Knight_of_BAAWA: nirgrahamUK:you are obviously a false messiah, claiming to know lots of facts about god. a likely story.'e's no' the messiah; 'e's a very nau'y boy.
nirgrahamUK:you are obviously a false messiah, claiming to know lots of facts about god. a likely story.
Are there any areas in science that have contradictions which we can not explain?
Certainly, the quest for a unifying theory of physics comes to mind as science tries to understand the contradictions between various aspects of very small and very big things. Or do you have this unifying theory and are just holding out on us?
Why is it ok for science to have contradictions but not religion? Why is it wrong for people to search for the answers in religion but it is acceptable in science?
Is it not quite possible that science and religion are searching for the exact same answer but from different approaches?
Why should people reject that which they know to be true and have experienced simply because they do not have evidence to convince you?
Maxliberty:Are there any areas in science that have contradictions which we can not explain?
MaxLiberty:Certainly, the quest for a unifying theory of physics comes to mind as science tries to understand the contradictions between various aspects of very small and very big things.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan: MaxLiberty:Certainly, the quest for a unifying theory of physics comes to mind as science tries to understand the contradictions between various aspects of very small and very big things. What 'contradictions' might those be Professor Max ? By the way, what does 'very big' and 'very small' mean ?
I assume he is referring to quantum phenomena, and how Newtonian models break down when describing the behavior of quantum particles.
edit: it is important to realize that there are no contradictions in nature. There exist certain paradox's because quantum mechanics is a relatively new and incredibly complicated field. There is no real consensus as to the correct model or interpretation. People are still learning that light is made of waves in high school, and that is under serious reconsideration.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
Knight_of_BAAWA: And creating everything. Don't forget that. I've noticed the near-universal tendency to leave that part out when trying to get around the problem of stuffing free-will into the pot. Please don't be like those dishonest people and forget the creating-everything aspect. I wouldn't want you to be dishonest.
And creating everything. Don't forget that. I've noticed the near-universal tendency to leave that part out when trying to get around the problem of stuffing free-will into the pot. Please don't be like those dishonest people and forget the creating-everything aspect. I wouldn't want you to be dishonest.
Why does creating everything imply determinism?
Knight_of_BAAWA: But god supposely created everything and knows everything. So your "argument" is moot.
But god supposely created everything and knows everything. So your "argument" is moot.
It is in principle possible for God to have created a deterministic universe but the fact that free will and evil exists demonstrates it is indeterminate. When theists say God is omniscient we mean he knows everything that can be known; so for example God does not know what a square circle is since it is logically contradictory. In the same way creating creatures with free will implies the future is open and not settled thus exhaustive foreknowledge and free will is incompatible.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Physiocrat:Further without God what criterion are you using for good and evil and why? Knight_of_BAAWA:*facepalm* Oh please. Go read Euthyphro. Physiocrat:I am familiar with the objection.Then you realize that it's absolutely no different from saying that we need a government to make us all behave.
Physiocrat:Further without God what criterion are you using for good and evil and why?
Knight_of_BAAWA:*facepalm* Oh please. Go read Euthyphro.
Oh please. Go read Euthyphro.
Physiocrat:I am familiar with the objection.
Wow, a category error and guilt by association in one sentence; your racking up the fallacies today. I answered the Euthyphro dilemma and you have not commented on it so I presume you believe it to be sound. All you have done is accused me of being like a statist without any evidence for this. Further you have not answered my question: what criterion do you use for good and evil and why?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Physiocrat:So your objection to an acting God is not that in acting he contradicts his nature but that because there is evil in the world God cannot exist because he would have avoided it? Knight_of_BAAWA:Yes, the only way out of that is the elimination of omnibenevolence from god's attributes. And I've never met a christian who would accept doing that. Perhaps there are some, but I've simply never come across them. Physiocrat:I would agree with you if God does not punish sin(evil), but Biblically speaking he does partially at present but will ultimately in the final judgement. So I think the problem of evil argument suffers from a lack of perspective time wiseAh, the fog of mysticism is raised. Sorry--won't do.
