Is there a god?

[LeedsRhinos]

Is there a god? I mean look at all the different relgions around the world who all believe that THEY are right & the others are wrong. They can't all be right can they. Which is why in my opion it all rubbish.

[Merlin]

Clanad: Big bang & goal posts (1).Are you a physicist as well as a document historian? Pretty impressive and some of it went over my head. Anyway, roll up the blouse sleeves and kick of the heels: A fair bit of your missive seems to be in support of the big bang theory and that�s great except for one subjective interpretation about the expansion being at a �finely-tuned� rate. That pre-supposes a purposeful action by an intelligence. (Noise for wrong answer on Family Fortunes � Uh-Uuuh!!) I haven�t checked back on my postings, but I suspect that I mentioned the �squeezebox� universe as a theory I would wheel out, for example, but I�m fairly sure that more recently I have said that we just don�t know and have to hone postulations and theories until we get something more detailed or plausible than the previous theory. And whatever happed to the principle of �conservation of energy� that we all did in high school. Has that been disproved, or I have I recalled it wrongly? �The Bible was written at different times by different people with different motives and the books could have been written after the events predicted� is not a false statement. Even if all the books were written before the events they predicted, my statement is not false � note the use of the words �could have� and the context of my ignorance.

[Merlin]

Big bang & goal posts (2).Now let�s take evolution as an example of something that satisfies me. The generally accepted theory of evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest, whatever you want to call it (and I know that some of those are awful misnomers) is, for me, a complete picture. I would call that �answers provided by science�. If that in itself provides all the answers for that realm of study, why should I then consider that �God� did it? I cannot state what definition of �God� will suffice because I�m not aware that a �sufficient� definition can be concocted. And, far from moving the goalposts, that has always been the cornerstone of my atheism. You tell me that God it, I ask what is God? and you cannot answer in such a way that makes �God� a valid answer to anything. My goalposts have been firm in concrete from the start. I ask for a description of God that has integrity (OED: The condition of having no part or element taken away or wanting; undivided or unbroken state; material wholeness, completeness, entirety.) � The description, that is, not the God, necessarily. I don�t have to prove that God does not exist. It is not a matter of faith and it does not have to be supported by any documentation. Just in the same way that I don�t have to prove or have faith in the non-existence of the (whatever it was) purple people-eater. I am quite happy chugging along knowing what I think I know and then you say �Hey � didya know? � God did that!�. I say �Get outa town � it�s natural�. You say �Straight up dude, God did it!�, Being as generous and open-minded as I am, I say, �OK, what�s God?�. Then you drop your jaw and catch flies for a while saying �Eeerrrrrr�. Then we finish with the deduction that �God did it� means the same as �I don�t know what did it�.

[Merlin]

Big bang & goal posts (3).Is God elusive? You betcha darn tootin� he is!! He is �elusive� because he doesn�t exist. He is also elusive in the sense that you cannot describe him. Which sort of supports the first statement. God has not �clearly made his presence known� � I clearly made the case against that already. His presence is not known by everybody therefore he has not made his presence known. Anyone who claims that they do know of his presence only �know� it by faith or by claiming that there is evidence for an a priori conclusion. Unforunately I can�t comment usefully on your data re the prophecies in the OT because I�m not familiar with them. My knee-jerk reaction would be to ask 4 questions: 1. How many different prophecies are there (i.e. exclude repeated and paraphrased ones)? 2. Are there any conflicting prophecies? (Not necessarily directly opposing, but mutually exclusive ones)? 3. How many prophets were there wandering around the area in the hundred or so years before and after JC�s ministry who would have been aware of the prophecies? 4. How many prophecies were deliberately �fulfilled� e.g. the founding of Israel post WW2. I certainly do wonder what�s going on here!

[Merlin]

Big bang & goal posts (4).And your last para is just totally out of nowhere! I don�t particularly want or need to define God at all. I want you to define what you understand God to be. I don�t believe that God should do as I believe he should do � I would like to at least understand how God can be how you understand him to be � however that is. Bring on evolution � entirely natural, I say. No intelligent cause � no need for one! You could start a new question on this, but I suspect that we will end up at the same point as we are at with this one. You will say �God did it�, I will say �What�s God?� Same goalposts, same place����..

