BPsite Forums

Lanair referred me to "HQ" to start a thread on apologetics, so I'm guessing I chose the right place.

A short, yet important introduction:

In recent times, there has been a great movement going on in the intellectual community.  That being God.  Even Time magazine devoted an article to the recent rise of God in intellectual circles (actual quote is the second quote in my sig).  Atheists, themselves, (for example, Quentin Smith) admit the smartest philosophers alive today are theistic (God believing) philosophers... and are Christian.  Don't misinterpret me, for this isn't an argument from authority, but is pointing towards the fact that Christianity isn't as irrational as people once thought.  Some great intellects exist in our day and see/defend it as perfectly rational.
Also, pretty much every classical philosophical argument for God's existence has been resurrected and shown valid or logical (even the ontological argument).  Not just philosophical, but also biblical arguments.  These may be introduced in the discussion.


I guess I'll start off with:  Do you guys have any questions you've always wondered concerning the Christian God that you would like to discuss in a friendly way?  So far, I see all of you as very friendly people, so I'm expecting such responses.  It might be a change of environment for me... I'm used to much worse reactions. ;)

Later, guys,

Spawn

Damn, was gonna start this myself, but I gotta go out... I'll be back in an hour or two though. :)

ok i'm not gonna be able to put this in the best english, as it's not my first language and my school is over now so i don't have to do  it properly anymore :P

1. I don't think it's likely that God exists, as in the thousands of years people believed and people did not believe there is no single man that was able to prove that there is something like a 'God'.

2. I think the christian believe is a danger to society. The pope should be put in jail for the rest of his life (prolly not long), i'm sure there are more reasons but him saying condoms are evil has killed like a million people, if you consider him like that he's worse then Bin Laden...
(^you should be able to react on that last sentence with a lot of energy  :P )

3. I think a good half of the wars fought in the world's history are because of a 'God'. Even if there is something like a God he should be ashamed of himselve and hide very well, if he was a 'good' God he should have destructed himself a long long time ago, would've saved us a lot of trouble.

4. If there's something like a 'heaven', and the only way to get there was by living with all the rules the church gives, i don't think i'd want to live there, cause it would be full of boring people in a beautifull place... I'd rather have a lot of fun in a stinky place. If God tells me i can only love one woman in my entire life, i think it's to big of a sacrifice and i don't think that if he truly is great and good and stuff he would not require me to stay with someone i don't want anymore, that's just cruel.


This is not the best argumentation i gave... but meh whatever just to get started and so you can show me your skills with a reaction.
 

meh. i'm not too philosophical or anything, but you do raise a few good poitns. from the way i see it, i've been told there is one all my life and like had it pounded into my head so i go along with it. besides, if i said otherwise near my reactionaryly religious familiy, they would flip. that includes lanair. *readies the marshmallow gun*

Yes, why are the Bible and Members of the Christian Church so hippocritical?

I'll give it my best, which isn't much.


1.

(a) I think "proof" amounts to subjectivity - i.e. what may be proof enough for one person may not be proof enough for another.  I can name plenty of people who have proved the existence of God to others using arguments/evidences - Alvin Plantinga, C.S. Lewis, William Craig, Richard Swinburne, JP Holding, McDonald, etc.  So, it really amounts to how much proof is needed for a particular individual.  It also depends on the emotional state of the person (very important).  A person who has just experienced something terrible might have a closed mind and heart to any God, which might lead me to believe no argument will ever (or maybe just temporally) be enough.

(b) I like the way you start your number (1) out: "I don't think it's likely that God exists".  That seems to ring with some knowledge of epistemology, which is good.  No man will be able to absolutely prove God either does or does not exist, for that's proving a universal.  What we can do is examine the evidence (which is in abundance) and offer a conclusion based off of that evidence (it's reasonable that God exists even without evidence existing, though).  That conclusion won't be absolute, but more along the lines of "more likely" or "less likely".


2.

Well, I don't believe condoms are evil LOL  That's pretty radical, I agree.  I don't like it that those in an authorative position use it to make such statements, which aren't true.  It's reminiscient of Hitler claiming to be abiding by God's will by killing off Jews.  That's radical, absurd, and just outright inhumane.  All I can say is to judge whether or not the Bible makes such statements, which these individuals have a problem doing.  Of course they have a problem doing it, because it makes no such statements. :)


3.

This isn't God's fault, but man's fault.  I'm sure you're familiar with a writer by the name of Tolkien (creator of LOTR), well his best friend (the guy who converted him) gave an amazing defense to this.  He said something along the lines of:

'It is men, not God who have produced racks, whips, prisons, slavery, guns, bayonets, and bombs; it is by human avarice or human stupidity... that we have poverty and overwork." (The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis, p. 86)

People love to blame bad things on someone else.  This is evident throughout history - crusades, salem trials, 9/11, Hitler, etc.  The cause is just really themselves.


4.

(a) My, we just met and you think I'm a boring person already. :P  Seriously, though, if you don't want to go to Heaven because of the possibility of boring people being there, then that's the joy of free will, I guess.  Personally, if Heaven does exist, I can't wait to meet and talk to people like Tolkien and C.S. Lewis (among others).  I won't be bored at all.

(b) How can you truly be in love with that significant other, if you don't want her anymore?   I found the commandment very inviting even when I was an atheist.  I knew that marriage is a very important step in life and requires time and thought to decide whether or not you truly love this other person enough to share your entire life with her.  If you truly love a woman, you'll want to spend your entire life with her and her alone.  God realizes the importance of this and put it into action.
That's why you have to really give it time and much thought.  If you do, then you'll know for sure if that's the one.  If you don't, then the situation more than likely won't turn out too well.

This isn't just a commandment from God.  Society itself embraces this law.  I think the reason so many people feel the need to be married to one person alone is because of the reasonableness of it.  


May this be a fruitful discussion,

-Spawn

Hello, Ripper.


A lot of Christians, in particular younger ones like myself, are going to go through stages of hypocrisy.  A lot of my friends and my brothers are disbelievers or doubters, so I tend to act the way they do or not be the way I should be.  I'm a hypocrite, in this sense.  It's a problem I need to work out.

The best answer I can think of is the nature of men and women.  Most [at times] tend to fall away or want to fall away from that which they hold dearest.  I'm sorry that myself and others are like that.

I really don't know too much about Christianity, so forgive me if I come across as ignorant


Jesus, if he really existed, preached wonderful things such as forgiveness and love for one's fellow man and that you just had to follow this path if you wanted to get to heaven. So why has the Church come up with all these rules for getting into heaven? I think it cheapens Jesus's message

ripper, everyone is a hypocrit.  just because they are religious doesn't stop them from being human

Saladin,

I agree.  A lot of the rules really amount to denominational (i.e. man-made) rules.  I'm speaking on rules like hair-length, clothing, tithing, speaking in tongues in order to get to heaven, rules for women (which angers me), etc.  I don't know why they came up with those rules... an example of enforcing subjectively based preferences objectively, I guess.  That's why us Christians argue so much. ;)

It does something much worse than cheapen Jesus' message... it completely kills it.  This reminds me of a Tommy Tenney quote.  He writes something along the lines of, 'I've seen more of God in bars than I have in some churches.'

Ouch... welcome to my reality, Night Spawn.

Heres a couple to begin, as dinner is ready:

-If God is so great, why do bad things happen to good people? Its an oldie, but a goodie.
-As stated by Opper, the vast majority of atrocities committed on this Earth are done so in the name of a Deity. Assuming that God, Allah, etc, are all the same deity (as we cant all be right), why does he allow this?
-If you're going to say 'because they sinned' or something similar, sorry, that shit doesnt cut it with me. How did a child thats beaten to death by an abuse parent sin?

And, finally, do you believe that Jesus existed?


-DeMysteriis.

That, I agree with - if you're truly in love, you'll want someone forever.

That, I don't agree with. I see no reason why love should be limited by gender or number. ie: I think it's entirely possible for three people to love each other. Afterall, most people have that many family members.
Yeah, so 'family love' is a different type of love, but I think 'partner love' is ultimately a richer extension of that, and I don't think it should be forced that only male-female marriages should be allowed.
(Oh, I should note that I don't equate love and sex, like some people might.)

Screw Society. According to society, anyone who sits at a computer playing online games is a sad no-life loser, yet that is a blatant fallacy.
Society just supports that which it sees as normal, and dissaproves of anything that doesn't fit into it's normality, despite the fact that a 'normal' society must have extremes to actually be mathematically normal.




Now for my questions/thoughts. :)


1. I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. (or: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.)
If the Yahweh is the only god, why does he feel put this as the First Commandment?
It's not even a "I am the only god." He is specifically saying not to worship other gods. For me, he is as good as saying that he is just one of many gods.

Also, Genesis. This place "Nod, on the east of Eden" - it has people in it. Where did these people come from? If Yahweh made them, why does Genesis only focus on Adam and Eve? The logical explanation is that he didn't make these other people. Maybe another god created them. Maybe they evolved from monkeys.

Two examples which require little thought to take as a specific admission of not being the only god, yet so many Christians hold onto (what I perceive to be) the man-made concept of Yahweh being the only god.

Add into that logic - nothing at all in existance is proven unique. I'm not talking about at a characteristic level; I'm sure there are some people that have unique facial features, or whatever. My point is that everything is multiple - animals, people, plants, planets, galaxies. Even the universe isn't proven to be unique - there's various theories of alternative universeses/multiverses and so on.
Now if all these are the case, why should there only be a single god?

Well, perhaps there is, and this god created the entire multiverse. Perhaps the reason why this god 'lets' suffering happen is because he's too busy with some other part of the universe which is in a worse state.
For a while, when I was religious/scientific, that was what I thought.
Then I effectively rejected everything and built up ideas from scratch, and it came to me what an absurd concept that was. Yeah, it might work logically, but it just doesn't fit.
So, the other option is that there isn't a single god. Which means there's either lots of them, or none at all. I currently swing both/neither way here - it's never possible to prove against that theory, but there is insufficient evidence to 'prove' for.



Next thing, Jesus. Why do Christians worship him? Yahweh has specifically said not to worship anyone or anything else. Jesus never asked to be worshipped, either.
Yeah, so maybe he was the Son of God, but that doesn't mean you worship him. Not when both him and his father have said not to.
If I was still a Christian - well, I wouldn't be. I'd call myself a ... whatever, something that specifically does not represent a worship of Jesus, because it's completely against the laws of the religion!


Um, I'm a bit hungry, but I've still got various other things that annoy me which I'll post later. :)

Opper:  You speak the best second language English on the planet Earth.  If you go to DT forums...there's this guy there named liar and what he speaks is incomprehensible (;) @ Spawn)

Ok moving on, a lot of wars are supposedly based on God, but realisticly today's battles are not God's fault.  People are the one's to blame.  They are judgemental towards others and are very stubborn in the way they believe.  God doesn't tell you to go out and kill for your faith.  People w/ their own minds do that.

If God doesnt want people to do it, he should put a stop to it. What was that phrase Christians love repeating? Inaction to allow evil deeds is evil...?

God can't force people to do things.  That's one of the good things about God...he lets you choose how you want to live your life (in sin or righteousness)

And he doesnt mind the wholesale slaughter of innocents, because hes a champion of free will?

Err... free will is fine, to an extent. When people are exerting their free will to harm others, they should be stopped. This is the foundation of something I like to call lawful society.

Correct.

He doesn't let you do anything - he simply doesn't have enough power to force people to worship him.
The whole "benevolent god" thing is just an act to try to get people to like him. He doesn't care about people being happy or anything - he just wants people to worship him. And that's why he doesn't stop wars; because a: he doesn't care, and b: the Christian side usually has the bigger army (or both sides are Christian) so he can do nothing and they think he helped them win.

Or maybe he wants to see what we do.  Maybe he's testing us; he wants us to stop evil doers.  As a Christian, God tests your faith b/c worse things come along like Satan who will completely destroy you.

I think you people are out of your mind.  Of course Jesus existed he was a real person, but him being the Messiah is debatable.  (I believe he was, but I'll leave that up to you to decide)

Didn't say he didn't exist, Under - I asked if our host here believes he did.

Article. (http://www.atheists.org/church/jesuslife.html)

Biased, yes, as you can guess from the name of the site - But take the time to read it, it puts forward logical arguments with evidence to back them up.


I believe the following quote best answers this.


SYL, Scholars of Shen Zhou

Nice to finally meet you, Rug.  Can you sum up your position in a small paragraph, so I can more adequately respond - in particular, to the first question.


A very nice goodie. :D  There's so much I have to say to that... hopefully, I can sum it up so you won't have to read a book-in-a-post.

First off, by what criteria do you use to judge between whether or not a person is good?  I ask this, because I remain dubious that an  actual "good" person does exist.  Even if majority opinion says a certain individual is good that individual would more than likely point out why he/she isn't good (Ravi Zacharias, for example).  Seems to produce a complication.
A lot of people wouldn't consider David Berkowitz as being a good person, but I'm sure he'd respond to those accusations with: "Wait a minute; I'm not Hitler!   I didn't kill millions, I just killed a few" or "I wasn't Jeffrey Dahmer; I didn't eat my victims".  Zacharias concludes,

"We tend to do the kind of comparisons by which we always emerge better than someone else, and so we think we're good."

This doesn't mean bad things should happen to people, though.  I can chop it down a little with these two:

1.  People choosing bad upon themselves -- immature choices, for example.
2.  People choosing bad upon others -- for example, intentional harm.


I typed to Opper:

This isn't God's fault, but man's fault. I'm sure you're familiar with a writer by the name of Tolkien (creator of LOTR), well his best friend (the guy who converted him) gave an amazing defense to this. He said something along the lines of:

'It is men, not God who have produced racks, whips, prisons, slavery, guns, bayonets, and bombs; it is by human avarice or human stupidity... that we have poverty and overwork." (The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis, p. 86)

So, God allows it... has to allow it, because of free will.  With free will comes good effects (for example, choice), but bad effects arise also (war-mongers).

A good person. I cited an innocent child who is beaten to death by an abusive parent as my example. You are picking at the question, to avoid the thrust of it. Answer the question.


I am anti-religion. Its not just christianity that has to put up with my somewhat angry/abusive style of analysis, so dont take it personally.

I'm just gonna answer a question by SS earlier that was left unattended:


ok, here's a little bit of info on the subject.  God is one being, but he exists in 3 parts (the trinity): father, son, and holy spirit.  Jesus was God's extension on earth, created to help spread his message, and i say extension, therefore, He is still the same God.  With this evidence, I'll say that it is not against the religion to worship Jesus, because Him and God are one and the same.

I'm too lazy to run over the other statements out there, maybe later.

Sorry for lowering the tone of the argument, but I cant resist...

The Brick Testament. (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_whole_family/dt13_06-08.html)

<_< I was a Catholic for well over the first half of my life. I know all the basics.

If you worship my finger, then you are worshipping my finger, not me.
Sure, my finger might be me, but if you're obsessing over only my finger then you're not directly worshipping me, and if you create a cult named after my finger, that makes it even more obvious that you'd prefer to cut my finger off and just worship it without me.

There's also the question of worshipping the cross as a symbol - that is not worshipping Jesus/God. At a stretch you could say it's worshipping his deeds/actions, but why then is the cross such a strong symbol, rather than specifically crucifixes?
And then you also get Mary. Jesus' mum. She's worshipped all the time. She aint part of the trinity, and she didn't actually do anything. Infact this wonderful free-will which Yahweh supposedly gives wasn't given to her, by Biblical accounts; the angel came down and said something along the lines of "You're having Gods baby. Call him Jesus. kthnxbye".
And, of course, there's still all the statues of saints and crap which Catholics idolise.

That's not just bending the first commandment, it's grabbing a sledgehammer and smashing it into tiny pieces, throwing them on a fire, and doing a dance around the flames!

SS,


"I am the only God" is throughout the Bible (throughout the NT especially), so just because it doesn't say it in that particular spot doesn't mean it's there.  It's just summing up a group of commandments.
Of course he's saying not to worship other Gods, because the worship will be false.  This is looking too much into the text in an attempt to pin-point an error.  I'm sure you realize the basic point of it - 'don't worship other Gods, because I am the One and Only'.  Combining that scripture with the Bible as a whole and the paraphrase seems justified.


What scripture are you referring to exactly in Genesis?


Firstly, because this goes against Occam's Razor.  Secondly, because of the biblical evidence which exists for Christianity (I can bring forth some, if you like) and philosophical evidence for a single God (Kalam Cosmological Argument, teleological argument).


Jesus claimed to be God (John 10:33), so why isn't he to be worshipped?  Peopl worship him throughout Matthew (Mt 8:2; Mt 9:18; Mt 14:33; Mt 15:25; Mt 20:20; Mt 28:9; Mt 28:17).


I digress, but I'll grant you that partner love is a richer extension of family love, so I can make a point.  I have 5 brothers and 4 sisters.  I love them all to death, but my love for some is much closer than others - more on a personal level.  To go even further, my love for one surpasses them all, because of the closer relationship we have and keep.  If this is true, and it is equivalent to 'partner love', then that means I'd love one partner over all the others.  
It's rather simple, actually.  Any male saying they truly love 3 females can be introduced with a hypothetical where they had to choose one to live with forever.  Obviously, the one they choose must be their true love... the other ones are just loves.

 

*waves hand away* i hate long posts i read about...3 of them.


power my friend...power.


uhh all i can really say to this topic is that im an Athiest-Existentialist hybrid and i like it *feels warm in side*

I still await this criteria you use to determine whether or not someone is good.  You just type "a good person", which brings us right back to the starting point.  If you're saying a parent who beats their children is bad, then what if the parent responds with "That's not right, because Hitler is bad.  He killed millions, while I killed no one.  I just beat my child".  I still conclude that no "good" person actually exists.  

On your original question, I answered in good detail.  I summed it up with:

"1. People choosing bad upon themselves -- immature choices, for example.
2. People choosing bad upon others -- for example, intentional harm."

I gave the free will defense, of course.  You responded with these two quotes:



The fact that they don't get judged for their crime(s) now doesn't mean they never will.  

If your statement was put into effect, free will wouldn't exist.  People would absolutely be doing whatever God forced them to do, which amounts to puppetry.  
Let's have some fun witht he implications of the above: boxers harm others, football players harm others, so do video games (temporary emotional harm), paper factories harms others (paper cuts), paintball wars harm others, etc.

Sure, it's not great harm, but you weren't very exact.  Harm is harm, so should God also stop all of the above?  


Just so long as we both stay away from immature name-calling or [insert rude remark here], then I'll consider the discussion fruitful and will be continued. :)

 

That specific quote is 4:16, but it's the whole section about Cain being cast out for killing his brother.


Gah! I hate Occam's Razor. People always use it to 'prove' stuff, without any consideration for the fact that they don't actually know what it really is - that being a guideline. It states that the simplest explanation is often true. Not always, just often. So using it to prove anything is stupid.


Might be interesting to hear. :)


See my reply to matt. If they are the same being, they should be worshipped as one. (If they are to be worshipped at all.)



Fair enough. But the problem I have with that is that love isn't really a relative thing, it's an absolute.
To quantify things: If X loves A by 96% and B by 97%, then B is X's 'true love'. But X still loves both over 95%. And then we have the problem... if A loves X by 97% and B by 96%, and B loves A by 97 and X by 96... well it all goes in a triangle. Rather than trying to force two people together, if they are all happy to be a trio then why not let them?

Why can they not both be bad? You generalise overly. If you say that someone who follows Gods commandments to the letter isn't good, you're contradicting your entire religion, and need a rethink.


No, free will would be limited. Which, to all intents and purposes, is a damned good thing. If free will was totally unlimited, we would have total chaos. That is, more or less, what you are suggesting through your constant championing of total free will.


Yep, sorry, had a bad case of over generalisation there - the examples you cite contain nothing that was not consentual, and nothing that was lethal. We'll leave harm at non-consentual bodily damage and murder, for the moment.

SS: Catholocism isn't wrong.  It's just different I guess.  If you know what's right then you can still be Catholic, but know when a church is crossing the line.

Me. I'm good. No... wait, I'm better than that, I'm great! :D

It's hypocritical is what it is.

But most organised religions are.

A lot of people are, really.

Some people don't know it though, or might do it for specific reasons - it's the reason that it's done for that makes it right or wrong.

Well you know what, if you truly loved God then you should know what's right and wrong...and it all comes back to the free will thing.

How you figure that?

If someone has a loaded gun to your head and is about to pull the trigger, is it wrong to kill them?

al this sound like Black and White (game)
But i do believe that God exists but we can never be sure.

They'd prolly shoot you anyway if you tried any retaliation...unless you were a kung fu master or something.

I'm sorry but this is something of a recurring theme... Christians appear to be very adept at deflecting/ignoring a question when asked a particularly pointed one.


ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION OR LEAVE. (Thatnkyou SS for reiterating below)

"Or something." :ph34r:

So, would it be wrong?

No it's not wrong...but I see no way you could possibly react faster than a man w/ his finger on the trigger.  He chose the path of death by not obeying God when he said "Thou shalt not kill."  He's threatening your life which is your right.  If you kill yourself, I think that counts as murder since it's God's decision when we should die or not, but getting into heaven considering you killed yourself is questionable due to the terms of which you killed yourself and your state of belief.

Yeah, and I'm hoping anyone that holds a gun to my head would say the same, or they might not give me a chance to react. ;)


But the problem is, what if he believed that he was doing God's work? What if he saw me as an evil being that must be eradicated? He might think that I was planning to kill a million others, and that he had to shoot me to stop me.
(He'd very likely be wrong, but we're being theoretical here, and if that's what he believed...)
If he believed I was going to kill others, then he might say I had chosen the path of death.
Would he then be wrong?

*Move head forwards, bring hand in sweeping arc towards gun*
*Grab gun with sweeping hand*
*Turn away from person*
*Elbow to chest*
*Stamp on foot*
*Twist more so either gun is pointing at them, or they drop it*
*Pull the trigger*

You saying its not possible?

the point is it would be wrong in the first place and you shouldnt have to make the decision, it cancels it self out.

the 10 commandments persoanlly i find very clever they cover the backs of the religion, especially "thou shallnt tempt god"..ive done it...so shoot me.

If you're in a situation like that then maybe you're not as kewl as a cucumber ok.  I for one would panic.

Mole: was that ever a commandment?

SS: you're being to theoretical...sure it could happen.  Is it likely...no b/c the person would have to have likely proof that you were planning something, and if the evidence is against you it's still not legal to kill you unless you were caught in the middle of doing a bad thing.  They would then have 2 options calmly talk to you, or if you were armed they would be forced to pull a gun.  If your scenario were true, then I would think the man is a lunatic for not informing the police sooner since they are more of an authority and considered more rational than a gun walking around w/ a gun w/o an excuse.

Thanks to Rug and SS.  I usually already get flaming responses by now... I think I'm liking this place more and more.


If Matt doesn't mind my jumping in on his discussion with SS...


Jesus claimed to be God and was worshipped as God.  The reason Jesus is worshipped is because the Father sent him to be worshipped.  I may be blind, but I don't see the problem.

The cross for some may represent the place where the crucifix took place.  There's nothing wrong with having one of these and it definitely does not amount to worshipping the cross itself.

Was Mary worshipped in the NT?  If not (trust me, she isn't), then people who worship her now are doing a blind act.  The offical Catholic site, I believe, doesn't say anything about Mary being worshipped.  I think people pray to her as they would a spiritual leader.  I'm not sure... not a Catholic.


Thanks for looking that up for me.  

I don't see any implications of people living there.  All I see is a bunch of land called Nod; in which Cain was banished.


Sorry for riling you... I'm a philosophy buff, so it's my next best friend.  What it states is that it's best and more logical to go with the simplest explanation rather than introducing unneeded complexities.  That's what a multi-God does.


As small as a summary as I can put forth:

Cosmological
–   Key Question “Why is there something instead of nothing?”
this entire argument rests on the question of how anything can exist without God.  Typically atheists have maintained that the universe existed eternally.  But this has some problems.  If the universe is eternal and never had a beginning, that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the idea of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of this century, states, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea."

Astrophysics has made some remarkable discoveries in the last 50 years.   Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang theory requires the creation of the universe from nothing. This is because, as you go back in time, you reach a point at which, in Hoyle's words, the universe was "shrunk down to nothing at all." Thus, what the Big Bang model requires is that the universe began to exist and was created out of nothing.