Physiocrat:So your objection to an acting God is not that in acting he contradicts his nature but that because there is evil in the world God cannot exist because he would have avoided it?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yes, the only way out of that is the elimination of omnibenevolence from god's attributes. And I've never met a christian who would accept doing that. Perhaps there are some, but I've simply never come across them.
Physiocrat:I would agree with you if God does not punish sin(evil), but Biblically speaking he does partially at present but will ultimately in the final judgement. So I think the problem of evil argument suffers from a lack of perspective time wise
Again you have not provided reasons why an all loving God could not permit suffering to take place. Further I pointed out that the objection contains an assumption that if God does not stop it now he never will which is wholly unwarranted and lacks a sufficient time perspective. My Biblical reference was to embellish the point but it does not stand on it.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Physiocrat:The principle of Free Will First Principle -- I make decisions. Contrary -- I make no decisions; I am a robot on autopilot. Absurdity -- if I make no decisions, I did not decide to believe the statement "I make no decisions; I am a robot on autopilot." Knight_of_BAAWA:That isn't absurd; thats the truth. And you can't judge anything as true or false per se; you can only say what you were programmed to. Such is where the omniscient creator of everything gets you. NMFP. Your mess; clean it up. But be honest with yourself when you do. Physiocrat:See above.I have. It's your problem.
Physiocrat:The principle of Free Will First Principle -- I make decisions. Contrary -- I make no decisions; I am a robot on autopilot. Absurdity -- if I make no decisions, I did not decide to believe the statement "I make no decisions; I am a robot on autopilot."
Knight_of_BAAWA:That isn't absurd; thats the truth. And you can't judge anything as true or false per se; you can only say what you were programmed to. Such is where the omniscient creator of everything gets you. NMFP. Your mess; clean it up. But be honest with yourself when you do.
And you can't judge anything as true or false per se; you can only say what you were programmed to. Such is where the omniscient creator of everything gets you. NMFP. Your mess; clean it up. But be honest with yourself when you do.
Physiocrat:See above.
Full of assertion, no argument. Given the fact that you believe Austrian economics to be true and Marxism to be false how do you reconcile this with your a rather epistemological relativism you show above.
Finally, I would argue that God is in time following creation. Without creation God was timeless but with creation he acted, in the Misesian sense, and thus brought time into being. He thus can experience things sequentially from his creation in the sma eway his creation does. This is though predicted on teh A theory of time which I defend in my defence of Open Theism article I linked to above.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Knight_of_BAAWA:And creating everything. Don't forget that. I've noticed the near-universal tendency to leave that part out when trying to get around the problem of stuffing free-will into the pot. Please don't be like those dishonest people and forget the creating-everything aspect. I wouldn't want you to be dishonest.
Physiocrat:Why does creating everything imply determinism?
Knight_of_BAAWA:But god supposely created everything and knows everything. So your "argument" is moot.
Physiocrat:It is in principle possible for God to have created a deterministic universe but the fact that free will and evil exists demonstrates it is indeterminate.
Physiocrat:When theists say God is omniscient we mean he knows everything that can be known; so for example God does not know what a square circle is since it is logically contradictory.
You'll never win; my stance is logically airtight. Your stance is a blatant assertion.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Then you realize that it's absolutely no different from saying that we need a government to make us all behave.
Physiocrat:Wow, a category error
Physiocrat:and guilt by association in one sentence
Knight_of_BAAWA:Ah, the fog of mysticism is raised. Sorry--won't do.
Physiocrat:Again you have not provided reasons
Knight_of_BAAWA:I have. It's your problem.
Physiocrat:Full of assertion
Physiocrat:Finally, I would argue that God is in time following creation. Without creation God was timeless but with creation he acted, in the Misesian sense, and thus brought time into being.
zefreak: Juan: MaxLiberty:Certainly, the quest for a unifying theory of physics comes to mind as science tries to understand the contradictions between various aspects of very small and very big things. What 'contradictions' might those be Professor Max ? By the way, what does 'very big' and 'very small' mean ? I assume he is referring to quantum phenomena, and how Newtonian models break down when describing the behavior of quantum particles. edit: it is important to realize that there are no contradictions in nature. There exist certain paradox's because quantum mechanics is a relatively new and incredibly complicated field. There is no real consensus as to the correct model or interpretation. People are still learning that light is made of waves in high school, and that is under serious reconsideration.
