“[God] has willed to make Himself quite recognisable by those; and thus, willing to appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart, He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition”
—Blaise Pascal
From Pensées 430
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) is an esteemed western intellect out of France who delivered numerous profound insights in the arenas of mathematics, science, philosophy, and theology.
Love Truth Blog 
““[God] has willed to make Himself quite recognisable by those; and thus, willing to appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart, He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition””
Every religion claims this about their god or gods. Curious how all of them can never show their god actually exists.
The claims of a “hidden god” fail as soon as one realizes that the bible god had no problem showing direct evidence, making personal appearances, etc. Pascal failed.
LikeLike
“Every religion…?” What other religion aside Christianity? Quotes from religious teachers/leaders/sages making the same claim about the hidden god or gods? Buddhism is agnostic in ways, so why would such an assertion be made by Buddhists teachers or found in Dharma? Yes, the exodus generation witnessed the plagues, the Passover, parting of the sea, the pillar of could by the day and fire ant night, daily manna, but did not they all perish in unbelief save Joshua and Caleb? Yet those who sought God found God? Why does Pascal get a fail?
LikeLike
Islam, Hinduism, etc any religion that claims a creator god and claims one can know that this god exists from looking around.
You are right, Buddhism doesn’t have a god so they wouldn’t be a religion talking about their gods.
There is no evidence at all for the exodus, and hilariously, not one of egypt’s trading partners or enemies noted them losing their entire army, their entire food supply, or a sizable portion of their population.
No 600,000+ people wandering around in an area half the size of pennsylvania for 40 years, and no archaeology to suport this nonsense *despite* supposedly being given their route in your bible.
ROFL. No evidence of Isaelites of one generation all dying. Where are the graves?
And curiosu how no one who has sought a god has found a god.
Pascal fails in this nonsense and in his “wager” where he assumes that only he has the right god.
LikeLike
I am perplexed as to why you failed to adequately respond t my question. Can you provide quotes from other religious leaders, sages, gurus whom have made the same hidden God claim as Blaise Pascal? You provided nil evidence to back up your dogmatic assertion “Every religion claims this about their god or gods.” Show me the money.
Hinduism affirms a “creator god”? I am skeptical about that assertion too. Your are not imagining Hinduism shares the same idea about a Creator like in the Abrahamic religions, namely Judaism, Christianity, and Islam? The Abrahamic religions maintain the Creator to be a necessary being, an uncaused first cause of all causes, who is undeniably distinct from the creation. Would Hindus agree with that? I am doubtful. Show me that they do?
Have you seriously looked in the reasons why Christians believed what they believe? The blatant error you made about Buddhism appears like you never gave much thought on the God question. What evidence can be offered to prove to you God exists? How do you know if you are not suffering from confirmation bias? Just dismissing the inconvenient truth?
This quote on God making Himself known is distinct from Pascal’s “wager,” albeit both are drawn from his pensées. I am skeptical that you have nailed the prudential offer imbued in Pascal’s wager. Check out this Jonah Haddad article on the wager… https://www.equip.org/articles/wagering-with-jesus-and-pascal-two-prudential-offers-for-christian-belief/ Love to get your response?
Are you sure you studied enough on the Old Testament to make any assertions on the historicity of the Israelite exodus from Egypt? Why dismiss all the evidence corroborating the biblical exodus?
LikeLike
It’s great when you try to lie and claim I didn’t “adequately” respond to your nonsense, dear. I did and it’s great when you try to make false claims in a recording medium.
Every religion does make these claims since, just like yours, they can’t show their god/s to exist. So we have claims of “x god did creation” and reality is evidence for it. Yet not one can show it. Then we have “but X god doesn’t want to bias people, so it hides”.
Here’s the same nonsense from Islam for example: “In Islamic context, (al-)Ghaib (غيب) is (the) unseen and unknown, in reference to God (Allah) and the forces that shape the world.[14] The Quran states that man (mankind) is unable to see God and his attributes. Belief in al-Ghaib is considered an important Muslim characteristic, as it allows for prayer and faith.
He said, “Did I not tell you that I know the unseen [aspects] of the heavens and the earth? And I know what you reveal and what you have concealed.” (2:33)
Say, [O Muhammad], “I do not tell you that I have the depositories [containing the provision] of God or that I know the unseen, nor do I tell you that I am an angel. I only follow what is revealed to me. (6:50)
And with Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them except Him. And He knows what is on the land and in the sea. Not a leaf falls but that He knows it. And no grain is there within the darknesses of the earth and no moist or dry [thing] but that it is [written] in the clear book. (6:59)
“Have they not thought about their own selves? God did not create the heavens and earth and everything between them without a serious purpose and an appointed time, yet many people deny that they will meet their Lord.”
here’s what the hindus say “Brahman is believed to be ever-present, all-powerful, and beyond comprehension. Some Hindus believe that Brahman is formless and without attributes,but manifests in form. Other Hindus believe Brahman has a transcendent form and attributes.”
“Brahman is the only real entity. Brahman is of the nature of existence, awareness and fullness.”
Your personal ignorance is amusing. Too lazy or too afraid of finding out that your nonsense is nothing special? Most, if not every, religion claims their god is necessary, that it is required for creation. No evidence for that nonsense at all.
I was a christain, so I know why Christians believe in the many many contradictory things they claim are true. Like all theists, they were taught this nonsense was true by those they trusted. Nothing more.
What evidence? How about a chatty burning bush? Christians being able to do what jesus promises his true believers in the bible would also be a good one. Evidence for any of the essential events in the bible would help. As always, the Christian complains about how dare I ask for evidence when they know they have nothing. This god should know what I need and present it if it wants everyone to believe in it. I’ve been waiting for 30+ years. Why would I be suffering from confirmation bias, when it is *you* who have nothing? And “inconvenient truth”? N evidence for your god at all. Shall I say that you must be dismissing the inconvenient truth that Zeus exists? That Allah is the true god, etc?
