Support NeoGAF

[leadbelly]

In an infinite universe, not only is everything possible, but everything that can already has happened.

In a finite universe, what seems impossible in 100 years can be inevitable in 100 million.

Well, the nature of infinity is a strange subject to grasp as it is to a certain degree incomprehensible. You can not fully understand the nature of infinity for the simple reason our minds are finite. What we tend to do is think of it as being the opposite of the finite universe, which I suppose gives us a very small glimpse into it. You see not only does everything that could possibly exist, already exist, it exists infinitely. There is no beginning or end to anything. If the stars in the sky were infinite in number there would be no space between them, the whole sky would be just a mass of bright light. If everything in the universe followed the laws of infinity then every planet would be infinite in size, every galaxy also. There would be no space between anything. All that actually exists - even though 'all' is the wrong way to describe it - is part of the infinite. There is nothing to separate anything from anything else. The only thing that really exists is infinity itself - as nothing is separate from it.

My original point was, if nothing has no beginning how can it have an end? If you yourself were beginningless how could you have an end? If your life was infinite in nature you simply wouldn't die. Therefore if nothing is infinite in nature, it simply couldn't become something. It is infinity attributed to a very specific thing. That being nothing itself.

A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss

Going back to the points made in this video: This isn't actually relevant to point I was originally making. It's not so much about whether something can come out of nothing - in this case the energy from empty space - it is more to do with the problem of beginning in itself. For the universe to have a beginning there must be a time before (time isn't the right way to describe it) when it didn't exist. If we were to describe nothing as empty space, then it is empty space that is beginningless. When the universe ends, nothing or empty space will infinitely remain. It has no beginning or end. The issue I have is how can it even arise in the first place when there is no beginning or end to nothing? The only conclusion is that all things exist infinitely.

If the universe begins out of the energy of nothing, then it has always been. It is like trying to count to infinity; you simply can't do it. It's not a time thing, you can be immortal, but you can never count to infinity. The reason is simply that you are always adding one more number. It is indefinite rather than infinite. infinity is absolute. There aren't a series of infinite numbers, there is just one infinite number. They all exist as one infinite whole.

 

[Pixel Pete]

Well, the nature of infinity is a strange subject to grasp as it is to a certain degree incomprehensible. You can not fully understand the nature of infinity for the simple reason our minds are finite. What we tend to do is think of it as being the opposite of the finite universe, which I suppose gives us a very small glimpse into it. You see not only does everything that could possibly exist, already exist, it exists infinitely. There is no beginning or end to anything. If the stars in the sky were infinite in number there would be no space between them, the whole sky would be just a mass of bright light. If everything in the universe followed the laws of infinity then every planet would be infinite in size, every galaxy also. There would be no space between anything. All that actually exists - even though 'all' is the wrong way to describe it - is part of the infinite. There is nothing to separate anything from anything else. The only thing that really exists is infinity itself - as nothing is separate from it.

My original point was, if nothing has no beginning how can it have an end? If you yourself were beginningless how could you have an end? If your life was infinite in nature you simply wouldn't die. Therefore if nothing is infinite in nature, it simply couldn't become something. It is infinity attributed to a very specific thing. That being nothing itself.




Going back to the points made in this video: This isn't actually relevant to point I was originally making. It's not so much about whether something can come out of nothing - in this case the energy from empty space - it is more to do with the problem of beginning in itself. For the universe to have a beginning there must be a time before (time isn't the right way to describe it) when it didn't exist. If we were to describe nothing as empty space, then it is empty space that is beginningless. When the universe ends, nothing or empty space will infinitely remain. It has no beginning or end. The issue I have is how can it even arise in the first place when there is no beginning or end to nothing? The only conclusion is that all things exist infinitely.

If the universe begins out of the energy of nothing, then it has always been. It is like trying to count to infinity; you simply can't do it. It's not a time thing, you can be immortal, but you can never count to infinity. The reason is simply that you are always adding one more number. It is indefinite rather than infinite. infinity is absolute. There aren't a series of infinite numbers, there is just one infinite number. They all exist as one infinite whole.

One possible logical underpinning to a finite universe is this:

if the universe has no beginning, then it is infinite.
If our universe is infinite, then time loses it's meaning relative to everything else. This finite moment in time would have occurred an infinite amount of time ago.
Matter would be abstract. It would occupy both an infinite amount of space, while at the same time the vacuum of space would be infinite; the space between the atoms would be infinite.

Essentially, infinity is a damn curiosity, but it doesn't answer answer anything. Its just fun to discuss.

 

[leadbelly]

One possible logical underpinning to a finite universe is this:

if the universe has no beginning, then it is infinite.
If our universe is infinite, then time loses it's meaning relative to everything else. This finite moment in time would have occurred an infinite amount of time ago.
Matter would be abstract. It would occupy both an infinite amount of space, while at the same time the vacuum of space would be infinite; the space between the atoms would be infinite.

Essentially, infinity is a damn curiosity, but it doesn't answer answer anything. Its just fun to discuss.

Yeah. I guess what I am really saying is, perhaps the question can't really be answered.

 

[Pixel Pete]

Yeah. I guess what I am really saying is, perhaps the question can't really be answered.

