Wednesday, June 19, 2013

... on Divine, Angelic, Lower Causalities and on Natural Law Never Causing Anything

TheThinkingAtheist : Understanding Christianese-Lesson 1

Has a few points worth considering. However makes a pseudopoint about saying grace over meals. The debate starts with me answering that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bless does not refer only to what nutritional content the food has, but also as to how well the body will digest it.

And how satisfied and peaceful with each other the people will be at the dinner table.

Not meaning God couldn't make a miracle about content too, if on any occasion it were needed.
Christopher Martinez
In order to understand the incorrectness of your logic, you have to understand the biological science of the human digestive system. Only then will you understand that digestion happens due to a chemical process, and not because of divine intervention. This is a proven scientific study with characteristics that can easily be replicated in a lab (wiki it). There is no registered proof anywhere of divine intervention, only belief through word of mouth and unverified scriptures.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
What the lab does not prove for or against is however whether chemical processes (including those of digestion) happen as they happen because of inherent ultimate necessity over which no god has any control, or whether they are the usual way God works in his creation (when it comes to digestion).

Your name and attitude indicate you could be a Spanish or Hispanic anticlerical, thus heavily biassed against anything Catholic.
Any physiological process in a particular organism is required for survival. Wheather it's about a protozoo performing phagocytosis, or the refined digestive system in complex animals such as ourselves. It's just how life works. As C. Martinez pointed out, there's absolutely no evidence of it occurring because of divine intervention; but there abounds evidence about the evolution of digestive systems, such as a serpent's, where digestion starts at the injection of venom by its enzymatic nature.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You have still failed to adress the obtuse grasp your colleague took on my answer by yet another time using the concept of Christianity meaning "divine intervention in what could otherwise work very well without any kind of god".

That is not what Christianity means, since God is not just ruler of sth originating independently of him, but origin.

And your examples do not show that serpentine or human digestion is independent of God or needs no creator.
Well, evolution by natural selección is the "creating force" -so to speak- of all the diversity of life forms and species and their particular treats and levels of complexity (i. e. nervious system, circulatory system, digestive system, etc.). There's overwhelming evidence for it; so much that evolution is a scientific fact.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to point out. Is it something like "evolution is real, but a god drives it" kind of thing?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Absolutely not, unless you mean microevolution (like black and white man both evolved their features after Adam or poneys and big horses have evolved from common ancestors or ...).

I am saying the world is real and at any moment for any aspect God is ultimately deciding what happens, even if allowing some free decisions to angels and men.

Both God and angels can affect without any "miracle" speed and intensity of a chemical process. God can also directly work miracles (changing process).
Well, all humans alive today really are descendants of Y-Chromosome Adam, a ~500, 000 year-old male, I'll give you that. But no, ponies and big horses are just breeds of domesticated wild horses, both human-produced by artifical selection, wich is basically a man-made form of natural selection in small scale. There's evidence for all of these.

I´m just saying that if you're so sure of these angels and gods, you should bring evidence, too, so it can be considered feasible, at the very least.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
In order to deny angels as well as God, you have to ignore or deny all miracles all over history, whether Hebrew or Pagan or after them Christian.

That denial is not feasible.
There's absolutely no evidence to support those "miracles". Throughout history, humans have not always understood certain events. In this inability to give explanations to natural phenomena (or even deceit, indeed, by ill-intended people), they addressed to these as "miracles". Fortunately, science can now explain almost every aspect of the natural world, and we have come to know that these "miracles" have a real explanation, and science is continuously expanding its knowledge everyday.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Yawn ... (really) ... you took maths and science, not history as a major, right?