Pascal’s wager fails since it assumes that you have the right god, and it lies and claims there is nothing lost if you don’t have the right god. So Haddad simply fails miserably as all Christians do with your false presuppositions.
Yep, I’m sure, and it’s so sweet of you to show how deceitful ignorant Christians are when they try to gaslight others. No evidence corroborates the exodus nonsense. But do present what you think does. Surely you can, right?
LikeLike
clubschadenfreude I am not lying. Neither am I trying to gaslight you. I am truly sincere in asking: Can you provide quotes from other religious leaders, sages, gurus whom have made the same hidden God claim as Blaise Pascal?
I still do not think you adequately answered the question.
Surahs 2:23, 6:50, 6:59, & 30:8 certainly tell of Allah’s transcendence, and there is something unknowable about Allah among human creatures. But that misses the mark on the Pascal quote. Yes, God is hidden, but Pascal goes on to add that God is not so hidden that those who seek Him find Him, and yet hidden enough to be unnoticed by those not looking. Does the Qur’an affirm any such idea? Curious to know?
Hinduism has various creation myth, and myriads of cycles of creation, destruction, and recreation. Christianity teaches a Creator / creation distinction. Is that true in Hinduism? Is not pantheistic monism a feature of the Hindu worldview? When a Hindu discusses “creator god” would not be distinct sense from the Abrahamic religions? Then of course, do any of the Hindu scriptures, the Vedas, say anything like Pascal?
I do not think you believe in Zeus is a god. Neither do I.
If there is a God, then there is the possibility of the miraculous. So God can speak to Moses, and theophanies can happen, like a burning bush.
But, what evidence for God would you be looking for?
What made you leave Christianity? No answers to questions? Something else?
LikeLike
Warren, you are doing both. I have provided the information you requested. Still no evidence for your god or any goes at all. I don’t care what a liar says when they claim I haven’t adequately answered the question. I have.
The surahs, the hindu claims all match the Christian claims of a hidden god. You can’t show your god to exist so Pascal’s claim of finding this god fail miserably. The qu’ran makes much the same claim that one who seeks finds this god. Every cult does this, claiming that once you agree with the cult, you’ll find this their god. Her’s what Ibrahim Amini, an Islamic cleric says “Man is basically a ‘seeker of cause’ and he cannot give up this instinct or ignore it. All human beings – especially the earliest man – were having this natural instinct. Man lived in this world and was confronted by incidents and astonishing phenomena; the change of days and nights, summer and winter, movement of moon, sun and stars, peculiarities of animals and plants, lofty mountains, vast seas, flowing water bodies…he saw all of this with his eyes and fell into contemplation and asked himself: What is the cause of this world and who has brought it into existence? This universe must definitely be having a cause and the wise and powerful creator has created it and He is controlling it.”
And yep, hindu has various myths, and you can’t rebut what I’ve shown you, trying to move the goalposts. How typical. A creator god is a creator god and your attempts to pretend yours is any thing special fail.
Nope, I don’t believe in Zeus as a god, for the same reason I don’t believe in your baseless claims about your god. Unsurprisngly, you can’t show that Zeus doesn’t exist. Anyone who does believe in Zeus can use your same nonsense about how Zeus is hiding.
NO evidence for any gods so no possibility of the miraculous. And your religion dies. As always, the Christian just can’t accept my requests for miracles as valid and that’s hilarious, that you doubt your own god.
I have already told you what evidence I’m requestiong. It seems you are asking again desperate for me to give you a different answer. Your religion fails.
I left Christianity for a variety of reasons. The biggest one is that the bible doesn’t reflect reality. It is no different from any other set of religious myths. Its claims are as ridiculous as any myth about Zeus, Herakles, Isis, Tezcatlipoca, Ganesha, etc. It has no evidence just like every other religion.
LikeLike
Yes. The Amini quote is much closer to the Pascal quote. The idea of all mankind has a sense of the divine. Christians speak of natural revelation. But this never really negates Pascal’s point on God though hidden is never impossible to find for those who seek God.
If the law of non-contradiction stands, A and non-A cannot be simultaneously true. With the different deities the law of non-contradiction applies. Either one is true with the others false or they are all false. All cannot be true especially when the deities of the religions are disparate. Hindu pantheism contradicts Islamic monotheism contradicts Christian Trinitarianism contradicts atheistic philosophical naturalism. One is true others are false or all are false truth propositions. I am contending for Christianity.
Regarding the evidence… what would be the evidence in your estimation would be undeniable proof for God’s existence?
LikeLike
God is impossible to find considerign how humans can’t agree on the gods they each invent.
the law of non-contradiction fails when you have nothing to show your gods exist at all. There are no gods to be false or true.
Yep, you are contending with what you are most familiar with, just like every other theist.
What would be undeniable evidence? Your god coming to chat with me. Per your bible, I should be able to recognize it by what it can do. And per your bible, this god makes personal appearances. What’s stopping it?
LikeLike
Ok. A personal appearance of God would be the evidence? That direct encounter with the divine – Mysterium tremendum et fascinans – the awesome mystery that frightens yet attracts. That would be good. Say, God spoke or appeared. Could you discern the experience? Those who exited Egypt witnessed the plagues, the parting of the waters, ate the manna, but they all perished in the wilderness for their unbelief, save Joshua and Caleb. God spoke audible to Jesus, yet some around thought it was just thunder. These things are in the Bible. How would you know that the real deal is in front of you? Could you have mistook it for the effects of the beer or something else? Many people in sanitariums say I saw God. Could you tell the difference? What if you had a bit of confirmation bias, and simply dismissed it without serious consideration?
LikeLike
Oh dear, trying to use latin to seem impressive. It’s even more fun when you admit that discerning the experience would be a problem, which is rather silly if your god is all that you claim.
No evidence for your exodus fairy tale, so appealing to that fails since nothing shows that anything happened. No manna, no 600,000+ people wandering around for 40 years, etc.
