Two good reasons to think God exists

[spiltteeth]

Since various people have asked me for the rational reasons of my beleif in God, instead of repeating myself I pasted together 2 arguments based on evolution and the big bang model.
I relaize, like all science, both could be disproved tomorrow or in a thousand years, but I think we ought to deal with the facts we have today.
This does not prove evolution and the big bang model are correct, but it does show that they are the best explanation of the evidence which we have and therefore merits our provisional acceptance.
So, these aren't proofs, simply arguments based on evidence and logic.

ONE - God makes sense of the the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.


The existence of intelligent life depends upon a conspiracy of initial conditions which must be fine-tuned to a degree that is literally incomprehensible and incalculable.

This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the gravitational constant. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants. Second, in addition to these constants there are certain arbitrary quantities which are just put in as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe. Now all of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by a hair's breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed and life would not exist.

For example, the physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10 (100) would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe's expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10 (120).
Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 10 (123). Penrose comments,
"I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010 (123)."
And it's not just each constant or quantity which must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned.
So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

Barrow and Tipler list ten steps in the evolution of homo sapiens, including such steps as the development of the DNA-based genetic code, the origin of mitochondria, the origin of photosynthesis, the development of aerobic respiration, and so forth, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the earth.They report that
“there has developed a general consensus among evolutionists that the evolution of intelligent life, comparable in information processing ability to that of homo sapiens is so improbable that it is unlikely to have occurred on any other planet in the entire visible universe.”

and

We should emphasize once again that the enormous improbability of the evolution of intelligent life in general and Homo sapiens in particular

They calculate the odds against the assembly of a human genome at between 4-[180(110,000)] and 4-[360(110,000)]

Also, random mutation and natural selection have trouble accounting for the origin of irreducibly complex systems. In his recent book Darwin’s Black Box, microbiologist Michael Behe explains that certain cellular systems like the cilia or protein transport system are like incredibly complicated, microscopic machines which cannot function at all unless all the parts are present and functioning. There is no understanding within the neo-Darwinian synthesis of how such irreducibly complex systems can evolve by random mutation and natural selection. With respect to them current evolutionary theory has zero explanatory power.
According to Behe, however, there is one familiar explanation adequate to account for irreducible complexity, one which in other contexts we employ unhesitatingly: intelligent design .
“Life on Earth at its most fundamental level, in its most fundamental components,” he concludes, “is the product of intelligent activity.”
The gradual evolution of biological complexity is better explained if there exists an intelligent cause behind the process rather than just the blind mechanisms alone. Thus, the theist has explanatory resources available which the naturalist lacks.

Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball.
P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least.
He also estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10 (100) would have prevented a life-permitting universe. There are a number of such quantities and constants present in the big bang which must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life.

There is no physical reason why these constants and quantities should possess the values they do. The former agnostic physicist Paul Davies comments,


“Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact.”
Similarly, Fred Hoyle remarks,

“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics.”

Now there are three possibilities for explaining the presence of this remarkable fine-tuning of the universe: physical necessity, chance, or design.

The first alternative holds that there is some unknown Theory of Everything (T.O.E.) which would explain the way the universe is. It had to be that way, and there was really no chance or little chance of the universe's not being life-permitting. By contrast, the second alternative states that the fine-tuning is due entirely to chance. It's just an accident that the universe is life-permitting, and we're the lucky beneficiaries. The third alternative rejects both of these accounts in favor of an intelligent Mind behind the cosmos, who designed the universe to permit life. Which of these alternatives is the most plausible?

The first alternative seems extraordinarily implausible. There is just no physical reason why these constants and quantities should have the values they do. As P. C. W. Davies states,


Even if the laws of physics were unique, it doesn't follow that the physical universe itself is unique. . . . the laws of physics must be augmented by cosmic initial conditions. . . . There is nothing in present ideas about 'laws of initial conditions' remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics would imply uniqueness. Far from it. . . .
. . . it seems, then, that the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise.

For example, the most promising candidate for a T.O.E. to date, super-string theory or M-Theory, fails to predict uniquely our universe. In fact, string theory allows a "cosmic landscape" of around 10 (500) different universes governed by the present laws of nature, so that it does nothing to render the observed values of the constants and quantities physically necessary.

So what about the second alternative, that the fine-tuning of the universe is due to chance? The problem with this alternative is that the odds against the universe's being life-permitting are so incomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced.
Students or laymen who blithely assert, "It could have happened by chance!" simply have no conception of the fantastic precision of the fine-tuning requisite for life. They would never embrace such a hypothesis in any other area of their lives—for example, in order to explain how there came to be overnight a car in one's driveway.

Some people have tried to escape this problem by claiming that we really shouldn't be surprised at the finely-tuned conditions of the universe, for if the universe were not fine-tuned, then we wouldn't be here to be surprised about it!
Given that we are here, we should expect the universe to be fine-tuned. But such reasoning is logically fallacious. We can show this by means of a parallel illustration. Imagine you're traveling abroad and are arrested on trumped-up drug charges and dragged in front of a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. You hear the command given: "Ready! Aim! Fire!" and you hear the deafening roar of the guns. And then you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 trained marksmen missed! Now what would you conclude? "Well, I guess I really shouldn't be surprised that they all missed. After all, if they hadn't all missed, then I wouldn't be here to be surprised about it! Given that I am here, I should expect them all to miss." Of course not! You would immediately suspect that they all missed on purpose, that the whole thing was a set-up, engineered for some reason by someone.
While you wouldn't be surprised that you don't observe that you are dead, you'd be very surprised, indeed, that you do observe that you are alive. In the same way, given the incredible improbability of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life, it is reasonable to conclude that this is not due to chance, but to design.

In order to rescue the alternative of chance, its proponents have therefore been forced to adopt the hypothesis that there exists an infinite number of randomly ordered universes composing a sort of World Ensemble or multiverse of which our universe is but a part. Somewhere in this infinite World Ensemble finely-tuned universes will appear by chance alone, and we happen to be one such world.

There are, however, at least two major failings of the World Ensemble hypothesis: First, there's no evidence that such a World Ensemble exists. No one knows if there are other worlds. Moreover, recall that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin proved that any universe in a state of continuous cosmic expansion cannot be infinite in the past. Their theorem applies to the multiverse, too. Therefore, since the past is finite, only a finite number of other worlds can have been generated by now, so that there's no guarantee that a finely-tuned world will have appeared in the ensemble.

Second, if our universe is just a random member of an infinite World Ensemble, then it is overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than what we in fact observe. Roger Penrose has calculated that it is inconceivably more probable that our solar system should suddenly form by the random collision of particles than that a finely-tuned universe should exist. (Penrose calls it "utter chicken feed" by comparison.)
So if our universe were just a random member of a World Ensemble, it is inconceivably more probable that we should be observing a universe no larger than our solar system. Or again, if our universe were just a random member of a World Ensemble, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses' popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since such things are vastly more probable than all of nature's constants and quantities' falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those are much more plenteous in the World Ensemble than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On atheism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no World Ensemble.

So that there is an intelligent designer of the universe, seems to make much more sense than the atheistic view that the universe just happens to be by chance fine-tuned to an incomprehensible precision for the existence of intelligent life.



TWO - God makes sense of the origin of the universe

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Given the truth of the two premises, the conclusion necessarily follows.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal.

For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe?
If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water's freezing is the temperature's being below 0˚ Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0˚ from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. So if the cause is permanently present, then the effect should be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

Some might say that the big bang is speculative physics that could change at any moment. But the trend is in favor of an absolute beginning out of nothing. We have had a string of solid, recent scientific discoveries that point in a definite direction, as follows:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars

So, insofar as a person questions these discoveries and the origin of the entire physical universe out of nothing, they are opposing the progress of science.

We now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning about 13 billion years ago in a cataclysmic event known as the Big Bang. What makes the Big Bang so startling is that it represents the origin of the universe from literally nothing. For all matter and energy, even physical space and time themselves, came into being at the Big Bang. Vilenkin pulls no punches:


It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.

P. C. W. Davies comments,


An initial cosmological singularity . . . forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. . . . On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.

The standard Big Bang model thus describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover,--and this deserves underscoring--the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity. As Barrow and Tipler emphasize,


"At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo."
On such a model the universe originates ex nihilo in the sense that at the initial singularity it is true that There is no earlier space-time point or it is false that Something existed prior to the singularity.

All matter and energy, even physical space and time themselves, came into being at the Big Bang. As the physicist P. C. W. Davies explains,

"the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science . . . is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization . . . upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing."

What can we infer about the cause?

So, space, time, and matter began to exist. What could have caused them to begin to exist?

Whatever causes the universe to appear is not inside of space, because there was no space causally prior to the creation event. The cause must therefore be non-physical, because physical things exist in space.
Whatever causes the universe to appear is not bound by time (temporal). It never began to exist. There was no passage of time causally prior to the big bang, so the cause of the universe did notcome into being. The cause existed eternally.
And the cause is not material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang.
So what could the cause be? Craig notes that we are only familiar with two kinds of non-material realities:

1) Abstract objects, like numbers, sets and mathematical relations
2) Minds, like your own mind

Now, abstract objects don’t cause of any effects in nature. But we are very familiar with the causal capabilities of our own minds – just raise your own arm and see! So, by process of elimination, we are left with a mind as the cause of the universe.

This cause created the entire physical universe. The cause of this event is therefore supernatural, because it brings nature into being and is not inside of nature itself. The cause of the universe violates the law of conservation of matter is therefore performing a miracle.

I will list each alternative arguments to the Big bang model by name and explain the main problem with each.

The steady-state model: disproved by recent empirical observations of radio galaxy distributions, as well as red-shifting of light from distant galaxies moving away from us at increasing speeds
The oscillating model: disproved in 1998 by more empirical measurements of mass density which showed that the universe would expand forever, and never collapse
The vacuum fluctuation model: the theory allows for universes to spawn at every point in space and coalesce into one extremely old universe, which contradictions observations of our much younger universe
The chaotic inflationary model: does not avoid the need for an absolute beginning in the finite past
The quantum gravity model: makes use of imaginary time which cannot be mapped into a physical reality, it’s purely theoretical

The evidence available today supports the creation of the entire physical universe from nothing, caused by a supernatural mind with immense power. The progress of science has strengthened this theory against determined opposition from rival naturalistic theories.

Speculating about QM or chaotic inflationary requires you to go beyond the experimental evidence to the positing of unobservable realities. I listed multiple lines of evidence in favor of the standard big bang model, and that has been confirmed by multiple converging discoveries.

With each successive failure of alternative cosmogonic theories, the Standard Model has been corroborated. It can be confidently said that no cosmogonic model has been as repeatedly verified in its predictions and as corroborated by attempts at its falsification, or as concordant with empirical discoveries and as philosophically coherent, as the Standard Big Bang Model. This does not prove that it is correct, but it does show that it is the best explanation of the evidence which we have and therefore merits our provisional acceptance.

So we can line up 6 scientific discoveries, based on experimental results.

To deny the premise, one needs some reasons or some scientific data.

There are usually three basic reasons for rejecting a premise: (a) it is demonstrably false, (b) it lacks sufficient evidence or (c) it has at least one counterexample. If a person wishes to dispute (1) then he must categorize the causal principle into one of the three classifications I have stated.

So, I think we need to deal with the data we have today, not imagine alternative realities where untested speculations preserve a belief (weather it's theism or atheism) from falsification by the progress of science.
Unless a person can name a counter-example to the premise, the deductive argument goes through on modus ponens, backed by the science

Hope this explains why I feel my beleif in God is rational, although obviously these 2 are far from the only reasons. -ST

[Sasha]

nice lenghty (pseudo scientific) post but may i ask the first obvious question that you grosly overlook:

if

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.


what in that case caused god? who created him/her?

[Raúl Duke]

If I accept the premise of those 2 reasons as valid (which I don't, due to it speaks of a certain scientific topic, physics and cosmology, that I lack knowledge in; however, some of the technocrats do know about these topics and will perhaps offer a beat-down*), I think there's more issues/questions arises out of these 2 reasons.

If I accept the basic premise then it only states that a god exist; but doesn't address which. In fact, this 2 reasons, from what I understant, would only have the strength to point out towards a deist "watchmaker" god which is also an irrelevant god since s/he can't effect our lives (that is something that would need to be proven separately after those 2 reasons, if those 2 reasons are right) nor do these 2 reasons point towards any proof/reason to believe in the after-life (whether it be heaven and/or hell) thus no reason to follow any command/rules/laws this god may (or may not) have for us.

* Saying perhaps because for all I know this thread might end up being thrashed due to it may be perceived as border-line preaching.

[spiltteeth]

nice lenghty (pseudo scientific) post but may i ask the first obvious question that you grosly overlook:

if

what in that case caused god? who created him/her?

God is uncreated, beginingless.

Also, it's grounded solidly in science, what makes you say its psuedo-science? Which part?

[spiltteeth]

If I accept the premise of those 2 reasons as valid (which I don't, due to it speaks of a certain scientific topic, physics and cosmology, that I lack knowledge in; however, some of the technocrats do know about these topics and will perhaps offer a beat-down*), I think there's more issues/questions arises out of these 2 reasons.

If I accept the basic premise then it only states that a god exist; but doesn't address which. In fact, this 2 reasons, from what I understant, would only have the strength to point out towards a deist "watchmaker" god which is also an irrelevant god since s/he can't effect our lives (that is something that would need to be proven separately after those 2 reasons, if those 2 reasons are right) nor do these 2 reasons point towards any proof/reason to believe in the after-life (whether it be heaven and/or hell) thus no reason to follow any command/rules/laws this god may (or may not) have for us.

* Saying perhaps because for all I know this thread might end up being thrashed due to it may be perceived as border-line preaching.

The God presented is personal, eternal, extremely intelligent if not omniscient, extremely powerful if not omnipotent, and, due to the fine tuning of the universe, can reasonably be thought to have special concern for humans - this is what most people mean by God.

I don't understand why this conception logically precludes God effecting our personal lives, indeed, if the evidence points that He created the entire universe for us, you'd think He might.

I happen to be a Christian, so indeed would need to offer further proof that MY God is "correct."
However I really don't care to preach, if anyone is genuinely curious they can PM me.

But, I spent a great deal of time trying to convince Christian fundamentalists that evolution was scientifically valid and they would say "We're not scientists, science can't prove everything, science changes every 100 yrs ect" and thus far I am somewhat shocked to find the same hostility and denial of science from atheists.

Again, I have no interest in academic debate, this is for people who are interested in truth, and I post it because of the flurry of questions from people.

One is free to except science and facts or deny them, my personal beliefs do not affect facts.

[Ovi]

Here we go again...

[Raúl Duke]

I don't understand why this conception logically precludes God effecting our personal lives

I'm not saying that it precludes...only that it doesn't include.
The arguments to me seem more to try to prove a creator/designer of the universe but beyond that you need more arguments (as you mentioned:


I happen to be a Christian, so indeed would need to offer further proof that MY God is "correct."


I would edit this out:


if anyone is genuinely curious they can PM me.

[Havet]

Here we go again...

Tell me about it :rolleyes:

[Revy]

What has never interested me is any kind of debate about whether God exists. The central point I argue is that the question should be, that if God exists, how and why does God exist?

Of course, you claim that you are trying to prove God's existence and not your Christian God. That may be true, but you are arguing for a type of God. By claiming that intelligent life in the universe beyond Earth is impossible, you are reinforcing an Earth-centric God as portrayed in your religion. As I recall, this bias guided your responses to the thread on extraterrestrials. The scientific community recognizes the possibility of extraterrestrial life, even civilizations. However, you discount it because of your religious dogma.

The idea that the Big Bang was the beginning of all material existence is not universally accepted. What we do know is that it is probable that the Big Bang occurred. Was it "the beginning of everything"? That is not agreed upon.

It's like saying that lightning is being thrown by a god down at the earth. To ancient peoples, it was a stellar explanation. They did not understand the intricacies of how lightning worked. it was magical. To us, the idea of a Big Bang is similarly magical. So we have to think that it was God that was behind it, and that his words "Let there be light" set it into motion.

I have actually never argued the standard naturalistic view of the universe, yet I am an atheist. I am very open minded to supernatural, metaphysical subjects. I accept a being or entity may exist. However, logically the being or beings described in most religions simply can't exist through a simple exercise of logic. Omnipotent and interested in our affairs? To draw a personal anecdote to this discussion, my biological father left my mother when I was 2 years old. I never saw him again and it is impossible for me to actually remember him. Now I could create a mythology that he exists somewhere out there, wants me to pray to him, and takes an active interest in my life. But that doesn't change that I'm praying to nothing, and having faith that someone out there who doesn't really give a damn is going to help me through magical means, or get me into heaven if I accept him as my lord. That is really how silly mainstream theism's "relationship to God" is.

Look at all the tragedy in the world and tell me God exists. Not just done by people but by nature. And then you should admit to yourself that the only real physical benefit you know to exist from religious belief (aside from whatever strong sense of community is created or humanism which may drive people who happen to be religious to help others) is the assurance that when you die you will go to a magical plane of existence beyond our own.

[cb9's_unity]

Science isn't really my area of expertise so I hope someone with more scientific knowledge than me can properly address his argument.

Some of your information I have seen directly contradicts arguments I have seen else ware. For example I have seen models of the probability of life currently existing in our galaxy at a little under one. However life seems much more likely when the entire universe is taken into account. If I have some time I'll do a little research on it but I learned about it while in a science class at school if that means anything.

Apart from that your argument seems to assume quite a lot. Since the beginning of civilization god has always been used in the absence of scientific explanation. What your doing is no different than substituting Thor for accurate knowledge of meteorology. And like then the lack of scientific evidence is not inherently proof of god. This assumption is thoroughly unscientific and uses no actual proof for its theory (it only criticizes other theory's). So even while the existence of god would help explain quite a few dilemma's in science there is no actual proof that god exists. And while god is not proven it is useless to speculate on god's nature (which you have obviously done by proclaiming yourself a christian)

Assuming god exists out of lack of scientific evidence does nothing but help to excuse of justify baseless superstition.

[spiltteeth]

Science isn't really my area of expertise so I hope someone with more scientific knowledge than me can properly address his argument.

Some of your information I have seen directly contradicts arguments I have seen else ware. For example I have seen models of the probability of life currently existing in our galaxy at a little under one. However life seems much more likely when the entire universe is taken into account. If I have some time I'll do a little research on it but I learned about it while in a science class at school if that means anything.

Apart from that your argument seems to assume quite a lot. Since the beginning of civilization god has always been used in the absence of scientific explanation. What your doing is no different than substituting Thor for accurate knowledge of meteorology. And like then the lack of scientific evidence is not inherently proof of god. This assumption is thoroughly unscientific and uses no actual proof for its theory (it only criticizes other theory's). So even while the existence of god would help explain quite a few dilemma's in science there is no actual proof that god exists. And while god is not proven it is useless to speculate on god's nature (which you have obviously done by proclaiming yourself a christian)

Assuming god exists out of lack of scientific evidence does nothing but help to excuse of justify baseless superstition.

Assuming God does not exist because a lack of knowledge does nothing but help ...etc
I am assuming nothing, No assumption, there are ZERO assumptions in the above - it is ALL based on logic and mainstream science.

Actually, science works by coming up with a theory and then speculating.

There was no evidence for the theory for relativity for decades.

Would you suggest all research for alternatives theories of the universe be shut down because we ought not speculate on all this Quantum theory for which we have no evidence?

Anyway, the above science is supported by mainstream scientists, the evidence is overwhelming, and the conclusions based solidly in logic.

However, I do understand your position.

[Luisrah]

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.



It's not due to chance? How do you know?

We wouldn't be here if it wasn't due to chance.

If nuclear reactions didn't turn Hydrogen into other molecules, if our galaxy hadn't been created, if the Sun and the solar system hadn't been created, if the Earth had been too far or to close to the sun, if it had never became a geologically active planet, if volcanos hadn't spit water to the skies, if that water didn't rain and create oceans, if bacteria and viruses created here or from other planets didn't show up, if they didn't evolve into photossynthetic bacteria, if they didn't originate plants, fish, amphibians, reptiles, if the meteor had missed the Earth and the dinossaurs didn't extinguish, if the mammals hadn't prosper after that, if they hadn't evolved into primates (mutations which happen by chance, by errors in replication of DNA [which only happen once in 10 billion times if I'm not wrong]) and hadn't climbed up to trees, and later going to the savanah and started to walk on two feet, if they hadn't started to use their hands and making other things with them, if they hadn't climbed up in the food chain ladder,

You wouldn't be here.

Plus, if your spermatozoid hadn't beat the race against millions and millions of others, you would be different, and perhaps, very different.

And plus again, why bother creating all the rest of the Galaxy? Why bother creating the rest of the Universe?
We most probably will never see it all, or the end of it.

If even it wasn't this you meant, I'm sorry, but the way to truth about the Universe is getting clearer, and there is no god in it.
I don't think there is a god. It was Man who invented him. And if there is, let him make me believe by showing me a miracle heh.

[spiltteeth]

Stancel;1579290]What has never interested me is any kind of debate about whether God exists. The central point I argue is that the question should be, that if God exists, how and why does God exist?

Of course, you claim that you are trying to prove God's existence and not your Christian God. That may be true, but you are arguing for a type of God. By claiming that intelligent life in the universe beyond Earth is impossible, you are reinforcing an Earth-centric God as portrayed in your religion. As I recall, this bias guided your responses to the thread on extraterrestrials. The scientific community recognizes the possibility of extraterrestrial life, even civilizations. However, you discount it because of your religious dogma.

As I emphasized in that other post I never said other life is impossible, I merely gave the probabilities based on science.
There is nothing in my dogma to prevent the possibility of other life.


The idea that the Big Bang was the beginning of all material existence is not universally accepted. What we do know is that it is probable that the Big Bang occurred. Was it "the beginning of everything"? That is not agreed upon.

That is true. It is accepted by mainstream scientists. There is also scientists who do not believe in evolution. Science always has alternative veiws.
I present to you the facts we have evidence for, and what conclusions we are logically compelled to deduce from them.


It's like saying that lightning is being thrown by a god down at the earth. To ancient peoples, it was a stellar explanation. They did not understand the intricacies of how lightning worked. it was magical. To us, the idea of a Big Bang is similarly magical. So we have to think that it was God that was behind it, and that his words "Let there be light" set it into motion.

I have actually never argued the standard naturalistic view of the universe, yet I am an atheist. I am very open minded to supernatural, metaphysical subjects. I accept a being or entity may exist. However, logically the being or beings described in most religions simply can't exist through a simple exercise of logic. Omnipotent and interested in our affairs? To draw a personal anecdote to this discussion, my biological father left my mother when I was 2 years old. I never saw him again and it is impossible for me to actually remember him. Now I could create a mythology that he exists somewhere out there, wants me to pray to him, and takes an active interest in my life. But that doesn't change that I'm praying to nothing, and having faith that someone out there who doesn't really give a damn is going to help me through magical means, or get me into heaven if I accept him as my lord. That is really how silly mainstream theism's "relationship to God" is.


I don't see how this makes it logically impossible God could be interested in our affairs. Indeed, according to the science, one could reasonable draw the conclusion that He has special concern for us due to the fact that the entire universe appears created just to support human life.
Also, God is not absent, anyone can have a personal relationship with Him.


Look at all the tragedy in the world and tell me God exists. Not just done by people but by nature. And then you should admit to yourself that the only real physical benefit you know to exist from religious belief (aside from whatever strong sense of community is created or humanism which may drive people who happen to be religious to help others) is the assurance that when you die you will go to a magical plane of existence beyond our own.

Actually, I know several real physical benefits to me believing in God.
Here are 3 others :
1) If God does not exist, life is ultimately meaningless. If your life is doomed to end in death, then ultimately it does not matter how you live. In the end it makes no ultimate difference whether you existed or not. Sure, your life might have a relative significance in that you influenced others or affected the course of history. But ultimately mankind is doomed to perish in the heat death of the universe. Ultimately it makes no difference who you are or what you do. Your life is inconsequential.

Thus, the contributions of the scientist to the advance of human knowledge, the research of the doctor to alleviate pain and suffering, the efforts of the diplomat to secure peace in the world, the sacrifices of good people everywhere to better the lot of the human race—ultimately all these come to nothing. Thus, if atheism is true, life is ultimately meaningless.

2. If God does not exist, then we must ultimately live without hope. If there is no God, then there is ultimately no hope for deliverance from the shortcomings of our finite existence.

For example, there is no hope for deliverance from evil. Although many people ask how God could create a world involving so much evil, by far most of the suffering in the world is due to man's own inhumanity to man. The horror of two world wars during the last century effectively destroyed the 19th century's naive optimism about human progress. If God does not exist, then we are locked without hope in a world filled with gratuitous and unredeemed suffering, and there is no hope for deliverance from evil.

Or again, if there is no God, there is no hope of deliverance from aging, disease, and death. Although it may be hard for you as university students to contemplate, the sober fact is that unless you die young, someday you—you yourself—will be an old man or an old woman, fighting a losing battle with aging, struggling against the inevitable advance of deterioration, disease, perhaps senility. And finally and inevitably you will die. There is no afterlife beyond the grave. Atheism is thus a philosophy without hope.

3. On the other hand, if God does exist, then not only is there meaning and hope, but there is also the possibility of coming to know God and His love personally. Think of it! That the infinite God should love you and want to be your personal friend! This would be the highest status a human being could enjoy! Clearly, if God exists, it makes not only a tremendous difference for mankind in general, but it could make a life-changing difference for you as well.

Now admittedly none of this shows that God exists. But does show that it makes a tremendous difference whether God exists. Therefore, even if the evidence for and against the existence of God were absolutely equal, the rational thing to do, I think, is to believe in Him. That is to say, it seems to me positively irrational when the evidence is equal to prefer death, futility, and despair over hope, meaningfulness and happiness.

But, in fact, I don't think the evidence is absolutely equal. I think there are good reasons to believe in God.

[spiltteeth]

It's not due to chance? How do you know?

We wouldn't be here if it wasn't due to chance.

If nuclear reactions didn't turn Hydrogen into other molecules, if our galaxy hadn't been created, if the Sun and the solar system hadn't been created, if the Earth had been too far or to close to the sun, if it had never became a geologically active planet, if volcanos hadn't spit water to the skies, if that water didn't rain and create oceans, if bacteria and viruses created here or from other planets didn't show up, if they didn't evolve into photossynthetic bacteria, if they didn't originate plants, fish, amphibians, reptiles, if the meteor had missed the Earth and the dinossaurs didn't extinguish, if the mammals hadn't prosper after that, if they hadn't evolved into primates (mutations which happen by chance, by errors in replication of DNA [which only happen once in 10 billion times if I'm not wrong]) and hadn't climbed up to trees, and later going to the savanah and started to walk on two feet, if they hadn't started to use their hands and making other things with them, if they hadn't climbed up in the food chain ladder,

You wouldn't be here.

Plus, if your spermatozoid hadn't beat the race against millions and millions of others, you would be different, and perhaps, very different.

And plus again, why bother creating all the rest of the Galaxy? Why bother creating the rest of the Universe?
We most probably will never see it all, or the end of it.

If even it wasn't this you meant, I'm sorry, but the way to truth about the Universe is getting clearer, and there is no god in it.
I don't think there is a god. It was Man who invented him. And if there is, let him make me believe by showing me a miracle heh.

The universe is not enough of a miracle for you!?
I'm afraid nothing will convince you then.
As I show above, it is wildly improbable that it was due to chance, mathematically speaking.

[cb9's_unity]

Assuming God does not exist because a lack of knowledge does nothing but help ...etc
I am assuming nothing, No assumption, there are ZERO assumptions in the above - it is ALL based on logic and mainstream science.

Actually, science works by coming up with a theory and then speculating.

There was no evidence for the theory for relativity for decades.

Would you suggest all research for alternatives theories of the universe be shut down because we ought not speculate on all this Quantum theory for which we have no evidence?

Anyway, the above science is supported by mainstream scientists, the evidence is overwhelming, and the conclusions based solidly in logic.

However, I do understand your position.

In some ways you are assuming that mainstream science will not give an explanation for the low probabilities for our existence. There are theories that say that there are many different universes or parallel universes and while they don't have sufficient evidence to yet be accepted by mainstream science they also hope to find natural and materialistic laws. Modern science right now understands that we have not discovered all of the natural laws and that we don't understand everything about science. However you are taking a leap and saying that the spiritual is most likely to solve our mystery's instead of the natural. You are assuming that god is more likely than the idea of a multi-verse or parallel universes. You are supporting a theory that supports you christian ideals even though other theory's with just as much or not more evidence can explain the low probability of life.

I could say I "believe in parallel universes" or "a multi-verse" or "infinite amount of space" and even if I didn't have an ounce of evidence that would be as credible as your theory of god.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Christians do that all the time. List stuff then say it can't be anything except.

Worst arguments ever. Good day sir.

[spiltteeth]

Christians do that all the time. List stuff then say it can't be anything except.

Worst arguments ever. Good day sir.

Well, surly we cannot be expected to complete with such a devastating argument as this!

[spiltteeth]

In some ways you are assuming that mainstream science will not give an explanation for the low probabilities for our existence. There are theories that say that there are many different universes or parallel universes and while they don't have sufficient evidence to yet be accepted by mainstream science they also hope to find natural and materialistic laws. Modern science right now understands that we have not discovered all of the natural laws and that we don't understand everything about science. However you are taking a leap and saying that the spiritual is most likely to solve our mystery's instead of the natural. You are assuming that god is more likely than the idea of a multi-verse or parallel universes. You are supporting a theory that supports you christian ideals even though other theory's with just as much or not more evidence can explain the low probability of life.

I could say I "believe in parallel universes" or "a multi-verse" or "infinite amount of space" and even if I didn't have an ounce of evidence that would be as credible as your theory of god.

Indeed the multi universe theory etc, which has no evidence, has been dealt with in the original post, of course I can expand, so I'll just cut and paste from the original :

Some might say that the big bang is speculative physics that could change at any moment. But the trend is in favor of an absolute beginning out of nothing. We have had a string of solid, recent scientific discoveries that point in a definite direction, as follows:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars

So, insofar as a person questions these discoveries and the origin of the entire physical universe out of nothing, they are opposing the progress of science.

I will list each alternative arguments to the Big bang model by name and explain the main problem with each.