1.  Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2.  The universe began to exist.

3.  Therefore, the universe has a cause.  That cause must be beyond space, beyond time (since both began at the big bang) and powerful enough to have created this universe.  The creator was God.


TEOLOGICAL

P1. If the universe displays design, then it is designed.
P2. The universe is designed.
C. Therefore, the universe is designed.

This one doesn't really need any type of elaboration.  Note that I defend Swinburne's version, so it isn't as easily tossed aside as past "design" arguments.

This may get quite lengthy, so I understand if you want to pursue this at a later time.  One thing I do want to get into is a new argument for God's existence a friend of mine came up with called "Impossible Faith".  You can check it out here (http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose.html).  I'd like to see any responses to this.


If you're worshipping Jesus, you are worshipping God.


Not forcing at all.  The point still stands that true love really comes down to one person... that one person may not love back the same, but it matters not.  


Rug,

I skimmed through the article (already read several like it).  If you like, I welcome you to present any of the arguments from the link in a separate thread.  Or, if you like, I can take the time to reply to the link point-by-point and post it?  The flaws are plentiful, so it may be quite long, though. ;)  Some of his points may already be refuted  or false tactics shown here (http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:TjiK3I7bHlcJ:www.tektonics.org/zindler02.html+frank+zindler+response&hl=en) by a good friend of mine.

I'm sure you're familiar with the most popular skeptic website online - infidels.org.  I find it ironic that you present an article from Frank Zindler while skeptics themselves recognize the beating Zindler got at the hands of William Craig (top-notch debater) in their debate (source (http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:MwmAjLU7NCUJ:www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/chap1.html+frank+zindler+william+craig&hl=en).  
The irony is that Zindler never gave any of his arguments and never even refuted Craig's arguments (infidels and one of Zindler's biggest fans recognize this also).  So I ask: for what reason should I takin in Zindler's arguments when they (a) can't even stand up under expert review and (b) aren't even put forth in live debates, which leads me to question the validity of the claims?


You don't go in-depth as to how they are both bad.  All you have to do is present the criterian you use to determine the difference.  It would be of much help in moving forward.

Just obeying God's commandments doesn't make someone good.  Son of Sam does this while in jail, so he claims, so is he all of a sudden good?  That isn't at all what Christianity teaches (maybe, Islam).  


Limited in the sense that absolute God would control us (he will force us to do nothing but good).  You say this is a good thing?  If so, then I simply have to digress... I don't know about you, but I don't want to be a puppet.

The world isn't total chaos, because plenty of good exists in this world.


Why?  You don't like it that harm/pain exists in the world, so I'm playing God and am taking us to the logical conclusions.  I'm taking it all away.  I see no reason to stop at any particular level of harm besides subjectively based preferences, which really amounts to no reason at all.

I've got a hypothetical, though (dont'cha love these?).  Suppose a guy gets intentionally run off the road by a drunk driver, gets paralyzed waist/down, ends up falling in love with a girl, and devoting his life to a new-found dream.  Then, in the end, thanks the wreck for ever coming out, because it led to all that he accomplished.  If you foreknew this would happen, would you wrip this guy of a great future just because it took a little harm to bring the good about?

As C.S. Lewis bluntly puts it,

"Haven't you been to a dentist?"

His point is simple.  Harm brings about good in some situations.  Some extreme; some not extreme.

 

i still don't agree on the love/mariage part...

you say you should choose the one you love the most, but when you, after you chose, meet a new person and you come to find out you love him/her more, you should not choose for the new person, just because you were in a church and said 'yes' some time before? That's so bizarre that i wouldn't become a christion for that reason alone...

and gay people? if a man loves a man more then a woman he still has to go with the woman just because it isn't right to be gay?

the christian marriage policy is just rotten... bah! (not to mention all the pedo-priests  :P )

Pedo-priests is a generalization, and I think they ruined the Christian religion for some people.

I'm not sure on the marriage thing opper, but I think that's why people put a lot of thought into the one they're going to marry.  I think if you get married, you should have tunnel vision and realize that that's it.

Aye. It's just one of those stupid media over-reaction things.

Priests are ultimately no different to any other people, and there's not going to be much of a difference with ratio of paedophiles then there is with the regular population.
It's just more of a shock when a generally trusted person is revealed as one...


(Night Spawn, not ignoring you... just going to reply when I've got more time. :))

i don't like people with tunnel visions... you should be open for all kind of things   :miffed:

if all religious people all have a tunnel vision i think that's a minus for them all
i refuse to sign me up to a tunnel vision :)  

a tunnel vision for other women...you can look at them and interact and all those things, but you have to realize that *you* have to limit your relations to friendship.

Its too late to respond to that, presently, Spawn, but:


Simply? First one I found that fitted the bill. I didnt pay attention to author, nor am I big up on my debators. I tend to present my own opinions rather than other peoples, that article just has all the details.

Just a couple thoughts:

1st off--I'm sure you've heard things along these lines. Could God create an object he couldn't lift, and image he couldn't see, a noise he couldn't hear? One way or the other, it would prove this infallibe god of yours fallible.
I thought I remembered seeing a response, but can't find it now. I'd like a better explanation than what I remember seeing anyway.

2ndly. If this God dude loves us so much, then why are our entire lives (assuming you're religious. I'm not. ) be lived in fear of him? Why should we have to be afraid of the big man who says "do exactly as I say or be smited and burn in hell forever!" If he loved us so much, wouldn't he just be worried about us living good lives, in the sense of being good and enjoying our lives? Who cares who you worship, when you worship, whether you worship on your knees or standing up or standing on one wrist while flailing your legs back and forth in the air? If this god was *truly* so mighty, so loving, why wouldn't he just let us live how we want, and if we're good people (not good by our definition, but by his) then it's all good in the end?

also--you say he can't force people to do anything. fine. but the movie Bruce Almighty had an interesting thought on it. God might not be able to force people directly to do something, but he could influence them indirectly easily. There's no reason why he couldn't throw together a few events that would make people snap to...

I think the idea is thta he could but he chooses not to.  or soemthing like that.

congrats on becoming a burseg by the way :)

Understandable.  I'm calling the details into question, though.  William Craig is probably the most well-known theist in the philosophical community, so everyone's wanting a piece of his evidences.  All Zindler had to do was challenge him with those type of details, but he didn't, and I'm wondering why.  All Zindler had to do, if his arguments are so worthy, was refute at least one of Craig's well defended "Arguments from Jesus' Resurrection", but he didn't (even the skeptics/Craig's critics recognize this).
Like I said though I'm willing to respond to the article and we can discuss it in a separate thread.

Hello, Frag.  You typed,


Me and omnimors responded to that type of question here (http://www.darkthrone.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1911&perpage=15&pagenumber=1).


Before I offer an answer, I disagree with the traditional definition of hell (place of fire).  I believe it will be banishment from God.

Fear, in english only rings of negativity (opposite of trust, and its synonyms are fright, dread and terror).  In Hebrew, it has other meanings - from negative (dread, terror) to positive (worship, reverence) and from mild (respect) to strong (awe) -- Prov. 9:10; Prov. 14:26-27; 1John 4:18; Deut. 10:12; .  Tverberg concludes,

"In fact, every time we read "revere" or "reverence", it comes from the Hebrew word "yareh", literally, to fear. When fear is in reference to God, it can be either negative or positive. The enemies of God are terrified by Him, but those who know Him revere and worship Him, all meanings of the word "yareh"." (Does God Want us to Fear Him?)


He's much more personal than that, I believe.  Like any good father who wouldn't want his kids listening to this other father's rules and that other fauther's rules, God wants us to obey and love Him alone.


Well, the influencing is inevitable.  Granted that God is the ultimate first cause, and wants to actualize people into existence, we've got a degree of influence from the get-go, for whatever situation God chooses to actualize will influence us.  This is a necessity, though.

I don't have much of a problem with a degree of influence, because I've been influenced all my life.  I still have the ability to choose whatever I want despite the influences.


No rush at all, man.

Hmm.... I'd like to respond to that.  We need to both respect and love God, seeing as how he is our creator, and does look after us in life, and fear him because he is omnipotent and ultimatly controls where our souls end up.  ;)

And you dont need to do "exactly what he says."  You don't even need to do exactly what the Church says (this will be an interesting point of debate).  All you need to do is live a pious life, act charitibly towards others, and if you do that, you've suceeded in life.  Besides.... "enjoying our lives" usually conflicts with leading a Godly one.  :)


P.S.  Sorry for not reading the previous 4 pages... they do look interesting, but waaaay too long.  -_-  

I can flame you if you really want. I'm much better at it. ;).


Errr... *ahem* the example you cited is non-lethal. Read what I said, again, please. Yes, in your example, the person is better off for the harm they come to - and, if God is so great and mighty - he would be able to see which cases will lead to death/maiming with no good effects, and those which leads to a happily ever after love story.


The details are irrelevant, being frank. I've never heard of William Craig nor infidels.org, nor am I ever likely to - you have the look of someone who is practiced at this kind of discussion, and knows precisely where to get all their quotes. I do not. So sue me.


There are levels of good and bad. Nothing is black and white, it has a great deal to do with shades of grey. The man whomurders his wife is a lighter shade of grey than the man who murders 6 million, but he is still a far darker shade of grey than someone who holds to the laws of the land all his life, and donates £2 a month to the NSPCC... clearer, now?


Wow, I can almost feel my words being twisted. Quite an accomplishment there. Read what I say, not what you want me to. You profess free will - even if free will involves someone taking a gun and shooting ten people, correct? That SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. It is why we have LAWS.


Like fuck it does. My example given above (someone who holds to all laws/commandments, donates to charity and generally helps people all through their life) is rare. Stereotypical, but look at the Simpsons. How many people like Ned Flanders, even in a more limited form, do you see everyday?

Ok, so the question is likely being actively fucked by the fact we probably live in different countries, but I probably couldnt tell you what month I last saw someone that good. If you're getting at the fact that good exists in moderation in the vast majority of the populace, maybe it does - but not eough to be discarding our laws, methinks.

Nahh... I prefer discussions rather than arguments and name-calling.  Also, I wouldn't claim being good at flaming people, for it's a rather pointless thing to do and brings whatever discussion taking place down to the level of elementary students arguing in circles over who's 'momma' is worse. :P


I was quite careful to put this at the top:

"Why? You don't like it that harm/pain exists in the world, so I'm playing God and am taking us to the logical conclusions. I'm taking it all away. I see no reason to stop at any particular level of harm besides subjectively based preferences, which really amounts to no reason at all."

What if there are lethal cases like deaths, though, which have good outcomes?  For example, a man rushing into the street to push a kid out of the way from an oncoming car and taking the hit himself.  Should God just jury-rig the entire event to save the man's life, which he freely gave up?  This would amount to absolutely cancelling out free will in order to achieve whatever He prefers.


Thanks for providing that.  I ask this question, because it puts the anti-religious viewpoint in a rather "confusicled" state.  My reasoning is thus:

Religious people judge between good and evil as according to how their God or "force" does (and pretty much every major religion agrees with each other on this).  Those that don't accept any type of religious doctrine have a good bit to answer for when they call one man "good" and one man "bad".  They aren't using any sort of objective standard to judge this.  According to their position, who is "good" or "bad" all falls down to subjectively based preferences, which wrips apart any attempts at commenting on the subject.

You seem like a smart/well-knowledged guy, so I'm sure you see what I mean.  I'll put forth an analogy, though.  Let's say I'm an atheist who holds certain standards which I use to judge between a good person and a bad person.  What are these standards based on?  It's inescapable that they are based subjectively, which amounts to a "moot" standard.  Some other atheist may hold certain subjectively based standard which is completely opposite of mine (i.e. that Hitler was a good person).  How am I to argue with him that his is wrong?

So, I ask: according to your view, by what reason should I accept the above quote as true?  Without any type of God ("cosmic parent") involved, how can it be true?

I can admit that no good human being exists in this world.  If one does, then who is this good human, so I can talk to him?


They are very much relevant.  When someone gives me a link with a lot of information, before responding, I like to know who the link came from and the credibility of this person.  These are both honest questions used to judge the validity of the material.  

You picked Zindler's article, because (as you say) it "fitted the bill", but how do you know it does?  Do you honestly believe those claims from Zindler are valid when they don't even stand up to expert criticism?  You now know that Zindler doesn't put forth such arguments in debates and (according to his own peers) can't respond adequately to opposing arguments, which means you're putting blind faith in his material (unfounded trust).  Not only that, but you're bringing them forth as valid arguments in a debate, which they aren't (Zindler's own actions are evidence for this).  

I rarely do this, but I'll gladly respond to Zindler's article (and offer evidence in opposition to it) so we can discuss it in a separate thread.  I'm willing to point out the obvious major flaws in it, if you're willing to take part in the discussion?


One thing I am very careful not to do is twist people's words.  All I did was point out and respond to what you typed: free will is limited.  I then put forth a response saying that, if God were to force us to do only that which is good (not kill or have the thought to kill), then it amounts to puppetry.  It's definitely not a strawman attack at all.

It should not happen, but it does happen... yes, because of free will.  That's what happens with free will, though.  It's a sort of irreducibly complex system whereas it contains several working "parts" in order to achieve what we call "free will".  Take one of these parts out and free will is gone against or demolished.  You're taking out certain kinds of choices, which ultimately means taking choice, itself, out.  With free will comes a big responsibility - the responsibility to choose what is right.  It may be gone against a lot, but that doesn't make free will a bad thing.  It's merely a beautiful thing gone bad in some aspects due to mankind.

Let's cut straight to it: Why didn't God stop Hitler?  God didn't because of the free will Hitler had.  This doesn't mean Hitler gets off the noose, though.  He definitely will be judged and punished accordingly.  

-Spawn

ned flanders is actually mentally unstable and had a troubled childhood thats why hes like that, and sadly there are thousands of people who act like him in the world

Hah, now you missed the other condition. CONSENTUAL.


Where is God involved? All I see are some laws that Moses wrote down, apparantly at the behest of a deity, who may or may not exist. They are, for the most part, sensible laws. No killing, no stealing, etc - forget the crap about only having one true god, just take the parts that actually MEAN something, and you have some good standards to live your life by.

Because I agree with the majority of the 10 commandments does not make me Christian by any stretch of the imagination. I really, really dislike the church and everything that it has done to this world and I don't buy in to the whole deity thing.


No I'm not, as that would take up even more of time. This thread is already soaking up the majority of time I spend here, I don't need two debate threads.


That makes God one helluva irresponsible 'parent' (as you refer to him). If a parent does not discipline their child, they become lawless rogues, 9/10 times. If God exists, he is a truly, truly, crap parent. Parents limit their children, set rules, and enforce punishments when they go wrong. God limited his children, set rules and... er... let them fuck it up?



 

maybe he has the foresight to reralise what good hitler did for the world too

Rug,


The definition for "consentual" doesn't seem to fit in line with the topic, so maybe you mean "consensual" (Involving the willing participation of both or all parties)?  

For the second time, you've skipped over this quote from myself: "Why? You don't like it that harm/pain exists in the world, so I'm playing God and am taking us to the logical conclusions. I'm taking it all away.  I see no reason to stop at any particular level of harm besides subjectively based preferences, which really amounts to no reason at all."  

I understand that you're saying it's wrong God allows such things (like a parent beating his/her child to death) to go on, but this snaps right back into the Free Will Defense, which is in subject below:


Parents do that up to a certain extent, then they have no choice, but to allow the child to take what he/she has learned and act responsibility in the world (remember, free will is a great responsibility).  I think God does this also.  He has set rules and enforces punishments (though, not immediately) when we go wrong.  So, God doesn't just let us mess it up.  God allows us to either choose between messing it up or choosing to abide by His rules.  From then-on, whatever we do is by our own fault.

Take your example of the kid who got beat to death by his parent.  You're saying it's wrong for God to allow that to happen, but would you be questioning such an incident, if the parents raised the kid up to be good?  Indeed, it was just as possible for that to happen.  It was all up to the parents.  Granted that the kid went to Heaven, I'm sure the kid would realize who swung the fist or weapon and I'm sure the kid would realize God set up the system in such a way that the parents didn't have to do that.  It was all up to them what was to be done.

The only ones irresponsible are the parent(s).  The only one acting irresponsibly with the Jews was Hitler.  They chose and will reap whatever judgments come their way.

I also typed this concerning free will:

"if God were to force us to do only that which is good (not kill or have the thought to kill), then it amounts to puppetry.  [What we're doing, in itself, won't even be good, because we wouldn't be doing it, but God would be jury-rigging it.]

[Killing] should not happen, but it does happen... yes, because of free will. That's what happens with free will, though. It's a sort of irreducibly complex system whereas it contains several working "parts" in order to achieve what we call "free will". Take one of these parts out and free will is gone against or demolished. You're taking out certain kinds of choices, which ultimately means taking choice, itself, out. With free will comes a big responsibility - the responsibility to choose what is right. It may be gone against a lot, but that doesn't make free will a bad thing. It's merely a beautiful thing gone bad in some aspects due to mankind."

Text within brackets was added to the original quote.


First off, I notice you're still saying things like "you have some good standards to live your life by" despite my argument:

"Those that don't accept any type of religious doctrine have a good bit to answer for when they call one man "good" and one man "bad". They aren't using any sort of objective standard to judge this. According to their position, who is "good" or "bad" all falls down to subjectively based preferences, which wrips apart any attempts at commenting on the subject.

Let's say I'm an atheist who holds certain standards which I use to judge between a good person and a bad person. What are these standards based on? It's inescapable that they are based subjectively, which amounts to a "moot" standard. Some other atheist may hold certain subjectively based standard which is completely opposite of mine (i.e. that Hitler was a good person). How am I to argue with him that his is wrong?"

I'd like a response from the anti-religious side as to how they can possibly consider one man actually good or bad?

In response to your quote, it really doesn't matter whether or not God exists when Moses claimed to have divine orders.  What matters is that Moses had some type of objective experience.  (It obviously was a worthy experience, because most societies/religions have abided by it).  

Even if I grant you religions base their morality from SBP's, you still have to deal with how one person can actually be good and one be actually bad/evil.


That's like me creating a long list of anti-religious people who've done terrible things, then saying I dislike the anti-religious movement just because of what those people did.  I wouldn't do that.  I respect the anti-religious movement and learn from it day in and out.


Understandable.  Do expect some threads up on proofs for God anyway... you don't have to respond, if you don't like.  I respect the fact that you have more fruitful things to engage in with your time. :)

that doesn't answer anything at all. So fear can mean many things--I think you know what I meant' To live in fear, be afraid of, etc. No offense, but you talk a lot and don't say anything. You avoid a lot of questions by finding one single, totally irrelevant, element of a question to respond to. Please, try to focus on the *relevant* parts instead of taking the least important parts of a question, as that only creates totally meaningless answers.

You want to get technical? Here's the Oxford English Dictionary Definition for fear (v). Keep in mind this dictionary has just about every possible meaning of a word. The following is merely for the verb form.

All but one entry has to do with being afraid of something. This is obviously what I was referring to. Did you need that full OED entry to grasp that? I'm sure you didn't. I hope I've made my point. Now please, try to answer my question.

Also, in the DT forums thread, my first question was answered with more or less the following: A quote saying that a being is o all powerful if they can create anything, and don't have a reason for not wanting to. That works out nicely for any supporter of religion; any hint that he might not be all powerful is refuted by saying that God doesn't *want* to. That sounds almost childish.
Another part of the response is that He can't do anything that isn't logically possible. It seems fairly logical to me, however. There are plenty of soundwaves that are too low or high frequency for me to hear. There are plenty of light wavelengths that I can't see. So would it be so strange for there to be a sound that God can't hear? Or would it not be strange because he doesn't *want* to hear that particular sound?


And I have a problem with that. Again, should I live a boring, dull life, constantly struggling, simply because there might be a God and afterlife? Consider this then: say that all religions are wrong. Pretend for a moment that everything you believe, everything you've been taught--all wrong. No gods. No correct religion. But you've just spent 70? 80? Maybe 90 or more years, devoting your life to something that doesn't even exist. So you die, having lived a lie, accomplished nothing, with absolutely no reward. Congratulations, you've just wasted your entire life, as have countless others. And say maybe there is a god, but yet the whole religion is wrong and your life here is all you get. Again. Wasted life. Is this really what your god would want, if indeed he exists?


It's just as subjective for religious people. The only difference is that they have a fall guy for everything: they just blame God. We decide who is good and bad based on our own standards. Will it vary from person to person? of course. but don't you think there's something to be said for not just following what someone else says?
No matter what religion, or lack thereof, you follow, you're going to have your own beliefs that vary from everyone else's who follow the exact same religion. For every religious person who thinks they're a very good person, there's a person who thinks the exact opposite of them. For every person(A) a religious person considers evil, there's a person(B) that thinks that same person(A) is good. The above quoted comment is irrelevant and proves nothing.


and Hitler wasn't necessarily that bad. Before you write me off as some twisted fuck, think about it this way: He had an insanely powerful, incredibly loyal army. His people followed him without question. He was a great leader. The only problem was when he started to abuse his power. *THAT'S* when things turned sour. But read the above again: People followed him without question. Sound familiar?
 

By utilising the principles laid down by religions. I said that above. I don't have to abide by your religion, or like the vast majority of it, nor do I have to worship your God to think some of your principles are right. I also think some of the things professed in the bible are sick. Killing homosexuals because they're homosexual, for example.


If you see no reason, you're not looking. You're being quite irrational there, actually. Yes, serious harm should not happen to people. Minor things are fine. Assuming God is a busy person, I imagine he has better things to do than prevent lil' Jimmy from getting a boo boo on his pinky. He could, however, step in to save someone who's about to be crushed by a juggernaught... yaknow, just looking after his own creations.

One doesn't write a computer program then leave it to its own devices - you help it out, improve it, and stop it from destroying itself if something goes wrong.


When you can prove an afterlife exists, I'll accept that God actually bothers to punish people. As that isn't going to happen anytime soon, I'll be morbid and believe we simply cease to exist when we die - so God doesn't actually get around to punishing anyone.


Again, if God is almighty and omnipotent, he will be able to see which cases harm causes good, and is worth continuing, what harm isnt really substantial, and which harm amounts only to evil.


Which is precisely why free will is limited, via the laws.


Has the Anti-religious movement done the following:

-Allowed and encouraged the wholesale slaughter of 26 million people, because the live a different way of life to us.
-Waged incessant warfare against a part of the world, because we thought it should belont to us, and they were wearing turbans.
-Professed the murder of thousands of women, because they could float, and we quite liked the look of their money?

Christian church, catholic or protestant = a tool for capitol gain and control. Nothing more.


Its something thats learnt at Sunday schools, I swear. A simple, bolded, 'answer the fucking question' usually works.

FragMaster,

Thanks for taking the time to respond.  

When defining a word from the Bible, you have to go back to the original language.  That's why I keep several Concordance's handy.  That's also why the Oxford Dictionary isn't meant to be a Concordance.

I gave the meaning in the original language, while you're still stuck on giving an English definition.  I also gave scripture where it is written "fear God", but meant in a worshipful, following way, which means your holding a groundless interpretation.   The interpretation your giving was only meant for those in opposition to God.


It appearing childish doesn't take away it's reasonableness.


I see no reason for there to be a sound that God can't hear.  The "God can't do anything that isn't logically possible" is very much valid and senseful.  Is there anything you find wrong with it?

Probably the greatest atheistic philosopher of the century, JL Mackie, didn't even concentrate on such arguments like that in his book The Miracle of Theism.  He concentrated on those that were more reasonable (i.e. argument from evil).


I digress that it's just as subjective, but I'll grant you that.  Even if it is, there still doesn't exist any actual good or bad person alive today, which means the question "Why does bad things happen to good people?" needs to be put in a much different way for it's misleading.


We all follow what others say at certain points in life.

-Spawn

Rug,


Sorry, but I don't go to Sunday school.


As you can see, his quote was left unjustified and is based off of misunderstandings on how to look up the original language in a Concordance.

It's an ad hominem at best.


Red Herring.  I never said you have to worship my God to think the principles are right.  

I said your belief is founded on subjectively based preferences, so how can you say one man is good or bad.  Some other person may found his on SBP's also and disagree with yours (he may believe Hitler was right for what he did).  How can you prove his wrong?  You can't, because SBP's will merely be clashing with each other.  Therefore, according to your view, there is no such thing as an actual good or bad person.