Curious how no burials have been found for any of these 600,000+. Your bible is full of false claims.
No evidence your god or jesus exists, so again, you fail.
Lots of nonsense is in the bible, and nothing can be shown to have actually happened. Your presupposition that your bible’s nonsense is true makes all of your claims based on that fail.
Yep, plenty of people say that they saw god and that god told them to do things, like kill their children.
Again, no evidence at all for your claims, Warren, and trying to blame me for that is always amusing coming from a christian. If I could simply dismiss your god, it’ isn’t much of a god, is it?
LikeLike
You keep asking for the evidence, we’ll get to it, but I think we can keep that on the back burner for the moment.
I get you are deeply committed to atheism. You grew up in a Christian home, saw lots of hypocrisy, feel you had unanswered prayers, looked to other religions, but nada. So, you identify as an atheist. One of the New Atheists. Well, instead of just having you sit on a comfy couch of doubt handing out “fails” to the theists who pass their evidence to you (This is not your first time putting the fire to the feet of the Christian), I thought we can explore the atheism?
First question:
Is the external world you perceive mind or matter?
By mind, I mean it is sort of your own mental construction. The things you see, touch, smell, and hear are but illusions, they are part of the mental construct. You are not really communicating with an actual person on WordPress blog, not even an AI chatbot, but its are part of the mental construct. So the perceived external world is an illusion.
By matter, I mean it is just material substance. Lots if different things in this universe, but all material. Periodic Table of Elements is the basic stuff we are all made of (insofar as science has discovered). So, there are molecules comprised of atoms. Atoms are comprised of subatomic particles. And we are still exploring the quantum realm and detecting new subatomic particles floating about. But the universe is basically comprised of material stuff. No divinities, demons, fairies, etc… Like Carl Sagan says, “The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be.”
What do you suppose? The external world in your opinion is mind or matter?
LikeLike
It’s always great fun when a Christian tries to avoid giving evidence that he doesn’t have, by saying “we’ll get to it” and they never do. That’s a common tactic by Christians, desperately hoping I’ll forget to ask them again. I won’t.
I’m not committed to atheism. Atheism is simply a conclusion that there is no particular god or gods. I grew up in a Christian home and my folks were some of the best Christians I’ve ever met. So your fairy tale about me fails miserably. And its notable you mention prayers failing since they fail for you too, despite the promises of jesus in the bible that true believers will get any prayer answered, be able to do miracles, healings, etc.
I’m not a “new atheist” either. I’ve been one before Dawkins, Hitch, etc existed. No comfy couch, just the complete failure of any theist to show that their claims are true. I do question theists to see if perhaps any of htem can actually do what they claim. Funny how you all fail.
Reality is matter/energy. I perceive it with my mind, which comes from matter. Still no evidence for your god. It seems you are going face first into a common Christian bit of nonsense, that since I can’t prove things are real, then your god can hide somewhere. Sorry, reality exists, and your god isn’t part of it.
I’m sure you putting your bare hand into molten steel will convince you the external world isn’t an illusion.
Where is your evidence your god exists?
LikeLike
Got the clarification on New Atheism.
All this is part of my case that the God who exists is decisively revealed in Christ Jesus of Nazareth.
So… is the external world you perceive mind or matter? No commitment yea or nay on atheism needed to answer the question. There scan be other options. If that is you, the explain the other option.
LikeLike
No evidence for your jesus christ at all. Not even a delusional jewish fellow that thought he was the messiah.
It’s matter. If you think otherwise then put your bare hand in molten steel. or simply grasp a burning coal. You’ll figure that out quite quickly.
no evidence of other options. But present what you think you have.
LikeLike
Not answered my question.
LikeLike
I have, and it’s rather funny you try to claim otherwise.
“So… is the external world you perceive mind or matter? ”
this is my answer, as you well know:
It’s matter. If you think otherwise then put your bare hand in molten steel. or simply grasp a burning coal. You’ll figure that out quite quickly.
LikeLike
Thanks for responding to the question.
Well, we can then at agree that there is an external world. That external world perceived is not an illusion. Interesting, this takes off the discussion board many religions that purport the world is an illusion but that there is only one Mind (or Supreme Reality), and we are but extensions of that one Mind, no difference exists between you, me, cats, bugs, trees, flowers, rocks, all perceived distinctions. Hinduism, Buddhism, religions within the metanetwork of the New Age Movement, and many other metaphysical religions are off the board. We are narrowing down the options with respect to Pascal’s wager. But let’s continue with atheism.
How did this material universe come about? Am I to suppose that nothing produced everything, and the everything that came from nothing produced lifeforms with consciousness? What is consciousness? How does matter produce consciousnes?
LikeLike
Yep, there are various versions of panetheism, etc. Still no evidence for them or any other supernatural nonsense of other reality than this one.
Pascal’s wager always fails since it is predicated upon the idea there is a “right” god, and there is no evidence for any. It also claims that one loses nothing if wrong, and that is not true. One loses resources and time.
The evidence suggests that this universe came about because of quantum physics. We don’t know completely and we may never know entirely. still no evidence for supernatural nonsense.
Why not suppose nothing produced everythign? It’s no less strange than your omnipotent being always existing and somehow making the universe. There is no evidence for tht at all, only baseless claims.
We dont’ know exactly how consciousness (awareness) happens, but we do know that it comes from the brain and again, no evidence for the silly duality nonsense that consciousness/mind is some free floating thing.
No matter, no brain, no consciousness.
You still have nothing more than god of the gap claims.
LikeLike
Quantum physics is the study of matter and energy at the most fundamental level. This field of study is not exactly proof of how the universe came to be. Quantum cosmology has posited various models on how the universe came into being without a beginning but none are settled quantum physics. Did you have a particular model in mind?
Can you explain how you are not putting belief (trust/faith) into the origin of the universe from a yet to be proven model of quantum cosmology?
