Janssen Debate - Round 3
Part 3: by Wes Janssen
Paul,
It has been the better part of a year since our last communication. Our earlier correspondence traced to your invitations that we do so. Perhaps I was wrong, but your second rebuttal seemed to suggest a different attitude (you were "not impressed", questioned "why bother sending me e-mails?", and closed with the ad hominem -- "the claims of Christianity in general, are illogical"). So it is that I have wondered if some final comments on my part might be unwelcome. I don't intend to 'wear out my welcome', so to speak, or to pursue an essentially vain or 'recreational' debate. So why this reply? Curiously, a correspondent that has visited both your site and mine has encouraged me to contact you again, and for reasons that I will later explain, I believe he may be correct. As I work my way toward that, I will address those points in your last rebuttal that seemed most important to you.
You suggest that I have erred in stating that our universe was "caused". You do this by demanding an arbitrary definition of causality, saying: "our understanding of 'causation' only applies within our universe. There is no mechanism for rules of causation to 'jump' outside our universe." That's a convenient definition if it can be invoked to make an uncomfortable issue go away. Historically, Russell and others have tried similarly and unsuccessfully to define away aspects of causality. Your definition isn't strictly wrong but, at best, it's only a limited understanding of causality. Aristotle offered several definitions, as have Kant and others. The most plainly stated definition of cause is probably "explanatory factor". So is our universe caused? Before turning to Hawking's ideas in this regard, I'll cite Heisenberg: "If from the indubitable fact that the world exists, someone wants to infer a cause for this existence, his inference does not contradict our scientific knowledge at any point. No scientist has at his disposal even a single argument or any kind of fact with which he could oppose such and assumption. This is true, even if the cause -- and how could it be otherwise -- obviously has to be sought outside [our universe]" (Physics and Philosophy). Hawking's no-boundaries cosmological model certainly appeals to external "explanatory factors." It appeals to (1) an (external) intellectual substrate, so-called imaginary time, from which real time is "pinched" due to (2) a fluctuation in an (external) "quantum void" that is captured by an expanding bubble of real time. If the theorized result is the kind of universe we inhabit, this requires a more puzzling attempt at further explanation, Hawking can find nothing to fill this need other than (an external) God or (3) an a posteriori construction called the weak anthropic principle. Such a universe does not escape causation. It would preclude our universe having a "beginning in time," which is consistent with the idea of a created universe (see Augustine, Davies, Polkinghorne). A quick aside: You may wonder why I categorize "imaginary time" as an intellectual substrate, as this may be disconcerting to a materialist. I do so because it is an idea that has no material properties, in Hawking's own words it "exists only" in the realm of mind. An interesting concession from someone who is quick to call himself a Positivist! Returning to his version of the universe: Hawking titillates us with a suggestion that he has described a universe that doesn't demand a God. This is interesting on at least two levels. If Hawking is serious, and not merely trying to impress us and sell books, he certainly expresses a strange naïveté in terms of theology (see Polkinghorne, The Quantum World, 1984, pg 67, also; The Faith of a Physicist, 1994, pg 73). We also notice that Hawking's A Brief History of Time, in which he presents his "no-boundaries" inflationary model, is fabled mostly for two metaphysical musings. (1) The question "What place, then, for a creator?", with which Hawking obviously implies that his answer may be 'none', and (2) his poetic summation -- that when we understand the universe as he envisions it, we will "know the mind of God." Thus, with a not too subtle wink, we are told that to know Hawking's mind is to know God's, or something rather like it! Wow! Now we're impressed. Hawking's strange dialectic dance with "God" has, as is said, 'sold more books on physics than Madonna has on sex.' Grandiosities aside, Hawking certainly is not in the process of getting rid of God (didn't Nietzsche do that? or was it Russell?). Other physicists have provided interesting commentary on Hawking's metaphysical grandiosities. One thinks notably of Penrose, Polkinghorne, and Davies, among others. While theists may be put off by Hawking's metaphysical pretensions, his actual science will cause them no discomfort. A universe that emerges from a quantum void and an intellectual substrate (whether we call it 'imaginary time' or 'eternity'), by means of employment of a specificity-laden unified field theory, has the fingerprints of Design all over it. Especially if materialists must then reach for the ('just because') weak anthropic principle. As Feynman said, "We cannot make the mystery go away by 'explaining' how it works." I suspect that Hawking understands this well, even if his readers do not.
You spent some focused reveling in what you believe was my misuse of the term "percent". Well, your complaint did make me wish I had framed the statement as '5,000,000 is 0.00125 of 4,000,000,000', and not used the word 'percent', not because it is as 'ubiquitously' wrong as you believe (explanation follows), but because Ockham's principle would indicate that the statement is more economical without it. (William of Ockham's celebrated principle is correctly spelled "Ockham's", "Occam's" or "Okkam's", by the way, although the '2-k' version is used least. I mention this only because my spelling seems to have distracted you.) So was my use of "percent" inappropriate and my conclusion therefore wrong? You say yes: "Um, let's carry that calculation out: 4,000,000,000 is 1 percent of 4,000,000,000. Huh??? No, its 100%. Percent is 'parts-per-hundred.' . . . Please go back and multiply your percents by 100." While your statement is not strictly wrong, neither is it ubiquitously correct. Statistically, there is another understanding to be had here.
