₦airaland Forum

PastorAIO:
2Kings 22
1Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty-one years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Jedidah the daughter of Adaiah of Bozkath. 2[b]And he did what was right in the eyes of the LORD and walked in all the way of David his father, and he did not turn aside to the right or to the left.[/b]

And after all the sacrifices that yhwh 'allowed' to happen he still wasn't appeased even those Josiah did everything right in his sight. What is the reward of the righteous for this ghoul.

2Kings 23
26Still the LORD did not turn from the burning of his great wrath, by which his anger was kindled against Judah, because of all the provocations with which Manasseh had provoked him. 27And the LORD said, “I will remove Judah also out of my sight, as I have removed Israel, and I will cast off this city that I have chosen, Jerusalem, and the house of which I said, My name shall be there.”

Josiah’s Death in Battle

28Now the rest of the acts of Josiah and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah? 29In his days Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates. King Josiah went to meet him, and Pharaoh Neco killed him at Megiddo, as soon as he saw him. 30And his servants carried him dead in a chariot from Megiddo and brought him to Jerusalem and buried him in his own tomb. And the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and anointed him, and made him king in his father’s place.

So upon all the righteousness and slaughter of priests and institution of Passover etc etc etc yhwh's favourite king could not find favour. Yhwh continued to suffer the Jews and ultimately led to the slaughter of his righteous king. If he can do Josiah like that that what do you thing he has in store for you?

Hmmm,you seem to be really angry at the God of the bible...

LordReed:
Listen to Sean Carroll here:

https://slate.com/technology/2016/02/sean-carroll-talks-about-the-beginning-of-the-universe.html

Starting with another article from a popular level talk.

In any case, Could you kindly articulate what you understand about Dr Carroll's position?

LordReed:
Read this to get started:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/07/06/did-the-universe-have-a-beginning/?sh=5138f1244100

Hmm first of all sir, an article on Forbes for a cosmological theorem is really not a good start.

To the main point I think you wanted to use the article for, the author stated

"So, then, where did inflation come from?
Was it eternal, or did it only last for a finite amount of time? In 2003, a theorem was published — the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) theorem — that showed that inflating spacetimes are what we call “past-timelike incomplete,” which means that inflation cannot describe a “beginning” to the Universe. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the Universe had a non-inflationary beginning; it only implies that if inflation was not an eternal state, it must have arisen from a previous state that, perhaps, did have a beginning. (It is also uncertain whether the BGV theorem will apply to a fully quantum theory of gravity."

Again the reservation raised by the cosmologist has been addressed in actual peer-reviewed papers, some of which I've posted earlier. https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658, https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3836 , https://arxiv.org/abs/1010.5513 etc.
It's also been dealt with in actual cosmological books with like the one the other guy was alluding to.

Also his portrayal of what the BGV theorem asserts & does not assert is incorrect and can be demonstrably shown by simply reading the articles & papers by the authors themselves.

Buliwyf:
Lol this guy. Did you read the summary on that page 331? Because it seems you posted it without reading.

Again the summary of the text wasn't excluding the origin of the universe as opposed to the the origin of inflation. Read the whole page and the preceding page I posted sir
No such demarcation is made by the theorem, hence why I pasted the whole page and it's preceding context.
Basically, In the beginning was the beginning:
https://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning.
(Kindly read it, it help explains how the on a popular level, the beginning is the beginning. There's no beginning to the universe prior to the inflation. It's an interview with Dr Vilenkin)

You can subsequently download the free online peer reviewed article I posted also. Here is the link once more: Mithani, Audrey; Vilenkin, Alexander (20 April 2012). "Did the universe have a beginning?". arXiv:1204.4658". - free online.(https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658)

Also read the free article online I posted earlier from Vilenkin where he states his theory and proposes his hypothesis of how the universe could have begun through natural processes. https://inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe

Also do read "22.2.2 A Proof of God?" from the pictures I posted on pages 331,where Vilenkin propses his own hypothesis on the second part of the cosmological argument( I'm guessing you know what it states).

In any case, I've given you multiple sources on what the theorem states, written by one of the authors itself. if you still choose to mis-interprete a single line of a summary without interacting with any other thing, maybe you should take a step and realise, maybe you are the one holding on strongly to a philosophical bias.




PS: I made an edit to the wiki page, removing the assertion made by the previous editor which none of the source materials nowhere makes and was contradictory to assertions made in the rest of the article.

Buliwyf:
**Facepalm**
Am I the only one actually reading what you are posting? Even the evidence and paperwork you posted made it clear yet you are still on this matter.

BGV is about the beginning of the INFLATION of the universe. It has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe itself. Which is not what you stated initially when you replied LordReed. Your arguments has been about the beginning of the universe. BGV does not deal with that.

Please read the article you are posting as evidence well. Please!!! And notice it says inflation everything time.

So inflation of the universe must have definitely had a beginning according to the BGV model but it doesn't say anything about the beginning of the universe itself.

I suggest you re-read again sir. You seem to be trying to impose something else other than that which the book is stating

Buliwyf:
**Sigh** Christians and gymnastics.

