Probability of God

[heflores]

I would politely tell you Live4him that you are entitled to your opinion, and I don't see it your way, and thus you will find me a non participant in all discussions that will attribute a plurality to my single creator.

I hope you respect my request and hold no prejudice againest my choice.

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by Raithere

No, you're not taking into account all of the laws of thermodynamics... no energy can be lost (as far as we know) from the Universe so the Universe expanding or contracting would always contain the same amount of energy.

You're correctly stating the First Law, but you've made an assumption that is erroneous. I'll address it next.

In fact, in a collapsing Universe entropy would actually reverse on a global scale.

This would be true ONLY if you believed that ALL the energy would collapse back into the singularity. And there is no scientific foundation for this belief. Thus, we are back to the initial premise given: There is no scientific explanation for the origins of the universe.

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by Cris

When you sit down in a chair
This is a dishonest and deliberate misuse of the term faith.

Cris, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You are attempting to redefine the meaning of the word to suit YOUR purpose. At the same time, you chastise me for the correct usage of the word.

Faith: something that is believed especially with strong conviction.


Religious faith is better known as blind faith and is quite different to the way the word faith is used in everyday life.

That is what you WANT to believe. Yet, it is far from the truth.


Faith used in everyday life is based on evidence, and usually inductive logic. For example I have faith in my doctor because of past experience

Exactly. This is the SAME kind of faith that is described in scripture. 1 Cor 15:4, John 1:7, John 1:50, John 4:42, and John 10:37 are just some of the time empirical evidence is given as a cause for belief.

Jesus performed many miracles in the presence of believers and doubters. Thus, he gave empirical evidence, not just words of assurances. Thus, believers were encouraged to trust what they have experienced, just like your experiences have led you to trust your doctor.

Yet, there are some, both today and back then, who observe(d) the empirical evidence and still refuse to believe (John 12:37).

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by heflores

you will find me a non participant in all discussions that will attribute a plurality to my single creator.

That's no problem. You were the one to initially start the discussion.


I hope you respect my request and hold no prejudice againest my choice.

Well, if you start the thread, I'll leave it alone. Yet, if I've started the thread and you push for a single creator, I will utilize the original languages to support plural/singular creators (i.e. trinity).

I'm not here to change a person. I'm here to present the facts, combined with the occasional opinion. The acceptance or rejection of those facts/opinions are solely in the hands of the reader (and God).

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by Cris

Live4Him: a man wrote that the nation of Israel would be dispersed to all the nations ... (Ezekiel 37)
(Ezekiel 37)
I think you are talking about Jeremiah here

I'm surprised that when given a specific reference you would challenge without bothering to check out the reference. Thus, I'm compelled to justify my position.

Ezekiel 37

1 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and he brought me out by the
Spirit of the LORD and set me in the middle of a valley; it was
full of bones. 2 He led me back and forth among them, and I saw a
great many bones on the floor of the valley, bones that were very
dry. 3 He asked me, "Son of man, can these bones live?"
...
11 Then he said to me: "Son of man, these bones are the whole
house of Israel. They say, 'Our bones are dried up and our hope is
gone; we are cut off.'
…
21 and say to them, 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I will
take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will
gather them from all around and bring them back into their own
land. 22 I will make them one nation in the land, on the
mountains of Israel. (NIV)


The problem with a prophecy that is known in advance is that it can easily become a self-fulfilled prophecy.

This is illogical. A prophecy by definition is "a prediction of something to come". If the prophecy were kept in secret, then the critics would rightfully claim that it wasn't a prophecy at all, but someone attempting to claim prophecy after the fact.

Second, there are many prophecies that have been stated in advance. Few of these ever become fulfilled. And when they do, the original prophecies were very vague, unlike the Biblical prophesies.

No, the method of determining a true prophet is detailed knowledge of future events, combined with consistency. One can distinguish a phony prophet because of erroneous prophecies.


Jerusalem had fallen in 586

Jerusalem fell, but the nation did not cease to exist during this time. It was still considered the land of Israel. It did not cease to be a nation until the Roman Empire dispersed the population and renamed the district.

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by Cris

Had it insisted on empirical evidence in the beginning then it would never have started.