Or literature or Classical languages for that matter ...
OK, I think we're done here. ;)
Hans-Georg Lundahl

A nice little debate to republish on my blog assertedretorts (dot blogspot ...) and I will honour your statements to your youtube profile.
Christopher Martinez
What you need to do is take a critical thinking class. You are dismissing my argument because, according to you, I am an anticlerical Hispanic? How do you even come up with that? I grew up in a Catholic house hold. In fact, from my immediate family (Dad, Mom, brother, sister) I am the only one who doesn't practice Catholicism. I don't have any "attitude" towards the subject, I simply pointed out your flawed logic, proceeded by making a sound argument, and you couldn't even construct a sentence.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Sorry, missed this while taking up with Emiliotheangel.

You did not answer my argument about what the lab does not prove. As Emilio did.

You are a Hispanic. You are from a Catholic family. You are not a Catholic. The most widely known other options among Hispanics are Pentecostal, Santeria and Anticlerical Atheism with Evolution.

I mentioned this only because you mentioned "my logic".
Christopher Martinez (a)
Was there a question there? Your sentences make absolutely no sense. I quote, "...chemical processes...happen...because of inherent ultimate necessity..." What in the world are you saying? Notice how my statements end with a question mark, to suggest that the statement is a question and not a claim. It seems you're having trouble contextualizing what you're trying to say, but there's no need to question the digestive system. Like I said, it is a chemical process. Google "digestive system".
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"What the lab does not prove ... is ... whether ... or ..."

That should give you the base for the sentence, now you are able to parse it if you know any grammar.

That should also suffice to deal with your final pseudorefutation.
Christopher Martinez (b)
I never once mentioned why you believed there's a connection between Hispanics and anticlerical atheism, I was simply confused as to why you would dismiss my argument based on the fact that I'm Hispanic. There's your pseudo-refutation, used with the right context....but why am I wasting my time arguing with someone that doesn't even understand the chemical process of the digestive system, something that a 6th grader can figure out. Blinded by doctrine, this topic is beyond you my friend.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Between a straight statement sentence, and a straight question sentence, there is such a thing as stating something about a question.

Q: Are processes working the way they do out of a necessity inhering absolutely in themselves or because God wills and angels work?

Statement about that question: Lab tests will not tell you. Referring to them is thus a fallacy.

Put into one sentence it works out as I stated it earlier.
....Are you dumb? Of course digestive processes work out of necessity. If not, we'd either A. Be dead, or B. Not have to eat food. Your brain is extremely incoherently wired. It is a mass of miss-firing neurons. Please go back and finish middle school before you go and make stupid statements and ask stupid questions.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
More like B.

Some of us do not have to eat food, except the Holy Eucharist. I think Maria Valtorta was one person kept alive for years eating only one Host per day.*

Actually, you even misunderstood the point. God usually does not allow people to survive without eating, nor to eat without surviving. But even so a particular process of digestion on a particular day can be more or less nourishing, more or less damaging (like flatulence, stomach ache and so on) without necessity being detectable.
These are all explained phenomena... Man, people are nitpicking these days... Anything scientific is just wrong, apparently. I mean I understand arguing evolution since it is still a young theory, but fighting against the proven workings of the human digestive system? Give me a break. Have you ever opened a biology textbook in your life? Or was that the class you just kinda fell asleep in cuz your teacher didn't care enough?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I did not argue against how digestion works.

I did not say shit and energy from the body join together to become food, I know it is the other way round.

I did say the exact speed, intensity and initial needs of the process can vary very extremely according to the will of its Creator. God.

There is nothing in your biology book to disprove that. There is nothing in any lab test about digestion to disprove that. There are exemples that do prove that. Like Maria Valtorta.*
*The person kept alive by one host per day - I think even without water - for years was not Maria Valtorta, but Alexandrina da Costa. Note that first time I mentioned "Maria Valtorta" in the role of Alexandrina, I wrote "I think". Maria Valtorta was a visionary, her visions have been verified in minute historical detail (in things that accompanied the miracles but could well be verified apart from them), and she had access to two books: Bible and Catechism of St Pius X. Alexandrina da Costa lived on one host a day. Not twenty for breakfast, twenty for lunch and twenty for supper as some seem to imagine. One host is usually the size of a coin, of unleavened bread. If God had not invisibly taken the place of bread, it could not have kept her a live for two weeks. Both cases have in common to have been minutely watched over by XXth C. Medical Doctors for years and years.
Continued on:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Maria Valtorta and Alexandrina da Costa, Bedridden Miracles and Saints, and on Fact Checking Miracles