Thanks for answering the question.

Why is it that minor things are fine?  I'm not being irrational at all, because I'm not seen basing most of my conclusions off of SBP's.  So, basically, 'serious things should be stopped, but not minor things, just cause I say so'?


Well, you've already granted God's existence during the discussion so we can discuss free will, yet you exclude it to escape a point?

With the Christian God's existence still being granted, He will punish those that do bad.  If you're going to exclude his existence, then why even par-take in the discussion, which granted his existence from the get-go?


You didn't have to re-state that, because I responded to it right in the area of the sentence you cherry-picked and snipped.  I typed:

"Take your example of the kid who got beat to death by his parent.  It was all up to the parents. Granted that the kid went to Heaven, I'm sure the kid would realize who swung the fist or weapon and I'm sure the kid would realize God set up the system in such a way that the parents didn't have to do that. It was all up to them what was to be done.

The only ones irresponsible are the parent(s). The only one acting irresponsibly with the Jews was Hitler. They chose and will reap whatever judgments come their way."

Basically, what you're asking for is life to be kind of like a play where we (as the actors) have to do whatever the script (God) says.


Once again, you cherry-pick and snip a sentence.  The full quote is thus:

"if God were to force us to do only that which is good (not kill or have the thought to kill), then it amounts to puppetry. [What we're doing, in itself, won't even be good, because we wouldn't be doing it, but God would be jury-rigging it.]

[Killing] should not happen, but it does happen... yes, because of free will.  That's what happens with free will, though. It's a sort of irreducibly complex system whereas it contains several working "parts" in order to achieve what we call "free will". Take one of these parts out and free will is gone against or demolished. You're taking out certain kinds of choices, which ultimately means taking choice, itself, out. With free will comes a big responsibility - the responsibility to choose what is right. It may be gone against a lot, but that doesn't make free will a bad thing. It's merely a beautiful thing gone bad in some aspects due to mankind."

Read what I typed after and before the sentence you snipped and respond, please.


The Christian movement/church didn't do that, but the corruptible nature of men did that.  Once again, it's like me citing examples of atheists who have done wrong, then say it was the "anti-religious movement that did wrong".  Sometimes, even most of the time, certain individuals will tend to corrupt the beauty of their belief.  That's not the belief's fault.

-Spawn

My point is that it's obvious which meaning of fear I meant, and you took it entirely the wrong way.


I didnt say that argument wasn't valid or sensible--in fact I ran with it. But it's logical that there might be certain objects, no matter what form they come in, that certain beings couldn't detect.


Exactly my point. Either way it's just as subjective. It's only a matter of whether you hold it up to your own personal standards, or your deity's.


Agreed. But we're talking you're whole life here, not just a day, month, a couple years--your whole life. That's a long time.

FragMaster,

I didn't take it the wrong way.  I realized you were using an English definition, so I went back to the original text in an attempt to show what "fear" means within that original text - further verified with examples from scripture.  It doesn't just mean what the Oxford dictionary reads (being afraid of something).


I'm sure you don't enjoy reading the Bible (if so, then my sincere apologies), but it lays out the groundwork for God - what He can or can't do.

Granted that God is omnipresent, omniscience, and omnipotent, what couldn't He possibly detect?  In accordance with the two defenses me and the other poster at DT gave, any responses to that question will be dealt with adequately.


It may be, but I don't feel like getting into that.  It's in the area of ontological status' and such, which would give me a headache attempting to summarize.  So, instead, I'll grant you that (which I did), then move on to how can one person be actually good or bad when it all falls down to subjectively based preferences?  One person may disagree with your preferences, which would just amount to them both clashing... not one coming out on top.
We seem to be agreeing here, though, right?  My entire point was just that the original question was misleading and incorrect.


If that's in reference to me following God, well, I'm simply placing hope in that which I reason to be true.  If this isn't what you're talking about, my apologies.

The statement was made with my tongue firmly in my cheek, as it is a phenomenon I only truly encounter in theological discussion.


No, it is not. How is free will demolished in, er, EVERY CIVILISED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD?

If anything, the countries which have clear laws and rules are better off than the ones without. So, the limiting of free will is a good thing. Here, in bold:

Limitation != destruction.

The only time where the above statment is incorrect is when limitation is taken to extremes - asking God to be his own police force is not extremely limiting free will. You can still choose who to vote for, whether to watch the game, everything thats important to you. So long as murdering your wife isnt important to you, anyway.


This is called having an opinion. It is part of your much loved free will. My beliefs are founded on what I think is correct, yes. Yes this will contradict with what other people think is correct. Do I care about that, if we all coexist and abide to the laws? No. The laws are set for a reason, and my opinion, my belief, is that they should be upheld. If someone thinks differently, and chooses to disrespect and break the laws that have been laid down, they should be punished, in this life, right now.


I'm asking for him to take responsibility for his actions. If hes created a race, he shouldn't leave it unattended. Least he could do is nurture us somewhat, yes?

Does he? Does he beans. People may say he nurtures us through the creation of new life and things; fuck em. If God really cares, he'd actually try to look after us rather than letting us destroy ourselves.

If someone turned the Earth to an ashen wasteland tomorrow (how is irrelevant - lets say a really big bomb, if you really want a how) would God care that someone utterly annihilated his world because of their free will, even if the other 6 billion people on the planet thought 'Er, no, I'd rather not be a grease spot'? What right would one person have to end an entire planet?

Would God stop it? No. You won't say that he would, either, because thats the most convenient option.


Because they're minor.

Stupid question, stupid answer.


The corruptable nature of man. Yep. Unfortunately for you, the most corruptable person on the planet appears to be the Pope, which does very little for the credibility of your religion.


Why does God punish people where he can't prove hes doing it, rather than assuring us that all the bad people get roasted alive for the rest of eternity? I'd watch 'The Hell Channel' on satellite. Would be fun.

heh, I think I mighta just read part of the quote and replied about somethin different...oops. I'm tired. <insert sheepsish grin here>

Rug,

Unless I read wrong somewhere, you're 15, right?  If so, then much deserved credit is given to you.  I haven't met many people of that age interested in this area of discussion; in particular, any as smart as you are.

It seems like we're going nowhere, so I'm going to offer 2 or 3 more responses, then a concluding post followed by yours.  Simply agreeing to disagree is best at times.

In response to SBP's you type,


What if the law seriously disagreed with your opinion?  Say, what if it was lawful to kill those that are sick?  Would you consider that a good law or bad law?

Even if the law you're talking about is gone against, it doesn't make the man actually wrong, but lawfully wrong.  The law is based on SBP's also.  Maybe, now, you're beginning to see why I raised this issue to your question.  If everyone has preferences, which are based subjectively, then how can anyone be actually good or bad?  A simple answer will suffice.


I've already responded to that here:

"Take your example of the kid who got beat to death by his parent. It was all up to the parents. Granted that the kid went to Heaven, I'm sure the kid would realize who swung the fist or weapon and I'm sure the kid would realize God set up the system in such a way that the parents didn't have to do that. It was all up to them what was to be done.

The only ones irresponsible are the parent(s). The only one acting irresponsibly with the Jews was Hitler. They chose and will reap whatever judgments come their way."

So, my answer is "no" and that God gives us the power to stop it ourselves if we act responsibly and wisely.


I wouldn't go so far as to call it a stupid question.  It all falls down to you wanting to exclude them just because you feel or think it's the best way.  Once again, this is you arguing with an opinion just as I am.  We're going to have to agree to disagree, I guess.


Over here, what the Pope says doesn't have much of an effect (if any) on Christians.  A lot of Christians simply ignore him... as I do.  He'd probably get on my nerves, if I didn't.


LOL

Well, I believe punishment will simply be banishment (don't know about exact details, though), so there wouldn't be much to see.  I'd rather watch a Backstreet Boys video, probably.  ;)  

Yup, it's nice to host a place where people can discuss things properly, even when they disagree. :)

-

I see the problem as creating a set of rules, but stretching one of them when it benefits him.
In itself I don't see a problem - it's something everyone does - but I do see it as a sign of a fallible god.

-

Don't know of any NT worship. Generally Catholics use the excuse of praying as they would to a spiritual leader, but there can be a thin line between praying and worshipping, and I think many people (Catholics) cross it.

-

The version of Genesis I'm looking at at the moment doesn't specifically mention the people, but I've definitely seen a version which does.
This version does mention Cain's wife, though. Where'd she come from?

-

Well, the keywords being 'unneeded complexities'; Personally, I see a single unique entity as more of an anomoly then multiple entities.

-

Most atheists seem to support the Big Bang theory, which relies on a single starting point?

Infinity is a concept, not a numeric value, so yeah - it can't be minuses from itself. That's an illogical concept.
That doesn't mean that something cannot be infinite, infact quite the opposite: there is a hell of a lot of mathematics that relies on the concept of infinity - without it, several key concepts break down.

Which is apparently possible with "Quantum Electrodynamics and some very impressive physics", because: "Particles are constantly created and destroyed from nothing (in a vacuum)."
I don't actually know any of the theory behind that, but I trust the person who I'm quoting to know what they're talking about.

-

Bleh, that's just a string of statements.
You can prove anything like that.

1. Whatever is hot will appear red.

2. Tomatoes are red.

3. Therefor, Tomatoes must be hot. The heat can't come from the plant, because it doesn't have any. Therefor God made the heat.

See, that's just silly.

Blah. (I assume that's a typing mistake on the second line.)
P1. If chaos shows order, then it is ordered.
P2. Chaos shows order.
C. Therefor, chaos is ordered.
Which is blatantly rubbish.
One can see patterns in chaos, and a small subset can appear ordered, but as a whole it isn't.
The same is true with the universe - you can see patterns, it can appear designed, but if we could see it all it might not be.
(It might be designed, but it just as easily might not be)

Hmm, there's a lot of weird writing style there (and not just the bible bits), so I might miss bits in my reading, but I'll give it a try:

Factor #1 -- Who Would Buy One Crucified?
Blah. Who indeed? It's not like apparent ultimate defeat followed by glorious victory is not a common theme in stories.
There are plenty of cases of people being completely and utterly defeated, then coming back to win.
Everything from Lord of the Rings to the Matrix has it.
Sure, in most cases it's not complete and utter humiliation and death that someone comes back from, but that's just an attribute difference. And for someone as humble and powerful as Jesus, it's probably the only thing that could be accepted as ultimate defeat - it's not like he could just be locked in a prison; he's already spent 40 days in the wilderness without food or water. It had to be death, and the whole risen-from-the-dead thing would never be believed if it wasn't a public death.

If the life of Jesus was a story, it's the most logical thing for the author to have happen.
If the life of Jesus was real, then it's the most logical thing fo the romans to do: public death & humiliation, to remove all threat of the religion. Afterall, they weren't expecting his come back.

Factor #2 -- Neither Here Nor There: Or, A Man from Galilee??
When you're looking for a humble leader, who better than an outcast?
One of the key concepts of Christianity is forgiveness - who better to teach this?
Not a mistake, but a vital component for success I'd say.

Factor #3 -- Getting Physical! The Wrong "Resurrection"
Eh? I'm not sure I understand the point trying to be made here?

Factor #4 -- What's New? What's Not Good
Ok, lets assume that Christianity was something completely new (despite it being born from Judaism).
It can't succeed because the Roman's disliked innovation? Pffft.
By those lines, how did we come into a world where people go round wearing next to no clothes,
gay marriage is [almost] accepted, and so on.
Only a hundred years ago, today's normalities would have shocked people of that time.
People might fear change, but they also get bored with sameness.

Factor #5 -- Don't Demand Behavior
Ok, I'll accept that - it is very hard to get people to do what they don't want.
So there must have been a good reason, or people with good persuade scores.

Factor #6 -- Tolerance is a Virtue
Meh. This is a bit of a combination of #4 and #5.
Yeah, getting people to do what they don't want is hard, but people wont stay the same forever.

Factor #7 -- Stepping Into History
Fair point - it's difficult to create rumours when people want to prove you wrong.
But not impossible, if you have a strong enough control over things.
But who had such strong control? Well, the Romans did.
The Romans were extremely successful at a lot of things they did.
What if the Romans wanted to try controlling the Jewish religion. Could they create an elaborate and fragile religion and make it strong enough whilst maintaining control into the future. Of course they could!
Some food for thought: The centre of Christianity; the ruler of the Church, where? Rome.

Factor #8 -- Do Martyrs Matter, and More?
Same as point five really. Yeah, there needs to be something to convince people.
That can either be an impressive deity, or just someone very good at persuading people.

Factor #9 -- Human vs. Divine: Never the Twain Shall Meet!
Sure, the idea doesn't fit perfectly for the Jewish. The fact that Judaism still exists as a major religion shows how difficult it would be for Jews to believe. But Roman & Greek history are full of gods and mortals interacting, so the idea is not so abhorrant to them.

Factor #10 -- No Class!
Again, back to point two. This is a perfect role for Jesus - as the complete underdog.

Factor #11 -- Don't Rely on Women!
Pffft. The women wanted to go put herbs on or something? That's something men wouldn't do.
And they then went and got the male disciples.
A weak excuse at best.

Factor #12 -- Don't Rely on Bumpkins, Either!
Well you'd hardly convince non-believers to go look at an empty tomb, and who would want more to be told than the people that loved Jesus the most?
They're the most logical people who would go to the tomb, whether for real, or in a story.

Factor #13 -- You Can't Keep a Secret!
Essentially, it couldn't spread due to the Romans being in control? See #7.

Factor #14 -- An Ignorant Deity??
Jesus was sold as just a human - ie: someone who the lowest people could identify with.
There are plenty of stories of his 'perfection' though - he never cried as a baby? Pfft.

Factor #15 -- A Prophet Without Honor
Not this again? See #2 and #10.

Factor #16 -- Miscellaneous Contrarium
Jesus was a rebel, we know that. Why is it odd that he brought with him unsual customs?

Factor #17 -- Encouraging People to Check the Facts for Themselves
The best way to build belief in a falsity - if people can verify things themselves, then they are more likely to believe.
All you need to do is make the verifications good enough to fool most people.
example: If I rolled a dice 24 times and got 4 of each number, most people would assume it fair. However, I could have built a timer mechanism that kept the dice fair for a short time, and have it weighted at other times.
If someone did a proper check, rolling the dice repeatedly for half an hour, they might see the bias, but the majority will always be pleased with a simple check.


Overall - yeah, a couple of those factors are fair, but the majority are just appear to be grasping attempts to find 'flaws' in the spreading of the religion.

-

I think we'll have to agree-to-disagree on the love/marriage bit. :)

-

I have absolute power over these forums, but I can't create a post which I cannot delete. It's a logical impossibility.
The problem in that is that the English language allows logical flaws to appear as valid points.
Being all-powerful doesn't allow you to circumvent mathematics or logic.

-

A good father protects a child whilst allowing them to grow and develop into a unique, free-thinking being.

If any father today acted like the Christian God, they'd have social security coming down on them in an instant.

Free-will is all well and good, but I wouldn't have wanted my parents to give me the free-will to whack my brother in the face with a hot iron. (And they didn't.)

-

Re: good/bad.
Yes, it's subjective. Without knowing the Rules of Life, it can't be anything else.

Just because there's no clear cut answer doesn't mean we should create one (or follow the most common one).

Life isn't easy; no-one ever said it was. Moral decisions can be difficult. I wish there was a real source to consult, but no gods have ever answered my questions in any detectable way.

-

Re: The fear thing.
If it didn't mean the same thing in the original language, it should be translated to it's proper, equivalent definition in English.


--

Right, now I've spent at least two hours on this now, and probably missed a whole load, but I'm just going to post it before it gets too long. :)

now your coming tot he book of life which in the bible says that god wrote out every possibility of life in his wee little book and is sposed to whip it out on judgement day *looks around fro the fourhorsemen*

well you did manage to create a post that I couldn't quote.  :angry: *grumble* Anyway, that's quite different really. First, I'm sure that if you really tried, you could find a way. Granted, it might not quite be legal, but the possibility is there. However, this essentially something borrowed from Invision. This isn't your creation. A more correct comparison would be if Invision could create a post they couldn't delete. And they could. They might have to tinker with the forum coding, but it could be done.

I haven't read through all the posts, so hopefully no one has brought this up already...
We can see other glaxies that are billions of lightyears away. How did the light from them get here in only a few thousand years? Someone once suggested to me that the speed of light was initially faster. That is impossible, since the energy output of nuclear fusion (the energy source of the sun) depends on the square of the speed of light (e = mc^2). If light ever traveled fast enough to get here from the more distant objects we can see, the sun would have put out enough energy to blow up to many times its current size, and would have engulfed the first few planets.
Conclusion: The universe must be around 13 billion years old.
-Blake

btw, this is frag's bro.
-Blake

yeah, so don't blame me for the triple post  <_<  

LOL Yeah, annoying bug in the forum - any posts over X character screw up the quoting/editing page. :/
Hopefully it'll be fixed with IPB2, but I'm not sure.

If you've got full access & control to the source code then you can always edit and change it, to allow deletion/whatever.
I suppose you could always relinquish control over it - give the source to someone else and have them to not allow you access to it, but then you wouldn't be all-powerful anymore, and it would need someone to have the power to stop you accessing it.
So, back in god terms, it would need a higher level god to create an unmovable boulder/whatever. And with the concept of a single all-powerful god, you can't have a higher level god.


Oooh, hello Blake. :D

I was thinking steal code and create a block of code that disallowed deletion of a certain posts. I'm sure it could be done easily enough. Though it occurs to me now that through the same methods you could delete it....there's gotta be a way around this..... *thinks til head explodes*

First of all, the light from different galaxies has been travelling for different amounts of time, depending on which galaxy is in question.  The light we see now is actually a representation of another galaxy when it was much younger (billions of years).  So the speed of light did not need to change for us to see this, and depending on how far away the other galaxy is, the further back in time we're seeing it.

And what makes you think our sun was around so soon after the big bang?  Even if the speed of light did increase, and then decrease, our sun, and us, would not be around to see it.  ;)  

Lanair, I'm not alert enough to try and understand what you just written, but my sub-concious CrapMeter has just slammed to 100%. :P

That's exactly my point; If we see a galaxy that is billions of light years away, it was here billions of years ago to emit the light. Thus the universe is billions of years old.

Now to quote the bible:

And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also.

If you read carefully, you will see that according to creation, god made the earth, then the sun and moon, and then the stars. Thus if the light from the stars got here in a few thousand years, the earth would have been incinerated. Big bang theory doesn't have this paradox, since it says that the universe is about 13 billion years old. I'm not sure why you brought it up.
-Blake

Agreeing to disagree sounds good, Spawn, cos it isnt going to go anywhere. If I responded to that, I'd be repeating myself a lot, and its time to stop once we've reached that point.

And yes, I am 15.

Still. The Hell Channel. *nods sagely*.

SS,

Good day to you.  I've got a lot to respond to... thanks, man... :rolleyes:  :P  I can see that you've definitely put some time and thought into this post (great post).  I might end up simply agreeing to disagree some issues.  I'll definitely discuss the proofs for several posts, though. :D

I might as well get to the fun one first - "The Impossible Faith".


Arguments for God's existence[/size]


ARGUMENT 1 -- The Impossible Faith

This is an argument that I really enjoy using.  As you could see, it actually takes the impossibility of the Christian faith existing and turns it around as evidence.  Let's go through the factors.

Factor #1

After reading your response to this one, and now, others, I notice you never directly responded to any of Holding’s arguments, so I’ll be offering quotes from him a lot.


The most logical thing to have happen would be what some Islamists posit: a "fake" Jesus being crucified or Jesus showing His true power and not dying such an unholy death.  This isn't a "glorious defeat" at all.

JP Holding writes,

"Malina and Rohrbaugh note in their Social-Science Commentary on John [263-4], crucifixion was a "status degradation ritual" designed to humiliate in every way, including the symbolic pinioning of hands and legs signigfying a loss of power, and loss of ability to control the body in various ways, including befouling one's self with excrement."

The questions still exists today: Why did Christ die such a shameful death, Why didn't He just kill them all, Why didn't He just disappear suddenly from the cross to show His divinity?  There are many people who don't believe today just because of this.  Even Celsus, an ancient pagan critic of Christianity, writes:

But if (Jesus) was really so great, he ought, in order to display his divinity, to have disappeared suddenly from the cross.

Those questions exist today, because no one wants a crucified savior - a savior who died such a horrible death and didn't show divinity when he could have easily.  How is this logical?  It isn't like LOTR or the Matrix in any extreme way at all.  This is a jump of a totally different kind.

It's a huge stumbling block for us, but an even bigger one for them back then.  I'll elaborate below.


Exactly Holding's point!  They wanted to prove that Jesus wouldn't save himself or defend himself and he didn't.  Holding writes,

"Hengel adds: "A crucified messiah...must have seemed a contradiction in terms to anyone, Jew, Greek, Roman or barbarian, asked to believe such a claim, and it will certainly have been thought offensive and foolish." That a god would descend to the realm of matter and suffer in this ignominious fashion "ran counter not only to Roman political thinking, but to the whole ethos of religion in ancient times and in particular to the ideas of God held by educated people." (10, 4) Announcing a crucified god would be akin to the Southern Baptist Convention announcing that they endorsed pedophilia! If Jesus had truly been a god, then by Roman thinking, the Crucifixion should never have happened."

Factor #2


This isn’t a component for success at all.  The argument isn’t simply that Jesus was an outcast.  The argument is that everything about Jesus as a person was all wrong to get people to believe he was a deity.  Starting off with Jesus being a Jew, Holding writes,

“Bringing a Jewish savior to the door of the average Roman would have been only less successful bringing one to the door of a Nazi -- though the Roman may not have wanted to kill you; he would certainly have laughed in your face, slammed the door, …”

So, due to his being Jewish, Christianity shouldn’t have spread to the Gentile nations.  Holding presses forward with,

“The Romans naturally considered their own belief systems to be superior to all others.  They also believed that superstitions (such as Judaism and Christianity) undermined the social system established by their religion - and of course they were right. However, the point is that anyone who followed or adopted one of their foreign superstitions would be looked on not only as a religious rebel, but as a social rebel as well[/b]. They were breaking with the status quo, upsetting the apple cart, taking part in a 60s style rebellion against the establishment. They upset the Roman concept of piety and were thought to be incapable of it. In those days, things were not pluralistic or "politically correct" and there were no champions of diversity on the college campuses: Today, atheists and theists can debate in a free forum, but back then one of the camps would have the state (and the sword!) on their side - and in the time we're talking about, that wasn't the Christians!”

That’s why Paul mentions that he’s from Tarsus.  He does it to let the critics know he’s from a place which signifies a high honor rating - kind of like when some people say they‘re from the right side of the tracks.  Look at Jesus, on the other hand… he hails from Galilee.  This was a Jewish land and a place of much trouble.  Jesus wasn’t from the right side of the tracks, which is what the Romans looked at.  He was from a puny village that no one acknowledged.  

Holding adds,

“Not even a birth in Bethlehem, or Matthew's suggestion that an origin in Galilee was prophetically ordained, would have unattached such a stigma: Indeed, Jews would not be convinced of this, even as today, unless something else first convinced them that Jesus was divine or the Messiah. The ancients were no less sensitive to the possibility of "spin doctoring" than we are.”

How hard would it have been for the disciples to simply lie and say Jesus was from Sepphoris  Capernaum, which would still let them take advantage of the Prophetic birth message.  They could easily have given him an indisputable honorable birth.  It’s less likely that more people are going to notice one man in from a puny village.

Then there’s minor extensions like saying Jesus was a carpenter, which was considered a vulgar occupation and was compared to the work of slavery.

Factor #3

This is a really good one.

All the disciples had to do was teach that Jesus’ body was taken up into Heaven like Moses or Elijah.  This would’ve been much easier to sell to the Greeks and Romans “for whom the best "evidence" of elevation to divine rank was apotheosis -- the transport of the soul to the heavenly realms after death; or else translation while still alive.”  

So, teaching this to pagans would’ve been impossible.  Pheme perkins writes, that “Christianity’s pagan critics generally viewed resurrection as misunderstood metmpsychosis at best.  At worst, it seemed ridiculous”.  You’ve also got the pagan world being awash with beliefs like matter being evil and the root of all man’s problems.  So, a physical resurrection is the very last thing you want to preach.