What is the evidence to show consciousness in purely brain activity? Did you know that no single brain area is active when we are conscious and idle when we are not, nor does a specific level of activity in neurons signify that we are conscious, nor is there a chemistry in neurons that always indicates consciousness? How are you so certain that consciousness is purely in the brain?
If all is material, is there any reason for you to believe that you possess libertarian freewill?
LikeLike
Yep, we are still researching how the universe came to be. At this point, no particular hypothesis seems better than the others. Still no evidence at all for your imaginary friend.
Trust isn’t faith. Trust is earned and is supposed by facts. Faith, as your bible puts it, is simple belief in something you have no evidence for.
The evidence that the mind/consciousness comes from the brain is that without a brain, there is mind/consciousness. An ancephalic child has no mind.
There is no one single brain area that is active when we are conscious, they all contribute, so your ignorance fails you miserably again.
I’m still waiting for you to show free floating minds/consciousnesses. You calim they exist, so where are they?
There is no evidence for libertarian free will. Humans appear to have a good illusion of free will since we are apparently unable to evaluate everything that has influenced us.
and no free will in the bible, so you have quite a problem.
LikeLike
But you still have a blind trust. Wishful thinking, so to speak. You presume evidence will be found from quantum physics that something can come from nothing, but that is wishful thinking.
Science only asserts an encephalic child is without conscious on the presumption that mind = brain. But mind = brain is only a stipulation. It has yet to be proven.
Stimulating portions of the brain (evocative experiments) can stimulate movements, but patients know the difference between their actions and the actions caused by the surgeon with the probe. Evocative experiments can produce sensations of sound, smell, and emotions but never higher brain activity, like mathematical seizures or Shakespeare seizures. These distinguish mind from brain. When portions of the brain are suppressed (ablative experiments), consciousness is relatively unaffected, as in the case of split-brain patients. The abnormalities are subtle. But they are normal in daily life. MRIs can even detect complex abstract through in those with brain damage in persistent vegetative states. Such too distinguishes mind from brain. The inherent capacity for language in all humans demonstrates a distinction between mind and brain.
Equating thoughts with chemistry violates Leibniz’s Law – for things to be identical they must be the same in every respect. But mind and brain are not identical. Imagine Barney the Purple Dinosaur. Well, the imagined image will be a dinosaur colored purple with a warm smile. But nothing about the brain turns purple. Neither does the brain morph into a dinosaur with a smile. Your brain has weight, identifiable parts (cerebellum, cerebrum, corpus callosum, etc.) Your thoughts, on the other hand, are without height, weight, depth, viscosity, shape, texture, color, scent, or anything physical. Yes, you can imagine a bucket of Kentucky Friend Chicken, but nothing of the imagination has physicality.
There is more to consciousness than the physical brain.
Yes, Christianity comports best with substance dualism. But No, the soul is not just floating around the body. There is body/soul unity. The mind and brain work together synergistically. The brain has spatial proximity (inside the skull) but the soul is nonspatial.
I am surprised that as an atheist you bit down on the bullet and confessed the logical extension of that worldview that freewill is an illusion. The notion that atheism allows one to be a freethinker is fantastical.
Christianity affirms freewill. There is intramural debate on the nature of freewill, Whether freewill is libertarian, the ability to choose otherwise, or compatibilism, the ability to choose one’s greatest desire at the moment, though still predisposed to act in a certain way, which is a soft determinism, such is a debate within the Church. But this has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism has a freewill problem.
Would you consider yourself an automaton without will and fatalistically determined by millions of years of Darwinian evolution? Darwinian evolution is the emergence of all species through random mutations (unguided processes) and natural selection (survival of the fittest).
How would you also account for morals? If there is no Moral Law Giver, then there are no Commandments given on right and wrong, good and evil, true and false. How do ethics come about in an atheistic world? Are there moral absolutes? Why would they exist?
LikeLike
Nope, no blind trust, but nice lies, Warren. It’s hilarious how you try to lie and do so incompetently. You have no evidence for your god, and we already have evidence from quantum physics, so your typical ignorance fails you.
So, dear, show an ancephalic child has consciousness. Surely you can, right? You’ll likely win a nobel prize if you do that. Of course, you can’t. You lie yet again. Again, still no evidence for any free floating consciounesses, so your claims are baseless as always.
Stimulating parts of the brain can also produce feelings and thoughts, so you fail…again. You have nothing to show that patients know the difference, but do show evidence for your claim, dear. Again, surely you can, right? Thre are no such things as whatever “mathematical seizures” or “shakespear seizures”. It’s always fun when Christians invent things to lie about. It’s also great to see you try to continue your lies, but find you must admit that consciousness is indeed affected by ablation. Poor dear, claiming “relatively unaffected” still says affected.
Nothing shows that brain malfunctions are “subtle” or they are “normal”. By definition, they aren’t since a normal brain doesn’t need ablation. No evidence that MRIs can sense complex abstract thought in the brains of persisteant vegetative coma patients. It’s great that you keep lying.
ROFL. Alas, for you, nothing about humans having the capacity for language shows that the mind is separate from the brain. But do show how that would work dear. Surely you can, right?
The brain produces the mind, so they don’t have to be identical, you poor ignorant failure. Just like how my intestines produce feces, the intestines aren’t feces. My ears produce ear wax but aren’t ear wax.
You also are hilarious on how you think the brain works. It doesn’t have to turn purple to perceive purple. Yep, the brain has parts and those parts produce the mind together. You still fail miserably. Thoughts are electricity and thus do have physical existence.
And yet you have to show that there is anything more to consciousness than the brain. What is it, dear?
Christanity fails miserably including with the baseless nonsense about dualism. That’s nothing new at all. No soul, no god, no angels, just the ignorance of some humans. It’s hilarious that now you hve to claim that the soul is somehow attached to the body,but can’t show that garbage is true either. How can the immaterial and material be attached? You just make up nonsense.
Many atheists agree with me. Your personal ignorance about what atheists think is nothing new.
