The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

What confirms Christian belief is when one experiences God for themselves. It's an important distinction.

What about the people who had a prior relationship with God and then realised that maybe it was just all in their head? I had dam good relationship with Him for ages and many other non Christians (indeed other theists) are the same.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

What about the people who had a prior relationship with God and then realised that maybe it was just all in their head?

If it was just in their head, then they didn't have a relationship with God did they?

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

The existence of authority is a difficult one, and people generally don't want to accept the implications of this, especially divine authority.

While I can understand your train of thought, you're wrong because generally, it's been shown to be the opposite. The human brain has a natural predisposition to beleive in the supernatural, and science is on my side.

I can tell you from my perspective that it was purely rational, critical thought and logic that led me away from religion. But this conversation will go nowhere becuase I can't prove that to you.

The primary reason why I think that a purely natural world is impossible, is due to the fact that the likelihood of our existence being as it is makes winning the lottery every day throughout the entire year look like a near certainty.

This is the argument from fine tuning. The anthropic principle doesn't really satisfy me either, but when you look at the sheer vastness of the universe the probablity of at least one planet being able to support life increases dramatically, don't you think? I used the lottery analogy for this before where you play it millions of times.

I can't get myself to ignore the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" or the question "What purpose does this existence serve?". This is a major reason why I can't hold to your view

.

These are philosophical questions. Why does there have to be a purpose. Again, it has been shown that the human mind is predisposed to attribute purpose and pattern to things, and our existence is no exception. It doesn't mean there has to be a purpose! We are fallible..

Place names aren't proof. The point of that argument was to back up that the Bible is reliable, even then it wasn't the only thing that I had provided. I had provided archaeology that backs up Biblical claims. Every day of the week this is cropping up in Israel and Jordan. Just before Christmas, we had the refutation to the skeptics claim that Nazareth didn't exist at the time of Jesus. A settlement was found there dating to the time of Christ. King Zedekiah's cave (featured in the historical books of the Jewish text, and in the prophesy of Jeremiah) was found underneath the city of Jerusalem. As more and more is becoming apparent, and as we have reason to believe that divine involvement in Creation isn't unreasonable in the slightest. These reasons, edge us more to regarding the Bible as truth.

They do not prove that it is truth, but rather they provide evidence to suggest that it is likely to be true. I've never claimed that the Bible has been proven.

But you are making a massive massive leap when you go from existence of places and settlements in the Bible to assuming that the supernatural stories are true too! Nobody is disputing that the things that are described in the Bible are all wrong, but then you can't just deduct that if 99% of a book is shown to be true, the other 1% is true, ESPECIALLY when the 1% is a crazy supernatual claim. This is a logical fallacy I imagine...

Those 9 arguements you listed. It might be interesting to create a seperate thread for each of them on the Atheism forum?

I believe that these events are certainly possible if God exists. If God doesn't exist, if everything is material, then of course I would reject this. The problem is that I am convinced of God's existence, that's why I will view miracles as being different to how you would view them.

See, you just regressed the problem back a step. Now the problem is with showing the probablility of Yahweh's existence.

equivariant

I shouldn't really waste any energy on this, but I couldn't resist...

J C wrote: »

...I too am a qualified Mathematician!!!
...you ask me for precision ... and then don't use it yourself!!!

A qualified mathematician? Really? What was your dissertation on? Where did you study? What journals have you published in? Even if you haven't published in any journals, you should at least be able to quote one original theorem that you have proved. Can you?

Where exactly was I imprecise?

...I actually said that "because the non-functional combinatorial space is effectively infinite ... while the functional combinatorial space is very often a singularity!!!
...the reciprocal of these two figures is zero ... i.e. it is a mathematical impossibility to spontaneously produce functional CSI, on any significant scale."
It is quite clear from the above statement that I am talking about something that is effectively infinite i.e. it is for all practical purposes infinite and therefore the reciprocal is also effectivly zero (i.e. for all practical purposes it is zero).

Repeating the same nonsense again doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

"for all practical purposes" is a meaningless phrase in a mathematical argument.