You were the one that brought up the BGV theorem claiming it makes a claim about the beginning of the universe. [b]I just bursted your claim by showing you that it only has to do with the inflation of the universe and not the universe itself. [/b]Now you have shifted to unrelated questions. Maybe I should attach a picture in case you forgot.

I don't know why you christians have to resort to gymnastics when all you need if for your god to just prove he exists in a meaningful way so that everyone can see without any doubt. He has only done as much as spiderman so far

I just edited my post prior to seeing your reply to show that @ bolded is incorrect from the source itself.

I'll repost it below again Incase you missed it

Could you kindly point out where I made mention of the BVG theorem making any assertions to anything prior to the existence of the universe?

Could you also point out where I made any assertions that the theorem makes any claims about any deity?

Finally I do have a copies of the sources used in the wiki link you marked out, so I'm reasonably certain of what the theorem asserts & what it doesn't.

a)"Mithani, Audrey; Vilenkin, Alexander (20 April 2012). "Did the universe have a beginning?". arXiv:1204.4658". - free online.(https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658)

b) Delia Perlov and Alexander Vilenkin, Cosmology for the Curious p. 331

Neither of them makes any claims that the universe does not have an ultimate beginning.
And the statement "However, Vilenkin and co-author Delia Perlov have also stated that, in their view, the theorem tells us only that inflation had a beginning and not that the universe had a not that the universe had a beginning" is incorrect.
There's no where in the book(Cosmology for the Curious) such an assertion is made.
Below is page 331 and it's context.

Finally here is a free online article where Vilenkin articulates his own speculative hypothesis but ultimately comes to the conclusion that as far as the physics go, that is a mystery and We have no way to begin to address this mystery
https://inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe

Buliwyf:
Here we go again. I don't know how many times this has to be corrected and it is usually peddled by Christians who are trying to use it as an assertion that their god must have created the universe because it has a beginning. The picture attached below is from Wikipedia page about the BGV theorem. As you can see the theorem only claims to know the beginning of the universe as we know it. Not anything that exists before the Big Bang.

I don't even know how the theorem even proves the existence of the Christian god. We are discussing the beginning of the universe because the universe can be proven to exist. The problem is that Christians try to leapfrog this proof and claim that their god is everlasting and must have created the universe without first showing their god exists in the first place.

The only thing we know for sure without any doubt is that the universe exists in one form or another and we are a part of it. If there is a god, it is probably the universe itself and we are all just expressions of it. The universe is more believable as a deity than any guy on a throne behind the clouds who cannot manifest in any meaningful way but impregnates women to give birth to himself and still fail at his goal while his followers are splintered into a million factions with differing orders from him.

Could you kindly point out where I made mention of the BVG theorem making any assertions to anything prior to the existence of the universe?

Could you also point out where I made any assertions that the theorem makes any claims about any deity?

Finally I do have a copies of the sources used in the wiki link you marked out, so I'm reasonably certain of what the theorem asserts & what it doesn't.

a)"Mithani, Audrey; Vilenkin, Alexander (20 April 2012). "Did the universe have a beginning?". arXiv:1204.4658". - free online.(https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658)

b) Delia Perlov and Alexander Vilenkin, Cosmology for the Curious p. 331

Neither of them makes any claims that the universe does not have an ultimate beginning.
And the statement "However, Vilenkin and co-author Delia Perlov have also stated that, in their view, the theorem tells us only that inflation had a beginning and not that the universe had a not that the universe had a beginning" is incorrect.
There's no where in the book(Cosmology for the Curious) such an assertion is made.
Below is page 331 and it's context.

LordReed:
You would only say that if you thought there was nothing before the BB. There was something before the expansion began, you cannot discount that something.

Like I said sir, all known physics and theory states that the in universe has a beginning. Inflation might be eternal to the future but not to the past.
This is not just my opinion or theistic bias. This is standard cosmology.

A number of physicists have tried to create models of an eternal universe especially since we don't have a quantum theory of gravity but the BGV theorem is sweeping in its generality. It makes no assumptions about gravity or matter. Gravity may be attractive or repulsive, light rays may converge or diverge, and even general relativity may decline into desuetude: the theorem would still hold.
Basically as long as the average expansion rate is positive along a given world line, or geodesic, then this geodesic must terminate after a finite amount of time.

As you said sir, there has to be something before the universe. The first speck of space, energy & the fundamental laws have had to come from somewhere but that is outside of the hard sciences and into the realm of the meta physical & other disciplines.
But the point is, this universe did have an ultimate starting point. Any other conclusion draws not on what we know, but on what we don't know.

By the way, Vilenkin etc are agnostic as far as I know and do not ascribe the beginning of this universe to a deity or affirms the existence of one. As stated above, that's outside of what physics or what the theory can describe and of course speculations abound.
What is affirmed is that given the theorem the only way to avoid a beginning is to appeal to unknown physics.

LordReed:
Wrong. Science doesn't say the universe has a beginning.

Science says that sir. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem.
Every known physics we have points to a universe with an ultimate beginning point.
What science can't say is what was, prior to the universe.

Myer:
Have you ever done programming?
If you understand looping then you wont make this conclusion.
A loop has a beginning but does not have an end.

All loops have an end sir( either by design or by hardware constraints).

