Posted on 10/23/2011 4:30:28 PM PDT by freejohn
Thanks for the enlightenment about the Jewish mystics. That, I suppose, is why we occasionally see G_d in these discussions.
Judaism does not prohibit writing the Name of God per se; it prohibits only erasing or defacing a Name of God. However, observant Jews avoid writing any Name of God casually because of the risk that the written Name might later be defaced, obliterated or destroyed accidentally or by one who does not know better.
The commandment not to erase or deface the name of God comes from Deut. 12:3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our God. From this, the rabbis inferred that we are commanded not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface a Name of God.
It is worth noting that this prohibition against erasing or defacing Names of God applies only to Names that are written in some kind of permanent form, and recent rabbinical decisions have held that writing on a computer is not a permanent form, thus it is not a violation to type God's Name into a computer and then backspace over it or cut and paste it, or copy and delete files with God's Name in them. However, once you print the document out, it becomes a permanent form. That is why observant Jews avoid writing a Name of God on web sites like this one or in BBS messages: because there is a risk that someone else will print it out and deface it.
Normally, we avoid writing the Name by substituting letters or syllables, for example, writing "G-d" instead of "God." In addition, the number 15, which would ordinarily be written in Hebrew as Yod-Heh (10-5), is normally written as Tet-Vav (9-6), because Yod-Heh is a Name. See Hebrew Alphabet for more information about using letters as numerals.
Abominable behavior quickly followed, e.g. abortion and mainstreaming of homosexuality. Those are symptoms of the disease, i.e. "officially" blinding this nation to God.
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. - Psalms 2:1-5
There is an arrogance inherent in atheism which seems rather irrational to me ... how can an atheist assertion certainty that a Creator does not exist when the atheist literally has so much evidence to the contrary? The irrationalness of a Christopher Hitchens or of a Dawkins nags at one the more they open their bitter mouths. Reminds me of a toddler who throws theirself to the floor in a fit for a specific toy, hoping the parent will give them attention and provide what the toddler demands while writhing around screaming in a pile of toys.
I agree with the arrogance, which is a reflection of narcissism. They seem to revel in defying God in their self-congratulatory academic fashion. In that they assume superiority over the rest of us. As far as the toddler is concerned, I see it as him locking himself out of the house in defiance of the parents.
AG, thanks again for the wonderful history lesson. It seems that some Jewish fundamentalist could use a small dose of Christianity and its offer of redemption.
If there are an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of configurations of the laws of physics, then it is inevitable not only that a Supreme being exists but that an infinite number of supreme beings both good and evil exist. It is inevitable that with an infinite number of universes there must be an infinite number of universes where these supreme beings can exist in more than just one universe. Therefore it follows if all possibilities are true that an infinite number of times an infinite number of evil Supreme beings have consumed the entire multiverse and would have destroyed it. Since we are here speaking to one another that is not possible. Therefore the multiverse refutes itself. The problem is that they start with an infinite plurality to explain the universe we see, rather than a singularity, while Aristotle pointed out long ago that a first cause is the only philosophically logical answer.
Too bad I was too busy with other things and missed out on this thread. Very interesting. Maybe next time. But 21stCenturion is right, since the definition of ‘Multi-verse’ defines all other ‘universes’ as being entirely outside the experiential limits of this one, and thus impossible to verify one way or the other, it is merely conjecture and nothing more. And all it can ever remain.
Finally, SOMEBODY who seems to ‘get it’ ...
The whole point of the Multi-verse’s infinite proliferation of ‘universes’ is to ‘allow’ mutually exclusive events / outcomes / histories in a limited single ‘Universe’ that MUST otherwise forbid ( exclude ) them. THAT, after all, is what ‘mutually exclusive’ means.
Since there is NO possible way to observe / experience / act upon these ‘other universes’ from within our own, they may as well not EXIST because their ‘existence’ has NO meaning or significance, from our frame of reference.
As Gertrude Stein ( speaking about her home town of Oakland, CA ) said “There is no ‘there’ there ...”.
I objected, originally, to the fallacious and ‘hand-waving’ pseudo-logic being used to describe a ‘Multi-verse theory’ and what significance such a ‘theory’ might have. I also argued that the use of the term ‘theory’ in this discussion was unsound and, in fact, incorrect.
Essentially, I was NOT arguing for or against any ‘proof’ derived from this conjecture. I merely tried to point out that the conjecture itself was unsound, unnecessary and pointless.
Thank you, LogicWings, for honing in on the essence of my rather prolix exercise.
Regards,
21stCenturion
Bingo. The multiverse is Atheistic science fiction with no hard science (empirical evidence) behind it.
A great deal of “scientific” financing is linked to promoting Atheism.