The steady-state model: disproved by recent empirical observations of radio galaxy distributions, as well as red-shifting of light from distant galaxies moving away from us at increasing speeds
The oscillating model: disproved in 1998 by more empirical measurements of mass density which showed that the universe would expand forever, and never collapse
The vacuum fluctuation model: the theory allows for universes to spawn at every point in space and coalesce into one extremely old universe, which contradictions observations of our much younger universe
The chaotic inflationary model: does not avoid the need for an absolute beginning in the finite past
The quantum gravity model: makes use of imaginary time which cannot be mapped into a physical reality, it’s purely theoretical

The evidence available today supports the creation of the entire physical universe from nothing, caused by a supernatural mind with immense power. The progress of science has strengthened this theory against determined opposition from rival naturalistic theories.

Speculating about QM or chaotic inflationary requires you to go beyond the experimental evidence to the positing of unobservable realities. I listed multiple lines of evidence in favor of the standard big bang model, and that has been confirmed by multiple converging discoveries.

With each successive failure of alternative cosmogonic theories, the Standard Model has been corroborated.It can be confidently said that no cosmogonic model has been as repeatedly verified in its predictions and as corroborated by attempts at its falsification, or as concordant with empirical discoveries and as philosophically coherent, as the Standard Big Bang Model. This does not prove that it is correct, but it does show that it is the best explanation of the evidence which we have and therefore merits our provisional acceptance.

So we can line up 6 scientific discoveries, based on experimental results.

To deny the premise, one needs some reasons or some scientific data.

There are usually three basic reasons for rejecting a premise: (a) it is demonstrably false, (b) it lacks sufficient evidence or (c) it has at least one counterexample. If a person wishes to dispute (1) then he must categorize the causal principle into one of the three classifications I have stated.

So, I think we need to deal with the data we have today, not imagine alternative realities where untested speculations preserve a belief (weather it's theism or atheism) from falsification by the progress of science.
Unless a person can name a counter-example to the premise, the deductive argument goes through on modus ponens, backed by the science

[Invincible Summer]

Actually, I know several real physical benefits to me believing in God.
Here are 3 others :
1) If God does not exist, life is ultimately meaningless. If your life is doomed to end in death, then ultimately it does not matter how you live. In the end it makes no ultimate difference whether you existed or not. Sure, your life might have a relative significance in that you influenced others or affected the course of history. But ultimately mankind is doomed to perish in the heat death of the universe. Ultimately it makes no difference who you are or what you do. Your life is inconsequential.

Thus, the contributions of the scientist to the advance of human knowledge, the research of the doctor to alleviate pain and suffering, the efforts of the diplomat to secure peace in the world, the sacrifices of good people everywhere to better the lot of the human race—ultimately all these come to nothing. Thus, if atheism is true, life is ultimately meaningless.

How does the existence of a god provide "meaning" to the scientist, doctor, diplomat, etc? If these people go to "heaven," or whatever, they are supposed to live on in spirit, yes? But what good is that to the rest of humanity/universe? It's just a fancy ending to the same story. We live, things happen, and we die, just instead of being buried in the ground or cremated, you religious folk want to go to some afterlife where there is a similar amount of excitement and fulfillment to being stuck in a coffin.


2. If God does not exist, then we must ultimately live without hope. If there is no God, then there is ultimately no hope for deliverance from the shortcomings of our finite existence.

For example, there is no hope for deliverance from evil. Although many people ask how God could create a world involving so much evil, by far most of the suffering in the world is due to man's own inhumanity to man. The horror of two world wars during the last century effectively destroyed the 19th century's naive optimism about human progress. If God does not exist, then we are locked without hope in a world filled with gratuitous and unredeemed suffering, and there is no hope for deliverance from evil.
I hope for a better world in communism.

Evil caused by man? Well according to Judeo-christian beliefs, wasn't it god who created man and gave him free will in the first place? Besides that, if god is supposed to deliver us from evil and "unredeemed suffering," then why isn't he? Oh wait, it's "not time" yet, right? We're just supposed to endure more of our "inhumanity to man" so you religious folk can talk us down and then god will come through the clouds and save us helpless mortals.



Or again, if there is no God, there is no hope of deliverance from aging, disease, and death. Although it may be hard for you as university students to contemplate, the sober fact is that unless you die young, someday you—you yourself—will be an old man or an old woman, fighting a losing battle with aging, struggling against the inevitable advance of deterioration, disease, perhaps senility. And finally and inevitably you will die. There is no afterlife beyond the grave. Atheism is thus a philosophy without hope.
Technological advancements are increasing exponentially. People are living longer than ever, and with proper distribution of resources, technology will be able to aid everyone in living healthier, longer, stronger lives.

And to be honest, after living say... 80 or so years, I'm not sure if I'd want to have an afterlife. What's the point? Why are religious people afraid of death so much that they have to invent some magical place where people go when they die?



3. On the other hand, if God does exist, then not only is there meaning and hope, but there is also the possibility of coming to know God and His love personally. Think of it! That the infinite God should love you and want to be your personal friend! This would be the highest status a human being could enjoy! Clearly, if God exists, it makes not only a tremendous difference for mankind in general, but it could make a life-changing difference for you as well.

Well, even when I was a Christian (a fairly devout one before, as well), I never could say I felt God's love or even came close to "knowing" him or whatever. He never showed that he wanted to be my friend or mentor or guide.
In fact, my previous experience with Christianity and theism makes me more atheist, because when I was supposed to be close to god as a Christian (reading the bible, praying, attending church, other things that a "good" christian was supposed to do), I still felt empty and decided I might as well not be doing all this shit and wasting my time on something I can't see, experience, or understand.


Now admittedly none of this shows that God exists. But does show that it makes a tremendous difference whether God exists. Therefore, even if the evidence for and against the existence of God were absolutely equal, the rational thing to do, I think, is to believe in Him. That is to say, it seems to me positively irrational when the evidence is equal to prefer death, futility, and despair over hope, meaningfulness and happiness.

I - and other ex-Christians I know - have never felt hope, meaningfulness, nor happiness while practicing Christianity. In fact, by devoting ourselves to an invisible force that never did shit and basically seemed like a huge sham, we felt more futility and despair.

If the evidence were equal, I'd still be an atheist. This is because I see death as natural, and not something to be feared; I do not see futility in the human existence, as many have left legacies and done good things during their lifetime, and that's good enough for a life on Earth... after all, who gives a shit once you're in the afterlife? I mean, fuckin' God and angels are supposed to be there, so anything humans do is meaningless.




But, in fact, I don't think the evidence is absolutely equal. I think there are good reasons to believe in God.

Well, that's nice.

[Luisrah]

The universe is not enough of a miracle for you!?
I'm afraid nothing will convince you then.
As I show above, it is wildly improbable that it was due to chance, mathematically speaking.

Yeah wildly improbable. That's why the next planet that has conditions that allow life is probably thousands of light-years from here (if there exists one, but most probably yes, seen as the Universe is huge)

Christians thought that the Earth wasn't round. They thought that there were monsters (like those today in the movies) in Africa.
They thought that the Sun circled the Earth. When Galileo showed them that the Moon wasn't perfect and that it had craters in it, they said it was his telescope lens that was dirty.
One made a theory that the Earth had been created at 9am of the 26th October of 4004 BC, all this through calculations on the generations, the main biblic heroes since Adam and Eve until Jesus.
They thought that the Earth was created in what, 7 days huh?
That Eve was created from a rib of Adam. That Adam was created out of dirt or dust or w/e. (while the theory of species' evolution is comproved)
Not to mention all the natural disasters that were ''God's punishment''

All these were those who promoted crusades, the Inquisition, and burning heretics and ''witches''.

They got mistaken in every way. They weren't right in one single thing they believe. And in the future, they'll be mistaken in the rest.

But once again, seeing as the Universe is huge. I mean, really really big, and actually rather unorganized, and after all those mistakes, how can you still believe it was designed?

Eg: The Sun is growing, because it's getting older. In some million years, it will make the Earth too hot, and uninhabitable, and will eventually absorb it.
Eventually, again, the Sun will explode, destroying our solar system.
Is that the work of God? Or is it simply the way things work?

As much as you try, you can't comprove that God exists, ever existed, or that he ever created anything.
Because another question raises. Matter, that doesn't think or isn't wise, or is that, simply matter, couldn't have always existed (never having a beggining of existence)
But suddenly, an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient being, that thinks, can do every thing, wasn't created.
Matter always existed, or let's suppose it didn't. But it took around 46 thousand million years for us to start existing and we aren't omnipotent.

So if I believed in God, I'd say he was the one who was created. For how could he create matter out of nothing?
But since I don't believe in God, I know he was created. Created by man. And something that indicates this is the fact that there are many different religions. Why wouldn't God make all believe in only him?
Plus, the biggest question, if he wants the best for us all, why can't he make things work down here?
People have starved since the beggining of History, and nothing happens. They continue to do so.

O benevolent omnipotent God, either you can't fix this world, or you don't want to.

[spiltteeth]

Rise Like Lions;1579935]How does the existence of a god provide "meaning" to the scientist, doctor, diplomat, etc? If these people go to "heaven," or whatever, they are supposed to live on in spirit, yes? But what good is that to the rest of humanity/universe? It's just a fancy ending to the same story. We live, things happen, and we die, just instead of being buried in the ground or cremated, you religious folk want to go to some afterlife where there is a similar amount of excitement and fulfillment to being stuck in a coffin.


I hope for a better world in communism.

Me too. But obviously, unless the universe has an ultimate human meaning, this too is meaningless. How much longer do you think humans are gonna be around? Sun's gonna burn out. In a few it'll all just be empty space.


Evil caused by man? Well according to Judeo-christian beliefs, wasn't it god who created man and gave him free will in the first place? Besides that, if god is supposed to deliver us from evil and "unredeemed suffering," then why isn't he? Oh wait, it's "not time" yet, right? We're just supposed to endure more of our "inhumanity to man" so you religious folk can talk us down and then god will come through the clouds and save us helpless mortals.

This has nothing to do with a Christian outlook, suffering, indeed, can be turned into a grace.


Technological advancements are increasing exponentially. People are living longer than ever, and with proper distribution of resources, technology will be able to aid everyone in living healthier, longer, stronger lives.

Super. Old age, sickness, death, suffering will never vanish.


And to be honest, after living say... 80 or so years, I'm not sure if I'd want to have an afterlife. What's the point? Why are religious people afraid of death so much that they have to invent some magical place where people go when they die?

I don't know. After 80 I pretty much couldn't wait for my grandparents to die. So odd they wanted to live.
But I say over 30, why are people so insane they want to live to 40? Whats the point?
What? "To help people" "to give wisdom" "help make society a better place"
Idiots.


Well, even when I was a Christian (a fairly devout one before, as well), I never could say I felt God's love or even came close to "knowing" him or whatever. He never showed that he wanted to be my friend or mentor or guide.

Probably had the wrong faith.


In fact, my previous experience with Christianity and theism makes me more atheist, because when I was supposed to be close to god as a Christian (reading the bible, praying, attending church, other things that a "good" christian was supposed to do), I still felt empty and decided I might as well not be doing all this shit and wasting my time on something I can't see, experience, or understand.

I - and other ex-Christians I know - have never felt hope, meaningfulness, nor happiness while practicing Christianity. In fact, by devoting ourselves to an invisible force that never did shit and basically seemed like a huge sham, we felt more futility and despair.

I havn't a clue what kind of Christian you were, but if you didn't have a personal relationship with God thats closer to pretending to be a Christian.
Sounds like you were a part of some con.


If the evidence were equal, I'd still be an atheist. This is because I see death as natural, and not something to be feared; I do not see futility in the human existence, as many have left legacies and done good things during their lifetime, and that's good enough for a life on Earth... after all, who gives a shit once you're in the afterlife? I mean, fuckin' God and angels are supposed to be there, so anything humans do is meaningless.

All those legacies, as I say, are meaningless. The sun will burn out and there will be an eternity of cold emptiness. Your thinking in the short term.

I guess if your looking at it from some selfish egotistical perspective then really who gives a shit! Hey, the CEO's are right, so what if they destroy the planet - thats the next generations problem right? I mean, once yr dead who gives a shit? Fuck 'em. Fuck our kids. We'll be dead.

Without God, I agree, yr perspective is perfectly justifiable.


Well, that's nice.

yepper

[spiltteeth]

Yeah wildly improbable. That's why the next planet that has conditions that allow life is probably thousands of light-years from here (if there exists one, but most probably yes, seen as the Universe is huge)

Christians thought that the Earth wasn't round. They thought that there were monsters (like those today in the movies) in Africa.
They thought that the Sun circled the Earth. When Galileo showed them that the Moon wasn't perfect and that it had craters in it, they said it was his telescope lens that was dirty.
One made a theory that the Earth had been created at 9am of the 26th October of 4004 BC, all this through calculations on the generations, the main biblic heroes since Adam and Eve until Jesus.
They thought that the Earth was created in what, 7 days huh?
That Eve was created from a rib of Adam. That Adam was created out of dirt or dust or w/e. (while the theory of species' evolution is comproved)
Not to mention all the natural disasters that were ''God's punishment''

All these were those who promoted crusades, the Inquisition, and burning heretics and ''witches''.

They got mistaken in every way. They weren't right in one single thing they believe. And in the future, they'll be mistaken in the rest.

But once again, seeing as the Universe is huge. I mean, really really big, and actually rather unorganized, and after all those mistakes, how can you still believe it was designed?

Eg: The Sun is growing, because it's getting older. In some million years, it will make the Earth too hot, and uninhabitable, and will eventually absorb it.
Eventually, again, the Sun will explode, destroying our solar system.
Is that the work of God? Or is it simply the way things work?

As much as you try, you can't comprove that God exists, ever existed, or that he ever created anything.
Because another question raises. Matter, that doesn't think or isn't wise, or is that, simply matter, couldn't have always existed (never having a beggining of existence)
But suddenly, an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient being, that thinks, can do every thing, wasn't created.
Matter always existed, or let's suppose it didn't. But it took around 46 thousand million years for us to start existing and we aren't omnipotent.

So if I believed in God, I'd say he was the one who was created. For how could he create matter out of nothing?
But since I don't believe in God, I know he was created. Created by man. And something that indicates this is the fact that there are many different religions. Why wouldn't God make all believe in only him?
Plus, the biggest question, if he wants the best for us all, why can't he make things work down here?
People have starved since the beggining of History, and nothing happens. They continue to do so.

O benevolent omnipotent God, either you can't fix this world, or you don't want to.

My original post covers all this.
People who happened to be Christian make all sorts of wild judgments, as due atheists, none of it was ever Christian dogma.
Christianity makes certain premises that indeed can be falsifiable (creation ex Nilhio) which is supported etc - see original post, this is why i posted it, so I wouldn't have to endlessly repeat myself and the science.

[Muzk]

bullshit, simply because you dont know the "why" of something you put some superficial shit there, plus religion is like a fucking drug - it keeps you from seeing the things how they really are

[Invincible Summer]

Me too. But obviously, unless the universe has an ultimate human meaning, this too is meaningless. How much longer do you think humans are gonna be around? Sun's gonna burn out. In a few it'll all just be empty space.

I think a million years or so is a good amount of time.

I still would like an answer to the question "How does the existence of a god provide "meaning" to the work of the scientist, doctor, diplomat, etc?"



Super. Old age, sickness, death, suffering will never vanish.True, but with technology it would be possible to be old, yet as functional as you were in your prime; sicknesses could be drastically alleviated and easily treated.

And death again - why the fear of death? It is part of the cycle of life. It's natural.

Instead of hoping/waiting for a divine being to save us from these things, wouldn't it make sense to try and alleviate/stop them from happening as much as we can as humans?




I don't know. After 80 I pretty much couldn't wait for my grandparents to die. So odd they wanted to live.
But I say over 30, why are people so insane they want to live to 40? Whats the point?
What? "To help people" "to give wisdom" "help make society a better place"
Idiots.You're evading the question - what is the point of belief in an afterlife? Okay, so one's existence is spiritually extended. Yay! Now I can be with other dead people.

I don't get the attraction.




Probably had the wrong faith.

I havn't a clue what kind of Christian you were, but if you didn't have a personal relationship with God thats closer to pretending to be a Christian.
Sounds like you were a part of some con.Christian sectarianism! Nice! And I definitely did not "pretend." I grew up going to church and believed it all until a couple of years ago.




All those legacies, as I say, are meaningless. The sun will burn out and there will be an eternity of cold emptiness. Your thinking in the short term.Yeah, yknow, only a million + years. Pretty short term... relative to the concept of eternal life. :rolleyes:


I guess if your looking at it from some selfish egotistical perspective then really who gives a shit! Hey, the CEO's are right, so what if they destroy the planet - thats the next generations problem right? I mean, once yr dead who gives a shit? Fuck 'em. Fuck our kids. We'll be dead.

Without God, I agree, yr perspective is perfectly justifiable.This has nothing to do with what I was saying. I'm not saying that we shouldn't care about what Generation 1 does and leave Generation 2 to deal with it. I'm saying that I don't see the connection between human progress and the afterlife.

If god existed, I don't see how suddenly everything would be happy - religious folk believe god(s) exist NOW, and look how things are going.

[Raúl Duke]

1) If God does not exist, life is ultimately meaningless. If your life is doomed to end in death, then ultimately it does not matter how you live. In the end it makes no ultimate difference whether you existed or not. Sure, your life might have a relative significance in that you influenced others or affected the course of history. But ultimately mankind is doomed to perish in the heat death of the universe. Ultimately it makes no difference who you are or what you do. Your life is inconsequential.Does this bother you?

Many people in the world, and I would say many people on this board, have come to accept a similar thesis (or a theory that takes into acccount this thesis such as Sartrean existentialism).

The deal with this is that it's looking through the universe in a "universal absolutist sense." There may not be any universal or absolute meaning or purpose but this doesn't invalidate the socially constructed ones we operate on a given basis in life on this planet. However, realizing and/or accepting the possibility of no purpose/meaning puts those socially constructed purposes into perspective (allowing us "great choice of freedom" I guess in choosing or making one; however this is something that perhaps humans despair or fuss about the whole Sartrean "humans are condemn to be "free" issue).


2. If God does not exist, then we must ultimately live without hope. If there is no God, then there is ultimately no hope for deliverance from the shortcomings of our finite existence.

For example, there is no hope for deliverance from evil. Although many people ask how God could create a world involving so much evil, by far most of the suffering in the world is due to man's own inhumanity to man. The horror of two world wars during the last century effectively destroyed the 19th century's naive optimism about human progress. If God does not exist, then we are locked without hope in a world filled with gratuitous and unredeemed suffering, and there is no hope for deliverance from evil.So? Does this also bother you? Would it bother you if 1-2 were true? Grow up

Here on revleft, amongst many radicals, activists, etc many of us are trying to do something so to make the "world better" or for "another world" where some of these "evils" are addressed. In a universal/absolutist sense (i.e. looking at the universe in a detached way like god I suppose) then it doesn't matter.
At a human level, it does.


3. On the other hand, if God does exist, then not only is there meaning and hope, but there is also the possibility of coming to know God and His love personally. Think of it! That the infinite God should love you and want to be your personal friend! This would be the highest status a human being could enjoy! Clearly, if God exists, it makes not only a tremendous difference for mankind in general, but it could make a life-changing difference for you as well.
:rolleyes:

That's your opinion only and it's perfectly a deluded one. This kind of statements are just mere preaching

I've never felt this "love and hope" when I was religious; I only second-guessed myself thinking that perhaps I was bad or whatever and that's why my prayers not went answered (although I wondered why people who seemed to be worst then me had it better then me); amongst other issues. Then I began to wonder that perhaps god was indifferent to the world or perhaps sometimes even entertain the thought that he hated and/or was unfair against us. This brought about a lot of emotional turmoil which was slightly relieved when I stopped being religious and accepted the fact that I and humanity as a whole alone are accountable for what we do and our actions (in essence it was like "growing up" and accepting a fact of life; to me.)

"Elaborate reasons/theories" (Have you heard of Occam's Razor?) and fanciful wishes of god so-called "love" aren't enough.
In fact, it's turning out that everytime you post on this thread it only turns into more preaching god-bothering tripe and less evidence/proof (in fact none) or even (what seems to be mostly a priori) "logic and reason."


I havn't a clue what kind of Christian you were, but if you didn't have a personal relationship with God thats closer to pretending to be a Christian.
Sounds like you were a part of some con.

Oh shut the fuck up

[spiltteeth]

Rise Like Lions;1580054]I think a million years or so is a good amount of time.

I still would like an answer to the question "How does the existence of a god provide "meaning" to the work of the scientist, doctor, diplomat, etc?"

Well, if it all ends up being meaningless, then there is no meaning.


True, but with technology it would be possible to be old, yet as functional as you were in your prime; sicknesses could be drastically alleviated and easily treated.

And death again - why the fear of death? It is part of the cycle of life. It's natural.

I know its natural. There are saints who do not fear sickness plauge etc because its natural. Me - I go to the doctor and avoid it, it makes no difference if its natural or not.


Instead of hoping/waiting for a divine being to save us from these things, wouldn't it make sense to try and alleviate/stop them from happening as much as we can as humans?

Yes. Anyone hoping or waiting is surley silly.


You're evading the question - what is the point of belief in an afterlife? Okay, so one's existence is spiritually extended. Yay! Now I can be with other dead people.

I don't get the attraction.


I don't believe things because they are attractive, but because they are true.


Christian sectarianism! Nice! And I definitely did not "pretend." I grew up going to church and believed it all until a couple of years ago.

That sounds bizarre. Once who meet a person how can you "stop believing " in them?


Yeah, yknow, only a million + years. Pretty short term... relative to the concept of eternal life. :rolleyes:

What difference does it make -the end is the same.


This has nothing to do with what I was saying. I'm not saying that we shouldn't care about what Generation 1 does and leave Generation 2 to deal with it. I'm saying that I don't see the connection between human progress and the afterlife.


Neither do I.


If god existed, I don't see how suddenly everything would be happy - religious folk believe god(s) exist, and look how that is going.

I guess its just nice to know life matters.

[spiltteeth]

Raúl Duke;1580055]Does this bother you?

Many people in the world, and I would say many people on this board, have come to accept a similar thesis (or a theory that takes into acccount this thesis such as Sartrean existentialism).

The deal with this is that it's looking through the universe in a "universal absolutist sense." There may not be any universal or absolute meaning or purpose but this doesn't invalidate the socially constructed ones we operate on a given basis in life on this planet. However, realizing and/or accepting the possibility of no purpose/meaning puts those socially constructed purposes into perspective (allowing us "great choice of freedom" I guess in choosing or making one; however this is something that perhaps humans despair or fuss about the whole Sartrean "humans are condemn to be "free" issue).

It does bother me. As it has nearly all great minds. I don't think you've thought deeply enough on this, as have other Atheists such as Bertrand Russel, who wrote that we must build our lives upon "the firm foundation of unyielding despair."

Of course he, like all atheists, could not live a consistent life.
For though he was an atheist, he was an outspoken social critic, denouncing war and restrictions on sexual freedom. Russell admitted that he could not live as though ethical values were simply a matter of personal taste, and that he therefore found his own views "incredible." "I do not know the solution," he confessed.

Have you thought about the ethical ramifications?
Kai Nielsen, an atheist philosopher who attempts to defend the viability of ethics without God, in the end admits,


We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn't decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me . . . . Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.

there can be no objective standards of right and wrong. All we are confronted with is, in Jean-Paul Sartre's words, the bare, valueless fact of existence.

if God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Many theists and atheists alike concur on this point. For example, philosopher of science Michael Ruse explains,


Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.
HOWEVER - The question here is not: “Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?” I’m not claiming that we must. Nor is the question: “Can we recognizeobjective moral values without believing in God?” I think that we can.

Rather the question is: “If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?” Like Ruse, I don’t see any reason to think that in the absence of God, the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens is objective. After all, if there is no God, then what’s so special about human beings? They’re just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. On the atheistic view, some action, say, rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of human development has become taboo; but that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really wrong. On the atheistic view, there’s nothing really wrong with your raping someone. Thus, without God there is no absolute right and wrong which imposes itself on our conscience.



So? Does this also bother you? Would it bother you if 1-2 were true? Grow up

I actually knew the last living surviver of Dr. Mengals experiments. She sacrificed her baby for her own survival. I wish I could have told her this. She died a few weeks ago.

Only if God exists can a person consistently support women's rights. For if God does not exist, then natural selection dictates that the male of the species is the dominant and aggressive one. Women would no more have rights than a female goat or chicken have rights. In nature whatever is, is right. But who can live with such a view?

Take the biological determinism of a man like Francis Crick. The logical conclusion is that man is like any other laboratory specimen. The world was horrified when it learned that at camps like Dachau the Nazis had used prisoners for medical experiments on living humans. But why not? If God does not exist, there can be no objection to using people as human guinea pigs. The end of this view is population control in which the weak and unwanted are killed off to make room for the strong. But the only way we can consistently protest this view is if God exists.


Here on revleft, amongst many radicals, activists, etc many of us are trying to do something so to make the "world better" or for "another world" where some of these "evils" are addressed. In a universal/absolutist sense (i.e. looking at the universe in a detached way like god I suppose) then it doesn't matter.
At a human level, it does.

:rolleyes:

That's your opinion only and it's perfectly a deluded one. This kind of statements are just mere preaching

I've never felt this "love and hope" when I was religious; I only second-guessed myself thinking that perhaps I was bad or whatever and that's why my prayers not went answered (although I wondered why people who seemed to be worst then me had it better then me); amongst other issues. Then I began to wonder that perhaps god was indifferent to the world or perhaps sometimes even entertain the thought that he hated and/or was unfair against us. This brought about a lot of emotional turmoil which was slightly relieved when I stopped being religious and accepted the fact that I and humanity as a whole alone are accountable for what we do and our actions (in essence it was like "growing up" and accepting a fact of life; to me.)

"Elaborate reasons/theories" (Have you heard of Occam's Razor?) and fanciful wishes of god so-called "love" aren't enough.
In fact, it's turning out that everytime you post on this thread it only turns into more preaching god-bothering tripe and less evidence/proof (in fact none) or even (what seems to be mostly a priori) "logic and reason."



Oh shut the fuck up

I have heard of Occam's razor, it logically compels one to believe in God, as the 2 arguments show.

I'm sorry you feel the last 60yrs of science is not evidence. If not science, logic, and math, can I ask what you consider we can rationally draw our conclusions upon?

I see no preaching, I merely show a rationally justified belief for a Deist God, with no ramifications of what religion if any one could attach Him to, or what morals one can ascribe to Him.
It is you who have called me deluded.

[Luisrah]

My original post covers all this.
People who happened to be Christian make all sorts of wild judgments, as due atheists, none of it was ever Christian dogma.
Christianity makes certain premises that indeed can be falsifiable (creation ex Nilhio) which is supported etc - see original post, this is why i posted it, so I wouldn't have to endlessly repeat myself and the science.

The problem is that Religion never changes unless science changes.
And science changes all the time, so religion does too.

When science proves religion to be wrong, the latter adapts and invents something else.
Models of the creation and state of the universe have been created and disproved. But they might have been disproved now and can be approved again later with new info.

Those one in a million scientists say that it is so improbable that life has appeared, that it must have been God.
But they forget yet again that the Universe has more galaxies then they will ever be capable of counting without diyng of old age before finishing it.
In fact, the universe is estimated to have 125 billion galaxies.
Furthermore, it is estimated that our galaxy has around 2x10^11 stellar systems, and more calculations estimate that the number of systems with planets is between 20% and 50%, which means 7x10^10 (assuming 35%)

Atleast one planet in one tenth of all those systems should have the conditions to support life (not talking about systems that might have more than one planet able of supporting life), that makes 7x10^9 planets.
Lets assume, that for any reason, only half of those planets actually develop life (which is quite innacurate seeing as, proven by our planet, life evolves wherever it can) that's 3.5 billion planets.
Continuing, let's say that only 50% of those actually develop intelligent life with enough time.
1.75 billions.
And admitting that only 0.001% of them exist right now due to natural causes or time difference - 1.75 million.

But that's one galaxy, ours. Others may be bigger.

Yes, we can exclude chance :rolleyes:

There are 6 billion humans on earth. Each of them has between 10 and 100 trillion cells. Lets make it 50 trillion.
That's 3x10^23 cells in all humans. In 7 years, nearly all the cells in your body (except a few that don't reproduce I believe) have been replaced, so every 7 years, another 3x10^23 cells are created. But just because this is for you, I won't include those calculations.
Erros in the replication of DNA only happen once in every 10^9
Dividing one by the other, you have 3x10^14 cell mutations.
There's still a lot of calculations to do, because you still have to figure out the number of genes that don't kill you, have a ''major'' importance, and are actually dominant.
But you must also remember that this is just one instant, it isn't a lifetime of humanity, and it is just counting humans, not the rest of the animals.

So no, we can't exclude chance.
I actually say that chance is most probably (heh get the irony? chance is most probably...) the real explanation.

Because following your explanation, turning this into a metaphore, and going back to the planets with life calculations, if 1.75 million gunmen shot each one, one shot, at 7x10^10 people, and you were one in those 1.75 unlucky guys, you wouldn't think it was orchestrated, but yes that it was mere bad luck that you got hit while there were 7x10^10-1.75million people out there too.

And all those calculations were rough ones heh.

[Invincible Summer]

Rather the question is: “If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?” Like Ruse, I don’t see any reason to think that in the absence of God, the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens is objective. After all, if there is no God, then what’s so special about human beings? They’re just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. .


What's so special? Do you know of any other lifeforms that are as intelligent, creative, feeling as humans? Yes, it's true that we're trapped on some speck of dust in a huge universe, but as far as we've known for most of history, we're the only beings like us. That's pretty special.

But of course, if one is infatuated with deities, then mere mortals are pretty insignificant.



On the atheistic view, some action, say, rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of human development has become taboo; but that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really wrong. On the atheistic view, there’s nothing really wrong with your raping someone. Thus, without God there is no absolute right and wrong which imposes itself on our conscience

Only if God exists can a person consistently support women's rights. For if God does not exist, then natural selection dictates that the male of the species is the dominant and aggressive one. Women would no more have rights than a female goat or chicken have rights. In nature whatever is, is right. But who can live with such a view?

Take the biological determinism of a man like Francis Crick. The logical conclusion is that man is like any other laboratory specimen. The world was horrified when it learned that at camps like Dachau the Nazis had used prisoners for medical experiments on living humans. But why not? If God does not exist, there can be no objection to using people as human guinea pigs. The end of this view is population control in which the weak and unwanted are killed off to make room for the strong. But the only way we can consistently protest this view is if God exists.

