The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

AtomicHorror

Soul Winner wrote: »

It probably does but that does not mean that it is false.

Quite true, what it means is that we should have evidence that leads us to assume the more complex version of events is plausible. Essentially, we don't throw a complicated black box with a question mark on it into every blank space in our knowledge. That's irrational. We start simple, and if the simple explanation is not borne out by the evidence, we change our model. What you're doing is starting from the other end and refusing to move.

Soul Winner wrote: »

If it is impossible for the laws of physics as we now know them to operate as they do now, at or before the big bang singularity then how can we test, measure and/or experiment with anything beyond that point even if we knew for certain that there is no God? It will forever remain a domain for the theoretical.

We're limited only by what we can observe. So if things we cannot directly observe have influence over the universe, we can still derive information about the indirectly observed from that. It's certainly a limitation, but not the extent you're suggesting.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Doesn't it just prove that science as a method of finding stuff out will forever remain a viable method limited to the confines of our observable universe?

Doesn't that just mean that science is a tool "limited" to the explanation of everything we can observe? If we can't observe a thing or observe it's influence removed by n degrees, then what relevance has it?

Soul Winner wrote: »

But if God exists then He must exist wholly separate from the created universe, and must be eternal in nature having no beginning and therefore no cause.

If He ever influenced the universe or influences it now then He is indirectly observable and subject to scientific modelling.

Soul Winner

AtomicHorror wrote: »

And can only be true if God isn't a thing.

I was referring to the created universe, the things which have their origin in the observable universe. But if we define God as spirit like the quote from Jesus on my sig states or as some who like to say 'an un-embodied mind', a consciousness with infinite power, then that 'thing' is only a thing in the sense that our own consciousness is a thing, having no matter, energy, or time associated with its composition. And as science can only involve itself with the study of what is tangible like matter, energy etc then that other invisible realm also exists wholly separate from the tangible created universe or at least from scientific experimentation unless it can be shown conclusively where matter and consciousness meet. The study of the universe from a scientific point of view is solely related to what can be observed. Can we observe consciousness or spiritual things? When one says "when not a thing was created" one is referring to the tangible things in reality. To say God does not exist because He is not tangible is like saying that consciousness does not exist, or that morality doesn't exist or beauty doesn't exist because they too are not tangible.

The Mad Hatter

Soul Winner wrote: »

It probably does but that does not mean that it is false. If it is impossible for the laws of physics as we now know them to operate as they do now, at or before the big bang singularity then how can we test, measure and/or experiment with anything beyond that point even if we knew for certain that there is no God? It will forever remain a domain for the theoretical. Doesn't it just prove that science as a method of finding stuff out will forever remain a viable method limited to the confines of our observable universe? But if God exists then He must exist wholly separate from the created universe, and must be eternal in nature having no beginning and therefore no cause.

Yes, but I really don't understand the thought process it takes to get from 'we don't know how it happened' to 'God did it'. Or from 'If God exists He must be eternal' to 'God exists'.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

To say God does not exist because He is not tangible is like saying that consciousness does not exist

Well yes, it is

You define "spirit" as being something absent of matter or energy, totally un-observable and un-testable.

So how do you even know it exists?

More importantly how can you state that it is absence of matter or energy?

While you guys apparently love doing this, it is highly illogical to list off the properties of something that you also claim is unknowable. That is a paradox.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

God spoke and nothing turned into everything. Yes everything is clear now

I understand what the passage is saying, what I don't understand is what it means, what are the logistics, as a project manager might ask.

What did God actually do, he obviously didn't "speak" because speech is a vibration of air caused by the muscles in the vocal cord, a muscles I imagine God doesn't have. So he presumably wished it to happen, but what does that mean in terms of a superpowerful deity that doesn't exist in linear time. Was there a point when he hadn't wished this, he wished it and then everything changed? Or was he always wishing this to happen, for all eternity, which would suggest that the universe existed as soon as God existed.

And how did he turn nothing into something. Where did the something come from. Did it exist some where else before is was our universe? Did the "nothing" turn into "something" and if so what did God do that caused that to happen

As has already been mentioned a few times, "God did it" is not an answer, it is simply a package containing a billion more questions.

I don't know how He was able to do it, I just believe He did it and by speaking, air or no air.

Wicknight wrote: »

I find it rather difficult to accept a god that would be angry with humans for being truthful and admitting that they don't know stuff. I find it rather difficult to accept a god that would be angry with humans for not accepting what he is supposed to have written in a holy book a few thousand years ago without a confirm-able or testable framework.

