The universe is not everything that ever was or ever will be in the case of a multiverse, and I know the Boltzmann brain thing, I'll get to that. The universe is just all the stuff and energy we see, the time that has elapsed, and the space it sits in. Now you can contend that there aren't more of these, but we can agree that our universe consists of these things. If there were a multiverse, then there would be other stuff, and energy, and time, and space, etc. So in the case of the multiverse, there is more to the universe that you described.
You realize, I hope, that you are talking sheer speculation here. None of what you say in the above paragraph has an iota of concrete evidence in support of it (except that our universe consists of matter, space and energy). So, why are you bringing the multiverse into a discussion of the nature of the universe and its beginning as though it does? You seem to be extrapolating from a hypothetical to the actual, which is rather the opposite of how reasonable thought proceeds.
Firstly, he bases his theory on the anthropoid-whatever principle...
It's called the
Anthropic Principle (which I have the feeling you actually know but chose purposely to misname here). In any case, the idea of Boltzmann Brains defeats the Anthropic Principle, which atheists like to use as grounds for why we see the universe around us that we do and from which they then try to argue for a multiverse. The AP is not the
basis for Boltzmann's theory.
Here's the main point of contention. His theory is still based on probabilities, which the multiverse answers.
I don't think you yet understand why the BB theory defeats the multiverse theory. If the multiverse were true, we would see - and even likely be - Boltzmann Brains. Such a situation would be
vastly more probable than a finely-tuned universe like ours ever randomly coming into existence. Instead, we see only our universe.
And if for some reason these Boltzmann brains are supposed to exist in our universe right in front of us, then maybe that's what dark matter is. We can't see it or touch it, but it exists somehow and we can detect it. How is my theory unprovable? Same goes for God. The difference is that I am attempting to use Ockham's razor and only attributing the qualities I really need to explain something, whereas defining God the way that people do, makes sure that they cover all their bases at once.
A Boltzmann Brain is not dark matter. It is a way of talking about probabilities. If they did actually exist, they would be as material as you or I. You would realize, if you understood the idea of a Boltzmann Brain better, that the theory you just put forward about them doesn't need to be disproved because it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of what a Boltzmann Brain is.
Christians do not argue for God the way you have here. Among thoughtful and philosophically/theologically-careful Christians there is no fundamental confusion about the nature of what they believe and argue for as theists.
To be clear, I don't believe in the multiverse as much as I do in gravity or modern medicine. I think it would be awesome if it was true, so I hope someone is looking into proving it, but I use it as an example to show that theories invented by humans can always reach a point of "you can't prove it's not true" and even to a point that you can't calculate the probability of it, just like God.
The theory of the multiverse didn't reach a point of "you can't prove it's not true," it
began at that point!
The situation concerning belief in God is not as simple as Christians asserting an unfalsifiable theory of the supernatural and divine. Much of what prompts Christian belief is deductive, arising from evidence, not simply asserted in a total vacuum of evidence as the multiverse theory is. This is what the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Moral Argument (and a host of other such arguments) demonstrate.
The whole point of this thread was, "Why no proof?". Now I'm arguing theories that are all impossible to prove or disprove.
No, you are seeing that the perspective you've had on the discussion between theists and atheists is too simple and uninformed. You have been trying to assert that Christians are arguing without a shred of evidence for their theistic position and I have shown you that you are mistaken. Unfortunately, you don't seem able to take this in. You are just going 'round and 'round repeating the same charge in different ways even though it's been shown that you are mistaken.
So if it helps gets things back on track, people tell me God shouldn't have to embarrass himself by being on Earth, so what about angels? One guy wrestled with one in the Bible, why not let them fly around proving the supernatural as they defy the laws of physics?
God has, on occasion, sent His angels to Earth. But why should He do as you describe here? Apart from satisfying your own personal need for a particular kind of proof, why should God send His angels to "defy the law of physics"? God has done physics-defying things many times in the past, but most people still refuse to accept He exists. I don't see that God is in any way obliged to do more.