Here is another video, this time with Hitchens:

bdwilson1000 : Why Christianity is Impossible to Believe (Christopher Hitchens)

Everything atheists assert is impossible to believe.
That statement is so ridiculous its laughable... I'm an atheist and I assert all kinds of stuff that is very believable ;) Also, again, atheism isnt a doctrine, we dont 'assert' anything collectively, cause therre is no church of Atheism. However you assert there is a god, which there is no evidence for and should therefore be very difficult if not impossible to believe. Burden of proof mradreamer...
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"there is no church of Atheism"

There is perhaps no hierarchic structure englobing all atheists as a whole, but there certainly is a sect animated by the late Hitchens and the still alive Lawrence Krauss and Richard Dawkins.

Congratulations to those who are not part of it.

To either of them, I wish for their conversion to Christianity.
"To either of them, I wish for their conversion to Christianity."

Why would you wish for their intellectual hobbling and subjection to delusion?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Because I do not. Because it is atheism - in particular the sect of Dawkins and Hitchens - that is a delusion.
Please explain to me how NOT believing in a god is delusional (no matter how vocal one is with regards to this particular perspective).
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Involves believing Exodus never happened, though Israel are as likely to remember it correctly as US are to remember George Washington correctly.

Involves Flood never happened, though lots of Pagans recall it with slightly incorrect details and with incorrect theology.

Involves believing people whom God or the Devil or angels speak to are schizophrenic or otherwise delusional, even when highly functioning and in some cases miracle workers.

Involves mammalian chromosomes are limited to < / =48
I won't bother refuting any of those alleged events (even though there's little - if any - extra-biblical support of them, and plenty of contradictory evidence) - as they provide absolutely no evidence in support of the claim that this "God" character actually exists. Does a fictional "period-piece" provide any evidentiary support that the characters ACTUALLY existed (or experienced any of the actual events recounted in them)?

People who hear voices ARE delusional (I've met them).
Hans-Georg Lundahl
You totally forgot the evolutionists' great problem about mammalian chromosome numbers above 48.

"even though there's little - if any - extra-biblical support of them, and plenty of contradictory evidence"

For Flood there is plenty of extra-Biblical evidence.

For Exodus there is at least some of it. Routing of Egyptian army would for instance explain why Hyksos could just walk straight into Egypt, basically.

"they provide absolutely no evidence in support of " God existing.

If they happened, they do so provide it.

"People who hear voices ARE delusional (I've met them)."

You are wrong, at least about some, possibly even about all of them.

"Does a fictional "period-piece" provide any evidentiary support that the characters ACTUALLY existed (or experienced any of the actual events recounted in them)?"

Total misunderstanding of the "Sitz im Leben" of those tales. They were not meant as a miracle believer's counterpart to Scooby Doo or anything like that.
Didn't "forget" - I ran out of space.

I'm not sure what you are claiming the "problem" to be.

I'm unfortunately out of time at the moment, but will get back to you when I'm able (might be a few days) - I would appreciate some clarification on this "chromosome issue" (I've never heard of it, and a web search doen't seem to turn up anything). Seriously, I'm not one to shy away from challenges (especially when I know I'm right - which I am), I'll get back to you later.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
do google creavsevolu letter to nature

in that blog message I link both to my own earlier writings thereon, and to my adversary P Z Myers who claimed to have a solution, which I have - to my satisfaction - refuted. Even in debate in his comboxes, since all of a sudden he hides comments later than 2009 (= comments involving me and people answering me and that I am answering).
I'll be honest - genetics is not my strong suit (the issue is too far beyond my knowledge base to address properly - at least without far more investigation than I am currently willing to commit to), but even if it would seem to be a currently insurmountable challenge, I put it to you that it does not exceed the imminantly greater challenge of ERV evidence (which is really a smoking gun) - it would be necessary to offer an alternate explanation of how that pattern arose without common descent.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
No idea of what ERV is exactly, but any argument for common descent is equally an argument for a common maker.

