Probability of God

[Cris]

live4him,

You can't prove it. That's correct. But, you CAN see evidence supporting it.

In approximately 582 BC, a man wrote that the nation of Israel would be dispersed to all the nations, and after a long period of time, God would bring these people back from the nations to found the state of Israel in the land that was promised to Abraham by God.

This was partially fulfilled in 70 AD, when Israel ceased to be a nation. Then, in 1948, it was completed when Israel became a nation again.

(Ezekiel 37)

Thus, we see empirical evidence that some being has detailed future knowledge. This lends creditability of a supernatural being.

No this is incorrect. It doesn't work that way.

I think you are talking about Jeremiah here, but it doesn't matter. The problem with a prophecy that is known in advance is that it can easily become a self-fulfilled prophecy. For your claim to have any real weight then the prophecy would need to have been kept secret until after it was fulfilled.

Israelis have a very strong sense of history and tradition and are even now trying to hold onto lands that they believe are theirs through divine right. They would certainly know about past claimed prophecies about their future and are quite likely to work towards making it happen out of a belief that it should happen. Had the prophecy been kept secret then it is possible that the Israelis would not have come together.

You can't know that the knowledge of the claimed prediction didn't in fact influence the events, rather just predict the events. And in which case your claim of supernatural influence is invalid.

The prophecy would also have had more weight had the date of the expected event been stated, but it wasn't. We don’t know if our prophet was expecting an event in the near future or distant future and with a gap of over 2000 years it seems more like influenced coincidence than prediction. He may have also been working with local information about what was likely in the near future especially since Jerusalem had fallen in 586 BCE.

 

[Jenyar]

Christianity would have died out long ago if it's faith was blind. We believe in something that isn't physical, that's true - but that does not mean we are blind. If you ask me, science is blind if it cannot see God. We believe in a historical God. The Bible is a collection of ancient manuscripts that reflect the history of a real people, not a fictitious one. Unfortunately, history cannot be repeated. How is history known? Scientifically? Can you see history?

It's OK for you to say you believe in one less God than we do. We believe in a history that you don't acknowledge. My faith definitely isn't blind.

 

[Cris]

live,

Yet, Christians have put their faith in that which has already been confirmed, even in recent times.

And the support for this fantastic claim is???

We can measure the absence of the soul. When a person is in a coma, the body is still alive, the life support functions are still working, but they aren't conscious of their environment. What's missing? According to technical terms, nothing.

And why is that a proof for or against a soul?

 

[Jenyar]

Cris,

Just a note on prophesy. Self-fulfilling prophesies carry no less weight than any other prediction. Most often prophesies are meant to change things - especially people's attitudes towards God. Jonah didn't want to prophesy against Nineve, because he knew God would forgive them if they listened to it. Part of the nature of prophesy is who listens to it and who doesn't.

And there is a difference between prophesy and prediction.

 

[Cris]

Jenyar,

Christianity would have died out long ago if it's faith was blind.

No. It has lasted so long because it is based on blind faith. Had it insisted on empirical evidence in the beginning then it would never have started.

We believe in something that isn't physical, that's true - but that does not mean we are blind.

Delusional then, since you are claiming to see something that you can’t know exists.

If you ask me, science is blind if it cannot see God.

But then science depends on reality and isn't fooled by fantasies.

We believe in a historical God. The Bible is a collection of ancient manuscripts that reflect the history of a real people, not a fictitious one.

That's highly debatable since there are no actual witnesses to Christian claims, and most authors of the times were adept at myth making.

Unfortunately, history cannot be repeated. How is history known? Scientifically? Can you see history?

The history we know comes from reliable, credible, and independent eyewitness accounts. None of which is true for the NT.

It's OK for you to say you believe in one less God than we do. We believe in a history that you don't acknowledge. My faith definitely isn't blind.

Yes but the support for your beliefs is near to non-existent. And that doesn't lend much credibility to your claims.

 

[Cris]

jenyar,

Just a note on prophesy. Self-fulfilling prophesies carry no less weight than any other prediction. Most often prophesies are meant to change things - especially people's attitudes towards God. Jonah didn't want to prophesy against Nineve, because he knew God would forgive them if they listened to it. Part of the nature of prophesy is who listens to it and who doesn't.

But the difficulty you have is showing that the prophecies were supernaturally inspired, which was the issue. Can you show the result of a prophecy that was kept strictly secret until after it was fulfilled?

And there is a difference between prophesy and prediction.

Is the difference significant? Sorry, I'm tired, it is 00:36 and I'm off to bed.

Take care.
Cris

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Reflected thru the prism of superstition.