Chrsitainity does not affirm free will. Both jesus and paul state that your god has already chosen who it will allow to accept it and then it damns the rest for no fault of their own. You might want to actually read your bible. Matthew 13 and Romans 9 are quite clear. And christains don’t’ agree between free will or predestination, so don’t try to lie to me about what Christianity affirms.
I am likely mostly an automaton but again, us humans have a good illusion of free will and thus that is how I behave. You are terribly ignorant about evolutionary theory as must theists are. It has grown far past what Darwin knew. The processes are guided by the impact of environment on organisms, no god needed. This is not a Dr. Seuss universe where things randomly happen. And most christains are too ignorant to know that “survival of the fittest” doesn’t mean some idea of “strong”, but the set of attributes best suited to a particular environment.
Morals are invented by humans, and it seems empathy and self-interest are involved. Those morals that have worked best have been kept and the others discarded. Civilization seems to work best with ideas of personal autonomy, property rights, etc. Curious how christain morality is just as subjective as any morality since not one of you can show the morals you like are approved by any god, and you can’t even show your god exists in the first place. Your ignorant bible has commandments like “kill adulterers” and “kill disobedient sons”. IF you think they are good, how many have you killed? If you don’t think they are, why not since you claim your god gave them?
LikeLike
What is the evidence from quantum physics? You keep insisting but no evidence. Prove it.
Are you not presuming too much on the encephalic child?
For the evocative, I was referring to the neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield’s observations of patients undergoing brain surgery. The ablative experiments alluded to Roger Sperry on the split-brain, and Adrian Own on the persistent vegetative state patients. As for the correlative research, I was referring to Noam Chomsky on the universal grammar inherent in children. What research are you referring to which counters what I have asserted?
Of course intestines are neither feces nor ears earwax. Earwax is neither an ear nor wax. But that is the point. To say brain is mind is a fallacy. If you reminisce on a favorite song, certain areas in your brain will react so that it can be detected with brain scanner, but nothing about the brain that produces sound. Mind states and brain activity are distinct.
How does Jesus quote of Isaiah in Matthew 13 and Paul’s metaphor about the potter in Romans 9 disprove libertarian freewill? On what basis do you justify your interpretation?
Yes. You are saying what I am saying about Darwin. Unguided random processes (no God involved) survival of the fittest. What’s personal autonomy? You already admitted to being an automaton? No freewill. Freewill is an illusion. Autonomy presupposes freewill. How do you solve that contradiction? How do things not randomly happen if there is nothing guiding nature? Since empathy and self-interests are moral values, but if they are invented, what makes either absolute? Are they not subjective?
I am wondering how would you respond to atheist professor Alex Rosenburg from The Atheist Guide to Reality:
“Is there a God? No,
What is the Nature of Reality? What physics says it is.
What is the purpose of the universe? There is none.
What is the meaning of life? Ditto.
Why am I here? Just dumb luck.
Does prayer work? Of course not.
Is there a soul? Is it immortal? Are you kidding?
What happens when we die? Everything pretty much goes on as before, except us.
What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? There is no moral difference between them.
Why should I be moral? Because it makes you feel better than being immoral.
Is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, paying taxes, foreign aid, or anything else you don’t like forbidden, permissible, or sometimes obligatory? Anything goes.
Want is love, and how can I find it? Love is the solution to a strategic interaction problem. Don’t look for it; it will find you when you need it.
Does history have any meaning or purpose? It’s full of sound and furry, but signifies nothing.
Does the human past have any lessons for our future? Fewer and fewer, if it ever had any to begin with.”
Would you share the same sort of nihilism?
LikeLike
Warren, you are a great example of how Christians lie. The evidence from quantum physics is that if one runs the equations backward from what we see now, we end up at a singularity and we know that something cam come from nothing by things like the Casimir effect. I’m sure you have no idea what either are and are too cowardly to look things up like that. Just type in “big bang evidence” and you’ll see all sorts of evidence, no god needed.
As many things scientific, we are still doing research. Here is a bit about the current status of things “Continuous space is broken down into elementary cells
In Einstein’s relativity theory, space is a continuum. Oriti now breaks down this space into tiny elementary cells and applies the principles of quantum physics to them, thus to space itself and to the theory of relativity describing it. This is the unification idea.
A fundamental problem of all approaches to quantum gravity consists in bridging the huge dimensional scales from the space atoms to the dimensions of the universe. This is where Oriti, his colleague Lorenzo Sindoni and Steffen Gielen, a former postdoc at the AEI who is now a researcher at the Perimeter Institute in Canada, have succeeded. Their approach is based on so-called group field theory. This is closely related to loop quantum gravity, which the AEI has been developing for some time.
The task now consisted in describing how the space of the universe evolves from the elementary cells. Staying with the idea of fluids: How can the hydrodynamics for the flowing water be derived from a theory for the atoms?
This extremely demanding mathematical task recently led to a surprising success. “Under special assumptions, space is created from these building blocks, and evolves like an expanding universe,” explains Oriti. “For the first time, we were thus able to derive the Friedmann equation directly as part of our complete theory of the structure of space,” he adds. This fundamental equation, which describes the expanding universe, was derived by the Russian mathematician Alexander Friedman in the 1920s on the basis of the General Theory of Relativity. The scientists have therefore succeeded in bridging the gap from the microworld to the macroworld, and thus from quantum mechanics to the General Theory of Relativity: they show that space emerges as the condensate of these elementary cells and evolves into a universe which resembles our own.
Quantum gravity could now answer questions regarding the Big Bang
Oriti and his colleagues thus see themselves at the start of a difficult but promising journey. Their current solution is valid only for a homogeneous universe – but our real world is much more complex. It contains inhomogeneities, such as planets, stars and galaxies. The physicists are currently working on including them in their theory.
