Evidence of God vs Evidence for no god

[BOWHUNTER]

The way everything in nature fits together so pefectly. I have a hard time believing God is not involved.

 

[shockaholic12]

I


This isn't so much intelligent design as much as the mathematical improbability of pure naturism. Interesting that so many that talk about "blind faith" are so willing to entertain theories such as multiverses and string theory that are desperate measures to explane things that pure naturalism is utterly incapable of even touching . I love reading such theories but it's born of desperation. The ultimate irony really . You gotta love it.

Forget the multiverse and string cuz even with one universe and no string theory the anthropic principle applies. I believe it's been around longer then either theory. It states we will only find ourselves in a universe that's capable of giving rise to us.

Back to cards, if the Big Bang was akin to a hand of cards being dealt and something very specific like a royal flush was needed for the conditions for intelligent life AS WE KNOW IT to develop, the fact it does get dealt may seem like a designed magic trick by some dealer to the life present when in reality the likelihood those five cards came out randomly was the same probability as any other 5 cards in the deck.

If random non-God influenced events during the Big Bang made one non-suited card come out in the hand and the conditions and cosmological constant were different the laws of physics could be different and life would look nothing like we do, yet whatever intelligent life did arise, even if it was just blobs of goo that communicated by squirting chemicals, those blobs could also think the universe must have been finely tuned just for them.

So at some point you have to set a standard for just what settings constitute a universe "finely tuned for us". 99.9999999999999% of the universe will kill us instantly and we as a species capable of comprehending a god have only had the conditions present to exist for an insanely small fraction of time here. We also can only survive on one insanely small part of the universe and as far as the universe is concerned our time here looks very, very short. This isn't convincing for the universe being finely tuned for US.

 

[unimackpass]

That's 10^37.

Someone is paying attention.

 

[AnGrYcRoW]

The way everything in nature fits together so pefectly. I have a hard time believing God is not involved.

If you believe in evolution as i do then there is no other result but for everything to fit perfectly in nature because it adapted to do so .

 

[Higus]

If you believe in evolution as i do then there is no other result but for everything to fit perfectly in nature because it adapted to do so .

EXACTLY! Likewise, if some creature didn't "fit" into it's environment, but was still somehow able to survive and thrive, like a desert fish or an water-breathing bird, that would actually be pretty good evidence to prove the existence of God and disprove natural selection.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Yeah. The punishment is logically consistent, though, were Jesus someone other than who He claimed to be. It's sort of hard to imagine a worse blasphemy than falsely claiming to be God.

Also this specific parable is the individual opinion of a specific Rabbi, who lived in a very different time. It is not what most Jews today would be familiar with, let alone agree with, let alone take literally. Unfortunately they have been used over and over again by groups like Spanish Inquisitors, the Russian Okhrana, the Nazis and by petty anti-Semites for centuries.

Yes, I was wrong here. Embarrassing, considering my background as a scholar of the Classics. It appears the Greeks personified pretty much every concept.

It assisted with indoctrinating the masses. Selling the concept of the Christ was easy in the Hellenized world since many similar Heros/Gods came before him. Jesus was Hermes, Perseus, Alexander, Sol Invictus and many others to the gentiles of the time.

Using familiar ways to express truths which the human mind has trouble comprehending, I'd rather say. But yes, you can say plagiarism too, if you want to.

Plagiarism or "influence" is inevitible when cultures meet, when Babylonian and Sumerian creation myths permeated throughout the near east, it was almost inevitable that any civilization that came after would adopt some of the motifs found within them.

When Cyrus the Great smashed the Babylonians and Persia became the dominant power they brought with them their language, culture and religion. Aramaic became the lingua franca and Zoroastrianism the dominant religion of the empire. It is fact that the Jews adopted Aramaic and obvious that their belief system was also "influenced" by Zoroastrian dualism.
Later on when Alexander conquered the known world it was Hellenism that would shape and mold the lives and beliefs of the civilizations it met.