There doesn't have to be some deity to tell us that killing and raping are wrong. That's absurd. Also, atheists aren't all social darwinists.

Besides, God's ideas of "right" and "wrong" include the subordination of women, denunciation of homosexuals, crushing "sinful" groups of people, etc.

[Kronos]

ONE - God makes sense of the the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.


The existence of intelligent life depends upon a conspiracy of initial conditions which must be fine-tuned to a degree that is literally incomprehensible and incalculable.Just wanted to say that we shouldn't use terms like 'necessity', 'chance' or 'design' when this question is brought to bear, since they tend to complicate and sophisticate the matter. The same point should be made here, as is being made by Rosa in a Determinism thread, that these anthropomorphic terms bring with them certain contexts which couldn't be relevant to the universe.

To say things exists 'by necessity' is the same as saying things had to be as they are....and that they couldn't be any other way. We can't really say that. We can only say things are as they are.

'Chance' isn't really appropriate either, since it implies nature would act randomly. This gets a little messy....

Randomness is a mathematical model for certain system states, just as order is- but nature isn't a mathematical model. We can no sooner prove that something had no cause (in which case it would not be subjected to laws) then we can say that a pattern will continue (in which case we would commit the induction fallacy) ...so these descriptions can be accurate only for mathematical/scientific systems.

Can we really declare 'that event was necessary' or 'there were no antecedent events which influenced the following event'? No way. Those statements are implicit in the idea of 'necessity' and 'chance'. The fact is, neither are the correct term options for this question.

Finally, if the reason why you propose the universe was designed is because the 'fine tuned' conditions for life couldn't have existed or 'come about'.....you would have to know in advance the approximate age of the universe, the approximate distribution of those elements necessary for 'life' throughout the universe, and all the laws. If you do not (and you don't....nobody does), you cannot really say the chances for life are unlikely....since you don't have enough information to calculate an accurate probability for those fined tuned conditions.

If you say 'in conditions X, Y is .1% probable' you say nothing about conditions other than X which would bring higher probabilities for Y. But that's just it. You can't consider any other conditions than X (the known universe) when working out the probability of life.

There could very well be a corner of the universe flourishing with life like our own. Say a series of solar systems. How 'fine tuned' would we call those conditions...if they were so common?

In the same manner, when we say that the chances of water molecules forming are extremely high on planet earth....we would consider the chances for water existing in a solar system where hydrogen and oxygen was scarce...'fine tuned' if indeed we found some water somewhere.

So you see that estimations and probabilities in design theories (creationisms) always presuppose that the sum of conditions necessary for life here are rare throughout the universe. We cannot know that...so we can't play that card.

[spiltteeth]

The problem is that Religion never changes unless science changes.
And science changes all the time, so religion does too.

When science proves religion to be wrong, the latter adapts and invents something else.
Models of the creation and state of the universe have been created and disproved. But they might have been disproved now and can be approved again later with new info.

Those one in a million scientists say that it is so improbable that life has appeared, that it must have been God.
But they forget yet again that the Universe has more galaxies then they will ever be capable of counting without diyng of old age before finishing it.
In fact, the universe is estimated to have 125 billion galaxies.
Furthermore, it is estimated that our galaxy has around 2x10^11 stellar systems, and more calculations estimate that the number of systems with planets is between 20% and 50%, which means 7x10^10 (assuming 35%)

Atleast one planet in one tenth of all those systems should have the conditions to support life (not talking about systems that might have more than one planet able of supporting life), that makes 7x10^9 planets.
Lets assume, that for any reason, only half of those planets actually develop life (which is quite innacurate seeing as, proven by our planet, life evolves wherever it can) that's 3.5 billion planets.
Continuing, let's say that only 50% of those actually develop intelligent life with enough time.
1.75 billions.
And admitting that only 0.001% of them exist right now due to natural causes or time difference - 1.75 million.

But that's one galaxy, ours. Others may be bigger.

Yes, we can exclude chance :rolleyes:

There are 6 billion humans on earth. Each of them has between 10 and 100 trillion cells. Lets make it 50 trillion.
That's 3x10^23 cells in all humans. In 7 years, nearly all the cells in your body (except a few that don't reproduce I believe) have been replaced, so every 7 years, another 3x10^23 cells are created. But just because this is for you, I won't include those calculations.
Erros in the replication of DNA only happen once in every 10^9
Dividing one by the other, you have 3x10^14 cell mutations.
There's still a lot of calculations to do, because you still have to figure out the number of genes that don't kill you, have a ''major'' importance, and are actually dominant.
But you must also remember that this is just one instant, it isn't a lifetime of humanity, and it is just counting humans, not the rest of the animals.

So no, we can't exclude chance.
I actually say that chance is most probably (heh get the irony? chance is most probably...) the real explanation.

Because following your explanation, turning this into a metaphore, and going back to the planets with life calculations, if 1.75 million gunmen shot each one, one shot, at 7x10^10 people, and you were one in those 1.75 unlucky guys, you wouldn't think it was orchestrated, but yes that it was mere bad luck that you got hit while there were 7x10^10-1.75million people out there too.

And all those calculations were rough ones heh.

As the post states
For example, the physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10 (100) would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe's expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10 (120).
Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 10 (123). Penrose comments,
Quote:
"
I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010 (123)."
And it's not just each constant or quantity which must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned.

So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.
Barrow and Tipler list ten steps in the evolution of homo sapiens, including such steps as the development of the DNA-based genetic code, the origin of mitochondria, the origin of photosynthesis, the development of aerobic respiration, and so forth, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and incinerated the earth.

We should emphasize once again that the enormous improbability of the evolution of intelligent life in general and Homo sapiens in particular
They calculate the odds against the assembly of a human genome at between 4-[180(110,000)] and 4-[360(110,000)]


Oh, and the Orthodox church has changed none of its beliefs in 2,ooo yrs.
Science changes all the time, would you say Newton was 'proved wrong' -his theory is incomplete, so we can't trust science etc

[spiltteeth]

Just wanted to say that we shouldn't use terms like 'necessity', 'chance' or 'design' when this question is brought to bear, since they tend to complicate and sophisticate the matter. The same point should be made here, as is being made by Rosa in a Determinism thread, that these anthropomorphic terms bring with them certain contexts which couldn't be relevant to the universe.

To say things exists 'by necessity' is the same as saying things had to be as they are....and that they couldn't be any other way. We can't really say that. We can only say things are as they are.

'Chance' isn't really appropriate either, since it implies nature would act randomly. This gets a little messy....

Randomness is a mathematical model for certain system states, just as order is- but nature isn't a mathematical model. We can no sooner prove that something had no cause (in which case it would not be subjected to laws) then we can say that a pattern will continue (in which case we would commit the induction fallacy) ...so these descriptions can be accurate only for mathematical/scientific systems.

Can we really declare 'that event was necessary' or 'there were no antecedent events which influenced the following event'? No way. Those statements are implicit in the idea of 'necessity' and 'chance'. The fact is, neither are the correct term options for this question.

Finally, if the reason why you propose the universe was designed is because the 'fine tuned' conditions for life couldn't have existed or 'come about'.....you would have to know in advance the approximate age of the universe, the approximate distribution of those elements necessary for 'life' throughout the universe, and all the laws. If you do not (and you don't....nobody does), you cannot really say the chances for life are unlikely....since you don't have enough information to calculate an accurate probability for those fined tuned conditions.

If you say 'in conditions X, Y is .1% probable' you say nothing about conditions other than X which would bring higher probabilities for Y. But that's just it. You can't consider any other conditions than X (the known universe) when working out the probability of life.

There could very well be a corner of the universe flourishing with life like our own. Say a series of solar systems. How 'fine tuned' would we call those conditions...if they were so common?

In the same manner, when we say that the chances of water molecules forming are extremely high on planet earth....we would consider the chances for water existing in a solar system where hydrogen and oxygen was scarce...'fine tuned' if indeed we found some water somewhere.

So you see that estimations and probabilities in design theories (creationisms) always presuppose that the sum of conditions necessary for life here are rare throughout the universe. We cannot know that...so we can't play that card.


.you would have to know in advance the approximate age of the universe, the approximate distribution of those elements necessary for 'life' throughout the universe, and all the laws.

We know the approximate age of the universe and approximate distribution of elements, the calculations are based on known laws, obviously.

The words necessary etc are used purely mathematically.

[spiltteeth]

What's so special? Do you know of any other lifeforms that are as intelligent, creative, feeling as humans? Yes, it's true that we're trapped on some speck of dust in a huge universe, but as far as we've known for most of history, we're the only beings like us. That's pretty special.

But of course, if one is infatuated with deities, then mere mortals are pretty insignificant.



There doesn't have to be some deity to tell us that killing and raping are wrong. That's absurd. Also, atheists aren't all social darwinists.

Besides, God's ideas of "right" and "wrong" include the subordination of women, denunciation of homosexuals, crushing "sinful" groups of people, etc.

As I said :

HOWEVER - The question here is not: “Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?” I’m not claiming that we must. Nor is the question: “Can we recognize objective moral values without believing in God?” I think that we can.

[Kronos]

I just think the theory makes an appeal to ignorance by assuming no other kind of life would be possible (in our place). With that in mind I think the argument is anecdotal and founded on the anthropic principle- one starts with the theory that there is an intelligent, benevolent God....and works down to the inference that human life is both a unique, teleological miracle and necessary for the universe to exist.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I don't wish to be ruled by humanly or spiritual powers. The idea of god is disturbing to me, I want a society of complete equality based on self-management. God seems perverse and alien to this society.

"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished."

[spiltteeth]

I just think the theory makes an appeal to ignorance by assuming no other kind of life would be possible (in our place). With that in mind I think the argument is anecdotal and founded on the anthropic principle- one starts with the theory that there is an intelligent, benevolent God....and works down to the inference that human life is both a unique, teleological miracle and necessary for the universe to exist.

Well, for the cosmological theory, it works the opposite, no assumptions at all,
I'm afraid I see no assumptions about other life.
The argument engages with the idea that the universe is nessasary, I don't see how the science supports that at all.

There are usually three basic reasons for rejecting a premise: (a) it is demonstrably false, (b) it lacks sufficient evidence or (c) it has at least one counterexample.

[Revy]

Imagine yourself as God. What would you do?

Would you create humans, only to be apathetic to their situation, yet demand their worship, all in the name of salvation?

There's another thread called "Is God a capitalist?". While I think it would be silly to suggest that, I would find the idea that God is a communist to be silly as well.

I think religion is more about belonging to something than having a "relationship". You pompously claim that someone wasn't a "real" Christian because they remember not having a relationship. Yes, plenty of Christians will say they have a relationship, but they know they don't. They know that it's one-way communication and there is never an answer. They're expected to hear God through a pastor's sermons. This is why a church is called a "house of God".

[Kronos]

Imagine yourself as God. What would you do?


I would create a bowl of macaroni and cheese the size of a planet and indulge.

[spiltteeth]

Imagine yourself as God. What would you do?

Would you create humans, only to be apathetic to their situation, yet demand their worship, all in the name of salvation?

There's another thread called "Is God a capitalist?". While I think it would be silly to suggest that, I would find the idea that God is a communist to be silly as well.

I think religion is more about belonging to something than having a "relationship". You pompously claim that someone wasn't a "real" Christian because they remember not having a relationship. Yes, plenty of Christians will say they have a relationship, but they know they don't. They know that it's one-way communication and there is never an answer. They're expected to hear God through a pastor's sermons. This is why a church is called a "house of God".

I'm just saying if you don't love a person, God or whomever, and are just going through the motions, then, as you yourself just said, "they know they don't." Just like with no God people must only pretend life has meaning, with no actual personal relationship to God a person can only pretend.
I belong to the Orthodox church, so there's no sermons, its just about worship, and frankly most of the christians I've seen seem more like cia mind control experiments, but I've felt God's love as clearly as I've felt my own mothers, or a friends. I hear God through people all the time, but then again I volunteer around alot of desperate cases. Answers are plentiful, and the question isn't if God exists, but what happens when you put him in yr life, I've seen objective HUGE changes in my life. Of course, ones heart must be open.
Anywhosal such is my experience.
As for interpretation of Gods motivations, if that was my concept I wouldn't worship at all. Many people are not praying to God, only their warped self image.

[Invincible Summer]

Well we're supposedly made in God's image, right? So "our own warped self-image" is also God's...

[spiltteeth]

Well we're supposedly made in God's image, right? So "our own warped self-image" is also God's...

no, being made in His image is not the same as having the mind of God, especially in our cracked state.

[Invincible Summer]

no, being made in His image is not the same as having the mind of God, especially in our cracked state.

Yeah i was being snarky

[Kronos]

Relevant material:


One of the oldest and most popular arguments for the existence of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God) is the design argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument) — that all the order and "purpose" in the world bespeaks a divine origin. Hume gave the classic criticism of the design argument in Dialogues concerning Natural Religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogues_concerning_Natural_Religion) and An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enquiry_concerning_Human_Understanding). Here are some of his points:[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose". Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to compare the world to a machine — as in Paley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Paley)'s watchmaker argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy) — when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal. Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer? If a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world? Often, what appears to be purpose, where it looks like object X has feature F in order to secure outcome O, is better explained by a filtering process: that is, object X wouldn't be around did it not possess feature F, and outcome O is only interesting to us as a human projection of goals onto nature. This mechanical explanation of teleology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology) anticipated natural selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection). (see also Anthropic principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)) The design argument does not explain pain, suffering, and natural disasters. See Problem of evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil).

[Ovi]

In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer? If a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world? I told him the same thing but then he started explaining that since the sky is blue and grass is green, god must exist. Or something like that.

[spiltteeth]

In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer? If a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?

Unfortunately, it is not mathematically possible for something to go on "ad infinitum" and then we also know the universe began 13.7 billion yrs ago, so one is logically compelled to posit an "undesigned designer."

[Ovi]

Unfortunately, it is not mathematically possible for something to go on "ad infinitum" and then we also know the universe began 13.7 billion yrs ago, so one is logically compelled to posit an "undesigned designer."
Or some already existent laws of physics. A god doesn't make any more sense.

[spiltteeth]

Until said laws of physics are found....

[OrganisedRandomness]

Unfortunately, it is not mathematically possible for something to go on "ad infinitum" and then we also know the universe began 13.7 billion yrs ago, so one is logically compelled to posit an "undesigned designer."

Infinity is more of a concept than a concrete number. My suggestion would be to read up on calculus.

What is the significance of the universe beginning so many years ago? By universe, do you mean all that physically exists? Does your god fit into that?

I also still don't see why this leads you to suggest a "designer", where is your evidence that a "designer" exists?

[spiltteeth]

Infinity is more of a concept than a concrete number. My suggestion would be to read up on calculus.

What is the significance of the universe beginning so many years ago? By universe, do you mean all that physically exists? Does your god fit into that?

I also still don't see why this leads you to suggest a "designer", where is your evidence that a "designer" exists?

The original post answers all this, which was why I wrote it instead of repeating myself.

Briefly, God is uncreated and beginning-less, all matter and energy were created from an initial singularity 13.7 billion yrs ago, according to a model called the Big Bang theory, so we know there is not an infinite past, since all things which are created have a cause what was the universes cause? It would have to be nonmaterial -supernatural- and I argue personal etc in the original post.

We also know infinity cannot exist in the real world for several reasons, but mathematically,mathematicians recognize that the existence 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 the twentieth 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.

But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can't go back forever; rather the universe must have begun to exist.

[Ovi]

Until said laws of physics are found....
Or until god is found...

[OrganisedRandomness]

We also know infinity cannot exist in the real world for several reasons, but mathematically,mathematicians recognize that the existence 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 the twentieth century, states,

But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can't go back forever; rather the universe must have begun to exist.

I agree with David, infinity is just a concept. Take a circle, start at point A, and go clockwise. You can't get to infinity, you can't come to an infinite "number" of times that you have gone round the circle. Infinity is our way of making sense of something, doesn't mean the circle's edge doesn't exist.

[spiltteeth]

I agree with David, infinity is just a concept. Take a circle, start at point A, and go clockwise. You can't get to infinity, you can't come to an infinite "number" of times that you have gone round the circle. Infinity is our way of making sense of something, doesn't mean the circle's edge doesn't exist.

I'm not sure what yr saying - are you saying infinite past can exist?

[OrganisedRandomness]

I'm not sure what yr saying - are you saying infinite past can exist?

What I'm saying is that while mathematically, as a number, infinity cannot exist; to apply that to something in real life like time is too simplistic. Same with your earlier attempt to show quantum gravity as irrelevant - yes, imaginary time is not something we can immediately visualise (like imaginary numbers in mathematics), does not mean it is somehow useless - it's a concept.

[spiltteeth]

What I'm saying is that while mathematically, as a number, infinity cannot exist; to apply that to something in real life like time is too simplistic. Same with your earlier attempt to show quantum gravity as irrelevant - yes, imaginary time is not something we can immediately visualise (like imaginary numbers in mathematics), does not mean it is somehow useless - it's a concept.

Oh, I understand its useful, often times in physics its utilized and then converted to real time. I'm merely saying it does not exist in reality - there is no infinite past, thats all.
I don't think its irrelevant or useless.

[Kronos]

[ edited below ]

[Kronos]

There are only a few contending thought experiments in philosophy regarding 'life' metaphysics.

Either a) we are mortal, and contingent (pure nihilism...the annihilation of consciousness at death never to repeat again), b) we are mortal, and necessary (fatalism, an infinite universe in infinite time repeating itself infinitely. This is a physical immortality, not a spiritual kind), or c) we are immortal spiritually and there is not a repetition of this world (as in b) but other worlds (religious idealism).

A and B are the simplest options. C is the kind of theory that would require an almost impossible amount of information in order to be made comprehensible.

I think using Occam's Razor should bring us to conclusion B. The simplest explanations are often times the right explanations.

edit: I just realized I hedged that claim there, and it does not follow that B is necessarily the simplest explanation. There is indeed a dash of idealistic optimism in the idea of an Eternal Recurrence....I have a very limited knowledge of infinite universe theories which deny a moment of creation, but I suspect these theories are seriously considered in theoretical physics.

Is it philosophically legal and decent to postulate something like an infinite universe with no boundaries or beginnings forever repeating itself? I think so. It seems to me to be a far easier and simpler account of the universe and 'Being'. It boarders on that line between a relatively positivist view of philosophy and complete pseudo-philosophy.

But comparatively speaking, Platonic- anthropomorphic- Abrahamic religions are guilty of far many more irrational claims and great metaphysical leaps in theory than a stripped down idea of an eternal recurrence of the same.

This is why I can't go with Christian metaphysics, not only because of its perverse psychological innuendos, but because anyone who thinks they could even begin to suggest there is another 'world' has already lost the argument. The last great vestige of metaphysics is the pantheism of Spinoza and the recurrence of the world as a Will to Power.

Verily, I speak thus.

[Zanthorus]

Trying to reason from empirical premises to something non-empirical such as God is nonsensical.

[Durruti's Ghost]

How do you respond to this argument against the existence of a benevolent God?


Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[spiltteeth]

There are only a few contending thought experiments in philosophy regarding 'life' metaphysics.

Either a) we are mortal, and contingent (pure nihilism...the annihilation of consciousness at death never to repeat again), b) we are mortal, and necessary (fatalism, an infinite universe in infinite time repeating itself infinitely. This is a physical immortality, not a spiritual kind), or c) we are immortal spiritually and there is not a repetition of this world (as in b) but other worlds (religious idealism).

A and B are the simplest options. C is the kind of theory that would require an almost impossible amount of information in order to be made comprehensible.

I think using Occam's Razor should bring us to conclusion B. The simplest explanations are often times the right explanations.

edit: I just realized I hedged that claim there, and it does not follow that B is necessarily the simplest explanation. There is indeed a dash of idealistic optimism in the idea of an Eternal Recurrence....I have a very limited knowledge of infinite universe theories which deny a moment of creation, but I suspect these theories are seriously considered in theoretical physics.

Is it philosophically legal and decent to postulate something like an infinite universe with no boundaries or beginnings forever repeating itself? I think so. It seems to me to be a far easier and simpler account of the universe and 'Being'. It boarders on that line between a relatively positivist view of philosophy and complete pseudo-philosophy.

But comparatively speaking, Platonic- anthropomorphic- Abrahamic religions are guilty of far many more irrational claims and great metaphysical leaps in theory than a stripped down idea of an eternal recurrence of the same.

This is why I can't go with Christian metaphysics, not only because of its perverse psychological innuendos, but because anyone who thinks they could even begin to suggest there is another 'world' has already lost the argument. The last great vestige of metaphysics is the pantheism of Spinoza and the recurrence of the world as a Will to Power.

Verily, I speak thus.

a) doesn't need another world; and I would argue there are good reasons to think mind is not material, therefore conciseness does not end at physical death, and if this is true, then a) becomes the simplest explanation.

Oh, and the universe will not repeat, it had a definite beginning 13.7 billion yrs ago and will expand endlessly while stars dies out etc

[spiltteeth]

How do you respond to this argument against the existence of a benevolent God?

Yea, I've heard this, and usually I give a brief summery of Plantinga's response, which goes something like this :


A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.

I should mention that God's omnipotence does not mean he can do the logically impossible, like make 2+2=5 etc, so Plantinga's argument is that even though God is omnipotent, it is possible that it was not in his power to create a world containing moral good but no moral evil; therefore, there is no logical inconsistency involved when God, although wholly good, creates a world of free creatures who chose to do evil.

So, in its most basic form : Plantinga says

"It is possible that God, even being omnipotent, could not create a world with free creatures who never choose evil. Furthermore, it is possible that God, even being omnibenevolent, would desire to create a world which contains evil if moral goodness requires free moral creatures."

[Post-Something]

That doesn't count for natural disasters, things that humans aren't accountable for etc.

[spiltteeth]

That doesn't count for natural disasters, things that humans aren't accountable for etc.

That's true, this is only for evil, which involves morality.

However, a Christian sees much of what others call suffering as an opportunity to transform suffering into grace, by accepting it, as Jung says "embrace ye pain, therein yr soul grows"

Also, Christians believe in an eternal afterlife of bliss; this life is but a lightning flash in the sky, and any suffering experience now is greatly mitigated by an eternity with God.

Further, the Christian does not see happiness as the highest good, but knowing God and self sacrifice etc

Finally, much as the evil in the world has been mitigated, from a christian perspective.
For instance war is evil, say, but then during the war a person jumps on a grenade and sacrifices themselves for a buddy, this is a good that came out of the war; so some of the evil is "absorbed" by this good.
In Christianity we believe God actually sacrificed His son, and that this absorbed much of worlds evil.

[Durruti's Ghost]

That's true, this is only for evil, which involves morality.

However, a Christian sees much of what others call suffering as an opportunity to transform suffering into grace, by accepting it, as Jung says "embrace ye pain, therein yr soul grows"


Why would a benevolent God create us such that we must suffer in order for our souls to grow?

[Decolonize The Left]

There are only a few contending thought experiments in philosophy regarding 'life' metaphysics.

Either a) we are mortal, and contingent (pure nihilism...the annihilation of consciousness at death never to repeat again), b) we are mortal, and necessary (fatalism, an infinite universe in infinite time repeating itself infinitely. This is a physical immortality, not a spiritual kind), or c) we are immortal spiritually and there is not a repetition of this world (as in b) but other worlds (religious idealism).

A and B are the simplest options. C is the kind of theory that would require an almost impossible amount of information in order to be made comprehensible.

I think using Occam's Razor should bring us to conclusion B. The simplest explanations are often times the right explanations.

edit: I just realized I hedged that claim there, and it does not follow that B is necessarily the simplest explanation. There is indeed a dash of idealistic optimism in the idea of an Eternal Recurrence....I have a very limited knowledge of infinite universe theories which deny a moment of creation, but I suspect these theories are seriously considered in theoretical physics.

Is it philosophically legal and decent to postulate something like an infinite universe with no boundaries or beginnings forever repeating itself? I think so. It seems to me to be a far easier and simpler account of the universe and 'Being'. It boarders on that line between a relatively positivist view of philosophy and complete pseudo-philosophy.

But comparatively speaking, Platonic- anthropomorphic- Abrahamic religions are guilty of far many more irrational claims and great metaphysical leaps in theory than a stripped down idea of an eternal recurrence of the same.

This is why I can't go with Christian metaphysics, not only because of its perverse psychological innuendos, but because anyone who thinks they could even begin to suggest there is another 'world' has already lost the argument. The last great vestige of metaphysics is the pantheism of Spinoza and the recurrence of the world as a Will to Power.

Verily, I speak thus.

Out of the three examples you posed, A is the simplest and the best. I believe that you fail to understand the point of Nietzsche's eternal recurrence of the same. It was not meant to be treated literally, though I acknowledge that it could be, rather, it was meant as a rebuttal to the decent into nihilism.

Eternal recurrence is an idea, not a reality, which is meant to combat the loss of meaning present in nihilism. It provides an infinite source of meaning, though it is not to be treated as scientific fact.

The example A, "we are mortal, and contingent," is not nihilism but simple reality. The point of Nietzsche's philosophy is what will you do with this reality so as to live as though you must wish to live again.

- August

[spiltteeth]

Why would a benevolent God create us such that we must suffer in order for our souls to grow?

Suffering isn't necessary for the souls growth. That's not the only way, I'm only pointing out that from a Christian perspective suffering is not necessarily a bad thing, if one turns it into grace, it can actually lead one closer to our fellow's, and God.

The ability to transform evil and suffering into good, is one of the things that gives us meaning.
As you may well know the saying 'Pain is necessary, suffering is optional.' Suffering is caused when one tries to get away from the pain.
In the Orthodox Church, healing of the soul ranks higher than the healing of the body.

However, from the Christian perspective, sometimes physical sickness is necessary to heal the soul. St. Maximus the Confessor wrote,
"Suffering cleanses the soul infected with the filth of sensual pleasure and detaches it completely from material things by showing it the penalty incurred as a result of its affection for them. This is why God in His justice allows the devil to afflict men with torments." The acceptance of our illness and death as God's will is one means by which we embrace the saving grace of Christ. This is a hard saying to accept, but those who have suffered in Christ testify to its truth. Could we not allow that sometimes God understands what we do not understand?
Such is the Christian answer in any case.

[Decolonize The Left]

That's true, this is only for evil, which involves morality.

However, a Christian sees much of what others call suffering as an opportunity to transform suffering into grace, by accepting it, as Jung says "embrace ye pain, therein yr soul grows"

Also, Christians believe in an eternal afterlife of bliss; this life is but a lightning flash in the sky, and any suffering experience now is greatly mitigated by an eternity with God.

Further, the Christian does not see happiness as the highest good, but knowing God and self sacrifice etc

Finally, much as the evil in the world has been mitigated, from a christian perspective.
For instance war is evil, say, but then during the war a person jumps on a grenade and sacrifices themselves for a buddy, this is a good that came out of the war; so some of the evil is "absorbed" by this good.
In Christianity we believe God actually sacrificed His son, and that this absorbed much of worlds evil.

Cool story.

A palapsistic believes that small, infinitely unknowable yet powerful, fairy demons live within everything material. The palapsists are the actual beings which hold everything together: gravity, atoms, nuclei, protons, etc... all have palapsists in them which hold the smallest parts together.

The palapsists also are interested in what human beings do. They take great interest because it is only human beings that have ever been able to perceive them - not know them, because they are within knowledge, but perceive them through great spiritual advance.

Once upon a time, a young man was walking through town when he saw everything begin to move - very slowly but noticeable. Now this wasn't ordinary movement at all, it was a slight alteration in the normal stillness of any given material object. As he maintained silence and absorbed this movement, all things turned to a shining gold and silver and he heard the palapsists in his mind - they spoke to him. They told him of their existence and how they were all powerful and interested in human actions. They told him that bad actions hurt them, and they would retaliate. They also told him that good actions please them, and they would rewards such behavior. The ultimate rewards is where the palasists transform your body (remember they are within you) and make you eternal light.

The end.


So... still want to be a Christian? Palasists actually control your thoughts about god - and they want you to abandon your heathen childish beliefs and start worshipping actuality.

- August

[scarletghoul]

Six million reasons to think God doesn't exist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust)

[spiltteeth]

Cool story.

A palapsistic believes that small, infinitely unknowable yet powerful, fairy demons live within everything material. The palapsists are the actual beings which hold everything together: gravity, atoms, nuclei, protons, etc... all have palapsists in them which hold the smallest parts together.

The palapsists also are interested in what human beings do. They take great interest because it is only human beings that have ever been able to perceive them - not know them, because they are within knowledge, but perceive them through great spiritual advance.

Once upon a time, a young man was walking through town when he saw everything begin to move - very slowly but noticeable. Now this wasn't ordinary movement at all, it was a slight alteration in the normal stillness of any given material object. As he maintained silence and absorbed this movement, all things turned to a shining gold and silver and he heard the palapsists in his mind - they spoke to him. They told him of their existence and how they were all powerful and interested in human actions. They told him that bad actions hurt them, and they would retaliate. They also told him that good actions please them, and they would rewards such behavior. The ultimate rewards is where the palasists transform your body (remember they are within you) and make you eternal light.

The end.


So... still want to be a Christian? Palasists actually control your thoughts about god - and they want you to abandon your heathen childish beliefs and start worshipping actuality.

- August

This is fine, it reminds me when atoms were first posited as an explanation for phenomena, people said little elves were just as likely an example.

Regardless, for me to believe this, since it is not a basic belief I would need reasons, preferably logically compelling reasons, evidence, or cumulative evidence.

You have just presented a story.
My story is based on God, which there are several good reasons to believe in, the revelation of Christ, which has compelling historical evidence to back it up, a plethora of testimony from witnesses that meet the criteria of believable witness, and then my personal experience.

So, between the 2 stories I see no good reasons to believe yours, but at least 4 good reasons to believe mine.

[Havet]

This is fine, it reminds me when atoms were first posited as an explanation for phenomena, people said little elves were just as likely an example.


Except they couldn't prove it...:rolleyes:

[Decolonize The Left]

This is fine, it reminds me when atoms were first posited as an explanation for phenomena, people said little elves were just as likely an example.

Regardless, for me to believe this, since it is not a basic belief I would need reasons, preferably logically compelling reasons, evidence, or cumulative evidence.

Compelling reasons? Really? You won't browse a clear indication and list of the Bible's contradictions, intolerance, etc... (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/) but you have reasons?