[Merlin]

Yea and take heed that in the year at hand, the very week at hand, the bird that preys shall be cast out of its fruitful service as it seeks to expand its knowledge of Elohim in the presence of its masters.

[Merlin]

What I was pondering before I stumbled over this forum was a question concerning the eternal nature and omniscience of God coupled with the free-will thing. The question thrown open to the floor is this (and it must be answered within the parameters; don�t say �Ah but you can�t make that premise because God does not exist� � you must accept the premise for argument�s sake): If God�s eternal nature can be likened to a parenthesis of eternity in that he can simultaneously see all the past and future, is it still possible (logically, philosophically, metaphysically, whatever) that he can see the consequences of a decision not yet made or of an action not yet taken? Just to help me with the concept and to illustrate it I consider this: Last week I made decisions and took actions that had consequences yesterday. Now God will know about those actions. The same God that sees my actions of yesterday is simultaneously watching Moses lead his people across the desert. Now that�s OK, within the argument, because I have made those decisions and taken those actions, so God can know about them. But can that same God know the consequences of decisions that I have not yet taken. Perhaps he can only know all the possible outcomes of all the possible decisions that I could make. And that everyone in the world could make. How many possible futures does that make for the next minute, hour or year? This one helps me get to sleep at night.

[I.R.]

Like I said before, I don't believe in destiny. I believe we all have free will ("Where the spirit of Jehovah is, there is freedom." -2 Corinthians 3:17). Omniscience means God is all knowing, there is nothing hidden from him. Even our thoughts are known to him. And he knows the future too(?!!). How this borders on our right to chose the way we live, well, I hope I find an answer to that someday. Perhaps God knows the future GENERALLY, but our our INDIVIDUAL life paths are left for us to chose. I hope.

[Clanad]

(I) First for El duerino... We've been at this for about a month or so now. Looking back at your previous posts, a common thread appears. that thread is that you are always going to "get to later, when you have more time"... maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen a "get to it later" moment yet. As usual, you make partial statements, such as "archaeological digs have disproved parts of scripture", with a reference to Jericho, with an added reference to Egyptians. Sources and/or quotes please? As far as I can deduce, you appeal to negative information being located. What kind of reason is that, when museums and libraries abound in evidence that does agree with Scripture? Finally, how do you explain the first prophecy I quoted? It is specific as to times, persons, places and has been shown to have been written centuries before the predicted event. To dismiss it out of hand is an argument from silence and carries no weight whatsoever. El duerino, I have no problem with my beliefs, but I am trying to understand the basis for yours.

[I.R.]

Perhaps, like you said, God can only know all the possible outcomes of all the possible decisions we make. Perhaps he takes a back seat and allows us to live our lives the way we chose, knowing there's a consequence for every decision we make. Perhaps he only takes an interest in what we do when we commit our lives to serving him (consider in the days before Christ, God was only interested in the Isrealites, his chosen people; Or so the bible says).

[I.R.]

My post above is rather ambiguous.I was referring to Merlin's post there.

[el duerino]

Clanad - you are the worst kind of xstian, the kind who mash up science in an attempt to preserve your flimsy belief system. Lets face it, the bible is not scientific, genesis does not give a scientific or valid account of the origin of the universe. The whole 'days' thing is a load of tosh. If a day is not a day in genesis, why are there mornings and evenings? Why is one earth day for gods day of rest allocated if he actually rested for millions of years? Why does xstianity's myth hold such strong similarity to Babylonian polytheistic creation myth (also, coincidentally, 7 days). You have also failed to answer the question IR so painfully struggled with. What is the provenance of the xstian creation myth? The only possible way for the bible to have a scientifically valid account of the beginning is for it to be divinely inspired. So why the glaring holes? Can god not show a believer what actually happened? Is that, perhaps, why the most common account of xstian creation has light BEFORE the sun, and plants BEFORE the sun also. This is not possible. How on earth do errors like this creep into a divinely inspired and supposedly factually valid account? I'll tell you why. It's because it was written by people who did not understand that the sun was the source of light. Or that plants needed light. And as a consequence they saw no need to include it in their particular myth. If it had been divinely inspired, these faults would not have been there. It cannot have been divinely inspired and thus cannot be taken seriously.