Every loop is designed to have an exit condition, either predetermined at runtime (set amount of time the loop should run) or by having an exit clause ( a condition that lets the loop know when it should breakout of itself).
A common rookie mistake especially with "While Loops" is when the developer incorrectly sets or forgets to set the condition for the loop to break out of itself. This is probably what you might be referring to: " The infinite loop".
This is just the name, because in reality the loop is not infinite. What happens is, the program would get stuck in this loop until it reaches the hardware constraint or language constraints, and then crashes.
Even if you have a system as big as the universe, it would still hit it's constraints and eventually crash.

olopan:
I have not encounter such error before and the error is not available in Growatt error handbook

What battery is used with the inverter?

You should mail growatt directly at service@ginverter.com

Or contact your seller for warranty claims

Thanks alot sir for advice.
Actually got it to work back. Just did a hard reset of the system and everything is back to normal.

Question still remains, what caused it though. I'll shoot them a mail to further understand the what caused the issue.

Thanks once again boss

Good morning house. Please has anyone ever encountered an " [color=#FF0000]Internal communication error[/color]" on a growatt inverter before.

The inverter is just giving a continuous ringing sound with an error code of 62. I checked the manual and it says that's an internal communication error.

Please o, anyone knows what caused the error and best fix for it. There's nothing on google and the manual so far. Pls any help or insight is highly appreciated. Thank you very much in advance

The inverter is a growatt 5000es inverter.
Below is a short video of the issue as sent to me
https://youtube.com/shorts/xwKbYJpe0PI
cc @olopan, ojeysky

LordReed:
The same type we see about Jesus. These should have come about as fascinating stories and rumors that could not be easily dismissed.

We do have not just one but 3 separate literatures on the events, that has been preserved. We call them gospel & scripture but the authors & the audience would have regarded it as penning down a recount by/from eyewitnesses of the events with a theological lens(at least from their point of view).

We do see through the historical records, a shift from the oral traditions which was highly valued over the written ones, up until around the second century. This was when the "supposedly" eyewitnesses became fewer & fewer and the oral narratives about the events began to diverge significantly from what the apostolic fathers(2nd generation of church leaders) heard from the first generation of Christians.
It's at this point we increasingly see the documents being referenced almost in the same capacity as the old testament scriptures.
And when Marcion forced("My interpretation" ) the hand of the early church; Out of all the gospels & stories floating around, the 4 gospels we have today(including the letters of Paul) were universally accepted without issues immediately.
For a deeper dive into how the new testament books came to be, I would recommend

Bruce Metzger's :The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration 3rd edition. It a bit old but I would still recommend it to anyone interested in the new testament.

Josephus particularly as a Jewish historian would have noted such things if they were in circulation. Their lack is extremely curious.

It's actually the opposite sir. Josephus was writing an historical document of the Jews to a Roman audience. It would have been odd if he included narrative of an event in the past he didn't believe or benefit him in some way. That would have been a significant departure from everything else he wrote.
This is one of the reasons it's unanimously agreed upon that Josephus' reference to Jesus in book 18 is definitely a Christian interpolation. Although it's safe to say there was a core narrative behind what was christianized.

Josephus wrote almost nothing about Jesus's life, so it would have been odd if he recorded rumours about his death.
If Josephus being a Jew had believed that there was something to the rumours of a Messiah figure who was resurrected on the third day as promised, Josephus would have become a Christian. We would have seen it in the records, the same way we see that of Paul, James and Jude.

The criteria cannot be the same. We have way more tools at our disposal for verifying events. So again the lack of these is very curious.
No video, no audio recording of this person that is supposedly alive and has supposedly appeared and spoken to his followers.

I was only reiterating what you proposed in your first proposition sir. You said we should have the same level of evidence for him being alive today with the same level of evidence we have that he lived sometime ago in Judea.

That is a narrative that was put forth by Christians, there is no other source that says anything about a missing body.

What do you mean by this sir.

The lack of a body is not something we can verify since that is physical evidence so that even if there is a body it would not be any state to be verified as that of Jesus. We don't even have a any way to recognise it even if it was found for instance.

When we say lack of body sir, we are not talking about it from our standpoint today. We are talking about from the standpoint of the early opposition of the sect during the persecution.

He was crucified as a criminal even if his offense was trumped up. The Romans came down hard on anyone who was viewed as seditious or usurping their authority. And we do know how they treated criminal corpses, they were generally buried in mass graves after being left to be displayed for awhile.

So two things.
1) From the records that we have today, Jesus was crucified on the behest of the ruling class, not because Rome thought he was really trying to usurp their authority

2) Yes, we do know how criminal corpses were treated, and it was not a one size fits all. People did bury the bodies of criminals.

Finally, if we are talking of evidence, there is no evidence of mass grave burials both in the archeological records and in the literary sources in Judea during these periods.
In contrast what we do have evidence for points in the other direction.
I have already mentioned the literary evidence of how Jews were ought to and did treat the bodies of even criminals, and we can include even Josephus writing also.
But most importantly we do have one archeological evidence of the burial of another cruficied man around the same time of Jesus under that same Pilate.
Does this prove Jesus was definitely buried. No.
But it does show that even crucified criminals were allowed to proper burial.
And as stated above there is no evidence of mass burial anywhere in Israel.