Scripture records the empirical evidence that were witnessed by many people.

Likewise, history records the destruction of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11/2001. People also witnessed this event. As long as one is willing to totally disregard witnessed events, then one could easily and logically dispute the destruction of the WTC by planes controlled by terrorists.

But, it is a choice everyone can make.

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist

Reflected thru the prism of superstition.
The bible is conflated myth, folk history

As you have acknowledged, your superstition allows you to believe that.

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by Cris

Miracle story myths I believe were created because the ancient expectations for gods were that they could do miracles

Why? The miracles are historical events recorded by the witnesses of those events.

So, what empirical evidence supports your belief that the miracles never happened? None? None at all? Sad.


Miracle stories should be unnecessary if the selected deity is to be seen as just fair and credible.

Fair is a matter of opinion, which will vary from individual to individual. Ask any parent this, and they will tell you that no matter how they treat their kids, one of them will complain about a lack of "fairness".


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

Interesting. You desire to dismiss the miracles, which were observed by many, simply because YOU cannot explain them scientifically. Thus, without any empirical evidence supporting you, you dismiss their occurrence. How much more unscientific can one get?

A real scientist will base his or her decisions upon empirical evidence alone, not his or her whim. When empirical evidence gets discarded because of a person's biases, they have stepped outside of the realm of science and into the realm of religion (namely: the person's religion).

 

[(Q)]

heflores

I would politely tell you Live4him that you are entitled to your opinion, and I don't see it your way, and thus you will find me a non participant in all discussions that will attribute a plurality to my single creator.

Why not participate ? Your belief in a singular creator is as plausible as a belief in multiple creators. It is still a belief in imaginary supernatural beings. There is evidence for neither.

 

[heflores]

Originally posted by (Q)
heflores

I would politely tell you Live4him that you are entitled to your opinion, and I don't see it your way, and thus you will find me a non participant in all discussions that will attribute a plurality to my single creator.

Why not participate ? Your belief in a singular creator is as plausible as a belief in multiple creators. It is still a belief in imaginary supernatural beings. There is evidence for neither.

Of course I welcome the opportunity to kick your butt as many times as possible, but from reading your posts, there isn't enough left in you to kick.....You wouldn't satisfy me, I need a real man....

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Live4Him

Reflected thru the prism of superstition.
The bible is conflated myth, folk history

As you have acknowledged, your superstition allows you to believe that.

That is easily one of the dumbest statements I've encountered this side of the looking glass.

 

[Cris]

live4him,

From Webster - Faith:

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions.

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust.

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs.

Note the differences and especially the way that religious faith is distinct (see entry 2). Faith without proof is blind faith, a cornerstone of religion beliefs.

Jesus performed many miracles in the presence of believers and doubters. Thus, he gave empirical evidence, not just words of assurances.

There are no verifiable accounts of such claims.

This is illogical. A prophecy by definition is "a prediction of something to come". If the prophecy were kept in secret, then the critics would rightfully claim that it wasn't a prophecy at all, but someone attempting to claim prophecy after the fact.

You are arguing a matter of logistics and not logic. I can write down a prediction and give the document to a trusted third party who can open and reveal the prediction after the predicted date. If the trusted person is also the critic then the prophecy attains real credibility.

Scripture records the empirical evidence that were witnessed by many people.

These are only unsupported claims. There is no evidence of eyewitness accounts recorded in the Gospels. There are no references to the Jesus story in Christian writings earlier than Mark which was written in the late 1st century (85-90CE). Given that life expectancy at the time was in the late twenties then the chances of an eyewitness, who was old enough to have understood what was being witnessed and to have survived long enough to have it recorded in Mark is near enough impossible, and certainly not in the detailed quantities claimed.

As long as one is willing to totally disregard witnessed events, then one could easily and logically dispute the destruction of the WTC by planes controlled by terrorists.

I agree but the difference here is that you have no evidence that there are any witnessed accounts for me to disregard.

The miracles are historical events recorded by the witnesses of those events.

There is no evidence of such witnessed accounts.

You desire to dismiss the miracles, which were observed by many, simply because YOU cannot explain them scientifically. Thus, without any empirical evidence supporting you, you dismiss their occurrence. How much more unscientific can one get?