Why bother preaching it and purposely making the road harder?  There’s only one logical answer -- they really had a resurrection to preach.


Factor #4[/i]


Holding gave sources for the first question you pose.  As for the rest, I wasn’t under the impression that Romans did that ;)

The Roman world didn’t like change.  Why do you think so many early Christian martyrs died such terrible deaths?

This is a hurdle that Christianity shouldn’t have been able to make over -- not without some sort of proof.


Factor #5

You had me smiling until I read the last part :P

I don’t think the disciples were very good when concerned with persuasiveness.  They weren’t even concerned with being persuasive, but with being truthful (as you can see from all of the factors).  They weren’t merely wanting converts, but wanted the world to know the truth.


Factor #6[/b]


You’ve got to look at this factor with the other ones in mind… why would people want to convert to Christianity?  If it wasn’t preaching anything demonstrable or true, then it wasn’t inviting at all.  

Kinda like flat-earthers. ;)


Factor #7


They didn’t maintain control at all.  Christianity jumped way beyond control.

Such a response isn’t too “weighty” as I’m sure you know (especially keeping in mind the other factors).  Why would the Romans want to create a religion that not only challenged their own beliefs, but proposed an entire knew belief system?  They were smart enough to create a religion that would have helped theirs out in the long run.  It requires complete idiocy to create a new religion, defend the new religion against themselves, create a religion that embarrassed themselves greatly… in the long run and short.  Why would they have done this and then argued with Christians about the religion (they hated and killed Christians)?

This is more than a fair point, it’s a very strong point.  There’s just no way to for Christianity to get past this unless it was preaching something terribly true.


Factor #8[/b]


Come on, SS.  You’ve got to realize the former is more likely, though.


Factor #9


The other factors show why Christianity shouldn’t have even been regarded by any of them.  This  factor simply increases the likelihood of it not only not making it out of the Jewish communities, but not converting many Jews, and not shooting ahead of the Jewish religion.  But Christianity did, so it had to have had something backing it up.


Factor #10


This isn’t like point 2, if that’s what you’re saying.  Some of these appear like others, but are divided due to minor differences, which need further elaboration.

This isn’t a perfect role for Jesus either.  Holding writes, “A merely human Jesus could not have met this demand and must have provided convincing proofs of his power and authority to maintain a following, and for a movement to have started and survived well beyond him. A merely human Jesus would have had to live up to the expectations of others and would have been abandoned, or at least had to change horses, at the first sign of failure.”

Jesus’ background won’t help him teach scriptures like 2Corinth. 5:12.  He had to teach that birth, ethnicity, gender, wealth, appearance, and charisma meant zip.  That’s a very radical message back in the ancient days, because they took their major identity from whatever group they belonged.  Jesus basically taught that was pure trash and unholy.  Like a wick slowly going out, the fire of Christianity should’ve been quickly put out just by this.

Women, back then, were on the same level as slaves or animals.  Who would’ve wanted to be equal with them?  Imagine all the rich and powerful people having to hear that their slaves are equal to them.  And you’ve got the people from the right side of the tracks being told they were equal to the ones on the left side of the tracks.  All of this would’ve definitely been met with swords and stone unless something incredibly great was backing it up.


Factor #11


This is another really strong one.  JP writes about women,

“women were regarded as "bad witnesses" in the ancient world. We need to emphasize that this was not a peculiarity as it would be seen today, but an ingrained stereotype. As Malina and Neyrey note, gender in antiqutiy came laden with "elaborate stereotypes of what was appropriate male or female behavior." [72] Quintilian said that where murder was concerned, males are more likely to commit robbery, while females were prone to poisoning. We find such sentiments absurd and politically incorrect today -- but whether they are or not, this was ingrained indelibly in the ancient mind. "In general Greek and Roman courts excluded as witnesses women, slaves, and children...According to Josephus...[women] are unacceptable because of the 'levity and temerity of their sex'." [82] Women were so untrustworthy that they were not even allowed to be witnesses to the rising of the moon as a sign of the beginning of festivals! DeSilva also notes [33] that a woman and her words were not regarded as "public property" but should rather be guarded from strangers -- women were expected to speak to and through their husbands. A woman's place was in the home, not the witness stand, and any woman who took an independent witness was violating the honor code.”

Women weren’t nearly in the same position they are in now.  It was a much different, more harsh world.  The disciples obviously wanted to share the truth no matter what.  They even stuck to the truth by using women as the main witnesses (and main converts) despite their terribly low place in society (and the fact that they weren’t to be regarded as credible witnesses).  They could easily have lied and put any of the males in their place to make the story more credible back then, but they didn’t.  Obviously, there was something backing them up which went above and beyond societal rules.  
Not only does sticking with this lend weight towards their credibility, but it also gives Christianity another stumbling block… that was overcome.


Factor #12


This goes beyond the burial story, but pretty much everything.  Matthew was a tax collector (hated people back then), Peter and John were dismissed based on social standings, and Mark was tossed aside also.  The only one left is Paul, but he wasn’t a witness.  It may be possible for them to overcome this major problem (credibility as witnesses), but it would be terribly hard… maybe impossible when keeping in mind the other factors.  

Christianity was always in the business of other religions due to its claims, so it could easily have been crushed by authority, but it wasn’t.  Why?


Factor #13


This has been discounted on three counts: (1) No hard evidence (2) It ultimately makes no sense and (3) It doesn‘t deal with the very early rise of Christianity.  So, there’s one other choice left.


Factor #14


Where do you get that from - that Jesus was sold as just a human?  

You’d think that people who are creating a deity would do a better job.  A God who is ignorant of certain things just won’t ring too many bells.  Maybe in the long run it will, but you’ve got to get through the short term first.


Factor #15

This one isn’t like 10 and 2.  It’s more related to 1 than anything.  It’s intention is to build on 1 by focusing on the events before and after his death, while 1 deals with his death alone.  This one points to facts that Jesus would’ve been seen as a prophet without honor.  Who would want to believe in something like that?  It seems like something helped push it all along.


Factor #16


Possibly, because the many drastically unusual customs he taught challenged everyone.  It’s not like today, where you can peacefully challenge.  

Wright adds,

“Wright concludes:
"This subersive belief in Jesus' Lordship, over against that of Caesar, was held in the teeth of the fact that Caesar had demonstrated his superior power in the obvious way, by having Jesus crucified. But the truly extraordinary thing is that this belief was held by a tiny group who, for the first two or three generations at least, could hardly have mounted a riot in a village, let alone a revolution in an empire. And yet they persisted against all the odds, attracting the unwelcome notice of the authorities because of the power of the message and the worldview and lifestyle it generated and sustained. And whenever we go back to the key texts for evidence of why they persisted in such an improbably and dangerous belief they answer: it is because Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead. And this provokes us to ask once more: why did they make this claim?" (page 570)”

Not only why did they make it, but where is the response to this claim?


Factor #17


You provide an analogy, but no parallels with the Christian community.  What are they going to do to fool them?  I mean, the named historical figures which were around at that time, places which could be checked, witnesses who could be checked, and they even kept to the truth no matter what sort of absurdities (I.e. women) arose.

Holding concludes: “I propose that there is only one, broad explanation for Christianity overcoming these intolerable disadvantages, and that is that it had the ultimate rebuttal -- a certain, trustworthy, and undeniable witness to the resurrection of Jesus, the only event which, in the eyes of the ancients, would have vindicated Jesus' honor and overcome the innumerable stigmae of his life and death.”



ARGUMENT 2 -- Kalam Cosmological Argument

Your reply surprised me.  You typed,


You fail to provide any type of information proving a parallel to the Kalam.  You won’t be able to, because the Kalam is logically sound, while yours is logically fallacious (premise 1 and conclusion).  Most atheistic philosophers themselves agree with the entire argument, but debate with the theist on how to interpret the conclusion.  It’s nowhere near silliness, for the statements are recognized facts in various fields.

Let’s examine the premises closer:


Premise 1

Whatever begins to exist has a cause of it‘s existence

Premise 1 is self-evident.  C.S. Lewis writes,

"There never was a time when nothing existed; otherwise nothing would exist now."

This is intuitively obvious.  How can something come from literally nothing?  It’s like a serial killer’s dream defense ;)

Traditional atheists would simply say “the universe has always existed”, but not lately (due to the Big Bang theory).  Check out what this well-known atheist, Quentin Smith, says,

“the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.”

Huh?  Try to imagine absolute nothingness, for me… how can something come from it?  There’s nothing there!  It’s much worse than magic.

You bring forth vacuum fluctuations, which I find very inviting,



That person probably got the quote ultimately from an issue of Discover.  It read,

“Quantum theory … holds that a vacuum .. Is subject to quantum uncertainties.  This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum, although they tend to vanish back into it quickly….  Theoretically, anything -- a dog, a house, a planet -- can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk, which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation.  Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles … are by far th most likely creations and that they will last extreme Ely briefly…. The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely.  Nevertheless, in 1973 an assistant professor at Columbia University named Edward Tryon suggested that the entire universe might have come into existence this way….  The whole universe may be, to use [MIT physicist Alan] Guth’s prase, “a free lunch”.

First off, these “subatomic particles” are called ’virtual particles’ and are merely theoretical entities.  It’s not even clear that they actually exist as opposed to being merely theoretical constructs.

The more important point is these subatomic particles, if they are real, don’t just come out of absolute nothingness.  This “vacuum” isn’t what you’re probably think of - it’s not absolute nothingness.  It’s a sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws.  These particles are thought to originate by fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum.    So, nothingness isn’t the cause (if nothing can even cause something to exist), rather the quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of these particles.

What about the quantum vacuum… where does it come from?  As William Craig says, “If quantum physical laws operate within the domain described by quantum physics, you can’t legitimately use quantum physics to explain the origin of that domain itself.  You need something transcendent that’s beyond that domain in order to explain how the entire domain came into being.  Suddenly, we’re back to the origins question”.

I say we just leave this behind.  Even the famous David Hume, probably the most skeptical human to ever live, says, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause”.


PREMISE 2

The universe began to exist.

This premise contains two sub-arguments:

2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.
2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite. [/I]

2.2 is actually easier to defend, but I always start with 2.1.  If that doesn’t work, then I’ll move on to 2.2.



Keep in mind that I’m speaking of an actual infinite, not a potential infinite.  I have no problem with a potential infinite existing in reality.  As far as mathematics goes, just so long as it stays in mathematics, it’s fine.  Once it gets put into reality situations all sorts of absurdities arise, though, as I’m sure you can tell (you seem well knowledged in math).  As Craig notes,

“the idea of an actual infinity is just conceptual; it exists only in our minds.  Working within certain rules, mathematicians can deal with infinite quantities and infinite numbers in the conceptual realm.  However -- and here’s the point -- it’s not descriptive of what can happen in the real world.”

It also contains evidence from the Big Bang model of the universe.  I don’t think you’ll challenge that.  Pretty much everyone embraces it.

So, we’re to the conclusion


CONCLUSION

This is what’s so heatedly debated.  What caused the universe?  I believe we can extrapolate several key qualities about this ultimate first cause (whatever it may be).  

A cause of space and time must be an uncaused, beginning less, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal being endowed with freedom of will and enormous power.  Now, all except the personal being should be agreed with, thus far.

The reasoning for this first cause having freedom of will is the simple question asking “how can an eternal cause create a temporal effect?”.  If it’s mechanistic, then an eternal cause should create an equally eternal effect.  The reason for it being personal is several:

(a) There are two types of explanations -- scientific and personal.  
Imagine you walk into a kitchen and you see a kettle boiling on the stove.  You as, “Why is the kettle boiling?” Your wife might say, ‘Well, because the kinetic energy of the flame is conducted by the metal bottom of the kettle to the water, causing the water molecules to vibrate faster and faster until they’re thrown off in the form of steam’.  That would be a scientific explanation.  Or she might say, ‘I put it on to make a cup of tea’.  That would be a personal explanation.  Both are equally valid, but simply explain that in question in different ways.

There’s no way the first state of the universe can have a scientific explanation, because, since it’s the first state, it simply cannot be explained in terms of earlier initial conditions and natural laws leading up to it.  So, it seems, if there is a first state, it requires a personal explanation.

(b) The same argument used in the “freedom of will” argument above.

©  Anthropic Principle

Even if it fails to be a personal first cause, I’ve still got the conscious first cause argument, which does the theist much favor still.


ARGUMENT 3 -- Teleological Argument[/b]


Yeah, that was a typo.  My apologies.  I believe the Teleological Argument is closely related to the Argument from Fine Tuning, so I’ll mix the two.

Just the very word “chaos” would make me question the relation between the two, which, you’re right, is almost non-existent.  I don’t think that’s a good parallel to design, though.  What do you think caused the seemingly designed structures all around us?

One thing I like bringing up is the cosmological constant.  One of the world’s most skeptical scientists, Steven Weinberg (atheist) has even admitted that it’s “remarkably well adjusted in our favor”.  The constant is part of Einstein’s equation for General Relavitity, which could have had any value, positive or negative.

Excuse the lengthy quote, but Weinberg is the famous guy on the issue who can explain it probably better than anyone.  He writes,

“if large and positive, the cosmological constant would act as a repulsive force that increases with distance, a force that would prevent matter from clumping together in the early universe, the process that was the first step in forming galaxies and stars and planets and people.  If large and negative the cosmological constant would act as an attractive force increasing with distance, a force that would almost immediately reverse the expansion of the universe and cause it to collapse.”

Amazingly, this isn’t what has happened, though.  Weinberg continues on with,

“In fact, astronomical observations show that the cosmological constant is quite small, very much smaller than would have been guessed from first principles.”

Physicist Robin Collins, a physicist and philosopher, says, “the unexpected , counterintuitive, and stunningly precise setting of the cosmological constant is widely regarded as the single greatest problem facing physics and cosmology today…  The fine-tuning has conservatively been estimated to be at least one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion.  That would be a ten followed by fifty-three zeroes.  That’s inconceivably precise”.

This would be like going out in space and throwing a dart at random towards the Earth.  The target would be a bull’s eye that’s one trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter.  Which is less than the size of one solitary atom!  Lee Strobel describes it as “Breathtaking” and “Staggering”.

Collins concludes that “if the cosmological constant were the only example of fine-tuning, and if there were no natural explanation for it, then this would be sufficient by itself to strongly establish design”.

There’s other evidence for fine tuning.  If you increase the mass of the neutron by about one part in seven hundred, then nuclear fusion in stars would stop.  There would be no energy source for life.
If the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, life in the universe would be impossible.

Popular Intelligent Design proponent, Stephen Meyer, in Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe made a list of over 30 separate physical or cosmological parameters that require precise calibration in order to produce a life-sustaining universe.

The evidence for fine-tuning comes in ample amounts, so I’ll skip over it.  It’s led Discover magazine to admit,

“The universe is unlikely.  Very unlikely.  Deeply, shockingly unlikely.”

Yet, we are here.  Do you attribute such an unimaginable concept to design or chance?  Or necessity if it is even a choice?


Minor Issues


They simply define “fear” in a slightly different way than we usually do.  There is an English definition for “fear” at dictionary.com, which gives a definition of “Extreme reverence or awe
”.  There’s no problem for me here.  It all depends on whether or not you ascribe the right definition to the right passage.

Your parents couldn’t have taken that free willed decision away from you.  They can enforce penalties if you do that particular action, but you’ll always have the free will to do it.

A good father does that, correct, but a good father will also let the son  go once he  reaches a certain age.  The son now has to go and learn the rest about life on his own.  He is his own man and can act freely, but responsibly at the same time.  It’s all up to him.


Too long of an answer.  I don’t link Christiananswers.net usually, but they have a good summary here (http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c004.html).  


Since one Creator is sufficient to explain the effect (the universe), it’s unwarranted to posit a plurality.  



Wow… I think I’m going to go to sleep for about 10 hours now.  Goodnight… err… afternoon.

It should be the other way around:
1. Whatever is hot will appear red.

2. Tomatoes are red.

3. Therefore, Tomatoes must be hot. The heat can't come from the plant, because it doesn't have any. Therefore God made the heat.

In statement 3 you assume the converse of statement 1, which is not necessarily true. It should be:

1. Whatever is RED is HOT.

2. Tomatoes are red.

3. Therefore, Tomatoes must be hot. The heat can't come from the plant, because it doesn't have any. Therefore God made the heat.

HOWEVER, it is also incorrect to assume that everything that has a cause we don't understand is caused by God. Thus both arguments are logically incorrect.
-Blake

If I ever have a spare 6 years, I'll bother reading that.

Oooooh, sorry frag/blake.  I didn't see what you were trying to prove!  LOL

Yes, I agree, the story of Genesis is probably not how God created the universe, but was instead a creation of the early Jews who had the information presented to them in the only format they would understand.  I mean, if you started talking quantum physics, they wouldn't understand, but this way, Genesis reveals the main point (God created the universe) in a way early man can understand.  ;)  (Actually not completely my idea- my grandfather thought this one up).

-Spawn... While I admire you taking the time to write all of that, can I please have a (brief) summary?  :blink:  

frag's real name is blake?

umm  I think god is made out of play doh< on topicness

wow spawn.  That has to be the longest post ever made on this forum(excluding spam)

I agree that the story of the creation of the universe could be interpreted to mean the big bang (aside from it all taking place in 6 days).  However, that raises the question of where God came from. Occam's Razor tells us that the simplest explanation is almost always true, and it seems a lot simpler to have a sea of universes randomly popping into and out of existence, rather than an intelligent creator.

Um... I hate to say this cliché, but there are some things that must be taken on faith alone.  Personally, I feel that God exists, and actually cares deeply about us all.  I really don't have the intelligence enough to go delving into the theoretical possibilities of what's beyond us, or when and where God came from... there are just questions people shouldn't ask and can't understand. ;)

Oh, explain to me how a series of universes popping in and out of existance is simpler than just one creator.  :mellow:  

Hello, Blake.  


Randomly popping into existence from where and from what?  According to the Kalam and Teleological argument I gave, everything points towards an intelligent designer.  Of course the designer will be complex, but Occam's doesn't say anything about that, because this complex designer will have an incredibly amount of explanatory power and will be an incredibly simple explanation and is a sufficient cause for the universe.  Why do you think atheists are always calling Christians "lazy thinkers"... simple... because we go with God (the simplest explanation).

I see you've got some knowledge of science, but the physics isn't there (read my Argument 3).

As far as the Bible being interpreted as a 6-day Creation, I've dealt with this at various forums.  I always begin by using biblical evidence for an old earth and against a young earth.

Biblical Evidence for an Old Earth[/size]

1.  The naming of the animals argument.  Adam named all of the animals on th 6th day - the same day Eve was created and (I believe) animals were created and when Adam went into a "deep" sleep.  Seems like a  lot in one day, methinks.

2.  The "Day of the Lord" refers to a seven year period of time.

3.  Genesis 2:4 refers to all 6 days of creation as one day, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."
Is this an analogy or should it be interpreted with the calendar day interpretation?

4.  The seventh day of Genesis is not closed. In all other days, "there is the evening and the morning, the n day."
In the book of Hebrews, the author tells us to labor to enter into God's seventh day of rest. By any calculation, God's seventh day of rest has been at least 6,000 years long:  
For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:4-11)

5.  The psalmist (Moses, the author of Genesis) says "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." (Psalms 90:4).

6.  The apostle Peter tells us with God "A thousand years is as one day" (2 Peter 3:8).

7.  The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer. On this day, God allowed the land to produce vegetation, tress and fruit. The text specifically states that the land produced trees that bore fruit with seed in it (3). Any horticulturist knows that fruit-bearing trees requires several years to grow to produce fruit. However, the text states that the land produced these trees (indicating a natural process) and that it all occurred on the third day. Obviously, such a "day" could not have been only 24 hours long.

Various Interpretation

Here's a number of interpretations that can be used to interpret Genesis.

The Day-Age Interpretation - The six days of the Day-Age view are understood in the same sense as "in that day" of Isaiah 11:10-11—in other words, as periods of indefinite length and not of 24 hours duration. The six days are taken as sequential but as overlapping and perhaps merging into one another. According to this view, the Genesis 1 creation week describes events from the point of view of the earth, which is being prepared as the habitation for man. In this context, the explanation of day four is that the sun only became visible on that day, as atmospheric conditions allowed the previous alternation of light and darkness to be perceived as coming from the previously created sun and other heavenly bodies. The Day-Age construct preserves the general sequence of events as portrayed in the text and is not merely a response to Charles Darwin and evolutionary science. From ancient times there was recognition among Bible scholars that the word "day" could mean an extended period of time.

Frame Work - The distinctive feature of the Framework view is its understanding of the week (not the days as such) as a metaphor. According to this interpretation, Moses used the metaphor of the week to narrate God’s acts of creation. Thus, God’s supernatural creative words or fiats are real and historical but the exact timing is left unspecified. The purpose of the metaphor is to call Adam to imitate God in work, with the promise of entering His Sabbath rest. Creation events are grouped in two triads of days: Days 1-3 (creations kingdoms) are paralleled by Days 4-6 (creation’s kings). Adam is king of the earth; God is the King of Creation.

Analogical - According to the Analogical view, the "days" of Genesis 1 are God’s workdays, analogous (but not necessarily identical) to human workdays. They set a pattern for our rhythm of work and rest. The six days represent periods of God’s historical supernatural activity in preparing and populating the earth as a place for humans to live, love, work, and worship. These days are broadly consecutive. That is, they are successive periods of unspecified length. They may overlap in part, or they may reflect logical rather than chronological criteria for grouping certain events on certain days.

Calendar day - This one posits that the 6 days were 6 of our calendar days.

I don't hold the Calendar day, for I'm not a young earth creationist.  The other ones are more valid, in my opinion.

-Spawn

Hello again, Blake (sorry for the double-post).


I've already explained and defended the Kalam in my lengthy post above.  You're welcome to challenge the premises themselves, rather than unparalleled (and wrongly attempted) anological premises.

1.  I never asserted such a bold proposition: that everything that has a cause we don't understand is caused by God.  I never said we don't understand the Big Bang, because we do understand a good degree of it.

2.  Your entire analogical argument is completely unparallel to the Kalam.  Both premise 1's are demonstrably wrong, while the Kalam's premise 1 is demonstrably right with ocular proof giving it more grounding.  Premise 2 follows from the incorrect premise 1, while the Kalam has a logically sound premise 2, which follows from a logically sound premise 1.  As for the conclusion, I gave it in my lengthy post above.   A direct response is welcome.

3.  The entire thing is a strawman at best.

Screw double posts, start posting 10times in a row, just kinda make it into smaller chunks please, it takes less willpower to read 10 small posts than it does to read one large one.

LOL


I think that's probably best. There's still a few things I'm uneasy with, but I can't find the right words to explain myself at the moment, and I'll likely be quite busy over the next few days, so wont have time for long postings.


Still, feel free to continue talking with Blake/whoever, and I'll probably still read it. :)

:hehe:  

Bullshit Detector. *nods sagely*.

QUOTE]
1. Whatever is RED is HOT.

2. Tomatoes are red.

3. Therefore, Tomatoes must be hot. The heat can't come from the plant, because it doesn't have any. Therefore God made the heat.
 [/QUOTE]
I never said that was actually true. However, if statements 1 and 2 are assumed, statement 3 now follows logically. The other way around, statement 3 does not. That was my only point there.

As for the beginning of the universe, my point is that it is faulty to assume that there must be a creator simply because we don't understand it.  There are any number of other theories out there. One of my favorites is a sea of universes popping into and out of existence. I would call the laws of physics running their course a lot simpler than an intelligent creator. A sea of universes could be completely chaotic (high entropy), as opposed to the high level of organization in an intelligent being. As we have seen on Earth, intelligence can evolve from chaos, but why introduce an extra step (an intelligent creator) into the formation of the universe?

For the same reason, although I think that evolution of the universe guided by a creator is certainly more plausible than a literal interpretation of genesis, why introduce another factor? It is simpler to just let the laws of physics run everything

Of course, simple is a fairly subjective term, and we could go on forever debating who has a simpler explanation.

