|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) - 7/18/2008 4:28:56 PM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: EStan
I love Ravi Zacharias! He is a fantastic Christian philosopher, speaker, and apologist.
I know... And his ministry is based out of Norcross, GA... I live in Dawsonville, that's like a 1 hour drive... I have GOT to meet this guy and shake his hand!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) - 7/18/2008 4:29:38 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
But that's circular reasoning... You're saying that morality is based upon our empathy, but empathy is based upon our morality... Huh?
No, empathy is based on instinct and is also informed by intellect.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) - 7/18/2008 4:42:30 PM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
But how do you know that the process that produced our universe is not analogous to the process that produces lightning? Are you also saying that lightning is produced by the supernatural because of an infinite regress?
Based on a non-infinate regress, but speaking of ultimate causes, yes - Lightning is caused by God... See, keep going backwards - Lightning is a static electricity discharge, the static electricity is caused by certain weather patterns, the certain weather patterns are caused by... And keep going back. Eventually, you'll get to the original singular cause of the physical universe.
quote:
You have not established that there are no physical causes outside of our universe.
Yes I did. If everything physical exists, then there must have been something non-physical to cause it. If you say that something physical caused something physical, then you haven't gone back far enough to the beginning - where there was absolutely nothing physical, which, based on our dominoe analogy, we KNOW there could not have been an infinate number of physical causes.
quote:
There could not have been multiple causes outside the physical universe to cause the physical universe.
quote:
Why not?
Because there are not multiple causes for any single event. Ever... Name one... One cause has one result. Then several results can come together to cause something else... But there are never several causes to one result, unless you're grouping multiple single and seperate causes.
quote:
If you claim that God exists then you must supply the evidence. I have yet to see this evidence.
I could go into Scriptural reasons why you're not seeing it, but I didn't intend on bringing the Bible into this discussion since so many people discount it. (Even on a CHRISTIAN web site) The short answer is that I have been providing evidences, but as you so rightly claim, you can't "see" them. In so doing, you are actually quoting Scripture, believe it or not.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) - 7/18/2008 4:44:54 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Nothing physically exists in this universe without a cause... Is what is meant by "due to it's own power." It's known as the "power of being." The "power of being" is defined as the ability to "be" without "causation."
In that case, virtual particles have the power of being. They exist, but are uncaused.
quote:
quote:
Natural selection is not a random process.
So you're saying there's an intelligence behind observable phenomenon?
No. The selection process is not random. The process selectively (but unintelligently) promotes particular genes.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) - 7/18/2008 4:46:59 PM
|
|
|
gluadys
Posts: 1000
Joined: 4/26/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
quote:
We justify it because we have a societal consensus that he erred in what he thought was right. In a democracy one person cannot make the rules for everyone or violate rules made by everyone for their own personal reasons.
But in making this assertion, you are removing the idea that right and wrong are to be determined by the society in which it is valued... Society is a people, ideals come from people and it must start somewhere - therefore it SHOULD be wrong to condemn a dissenter - he could after all be merely asserting an idea that could be embraced if only the majority would vote on it.
Society has already voted on it. It voted for the constitution in the first place, and it voted in the representatives who were mandated to create the laws under which the society would function. The dissenter has no right to expect an exemption from the law until s/he has persuaded the majority to vote in favour of changing the law.
For example: in 1859 it was still illegal for a person in Massachusetts to harbour a runaway slave from Virginia. The fact that s/he dissented from the law did not provide for breaking the law with impunity. First, the majority had to be convinced that the law was wrong. A bill had to be presented to Congress and passed by a majority in the House and the Senate, and signed into law by the President. Then and only then would it become legally right to assist a runaway slave.
In fact, it is a basic of civil disobedience that one recognizes that one is breaking the law and is prepared to accept the penalties for doing so. Accepting the penalty of the law, even when the law is unjust, can be a valid way of exposing the injustice of the law and persuading the majority to change it.
That is not what Manson was doing. He was asking for exemption from the law because he personally saw nothing wrong with what he did. Society has every right to teach him the error of his ways by imposing the penalty prescribed.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) - 7/18/2008 4:47:37 PM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Method
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
But that's circular reasoning... You're saying that morality is based upon our empathy, but empathy is based upon our morality... Huh?
No, empathy is based on instinct and is also informed by intellect.
Instinct? OK, now you're saying that there is something built into a person that tells him there is a right and wrong. Make up your mind, you keep changing your position... Empathy is certainly not instinct, and one cannot come from another... My dog has an instinct to hunt for food, but certainly no ability for empathy - no ability to put herself in the shoes of the mole that she is about to drag out of its earthen home and mutilate simply for a snack.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) - 7/18/2008 4:55:58 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Based on a non-infinate regress, but speaking of ultimate causes, yes - Lightning is caused by God... See, keep going backwards - Lightning is a static electricity discharge, the static electricity is caused by certain weather patterns, the certain weather patterns are caused by... And keep going back. Eventually, you'll get to the original singular cause of the physical universe.