...the following link to a Mathematical Physicist (who confirms, that for all practical purposes, the reciprocal of infinity is zero) is an adequate antidote to all mathematical 'airy-fairy' baloney ... this Mathematical Physicist also shares my distain for mathematicians who 'protest too much' over arcane and practical irrelevancies within their particular discipline!!!
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/math99/math99008.htm

Fair enough, so you don't like all this mathematical 'airy-fairy' baloney. First that seems a strange sentiment for a "qualified mathematician". Second, you can't have it both ways. If you want to claim mathematical proof then you have to adhere to mathematical rigour.

Many physicists make the mistake of believing that mathematics exists only for their benefit - it does not. It exists as a tool for all of human intellectual endeavour. This is one of the reasons why mathematics requires strict standards of rigour.

Another mathematician once told me that nobody can mathematically prove that 2 + 2 = 4 !!!

This is simply false. He wasn't much of a mathematician if he was unaware ot Russell's Principia.

... believe it of not, Pure Mathematicians don't actually know what infinity is ... even though they have a symbol for it!!!

Again, this is just false. As any 'qualified mathematician' would know. Infinite sets are precisely the subject of much of classical set theory. They are well understood by mathematicians and consequently mathematics has a profound understanding of the concept of infinity, or in you less precise phrasing - they know exactly 'what it is'.

...I can confirm that infinity is indeed a very large number ... so large that it rules out the spontaneous production of CSI!!!

It does no such thing. There is no theorem to that effect. This is just a barefaced lie.

I particularly like the following quote from the above link (because it applies to Creation Science and Biology as well as Physics):-
"The essence of physics has always been communication, rather than
mathematical rigour. The test I use for myself is that if I can't
explain a concept in language that a 4th grader can understand, then
I probably don't understand the concept very well myself."

As pointed out above, mathematics does not exist solely for the benefit of physicists. Indeed, the pseudo mathematical gobbledygook that you spouted to begin this exchange puported to say something about information theory, which is one of the areas of applied mathematics that lies outside the domain of tradtitional mathematical physics.

...yes, I know all about the denial and imprecision in Biology ... it's called 'evolution'!!!!

Repeating a bad joke over and over again doesn't make it funny.

...and my maths is perfectly fine ... for all practical purposes... the reciprocal DOES approach zero as the denominator approaches infinity!!!!:D

...and the practical import of this mathematical fact is that the spontaneous production of any significant level of CSI is thereby mathematically ruled out!!!!:D

...and the more mathematical rigour that is applied to the phenomenon ... the more rigorously the spontaneous production of any significant level of CSI is mathematically ruled out!!!

Just complete nonsense - there is no mathematics in any of your statements

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It's an important point. Proof is a different thing than evidence. There is evidence for Christianity, but there is no absolute proof. What confirms Christian belief is when one experiences God for themselves. It's an important distinction. Good reason, and a good relationship promote thoughtful Christianity.

No it's not an important point, it's a self-evident point. Everyone knows the difference between proof and evidence already and telling us again just wastes time and effort. Just respond to the point

I decided to respond to your list. I've separated your points into 4 categories:

Category 1:Undisputed points that do not in any way increase the likelihood of supernatural claims being true. The fact that people and places really existed means nothing unless you want to become a scientologist because I have conclusive proof that L. Ron Hubbard existed

Jakkass wrote: »

1) Historical figures in the Bible
2) Biblical archaeology
7) Argument from Textual Authenticity of the Bible

Category 2: Nothing to do with christianity specifically

Jakkass wrote: »

3) Arguments from Creation
4) Arguments from Experience (by far the most convincing)
5) Argument from the existence of Moral Absolutes

Category 3: Unsubstantiated claims of the type that are made throughout history by followers of all religions, that would not be accepted in any other area of human endeavour and that I see no reason to single out for special treatment. I treat them the same way you treat the claims of all other religions

Jakkass wrote: »

6) Argument from Biblical Prophesy
8) Argument from the Resurrection, and the Apostles

Category 4: Eh?