Yes, "percent" (per centum) literally means "hundredth part". For statistical application "percent / percentile" may be premised on either a 0-1 or 0-100 scale. The dictionary definition (0-100 scale) indeed indicates that a football team (basketball, if you prefer) whose record stands at 7-3 has won 70 percent of their games. But, when we check in the newspaper, we note that statisticians invariably record their winning percentage (look in the "Pct" column) as 0.700, using the 0-1 scale. In each case, a look at the numbers that give rise to the cited "percent" will readily indicate which statistical scale is being assumed. Of course, if the reader arbitrarily demands one of these scales, the other produces a statistic that is wrong by a factor of 100. Thus we might call the newspaper and tell them to "multiply your percents by 100." If the numbers cited are simply expressed as finite, real numbers, the statistical nature of their relationship is probably easy to recognize with a quick calculation, whether expressed in terms of the 0-1 or 0-100 scale. Any seeming discrepancy is one only of approach, we deal in hundredth parts either way (in one treatment n = 100 x .01n; the other moves the decimal point for the more economical n = 1n. Two decimal places, hundredths if you will, are subsumed and slide to the right). Let us say that [0-100] and [0-1] conceptually treat the same thing (say x games played or x billion years). Although we speak of the same quantity, ten "percent" of [0-100] is 10.0, ten "percent" of [0-1] is 0.10. Finally (haven't we worn this issue out?), we note that statisticians don't generally quibble between the term "percent" and the related terms percentage/percentile. Perhaps statisticians like the tidy aesthetics of the 0-1 scale (all information is generally behind the decimal point). A statistics text might be helpful if my explanation has been poor.
I do make mistakes (perhaps even in the preceding explanation), and I should be pleased to be a "schoolboy" throughout my life. I posit these statements as true and obvious. I earlier offered what seemed a simple statement about the relation of the so-called 'Cambrian explosion' to the whole of so-called 'evolutionary time'. It seems that you have wrestled far too mightily with this simple observation. Although you tempt me with the Lamarckian argument, "The way biological evolution works is, if there are a lot of available niches in the ecosystem to fill, then evolution proceeds relatively quickly," I will walk away from it. It obviously "begs the question." Perhaps on closer thought you can see its inherent difficulties. (I hesitate to point out that this is the kind of "abracadabra" that inspired Behe's much-hated book.) But ultimately, no matter how earnestly argued, biological evolution, as far as it can be empirically known, is not a watershed issue in terms of God's existence (although there are extreme opposite dogmatisms that preach otherwise). The conflict we discuss is one between opposed philosophical / psychological / dogmatic polarities, not between strict science and strict theology.
Moving along, I notice this statement: "I felt that when Janssen criticized my lottery example, he was jumping on a detail rather than the meaning." I must disagree and suggest that the meaning has escaped you. Yes, your lottery example is flawed in its "detail" but more importantly, is flawed in its foundational logic. I think I tried to point this out earlier but will revisit the problem briefly. You say, "I don't see that he actually refuted--or even addressed--my point." But of course I did. You construct a program (a given lottery game), that is (please notice this) designed to produce a purposed outcome. Your lottery can produce the result you point to precisely because it is designed and purposed to do so. Your lottery argument thus proves that an intelligently designed and purposed system can 'work'. Hardly the outcome you are wrestling so earnestly for. The problems with the "detail" of your game are certainly much greater than you are prepared to recognize (most notably in scale), but even so, are only an aside to the missing foundation. If your game (thought experiment in this case) can be perfectly constructed, it will have demonstrated that an intelligent cause can purpose and produce a specifically designed effect. (The "quantum void" does not print and sell lottery tickets, advertise for players, or structure a system whereby such concepts are profitable or even coherent. And all of these functions are quite trivial compared to the production of a "unified field" or our elegant universe or a webmaster named Paul that likes to argue with Christians!) Your argument isn't quite as bizarre as the famous typing monkeys argument, but foundationally it has the same insurmountable problems. For reasons that should be obvious, this is not the kind of argument that will cost a theist any disquiet. "Free-thinkers" may like it, but it's strictly a sermon for the choir.
Another important point in your rebuttal is your questioning of certain ideas about God. And why not, people have done this for thousands of years. Many of these comments are interesting, but tend to leave me wondering whom you might be arguing with. You say: "The problem I have here is, say there is indeed some "First Cause" of some-sort--is this First Cause a Being? Does the First Cause have the attributes we associate with God--emotions, desires, etc.? My suspicion is that attributing these human attributes to the First Cause is a case of anthropomorphism." Of course it is. As to "being" -- this is an ontological concept associated with existence. If, say in theory, we are to grapple with the existence of this First Cause, we can only do so if First Cause has being (it is difficult to envisage an entity as at once existing and not existing). You go on to imply that "a Being" must be somehow anthropomorphous (having "emotions" and "human attributes") and then deduce that if we define an anthropomorphous God, we have then fallaciously anthropomorphized God. Rather tangled, but of course you quickly reach a correct conclusion. You are not arguing with me on this point, I don't suggest that God consists of human attributes. The good theologians never have. Looking at your statement "the idea of God, at least as most people present Him, seem to not be likely a coherent idea" is likewise not an argument with me. I agree that most peoples' theological ideas are poorly considered. We will probably agree that many "believers" are ill prepared to defend their beliefs with reason. This fact has nothing to do with the question of God's existence, however, only with human ignorance. Not very many people have a coherent conception of the quantum superpositioning principle either. That peoples' ideas are not coherent doesn't enforce their personal constraints on quantum theory, nor on God.