And they have planned something really big as their ultimate goal. On the one hand, they want to investigate whether it is possible to describe space even during the Big Bang. A few years ago, former AEI researcher Martin Bojowald found clues, as part of a simplified version of loop quantum gravity, that time and space can possibly be traced back through the Big Bang. With their theory, Oriti and his colleagues are hoping to confirm or improve this result.
If it continues to prove successful, the researchers could perhaps use it to explain also the assumed inflationary expansion of the universe shortly after the Big Bang as well, and the nature of the mysterious dark energy. This energy field causes the universe to expand at an ever-increasing rate.
Oriti’s colleague Lorenzo Sindoni therefore adds: “We will only be able to really understand the evolution of the universe when we have a theory of quantum gravity.” The AEI researchers are in good company here: Einstein and his successors, who have been searching for this for almost one hundred years.“
and here we have a case study that shows your nonsense about dualism isn’t true
“A case of schizophrenia refuting mind-body dualismS Afr J Psychiatr. 2023; 29: 2081.
Published online 2023 Sep 29. doi: 10.4102/sajpsychiatry.v29i0.2081”
there is this “Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain” Chun Siong Soon,Marcel Brass, Hans-Jochen Heinze & John-Dylan Haynes Nature Neuroscience volume 11, pages543–545 (2008)
“There has been a long controversy as to whether subjectively ‘free’ decisions are determined by brain activity ahead of time. We found that the outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity of prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 s before it enters awareness. This delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness.”
Again, no evidence how this immaterial mind can affect the physical brain, which supposedly it does. There is no mechanism of cause
Where am I presuming to much about an ancephalic child? You made the claim, show where I’ve presumed too much.
Again, still no evidence for your god or a soul, Warren. Your claims about brain surgeries was wrong. You have presented no evidence for them. Where do any of these scientists agree with your nonsense about a soul? No research has ever shown mind/brain duality, so you still fail. All other research on the brain shows that the mind is generated by it.
ROFL. It’s great how you do your best to ignore my point. The mind is generated by the brain, feces are generated by the intestines, and earwax is generated by the glands in the ear. Yep, the brain reacts and thus the mind exists. As the studies above indicate, you are wrong. The mind states and brain activity are entire the same.
How does both jesus and paul show no free will? Jesus that this omnipotent being intentionally hides information from some humans so they cannot make an informed decision. Paul says that human actions have nothing to do with salvation, only this god does. Really, Warren, is it that hard for you to grasp that if there is no choice, there is no free will?
Nope, I’m not saying what you make up about Darwin. But nice try. Evolution is not random. It is influenced by environment, and not just randomly selecting attributes that are not beneficial in that environment. Yep, at my base I am indeed an automaton, but again I have an illusion of free will. You have nothing to show otherwise.
Empathy isn’t a moral value, it a reaction of our brain and limbic system. Self-interest isn’t a moral value, it is what keeps us alive in dangerous situations, it is a physical reaction. You fail again.
Rosenburg gets it right to a point. There is no god. Reality is physics. No purpose for the universe, since that implies someone who has a purpose for it. No meaning of life outside of our own human minds. No god needed. I’m here because of a sequence of events that brought my parents together, so it is just a matter probability. Prayer never works.
There is no soul (see above). We die, we decay and everything goes on without us.
Morals are subjective so one person’s right and wrong may not be anothers. We can see that in how Christians can’t agree on what morals their imaginary friend wants. Morals are common since some make humans safer and makes civilization work. No god needed.
Moral choices about abortion, euthanasia, etc are a person’s own decision, and depend on their past experiences, both conscious and unconscious. No god needed.
Love is concern for another’s happiness. No love in the ignorant bible.
History teaches what has happened before and allows us to learn causes and reactions which allow us to avoid things that can be harmful. And yep, the past has lessons for the future. Why wouldn’t it?
Warren, I know Christians aren’t very thoughtful, but you’ve all been told repeatedly that atheism isn’t nihilism, and not all atheists are nihilists. Most of us aren’t. No one needs nihilism, or your imaginary god. I personally find a mix of epicureanism and stoicism useful.
LikeLike
Got the quotes from the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft piece Quantum steps towards the Big Bang. Very interesting. We’ll see what comes next from this research. But Big Bang cosmology is never in contradiction to Christian theology. See https://www.equip.org/bible_answers/can-the-big-bang-be-harmonized-with-genesis/
Are quantum gravity theories settled? I am skeptical. Has there really been a theory that has undermined the universe had a beginning? This is unsettled? Correct. See https://www.equip.org/articles/did-the-universe-really-have-a-beginning/ Have you delved into Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe (HarperOne, 2021) by Stephen C. Meyer. Thoughts?
Uncertain if the “A case of schizophrenia refuting mind-body dualism” by Mohlalefi C Letuka & Tejil Morar, a psychiatric study, really addresses the substance dualism related to the debate philosophical naturalism and humans being purely material creatures. Letuka and Morar study has implication on “the importance of holistic management of patients and the misnomer of schizophrenia as a purely mental illness.” No Christian would deny that and neither would such contradict substance dualism or body/soul unity of Christian theology. Why do you think otherwise?
Will have to look more into “Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain” by Chun Siong Soon, Marcel Brass, Hans-Jochen Heinze & John-Dylan Haynes. This piece is far from the last word. Neuroscience is far from settled on the question of determinism. What are your thoughts on Andrea Lavaza and Mario De Caro caveat, “When one comes to the issue of human agency, great cautio should be used before drawing bold philosophical, political and scoial conclusions from neurological findings, whose correct interpretation and value are still extremely controversial”? From “Not So Fast, On Some Bold Neuroscientific Claims concerning Human Agency,” Neuroethics 3 (2010): 39. How about the paper from Robyn Repko Waller, which states “Of course there are limits to what psychology and neuroscience can tell us about metaphysical matters such as determinism and dualism. To this end, scientists and philosophers would do well to continue to foster interdisciplinary dialogue on what, exactly, we mean when we speak of determinism (and varieties thereof) as well as how nonexperts conceive of free will and moral responsibility and the impact of that conception of their social behavior… Continued collaboratio of the humanities and science promises new insights regarding our lives and free and responsible agents” from Free Will: Recent Work on Agency, Freedom, and Responsibility: John Templeton Foundation, 2019). Have you grappled with Minding the Brain: Models of the Mind, Information, and Emprical Science (Discovery Institute Press, 2023) edited by Angus J. Menuge, Brian R. Krouse, and Robert J. Marks?
