dead dumb lifeless matter. Point B, a living replicating lifeform. <BR/><BR/>Secondly, at least the resurrected Christ had all the body pieces already in place to be refired up by the Guy who was the origin and author of life. I can affirm this with some confidence, as the origin of life by natural causes alone remains the achiles heel of atheism and philosophical naturalism. Life only comes from life, and that is scientific reality. Thus, the necessary non-dependent self-existing first cause. (I'm not sure either of you really understand the full implications of a "dependent" universe that had a beginning, and is running down. So I ask either of you, yet again, to name a single thing in the universe that is not contingent or dependent in nature and essence. To avoid an infinite regression of dependence you need, of necessity, a non-dependent self-existing first cause in order for the universe to exist at all. This also is a logical self evident reality.<BR/><BR/>As for the resurrection of Christ, the evidence is more than adequate for me, and represents the highest probability. Articles by atheists attempting to refute this fall far short from my perspective. However, I have long ago discovered that there are people for whom no amount of evidence for God existence, however self evident and compelling, would ever be sufficient. And so, we will have to agree to disagree. <BR/><BR/>None-the-less, on the resurrection I would recommend material by William Lane Craig. Even A. N. Wilson gets it too -- No Resurrection, No Christianity. <BR/><BR/>Similarly, for those who argue that the Biblical prophecies about Christ don't stack up I would suggest they read the four volume set (soon to be five) by a leading jewish authority on this issue, Dr Micheal L Brown, titled "Answering Jewish [and atheist]Objections To Jesus". I suggest this because atheist and Skeptics web sites also fall well short of the mark in terms of scholarship on this issue. <BR/><BR/>Jim, the issue of what constitutes a species may be "fuzzy" for evolutionists, but breeders well know where the boundary lies, as do the multitude of living fossils which seem forever stuck within their species boundaries. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, guys, I appreciate your input. Hopefully, you guys are enjoy such dialogue too. Jim, I can't always respond immediately as I am building my own sizable home (in addition to other commitments) but there is still a lot of issues already covered to be more fully discussed and fleshed out, so I will continue to post as time allows. Also appreciate your input Elizige.John Heiningerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11728674118712786989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-71943269902764445342008-09-14T20:48:00.000-07:002008-09-14T20:48:00.000-07:00John: Einzige's final point can be expanded to obs...John: Einzige's final point can be expanded to observe that you're trying to take a short cut that doesn't lead to your destination. Even if you were able to prove atheism false--or even that something approximating the Christian God existed--that wouldn't make young-earth creationism true or evolution false without some additional premises.Lippardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16826768452963498005noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15453937.post-30620520282644257192008-09-14T19:41:00.000-07:002008-09-14T19:41:00.000-07:00The reason I, and the vast majority, instinctively...<I>The reason I, and the vast majority, instinctively believe and logically conclude there is a God is because of the "existence" and "dependent" nature of the cosmos, and everything in it.</I><BR/><BR/>So, the universe is dependent (i.e., "needs a cause"), but God is not. On what basis do you make that claim? And how exactly does this satisfy as an explanation of anything? It seems to me all you've done is "solve" one mystery by creating another, bigger, and (perhaps equally) insoluble one. What was God doing before he made the universe?<BR/><BR/>Oh, and again, you've still got a large gap between "God is first cause" and "Jesus is Lord".Einzigehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06406227217230727209noreply@blogger.com