You have suggested that I refrain from psychoanalytical comments. That is certainly fair and I apologized if I have offended you. I did this in part because you seem, through your own words, to invite such observations. One doesn't know how to ignore the fact that you maintain a web site for the function of shaking your fist at a God you say isn't there. So while the following comments will speak to your psychological commitments, I don't think I'm putting you 'on the couch' as you say. You appear to have a certain knowledge of scripture, perhaps more than myself, but it is rather mechanical and legalistic. You wrestle with bodies of doctrine (fallacious theologies, "hell", free will versus determinism, "YECs", "OECs", "the rapture", and so forth). But the important stuff is generally not so arcane or divisive. Many people, whether "fundamentalist" Christians or ultra-Darwinian materialists, intently tell us that we must buy a certain out-house full of dogma, and swallow it whole. It's not true. Why then would we have minds? That's not what Christ taught. Kierkegaard said that Christ taught no doctrine but Love. That observation comes very close to being true (certainly Christ taught of God's sovereignty). It seems to me that you wrestle with straw men.
Finally, we come to the heart of your objections (and approach the reason I have written to you again). I have, since our last communication, had some correspondence with a man who expresses a personal history that shares many aspects with yours. He has spent some time perusing the content of each of our web sites, and has pointed out something that I think is quite perceptive and perhaps, in a fundamental way, more relevant than any of our arguments to date. I will try to communicate this to you and hope you allow it some quiet contemplation. . .
Quoting you:
Paul,
It has been the better part of a year since our last communication. Our earlier correspondence traced to your invitations that we do so. Perhaps I was wrong, but your second rebuttal seemed to suggest a different attitude (you were "not impressed", questioned "why bother sending me e-mails?", and closed with the ad hominem -- "the claims of Christianity in general, are illogical"). So it is that I have wondered if some final comments on my part might be unwelcome. I don't intend to 'wear out my welcome', so to speak, or to pursue an essentially vain or 'recreational' debate. So why this reply? Curiously, a correspondent that has visited both your site and mine has encouraged me to contact you again, and for reasons that I will later explain, I believe he may be correct. As I work my way toward that, I will address those points in your last rebuttal that seemed most important to you.
You suggest that I have erred in stating that our universe was "caused". You do this by demanding an arbitrary definition of causality, saying: "our understanding of 'causation' only applies within our universe. There is no mechanism for rules of causation to 'jump' outside our universe." That's a convenient definition if it can be invoked to make an uncomfortable issue go away. Historically, Russell and others have tried similarly and unsuccessfully to define away aspects of causality. Your definition isn't strictly wrong but, at best, it's only a limited understanding of causality. Aristotle offered several definitions, as have Kant and others. The most plainly stated definition of cause is probably "explanatory factor". So is our universe caused? Before turning to Hawking's ideas in this regard, I'll cite Heisenberg: "If from the indubitable fact that the world exists, someone wants to infer a cause for this existence, his inference does not contradict our scientific knowledge at any point. No scientist has at his disposal even a single argument or any kind of fact with which he could oppose such and assumption. This is true, even if the cause -- and how could it be otherwise -- obviously has to be sought outside [our universe]" (Physics and Philosophy). Hawking's no-boundaries cosmological model certainly appeals to external "explanatory factors." It appeals to (1) an (external) intellectual substrate, so-called imaginary time, from which real time is "pinched" due to (2) a fluctuation in an (external) "quantum void" that is captured by an expanding bubble of real time. If the theorized result is the kind of universe we inhabit, this requires a more puzzling attempt at further explanation, Hawking can find nothing to fill this need other than (an external) God or (3) an a posteriori construction called the weak anthropic principle. Such a universe does not escape causation. It would preclude our universe having a "beginning in time," which is consistent with the idea of a created universe (see Augustine, Davies, Polkinghorne). A quick aside: You may wonder why I categorize "imaginary time" as an intellectual substrate, as this may be disconcerting to a materialist. I do so because it is an idea that has no material properties, in Hawking's own words it "exists only" in the realm of mind. An interesting concession from someone who is quick to call himself a Positivist! Returning to his version of the universe: Hawking titillates us with a suggestion that he has described a universe that doesn't demand a God. This is interesting on at least two levels. If Hawking is serious, and not merely trying to impress us and sell books, he certainly expresses a strange naïveté in terms of theology (see Polkinghorne, The Quantum World, 1984, pg 67, also; The Faith of a Physicist, 1994, pg 73). We also notice that Hawking's A Brief History of Time, in which he presents his "no-boundaries" inflationary model, is fabled mostly for two metaphysical musings. (1) The question "What place, then, for a creator?", with which Hawking obviously implies that his answer may be 'none', and (2) his poetic summation -- that when we understand the universe as he envisions it, we will "know the mind of God." Thus, with a not too subtle wink, we are told that to know Hawking's mind is to know God's, or something rather like it! Wow! Now we're impressed. Hawking's strange dialectic dance with "God" has, as is said, 'sold more books on physics than Madonna has on sex.' Grandiosities aside, Hawking certainly is not in the process of getting rid of God (didn't Nietzsche do that? or was it Russell?). Other physicists have provided interesting commentary on Hawking's metaphysical grandiosities. One thinks notably of Penrose, Polkinghorne, and Davies, among others. While theists may be put off by Hawking's metaphysical pretensions, his actual science will cause them no discomfort. A universe that emerges from a quantum void and an intellectual substrate (whether we call it 'imaginary time' or 'eternity'), by means of employment of a specificity-laden unified field theory, has the fingerprints of Design all over it. Especially if materialists must then reach for the ('just because') weak anthropic principle. As Feynman said, "We cannot make the mystery go away by 'explaining' how it works." I suspect that Hawking understands this well, even if his readers do not.
