An Open Question

[lesliedellow]

"What makes you believe God exists?"

No one reason, but amongst the reasons:

1.) Evolution describes the way in which we came to be here, but it still seems hugely unlikely that an organism with 50 trillion cells, and fabulously complex DNA, should have evolved by accident. In fact it stretches my credulity to breaking point.

2.) The fine tuning of the fundamental constants. Compared with that, even number 1.) looks like something only moderately unlikely.

3.) I do not think that there is any credible explanation for the origin of Christianity than the Resurrection. The alternatives I hear from atheists sound forced, to put it at its politest.

 

[dysert]

The premise of immaterial is that something exists without matter. Energy = matter. Therefore they cannot transfer energy as they cannot posses it.

Oh, the e=mc^2 thing. Now it's more clear. So if I understand you, you're saying that since e=mc^2, and since with God there is no "m", then there is no "e" either. Right?

Nevertheless, my response hasn't really changed. The e=mc^2 equation is dealing with material things. It doesn't apply to immaterial things. God is immaterial, He has (or is?) energy, and in fact He's the one who established mass, light, and the speed of light in the first place. He is transcendent, so the laws He created, like e=mc^2, don't apply to Him.

You could try to appeal to Newton's second law of motion (F=ma) and conclude that God could have no force, since His "m" is 0, but again, these physical laws (by definition) relate only to the physical universe. They cannot relate to non-physical entities that are transcendent.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

"What makes you believe God exists?"

No one reason, but amongst the reasons:

1.) Evolution describes the way in which we came to be here, but it still seems hugely unlikely that an organism with 50 trillion cells, and fabulously complex DNA, should have evolved by accident. In fact it stretches my credulity to breaking point.

2.) The fine tuning of the fundamental constants. Compared with that, even number 1.) looks like something only moderately unlikely.

3.) I do not think that there is any credible explanation for the origin of Christianity than the Resurrection. The alternatives I hear from atheists sound forced, to put it at its politest.

1. Evolution would be hard to believe if it resulted in one single species, but it resulted in millions of differing species, with millions of different, but similar, combinations of dna.

2. I'm not sure what your saying here.

3. To be fair, while our responses such as "Story book" etc. aren't ideal, they are much less farfetched than someone being raised from the dead, are they not? If I went around saying that Frankenstein was a true story because someone mananged to bring a dead body back to life, people would think i was insane.

 

[dysert]

It isn't related to the father/jesus thing. Its just one of the more evident contradictions I have noticed. As soon as one changed from the final book of the old testament to the first of the new, God's "personality" changes to one almost perfectly mirrored.

Oh. Since you referenced #14 in response to my post about the Father/Jesus thing, I just assumed you were trying to relate #14 to the Father/Jesus thing. My bad for assuming this, but you do make it difficult to track things when you reference one post in response to another when in fact they have nothing to do with each other.

And I addressed your #14 post in #33. You didn't pose any contradictions in #14; I explained that in #33; and I don't believe you ever responded to #33. So I naturally assumed you accepted my explanation and were going to try coming up with a real contradiction. No problem if you can't, but if you can't, then honesty would require you to readjust your thinking to allow for the fact that there are no contradictions in the Bible. Don't worry. There's still the material/immaterial interaction you can cling to (unless you want to cede that point at well ;-).

 

[lesliedellow]

1. Evolution would be hard to believe if it resulted in one single species, but it resulted in millions of differing species, with millions of different, but similar, combinations of dna.

If somebody mentions the second law of thermodynamics atheists will say, "oh that just applies to closed systems". Well the fact is that, in spite of its fancy name, the second law is just fiormalised common sense, and the bit about closed systems is just there to make it mathematically watertight. It is just a matter of ordinary, everyday observation, that highly organised systems do not arise spontaneously - the exact reverse in fact. You have to do a lot more than pump energy into something to get a highly complex structure out.

2. I'm not sure what your saying here.

Well, I will give you an example. If gravity was one part in 10 to the 15 stronger, the universe would have collapsed back onto itself shortly after the big bang. On the other hand, if it was just one part in 10 to the 15 weaker, the stars would never have formed, and there would have been no elements apart from hydrogen and helium in the universe. There are any number of other "just so" coincidences when you look at the fundamental constants in nature.

3. To be fair, while our responses such as "Story book" etc. aren't ideal, they are much less farfetched than someone being raised from the dead, are they not? If I went around saying that Frankenstein was a true story because someone mananged to bring a dead body back to life, people would think i was insane.