Pilate is on record being not particularly caring to Jewish sensibilities so there is no reason to think he had an inclination to treat Jesus any differently. And even if he was inclined to take down the body what would be the impetus to release it to a member of the Sanhedrin?

Yes, as a Roman, he would not necessarily care much about Jewish customs but at the same time as a governor he would not make rash stands that could offend Jewish sensibilities for no reason and risk unnecessary risk civil disobedience. Risking his own political office. Pilate won't have been different from any human or dictator....Complex

Romans successfully held their empire together in no small part by remaining sensative to local sensibilities, especially in times of general peace.
The same sources people have used to show that Pilate could be ruthless, are the same sources that show him caving to Jewish sensibilities and trying to avoid unnecessary breakdown of order.
Ex: Wanting to bring images of ceaser into Jerusalem, that the Jews kicked against. Etc

And as stated previously also, there wouldn't have been a resurrection story in the first place if the body was left on the cross for a while till birds and animals pick it clean. A third day bodily resurrection would have been stopped right on it's tracks from the beginning,since everyone would have known what happened to the body and how long it stayed on the cross.

As for why he wouldn't release the body to a member of the Sanhedrin, the question would be, why wouldn't he?

Yes there was a burial but what type is the question. In a mass grave that has been covered over how would the anybody have recovered the body without significantly disturbing the gravesite?

There is simply not a shred of evidence that mass grave sites with bodies simply dumped on each other occured any where in Israel during this period.
The Romans did kill quite a lot of people but we have no literary or any other type of evidence for a mass grave for dumping in Israel.
What we do have is quite the opposite as shown above.

What stopped the disciples from claiming it was spiritual resurrection?

And that would be the crux of the matter sir. If the disciples had simply said it was a spiritual resurrection, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
But they chose to die on the hill of a bodily resurrection in actual space and time. Even the earliest christian creed that we have, which can be liberally dated to have developed very early made a point of the bodily resurrection.
1Cor 15:3-4 (Paul was quoting it).... Interestingly the only two names Paul mentions, are two of the apostles we are reasonably sure we're put to death for this believe.
To me, this demands an explanation. It's either they were cucu or they were dead sure of what the believed. And for me

LordReed:
Exactly, the Jewish elite were unsuccessful in suppressing the Christian narrative, there's no reason to believe they could have suppressed any other sources of oral traditions.

So what type of non-christain narrative or tradition do we expect to see in the historical records?

Do you mean what evidence I would expect in this day and age?

Yes sir. Given the same criteria you gave about the historicity of his life

While largely agreeing with your comments so far, I don't agree the historical evidence covers an empty tomb. That is not something that can be verified as following what we know of the time period.

Well thats not entirely correct sir. The earliest preserved criticism of the resurrection of Jesus that has come down to us was that the body was simply stolen from its burial place (the stolen body hypothesis) and the lack of a body is more or less generally taken as a given amongst historians on both sides. That is what generally fits the traditions (for & against) that have come down to us.

As you may already know criminals would not have been given dignified burials and it would be strange for a member of the same Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus would be the one to make such an arrangement. Add to that the unreconcilable accounts of what supposedly happened at the tomb. It rather seems like a cobbled together tale designed to perpetuate the specialness of a beloved teacher.

This would be more of conjecture sir. From what we reasonably know about Christ and from the ethics of his followers (who supposedly were trying to imitate Christ), it's safe to say he wasn't a criminal and most people would have known that.
It is not unreasonable to believe that people(even some within the ruling class) would have been sympathetic to a blameless man who was given the worst death imaginable based on trumped up charges.
From the records we have(which are "christian", even Herod and Pilate found Jesus not guilty. We have no contrary tradition to that.

Secondly, Jesus was crucified during a time of peace and the Romans generally respected the laws of the people they ruled during such times. One of the laws Jews generally held strongly was the Deuteronomy laws of not leaving the condemned person's body overnight. We see this iterated in the temple scrolls, the book of tobit,and in later rabbinic literature(Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:4-6.)

Thirdly, if his body was left on the cross, it would be inconceivable to make up a bodily resurrection story of the 3rd day. The Jewish authority would have simply pointed at the body exposed on the cross and ended Christianity before it even got started.
No resurrection, no Christianity.
But as mentioned earlier, every single tradition we have from late antiquity (both for & against) talks of a burial and a missing body.

The kind of narrative one would expect from that period would be tales of people suddenly seeing many previously dead people, record of an earthquake, the guards tales of seeing an angel, stories from the 500 people who supposedly saw him ascend. On a broader scale Jesus supposedly raised up at least 2 people from the dead, those were significant events that should have been very much circulating among the people. The fact that these and many more don't appear anywhere else just doesn't seem like what would happen if those events really happened.

I'm still trying to understand sir? Where is the anywhere else you expect it to appear outside of the people who actually believed that this thing actually happened?
We do have quite a number of records from the group that believed a resurrection happened. We also have records from those who originally didn't believe but we're persuaded at a later date. And finally we have traditions from those who never believed but thought the disciples were looney and gave alternate rational for the missing body( the body was simply stolen from its burial site).