Yes, exactly. And I agree there are no contradictions in nature, they appear to exist as is the case in physics now until we have a better understanding of how things really work. So things appear as contradictions until our knowledge grows and then what appeared contradictory before no longer does. As knowledge increases we find new apparent contradictions. This is the exact same prinicple with religion. Simply lacking the understanding to explain what appears to be a contradiction is just that, a lack of understanding.
I don't categorically invalidate all science because it is unable to explain everything nor do I categorically invalidate all religion because it is unable to explain everything.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:Are there any areas in science that have contradictions which we can not explain?No. Contradictions don't exist in reality.
Yet, we do find contradictory things we are unable to explain. You simply are offering your faith that they will be explained and so eventually will be shown to not be contradictory.
I do remember from before though that you said you were all knowing about the origin of the universe so maybe you could shed some light on these questions. Why not reveal your professed knowledge?
Maxliberty:Yet, we do find contradictory things we are unable to explain.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:Yet, we do find contradictory things we are unable to explain.No, we do not.
This is where our debate ended last time with your claim that you are all knowing and you have complete accurate answers to every question in the universe.....ok, take your medicine BAAWA and tell your parents to let some more sunlight into the basement down there. We are anxiously awaiting for you to accept the Nobel prize in every category.
Juan:Max, Of course 'scientific' knowledge is limited and there are problems it can't solve. But what has that got to do with the fact that revealed religion is just a bunch of puerile fairy tales ? Instead of focusing on the limitations of science, why don't you focus on the fact that there are NO objective proofs for ANY revealed religion ? Here's news for you : 1) the flying spagethi monster created the universe.2) you can't disprove that3) ergo it's true.
I suggest to you that what you believe to be true is normally anything based on your own experiences or having been told by others you deem credible. Why should religion be different?
Your complaint is that it hasn't been proven to your satisfaction, which is perfectly reasonable and people have these types of scientific discussions all the time where one party claims that the evidence is sufficient and the other party claims it is not. For example, global warming is very much like this. If you are in the mainstream scientific community then you are convinced beyond a doubt that man is the cause of global warming, the heretic minority think otherwise.
If you awoke one night and saw a ghost in your room, it would be madness for some other party who was not there to say categorically that you did not see a ghost and it would not be madness for people who deemed you credible to believe you in fact did see a ghost.
Religious beliefs are almost always based on personal experience. The atheist would require you to disbelieve yourself.
Maxliberty:If you awoke one night and saw a ghost in your room, it would be madness for some other party who was not there to say categorically that you did not see a ghost and it would not be madness for people who deemed you credible to believe you in fact did see a ghost.
SCOOBY-DO!
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
What do you mean ? Revealed religion is just a bunch of unfounded assertions. What other sort of 'debate' can you expect ?
And yet, here are atheists insisting on trying to prove their point. It confuses me to no end.
There are utterly arrogant people who think they are the mouthpiece of god, endlessly repeat a script, and are willing to destroy their opponents cause in a rational debate the only think they can do is lose.
There are utterly arrogant people who think they are the mouthpiece for morals, communism, freedom, liberty, (insert anything here). This topic started out against religion, for example.
Again, what do you mean ? Why should these threads be shut down ? Censorship in the name of freedom ? What ?
I mean that I percieve these types of topics as somewhat trollish particularly for a site where I don't think religion is really a central issue, I don't think I said they should be shut down, but it is topics like these that should send off a red flag to the people running these forums. Censorship in the name of freedom isn't really on the mark here, Mises to my knowledge is not just a completley open ended wiki. The site has a purpose and priorities, as does wikipedia (I can't do an article on the cover band that I saw in a bar yesterday for example) or well, pretty much anything. I don't think debating theology or trying to prove or disprove a god are high on that list. To top that off it should be WELL KNOWN now that ithese type of threads have a greater rate of being highly sensitive, belligerant, and unproductive. My point is if religion/theology is somewhat unimportant to this sites focus and it tends to lead to messy and beligerant threads, why not be quicker to moderate the threads with more authority. Censorship and freedom have nothing to do with it.