Any common trait may be either trade mark of a craftsman or trace of common non-intentional cause.

Whether genetics is your forte or not, maybe maths are?

There is no small step gradualism between 24 pairs and 25 pairs. Trisomy in one pair augmented to tetrasomy will not do: a tetrasomy is not same as two functional pairs, but a further degradation of functionality.

[In case he does not follow this up, here is the link to what I wanted him to google:

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals

He did too follow up:

You "know" enough about genetics to claim authoratatively that it is impossible to go from 24 pairs of chromosomes to 25 (it is - it's just that the newly generated pair would not serve an immediate purpose, and unless it turned out to have a deleterious effect on the possessor's ability to effectively reproduce, will "hang around" until it mutates into another [possibly useful] form) - and yet you do not know anything about ERVs? Interesting.

See: watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI and learn somethin'.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
First of all, a tetrasomy is not an extra pair.

Second, a tetrasomy may and an extra pair out of nowhere will trigger an immunity system defense reaction and spontaneously abort the fetus.

You are reasoning as if mammals laid eggs and that is it. Hint for you: they do not. There is such a thing as gestation. Even a trisomy in a big pair of chromosomes (say human 1 or 3, excepting mosaica) is usually mortal.

If instead of ERV you had used full words, I might have known something about them.

Can't watch the video right on this computer, so you will have to put up with my answering the rest of your comment without having wtached it. BBL on video.*

Ah, there is good old wiki too:


The replication cycle of a retrovirus entails the insertion ('integration') of a DNA copy of the viral genome into the nuclear genome of the host cell. [...] However, most of these have acquired inactivating mutations during host DNA replication, and are no longer capable of producing virus.

Theistic YEC solution (offhand): its the virus that is secondary and the parts of the genome that are primary. Where they form virus, it is like cancer derived from host.

[* Video has full url and title:

cdk007 : Evidence for Evolution, Part III

Beside that one there is another one:

jesse8857 : Debunking ERVs (Endogenous Retroviral Sequences)
also by me, not answered so far, directly against Hitchens
"for actions which we are condemned in advance to taking"

... he thus argues that if Christianity were true (as it is actually), Calvinism would be true as well (as it is not).

On the following video is compared invisibility of God with invisibility of "invisible unicorn":

TheAmazingAtheist : Stupid Comments

I see a problem as to the logical parallel. A unicorn is by definition (insofar as it would exist at all, which might be the case) something visible. Before the end, we will be discussing what natural law is. Not the guy on the video and I, but another commenter and I:
Hans-Georg Lundahl

[Ce commentaire a reçu trop de votes négatifs.]
"Invisible unicorn"

A unicorn is by definition a horse with a horn where a horse has no horn and where the beast that has a horn is not a horse but a rhino (not to be confused with a rino=republican in name only).

Not so with God, who by definition is a spirit.
No, who by definition is what ever the fuck you happen to decide he is at this particular minute. Don't you see? God is nothing more than your desires, bigotry and otherwise unjustified beliefs manifested into something you can always point at when you haven't got any better arguments.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
That would by definition not be God but "someone's superstition about an otherwise non-existent God as analysed by Freud".

Which is another question.

I said that God - as we Christians and a few others think he exist - is spirit. Which is what makes him different from "invisible bodies that should be visible since bodies."

Freudian "analysis" is convenient to cover up obvious atheist falws of logic by discovering non-obvious ones in a Christian so "analysed".
But your idea of God has changed all the time, like weather or not he makes the rain and some such. God is an idea, not an actual thing that you can pinpoint with accuracy and say "that is the definition of this". Take two christians from the same sect and they have a completely different idea of what god is.