Describe any account of a miracle that was conducted under scientific conditions so that it can be verified as a true miracle rather than just a trick or illusion. The art of illusion is as old as humanity itself. Show the evidence for your claim that such events occurred and were witnessed.

 

[Cris]

live4him,

Oh yes and BTW, I'll add my greetings to that already noted, welcome to sciforums.

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.

Nope, that isn't what I am saying. Within each new pocket universe, i.e. a big bang, entropy begins at zero each time. Inflationary theory that is considered necessary to explain the very early states of big bang theory show that there is a potential for a limitless number of new pocket universes to be spawned. The theory is current state of the art science and is being formed specifically to extend known science, e.g. big bang theory has some issues which are resolved by Inflationary Theory.

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.

Why must there be an uncaused first cause, I didn't claim that? We do not know that the universe is not infinite and therefore would not need a first cause.

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 we do not know what caused the big bang or what came before it if anything. No current laws of which you speak address these issues so we are in new territory and your perspective cannot apply.

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.

So what you are saying is that the universe must be constrained by what we can observe but a god cannot be constrained because we can't observe it and are free to assign it any attributes we consider convenient.

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by Cris

Note the differences and especially the way that religious faith is distinct (see entry 2). Faith without proof is blind faith, a cornerstone of religion beliefs.

I agree that people CAN use it in the manner that you've chosen. Yet, you are attempting to define my usage of the term, as well as the Bible's usage of the concept.

In this, you have failed. BTW - You highlighted the following: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof". Exactly what proof do you have that the chair in which you are about to sit will support you? None.

There are no verifiable accounts of such claims.

So, you very casually disregard any and all witnesses to the miracles.

And using that logic, there is no verifiable claims for ANY historical event, including the collapse of the WTC.



I can write down a prediction and give the document to a trusted third party who can open and reveal the prediction after the predicted date.

And there would be no logical way to prove that this action actually occurred BEFORE the event rather than after the event. In fact, you've even tried that same tactic with the Ezekiel 37 prophecy when you attempted to claim that it was written after recent events.


These are only unsupported claims.

And George Washington is only a figment of one's imagination, right?

Come on now. You can do better than you're doing.


There is no evidence of eyewitness accounts recorded in the Gospels.

And, if they were, you would just as quickly group them in with the Gospels so that you can discount them as a whole.


There are no references to the Jesus story in Christian writings earlier than Mark which was written in the late 1st century (85-90CE).

John was written much earlier. In fact, many of the NT manuscripts were written prior to the fall of the temple (i.e. 70 AD).


There is no evidence of such witnessed accounts.

You're continuously repeating the same conclusion, but without any supporting evidence.


Describe any account of a miracle that was conducted under scientific conditions so that it can be verified as a true miracle rather than just a trick or illusion.

Describe the scientific conditions for the experiment for the collapse of the Twin Towers.

There is two types of knowledge, experimentation and historical. Historical events cannot be duplicated, and thus they rely upon written history. I would have thought that you would know the difference between the two.

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by Cris

Live4Him: 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.
Nope, that isn't what I am saying. Within each new pocket universe, i.e. a big bang, entropy begins at zero each time.

Excuse me, but unless these multiple universes have been observed and measured, they are hypothetical. And, they contradict all known science (science only deals with the observed). You either have a creation of matter/energy (i.e. violating 1st Law) or a constant motion machine (i.e. violating 2nd Law). So, I'll repeat myself again. It is pure fantasy and not science.


Why must there be an uncaused first cause, I didn't claim that? We do not know that the universe is not infinite and therefore would not need a first cause.

Let me repeat your statement.

We also know that something with the property of infinity must also exist otherwise nothing could ever have begun. 01-19-03 at 09:50 PM

All evidence that we have through science is that there are finite boundaries on everything in and of the universe. Thus, something must have existed before the universe to cause the universe.


Yet we do not know what caused the big bang

Then you're admitting that you are operating outside of the realm of science. You are advocating a religion. And that's your choice (i.e. to believe in the Big Bang).



So what you are saying is that the universe must be constrained by what we can observe but a god cannot be constrained because we can't observe it and are free to assign it any attributes we consider convenient.