This site is about "advancing the scholarship of liberty" and revealed religion seems to be a big obstacle in the path to liberty
I think it is pretty common knowledge to most here that this site was founded, supported, and advanced by many Catholics. To come to this site and strongly insist their version of freedom (perhaps as opposed to your "one true liberty") is actually tyranny is probably impolite, not only that I don't understand how some one could reasonably be expected not to be seen as a belligerant and maybe disrespectful when entering their site. You are willfully entering a site with some sympathies to religion, I am pretty sure there are much more atheist types of AE forums out there, and I am pretty sure there are sites that are more structured to debate theology, why not check them out instead?
I think it is pretty common knowledge to most here that this site was founded, supported, and advanced by many Catholics.
You would think libertarians would be unambiguously for freedom of speech.
Does Ms. Young want to abolish copyright, this obvious threat to freedom of press ? Or at least return to the 14 + 14 year system ?
Maxliberty:This is where our debate ended last time
You would think libertarians would be unambiguously for freedom of speech
If you owned a customer service business and one of your employess used obnoxious and/or counterproductive speech to your customers/employees would you not fire him if there was no room/time for him to improve, or would you let him stay on board your business and allow him his free speech? Likewise if you were a teacher of mathmatics and all your students talked about was the TV show "who wants to be reality star?" would you let the conversations continue unimepded? If you ran a "star wars" wiki site and you see articles about the band The Beatles, would you allow it to exist due to an exercise in free speech? The examples can go on. I address this specific point assuming your argument is that unfettered speech should be allowed everywhere or else it is unlibertarian/anti-free speech. If I missed your point, please spell it out again for me. There is nothing more annoying than two people rambling on about different arguments.
DondooleeI don't understand the point you are making...
So ? I think it's common knowledge that catholicism has nothing to do with freedom. Wasn't Mises an agnostic Jew ? Isn't this the Mises institute ? Doesn't Rockwell claim that LRC is the biggest libertarian site in the world or something like that ? Now it turns out that libertarianism == catholic church ? Or ?
The point is this WEBSITE (which was not started by Mises) was started with a heavy Catholic flavor of people who wished to "advance the cause of liberty". And as far as really summing up my point, you did it for me with the comment "CATHOLOCISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREEDOM". Bingo. Religion is a divisive topic, empirical evidence proves that here and in most places on the web. Not only that for such a divisive topic, for something that has "nothing to do with freedom" my question is why should the moderators allow threads on this topic to fall into the usual drudgery they usually fall into.
As far as referencing the Catholics that have started this site, it was simply an appeal to respect, mannors, and practicality. If they started this site and it was a liberty site and I came in with a mission to show that religion is inherently tyrannical and to promote my views of freedom, you automatically come in belligerant. I just find this a puzzling move, there really isn't much of a point being made, just more of a curiosity to me; particularly where there are more relevant sites that deal with Atheism in alliance with liberty and other sites where theological debates are fosterd.
If I missed your point, please spell it out again for me. There is nothing more annoying than two people rambling on about different arguments.
Bingo. Religion is a divisive topic,
All depends on how you look at it I suppose:
http://books.google.com/books?id=irxD86wRthEC&lpg=PP1&ots=MtXKgT5VYo&dq=Rational%20theology%20Widtsoe&pg=PA23
These few pages say a lot I think.
laminustacitus:Christianity, and free will are not only compatible, but they are also complements.
What's your take on the following:
http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html
http://www.garynorth.com/public/department57.cfm
Bradipo:http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html
I believe that the article does miss a lot of context- for instance, the tax collectors of Roman Palestine weren't sinner necessarily because of the fact that they were merely tax collectors, but because they were tax collectors for a foreign nations that dominated that politics of God's chosen nation. Therefore the equivocation of a tax collectors a la Matthew, and tax collectors a la contemporary ones is very weak due to the changing nature of political power, and the loss of historical context. The article also adds context, especially with regard to Romans 13:1-7 that is often lost when discussing St. Paul's teachings with respect to government.