He puts the belief to practical examples in his Space trilogy and Narnia stories. It's essentially that the other myths have been inspired by truth, even if they account events that haven't happened, while that of Christianity is historically documented and real in the sense that it happened.

Lost me when you said "inspired by the truth"... what truth?

There are no two characters, just as there are no two Gods in the Testaments. It's a matter of difference in perspective. The world is Satan's to rule as he sees fit, as it was given to him by Man. He got the dominion not by breaking the rules but taking advantage of them. He gets a longer time to repent than us mortals do, but both the Old and New Testaments confirm his eventual comeuppance.

I don't recall if we looked at the encounter in book of Job in our earlier exchanges but from my reading:
He is one of the sons of God or at very least a being that accompanies them.
He seems to serves as an inquisitor or policy enforcer and accuses Job (Man) and not God.
He does not act independently.
He does not cause any of the calamity on Job, God does.
He cannot confidently be identified with Satan in the New Testament.

I subscribe to the Nicene Creed:

So all those other religions that follow(ed) a man named Jesus from Nazareth but don't subscribe to those tenants are what exactly?

That Jesus was merely a man.

Doesn't Christianity say that Jesus was a man as well as being God? A lot of these scholars are merely tackling the "man" aspect of Jesus

I don't know enough about Christology to give an informed answer.

Christology starts with the presupposition that the gospels are true and Jesus is God. They have decided beforehand what their research will reveal.

I fail to see the relevance of that to anything.


You asked why I think that sort of dogmatic hairsplitting isn't relevant to being a Christian, and I answered it.

I don't think it's a fair characterization to claim Hellenism had a profound influence on Christianity simply because they came up with some technical terms that were found useful when trying to express theology in consistent and concise form. That's like saying Greek had a profound impact of Christianity simply because it was the language most of theological texts were written back then. While it's not completely and absolutely false in every sense of the term, the claim is misleading to the extreme.

Greek culture provided so much more than technical terms that people found useful. Koine Greek was the language of the new testament and Hellenism provided the philosophical foundation on which Christianity was built.

Certain aspects of Stoicism, Platonism and Aristotelian philosophy influenced central concepts of Christian ethics and theology. And as discussed earlier Greek Mythos with its anthropomorphic gods/hero's was the template for Jesus Christ the Redeemer.

It has always been my thesis that Christianity was a syncretic religion based on Mesopotamian myths, Judaism, Zoroastrian dualism and Hellenism.

 

[squeezewax]

Over the last 6000 yrs there has not been ONE piece of evidence of this god who is desperate for us to worship him. It would be so easy for him to do something that would convince the whole world he is alive. I wonder why he doesn't?

Even if he were real i wouldn't worship the bastard! His behaviour doesn't warrant that at all.

 

[Burning Hammer]

If you believe in evolution as i do then there is no other result but for everything to fit perfectly in nature because it adapted to do so .

Except evolution is random. So you can't actually predict the result.

 

[Burning Hammer]

Over the last 6000 yrs there has not been ONE piece of evidence of this god who is desperate for us to worship him. It would be so easy for him to do something that would convince the whole world he is alive. I wonder why he doesn't?

Even if he were real i wouldn't worship the bastard! His behaviour doesn't warrant that at all.

God is apparently desperate? You're not capable of having an adult argument if you're trying to think on behalf of a being with infinitely more experience and wisdom than you.

Also, that Jesus Christ fellow was a pretty good candidate.

 

[Burning Hammer]

Christology starts with the presupposition that the gospels are true and Jesus is God. They have decided beforehand what their research will reveal.

Sure, except they still try to define who Jesus is based upon said evidence. If you're trying to figure out how the universe works you're starting with the presupposition that previous work is true. You have decided beforehand what your research will reveal. Even if you lack experience in the work laid before you.