Haha, I'm saying the same thing. I just find the concept fascinating! Hypotheticals are just another tool to broaden your perspective

 

[leadbelly]

Haha, I'm saying the same thing. I just find the concept fascinating! Hypotheticals are just another tool to broaden your perspective

Yeah. It just blows my mind that anything could exist at all.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Yeah. It just blows my mind that anything could exist at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ1B0FoQhrU

 

[Raist]

There is a God because of the impossibility of the contrary.

Well there's a solid proof. Thread's wrapped up guys.

 

[Pandaman]

Well there's a solid proof. Thread's wrapped up guys.

I hate to stereotype, but his profile is adorable.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

To me, it would of course not make a great deal of sense for any such "first mover" to view humanity as special in any way, but it is difficult to say whether the first mover would even "think" in the classical sense, let alone act like one might expect such a deity to act. This is why it's not really a scientific question. You can say whatever you want about the "first mover" and no one can really demonstrate otherwise, if it is posited not to interfere with the workings of the universe. My impression was that this was where most of the theological debate was centered today--on nonfalsifiable hypotheses like this. Not on whether old religious texts that aren't consistent with anything we know about science were literally accurate.

IAWTP

 

[345triangle]

Burden of proof is on the theists. *goes off to get a drink*

only if they're like, "believe in this shit". most of them don't really care what you believe! i know your personal experiences have been more along the lines of the wacky preachy stuff, but that aside i don't see why anyone should have to prove their own personal beliefs - especially when one of those beliefs is that the absence of proof makes the faith stronger. you don't have to agree with that, but there it is.

 

[Falcs]

I believe in God for the following reasons:
- I have experienced firsthand the supernatural presence of God.
- There is no evidence that God does not exist.
- It says so in the Bible.

Now I know the 3rd point probably sounds ridiculous, but from what I have studied and now know of the Christian Bible, I actually believe it is 100% truth.

 

[brucewaynegretzky]

I believe in God for the following reasons:
- I have experienced firsthand the supernatural presence of God.
- There is no evidence that God does not exist.
- It says so in the Bible.

Now I know the 3rd point probably sounds ridiculous, but from what I have studied and now know of the Christian Bible, I actually believe it is 100% truth.

That's cool.

 

[DeathIsTheEnd]

I believe in God for the following reasons:
- I have experienced firsthand the supernatural presence of God.

People have supposedly experienced other gods first hand throughout history.

- There is no evidence that God does not exist.

The burden of proof lies upon theists to show God's existence. I have no evidence that the flying spaghetti monster does not certainly exist, but I don't believe in it.

- It says so in the Bible.

Now I know the 3rd point probably sounds ridiculous, but from what I have studied and now know of the Christian Bible, I actually believe it is 100% truth.

Does that mean that Corinthians 14:34 (Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.) should be followed? What about Noah's ark, Genesis, the exodus of Jews from Egypt and any other number of things?

 

[Falcs]

People have supposedly experienced other gods first hand throughout history.

The burden of proof lies upon theists to show God's existence. I have no evidence that the flying spaghetti monster does not certainly exist, but I don't believe in it.

Does that mean that Corinthians 14:34 (Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.) should be followed? What about Noah's ark, Genesis, the exodus of Jews from Egypt and any other number of things?

The first point is something only I could understand since I am the one who had the experience, so I won't even go into that.
"The burden of proof lies upon the theists" - this is true if one is attempting to find scientific evidence for the existance of God. Something which i don't believe is possible. Science cannot observe the supernatural only the natural. So I guess my point was that there is no scientific reason why I cannot believe in God.
As for the Bible, yes. I believe all of that. The Corinthians verse you quoted is often and easily misunderstood when taken out of context. I'll get into it more later on. It's not the most fun typing this on my phone.

 

[DeathIsTheEnd]

Something which i don't believe is possible. Science cannot observe the supernatural only the natural. So I guess my point was that there is no scientific reason why I cannot believe in God.

What about the creation of the universe and life on this planet? Science is directly opposed to the Bible, if taken literally, on these matters. Is the Bible still true here, even though all the evidence points to it being wrong in these areas?

Other things about God can be and have been tested by science as well, such as miracles and prayers.

If I do quote scripture out of context, I don't mean to.

 

[soul creator]

only if they're like, "believe in this shit". most of them don't really care what you believe! i know your personal experiences have been more along the lines of the wacky preachy stuff, but that aside i don't see why anyone should have to prove their own personal beliefs - especially when one of those beliefs is that the absence of proof makes the faith stronger. you don't have to agree with that, but there it is.

a statement like "god exists" isn't really a personal, subjective belief such as "I like chocolate". It's a statement about the shared universe we all live in, so in theory that applies to everyone. And if that statement is said publicly (and yeah, plenty of believers love to state their beliefs publicly, and a lot of times they even try to push public policy based on it!) I'm not sure why that would be considered "personal". Communicating with someone and saying "X is real" implicitly is saying to them "Believe in the existence of X". Unless what they're really admitting is that god only exists in their own head, which of course, I wouldn't disagree with

To paraphrase Sagan, it's like someone saying "I believe there's an invisible dragon in my garage!", and when I ask "how did you find this out", they reply "That's just my personal opinion man, why are you being so pushy". It shouldn't be too much too ask that if you mention something that is supposed to be "visible" to everyone, and not just in your own head, you have some way of giving evidence for your position. We're social animals, so if there is actually evidence for invisible dragons in garages, that would be useful information to share with the rest of the pack. Mentioning the idea, and then immediately retreating from discussion behind the shield of "That's just my opinion man!" doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

 

[Air]

Other things about God can be and have been tested by science as well, such as miracles and prayers.