Jakkass wrote: »

9) The sense of the Gospel on human nature

Is this to do with apparent absolute morality?

philologos

liamw wrote: »

While I can understand your train of thought, you're wrong because generally, it's been shown to be the opposite. The human brain has a natural predisposition to beleive in the supernatural, and science is on my side.

I can tell you from my perspective that it was purely rational, critical thought and logic that led me away from religion. But this conversation will go nowhere becuase I can't prove that to you.

No human thought is purely rational, so I'm going to suspect that you are embellishing the truth, or ignoring other emotional considerations that were involved. You do realise that reason only concerns thought, it doesn't concern the source of such thought I.E Empiricism. This was an argument that was fought during the Enlightenment and is still being fought. I don't see how one can reason without having experience. People don't know things purely through reason unlike what Descartes argued in his Meditations.

How am I wrong when I have had people of agnostic and atheist persuasion tell me that authority was a problem with them adopting faith? (In real life, off boards). This is one of the major obstacles people have with religion in modernity, irrespective of whether or not this problem is with you consciously.

liamw wrote: »

This is the argument from fine tuning. The anthropic principle doesn't really satisfy me either, but when you look at the sheer vastness of the universe the probablity of at least one planet being able to support life increases dramatically, don't you think? I used the lottery analogy for this before where you play it millions of times.

I believe that God set up the correct conditions for life to exist in the universe, and for the universe to be as it is. It's a modern form of the teleological argument.

As for the vastness his brings us to another question. We know how the universe became so vast through the spreading of the universe after the Big Bang (this is how we know how old the universe is), but what caused the Big Bang in your opinion?

liamw wrote: »

These are philosophical questions. Why does there have to be a purpose. Again, it has been shown that the human mind is predisposed to attribute purpose and pattern to things, and our existence is no exception. It doesn't mean there has to be a purpose! We are fallible..

Philosophical questions that require some form of an answer. The purpose seems sensible to me, because it also provides an answer to "Why does there have to be something rather than nothing?". Until we can answer this question, we don't really have a full explanation of existence. That's why it is important to me. Why isn't it important to you?

liamw wrote: »

But you are making a massive massive leap when you go from existence of places and settlements in the Bible to assuming that the supernatural stories are true too! Nobody is disputing that the things that are described in the Bible are all wrong, but then you can't just deduct that if 99% of a book is shown to be true, the other 1% is true, ESPECIALLY when the 1% is a crazy supernatual claim. This is a logical fallacy I imagine...

Yes, that's why it is only 1 point. I never said when you take this point isolated on it's own will you get a full picture of why it is reasonable to believe in God or the Bible. Rather it is when you take all of these points together. This is the reason why I have multiple reasons rather than just one.

The more evidence we have that supports the Bible being true, the more likely that this is actually the case. If the Bible continually shows itself to be reliable, the further we go on it will be less of a leap to make.

liamw wrote: »

Those 9 arguements you listed. It might be interesting to create a seperate thread for each of them on the Atheism forum?

The Charter of the Christianity forum provides a better means of respect and etiquette in discussion. I would advocate such a discussion occurring here, but not in the A&A forum. Our pitch provides good guidelines for respectful dialogue.

liamw wrote: »

See, you just regressed the problem back a step. Now the problem is with showing the probablility of Yahweh's existence.

We have to regress it back a step, because if one holds these two assumptions one will never come to the conclusion that God exists. I'm not entirely sure that these assumptions are reasonable.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Is this to do with apparent absolute morality?

No. I mean that the Biblical explanation of human nature is sensible taking into account how humans operate on a daily basis.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

No. I mean that the Biblical explanation of human nature is sensible taking into account how humans operate on a daily basis.

In what way?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Philosophical questions that require some form of an answer. The purpose seems sensible to me, because it also provides an answer to "Why does there have to be something rather than nothing?". Until we can answer this question, we don't really have a full explanation of existence. That's why it is important to me. Why isn't it important to you?