 

[Thurisaz]

It is not what most Jews today would be familiar with, let alone agree with, let alone take literally.

Most Jews today are atheists, so yeah, you got that right. I'm guessing Judaic Jews are an entirely different thing - do you have something other than a hunch to back that claim of yours up? Like I said, I'd be surprised, for according to their religion and belief that Christ was an impostor the pictured punishment would be in line with other acts of similar heinousness.

It assisted with indoctrinating the masses. Selling the concept of the Christ was easy in the Hellenized world since many similar Heros/Gods came before him. Jesus was Hermes, Perseus, Alexander, Sol Invictus and many others to the gentiles of the time.

And yet the first Christians were Jews, to whom the idea of a personalized God was anathema.

When Cyrus the Great smashed the Babylonians and Persia became the dominant power they brought with them their language, culture and religion. Aramaic became the lingua franca and Zoroastrianism the dominant religion of the empire. It is fact that the Jews adopted Aramaic and obvious that their belief system was also "influenced" by Zoroastrian dualism.

If so, the influence is - surprisingly, almost completely - absent from the Testaments. When the most powerful argument for plagiarism is the lingual parallelism in Genesis 1, that's pretty thin influence for a culture that was dominant in the region.

Later on when Alexander conquered the known world it was Hellenism that would shape and mold the lives and beliefs of the civilizations it met.

And yet Judaism was and still is pretty darn clean of those influences. The amount of influence it has had on Christianity is pretty much limited to philosophical terminology.

Lost me when you said "inspired by the truth"... what truth?

The. There is but one. I don't discount the possibility of other cultures having had their prophets of sorts, who might have had some kind of contact to the powers that influence the world.

I don't recall if we looked at the encounter in book of Job in our earlier exchanges but from my reading:
He is one of the sons of God or at very least a being that accompanies them.

I think you're reading a bit much on an account that is not historical in nature and more like a morality play. When describing what one has no words for, one must use words one has to come close enough for the gist of the story to be understood.

He seems to serves as an inquisitor or policy enforcer and accuses Job (Man) and not God.

Does Satan ever, anywhere, directly confront or threaten anyone in the Bible? No. That is not his way. He uses lies and guile.

He does not act independently.

In a way, true. Even his resentment and bitterness flow directly from the existence of goodness and love.

He does not cause any of the calamity on Job, God does.

That claim is bovine excrement, no matter how one wishes to twist the perspective.

He cannot confidently be identified with Satan in the New Testament.

Yes, he can. The book of Job serves well to expose Satan's character.

So all those other religions that follow(ed) a man named Jesus from Nazareth but don't subscribe to those tenants are what exactly?

Heresies.

Doesn't Christianity say that Jesus was a man as well as being God?

Yes.

A lot of these scholars are merely tackling the "man" aspect of Jesus

No, they're trying to justify the fiction that Jesus was merely a man.

Christology starts with the presupposition that the gospels are true and Jesus is God. They have decided beforehand what their research will reveal.

If that's a fair description of it, there's little reason to research that at all.

Greek culture provided so much more than technical terms that people found useful. Koine Greek was the language of the new testament and Hellenism provided the philosophical foundation on which Christianity was built.

I'm not concerned about that.

Certain aspects of Stoicism, Platonism and Aristotelian philosophy influenced central concepts of Christian ethics and theology.

In case of theology it's easily understandable, seeing as it uses terminology they invented. As for the morality and ethics... I'm having a hard time seeing any obvious connections.

And as discussed earlier Greek Mythos with its anthropomorphic gods/hero's was the template for Jesus Christ the Redeemer.

I do not believe that. God is an entirely different beast than gods of the Greek pantheon.

It has always been my thesis that Christianity was a syncretic religion based on Mesopotamian myths, Judaism, Zoroastrian dualism and Hellenism.

Your thesis is odd. Even the Genesis account rejects the Mesopotamian one. Christianity is not dualist. It is a direct descendant, or as I tend to say, the religion Judaism should have been. It has no discernible features of Hellenic culture or religion.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Forget the multiverse and string cuz even with one universe and no string theory the anthropic principle applies. I believe it's been around longer then either theory. It states we will only find ourselves in a universe that's capable of giving rise to us.

Back to cards, if the Big Bang was akin to a hand of cards being dealt and something very specific like a royal flush was needed for the conditions for intelligent life AS WE KNOW IT to develop, the fact it does get dealt may seem like a designed magic trick by some dealer to the life present when in reality the likelihood those five cards came out randomly was the same probability as any other 5 cards in the deck.

Right but only one combination of cards would allow intelligent life to arise while an innumerable amount of other combinations will not. So the liklihood that we would receive the one, exact combination of cards that would lead to life is not the same probability of receiving one of the million other combinations that would not lead to life. Chances are much greater that you would end up with a pair, a full house, straight flush, or something else that didn't lead to life rather than a royal flush.

But as we all know the universe is much bigger and more complicated than a deck of cards. Instead of having 52 cards in a deck imagine having 52 quadrillion, million, zillion cards in a deck with still only one right combination for life. The probability that you receive the single one right combination is pretty much zilch. But the chances that you receive one of the 52 quadrillion, million, zillion wrong combinations is all but guaranteed.

It really comes back to the old 747/junkyard analogy. We would never expect order to randomly, and without intelligent direction, arise from chaos anywhere within the universe. So why would we expect the universe itself to randomly arise from chaos without intelligent direction?

 

[Thurisaz]

It really comes back to the old 747/junkyard analogy. We would never expect order to randomly, and without intelligent direction, arise from chaos anywhere within the universe. So why would we expect the universe itself to randomly arise from chaos without intelligent direction?

Hey, if you throw rocks at each other enough times, life is, like, bound to happen.

 

[m52nickerson]

It really comes back to the old 747/junkyard analogy. We would never expect order to randomly, and without intelligent direction, arise from chaos anywhere within the universe. So why would we expect the universe itself to randomly arise from chaos without intelligent direction?

You seem to think that the natural order in the universe is chaos, it's not. The laws of physics are pretty orderly.

 

[m52nickerson]

The way everything in nature fits together so pefectly. I have a hard time believing God is not involved.

I find nature far from perfect, not something a perfect God would create.

 

[TheComebackKid]

You seem to think that the natural order in the universe is chaos, it's not. The laws of physics are pretty orderly.

Lol. Right Nickerson. But the question is how did the order those laws represent get there. We wouldn't expect it to happen randomly or "naturally" without intelligent direction.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Hey, if you throw rocks at each other enough times, life is, like, bound to happen.

Lol. Yes, that is only the natural progression of things.

 

[m52nickerson]

Lol. Right Nickerson. But the question is how did the order those laws represent get there. We wouldn't expect it to happen randomly or "naturally" without intelligent direction.

It is simply the nature of matter. Why does matter behave as such, why does matter even exist? We don't know. Thing is the nature of matter does not point to a intelligence or anything else. Not knowing does not prove God.

You are simply arguing the God-of-the-gaps fallacy.

 

[klnOmega]

impossible to prove a negative

P -> Q
~Q

Therefore ~P

Modus Tollens. Literally one of the most basic staples of formal logic.

 

[TheComebackKid]

It is simply the nature of matter.

So are we just pulling things out of our rears now?

Why does matter behave as such, why does matter even exist? We don't know. Thing is the nature of matter does not point to a intelligence or anything else. Not knowing does not prove God.

No one is suggesting that. What we are suggesting is that based on what we know...that order only arises due to intelligence and direction...the universe would have have been intelligently directed by something or someone.

You are simply arguing the God-of-the-gaps fallacy.

As opposed to the matter-of-the-gaps fallacy...or the evolution-of-the-gaps fallacy?