Like I said, you don't make your alternatives sound even remotely plausible. They have the sound of people clutching at straws. As for the supposed Frankenstein analogy, you have it the wrong way round. It is the origin of Christianity which needs explaining - i.e. the events following the Ressurection, not the events preceding it. (I assume you don't think that everything happening after 33AD is a "fairy story")

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Oh, the e=mc^2 thing. Now it's more clear. So if I understand you, you're saying that since e=mc^2, and since with God there is no "m", then there is no "e" either. Right?

Nevertheless, my response hasn't really changed. The e=mc^2 equation is dealing with material things. It doesn't apply to immaterial things. God is immaterial, He has (or is?) energy, and in fact He's the one who established mass, light, and the speed of light in the first place. He is transcendent, so the laws He created, like e=mc^2, don't apply to Him.

You could try to appeal to Newton's second law of motion (F=ma) and conclude that God could have no force, since His "m" is 0, but again, these physical laws (by definition) relate only to the physical universe. They cannot relate to non-physical entities that are transcendent.

You have just supported my argument... The whole thing I'm saying is that immaterial things don't actually exist in the first place, and one cannot simply state that he is immune to laws of nature because he made them, for starters, if my theory is correct, he didn't make them, because immaterial things do not exist. You have to remember that I firmly support materialism, so the only way you can genuinely change this stance is to first prove that an immaterial thing exists, it is after that that you will need to give an example of immaterial things that can influence material things. As stated in the formulae YOU provided, things without matter cannot interact with anything, because without matter there is nothing to interact with. Your argument revolves solely on the fact that you believe in the one possibility that could flaw mine, whereas mine revolves on the fact that there is nothing in the universe (known universe) to suggest that immateriality is a possibility. Even quantum foam has mass, it's just so infinitesimally small we cannot measure it properly.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

No, a contradiction would be if the Bible were to say "A" in one place and "not A" in another place. There are no places where this occurs. To your examples, (1) I don't know of anywhere that "suggests that satan is the route of all evil". And even if it did, a *suggestion* would involve an inference on your part, so it wouldn't rise to the level of a contradiction. (2) God also presents grace and mercy in the OT as well as wrath in the NT. God has multiple facets. Nothing contradictory about that.

I would like a biblical example of where a similar event to God raining fire on non-believers happens in the new testament, some little punishment doesnt count. And an example of where God forgives horrible sins if the sinner turns to worship him from the old testament. Admittedly I have never gone to the trouble to read the entire bible but thats a fairly major one in my book.


Oh, and heres a list of some more.

1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6
2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48
3. God dwells in light
Tim 6:16
God dwells in darkness
1 Kings 8:12/ Ps 18:11/ Ps 97:2
4. God is seen and heard
Ex 33:23/ Ex 33:11/ Gen 3:9,10/ Gen 32:30/ Is 6:1/
Ex 24:9-11
God is invisible and cannot be heard
John 1:18/ John 5:37/ Ex 33:20/ 1 Tim 6:16
5. God is tired and rests
Ex 31:17
God is never tired and never rests
Is 40:28
6. God is everywhere present, sees and knows all things
Prov 15:3/ Ps 139:7-10/ Job 34:22,21
God is not everywhere present, neither sees nor knows all
things
Gen 11:5/ Gen 18:20,21/ Gen 3:8
7. God knows the hearts of men
Acts 1:24/ Ps 139:2,3
God tries men to find out what is in their heart
Deut 13:3/ Deut 8:2/ Gen 22:12

I've got more.

Well if we're the *only* species in the universe, that makes us pretty significant, don't you think? And no, we don't *need* to turn to the supernatural to explain what we don't know. I was just answering your question about why *I* believe in God.

We aren't the only species in the universe, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. For one there are many examples on our own planet of life forms not of our species, and we do not know if there are species further out in the universe that we do not know about.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

If somebody mentions the second law of thermodynamics atheists will say, "oh that just applies to closed systems". Well the fact is that, in spite of its fancy name, the second law is just fiormalised common sense, and the bit about closed systems is just there to make it mathematically watertight. It is just a matter of ordinary, everyday observation, that highly organised systems do not arise spontaneously - the exact reverse in fact. You have to do a lot more than pump energy into something to get a highly complex structure out.

As I have stated, science does not explain everything, in fact science explains very little of all there is to be known, just because we havn't discovered it yet doesn't mean we won't.

Well, I will give you an example. If gravity was one part in 10 to the 15 stronger, the universe would have collapsed back onto itself shortly after the big bang. On the other hand, if it was just one part in 10 to the 15 weaker, the stars would never have formed, and there would have been no elements apart from hydrogen and helium in the universe. There are any number of other "just so" coincidences when you look at the fundamental constants in nature.