Which other narrative should we expect to see in the records sir?

LordReed:
Just as you describe Judea as a backwater it is quite significant that we have so much textual evidence for a single person in such a place and time.

As I mentioned earlier,the reason why Jesus was even mentioned in other sources was because of the influx and influence of Christians into the broader Roman consciousness. If christains weren't so counter cultural to the Roman/ancient ethos, it's unlikely we would have the mentions we have of him or most people would know who he is today.
The rise of Christianity and Christians was the reason for the textual records we have. Not the other way round

It's not ideal but it's enough I would think

That's actually my point sir.
It's not objective evidence the way we think of it in the hard sciences, but from an historical stand point, it's the type of evidence we expect to see and it has the best explanatory power.

So if I may ask my original question again, what type of evidence are you expecting to see today

Yes so how come now of these oral traditions carry forward any narrative from the resurrection events that wasn't a Christian source?

Ok so, a couple of comments on your statement.
From our historical records of the events, there are a couple of things that are generally agreed upon of the events in Judea at this time period, one of which is the empty tomb.
This is already a tradition that has come down to us.
If I may ask, what type of "non-christain" narrative are you expecting to be preserved of the event.

The place was ruled by the Romans so there was an exposure of the area to more than the influence of the Jewish elite. If there was a narrative that was carried by the locals the Jewish elite won't have been able to completely suppress it, the Christian narrative is evidence of that.

Rome for the most part left provinces like Judea to their own as long as they were getting their taxes, order was kept and no one was making too much ruckus that would challenge the empire's rule. Even most of the soldiers stationed in the provences wouldn't have been roman or born roman. And as you know even the tax collectors and the immediate rulers were not roman. Basically, as long as you knew your place and weren't challenging Roman might, Rome basically left you to your internal squabbles.

You mean opposition to Jesus? Sure they'd try to suppress the teachings but they couldn't succeed in that so I have no expectation they would have succeeded in suppressing non-Christian sources.

This goes back to my earlier question.
Pls bear in mind, there was an active attempt to suppress this new Jewish sect and it's leadership,starting in judea from what we can piece together

LordReed:
Correct.

That would hardly be considered as objective evidence in the way I think you might be framing it.
Outside of the Christian sources (in this instance, the gospels), almost all mentions of Jesus were in connection to his followers after the fact.

I don't know but it is certain that should any that provide independent corroboration did in fact exist, they'd have been trotted out as evidence.

We have almost none, but I get your point.
Judea was a backwater region filled with mostly peasants. And like most of the ancient world, only a very small percentage of the population were literate , so oral traditions took precedence over written ones.
So if an event whereby a young Jewish apocalyptic preacher who didn't get along with the political elites came back to life after being executed,
Which people do you believe are the most likely to spread such an occurrence and document it for others?

Also if you don't mind, what do you believe the most likely course of action would be from the opposition.

LordReed:
Basically textual evidence.

You mean people writing about the man Jesus, right?

Yes. If these events happened as described by the bible there would have been a mention of them by non-Christian writers because they were not normal occurrences. Th period would be between 33-37AD.

Make sense. But I have a kinda of a follow up question.
How many literatures about occurances in Judea from this time period ( 33 - 37 AD) do you believe exist in our historical records?

If you don't mind, I have a few questions on the issues you raised.

LordReed:
1. If Jesus is still alive and is accessible then we would have objective evidence of him being alive just like we likely have objective evidence that he lived sometime ago in Judea.

When you say "objective evidence that he lived sometime ago in Judea". What do you mean sir?

2. If Jesus rose from the dead with all the events that took place around the time we would have evidence of it from extra biblical sources. The supposed rising of other people who showed themselves in Jerusalem, the angel that supposedly rolled away the stone, the 500 people that supposedly saw him ascend, etc. None of this is captured any where else but the Bible.

When you say "captured outside the bible", do you mean by non-christain writers? Also what time period are you looking at?

LordReed:
The position "god(s) do not exist" is in effect a statement that the holder lacks a belief in gods so I fail to see how it isn't a subset.

No it is not sir.
Kindly read the materials presented.




Sorry couldn't reply sooner. Been held up with other activities lately.

LordReed:
Ok I will acknowledge I should have phased it better to signify that the broader definition I am using also encapsulates the one you are using.

Not at all sir. The "lack of belief" position is not a broader definition that encapsulates the standard one.
They are two distinct definitions.
"lack of belief" falls under a psychological state akin to agnostism, while "Gods do not exist" is a proposition & a claim. They don't fall under the same umbrella.

This is why even in text that mention both definitions, they are usually separate with an "or".
Namely: The belief that God(s) do not exist or a lack of belief in god(s)..

The original idea by Anthony Flew, was to have a definition that encompasses every ideology that doesn't fall under organized religion i.e atheist, agnostics, irreligious and everyone in-between(which can even include trees, cats or babies etc).
Problem was Flew's position actually excluded those who were atheist themselves and didn't achieve it's aim. You can't have a proposition and a state under the same umbrella.
It was critiqued by other philosopher and didn't gain acceptance.