You have just presented a story.
My story is based on God, which there are several good reasons to believe in, the revelation of Christ, which has compelling historical evidence to back it up,

You sure? I haven't seen any. In fact, there is no material evidence that Jesus Christ (as the son of god) existed. What evidence is there of "the revelation" of Christ?


a plethora of testimony from witnesses that meet the criteria of believable witness,

The Bible was written long after Christ's supposed demise and resurrection. Witnesses were long dead. How does this "meet the criteria of believable witnesses?"


and then my personal experience.

Ah yes, but I have personal experience with palapsists. So we're even.


So, between the 2 stories I see no good reasons to believe yours, but at least 4 good reasons to believe mine.

Mine explains yours! As I mentioned, palasists control all material, and hence control your thoughts. Hence they control your belief in god!

- August

[spiltteeth]

Except they couldn't prove it...:rolleyes:

Thats my point. Neither side could prove it, yet atoms became the excepted belief before proof become available.
Both had equal proof and equal explanatory power.
I was pointing to the nature of belief, and how explanatory power or proof are not all that influences what we choose to believe is true etc

[Havet]

Thats my point. Neither side could prove it, yet atoms became the excepted belief before proof become available.
Both had equal proof and equal explanatory power.
I was pointing to the nature of belief, and how explanatory power or proof are not all that influences what we choose to believe is true etc

No, it's not that neither side could prove it.

One side could (http://www3.nsta.org/main/news/stories/science_and_children.php?news_story_ID=51054), and the other couldn't, and relied on ignorance as their only argument.

[spiltteeth]

=AugustWest;1583171]Compelling reasons? Really? You won't browse a clear indication and list of the Bible's contradictions, intolerance, etc... (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/) but you have reasons?

Within the framework of my church, these seeming contradicts are explained.
However this is merely an argument against the inerrentcy of the Israelites recording.


You sure? I haven't seen any. In fact, there is no material evidence that Jesus Christ (as the son of god) existed. What evidence is there of "the revelation" of Christ?



The Bible was written long after Christ's supposed demise and resurrection. Witnesses were long dead. How does this "meet the criteria of believable witnesses?"

No not material existence, but historical evidence. There is no material existence for ice age glaciers and other geological phenomena either.

For example, in 1961 the first archaeological evidence concerning Pilate was unearthed in the town of Caesarea; it was an inscription of a dedication bearing Pilate’s name and title. Even more recently, in 1990 the actual tomb of Caiaphas, the high priest who presided over Jesus’s trial, was discovered south of Jerusalem. According to Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University,


Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death.

1. There are three established facts concerning the fate of Jesus of Nazareth: the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of his disciples' belief in his resurrection.

2. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the best explanation of these facts.

3. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" entails that the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.

4. Therefore, the God revealed by Jesus of Nazareth exists.

5. God can be immediately known and experienced.

This isn't really an argument for God's existence; rather it's the claim that you can know God exists wholly apart from arguments simply by immediately experiencing him. This was the way people in the Bible knew God, as professor John Hick explains:


God was known to them as a dynamic will interacting with their own wills, a sheer given reality, as inescapably to be reckoned with as destructive storm and life-giving sunshine . . . They did not think of God as an inferred entity but as an experienced reality. To them God was not . . . an idea adopted by the mind, but an experiential reality which gave significance to their lives.




Ah yes, but I have personal experience with palapsists. So we're even.

Thats fine. But from what I know of you, and in the context of this conversation, I have more reason to disbelieve you, than to believe you, thus I would still need reasons to believe you.


Mine explains yours! As I mentioned, palasists control all material, and hence control your thoughts. Hence they control your belief in god!

- August

But it does not explain it better, indeed, for several reasons, it has less reasons for me to believe in it, no historical evidence, no witnesses beside yourself etc
So far you have given one reason - yr personal experience; this is a reason for YOU to believe it, not me, unless I had great faith in the truthfulness of yr statements, and I don't.

[spiltteeth]

No, it's not that neither side could prove it.

One side could (http://www3.nsta.org/main/news/stories/science_and_children.php?news_story_ID=51054), and the other couldn't, and relied on ignorance as their only argument.

At the time neither side could prove it.
As I say, neither theory at the time had more explanatory power or evidence than the other, yet atoms were accepted; for reasons to do not with evidence or explanatory power, but background beliefs, which did not include the possibility for the existence of tiny elves.
It was called "The Tiny Elf Theory" -I'm sure wiki has a page on it.

I am comparing augestwest's argument with the one for tiny elves.

[Decolonize The Left]

Within the framework of my church, these seeming contradicts are explained.
However this is merely an argument against the inerrentcy of the Israelites recording.

This is getting humorous. So you're argument against the Bible being riddled with contradictions and numerous other questionable passages is: they wrote it wrong?

How do you know? Or your chruch? Were they there with the Israelites telling them to record otherwise but noooo... they just had to write it down as they did?


No not material existence, but historical evidence. There is no material existence for ice age glaciers and other geological phenomena either.

For example, in 1961 the first archaeological evidence concerning Pilate was unearthed in the town of Caesarea; it was an inscription of a dedication bearing Pilate’s name and title. Even more recently, in 1990 the actual tomb of Caiaphas, the high priest who presided over Jesus’s trial, was discovered south of Jerusalem.

That's nice, but it's not historical evidence of Jesus' existence. It may be historical evidence of Pilate and some priest... see the difference?

In other words, I could discover the existence of some guy, but it doesn't prove his supposed son existed. I would need historical evidence of his son existing to prove that, now wouldn't I?


1. There are three established facts concerning the fate of Jesus of Nazareth: the discovery of his empty tomb,

No. This is historical evidence of an empty tomb.


his post-mortem appearances,

This is not a fact. In fact, what is a fact is that the dead don't reappear... because they're dead.


and the origin of his disciples' belief in his resurrection.

The fact that some people believe something is not proof, or historical evidence, that something happened.

So far you have no historical evidence.


2. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the best explanation of these facts.

As I noted these are not facts. The rest of your claims fall.

- August

[Havet]

At the time neither side could prove it.
As I say, neither theory at the time had more explanatory power or evidence than the other, yet atoms were accepted; for reasons to do not with evidence or explanatory power, but background beliefs, which did not include the possibility for the existence of tiny elves.

One side managed to prove it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms#Origin_of_scientific_theory).


I am comparing augestwest's argument with the one for tiny elves.

And he was comparing your argument with his own.

[spiltteeth]

AugustWest;1583232]This is getting humorous. So you're argument against the Bible being riddled with contradictions and numerous other questionable passages is: they wrote it wrong?

How do you know? Or your chruch? Were they there with the Israelites telling them to record otherwise but noooo... they just had to write it down as they did?

No, I'm saying at most YOUR argument can only say that perhaps they wrote it wrong.
I'm saying my church explains the contradictions.


That's nice, but it's not historical evidence of Jesus' existence. It may be historical evidence of Pilate and some priest... see the difference?

In other words, I could discover the existence of some guy, but it doesn't prove his supposed son existed. I would need historical evidence of his son existing to prove that, now wouldn't I?



No. This is historical evidence of an empty tomb.



This is not a fact. In fact, what is a fact is that the dead don't reappear... because they're dead.



The fact that some people believe something is not proof, or historical evidence, that something happened.

So far you have no historical evidence.



As I noted these are not facts. The rest of your claims fall.

- August



No, historical evidence are not facts, much of the geology and history you believe in are not factual.

However, witnesses are historical evidence. You may not understand how history works.

For example, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander’s death, and yet classical historians still consider them to be trustworthy.
historians reconstruct with confidence the course of Roman and Greek history.

Rudolf Pesch, a German expert on Mark, says the Passion source must go back to at least AD 37, just seven years after Jesus’s death.

Or again, Paul in his letters hands on information concerning Jesus about his teaching, his Last Supper, his betrayal, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection appearances. Paul’s letters were written even before the gospels, and some of his information, for example, what he passes on in his first letter to the Corinthian church about the resurrection appearances, has been dated to within five years after Jesus’s death.

Its accepted by (nearly) all historians that a guy named Jesus existed. As for his works, there is written testimony, mainly in the gospels.

I think the gospels can be considered mostly accurate because :

1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased.

2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary "urban legends." Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the "vanishing hitchhiker" rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives.

3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.

4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision. Since those who had seen and heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction contrary to that preserved by those who had known Jesus.

5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.


To yr second objection, People do not rise from the dead, however the claim is that Christ's body was remade and people witnessed after he had died

There are four established facts which constitute inductive evidence for the resurrection of Jesus:

Fact #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in the tomb. This fact is highly significant because it means that the location of Jesus’s tomb was known to Jew and Christian alike. In that case it becomes inexplicable how belief in his resurrection could arise and flourish in the face of a tomb containing his corpse. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the honorable burial of Jesus is one of "the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus."

Fact #2: On the Sunday morning following the crucifixion, the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers. According to Jakob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb."16 As D. H. van Daalen points out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions."

Fact #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This is a fact that is almost universally acknowledged among New Testament scholars today. Even Gert Lüdemann, perhaps the most prominent current critic of the resurrection, admits, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."

Finally, fact #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every reason not to. Despite having every predisposition to the contrary, it is an undeniable fact of history that the original disciples believed in, proclaimed, and were willing to go to their deaths for the fact of Jesus’s resurrection. C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge University concludes that we have here a belief which nothing in terms of prior historical influences can account for—apart from the resurrection itself.

Any responsible historian, then, who seeks to give an account of the matter, must deal with these four independently established facts: the honorable burial of Jesus, the discovery of his empty tomb, his appearances alive after his death, and the very origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection and, hence, of Christianity itself. I want to emphasize that these four facts represent, not the conclusions of conservative scholars, nor have I quoted conservative scholars, but represent rather the majority view of New Testament scholarship today.

In fact, the evidence is so powerful that one of today’s leading Jewish theologians Pinchas Lapide has declared himself convinced on the basis of the evidence that the God of Israel raised Jesus from the dead!

Most of the above is nicked from various Billy Craig books, he's a Christian apologist.

Anyway, yr story has only one reason this far, and it is hardly compelling.

[spiltteeth]

One side managed to prove it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms#Origin_of_scientific_theory).



And he was comparing your argument with his own.

I'm aware of all that. Also, I love yr avatars.

[Havet]

I'm aware of all that. Also, I love yr avatars.

lol

[Decolonize The Left]

No, I'm saying at most YOUR argument can only say that perhaps they wrote it wrong.
I'm saying my church explains the contradictions.

And we should just take your word on it? Even though after I asked you to browse the extensive list of contradictions, you merely replied "no."

How, exactly, does your church 'explain' the hundreds of contradictions in the Bible?

Furthermore, even if it does 'explain' them, it must refute the fact that they are actually contradictions in order to make the Bible remotely close to legitimate.


No, historical evidence are not facts, much of the geology and history you believe in are not factual.

However, witnesses are historical evidence. You may not understand how history works.

For example, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander’s death, and yet classical historians still consider them to be trustworthy.
historians reconstruct with confidence the course of Roman and Greek history.

Rudolf Pesch, a German expert on Mark, says the Passion source must go back to at least AD 37, just seven years after Jesus’s death.

He says it "must" go back that far. This means little until he proves that it does.


Or again, Paul in his letters hands on information concerning Jesus about his teaching, his Last Supper, his betrayal, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection appearances. Paul’s letters were written even before the gospels, and some of his information, for example, what he passes on in his first letter to the Corinthian church about the resurrection appearances, has been dated to within five years after Jesus’s death.

Source?


Its accepted by (nearly) all historians that a guy named Jesus existed.

Fine. I'm saying he's not, nor was he ever, the son of god. That's the hard part to prove.


As for his works, there is written testimony, mainly in the gospels.

Sorry, as I've noted, the gospel is not considered testimony or evidence. It contradicts itself, was written by numerous individuals over a large span of year, has been translated numerous times, etc...


I think the gospels can be considered mostly accurate because :

1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased.

1. You assume that there were historical facts recorded in the first place.
2. You completely discount human error.


2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary "urban legends." Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the "vanishing hitchhiker" rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives.

But the book of Mormon is? What if it's right? What is Islam is correct?


3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.

Lol. "The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus." Says... you? You speak for the disciples now?


4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision. Since those who had seen and heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction contrary to that preserved by those who had known Jesus.

This isn't an argument but pure speculation.


5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.

Speechless.... purely speechless.

What is this record? Source?


To yr second objection, People do not rise from the dead, however the claim is that Christ's body was remade and people witnessed after he had died

Even more far-fetched.


There are four established facts which constitute inductive evidence for the resurrection of Jesus:

Fact #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in the tomb. This fact is highly significant because it means that the location of Jesus’s tomb was known to Jew and Christian alike. In that case it becomes inexplicable how belief in his resurrection could arise and flourish in the face of a tomb containing his corpse. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the honorable burial of Jesus is one of "the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus."

He was buried...

Fact?


Fact #2: On the Sunday morning following the crucifixion, the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers. According to Jakob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb."16 As D. H. van Daalen points out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions."

Oops, now you've fallen into your own hole. Here you claim that the Bible is in fact correct, yet provide no evidence. We have already understood that the Bible is not evidence. Then you say that those who do not believe in the Bible do so for etc... More proselytizing.

Not a fact.


Fact #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This is a fact that is almost universally acknowledged among New Testament scholars today. Even Gert Lüdemann, perhaps the most prominent current critic of the resurrection, admits, "It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ."

Jesus appearing to someone is not proof that he was resurrected. Many things appear to many people under many circumstances. This doesn't mean they're real nor is it evidence.

Not a fact.


Finally, fact #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every reason not to. Despite having every predisposition to the contrary, it is an undeniable fact of history that the original disciples believed in, proclaimed, and were willing to go to their deaths for the fact of Jesus’s resurrection. C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge University concludes that we have here a belief which nothing in terms of prior historical influences can account for—apart from the resurrection itself.

People believe a lot of things, doesn't make them true.

Not a fact.


Any responsible historian, then, who seeks to give an account of the matter, must deal with these four independently established facts: the honorable burial of Jesus, the discovery of his empty tomb, his appearances alive after his death, and the very origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection and, hence, of Christianity itself. I want to emphasize that these four facts represent, not the conclusions of conservative scholars, nor have I quoted conservative scholars, but represent rather the majority view of New Testament scholarship today.

Great. It took me five minutes of reading to explain how they aren't facts...


In fact, the evidence is so powerful that one of today’s leading Jewish theologians Pinchas Lapide has declared himself convinced on the basis of the evidence that the God of Israel raised Jesus from the dead!

Wow!


Most of the above is nicked from various Billy Craig books, he's a Christian apologist.

So... you're sighting a Christian apologist to argue for the legitimacy of Christianity? You're just shedding credibility as the moments pass...

- August

[spiltteeth]

AugustWest;1583314]And we should just take your word on it? Even though after I asked you to browse the extensive list of contradictions, you merely replied "no."

How, exactly, does your church 'explain' the hundreds of contradictions in the Bible?

Furthermore, even if it does 'explain' them, it must refute the fact that they are actually contradictions in order to make the Bible remotely close to legitimate.

Right, the SEEMING contradictions are explained by the church.
If you mean historical contradictions, I don't have much knowledge with the OT, but besides 2 or 3 minor inconsistencies, the NT is overwhelmingly considered historically accurate.


He says it "must" go back that far. This means little until he proves that it does.



Source?



Fine. I'm saying he's not, nor was he ever, the son of god. That's the hard part to prove.



Sorry, as I've noted, the gospel is not considered testimony or evidence. It contradicts itself, was written by numerous individuals over a large span of year, has been translated numerous times, etc...



1. You assume that there were historical facts recorded in the first place.
2. You completely discount human error.



But the book of Mormon is? What if it's right? What is Islam is correct?



Lol. "The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus." Says... you? You speak for the disciples now?



This isn't an argument but pure speculation.



Speechless.... purely speechless.

What is this record? Source?



Even more far-fetched.



He was buried...

Fact?



Oops, now you've fallen into your own hole. Here you claim that the Bible is in fact correct, yet provide no evidence. We have already understood that the Bible is not evidence. Then you say that those who do not believe in the Bible do so for etc... More proselytizing.

Not a fact.



Jesus appearing to someone is not proof that he was resurrected. Many things appear to many people under many circumstances. This doesn't mean they're real nor is it evidence.

Not a fact.



People believe a lot of things, doesn't make them true.

Not a fact.



Great. It took me five minutes of reading to explain how they aren't facts...



Wow!



So... you're sighting a Christian apologist to argue for the legitimacy of Christianity? You're just shedding credibility as the moments pass...

- August[

The gospels - the new testament- is considered historical evidence and testimony by every historian who has ever lived.

The conclusions they reach have been different.

Since you deny this, you deny all historical evidence before video and audio recording.

There are 3 or perhaps 4 historical contradictions in the gospels (new testament) which impacts none of the basics.

The NT books were copied into in the Greek, then translated. The oldest being AD 125-130, four nearly complete NT's date from the fourth century. Over 5,000 portions of the original NT has been preserved, far more than most historical evidence - for Caesar or roman history etc, although through copying some mistakes have been made, this accounts for only between 1%-%3 of the content, most discrepancies being spelling and grammar mistakes.

I will note only Christianity has historical evidence to support it's core beliefs .

You do not believe in historical evidence, (or liner time, or the big bang etc) so what evidence would you accept? Video did not exist at the time.

As for speculating, all of history is like a crime scene, and historians must recreate a narrative based on the evidence, the gospels are far better evidence than for 90% of what else holds to be historical knowledge.

Also, I do believe the witnesses were not lying, not all of them were apostles (Luke) and they risked death torture and were imprisoned for saying these things were true. Plenty of other stuff they said is backed by fact and corroborating evidence/witness/roman sources, so why would they ALL risk death and torture to promote this hoax? It seems unreasonable.

But actually I don't see yr objective, you don't believe in linear time, so what's the problem of Jesus appearing after his death? Also you don't belive in causality, things can just pop into existence at any time.

For you it might not be a persuasive argument, but you don't believe in causality, the 1st 2 laws of thermodynamics, the big bang theory, liner time, proof in historical evidence, entropy; but I believe in all these things do to me it is persuasive evidence when taken together with my own personal; experience, millions of other witnesses, and the arguments for God's existence I've set forth (which are only a handful compared to all of them); and you've only given me one poor reason to believe in yr story.

Since you ask for evidence, this is long, but the following is from Dr, Craig, I wish I could link you to the paper but :


First, the resurrection appearances. Undoubtedly the major impetus for the reassessment of the appearance tradition was the demonstration by Joachim Jeremias that in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-5 Paul is quoting an old Christian formula which he received and in turn passed on to his converts According to Galatians 1:18 Paul was in Jerusalem three years after his conversion on a fact-finding mission, during which he conferred with Peter and James over a two week period, and he probably received the formula at this time, if not before. Since Paul was converted in AD 33, this means that the list of witnesses goes back to within the first five years after Jesus' death. Thus, it is idle to dismiss these appearances as legendary. We can try to explain them away as hallucinations if we wish, but we cannot deny they occurred. Paul's information makes it certain that on separate occasions various individuals and groups saw Jesus alive from the dead. According to Norman Perrin, the late NT critic of the University of Chicago: "The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based." This conclusion is virtually indisputable.

At the same time that biblical scholarship has come to a new appreciation of the historical credibility of Paul's information, however, it must be admitted that skepticism concerning the appearance traditions in the gospels persists. This lingering skepticism seems to me to be entirely unjustified. It is based on a presuppositional antipathy toward the physicalism of the gospel appearance stories. But the traditions underlying those appearance stories may well be as reliable as Paul's. For in order for these stories to be in the main legendary, a very considerable length of time must be available for the evolution and development of the traditions until the historical elements have been supplanted by unhistorical. This factor is typically neglected in New Testament scholarship, as A. N. Sherwin-White points out in Roman Law and Roman Society tn the New Testament. Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is an eminent historian of Roman and Greek times, roughly contemporaneous with the NT. According to Professor Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman history are usually biased and removed at least one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence what really happened. He chastises NT critics for not realizing what invaluable sources they have in the gospels. The writings of Herodotus furnish a test case for the rate of legendary accumulation, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states for these to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be 'unbelievable'; more generations are needed. All NT scholars agree that the gospels were written down and circulated within the first generation, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. Indeed, a significant new movement of biblical scholarship argues persuasively that some of the gospels were written by the AD 50's. This places them as early as Paul's letter to the Corinthians and, given their equal reliance upon prior tradition, they ought therefore to be accorded the same weight of historical credibility accorded Paul. It is instructive to note in this connection that no apocryphal gospel appeared during the first century. These did not arise until after the generation of eyewitnesses had died off. These are better candidates for the office of 'legendary fiction' than the canonical gospels. There simply was insufficient time for significant accrual of legend by the time of the gospels' composition. Thus, I find current criticism's skepticism with regard to the appearance traditions in the gospels to be unwarranted. The new appreciation of the historical value of Paul's information needs to be accompanied by a reassessment of the gospel traditions as well.

Second, the empty tomb. Once regarded as an offense to modern intelligence and an embarrassment to Christian theology, the empty tomb of Jesus has come to assume its place among the generally accepted facts concerning the historical Jesus. Allow me to review briefly some of the evidence undergirding this connection.

(1) The historical reliability of the burial story supports the empty tomb. If the burial account is accurate, then the site of Jesus' grave was known to Jew and Christian alike. In that case, it is a very short inference to historicity of the empty tomb. For if Jesus had not risen and the burial site were known:

(a) the disciples could never have believed in the resurrection of Jesus. For a first century Jew the idea that a man might be raised from the dead while his body remained in the tomb was simply a contradiction in terms. In the words of E. E. Ellis, "It is very unlikely that the earliest Palestinian Christians could conceive of any distinction between resurrection and physical, 'grave emptying' resurrection. To them an anastasis without an empty grave would have been about as meaningful as a square circle."

(b) Even if the disciples had believed in the resurrection of Jesus, it is doubtful they would have generated any following. So long as the body was interred in the tomb, a Christian movement founded on belief in the resurrection of the dead man would have been an impossible folly.

(c) The Jewish authorities would have exposed the whole affair. The quickest and surest answer to the proclamation of the resurrection of Jesus would have been simply to point to his grave on the hillside.

For these three reasons, the accuracy of the burial story supports the historicity of the empty tomb. Unfortunately for those who wish to deny the empty tomb, however, the burial story is one of the most historically certain traditions we have concerning Jesus. Several factors undergird this judgment. To mention only a few.

(i) The burial is mentioned in the third line of the old Christian formula quoted by Paul in 1 Cor. 15.4.

(ii) It is part of the ancient pre-Markan passion story which Mark used as a source for his gospel.

(iii) The story itself lacks any traces of legendary development.

(iv) The story comports with archeological evidence concerning the types and location of tombs extant in Jesus' day.

(v) No other competing burial traditions exist.

For these and other reasons, most scholars are united in the judgment that the burial story is fundamentally historical. But if that is the case, then, as I have explained, the inference that the tomb was found empty is not very far at hand.

(2) Paul's testimony supports the fact of the empty tomb. Here two aspects of Paul's evidence may be mentioned.

(a) In the formula cited by Paul the expression "he was raised" following the phrase "he was buried" implies the empty tomb. A first century Jew could not think otherwise. As E. L. Bode observes, the notion of the occurrence of a spiritual resurrection while the body remained in the tomb is a peculiarity of modern theology. For the Jews it was the remains of the man in the tomb which were raised; hence, they carefully preserved the bones of the dead in ossuaries until the eschatological resurrection. There can be no doubt that both Paul and the early Christian formula he cites pre-suppose the existence of the empty tomb.

(b) The phrase "on the third day" probably points to the discovery of the empty tomb. Very briefly summarized, the point is that since no one actually witnessed the resurrection of Jesus, how did Christians come to date it "on the third day?" The most probable answer is that they did so because this was the day of the discovery of the empty tomb by Jesus' women followers. Hence, the resurrection itself came to be dated on that day. Thus, in the old Christian formula quoted by Paul we have extremely early evidence for the existence of Jesus' empty tomb.

(3) The empty tomb story is part of the pre-Markan passion story and is therefore very old. The empty tomb story was probably the end of Mark's passion source. As Mark is the earliest of our gospels, this source is therefore itself quite old. In fact the commentator R. Pesch contends that it is an incredibly early source. He produces two lines of evidence for this conclusion:

(a) Paul's account of the Last Supper in 1 Cor. 11:23-5 presupposes the Markan account. Since Paul's own traditions are themselves very old, the Markan source must be yet older.

(b) The pre-Markan passion story never refers to the high priest by name. It is as when I say "The President is hosting a dinner at the White House" and everyone knows whom I am speaking of because it is the man currently in office. Similarly the pre-Markan passion story refers to the "high priest" as if he were still in power. Since Caiaphas held office from AD 18-37, this means at the latest the pre-Markan source must come from within seven years after Jesus' death. This source thus goes back to within the first few years of the Jerusalem fellowship and is therefore an ancient and reliable source of historical information.

(4) The story is simple and lacks legendary development. The empty tomb story is uncolored by the theological and apologetical motifs that would be characteristic of a later legendary account. Perhaps the most forceful way to appreciate this point is to compare it with the accounts of the empty tomb found in apocryphal gospels of the second century. For example, in the gospel of Peter a voice rings out from heaven during the night, the stone rolls back of itself from the door of the tomb, and two men descend from Heaven and enter the tomb. Then three men are seen coming out of the tomb, the two supporting the third. The heads of the two men stretch up to the clouds, but the head of the third man overpasses the clouds. Then a cross comes out of the tomb, and a voice asks, "Hast thou preached to them that sleep?" And the cross answers, "Yea". In the Ascension of Isaiah, Jesus comes out of the tomb sitting on the shoulders of the angels Michael and Gabriel. These are how real legends look: unlike the gospel accounts, they are colored by theological motifs.

(5) The tomb was probably discovered empty by women. To understand this point one has to recall two facts about the role of women in Jewish society.

(a) Woman occupied a low rung on the Jewish social ladder. This is evident in such rabbinic expressions as "Sooner let the words of the law be burnt than delivered to women" and "Happy is he whose children are male, but woe to him whose children are female."

(b) The testimony of women was regarded as so worthless that they were not even permitted to serve as legal witnesses in a court of law. In light of these facts, how remarkable must it seem that it is women who are the discoverers of Jesus' empty tomb. Any later legend would certainly have made the male disciples to discover the empty tomb. The fact that women, whose testimony was worthless, rather than men, are the chief witnesses to the empty tomb is most plausibly accounted for by the fact that, like it or not, they were the discoverers of the empty tomb and the gospels accurately record this.

(6) The earliest Jewish polemic presupposes the empty tomb. In Matthew 28, we find the Christian attempt to refute the earliest Jewish polemic against the resurrection. That polemic asserted that the disciples stole away the body. The Christians responded to this by reciting the story of the guard at the tomb, and the polemic in turn charged that the guard fell asleep. Now the noteworthy feature of this whole dispute is not the historicity of the guards but rather the presupposition of both parties that the body was missing. The earliest Jewish response to the proclamation of the resurrection was an attempt to explain away the empty tomb. Thus, the evidence of the adversaries of the disciples provides evidence in support of the empty tomb.

One could go on, but perhaps enough has been said to indicate why the judgment of scholarship has reversed itself on the historicity of the empty tomb. According to Jakob Kremer, "By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb" and he furnishes a list, to which his own name may be added, of twenty-eight prominent scholars in support. I can think of at least sixteen more names that he failed to mention. Thus, it is today widely recognized that the empty tomb of Jesus is a simple historical fact. As D. H. van Daalen has pointed out, "It is extremely difficult to object to the empty tomb on historical grounds; those who deny it do so on the basis of theological or philosophical assumptions." But assumptions may simply have to be changed in light of historical facts.

Finally, we may turn to that third body of evidence supporting the resurrection: the very origin of the Christian Way. Even the most skeptical scholars admit that the earliest disciples at least believed that Jesus had been raised from the dead. Indeed, they pinned nearly everything on it. Without belief in the resurrection of Jesus, Christianity could never have come into being. The crucifixion would have remained the final tragedy in the hapless life of Jesus. The origin of Christianity hinges on the belief of these earliest disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead. The question now inevitably arises: how does one explain the origin of that belief? As R. H. Fuller urges, even the most skeptical critic must posit some mysterious X to get the movement going. But the question is, what was that X?

If one denies that Jesus really did rise from the dead, then he must explain the disciples' belief that he did rise either in terms of Jewish influences or in terms of Christian influences. Now clearly, it can't be the result of Christian influences, for at that time there wasn't any Christianity yet! Since belief in Jesus' resurrection was the foundation for the origin of the Christian faith, it can't be a belief formed as a result of that faith.

But neither can the belief in the resurrection be explained as a result of Jewish influences. To see this we need to back up a moment. In the Old Testament, the Jewish belief in the resurrection of the dead on the day of judgment is mentioned in three places (Ezekiel 37; Isaiah 26, 19, Daniel 12.2). During the time between the Old Testament and the New Testament, the belief in resurrection flowered and is often mentioned in the Jewish literature of that period. In Jesus' day the Jewish party of the Pharisees held to belief in resurrection, and Jesus sided with them on this score in opposition to the party of the Sadducees. So the idea of resurrection was itself nothing new.

But the Jewish conception of resurrection differed in two important, fundamental respects from Jesus' resurrection. In Jewish thought the resurrection always (1) occurred after the end of the world, not within history, and (2) concerned all the people, not just an isolated individual. In contradistinction to this, Jesus' resurrection was both within history and of one individual person.

With regard to the first point, the Jewish belief was always that at the end of history, God would raise the righteous dead and receive them into His Kingdom. There are, to be sure, examples in the Old Testament of resuscitations of the dead; but these persons would die again. The resurrection to eternal life and glory occurred after the end of the world. We find this Jewish outlook in the gospels themselves. Thus, when Jesus assures Martha that her brother Lazarus will rise again, she responds, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day" (John 11.24). She has no idea that Jesus is about to bring him back to life. Similarly, when Jesus tells his disciples he will rise from the dead, they think he means at the end of the world (Mark 9.9-13). The idea that a true resurrection could occur prior to God's bringing the Kingdom of Heaven at the end of the world was utterly foreign to them. The greatly renowned German New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias writes,

Ancient Judaism did not know of an anticipated resurrection as an event of history. Nowhere does one find in the literature anything comparable to the resurrection of Jesus. Certainly resurrections of the dead were known, but these always concerned resuscitations, the return to the earthly life. In no place in the late Judaic literature does it concern a resurrection to doxa (glory) as an event of history.