Circle theory explains this. The universe has been going on infinitely since its unknown beginning. The universe is created (possibly big bang), expands, reaches limits of matter, contracts, compresses, repeat. It is entirely possible that this is the only example so far in this cycle where the matter has been balanced to create viable life.

Like I said, you don't make your alternatives sound even remotely plausible. They have the sound of people clutching at straws. As for the supposed Frankenstein analogy, you have it the wrong way round. It is the origin of Christianity which needs explaining - i.e. the events following the Ressurection, not the events preceding it. (I assume you don't think that everything happening after 33AD is a "fairy story")

I do not pretend to have a perfect explanation of the bible, but i think atheist ideas to its origin are far less ridiculous that the idea of someone coming back from the dead, don't you?


In that case, why are the holy texts of muslims, hindus, jews etc. incorrect?

 

[dysert]

so the only way you can genuinely change this stance is to first prove that an immaterial thing exists

Well, that's not going to happen.

I'm glad I was able to answer the question from your initial post. Good luck in your quest.

 

[Belk]

If somebody mentions the second law of thermodynamics atheists will say, "oh that just applies to closed systems". Well the fact is that, in spite of its fancy name, the second law is just fiormalised common sense, and the bit about closed systems is just there to make it mathematically watertight. It is just a matter of ordinary, everyday observation, that highly organised systems do not arise spontaneously - the exact reverse in fact. You have to do a lot more than pump energy into something to get a highly complex structure out.

The second law of thermodynamics is a mathematical equation that describes the tendency that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential equilibrate in an isolated physical system. It is a law that applies to very specific situations, not something that can be used to describe things on a large scale.

As to complex structures arising spontaneously I agree. But since I have yet to see anyone claiming that they do it seems a rather odd argument. complex structures arise out of natural processes and we see it happen all the time. From the interactions at the atomic level of chemical combinations through to crystalline structures forming.

Well, I will give you an example. If gravity was one part in 10 to the 15 stronger, the universe would have collapsed back onto itself shortly after the big bang. On the other hand, if it was just one part in 10 to the 15 weaker, the stars would never have formed, and there would have been no elements apart from hydrogen and helium in the universe. There are any number of other "just so" coincidences when you look at the fundamental constants in nature.

The problem with the strong anthropic principle is that the weak anthropic principle explains everything just as well.

Like I said, you don't make your alternatives sound even remotely plausible. They have the sound of people clutching at straws. As for the supposed Frankenstein analogy, you have it the wrong way round. It is the origin of Christianity which needs explaining - i.e. the events following the Ressurection, not the events preceding it. (I assume you don't think that everything happening after 33AD is a "fairy story")

How is the origin of Christianity any different from the origin of any other religion? I don't think I am understanding your claim here very well, would you be willing to rephrase it?

 

[SeraphimsCherub]

The true GOD gives:

G: Good
O: Ordely
D: Direction

The false god of this world gives:

g: global or government
o: organized
d: deception which leads to self-distruction,and desolation

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

The true GOD gives:

G: Good
O: Ordely
D: Direction

The false god of this world gives:

g: global or government
o: organized
d: deception which leads to self-distruction,and desolation

Britain has survived as one of the most dominant and influential powers in all the world as a democracy since 1215.

Jus' Saiyin'

 

[lesliedellow]

.Circle theory explains this. The universe has been going on infinitely since its unknown beginning. The universe is created (possibly big bang), expands, reaches limits of matter, contracts, compresses, repeat. It is entirely possible that this is the only example so far in this cycle where the matter has been balanced to create viable life.

That is one of the atheists' favourite get outs. Unfortunately the evidence goes against it. First of all, the expansion of the universe is accelerating, rather than slowing down. As you might expect if a big crunch was on the way. Secondly, even before that was realised to be the case, it was beginning to look as if there wouldn't be enough matter in the universe to bring about a big crunch.

 

[lesliedellow]

I do not pretend to have a perfect explanation of the bible, but i think atheist ideas to its origin are far less ridiculous that the idea of someone coming back from the dead, don't you?

I think the Resurrection is more likely than anything I have heard from atheists. In any case, it is not a knowledge of the Bible which is called for here; it is some historical imagination. Things like "it was all to control the masses" (frequently heard) just don't cut it.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

That is one of the atheists' favourite get outs. Unfortunately the evidence goes against it. First of all, the expansion of the universe is accelerating, rather than slowing down. As you might expect if a big crunch was on the way. Secondly, even before that was realised to be the case, it was beginning to look as if there wouldn't be enough matter in the universe to bring about a big crunch.