If He exists at all then it would appear that He is not asking to be accepted by anyone. From His point of view it is us He is accepting.

Wicknight wrote: »

If a god exists he is probably a scientist and as such should find this attitude proper, rather than finding it a reason to enact wrath and vengeance.

Well yeah that is probably true. I'm sure He has nothing against scientists per se or science for that matter or even the scientific method, what it appears He is not over fond of are people who will not give Him glory for what He has created and would rather credit something else with its creation no matter how ludicrous it is. Now you might not like a God like that, but if He exists at all then your acceptance of Him really doesn't matter. I'm not trying to be funny or anything but if you could step outside of yourself for a second and see how ludicrous your viewpoint is in relation to a possible creator of you. Does the clay talk back to the potter? If He exists then He is the giver of life. Your maker. He is worthy of praise and glory no?

Wicknight wrote: »

But then your god started to appear in human culture around the time when all this scientific study meant diddly squat, when superstition and supernatural were accepted with open hands, so it is not particularly surprising that your god reflects this attitude some what.

I know you don't like that side of God's nature but it really doesn't matter in the long run what you like. If He exists then it is He who is doing the accepting and rejecting not you or I. It is not about what you like, or what I like or what anyone else likes. If He exists then it is all about what He likes, always was and always will be and we are only free to accept or reject that. And sure if He doesn't exist then there is nothing to worry about.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

If He exists then He is the giver of life. Your maker. He is worthy of praise and glory no?

well no, that isn't how it works.

if a human created artificial intelligence (something humans may do in the next 100 years, it would not only be odd of a human to then require worship and praise from this newly created intelligence, but in fact I think the rest of us would look at him oddly for demanding such a thing

the idea that we should worship something that created us is an ancient and rather primitive human idea that goes back to the days of kings and class society. It has little justification in a modern post-enlightenment society. We don't worship our kings, we don't worship our parents, we don't worship our gods.

and to be honest if God exists and is supposed to be perfect from a moral point of view he would be the first to agree with this. he would no more expect us to worship and praise him (why dyoes a god want praise?) than I would expect A.I created by me to worship and praise me.

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

and to be honest if God exists and is supposed to be perfect from a moral point of view he would be the first to agree with this. he would no more expect us to worship and praise him (why dyoes a god want praise?) than I would expect A.I created by me to worship and praise me.

Might look for a "thank you" though. He could buy you a beer at least.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Might look for a "thank you" though. He could buy you a beer at least.

well depends. if I told my A.I that if he didn't worship me I would cause him to suffer he might be a bit annoyed that I created him in the first place. i think the beer would be off the table at that point

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

well depends. if I told my A.I that if he didn't worship me I would cause him to suffer he might be a bit annoyed that I created him in the first place. i think the beer would be off the table at that point

Depends on whether you programmed him to love you!

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

But if irreducibly complex things cannot come into existence without intelligent intervention over the course of 14 billion years of time, then why does it make sense that such a thing could exist in zero time without any external intervention?

Does your model not simply leave us with more questions to answer, rather than less?

Not with the givens of both systems. God being eternal, self-existent is a given. Your materialistic universe, however, has only original energy as the given. It has to account, using physical/chemical explanations, for how that energy became so organised that basic life came about, and that evolved to the incredible complexity we see today.

Perhaps you need to read a bit of Pullman? In his promotion of atheism he resorts to pantheism - that matter itself has a desire/purpose that causes it to develop from simple energy to complex lifeforms.

A desperate attempt to avoid the truth about God, but a more coherent explanation of reality than your dead-dog mechanistic model.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not with the givens of both systems. God being eternal, self-existent is a given. Your materialistic universe, however, has only original energy as the given. It has to account, using physical/chemical explanations, for how that energy became so organised that basic life came about, and that evolved to the incredible complexity we see today.

Perhaps you need to read a bit of Pullman? In his promotion of atheism he resorts to pantheism - that matter itself has a desire/purpose that causes it to develop from simple energy to complex lifeforms.

A desperate attempt to avoid the truth about God, but a more coherent explanation of reality than your dead-dog mechanistic model.

Naturalistic Explanation = Complex systems arising through complex processes.

Theistic Explanation = God, who has always been there, just made it by speaking.

Wonderful...

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

If that is true then it [the universe] brought itself into existence. But how could that be so when it didn't exist?