If I do quote scripture out of context, I don't mean to.

I just wanted to chime in that miracles are relative, and depend on each people. For some the smallest drop of rain is a miracle. For others, not being hit by an asteroid is one. Just wanted to say to be careful with that because it could be a very personal thing. The effects of prayers have been tested, as well as the effect of faith. I think those tests need to be a tad more rigorous about the wording.

Also yeah, be careful about context too. A lot of times you need some kind of back story as to why "x" was said, and it could be lost when taken out of context. Its good to see that you understand that, which a lot of people don't seem to.

 

[Angry Fork]

I had a 400 word post typed up and everything before I noticed this post =\

Atheist here. Technically Agnostic Atheist, which is to say, I think a god could exist, I'm not fundamentally against the idea, but I'm of the opinion that a god isn't necessary, and certainly isn't anything remotely approaching proven or even evident.

That said, discussion of the topic, when handled maturely and intelligently, can be very interesting.

Same here. I don't believe a God exists but i'm more than willing to accept one if it comes down and talks to me or whatever. I do get annoyed by religion/religious people though. I don't actively hawk them and act douchey about it but if something bad happens and someone says Heaven has more angels now or it's because God did it for a reason etc. I tend to rage and call them out on it.

 

[wolfmat]

If you think of it selfishly, from the 1% chance that their could be a God, or heaven, why wouldn't you sign up just in case? Don't burn bridges before crossing them!

Sorry I'm late, but I want to emphasize that this doesn't work.
You really have to believe, otherwise you're one of the bigger sinners. Faking belief makes God real angry. So just clean up your act and raise your middle finger to the sky if you don't believe in anything. You're fucked!

You should be okay in the end though because think about it, how many times have delusional ancient mythical cults turned out to be legit? Yeah.

Where do you start? It's sort of paradoxical. If the Universe exists (or doesn't exist depending on how you look at it) infinitely in one state, how then can it suddenly exist in another? There is no beginning, no point in which a change can occur. If there is infinitely nothing, then there can never be something.

We don't know whether or not it's paradoxical. As to your point, you're assuming that time is something that isn't directly tied to the universe and its state, but it is. So talking about a beginning means talking about a time that is dictated by a universe under extreme conditions. For instance, the speed of light is indeterminant, as are most spacial relations you are accustomed to. You don't have 3 dimensions.

Sure, that sounds wrong to someone who's hearing it the first time because how can that be? A different setup that doesn't result in space and time as we understand it? WTF, right?

But there is evidence for said state. And our universe's physical properties (laws) are a direct ancestor of that BB state and its resolution. Spacetime is a result of mass and a certain shape of the universe. We know all this by now. Spool it back to the BB, and you'll see that saying things like "first" or "before" stop making sense. Time breaks down.

Imagine a straight line on a piece of paper. Now you take the paper, crumble it as much as possible. Compress it with weights equivalent to suns, galaxies. What do you end up with? A very small pea-like thing. What is the shape of the straight line in there? It's a meaningless concept.

Now, the universe isn't a piece of paper. You know. Things get much more complex as a result if you compress a whole universe, and in the proceedings, spacetime warps like a motherfucker.

Beginnings in general have not been proven to be necessary for a thing to exist (same goes generally for time). You're just assuming there is always a beginning. It doesn't seem that way though. So there doesn't have to be a nothing to then have something.

As for the trigger for the BB, it's simply unknown what it was. There are some hypothetical explanations out there. But it's still not clear.

 

[345triangle]

a statement like "god exists" isn't really a personal, subjective belief such as "I like chocolate". It's a statement about the shared universe we all live in, so in theory that applies to everyone. And if that statement is said publicly (and yeah, plenty of believers love to state their beliefs publicly, and a lot of times they even try to push public policy based on it!) I'm not sure why that would be considered "personal". Communicating with someone and saying "X is real" implicitly is saying to them "Believe in the existence of X". Unless what they're really admitting is that god only exists in their own head, which of course, I wouldn't disagree with

To paraphrase Sagan, it's like someone saying "I believe there's an invisible dragon in my garage!", and when I ask "how did you find this out", they reply "That's just my personal opinion man, why are you being so pushy". It shouldn't be too much too ask that if you mention something that is supposed to be "visible" to everyone, and not just in your own head, you have some way of giving evidence for your position. We're social animals, so if there is actually evidence for invisible dragons in garages, that would be useful information to share with the rest of the pack. Mentioning the idea, and then immediately retreating from discussion behind the shield of "That's just my opinion man!" doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

maybe it's because i've never lived in a country like the US where people really do try to influence individual belief and public policy like that, but i generally tend to feel that religious belief is a pretty benign thing that i have no desire to call people on - up until the point where it becomes bigoted, evangelical, pushy etc. i don't really give a shit about people who believe in UFOs or father christmas, either! plus, well, the guy with the dragon in his garage doesn't have millennia of tradition, community and culture to enrich his life or at least back his shit up.

all i'm saying is that life's too short to rationally debate something like this with a group of people who, almost by definition, do not consider rationality a particularly good reason to believe in something; they think on completely different terms, and i have no problem with that because, by and large, i don't think the belief is a particularly negative thing. again, though, this may be the secular european in me talking. i don't believe in any god, but i went to catholic church every week til i was 13 or so and think it was a generally positive experience (even if i'd way rather have been home watching cartoons)

 

[DeathIsTheEnd]

I just wanted to chime in that miracles are relative, and depend on each people. For some the smallest drop of rain is a miracle. For others, not being hit by an asteroid is one. Just wanted to say to be careful with that because it could be a very personal thing. The effects of prayers have been tested, as well as the effect of faith. I think those tests need to be a tad more rigorous about the wording.