How can you have infinity without a clock? That is what I keep asking. Time formed with space in our universe.
quote:
Yes I did. If everything physical exists, then there must have been something non-physical to cause it.
But this doesn't rule out something physical outside of our universe just as a physical cause for lightning "not within itself" is not ruled out by an infinite regress.
quote:
If you say that something physical caused something physical, then you haven't gone back far enough to the beginning
How do you know that the beginning of our universe is back far enough? How do you know that the non-physical source is God and not a mindless process?
quote:
Because there are not multiple causes for any single event.
Yes there are. Your description of how lightning forms is a perfect example. There are multiple causes for DNA mutations. There are multiple causes for bacterial infections. The list goes on.
quote:
I could go into Scriptural reasons why you're not seeing it, but I didn't intend on bringing the Bible into this discussion since so many people discount it. (Even on a CHRISTIAN web site) The short answer is that I have been providing evidences, but as you so rightly claim, you can't "see" them. In so doing, you are actually quoting Scripture, believe it or not.
I know scripture. I belonged to a church for the first 22 years of my life. It's a rather stupid to argue that the reason everyone disagrees with you is because they are blind. I can see just fine.
Your whole argument rests on one thing. Ignorance. It is the same argument that people used to evidence Thor by reference to lightning. Do you know how lightning forms? No? Well then, it has to be Thor. You are using the same argument all over again, or perhaps we are all just blind to the existence of Thor.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) - 7/18/2008 4:58:09 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
Since there is no absolute arbiter of right and wrong, we each just do the best we can to come up with our own ideas of right and wrong. Communities and societies come up with consensus ideas, often backed up with ideas of justice to take care of people who don't obey the cultural standards. Different societies have different standars. After a few thousand years of civilization, we've found a few good rules here and there that apply to most cultures, but there still plenty of variation. And new questions arise as civilization progresses. Former consensus views shift as time goes on.
If that is the case, then how can we justify the prosecution of people like Charles Manson, whom during his trial he screamed "How can you judge me, I did what I though was right!"
Others have already pointed out your error. Justice and punishment are what society metes out to those who do not share the consensus view. If there were a society of 'Mansons,' they could use their own idea of right and wrong for their society, but I suspect that society would not last long.
Just because no one morality is correct does not mean that the majority (or the Powers That Be) cannot enforce its own standards on the whole society. That's what they've done since time immemorial.
quote:
If laws of good and evil are merely based upon a society's view of right or wrong, then at least in America where ideas of democracy still hold sway, it is conceivable that viscious crimes such as rape and murder could eventually become not only legal, but proper...
It is conceivable, but not likely. But, as we both agree, the consensus does indeed change. Such change would be impossible if we all had an internal absolute morality meter.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) - 7/18/2008 4:58:29 PM
|
|
|
PromiseLander
Posts: 358
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
In that case, virtual particles have the power of being. They exist, but are uncaused.
Nope, because they are dependant upon time and space they do not have the power of being.
In physics, a virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space, introducing uncertainty in their energy and momentum due to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. (Indeed, because energy and momentum in quantum mechanics are time and space derivative operators, then due to Fourier transforms their spans are inversely proportional to time duration and position spans, respectively).
quote:
No. The selection process is not random. The process selectively (but unintelligently) promotes particular genes.
So... You're saying that out of a purposeful (opposite of random), selective process, enzymes arose to build genes... Sounds good to me except you're trying to say it was unintelligent. Even still, how is this even relevant to premise #1?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) - 7/18/2008 5:00:54 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Instinct? OK, now you're saying that there is something built into a person that tells him there is a right and wrong.
Of course there is. Did anyone have to tell you that someone stealing your toys is an unpleasent experience? If you don't like someone stealing your toys then it must be wrong to steal other people's toys, right?
quote:
Empathy is certainly not instinct,
It most certainly is. We are born with the ability, it is not taught.
quote:
My dog has an instinct to hunt for food, but certainly no ability for empathy - no ability to put herself in the shoes of the mole that she is about to drag out of its earthen home and mutilate simply for a snack.
Your dog is also able to instinctually understand the morals of pack behavior, including body posturing, alpha male and female roles, the rights to food, etc. Dogs also have an instinctual morality just like we do.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) - 7/18/2008 5:05:20 PM
|
|
|
tbull97580
Posts: 16
Joined: 7/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
...the possibility of the human enzyme coming together by random: says Vikram Singye, professor of applied mathematics at Cardiff in Wales, “…is 1x10^40,000” That’s more than the number of atoms in this universe! Logically, chronologically and mathematically, the possibility is ZERO…
There are roughly 10 to the 120th power unique games of chess possible. That’s more than the number of atoms in this universe! Using your logic the possibility of playing any game of chess is ZERO.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) - 7/18/2008 5:08:59 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Here's an interesting thought by the way. How do we know that there was a beginning to everything anyway?