You spent some focused reveling in what you believe was my misuse of the term "percent". Well, your complaint did make me wish I had framed the statement as '5,000,000 is 0.00125 of 4,000,000,000', and not used the word 'percent', not because it is as 'ubiquitously' wrong as you believe (explanation follows), but because Ockham's principle would indicate that the statement is more economical without it. (William of Ockham's celebrated principle is correctly spelled "Ockham's", "Occam's" or "Okkam's", by the way, although the '2-k' version is used least. I mention this only because my spelling seems to have distracted you.) So was my use of "percent" inappropriate and my conclusion therefore wrong? You say yes: "Um, let's carry that calculation out: 4,000,000,000 is 1 percent of 4,000,000,000. Huh??? No, its 100%. Percent is 'parts-per-hundred.' . . . Please go back and multiply your percents by 100." While your statement is not strictly wrong, neither is it ubiquitously correct. Statistically, there is another understanding to be had here.
Yes, "percent" (per centum) literally means "hundredth part". For statistical application "percent / percentile" may be premised on either a 0-1 or 0-100 scale. The dictionary definition (0-100 scale) indeed indicates that a football team (basketball, if you prefer) whose record stands at 7-3 has won 70 percent of their games. But, when we check in the newspaper, we note that statisticians invariably record their winning percentage (look in the "Pct" column) as 0.700, using the 0-1 scale. In each case, a look at the numbers that give rise to the cited "percent" will readily indicate which statistical scale is being assumed. Of course, if the reader arbitrarily demands one of these scales, the other produces a statistic that is wrong by a factor of 100. Thus we might call the newspaper and tell them to "multiply your percents by 100." If the numbers cited are simply expressed as finite, real numbers, the statistical nature of their relationship is probably easy to recognize with a quick calculation, whether expressed in terms of the 0-1 or 0-100 scale. Any seeming discrepancy is one only of approach, we deal in hundredth parts either way (in one treatment n = 100 x .01n; the other moves the decimal point for the more economical n = 1n. Two decimal places, hundredths if you will, are subsumed and slide to the right). Let us say that [0-100] and [0-1] conceptually treat the same thing (say x games played or x billion years). Although we speak of the same quantity, ten "percent" of [0-100] is 10.0, ten "percent" of [0-1] is 0.10. Finally (haven't we worn this issue out?), we note that statisticians don't generally quibble between the term "percent" and the related terms percentage/percentile. Perhaps statisticians like the tidy aesthetics of the 0-1 scale (all information is generally behind the decimal point). A statistics text might be helpful if my explanation has been poor.
I do make mistakes (perhaps even in the preceding explanation), and I should be pleased to be a "schoolboy" throughout my life. I posit these statements as true and obvious. I earlier offered what seemed a simple statement about the relation of the so-called 'Cambrian explosion' to the whole of so-called 'evolutionary time'. It seems that you have wrestled far too mightily with this simple observation. Although you tempt me with the Lamarckian argument, "The way biological evolution works is, if there are a lot of available niches in the ecosystem to fill, then evolution proceeds relatively quickly," I will walk away from it. It obviously "begs the question." Perhaps on closer thought you can see its inherent difficulties. (I hesitate to point out that this is the kind of "abracadabra" that inspired Behe's much-hated book.) But ultimately, no matter how earnestly argued, biological evolution, as far as it can be empirically known, is not a watershed issue in terms of God's existence (although there are extreme opposite dogmatisms that preach otherwise). The conflict we discuss is one between opposed philosophical / psychological / dogmatic polarities, not between strict science and strict theology.