Also yeah, be careful about context too. A lot of times you need some kind of back story as to why "x" was said, and it could be lost when taken out of context. Its good to see that you understand that, which a lot of people don't seem to.

Miracles, at least now, often seem to be everyday occurrences. I tend to focus more on the miracles in the Bible. Thanks for the heads up though. I always try to be polite, but hadn't fully considered that often miracles are extremely personal. So far all I know is they've carried out some double blind tests on prayer, but I would too see further testng done.

I'm not the sort of atheist who's going to quote Leviticus and ask why Christians don't follow it, because I know Jesus fulfilled it. My problem there at least more comes down to the law ever existing.

 

[TaeOH]

You seem to be avoiding the central point of my question, so I'll just plough ahead.
I can only assume that you not caring if someone is homosexual is as good an admission that you think homosexuality is not immoral as I'll get.
But to avoid putting words in your mouth, I'll work in hypotheticals instead.

It's a poignant example.

God's account and opinion on homosexuality in scripture is clear. He doesn't like it. It's an abomination, detestable. For all intents and purposes, it's immoral, working on the assumption that your morals come from how God feels about things.

Modern Moderate Christians around the world are guilty of this: they don't think homosexuality is immoral. If you were such a Christian, how would you make this decision?

You're an adult, you make your own decisions.
Sometimes scripture is outdated. Not everything written in it is taken literally. Heck, it's a revised document!
But when you decide to disagree with a moral standing in scripture, God's moral standing, how do you do it?

What criteria do you use? How do you pick those criteria? How do you decide what is and isn't literal, and whose criteria do you use?

Morals are constantly changing with society. Today, it is morally wrong to treat a woman as a lesser person. Today, it is morally wrong to enslave another human being. There was once a time where neither of these statements were true.

God has not retconned the bible.

How is it that either of these moral statements have changed without the guidance of God?
How is it that cultures and even religions around the world have distinctly different moral codes?

This is morality. It is distinct and separate from scripture. It is a necessary social construct. It is always changing.

Earnestly using God as an anchor for morality terrifies me, it really does.
God's moral code is dangerously stagnant.

You would be incorrect in assuming that I think that engaging in homosexual acts are not immoral based upon the fact that I said I don't care what you do in your bedroom. They are as immoral as adultery and fornication. You just said I could not use the Bible and asked me how I felt about it. So I answered in the best way I could, it makes me uncomfortable and sad, but I am not the judge of others. It makes me sad because it ruined a great friendship. A very close friend of mine basically fell in love with me and when I could not return the affection he felt, our relationship ended. It saddens me to this day because I really loved the dude. He was a good guy, a good friend I thought. I don't understand why he felt that way, why he felt it was right. But it certainly was not right with me. And I did not end the friendship, as surprising as that was to few others that knew of the situation, but he did. It made him bitter that I could not return his affection.

I believe in Word and you are correct on its stance on human sexuality. Just because it is becoming socially unexceptionable to affirm God's word isn't going to make me change my mind and no longer believe the Word of God. There have been many things in my life that I have done that are immoral, and I will live with the damage that is the consequence of sin. It did not make me decide the God was wrong and I was right. On the contrary, I have found the Word to be truthful in all things. I have found that God's way is the way to true happiness and that is what I ultimately desire.

 

[TaeOH]

What about the creation of the universe and life on this planet? Science is directly opposed to the Bible, if taken literally, on these matters. Is the Bible still true here, even though all the evidence points to it being wrong in these areas?

I do not believe this to be a factual statement since the Bible actually is very silent on how God created the universe. It only states that He did and that it was done in 7 days. You can read the creation account as literal (that God created everything and Adam and Eve are historical) and still not see it as opposed to science findings of the age of the earth and such. I mean we are talking mostly about 3 chapters of literature. Not a science text book. So your statement that the evidence points to it being wrong in these areas is erroneous IMO.

Men have been wrong in their interpretation of the Word, sure, and scientists have been wrong in their interpretation of facts. We do the same in both circumstances, we look at the new evidence and reform our interpretation or theory. As I have already stated in this thread, I find the Theory of Origins to be lacking and I find that the view that God exists to be the most complete picture of existence. I only speak up in these threads because because truth is very lacking in these threads. Half truths abound. I am not saying you intentionally do that, but like many you seem to feel that your knowledge is complete on the matter of the Word and that your viewpoint the only logical choice. This is a "new atheist" viewpoint, one that attacks the pop culture version of Christianity, and appears to be a direct political reaction to the religious right.