What I'm saying is that the nature of the universe is that it is constrained by boundaries. Boundaries mean the universe is finite. Thus, something caused the universe. Therefore, as you yourself have stated, there must be something with a property of infinity that was the cause of this universe.

 

[heflores]

I hope you respect my request and hold no prejudice againest my choice.

Well, if you start the thread, I'll leave it alone. Yet, if I've started the thread and you push for a single creator, I will utilize the original languages to support plural/singular creators (i.e. trinity).

I'm not here to change a person. I'm here to present the facts, combined with the occasional opinion. The acceptance or rejection of those facts/opinions are solely in the hands of the reader (and God). [/B][/QUOTE]

I was more tring to say, I'll respect your view and not interfere, because what I have to say is very ugly and will hurt you quite a bit, but you insist on hurting yourself, since you acted so confidant, then why not. I'll show you that your notion is absolutely positevely wrong.

It is impossible that the creator of the universe enter in WHOLE one human body, because by doing that, the universe becomes inside the human body and thus the world outside the human body would collapse. Care to comment on that.....

 

[heflores]

Originally posted by Live4Him
you will find me a non participant in all discussions that will attribute a plurality to my single creator.

That's no problem. You were the one to initially start the discussion.


I hope you respect my request and hold no prejudice againest my choice.

Well, if you start the thread, I'll leave it alone. Yet, if I've started the thread and you push for a single creator, I will utilize the original languages to support plural/singular creators (i.e. trinity).

I'm not here to change a person. I'm here to present the facts, combined with the occasional opinion. The acceptance or rejection of those facts/opinions are solely in the hands of the reader (and God).

I'm repeating my question, because of weird formatting on my earlier post

Here's my question to you Live4him. In your argument with Cris, you stated that god is infinite. Please comment on the fact that in my view, it's impossible to contain infinity within a finite body of a created element. To me this is like trying to contain me inside one of my own tooth....

 

[Live4Him]

Originally posted by heflores

what I have to say is very ugly and will hurt you quite a bit

I doubt it. When I came to the forum, I came expecting attacks. If my beliefs are not valid, I want to know. However, I've defended them for a number of years now. And during these years, I've been forced to reconsider the beliefs that I've had, only to draw closer to a literal interpretation of scripture.


I'll show you that your notion is absolutely positevely wrong.

Go for it!


It is impossible that the creator of the universe enter in WHOLE one human body, because by doing that, the universe becomes inside the human body and thus the world outside the human body would collapse.

This logic is like saying that a person who built a city could not enter a house in the city because then the whole city would be inside the house. Thus, it is illogical.

God exists OUTSIDE of the universe. He has no boundaries. Thus, He could, if He so chose, enter into one human body, without bringing the universe with him.


That stated, let me give you my opinion on the issue. Imagine you have a glass of water. You dump a portion into an ice tray and freeze it. Now you have ice. Next, you dump some more out into a pan and heat it up. Now you have steam. So, you have water, ice and steam.

Are they different? Yes. (i.e. different states) Are they the same? Yes. (i.e. H2O)

In my opinion, this example best demonstrates the nature of God.

So, the "steam" came down to earth to inhabit the body of Jesus.

 

[heflores]

[/B]So, the "steam" came down to earth to inhabit the body of Jesus. [/B][/QUOTE]

You may use that when you do your missionaries and it's very effective, but I'm afraid, you stand on steam with that discussion, that will burn your little feet.

And what if I tell you, Jesus peace be upon him never stated a steam water ice scenario and you're just making this up in your head to justify the belief that the church has brainwahed you to believe in.

So since you're just making an anology and not stating facts, then what prevents god all mighty the creator of all from creating another medium of communication between him and his servants, without the need for him to sacrifice a piece of him and make himself incomplete....God spoke in the bible about arch angels communicating with humans, so god is capable of communicating with us without a son daugter, a piece dwelling in us scenario.

God forgive me for saying such blaphsemy...

 

[TruthSeeker]

Cris,

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

Invisible Flying Green Elephants Exist

Halleluya, Halleluya, Halleluya, Halleluya, Halleluya.

Not really... You didn't even discussed my post at all...:bugeye:
What? You can't argue against what I said...?