The disciples, therefore, confronted with Jesus' crucifixion and death, would only have looked forward to the resurrection at the final day and would probably have carefully kept their master's tomb as a shrine, where his bones could reside until the resurrection. They would not have come up with the idea that he was already raised.

As for the second point, the Jewish idea of resurrection was always of a general resurrection of the dead, not an isolated individual. It was the people, or mankind as a whole, that God raised up in the resurrection. But in Jesus' resurrection, God raised just a single man. Moreover, there was no concept of the people's resurrection in some way hinging on the Messiah's resurrection. That was just totally unknown. Yet that is precisely what is said to have occurred in Jesus' case. Ulrich Wilckens, another prominent German New Testament critic, explains:

For nowhere do the Jewish texts speak of the resurrection of an individual which already occurs before the resurrection of the righteous in the end time and is differentiated and separate from it; nowhere does the participation of the righteous in the salvation at the end time depend on their belonging to the Messiah, who was raised in advance as the 'First of those raised by God.' (1 Corinthians 15:20)

It is therefore evident that the disciples would not as a result of Jewish influences or background have come up with the idea that Jesus alone had been raised from the dead. They would wait with longing for that day when He and all the righteous of Israel would be raised by God to glory.

The disciples' belief in Jesus' resurrection, therefore, cannot be explained as the result of either Christian or Jewish influences. Left to themselves, the disciples would never have come up with such an idea as Jesus' resurrection. And remember: they were fishermen and tax collectors, not theologians. The mysterious X is still missing. According to C. F. D. Moule of Cambridge University, here is a belief nothing in terms of previous historical influences can account for. He points out that we have a situation in which a large number of people held firmly to this belief, which cannot be explained in terms of the Old Testament or the Pharisees, and these people held onto this belief until the Jews finally threw them out of the synagogue. According to Professor Moule, the origin of this belief must have been the fact that Jesus really did rise from the dead:

If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes, a phenomenon undeniably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, a hole of the size and shape of the Resurrection, what does the secular historian propose to stop it up with?. . . the birth and rapid rise of the Christian Church. . . remain an unsolved enigma for any historian who refuses to take seriously the only explanation offered by the church itself.

The resurrection of Jesus is therefore the best explanation for the origin of the Christian faith. Taken together, these three great historical facts--the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, the origin of the Christian faith--seem to point to the resurrection of Jesus as the most plausible explanation.

But of course there have been other explanations proffered to account for the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith. In the judgment of modern scholarship, however, these have failed to provide a plausible account of the facts of the case. This can be seen by a rapid review of the principal explanations that have been offered.

A. The disciples stole Jesus' corpse and lied about the resurrection appearances. This explanation characterized the earliest Jewish anti-Christian polemic and was revived in the form of the conspiracy theory of eighteenth century Deism. The theory has been universally rejected by critical scholars and survives only in the popular press. To name only two considerations decisive against it: (i) it is morally impossible to indict the disciples of Jesus with such a crime. Whatever their imperfections, they were certainly good, earnest men and women, not impostors. No one who reads the New Testament unprejudicially can doubt the evident sincerity of these early believers. (ii) It is psychologically impossible to attribute to the disciples the cunning and dering- do requisite for such a ruse. At the time of the crucifixion, the disciples were confused, disorganized, fearful, doubting, and burdened with mourning-not mentally motivated or equipped to engineer such a wild hoax. Hence, to explain the empty tomb and resurrection appearances by a conspiracy theory seems out of the question.

B. Jesus did not die on the cross, but was taken down and placed alive in the tomb, where he revived and escaped to convince the disciples he had risen from the dead. This apparent death theory was championed by the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century German rationalists, and was even embraced by the father of modern theology, F. D. E. Schleiermacher. Today, however, the theory has been entirely given up: (i) it would be virtually impossible medically for Jesus to have survived the rigors of his torture and crucifixion, much less not to have died of exposure in the tomb. (ii) The theory is religiously inadequate, since a half-dead Jesus desperately in need of medical attention would not have elicited in the disciples worship of him as the exalted Risen Lord and Conqueror of Death. Moreover, since Jesus on this hypothesis knew he had not actually triumphed over death, the theory reduces him to the life of a charlatan who tricked the disciples into believing he had risen, which is absurd. These reasons alone make the apparent death theory untenable.

C. The disciples projected hallucinations of Jesus after his death, from which they mistakenly inferred his resurrection. The hallucination theory became popular during the nineteenth century and carried over into the first half of the twentieth century as well. Again, however, there are good grounds for rejecting this hypothesis: (i) it is psychologically implausible to posit such a chain of hallucinations. Hallucinations are usually associated with mental illness or drugs; but in the disciples' case the prior psycho-biological preparation appears to be wanting. The disciples had no anticipation of seeing Jesus alive again; all they could do was wait to be reunited with him in the Kingdom of God. There were no grounds leading them to hallucinate him alive from the dead. Moreover, the frequency and variety of circumstances belie the hallucination theory: Jesus was seen not once, but many times; not by one person, but by several; not only by individuals, but also by groups; not at one locale and circumstance but at many; not by believers only, but by skeptics and unbelievers as well. The hallucination theory cannot be plausibly stretched to accommodate such diversity. (ii) Hallucinations would not in any case have led to belief in Jesus' resurrection. As projections of one's own mind, hallucinations cannot contain anything not already in the mind. But we have seen that Jesus' resurrection differed from the Jewish conception in two fundamental ways. Given their Jewish frame of thought, the disciples, were they to hallucinate, would have projected visions of Jesus glorified in Abraham's bosom, where Israel's righteous dead abode until the eschatological resurrection. Thus, hallucinations would not have elicited belief in Jesus' resurrection, an idea that ran solidly against the Jewish mode of thought. (iii) Nor can hallucinations account for the full scope of the evidence. They are offered as an explanation of the resurrection appearances, but leave the empty tomb unexplained, and therefore fail as a complete and satisfying answer. Hence, it seems that the hallucination hypothesis is not more successful than its defunct forebears in providing a plausible counter-explanation of the data surrounding Christ's resurrection.

Thus, none of the previous counter-explanations can account for the evidence as plausibly as the resurrection itself. One might ask, "Well, then, how do skeptical scholars explain the facts of the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith?" The fact of the matter is, they don't. Modern scholarship recognizes no plausible explanatory alternative to the resurrection of Jesus. Those who refuse to accept the resurrection as a fact of history are simply self-confessedly left without an explanation.

These three great facts--the resurrection appearances, the empty tomb, and the origin of the Christian faith--all point unavoidably to one conclusion: The resurrection of Jesus.

Sources :

Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), p. 123.

A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), pp. 188-91.

Rudolf Pesch, Das Markusevangelium, 2 vols., Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1976-77), 2: 519-20.

See discussion in Colin J. Hemer, The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History, ed. Conrad H. Gempf, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 49 (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1989), chap. 8.

Sherwin-White, Roman Society, p. 189.

William M. Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1915), p. 222.

Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus (Berlin: Deutsche Bibliothek, 1926), p. 159.

Craig Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology," Theological Studies 54 (1993): 18, 34.

Johnson, Real Jesus, p. 125.

Robert Funk, Jesus Seminar videotape.

Leander Keck, "The Second Coming of the Liberal Jesus?" Christian Century (August, 1994), p. 786.

John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, vol. 1: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, Anchor Bible Reference Library (New York: Doubleday, 1991), p. 177.

John A. T. Robinson, The Human Face of God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973), p. 131.

D. H. Van Daalen, The Real Resurrection (London: Collins, 1972), p. 41.

Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 80.

C. F. D. Moule and Don Cupitt, "The Resurrection: a Disagreement," Theology 75 (1972): 507-19.

Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus, trans. Wilhelm C. Linss (London: SPCK, 1983).

[Havet]

The gospels - the new testament- is considered historical evidence and testimony by every historian who has ever lived.

There are 3 or perhaps 4 historical contradictions in the gospels (new testament) which impacts none of the basics.

The NT books were copied into in the Greek, then translated. The oldest being AD 125-130, four nearly complete NT's date from the fourth century. Over 5,000 portions of the original NT has been preserved, far more than most historical evidence - for Caesar or roman history etc, although through copying some mistakes have been made, this accounts for only between 1%-%3 of the content, most discrepancies being spelling and grammar mistakes.


How can you use the bible as evidence to prove the bible is right in its assertion that God exists?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Well, surly we cannot be expected to complete with such a devastating argument as this!

To be created SOmething that has been created before must be created. Therefore, if the big bang happened something must have created it and whatever created that creator was also created:

So,

a) Either this reasoning is cool with you

b) God has a creator, that creator has a creator, etc.

This is what you are arguing.

[spiltteeth]

To be created SOmething that has been created before must be created. Therefore, if the big bang happened something must have created it and whatever created that creator was also created:

So,

a) Either this reasoning is cool with you

b) God has a creator, that creator has a creator, etc.

This is what you are arguing.

No, the 1st law of thermodynamics only comes into existence with the big bang, as I say in the original post, from the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect.

This sounds alot like what most people call God.

[Post-Something]

That's true, this is only for evil, which involves morality.

However, a Christian sees much of what others call suffering as an opportunity to transform suffering into grace, by accepting it, as Jung says "embrace ye pain, therein yr soul grows"

Also, Christians believe in an eternal afterlife of bliss; this life is but a lightning flash in the sky, and any suffering experience now is greatly mitigated by an eternity with God.

Further, the Christian does not see happiness as the highest good, but knowing God and self sacrifice etc

Finally, much as the evil in the world has been mitigated, from a christian perspective.
For instance war is evil, say, but then during the war a person jumps on a grenade and sacrifices themselves for a buddy, this is a good that came out of the war; so some of the evil is "absorbed" by this good.
In Christianity we believe God actually sacrificed His son, and that this absorbed much of worlds evil.

The problem of evil is part of a larger problem; the problem of suffering.
God is said to love us, so it is only fair to assume that since he is infinitely more wise than us, that he would consider the world from our perspective.
Suffering is seen as bad from our point of view; and because God, with his infinite power could have easily made us grow with a concept of grace ingrained in ourselves.

[spiltteeth]

How can you use the bible as evidence to prove the bible is right in its assertion that God exists?

Not the bible, just the NT gospels, and not that God exists, for that other arguments along with my personal experience, along with a plethora of other testimony that I personally find compelling convinces me of God's existence.

But all of history is like a crime scene, and historians must recreate a narrative based on the evidence, the gospels are far better evidence than for 90% of what else holds to be historical knowledge. Most of it was written down within 100 yrs of the events, and indeed some of it was written down a mere 5 yrs after!

For historical evidence the gospels are overwhelmingly convincing, not just to me or Christen/conservative scholars, I quoted plenty of other's as well.

Also, I believe the witnesses were not lying, not all of them were apostles (Luke) and they risked death torture and were imprisoned for saying these things were true. Plenty of other stuff they said is backed by fact and corroborating evidence/witness/roman sources, so why would they ALL risk death and torture to promote this hoax? It seems unreasonable.

[spiltteeth]

The problem of evil is part of a larger problem; the problem of suffering.
God is said to love us, so it is only fair to assume that since he is infinitely more wise than us, that he would consider the world from our perspective.
Suffering is seen as bad from our point of view; and because God, with his infinite power could have easily made us grow with a concept of grace ingrained in ourselves.

As I say, from the Christian perspective, much suffering is not seen as 'bad,' but in many cases a blessing. And indeed our ability to transform suffering into beauty and goodness is proof, from a Christian perspective, that we are born with the idea of grace in our noetic structure; one explanation why most of humanity has always believed in God without argument or evidence.

I'll quote father Hopko:

The Christian understanding of evil has always been more radical and fantastic than that of any theodicist; for it denies from the outset that suffering, death and evil have any ultimate meaning at all. Perhaps no doctrine is more insufferably fabulous to non-Christians than the claim that we exist in the long melancholy aftermath of a primordial catastrophe, that this is a broken and wounded world, that cosmic time is the shadow of true time, and that the universe languishes in bondage to "powers" and "principalities"--spiritual and terrestrial--alien to God. In the Gospel of John, especially, the incarnate God enters a world at once his own and yet hostile to him--"He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not"--and his appearance within "this cosmos" is both an act of judgment and a rescue of the beauties of creation from the torments of fallen nature

[Havet]

Not the bible, just the NT gospels, and not that God exists, for that other arguments along with my personal experience, along with a plethora of other testimony that I personally find compelling convinces me of God's existence.

There are some people who also had personal experiences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_abduction) regarding being abducted by aliens. Does this mean that their testimonies are a compelling argument for the existence of aliens?

[Post-Something]

As I say, from the Christian perspective, much suffering is not seen as 'bad,' but in many cases a blessing. And indeed our ability to transform suffering into beauty and goodness is proof, from a Christian perspective, that we are born with the idea of grace in our noetic structure; one explanation why most of humanity has always believed in God without argument or evidence.

I'll quote father Hopko:

Ok, what on earth are you talking about?
AIDS is a blessing?
4 million deaths in the 1931 chinese floods a blessing?
Kashmir earthquake a blessing?
Smallpox a blessing?
Tuberculosis?

Are you saying that the reason God allows these things to happen is so that onlookers can feel a self righteous pity?

[spiltteeth]

Ok, what on earth are you talking about?
AIDS is a blessing?
4 million deaths in the 1931 chinese floods a blessing?
Kashmir earthquake a blessing?
Smallpox a blessing?
Tuberculosis?

Are you saying that the reason God allows these things to happen is so that onlookers can feel a self righteous pity?

From everything I've written I am utterly confused how you could have possibly, in any interoperation, concluded I was saying people suffer for others self righteousness.

However, all those things can be a blessing if turned into a grace.

I feel it would be absurd for me to talk abstractly or intellectually on such serious topics so I'll merely point to Viktor Frankl's work.

THE most evil place in all of mankind's ugly past was, to me, Auschwitz. Victor Frankl survived but his wife and parents were killed in concentration camps. He was a famous physcologist and set out his experiences in 'Man's search for meaning.'
He concluded that the holocaust gave him "an invaluable opportunity to dwell in the spiritual domain, the one that the SS were unable to destroy"
He said,
"Instead of possibilities, I have realities in my past, not only the reality of work done and love loved, but of sufferings bravely suffered. These sufferings are even the things of which I am most proud, though these things are things that cannot inspire envy.


In a last violent protest against the hopelessness of imminent death, I sensed my spirit piercing through the enveloping gloom. I felt it transcend that hopeless, meaningless world, and from somewhere I heard a victorious "Yes" in answer to my question of the existence of an ultimate purpose. At that moment a light was lit in a distant farmhouse, which stood on the horizon as if painted there, in the midst of the miserable gray of a dawning morning in Bavaria. "Et lux in tenebris lucet"-and the light shineth in the darkness.


Most men in a concentration camp believed that the real opportunities of life had passed. Yet, in reality, there was an opportunity and a challenge. One could make a victory of those experiences, turning life into an inner triumph, or one could ignore the challenge and simply vegetate, as did a majority of the prisoners.

And he spoke these words - these! - a survivor of the Holocaust! :

F
or the first time in my life, I was able to understand the words, "The angels are lost in perpetual contemplation of an infinite glory."
and

The crowning experience of all, . . . is the wonderful feeling that, after all he has suffered, there is nothing he need fear any more - except his God.

Anyway, Frankl's work has helped and inspired millions as he was the founder of Logotherapy, interviews with him exist on you-tube.

I myself "suffer" from a progressive and incurable disease and indeed feel blessed to have it, other wise I would have never been brought to the experiences and beliefs that I now have and give so much meaning to my life. (There is treatment for my condition and the disease is arrested at present)

As for aids, one of the most special nights I've ever had was when an HIV positive friend fell in the bathroom, broke a mirror, and lay bleeding. I could not even touch him to help pick out the glass, yet that night turned out to be one of the greatest nights of my life for personal reasons.

None of this is to take away from the horror or ugliness of the various ills mankind labors under.

[spiltteeth]

There are some people who also had personal experiences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFO_abduction) regarding being abducted by aliens. Does this mean that their testimonies are a compelling argument for the existence of aliens?

I think they are compelling testimonies.

I recall a famous Harvard psychologist whose speciality was False Memory Syndrome, who, after 20 yrs of studying these alien abduction cases became an utter outcast of the scientific community when he finally concluded he was utterly convinced these memories have a basis in reality.

However, given the improbability of other intelligent life in the universe, no other compelling arguments for the existence of aliens, and no physical evidence, I myself have a different -you guessed it,Christian - interpretation of their testimony.

The interpretation I give their testimony is based on my other beliefs - history,science, and Christianity.

So, yes, I find their testimony compelling.

Where the hell do you get all those kick-ass avatars?

[Post-Something]

From everything I've written I am utterly confused how you could have possibly, in any interoperation, concluded I was saying people suffer for others self righteousness.

However, all those things can be a blessing if turned into a grace.

I feel it would be absurd for me to talk abstractly or intellectually on such serious topics so I'll merely point to Viktor Frankl's work.

THE most evil place in all of mankind's ugly past was, to me, Auschwitz. Victor Frankl survived but his wife and parents were killed in concentration camps. He was a famous physcologist and set out his experiences in 'Man's search for meaning.'
He concluded that the holocaust gave him "an invaluable opportunity to dwell in the spiritual domain, the one that the SS were unable to destroy"
He said,





And he spoke these words - these! - a survivor of the Holocaust! :

F
and


Anyway, Frankl's work has helped and inspired millions as he was the founder of Logotherapy, interviews with him exist on you-tube.

I myself "suffer" from a progressive and incurable disease and indeed feel blessed to have it, other wise I would have never been brought to the experiences and beliefs that I now have and give so much meaning to my life. (There is treatment for my condition and the disease is arrested at present)

As for aids, one of the most special nights I've ever had was when an HIV positive friend fell in the bathroom, broke a mirror, and lay bleeding. I could not even touch him to help pick out the glass, yet that night turned out to be one of the greatest nights of my life for personal reasons.

None of this is to take away from the horror or ugliness of the various ills mankind labors under.

Look, most people in the world, even if they are Christian, don't look to suffering as a good thing. Because God is said to love us, he would at least look through our eyes and see that from our point of view. If God did that, it would be clear suffering is unnecessary, and any benefit you claim could be achieved in other ways since God is all powerful.

If you can't see the problem with your position, just forget it.

There are other reasons not to believe in God. For example, It's impossible to attribute things like an identity to something outwith the universe, and you need to have that to "intend" anything.

There is no reason to believe that this thing is as powerful, thoughtful, etc as you claim.

Also, you're begining arguments don't work:

The fine tuning argument is inconclusive. It's impossible to work out possibilites and probabilities in this scenario. Why?

Imagine I had a dice, and I was to roll it. To you and me, it would seem obvious that there are six possible outcomes, however, the dice also has 12 sides and 8 corners. They are technically possible, so, we'll include them into the mix too. We don't know what posssibilites to include except through experience, and what don't know the probability of any outcomes until we've seen the effects.

If you apply that to the universe..well, we've only seen one universe, and not very much of it either...so we don't really know how likely our universe is, whether there are other universes etc.


The cosmological argument is boring and says nothing about God tbh. If you want to claim that there was a God based on the fact that the universe started, go ahead. That doesn't justify Gods existence in the present, any of his abilities, whether he likes you or not, whether he still exists. If God died right after he made this universe it would be kind of pointless to hold it in such high regard. So give me evidence that God exists in the present.

[Havet]

I think they are compelling testimonies.

I recall a famous Harvard psychologist whose speciality was False Memory Syndrome, who, after 20 yrs of studying these alien abduction cases became an utter outcast of the scientific community when he finally concluded he was utterly convinced these memories have a basis in reality.

However, given the improbability of other intelligent life in the universe, no other compelling arguments for the existence of aliens, and no physical evidence, I myself have a different -you guessed it,Christian - interpretation of their testimony.

The interpretation I give their testimony is based on my other beliefs - history,science, and Christianity.

So, yes, I find their testimony compelling.

How can you find their testimony compelling if they don't present evidence?


"They are definitely not crazy," she says. But they do have "a tendency to fantasize and to hold unusual beliefs and ideas. They believe not only in alien abductions, but also in things like UFOs, ESP, astrology, tarot, channeling, auras, and crystal therapy. They also have in common a rash of disturbing experiences for which they are seeking an explanation. For them, alien abduction is the best fit."


Abduction stories are strikingly similar. Victims wake up and find themselves paralyzed, unable to move or cry out for help. They see flashing lights and hear buzzing sounds. Electric sensations zing through their bodies, which may rise up in levitation. Aliens with wrap-around eyes, gray or green skin, lacking hair or noses, approach. The abductee's heart pounds violently. There's lots of probing in the alien ship. Instruments are inserted in their noses, navels, or other orifices. It's painful. Sometimes sexual intercourse occurs.



Clancy, Richard McNally, a professor of psychology at Harvard, and other researchers tie such horrifying happenings to sleep paralysis, a condition where the usual separation between sleep and wakefulness gets out of synchronization.

When you dream, you are paralyzed. It's a natural adaptation to prevent people from lashing out, jumping out of bed, walking into doors or windows, and otherwise injuring themselves. But it's possible to wake up while still paralyzed.

"We can find ourselves hallucinating sights, sounds, and bodily sensations," Clancy says. "They seem real but they're actually the product of our imagination." One researcher describes it as "dreaming with your eyes wide open."

Bizarre effects aside, sleep paralysis is as normal as hiccups. It's not a sign of mental illness. About 25 percent of people around the world have experienced it, and about 5 percent get the whole show of sight, sound, tactile hallucinations, and abduction.

Don't feel like quoting the rest, so see here (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/09.22/11-alien.html)


Where the hell do you get all those kick-ass avatars?

See my SteamPunk/DieselPunk Album on my Profile

[spiltteeth]

How can you find their testimony compelling if they don't present evidence?







Don't feel like quoting the rest, so see here (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/09.22/11-alien.html)



See my SteamPunk/DieselPunk Album on my Profile


I find their testimony compelling, as in I really think they most definitely experienced the things they say they did. If it was a common mental illness/sleep hallucination, we'd expect these identical experiences (which have been reported ever since science fiction novels became popular and across cultures) to appear through out history.

As I say, because of the lack of physical evidence, and some other reasons, I don't think the best explanation is other 'alien' life forms.

Perhaps you've read Carl Jung, who saw this phenomena as the beginning of a new UFO religion, he said UFO's were manifestations in the real world of contents from the collective unconscious. In some psychology, there is not merely subjective and objective, but also subjective objectivity.

So, simply, I find their testimony compelling, I think they experienced something real and not imaginary, yet, as I say, because of the lack of evidence and other reasons, I find the idea that this phenomena is from life from another planet, to be a less likely explanation than one which I personally hold, and which is, as I say, a Christian one.

I dig yr blog; I used to be heavy into cyberpunk and obsessed with Kathy Acker and William Burroughs and all that.

[Havet]

I find their testimony compelling, as in I really think they most definitely experienced the things they say they did. If it was a common mental illness/sleep hallucination, we'd expect these identical experiences (which have been reported ever since science fiction novels became popular and across cultures) to appear through out history.

As I say, because of the lack of physical evidence, and some other reasons, I don't think the best explanation is other 'alien' life forms.

Perhaps you've read Carl Jung, who saw this phenomena as the beginning of a new UFO religion, he said UFO's were manifestations in the real world of contents from the collective unconscious. In some psychology, there is not merely subjective and objective, but also subjective objectivity.

So, simply, I find their testimony compelling, I think they experienced something real and not imaginary, yet, as I say, because of the lack of evidence and other reasons, I find the idea that this phenomena is from life from another planet, to be a less likely explanation than one which I personally hold, and which is, as I say, a Christian one.


But your christian explanation is ALSO based on these kind of testimonies.

Why do you accept that in one case they are not the best explanation, but in the other they are, when there is lack of evidence in both?

[spiltteeth]

Post-Something;1584666]Look, most people in the world, even if they are Christian, don't look to suffering as a good thing. Because God is said to love us, he would at least look through our eyes and see that from our point of view. If God did that, it would be clear suffering is unnecessary, and any benefit you claim could be achieved in other ways since God is all powerful.

If you can't see the problem with your position, just forget it.

I know most people view suffering as bad, I'm merely answering yr question as to how suffering can be transformed into a blessing; I gave you a Christian example, one from Jung, and one from Dr. Frankl.

The entire Plantinga argument is that it is logically possible that God could not create a world with less suffering.

I also explained the Christian perspective, that this world is not the original one, that man is in a state of rebellion, that "we exist in the long melancholy aftermath of a primordial catastrophe, that this is a broken and wounded world"

As far as seeing through our eyes, in the Christian faith, God set his own son to suffer as we do, and we believe God weeps for us, he suffers as any parent would to see His children in pain. And indeed, if we all followed His will, there would be no war etc and the vast majority of suffering would not even exist; but this is our choice.


There are other reasons not to believe in God. For example, It's impossible to attribute things like an identity to something outwith the universe, and you need to have that to "intend" anything.

Indeed, God exists within time.


There is no reason to believe that this thing is as powerful, thoughtful, etc as you claim.

This, and everything else is covered in the original post, but briefly, to put it differently, the reasons to believe this are :

1. The first cause is either personal or mechanical.

2. The first cause is not mechanical.

3. Therefore, the first cause is personal.

We can affirm the truth of (2) based on the fact that the first cause is eternal, yet it gave rise to a temporal event (i.e. the beginning of the universe). The reason for thinking that the first cause is personal is because a first cause requires a will, since an unthinking mechanical cause requires antecedent causal influences to occur. But this cannot be, for we know that the first cause is the first productive cause in the causal nexus. Only something that controls its own actions can be the first cause; the sufficient reasons for its actions are found within itself. This, of course, occurs all the time when free-willed agents choose a particular course of action, such as my deciding to go for a walk, for example.

The argument can be pressed further. If the first cause simply consisted of a set of necessary and sufficient conditions that existed from eternity, then the effect would also have existed from eternity (i.e. the universe should have been eternal). For example, if the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of fire are present, then the effect--a flame--arises immediately. There is no delay from cause to effect. Thus, if the necessary and sufficient (causal) conditions for fire are present from eternity, then a flame would also exist (as an effect) from eternity. What this analysis reveals is that the origin of our temporal universe (which began a finite time ago) could not have resulted from a mechanistic state of affairs that existed from eternity. As Dr. Craig argues,


"[t]he only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time."


At this point, not only do we have powerful reasons to believe in a first cause of the universe, but also, to think of this cause as a personal and transcendent Creator.

It seems that this cause is also enormously powerful (if not omnipotent) and intelligent (if not omniscient) based on the fact that it brought a complex, ordered and fine-tuned universe, such as ours, into existence.


Also, you're begining arguments don't work:

The fine tuning argument is inconclusive. It's impossible to work out possibilites and probabilities in this scenario. Why?

Imagine I had a dice, and I was to roll it. To you and me, it would seem obvious that there are six possible outcomes, however, the dice also has 12 sides and 8 corners. They are technically possible, so, we'll include them into the mix too. We don't know what posssibilites to include except through experience, and what don't know the probability of any outcomes until we've seen the effects.

If you apply that to the universe..well, we've only seen one universe, and not very much of it either...so we don't really know how likely our universe is, whether there are other universes etc.

Again, all this is covered in the original post, but to put it as a deductive argument :

Evidence that the Creator of our universe is a conscious and intelligent being comes from the complexity, order and fine-tuning of our cosmos. In his paper The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Science, Paul Davies argues that scientific explanations are only made possible by the fact that our universe is ordered by various laws of nature. These are not just any set of possible laws, but have numerous features to suggest "that our existence is linked into the laws of the universe at the most basic level." He takes this as "powerful evidence that the universe exists for a purpose."

The fact that nearly everything about the structure of the universe - its fundamental laws and parameters - is balanced on a razor's edge to allow the evolution of life to occur is an extremely persuasive argument for theism. It can be formulated as follows:

1. A universe exhibiting fine tuning is not improbable under the theistic hypothesis.

2. A universe exhibiting fine tuning is very improbable under the atheistic hypothesis.

3. Therefore, a universe exhibiting fine-tuning is evidence for theism over atheism.

Three examples of fine-tuning, among dozens more, are as follows:

The initial explosion of the Big Bang required a rate of expansion that could not have differed in strength by more than 1/10(60), otherwise, the universe would not have been able to form life.

The strong nuclear force (which brings protons and neutrons together) could not have been stronger or weaker than 5%, otherwise, life would not occur.

Gravity could not have been stronger or weaker than 1/10(40), otherwise, stars which sustain life (such as the sun) could not exist.

Whatever one makes of such probability calculations, it is fairly clear that the universe requires fine-tuning of various parameters (out of an infinite number of possible combinations) to permit the evolution of life, and only a specific and restricted combination of these parameters will allow life to evolve.

To the argument sketched out above :

Premise (1) is relatively non-controversial, since, according to theism, God created the material universe, and designed it to allow the evolution of intelligent life to occur. The existence of fine-tuning, then, is hardly surprising given the truth of theism.
What about (2)? This seems to be true based on the consideration that there is no intentionality behind the cosmos on the atheistic worldview. So not only must one adopt the view that the universe began to exist uncaused, if one is to follow someone like Quentin Smith, but that it came into existence fortuitously with the right conditions to permit life.

The now famous "firing-squad" analogy illustrates the point well. If 50 sharp shooters all fire at me, and I emerge unscathed, I seek a plausible explanation which is not to be found in the retort, as John Leslie correctly notes, that "if they had not missed me I wouldn't be here to consider the fact."

This response simply begs the question as to why this happened, given the fact that my survival was extremely improbable. It is far more likely that there was intentionality behind my survival (all the sharpshooters conspired to miss) rather than the unlikely suggestion that they all missed by chance.

Therefore, if premises (1) and (2) are true, it follows that the existence of fine-tuning in the universe gives credibility to the theistic hypothesis over the atheistic one.


The cosmological argument is boring and says nothing about God tbh. If you want to claim that there was a God based on the fact that the universe started, go ahead. That doesn't justify Gods existence in the present, any of his abilities, whether he likes you or not, whether he still exists. If God died right after he made this universe it would be kind of pointless to hold it in such high regard. So give me evidence that God exists in the present.

As I say, from the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe.
It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe?

So it could not 'die' being necessarily non-material, and would necessarily exist in the present and all throughout time.

[spiltteeth]

But your christian explanation is ALSO based on these kind of testimonies.

Why do you accept that in one case they are not the best explanation, but in the other they are, when there is lack of evidence in both?