What studies show the mind is identical to the brain?
How does your interpretation of Jesus and Paul derive from the verses you cited? Why did Jesus tell parables? How do those passages teach fatalistic determinism? You have yet to establish that.
How can evolution be guided if there is no agency to be the guide? How does it sit well with you to accept being an automaton without actual free will? Without free will, how do you make decisions? Why would there be objective moral values in a material world without a Moral Law Giver? But how do you avoid from slipping into nihilistic despair? I realize you resist nihilism but how is it that not the logical extension of your belief?
LikeLike
“But Big Bang cosmology is never in contradiction to Christian theology.”
that’s a false claim. Your very silly bible says that stars are little lights in a solid dome that can be knocked off, so it directly shows that there is a conflict between your ignorant bible and reality.
Nice of you to try to move the goalposts. The universe began. No evidence your god being needed.
“really addresses the substance dualism related to the debate philosophical naturalism and humans being purely material creatures”
ROFL. That’s quite a lie since nothing in that paper supports your nonsense.
“Letuka and Morar study has implication on “the importance of holistic management of patients and the misnomer of schizophrenia as a purely mental illness.” No Christian would deny that and neither would such contradict substance dualism or body/soul unity of Christian theology. Why do you think otherwise?”
Again, ROFL. It never says that there is any “soul” to treat and gee, how would one treat this immaterial thing?
““When one comes to the issue of human agency, great cautio should be used before drawing bold philosophical, political and scoial conclusions from neurological findings, whose correct interpretation and value are still extremely controversial”?”
nothign more than a typical baseless opinion. The “slippery slope” arguments used: “More specifically, according to thoseauthors, people who believe that causal determinismis both true and incompatible with freedom will tendto relax their moral standards much more than peoplewho hold the intuitive view that we do have freedom(the former group, for example, will consider cheatingmore acceptable from a moral point of view than thelatter). In this light, Vohs and Schooler claim, “ifexposure to deterministic messages increases the likeli-hood of unethical actions, then identifying approachesfor insulating the public against this danger becomesimperative”.Ifthisiscorrect,claimingthatwehavegood reasons for believing in the illusoriness offreedom, besides being intellectually unjustified, mayalso have unwelcome social consequences” Are typical of someone with a religious agenda. It is nothing new to see the Templeton Foundation trying to push religious nonsense.
The mind comes from the brain, it is not “identical” to it. You are failing in your attempts to twist words dear.
Jesus says he tells parables so that people can’t understand and thus accept this god. This is an intentional decision to remove the ability to choose from others.
Paul says that no human effort will change this god’s mind and it has already chosen who it will allow to accept it and who it will damn for no reason.
No agency is needed, dear. Only the laws of physics, so your personal ignorance fails on this one.
I have no problem with having only an illusion of free will. My throwing a tantrum over a fact won’t change the fact. I make decisions as well as I can from my own learning and my own experience. Still no god or you needed.
Curious how not one of you cultists can show morals come from any of your many many gods, despite your claims. You presuppose objective morality and that is simply wrong. Your entire house of cards fails because your presupposition fails.
Why should I be a nihilist or despair because of a simply fact? Cultists love to lie about atheists and nihilism to try to scare people into their cults. I have a great life, no god or you needed. Why would finding everything having no meaning be “logical” when us humans give ourselves and each meaning and purpose?
Humans simply don’t need your imaginary nonsense.
LikeLike
Vel how is the assertion of Big Bang cosmology comporting with Genesis 1:1 moving the goal posts? Where is the equivocation? Dome with lights on the celling that can be knocked off? Where is that imagery? If it is there, why is it so hard for you to figure out a metaphor?
I never said Letuka and Morar were asserting souls exists. Their findings would not really displace substance dualism per se.
Are there not immaterial things? Numbers? Mathematics? You agree that a thought of Barney the Purple Dinosaur never calls for physical image to appear on the brain. How does matter interface with non-matter? Your body senses the external world through eyes networked by nerves to the brain but your mind’s perception of the external material world is immaterial. Immaterial things associated with the mind (thoughts, emotions, memories, dreams, personality, etc.) are different aspects of the soul. The soul animates the body.
Kathleen D. Vohs and Jonathan W. Schooler also say within the same context “Although the concept of free will remains scientifically in question, our results point to a significant value in believing that free will exists…” Would you value a sense of having free will? Whether one senses his/her self being free or predetermined influences moral decision making (like cheating) is interesting, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether you can self-generate your actions (libertarian freewill) or your actions are generated by causal factors external to yourself (determinism). If your actions are determined, can you be held accountable for them? If you were robbed, could the thief ever be held accountable for the robbery? How could the thief be blamed, since theft is all the thief could do and ever would do? Was not the thief predetermined to rob you and could never have done otherwise? Is not that a problem?
If there is no Moral Law Giver, how do you account for objective moral values? Are there objective moral values? Is there really such a thing as right or wrong? How could we know?
Did you read any of the articles I suggested? Thoughts?
Where do you get Christ teaching fatalistic determinism in Matthew 13:10-16? God hiding Himself so people can’t understand? How is that the same with Paul in Romans 9:19-24? No human effort will change God’s mind? Are these your private interpretations? What Bible teacher/scholar or theologian would say that? I am skeptical you nailed the meaning of those verses.
Now, I am curious to know where you stand with atheism. Do not want to be too presumptuous. On a scale of 0-10 where are you with atheism?
10 = I am completely sold on the idea. No God for me, thank you. Atheism for life.
5 = I have to suspend judgment on atheism. Not enough evidence to say one way or another.