Finally, there is no question we shouldn't try to answer.
-Blake
 

heh, no offense, but I wouldn't question his physics knowledge if you're anything short of a physics prof at a very, very good school. trust me.

perdy, blake=fraggys bro.  ;)  

Thanks.  :D  

:blink:   didn't know frag had a brother

are you as cute as frag? :P  

Cuteness, like simplicity, is subjective, although I think I'm dead sexy.  :D

Night Spawn, I'm not sure if I addressed your comment,

"1. I never asserted such a bold proposition: that everything that has a cause we don't understand is caused by God. I never said we don't understand the Big Bang, because we do understand a good degree of it."

What we don't understand is the cause of the big bang. In fact, we don't understand the first moments of the universe either, in which it was so small that the uncertainty in the position of any particle (due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) was larger than the universe itself. We believe that the four fundamental forces (sounds like star wars, doesn't it?), namely gravity, electromagnetism, strong, and weak, were united, but we lack any understanding of the physics of that period. We don't understand the dark energy (the force behind the accelaration of the universe) either.

Now, look at this statement:

"3.  Therefore, the universe has a cause.  That cause must be beyond space, beyond time (since both began at the big bang) and powerful enough to have created this universe.  The creator was God."

I concluded that it is faulty to assume that God caused the big bang just because we don't understand the cause.

 As for a sea of universes, read up on the branes theory. I'm not going to get into it here.
-Blake
 

Speaking two different languages here...  LOL

Though I admit: whatever I actually manage to read enlightens me in this thread.   :)  

I bet that's true ...although you might have to prove it ;)

Um so far as the universe thing...I don't get where it is.  I asked it on the DT forums...and some guy gave me a shit "answer".

And I await the parallel explaining how the Kalam's first two premises are assumed.  The only one atheists attack is the conclusion; unless their stuck on classical atheism.  Even you agree.  You type here,

I concluded that it is faulty to assume that God caused the big bang just because we don't understand the cause.

That's the conclusion.  But I defended my conclusion, which you are yet to reply to directly.  Please read (not premise 1 and 2), but the conclusion to the Kalam.  All you give is "we don't understand the cause", yet my conclusion explains how we can understand certain qualities of the ultimate first cause.  It's actually quite simple.  There's only 3 types of possible causes - (a) chance (b) intelligent designer © mechanistic "designer".  I've ruled out (a) from the Teleological Argument and © from the Kalam argument (I explained in my lengthy post).  Therefore, we have (b) left, which I've defended in my conclusion.

Then I've also got the Impossible Faith argument up and the Teleological Argument.  Even these aren't all!  I can adequately defend the argument from Jesus' resurrection, the objective morality argument, the ontological argument (somewhat), the argument from beauty, and the evolutionary argument against naturalism.  So, you see, the Kalam isn't all... I just regard it as a main weapon.  One thing that isn't lacking is arguments for the cause of the universe.  Atheistic philosophers even recognize this.


Mere details.  Overall, what we do know, is that the universe came into existence at a finite period of time ago.  The details might be lacking at this present time, but it matters not, because we do know the Big Bang is demonstrably true.  That's what's under discussion.  I realize the ample evidence for the Big Bang and question the causes which would be needed in order for something like that to come about.  

So, what we do understand is that the Big Bang did occur and that is what's under question; not the details of the Big Bang, but the Big Bang itself.

As far as not understanding the cause of the Big Bang, that's why we're here in this discussion.  We're using free thought and examing the possible causes.  Scientists and philosophers have been doing this for centuries.  They simply grant a certain type of creation (for example, the Big Bang), then examine what type of causes would be needed in order for something like that creation to come about.  What cause of the Big Bang do you believe in?


Simply because of the fact that's it's not only more plausible, but because one is demonstrably correct, while the other  is terribly lacking.


I meant no disrespect at all and I'm sure Blake understands this.  I can tell he has a good amount of knowledge concerning certain fields of science, but when I give quotes from some of the greatest atheistic physicists in the world showing their "confusicled" nature of their own belief due to the fine tuning of the universe and Blake won't do the same, then I must question his knowledge of that particular field.  There definitely does exist fine tuning within the universe and not only does this need to be recognized by Blake, but it deserves an adequate direct response.

I know that the tomato argument has nothing to do with the Kalam! Read my post again. I explained why the original version is not logically sound, unless you take the converse of the first sentence, in which case it still doesn't make sense. I was actually defending you when I brought that up, so I don't know why you continue to go on about it.

I still don't see what point you have made that I have not addressed. I've read your argument, and I will explain the flaw again; You assume that we can't have a scientific explanation of what caused the big bang, and that must mean there was a god.  There are any number of hypotheses about the cause of the big bang out there. Specifically, I recommended that you look into the branes theory. If you feel there is more to your argument, please explain.

The branes theory (short for membranes) has a sea of universes that can move about/collide with each other. A collision results in a big-bang explosion, and a new universe is born. Read up on it if you want more info. The beauty of that idea is that it requires no beginning, and the large scale structure is uniform for all time. There is no beginning, and no end.

I believe the basis for the idea comes from string theory, but I could be wrong about that.

I also have to chalenge your first premise, that everything that begins has a cause. It is your premise, so you should offer some supporting evidence. I can tell you that there are many events on the microscopic level that happen spontaneously, such as radioactive decay, and spontaneous deexcitation of electrons. Steven Hawking has also shown that it is probable that a universe like ours could come to exist without a cause. I don't understand the physics myself, but it is out there.

-Blake

I haven't been able to track down hawkings paper, but I did find this:

Big Bang Cosmology and Atheism
Why the Big Bang is No Help to Theists
by Quentin Smith

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 18, Number 2.

Since the mid-1960s, scientifically informed theists have been ecstatic because of Big Bang cosmology. Theists believe that the best scientific evidence that God exists is the evidence that the universe began to exist in an explosion about 15 billion years ago, an explosion called the Big Bang. Theists think it obvious that the universe could not have begun to exist uncaused. They argue that the most reasonable hypothesis is that the cause of the universe is God. This theory hinges on the assumption that it is obviously true that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The most recent statement of this theist theory is in William Lane Craig's 1994 book Reasonable Faith.[1] In it Craig states his argument like this:

   1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
   2. The universe began to exist.
   3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.[2]

In a very interesting quote from this book he discusses the first premise and mentions me as one of the perverse atheists who deny the obviousness of this assumption:

    The first step is so intuitively obvious that I think scarcely anyone could sincerely believe it to be false. I therefore think it somewhat unwise to argue in favor of it, for any proof of the principle is likely to be less obvious than the principle itself. And as Aristotle remarked, one ought not to try to prove the obvious via the less obvious. The old axiom that "out of nothing, nothing comes" remains as obvious today as ever. When I first wrote The Kalam Cosmological Argument, I remarked that I found it an attractive feature of this argument that it allows the atheist a way of escape: he can always deny the first premise and assert the universe sprang into existence uncaused out of nothing. I figured that few would take this option, since I believed they would thereby expose themselves as persons interested only in academic refutation of the argument and not in really discovering the truth about the universe. To my surprise, however, atheists seem to be increasingly taking this route. For example, Quentin Smith, commenting that philosophers are too often adversely affected by Heidegger's dread of "the nothing," concludes that "the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing" - a nice ending to a sort of Gettysburg address of atheism, perhaps.[3]

A Baseless Assumption

I'm going to criticize this argument from scientific cosmology, which is the most popular argument that scientifically informed theists and philosophers are now using to argue that God exists.

Let's consider the first premise of the argument, that whatever has a beginning to its existence must have a cause. What reason is there to believe this causal principle is true? It's not self-evident; something is self-evident if and only if everyone who understands it automatically believes it. But many people, including leading theists such as Richard Swinburne, understand this principle very well but think it is false. Many philosophers, scientists, and indeed the majority of graduate and undergraduate students I've had in my classes think this principle is false. This principle is not self-evident, nor can this principle be deduced from any self-evident proposition. Therefore, there's no reason to think it's true. It is either false or it has the status of a statement that we do not know is true or false. At the very least, it is clear that we do not know that it is true.

Now suppose the theist retreats to a weaker version of this principle and says, "Whatever has a beginning to its existence has a cause." Now, this does not say that whatever has a beginning to its existence must have a cause; it allows that it is possible that some things begin to exist without a cause. So we don't need to consider it as a self-evident, necessary truth. Rather, according to the theists, we can consider it to be an empirical generalization based on observation.

But there is a decisive problem with this line of thinking. There is absolutely no evidence that it is true. All of the observations we have are of changes in things - of something changing from one state to another. Things move, come to a rest, get larger, get smaller, combine with other things, divide in half, and so on. But we have no observation of things coming into existence. For example, we have no observations of people coming into existence. Here again, you merely have a change of things. An egg cell and a sperm cell change their state by combining. The combination divides, enlarges, and eventually evolves into an adult human being. Therefore, I conclude that we have no evidence at all that the empirical version of Craig's statement, "Whatever begins to exist has a `cause'," is true. All of the causes we are aware of are changes in pre-existing materials. In Craig's and other theists' causal principle, "cause" means something entirely different: it means creating material from nothingness. It is pure speculation that such a strange sort of causation is even possible, let alone even supported in our observations in our daily lives.
An Uncaused Universe

But the more important point is this: not only is there no evidence for the theist's causal assumption, there's evidence against it. The claim that the beginning of our universe has a cause conflicts with current scientific theory. The scientific theory is called the Wave Function of the Universe. It has been developed in the past 15 years or so by Stephen Hawking, Andre Vilenkin, Alex Linde, and many others. Their theory is that there is a scientific law of nature called the Wave Function of the Universe that implies that it is highly probable that a universe with our characteristics will come into existence without a cause. Hawking's theory is based on assigning numbers to all possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with features that our universe possesses, such as containing intelligent organisms. This remaining universe has a very high probability - near 100% - of coming into existence uncaused.

Hawking's theory is confirmed by observational evidence. The theory predicts that our universe has evenly distributed matter on a large scale - that is, on the level of super-clusters of galaxies. It predicts that the expansion rate of our universe - our universe has been expanding ever since the Big Bang - would be almost exactly between the rate of the universe expanding forever and the rate where it expands and then collapses. It also predicts the very early area of rapid expansion near the beginning of the universe called "inflation." Hawking's theory exactly predicted what the COBE satellite discovered about the irregularities of the background radiation in the universe.[4]

So scientific theory that is confirmed by observational evidence tells us that the universe began without being caused. If you want to be a rational person and accept the results of rational inquiry into nature, then you must accept the fact that God did not cause the universe to exist. The universe exists uncaused, in accordance with the Wave Function law.

Now Stephen Hawking's theory dissolves any worries about how the universe could begin to exist uncaused. He supposes that there is a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe. It is smaller than the nucleus of an atom. It is smaller than 10-33 centimeters in radius. Since it was timeless, it no more needs a cause than the timeless god of theism. This timeless hypersphere is connected to our expanding universe. Our universe begins smaller than an atom and explodes in a Big Bang, and here we are today in a universe that is still expanding.

Is it nonetheless possible that God could have caused this universe? No. For the Wave Function of the Universe implies that there is a 95% probability that the universe came into existence uncaused. If God created the universe, he would contradict this scientific law in two ways. First, the scientific law says that the universe would come into existence because of its natural, mathematical properties, not because of any supernatural forces. Second, the scientific law says that the probability is only 95% that the universe would come into existence. But if God created the universe, the probability would be 100% that it would come into existence because God is allpowerful. If God wills the universe to come into existence, his will is guaranteed to be 100% effective.

So contemporary scientific cosmology is not only not supported by any theistic theory, it is actually logically inconsistent with theism.
Notes

   1. William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1994)
   2. Ibid., p. 92
   3. Ibid.
   4. Confirmation of Hawking's theory is consistent with this theory being a reasonable proposal for the form that an (as yet) undeveloped theory of quantum gravity will take, as Hawking himself emphasizes. See Chapter 12, William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).

Quentin Smith is Professor of Philosophy at Western Michigan University. He has published five books, including Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology (Clarendon Press, 1993) with William Lane Craig.  

you should have given me warning i cuda got a few people together and predetermined this entire converstion, and its become an extremely boring stuck record

Good day to you, Blake.  Hopefully, me and you won't bore the audience, because it could get lengthy.

My apologies for misinterpreting your intentions concerning the tomato analogy/argument.


Of course we can't.  There are only two types of explanations that can be used - scientific or personal.  It can't be scientific, because, as I typed: "since it’s the first state, it simply cannot be explained in terms of earlier initial conditions and natural laws leading up to it".


I'm fairly knowledged on the brane theory, but am not particularly happy or excited by it.  I remain at unease due to the way you explained the branes theory.  I say "unease", because the theory introduces all sorts of complexities that make the mind rattle.  Paul Steinhardt, from Princeton University, explains it as thus:

"The model is based on the idea that our hot big bang universe was created from the collision of two three-dimensianal worlds moving along a hidden, extra dimension."

Steinhardt is very honest about the model.  He writes,

"Our proposal is based on unproven ideas in string theory" (A Brief Introduction to the Ekpyrotic Universe)

Of course it is and thankfully scientists like Steinhardt are honest about that.  It will never come close to proof because of the fact that dimensional worlds are brought into the picture and "hidden, extra dimensions".  This is just incredulous, as I'm sure you can see.  It's merely an unjustified attempt to bring in all sorts of incredibly complex ideas in an attempt to make certain individuals feel comfortable about the belief they hold.  




I wasn't expecting a challenge.  I mean, it's so intuitively obvious, in my opinion.  How can something come from absolute nothingness?  Probably the most skeptical person who ever lived, David Hume, even said he would never assert such an absurd proposition stating that something can come from nothing.  

C.S. Lewis reminds us,

“There never was a time when nothing existed; otherwise nothing would exist now.”

Before I proceed, let me define what I mean by “cause”.  Cause - something that produces something else, and in terms of which that other thing, called the effect, can be explained.

There is ocular, demonstrable proof.  I see a baby coming into existence from something.  I see a book coming into existence from something.  Everything I see has a cause.  Of course, because, as I asked, how can something come from absolute nothingness.

There’s the law of cause and effect, which backs me up - I.e. there must be a cause in order for an effect to exist.  

William Craig, in his debate with Quentin Smith, proclaims,

“Now is the premise self–evident? Well, it's rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come out of nothing. Out of nothing, nothing comes. And to me that surely is evident when you think about it. If there is absolutely nothing—no space, no time, no energy, no matter—then something cannot just come out of nothing[/b]. At least, it seems to me that the premise is far more plausible than its opposite.”

Everything put under the scientific “microscope” that begins to exist has a cause.  You disagree, though, and type,


Craig offers a response to Smith on radioactive decay.  He says,

“As Smith himself admits, these considerations "at most tend to show that acausal laws govern the change of condition of particles, such as the change of particle x's position from q1 to q2. They state nothing about the causality or acausality of absolute beginnings, of beginnings of the existence of particles.” (Craig/Smith debate)
As far as the de-excitation of electron goes, what about the possibility of D-photons randomly interacting with electrons.  I don’t see how this is something coming from absolute nothingness.


You bring up Smith’s article, so I’ll just send you here (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/articles.html).  I think Craig is doing just fine in his exchange with Smith, who seems to be just re-stating his arguments.  He doesn’t really provide any demonstrable evidence for the proposition “something from absolute nothingness”, but relies on an argument from semantics and authority.  Craig also provides an in-depth coverage of other models in his book Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview.  Whatever it may be, the God hypothesis is definitely the one Occam would've went with... wasn't he a theist, btw?

Unless I’m tired due to lack of sleep, you haven’t touched the teleological argument, yet.  My lack of sleep could be the problem, though. :P


Later, man.  Thanks for keeping up with a very interesting discussion.

I'm not sure how to do quotes, so I'll just use quotation marks.

"Of course we can't. There are only two types of explanations that can be used - scientific or personal. It can't be scientific, because, as I typed: 'since it’s the first state, it simply cannot be explained in terms of earlier initial conditions and natural laws leading up to it'."

How do we know that the universe cannot be explained scientifically? Obviously we don't have proof of branes theory, etc, but those theories at least have a scientific basis, unlike god. There are no mathematics, etc, that suggest that an intelligent being created the universe. Just because we don't understand the science yet doesn't mean it isn't there. For example, look at the interior of a black hole. We really don't understand that to any greater degree than we understand the origin of the universe, but there must exist some physics that govern them.

"Our proposal is based on unproven ideas in string theory" (A Brief Introduction to the Ekpyrotic Universe)

AS I said, it is not proven any more than god.

Of course it is and thankfully scientists like Steinhardt are honest about that. It will never come close to proof because of the fact that dimensional worlds are brought into the picture and "hidden, extra dimensions". This is just incredulous, as I'm sure you can see. It's merely an unjustified attempt to bring in all sorts of incredibly complex ideas in an attempt to make certain individuals feel comfortable about the belief they hold.

Occam's razor applies to scientific explanations that can be supported by evidence. For example, the concept of natural motion (I think that was Aristotle) is a lot simpler than warped space time (ie gravity), but it isn't true. When choosing the simplest explanation, we have to have some evidence behind it. Branes theory has more of a scientific basis than god.

"I wasn't expecting a challenge. I mean, it's so intuitively obvious, in my opinion. How can something come from absolute nothingness?..."

God made the universe out of nothingness, according to Christianity. It's just a matter of something coming out of nothingness with or without a cause. It's like a electron being de-excited spontaneously vs. colisionaly.

I would go into more detail, but I have stuff to do. I don't think I missed anything, but feel free to point out anything I haven't addressed.
Later
-Blake
 

I have some more time now, so I'll finish my post.

This may or may not be familiar to you. I'm not sure what kind of background you have in logic.

Suppose you have a statement P which you want to prove. To do that you must show that P is always true. A lot of examples do not constitute a proof.

However, all you need is one case where P is not true (called a counterexample) to disprove P. The fact that some things do happen spontaneously is thus sufficient to show that it is false to assume everything has a cause. (If you prefer the wording everything that has a beginning has a cause, think of spontaneous de-excitation of an electron as the beginning of a photon.)

Remember, to disprove P doesn't mean that P is never true, but it does mean that P isn't always true, and so it can't be used as a premise in a logical argument.

I think we can agree that the universe either formed out of something, or nothing. Whether the Big Bang had a cause or not, one of these has to be true. I will look at both cases.

1. It formed/was made out of something.
In this case something was there for the universe to be made out of, so there is no reason that the laws of physics followed by that "something" couldn't be the cause.  Thus if something was there it is faulty to assume that God was the cause.

2. The universe formed/was made out of nothing.
I know I have mentioned branes theory a lot, but I think this is more likely. I really think we agree that this is the case, only you think God was the cause. The problem is, we can't assume that there was a cause, as I explained above, because not everything has a cause.

In other words, if the universe was formed out of something, laws of physics would have existed that could cause a universe to form. If it formed (or was made) out of nothing, then we would like to say that God must have caused it, but it is incorrect to assume that a cause was necessary.

 

Maybe...we're just figments in someone's imagination...or dream.  

bah...who cares about the universe.  I think that no matter how hard some people try they can't explain somethings.  Either that or it's just something that incomprehensible to me.

Speaking of Occam's Razor, this seems like the simplest solution!  LOL

I have to agree with you (about the universe being incomprehensible).  Maybe when we all die, then the truth will become clear to us. :mellow:  

If it's based on unproven ideas, then it has no scientific basis.


I've given 3 arguments here; one which you've challenged.  There's still more to go.  There's plenty more proof of God than the Branes theory.


Well, if we're talking about the first state of the universe, then science has no say-so, because there's no way for such a thing to be tested.  A personal explanation is all that's left over.


Once again, Branes hypothesis has no scientific basis (it's own proponents admit it).  Not only does evidence come in as a factor, but so do these:

1.  Explanatory scope
2.  Explanatory power
3.  Plausibility
4.  Less ad hoc
5.  Accord with accepted beliefs
6.  Comparative superiority

The theistic hypothesis easily completes all of these when compared to the (unscientifically based) Brane hypothesis.  So, not only does it have more evidence leaning towards it, but it fulfills the "best explanation available" test.


First off, I offered a reply to the de-excitation of electrons.  You're going to have to go more in-depth (with what I typed in my last post and my definition of "cause") rather than cite an example.  I don't see how the de-excitation of an electron is something coming from absolute nothingness.  Secondly, according to the definition of "cause" I gave, the Christian position doesn't have a problem at all.


You do realize the Flat Earth Society uses that kind of response, right? :P

To disprove P (flat earth), yes that means P is never true.  If evolution disproves intelligent design, then intelligent design is never true.
In the same sense, if I can disprove that something can come from nothing (no space, no time, no material, etc) then the argument is never true.

I've given evidence supporting my view, while I have responded to yours.  I think it's safe to conclude (even without evidence) that something cannot come from and be caused by absolute nothingness.


I'm a million miles away from assuming anything.  I've given a few evidences to support my position (with more to come) and only one has been responded to by you.  On the other hand, all you toss out is the Brane hypothesis, which isn't even worthy of consideration due to what it's own proponents admit.

You typed, "there is no reason that the laws of physics followed by that "something" couldn't be the cause".  What is this "something" you speak of?  


In order for the laws of physics to have created the universe, they would have to be timeless and spaceless.  This seems to be a mechanistic first cause, so you're welcome to reply to my response concerning this, which is in my lengthy post a couple of pages back.
God causing it from "nothing" (which I digress with on some points) does make more sense than something coming from and by absolutely nothing -- no space, no person, no time, no materiality, etc.

We're both stuck on something coming into existence from and by nothing.  You seem to accept Quentin Smith's position without reading William Craig's refutation of that position.  My teleological argument remains open for your response also.

Don't you find it curious that atheists went away from their classical position (universe always existing in time) to the universe beginning a finite time ago (Big Bang) to unjustifiably interpreting the Big Bang in such a way in an attempt to escape from a singularity and now to saying the universe popped into existence from and by absolutely nothing.  What can the theist do?  Whenever their position gets disproven they just make up absurd ideas which can't be verified or falsified like the Brane theory... the field goals just keep widening.

-Spawn

"If it's based on unproven ideas, then it has no scientific basis."

Yes, but the ideas do have a scientific basis.

"I've given 3 arguments here; one which you've challenged. There's still more to go. There's plenty more proof of God than the Branes theory."

Let's finish our discussion of this one and then move on to those.

"Well, if we're talking about the first state of the universe, then science has no say-so, because there's no way for such a thing to be tested. A personal explanation is all that's left over."

Don't underestimate what science can accomplish. We predicted black holes and the cosmic background radiation before they were ever detected. Regardless, even if we can't ever understand a scientific explanation, that doesn't mean there isn't one.

"Once again, Branes hypothesis has no scientific basis (it's own proponents admit it). Not only does evidence come in as a factor, but so do these:

1. Explanatory scope
2. Explanatory power
3. Plausibility
4. Less ad hoc
5. Accord with accepted beliefs
6. Comparative superiority"

How does God creating the universe out of nothing do better in any of those areas?

"First off, I offered a reply to the de-excitation of electrons. You're going to have to go more in-depth (with what I typed in my last post and my definition of "cause") rather than cite an example. I don't see how the de-excitation of an electron is something coming from absolute nothingness. Secondly, according to the definition of "cause" I gave, the Christian position doesn't have a problem at all."

My response was that you can consider the de-excitation of an electron the creation of a photon. One example is all that is necessary to prove that things can happen spontaneously. That's about is close as we can get to creating something out of nothing in this universe, anyway.

"In the same sense, if I can disprove that something can come from nothing (no space, no time, no material, etc) then the argument is never true."

Good luck trying disprove that. You still haven't told me what God made the universe out of, btw.

"I'm a million miles away from assuming anything. I've given a few evidences to support my position (with more to come) and only one has been responded to by you. On the other hand, all you toss out is the Brane hypothesis, which isn't even worthy of consideration due to what it's own proponents admit.

You typed, "there is no reason that the laws of physics followed by that "something" couldn't be the cause". What is this "something" you speak of? "

This is a very typical logical argument I'm using here. The idea is that if there are only a few possibilities (the universe came out of something, or nothing), you can consider them all, one at a time, and see what happens. First, I looked at the case where the universe came from something, or God made it from something. In that case, there is no reason to assume that in that something, the formation of a universe couldn’t have a simple cause.  Remember, science we can't understand is not automatically non-existent.

As for the other case, if it came from nothing (or was made from nothing by God), then the only concern is whether or not there was a cause. Since some things can happen spontaneously, you can't assume there must have been a cause.