You say that I give too much credit to science. And that science has a terrible history of being incorrect, but that is only because it tries. Leaving the explaining of things to religion, we wouldn't have travelled to the Americas. We would think that rainbows are all signs from God, we would think that the sky is solid and holds back waters, etc... Following religion does not lead to a better understanding of the world around you. You may find it more valuable to better understand the other world and how to get there, but that's only if it exists.
I'm afraid what you've shown here is both profound ignorance and bias, not reason. Some of the greatest scientists of human history were believers in God: Johannes Keppler, Gregor Mendel, Blaise Pascal, Michael Faraday, and so on. They believed that the God who gave us reason and the capacity to investigate our environment created a universe that could be researched and understood. They believed coming to understand the universe better was a means of increasing our understanding of God Himself. Out of this belief science was born. So the exact opposite of what you say religion would produce has occurred. Now, some religions I think do have a stultifying effect on the study of God's Creation, but Christianity is certainly not one of them.
A few hundred years from now and maybe your ideas will look like nonsense, or Jesus will come back and mine will, who knows? Point is, I give so much credit to science, because things usually end up getting explained. Conversations about God always end in, "he works in mysterious ways" or "he's beyond the rules we use to govern everything else and we just can't understand that".
Science doesn't do anything;
scientists do. And some of the greatest of them have been theists whose belief in God was the very reason they worked to "explain things." So, no, conversations about God do not always end in the way you describe here. That is the way atheists like to say things go, but that is so they can paint Christians as idiots and justify to themselves their antagonism toward theism.
You mentioned things that can't be measured, like emotions, but they can. Do they have mass? No. But they have electrical signals and chemicals that can be measured. We can't measure the heat from the Sun with a scale either, we have to use different tools to measure different things. You listed "integrity" with your list of emotions, which I thought was strange, because of course you can measure lies witnessed to truths witnessed.
No, love is not an electrical signal or a chemical. That is the functioning of the brain you're describing, not the essential nature of thing we call love. Love is immaterial, so are numbers, and bravery, and perseverance and many other such things. You seem to think the brain and the mind are one and the same thing, but that is akin to confusing an engine with the energy it produces. Certainly, there is a strong interrelationship between the brain and the mind, but it seems very clear to me that they are not
identical. And it is in the immaterial mind that things like love, and integrity, and joy are encountered.
Integrity is not an emotion. It is a commitment to honest, sincere, conduct. Integrity does not exist in any physical locale. Integrity has no weight, or smell, or sound. You can't nibble on a bit of integrity or cook it in the oven. The idea of measuring integrity by measuring lies mistakes fundamentally what integrity is.
Did you really use the lack of transitional fossils as evidence that evolution isn't real? Do you see the irony of that argument? Absence of proof does not prove absence. And we aren't even talking about real absence. We're talking about a few gaps, not like there's no such thing as fossils.
Do you not understand that if evolution is true there ought to be millions upon millions of
transitional fossils in the geologic column? Instead, we have a only a handful of such fossils, all of which are far from being clearly transitional. It is I, then, who find your objection to this fact surprising. And I notice you did not give any comment to the other issues I noted.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" does not always apply in every case. If you tell me the milk is in the fridge, and I look in the fridge and see it is not there, telling me that the absence of the milk from the fridge is not evidence that it is not in the fridge would be silly. But that is what you're trying to do with the matter of the missing transitional fossils in the geologic column! What's more, there aren't merely "a few gaps" in the fossil record but such an enormous absence of transitional fossils that on this basis alone the ToE looks patently false (punctuated equilibrium notwithstanding). This isn't the only serious flaw with which the ToE has to contend. As I pointed out, there are other very major problems with the theory that have not been overcome.
But if we're talking about lack of evidence, I can't find any information about archaeology finding evidence that the Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt, or that they travelled through the desert. In fact, the archaeology I was able to find shows them for the first time coming out of Canaanite lands. I actually find it kind of strange that there isn't a good amount of evidence of them being in Egypt considering how much of Egypt we have dug up.