Originally posted by Jenyar
The Bible is a collection of ancient manuscripts that reflect the history of a real people, not a fictitious one.

The bible is conflated myth, folk history, nationalist rhetoric, priestly propaganda, and civil code. To view the Bible as factual because of its thin substrate of history makes about as much sense as viewing the Wizard of Oz as fact because there are, indeed, tornados and farms and little dogs in Kansas.

You may have noticed, by the way, that I took the liberty of starting an Exodus thread in your honor. It is still there should you wish to pursue that aspect or purported Biblical history.

 

[williamwbishop]

Originally posted by Cris
live4him,

No this is incorrect. It doesn't work that way.

I think you are talking about Jeremiah here, but it doesn't matter. The problem with a prophecy that is known in advance is that it can easily become a self-fulfilled prophecy. For your claim to have any real weight then the prophecy would need to have been kept secret until after it was fulfilled.

Israelis have a very strong sense of history and tradition and are even now trying to hold onto lands that they believe are theirs through divine right. They would certainly know about past claimed prophecies about their future and are quite likely to work towards making it happen out of a belief that it should happen. Had the prophecy been kept secret then it is possible that the Israelis would not have come together.

You can't know that the knowledge of the claimed prediction didn't in fact influence the events, rather just predict the events. And in which case your claim of supernatural influence is invalid.

The prophecy would also have had more weight had the date of the expected event been stated, but it wasn't. We don’t know if our prophet was expecting an event in the near future or distant future and with a gap of over 2000 years it seems more like influenced coincidence than prediction. He may have also been working with local information about what was likely in the near future especially since Jerusalem had fallen in 586 BCE.

Also, you would have to take into account the almost limitless possibilities of said prophecy. You have a mulititude of things that could have occurred and people would still claim the prophecy had taken place. Say, for instance, that several jewish colonies got together in what is romania, or russia, or india, the place doesn't matter. When you get a group together, you now have a jewish state. It didn't specify that it would be a jewish state, but that is as good a conclusion as any other. Also you have to take into account the probability of this occuring. The jewish tribe had already been dispersed how many times? There was a constant revolving door of separation and reunion of all the peoples of that area. You could just as easily have claimed the prophecy true if you had gone into germany in '31 and seen 6 million jews living in one area. The problem with prophecies is that they are open to broad, even limitless interpretations of fulfillment.

 

[williamwbishop]

Originally posted by williamwbishop
Also, you would have to take into account the almost limitless possibilities of said prophecy. You have a mulititude of things that could have occurred and people would still claim the prophecy had taken place. Say, for instance, that several jewish colonies got together in what is romania, or russia, or india, the place doesn't matter. When you get a group together, you now have a jewish state. It didn't specify that it would be a jewish state, but that is as good a conclusion as any other. Also you have to take into account the probability of this occuring. The jewish tribe had already been dispersed how many times? There was a constant revolving door of separation and reunion of all the peoples of that area. You could just as easily have claimed the prophecy true if you had gone into germany in '31 and seen 6 million jews living in one area. The problem with prophecies is that they are open to broad, even limitless interpretations of fulfillment.

I give you a good example. I'm going to prophecize that the U.S will eventually break down, but a new nation will take it's place. I'm going to say that there will be an assasination of a great public figure. I'm going to say that a woman will rule a great nation in the future. I'm going to say that we will colonize our solar system. I'm going to say that we will cure cancer and aids. I will say that another great earthquake will hit the area known as california.

Now, I have 3 thousand years for these prophecies to come true, making me effectively a prophet. What do you think my odds are?

 

[heflores]

Live4him
I'll be a mommy and say,
State purely theistic views and you'll get out of your troubels......Use nature examples. It's no use to use biblical examples even if your conviction is telling you that they are true, because by doing that you're jumping like million threads....you're talking to people that don't believe Jesus Existed or the bible came down from the first place.....Forget the doctrines.

 

[heflores]

Originally posted by TruthSeeker
God exists

Halleloya Halleloya Halleloya Halleloya Halleloya

 

[Cris]

And of course, and equally valid, when claims for fantasies are made -

Invisible Flying Green Elephants Exist

Halleluya, Halleluya, Halleluya, Halleluya, Halleluya.

 

[Cris]

hef,

State purely theistic views and you'll get out of your troubels

Well of course because such views are based on human imagination and there are no limits to how one might adapt an imaginative fantasy to fend off a critic. When something has zero substance it is as flexible as a hollywood cartoon character.

 

[heflores]

Originally posted by Cris
hef,

Well of course because such views are based on human imagination and there are no limits to how one might adapt an imaginative fantasy to fend off a critic. When something has zero substance it is as flexible as a hollywood cartoon character.