Moving along, I notice this statement: "I felt that when Janssen criticized my lottery example, he was jumping on a detail rather than the meaning." I must disagree and suggest that the meaning has escaped you. Yes, your lottery example is flawed in its "detail" but more importantly, is flawed in its foundational logic. I think I tried to point this out earlier but will revisit the problem briefly. You say, "I don't see that he actually refuted--or even addressed--my point." But of course I did. You construct a program (a given lottery game), that is (please notice this) designed to produce a purposed outcome. Your lottery can produce the result you point to precisely because it is designed and purposed to do so. Your lottery argument thus proves that an intelligently designed and purposed system can 'work'. Hardly the outcome you are wrestling so earnestly for. The problems with the "detail" of your game are certainly much greater than you are prepared to recognize (most notably in scale), but even so, are only an aside to the missing foundation. If your game (thought experiment in this case) can be perfectly constructed, it will have demonstrated that an intelligent cause can purpose and produce a specifically designed effect. (The "quantum void" does not print and sell lottery tickets, advertise for players, or structure a system whereby such concepts are profitable or even coherent. And all of these functions are quite trivial compared to the production of a "unified field" or our elegant universe or a webmaster named Paul that likes to argue with Christians!) Your argument isn't quite as bizarre as the famous typing monkeys argument, but foundationally it has the same insurmountable problems. For reasons that should be obvious, this is not the kind of argument that will cost a theist any disquiet. "Free-thinkers" may like it, but it's strictly a sermon for the choir.
Another important point in your rebuttal is your questioning of certain ideas about God. And why not, people have done this for thousands of years. Many of these comments are interesting, but tend to leave me wondering whom you might be arguing with. You say: "The problem I have here is, say there is indeed some "First Cause" of some-sort--is this First Cause a Being? Does the First Cause have the attributes we associate with God--emotions, desires, etc.? My suspicion is that attributing these human attributes to the First Cause is a case of anthropomorphism." Of course it is. As to "being" -- this is an ontological concept associated with existence. If, say in theory, we are to grapple with the existence of this First Cause, we can only do so if First Cause has being (it is difficult to envisage an entity as at once existing and not existing). You go on to imply that "a Being" must be somehow anthropomorphous (having "emotions" and "human attributes") and then deduce that if we define an anthropomorphous God, we have then fallaciously anthropomorphized God. Rather tangled, but of course you quickly reach a correct conclusion. You are not arguing with me on this point, I don't suggest that God consists of human attributes. The good theologians never have. Looking at your statement "the idea of God, at least as most people present Him, seem to not be likely a coherent idea" is likewise not an argument with me. I agree that most peoples' theological ideas are poorly considered. We will probably agree that many "believers" are ill prepared to defend their beliefs with reason. This fact has nothing to do with the question of God's existence, however, only with human ignorance. Not very many people have a coherent conception of the quantum superpositioning principle either. That peoples' ideas are not coherent doesn't enforce their personal constraints on quantum theory, nor on God.
You have suggested that I refrain from psychoanalytical comments. That is certainly fair and I apologized if I have offended you. I did this in part because you seem, through your own words, to invite such observations. One doesn't know how to ignore the fact that you maintain a web site for the function of shaking your fist at a God you say isn't there. So while the following comments will speak to your psychological commitments, I don't think I'm putting you 'on the couch' as you say. You appear to have a certain knowledge of scripture, perhaps more than myself, but it is rather mechanical and legalistic. You wrestle with bodies of doctrine (fallacious theologies, "hell", free will versus determinism, "YECs", "OECs", "the rapture", and so forth). But the important stuff is generally not so arcane or divisive. Many people, whether "fundamentalist" Christians or ultra-Darwinian materialists, intently tell us that we must buy a certain out-house full of dogma, and swallow it whole. It's not true. Why then would we have minds? That's not what Christ taught. Kierkegaard said that Christ taught no doctrine but Love. That observation comes very close to being true (certainly Christ taught of God's sovereignty). It seems to me that you wrestle with straw men.
Finally, we come to the heart of your objections (and approach the reason I have written to you again). I have, since our last communication, had some correspondence with a man who expresses a personal history that shares many aspects with yours. He has spent some time perusing the content of each of our web sites, and has pointed out something that I think is quite perceptive and perhaps, in a fundamental way, more relevant than any of our arguments to date. I will try to communicate this to you and hope you allow it some quiet contemplation. . .
Quoting you:
|
"If I'm angry at God for being aloof and punishing, isn't He proving me right? Isn't He aloof? And, if He sends me to hell for thinking He's aloof, isn't he punishing? If He doesn't want me to come to this conclusion, shouldn't He be actively trying to show me wrong? Instead, isn't He just proving me correct?
I suspect Janssen or perhaps other readers might respond something like, 'see, you're just proving that you don't want to be with God, so He is going to give you what you want.' Okay, so lets say that is true. Lets assume the following premises are true: 1. I'm angry at God for being aloof. 2. God will give me what I want, which is separation from Him. 3. This situation will continue for all eternity. 4. Everybody gets what they want. Okay, if all these premises are true, what possible use could evangelism be? If everybody gets what they really want, then why bother sending me e-mails? You wouldn't want to talk somebody into something they don't want, do you? So, now I'll put Janssen on the analyst's couch. I don't think he could possibly really believe the premises above. If he really did, he would have utterly no reason to e-mail me. The only possible answer that I can think Janssen might respond with is that perhaps deep-down, I want to get over my anger. And, so he might say he is trying to help me reach that point of self-discovery. But wouldn't God know this? Shouldn't God be trying to help me reach this point of self discovery? If God knows that I really want to get over my anger, by sends me to hell anyway, doesn't that disprove premise 4 above?" |
I'll ignore your whole "sends me to hell" thing, because again, I don't know who you're arguing with. (You state that you want separation from God but blame him for what you want. Sounds like a freedom-determinism conundrum.) The salient question above is repeated and is the one we will speak to: "If He doesn't want me to come to this conclusion, shouldn't He be actively trying to show me wrong?" And again, "Shouldn't God be trying to help me reach this point of self discovery?"