What was that you were saying about absence of evidence? Anyway, you might want to look up the number of times the Bible has seemed to be in error in its historical facts only to be vindicated eventually by archaeology. The Hittites are an excellent example. And there are dozens of other such instances you could consider as well. In light of this, I don't feel much concern over there not being more archaeological evidence for the Hebrew captivity in Egypt. Certainly, the "lack of evidence" issue is not a particularly compelling one in regards to the historical veracity of the Bible.
Let's move on to morals. You asked how I get to define morals the way I do, I ask how you define morals. Actually, it doesn't really matter what your definition is.
I think you'd have a very different perspective if you were, say, boiling away in a cannibal's stewpot! The cannibal's definition of morality - especially regarding eating people - would matter a great deal to you!
The point is that you have to define the qualifications to determine whether it is objective in the first place. If you don't define how to determine morals, you can't define if something is moral.
This is silly. One of the central points of the Moral Argument - to which you freely agreed in your last post to me - is that we all share an objective morality that doesn't require determining "how to determine morals." We seem to possess this sense of right and wrong innately, quite apart from moral philosophizing.
I define it my way, and you define it your way, and maybe that makes it subjective. Maybe if being good in general is the concern of anyone philosophizing then everyone comes to the same conclusion. Thing is, I can come up with what is moral all on my own without any help from God.
There is no "maybe" about it; every one doing what is right in his own eyes
is a subjective ground for morality.
What does "being good" mean? Who gets to decide what "good" is? A Muslim man thinks honor killing is good. I don't. Who is right? How do we decide? Without an objective, authoritative source for our morality, human morality amounts to one human telling another what to do, which inevitably degenerates into "might makes right."
And the proof of that is that I can decide what is moral and immoral even when it contradicts the Bible, and you do it too. If objective morality really came from God, he would have put it in the Bible. The Jews could have been the first nation on Earth to outlaw slavery and they would be famous for it. Same goes for women's rights, since the Bible doesn't have a very positive stance on that either.
"I do it too"? How so?
God did put His moral law in His Word, the Bible. Surely you've heard of the Ten Commandments, and/or the Sermon on the Mount, and/or the Golden Rule?
The Israelites in the OT were remarkable and unique in their attitude toward slavery. They may not have abolished slavery outright for enemies taken captive, but among their own the Israelites had a system of indentured servitude (NOT slavery) that was unparalleled in the other nations of the time.
As for women's rights, I should like you to show how the Bible takes a non-positive stance toward them. Please be careful not to confuse description with prescription.
You talked about the Old Testament wrath and how I'm probably misunderstanding it, but I assure you I am not. When I say God commanded genocide, I mean that he specifically stated to kill children and infants. When you talk about them claiming to "annihilate" and whatnot, you're forgetting about how David specifically killed everyone in an entire city so that they couldn't warn neighboring towns. That isn't just hyperbole, that is action with intent and purpose.
Context? Under what circumstances were these commands issued? Were they just arbitrary? I don't think so.
Let's talk about slavery. For about 1800 odd years after Jesus, people were totally justified in their religion to own another human being here in the United States.
The United States has not existed for 1800 years. And under what conditions did people during these 1800 years feel slavery was "totally justified"?
Jesus said that Christians can own slaves, so what makes it immoral now?
Oh? Quotation, please. I've been reading the Bible for forty years or so now and I've never come across Jesus saying, "Christians can own slaves."
And please don't play the indentured servant card because that isn't how Mosaic law describes it.
Among the Israelites themselves that is exactly how it is described.
People like to say that God works within that culture's history, but if we're weighing probabilities, wouldn't it be more probable that people describe their God believing the same things they do?
No. The God of the Israelites was utterly unlike any god worshiped anywhere. What is far more likely is that, if He was simply the product of human imagination, that He would be of a kind with the other gods of the time and cater to the desires and philosophies of the humans who created Him. Quite the opposite, however, is true.
You also talked about the benefits of slavery to the slave owners while ignoring the unknown benefits of freedom. People discovering things by being free. What if Einstein was a slave, or Alexander Fleming, etc... How long till someone else came along with the right kind of brain or the right accident to discover the things that they did?
You have completely misunderstood the point of my comments. I was speaking solely to the matter of efficiency and speed. Please re-read my comments.
Selah.