DO I have to go to such extreme levels and sing the Haleloya to get you to talk to me Cris.....You're such a typical male.

Anyways, I think I got a thing or two to offer on religious scriptures and historical miracles performed as mentioned in them.

One of the biggest problems of the religious scriptures is their mention of the historical miracles and stories. This insertion I must say have guided many theists and misguided many more. Again I'll use my intuition to be my guide. Since I was very young, I was very interested in learning history, I dig reading about history, yet I'm very turned off when someone tells me history. This puzzles me a great deal, how can the same subject that turn me so on, turns me so off.

My answer is, for history or miracles to be effective tool of convincing, they must be experienced by the person or used by the person to draw his own parralels. Any other way of looking at the history, then it becomes useless tales of the ancient.

So why did god give people in the past miracles. Remember god is balance. People of the past had no history or knowledge to draw from like me and you can now, so big miracles where necessary to guide humans. the more time progress, the less the need for miracles because tools of convincing are becoming avialable without green giant elephants....

I'm tired so I'll stop now, your turn.

Well,

 

[Cris]

hef,

Please don't expect too much from me this week. I have all my staff appraisals to do and I must give them significant attention. I'm also working today, a US public holiday.

Miracle story myths I believe were created because the ancient expectations for gods were that they could do miracles, it was the way that they could distinguish between mortals and immortals.

If one is going to invent a religion then it becomes essential that the powers of the desired deity be demonstrated somehow, it was expected, hence the creation of miracle stories, which amount to no more than visually impressive magic tricks.

Miracle stories should be unnecessary if the selected deity is to be seen as just fair and credible. For example if we assume a god cures someone's cancer. And there are claims that this has occurred. The question then arises as to why, if these isolated victims were so worthy, that he had to allow them to suffer the pain of the cancer in the first place. It seems little more than a staged event for him to show off his powers. There is also the question as to why only a tiny handful of believers are assisted out of the billions who believe, and among so many that are allowed to die in agony. Does this indicate that out of so many believers the overwhelming majority is unworthy?

I see the claims for miracles, without of course any scientific basis, as further evidence for the non-existence of credible gods.

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by James R

> First, there is a big difference between a question being unanswered and its being unanswerable.

Yes, but the difference is the same difference that exists between science and religion. Real science is in KNOWING, but religion is in trusting.


Second, it does not follow that because we don't currently have an explanation for something we will never have one.

You are expressing your faith in the religion of naturalism. Science only addresses what HAS been explained, not what MAY be explained in the future.


Religion, on the other hand, claims to provide all the answers up front. How did the universe start? "God did it." Ok then - how? What are the details? "Errmm... I don't know.

Not at all. If you believe this, then you wouldn't have posited the following set of unanswered questions. Thus, you've contradicted your own position.

Religion is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". Christians' believe in the Bible, while naturalists believe in "science".

Science is the "the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding". Yet, throughout time, this knowledge has been proven false, only to be replaced by new "knowledge", which in time will also be proven false and replaced. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum. Science is the unattainable goal of naturalists.

Thus, science has a history of being proven wrong. Meanwhile, the Bible has a history of never being proven wrong (exceptions: word tense, word order, scribal errors, etc.), but never any critical (i.e. doctrinal) errors.

Yet, you support trusting in science, while I support trusting in the Bible. It's kind of strange, isn't it?


> "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle.

This actually came from your footnote, but I thought it was interesting. Aristotle was the person who first put forth the logical argument that I've reiterated here. His argument was the "unmoved mover", which is quite similar to "the uncaused causer".

Yet, you accept part of his teachings, without being able to follow the logic of some of his other teachings. It sounds like you are unwilling to entertain certain thoughts.

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by Jaxom

Empirical evidence is all atheists ask for, to demonstrate some supernatural existence. ... Maybe you can help out.

Sure can. However, since I've already done this before on other forums, I'm just going to give you a web site of mine that contains the info. Intro here: Scientific Support

The above also goes into some details of the co-existence of dinosaurs and mankind.

Centers of Civilization - Localized near the area as recorded by the Bible. More info here: Spread of Early Civilizations

Population growth patterns - Reflect the known growth equation of populations only if one accepts that the earth is less than 10K years old. If it is older than that, the known population growth equations cannot be applied. More info here:

Population Growth

I'm sorry that I don't have time to put it all down here. However, you should find something of interest to you on the web site.

All of the above provide empirical evidence of the historical nature of the Bible. Thus, one should treat the Bible as historical evidence.