You can look through the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy critique for a better explanation of the difference.
Or a very good resource written by a well respected atheist philosophers gives a more detailed delineation
Atheism and Agnosticism (Elements in the Philosophy of Religion) - Graham Oppy (https://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Agnosticism-Elements-Philosophy-Religion/dp/1108454720).
"Plus side is , Graham does give good arguments for atheism"

So to recap: The "lack of belief" definition is not an encapsulation of the position that "God(s) do not exist".
They are two distinct definitions

Tamaratonye5:
I'd have to see the full entry, but we'll accept your claim as valid for that article in the companion pending further investigation of the source. However, the companion is not a dictionary and doesn't try to be. My experience with Oxford Companion books is that they're more like a reader's anthology than a dictionary. So this ultimately isn't legitimate support for your claim.

LoL, okay

This is similar to what general-purpose dictionaries present and isn't really more than a quick and dirty reference for word definitions. The quote you gave constitutes the entirety of that reference. On the other hand, Oxford Reference also does quote Oxford's "The Dictionary Of Atheism" which does support the lack of belief definition which Near1 quoted. So that's one that does and one that doesn't.

I didn't bring any of them up as none of them are philosophy dictionaries.. Near1 did.

So that's another in the lack of belief column.

Nope, that's the only one

I've already discussed the problem with the Stanford entry, but since the Stanford entry does mention Antony Flew's advocacy of the lack of belief definition, so that's another strike against your claim.

LoL. The entry actively argues against Flew

So in your view, by simply mentioning it, regardless of in what capacity, that's a plus?
Anyway below is the exert as to what capacity it mentions Flew's position

So totaling things up:

Supports lack definition: 5

Doesn't support lack defn: 1 (Oxford Reference's primary entry for atheism)

Undetermined: 5 (ismbook actually says active disbelief, which could fall both ways, but it is counted as undetermined for now.)

---

So even if all 5 undetermined references went your way, at best, half don't reference lack of belief. If those examined are typical, then most actually do reference lack of belief.

LoL. Ok ma'am... I guess you see what you want to see
That's fine ma'am

Tamaratonye5:
This citation appears to be defective as well, as it characterizes atheism as, "rejection of religious beliefs." That's perfectly consistent with lack of belief; if you reject a belief, you don't hold that belief. It doesn't necessarily mean you embrace a position opposite to those beliefs in denying that a god exists. The Britannica entry makes that clear in the following quote where it points out that conceiving of atheims as a denial is problematic:

No ma'am
Lack of belief is argued as a psychological state where no position is held and no claim is made.
A rejection of a belief is a willful rejection of a belief. That is holding a position against a claim.
I've had this conversation with reed
That particular section actually broadens the definition to not only cover the rejection of the theistic conceptions of God but also rejection of all religious beliefs.
You can read the reply to Reed on that section.

Tamaratonye5:
What you said is that atheism according to these sources does not provide representation of the definition that atheism equals a lack of belief. A person who "does not believe" is a person who lacks belief in the proposition that a god exists. The two are largely synonymous, so examining your first citation you were wrong.

No, they are not synonymous and further reading the entry clarifies it:

For the most part, atheists have presumed that the most reasonable conclusions are the ones that have the best evidential support. And they have argued that the evidence in favor of God’s existence is too weak, or the arguments in favor of concluding there is no God are more compelling.

And then it goes on further to clarify it, under it's sub heading:
1. What is Atheism?
Atheism is the view that there is no God

It then goes on to specify what it means by God and gods.

And finally it goes on to state that:
It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God.

The article no where uses "does not believe" as a psychological state as opposed to a proposition, as it's preferred definition.
The only time it mentions a psychological state entry, was when it was discussing Anthony Flew's position on negative atheism. And it quickly goes on to mention that Agnosticism is traditionally characterized as such a position.

The piece itself is clear on what definition and position it holds.

You can read Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy's entry on atheism for a critique of Anthony Flew's position.

LordReed:
And do you get where we are coming from? We are using a broader definition of atheism that includes the standard definition as you call it. There is no reason to quibble over this unless you want to hold us over the barrel with the standard definition.

Nope. When I offered the standard definition: this is what you wrote

LordReed:
Wrong. Once again atheism is the lack of belief in gods, it is not the proposition that gods do not exist. Try again.

You outrightly dismissed it as wrong and held up only your preferred one.


As I've mentioned in many of my previous replies, two of which is below

jamesid29:
With that being said,their are many people who don't fall under the standard definition but self identify as atheist or theist and to me that's totally fine. Their are those who are technically irreligious or "nones" who might subscribe to belief in spiritual realities but reject an form of organized religion who self identify as atheist. And their those who are truly atheist but do not self identify as such because they don't want to be identified with the New atheist movement (Neil deGrasse Tyson I believe falls under the category). And their are those who are theist(eg christians) who are practical atheist because even though they say they believe in a deity, they live as if their is no deity.
This view does make having conversations a bit harder cos we all have to define or redefine what we mean but that's just part of the complexity of human interaction (in my opinion).

So do I have a problem with people using "lack of belief" as their definition of atheism? Not really
What is kinda of unsettling is when people choose to make it the universal definition whilst willfully rejecting the standard definition(perhaps because it's unsettling to them and their worldview ); Especially since their definition is almost non existent amongst the people who study the subject matter for a living.