And about the other thing, how do you know any of this? Making it up doesn't count.

And please inform me what flaws you find from "I don't believe in God claims". That's all atheism is.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
"Take two christians from the same sect and they have a completely different idea of what god is"

We are talking about Orthodox and Catholic ideas over 20 C. Pretty constant.

God DOES let the sun shine and rain fall, wherever he wants to. No single drop of rain falls unless God wills or allows it anywhere in the world. That is what the word "omnipotens" or "pantocrator" of the creed means.

So you are an atheist, you used a flawed argument and then a non-sense Freudian one to cover up.
No, they aren't. Every single christian has their own god idea, and the sects are only a spring board to that. Show five different catholics any of the thousands of contradictions in the bible, and listen how they step dance around them. They all do, but they all pull different aswers out from their butts.

No, that's what we call natural laws. And if you think god is behind those, I'd expect pretty strong reasons to accept that hypothesis.

To Freud: I don't agree, and I'm not all atheists.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
I said Catholic and Orthodox ideas over 20 C. Not during the 20:th C.

You will certainly find five shades of modernism among no-traditional Catholics.

Besides, an idea contrasted with others about one particular problem of Bible interpretation does not amount to one idea contrasted with others about who and what God is.

Natural laws never caused anything. They are a description of how things are caused by natural causes, they are not the natural causes themselves, nor are these all causes.
What the fuck are you talking about? That could not make any sense even in your own head.

Explain the three first paragraphs again and try to have some semblence of rationality into them.

"Natural laws never caused anything. They are a description of how things are caused by natural causes, they are not the natural causes themselves, nor are these all causes." And you know this how?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
3 §§: Catholic and Orthodox tradition has one unique definition of God. It does not vary because of different exegesis about lesser matters.

I know that natural laws never caused anything, just as I know the laws of arithmetic never put one penny or cent into or out of my pocket. Generally it was I who did so. Without contradicting the laws of arithmetic.

[For the last one I am grateful to Clive Staples Lewis for a certain chapter in Miracles (1947). It might seem he might have profited from a book on same subject written by a Catholic priest in 1916 in refutation of le Roy and Bergson.]

But wait, wasn't it catholics who'se Pope just said something about atheists going to heaven that caused a huge uproar and that got basically vetoed by some other high-ranking funny-hat-ones?

So you don't really know anything. Just as well I could say I know there is no God since I don't have any pink socks either. Good one. And that doesn't break the natural laws either. Also, if by some miracle your argument made sense, how do you come to the conclusion it's God's doing, let alone your God's?
Hans-Georg Lundahl
1 Some of us are not sure he is Pope.

2 What he said was Atheists have inherent knowledge and therefore obligation to be good, as well as Christians have. Quite right as long as their atheism does not destroy it - or they destroy it to favour their atheism.

3 He did not say they could go to Heaven without becoming Christian first.

This is then an example of different ideas about the atheist's situation or about how much optimism one can voice without leading them on. Not about God's nature.
That is exactly what we were talking about. You are not sure he is pope, and pope is somebody who is ordained to be pope by god. So if he thinks he is ordained by god and you don't, you have a different idea of god. I'm sorry, that's how it goes. Besides, you white wash his statement quite a bit, but then again you are christian, so no surprises there.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Your words, with my highlight:

"So if he thinks he is ordained by god and you don't, you have a different idea of god."

(Possibly of him, he knows himself better than I know him)

My earlier words, with highlight:

"Catholic and Orthodox tradition has one unique definition of God."

A definition of God - relevant to praying bf you eat - and an idea of how much he puts up with in the case of heterodox statements or statements some suspect of being so though really not, are two different things.
Discussion was continued on this post:
... on Christian Ethics (you know Crusades and holding Slaves and such)

No comments: