Fallen and Flawed

“I see no natural phenomena which cannot be explained through natural explanations.” First, does the ability for one theory to explain all of the observable evidence mean that the theory is necessarily true?
Second, does the natural explaining the natural in any way show or prove that God does not exist?

Does it not bother you that there isn’t a naturalist explanation for the beginning of the universe?

And, does it worry you to see that since the Big Bang (which fits known science) has such profound implications for an eternal supernatural Cause that scientist (can I include you?) ignore Mr. Ockham and propose ever more complicated ideas in an effort to pass over or ignore the Big Bang Singularity?

makarios,
-
I’m sure (((Billy))) has his own answers, but for me, positing any kind of specific god from the Big Bang cosmology is a non-sequitor.
-
Just because there may not be an explanation at this time, doesn’t mean that there cannot be an explanation. I have no shame in simply saying “I don’t know”. Also, even if there were room for a supernatural explanation, how would we know if any of the gods humans have worshipped would fit the bill?

“positing any kind of specific god from the Big Bang cosmology is a non-sequitor”

Well, yes, if we just say:
Big Bang is true
Therefore God exists
yes, one does not logically follow from the other. However when we take other things into consideration, things like the constants and quantities by which the universe exists and functions; the fact that objective morals, values and obligations do exist, the fact that a) there cannot be an infinite regress of cause and
b) matter / the universe cannot exist from eternity and so on, put those things together and the probability of God NOT being the Cause become prohibitive. I’m terrible for making my answers into books but just let me say this. As you probably know, it’s estimated that the number of sub atomic particles in the WHOLE universe is 10 ^ 80. Yet Penrose and Hawking estimate that the odds of our universe coming into being by accident or by chance is 10 ^ 1,260. Think about that. It’s important. Hawking of course can’t go with where that points because he’s an atheist. He cannot go with the evidence.
=========

“Just because there may not be an explanation at this time, doesn’t mean that there cannot be an explanation.”

That’s true. That’s why I say that agnostics are the only ones who go as far as the evidence allows. Christians and atheists go the same distance on evidence and then go the rest of the way with roughly equal amounts of faith, based on their desired outcomes.
===========

“I have no shame in simply saying “I don’t know”.”

That’s good. That’s honest. Which would make you an agnostic, yes?
=========

“Also, even if there were room for a supernatural explanation, how would we know if any of the gods humans have worshipped would fit the bill?”

Because only a Greatest Conceivable Being fits the bill and only Creator God of Christianity fits that description. Logically there can’t be only ONE Greatest Conceivable Being which eliminates most other religions right off the top. As well, because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. Anything that exists has an explanation of it’s existence, either in the necessity of its own nature (It can’t NOT exist), or in an external cause.
. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is external to as well as transcendent to the universe. That is because:
- Existing outside of time, the Cause is infinite or Eternal,
- Existing outside of matter (which is finite), the Cause is immaterial or Spiritual,
- Existing as the Cause of time and energy, space, matter and the laws of physics, the Cause is immeasurably more powerful than the mathematically precise universe and its exquisitely Finely Tuned constants and quantities.
- The Cause cannot be “scientific” because neither matter nor the laws of physics (i.e., the laws that science has observed and identified), existed prior to the Singularity.
- Therefore the Cause of the beginning of the universe is not scientific but Personal.
- The transcendent Cause of the universe is therefore on the order of a Mind.
- That Cause is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. – That Cause, is what is normally described as Creator God.

Other religions simply don’t have that kind of god(s).

Also:
Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:
. The universe exists.
. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true: The explanation of the existence of the universe is God.

What it all boils down to is this. We believe one of two possibilities:
1) Matter is eternal – or
Creator God is eternal
2) If Matter isn’t eternal then Matter is able to bring itself into existence – or
Creator God brings matter into existence
3) Matter, against impossible odds, accidentally or purposely produces life – or
Creator God purposely produces life from Matter
4) Matter arranges and designs itself exquisitely and intricately – or
Creator God arranges and designs Matter exquisitely and intricately
5) Matter produces a life of meaning and context and purpose – NOT! – or
Creator God produces a life of meaning and context and purpose.

Daniel: First, one theory does NOT explain all natural phenomena. The theory of relativity explains, in part, the structure of the universe. The theory of gravity explains orbital mechanics and the structure of galaxies all the way down to why human beings are prone to upper respiratory tract infections (snot rolls downhill because of gravity). And yes, if a theory (using the scientific definition of a theory, not the popular and everyday one) explains, within the limits of our powers of observation, a phenomena, then the theory is fact. The only reason that gravity is still a theory and not a law is that, as far as I know, the n-body equation is still elusive; we can predict quite exactly how gravity works for two bodies — add more and things go weird. Give it time, though.

Second: I can no more prove that god(s) do not exist than anyone can provide scientific proof that god(s) do exist.

Makarios: The Big Bang theory, for which there is ample evidence in the distribution of matter and even a radiation echo, was developed to explain specific phenomena observable in the natural world. To imply that this is not a natural explanation is confusing to me. Sorry.

Teleprompter: Again, there are many things we do not know. Part of that is limitations on our observation apparatus. Remember, 500 years ago, there were no microscopes; we did not know about germs partly because of lack of observational apparatus.

[...] Fear of an Idea Redux Interview With A Theist 20 May, 2009 I did an interview with Fallen and Flawed which I thoroughly enjoyed.  I forgot to send a picture, so I came out looking like William of [...]

Mmm, my bad “Does it not bother you that there isn’t a naturalist explanation for the beginning of the universe?” should have read, “. . . there isn’t a naturalist explanation for the CAUSE of the beginning of the universe?”

“Second, does the natural explaining the natural in any way show or prove that God does not exist?”
You are right, it can not be proven (at this time). We are on common ground there.
Maybe I can rephrase the question: What is the conclusion you draw from the claim that all natural phenomena can be explained through natural explanations? Are you saying there is no need for God because everything natural is explainable in terms of natural laws/theories?

Makarios: The potential existed withing the quantum potentiality. If the potentiality exists, was there a cause which allowed the potentiality to manifest itself? Calling a quantum mechanic, here. My understanding (limited) of quantum mechanics is that it can seemingly violate the idea of cause and effect relationships. Which just means that we haven’t figured it out yet.

Daniel: Yes, I am saying that there is no need for god(s). One variation (translation?) of Occam’s Razor is: “Thou shalt not propogate entities without necessity.” If you can explain the phenomena without god(s), then do so. Thunder and lightening was, for eons, thought to be the result of angry god(s). Now, of course, we know that it is the discharge of electrical differentials produced by atmospheric conditions. No more Zeus tossing lightning bolts. God(s) are not necessary to explain that phenomena anymore.

I think what I am getting at is similar to what Makarios has said. To say that lightening is produced by a natural process is no surprise to one who believes in the Christian God. The fact that the natural world’s processes can be explained by natural laws and theories only proves that the natural world has a working order. But the ability of natural to explain natural does not seem to be any argument against God. In fact, if the world was created by the Christian God in the way that the Bible says, then we would expect the natural to be able to explain the natural because God made a complete working system.
What I am trying to point out here is that the ability for laws and theories to explain nature is not necessarily an argument for or against God.
—
It is reasonable to expect that, eventually, we could explain all natural phenomenon by natural laws and theories. But explaining something in terms of an orderly process by which is works will never tell you how that thing came in be in the first place. Is it reasonable to say that we will be able to eventually explain the genesis of the natural in the absence of the supernatural? How can we explain the origins of something in terms of itself?
—-
Last, mythology is a poor example of “god.” Particularly when answering Christians who believe in God. The Christian God is not the same as the Greek gods, and they are incomparable (and both believers in the Greek gods and the Christian God agree to this. Read the exchange between the men of Athens and the Apostle Paul). To say that someone believed in the Greek gods explaining part of the universe (lightening) does nothing to answer the Christian who believes that God created a universe with natural laws.

Makarios,

• I don’t see that objective morals exist.

• I don’t see how matter cannot exist from eternity

• I don’t see how personal incredulity is a reason for believing anything.

• Faith is not required to find god claims unwarranted to believe.

• Agnostic refers to knowledge. Neither atheist nor theist has knowledge of any gods; therefore, we’re all agnostics. The colloquial “agnostic” has come to mean some wishy-washy, non-commital position on gods, based largely on the idea that it’s impossible to know about a god because he’s supernatural. The problem with that is if you accept the supernatural definition, then you’re hardly being non-commital, are you? So I see the colloquial agnostic position as bullshit.

• There’s no such logic that demands “ONE Greatest Conceivable Being”, including your TAG argument. That thing is so full of holes that’s it’s laughable to me that anyone would present that argument. It ranks up there with Pascal’s wager

Hey Bill, thanks again for taking the time. Just wondering:

1. How does naturalism explain things like poetry, music and language?
2. How does it explain suffering? What’s your take on the origin of suffering?
3. Why the disparity between the animal kingdom and humans? In other words, why isn’t there never a camel or pigeon asking you for the origin, meaning or purpose of life [granted, they could be asking the question...we'd just never know.]?
4. What do you make of fine-tuning arguments? The idea we inhabit a Goldilocks planet–one on the brink of non-existence?
5. Would you die for your beliefs?

Okay, maybe that’s more than a couple. I’ve had a little time to think of questions while I’ve been off in other affairs…:-) [Sorry for the delay in responding...OOC since yesterday morning and just now getting my bearings back.] Thanks for your answers, Bill. Demian

I’ve gotten here late and I see that (((Billy))) and Philly have already dealt with the usual arguments.
.
I will chip in, though, that the “atheism requires faith” argument, (besides sounding a lot like “well, Tommy did it, too!”), is especially annoying.
You could say that when a scientist makes a statement about nature, that we have faith that he followed the scientific method and did adequate research. But that’s not the sort of faith Makarios is talking about, is it?
.
I don’t know how many times I’ll have to say this in my lifetime, but here goes again: It’s not “faith”, but experience and observation, that leads us to declare a non-belief in gods. There is just as much hard evidence that Santa, the Tooth Fairy, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zeus, Moroni and Harvey the Rabbit exist as there is for your Christian god.
.
Feel free to tell us why your brand of god is more likely than any of the others which you don’t believe in.

1. How does naturalism explain things like poetry, music and language?
Most mammals seek pleasure because pleasure has benefits. This can be seen easily among mammals (including humans). For instance, the fruits with the highest sugar levels are those which are just beginning to ferment so those with a taste for the very sweet and, at the same time, the sourness of alcohol, get the highest caloric return from fruits and thus have more energy with which to engage in mating. Within a linguistic species (and, as far as I know, we are the only ones (though It’ll be interesting to someday find out what the day-long edda’s of the whales are acually saying)), pleasure is found through language and sound (some higher primates are quite good at this: for instance the ‘thunder dances’ among some chimpanzee groups). For the creator of poetry, music, language, and other art forms, two things are needed: excess productive capacity (through either big-game hunting or farming) and a customer. The customer is willing to supply the necessities of life in return for the pleasure of the linguistic creationsl. And, for the creator, the reward is not risking getting your brain bashed in by an enraged mastodon or not baking your brain harvesting wheat. Both the creator of the art and the customer win through the promulgation of pleasure.

2. How does it explain suffering? What’s your take on the origin of suffering?
In the same way that animals are attracted to pleasure (food, nice sounds, touching and grooming, sex), they are also repulsed by pain. When my son burned himself with a soldering iron some years back (minor, not even a blister), I explained that that is his body’s way of saying, don’t do that, you moron. We are selected to avoid pain and suffering. Unfortunately, every animal is selected for the same trait. A lion making lunch of me is suffering for me, but it is pleasure for the lion (though I think I’d be bad for his cholesterol). A 17th century Scottish landowner using indentured servants (basically serfs (a step up from slave)) to mine coal in the brutally dangerous deep mines is seeking his own pleasure (greater wealth) while at the same time creating massive suffering among the poor families. In other words, most of what we consider suffering is caused by greed and an aversion to empathy with fellow human beings. Greed can be tempered through the intervention of government authority (whether a medieval church or the Office of Mine Safety) to protect the sufferer.

3. Why the disparity between the animal kingdom and humans? In other words, why isn’t there never a camel or pigeon asking you for the origin, meaning or purpose of life [granted, they could be asking the question...we'd just never know.]?
Brain size. Humanity’s ancestors developed an interesting feedback mechanism (completely unconscious, of course) in which bipedalism combined with larger brain allowed for the use of tools (initially found tools, later created tools) which selected for both more dexterity and larger brains. From the early austrolopithecenes through today’s mankind, the result has been, over hnundreds of thousands of years, larger brains and better hands. Which just feeds the feedback loop selecting for both (which is real hard on the women: those big brains have completely screwed up the hips and lower back of women).

4. What do you make of fine-tuning arguments? The idea we inhabit a Goldilocks planet–one on the brink of non-existence?
The reason we live on a planet which is just right for the plants and animals living on our planet is that they evolved on the planet and thus traits which fit the planet’s environment were favoured for breeding. Were the earth 30 degrees warmer, or 30 degrees cooler, we would still marvel at the fact that the earth was ‘designed’ for life. And, no, the earth is not on the brink on non-existence. We may be on the brink of making the earth uninhabitable by much of current life, but, even after we are gone, the earth will go on and life will continue to evolve.

5. Would you die for your beliefs?
Define beliefs. Seriously. There are things I would die for. I would die to protect my wife and children. I would risk my life to save another human being. I would risk injury to save a pet. I will go out of my way, safely, to save an animal. But my beliefs? I believe in (and this does sound trite) in justice, the American way (regulated capitalism within a democratic beaurocracy), and peace. And I did put my life on the line (abstractly) when I served in the US Army to defend the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I never saw combat, but, given the amount of time spent on the rifle, grenade and close combat ranges, I knew it could happen. I believe in the Constitution, and I have already shown that I would be willing to die to protect so, I guess the answer is a wishy-washy yes.

Demian: Do you have more atheist readers than Christians? This is a great place for interaction!
—
Postman: How is the Christian God different than the other brands?
1. He was not invented with the sole purpose of amusing kids (Santa, Tooth Fairy, etc)
2. The Christian God is supported in a way that is unlike any of the other gods you mention. Biblical prophesy coming to pass makes the Christian God much more believable than the others. Granted, if you reject the Bible it is easy to reject the Christian God. But if we are talking about what makes the Christian God more likely than the other gods, it is because the Christian God has actually given His believers a legitimate way to know Him. At this point, at least throw out all of the silly “gods” (the Tooth Fairy and Santa seem to be red herrings – no one claims them to be gods. Not that I know of anyway. They are not comparable to gods or God).
3. The real question is what distinguishes the Christian God from, say, Allah or the gods of other serious world religions. That is a question that another commenter on this site (James) has posed at least a time or two to me. I’m closer to answering that than before. I’ll hold off.
—
Conclusion: If you reject God and say there is no more reason to believe Him than Zeus, it is because you have rejected the support for God that differentiates Him from the other gods, not because the support does not exist. Do you believe the Bible? No. But don’t deny its support for God and the fact that it is unparalleled. I don’t see many rational defenders of the gods you mention anyway. I do see rational defenders of God.

Daniel,
.
1. So, he was invented for another purpose entirely? Okay. I’ll agree with that.
.
2. You’ve raised more questions than you’ve answered. Which prophecy are we talking about here? Mithris? One of the numerous other “sons of god”? Oh, you mean only biblical prophecy. So, perhaps I should have added, “What makes your brand of religious book more believable than the others?” What is this “legitimate way to know him” you mention? And are there illegitimate ways?
Fair enough about the Tooth fairy, (although there’s just as much evidence for her as the biblical god). I stuck her and Santa and Harvey in there for comic effect. They’re funnier than Ah Puch, Ahura Mazda, Allah, Anansi, Anu, Apollo, Athena and all the way through to Xip, Ymir and Zeus.
.
3. You say “other serious world religions”, but there was a time when the gods you disparage were the major world religions. At best, a few scruffy nomads in one or another middle-eastern desert worshipped Yhwh, (or a sort of proto-Yhwh), along with a number of other local gods whom no one really remembers anymore.
So this all-powerful god who desperately wants everyone to be saved and live in a big, white mansion in the sky, wasn’t able to adequately marshall his PR forces for thousands and thousands of years, (unless you’re a young-earther, in which case it’s just 4,000 or so). And that brings up the question, Whence Plato? Where is Ug the Caveman spending eternity? What about the Americas and Australia, Japan and China, the inhabitants of which never heard of your god?
.
Conclusion: I still don’t see this support you cite. Of course the bible supports the god of the bible. Guess which gods are supported by their religion’s writings. As for rational defenders – good luck finding a rational defender of any supernatural agency. I know you don’t believe that your god is just like all the other god’s he’s just like, but if he walks like a Zeus and talks like a Zeus…
Unless the support you mean is the number of modern followers. Then we can expect to see hundreds of different afterlives, hand-crafted for their specific followers.

Sorry to digress, but I kind of tickled myself with the Many Afterlives Theory. It made me think of Monty Python’s “Crunchy Frog” sketch.
.
“We use only the finest baby [afterlives], dew-picked and flown from Iraq, cleansed in finest-quality spring water, lightly [theologized], and then sealed in a succulent Swiss quintuple smooth treble cream milk chocolate envelope and lovingly frosted with glucose.”
.
“That’s as maybe, but it’s still [a myth].”

Sorry for the mess back there. Could someone delete that please? Thanks.

1. How does naturalism explain things like poetry, music and language?

Explain what, their existence? Language is necessary for categorizing reality and for communication. Poetry and music are pleasurable.

2. How does it explain suffering? What’s your take on the origin of suffering?

Pain and displeasure need explaining? We animals feel physical pain because we’re fragile and we have nervous systems. We also have varying degrees of emotional responses, some of which aren’t pleasurable.

3. Why the disparity between the animal kingdom and humans? In other words, why isn’t there never a camel or pigeon asking you for the origin, meaning or purpose of life [granted, they could be asking the question...we'd just never know.]?

You just answered this yourself. No language by which to communicate their thoughts to us, therefore it’s unknown what they think.

What do you make of fine-tuning arguments?

Nonsense. Google ‘Douglas Adams puddle argument’

5. Would you die for your beliefs?

Which ones?

The Christian God is supported in a way that is unlike any of the other gods you mention

Baloney

Biblical prophesy coming to pass…

More baloney. It’s really easy to look back at deliberately vague passages and read into them that they referred to this or that. That’s how horoscopes work.

the Christian God has actually given His believers a legitimate way to know Him

Baloney. Men wrote your Bible, like they wrote the books that didn’t get accepted by other men at Nicea when they were compiling your Bible, and men wrote every other holy book so there’s no difference between.

The real question is what distinguishes the Christian God from, say, Allah or the gods…

Nope, the real question is where’s the evidence for its existence. Debating the differences is like debating who would win in a fight between Superman and Mighty Mouse.

If you reject God…

No, we reject the claim that he exists. Get it straight, kiddo.

“Of course the bible supports the god of the bible. Guess which gods are supported by their religion’s writings.” Let’s use that statement to get back to what you originally asked: what makes me think that the Christian God any different than the others?
—
Yes, many gods are supported by some writing. The question is not are they supported. It is HOW, and BY WHAT?
- Show me any of the other gods who have a book that they claim came from God, not man (not asking you to believe it, but just show me).
- Show me another god who’s book has prophesy in it that has come to pass, and none that has failed (once again, you don’t need to believe it).
- Show me another god who sent his incarnate son to earth to proclaim His name.
You asked for someone to tell you why our “brand of god is more likely than any of the others which you don’t believe in.” You asked for evidence from my point of view as a believer in the Bible, not from yours. And, at least from where I stand, I see only a couple other religions that are even comparable to Christianity.
- If the Bible is true, then it makes Christianity different from almost every other religion because of how it came to be and what it contains.
- If the incarnation and resurrection of Christ is true, it sets Christianity apart from all the others.
—
Differentiating between the last few, though, is beyond the place of a blog comment. And justifying why I believe this evidence that differentiates is true in the first place is neither the material for a blog comment nor is it what you asked for. I am not asking you to believe in the evidence that differentiates, only to recognize that when studying comparative religion, there are distinctions between religions and they are not all the same. These distinctions makes Christianity more plausible than any other religion, though it is still not going to satisfy a skeptic. But hey, you only asked me why I THINK my brand of God is more likely than the rest.
—
On another note, great thoughts, Postman. You keep me thinking.

Daniel,
-
“Show me any of the other gods who have a book that they claim came from God, not man (not asking you to believe it, but just show me).”
-
Would you accept the Vedas, the Qur’an, or the Book of Mormon?
-
“Show me another god who’s book has prophesy in it that has come to pass, and none that has failed (once again, you don’t need to believe it).”
-
The Qur’an said that there would be disbelievers. We both disbelieve its message, I assume. Then that prophecy has come to pass, hasn’t it? I can’t think of any prophecies its made that have failed yet. Also, I can think of Biblical prophecies that have failed. Didn’t Jesus say that his generation would see him return? How do you interpret that?
-
“Show me another god who sent his incarnate son to earth to proclaim His name.
You asked for someone to tell you why our “brand of god is more likely than any of the others which you don’t believe in.” You asked for evidence from my point of view as a believer in the Bible, not from yours. And, at least from where I stand, I see only a couple other religions that are even comparable to Christianity.”
-
So you don’t believe in the revelation of Krishna as recorded in the Bhagavad-Gita? He supposedly came to Earth to proclaim himself, and even is said to have asked his followers to bring him their failures. Christianity doesn’t have a monopoly on the concept of grace.
-
“If the Bible is true, then it makes Christianity different from almost every other religion because of how it came to be and what it contains.”
-
So you’re arguing that the Bible, as a collection of scriptures compiled by those who claimed to be inspired by god over hundreds of years, is unique? What does it have on the Vedas?
-
“If the incarnation and resurrection of Christ is true, it sets Christianity apart from all the others.”
-
The fact that Christianity is premised on a sacrifice separates it from all of the other human religious traditions that have been based on human sacrifice? I don’t think so.
-
“These distinctions makes Christianity more plausible than any other religion, though it is still not going to satisfy a skeptic.”
-
What is Christianity more plausible than? More plausible than other religions with revealed scriptures or prophets or grace or monotheism or human sacrifice or evangelism or even trinities? Yes, Christianity is unique in many ways, but it does have its similarities with other religions. Even Yahweh and Satan resemble the Zoroastrian beliefs about the light and the dark forces controlling the universe.

Daniel,
.
I think we’ve probably taken this as far as it can go without tying a rope around it and dragging.
I could go point by point, mentioning things like the list of sons of god, (Mithris, Scipio Africanus, Murrugan, etc.), but it seems to be boiling down to, “This is what I believe.”
When we get to that bit of the discussion there’s no real point in going on.
.
I will give you kudos for being game, though.

Teleprompter,
Yes, I would accept those. Let’s narrow the field to those, because they are a good start.
—
Next, moving to prophecy. Prophesying that there would be unbelievers is not very moving, as almost anyone could have said that. But I agree with you – there are prophecies that have come true for the Qur’an (or so I have been told. I am admittedly still reading it all for myself).

Does the Bible have prophecies that have not been fulfilled? Well we are still waiting on some, but none to my knowledge have failed. What about Matthew 16:27-28? Read in context of its parallel passage, Mark 9:1, we can see that not only has it failed, but it was fulfilled. When it says the Kingdom is coming, it is speaking of the power of the Kingdom, which did come in the out pouring of the Holy Spirit and the gospel sweeping across the nations. It is similar to what is prayed in the Lord’s prayer. “Thy kingdom come.” It means not only do we want Jesus to return with His Kingdom ultimately, but also we want His kingdom to come and rule now on earth in power. That is consistent with the rest of Jesus’ teaching in the New Testament. (I will honestly say that there are more than one view on that pair of passages, but it is not a wreck for Biblical prophecy).

“So you don’t believe in the revelation of Krishna as recorded in the Bhagavad-Gita? He supposedly came to Earth to proclaim himself, and even is said to have asked his followers to bring him their failures. Christianity doesn’t have a monopoly on the concept of grace.”
Never heard of that actually, and I would agree with you. My goal here is to weed down the religions we are talking about to the “more serious ones” and then go from there, showing why Christianity is more likely than the rest. Merely saying another religion has a book, or an incarnate god, is not going to solve everything – but it at least gets us closer to looking only at religions that can be compared to Christianity. And keep in mind, just because one religion has one thing is common with Christianity does not make is equally as likely. The main religions that have most of the elements in them that make Christianity more “likely” are Judaism and Islam. You’ve mentioned some others that might fit the bill as well, but I’ve not looked at them.
——

Postman,
thanks. It probably has come as far as it will. Thank you for the exchange.

‘Deliberately vague prophecy,”
You mean like – Naming the family that He would come from; Naming the one town out of the whole world that He’d be born in; Or saying that He’d come to His triumphal entry riding on a donkey and not a horse or walking or in a chariot; that this would happen before AD 70; that He’s be betrayed by a friend; that He’d die by crucifixion; that He’d be buried in a rich mans grave, you mean vague stuff like that?
==============

QM does not allow for something to appear from nothing. These movements are carefully manufactured by electric shock in a vacuum (not nothing) with operates according to known and knowable laws of physics. It is NOT something appearing from nothing.
==========

“I don’t see that objective morals exist.”

You would if I cleaned out your bank account or had sex with your wife or stole your kid or even slipped into the bus seat before you got sat down. We know and we know absolutely when someone does us wrong and it has nothing to do with what the culture at large believes.
==================

“I don’t see how matter cannot exist from eternity.”

Because you cannot traverse the infinite. While mathematics is able to deal with abstract or theoretical or conceptual or potential infinities, and while our imagination can create an imaginary past stretching infinitely into the past, sort of, reality holds no such possibility for us.
Time is not imaginary.
Time is not abstract or theoretical or conceptual.
Time is real.
Time is measured in real units.

Imagine this scenario, a shelf of books (units of time) stretching infinitely into the past so that you could never actually arrive at the first book. It is impossible to travel through infinite time to reach a starting point FROM WHICH you could begin your journey to the last book on the shelf or to what we call today. In order to reach the last book (what we call today), you had to have the second to last book or yesterday. And if, in order to have the second to last book you had to have the third to last book, and in order to have the third to last book you had to have the fourth to last book and so on and so on, you could never reach today because you could never reach the “first” day (book) that made possible the second day which made possible the third day . . .. Since the past is made up of units of real time, in the case of a beginningless or infinite past we would have had to pass through or travel through infinite time in order to reach today and that is physically impossible. To reach today, we have to have had a starting point, a push point, a point of beginning, a point of first cause. Neither can we, as some desperate atheists have tried to do, arbitrarily pick a set or group or point in real time and begin counting from there. Of course you can do that, but it proves nothing regarding the beginning of the universe.

The fact is, we have reached today so we can know not only that the universe had a beginning, but that time itself had a beginning. Just as a bookshelf stretching infinitely into the past with no beginning would prohibit our reaching today, neither can there be an infinite regress of causes of the universe. That would also prohibit reaching today’s universe.

The fact is, the infinite exists only as an idea or as a concept. It does not exist in realty. Of course, if the above argument is too cumbersome for you, you could just refer to the Quantum Physics discovery of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. These scientists have proven that any expanding universe, be it real, such as ours, or theoretical, such as the dozens proposed by desperate atheists cannot be without a past space-time boundary, a Big Bang, a Creation event.
===========

“Faith is not required to find god claims unwarranted to believe”

That’s true.
But faith is required to believe: The universe doesn’t need to have a beginning because we come from a Finite Infinity.

Faith is required to believe:
That our universe is just the latest in an infinite number of universes. In other words, our universe was caused by a previous universe that was caused by a previous universe, that was caused by . . .

Faith is required to believe:
It doesn’t matter what the second law of Thermodynamics says
It doesn’t matter about the levels of background radiation
It doesn’t matter about the levels of entropy
It doesn’t matter that the expansion of the universe is speeding up rather than slowing down, atheists ignore all this and maintain that our universe has existed from infinity past.

Faith is required to believe: That despite ALL scientific evidence to the contrary, some beginnings, or at least this one, ie. our universe, doesn’t need a cause. “It just happened.”

Faith is required to believe: That our universe was preceded by the universe itself, both materially and chronologically. In essence the universe brought itself into being.

There are approximately 50 constants and quantities that are so finely tuned that if any one of them were “off” by an infinitesimally small degree, neither we nor the universe would exist. And even though Penrose and Hawking have calculated that all this coming about by chance is 1 in 10^1,230 (which is an impossibly vast number to comprehend),
Therefore Faith is required to believe: That everything that we see happened by chance

.Faith is required to believe: My personal likes / dislikes, tastes, preferences and opinions will do just fine when determining the rightness or wrongness of my behaviours. On the other hand, other people’s behaviours, as they affect the quality of my life, must adhere to MY personal likes / dislikes, tastes, preferences and opinions. If they don’t, I can rightfully declare that those people are wrong.

Faith is required to believe: That inanimate and inorganic gases EVOLVED to created the first DNA / RNA pre-loaded cell.

. Even though the beginning of our universe demands a Cause and
. Even though the design of our mathematically precise universe demands a Designer and
. Even though the objective moral code with which atheists demand others treat them can only come from an ultimate authority, and
. Even though the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth point to the reality of Creator God, atheists claim that none of this points to anything beyond nature itself,
That, in my mind requires a tremendous amount of faith.

Faith is required to believe: as atheists say, that they will have evidence eventually for a naturalistic cause of the Singularity. But the promise of proof at some point in the future is the same as no proof at all. Atheists are making extraordinary claims that are lacking not just extraordinary evidence but ANY evidence. What’s more, these people call their way of life reasonable and logical. That takes a lot of faith.

• There’s no such logic that demands “ONE Greatest Conceivable Being”

I didn’t know it was possible to study philosophy WITHOUT dealing with this topic.

Billy: Thanks for the thoughtful answers. And I really appreciate your last answer. I don’t say this enough, especially since my dad was a serviceman, but I totally admire anyone who’s served our country. Thank you.
–
Not sure I’m satisfied with the pleasure-pain argument because in the animal world it’s all about survival. Although, naturally, I think that’s what you’re driving at when you say we have excessive productive capacity [leisure]…
–
You’re point that we are NOT on the brink of existence is debatable…and I guess we could each trot out lines of evidence, but, well…I wasn’t interested in so much of a debate as I was in understanding your thinking.
–
I guess why the pain pleasure argument is not going down as easy as it has for you guys is that, while yes, hot stove equals pain and football equals pleasure, writing a poem is a pain for me and sex with an animal is pleasurable for some. I guess I’m just not buying the simplistic answer for the more nuanced instances of humanity where decisions have to be made on what is pain and what is pleasure. What are your thoughts?