To eliminate any confusion, perhaps you could tell me, did God make the universe out of something or nothing?

"In order for the laws of physics to have created the universe, they would have to be timeless and spaceless."

I'm not talking the laws of physics. I'm talking about the case in which something was there, in which case that something would follow its own set of physical laws.

Science is always changing, because unlike religion, it is based on evidence, so I don’t see why the formation of the Big Bang theory is anything abnormal.
 

After reading your reply to this, I'll have to determine whether or not I'll offer more than one more reply.  We don't seem to agree on much. ;)

Oh yeah, I forgot... to do the quotes, just click on the "quote" icon when you're replying to something, then copy/paste that which you're replying to, then click on the quote icon one more time to close it out.  

Or you can just do it the way you're doing.  I can read your posts just fine.


How can they have scientific basis when they're based off of unproven ideas?  If they do, then so does whatever Creationists posit.  It's the same thing.


You're going to have to go in-depth and provide a parallel concerning black holes and cosmic background radiation - as to how it's the same situation as that of the Branes hypothesis.

It's not whether or not we understand the hypothesis, but the simple fact that it's based off of unproven ideas, unfalsifiable ideas, incredibly complex ideas, ... wishful thinking at it's best.


I've given evidence against your proposition; none of which have received a response.


If, by spontaneous, you mean random, then that doesn't help you.  You're going to have to educate me a bit on this.  All you have to do is go in-depth and explain how that is creation from absolute nothingness.  Something that has gone under scientific review would be a bonus.


Well, according to the definition of "cause" I gave, I needn't tell you or even concern myself with what God made the universe out of.  I do have my theories, but I'm trying to save us both time.


Yes, but what is this "something"?  You typed,


What do you mean by "in that something"?  Are you talking about whatever God did to make the universe come about?  You call this a very typical logical argument, while I've never seen any atheistic philosopher use it and you don't go in-depth on any of the things you type.  Atheists don't group it in that way at all.


There's a huge difference between coming from absolute nothingness and being created from "nothing" by God.  As for "spontaneous", well, that depends on how you define it.


In lots of ways:

1.  The God hypothesis has an amazing explanatory scope - reaching the in's and out's of every field.
2.  The explanatory power is powerful, indeed.  The fact that it can easily explain most subjects in question shows the power and simplicity of it.
3.  It's a very plausible hypothesis.  It contains no logical contradictions and no self-defeaters.  Also, it has other evidences in various fields.
4.  It's not ad hoc at all.  The atheistic position, as I showed in my last post, is very ad hoc.
5.  It does accord with accepted beliefs.
6.  The God hypothesis does exceed its rivals in meeting conditions (1) through (5).


I never said the formation of the Big Bang theory is abnormal.  

As for the first sentence, that's a Strawman at best.  Even atheists will recognize it as false (I can cite some examples).

it shouldnt and doesnt matter its metaphorical

I'll throw this one out there; I didn't say it, and I won't argue over it:

"How can they have scientific basis when they're based off of unproven ideas? If they do, then so does whatever Creationists posit. It's the same thing."

Very few things in science are truly proven without a doubt. I'm not trying to say that branes theory is well proven. I'm saying that unlike religion, it at least takes scientific ideas as its basis. I really don't have any particular devotion to branes theory anyway. I just think its interesting, and I provided it as an example.

"You're going to have to go in-depth and provide a parallel concerning black holes and cosmic background radiation - as to how it's the same situation as that of the Branes hypothesis."

Black holes and cosmic background radiation are connected in that they were both predicted before we saw any evidence that they existed. In other words, it is possible to understand things we can't see or test.

"I've given evidence against your proposition; none of which have received a response."

I have given a response, that is what the rest of my post was about. If you feel that I have missed something, please explain.

"If, by spontaneous, you mean random, then that doesn't help you. You're going to have to educate me a bit on this. All you have to do is go in-depth and explain how that is creation from absolute nothingness. Something that has gone under scientific review would be a bonus."

No human being has ever seen creation from absolute nothingness, so we can't assume that it does or doesn't need a cause. My point is, if creation from absolute nothingness is possible, and things can happen without cause (such as spontaneous de-excitation), then we can't assume that creation from absolute nothingness (if it is possible) requires a cause.

"Well, according to the definition of "cause" I gave, I needn't tell you or even concern myself with what God made the universe out of. I do have my theories, but I'm trying to save us both time."

I think that is very important. No offense, but you seem to be ducking around the question. I'm sure you can see where I am going with it. If you think there was something there for God to make the universe out of (I don't care what the something is; It doesn't matter), then why is it even necessary to put God in the picture? If something was there, then a creator is not necessary, and it is not the simplest explanation. If you say God made the universe out of nothing, then you've accepted that the universe came from nothing, in which case I ask, how do we know that there has to be a cause?

"Yes, but what is this "something"? You typed,"

It's the stuff that the universe was made out of, if it was not created out of nothing.

"What do you mean by "in that something"? Are you talking about whatever God did to make the universe come about? You call this a very typical logical argument, while I've never seen any atheistic philosopher use it and you don't go in-depth on any of the things you type. Atheists don't group it in that way at all."

Again, the stuff that the universe came from, if it didn't come from nothing. As for a typical logical argument, I mean the way the argument was structured; I said that a condition could be either true or false, and then looked at the implications of each case.

"There's a huge difference between coming from absolute nothingness and being created from "nothing" by God. As for "spontaneous", well, that depends on how you define it."

A big difference? If it was created by God there was a cause, and if came about on its own, there was no cause, and as I have shown, we can't assume there was a cause. Keep in mind the difference between the statements
"We can't assume there wasn't a cause,"
and
"There wasn't a cause."

I disagree completely with the last part of your post. A personal explanation really explains nothing when we're talking about the beginning of the universe, because it does not say how God made the universe.

" After reading your reply to this, I'll have to determine whether or not I'll offer more than one more reply. We don't seem to agree on much. "

I'm sure that when this debate ends you'll still be a Christian and I'll still be an Atheist, but it's been an interesting discussion.
-Blake

It matters and is of great importance.  I want to be 100% sure about Blakes statements before I proceed.  I don't want to commit a logical fallacy by attacking a Strawman.


Blake,

I'll give two more posts and offer a concluding post followed by yours, if that's alright with you.  This is ending up like the discussions I have with my brothers... excluding the fact that I get flamed. LOL

I do have one atheist friend who reminds me of you.  He's incredibly respectful and noticeably intelligent.  He's also a physicist, which means I get a free scientific review of any arguments I want to put forth. :hehe:
Well, to get more to the point, I don't think he believes there is any evidence that something can come from and by absolute nothingness.  All he has said to me in defense of this is that the rules for causuality broke down, which amounted to something coming into existence from and by absolute nothingness.

I'll get in touch with him tonight and see if he'll come over here tomorrow or the day after and offer a response to your evidences.  Not that I don't think I haven't responded to you adequately, but I think the seriousness of what I'm saying will be taken more seriously coming from an actual physicist who is an atheist.


The scientists and philosophers before Darwin knew animals evolved, but they didn't know the mechanism.  Some of them posited evolution anyway due to the fact that they knew evolution occurred, but didn't know how.  They couldn't explain it.  

This is a good parallel to theism.  Granted that God exists (just to make a point), we can posit His existence without knowing how He does certain things.  You're an intelligent guy, so you should be able to realize the truth value here.  I don't know the "how" to a lot of things.

That's a Red Herring at best.


There is no scientific theory that is based off of unproven ideas, incredibly complex ideas, and unfalsifiable ideas.  Branes theory isn't proven at all.  How can you prove that which is based off of unproven ideas?

Yes, it's interesting, but it isn't a good, serious example to give on the question of origins.  You say you don't have any particular devotion to branes theory, so which theory do you have a particular devotion to... now that I know we've wasted our time discussing a theory you aren't even particularly devoted to? :P


That's an analogy based on assumption.  As for the last sentence, it's Flat Earth defense #1. ;)


I gave you a few arguments that something cannot come from and by absolute nothingness - argument from experience (intuitively obvious argument), law of cause and effect, and scientific basis.  All you've challenged is the scientific basis.

You did toss this out, though:


This is Kent Hovind's  (the YEC bulldog) defense for young earth creationism.  Hovind says all he needs to do is give one evidence for a young earth, which would therefore disprove the old earth hypothesis.  It's only fair to respond to that evidence against your proposition also.  That is, unless your proposition isn't tenable and able to be falsified?


You are yet to give an in-depth explanation of the de-excitation process, so I can offer a better reply.  You are yet to define "spontaneous", which has two totally different definitions also.


Firstly, I'm not saying the universe came into existence from and by nothing, which is what you're holding.  I can use two defenses:

(1)  I'm saying it came into existence from nothing, but by something (God).

(2)  I can take the position that God's creation of everything is parallel to how our thoughts take place (in a loose sense).  I can create "images" in my mind just by thinking of them.  Why, then, can't an omnipotent, all-powerful, God create the universes just by thinking about how He wants it?

Also, I did provide a short answer.  I gave a definition for "cause", which wouldn't (for the theists) amount to the universe coming into existence from and by nothing.


You typed, "if it came from nothing (or was made from nothing by God)", so I was just noting the big difference between the two.


With all due respect, you can disagree, but a direct response to my list is welcome.

-Spawn

hm? he asked what you believed the universe came from, something or nothing. you flat out avoided it. He pressed the question and all of a sudden he's holding that you believe the universe came into existence from nothing? BULLSHIT. Think about that for a second. And you say you're not twisting anyone's words around? :angry:  I can't see how anyone could have a serious debate with you when you refuse to listen to what they have to say, but instead just twist things around to how you want to hear them.

Calm down, Frag.  Even if I make an error, which I usually do, there's no need to point it out in a such a way.  You may differ, though, and call me a "jackass".  :P


Blake typed, "If you say God made the universe out of nothing, then you've accepted that the universe came from nothing".  I challenged this with two or three responses.

If that's not what you're talking about, then reply to this with a direct quote from myself.


Blake already knows I believe the universe must have came into existence from and by something (God)... or else I wouldn't be a theist.  If he has asked that, then I answered it in my past post.  I for sure did reply to the "from nothing" thing he typed.

If I've messed up or done such a thing, then I offer my sincere apologies.  I try my hardest to respond as best and honestly as I can, I assure you.  I am human, though, and tend to make mistakes. :)  I don't want to anger anyone with them... especially at a board where I'm at "newbie" status.

-Spawn

(Which is just flat out avoiding the question, no more no less. That's all there is to that.)


(addressing both possibilities, not pushing either way, still just trying to get a straight-up no-bs respone from you)


And there it is--I'm sorry, but that's straight up twisting words around. Sorry if you think my response was overkill, but I can't stand it when people can't come up with a reasonable answer to a question so they just try and disqualify it or avoid it. TBH--I've seen you doing that through this entire thread. If you don't like or can't answer a question, you answer a different question, write it off as irrelevant, anything to get around it. If you can't answer a question, say so. It looks a lot more intelligent to admit to a mistake or something you don't know then to bullshit an answer.
 

The first quote doesn't come from my last reply where I did answer that question.  It's worth noting that I did offer a half-attempt answer by bringing in my definition of "cause".  I even re-used it in my last post to Blake.

I did offer an answer to Blake to the second quote also.  You just snipped the first part.  The rest is:

"I can use two defenses:

(1) I'm saying it came into existence from nothing, but by something (God).

(2) I can take the position that God's creation of everything is parallel to how our thoughts take place (in a loose sense). I can create "images" in my mind just by thinking of them. Why, then, can't an omnipotent, all-powerful, God create the universes just by thinking about how He wants it?

Also, I did provide a short answer. I gave a definition for "cause", which wouldn't (for the theists) amount to the universe coming into existence from and by nothing."

If that's what you call a "bullshit" answer, then I hold it with pride.

As far as my:

I'm not saying the universe came into existence from and by nothing, which is what you're holding

To the best of my knowledge, Blake has been defending the "something from and by nothing"... he did give an article from Quentin Smith who defends that position.
Also, in the above quote, I'm simply noting that I find it plausible to posit God creating the universe from nothing, yet by something (Himself).  I give more in my response, though.


Hope this clears things up.  If not, then I'll just concede that I've made a mistake, because I don't feel like arguing over semantics.  

THAT STILL DOESN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION. To a different question, I'm sure that's an answer. But what he's asking is a simple, black-and-white question, and you refuse to answer. I went right through the last posts in this thread, post from him, post from you, post from him, post from you--direct quotes as you asked. And now you're trying to avoid your mistakes again. So I'll pose the question again for clarification. All I want to hear is "something" or "nothing." Not a single other word. It's a simple question, really. What do you think God made the universe out of? Something? Or nothing? That's all I want to hear. Any other answer only proves what I'm talking about with avoiding questions.

I gave two possible answers (with 1 being the one I hold), Frag -- both "something" and "nothing"... depending on how the mind response works out.  Personally, I believe (1) is more plausible, but (2) is likely also... just a matter of preference.

Also, back on a different page, I gave this definition for cause - "Cause - something that produces something else, and in terms of which that other thing, called the effect, can be explained".  

This is kind of related to my "from nothing, but by something" response.  I didn't go in-depth on the answer, but I gave one, nonetheless on the 7th page.  The ones on the 8th page are better, though.

ok my oppinion on god is this 1 the bible and god contradicts life if u realy think about it .. scientist have come to believe that we evolved from apes because 1 therory of life that scientist believe is that all animals and creaturesare evolved from diffrent species, look at sharks for example  (i believe the name is but know exist from studing sharks) a magamoth shark is prehistoric rare shark that evolved in to diffrent kinds including whale... and sertin bird like dinasores evolved in to birds so if god created us in his image hes a ape and i realy dont want to come to find out that gods a ape when  i die... and if god was all powerfull then why is the world so shity why do people continue to kill one another or rapest continue to live cancer free while some ones grandfather who never did a major sin lies in his death bed from cancer.. why should a baby just born, die from some cold what sin could they  have created and dont give me any created before marrige is a sin.. if god exsist the world would be better not unless he realy wants us all to go to hell because he set so many diffrent rules that every one commits a sin of some sort bye the age of 7... i have more to say but i wont because any one whose highly religious will hate me and i dont want that because i truly believe u should believie in what u want to.. but im sorry i believe conformed  religion(if thats the right word sory bad with english language) is a bad concept its for people with little imagination or belief system of there own because if u are gonna believe in god or faith why not make it worth it and enjoyable follow the major sins so u dont go to hell if u believe in that and believe in what u want to... live happy   dont get me wrong i like the idea of religion and god it gets people along in life but when it makes people close minded then i have a problem.. because presonaly if some one would give me more documents or sientific proof of the bible god and jesus id be more then happy to hop on the cathlic or some religion train but sorry im one of those need proof people but im still openminded about it...

and sorry about the bad spelling and grammer im bad at english..  and sorry if affended any one dident mean to..

loren

I apologize for this separate post, Blake, but am noting a small update concerning the ontological "commitment" out of nothing, nothing comes.

I sent your proof (de-excitation process of an electron) to some friends of mine who are experts on this issue to see if it can stand under scientific review.  I consider my replies valid, but theirs is much more valid -- just as I'm sure you recognize Quentin Smith's reply that you gave is more valid than your own, for he is the expert.

My physicist friend (the atheist) is yet to reply, but the well-learned apologetist who goes by the name Tarmac has.  The thread is here (http://cafe.planetwisdom.com/tc/v312/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=13;t=25006) with Tarmac making his first review concerning "out of nothing, nothing comes".  I hope you keep up with that topic, for it will prove of great importance to this one.

I would simply give their replies just as you did Smith's for me, but it's in a post format, which amounts to me having to wait potentially lengthy periods of time to read their take.  Forgive me for the inconvenience.

-Spawn

"How can they have scientific basis when they're based off of unproven ideas? If they do, then so does whatever Creationists posit. It's the same thing."

Unproven ideas with a scientific basis.

"The scientists and philosophers before Darwin knew animals evolved, but they didn't know the mechanism. Some of them posited evolution anyway due to the fact that they knew evolution occurred, but didn't know how. They couldn't explain it.

This is a good parallel to theism. Granted that God exists (just to make a point), we can posit His existence without knowing how He does certain things. You're an intelligent guy, so you should be able to realize the truth value here. I don't know the "how" to a lot of things.""

In 2000 years of Christianity, no one has figured out how God made the universe, and yet we gained an understanding of how evolution works in a relatively short time. If he could somehow magically make it come into existence, then why couldn't it magically come into existence without him? Anyway, you can't claim to have a well supported theory until you at least have an idea of how it works.

"There is no scientific theory that is based off of unproven ideas, incredibly complex ideas, and unfalsifiable ideas. Branes theory isn't proven at all. How can you prove that which is based off of unproven ideas?

Yes, it's interesting, but it isn't a good, serious example to give on the question of origins. You say you don't have any particular devotion to branes theory, so which theory do you have a particular devotion to... now that I know we've wasted our time discussing a theory you aren't even particularly devoted to? "

I never said that anybody proved it, but it is closer to being proven than the God theory. I am not devoted to any particular theory at the moment, btw.

"That's an analogy based on assumption. As for the last sentence, it's Flat Earth defense #1."

What I have shown quite well is that it is not unreasonable to suggest something could happen without a cause.

"I gave you a few arguments that something cannot come from and by absolute nothingness - argument from experience (intuitively obvious argument), law of cause and effect, and scientific basis. All you've challenged is the scientific basis."

None of the scientific laws we know can be counted on to hold outside our universe, so any argument based on observations from our universe proves nothing. That includes the electron de-excitation argument, but I never claimed that it proves that the universe came about without a cause. It does show that such considerations are not unreasonable, however.

If you are interested spontaneous de-excitation, the example that comes to my mind is the hyperfine (or spin-flip) transition that occurs in hydrogen gas in nebulae. The gas is thin enough that atoms rarely collide, so if an electron gets knocked up to a higher energy state, it will often stay there for millions of years until without a cause, it simply falls back down. This gives the 21 cm (if I'm remembering the number right) emission line which we can use to look at the interiors of nebulae.

"This is Kent Hovind's (the YEC bulldog) defense for young earth creationism. Hovind says all he needs to do is give one evidence for a young earth, which would therefore disprove the old earth hypothesis. It's only fair to respond to that evidence against your proposition also. That is, unless your proposition isn't tenable and able to be falsified?"

Kent Hovind clearly lacks an understanding of logic. The concept of a counterexample is quite familiar to me as a math student, so I do know what I'm talking about here. One piece of evidence that can be interpreted in any number of ways proves nothing. You can't prove that the Earth is young by counterexample, because there is only one planet in question. If there where many Earth's, you could disprove the statement "All Earths are old" by finding a single young one, but you can't do it the way Hovind tries to.

"You are yet to give an in-depth explanation of the de-excitation process, so I can offer a better reply. You are yet to define "spontaneous", which has two totally different definitions also."

I covered that above.

"Firstly, I'm not saying the universe came into existence from and by nothing, which is what you're holding. I can use two defenses:

(1) I'm saying it came into existence from nothing, but by something (God).

(2) I can take the position that God's creation of everything is parallel to how our thoughts take place (in a loose sense). I can create "images" in my mind just by thinking of them. Why, then, can't an omnipotent, all-powerful, God create the universes just by thinking about how He wants it?

Also, I did provide a short answer. I gave a definition for "cause", which wouldn't (for the theists) amount to the universe coming into existence from and by nothing."

If the universe can come into magically come into existence by someone thinking about it, why can't it spontaneously come into existence without a thought? It seems a lot more far-fetched to me to say that God's thoughts somehow turned into reality.

"You typed, "if it came from nothing (or was made from nothing by God)", so I was just noting the big difference between the two."

The difference is not as big as you would like to think. Why is it unreasonable to say something could happen without a cause in a far more outlandish environment outside our universe when we can see things happen without a cause in the universe we are familiar with?

"With all due respect, you can disagree, but a direct response to my list is welcome."

I think I pretty much covered all of it by pointing out that creation lacks a scientific explanation.

" I gave two possible answers (with 1 being the one I hold), Frag -- both "something" and "nothing"... depending on how the mind response works out. Personally, I believe (1) is more plausible, but (2) is likely also... just a matter of preference."

Your not sure, that's perfectly understandable. I am not sure what the universe came from either. I was just wondering, so that I would not have to keep explaining both arguments. Anyway, to conclude my post, I will sum up the entire thing in formal logic.

Suppose God is the only logical explanation for the formation of the universe.
Then there are two possibilities:
1. He made it from nothing.
In this case, there is no reason to assume that a cause (God) was even necessary*, so we don't need to assume that God made the universe, and thus we arrive at a contradiction.
2. He made it from something.
In this case, there was something there already, and so we can't assume that it wasn't just a matter of cause and effect.  In other words, we can't assume that God was the only way the universe could have reached its present state from something that was already there, and thus we arrive at a contradiction.
Thus God is not the only logical explanation.

*Remember the hydrogen example. That tells us that it isn't unreasonable to suggest that cause isn't necessary. The real argument is that we can't assume that whatever lies beyond our universe follows our laws of physics.

Please note that I'm not trying to disprove the existence of God here. I'm just trying to prove that we can't just assume he exists because we do. I don't think it is possible to prove conclusively that God does or doesn't exist. I have left you a way out here, and I won't consider it backing down if you take it.
 

Umm, I can't get into that forum.
btw, formally, I wouldn't call the de-excitation example a proof. It's purpose was to show that the idea of something happening without a cause is not so outlandish.

Sorry about the triple post. I can't edit my previous posts because I am unregistered, so I have no choice.
When I say I wouldn't call the de-excitation example a proof, I mean that it doesn't prove that the universe could have come about spontaneously. It does prove that not everything has a cause in our universe. If you want to send something to your friends, I would recommend sending them the formal argument I presented.

You could just register. ;)

Um... just a quick question- I saw this, and don't wanna browse through the rest of the page looking for an answer-

How could God create the universe out of something?  Doesn't creation in this sense imply that nothing was in existance before it?  :miffed:  

FROM NOTHING, NOTHING COMES


I’ve searched my heart out, but I can’t find that in any well-known atheistic philosopher’s argument, so I have to ask you for a link to a credible scientist proposing this as true or a scientifically reviewed paper would be nice.  All of the articles I’ve read have explained all of what you typed; except for the “it will often stay there for millions of years until without a cause”.  What I do read is that the electrons fall back down to a lower energy level “spontaneously”.  Spontaneity is in every scientifically reviewed paper I’ve read so far; nothing else.

This is a word that you’ve been using rather strangely.  You seem to define it as “coming from nothing”, which isn’t the definition.  The definitions are thus:

(1) Happening or arising without apparent external cause; self-generated.
(2) Arising from a natural inclination or impulse and not from external incitement or constraint.
(3) Unconstrained and unstudied in manner or behavior.

None of these mean “coming from nothing”.  Something happening spontaneously as in (self-generated, natural inclination or impulse, or unconstrained and unstudied in manner and behavior).  There’s no reason to define spontaneous as “coming from nothing”.
This is why none of the big dawgs of atheism bring that example up in their literature or live debates.

My physicist friend is yet to reply at that thread I started up, so I apologize for the wait.  I’m already sure he’ll agree with me, though; except with more of a response.


I’m glad you admit it includes the electron de-excitation argument, but I think you understate the implications.  You typed that “any argument based on observations proves [nothing]”.  If it proves nothing, then it doesn’t even prove that your argument is reasonable.  Nothing is nothing.  You can’t have your cake and eat it too. ;)

The first sentence is true to an extent - I.e. if we’re attempting to evaluate the first cause  (like it’s characteristics) according to scientific laws.  This isn’t what I’m doing, though.  I’m noting the first event (an effect) coming into existence from either something or nothing and questioning it.  The first event is to be judged according to scientific laws like cause and effect.  


I digress with the “quite well”, of course.  All I see is one proof, thus far, that’s falling apart quickly.


Your last response has nothing to do with mine.  I realize what you are attempting to show.  I’m pointing out that, if you say it is possible to understand things we can’t see or test, then you’re taking in the Flat Earth defense.  They’ve typed the same thing in reply to me before.


Check this out:

“You can’t prove that the Earth is old by counterexample, because there is only one planet in question.  If there were many Earth’s, you could disprove the statement “All Earths are young” by finding a single one, but you can’t do it the way old earth scientists do.”