I'll field that one. The question isn't important to me because we have yet to show that there is a purpose for existence. Trying to answer the question before we have even found out if it's a valid question to ask about the universe seems to me to be very much jumping the gun. You wouldn't accuse someone of not being curious for not wondering what the purpose of a rock or a snow storm is. In short the question is not important to me because it's only relevant if you begin with the assumption that a god exists, an assumption that I obviously don't make


And even if the question is valid, I don't think that humans currently have a way of answering it.

philologos

It'd be my position that this issue goes a lot further of what is logical, or what is not. I'd pose that I have a different way of thinking than you do. Even when I was unsure of my beliefs concerning the universe I was always curious as to what purpose this universe had, or why it existed rather than not.

This line is most telling about our difference:

And even if the question is valid, I don't think that humans currently have a way of answering it.

liamw

Just becuase you think it's a valid question, doesn't make it so. Humans don't know everything about the universe and we have to take a humble position.

You however, seem to know that it was God! Not only any God, but the exact Christian God too. "God did it" is a non-explanation.
Will respond to your other points when I get time later.

philologos

liamw wrote: »

Just becuase you think it's a valid question, doesn't make it so.

We could throw this one around back and forth, but ultimately we're not going to get any further if we keep doing it.

liamw wrote: »

Humans don't know everything about the universe and we have to take a humble position.

Indeed. Humans don't. The question is who does?

liamw wrote: »

You however, seem to know that it was God! Not only any God, but the exact Christian God too. "God did it" is a non-explanation.
Will respond to your other points when I get time later.

How is it a non-explanation? It's prompted me on a life long search, that's rather different than the result of saying "Because it just is", which is what I have received a few times on boards.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed. Humans don't. The question is who does?

God.:D:D:D

@Why is there something rather than nothing?
Nothing isn't; something is.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

It'd be my position that this issue goes a lot further of what is logical, or what is not. I'd pose that I have a different way of thinking than you do. Even when I was unsure of my beliefs concerning the universe I was always curious as to what purpose this universe had, or why it existed rather than not.

Oh no we think the same way, I often find myself seeking purpose in purposeless things. It's the source of things like paranoia (eg conspiracy theories), where if something unlikely happens we assume it must have been caused by some agency. The agency is usually human but not always. Hyperactive agency detection is a very well known and usually very useful feature of human thought but it can very often misfire and it causes us to look for purpose in things that don't necessarily have a purpose. As a human being I am as susceptible to it as you are but it seems the difference between us is that I recognise what's happening and realise that just because I think something should have a purpose or is likely to have a purpose, doesn't mean it actually has one. It doesn't mean I completely discount the possibility that there might be some agency behind it, it just means that I am recognising and overruling my natural human tendency to assume things have a purpose.

Jakkass wrote: »

This line is most telling about our difference:

In what way? What I mean is that I have seen nothing to suggest that any of the world religions have got it right yet. I want an answer to the (relevant) questions of the universe just as much as you do, I'm just reserving judgement until someone can show me they have the right answer with more to back up their claim than an old book of supernatural stories

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed. Humans don't. The question is who does?

Why must there be someone that does?

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

@Why is there something rather than nothing?
Nothing isn't; something is.

That doesn't answer the question. That's a mere repetition of the fact that there is something rather than nothing. I'm asking why that is the case.

Your answer is typical of "It just is". That's the kind of thinking that I just don't get.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

That doesn't answer the question. That's a mere repetition of the fact that there is something rather than nothing. I'm asking why that is the case.

Your answer is typical of "It just is". That's the kind of thinking that I just don't get.

Why do snow storms happen?

The point being made is that there doesn't have to be a reason no matter how much you want there to be one. But if there is a reason my position on what it is is: I have no idea.

What is so wrong with that answer? Honestly I get the impression from believers that what's most important for them is that they get answers to these questions and whether or not the answers are right is at best secondary. I would rather not have an answer than accept an answer that I don't know to be correct and that I have to lower my standards of evidence to accept

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

No human thought is purely rational, so I'm going to suspect that you are embellishing the truth, or ignoring other emotional considerations that were involved. You do realise that reason only concerns thought, it doesn't concern the source of such thought I.E Empiricism. This was an argument that was fought during the Enlightenment and is still being fought. I don't see how one can reason without having experience. People don't know things purely through reason unlike what Descartes argued in his Meditations.

