Empirical Evidence From God?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 minutes ago, gav said:

How do these dates gel with other dates? revealed or otherwise?

With all the chronological disagreements in the four Gospels, NT scholars have not been able to derive any sort of coherent chronology.  Only the BofM can do that.  However, there are historical dates which enable us to place the death of Herod the Great in early 4 B.C., and we have a cuneiform document written in 597 B.C. which describes Nebuchadrezzar's conquest of Jerusalem, with exact dates in the Babylonian system.

NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONICLE FIVE, British Museum Tablet 21946 (Pritchard, ANET, 3rd ed., 563-564; Wiseman, DOTT, 1956:73; Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, TCS 5:102), translation of verso lines 11-13 underneath:

Quote

   Year 7 [of Nebuchadrezzar II].  In the month of Kislimu [18 Dec 598 - 15 Jan 597], the King of Akkad [Babylonia] mobilized his troops and marched to Khatti-land [the west].  He encamped against the city of Judah [Jerusalem], and on the 2nd of Addaru [15/16 Mar 597], he captured the city [and] he seized [its] King.  A King of his choice he appointed there; he to[ok] its heavy tribute and carried it off to Babylon.

 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

5 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Your existence is NOT evidence of God.

“All things denote that there is a God”. I would beg to differ with your dismissal of all creation as evidence, and follow up with countless bullet points and reasons, but it would not matter. Simply put, I gave the greatest example to support that belief, but you rejected it. So it would be foolhardy to try and persuade you, or anyone else who could, or would, stare into the sun and deny that it shines, as it destroys your very ability to see it. 

[Ahab]

19 hours ago, gav said:

I agree that we receive direct evidence from God, when we dwelt with him and as we now "ask, seek and knock." Often this evidence we receive now is very personal, individualised or spiritual in nature.

This is the beef of nay sayers.

This type of evidence is inadmissible to them since it cannot be independently verified by a third party using the scientific method. It is this specific type of independently verifiable evidence that I am after for this discussion.

There are many people who have received empirical evidence of the type you are talking about and each one of them is an independent third party who is testifying to the truth of the same thing.

The fact that there are naysayers who say something isn't true does not mean that what the independent third party witnesses are saying is not true. 

There will always be naysayers and if you're expecting there to be some type of evidence, other than the evidence there is, to convince the naysayers that they are wrong, you're wasting your time.

Just talk about the empirical evidence you have received and leave it up to others to say yeah or nay to it, knowing there will always be some naysayers.

[mrmarklin]

8 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

Sorry but I'm going to hold your feet to the fire.  Spiritual experience is not empirical evidence for the existence of God.  Your spiritual experience is an individual experience and can not prove to me that their is a god, therefore it is not empirical nor provable evidence.  I am not suggesting that it is not real to you...but it is only real to you alone.

I can only repeat that, from the profane POV, there is only circumstantial evidence.  You could get real evidence, but apparently you are disinclined to do so.  

Please continue pontificating.  It's really quite amusing.

[Jracforr]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Does Alma 32 partake of the experimental method of science?  Is it an empirical process?

Alma 32, fully explains the process that takes an individual from simple faith, to absolute certainty, that what was first see as theory can be supported by solid evidence eventually. God will enlighten the mind and reveal hidden knowledge that will leave the individual in awe, as he did with the brother of Jared, Abraham and Moses. You may refer to it as an empirical process if you so choose, as discovering truth in science or any other secular activity is very similar to attaining spiritual Truth / Laws..

[Hamba Tuhan]

22 hours ago, Fair Dinkum said:

I agree... and the U 0f U was able to artificially duplicate spiritual experiences see  https://unews.utah.edu/this-is-your-brain-on-god/

What precisely is your definition of a 'spiritual experience', and why did you choose to introduce this specific term when I hadn't?

Edited October 10, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[The Nehor]

On 10/8/2020 at 9:08 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

That is because nature preexists God, is independent of God, and is a very hard, full participant in the Law of Opposition.  Nature entails all the laws of the universe, and it has no emotion -- such as mercy.

If God created the world he bears some responsibility for what it is like.

[The Nehor]

On 10/8/2020 at 9:40 PM, gav said:

It's all a matter of perspective and how one defines good.

No, it really isn't. We do not call the world "lone and dreary", "vale of tears", and the like because the Earth is evidently good. I am not saying a good God creating this world is impossible. I am saying it is not immediately evident. You have to explain a lot to get to that point.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If God created the world he bears some responsibility for what it is like.

Yes, of course, and he is a master of natural law, which is to say that he understands it and can employ it very effectively to create a complex obstacle course for us all, to teach us and test us in our resolve to serve ourselves or others.  The devil, like the Law of Opposition, is in the details.  He put his firstborn son through it, which seems cruel, but he really had no choice.  The Plan of Salvation required that.

Edited October 11, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

33 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, of course, and he is a master of natural law, which is to say that he understands it and can employ it very effectively to create a complex obstacle course for us all, to teach us and test us in our resolve to serve ourselves or others.  The devil, like the Law of Opposition, is in the details.  He put his firstborn son through it, which seems cruel, but he really had no choice.  The Plan of Salvation required that.