 

[Kalnos]

You would be incorrect that I think that engaging in homosexual acts is not immoral. They are as immoral as adultery and fornication. You just said I could not use the Bible and asked me how I felt about it. So I answered in the best way I could, it makes me uncomfortable and sad, but I am not the judge of others. It makes me sad because it ruined a great friendship. A very close friend of mine basically fell in love with me and when I could not return the affection he felt, our relationship ended. It saddens me to this day because I really loved the dude. He was a good guy, a good friend I thought. I don't understand why he felt that way, why he felt it was right. But it certainly was not right with me. And I did not end the friendship, as surprising as that was to few others that knew of the situation, but he did. It made him bitter that I could not return his affection.

?

 

[Atramental]

only if they're like, "believe in this shit". most of them don't really care what you believe! i know your personal experiences have been more along the lines of the wacky preachy stuff, but that aside i don't see why anyone should have to prove their own personal beliefs

This is an atheist vs theist thread so I am expecting the theists to tell us what they believe to be proof for their theological position...

especially when one of those beliefs is that the absence of proof makes the faith stronger. you don't have to agree with that, but there it is.

Some theists are like that but others will actually attempt to construct some sort of argument or provide something that they believe is proof for their god. Those are the theists I'm trying to debate with. Not the "I believe in god 'cause I believe in god!" theists.

all i'm saying is that life's too short to rationally debate something like this with a group of people who, almost by definition, do not consider rationality a particularly good reason to believe in something; they think on completely different terms,

I don't engage in debate necessarily to convince my opponent. I do it so that the people who are watching (people who are sitting on the fence of this issue) would see that agnostic atheism is a logical position and that scientific naturalism is a much more realistic world view than all the others that are out there.

 

[Noirulus]

It's purely conceptual, it's an abstract concept that the human mind isn't equipped to comprehend. So abstract that the conditions for an infinite universe could be so fundamentally foreign that 3 could under certain conditions be even.
The mathematical example you gave only applies to a finite universe. The rules would be different in an infinite universe.

That said, mathematics isn't physics; absolutes are allowed. It would be possible to prove that 3 is never an even number even in a fundamentally different universe.

anyway my point is that I see no way to logically posit that our universe is infinite. If not for mathematical reasons, then certainly for temporal reasons.

But i digress. Regardless of who is correct, or if either of us is, your rebuttal makes me think about it more deeply. It's mostly OT though...

No. Simply not possible. Due to entropy, we will enter proton decay in about 10^100 years. Stars will stop shining in about 10^15 years.

 

[The Technomancer]

Not really God vs no God, but I have long held that the term "supernatural" is bullshit. Everything that is not man-made and artificial is therefore natural, and falls into the domain of science. If somehow ghosts are real they also fall into the realm of science, as they could then be studied and possibly explained. To say otherwise is to deny a coherent foundation for a functioning universe, instead replacing it with a universe where "things just happen, what the hell"

And before some smart-ass says "Big bang, gotcha!" science doesn't say that the BB "just happened", merely that we don't understand the cause of it yet. Its still theoretically "knowable"

 

[Kapura]

I believe in God for the following reasons:
- I have experienced firsthand the supernatural presence of God.
- There is no evidence that God does not exist.
- It says so in the Bible.

Now I know the 3rd point probably sounds ridiculous, but from what I have studied and now know of the Christian Bible, I actually believe it is 100% truth.

The first point would be impossible to argue for obvious reasons. The second point is impossible to argue because (I'm guessing) not only do you believe there IS no evidence that God doesn't exist, you don't believe that there could conceivably BE evidence that god does not exist.

As to the third point, which christian bible do you believe is the truth? KJ? NS? There are dozens (hundreds?) of vulgate translations now. Which is the one that is 100% correct?

 

[TaeOH]

?

Poorly worded because I used a double negative?

Let me see if I can correct.

 

[The Technomancer]

The first point would be impossible to argue for obvious reasons. The second point is impossible to argue because (I'm guessing) not only do you believe there IS no evidence that God doesn't exist, you don't believe that there could conceivably BE evidence that god does not exist.

Actually there are possible scientific explanations for the first. The studies have not been put through scientific rigor I believe, so I don't claim them as anything approaching truth, but I posit as a possibility several experiments that show that certain extremely high frequency noises generated by objects and the environment cause people to perceive everything from "not being alone in the room" to actually seeing shadowy figures out of the corners of their eyes, and even perceiving that the shadowy figures had intentions and desires of them.

I'll try and track down a scientifically sound study.

 

[jay]

So which side is currently winning?

 

[Kapura]

Actually there are possible scientific explanations for the first. The studies have not been put through scientific rigor I believe, so I don't claim them as anything approaching truth, but I posit as a possibility several experiments that show that certain extremely high frequency noises generated by objects and the environment cause people to perceive everything from "not being alone in the room" to actually seeing shadowy figures out of the corners of their eyes, and even perceiving that the shadowy figures had intentions and desires of them.

I'll try and track down a scientifically sound study.

But personal proof of a god doesn't have to necessarily be something akin to a ghost story. A friend of mine's proof of god is the beauty of nature, something that anybody can experience. Her argument is how could there NOT be a god and if we live in such "natural" beauty. Can't argue effectively against that sort of personal proof.

 

[The Technomancer]

But personal proof of a god doesn't have to necessarily be something akin to a ghost story. A friend of mine's proof of god is the beauty of nature, something that anybody can experience. Her argument is how could there NOT be a god and if we live in such "natural" beauty. Can't argue effectively against that sort of personal proof.

Oh yeah no, I was talking specifically with regard to "I have felt the presence of the Lord in the room with me and known what He desired of me" personal proof, which I have heard from multiple people.