Here, now, is the question, Paul. Why are you so insistent that God is not trying to help you? What do you think you are reading right now? I personally don't care much for recreational debating, and I have many pressing demands on my time. None of my messages to you have been at my instigation, or for my amusement, or have even been "my idea". And yet I have tried three times to tell you that God is real, that he is interested in you, and that you don't have to be angry or frustrated, or go to war with any package of questionable dogma, or embrace any package of questionable dogma. Why do you suppose this is? Why might someone neither one of us has ever met have encouraged me to communicate with you? I suggest that God is indeed "trying to help" you. Whether that can happen is up to you. Spiritually speaking, we do get what we want.
Here, now, is the question, Paul. Why are you so insistent that God is not trying to help you? What do you think you are reading right now? I personally don't care much for recreational debating, and I have many pressing demands on my time. None of my messages to you have been at my instigation, or for my amusement, or have even been "my idea". And yet I have tried three times to tell you that God is real, that he is interested in you, and that you don't have to be angry or frustrated, or go to war with any package of questionable dogma, or embrace any package of questionable dogma. Why do you suppose this is? Why might someone neither one of us has ever met have encouraged me to communicate with you? I suggest that God is indeed "trying to help" you. Whether that can happen is up to you. Spiritually speaking, we do get what we want.
Rebuttal 3: by Paul Jacobsen
First off, I'll confess that in my first two rebuttals to Mr. Janssen, I would sometimes use a dismissive tone. When someone presents an argument that to me seems to be poor, I can sometimes have difficulty not being dismissive. But I can say that his Part 3, in my view, is a far better presentation of his position, and I will try to avoid using a dismissive tone this time.
I can tell Mr. Janssen probably spent a good deal of time preparing his latest submission, and I appreciate the time he has spent. Also, he has a better understanding of physics that I originally gave him credit for. Even so, I find much to at least question in his latest submission.
Janssen starts off with a discussion of cause, and says a definition he likes is "explanatory factor". Okay, this isn't a bad definition. And, I even have to agree that Hawkings' more recent emphasis on brane theory and imaginary time (from his newer book, The Universe in a Nutshell) does seem to have the universe with a "cause". Well, who am I to argue with Dr. Hawkings? I'm not going to argue with him, but I will mention that there are some competing theories. In Science News magazine (if I recall correctly the source, I may not...) I recently read an article on "looking glass universes" as an alternate theory. In this theory, the universe is "eternal", but two halves, we are in the second half, after the Big Bang. Prior to the Big Bang, people living in that half of the universe's life might have discovered that their universe was converging, they might have foreseen a "Big Collapse". The theory has an infinite amount of time after the Big Bang, where we are at, and an infinite amount of time before it. Also note that this theory has the universe without cause. But to be honest, I'm not very convinced of this theory. I don't see what would have made everything converge. Therefore, from my admittedly layman's view, I'm more inclined to believe Hawkings, and his model seems to have a "cause" to the universe. I probably should revise or drop my paper on the Cosmological Argument.
So if we decide that I'm wrong, and Janssen (and other Christians) are right, the universe did have a "cause", what was the "cause"? Was it God? Well, ultimately, I don't think we can know exactly what "caused" the universe. I'm going to differ further discussion of this, until I cover some other points presented by Janssen.
Janssen spends a good deal of time defending his use of "percent" to mean a scale of 0-1 instead of 0-100. Well, let's say that I'm not fully convinced by his defense. When he first presented his discussion of the Cambrian explosion, he said, "all blustering and posturing aside, we're talking about thousandths of one percent" and then produced his chart of what "percent" 5,000,000 years is of 4,000,000,000 years, etc. What is the point of producing this chart? What is the purpose of putting the values into percents? What is the matter with simply saying 5,000,000 years is 5,000,000 years? Janssen's obvious intention of converting 5,000,000 years to percents of the entire life of the Earth was to a) put the times into perspective, and b) show what a relatively small length of time being spoken of. So, even if he really meant a 0-1 scale to begin with, if his goal is to try to put things in perspective by using "percents" then should he not be certain that he and his audience are using the same meaning of "percent"? But to be honest, I'm afraid that I do not buy that he meant a scale of 0-1 to begin with, as evidenced by his comment, "we're talking about thousandths of one percent." If Janssen really originally meant that "one percent" was full scale, then why would he have said "we're talking about thousandths of one percent"? Its not like the Cambrian explosion could have been, say "two percent," if "one percent" is full scale! Therefore I'm afraid that I must conclude he originally meant a 0-100 scale, and his attempt to defend that he meant 0-1 all along is dishonest. I'm sorry, but I call 'em like I see 'em and I don't pull punches. I concede there is a slight possibility that I am wrong, but to me, his defense looks dishonest. But, let's put that behind us and move on.