No, I think I'm explaining myself badly.
Based on their testimony, I do not think aliens are the best explanation for this phenomena, for me at least.

Why? Well, there are no compelling arguments that these aliens are from another planet, or that they are an advanced race from the future or that they are, say, demons. All these explanations have equal explanatory power.

No physical evidence favors one explanation above another.

Of course I have no problem at all if it is discovered aliens really exist and are from another planet etc

Now, I take into consideration not only my belief in science and psychology but also my belief in Christianity.

So, is there an argument that best fits within my world view? I think there is. Aliens are fallen spiritual beings - demons.

I'll sketch it out as follows :

In the course of their physical examination of abductees, the aliens inflict pain on their victims and frequently scar them. In spiritual literature, and especially in the lives of the Saints, we repeatedly read of physical attacks against Christian believers by demonic spirits. If these aliens are not demons, how is it that beings so advanced that they can achieve space travel cannot prevent pain and scarring during routine physical examinations?
Abductees are drawn away from the universal teachings of Orthodox Christianity and towards the demonic delusion that underlies modern New Age philosophies. Human transformation ceases, for these victims of alien visitation, to be a God-oriented, Grace-mediated process, but becomes part of a personality-dissolving return to the "elemental" universals upon which the pagan notion of Paradise is predicated.

Whitley Strieber in his book Communion: A True Story, the public has been shown that these so-called "visitors" are in fact cruel, malicious beings who wreak psychic havoc on those who contact them. (This aspect of the phenomenon also corresponds very closely with the evidence amassed by the scientists Vallee and Hynek.)

"I felt an indescribable sense of menace," Strieber writes. "It was hell on earth to be there, and yet I couldn't move, couldn't cry out, and couldn't get away. I lay as still as death, suffering inner agonies. Whatever was there seemed so monstrous and ugly, so filthy and dark and sinister...."
Strieber also describes peculiar smells associated with his "visitors"—among them, a "sulfur-like" odor such as is mentioned when the ancient Lives of Saints speak of demonic encounters

Strieber notes that

"In all the past fifty years, there has been no instance of the visitors directly adding resources. Nobody gets the plans to a starship. Nobody gets a map back to the home world. What we get instead are fear, confusion, cryptic messages, and a feeling of be ing pushed around—and the sense of something beyond price, lying just out of reach.... Rather than satisfying us, they are likely to tempt us further and further—with outrages, with dazzling displays, with promises—with whatever it takes,”

In order to reconcile the obvious contradiction between the ap parently sinister nature of the "visitors" and his own Utopian ideas about aliens helping to usher in a New Age, Strieber attempts to blur the distinction between good and evil:

"We live in an ethical and moral world that is like the ethical context of the [UFO] phenomenon, full of ambiguities, a place in which plain good and plain evil are rare,”

Strieber's view, which is shared by many in today's UFO network, is that the "visitors" are highly evolved beings which want us also to evolve—for their sake as well as ours. He speculates that, in their often terrifying encounters with humans, the visitors are exploiting us and at the same time "tempting" us to advance further in our evolution, to "close the gap" between us and them, so that we may "join them as a cosmic species": in other words, that we may become like them.

So without evidence or rationally compelling arguments, the explanation will likely fall into whatever best fits into ones background beliefs.

Obviously an atheist or New Ager will have a different interpretation.

But, in my opinion, when you view the ufo phenomena in the context of total evidence - including the reliably of the Gospels, the historical evidence for Christ, the testimony of various people and saints, the evidence for the likelihood of God being the cause of our universe, then I think the demon explanation has an edge over the others.

On top of that I can add my personal experiences, which means for me the demon explanation is certainly a better one.

Now against their contention that these are aliens is the scientific evidence, very imperfect I'll admit, that it is very unlikely for other intelligent to have evolved, in fact it is VERY improbable - unless they are non-carbon based, and I think Richard Dawkins makes an excellent case that for it to be intelligent life it must be carbon based.

But because of the lack of evidence I'm open minded and don't find any explanation of their testimony utterly conclusive, while I do still find their actual testimony compelling.

[danyboy27]

god dosnt exist. you need to show me scientific evidences that he exist, then maybe i will change my mind.

and even if he exist, i will hate him, what kind of sociopath is this?

[spiltteeth]

god dosnt exist. you need to show me scientific evidences that he exist, then maybe i will change my mind.

and even if he exist, i will hate him, what kind of sociopath is this?

In the second argument of the original post:

the evidence :

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars

I posted it so I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself. you can read all about it in the original post.

You can hate Him, but obviously you already have an idea of who God is to even say that.

It's like saying, I don't know who this guy is, or if he even exists, or anything about him, or any of his characteristics, BUT....if he exists I know I hate him.

[danyboy27]

i dont see any evidence in those exemple, only physics phenomenon.

can you tell me how reliable you think the old testament and the bible are?
i hope you dont consider those scripting science.

[Paul Cockshott]

It is only if you start from the assumption that the universe was created by a designer that you can talk of the natural constants being fine tuned. There is not a shred of evidence that the natural constants could be anything other than the values they actually have. You mistake peoples ability to imagine them being different for a real possibility that they could be different.

If one were to accept your premise that the universe were fine tuned for our benefit, then you have to answer Huxley's remark about the diety's apparent inordinate fondness for beetles.

[Havet]

i dont see any evidence in those exemple, only physics phenomenon.

Exactly. They are, at most, proof of the Big Bang, not proof of God.

And I already established (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1578802&postcount=118) that the Big bang could have been caused, spontaneously, by quantum mechanics.

[spiltteeth]

Exactly. They are, at most, proof of the Big Bang, not proof of God.

And I already established (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1578802&postcount=118) that the Big bang could have been caused, spontaneously, by quantum mechanics.

What!? Please share, the only credible theory thus far has been the Hawking-Hartle theory.

The big bang theory shows the cause must be non-material, timeless, personal etc etc I've explained 3 different ways and as I say Stephan Hawkings has cited this argument as the impetus the the last 20 yrs of his research.

You need to understand that the big bang theory states that space, time and matter were all created at the moment of creation.

There was no space causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no time causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no matter causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
All of these things began to exist at the first moment.

What can we infer about the cause?

So, space, time, and matter began to exist. What could have caused them to begin to exist?

Whatever causes the universe to appear is not inside of space, because there was no space causally prior to the creation event. The cause must therefore be non-physical, because physical things exist in space.
Whatever causes the universe to appear is not bound by time (temporal). It never began to exist. There was no passage of time causally prior to the big bang, so the cause of the universe did not come into being. The cause existed eternally.
And the cause is not material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang.
So what could the cause be? Craig notes that we are only familiar with two kinds of non-material realities:

Abstract objects, like numbers, sets and mathematical relations
Minds, like your own mind
Now, abstract objects don’t cause of any effects in nature. But we are very familiar with the causal capabilities of our own minds – just raise your own arm and see! So, by process of elimination, we are left with a mind as the cause of the universe. As Sherlock Holmes says, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.“

This cause created the entire physical universe. The cause of this event is therefore supernatural, because it brings nature into being and is not inside of nature itself. The cause of the universe violates the law of conservation of matter is therefore performing a miracle.

[spiltteeth]

Exactly. They are, at most, proof of the Big Bang, not proof of God.

And I already established (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1578802&postcount=118) that the Big bang could have been caused, spontaneously, by quantum mechanics.

I've read all that, and all those are theories have NO evidence, inherent flaws, and no good reason to believe in them, from all evidence thus far the universe is a closed system; I'll also note ALL those quantum theories use infinite number sets and are unable to convert them to real time and hence they are not reality describing

Also, I completely agree with the Paul Davies article, there was nothing before the big bang - no time, nothing could have happened, thus God's 'calling the universe into being' had to be simultaneous with the big bang, which it would be; and his consciousness perfectly static up until the time of the big bang.
(Incidentally I've quoted Davies, and others, showing that the big bang posits creation out of NOTHING, and you weren't convinced, now here you are presenting Mr. Davies for your argument -this suggests your not really interested in truth )

The fact that you're willing to embrace fringe science theories which you don't understand and have no evidence suggests your really only interested in upholding yr own belief system.

The universe is 14 billion years old, and it came into being. Those are the facts we need to deal with.
I can line up 6 scientific discoveries, based on experimental results. I am holding confirmed predictions of cosmic microwave background radiation temperatures in my left hand, and confirmed helium-hydrogen abundance predictions in my right. If you want to deny the premise, I need some reasons or some scientific data.

What have you got? Where is your evidence?

The current best theory of cosmology is the standard big bang model, which posits the origin of matter, energy, space and time OUT OF NOTHING. You need to deal with the data we have today, not imagine alternative realities where untested speculations preserve your belief in atheism from falsification by the progress of science. We’re in the 21st century now.

If you can name a counter-example to the premise, do so. Otherwise, the deductive argument goes through on modus ponens, backed by the science.

I will list each alternative by name and explain the main problem with each.

The steady-state model: disproved by recent empirical observations of radio galaxy distributions, as well as red-shifting of light from distant galaxies moving away from us at increasing speeds
The oscillating model: disproved in 1998 by more empirical measurements of mass density which showed that the universe would expand forever, and never collapse (was named Discovery of the Year)
The vacuum fluctuation model: the theory allows for universes to spawn at every point in space and coalesce into one extremely old universe, which contradictions observations of our much younger universe
The chaotic inflationary model: does not avoid the need for an absolute beginning in the finite past
The quantum gravity model: makes use of imaginary time which cannot be mapped into a physical reality, it’s purely theoretical

I'll explain.

I'm really not interested in theories, but actual truth, which can actually describe the universe, and both Hawking and quantum theory reverts to using imaginary numbers.

"imaginary time" is physically unintelligible. An imaginary interval of time makes no more sense than, say, the imaginary volume of a glass, or the imaginary number of people in a room. Hawking insists that imaginary time is "a well-defined mathematical concept." But does that mathematical concept correspond to any physical reality? As Sir Herbert Dingle (great name) says,


In the language of mathematics we can tell lies as well as truths, and within the scope of mathematics itself there is no possible way of telling one from the other. We can distinguish them only by experience or by reasoning outside the mathematics, applied to the possible relation between the mathematical solution and its supposed physical correlate
.

From both experience and philosophy it is, I think, obvious that the use of imaginary numbers for the time variable is a mere mathematical artifice. Imaginary numbers are useful when computing certain equations, but one always converts back to real numbers to yield a physically meaningful result.

Yet Hawking declines to reconvert to real numbers because then the singularity suddenly reappears. Hawking states,


Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities.... When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities.
Thus, Hawking does not really eliminate the singularity. He conceals it behind the physically unintelligible artifice of imaginary time.

Secondly, using imaginary numbers for the time variable makes time a spatial dimension, which is just bad metaphysics.
Space and time are essentially different.


Space is ordered by a relation of betweeness: for three successive points x, y, and z on a spatial line, y is between x and z. But time is ordered in addition by a unique relation of earlier/later than: for two successive moments t1 and t2 in time, t1 is earlier than t2, and t2 is later than t1.
George Schlesinger points out:


"The relations 'before' and 'after' have generally been acknowledged as being the most fundamental temporal relations, which means that time deprived of these relations would cease to be time."
Thus, time cannot be a dimension of space. Moreover, time is also ordered by the relations past/future with respect to the present.
For example, my eating breakfast this morning was once present; now it is past. There is nothing even remotely similar to this relation among things in space.

Postulating a "timeless" era before time began, however, is to climb inside a contradiction. Before and after are temporal relations. Saying that this timeless segment existed before time presupposes a time before time, which is self-contradictory.
Hawking seems to realize the impossibility of having two successive stages of the universe, one timeless and the other temporal, and so he adopts the bizarre position that real time is just an illusion. He asserts,


This might suggest that the so-called imaginary time is really the real time, and that what we call real time is just a figment of our imaginations. In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to spacetime and at which the laws of science break down. But in imaginary time, there are no singularities or boundaries. So maybe what we call imaginary time is really more basic, and what we call real is just an idea that we invent to help us describe what we think the universe is like.
As the philosopher Quentin Smith points out, this intepretation is


"preposterous...at least observationally, since it is perfectly obvious that the universe in which we exist lapses in real rather than imaginary time."

So, if Hawking were right, we could not say (for example) that Lincoln died after his birth, since this describes a temporal relation between these two events !

By the way, this isn't a personal complaint, many physicist have complained that Hawking doesn't seem concerned with actual reality, and the following quotes from Hawking are often thrown at him like ammunition :

Quote:

"I'm a positivist . . . I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is."

"I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality."

In assessing the worth of a theory, "All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements."
Which is all fine, but I'm generally interested in reality.

[spiltteeth]

It is only if you start from the assumption that the universe was created by a designer that you can talk of the natural constants being fine tuned. There is not a shred of evidence that the natural constants could be anything other than the values they actually have. You mistake peoples ability to imagine them being different for a real possibility that they could be different.

If one were to accept your premise that the universe were fine tuned for our benefit, then you have to answer Huxley's remark about the diety's apparent inordinate fondness for beetles.

If you read the argument, it does not start out with such a presumption.
Also, to say it is logically impossible for God to be especially fond of beetles is quite a weak argument.
After all, many of the species of beetles are actually quite cool.

[spiltteeth]

danyboy25;1584882]i dont see any evidence in those exemple, only physics phenomenon.

It's all in the 2nd argument of the original post, the argument in brief :

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Given the truth of the two premises, the conclusion necessarily follows.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect.


can you tell me how reliable you think the old testament and the bible are?
i hope you dont consider those scripting science.

Well, the Old testament really can't be reliable, in history we know things written down say, 400 yrs after the fact are usually pretty accurate, but after 600 yrs we find legend and mythology creeping into the narratives.

The Gospels of the New Testament, however, written down 5-100yrs after the fact, I find astonishingly convincing and utterly factual.

I belong to the Orthodox church and we have never believed in things like talking snakes etc even before the invention of science :

two quotes from typical priests of the third largest Christian denomination, Orthodox Christianity, Fr. Andrew Anglorus and Fr. Stephen Freeman:

…lack[ing] a Patristic understanding of the Scriptures…they do not understand the Scriptures spiritually, ascetically, allegorically, poetically, but only literally. We call such an understanding 'fundamentalist'.


Genesis, properly read, is not a science text book. It is about Christ and reveals Him as the very meaning and purpose of creation - as well as explicating His Pascha. If you don’t see that when you read the first chapter of Genesis, then no one ever taught you how to read Scripture as the primitive Church read Scripture….Scripture functions as a verbal icon - and like an icon requires an understanding of its spiritual grammar to see it correctly .

Nor is this simply a way for modern Christians to excuse obviously unscientific biblical passages. St. Maximus the Confessor, living in 500-600 A.D. wrote,
“Ignorance, in other words, Hades, dominates those who understand Scripture in a fleshly (literal) way”

[danyboy27]

well yea, everything has a cause, and we might just be a big simulation in an alien video game, who know? all i know is that i rather prefers frail scientific tehories that is still criticized and studied today concerning our universe than rely on some guts feeling of faith.

and you cant rely on the old or the new testament, there is no science in scripture, it was all written by supersticious powermongering individual.

[spiltteeth]

well yea, everything has a cause, and we might just be a big simulation in an alien video game, who know? all i know is that i rather prefers frail scientific tehories that is still criticized and studied today concerning our universe than rely on some guts feeling of faith.

and you cant rely on the old or the new testament, there is no science in scripture, it was all written by supersticious powermongering individual.

I rely on mainstream science as well, as I've clearly laid out, no gut feeling at all.

And I've written that I don't rely on the bible for science, and I've said why.

The idea that the entire Bible was written by one war mongering individual is laughable.

[Paul Cockshott]

Yes but it then puts the odds of the various supposed incarnations of the supposed deity being actual down at the 1/2000000 level given the relative number of beetle species compared to the number of species of hominids.

[Paul Cockshott]

If you read the argument, it does not start out with such a presumption. .

Fine tuning as an argument certainly relies on this. It presumes that it is possible for the constants of nature to be different from what they are -- there is no evidence for this.

[danyboy27]

I rely on mainstream science as well, as I've clearly laid out, no gut feeling at all.



mainstream science never proved the existance of god. Never
all the stuff you said about the big bang dosnt make sense either.
the big bang was probably, has science explain us today, a extraordinary phenomenon of physics. If there is some mention of it in some religious book its only another mundane coincidence, that or they took the idea of someone who was verry smart but that nobody listened back then.

the existance of god is only valid if you fallow the principles of the religious cosmology wich is by the way, a pseudo science.



The idea that the entire Bible was written by one war mongering individual is laughable.

HAHAHAHA are you kidding me? of course the bible and genesis was made up by a bunch of fanatical fundamentalist.

sodomy is a sin, all non catholic are sinner, all non catholic will burn in hell etc etc etc.

[mikelepore]

spiltteeth, I'm surprised that you still haven't noticed that these sorts of phrases take the nonsensical form of "Proposition: X must be true. Reason: I can't see how it could be otherwise."


From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial


it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe?

Coonsider an analogous situation. What would you think if a mathematics teacher handed you a textbook that contained the following derivation?


Theorem: The square root of 2 is an irrational number, incapable of being expressed as the ratio of two integers.

Proof: The author of this textbook is incapable of imagining how the situation could ever be otherwise.

You would probably note correctly that such an "argument" would be ridiculous.

You seem like an intelligent person. After you display that you have some familiarity with a subject as complex as cosmology, I'm amazed that this is where you trip up.

[spiltteeth]

spiltteeth, I'm surprised that you still haven't noticed that these sorts of phrases take the nonsensical form of "Proposition: X must be true. Reason: I can't see how it could be otherwise."





Coonsider an analogous situation. What would you think if a mathematics teacher handed you a textbook that contained the following derivation?



You would probably note correctly that such an "argument" would be ridiculous.

You seem like an intelligent person. After you display that you have some familiarity with a subject as complex as cosmology, I'm amazed that this is where you trip up.

Yea, you have a point. But....I really can't see how it could be otherwise!

I did write -emboldened - at the very beginning of the original post :


This does not prove evolution and the big bang model are correct, but it does show that they are the best explanation of the evidence which we have and therefore merits our provisional acceptance.
So, these aren't proofs, simply arguments based on evidence and logic.

Here's the thinking.

A person needs to understand that the big bang theory states that space, time and matter were all created at the moment of creation.

1 There was no space causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
2 There was no time causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
3 There was no matter causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
All of these things began to exist at the first moment.

What can we infer about the cause?

So, space, time, and matter began to exist. What could have caused them to begin to exist?

1 Whatever causes the universe to appear is not inside of space, because there was no space causally prior to the creation event. The cause must therefore be non-physical, because physical things exist in space.

2 Whatever causes the universe to appear is not bound by time (temporal). It never began to exist. There was no passage of time causally prior to the big bang, so the cause of the universe did not come into being. The cause existed eternally.

3 And the cause is not material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang.

So what could the cause be? Craig notes that we are only familiar with two kinds of non-material realities:

1 Abstract objects, like numbers, sets and mathematical relations
2 Minds, like your own mind
Now, abstract objects don’t cause of any effects in nature. But we are very familiar with the causal capabilities of our own minds – just raise your own arm and see!

So, by process of elimination, we are left with a mind as the cause of the universe. As Sherlock Holmes says, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.“

This cause created the entire physical universe. The cause of this event is therefore supernatural, because it brings nature into being and is not inside of nature itself.

I can expand on any of these, if you want.

But your right, it is certainly NOT a proof.

However, as I say in the original post :


So, I think we need to deal with the data we have today, not imagine alternative realities where untested speculations preserve a belief (weather it's theism or atheism) from falsification by the progress of science.
Unless a person can name a counter-example to the premise, the deductive argument goes through on modus ponens, backed by the science

[spiltteeth]

Fine tuning as an argument certainly relies on this. It presumes that it is possible for the constants of nature to be different from what they are -- there is no evidence for this.

It is not logically or nomologically necessary that the universe be as it is, therefore it is indeed possible for the constants of nature to be different from what they are.

(And constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants.)

There is just no physical reason why these constants and quantities should have the values they do. As P. C. W. Davies states,


Even if the laws of physics were unique, it doesn't follow that the physical universe itself is unique. . . . the laws of physics must be augmented by cosmic initial conditions. . . . There is nothing in present ideas about 'laws of initial conditions' remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics would imply uniqueness. Far from it. . . .
. . . it seems, then, that the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise

[spiltteeth]

Yes but it then puts the odds of the various supposed incarnations of the supposed deity being actual down at the 1/2000000 level given the relative number of beetle species compared to the number of species of hominids.

I have no idea what you mean by
supposed incarnations of the supposed deity

How does there being more beetles than humans so far make God's existence less probable?

Im afraid I'm completely lost and don't understand what yr saying at all.

[mikelepore]

The concern about causes has been expressed here in 19th century terms. Science already knows about several events that occur without causes. One is radioactive decay. You can have two nuclei that are identical in every way, identical not only in composition but also in their energy states -- one undergoes a transmutation but the other doesn't. That doesn't make sense according to the classical idea of causation. Another example is pair production, where electromagnetic energy, a boson, something not material, suddenly turns into matter, a pair of particles, an electron and a positron, and it does this at a random time and for no reason. If all the matter that is now in the universe was originally in an energy form, no one knows what its properties would be. Perhaps it would undergo a transformation into our expanding universe. If it had a sufficiently large frequency, a single photon that had already been in existence forever could spontaneously turn into our universe. I would go with that explanation a lot sooner than I would attribute the creation to a decision made by an invisible man who loves me.

[spiltteeth]

mikelepore;1586474]The concern about causes has been expressed here in 19th century terms. Science already knows about several events that occur without causes. One is radioactive decay. You can have two nuclei that are identical in every way, identical not only in composition but also in their energy states -- one undergoes a transmutation but the other doesn't. That doesn't make sense according to the classical idea of causation.

First, quantum mechanics is not going to save the atheist here. In QM, virtual particles come into being in a vacuum. The vacuum is sparked by a scientist. The particles exist for a period of time inversely proportional to their mass. But in the case of the big bang, there is no vacuum – there’s nothing. There is no scientist – there’s nothing. And the universe is far too massive to last 14 billion years as a virtual particle.

Secondly, atheists will say that the big bang is speculative physics that could change at any moment. But the trend is in favor of an absolute beginning out of nothing. We have had a string of solid, recent scientific discoveries that point in a definite direction, as follows:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars

So, insofar as atheists question these discoveries and the origin of the entire physical universe out of nothing, they are opposing the progress of science.

Thirdly, radioactive decay is unpredictable, but it is not something coming out of nothing without a cause. Sub-atomic physics takes place in space. But the beginning of the universe was out of nothing.
Matter, space, energy and time come into being from nothing. Not from a vacuum.


“Today almost everyone believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.”
Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures

These “uncaused” events occur in a particular environment called a quantum vacuum. This environment exists IN SPACE, where quantum mechanical events are possible. The problem is that this does not work for the beginning of the universe, because there WAS NO SPACE prior to the instance of the big bang. Therefore, you cannot explain the origin of the universe by appealing to uncaused events.

Additionally, the virtual particle pairs that appear in a quantum vacuum exist for a period of time INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to their mass. The universe is not a virtual particle, and it has been here for 14 billion years – a huge period that is impossible for such a massive object to exist as a virtual particle.

QM phenomena are not appearing from nothing, they are appearing in a vacuum. So, nothing is really beginning to exist from nothing.

So, to sum up;
1) QM events that we observe in a laboratory take place a vacuum that is there, not absolute nothing as was the case with the big bang.
2) QM events could not occur without a field present, they are not uncaused. 3) Virtual particles exist only temporarily, inversely proportional to their mass.
The universe has been here for 13.7 billion years, not a fraction of a second.


Another example is pair production, where electromagnetic energy, a boson, something not material, suddenly turns into matter, a pair of particles, an electron and a positron, and it does this at a random time and for no reason. If all the matter that is now in the universe was originally in an energy form, no one knows what its properties would be. Perhaps it would undergo a transformation into our expanding universe. If it had a sufficiently large frequency, a single photon that had already been in existence forever could spontaneously turn into our universe. I would go with that explanation a lot sooner than I would attribute the creation to a decision made by an invisible man who loves me.

Actually, as I say, there was NO energy (or matter or time or space) before the big bang, so none of the above helps at all, so I don't see how you can go with any of the above explanations, which needs energy to exist.

And also, the cause need not love you, I'm not sure where you got that part.

Frankly, I'm surprised at the lengths people (not you personally) will go to avoid the conclusions of science when it supports theism, but will readily embrace any fringe science if it will confirm their beliefs in atheism.

The object of the game is to roll with the evidence, not to speculate on how to avoid it just to protect a prejudice.

[Havet]

First, quantum mechanics is not going to save the atheist here. In QM, virtual particles come into being in a vacuum. The vacuum is sparked by a scientist. The particles exist for a period of time inversely proportional to their mass. But in the case of the big bang, there is no vacuum – there’s nothing. There is no scientist – there’s nothing. And the universe is far too massive to last 14 billion years as a virtual particle.

Are you seriously proposing the idea that before the big bang there was no nothing? No nothing= something.

Of course there was vacuum.

And care to prove how QM always need a scientist?

Spontaneous Transitions in Quantum Mechanics (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0305-4470/32/26/306)

What you really need to grasp though, is that this is only an hypothesis, which still lacks evidence, as your God hypothesis does, and until we find more evidence we cannot be sure.


Actually, as I say, there was NO energy (or matter or time or space) before the big bang, so none of the above helps at all, so I don't see how you can go with any of the above explanations, which needs energy to exist.

There was energy and matter before big bang. It was all condensed into one point.

Read this: ^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#cite_ref-2) Komatsu, E.; et al. (2009). "Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe Observations: Cosmological Interpretation". Astrophysical Journal Supplement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_Journal_Supplement) 180: 330. Bibcode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode): 2009ApJS..180..330K (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..180..330K).

[mikelepore]

Thirdly, radioactive decay is unpredictable, but it is not something coming out of nothing without a cause. Sub-atomic physics takes place in space. But the beginning of the universe was out of nothing.
Matter, space, energy and time come into being from nothing. Not from a vacuum.

I mentioning radioactivity, I wasn't talking about getting something from nothing. I was talking about your earlier remark: "If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect." You forced that statement to have truth only tautologically by adding the word "sufficient", but the implication is wrong. A cause can exist without an effect.

[Kronos]

A cause can exist without an effect.

I can't imagine some phenomena I experience as having no affect on everything around it in some subtle way, or not being affected by something prior to its existence in some subtle way.

So isolating an individual thing and calling it one or the other- a cause or effect- is really just a simplification of experience, given to the stringency of the senses. But the individual things we call 'subjects' are not ever the final development of the forces at work. The individual thing, then, is only individual because of the way in which it must be perceived by the senses. We have a relatively simplified way of experiencing the world with a finite understanding of causes.

But really try to imagine a body, however small, existing in the proximity of other bodies, and interacting with them. No single body in that interaction could be only a cause or an effect, but would have to be both. Imagine there being no first push....no prima causa....by virtue of the impossibility of there being a cause which wasn't also an effect. To not be effected at all.....a thing would have to be isolated from everything else...or come out of nowhere by its own volition.

[spiltteeth]

hayenmill;1586870]Are you seriously proposing the idea that before the big bang there was no nothing? No nothing= something.

No, I am not proposing this; this is what science tells us. Science says there was no 'before' the big bang, all matter, energy, space, and time came into existence at a point called a 'singularity' which is the edge of space/time.

Hayenmill, I've gone over this in some detail with you already, I have quoted everyone from P.C. Davies, Velhekin, to Stephan Hawking; and I understand you disagree with every living physicist. The was nothing before the big bang -no matter no energy etc, and it did NOT take place in a vacuum. But you think every physicist is interpreting the data wrong. No doubt everyone is wrong and your right.

And I'm not claiming that Stephan Hawking is as great a physicist as you. No doubt you can teach them all the "real" theory of the big bang.

And even though I have quoted the greatest living physicist to give THEIR opinion, and I know you think they are all wrong, I will repeat, yet again, what they say about the big bang,

P. C. W. Davies explains,


"the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science . . . is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization . . . upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing."

Physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler, speaking of the beginning of the universe, explain,


“At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo (out of nothing).”


Anthony Kenny,

“A proponent of the big bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that . . . the universe came from nothing and by nothing.”

P. C. W. Davies points out,

“Recent ideas in quantum physics have changed our picture of the origin of time somewhat, but the essential conclusion remains the same: time did not exist before the Big Bang.”

Gott, Gunn, Schramm, and Tinsley write,


"the universe began from a state of infinite density about one Hubble time ago. Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the big bang; it is somewhat like asking what is north of the North Pole. Similarly, it is not sensible to ask where the big bang took place. The point-universe was not an object isolated in space; it was the entire universe, and so the only answer can be that the big bang happened everywhere"

Therefore, what the Big Bang model actually requires, as Hoyle points out, is creation ex nihilo; this is because as one follows the expansion back in time one reaches a time at which the universe was
'shrunk down to nothing at all'.

The problem with saying that the Big Bang is an event without a cause is that it entails that the universe came into being uncaused out of nothing, which seems metaphysically absurd. Philosopher of science Bernulf Kanitscheider remonstrates,


"If taken seriously, the initial singularity is in head-on collision with the most successful ontological commitment that was a guiding line of research since Epicurus and Lucretius," namely, 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."

But if the universe began to exist, we are therefore driven to the second alternative: a supernatural agency beyond space and time.


Of course there was vacuum.

No. There was not. There wasn't anything at all.


And care to prove how QM always need a scientist?

I never said QM ALWAYS needs a scientist, do not twist my words.


Spontaneous Transitions in Quantum Mechanics (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0305-4470/32/26/306)

Wholly apart from the disputed question of whether virtual particles really exist at all, the central point to be made here is that the quantum mechanical vacuum on which they depend for their existence is emphatically not nothing. The dynamical properties of vacuous space arise out of its interaction with matter and radiation fields, in the absence of which
“this dynamism of empty space is but a formal abstraction lacking physical reality.” The quantum vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy which gives rise to virtual particles. Thus, virtual particles can hardly be said to arise without a cause

Christopher Isham comments,


None of the schemes proposed so far are in any sense rigorous theories. This stems partly from the lack of any proper unification of general relativity and quantum theory. However, even setting this aside, the extant proposals are incomplete; in particular it is by no means clear that they do in fact lead to a unique quantum state. Major conceptual problems arise when trying to apply quantum theory to the universe as a whole. This problem is so severe that many highly respectable theoretical physicists think the whole subject of quantum cosmology is misconceived.