 

[soul creator]

But personal proof of a god doesn't have to necessarily be something akin to a ghost story. A friend of mine's proof of god is the beauty of nature, something that anybody can experience. Her argument is how could there NOT be a god and if we live in such "natural" beauty. Can't argue effectively against that sort of personal proof.

I call that Argumentum ad "Ooh, this is pretty!"

 

[mxgt]

So which side is currently winning?

Agnosticism

 

[Kapura]

So which side is currently winning?

Xenu's.

 

[TaeOH]

I don't quite understand how this argument shows that God must be the personal god of classical theism. It made some sense until that leap of logic.

Mainly, I don't see how this argument shows that no other sort of god or supernatural process could fill the role of being first cause.

I think the assumption is that because he created personal beings, He must be personal. I kind of see where Dr. Craig is going with that, but it also seems like a leap to me. That is not in the classic version of the argument.

 

[TaeOH]

No. Simply not possible. Due to entropy, we will enter proton decay in about 10^100 years. Stars will stop shining in about 10^15 years.

This is assuming that some power is not replenishing the energy.

 

[JGS]

So which side is currently winning?

Theism is but atheism is the one keeping score so...

 

[leadbelly]

We don't know whether or not it's paradoxical. As to your point, you're assuming that time is something that isn't directly tied to the universe and its state, but it is. So talking about a beginning means talking about a time that is dictated by a universe under extreme conditions. For instance, the speed of light is indeterminant, as are most spacial relations you are accustomed to. You don't have 3 dimensions.

No. I was assuming that time holds no meaning before the Big Bang. I'm confused by your point. If you are at a state that is essentially beginningless, time holds no meaning. There is no point in time in which the Big Bang occurs. It is essentially a meaningless question as there is no starting point. That state has always been. If it has always been, the idea that energy could build up gradually would also be meaningless. That would indicate a period of time. Why then does the Big Bang occur?

It's a question you can't answer.

 

[Ashes]

Why is it science against religion again, when it should be atheism vs theism?

 

[soul creator]

Am I the only one that finds it interesting that the "sophisticated" arguments for God always revolve around thought experiments and wordplay, rather than, well, actual evidence?

I guess that's the weird disconnect for me. Almost every single person I know treat God as an actual "thing" who does specific actions and has specific thoughts and feelings, and essentially has magic powers. And considering that the vast majority of the world has never been "deist", I don't think this counts me as just "atheist attacking a strawman definition of god". Yet apparently, we're supposed to spend a bunch of time ignoring silly things like observations and evidence, and instead discuss cryptic logic statements.

Yeah yeah, "welcome to philosophy!" and all that, but don't even philosophers ultimately try to incorporate, well, evidence into their views?

Why is it science against religion again, when it should be atheism vs theism?

For the most part, discussions probably occur this way because no one really call themselves a "theist", especially since "god" is such a vague and open-ended term. Religions tend to define what they mean by "theism", and of course, atheism is the convenient term to describe someone who doesn't hold those beliefs. And atheism is usually just a response to numerous instances of theism that have been proposed over the years, rather than a standalone philosophy in and of itself.

So since the actual definitions of theism generally manifest themselves as religious claims, and also as claims that directly counter what is usually scientifically observed/discussed, it comes down to "science vs. religion".

 

[Air]

Miracles, at least now, often seem to be everyday occurrences. I tend to focus more on the miracles in the Bible. Thanks for the heads up though. I always try to be polite, but hadn't fully considered that often miracles are extremely personal. So far all I know is they've carried out some double blind tests on prayer, but I would too see further testng done.

I'm not the sort of atheist who's going to quote Leviticus and ask why Christians don't follow it, because I know Jesus fulfilled it. My problem there at least more comes down to the law ever existing.

Thank you, and I respect that you are so well mannered. As far as the law, its a matter of history. Many of the laws were established specifically for jews, not outsiders for one.(I'm pretty sure of this, but if I'm wrong please correct me.) The nation was just starting out so a lot of the laws were used to keep the nation safe and populated. Thats why laws like don't eat shellfish or no to homosexuality existed. Remember the people of the past simply weren't as hygienic as we are now, so to avoid all the potential pain, just ban it. I'm on my phone so I have to keep it short, but that generally was the thought process. To help build a strong nation, especially considering their neighbors at the time. I have more to say about it but I have to go. Again, thank you for being respectful.

 

[Atramental]

Why is it science against religion again, when it should be atheism vs theism?

Because there are some theists in this thread who don't know how science works and we're trying to educate them.

 

[Orayn]

Why is it science against religion again, when it should be atheism vs theism?

Because that's a large component of it. Many atheists base their worldview on science, and uppity believers are quick to yell things like "But science doesn't prove anything!" or "Science takes just as much faith!"

 

[Kapura]

Why is it science against religion again, when it should be atheism vs theism?

Because some people who hold up the mantle of atheism don't seem to understand that there is something inherently non-scientific about believing in a supernatural creator. Then again,, the theists are also trying to use science as a proof that science doesn't work, so erebody is to blame.

 

[Noirulus]

This is assuming that some power is not replenishing the energy.

Right, because that totally makes sense, right? A higher being, who is apparently okay with innocent people starving and thousands of people dying by accident, will replenish the universe for us once baryonic matter is nearing the end of it's life!