Overall, this article is a great tool for busting the myths that political ideologies have created with respect for Jesus - it has many similarities with Economics in One Lesson in this respect. However, I would say that trying to claim Jesus for Libertarian anarchy is completely unwarranted since the Gospels were not written to communicate Jesus' politics, rather they were written to spread the good news of man's salvation.
While slightly off topic, I think that Leo Tolstory's The Kingdom of God is Within You, despite the many theological fallacies in it, is the most convincing argument for anarchy I have seen so far.
Bradipo:http://www.garynorth.com/public/department57.cfm
Any Christian these days who would declare that capitalism, and markets (while not necessarily completely unregulated free markets) are anti-Christian, and should be replaced by stated-planned socialism is a nut.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Knight_of_BAAWA: Maxliberty:This is where our debate ended last timeThat's because you attempted to shift the burden of proof. Stop doing that.
More confused atheist nonsense. No one is trying to prove anything to you.
Juan:If I missed your point, please spell it out again for me. There is nothing more annoying than two people rambling on about different arguments. Indeed you missed my point. So please re-read Kinsella's statement again and if you have a problem with it, take it up with Kinsella...who's a libertarian affiliated with the catholics you're are so gallantly defending. Perhaps Kinsella is a catholic himself ? (dunno).Now, if you don't disagree with Kinsella's statement, then do apply it to the case at hand. I can't further help you. Bingo. Religion is a divisive topic, Not my fault. Oh, and it's not religion, it is revealed religion.
1) This is an article about IP. My argument has nothing to do with IP. This is a forum that employs moderators that are in turn lower on a heiarchical scale. On top of that, you say if I disagree with the article that you used in your argument, I now have to take it up with the author of the article you sent me?
2) You seem to be pretty passionate in your hatred of Catholocism. My argument is not about Catholocism. I think this may be distracting you from my point. Perhaps if you subsituted the words "Religion" or "Catholic" with words such as "widget" or "point X" there my position may seem more clear. You did address me, I believe this puts the burden on you to address and understand my points and issues. If there is anything I can clear up please let me know.
Dondolee, I'm sure you're aware of my religious views, but people such as yourself who know what they're talking about and can discuss religion without giving the impression you want to eradicate religion as people I can certainly respect. For the record, I agree with you, debates on religion go nowhere, they almost always devolve into both sides slinging mud.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Maxliberty:More confused
Any time you want to construct a logically-valid, sound, and true argument: just let me know.
GilesStratton: Dondolee, I'm sure you're aware of my religious views, but people such as yourself who know what they're talking about and can discuss religion without giving the impression you want to eradicate religion as people I can certainly respect. For the record, I agree with you, debates on religion go nowhere, they almost always devolve into both sides slinging mud.
To be honest I kind of had you in the back of my head. In your arguments on the "economics" topic you created, people were literally dismissing you simply due to your religion (among some other bizzare and often hysterical arguments). I personally find dialouge a valuable tool, and when it can't function well on an educational site due to various things (in this case a fringe topic like religion) I think it is something that should be addressed (at least civialy debated) somehow if realisticaly possible.
Dondoolee:1) This is an article about IP.
Kinsella:You would think libertarians would be unambiguously for freedom of speech
2) You seem to be pretty passionate in your hatred of Catholocism.
You did address me, I believe this puts the burden on you to address and understand my points and issues.
1) I gave you my thoughts on free speech, with countless examples and why I think it obviously doesn't (and simply can not) always apply the way you argued it should. If you want to have the final word on that go ahead, this is thread to debate how free speach should be implied in one's life philosophy. If you want to start a new thread on that, fine. Now, if you want to talk about specifically this site and my opinion about religion and this forum, that is much more my concern for this thread, and I am certainly open for discussion at the moment.
2) "I think it is pretty common knowledge to most here that this site was founded, supported, and advanced by many Catholics" If this is what you are refering to I don't think this statement at all implies that this site advertises catholocism. I most certainly no where say Mises ADVERTISES Catholocism. In one post I stated it had a "heavy Catholic flavour". Once again I do not think this statement says Mises.org advertises Catholocism. I can promise it was not meant to imply that either.