Or

jamesid29:
We live in a world where people choose to define terms on their own for one reason or another, which is fine(as I stated in my piece),but doesn't make their "definition" authoritative.

Point is, you can choose to subscribe with the "lack of belief" definition. That is within your proragative.
What is outside of your prorogative is to say that atheism should not be defined as " the proposition that God(s) do not exist" ; Especially when that is the standard definition within the field that studies it itself.

You can not say I'm wrong with the standard definition the same way I cannot disregard the big bang theory as purely an educated guess because I choose to define theory using it's colloquial understanding of being something that is a "an idea or opinion".

As I mentioned to vic2ree, if your initial reply was something along the lines of

" I acknowledge the other definition but I only subscribe to this particular definition cos it better articulates what I hold to be true".
That would have been a different conversation and in my opinion a legitimate answer.

LordReed:
You are proposing we adhere to a strict philosophical definition of atheism are you not?

LoL... Pls read through my post with you and vic2ree again then.

This one might best illuminate the conversation
https://www.nairaland.com/6812440/why-believe-atheists-not-good/5#107163275

Tamaratonye5:
What purpose would it serve in modern philosophy? If it didn't appear 12th - 19th century European philosophy, that may have been because the Christian god was taken for granted - indeed, had to be taken for granted, because questioning his existence was subject to punishment ranging from social disapprobation to public execution. In the definition you cite, there is a nod to other religions (gods) that would not have occurred to a European philosopher in the 1700's - they were all more theologians than philosophers: their categorization of thought-systems was quite different from those of the ancient Greeks, their Asians counterparts and modern ethicists. The god(s) thing is an afterthought; none besides Jehovah and his two alter egos is seriously considered as objects of faith between 400AD and 1900AD.


How do you know this? And why is it relevant?


Is this accurate? I don't think philosophical reference books do stop at that skimpy definition. For instance, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:



It goes on to explore seven main aspects of the question in detail. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy has a short entry, by William Clifford, that reads, in part:



So he's expressly putting atheism in opposition to one other belief, and not in any larger context. If theism is referred-to as a "positive state", that reveals a fundamental bias - one that was prevalent in Eurocentric philosophy of the 19th and early 20th century. It places one single belief at the center of a world-view which is not further elaborated. But the seeds of dissent were present in the late 19th, and non-, as well as anti-religious thought surged in the second half of the 20th century. Euro-phil is liberated from the Christian doctrine by Bertrand Russell and his cohort, c 1930.

One idea does not make a philosophy. A belief in gods, ghosts, Manifest Destiny, Justice, Fate, the Unity of all Things, dark matter or the Rules of Acquisition, is but one aspect of a world view, a basis for one's attitude to life, other life forms, the physical world, moral standards, social organization and the drafting of laws. A conscientious philosopher would not regard either the lack of belief or the denial - even the vehement denial - of a single proposition as an end in itself, but proceed to explore the conceptual worlds to which that proposition logically gives rise. Of course, in the past century and a half, quite a few philosophers have done so.


Do most of the people you know, in cyberspace or walking life, describe their own conviction about anything in academic terms? I suspect most atheists describe themselves that way, because they have, at some point, broken with a religious dogma, but not troubled to build an entire philosophy of their own.

I'm not sure what an atheist activist is. I think most are referring to a particular political issue, rather than a fully formed world-view. They're limiting their definition to a specific issue or context. Is Hitchens an activist? Okay, he was a bit smug and off-putting, poor guy. Russell and Huxley, I found quite engaging. Maybe it's the advantage of having a very class English at the tip of their pens. There are several types - flavours?, yes - of Western atheism in the early 21st century, but the major challenge to all of them is the aggressive resurgence of state religion. If atheists are too loud and shrill, it's because they're shouting back at a hurricane.

There's a lot to unpack here but I think you missed the central points of my claims.

Pls refer to some of my other post to Reed and vic2ree (especially the last one), to get the core of what I was pointing out. Thanks

LordReed:
It's almost as if you only read a few lines and stop. The following is from the Stanford page:

Again, I'm reading it sir.
Below is the full exert of the portion you pasted out.

LordReed:
Read this section and digest it.

I have. Again can you kindly point out where it deviates from the standard position?

Also, it seems you are even missing the point of the conversation. Pls see my reply to vic2rer

Vic2Ree:
I get your point but you seem to be ignoring the fact that not all atheists are part of academia. Most people who disbelieve in god(s) don't have any knowledge of philosophy or care to have said knowledge. At the end of the day, I think our perspectives are ultimately subjective and only you can understand your own beliefs

I also get your point and if you go through what my earlier posts, I personally in no way have a problem how people choose to self identify.
It is within each person's propagative to choose what to believe without even needing to justify it as long as they are not trampling on the right of others or causing societal or self harm.
Below is an exert:

jamesid29:
With that being said,their are many people who don't fall under the standard definition but self identify as atheist or theist and to me that's totally fine.

I'm also not a philosopher by any stretch of the word
The conversation only started when reed(like most people tend to do online) tend to disregard standard definitions and only make their own prefered definition the legitimate/authoritive one.