Wonderful analogy.

Reminds me of this:

https://iep.utm.edu/james-o/

Quote

 In “The Dilemma of Determinism,” James depicts his image of God with a memorable analogy, comparing God to a master chess player engaged in a give-and-take with us novices.  We are free to make our own moves; yet the master knows all the moves we could possibly make, the odds of our choosing one over the others, and how best to respond to any move we choose to make.  This indicates two departures from the traditional Judeo-Christian concept of God, in that the master is interacting with us in time (rather than eternal) and does not know everything in the future, to the extent that it is freely chosen by us. 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Wonderful analogy.

Reminds me of this:

https://iep.utm.edu/james-o/

Quote

“The Dilemma of Determinism,” James

 

On the other hand, we have Sabine Hossenfelder telling us that there cannot be free well, 

 

[2BizE]

There is none.

[Jracforr]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On the other hand, we have Sabine Hossenfelder telling us that there cannot be free well, 

 

We have Free Agency within limits set by LAW. That is the whole purpose of religious education, trying to inform all knowing humans, that there are limits to what they can “Lawfully” do, with their Free Agency. We are all free to build a Ship or Plane to any specifications we choose, but the principles of flotation and aerodynamic determine if our effort will end in success or failure. Religious Educators are trying to teach the faithful, the same message that University Lectures are trying to teach the Engineering student, real freedom can only be found in obedience to Natural / God given Laws. Outside of that principle you life will crash and burn or sink and drown, as will your ill designed Plane or Ship.

[gav]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

On the other hand, we have Sabine Hossenfelder telling us that there cannot be free well, 

 

The war started in heaven continues having only shifted terrains.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 minutes ago, Jracforr said:

We have Free Agency within limits set by LAW. That is the whole purpose of religious education, trying to inform all knowing humans, that there are limits to what they can “Lawfully” do, with their Free Agency. We are all free to build a Ship or Plane to any specifications we choose, but the principles of flotation and aerodynamic determine if our effort will end in success or failure. Religious Educators are trying to teach the faithful, the same message that University Lectures are trying to teach the Engineering student, real freedom can only be found in obedience to Natural / God given Laws. Outside of that principle you life will crash and burn or sink and drown, as will your ill designed Plane or Ship.

But that is not an argument in favor of free will or free agency, but rather a strong argument for determinism.  When one is not free to do anything which contravenes natural law, how can any decision be free?

[gav]

On 10/9/2020 at 9:06 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

With all the chronological disagreements in the four Gospels, NT scholars have not been able to derive any sort of coherent chronology.  Only the BofM can do that.  However, there are historical dates which enable us to place the death of Herod the Great in early 4 B.C., and we have a cuneiform document written in 597 B.C. which describes Nebuchadrezzar's conquest of Jerusalem, with exact dates in the Babylonian system.

NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONICLE FIVE, British Museum Tablet 21946 (Pritchard, ANET, 3rd ed., 563-564; Wiseman, DOTT, 1956:73; Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, TCS 5:102), translation of verso lines 11-13 underneath:

 

It seems we are perhaps on different pages then.

My hierarchy of "data integrity" is as follows:

1. Astronomy is tops - empirical for the most part from our perspective - planetary motions, eclipses etc. totally deterministic with only slight unpredictable deviations over millennia, due to shifts in the matter within and on the earth creating infinitesimally small variations that may add up over time. Not of such magnitude to be of major importance.
2. Scripture - given that it is inspired, but at the same time requiring correct and inspired interpretation.
3. Historical sources - also subject to interpretation but also containing gaps, mistakes and outright fraud.
4. Scholastic opinion - consensus and disagreements shift as further details emerge and the fields are also subject to all the failures, gaps, deviations and interpretational and other biases of the proceeding data tiers.

If 1 and 2 are in agreement they trump 3 and 4 in my book, especially if they triangulate with may other astronomical observations and sequences to form a network if internally consistent reinforcing correlations with astronomical events and cycles.

[Jracforr]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But that is not an argument in favor of free will or free agency, but rather a strong argument for determinism.  When one is not free to do anything which contravenes natural law, how can any decision be free?

Do you realize you are saying that LIMITS to an action means there is no free will. I know you did not intend to say that, just observe the many, almost endless designs of Buildings ,Toys, Ships , Cars, etc, etc. You will notice there is “almost” limitless freedom. Don’t get caught up in foolish Philosophy, every thing has limits.

[strappinglad]

Can God create a rock so big that He cannot move it? Language does limit us , no? 

Most of us have only " seen " a small sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum. Does that limit us from believing in the rest of it?

Astronomers tell us that we can only " see " about 5% of the universe. We humans have only explored about 5% of the oceans. What lies in the rest? We make assumptions and guesses and theories. Is it not a bit arrogant to declare ' there is no God ' while being so ignorant about we don't see ,yet may do in the future? 