It follows from the above that theories of the quantum origin of the universe are highly speculative and do not have anything like the scientific status of, say, even the more exotic branches of modern elementary particle physics



What you really need to grasp though, is that this is only an hypothesis, which still lacks evidence, as your God hypothesis does, and until we find more evidence we cannot be sure.

I have given you the evidence for the God hypothesis, I have no idea why you reject of of cosmological science of the past 60 yrs, but the evidence is there, and I have said this many, many times, at least 4 times to you personally, that the 'God hypothesis' is merely the best explanation for the evidence.
The evidence :

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars



There was energy and matter before big bang. It was all condensed into one point.

The singularity DID NOT exist before the big bang, in fact one cannot escape this incoherence of postulating a time before time by identifying the primordial time with the cosmological singularity itself, for not only is the singularity not an instant of time, but more importantly the entire mass-energy content of the universe and, indeed, space itself is compacted into the initial singularity, the first temporal interval is in such a case a closed internal [0, 1] terminating in the singularity. The cosmological singularity marked the origin of time and space and beyond which the spacetime manifold cannot be extended.

The ontological status of the Big Bang singularity is a metaphysical question concerning which one will be hard-pressed to find a discussion in scientific literature. The singularity does not exist in space and time; therefore it is not an event. Typically it is cryptically said to lie on the boundary of space-time. But the ontological status of this boundary point is virtually never discussed.


Read this: ^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#cite_ref-2) Komatsu, E.; et al. (2009). "Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe Observations: Cosmological Interpretation". Astrophysical Journal Supplement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_Journal_Supplement) 180: 330. Bibcode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibcode): 2009ApJS..180..330K (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJS..180..330K).

[/QUOTE]

What am I supposed to have taken from this? Nothing I've said contradicts a single thing in those links.

[Havet]

No, I am not proposing this; this is what science tells us. Science says there was no 'before' the big bang, all matter, energy, space, and time came into existence at a point called a 'singularity' which is the edge of space/time.

Hayenmill, I've gone over this in some detail with you already, I have quoted everyone from P.C. Davies, Velhekin, to Stephan Hawking; and I understand you disagree with every living physicist. The was nothing before the big bang -no matter no energy etc, and it did NOT take place in a vacuum. But you think every physicist is interpreting the data wrong. No doubt everyone is wrong and your right.

And I'm not claiming that Stephan Hawking is as great a physicist as you. No doubt you can teach them all the "real" theory of the big bang.

And even though I have quoted the greatest living physicist to give THEIR opinion, and I know you think they are all wrong, I will repeat, yet again, what they say about the big bang,

P. C. W. Davies explains,

Physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler, speaking of the beginning of the universe, explain,

Anthony Kenny,

P. C. W. Davies points out,

Gott, Gunn, Schramm, and Tinsley write,

Therefore, what the Big Bang model actually requires, as Hoyle points out, is creation ex nihilo; this is because as one follows the expansion back in time one reaches a time at which the universe was

The problem with saying that the Big Bang is an event without a cause is that it entails that the universe came into being uncaused out of nothing, which seems metaphysically absurd. Philosopher of science Bernulf Kanitscheider remonstrates,

Those physicists are not providing data or a careful analysis, because we don't have the meaningful data to conclude such things they are concluding yet.

"Science says there was no 'before' the big bang, all matter, energy, space, and time came into existence at a point called a 'singularity' which is the edge of space/time."

Science says: the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_time) in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#cite_note-2)


But if the universe began to exist, we are therefore driven to the second alternative: a supernatural agency beyond space and time.

I appreciate your insistence on this debate, so I will too insist on one thing. That is a non-sequitur.


No. There was not. There wasn't anything at all.

Vacuum = nothing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccum)


I never said QM ALWAYS needs a scientist, do not twist my words.

K, sorry. Then why do you claim that in this particular case QM would need a scientist?


Wholly apart from the disputed question of whether virtual particles really exist at all, the central point to be made here is that the quantum mechanical vacuum on which they depend for their existence is emphatically not nothing. The dynamical properties of vacuous space arise out of its interaction with matter and radiation fields, in the absence of which The quantum vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy which gives rise to virtual particles. Thus, virtual particles can hardly be said to arise without a cause

Of course, this all presuposes that i'm talking that virtual particles arose out of vacuum. I am not.

I am proposing an hypothesis, which I am aware has not sufficient data to back it up, that particles existing in the primordial hot dense point from which it is believed the Big Bang expanded, quantum mechanics and spontaneous transitions made such particles within the primordial hot dense point cause the Big Bang.


I have given you the evidence for the God hypothesis, I have no idea why you reject of of cosmological science of the past 60 yrs, but the evidence is there, and I have said this many, many times, at least 4 times to you personally, that the 'God hypothesis' is merely the best explanation for the evidence.
The evidence :

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars

They are, at most, proof of an unknown cause of the Big Bang, not proof of God.


The singularity DID NOT exist before the big bang, in fact one cannot escape this incoherence of postulating a time before time by identifying the primordial time with the cosmological singularity itself, for not only is the singularity not an instant of time, but more importantly the entire mass-energy content of the universe and, indeed, space itself is compacted into the initial singularity, the first temporal interval is in such a case a closed internal [0, 1] terminating in the singularity. The cosmological singularity marked the origin of time and space and beyond which the spacetime manifold cannot be extended.

The ontological status of the Big Bang singularity is a metaphysical question concerning which one will be hard-pressed to find a discussion in scientific literature. The singularity does not exist in space and time; therefore it is not an event. Typically it is cryptically said to lie on the boundary of space-time. But the ontological status of this boundary point is virtually never discussed.

How can something be expanding if it was not condensed at some point?

We have evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space) the Universe has been expanding. This means it was condensed at some point, and that something made it expand.

What we call the act of it expanding is Big Bang

What caused such expansion we don't know. There is no evidence.


What am I supposed to have taken from this? Nothing I've said contradicts a single thing in those links.

This basically proves how there was a primordial hot dense point from which the Universe expanded, after the Big Bang.

[spiltteeth]

hayenmill;1587955]Those physicists are not providing data or a careful analysis, because we don't have the meaningful data to conclude such things they are concluding yet.

I already conceded that Stephen Hawking, P.C. Davies, Valenkin and all other physicists are wrong and you are right. I already said you are the only person who can correctly interpret the data. Every physicist who is alive today has misinterpreted the data, and will eventually realize that you alone have the 'real' answer.


Science says there was no 'before' the big bang, all matter, energy, space, and time came into existence at a point called a 'singularity' which is the edge of space/time."

Science says: the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_time) in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#cite_note-2)

Yes. Having read numerous books on the subject the "Wiki" page has been most informative. It contradicts nothing I've said. The universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago, before that was nothing. I have no idea why you are posting random fundamentals about the big bang.


I appreciate your insistence on this debate, so I will too insist on one thing. That is a non-sequitur.

I have put it four different ways, including deductively which I will re-post :

You need to understand that the big bang theory states that space, time and matter were all created at the moment of creation.

1 There was no space causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
2 There was no time causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
3 There was no matter causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
All of these things began to exist at the first moment.

What can we infer about the cause?

So, space, time, and matter began to exist. What could have caused them to begin to exist?

1 Whatever causes the universe to appear is not inside of space, because there was no space causally prior to the creation event. The cause must therefore be non-physical, because physical things exist in space.
2 Whatever causes the universe to appear is not bound by time (temporal). It never began to exist. There was no passage of time causally prior to the big bang, so the cause of the universe did not come into being. The cause existed eternally.
3 And the cause is not material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang.
So what could the cause be? Craig notes that we are only familiar with two kinds of non-material realities:

Abstract objects, like numbers, sets and mathematical relations
Minds, like your own mind
Now, abstract objects don’t cause of any effects in nature. But we are very familiar with the causal capabilities of our own minds – just raise your own arm and see!
So, by process of elimination, we are left with a mind as the cause of the universe. As Sherlock Holmes says, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.“

This cause created the entire physical universe. The cause of this event is therefore supernatural, because it brings nature into being and is not inside of nature itself. The cause of the universe violates the law of conservation of matter is therefore performing a miracle.



Vacuum = nothing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccum)

As the most prominent physicist that I've quoted have said, there was nothing before the big bang, there was no 'outside' there was no vacuum.

Did you actually read what I wrote? I described the properties of a vacuum in space.

Wait, did you even read that Wiki page?!

Quotes FROM THE WIKI PAGE YOU LINKED ME TO :


The word comes from the Latin term for "empty," but in reality, no volume of space can ever be perfectly empty.

the classical notion of a perfect vacuum with gaseous pressure of exactly zero is only a philosophical concept and never is observed in practice. Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a perfect vacuum, which they simply call "vacuum" or "free space", and use the term partial vacuum to refer to real vacuum. The Latin term in vacuo is also used to describe an object as being in what would otherwise be a vacuum.

See ultra-high vacuum. Quantum theory sets limits for the best possible quality of vacuum, predicting that no volume of space can be perfectly empty. See QCD vacuum, for example. Outer space and interstellar space are naturally occurring high quality vacuums, mostly of much higher quality than can be created artificially with current technology.

no vacuum is truly perfect, not even in interstellar space, where there are still a few hydrogen atoms per cubic centimetre.

In quantum mechanics, the vacuum is defined as the state (i.e. solution to the equations of the theory) with the lowest energy.

Even if a region of space contains no particles, the cosmic microwave background fills the entire universe with black body radiation.

An ideal vacuum cannot exist even inside of a molecule. Each atom in the molecule exists as a probability function of space, which has a certain non-zero value everywhere in a given volume. Thus, even "between" the atoms there is a certain probability of finding a particle, so the space cannot be said to be a vacuum.

In quantum field theory and string theory, the term "vacuum" is used to represent the ground state in the Hilbert space, that is, the state with the lowest possible energy.

Or from Hoyle - read carefully :


The universe began from a state of infinite density. . . . Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the Big Bang; it is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Similarly, it is not sensible to ask where the Big Bang took place. The point-universe was not an object isolated in space; it was the entire universe, and so the answer can only be that the Big Bang happened everywhere.

This event that marked the beginning of the universe becomes all the more amazing when one reflects on the fact that a state of "infinite density" is synonymous to "nothing." There can be no object that possesses infinite density, for if it had any size at all it could still be even more dense. Therefore, the Big Bang Theory requires the creation of matter from nothing. This is because as one goes back in time, one reaches a point at which the universe was shrunk down to nothing at all. Thus, what the Big Bang model of the universe seems to require is that the universe began to exist and was created out of nothing.




K, sorry. Then why do you claim that in this particular case QM would need a scientist?

It would need an external cause to produce such phenomena.


Of course, this all presuposes that i'm talking that virtual particles arose out of vacuum. I am not.

I am proposing an hypothesis, which I am aware has not sufficient data to back it up, that particles existing in the primordial hot dense point from which it is believed the Big Bang expanded, quantum mechanics and spontaneous transitions made such particles within the primordial hot dense point cause the Big Bang.

As I already explained, there was NO vacuum before the big bang.

The motions of elementary particles described by statistical quantum mechanical laws, even if uncaused, do not constitute an exception to the premise "1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause."

As Dr. Norton Smith 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"

Virtual particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum. As John Barrow and Frank Tipler comment,
. . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)
The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause.

IN ANY CASE, I believe you are referring to Dr. Davies idea, so, to be fair, I'll explore it.

In order to avoid its theistic implications, Davies presents a scenario which, he confesses, "should not be taken too seriously," but which seems to have a powerful attraction for you.
He has reference to a quantum theory of gravity according to which spacetime itself could spring uncaused into being out of absolutely nothing. While admitting that there is
"still no satisfactory theory of quantum gravity," such a theory "would allow spacetime to be created and destroyed spontaneously and uncaused in the same way that particles are created and destroyed spontaneously and uncaused. The theory would entail a certain mathematically determined probability that, for instance, a blob of space would appear where none existed before. Thus, spacetime could pop out of nothingness as the result of a causeless quantum transition."

Now in fact particle pair production furnishes no analogy for this radical ex nihilo becoming, as Davies seems to imply. This quantum phenomenon, even if an exception to the principle that every event has a cause, provides no analogy to something's coming into being out of nothing. Though physicists speak of this as particle pair creation and annihilation, such terms are philosophically misleading, for all that actually occurs is conversion of energy into matter or vice versa. As Davies admits,

"The processes described here do not represent the creation of matter out of nothing, but the conversion of pre- existing energy into material form."
Hence, Davies greatly misleads when he claims that
"Particles . . . can appear out of nowhere without specific causation" and again, "Yet the world of quantum physics routinely produces something for nothing." On the contrary, the world of quantum physics never produces something for nothing.

But to consider the case on its own merits: quantum gravity is so poorly understood that the period prior to 10[-43] sec, which this theory hopes to describe, has been compared by one physicist to the regions on the maps of the ancient cartographers marked "Here there be dragons": it can easily be filled with all sorts of fantasies.
In fact, there seems to be no good reason to think that such a theory would involve the sort of spontaneous becoming ex nihilo which Davies suggests. A quantum theory of gravity has the goal of providing a theory of gravitation based on the exchange of particles (gravitons) rather than the geometry of space, which can then be brought into a Grand Unification Theory that unites all the forces of nature into a supersymmetrical state in which one fundamental force and a single kind of particle exist. But there seems to be nothing in this which suggests the possibility of spontaneous becoming ex nihilo.

Indeed, it is not at all clear that Davies's account is even intelligible. What can be meant, for example, by the claim that there is a mathematical probability that nothingness should spawn a region of spacetime "where none existed before?" It cannot mean that given enough time a region of spacetime would pop into existence at a certain place, since neither place nor time exist apart from spacetime. The notion of some probability of something's coming out of nothing thus seems incoherent.

In this connection note some remarks made by A.N. Prior concerning an argument put forward by Jonathan Edwards against something's coming into existence uncaused. This would be impossible, said Edwards, because it would then be inexplicable why just any and everything cannot or does not come to exist uncaused. One cannot respond that only things of a certain nature come into existence uncaused, since prior to their existence they have no nature which could control their coming to be. Prior made a cosmological application of Edwards's reasoning by commenting on the steady state model's postulating the continuous creation of hydrogen atoms ex nihilo:


It is no part of Hoyle's theory that this process is causeless, but I want to be more definite about this, and to say that if it is causeless, then what is alleged to happen is fantastic and incredible. If it is possible for objects-objects, now, which really are objects, "substances endowed with capacities"-to start existing without a cause, then it is incredible that they should all turn out to be objects of the same sort, namely, hydrogen atoms. The peculiar nature of hydrogen atoms cannot possibly be what makes such starting-to-exist possible for them but not for objects of any other sort; for hydrogen atoms do not have this nature until they are there to have it, i.e. until their starting-to-exist has already occurred. That is Edwards's argument, in fact; and here it does seem entirely cogent. . . .

Now in the case at hand, if originally absolutely nothing existed, then why should it be spacetime that springs spontaneously out of the void, rather than, say, hydrogen atoms or even rabbits? How can one talk about the probability of any particular thing's popping into being out of nothing?

Davies on one occasion seems to answer as if the laws of physics are the controlling factor which determines what may leap uncaused into being:

"But what of the laws? They have to be 'there' to start with so that the universe can come into being. Quantum physics has to exist (in some sense) so that a quantum transition can generate the cosmos in the first place."

Now this seems exceedingly peculiar. Davies seems to attribute to the laws of nature themselves a sort of ontological and causal status such that they constrain spontaneous becoming. But this seems clearly wrong-headed: the laws of physics do not themselves cause or constrain anything; they are simply propositional descriptions of a certain form and generality of what does happen in the universe. And the issue Edwards raises is why, if there were absolutely nothing, it would be true that any one thing rather than another should pop into being uncaused? It is futile to say it somehow belongs to the nature of spacetime to do so, for if there were absolutely nothing then there would have been no nature to determine that spacetime should spring into being.

Even more fundamentally, however, what Davies envisions is surely metaphysical nonsense. Though his scenario is cast as a scientific theory,. someone ought to be bold enough to say that the Emperor is wearing no clothes. Either the necessary and sufficient conditions for the appearance of spacetime existed or not; if so, then it is not true that nothing existed; if not, then it would seem ontologically impossible that being should arise out of absolute non-being. To call such spontaneous springing into being out of non-being a "quantum transition" or to attribute it to "quantum gravity" explains nothing; indeed, on this account, there is no explanation. It just happens.

It seems to me, therefore, that Davies has not provided any plausible basis for denying the truth of the cosmological argument's first premiss. That whatever begins to exist has a cause would seem to be an ontologically necessary truth, one which is constantly confirmed in our experience.


They are, at most, proof of an unknown cause of the Big Bang, not proof of God.

Yea, I've said it about a hundred times, emboldened, this is not a proof, merely the 'God hypothesis' is the best explanation for the data. It is a classical deductive argument that is classically logically compelling.


How can something be expanding if it was not condensed at some point?

We have evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space) the Universe has been expanding. This means it was condensed at some point, and that something made it expand.

What we call the act of it expanding is Big Bang

What caused such expansion we don't know. There is no evidence.



This basically proves how there was a primordial hot dense point from which the Universe expanded, after the Big Bang.[/QUOTE]

First, I have given you evidence that the universe is expanding etc I have no idea why you are posting this, it is an essential part of my argument that I have alluded to constantly.

The 'singularity' is the point from which the universe, matter, time, energy, all came into existence - the EVENT is called the Big Bang.

So saying there was a dense point 'after' the big bang etc does not make sense. I already summed up what physicists say about this singularity.

The argument, which has been wrestled with every physicist in the last 60 yrs, is about the cause.

The argument is that the cause must be non-material - since NO material existed before the big bang; it must be timeless, because there was no time before the big bang, it must be personal etc etc

[Havet]

Yea, I've said it about a hundred times, emboldened, this is not a proof, merely the 'God hypothesis' is the best explanation for the data. It is a classical deductive argument that is classically logically compelling.

As I've already said, there's little to no evidence of what happened before the big bang. We don't know it had to have a cause, we would only know that if we found a cause. We don't know if there was anything before the big bang, either in time or matter.

All we do know is that there was a very large explosion of matter and energy about 13.7 billion years ago. The universe may be even older than this, but this is the oldest date we have proof of.

[Your explanation] can't be the "best explanation" unless it has more evidence or more explanatory power than any other explanation. There's no more evidence or explanatory power in the god hypothesis, than there is that it was made by an alien species, or that the universe started itself, or that it had no cause. Except of course, if you already believe a god exists, it seems alot more likely that it was god than extra-universal aliens, due to good old confirmation bias.

The assumption that everything has a cause is entirely bogus. It is not possible to know it a priori, only a posteriori .

All we can say is that everything we know to have a cause, has a cause.

Since we don't know what the cause of the universe is, we don't know that it needs to have one. We only know that things inside the universe need a cause because we can observe those causes.

We only know causality as it appears as a link in a chain. in its barest form, it comes down to X comes from Y comes from Z etc.

Just because inside the universe we know that a Rock was formed by compressed sand, and that sand was formed by elements made in a sun, and that sun came from compressed hydrogen, does not mean this is an infinite chain of causes, just because we can't find an end.


1 There was no space causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
2 There was no time causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
3 There was no matter causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
All of these things began to exist at the first moment.

This is bull.

We don't know if the big bang was the start of the universe, we only know it was the start of the universe as we now know it. We don't know if there was space time or matter before the big bang because we can't measure anything before the big bang.

Now of course this is neither evidence that there was nothing before the big bang, or that there was something, it is irrational to believe either when there is no evidence for either.

[spiltteeth]

hayenmill;1588630]As I've already said, there's little to no evidence of what happened before the big bang. We don't know it had to have a cause, we would only know that if we found a cause. We don't know if there was anything before the big bang, either in time or matter.

As I keep saying, and as every physicist but you believes, there was NO BEFORE the big bang.

The big bang was the beginning of time.

How can there be a beginning BEFORE TIME.

There was not anything "either in time or matter" before the big bang, because there WAS no time or matter before the big bang.


All we do know is that there was a very large explosion of matter and energy about 13.7 billion years ago. The universe may be even older than this, but this is the oldest date we have proof of.

Holy shit. Your fucking with me. Please, don't just keep screwing around. Yoy know the universe BEGAN with the big bang, so there can be nothing 'older.'

Time began with the big bang - T=0. Nothing before. There Was No Before.


[Your explanation] can't be the "best explanation" unless it has more evidence or more explanatory power than any other explanation. There's no more evidence or explanatory power in the god hypothesis, than there is that it was made by an alien species, or that the universe started itself, or that it had no cause. Except of course, if you already believe a god exists, it seems alot more likely that it was god than extra-universal aliens, due to good old confirmation bias.

You can call the cause "Alien" if you want. as long as it is a personal, uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe.

I have given you the REASONS WHY it has more explanatory power several different ways. I'll explain it, yet again, THREE different ways, hopefully one will sink in

ONE

Consider the fact that there are countless contingent entities in the world around us: humans, animals, rocks, trees, stars and so on. And these, as no man will deny, were brought (productively) into existence by various efficient causes. For example, the existence of raindrops falling from the sky is brought about by clouds. Clouds too are contingent, and therefore, have an efficient cause that brings them about, viz., the condensation of water vapour in the atmosphere into water droplets. Thus begins the causal regress: a chain of contingent causes that will either (i) progress ad infinitum or (ii) have a non-contingent first cause as its terminus. The latter is the more reasonable contention. Here, I follow the now famous cosmological argument that can be presented in syllogistic form as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Premise (1) is the well known causal principle founded on the metaphysical truth of ex nihilo nihil fit ("from nothing nothing comes"). Although (1) is not a logically necessary truth, I still believe it has an extremely high epistemic status.

There are usually three basic reasons for rejecting a premise: (a) it is demonstrably false, (b) it lacks sufficient evidence or (c) it has at least one counterexample. If you wishes to dispute (1) then he must categorize the causal principle into one of the three classifications I have stated. For many, the premise is grasped intuitively. Thus, David Hume's famous remark that he "never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without cause."

Next comes premise (2). Could the universe be eternal? Is it not possible that an infinite causal sequence of contingent entities preceded the present moment? There are good reasons to think not. If the sequence of events preceding the present moment is infinite, then it follows that we are currently at the end of an infinite sequence of events (a trivial, but important point). Against this supposition, two arguments can be proffered.

First, if we are at the end of an infinite causal sequence, then it follows we have a set that is actually infinite, denoted by the mathematical symbol À0. Such a set, however, is prone to all the paradoxes of the infinite and is therefore rendered implausible. Second, the supposition that we are at the end of an infinite causal sequence is refuted by the clear fact that a beginningless sequence can never be completed, or traversed. It would never be possible, for example, for a man to reach the last rung of a ladder that consists of an infinite number of rungs. The fact that the sequence of events in the world does have a terminus (i.e. the present moment) falsifies the possibility of an infinite regress into the past.

Therefore, we are led to reject the possibility of a completed infinite sequence of events because its implications are openly false. Once again, according to David Hume: "[a]n infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man whose judgment is not corrupted, instead of being improved, by the sciences, would ever be able to admit of it." [4]
A similar verdict is given later by Immanuel Kant. Now if the possibility of an infinite causal sequence preceding the present moment is false, it is true that the causal chain must be finite, and it follows ipso facto that the universe had a beginning. This conclusion is, of course, supported by modern Big Bang cosmology which postulates an origin for our cosmos some 10 to 20 billion years ago.

Given the truth of premises (1) and (2) it follows deductively that the universe has a metaphysical cause for its existence: the first cause.

II. The Personal Creator

The foregoing considerations give us good reasons to believe in a first cause of the cosmos. But the argument for God's existence is still incomplete, for as William Rowe complains, "[w]hy must a first efficient cause or a necessary being have the properties of the theistic God?" One of the main properties of the theistic God is that He is personal, and if it could be shown that the first cause is personal, then we would have a good response to Rowe's objection (along with the considerations in section III below). Here, the following argument can be presented:

1. The first cause is either personal or mechanical.

2. The first cause is not mechanical.

3. Therefore, the first cause is personal.

We can affirm the truth of (2) based on the fact that the first cause is eternal, yet it gave rise to a temporal event (i.e. the beginning of the universe). The reason for thinking that the first cause is personal is because a first cause requires a will, since an unthinking mechanical cause requires antecedent causal influences to occur. But this cannot be, for we know that the first cause is the first productive cause in the causal nexus. Only something that controls its own actions can be the first cause; the sufficient reasons for its actions are found within itself. This, of course, occurs all the time when free-willed agents choose a particular course of action, such as my deciding to go for a walk, for example.

The argument can be pressed further. If the first cause simply consisted of a set of necessary and sufficient conditions that existed from eternity, then the effect would also have existed from eternity (i.e. the universe should have been eternal). For example, if the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of fire are present, then the effect--a flame--arises immediately. There is no delay from cause to effect. Thus, if the necessary and sufficient (causal) conditions for fire are present from eternity, then a flame would also exist (as an effect) from eternity. What this analysis reveals is that the origin of our temporal universe (which began a finite time ago) could not have resulted from a mechanistic state of affairs that existed from eternity. As Craig argues, "[t]he only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time."

At this point, not only do we have powerful reasons to believe in a first cause of the universe, but also, to think of this cause as a personal and transcendent Creator. It seems that this cause is also enormously powerful (if not omnipotent) and intelligent (if not omniscient) based on the fact that it brought a complex, ordered and fine-tuned universe, such as ours, into existence.


TWO

The argument goes like this:

1 Whatever begins to exist requires a cause
2 The universe began to exist
3 Therefore, the universe requires a cause (M.P. 1,2)

The most important thing for you to realize is that nothing can be sustained in a debate unless it can be phrased as a valid argument according the rules of inference. All of Craig’s arguments can be broken down into logical propositions that use the standard laws of logical reasoning in order to force their conclusions deductively, so long as the premises are true.

Understanding the logical form of the argument

The form of the argument is valid because it allows for a modus ponens inference. (Here’s a primer on logical reasoning)

if p is true, then q is true
p is true
therefore, q is true
That means that so long as premise 1 and 2 are true, the conclusion follows necessarily. This is the same form of argument (deductive) used by Sherlock Holmes in his cases.

Proving the premises

Can the atheist deny that either or both of these premises are true?

“Whatever begins to exist requires a cause”
If the atheist denies this premise, then they are denying a fundamental law of natural science, namely, that matter can neither be created or destroyed. That is natural law.

“The universe began to exist”

The universe came into being. If the atheist denies this they are denying the state of the art in modern cosmology.

First, quantum mechanics is not going to save the atheist here. In QM, virtual particles come into being in a vacuum. The vacuum is sparked by a scientist. The particles exist for a period of time inversely proportional to their mass. But in the case of the big bang, there is no vacuum – there’s nothing. There is no scientist – there’s nothing. And the universe is far too massive to last 14 billion years as a virtual particle.

Secondly, atheists will say that the big bang is speculative physics that could change at any moment. But the trend is in favor of an absolute beginning out of nothing. We have had a string of solid, recent scientific discoveries that point in a definite direction, as follows:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars
So, insofar as atheists question these discoveries and the origin of the entire physical universe out of nothing, they are opposing the progress of science.

What came into being at the moment of creation?

You need to understand that the big bang theory states that space, time and matter were all created at the moment of creation.

1 There was no space causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
2 There was no time causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
3 There was no matter causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
All of these things began to exist at the first moment.

What can we infer about the cause?

So, space, time, and matter began to exist. What could have caused them to begin to exist?

1 Whatever causes the universe to appear is not inside of space, because there was no space causally prior to the creation event. The cause must therefore be non-physical, because physical things exist in space.
2 Whatever causes the universe to appear is not bound by time (temporal). It never began to exist. There was no passage of time causally prior to the big bang, so the cause of the universe did not come into being. The cause existed eternally.
3 And the cause is not material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang.

So what could the cause be? Craig notes that we are only familiar with two kinds of non-material realities:

Abstract objects, like numbers, sets and mathematical relations
Minds, like your own mind
Now, abstract objects don’t cause of any effects in nature. But we are very familiar with the causal capabilities of our own minds – just raise your own arm and see! So, by process of elimination, we are left with a mind as the cause of the universe. As Sherlock Holmes says, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.“

This cause created the entire physical universe. The cause of this event is therefore supernatural, because it brings nature into being and is not inside of nature itself. The cause of the universe violates the law of conservation of matter is therefore performing a miracle.

THREE

We can summarize our argument thus far as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Given the truth of the two premises, the conclusion necessarily follows.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe?

If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water's freezing is the temperature's being below 0˚ Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0˚ from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. So if the cause is permanently present, then the effect should be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

Now I put it to you: which makes more sense: that the Christian theist is right or that the universe popped into being uncaused out of nothing? I, at least, have no trouble assessing these alternatives!


The assumption that everything has a cause is entirely bogus. It is not possible to know it a priori, only a posteriori .

All we can say is that everything we know to have a cause, has a cause.

“Whatever begins to exist requires a cause”
If the atheist denies this premise, then they are denying a fundamental law of natural science, namely, that matter can neither be created or destroyed. That is natural law.

It is called "The first law of thermodynamics" and is as certain as the law of gravity.

Do you think that it is rational for matter to come into being out of nothing without a cause? I don’t.

Do you really think say, a tiger, could just pop into existed uncaused into your living room?

You must live a terrifying life.


Since we don't know what the cause of the universe is, we don't know that it needs to have one. We only know that things inside the universe need a cause because we can observe those causes.

We only know causality as it appears as a link in a chain. in its barest form, it comes down to X comes from Y comes from Z etc.

Just because inside the universe we know that a Rock was formed by compressed sand, and that sand was formed by elements made in a sun, and that sun came from compressed hydrogen, does not mean this is an infinite chain of causes, just because we can't find an end.

That would be true IF the universe were eternal, if it had always existed, however we know that everything that BEGINS to exist, needs a cause.

There are usually three basic reasons for rejecting a premise: (a) it is demonstrably false, (b) it lacks sufficient evidence or (c) it has at least one counterexample. If you wishes to dispute (1) then you must categorize the causal principle into one of the three classifications I have stated.

For many, the premise is grasped intuitively. Thus, David Hume's famous remark that he "never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without cause."


This is bull.

We don't know if the big bang was the start of the universe, we only know it was the start of the universe as we now know it. We don't know if there was space time or matter before the big bang because we can't measure anything before the big bang.

Now of course this is neither evidence that there was nothing before the big bang, or that there was something, it is irrational to believe either when there is no evidence for either.