I used the wrong word/grammar and now you've got caught up on the word 'purely' so please pretend it was 'primarily'. So it would read 'primarily rational, critical thinking...'. I guess I better just ignore that paragraph.

How am I wrong when I have had people of agnostic and atheist persuasion tell me that authority was a problem with them adopting faith? (In real life, off boards). This is one of the major obstacles people have with religion in modernity, irrespective of whether or not this problem is with you consciously.

I never said you were absolutely wrong. I just said that I believe typical atheists did not give up religion for emotional reasons. Religion has obvious ties to emotion but atheism doesn't. I remember when Dawkins was on the Late Late Show and a girl in the audience said 'God is real, he helped and comforted me though this ordeal'. See Jakkass, I can give examples too. This point is going nowhere.

I believe that God set up the correct conditions for life to exist in the universe, and for the universe to be as it is. It's a modern form of the teleological argument.

Yahweh/FSM/Pink Unicorn could have set up the conditions. I don't mean to sound insulting but that statement really means nothing.

As for the vastness his brings us to another question. We know how the universe became so vast through the spreading of the universe after the Big Bang (this is how we know how old the universe is), but what caused the Big Bang in your opinion?

You're probably going to assert that there's no such thing as an uncaused cause. Then you'll say that we can stop the infinite regress at God. But you're breaking your first premise by claiming that God doesn't need a cause.

Next you can say, 'Everything except God needs a cause'. But if you say that you might as well say that the universe doesn't need a cause!

Philosophical questions that require some form of an answer. The purpose seems sensible to me, because it also provides an answer to "Why does there have to be something rather than nothing?". Until we can answer this question, we don't really have a full explanation of existence. That's why it is important to me. Why isn't it important to you?

The point is, we don't know yet. God of the Gaps at it's best there Jakkass, and that's assuming that is is an actual gap (that there's a purpose). God of the Gaps. Well played.

Yes, that's why it is only 1 point. I never said when you take this point isolated on it's own will you get a full picture of why it is reasonable to believe in God or the Bible. Rather it is when you take all of these points together. This is the reason why I have multiple reasons rather than just one.

The more evidence we have that supports the Bible being true, the more likely that this is actually the case. If the Bible continually shows itself to be reliable, the further we go on it will be less of a leap to make.

Not when all of these points add up to nothing to support any supernatural event. You can add up as many pieces of evidence to show that the natural event as depicted in the Bible may have occurred, but it leads you no closer to asserting that the supernatural parts occurred.

Christians have failed time and time again to show how the Bilble is nothing more than a book written by humans. Can you show me one thing that shows that the Bible is likely not just a book written by humans (without God at all)?

Just to keep in line with the thread, what's your position on Noah's Ark? I guess you take it all as symbolic or something?

philologos

liamw wrote: »

I used the wrong word/grammar and now you've got caught up on the word 'purely' so please pretend it was 'primarily'. So it would read 'primarily rational, critical thinking...'. I guess I better just ignore that paragraph.

Anyone can argue this though. I could argue this.

liamw wrote: »

I never said you were absolutely wrong. I just said that I believe typical atheists did not give up religion for emotional reasons. Religion has obvious ties to emotion but atheism doesn't. I remember when Dawkins was on the Late Late Show and a girl in the audience said 'God is real, he helped and comforted me though this ordeal'. See Jakkass, I can give examples too. This point is going nowhere.

I'm merely saying that that is a common reason why a lot of people do not believe in God. There's no need to snub it off. A lot of atheist argument is emotional whether or not one is willing to admit it. People wouldn't say this otherwise.

I'm perfectly comfortable in saying that I have an emotional attachment to God, because I am in a relationship with Him. It's entirely false to suggest that people don't have emotional reasons for rejecting God empirically.

Theists are perfectly in tune with their emotions, they don't see them as something embarrassing. It's a part of human nature. To many atheists expressing emotions is something almost shameful, despite the reality that all human action is motivated to some degree by emotion. Otherwise we'd be absolute robots.