I’m not twisting your words to make you say something you aren’t (to the other posters here), but am engaging in some fun parody to make a point.  Blake, if you take in your quote as true, then it is to be applied to old earth scientists also.


That sounds like something straight out of a textbook, but applied to the wrong subject (it might fit in math, but not here).  There doesn’t have to exist a lot of earths in order to determine whether or not this earth is young… I don’t know where that came from.  The fact is that there is just one Earth (this Earth) and we can use scientific dating methods to determine the date.  That is what scientists do, btw.

Hovind disagrees, though.  He says, “I’ll grant you all of the evidence for an old earth, while all I have to do is provide one example of a young earth”.  This is exactly what you typed.  You typed, “all you need is one case where P is not true (called a counterexample) to disprove P”.  Sorry, but a counterexample won’t help you out, just as it won’t help Hovind out.  It’s not to be used in this subject, because we’re speaking of the ability to have a tenable, true belief.  Why should I regard Hovind’s belief, and yours, as anywhere close to true when you think yours is more reasonable just because you offer up one single evidence in opposition to several which?

My atheist friend hasn’t replied yet, but a well-learned apologetist (theologian and philosopher, in particular) has (Tarmac).  I told him that I can deal with the proof, but asked him to give more of a philosophical response and overall-dealing of the proof.  He typed in response to proofs in opposition to the ontological principle “out of nothing, nothing comes“,

“No, it does not. And anyone who suggests that it does, does not really understand the topic at hand, or the philosophical position they are suggesting. John Polkinghorne's Quantum Theory - a very short Introduction OUP (May 2002) is a good place to start.

As philosopher of science Bernulf Kanitscheider complains, it is "in head–on collision with the most successful ontological commitment that was a guiding line of research since Epicurus and Lucretius," namely, that out of nothing nothing comes, which Kanitscheider calls "a metaphysical hypothesis which has proved so fruitful in every corner of science that we are surely well–advised to try as hard as we can to eschew processes of absolute origin." (Bernulf Kanitscheider, Does Physical Cosmology Transcend the Limits of Naturalistic Reasoning? in Studies on Mario Bung’s Treatise, ed. P. Weingartner and G. J. W. Doen (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1990), p. 344)

The notion of spontaneous generation of "something" from "nothing" is odd, awkward and simply untenable [in the absolute sense with no agent]. Despite many atheists thorough conviction that this is in fact the case, it lacks evidential and philosophical support. Nothing and Non-Existence: The Transcendence of Science by W. Turner is a good, though complex, book on this topic.

It appears atheists basically refuse to accept the natural conclusion that their is an ontologically independent entity which is eternal, powerful and knowledgeable enough to create ex nihilo. God [the being currently being described] is the best and most plausible explanation for the origin, contingency and design of both the laws of physics and the universe.

Other explanations that appeal to the creation of "something" from "nothing" merely beg the question and refuse the best answer.”


GOD’S CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE

Lanair, I replied to that question with:

“(1) I'm saying it came into existence from nothing, but by something (God).

(2) I can take the position that God's creation of everything is parallel to how our thoughts take place (in a loose sense). I can create "images" in my mind just by thinking of them. Why, then, can't an omnipotent, all-powerful, God create the universes just by thinking about how He wants it?”


In regards to the first question, it can’t spontaneously (whatever you mean by that) come into existence because it doesn’t beat the theistic position when it comes to

1. Explanatory scope
2. Explanatory power
3. Plausibility
4. Less ad hoc
5. Accord with accepted beliefs
6. Comparative superiority"

To the second question: it’s not far-fetched at all when realizing we’re talking about an omnipotent God.  If we can produce images, then all he’d have to do is make those images reality; hence His omnipotence.


Erm… science doesn’t deal with anything before the first event.  That’s more of a philosophical discussion; metaphysics.  As far as when the first event came about, the God hypothesis isn’t lacking a scientific explanation at all.  We’re discussing one evidence now with more to come, so the science is definitely there.  

Most of the greatest minds in science were believers in some type of God - Isaac Newton, Louis Agassiz (greatest natural scientist of his day), Richard Feynman, Blaise Pascal, Galileo, Kepler, … The list would be terribly long.  I’m not appealing to authority, but am pointing out that these very scientifically trustworthy individuals saw no contradictions between God and science or that either of them lacked any type of explanation.  There are also plenty of atheistic and agnostic scientists who would disagree with that statement from yourself.  God is getting much more attention from science and other fields than in the past 150 years.  

As far as picking the best explanation goes, theism not only passes the 6-part test, but surpasses those in opposition to it also.


1.  I noted the difference between something coming from nothing and something coming from nothing by an omnipotent something else.  You type in response, “The difference is not as big as you would like to think”.  Well, at least you recognize there is a difference between the two.  Why are they grouped together when you admit they are different?

2.  If this “something” was internal (as we’re discussing now), then this fails also.


I haven’t assumed this, though.


BRANE THEORY



How can it be anywhere near being proven when it is based off of unproven ideas - I.e. it’s merely an unproven idea based off of an unproven idea.  

So far, I’m yet to see it being closer to being proven than the God hypothesis.  The problem with the Brane Theory is that it has no supporting evidence (even it’s proponents admit this, as I’ve shown), while the God hypothesis has plenty of supporting evidence.  Probably the greatest atheistic philosopher of the last hundred years or so, J.L. Mackie, believed theism has supporting evidence… he just discounts it on an epistemological basis.  So, at the very least, theism does have evidence pointing towards it, while the Brane theory has only unproven ideas (zip).


As I showed above, the universe arising spontaneously and "from nothing" are two different things (see here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=spontaneous)).  I have already explained that to my friends through PM's before they made the thread at Planet Wisdom.  I'm sure they knew of it already, because they've debated the issue before.

"I’ve searched my heart out, but I can’t find that in any well-known atheistic philosopher’s argument, so I have to ask you for a link to a credible scientist proposing this as true or a scientifically reviewed paper would be nice. All of the articles I’ve read have explained all of what you typed; except for the “it will often stay there for millions of years until without a cause”. What I do read is that the electrons fall back down to a lower energy level “spontaneously”. Spontaneity is in every scientifically reviewed paper I’ve read so far; nothing else."

"I’ve searched my heart out, but I can’t find that in any well-known atheistic philosopher’s argument, so I have to ask you for a link to a credible scientist proposing this as true or a scientifically reviewed paper would be nice. All of the articles I’ve read have explained all of what you typed; except for the “it will often stay there for millions of years until without a cause”. What I do read is that the electrons fall back down to a lower energy level “spontaneously”. Spontaneity is in every scientifically reviewed paper I’ve read so far; nothing else."

I'm talking specifically about the hyperfine trasnition in nebulae. I'll quote my astro textbook from a semester or two ago when I get home ig you want.

"This is a word that you’ve been using rather strangely. You seem to define it as “coming from nothing”, which isn’t the definition. The definitions are thus:"

I don't define spontaneous as 'coming from nothing." I even said that we have never seen anything come from nothing in our universe.

"I’m glad you admit it includes the electron de-excitation argument, but I think you understate the implications. You typed that “any argument based on observations proves [nothing]”. If it proves nothing, then it doesn’t even prove that your argument is reasonable. Nothing is nothing. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. "

I'm not trying to prove anything with that argument. I brought it up as an example of how something can happen without a cause, to show that the idea wasn't as strange as it sounds. My arguement for the universe possibly beginning without a cause is that we can't assume that our laws of physics are followed beyond our universe.

I accidentally posted parts of this twice already. I have no idea how that happened.

"I’ve searched my heart out, but I can’t find that in any well-known atheistic philosopher’s argument, so I have to ask you for a link to a credible scientist proposing this as true or a scientifically reviewed paper would be nice. All of the articles I’ve read have explained all of what you typed; except for the “it will often stay there for millions of years until without a cause”. What I do read is that the electrons fall back down to a lower energy level “spontaneously”. Spontaneity is in every scientifically reviewed paper I’ve read so far; nothing else."

I'm talking specifically about the hyperfine transition in nebulae. I'll quote my astro textbook from a semester or two ago when I get home you want.

"This is a word that you’ve been using rather strangely. You seem to define it as “coming from nothing”, which isn’t the definition. The definitions are thus:"

I don't define spontaneous as 'coming from nothing.’ I even said that we have never seen anything come from nothing in our universe.

"I’m glad you admit it includes the electron de-excitation argument, but I think you understate the implications. You typed that “any argument based on observations proves [nothing]”. If it proves nothing, then it doesn’t even prove that your argument is reasonable. Nothing is nothing. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. "

I'm not trying to prove anything with that argument. I brought it up as an example of how something can happen without a cause, to show that the idea wasn't as strange as it sounds. My argument for the universe possibly beginning without a cause is that we can't assume that our laws of physics are followed beyond our universe. If you use the laws of cause and effect from our universe, then you certainly can't assume the big bang needed a cause, because as I have shown our universe does not always follow the laws of cause and effect.

"Your last response has nothing to do with mine. I realize what you are attempting to show. I’m pointing out that, if you say it is possible to understand things we can’t see or test, then you’re taking in the Flat Earth defense. They’ve typed the same thing in reply to me before."

Umm, I'm not sure how that happened. I think I misunderstood what you were talking about.

“You can’t prove that the Earth is old by counterexample, because there is only one planet in question. If there were many Earth’s, you could disprove the statement “All Earths are young” by finding a single one, but you can’t do it the way old earth scientists do.”

EXACTLY!
That is absolutely correct, and that is why I am not trying to prove that the Earth is old by counterexample.

"That sounds like something straight out of a textbook, but applied to the wrong subject (it might fit in math, but not here). There doesn’t have to exist a lot of earths in order to determine whether or not this earth is young… I don’t know where that came from. The fact is that there is just one Earth (this Earth) and we can use scientific dating methods to determine the date. That is what scientists do, btw."

I know that. My point there is that you can't prove or disprove it by counterexample, the way Hovind attempts.

"Hovind disagrees, though. He says, “I’ll grant you all of the evidence for an old earth, while all I have to do is provide one example of a young earth”. This is exactly what you typed. You typed, “all you need is one case where P is not true (called a counterexample) to disprove P”. Sorry, but a counterexample won’t help you out, just as it won’t help Hovind out. It’s not to be used in this subject, because we’re speaking of the ability to have a tenable, true belief. Why should I regard Hovind’s belief, and yours, as anywhere close to true when you think yours is more reasonable just because you offer up one single evidence in opposition to several which?"

A counterexample will help me out because I am trying to show that in our universe, some things can happen without a cause. I am talking about an infinity of events that could happen, not just one. One single event either has a cause or it doesn't, so you can't construct a counterexample argument. With many events all you need is one event without a cause, and you can no longer say that all events have causes.

"My atheist friend hasn’t replied yet, but a well-learned apologetist (theologian and philosopher, in particular) has (Tarmac). I told him that I can deal with the proof, but asked him to give more of a philosophical response and overall-dealing of the proof. He typed in response to proofs in opposition to the ontological principle “out of nothing, nothing comes..."

I agree that it is confusing and unnerving to think that we came from nothing, but the universe is not structured in accordance with what we can and can't understand. Look at special relativity, a well tested theory, for example. Even though the universe coming from nothing seems intangible to us, we have spent all our lives surrounded by certain laws of physics that are always obeyed. All our judgment about the tangibility of something coming from nothing is based on what we have seen here, and those observations are all meaningless outside our universe.

"To the second question: it’s not far-fetched at all when realizing we’re talking about an omnipotent God. If we can produce images, then all he’d have to do is make those images reality; hence His omnipotence."

"In regards to the first question, it can’t spontaneously (whatever you mean by that) come into existence because it doesn’t beat the theistic position when it comes to..."

You have yet to explain how a universe coming into existence by someone thinking about it is so much more plausible than it simply coming about on its own.

"To the second question: it’s not far-fetched at all when realizing we’re talking about an omnipotent God. If we can produce images, then all he’d have to do is make those images reality; hence His omnipotence."

That's like saying, "It's not that far fetched to talk about a flying cow when you're talking about a cow that can fly."

"Erm… science doesn’t deal with anything before the first event. That’s more of a philosophical discussion; metaphysics. As far as when the first event came about, the God hypothesis isn’t lacking a scientific explanation at all. We’re discussing one evidence now with more to come, so the science is definitely there. "

You're contradicting yourself there, but I disagree with all of it. Science deals with whatever scientists choose, and even if they can't figure out what the universe came from, that doesn't mean that there isn't a scientific explanation.

"1. I noted the difference between something coming from nothing and something coming from nothing by an omnipotent something else. You type in response, “The difference is not as big as you would like to think”. Well, at least you recognize there is a difference between the two. Why are they grouped together when you admit they are different?"

The difference is that one way there is a cause, one way there isn't, but it is wrong to assume that there had to be a cause.

"2. If this “something” was internal (as we’re discussing now), then this fails also."

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean.

"I haven’t assumed this, though."

Assumptions are part of a logical arguments. In this case I use contradiction, so I make an assumption (God is the only logical explanation for the formation of the universe) and show how that creates a contradiction, and then conclude that the assumption is false. Technically, I am the one doing the assuming, but regardless, if you agree with my conclusion (We can't assume that God is the only logical explanation for the existence of the universe), then you agree with me, because that is all I am trying to show here.

"How can it be anywhere near being proven when it is based off of unproven ideas - I.e. it’s merely an unproven idea based off of an unproven idea.

So far, I’m yet to see it being closer to being proven than the God hypothesis. The problem with the Brane Theory is that it has no supporting evidence (even it’s proponents admit this, as I’ve shown), while the God hypothesis has plenty of supporting evidence. Probably the greatest atheistic philosopher of the last hundred years or so, J.L. Mackie, believed theism has supporting evidence… he just discounts it on an epistemological basis. So, at the very least, theism does have evidence pointing towards it, while the Brane theory has only unproven ideas (zip)."

I have not claimed that there is supporting evidence, but it is nonetheless based on scientific ideas based on things we see in our universe, proven or not.

"As I showed above, the universe arising spontaneously and "from nothing" are two different things (see here). I have already explained that to my friends through PM's before they made the thread at Planet Wisdom. I'm sure they knew of it already, because they've debated the issue before. "

I addressed that already.
 

I'll be keeping the same sections as before.  I'm going to offer one last reply (this one), then give a conclusion after your reply to this.  There are a few things I'm wanting to get straight, so hopefully I can accomplish that in this post.

My confusion shown in this reply could stem from the fact that I define “came from nothing” as “an effect which arises uncaused from, no space, no time, no matter, etc”.  Do you disagree with this definition?  If not, then can you give one in the following post.

OUT OF NOTHING, NOTHING COMES



This is what confused me in your last post - your typing of "I brought it up as a example of how something can happen without a cause".  But if your first quote is correct, then "we have never seen anything come from nothing in our universe".  I'm sure I'm mis-interpreting your intentions here, because I don't think you'd make such a contradiction (you can correct me in the following post).

So, I ask a question that is probably based off of a mis-interpretation: If we have never seen anything come from nothing in our universe, then how can you give an example of how something can happen without a cause?   Remember my definition of “nothing”.  

I disagree with the example you gave, though.  You type,



Haddyah… once again I remain confused.  You originally typed,

if an electron gets knocked up to a higher energy state, it will often stay there for millions of years until without a cause, it simply falls back down

All of the articles I’ve read online concerning this don’t put it that way - I.e. “without a cause”.  They describe it as spontaneous, which is defined as something which is caused.  If this is a spontaneous (caused) event, then how does it help you?


Your first sentence reads “I’m not trying to prove anything with that argument”, then you move on to what you’re trying to prove - how something can happen without a cause is reasonable.  You’re giving observations, which take place in our universe, which, as you said, “prove nothing”.  Okay, then, I’ll grant during this paragraph that it proves nothing.  Now you’re entire point is moot like mine (like I typed earlier).


I digress that you’ve shown that.  Let’s be fair here: what you’re attempting to show is something  which discounts science as a whole.  As Tarmac noted, Philosopher of science Bernulf Kanitscheider would complain, it is "in head–on collision with the most successful ontological commitment that was a guiding line of research since Epicurus and Lucretius," namely, that out of nothing nothing comes, which Kanitscheider calls "a metaphysical hypothesis which has proved so fruitful in every corner of science that we are surely well–advised to try as hard as we can to eschew processes of absolute origin."

I’ve already replied to the quote, though.  I typed (slightly edited):

“[It’s] is true to an extent - I.e. if we’re attempting to evaluate the first cause (like it’s characteristics) according to scientific laws. This isn’t what I’m doing, though. I’m noting the first event (an effect) coming into existence from either something or nothing and questioning it. The first event is to be judged according to scientific laws like cause and effect for the universe cannot be beyond itself.  It exists as according to laws.  According to it‘s own law, it is an effect, and therefore demands a cause.”


You did type that all you need is one evidence to prove your position, which would disprove my position (I gave the exact quote in my last post).  This is using counterexamples just as Hovind does.  You’re using Kent Hovind’s tactics in an attempt to verify/further push forth your position.  This isn’t something I’d want to hold, if you know anything about Hovind’s claims.


You overstate your position.  My physicist friend has typed at PW,

“there will never ever be scientific proof of something existing uncaused. How can I say this so confidently? Well, imagine if we did discover a phenomenon that appeared causeless (like fluctuations in the zero-point energy of the universe, for example). Could we conclude a breakdown in causality? Well, we could, but there is always another possibility - that we simply haven't found the cause yet - that there is a cause but it eludes us.”
This is coming straight from an atheist who is a physicist, remember.  He agrees with you a lot, but there is minor differences like the above one and this one:

“we can never know if they are truly acausal, or if there are hidden variables and causes creating them.”

Nik doesn’t like to assume things (scientists don’t), yet you are assuming a lot here.  You cannot make a scientific judgement of [any kind] about that which has no scientific base.


I’ve already done this, Blake.  I gave the list scientists and philosophers use (inference to best explanation).  

The greatest atheistic mind (probably ever), Stephen Hawking, even keeps in mind that theism is possible, given our situation.  I think the only reason Hawking doesn’t like it is because of the simplicity (see: Stephen Hawking’s Universe).  John Leslie in UNIVERSES tells the following parable about the design of our universe.

You are about to be executed. You are tied to the stake, your eyes are bandaged and the rifles of ten highly trained marksmen are levelled at your chest. The officer gives the order to fire and the shots ring out....

You find you have survived! What do you do? Do you just walk away, saying "That was a close one!" Or course not! So remarkable occurence demands an explanation. There are only two possible rational accounts of how you came to be so fortunate. One is that many, many executions are taking place today. Even the best marksmen occassionally miss and you happen to be in the one where they all miss. The other explanation is that more was happening than you were aware of. The marksmen were on your side and they missed, by design.

I mentioned Hawking and Leslie simply for the added weight to what I’ve already typed (my “best explanation” list).


GOD’S CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE:


The parallel is obviously lacking.  First off, I’m not omnipotent, which is the backbone of my response.  I’m not omnipotent, yet I have the power to think of a flying cow.  If humans had no ability to freely think of such things, you’d think it was ridiculous to even attempt to, but obviously it’s not ridiculous.  Why?  Because in that situation I’d be limited just as I’m limited to not make my thoughts a reality.  God is not limited in that sense, though.  This response doesn’t contain any logical contradictions, so I see no reason to not accept it.


Science isn’t going to figure out what it came from with any empirically verified experiments.  That’s impossible.  That’s the subject that theoretical physicists and the such (Paul Davies for example) may get into, but they won’t be able to scientifically test their ideas because you just can’t use science to test that which isn’t observable, demonstrable, falsifiable, and tenable.  That’s why we have theorists and philosophers.

I didn’t contradict myself, as you typed, because I’m using science in the Kalam argument just to give a defense for a singularity, then I move into more along the lines of a philosophical discussion in the conclusion.  The same with the teleological argument.


I just noted that you grouped two obviously distinct ideas together as one.  Even you admitted the difference, which means they value separation.


You originally typed,

In other words, we can't assume that God was the only way the universe could have reached its present state from something that was already there, and thus we arrive at a contradiction.

I haven’t assumed that something was already there, which God used to create the universe.  Hence, my reply to (2) with the notion of an internal cause; not a separate, distinct one.


BRANE THEORY


Yes, that which it’s based off of, in an absolute sense has some supporting evidence, but it’s not based off of the supporting evidence.  It’s based off of the unsupported evidence.  Which makes it an unsupported idea based off of unsupported evidence.  It’s that easy.

 

You've said a lot, and I am about to head out of town for a day or two. I don't have time to respond now, so I'll respond when I get back.

Yeah, I'm unusually verbose.  Sorry about that.

Your reply is in no rush at all.  I'm sure both of us need a rest from this discussion... I do anyway. ;)

Later.

“My confusion shown in this reply could stem from the fact that I define “came from nothing” as “an effect which arises uncaused from, no space, no time, no matter, etc”. Do you disagree with this definition? If not, then can you give one in the following post.”

I agree with your definition, except for the cause part.

”This is what confused me in your last post - your typing of "I brought it up as a example of how something can happen without a cause". But if your first quote is correct, then "we have never seen anything come from nothing in our universe". I'm sure I'm mis-interpreting your intentions here, because I don't think you'd make such a contradiction (you can correct me in the following post)...”

I intended to show that things can happen uncaused in our universe, not that something can come from nothing in our universe. As we can probably agree, we don’t see something coming from nothing in our universe ever, caused or not.

“All of the articles I’ve read online concerning this don’t put it that way - I.e. “without a cause”. They describe it as spontaneous, which is defined as something which is caused. If this is a spontaneous (caused) event, then how does it help you?”

Words have many definitions. Look at the physics. There is no event that causes the electron to fall. It just happens randomly.

“Your first sentence reads “I’m not trying to prove anything with that argument”, then you move on to what you’re trying to prove - how something can happen without a cause is reasonable. You’re giving observations, which take place in our universe, which, as you said, “prove nothing”. Okay, then, I’ll grant during this paragraph that it proves nothing. Now you’re entire point is moot like mine (like I typed earlier).”

Let me restate my intentions. That argument proves nothing about whatever is beyond our universe, but it does prove that in our universe, something happen without cause. I brought it up as a side note, to make it easier to wrap ones mind around the idea of the big bang happening uncaused. That was all I intended to do.

“I digress that you’ve shown that. Let’s be fair here: what you’re attempting to show is something which discounts science as a whole. As Tarmac noted, Philosopher of science Bernulf Kanitscheider would complain, it is "in head–on collision with the most successful ontological commitment that was a guiding line of research since Epicurus and Lucretius," namely, that out of nothing nothing comes, which Kanitscheider calls "a metaphysical hypothesis which has proved so fruitful in every corner of science that we are surely well–advised to try as hard as we can to eschew processes of absolute origin."

All I am saying is that we can assume nothing about anything beyond our universe. Laws that are common sense here are not necessarily followed there.

“[It’s] is true to an extent - I.e. if we’re attempting to evaluate the first cause (like it’s characteristics) according to scientific laws. This isn’t what I’m doing, though. I’m noting the first event (an effect) coming into existence from either something or nothing and questioning it. The first event is to be judged according to scientific laws like cause and effect for the universe cannot be beyond itself. It exists as according to laws. According to it‘s own law, it is an effect, and therefore demands a cause.””

But the law of cause and effect breaks down when the effect is the creation of the law of cause and effect itself (the beginning of the universe), so that argument falls apart.

“You did type that all you need is one evidence to prove your position, which would disprove my position (I gave the exact quote in my last post). This is using counterexamples just as Hovind does. You’re using Kent Hovind’s tactics in an attempt to verify/further push forth your position. This isn’t something I’d want to hold, if you know anything about Hovind’s claims.”

One EXAMPLE, not one piece of evidence. Let’s say I tell you that all apples are red, and you then show me a green apple. By showing me a green apple, you prove me wrong. That is exactly the argument I am using, except I am disproving the statement “all events are caused” by showing you an event that isn’t caused. The event is an example, not a piece of evidence. Similarly, Hovind would be perfectly correct to say that one piece of evidence for a young Earth disproves the statement “all evidence shows that the Earth is old.” Do you see the difference now?

“You overstate your position. My physicist friend has typed at PW…”

Pretty much nothing in science is 100% certain. To “prove” in science is really to show beyond reasonable doubt. One thing we can be certain of, though, is that we can’t assume that the laws that govern our universe are followed outside it.