 

[Chaplain]

- It says so in the Bible.

Here is something that might help others understand why we believe what the Bible says:

There are those who say, “I believe that the Bible is inspired and that it contains God’s Word,” but with them I disagree. The Bible doesn’t contain God’s Word; the Bible is God’s Word. Whenever liberal theologians say the Bible contains God’s Word, the implication is that it might also contain man’s word. If I say, “Part of Scripture is God’s Word, but part is man’s ideas or myths,” I become the ultimate judge, deciding what is God’s Word and what are man’s thoughts.

If I attribute to God “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,” (Romans 8:1) and “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all,” (Philippians 4:23), but I attribute to Paul “Present your bodies a living sacrifice,” (Romans 12:1) and “Those who live godly will suffer persecution” (2 Timothy 3:12), I judge the Bible rather than allowing the Bible to judge me.

Following, are four reasons I am theologically and academically convinced that every word of Scripture—even the “begats” and the genealogies—is inspired.

Internal Unity

The Bible is comprised of sixty-six books written by an extremely diverse group of forty human authors. We see a king in Solomon, a herdsman in Amos, a tax collector in Matthew, a scholar in Paul, a general in Joshua, a doctor in Luke, a poet in David, a prime minister in Daniel, and a building contractor in Jeremiah.

Not only did these men come from widely diverse backgrounds, but their writings span fifteen hundred years and are comprised of three different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek).

Yet there is not a single contradiction from book to book, from author to author. I challenge you to find three men writing textbooks today on any subject who will completely agree. There is incredible unity in the Bible—unlike anything man could produce.

Archaeological Validity

“If My disciples are quiet, even the stones will cry out,” Jesus declared (Luke 19:40). Guess what. The stones are crying out. What stones? The stones uncovered by the archaeologists’ spades.

Julius Wellhousen made a huge impact on theology in the late 1800s when he said that, due to the fact that there were no kings near the Dead Sea at the time, the Bible could not be taken literally. He maintained that the battle between four kings from Mesopotamia and five kings from the Dead Sea region could not have taken place (Genesis 14). Poor Julius. Archaeologists in Egypt unearthed a library filled with tablets that contain a perfect description of the battle in which four Mesopotamian kings did indeed wage war against five kings near the Dead Sea.

Dr. John Gerstang, one of the primary excavators of Jericho, noted that, when an ancient city is excavated, the walls fall inward. The walls of Jericho actually fell outward and covered an unbelievable distance. “It was as though someone from the inside was shoving the walls out,” said Gerstang, calling the force an “invisible hand.”

According to Nelson Gluick, a brilliant Jewish archaeologist, “It may be categorically stated that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a single Bible reference.”
Archaeology confirms the biblical account. I “dig” that!

Fulfilled Prophecy

In addition to the Bible, there is another book that contains prophecy. In the Koran, Mohammed says, “Before I die, I will go to Jerusalem.” That’s like me saying, “Before I die, I will return to Jacksonville.” There is a great probability that will happen. Besides that single reference, the Koran does not address prophecy. Neither does any so-called “holy book.” In the Old Testament alone, more than two thousand prophecies have come to pass. That’s amazing!

Turn with me to Ezekiel. I never tire of this prophecy because it’s fulfilled so beautifully and convincingly. It deals with the city of Tyre. Maybe that’s why I never “tire” of it.

"Therefore, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am your enemy, O Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the waves of the sea crashing against your shoreline. They will destroy the walls of Tyre and tear down its towers. I will scrape away its soil and make it a bare rock! The island of Tyre will become uninhabited. It will be a place for fishermen to spread their nets, for I have spoken, says the Sovereign LORD. Tyre will become the prey of many nations, and its mainland villages will be destroyed by the sword. Then they will know that I am the LORD." - Ezekiel 26:3–6

In other words, “I’m going to flatten Tyre,” said God.

Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Tyre in 586 B.C. However, he didn’t “scrape her dust from her,” as Ezekiel had prophesied. Two hundred and twenty-five years later, Alexander the Great besieged the city that had been rebuilt. For thirteen years, the people of Tyre didn’t give up. When they could hold out no longer, they left out the back door and rebuilt the city on a little island a half mile off the coast. When Alexander finally broke in and found everyone gone, he ordered his men to throw every remaining stone, column, and bit of timber into the sea so that a bridge could be constructed to the island. Although the original city of Tyre was now “scraped clean,” the prophecy was still not fulfilled because now there was a new city of Tyre.

Fast forward to A.D. 1290. When the Crusaders came to free the Holy Land from “Muslim infidels,” they moved into the city of Tyre, which was now connected to the mainland. Eight years later, when the Crusaders were driven back to England, the Muslims said, “This city is so defiled that every stone must be thrown into the sea.”

If you go to Tyre today, guess what you see. Nothing. It’s flat like a rock and has become a place where fishermen park their boats—“like the top of a rock, a place to spread nets.”

Because there is a spring in Tyre that produces one hundred thousand gallons of water every six hours, this area should be home to a huge city. It’s not, however, because the people in the region think the area is cursed.

“I will make Tyre flat like a rock. The city will never be built again, and it will only be a place for fishing nets to be dried out upon,” declared God. That’s exactly what happened.