It's a question of do we want to be honest or not.

liamw wrote: »

Yahweh/FSM/Pink Unicorn could have set up the conditions. I don't mean to sound insulting but that statement really means nothing.

I don't see how it doesn't. Mind you, I don't consider it really possible that we could be where we are without a source.

liamw wrote: »

You're probably going to assert that there's no such thing as an uncaused cause. Then you'll say that we can stop the infinite regress at God. But you're breaking your first premise by claiming that God doesn't need a cause.

I don't have to do this at all. Philosophers have suggested that there is a difference between what is contingent, and what is necessary. The universe has a finite age, therefore it is contingent (it can exist or it can not exist), God on the other hand is regarded to be eternal and necessary (all things are dependant on God's existence). It would be fallacious to suggest that the same argument based on something that has a finite age, can also be applied to something that is regarded as eternal.

The situations are entirely different. Thomas Aquinas argued from this point of view, as did the Islamic philosopher Avicenna and I think the Jewish Torah scholar Moses Maimonides used it too.

As for the infinite regress. This is another one that has been dealt with rather robustly within Philosophy. If there was an infinite regress the act of creation would have never occurred. There must be a termination in the regress for something to happen.

If something let's call it Z had a cause Y had a cause X .... and so on, it would never terminate, and as such the universe would have never come into being.

This argument is made by James Sadowsky, a Roman Catholic thinker.

Next you can say, 'Everything except God needs a cause'. But if you say that you might as well say that the universe doesn't need a cause!

liamw wrote: »

The point is, we don't know yet. God of the Gaps at it's best there Jakkass, and that's assuming that is is an actual gap (that there's a purpose). God of the Gaps. Well played.

I'm not arguing that it is because we don't know that God is reasonable. I don't believe God is getting "squeezed out" either. God's role in Creation is as big as it always was, we are just finding out more about how it happened. Conflating the how with the why is easy for those who genuinely aren't interested in the why.

liamw wrote: »

Not when all of these points add up to nothing to support any supernatural event. You can add up as many pieces of evidence to show that the natural event as depicted in the Bible may have occurred, but it leads you no closer to asserting that the supernatural parts occurred.

If the natural is incredibly improbable, one might conclude that a supernatural cause is more probable.

liamw wrote: »

Christians have failed time and time again to show how the Bilble is nothing more than a book written by humans. Can you show me one thing that shows that the Bible is likely not just a book written by humans (without God at all)?

I don't see how they've failed. Considering the success of Christianity throughout the world, I would actually say the opposite is the case. People aren't shown God's power, people find it for themselves.

liamw wrote: »

Just to keep in line with the thread, what's your position on Noah's Ark? I guess you take it all as symbolic or something?

It's a subject on which I have a lot more to think about. I'm not going to rush to a conclusion.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

It would be fallacious to suggest that the same argument based on something that has a finite age, can also be applied to something that is regarded as eternal.

This would be true if you were applying the argument accurately. The age of universe only dates back to point of the singularity at which time came into existence. It is very difficult to peer back before that point, but hey guess what? This is being done. I could just as easily make the argument that something which exists with only a spatial component is eternal because it outside of time altogether. This would have been the universe prior to the big bang.
Let's leave it to the cosmologists though.

If the natural is incredibly improbable, one might conclude that a supernatural cause is more probable.

So,by that reasoning, one might conclude that the improbable quantum tunnelling that Flash memory operates by is a supernatural cause.
I always knew Ipods were magic. :rolleyes:

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

That doesn't answer the question. That's a mere repetition of the fact that there is something rather than nothing. I'm asking why that is the case.

Your answer is typical of "It just is". That's the kind of thinking that I just don't get.

Well tell me then what "nothing" is? Is it even logically possible for "nothing" in the truest sense of the term to exist?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm merely saying that that is a common reason why a lot of people do not believe in God. There's no need to snub it off. A lot of atheist argument is emotional whether or not one is willing to admit it. People wouldn't say this otherwise.

Do you think we have emotional reasons for not believing in Zeus, Wotan and Poseidon or do emotions only cloud our judgement when it's your god we're rejecting?