When did the universe not exist?

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

A desperate attempt to avoid the truth about God, but a more coherent explanation of reality than your dead-dog mechanistic model.

...All you do is post rhetoric... What's it like to type so much, yet say so little?

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not with the givens of both systems. God being eternal, self-existent is a given. Your materialistic universe, however, has only original energy as the given. It has to account, using physical/chemical explanations, for how that energy became so organised that basic life came about, and that evolved to the incredible complexity we see today.

We don't really have givens in our model of absolute cause, partly because we don't have a model of absolute cause and partly because any such model would itself surely be all about explaining the givens. We don't know what everything came from. It may all simply have existed in another configuration prior to the big bang. Or that might really be the origin of everything, though that still leaves questions. The point is, we're making models based on what we know, and beyond that we have hypotheses. Putting God into the mix is suggested by nothing we have observed except a book. We may have much to account for. But if you are to approach this scientifically, you have to account for all of the same stuff we can observe, then account for the existence of an irreducibly complex being in an extradimensional space without time, and then explain how (without any time within which to be a causal agent or to become complex) that being created and interacted with a new universe of a nature entirely alien to it.

That's a real mess, but one which you seek to avoid by calling God a given.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Perhaps you need to read a bit of Pullman? In his promotion of atheism he resorts to pantheism - that matter itself has a desire/purpose that causes it to develop from simple energy to complex lifeforms.

To be fair, he was writing a fantasy story. He's an atheist, so if he's referring to matter having purpose (I haven't read the books) that's hardly an indication of his beliefs. And of course, that could in fact be our old friend metaphor. Matter, anthropomorphized, could be said to have purpose. It "wants" if you like, to follow the laws of physics. We often use such language when learning about concepts in science. We say that atoms "want" to fill their electron shells, though of course we know they have no wants.

wolfsbane wrote: »

A desperate attempt to avoid the truth about God, but a more coherent explanation of reality than your dead-dog mechanistic model.

Tell me Wolfie, have you worked out a way to test the difference between revelation and delusion yet? Since delusion or rebellion are the only possible motives we might have to desperately avoid the truth about God, such a test would be very useful.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Depends on whether you programmed him to love you!

touche :pac:

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Tell me Wolfie, have you worked out a way to test the difference between revelation and delusion yet? Since delusion or rebellion are the only possible motives we might have to desperately avoid the truth about God, such a test would be very useful.

He doesn't need to. He "just knows"

Bit like God just exists, and he just made the universe

:pac:

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

He doesn't need to. He "just knows"

Bit like God just exists, and he just made the universe

:pac:

Well, I note that in the Homosexuality thread he explains that he positively identifies a revelation by:

1. Comparing it to things in the bible
2. Comparing it to other revelations described by other people
3. Assessing the outcome of his belief in the context of Christian morality

Problems:

3. Can provide a false positive- many atheists and people of differing religions inadvertently act in accordance with Christian morals. If they claim to have had revelations, that caused them to act as such, but which also contradict scripture then Wolfsbane will consider them deluded. Thus, following this point alone, Wolfsbane himself could as easily be led to do good by delusion as by revelation.

2. Other Christian revelations are determined as true based on 3, 2 and 1 and so 2 in itself is not actually meaningful.

1. Wolfie says that he knows that his revelations are real because the bible says so. However, he also knows that the bible is truthful because his revelations say so. Circular reasoning.

Both his assessment of the literal or general truth of the bible and his assessment of the truth of his revelations as processes lack any means of verification. He's leaving himself no possible exit from the loop.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Both his assessment of the literal or general truth of the bible and his assessment of the truth of his revelations as processes lack any means of verification. He's leaving himself no possible exit from the loop.

Isn't that the point.

No way to verify and thus no possibly way to be show it is wrong or untrue. Provides comforting answers with no challenge or possibility of disappointment. Bit like internet girlfriends

AtomicHorror

Wicknight wrote: »

Provides comforting answers with no challenge or possibility of disappointment. Bit like internet girlfriends

I had one many years ago and she stopped IM-ing me. That was disappointing. Your analogy enrages and confuses me.

kiffer

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I had one many years ago and she stopped IM-ing me. That was disappointing. Your analogy enrages and confuses me.

Was her name Eliza?
Eliza's sister Jenny18 never disappoints.


I find the idea of wolfie's divine inspiration totally fascinating... what amazes me more is that there is less debate amongst the Christians about it, most Christians I know don't claim to have had such revelations and many Christians disagree about interpretation of some scripture...