Next up was the discussion of the lottery example, which I guess we've beaten that dead horse quite a bit, so I will try to make my comments here brief. Janssen notes that lotteries are designed with the intention of creating a certain number of winners, and a certain number of losers, and it works based on designed principles. And if there are many (infinite?) universes without any God designing them, then there is no guarantee anything specific, such as a universe compatible with life, will ever happen. Yeah, okay, and...? Well, there is some theory that every logically possible universe exists, and since our universe is logically possible, then it must exist. But I'm not sure I buy that theory myself. So, if we assume that theory is wrong, then it would be true that if there is no God, there would be no guarantee that our universe would have existed. But, if there are many (infinite?) universes, that would make the odds of this universe existing impossible to calculate. But even so, it would seem to make the odds of having some (at least one) universe capable of supporting life to be reasonably high--albeit impossible to calculate.
Next up, Janssen discusses some of the possible attributes of "God," and says he even agree with me on some points. He says, "I don't suggest that God consists of human attributes. The good theologians never have." Well, I confess that I often have trouble discussing "God" with my visitors to my site as they all have a different idea of "God". But, the God of the Bible is VERY human. I was having a similar, e-mail based discussion with some friends of mine, and one of my friends had this to say:
First off, I'll confess that in my first two rebuttals to Mr. Janssen, I would sometimes use a dismissive tone. When someone presents an argument that to me seems to be poor, I can sometimes have difficulty not being dismissive. But I can say that his Part 3, in my view, is a far better presentation of his position, and I will try to avoid using a dismissive tone this time.
I can tell Mr. Janssen probably spent a good deal of time preparing his latest submission, and I appreciate the time he has spent. Also, he has a better understanding of physics that I originally gave him credit for. Even so, I find much to at least question in his latest submission.
Janssen starts off with a discussion of cause, and says a definition he likes is "explanatory factor". Okay, this isn't a bad definition. And, I even have to agree that Hawkings' more recent emphasis on brane theory and imaginary time (from his newer book, The Universe in a Nutshell) does seem to have the universe with a "cause". Well, who am I to argue with Dr. Hawkings? I'm not going to argue with him, but I will mention that there are some competing theories. In Science News magazine (if I recall correctly the source, I may not...) I recently read an article on "looking glass universes" as an alternate theory. In this theory, the universe is "eternal", but two halves, we are in the second half, after the Big Bang. Prior to the Big Bang, people living in that half of the universe's life might have discovered that their universe was converging, they might have foreseen a "Big Collapse". The theory has an infinite amount of time after the Big Bang, where we are at, and an infinite amount of time before it. Also note that this theory has the universe without cause. But to be honest, I'm not very convinced of this theory. I don't see what would have made everything converge. Therefore, from my admittedly layman's view, I'm more inclined to believe Hawkings, and his model seems to have a "cause" to the universe. I probably should revise or drop my paper on the Cosmological Argument.
So if we decide that I'm wrong, and Janssen (and other Christians) are right, the universe did have a "cause", what was the "cause"? Was it God? Well, ultimately, I don't think we can know exactly what "caused" the universe. I'm going to differ further discussion of this, until I cover some other points presented by Janssen.
Janssen spends a good deal of time defending his use of "percent" to mean a scale of 0-1 instead of 0-100. Well, let's say that I'm not fully convinced by his defense. When he first presented his discussion of the Cambrian explosion, he said, "all blustering and posturing aside, we're talking about thousandths of one percent" and then produced his chart of what "percent" 5,000,000 years is of 4,000,000,000 years, etc. What is the point of producing this chart? What is the purpose of putting the values into percents? What is the matter with simply saying 5,000,000 years is 5,000,000 years? Janssen's obvious intention of converting 5,000,000 years to percents of the entire life of the Earth was to a) put the times into perspective, and b) show what a relatively small length of time being spoken of. So, even if he really meant a 0-1 scale to begin with, if his goal is to try to put things in perspective by using "percents" then should he not be certain that he and his audience are using the same meaning of "percent"? But to be honest, I'm afraid that I do not buy that he meant a scale of 0-1 to begin with, as evidenced by his comment, "we're talking about thousandths of one percent." If Janssen really originally meant that "one percent" was full scale, then why would he have said "we're talking about thousandths of one percent"? Its not like the Cambrian explosion could have been, say "two percent," if "one percent" is full scale! Therefore I'm afraid that I must conclude he originally meant a 0-100 scale, and his attempt to defend that he meant 0-1 all along is dishonest. I'm sorry, but I call 'em like I see 'em and I don't pull punches. I concede there is a slight possibility that I am wrong, but to me, his defense looks dishonest. But, let's put that behind us and move on.