Oh, for those who like a challenge to their worldview : https://www.dismantledevolution.com/

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Jracforr said:

Do you realize you are saying that LIMITS to an action means there is no free will. I know you did not intend to say that, just observe the many, almost endless designs of Buildings ,Toys, Ships , Cars, etc, etc. You will notice there is “almost” limitless freedom. Don’t get caught up in foolish Philosophy, every thing has limits.

Do not be fooled by the infinite variety of options made available by engineering skill.  All those "choices" are controlled by natural law.  Indeed, since humans and everything else are made up of atomic particles, and since the nature of those particles is mechanical and predictable (not subject to chance), all actions and reactions are predetermined by natural law.  No matter how complex those interactions, they all follow natural law, and are completely deterministic in nature.  Humans tell themselves that they are making choices, when in fact the choices have already been made for them by nature, and they are merely engaged in predictable rationalization about it -- they construct a story to account for that which has already taken place.

Einstein admitted that when he said that God does not play with dice.  Your task in discussing this is to explain how free will is possible in a fully deterministic system.

[mfbukowski]

On 10/10/2020 at 8:08 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

On the other hand, we have Sabine Hossenfelder telling us that there cannot be free well, 

 

Oh my gosh

This woman needs Pragmatism STAT.  Jump into the philosophy ambulance!- we have to get over there NOW!

Semantic confusion reigns.  

It's a whole new metaphysics.  Reality is "really" determined but it doesn't matter.  How we know that presents a problem but who cares!?!

Edited October 12, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Can God create a rock so big that He cannot move it? Language does limit us , no? 

Most of us have only " seen " a small sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum. Does that limit us from believing in the rest of it?

Astronomers tell us that we can only " see " about 5% of the universe. We humans have only explored about 5% of the oceans. What lies in the rest? We make assumptions and guesses and theories. Is it not a bit arrogant to declare ' there is no God ' while being so ignorant about we don't see ,yet may do in the future? 

Oh, for those who like a challenge to their worldview : https://www.dismantledevolution.com/

I have always wondered what color cosmic rays are. 

So much for the assertion that we can "see" reality.

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, gav said:

It seems we are perhaps on different pages then.

My hierarchy of "data integrity" is as follows:

1. Astronomy is tops - empirical for the most part from our perspective - planetary motions, eclipses etc. totally deterministic with only slight unpredictable deviations over millennia, due to shifts in the matter within and on the earth creating infinitesimally small variations that may add up over time. Not of such magnitude to be of major importance.
2. Scripture - given that it is inspired, but at the same time requiring correct and inspired interpretation.
3. Historical sources - also subject to interpretation but also containing gaps, mistakes and outright fraud.
4. Scholastic opinion - consensus and disagreements shift as further details emerge and the fields are also subject to all the failures, gaps, deviations and interpretational and other biases of the proceeding data tiers.

If 1 and 2 are in agreement they trump 3 and 4 in my book, especially if they triangulate with may other astronomical observations and sequences to form a network if internally consistent reinforcing correlations with astronomical events and cycles.

Instead of showing respect for actual hard historical-archeological evidence, you make the dangerous mistake here of crediting the standard Judeo-Christian tradition with accuracy, and attempt a comparison with astronomy.  It is precisely both astronomy and hard historical-archeological evidence which must first be compared.  That avoids the major sin of apriorism, and depends instead on a fact-based analysis, which the Judeo-Christian tradition has long ignored -- leading to their rejection by God.  God doesn't appreciate systems which are based on lies and rumor-mongering.

Take, for example, my quotation of Neo-Babylonian Chronicle Five for you, an official cuneiform tablet which was written at the time it describes.  Jack Finegan, the eminent scholar who wrote the book on the subject of biblical chronology, says that 2 Addaru in King Nebuchadrezzer's 7th year = 16 March 597 B.C. "is the most exact information to come from cuneiform records for an event recorded in the Bible, and gives us a precise day for the fall of Jerusalem and the capture of Jehoiachin."[1]  Shortly thereafter, most likely on 10 Nisannu (= 22 April 597 B.C.), Zedekiah, the new King of Judah, took office and began the first year of his reign -- giving us a firm terminus post quem for Lehi's call as a prophet.

In my Book of Mormon event structure paper, which you apparently did not read (even though I cited it for you), I show how such historical-archeological dates mesh tightly with both the Bible and with astronomy.  You pretend to accept computerized correlation with celestial phenomena, but automatically reject the fruits of such comparisons.  If you cannot learn to properly integrate science and Scripture, all your efforts will fail.

[1]  Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, 2nd ed., §437, citing A. Green, "The Last Days of Judah," Journal of Biblical Literature, 101 (1982):68-73.

Edited October 12, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

disregard

Edited October 12, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

34 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

disregard

Can't disregard the Rorty quote, however.  So Humean.

[MosiahFree]

On 10/9/2020 at 10:56 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

What is missing in both cases (Fundamentalism and Empiricim, which, not coincidentally, come out of the same historical period)

 What?