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how it doesn't. Mind you, I don't consider it really possible that we could be where we are without a source.

Kinda missed the point there. The point is that even if there is a source, it could be the FSM. When arguing for christianity specifically over other religions the creation argument is irrelevant.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't have to do this at all. Philosophers have suggested that there is a difference between what is contingent, and what is necessary. The universe has a finite age, therefore it is contingent (it can exist or it can not exist),

Who says? Contrary to popular christian belief the big bang does not describe the creation of matter and time from nothing., it goes back to a singularity, which is still something. We don't know anything about before the big bang.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the infinite regress. This is another one that has been dealt with rather robustly within Philosophy. If there was an infinite regress the act of creation would have never occurred. There must be a termination in the regress for something to happen.

If something let's call it Z had a cause Y had a cause X .... and so on, it would never terminate, and as such the universe would have never come into being.

This argument is made by James Sadowsky, a Roman Catholic thinker.

The first cause argument is also irrelevant because firstly it makes many assumptions what, while intuitive to humans, are not necessarily true of the universe and secondly, it's just an argument for a first cause and that cause could be anything. There seems to be the unspoken assumption that if there is a first cause it must be a god (and for some bizarre reason that it must be a specific type of god) but I see no reason why this must be the case. But I understand why hyperactive agency detection makes people assume it must be an intelligent being

Jakkass wrote: »

If the natural is incredibly improbable, one might conclude that a supernatural cause is more probable.

What you've done there is mixed up the word improbable which means unlikely to occur but possible with supernatural, which is by definition impossible and requiring of divine agency. This is another example of hyperactive agnecy detection brought on by the fact that probability is not inherently intuitive to human beings, especially on such a massive scale as the universe. The only time when it is reasonable to conclude that something supernatural occurred is if it can be explicitly shown to be supernatural. Unlikely=/= supernatural and not being able to find an explanation =/= supernatural either.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how they've failed. Considering the success of Christianity throughout the world, I would actually say the opposite is the case. People aren't shown God's power, people find it for themselves.

Argument ad populum. If it were valid I'd go and follow Sathya Sai Baba tomorrow.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's a subject on which I have a lot more to think about. I'm not going to rush to a conclusion.

I sense a bit of cognitive dissonance going on

Mjollnir

J C wrote: »

... "If triangles had a god, he would have three sides." ... and if Atheists had a God ... he wouldn't exist or would be each one of themselves!!!!!:D

...a thought-provoking video about the dynamics of all religions ... including the religion of Atheistic Humanism!!!!
...this guy, hwever falls into the trap of seeing the flaws in other people's religion ... while apparently being oblivious to the exact same issues with his own brand of 'peoples opium'!!!

...of course Christianity is a Saving Faith ... and it therefore is not a religion per se ... although some Christians choose to join / stay within a particular religious denomination many Saved Christians choose to remain Free Thinkers ... and outside the religious mainstream.

Dr Thompson then itemises the legal path that was followed to ensure that Atheist Humanism and it's invalid 'pet' theory of Spontaneous Evolution would effectively become the only state-sponsored religion in America!!!
Great stuff while you can get away with it ... but certainly not a liberal or morally defensible position!!!!

So help me out here....

How does this make you any less of a scientifically illiterate tard?

And by 'tard', I mean that odd, uniquely Irish accented 'taeahrrrrd'. As in, "if you were retaehrrrrdaihd and grew up on a faehhhhrm, you might find Brussels interesting."

Do me a favor: spell out exactly what science is, in your mind, and I'll be happy to address it.

Otherwise, Lee Marvin thought that the Treaty of Versailles didn’t prevent people from throwing bananas at their neighbors’ mailboxes.

Yeah.

philologos

Sam Vimes: liamw said that Christianity had failed to show people that the Bible was more than a human book. The reality is of course Christianity has succeeded. If it hadn't I and the rest of the Christians wouldn't be currently believing.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam Vimes: liamw said that Christianity had failed to show people that the Bible was more than a human book. The reality is of course Christianity has succeeded. If it hadn't I and the rest of the Christians wouldn't be currently believing.