The finding led to the now widely accepted theory of dark energy, a mysterious force that repels gravity. Measurements show that dark energy accounts for about 74 percent of the substance of the universe.

1. The fact you have acknowledged the expansion of the universe is expanding almost directly leads to some kind of big bang theory, unless God is running like wildfire placing new matter into the universe at literally : Speed of light x pi x radius^2.

2. Just because the universe IS accelerating in expansion doesn't actually mean anything. It could begin to slow in billions of years, we don't know whether this is possible or not. To be perfectly honest the big bang theory is flawed in itself, circle theory is just a neater and more logical explanation. Then again, it could be that in this cycle of the universe things have happened to end the cycle, we can't know.
In my personal opinion, I do not profess to know the origin of the universe, I just highly doubt that there was any kind of "supernatural" cause for the universe. I do however believe that the universe has a beginning and therefore a cause. I do not believe that cause was God.

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

I think the Resurrection is more likely than anything I have heard from atheists. In any case, it is not a knowledge of the Bible which is called for here; it is some historical imagination. Things like "it was all to control the masses" (frequently heard) just don't cut it.

If you believe this, what grounds do you have to suggest all other holy texts in other religions are wrong?

 

[lesliedellow]

As to complex structures arising spontaneously I agree. But since I have yet to see anyone claiming that they do it seems a rather odd argument. complex structures arise out of natural processes and we see it happen all the time. From the interactions at the atomic level of chemical combinations through to crystalline structures forming.

Once upon a time there were not even single cell organism's to be found. Now there are human beings to be found.

The problem with the strong anthropic principle is that the weak anthropic principle explains everything just as well.

No it does not. The weak anthropic principle makes only the observation that the universe would have to be of a kind which allowed us to exist in order to observe it. It most definitely does not explain how things come to be fine tuned - not only for life, be it noted, but even for chemistry to be possible at all. Of the infinite number of universes which it is possible for theoretical physicists can design on the back of envelopes, the only ones which allow the formation of chemical elements heavier than helium, all of them have to be very very close to this one.

How is the origin of Christianity any different from the origin of any other religion? I don't think I am understanding your claim here very well, would you be willing to rephrase it?

We know of at least two other messianic movements in first century Palestine which the Romans put an end to by executing their leaders. Doubtless they thought they would have similar success with number three, but they didn't. Something happened to turn a group of eleven dispirited men into a movement which had spread throughout the Roman Empire within 100 years. What was it?

 

[SeraphimsCherub]

Britain has survived as one of the most dominant and influential powers in all the world as a democracy since 1215.

Jus' Saiyin'

Britain is run by socialist/communist tyrants who rule the world behind the scenes,and America also. Under a false democratic,and republican media front. Who are nothing but paid off puppet's of the NWO. Which "OWN" you backwards. But i don't expect someone who is 17 years of age to have any clue of what i'm talking. And that's probably for the best. Because when one,if he is so blessed by the grace of GOD to have his eye's opened to the "REAL TRUTH". It can be as scary as hell! Unstable mind's,must remain dumbed down by "The prince of the power of the air"{the satanic Media}. So that they may remain content in the bliss of ignorance. Believing in the delusion of propaganda,and false historical coverup's received without question as truth,and the "TRUTH" looked upon as a "Conspiracy". Nevertheless...


Just saying...


Blessings...
SC

 

[Quantum Obscurity]

Something happened to turn a group of eleven dispirited men into a movement which had spread throughout the Roman Empire within 100 years. What was it?

Uneducated people easily lead, and the war machine that was the roman empire pushing it along.

 

[lesliedellow]

The finding led to the now widely accepted theory of dark energy, a mysterious force that repels gravity. Measurements show that dark energy accounts for about 74 percent of the substance of the universe.

Dark energy is just a way of putting a name to something which is not all understood. Much the same as dark matter.

1. The fact you have acknowledged the expansion of the universe is expanding almost directly leads to some kind of big bang theory, unless God is running like wildfire placing new matter into the universe at literally : Speed of light x pi x radius^2.

What gives you the idea that I have any problems with the big bang?

2. Just because the universe IS accelerating in expansion doesn't actually mean anything. It could begin to slow in billions of years, we don't know whether this is possible or not.

As I have already said, there is nothing to suggest that it will contract, but there is evidence that it won't. Or doesn't evidence count when it goes against what atheists want to believe?

I do however believe that the universe has a beginning and therefore a cause. I do not believe that cause was God.

Find me a cosmologist who still signs up to the steady state theory.