LordReed:
Wrong. Once again atheism is the lack of belief in gods, it is not the proposition that gods do not exist. Try again.

If the answer has simply being something along the lines of, " I acknowledge the other definition(s) but I only subscribe to this particular definition cos it better articulates what I hold to be true".
That would have been a different conversation and in my opinion a legitimate answer.

I hope you get where I'm coming from sir.

Near1:
These four references from your list did not support your assertion:

Atheism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://iep.utm.edu/atheism/
"The term 'atheist' describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists."

Okayy. How is that contradictory to what I stated?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/atheism...of-atheism
"Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived):" etc.

Firstly sir,The link you pasted is incorrect and I did a word search on britannica's topic on atheism, but your exert didn't come up. Below is Britannica's reference on athiesm under the subject of philosophy. I'll also paste a picture of it's entry if you'd like.

Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/atheism

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10....&result=11
"A belief in the non-existence of a God or gods, or (more broadly) an absence of belief in their existence."
(Both Oxford references led to the same place.)

Again here sir, your link does not pan out.

Oxford references is not the same as "The oxford companion to philosophy" or "oxford dictionary of philosophy". This two are specific dictionaries, while oxford references is an all purpose site with references from a wide variety of oxford publication.

Below is the reference by "The oxford companion to philosophy" and link
atheism and agnosticism.
Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods. Thus much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist.... ...
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199264797.001.0001/acref-9780199264797-e-166?rskey=3OGKCc&result=166

And a quick Google search for a definition from Oxford References itself gives the below definition:

The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'.
below are the links:
https:///3EqCtjp or you can go directly to the google link.: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095431374#:~:text=The%20theory%20or%20belief%20that,'%20%2B%20theos%20'god'.

Although I should also mention that the oxford dictionary of philosophy(Simon Blackburn) in it's 3rd edition does include "lack of belief" alongside the standard definition as a it's entry.
https://books.google.com.ng/books?id=Mno8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PR5&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false [ page 36][/quote]

I only found that a couple references on your list included a definition which supported your assertion. I could not check several. Perhaps you would be so kind as to double check your own assertion and provide the quotes and links required to support your assertion, if in fact you found them somewhere even within the four above-listed references (I would assume a wide range of opinions are represented within each work cited).

I'm not sure we're looking at the same references sir.
And also I'm not sure how you missed the first entry on my post(Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy). since it's one of the most fully fledged piece on the subject with lots of references. And also one of the most cited online encyclopedias of philosophy.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/

In the meantime, it appears such philosophical references do not present any consistent definition for atheism between them and perhaps within them.

Kindly read my replies to vic2ree a fuller expansion of thought on the matter.

LordReed:
Just like it is unsettling to some Christians that other Christians exist under that label who do not hold beliefs they consider core to being considered Christian yet the definition is broad enough to accommodate those differing beliefs.

This in no way negates anything I wrote. There are many christians who choose to say that Christianity is not a religion (but just a relationship). That doesn't change the fact that Christianity is in fact a religion and if one was to study it, one would study it as a religion.

We live in a world where people choose to define terms on their own for one reason or another, which is fine(as I stated in my piece),but doesn't make their "definition" authoritative.

Pls read what I wrote again in it's entirety. I've pasted the most relevant part IMO below

jamesid29:
With that being said,their are many people who don't fall under the standard definition but self identify as atheist or theist and to me that's totally fine. Their are those who are technically irreligious or "nones" who might subscribe to belief in spiritual realities but reject an form of organized religion who self identify as atheist. And their those who are truly atheist but do not self identify as such because they don't want to be identified with the New atheist movement (Neil deGrasse Tyson I believe falls under the category). And their are those who are theist(eg christians) who are practical atheist because even though they say they believe in a deity, they live as if their is no deity.
This view does make having conversations a bit harder cos we all have to define or redefine what we mean but that's just part of the complexity of human interaction (in my opinion).

So do I have a problem with people using "lack of belief" as their definition of atheism? Not really
What is kinda of unsettling is when people choose to make it the universal definition whilst willfully rejecting the standard definition(perhaps because it's unsettling to them and their worldview ); Especially since their definition is almost non existent amongst the people who study the subject matter for a living.

Point is, you can choose to subscribe with the "lack of belief" definition. That is within your proragative.
What is outside of your prorogative is to say that atheism should not be defined as " the proposition that God(s) do not exist" ; Especially when that is the standard definition within the field that studies it itself.

You can not say I'm wrong with the standard definition the same way I cannot disregard the big bang theory as purely an educated guess because I choose to define theory using it's colloquial understanding of being something that is a "an idea or opinion". That might be true for an everyday conversation but that is not true for the field of science itself or a scientific theory. Of course within science itself, there can be majority and minority views but that's a separate conversation on its own and should be weighed on each views merit.

LordReed:
It makes it clear that the meaning of atheism has to be broader than merely saying it is a claim that gods do not exist.

And what it does is cast a wider the definition to
include all rejection of religious beliefs if theism is defined as a set of religious beliefs.
Nowhere in that section does it propose that atheism includes a "lack of belief".

Pls read the section in full again to understand it's claim

Also read my read my reply to vic2ree for further expansion of thoughts.