Clearly invoking divine inspiration is seen by some as a trump card... and by others as a major failure in logic.

This is clearly an impasse... stick to the demonstrable evidence, (I know it's got the word demon in it but it's ok), if you're right you should be able to show it.

Just as "God doesn't exist, so he couldn't have made the universe" is a poor argument, so is "God told me he did so all your evidence is wrong".


We can't tell the deluded mad man from the inspired holy man...
Both say "God told me...!", neither present any credible evidence, which is odd because you'd think that the inspired holy man might be able to find something to prove his point...

AtomicHorror

kiffer wrote: »

I find the idea of wolfie's divine inspiration totally fascinating... what amazes me more is that there is less debate amongst the Christians about it, most Christians I know don't claim to have had such revelations and many Christians disagree about interpretation of some scripture...

I may be wrong in this but I think continuing revelation/personal revelation are features of some denominations of Christianity, but are not features of Catholic belief. That may be why we don't hear it mentioned so often here.

2Scoops

Was at a debate recently with Dinesh D'Souza. As a self-described Catholic, he leaned dangerously close to Creationism with some of his comments and seemed ignorant of some of Catholicism's tenets. So, who knows what Catholicism entails these days? Certainly not Catholics!

Soul Winner

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well you see that's the problem. If God didn't create it then the universe came from nothing and by nothing. But how can everything (the universe we observe) come from nothing and by nothing? If the universe didn't exist then not even the potential for the universe existed, and yet we are suppose to just accept that the universe just sprang into existence from nothing and by nothing.

It's an impossible concept to try and imagine. Perhaps the universe did come into existance "from nothing and by nothing" - I, nor nobody else, knows. But, even if it did, it's not that very unplausible, at least in comparison to the god concept. Perhaps the singularity that "gave birth" to the universe has just always existed - because it wasn't encompassed in space and time, it would have existed for eternity. The same "rules" that theists apply to God could be applied to it. Perhaps the potential for the universe was eternal; perhaps the singularity was eternal. This would mean that it had no beginning, that it wasn't "created". A point of potential - of energy - existing eternally is certianly more believable than an intelligent being existing eternally.

If the "branes" (Membrane) theory is correct then it might explain the big bang but where did the ‘branes’ come from? Are we supposed to just believe that 'they' always existed in nothing? That takes a lot of faith doesn't it?

This is what really annoys me: theists scrunitize the fundamental ideas behind scientific "creation" hypotheses. They find it impossible to accept that perhaps the potential, or indeed the energy for the universe has just always existed. Yet, they find no problem in saying that god has always existed.

If the universe really is all there is and it encapsulates all and every reality there is to know, then how could it have come from nothing and by nothing when not even the potential for such an event existed before it came into existence?

How do you know the potential didn't exist? No generally accepted scientific theory that I know of postulates that the universe came from nothing.

Zombrex

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

How do you know the potential didn't exist? No generally accepted scientific theory that I know of postulates that the universe came from nothing.

Careful

The universe did (or probably did) come from "nothing", but that gets into an interesting discussion about what "nothing" is. In scientific terms it means a vacuum, but even in a vacuum there exists fields, just fields at zero-energy.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

Careful

The universe did (or probably did) come from "nothing", but that gets into an interesting discussion about what "nothing" is. In scientific terms it means a vacuum, but even in a vacuum there exists fields, just fields at zero-energy.

Well, yah. It just depends on what you're definition of nothing is. But I wouldn't agree with a vacuum being considered nothing. Nothing, to me anyway, is an infinite complete-void. So in that sense, fields, even at zero energy, can't exist in nothing.

Maybe nothing should be defined? I think an infinite void is a satisfactory definition.

(But, I don't want to help to create arguments for the theists!).

AtomicHorror

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Maybe nothing should be defined? I think an infinite void is a satisfactory definition.

Not really, since a void has spatial dimensions. It has size. Actual nothing simply... is not.

Zombrex

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Not really, since a void has spatial dimensions. It has size.

Exactly what I was about to say

How about a dimensionless infinite absolute-void?

AtomicHorror

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

How about a dimensionless infinite absolute-void?

I think "nothing" is more or less self-defined. No matter, energy, forces, space or time. No things.

kiffer

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

How about a dimensionless infinite absolute-void?

if it's dimensionless does it not count as a singularity? having no length, breadth or depth?