When one considers the World Trade Center attacks of 9/11/2001, one cannot prove today that they actually happened, unless one trusts the historical record. This historical record should be trusted unless there is empirical evidence to distrust it.

The same is true of the Bible. Unless there is empirical evidence to distrust the Bible, one must trust it at face value, EVEN if one finds it objectionable. This is pure science.


BTW, welcome to Sciforums.

Thanks. I'm getting swamped with all the responses. I'm doing my best to keep up with all the posts, but I'm falling further and further behind.

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by heflores

I found an error with your logic and time will show you that this is where you will fail.

And it is...?

The word christianity is made up word to describe the followers of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

It is standard English. The "-an" ending typically denotes a group.

-an or -ian or -ean (Function:noun suffix)
1 : one that is of or relating to *American* *Bostonian*
2 : one skilled in or specializing in *phonetician*

-ity (Function:noun suffix)
: quality : state : degree *alkalinity* *theatricality*

Thus, it is standard English to denote the movement of the followers of Christ, and not made up at all.


please don't tell me that god and Jesus is one, or I'll be so disappointed and I'll cry to Allah or Eli the same way Jesus did on his ninth hour.

Matthew 27:46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"-which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Lets review the Hebrew word for the word "god" in Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God [430] created ...


430. eloheem; plur. of 433; gods in the ordinary sense;

433. elowahh or eloahh; prob. prol. (emphat.) from 410; a deity or the Deity:- God, god.

Thus, we see Jesus speaking in Hebrew while on the cross. And, translating the Hebrew, we see that "eloi" is from the Hebrew root word "eloheem", which is the plural for god. Thus, IN THE BEGINNING, scripture records both a plurality and a singularity in the being of God. (Note: There are other passages in the OT that indicate the singularity of God.)

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by James R

Live4Him: Thank you for proving my point. While the earth is an open system, it can be treated as a closed or isolated system by proper definition.

I did not say that, and in fact it is not true.

You've just burst my opinion of you. I thought that you knew a little about Thermo. Yet, I've found that you don't.

Draw an imaginary boundary around the Earth to define Earth as a system, and you have an open system. No redefinition of variables will change that.

First you claim that systems on Earth can be set up as closed or isolated systems. We can easily set up systems on Earth which are closed or isolated. Now you are attempting to backtrack. No matter. Lets pursue it further.

Well, its funny that you claim that the earth CANNOT be considered a closed system, while scientists at the web site below HAVE defined it as a closed system.

Earth as a Closed System

If we impose a boundary at the top of our atmosphere, then the Earth is a system and space its surroundings. This is a closed system

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by Cris

Perhaps I should have said the 2nd law and entropy constraints are quite irrelevant within the framework of inflationary theory.

So, what you are saying is that the framework of inflationary theory is strictly hypothetical and contradicts all known science. Thus, it is pure fantasy and not science.


Live4Him: But I'm asking you to prove it.

We are talking probabilities here; these were your rules.

Of course we are talking about probabilities here. Yet, you are attempting to insert that which there is contradictory evidence as one of your premises, while claiming it probable. Thus, you still need to support your position for an infinite universe.


The claim can be equally directed at your admission here that the universe is finite. Prove it.

With pleasure. From the position of an atom, a cell seems infinite in size. From the position of a cell, a body seems infinite in size. From the position of a body, a planet seems infinite in size. From the position of a planet, a galaxy seems infinite in size.

From every position, there appears to be infinity. Yet, by expanding the horizon, the so-called infinity becomes realized. Thus, even the universe must have a size, even if it is incomprehensible to human beings.

i.e. there would have been nothing around to cause the first effect. This naturally and intuitively leads us to conclude that something has always existed. This could be an infinite universe or an infinite god.

Well, pretty good logic, but you've made a mistake. Granted, there must be an uncaused causer. But, your mistake is in assuming that something (i.e. the universe) could change its nature and cause its own beginning.

Man examines his surroundings (i.e. the universe) to gain knowledge. He builds certain laws (Gravity, Thermo, etc.) based upon his findings. Thus, these laws describe the nature of the universe. Yet, all these laws show the finiteness of the universe. Thus, it is a contradiction of its basic principles to consider the universe as infinite.

Yet, the God in the Bible is described as infinite, and is also unfathomable, even in small details. The only way we can comprehend God is for the description to be reduced to our level through parables. Thus, it is consistent with the nature of God to be infinite.

Either way something with the property of infinity must exist. Therefore Infinity must exist.

I will grant you that infinity does exist. However, I dispute that one can conclude that the universe is infinite because all known science indicates otherwise.