You do however, obviously, believe that the Qu'ran is human made. Over 1 billion muslims would say that it is more than a human book.
So if a muslim were to conclude:

"Sam Vimes, liamw said that Islam had failed to show people that the Qu'ran was more than a human book. The reality is of course Islam has succeeded. If it hadn't I and the rest of the Muslims wouldn't be currently believing.

Or you could replace "Quran" with any holybook and "Islam" with any religion.

Jakkass, the problem here for you is that said holybooks have to be man made for your religion to be correct. I, like you, think all those holybooks are man made, I just go one set of holybooks further.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

You do however, obviously, believe that the Qu'ran is human made. Over 1 billion muslims would say that it is more than a human book.
So if a muslim were to conclude:

I'm not using it as proof that the Bible is more than a Holy Book, I'm not even using it as evidence. Clearly though, people have been convinced that the Bible is more than a human book, so it hasn't failed.

Likewise, people have been convinced that the Qur'an is more than a human book. Therefore Islam hasn't failed. Infact it's hugely successful.

I think we may have been lost in translation on this one.

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam Vimes: liamw said that Christianity had failed to show people that the Bible was more than a human book. The reality is of course Christianity has succeeded. If it hadn't I and the rest of the Christians wouldn't be currently believing.

So by this logic Buddhism & Islam among many others must also have succeeded ?

Why do Muslims believe ? Why do Hindus believe ?

philologos

monosharp: Please read the last few posts before strawmanning me on this one. Yes, Islam, Buddhism and all the rest are also successful in that they have convinced people that their texts are more than just merely human texts. It wasn't intended as an argument to say that Christianity was more truthful than the rest (although I believe it is). Rather it was to show the assumption that Christianity had failed to be false, which of course it is.

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

monosharp: Please read the last few posts before strawmanning me on this one. Yes, Islam, Buddhism and all the rest are also successful in that they have convinced people that their texts are more than just merely human texts. It wasn't intended as an argument to say that Christianity was more truthful than the rest (although I believe it is). Rather it was to show the assumption that Christianity had failed to be false, which of course it is.

Which proves absolutely nothing.

You can stick Scientology into the same group.

Your point is pointless. I could start a religion tomorrow and convince people it was divine, it means absolutely nothing.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not using it as proof that the Bible is more than a Holy Book, I'm not even using it as evidence. Clearly though, people have been convinced that the Bible is more than a human book, so it hasn't failed.

You're confusing being able to convince large numbers of people that something is true with showing that something is true. Sathya Sai Baba has convinced millions that he is a miracle worker but I think we'll both agree that he hasn't shown himself to be. He can't because he's not.

It doesn't matter if a billion people believe, that's an argument ad populum. What matters is whether they have good objectively convincing reasons to belive. You can argue that they do but then the number of people that believe is still irrelevant

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

Theists are perfectly in tune with their emotions, they don't see them as something embarrassing. It's a part of human nature. To many atheists expressing emotions is something almost shameful, despite the reality that all human action is motivated to some degree by emotion. Otherwise we'd be absolute robots.

That is complete and utter nonsense.

It has as much truth to it as me saying "most men with moustaches are inclined towards evil".

I don't see how it doesn't. Mind you, I don't consider it really possible that we could be where we are without a source.

Maybe there is a source, the fact is I don't know and neither do you. Its unknown.

I don't have to do this at all. Philosophers have suggested that there is a difference between what is contingent, and what is necessary. The universe has a finite age, therefore it is contingent (it can exist or it can not exist), God on the other hand is regarded to be eternal and necessary (all things are dependant on God's existence). It would be fallacious to suggest that the same argument based on something that has a finite age, can also be applied to something that is regarded as eternal.

The universe is real. Its all around us.

You cannot prove a deity exists.

If something let's call it Z had a cause Y had a cause X .... and so on, it would never terminate, and as such the universe would have never come into being.

Under our understanding of the laws of physics.

Jackass, please read;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

This is what you are doing and I hope that you can understand why most Christian scientists despise it.