Regarding your story, I am not trying to disprove the existence of God, because that is impossible. I am only trying to show you that you can’t prove the existence of God either.

“The parallel is obviously lacking. First off, I’m not omnipotent, which is the backbone of my response. I’m not omnipotent, yet I have the power to think of a flying cow. If humans had no ability to freely think of such things, you’d think it was ridiculous to even attempt to, but obviously it’s not ridiculous. Why? Because in that situation I’d be limited just as I’m limited to not make my thoughts a reality. God is not limited in that sense, though. This response doesn’t contain any logical contradictions, so I see no reason to not accept it.”

You’re missing the point here. What I am saying is that you are going in circles when you say that God can create the universe by thinking about it because he can do things like that.

“Science isn’t going to figure out what it came from with any empirically verified experiments. That’s impossible. That’s the subject that theoretical physicists and the such (Paul Davies for example) may get into, but they won’t be able to scientifically test their ideas because you just can’t use science to test that which isn’t observable, demonstrable, falsifiable, and tenable. That’s why we have theorists and philosophers.

I didn’t contradict myself, as you typed, because I’m using science in the Kalam argument just to give a defense for a singularity, then I move into more along the lines of a philosophical discussion in the conclusion. The same with the teleological argument.”

But even if we never understand the how the universe came to be, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a scientific explanation.

“I just noted that you grouped two obviously distinct ideas together as one. Even you admitted the difference, which means they value separation.”

I’m not sure what you’re talking about here.

“
You originally typed,

In other words, we can't assume that God was the only way the universe could have reached its present state from something that was already there, and thus we arrive at a contradiction.

I haven’t assumed that something was already there, which God used to create the universe. Hence, my reply to (2) with the notion of an internal cause; not a separate, distinct one.”

That is just part of a logical argument in which I consider all possibilities. I didn’t say anything about what you are assuming. There are two possibilities, that the universe came from something, or nothing (caused or uncaused). I assume both scenarios to be true, one at a time, and look at the implications of each one.

“Yes, that which it’s based off of, in an absolute sense has some supporting evidence, but it’s not based off of the supporting evidence. It’s based off of the unsupported evidence. Which makes it an unsupported idea based off of unsupported evidence. It’s that easy.”

If you dig deep enough, you will find science behind it. We’re really saying the same thing over and over again here, so let’s just agree to disagree on the brains theory thing, as it isn’t important to our discussion.
 

Now, it's your turn to be patient with my reply.  I'll give one as soon as I can.

No problem. Take your time.

you know sex with animals was considered perfectly normal before christianity began its repression?

No, I'm pretty sure it's always been considered perverse.  :P  

nope! the greeks and romans did it and saw no problem with it, they even drew it!  :P  

and to throw a flaming torch at everyone, i present to you realizing-weeks-too-late-that-this-thread-existed-or-rather-that-this-forum-still-existed post and a quote and a reply concerning one:

Current Christian Church.  Which do you mean? Roman Catholic? Methodist? Protestant? Or some other denominations that vaguely stemmed from Roman Catholic?

In any case, the only true Christians as I see it are the First Century Christians and those that try to follow their footsteps. (And when I mean that, I mean the first generation of Christians, in the first century CE.)
Anything later, and any Christians afterwards have been well infused by pagan ideas and thoughts, namely Norse, Greek, Babylonian, Roman, etc(don't take my word for it, look it up. I'm working off my memory right now)... Why else would Christmas coinside with the Sun God's pagan holiday? Why else would there be all these holidays (Jesus commanded only one event to be commemorated, and nothing else.) and saints (deification of normal humans, almost to the same status as God.  That's breaking one of the Ten Commandments.)?

Only after a century or two after Jesus died did the "Christians" extensively intermingled with the Greek theologians, and from there(and other modes of exchange of ideas) they borrowed/added hell, immortal soul, trinity, etc. into their beliefs.

The God, and the beliefs that current main-stream "Christians" believe aren't in fact what the First Century Christians believed.  I'd have mentioned more, but I think I've already repeated enough what I've mentioned before in a thread of mine in the Temple of Callignosity... Besides, it's getting long, too.

I'd suggest that the Orthodox are closest to the "original" Christians, since they keep almost all of the old traditions and practices of the church (and the Catholics stemmed from them, so they can be considered the current church too).  :)

As to saints:  THEY ARE NOT RAISED TO THE SAME STANDARD AS GOD.  No one in Christianity reaches that plateau.  The saints are mearly individuals who lead exemplary and holy lives, and who serve as good role models for how we should act.  They are not special in any other way.  ;)

The "original" Church believed in the trinity, heaven/hell, and the immortal soul- in fact, Jesus taught that all of those existed.  And yes, while mingling the early Christian-Jewish religon (since it was based predominantly on Judaism) and the pagans existed, has it in any way detrimentally affected the Church?  ;)

Ok, mine's getting long too!   LOL  

hrrm... alright, I apologize for my misconception that the saints were deified.
But that still doesn't change the fact that there are idols of them all around.
Whatever happened to the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not create images of any kind"? and this applies not just to the saints, but also to all the crosses, statues, etc...

enlighten me, where on earth did Jesus teach the existence of trinity, hell, and the immortal soul?  in all the years that i've been reading the bible itself, not once have i come across a passage that remotely acknowledges such a thing.

"detrimented the Church"? no, if that means making the faith compromised from the original teachings by Jesus just to have more people into the Church.
Jesus' teachings, which were based upon previous books in the Bible, should be the sole source of faith as the name "Christian" implies.

Previous rant concerning the three topics trinity, hell, and the immortal soul can be found here (http://www.bpsite.co.uk/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=34&t=1682&st=75). If you're too lazy to read through the 5th and 6th page (minus the random posts i stuck in there), i'll be copy-pasting entire sections of it here :P

Concluding Post on Kalam

This will be my concluding post concerning the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  Since it's the concluding post, it may become quite lengthy.  My apologies.


Out of nothing, nothing comes


It matters not.  Even if I grant you such an untenable, unjustified, and over-complex position, you’re still backed into a corner.  If the law of cause and effect began to exist at the Big Bang, then we can still use it to determine that the universe itself did have a cause.  It doesn’t matter at all whether it exists after the Big Bang or before the Big Bang.  What matters is that we can use this law to determine the universe as having a cause.
If the law began to exist, then we can use the law to judge itself.  According to the law of cause and effect, if it had a beginning, even the law itself had a cause for it’s existence.


I never said the law is to be used outside of our universe; though I do find it debatable (read above).


If something came into existence uncaused, then what did it come from?  There is no cause to it’s existence, so all that’s left is popping into existence from nothing.  The absence of everything leaves nothing.


But there is no definition to “spontaneous” at all which agrees with you - that spontaneous means “uncaused”.  The only challenge you offer to my definition is “words have many definitions”, which isn’t a direct reply to something which values a more direct approach.  I gave a definition, which not only a physics professor gave me, but a definition that an atheistic physicist even agrees with.  

1.  You’re yet to provide a definition which agrees with you, besides something which remains unjustified.
2.   You skipped over my physicist friend’s response.  He said even if no cause is found, it doesn’t entail no cause exists - one just hasn‘t presently been observed.  Scientists don’t blindly assume.  


If you’re example isn’t to be considered as demonstrable evidence/proof, then we can just go ahead and discard it, no?

You’re jumping to the conclusion, though.  I still disagree that you’ve given any example which is true.  All the scientists I know (even my atheist friend) disagrees with you.  I’m not using an argument from authority; though such arguments can be used, I believe.

Hovind is far from correct.  Even if he were to produce one evidence for a young earth, he, being an honest scientist, still has to respond to other available evidence.  He can’t just take that evidence, leap over opposing demonstrable evidence, then raise his hands in triumph.  Every scientist (even Darwin) had to disprove opposing evidence before positing their belief as tentatively true.


Serial Killer Defense

I was thinking about such a response and realized a serial killer can use it.  Imagine a situation in which David Berkowitz (Son of Sam) actually did kill his victims, but claimed that some human similar to him came into existence uncaused, killed the victims, then ran off into the moonlight.

The only difference between yours and David’s claim is the degree of complexity, but that matters not.  David can use the basics of your response as his defense and in your eyes be truly innocent.  

Seeing that I didn’t think of this earlier, I’ll respond to some expected replies.

1.  What of fingerprint evidence and such?  Remember that David posited another something like him coming into existence uncaused.  Fingerprints matching David’s is expected.

2.  The situation is way to complex to be parallel.  The situation is complex, but I’m not attacking the complexity of yours, so you shouldn’t attack the complexity of David’s.  Attack the complexity of David’s, then the complexity of yours values response also.  
All that I’m doing in this example is using the reasoning you’re using, then imaginatively placing it in David’s hands for defense.

God Created Something From Nothing?

I’m enjoying this part of the discussion.  In my opinion, this is the strongpoint of the discussion for you.  As Rocky Marciano would say, though, “you’ve hurt me, but I’m still standing”. :P  So, I think my response is still very much valid.  You type in opposition:


How is it circular, though?  Your summation of my position is a strawman at best.  I’m just saying I find it at the very least plausible for God to speak His thoughts into reality granted His omnipotence.  As an example, I gave human consciousness.  All I have to do is think of a purple rabbit and the image of a purple rabbit appears in my mind… and I’m not even omnipotent (nowhere near it).  Now, imagine an omnipotent God doing this.  I see no reason why He can’t consciously choose which thoughts He wants to make reality and which He doesn’t.  

Imagine if no human alive had the power to just think of a purple rabbit and get an image of it in their mind.  Just thinking about a human being able to do this would lead to intense skepticism, because those humans would be limited to not having that ability.  In the same sense, just as those humans wouldn’t have the ability to do that, nor do we have the ability to do that which God does.  This is a very reasonable argument, which still values a response.


It’s not that scientists don’t understand, but that, if they claim to understand that is a philosophical, not scientific discussion.  Any scientist will agree with me.  


Proving and Disproving God’s Existence


I can prove the existence of God, deductively, depending on the person.  A friend of mine, Strawman, does it all the time at MxPx’s forum.  I do find it possible to prove God’s existence in an epistemological fashion - I.e. that God’s existence is more probable in light of proof X.  
God’s existence has 20 supposed proofs for it, while you have no arguments against His existence.  So, you see, you may disagree with my proofs, but at least I do have proofs to debate/discuss.  You have no proof of God’s non-existence.  

I’m glad you brought this up, though.  You said you can’t disprove God’s existence, but this is what atheism is - the belief that God does not exist.  It isn’t the belief “God’s existence is unlikely”; though some negative atheists would digress.  If you say God’s existence is unlikely, then there still remains the possibility of God’s existence being likely; therefore, moving you into something more along the lines of agnosticism (someone not knowing for sure).

Even if I had no evidences for God’s existence, it would still be likely for God to exist.  To say otherwise is a logical fallacy.


CONCLUSION

In conclusion to the Kalam Argument, I see it as coming out unscathed; though you may disagree.  You attacked premise 1 with one example, which remains unjustified, highly speculative, and unscientific.  It’s very unusual for one of my atheist friends to agree with me, but one does here… and that one happens to be a physicist.  Not only him, but every physicist I e-mailed agreed that you’re misinterpreting the example (I gave one of them as example).

To support my conclusion to the Kalam, I believe I used the Anthropic Principle, showed opposing beliefs as demonstrably fallacious, then I used the “inference to best explanation”.
You may respond to them now, but we’ve already discussed the third for a bit and I went in-depth in proving the God hypothesis as a better explanation than those in opposition.  I’ve also went in-depth in showing opposing beliefs as demonstrably fallacious.  Therefore, I find the God hypothesis, according to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, as very likely to be correct.


If you want we can delve into some other arguments?  Perhaps the Teleological argument or JP Holding’s “Impossible Faith” argument I gave?  If you don’t have the time, then I understand.

-Spawn

GandalfTheOld,

Good day.  I have a response to this:


Why does it just have to be Jesus teaching it?  You do realize Jesus didn't write one single word in the New Testament, right?  Therefore, if we aren't to acknowledge what other books have to say (i.e. Paul), then we aren't to acknowledge the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.  I don't think you'll go so far, though, because that would stop the discussion.  

With that in mind, I'll delve into scripture from both the Old Testament and New Testament...

1.  Genesis 1:26-27
(26) "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."
(27) "So God created man in his own image..."

  An anti-Trinitarian cannot deny the fact that in verse 26 God states "in our image... after our likeness...".  What kind of response would they have?  The only one would be, "but in verse 27 it states, "in his own image...".  Yet, they only answered a question with a circular question, for it leads back to, what about the "our"?  Their response is circular reasoning and it's best and is, therefore, not a rational position to hold.
  What about the Trinitarian position?  We can easily answer that in verse 26 God is stressing to show us that He is made up of other parts; hence, why he states "our...", yet those parts make up "him"; hence, "hist own image...".  

2.  Mathew 27:46
"At about three o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud shout, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why did you abandon me?"

  Let's take this in the anti-Trinitarian point-of-view, which states that God is one and only one with nothing making up that one (if you believe the opposite of that, then you're a Trinitarian).
So, taking it the anti-Trinitarian way, Jesus is stating:

"Jesus cried out with a loud shout... Myself, Myself, why did I abandon myself"?

  How can anti-Trinitarians hold such a contradicting view.  This is calling Jesus a lunatic -- he shouts out to himself and then asks himself questions?  Surely, anyone reading this must concede that Jesus was demonstrably shouting out to someone else.

  However, I know of only [one] comeback to this point -- that it was the human part of Jesus that was crying out.  But this is just absurd.  Points to consider:

1.   What is this "human" self?  Did Christ invade a human body and take it over?  I was under the impression that Christ was "himself" and grew up as "himself" (wholly human with divine attributes), therefore, crossing out this comeback with "his human part...".
2.  They may as well state that Jesus was confused over his own body and couldn't contain it (yet, he performed miraculous deeds)... whatever this "human self" is?

3.  John 14
(1) "...Jesus told them.  "Believe in God and believe also in me."
(2) "There are many rooms in my Father's house..."
(6) "Jesus answered... I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one goes to the Father except through me."
(7) "Now that you have known me," he said to them, "you will know my Father also, and from now on you do know him and you have seen him."
(9-10) Jesus answered... "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father... I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me"

  Jesus has shown an obvious degree of separation, yet completeness between himself and the Father.  Jesus states, "I am in the Father and the Father is in me", so this agrees with the Trinitarian position 100%; unless, you dare hold the position that God is holding upon false personalities for no reason at all.  
  Jesus also puts it forth that no one goes to the Father except through him.  What anti-Trinitarians hold is that Jesus was stating, "no one goes to me except through me".  This is basically stating that no one is to go to Christ; except, if they go through Christ.  The question "huh?" can't help, but be asked.  Keep in mind:

1.  Why did Christ not just state that; why state "father"?
2.  The statement "no one goes to me except through me" makes no sense, for, if you go through him, then you are still [in a sense] going to him.  How can you go to without going through or towards?
3.  Why would God create fake personalities that don't exist?
4.  It makes much more sense with the literal reading -- "no one goes to the father except through me".

  But, this is just two of the many scriptures -- what about verse 1 above?  According to anti-Trinitarians, Christ is stating, "Believe in me and believe also in me."  But that's an obvious contradiction and makes no sense to be said.  The original statement is the one that makes sense and it agrees with the Trinitarian position.

  Other questions are:
1.  Why say, in verse 2, "my Father's house...", if, according to the anti-Trinitarian belief, there is no reason to say "Father", but there is only reason to say "... many rooms in my house..." < if their belief is true, Christ would have stated that, but He shows a degree of separation between himself and the Father --

2.  The confusion still reigns when reading verse (7).  If anti-Trinitarians are right, Jesus would have said, "Now that you have known me, you will know me also, and from now on you do know me and have seen me".  Surely, such a contradicting statement needn't be held... so why hold it?  The four points above are valid on this, because I don't think I need to go any further.

I'll get into the other subjects after this one.

Ciao,

Spawn

My post, sans direct quotes, about the images:

The commandment states that people are not to make any graven image, with the assumption that if they did, they would then worship it.  Since I'm Orthodox, I don't know why statues are around (the Church disapproves of them), but icons, crosses, etc are not in violation.  These things are venerated by the faithful, who acknowledge that they should not be worshipped as God himself, but rather as reminders of how to lead a holy life.  

-Notice how in the Orthodox Church there is never an icon of God himself, but the ones there depict Biblical stories and happenings.

-Whoever worships a cross is totally off the deep end, seeing as it is only a physical representation of the extreme humility of Christ... another thing people should aspire to.

/Sorry, but it's late and I'm tired.  I'll get back to you too, when my thoughts are more together.  :)  

"It matters not. Even if I grant you such an untenable, unjustified, and over-complex position, you’re still backed into a corner. If the law of cause and effect began to exist at the Big Bang, then we can still use it to determine that the universe itself did have a cause. It doesn’t matter at all whether it exists after the Big Bang or before the Big Bang. What matters is that we can use this law to determine the universe as having a cause.
If the law began to exist, then we can use the law to judge itself. According to the law of cause and effect, if it had a beginning, even the law itself had a cause for it’s existence."

But the big bang started with a singularity, at which all laws of physics break down. That prevents us from using what we observe in the universe now to infer anything about what came "before" the big bang. There is a speech posted on Stephen Hawking's website where he mentions that, in fact. I'll cite it if I can track it down.

"I never said the law is to be used outside of our universe; though I do find it debatable (read above)."

In that case you can't say that the big bang needs a cause. The laws of cause and effect existed only after the big bang.

"If something came into existence uncaused, then what did it come from? There is no cause to it’s existence, so all that’s left is popping into existence from nothing. The absence of everything leaves nothing."

If something comes into from nothing with a cause, what is the difference? It's still something coming from nothing.

"But there is no definition to “spontaneous” at all which agrees with you - that spontaneous means “uncaused”. The only challenge you offer to my definition is “words have many definitions”, which isn’t a direct reply to something which values a more direct approach. I gave a definition, which not only a physics professor gave me, but a definition that an atheistic physicist even agrees with. "

One definition is no external cause. That doesn't mean that a cause is necessary, and in the case of an electron, there isn't one, so far as we know.

"You skipped over my physicist friend’s response. He said even if no cause is found, it doesn’t entail no cause exists - one just hasn‘t presently been observed. Scientists don’t blindly assume."

I did indeed respond to that. I said that practically nothing in science is 100% certain. We can only go by what the evidence strongly suggests. Regardless, if that doesn't satisfy you, the same logic can be turned the other way. No matter how many caused events we see, we can't assume that every event has a cause, because it may be that we just haven't seen an uncaused event yet, or we think we no of a cause but we are wrong.

"If you’re example isn’t to be considered as demonstrable evidence/proof, then we can just go ahead and discard it, no?

You’re jumping to the conclusion, though. I still disagree that you’ve given any example which is true. All the scientists I know (even my atheist friend) disagrees with you. I’m not using an argument from authority; though such arguments can be used, I believe."

I'm not using that example as part of my argument, remember? I was trying to show that not all events in our universe are caused. That's just a simple matter of the laws of logic. One thing that happens uncaused disproves the statement "everything has  a cause." In science, the term proof is used rather loosely, since few things can really be proved with 100% certainty. If you don't like the term "proof", I'll say that I have shown that the evidence strongly suggests that de-excitation can happen uncaused, and thus not all events in our universe are caused. Either way, it is not part of my argument, as I have said before.

"Hovind is far from correct. Even if he were to produce one evidence for a young earth, he, being an honest scientist, still has to respond to other available evidence. He can’t just take that evidence, leap over opposing demonstrable evidence, then raise his hands in triumph. Every scientist (even Darwin) had to disprove opposing evidence before positing their belief as tentatively true."

No one here is saying Hovind is correct, or defending his argument. However, it is true that if he found a piece of evidence suggesting a young Earth, he would prove the statement "some evidence suggests the Earth is young," or "not all evidence suggests the Earth is old." That is a long way from proving that the Earth is young, though.

On the serial killer argument,
You're talking about a situation in which the laws of physics hold, and the laws of physics say that an intelligent thinking human being can't spring into existence from nothing, caused or not. At a singularity the laws of physics break down, so the circumstances are different.

"How is it circular, though? Your summation of my position is a strawman at best. I’m just saying I find it at the very least plausible for God to speak His thoughts into reality granted His omnipotence. As an example, I gave human consciousness. All I have to do is think of a purple rabbit and the image of a purple rabbit appears in my mind… and I’m not even omnipotent (nowhere near it). Now, imagine an omnipotent God doing this. I see no reason why He can’t consciously choose which thoughts He wants to make reality and which He doesn’t."

I could make any number of other claims about how the universe came to be that aren't any less valid, simply because there is no science that can explain them. Suppose we're really in a giant marble like in Men in Black? There's no science to explain how that is remotely possible. Hawking has shown that there is a high probability that a universe like ours could come into existence uncaused, which is not proof by any means, but it adds a much higher degree of validity to that explanation.

"Imagine if no human alive had the power to just think of a purple rabbit and get an image of it in their mind. Just thinking about a human being able to do this would lead to intense skepticism, because those humans would be limited to not having that ability. In the same sense, just as those humans wouldn’t have the ability to do that, nor do we have the ability to do that which God does. This is a very reasonable argument, which still values a response."

Creating an image in one's mind is a long, long way from creating a purple rabbit. Among other things, it violates the law that in our universe, matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. That is not a problem at the big bang, where the laws of physics break down. Regardless, a lot of things happen in our universe that humans are not capable of. For example, light from nearby stars makes it to Earth in a few years, but humans certainly can't. I'm not claiming that I can disprove that God could create the universe by thinking about it, because that would contradict my claim that we can't assume the laws of physics in our universe hold outside it. I just don't give that explanation much merit because no one has been able to come up with any science behind it.

"It’s not that scientists don’t understand, but that, if they claim to understand that is a philosophical, not scientific discussion. Any scientist will agree with me. "

You're missing the point. There is a scientific explanation for the properties of the higly pressurized hydrogen deep inside Jupiter, but we really don't know much about it because we can't replicate the conditions. The same applies to the beginning of the universe.

"Even if I had no evidences for God’s existence, it would still be likely for God to exist. To say otherwise is a logical fallacy."

As long as there are equal or better explanations out there, you can't call it likely, just possible.

"In conclusion to the Kalam Argument, I see it as coming out unscathed; though you may disagree. You attacked premise 1 with one example, which remains unjustified, highly speculative, and unscientific. It’s very unusual for one of my atheist friends to agree with me, but one does here… and that one happens to be a physicist. Not only him, but every physicist I e-mailed agreed that you’re misinterpreting the example (I gave one of them as example)."

My attack on premise one is that we can't assume our laws of physics hold outside out universe, not de-excitation.

"To support my conclusion to the Kalam, I believe I used the Anthropic Principle, showed opposing beliefs as demonstrably fallacious, then I used the “inference to best explanation”.
You may respond to them now, but we’ve already discussed the third for a bit and I went in-depth in proving the God hypothesis as a better explanation than those in opposition. I’ve also went in-depth in showing opposing beliefs as demonstrably fallacious. Therefore, I find the God hypothesis, according to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, as very likely to be correct."

I think it's quite a bit of a stretch to say that either of us has proved anything.

"If you want we can delve into some other arguments? Perhaps the Teleological argument or JP Holding’s “Impossible Faith” argument I gave? If you don’t have the time, then I understand.'"

I'm crunched at the moment, but in a week or so I'll probably have some time to get into the Teleological argument.
 

That last post was me, if you didn't guess.
-Blake

Hierophilia this is why god was invented


sheesh you god squad dudes need to get a real life... you wanna worship something then worship the earth, sea and sky

and you need to post a pic of yourself for us to drool over  ;)  

in other words "guest" they should be worshiping mother nature? like wiccans?

they shouldn't be worshipping anything.  it's pointless.

ouch that hurts a bit but hey ur opinion ur entitled to it.

why's that hurt?

cuz I'm Christian...and worship God...and u of course  :wub:  

worshipping... there's no point... if there would be a God he/she/it shouldn't want you to waste your time with worshipping, he/she/it should make you do something 'good' for the world and stuff and don't waste your time with learning a lot about god and worshipping

Hmm... I'd rather worship Gabriel... my cat. :D  

couldn't have said it better. :)  

that's how u do worship opper, at least that is how I do it, when I do it.  LOL  

you can still worship God and do good things at the same time.