There are 221 prophecies concerning Jesus Christ. Chapter 7 of Isaiah tells us the manner of His birth. Daniel 9 declares the time of His birth. Micah 5 names the town of His birth. In Zechariah 11, we read how He would be sold for thirty pieces of silver, which would be thrown on the floor of the temple, and used to purchase a piece of property that would be used as a potter’s field.

What is the statistical probability of these six prophecies being fulfilled? One in 1017. Think of it this way:

Cover the entire state of California three feet deep in nuts and mark one nut with an X. Then go up in a plane with a flying squirrel named Rocky. Fly over the entire state and throw Rocky out at a random spot. Rocky comes down, sees the whole state covered in nuts and chooses one. The chances of him choosing the marked nut is one in 1017.

That’s only six prophecies. There are 221 Old Testament prophecies perfectly fulfilled in Jesus.

Jesus’ Credibility

“Surely many of the Old Testament stories are nothing more than myths,” scoffs the skeptic. Yet Jesus came on the scene and validated even the most controversial accounts when He talked about Lot’s wife turning to salt (Luke 17:32), Jonah in the belly of the great fish (Matthew 12:40), and the prophecies of Daniel (Matthew 24:15). As the Son of God, Jesus’ treatment of the above renders them true.

“Well, I don’t know if He is the Son of God,” some say.

“One sign I’ll give to you,” Jesus said. “Destroy this body and in three days I’ll rise again” (John 2:18, 19). Thus, the inspiration question actually is answered by His Resurrection. If Jesus rose from the dead, then He is the Son of God. If He is the Son of God, what He says about even the most controversial Old Testament stories is true.

“Well, how do you know Jesus really rose from the dead?” some ask.

I’ve been to Jerusalem. I’ve seen His tomb. It’s empty.

“Yeah, but the disciples could have stolen the body to perpetuate the hoax.”

Really? They watched their sons and daughters killed, their wives raped, were crucified upside down, stoned with rocks, and sawn in half to perpetuate the hoax? Surely, one of them would have cracked. One of them would have said, “Wait a minute. This has gone far enough. We stashed His body behind the tree in the garden. You’ll find it there.” But no one did because the disciples knew they had seen the Resurrected Jesus.

“Okay, it wasn’t the disciples. The Pharisees took Jesus’ body.”

If the Pharisees had stolen the body, they would only have had to produce it to halt the new religious “sect” of Christianity that threatened to undermine their authority.
“Then it was the Romans who took the body.”

Really? The Romans were desperate to put Christianity down. They fed Christians to the lions. They dipped them in hot wax and ignited them as human candles. To destroy Christianity, they would only have had to produce the body.

So, who stole the body? It couldn’t have been the disciples. It couldn’t have been the Jews. It couldn’t have been the Romans.

“Well, maybe the disciples just went to the wrong tomb.”

Would no one have double-checked?

“Maybe Jesus wasn’t really dead. Maybe He just swooned on the Cross. Maybe the sponge given to Him contained narcotics and He went into a coma.”

This school of thought requires that a man beaten beyond recognition, nailed to a tree, and placed in a tomb would have come out of his coma, rolled away a two-ton stone, and taken on one hundred fifty Roman soldiers before walking throughout the city, saying, “I’m risen.”
I’m sorry. I don’t have enough faith to believe that. Jesus didn’t swoon in the tomb. The women didn’t go to the wrong gravesite. The disciples, Romans, or Jewish leaders didn’t steal the body. No, the only intelligent position one can take is that Jesus rose from the grave just as He said He would.

“I’ll rise from the dead. That’s one sign I’ll give to you that I am who I claim to be,” Jesus declared (Matthew 12:39, 40).

Therefore, Jesus is the Son of God—rendering everything He said about Lot, Daniel, and Jonah equally true.

Spiritual Intimacy

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us… 1 Thessalonians 2:13

The word translated “received” is the Greek word paralambano, which means “to embrace intellectually.”

…ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. 1 Thessalonians 2:13

The Greek word dechomai is also translated “received,” and it means “to embrace emotionally.”

“Lo, I come to you in the volume of the book,” says Jesus (Hebrews 10:7). Consequently, when you take in the Word, you’re seeing the nature and person of Jesus. It’s more than theology. You’re embracing Him personally and emotionally.

• The Word is bread (Matthew 4).
• “I am the Bread of life,” declared Jesus (John 6).
• The Word of God is truth (John 17).
• “I am the Truth,” declared Jesus (John 14).

When you read the Scriptures, you embrace the Lord because the Word and the Lord are intimately bound.

Courson, J. (2003). Jon Courson's Application Commentary (1333). Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

 

[Zaptruder]

Am I the only one that finds it interesting that the "sophisticated" arguments for God always revolve around thought experiments and wordplay, rather than, well, actual evidence?

I guess that's the weird disconnect for me. Almost every single person I know treat God as an actual "thing" who does specific actions and has specific thoughts and feelings, and essentially has magic powers. And considering that the vast majority of the world has never been "deist", I don't think this counts me as just "atheist attacking a strawman definition of god". Yet apparently, we're supposed to spend a bunch of time ignoring silly things like observations and evidence, and instead discuss cryptic logic statements.

Yeah yeah, "welcome to philosophy!" and all that, but don't even philosophers ultimately try to incorporate, well, evidence into their views?

Philosophy and theology use to be far more closely interelated fields of study. Take that as you will.

 

[Raist]

So which side is currently winning?

wehavefossils.jpg