Be that as it may, I found your arguments cogent and in need of support, thus my post. And I will expand the offering by dishing up some other examples. Maybe this thread isn't dead yet.
I noticed in your first post on this thread that you raised the issue of Begging the Question. You will find that many of the assertions here suffer from this fallacy. Whether it be Intelligent Design or the existence of Multi-verses the conclusion is smuggled somewhere in the premise. Even the term “Intelligent Design” implies an intelligence that has yet to be proven. And, by definition, cannot be. But I have another example that may serve to demonstrate my point.
Texas Songwriter (TS) noted in his first post
Hubble, Eddington, Wilson and Penzias (microwave background), Smoots findings via WMAP, and COBE (cosmic background explorer).....all scientifially point to a cosmological beginning....a moment when just before that singularity...there was nothing...NO THING.
Which I agree with and will take as a given, by definition. Then TS writes:
The moment, just prior to the singularity,...that point in the history of the universe when time, space, energy and matter came to be....what caused it. Why would nothing suddenly create...it is not a scientific concept or a valid philosophical concept. To creeate everhything from nothing. Nothing exist at that time...science tells us....So, by inductive reasoning something, beyond time and space, some atemporal entity had to be the cause...had to make a personal decision to create from nothing...
The problem here is that the writer is applying Post Hoc Laws to an empty Universe that contained none. By his previous post he stated there was nothing...NO THING which means there were no Laws of Causality either. NOTHING mean precisely that, NOTHING . So the Law of Physics that says something can't come from nothing didn't exist either. It is a very subtle form of Begging the Question that escapes most. The majority of posters here indulge in it on a regular basis though, get used to it.
Same goes for the Circular Argument issue. 'reasonisfaith' (now there's an oxymoron for you) demonstrated that in the posting:
1) All things must take place in ‘Infinite Universes’ 2) The God of Abraham is included in the set of all things (this is termed from the point of view of the secular logician). 3) Therefore God must be included in at least one of those universes.
We have Assertion Without Proof All things must take place in ‘Infinite Universes which is fallacious since this is unprovable as a premise, Propositional Fallacy. Then: The God of Abraham is included in the set of all things (this is termed from the point of view of the secular logician). Begging the Question. Followed by Therefore God must be included in at least one of those universes. Circular Argument since neither 'Infinite Universes' nor 'the God of Abraham' is verifiable. Sure in a formal syllogistic sense of:
If A then B
A
Therefore B
the structure is valid but the Propositions which form the Premises are either Circular or Begging the Question, THEREFORE invalid.
Returning to Texas Songwriter (109) again:
So, since the universe had a beginning (science tells us) it had to have a beginner (a Cause).
Once again applying Laws of Physics to a NOTHING by asserting an absolute Law of Causality which wouldn't have existed yet. If it did exist then something existed in the Universe prior to the Big Bang, refutes the proposition that EVERYTHING came into existence at that point.
I'll end this post here since the discussion takes a radically different turn due to the entrance of some new players.
But do we really need the permission of the guys who made up the idea of multiple universes in order to redefine all outside universes as having experiential connections to this one?
There are some problems with your refutation of my comments, but really we are getting a bit off track from the big picture.
To quote Adrian Rogers: “Just because something doesn’t make sense to you doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense.”
I think this illustrates the basic problem faced by the atheist—he demands to be given intellectual access to phenomena which is beyond his (and our) capability to understand, and when he is not given such access, his solution is to claim the phenomena doesn’t exist.
But we can understand the following, and it is consistent logically: God is not only separate from the natural world—he is greater than it.
Well, technically I think we are traveling through time.
Just in one direction and one direction only...
It also seems a very subtle form of begging the question that escapes most to assume that the Law of Causality can come into existence from NO THING.
Not through—with.
An empty universe???? I think not. That was never said. There was no universe.....NO THING. You strain at a gnat. Your pretext is exposed, and you thinking it goes unnoticed, you then proceed to make ridiculous assertions. Begging your pardon, but I will leave the begging the questions to you.
Once again applying Laws of Physics to a NOTHING by asserting an absolute Law of Causality which wouldn't have existed yet.
The entire point of my remarks are to expose the fact that physics cannot account for origins. It is a METAphysical concept about which I remark. However, here we are. Whatever caused the universe to be, as declared by Einstein, Hubble, Eddington, Wilson, Penzias, Smoote, and many others, (all of science declares that this whole ball of wax BEGAN) it must have been intelligent, immensely powerful, personal (to decide to bring it into existence as opposed to nothingness).
By the way, can you give me one example of an actual infinite (nonmathemetical concept as opposed to a numerical devise). Can you give one empirical evidence that there are mulitiple universes? No need to write back, I have said what I need to say. I think readers can understand wht I have said, and, if they read carefully, can understand what you have assertested.
devise = device...sorry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.