When it says the Kingdom is coming, it is speaking of…

And that’s where you’re on the same level as horoscopes. If the book needs a “when it says X, it means this…”, then it’s supposed prophesy power rests on your imaginative interpretations.

My goal here is to weed down the religions we are talking about to the “more serious ones”

They all share one thing, lack of proof for their claims. Arguing stronger inadequate claim is silly.

Makarios,

It’s really easy to write a new story based on old stories and “miraculously” have them realized the prophesies of the old stories.

And now you’ve moved on to Craig’s Kalam argument, with a gross misunderstanding of QM? Splendid, and how predictable! Let’s see, it’s…

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. The universe had a cause

That’s essentially the argument, right? Well let’s test the syllogism:

1. Atoms are not visible to the naked eye
2. Humans are made of atoms
3. Humans are not visible to the naked eye

What happened? It’s a fallacy of composition, stating that a set of things has the same properties as the things within it. Because things in the universe need a cause, then the universe needs a cause. That’s simply not logically so. That first premise can’t be maintained then, and the whole thing dies.

Another flaw of Kalam is it could be used to prove the mythical pixies, Starbright the Unicorn of Creation, or anything else you can imagine as a personal creator. Fabulous!

Your argument about time is based on a flawed premise, that it’s a measure of distance. It’s not.

So what else have ya got?

I guess I’m just not buying the simplistic answer for the more nuanced instances of humanity where decisions have to be made on what is pain and what is pleasure. What are your thoughts?

Relativism.

Demien: I disagree about it being all about survival. I look at it as being all about sex: finding the energy to get laid as often as possible. Which is, of course, a good definition of survival.
….
As individuals, we are at the edge of existence. One poorly chewed grape down the wrong way and We’re toast. As a species, we have the ability to make the world uninhabitable for us (and a whole lot of other species) through war, pollution, or chemical poisoning. Whether that happens or not depends upon our collective maturity.
….
And as for the pain/pleasure thing. Well, not all of us find pleasure in the same things. One of my best friends is gay. I’m not. Our sources of pleasure are different. Personally, I cannot stand poetry (writing, reading or dissecting) unless it is set to music. Pleasure comes through greed: I like to play guitar and sing and I have managed to adapt part of my job so that I can play folk songs and sing, and get paid for it. Were I alive 10,000 years ago, I would much rather be playing a shin-bone flute than hunt large game. And yes, I did simplify. I chose to join the army (I’m not old enough to have been drafted) which created pain on my part in order to achieve a higher goal later in my life. Sometimes we choose pain over pleasure in order to improve our life, or the life of others. Unfortunately, far too few Americans are all that into service today.

“That’s simply not logically so.”

As far as reality goes, whether you think it’s logical or not really doesn’t matter.

. Science tells us – Anything that begins to exist has an explanation of its existence either in the necessity of it’s being (it can’t NOT exist) or in an external Cause.

. Science tells us – the universe HAD a beginning, a Singularity, a Big Bang Creation event.

. Science tells us – any expanding universe MUST have a beginning, a Singularity, a Big Bang Creation event.

. Science tells us – there cannot be an infinite regress of cause > this is not just the last of an infinite number of universes.

. Science tells us – matter, space, time and the laws of physics did not exist prior to the Big Bang.

. Science tells us – the universe came into being from nothing.

In opposition to science – atheists say, “Everything can come from nothing by nothing.”

In agreement with science – Christians say the Big Bang fits the evidence.

“that it’s a measure of distance.”

Can you show me where I said that?

Can you show me where I said that?

“It is impossible to travel through infinite time to reach a starting point…”
“you could never reach today because you could never reach the “first” day”
“in the case of a beginningless or infinite past we would have had to pass through or travel through infinite time in order to reach today”
“Just as a bookshelf stretching infinitely into the past…”

It’s not a distance traveled. You try to paint it as such because such a portrayal makes your story sound sensible but it’s not.

So Philly, are you saying that you live according to B Theory of time while the everyone else in the world lives according to A Theory? Of course you don’t. You know exactly what I’m saying. You just want to pretend that you don’t get it so you don’t have to accept that I’m right.

So you’re championing Craig, an A Theory extremist (known as a “presentist”) by laying on an argumentum ad populum or fallacy of popularity? Oh my. I think even he might object to such shady antics. LOL!

Call it populist if you want. Most people just call it reality.

And most people are easy prey for snake oil salesmen, too.

[...] in point: During an interview with an atheist named Billy, I asked, “What do you think of the fine-tuning [...]