0 = I have to reject atheism. No good reason to embrace the idea. This is far from saying there is a God, the God of Christianity in particular, but it is saying atheism is false.
I have my idea of what you would answer but still curious to get it from you.
LikeLike
IT is moving the goalposts since you claim that the big bang isn’t in contradiction to christain theology. As I said, your theology claims that some god made the universe and made stars as little lights in a solid dome, which has nothing to do with what reality shows. Shame you are ignorant of your bible…again.
No reason to think it’s a metaphor. Those who wrote your ignorant stories were ignorant of what reality was. As usual, Christians can’t agree on what in your set of nonsense should be considered literal, metaphor, exaggeration, etc.
“14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars. 17 God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness.”
“12 When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and there came a great earthquake; the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, 13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree drops its winter fruit when shaken by a gale.”
So, shall we declare that the resurrection was just a metaphor too?
Curious how you did say that the Letuka et al research supported your nonsense about the soul: ““Letuka and Morar study has implication on “the importance of holistic management of patients and the misnomer of schizophrenia as a purely mental illness.” No Christian would deny that and neither would such contradict substance dualism or body/soul unity of Christian theology. Why do you think otherwise?””
Numbers, mathematics aren’t immaterial, they are ways of describing reality, and they come from the brain, which is not immaterial and they are thoughts which are not immaterial. Again, no physical images, but plenty of electrical signals which aren’t immaterial. You still fail. Still no evidence for any soul at all, any god or any afterlife.
All you have are two researchers saying it is somehow valuable to believe that free will exists, even when it doesn’t. Nope, I have no need to value a “sense” that is wrong. As I said, all we see is that humans do not have libertarian free will, but we have an illusion of it since we can not be aware of all that influences us. Still no need for any god. Per the evidence, we do self gerneate our actions dependent on our prior experiences. Still no god needed.
Punishment for actions is an interesting question, and I find it more that those who can’t control themselves are simply a danger to society and need to be removed from it. it’s not a problem at all.
You assume, baselessly, that there are objective morals, so your question is based on nonsense. Show that there are objective values and then we can talk. Show your god merely exists. Curiosu how you can do neither.
I read those articles and responded to them.
You got it, Warren, your god intentionally obfuscates so people can’t make an informed decision. Now, if I was selling you a car, and didn’t tell you it was about to fall apart, is that giving you an informed choice or not? If not, your god hides and lies. I didn’t say they were the same, I said that both eliminate free will. Paul has that nothing human do can make a difference in who can or can’t accept this god.
I’m sure few Christians would say what I have since they must stick with the lie that their god exists and is fair, just and gives free will. Calvinists would agree with me. Again, Christians can’t agree on the most basic nonsense in their cults. Show how I’m wrong if you are “skeptical”.
As where I am on your scale, I am a 10 for any gods that humans worship. I am probably around an 8 when it comes to gods that may or may not exist otherwise. I do wish a term something like polyatheism or panatheism would get more use since atheism can apply to anyone, including theists, since they simply don’t think any god but theirs exists. I find that no gods exist at all.
LikeLike
There is no “moving of the goalposts” in saying Genesis 1:1 comports with Big Bang cosmology, since both convey the universe had a beginning.
Your presumptions about Genesis 1:14-17 and Revelation 6:12-13 betrays the wooden literalism of a feebleminded fundamentalist. You are just failing to grasp the sophisticated way the Genesis narrative on primal history incorporated rhetorical and literary techniques employed. Neither do you have a grasp of apocalyptic imagery.
To even toss in the “resurrection” of Jesus as metaphor shows even more your ignorance of the Scriptures. Please consult credible scholarly works like the Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright or The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach for serious examination on the subject.
Letuka et al never preclude the existence of the soul. Asides from the mention of Descartes’ Cartesian dualism, very little is stated on why the body/soul dualism can be dispensed. No substance dualist would disagree with the assertion that schizophrenia as a purely mental illness is a misnomer. On the other hand, Descartes’ Cartesian dualism is far from the only game in town when it comes to substance dualism, and Thomistic dualism is a defensible alternative. See Body & Soul: Human Nature & the Crisis in Ethics by J.P. Moreland & Scott B. Rae.
Numbers, mathematics aren’t immaterial, they are ways of describing reality, and they come from the brain, which is not immaterial and they are thoughts which are not immaterial.
You said “thoughts…are not immaterial.” What is the atomic number of a thought? Is a thought a metal, metalloid, gas, or what? Of course not. Why? Because thoughts are immaterial. Thoughts are more than just electrochemical impulses of neurons.
You stated, “I find it more that those who can’t control themselves are simply a danger to society and need to be removed” But you fail to see the contradiction. In your view, all humans are without freewill, freewill is an illusion, as such NOBODY CAN CONTROL THEMSELVES! All act under the illusion of freewill, so actions are caused by something external to one self. None act upon their own accord.
Torturing babies is wrong. Cannot that be considered an objective moral value? Rape is wrong. How this? Whether the violation occurs in the USA, China, or wherever, yesterday, today, or tomorrow, it is wrong. Why is the wrongness of rape not universal in your opinion?
The problem Vel is never the lack of evidence. Rather, with you it is the despising of evidence. Your offer ad hominin response (character attacks). Sure, you can call me a liar, gaslighter, and failure, but none of that disproves any argument for God’s existence. Your responses never reflect any thoughtful interaction with the suggested readings. You are biblically illiterate.
This is a good way to conclude this comment stream. What you did contribute is evidence showing Blaise Pascal is right all along:
“[God] has willed to make Himself quite recognisable by those; and thus, willing to appear openly to those who seek Him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from Him with all their heart, He so regulates the knowledge of Himself that He has given signs of Himself, visible to those who seek Him, and not to those who seek Him not. There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition”
I say the Light shines throughout all the creation, but you shake your fist at it in disdain. Not the absence of truth, but the despising of the truth
LikeLike