Next up was the discussion of the lottery example, which I guess we've beaten that dead horse quite a bit, so I will try to make my comments here brief. Janssen notes that lotteries are designed with the intention of creating a certain number of winners, and a certain number of losers, and it works based on designed principles. And if there are many (infinite?) universes without any God designing them, then there is no guarantee anything specific, such as a universe compatible with life, will ever happen. Yeah, okay, and...? Well, there is some theory that every logically possible universe exists, and since our universe is logically possible, then it must exist. But I'm not sure I buy that theory myself. So, if we assume that theory is wrong, then it would be true that if there is no God, there would be no guarantee that our universe would have existed. But, if there are many (infinite?) universes, that would make the odds of this universe existing impossible to calculate. But even so, it would seem to make the odds of having some (at least one) universe capable of supporting life to be reasonably high--albeit impossible to calculate.
Next up, Janssen discusses some of the possible attributes of "God," and says he even agree with me on some points. He says, "I don't suggest that God consists of human attributes. The good theologians never have." Well, I confess that I often have trouble discussing "God" with my visitors to my site as they all have a different idea of "God". But, the God of the Bible is VERY human. I was having a similar, e-mail based discussion with some friends of mine, and one of my friends had this to say:
|
If we take the Bible at face value and in a literal fashion we would have to say the following things about God ( I quote from the Dakes Annotated Reference Bible pg. 96 and 97 (I am going to leave out all the passage references as it would take me a day and half to write this out otherwise. I am also adding numbers to make all this easier to read and digest. It should be noted that if you have actually read the Bible, you will know all of this to be true.):
1. God is a Spirit Being, not the sun, moon, stars; nor an image of wood, stone, or metal; and not beast or man. He is not the air, wind, universal mind, love or some impersonal quality. 2. He is a person with a personal spirit body, a personal soul, and a personal spirit, like that of angels, and like that of man except His body is of spirit substance instead of flesh and bones. 3. He has a personal spirit body, a shape, form, image and likeness of a man. He has bodily parts such as back parts, heart, hands and fingers, lips and tongue, feet, eyes, hair, head, face arms, loins and other bodily parts. 4. He has bodily presence and goes from place to place in a body like all other persons. 5. He has a voice, breath, and countenance. He wears clothes, east, rests, dwells in mansion and in a city located on a material planet called Heaven; sits on a throne, walks, rides, [and] engages in other activities. 6. He has a personal soul with feelings of grief, anger, pentannnnce, jealousy, hate, love, pity, fellowship, pleasure and delight and other soul passions like other beings. 7. He has a personal spirit with mind, intelligence, will, power, truth, faith and hope, righteousness, faithfulness, knowledge and wisdom, reason, discernment, immutability and many other attributes, powers and spirit faculties. 8. He has been seen bodily many times and can be understood by the things that are made. Man is the visible image and likeness making the invisible God clearly seen." I would also like to add that he learns, discovers, and changes his mind! Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I would say that this God (if we take the Bible very literally, is VERY human). |
The point I'm getting at is, Janssen said that he agrees with me on some points, and said, "I don't suggest that God consists of human attributes." Well, that's all fine and good, but then you are NOT talking about the God of the Bible. So, I don't really know what God you believe in, but it isn't Yahweh or Jehovah.
Now, I've heard people say that the Bible "anthropomorphizes God" to make Him more understandable--that the scripture that makes God sound human is figurative and not literal. But if this is so, then what really happened, verses what is depicted in the Bible is completely unknown because the God of the Bible is a very human God! Janssen can have his God if he wants him, but Janssen has got his God, and everybody else has their God, and they are all different gods.
So, on to Janssen's concluding ideas. He says, "Why are you so insistent that God is not trying to help you? What do you think you are reading right now?" Well, I think that what I read is Janssen's ideas on his God. Some of his points were better expressed this time than previously. But ultimately, they are his points. And they are different from everybody else who tells me about their gods. I don't understand why he thinks I should think it is anything but his ideas. Where is God to tell me the real scoop instead of Janssen's ideas or Strobel's ideas, or anybody else's ideas?
I said earlier that I would return to the discussion of the "cause" of the universe, but I guess I don't have much more to say--except that even if the universe had a "cause", the possibility that this cause being one and the same Cause as the God of the Bible seems rather unlikely.
Now, I've heard people say that the Bible "anthropomorphizes God" to make Him more understandable--that the scripture that makes God sound human is figurative and not literal. But if this is so, then what really happened, verses what is depicted in the Bible is completely unknown because the God of the Bible is a very human God! Janssen can have his God if he wants him, but Janssen has got his God, and everybody else has their God, and they are all different gods.
So, on to Janssen's concluding ideas. He says, "Why are you so insistent that God is not trying to help you? What do you think you are reading right now?" Well, I think that what I read is Janssen's ideas on his God. Some of his points were better expressed this time than previously. But ultimately, they are his points. And they are different from everybody else who tells me about their gods. I don't understand why he thinks I should think it is anything but his ideas. Where is God to tell me the real scoop instead of Janssen's ideas or Strobel's ideas, or anybody else's ideas?
I said earlier that I would return to the discussion of the "cause" of the universe, but I guess I don't have much more to say--except that even if the universe had a "cause", the possibility that this cause being one and the same Cause as the God of the Bible seems rather unlikely.