Good lord. Is the how twisted ones thinking must be to reject all the science?

I understand how Christian fundamentalist can still not believe in evolution, if there irrational belief is threatened they'll do anything.

According to the big bang theory ALL matter and time came into existence, so there was no 'before' since time BEGAN 13.7 billion yrs ago.

Also since ALL the matter came into existence at the time of the big bang, there was NO matter "before" it.

I have quoted physicist after physicist after physicist saying all this so we choose - are ALL the physicists wrong about this OR you are wrong about your interpretation.

You have decided that 1) All the physicist interpretations of the data is wrong, 2) the 1st law of thermodynamics is wrong 3) the big bang theory doesn't "really" posit that everything came into existence 13.7 billion yrs ago and 4) Things can just pop into existence.

Hey, believe what you want. I met an old lady who the earth rested on a giant turtle. We can't rule it out! Maybe it existed "before the big bang" with all that other matter that logically couldn't exist. What the hell, if your simply not going to believe in basic logic or scientific evidence or natural laws go crazy Hayenmill, maybe YOU created the universe.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Humanity is a fuck up in the evolutionary chain. But to think that b/c we are such an oddity in evolution that we can not have just formed through evolution but instead just were created by a supreme being is just stupid. The bible doesn't say anything about evolution and instead says something about dirt and god and then presto humans. Also it is because of our uniqueness and our intricateness that dispells the idea of god; if a being created us then why have disease, why have brown hair and blond hair and blue eyes and brown eyes and any other combination of differences. If a god created us i imagine we would all look the same and love the same things and all be circular blubs with no distinguishing features and would not have any thought process other than that of worshipping a bunch of bullshit.

Yes the universe had a beginning but it wasn't created by a god or diety. It makes no sense that a being was there to spark it into life. Just because we do not how it was created doesn't mean we wont find out. The beauty of science is that it allows us to see these challenges in our knowledge and tackle them and change and shape our views on the universe, while religion tells us to sit down and shut the fuck up because we already know how it was created, GOD.

[Kronos]

The bible doesn't say anything about evolution and instead says something about dirt and god and then presto humans.Defenders of Christian creationism would argue that at that point in history man used language crudely and had little to no science. Therefore metaphysical questions concerning the origins of life and the universe, which today are questions concerning biology and physics, could only be asked crudely, philosophically, and with a little help from allegory and metaphor. This is why the notion is presented in the form of a story in Genesis.

Christian philosophers then went technical with the metaphysics and tried to prove epistemologically and ontologically that a 'first cause' would be necessary for the universe as we know it.

But in any case, the theories of biological and cosmological evolution can't be treated as contrary to creationist theory. It could be argued that evolution is in fact part of a design....one which the thinkers of the Christian era could not fathom.

It wasn't till the late renaissance period that Christianity was appropriated by academic idealists and turned into an elaborate philosophical system. As knowledge in science and technology increased, the breadth of these philosophical systems increased. You might say that modern civilization, its accumulation of scientific knowledge through new research and discovery, challenged the primitive interpretations of the bible...causing prolific philosophers to expand and enrich Christian metaphysics in these new modern circumstances.

Hegel, for instance, took Christianity, proclaimed it to be the absolute religion, and worked out a cosmological and material process of evolution from within a Christian framework.

But rarely any modern Christian philosophers treat Genesis literally. It is the unspoken benefit of the doubt that moderns give to the philosophers of the Christian era when they read the story of Genesis- the only way they could stage the idea would be in a story of beautiful gardens, talking snakes, rib-women, dust-men, forbidden apples, and trees of knowledge.

We can't blame the writers of the bible for this silliness. They just didn't have enough scientific experience with the world. They lacked the alternative explanations for 'existence' materialists have today because of scientific advantage and progress. I'd bet you my next pay check that I could turn Pascal into a fervent atheist.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Humanity is a fuck up in the evolutionary chain.

No. There are no "fuck ups" in evolution, only species that manage to thrive. There is no "evolutionary chain" either, since that presupposes some unevidenced teleological aspect to evolution. Evolution is contingent - were it possible to replay evolutionary history, things would turn out differently but still following the rules of genetic drift and natural selection.

[Kronos]

Well said, NoXion.

People are taking into consideration the magnificence of the whole animal when they raise their doubts against purposeless evolution. Right....'how could such a complex animal have evolved without some plan', they ask. But, when you consider that evolutionary changes occur at such microscopic levels, many changes which attribute to a vast, overall change in the total organism, you can imagine the animal as a collection of arbitrary changes rather than as an ideal, planned structure which was the intention of the changes.

There are countless organisms which have remained more or less primitive (compared to mammals, for instance), but which are also amazingly complex in their own right. Why then would humans imagine themselves to be a purpose to evolution...if equally complex organisms exist? Ah....they believe that every single species was also planned...from the paramecium to the blue whale. One could only cease to speculate on this matter and accept that God works in mysterious ways. Why so many animals? Religious people would insist that is a question we cannot ask.

[welshboy]

As I keep saying, and as every physicist but you believes, there was NO BEFORE the big bang.

The big bang was the beginning of time.

How can there be a beginning BEFORE TIME.

There was not anything "either in time or matter" before the big bang, because there WAS no time or matter before the big bang.
This is a misunderstanding of the the big bang. There was a before the big bang, there was a before time. We are expanding our understanding of this all the time. One theory is that the universe was created from vaccuum, yes something really can come from 'nothing'
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=541


First of all, note that mass and energy are equivalent. So, the total mass of the Universe need not be conserved even though the total energy (taking into account the energy that is equivalent of the mass in the Universe) is conserved. Mass and energy are related by the famous equation E=mc2. Hence if there is enough energy, photons can create matter-antimatter pairs. This is called pair production and is responsible for the mass in the Universe.
As to where everything came from, there is no conclusive opinion. One idea was that the Universe was created from vacuum. This is because according to quantum theory, the apparently quiescent vacuum is not really empty at all. For example, it is possible for an electron and a positron (a matter antimatter pair) to materialize from the vacuum, exist for a brief flash of time and then disappear into nothingness. Such vacuum fluctuations cannot be observed directly as they typically last for only about 10-21 seconds and the separation between the electron and positron is typically no longer than 10-10 cm. However, through indirect measurements, physicists are convinced that these fluctuations are real.
Hence, any object in principle might materialize briefly in the vacuum. The probability for an object to materialize decreases dramatically with the mass and complexity of the object. In 1973, Edward Tyron proposed that the Universe is a result of a vacuum fluctuation. The main difficulty of this proposal is that the probability that a 13.7 billion year old Universe could arise from this mechanism is extremely small. In addition, physicists would question Tyron's starting point: if the Universe was born from empty space, then where did the empty space come from? (Note that from the point of view of general relativity, empty space is unambiguously something, since space is not a passive background, but instead a flexible medium that can bend, twist and flex.)
In 1982, Alexander Vilenkin proposed an extension of Tyron's idea and suggested that the Universe was created by quantum processes starting from "literally nothing", meaning not only the absence of matter, but the absence of space and time as well. Vilenkin took the idea of quantum tunneling and proposed that the Universe started in the totally empty geometry and then made a quantum tunneling transition to a non-empty state (subatomic in size), which through inflation (the Universe expands exponentially fast for a brief period of time which causes its size to increase dramatically) came to its current size.
Another idea is from Stephen Hawking and James Hartle. Hawking proposed a description of the Universe in its entirety, viewed as a self-contained entity, with no reference to anything that might have come before it. The description is timeless, in the sense that one set of equations delineates the Universe for all time. As one looks to earlier and earlier times, one finds that the model Universe is not eternal, but there is no creation event either. Instead, at times of the order of 10-43 seconds, the approximation of a classical description of space and time breaks down completely, with the whole picture dissolving into quantum ambiguity. In Hawking's words, the Universe "would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE."
Holy shit. Your fucking with me. Please, don't just keep screwing around. Yoy know the universe BEGAN with the big bang, so there can be nothing 'older.'See above.



1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
No, you are wrong. Cosmology and Physics explain that you are wrong. See above. If you want to read something interesting about the origins of our universe then look at the research from Caltech. http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0377?context=astro-ph



Premise (1) is the well known causal principle founded on the metaphysical truth of ex nihilo nihil fit ("from nothing nothing comes"). Although (1) is not a logically necessary truth, I still believe it has an extremely high epistemic status.A concept from before the formation of quantum theory.


There are usually three basic reasons for rejecting a premise: (a) it is demonstrably false, (b) it lacks sufficient evidence or (c) it has at least one counterexample. If you wishes to dispute (1) then he must categorize the causal principle into one of the three classifications I have stated. For many, the premise is grasped intuitively. Thus, David Hume's famous remark that he "never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without cause." a)The existence of the Universe shows this to be false.
b)New evidence contradicts this.
c)The universe :P


Next comes premise (2). Could the universe be eternal? Is it not possible that an infinite causal sequence of contingent entities preceded the present moment? There are good reasons to think not. If the sequence of events preceding the present moment is infinite, then it follows that we are currently at the end of an infinite sequence of events (a trivial, but important point). Against this supposition, two arguments can be proffered.
First, if we are at the end of an infinite causal sequence, then it follows we have a set that is actually infinite, denoted by the mathematical symbol À0. Such a set, however, is prone to all the paradoxes of the infinite and is therefore rendered implausible. Second, the supposition that we are at the end of an infinite causal sequence is refuted by the clear fact that a beginningless sequence can never be completed, or traversed. It would never be possible, for example, for a man to reach the last rung of a ladder that consists of an infinite number of rungs. The fact that the sequence of events in the world does have a terminus (i.e. the present moment) falsifies the possibility of an infinite regress into the past.That's not even logic. Infinite regress does not imply infinite egress nor does it prevent it.


Therefore, we are led to reject the possibility of a completed infinite sequence of events because its implications are openly false. Once again, according to David Hume: "[a]n infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man whose judgment is not corrupted, instead of being improved, by the sciences, would ever be able to admit of it." [4]
A similar verdict is given later by Immanuel Kant. Now if the possibility of an infinite causal sequence preceding the present moment is false, it is true that the causal chain must be finite, and it follows ipso facto that the universe had a beginning. This conclusion is, of course, supported by modern Big Bang cosmology which postulates an origin for our cosmos some 10 to 20 billion years ago.
You a) Haven't demonstrated that the possibility of an infinite regress is impossible.


Given the truth of premises (1) and (2) it follows deductively that the universe has a metaphysical cause for its existence: the first cause.Again, you haven't demonstrated their truth.


II. The Personal CreatorBeing as you have not proven the necessity of a first cause this entire section is invalid.



Proving the premises

Can the atheist deny that either or both of these premises are true?

“Whatever begins to exist requires a cause”
If the atheist denies this premise, then they are denying a fundamental law of natural science, namely, that matter can neither be created or destroyed. That is natural law.
That is a misunderstanding of physics, matter was created at the big bang. It did not exist in our universe before then.


“The universe began to exist”

The universe came into being. If the atheist denies this they are denying the state of the art in modern cosmology.No, the atheist that denies this has simply read a book or may be an astrophysicist.


First, quantum mechanics is not going to save the atheist here. In QM, virtual particles come into being in a vacuum. The vacuum is sparked by a scientist. The particles exist for a period of time inversely proportional to their mass. But in the case of the big bang, there is no vacuum – there’s nothing. There is no scientist – there’s nothing. And the universe is far too massive to last 14 billion years as a virtual particle.
Firstly a vacuum is not 'sparked' by a scientist.
If you read the paper from Caltech I linked above you will find that it is perfectly possible for a universe to be created within a vacuum of another universe. Following this model it is possible to have an infinite regress of universes.


Secondly, atheists will say that the big bang is speculative physics that could change at any moment. But the trend is in favor of an absolute beginning out of nothing.
See above.


We have had a string of solid, recent scientific discoveries that point in a definite direction, as follows:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars
So, insofar as atheists question these discoveries and the origin of the entire physical universe out of nothing, they are opposing the progress of science.
You make no sense here. None of these things support your claim for their to be an intelligent creator to the universe. There are a number of theories on the origin of the universe. none of them are dependent upon their being a first cause.


What came into being at the moment of creation?

You need to understand that the big bang theory states that space, time and matter were all created at the moment of creation.You just said something can't come from nothing, make your mind up.


1 There was no space causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
2 There was no time causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
3 There was no matter causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
All of these things began to exist at the first moment.

What can we infer about the cause?GODDIDIT obviously.:rolleyes:


So, space, time, and matter began to exist. What could have caused them to begin to exist?Quantum effects in another universe? Matter existed forever and has simply been expanding and contracting for ever(the big bounce)? A super massive black hole in another universe spewed matter from 'there' to 'here'?


1 Whatever causes the universe to appear is not inside of space, because there was no space causally prior to the creation event. The cause must therefore be non-physical, because physical things exist in space.
2 Whatever causes the universe to appear is not bound by time (temporal). It never began to exist. There was no passage of time causally prior to the big bang, so the cause of the universe did not come into being. The cause existed eternally.
3 And the cause is not material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang.
That's a lot of assumptions based on no evidence.
1)Again you are assuming a cause when there may be none, we have no evidence for a cause and the cause you are going to suppose creates more problems than it solves.
2)Again you have no evidence for this and cosmology contradicts you.
3)Again you have no evidence for this.


So what could the cause be? Craig notes that we are only familiar with two kinds of non-material realities:

Abstract objects, like numbers, sets and mathematical relations
Minds, like your own mind
Now, abstract objects don’t cause of any effects in nature. But we are very familiar with the causal capabilities of our own minds – just raise your own arm and see! So, by process of elimination, we are left with a mind as the cause of the universe. As Sherlock Holmes says, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.“

This cause created the entire physical universe. The cause of this event is therefore supernatural, because it brings nature into being and is not inside of nature itself. The cause of the universe violates the law of conservation of matter is therefore performing a miracle.
And watch as his logic leaps the tallest building. I have suggested perfectly natural origins for the universe above with no recourse to a creator.


THREE

We can summarize our argument thus far as follows:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Given the truth of the two premises, the conclusion necessarily follows.

Your argument has fallen at the first hurdle so your conclusion is false.


Do you think that it is rational for matter to come into being out of nothing without a cause? I don’t. Good job you're not a physics teacher then, ;)


Do you really think say, a tiger, could just pop into existed uncaused into your living room? You deserve a crocoduck award for that one.
http://atheistblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/crocoduck.jpg



That would be true IF the universe were eternal, if it had always existed, however we know that everything that BEGINS to exist, needs a cause.Except that we don't know this and science is constantly finding examples to the contrary.


There are usually three basic reasons for rejecting a premise: (a) it is demonstrably false, (b) it lacks sufficient evidence or (c) it has at least one counterexample. If you wishes to dispute (1) then you must categorize the causal principle into one of the three classifications I have stated. So we can reject your premise then, good.


For many, the premise is grasped intuitively. Thus, David Hume's famous remark that he "never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without cause."Hume would have said differently if he was writing in the 21st rather than the 18th century.


Good lord. Is the how twisted ones thinking must be to reject all the science?You obviously don't understand modern cosmology.
I'll leave you with a quote from someone who does actually know what they're talking about, Proffesor Sean Carroll of Caltech.

"We're trained to say there was no time before the Big Bang, when we should say that we don't know whether there was anything - or if there was, what it was."Oh and a youtube video with another theory that requires no problematic creator. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gy1e2olvMw

[Kronos]

Werd.

( Welshboy up in this piece )

[spiltteeth]

This is a misunderstanding of the the big bang. There was a before the big bang, there was a before time. We are expanding our understanding of this all the time. One theory is that the universe was created from vaccuum, yes something really can come from 'nothing'
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=541
See above.


No, you are wrong. Cosmology and Physics explain that you are wrong. See above. If you want to read something interesting about the origins of our universe then look at the research from Caltech. http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.0377?context=astro-ph


A concept from before the formation of quantum theory.

a)The existence of the Universe shows this to be false.
b)New evidence contradicts this.
c)The universe :P

That's not even logic. Infinite regress does not imply infinite egress nor does it prevent it.

You a) Haven't demonstrated that the possibility of an infinite regress is impossible.

Again, you haven't demonstrated their truth.

Being as you have not proven the necessity of a first cause this entire section is invalid.

That is a misunderstanding of physics, matter was created at the big bang. It did not exist in our universe before then.

No, the atheist that denies this has simply read a book or may be an astrophysicist.

Firstly a vacuum is not 'sparked' by a scientist.
If you read the paper from Caltech I linked above you will find that it is perfectly possible for a universe to be created within a vacuum of another universe. Following this model it is possible to have an infinite regress of universes.

See above.

You make no sense here. None of these things support your claim for their to be an intelligent creator to the universe. There are a number of theories on the origin of the universe. none of them are dependent upon their being a first cause.

You just said something can't come from nothing, make your mind up.

GODDIDIT obviously.:rolleyes:

Quantum effects in another universe? Matter existed forever and has simply been expanding and contracting for ever(the big bounce)? A super massive black hole in another universe spewed matter from 'there' to 'here'?

That's a lot of assumptions based on no evidence.
1)Again you are assuming a cause when there may be none, we have no evidence for a cause and the cause you are going to suppose creates more problems than it solves.
2)Again you have no evidence for this and cosmology contradicts you.
3)Again you have no evidence for this.

And watch as his logic leaps the tallest building. I have suggested perfectly natural origins for the universe above with no recourse to a creator.

Your argument has fallen at the first hurdle so your conclusion is false.

Good job you're not a physics teacher then, ;)

You deserve a crocoduck award for that one.
http://freethoughtpedia.com/images/Crocoduck.jpg


Except that we don't know this and science is constantly finding examples to the contrary.

So we can reject your premise then, good.

Hume would have said differently if he was writing in the 21st rather than the 18th century.

You obviously don't understand modern cosmology.
I'll leave you with a quote from someone who does actually know what they're talking about, Proffesor Sean Carroll of Caltech.
Oh and a youtube video with another theory that requires no problematic creator. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gy1e2olvMw

I've delt with all that, in depth, in previous posts in this thread.

You were responding to the post I wrote AS A RESPONSE to a post.
The original argument is in the very first post.

You no doubt realize there is no evidence for the our universe being born in a vacuum, nor are there any compelling arguments to suggest that this is true.

So you bring up 2 alternatives to premise one, both of which I've spoken to in this thread and have myself brought up.

1) The Hawking-Hartle Theory and 2) Vilenkin's multiverse.

Since I've already addressed Vilenkin's idea several times in this post, I'll go in depth working off of notes from Dr. Bill Craig.

1) The Hawking-Hartle theory

Hawkings = genius scientist, but as a metaphysician...not so hot.

On 2 counts.

First, I'm really not interested in theories, but actual truth, which can actually describe the universe, and Hawking reverts to using imaginary numbers.

"imaginary time" is physically unintelligible. An imaginary interval of time makes no more sense than, say, the imaginary volume of a glass, or the imaginary number of people in a room. Hawking insists that imaginary time is "a well-defined mathematical concept." But does that mathematical concept correspond to any physical reality? As Sir Herbert Dingle (great name) says,


In the language of mathematics we can tell lies as well as truths, and within the scope of mathematics itself there is no possible way of telling one from the other. We can distinguish them only by experience or by reasoning outside the mathematics, applied to the possible relation between the mathematical solution and its supposed physical correlate
.

From both experience and philosophy it is, I think, obvious that the use of imaginary numbers for the time variable is a mere mathematical artifice. Imaginary numbers are useful when computing certain equations, but one always converts back to real numbers to yield a physically meaningful result.

Yet Hawking declines to reconvert to real numbers because then the singularity suddenly reappears. Hawking states,

O
nly if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities.... When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities.
Thus, Hawking does not really eliminate the singularity. He conceals it behind the physically unintelligible artifice of imaginary time.

Secondly, using imaginary numbers for the time variable makes time a spatial dimension, which is just bad metaphysics.
Space and time are essentially different.


Space is ordered by a relation of betweeness: for three successive points x, y, and z on a spatial line, y is between x and z. But time is ordered in addition by a unique relation of earlier/later than: for two successive moments t1 and t2 in time, t1 is earlier than t2, and t2 is later than t1.
George Schlesinger points out:


"The relations 'before' and 'after' have generally been acknowledged as being the most fundamental temporal relations, which means that time deprived of these relations would cease to be time."
Thus, time cannot be a dimension of space. Moreover, time is also ordered by the relations past/future with respect to the present.
For example, my eating breakfast this morning was once present; now it is past. There is nothing even remotely similar to this relation among things in space.

Postulating a "timeless" era before time began, however, is to climb inside a contradiction. Before and after are temporal relations. Saying that this timeless segment existed before time presupposes a time before time, which is self-contradictory.
Hawking seems to realize the impossibility of having two successive stages of the universe, one timeless and the other temporal, and so he adopts the bizarre position that real time is just an illusion. He asserts,


This might suggest that the so-called imaginary time is really the real time, and that what we call real time is just a figment of our imaginations. In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to spacetime and at which the laws of science break down. But in imaginary time, there are no singularities or boundaries. So maybe what we call imaginary time is really more basic, and what we call real is just an idea that we invent to help us describe what we think the universe is like.
As the philosopher Quentin Smith points out, this intepretation is


"preposterous...at least observationally, since it is perfectly obvious that the universe in which we exist lapses in real rather than imaginary time."

So, if Hawking were right, we could not say (for example) that Lincoln died after his birth, since this describes a temporal relation between these two events !

By the way, this isn't a personal complaint, many physicist have complained that Hawking doesn't seem concerned with actual reality, and the following quotes from Hawking are often thrown at him like ammunition :


"I'm a positivist . . . I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is."

"I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality."

In assessing the worth of a theory, "All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements."
Which is all fine, but I'm generally interested in reality.
__________________

2) Vilenkin's multiverse.

(again, this is largely from notes I've taken from Dr. Bill Craig and not my original thoughts, although I tries to clear it up)

The main concern here is whether the universe—or, rather, multiverse—had an absolute beginning.

The advantage of theism over naturalistic accounts is that theism provides an efficient cause of the universe, whereas naturalism cannot.

The naturalist is therefore constrained to say that the universe came into being without either an efficient or a material cause. Vilenkin's theory of quantum creation is precisely an attempt to make such a view plausible.

His exposition of his model is so clear and simple that it is easy for the metaphysician to see where Vilenkin has misconstrued its ontological import. He invites us to envision a small, closed, spherical universe filled with a false vacuum and containing some ordinary matter. If the radius of such a universe is small, classical physics predicts that it will collapse to a point; but quantum physics permits it to "tunnel" into a state of inflation. (Recall that such an event is nonetheless so improbable that the Many Worlds Interpretation must be invoked to save the account.) If we allow the radius to shrink all the way to zero, there still remains some positive probability of the universe's tunneling to inflation. Now Vilenkin equates the initial state of the universe explanatorily prior to tunneling with nothingness:
"what I had was a mathematical description of a universe tunneling from zero size—from nothing!—to a finite radius and beginning to inflate" . This equivalence is patently mistaken. As Vilenkin's diagram illustrates, the quantum tunneling is at every point a function from something to something. For quantum tunneling to be truly from nothing, the function would have to have a single term, the posterior term. Another way of seeing the point is to reflect on the fact that "to have no radius" (as is the case with nothingness) is not "to have a radius whose measure is zero."

Vilenkin himself seems to realize that he has not really described the tunneling of the universe from literally nothing, for he allows,
"And yet, the state of 'nothing' cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus 'nothing' should be subjected to these laws"
It follows that the universe described by those laws is not nothing. Unfortunately, Vilenkin draws the mistaken inference that
"The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe"

Even if one takes a Platonistic view of the laws of nature, they are at most either mathematical objects or propositions, abstract entities that have no effect on anything. (Intriguingly, Vilenkin entertains a conceptualist view according to which the laws exist in a mind which predates the universe , the closest Vilenkin comes to theism). If these laws are truly descriptive, then obviously it cannot be true that "there was no universe." Of course, the laws could have existed and been false, in which case they are non-descriptive; but then Vilenkin's theory will be false.

That Vilenkin has not truly grasped how radical being's coming from non-being is is evident from his incredulity at the claim of the Hartle-Hawking model that an infinite universe should arise from nothing. He exclaims,
"The most probable thing to pop out of nothing is then an infinite, empty, flat space. I find this very hard to believe!" . Vilenkin finds it easier to believe that an itsy-bitsy universe should pop into being out of nothing. He thereby evinces a lack of understanding of the metaphysical chasm that separates being from non-being. As A. N. Prior pointed out, if something can come out of nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything—including an infinite universe—do not come into being out of nothing.

Vilenkin, then, cannot answer the paradoxes of creation as well as can the theist. In fact, the conjunction of theism with Vilenkin's model would be a congenial account of creation. We could have a complete, scientific description of the universe back to its beginning, at which God created the initial state of the universe. But naturalism on its own cannot do the job. If efficient causality apart from material causation seems difficult, then the origin of the universe without either efficient or material causation is even more so.

One might try to rescue a naturalistic quantum tunneling account by providing a mathematical description of it in terms of Euclidean, or what Hawking calls imaginary, time. In that case the universe does not come into being at all but exists timelessly as a non-singular, four-dimensional manifold having a shape analogous to that of a shuttlecock. Hawking, at least, famously took this to eliminate the need for a Creator. But it is interesting that Vilenkin will have no truck with such a realist construal of the Euclidean four-space. It is introduced "only for computational convenience" . The Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal
"lost much of its intuitive appeal" after switching to Euclidean time; in fact, "it instructs us to sum over histories that are certainly impossible, because we do not live in Euclidean time" . This is sensible metaphysics; but it precludes recourse to imaginary time as a way of avoiding the so-called paradoxes of creation.


Tellingly, Vilenkin later asserts that his own favored theory of quantum creation presupposes as a necessary condition the Many Worlds Interpretation:


If the Copenhagen interpretation is adopted, then the creation was a one-shot event, with a single universe popping out of nothing. This, however, leads to a problem. The most likely thing to pop out of nothing is a tiny Planck-sized universe, which would not tunnel, but would instantly collapse and disappear. Tunneling to a larger size has a small probability and therefore requires a large number of trials. It appears to be consistent only with the Everett interpretation .

Vilenkin had better hope that such is not the case, for most philosophers and physicists would regard it as the reductio ad absurdum of his creation account.

[Kronos]

Damn, Welsh. You gonna go out like that?

[welshboy]

You no doubt realize there is no evidence for the our universe being born in a vacuum, nor are there any compelling arguments to suggest that this is true.
There are compelling arguments that this is true. See above.


1) The Hawking-Hartle theory

Hawkings = genius scientist, but as a metaphysician...not so hot.
What has metaphysics to do with anything here?

[QUOTE]First, I'm really not interested in theories, but actual truth,[QUOTE]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEhDZN0RFjw

The rest I will return to when I'm not about to go to my bed.

[spiltteeth]

http://i971.photobucket.com/albums/ae191/spiltteeth/8310bc2e.jpg

[spiltteeth]

There are compelling arguments that this is true. See above.

See a little below that to what I wrote.


What has metaphysics to do with anything here?

Imaginary time?

[welshboy]

Imaginary time?
Right, I really am going to bed. Goddamn laptops.
Imaginary numbers aren't metaphysical, they're a mathematical tool. The concept bends my head but just because I don't grasp it 100% does not mean it's metaphysical.

[spiltteeth]

Right, I really am going to bed. Goddamn laptops.
Imaginary numbers aren't metaphysical, they're a mathematical tool. The concept bends my head but just because I don't grasp it 100% does not mean it's metaphysical.

That really wasn't the right word then, but when they aren't converted back imaginary numbers cease to be reality descriptive.

Go to bed. I'll be around tomorrow.

[danyboy27]

wow, i just made some research about your sources, this is so much bullshit.
Fred Hoyle is a nutcase that reject the tehory of big bang and jerect the verry basic tenets of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

Paul Davies is well known for having a religious agenda and lost his credibility in this article written by renown scientist and physicists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html

[Walt]

So, pretty much, OP is explaining why he is agnostic?

[mikelepore]

Fred Hoyle is a nutcase that reject the tehory of big bang and jerect the verry basic tenets of science.

That's an exaggeration. Hoyle was productive astronomer. He is best known as the scientist who first realized that the elements on the periodic table after hydrogen were produced by nuclear fusion in stars. Later in life he made what is considered one big mistake, by suggesting a steady state model of the universe in which a continuous creation of new matter compensates for the observed expansion.

[spiltteeth]

wow, i just made some research about your sources, this is so much bullshit.
Fred Hoyle is a nutcase that reject the tehory of big bang and jerect the verry basic tenets of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

Paul Davies is well known for having a religious agenda and lost his credibility in this article written by renown scientist and physicists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html

I don't get it, I agree Hoyle made a mistake in his statistical analysis, I quote him for the clear solid work he did in astronomy.

What are you refuting exactly?

Many physicists' have a religious agenda - mostly to support atheism although some are believers, as I've pointed out :

When scientists at last accepted the idea that the universe indeed had a beginning they descibed the idea as "scandelous" and even "immoral"! They openly admited their extreme hostility simply due to its theological conclusions, saying they found the idea "disturbing"

You probably recall Carl Sagan on his Cosmos tv series propounding the oscillating model and reading from Hindu scriptures about cyclical Brahman years in order to illustrate the model, but hiding from his viewers all the difficulties attending this model.

quantum cosmologist Christopher Isham,


"Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory"

As Jaki points out, Hoyle and his colleagues were inspired by
Quote:

"openly anti-theological, or rather anti-Christian motivations"
Quote:
Martin Rees recalls his mentor Dennis Sciama's dogged commitment to the Steady State Model: "For him, as for its inventors, it had a deep philosophical appeal--the universe existed, from everlasting to everlasting, in a uniquely self-consistent state. When conflicting evidence emerged, Sciama therefore sought a loophole (even an unlikely seeming one) rather as a defense lawyer clutches at any argument to rebut the prosecution case"
(Martin Rees, Before the Beginning, with a Foreword by Stephen Hawking


either way how does that discredit there science? Do you have scientific reasons to belive their work is flawed?

If you don't believe in the big bang theory or math or astro-physics thats fine, my comments were directed at people who believe in science.

[danyboy27]

i do believe in all those things mate, i just find stupid that a scientist dosnt believe in Abiogenesis.

the big bang happened mate, but that dosnt mean god exist.
he rejected the big bang tehory, i didnt.

[Walt]

splitteeth, you're arguing that a higher power exists, not God of a particular religion... is this right?