Why couldn't there be an infinate number of causes so that the universe has always existed?
The classical Big Bang theory has an initial singularity, which is guaranteed by the rules of general relativity and some modest assumptions about the nature of matter.
However, the inflation hypothesis has led to variations of the Big Bang that allow for eternal inflation or chaotic inflation. In some of these models, the universe is past eternal, although our observable universe is a particular 'bubble' that branched off from the greater universe at the time of the Big Bang.
quote:
Answer: There could never have been an infinate number of causes or we would never have arrived at this moment in time. Look at it this way, if we have a row of falling dominoes and we're standing at dominoe "X," then if we have an infinate number of dominoes falling prior to "X" then we will never get to our "X" dominoe for there are an infinate number of dominoes that must fall before it gets to us...
That sounds like one of Zeno's paradoxes that he never published. It's like saying we can't count to 3, because there are an infinite number of negative numbers before we even get to 0.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) - 7/18/2008 5:20:36 PM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 1062
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
Nope, because they are dependant upon time and space they do not have the power of being.
Well, then I go back to not seeing that "power of being" is an intelligible concept. I can as easily assign that power to the universe as you can to your conception of god.
quote:
So... You're saying that out of a purposeful (opposite of random),
No, purposeful is not the opposite of random. Natural selection has no purpose or teleology.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) - 7/18/2008 9:59:51 PM
|
|
|
Kath
Posts: 17136
Joined: 2/28/2005
Status: offline
|
PromiseLander
Your opening post has been edited for a Terms of Service 8 violation. Posting entire articles is against our Terms of Service. You may post a small portion of an article, then provide the link to the entire passage.
If you receive the article via email and cannot find a web link for it, then you cannot post it as it's still a copyright violation.
Sincerely
Kath
Volunteer Assistant Administrator
Please do not reply to this message within the Community.
Please do not send me PMs regarding this message as I am unable to discuss it further.
Please email Community@salemwebnetwork.com with questions, comments, or concerns allowing time for a response during normal business hours.
Posts which ignore this warning will be removed without warning and may result in other action in accordance with the Terms of Service.
Please review our FAQ for an explanation as to why one cannot confront a moderator directly.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) - 7/19/2008 5:21:13 PM
|
|
|
tbull97580
Posts: 16
Joined: 7/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
With all due respect, you are mistaken sir for it is the pivotal question...
Since we know that there was a beginning to everything to which prior to some event there existed nothing physical, then there MUST have been a God - We know that nothing comes from nothing. If you insist there was no God, then something would have to come from nothing which is impossible.
Sorry to drag this back a page but this one really needs more discussion.
According to your own logic there must be a creator of God because He couldn't exist without one. Then what created the creator of God and what created that? The fact is that we don't kow why the universe exists. If nothing comes from nothing then God either had a creator or He doesn't exist. No matter how you look at it the fact remains we don't know. It is quite the paradox.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) - 7/21/2008 11:40:28 PM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
No, purposeful is not the opposite of random. Natural selection has no purpose or teleology.
Quite right. The opposite of random is deterministic which does not imply purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) - 7/25/2008 10:42:15 PM
|
|
|
Zuniceratops
Posts: 23
Joined: 3/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
According to your own logic there must be a creator of God because He couldn't exist without one. Then what created the creator of God and what created that? The fact is that we don't kow why the universe exists. If nothing comes from nothing then God either had a creator or He doesn't exist. No matter how you look at it the fact remains we don't know. It is quite the paradox.
I think the Christian answer to that is God is eternal, without beginning or end, and therefore does not require a Creator, unlike the universe which is known to have a beginning.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) - 7/26/2008 12:35:15 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PromiseLander
With all due respect, you are mistaken sir for it is the pivotal question...
Since we know that there was a beginning to everything
With all due respect, you are mistaken sir, for we know no such thing, nor do any respected scientists think such a thing.
quote:
to which prior to some event there existed nothing physical, then there MUST have been a God
- We know that nothing comes from nothing. If you insist there was no God, then something would have to come from nothing which is impossible.
By our frame of reference, no physical thing has come from nothing. It's hardly worth noting but a minor point of correction is that the universe isn't a physical thing. It is the collection of all physical things, and within the universe we see physical things acting on each other regularly and through no apparent external cause.
Your choice to apply infinite regression selectively is telling of what you particularly want the answer to this question to be, but it is not convincing at all. I can assert that the universe "just is" and I will be on equal footing with you asserting that God "just is". Actually I'll be on significantly stronger footing, because the evidence all leads to the notion that the Universe "just is" and no evidence leads to the notion that God "just is".