Let me reconstruct the two sentences that may hopefully show the point better:
I think it is pretty common knowledge that the LION TAMMING ACADAMY was founded by LEFT HANDERS.
The words in bold are not meant to imply that the two are related, it is just a fact that LEFT HANDERS founded the LION TAMMING ACADAMY, even though the LION TAMMING ACADAMY has nothing on the surface to do with LEFT HANDERS or handyness in general.
ASTORIA NEW YORK has a HEAVY GREEK FLAVOUR OF POPULATION
once again, the words do not mean it is only Hellenistic people who run/populate Astoria New York, nor does it state that Astoria is done only "the hellenistic way" I don't think.
Once again the "Catholicism" is simply a Red Herring, don't think it is the center piece of my argument. Just change the word "Catholic" into "widget"
1) I gave you my thoughts on free speech,
"I think it is pretty common knowledge to most here that this site was founded, supported, and advanced by many Catholics" If this is what you are referring to I don't think this statement at all implies that this site advertises catholocism.
Once again the "Catholicism" is simply a Red Herring, don't think it is the center piece of my argument.
And I gave you mine. And I don't think you have a point
My point is, as far as all practicle operations are concerned, there is no such thing as absolute free speech when one enters another ones environment that is run for a specific purpose, it just doesn't happen. Even so the consequential evidence is enough to show how unpracticle it is, or to put it more succinctly; undesired speech usually does not get rewarded and usually gets filterd out of more productive environments. An environment with a purpose should not try to encourage unproductive speech, just as it shouldn't encourage unproductive behavior. While you are free to wake up anytime you like, I highly doubt most empolyers would hire a chronically tardy person who sleeps in all the time. By the word "productive" I mean towards the goal/reason of the specific environment, this does not inherently mean it promotes group think or cencorship on relevant topics.
So far your point has been: "censorship in the name of freedom", an article on Copyrights, you saying that me assuming the quote "You would think libertarians would be unambiguously for freedom of speech" was not the central point of your argument and then telling me to read the copywright article again, and then saying that indeed "You would think libertarians would be unambiguously for freedom of speech" was part of your central point and that principle of free speech always (or should) applies.
I am sorry but I am a little confused, on top of that I simply don't see you giving any reason why "the principle always applies". Like I said free speech, fine, great, good. As is the same with your freedom to sleep in as long as you like, or do the drugs you wish to do. That being said, some establishments may not condone or tolerate such behaviour so you may be S-O-L if you desire to be in that establishment.
Frankly, I don't know what your argument is. If anything you seem to believe that I must discard truth in the name of some sort of political correctness. Again, supposedly, this is a site concerned with philosophy (truth) and freedom. I'm going to say whatever I think is line with that.
1) That topics should be much more relevant to the point and function on this site. Topics that are tertiary and particulary devisive and "baiting" topics should be approached with a more skeptical eye than with other topics bye the moderators
2) That there are practicle reasons why Religous topics should be seen as a caution flag for moderaters
3) Due to what this site is; on an individual level it is probably wiser, more productive, more practicle, and more civil to temper ones personal feelings about religion and to try to avoid falling into theological arguments.
"it's pretty common knowledge". Well you are wrong.
Perhaps. I know I found out pretty quickly without any effort to find out. I have also observed many people knowing that info not only on this site o, but other libertarian sites having no affiliation with Mises.org as well. Certainly my research wasn't too scientific. As a gambling man though, I would bet you 50 bucks that at least 60% of the posters on this site with 100+ posts knows that there is a strong Catholic flavour with many of the prominent fellows and scholars of Mises.
If anything you seem to believe that I must discard truth in the name of some sort of political correctness
I am suggesting that if I were on the search for truth about Zebras, I would not enter a llama farm.
I was reared a Catholic, and am fond of it, but have not been a believer since I was 16 or so.
Stephan Kinsella nskinsella@gmail.com www.StephanKinsella.com