If (as all the evidence suggests) the Universe is eternal and uncreated there need be no "why." A "why" would require an imposition of external purpose. But no external purpose is possible if there is nothing external capable of imposing it.
Theists cannot object to such an assertion without demonstrating their own profound hypocrisy, since, after all, it is the identical assertion that they make for god. And they do it for the same reason: A "why" for god would require an imposition of external purpose. But no external purpose is possible if there is nothing external to impose it on god.
We're not allowed to ask origin questions in infinite regress of one entity, and then turn around and exclude another entity from the same logical process, not without good reason anyway. You can't make logical deductions from lightening, back through static electricity and a million other natural processes and stop at god. There must be a reason for doing so, and we can conclude why many humans are doing so quite easily.
It is every bit as logical to ask "who created God" if God is meant to be our answer to "who created the Universe". Infinite regress, once begun, is a logical requirement to continue forever. Stopping it at any point in the chain makes the results suspect by default, because the point at which you stop asking "who created X" is the point at which you change the standards for the logic applied to the process. If there is no valuable conclusion to be made from asking "who created that then", then there was no valuable conclusion to be gained by asking who created the first thing.
So what do we think is going on when people decide which things they're willing to ask "who created it" about? Could it be any more obvious? Imposing the logically required external purpose or creator on god, or in other words asking "who created God" would detract from God's significance and logically imply that something knows more than God or is more powerful. Since this doesn't fit into what they want God to be, they don't do it. Imposing an external purpose on the universe adds to god's significance, so they do do it. This is nothing if it's not pure self serving hypocrisy. Don't use logic to justify your stance if you're not going to use logic properly and in an unbiased way, is all I'm saying. Oorah?
We are left again at the issue of evidence. We are presented with two entities competing for the position of "eternal and uncreated." For one of them, we have vast evidence that it really exists. For the other, we have no evidence at all.
This is why an "eternal and uncreated universe" is a vastly superior answer to the question of ultimate reality than an "eternal and uncreated god."
At least as far as the evidence is concerned.
< Message edited by wayward1 -- 7/26/2008 3:19:15 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) - 7/26/2008 1:37:29 AM
|
|
|
Method
Posts: 853
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zuniceratops
I think the Christian answer to that is God is eternal, without beginning or end, and therefore does not require a Creator, unlike the universe which is known to have a beginning.
As an atheist who grew up in the church I think the Bible contains some very beautiful prose. One of my favorite pieces that always stuck out in my mind was Jesus saying "I am the Alpha and the Omega". I am A to Z, in other words. Trying to force this prose into modern understandings of science is an injustice.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) - 7/26/2008 6:38:19 AM
|
|
|
WormHeart
Posts: 292
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Denmark - pride of Scandinavia
Status: offline
|
Ravi Zacharias is not really an apologist. He writes for a Christian audience, who will agree with his preconceived conclusions. An honest living naturally, but apologetics it is not.
I wrote a review of his “Jesus among other gods” that should show this clearly.
I can re-submit it in the books folder, if anyone is interested in how this guy is received by actual, real non-Christians.
WormHeart
_____________________________
Praise King and Country with might
Bless every Dane at heart
For serving with no fright
The Viking kingdom for Danes is true
With fields and waving beeches
By a sea so blue
National Anthem of Denmark
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) - 8/7/2008 4:38:49 PM
|
|
|
JimboFletch
Posts: 6608
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WormHeart
Ravi Zacharias is not really an apologist. He writes for a Christian audience, who will agree with his preconceived conclusions. An honest living naturally, but apologetics it is not.
No offense, but you apparently don't know much about Ravi. In addition to addressing Christian audiences, he has appeared in numerous venues, including liberal universities like Harvard, and has debated atheists, agnostics, and members of other religions. He has held his own against some of the most vocal opponents of Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheist's Nightmare (Ravi Zacharias) - 8/9/2008 4:29:18 AM
|
|
|
WormHeart
Posts: 292
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Denmark - pride of Scandinavia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JimboFletch
No offense, but you apparently don't know much about Ravi. In addition to addressing Christian audiences, he has appeared in numerous venues, including liberal universities like Harvard, and has debated atheists, agnostics, and members of other religions. He has held his own against some of the most vocal opponents of Christianity.
None taken.
I wrote a review of his Jesus among other gods in this tread and was later told that I got him wrong. That he didn't write for non-Christians.
You are a man of strong convictions, so if you want to comment on the review, feel free. It is a fair, but harsh review.
I would seriously doubt he can hold his own against non-Christians, if he actually bothers to listen to what they are saying. His ability to build an argument, at least in this book, is not impressive.
WormHeart
_____________________________
Praise King and Country with might
Bless every Dane at heart
For serving with no fright
The Viking kingdom for Danes is true
With fields and waving beeches
By a sea so blue
National Anthem of Denmark
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