[I.R.]

Hey, el D, take a deep breath- you're getting worked up again!!! Count from 1-10, you'll feel better in a minute!

[Clanad]

(II) Merlin... first point; "squeezebox... etc." I can see this is going to take some time. I had hoped that you might have been more knowlegeable of the status of astrophysical investigation, since I (incorrectly) assumed that to be one of the sciences you appeal to for basis in your "faith". Dozens of cosmic characteristics must be exquisitely fine-tuned to make physical life possible. The degree of fine-tuning observed exceeds by many orders of magnitude the fine-tuning of which humans are capable. Despite such evidence, rather than because of it, some people, including scientists, speculate about the existence of an infinite number of universes. Given an infinite number of universes, they rationalize, at least one could be expected to develop, randomly, the characteristics physical life requires. Thus, chance, or �random fluctuations� in some kind of primeval field, seems to them as plausible an explanation for apparent design as a divine Designer

[Clanad]

(III) Dozens of cosmic characteristics must be exquisitely fine-tuned to make physical life possible. The degree of fine-tuning observed exceeds by many orders of magnitude the fine-tuning of which humans are capable. Despite such evidence, rather than because of it, some people, including scientists, speculate about the existence of an infinite number of universes. Given an infinite number of universes, they rationalize, at least one could be expected to develop, randomly, the characteristics physical life requires. Thus, chance, or �random fluctuations� in some kind of primeval field, seems to them as plausible an explanation for apparent design as a divine Designer

[Clanad]

(III) Growing evidence points to a universe that hyperexpanded (at many times light�s velocity) during its first 10-33 seconds of existence. The inflationary big bang multi-verse proposed by several astrophysicists to account for this hyperexpansion, however, can be much more easily structured as an inflationary big bang uni-verse. Anyone who appeals to infinite (or even just a very large number of) universes commits a form of the gambler�s fallacy, as described in the following example: Someone flips a single coin in an auditorium in the presence of witnesses ten thousand consecutive times and each time that coin lands with heads facing up. One committing the gambler�s fallacy says that outside the auditorium 210,000 (2 x 2 x 2 . . . ten thousand such multiplications) coins might possibly exist and that all these coins may have been flipped 10,000 consecutive times each

[Clanad]

(IV) I'm constructing this in Word format to better add continuity to my thoughts and the process of cut and paste caused the duplication... He further speculates that every coin outside of the auditorium produced a different set of results in their 10,000 flips than the one observed inside the auditorium. On this basis he concludes that the coin flipped in the auditorium represents that one possible instance out of 210,000 coins that the laws of probability state would produce ten thousand consecutive heads. He, therefore, would conclude that the coin in the auditorium still has a 50/50 chance of landing on tails, and would be willing to bet on tails for the next flip. The gambler here commits three major errors.

[Clanad]

(VI) He has no evidence that 210,000 coins must exist outside the auditorium. He has no evidence that all the coins outside the auditorium are flipped ten thousand consecutive times each. And, he especially has no evidence that all the coin flipping results outside the auditorium are different from those he has observed inside the auditorium. Where the coin sample size is only one, a rational conclusion to draw from 10,000 consecutive coin flips yielding nothing but heads is that the coin has been purposed or designed to always produce a heads result. Likewise, where the universe sample size is only one, a rational conclusion to draw from cosmic fine-tuning that is many orders of magnitude greater than anything humans can manifest in their creations, is that a Being must have purposed or designed the universe in such a manner that it can support physical life.

[I.R.]

El D: About the light thing, don't forget we're talking about an omnipotent God here. We've had to live with the sun, who knows if it TRULY is the only source of light and energy? Surely science hasn't discovered all there is to be discovered?! And the 24hr-day thing, the bible says that a thousand years are like a day with God. (Can't remember the book or the verse)

[Clanad]

(VII) In the case of the universe one can draw a stronger conclusion than one can for the coin. Whereas one knows that more than one coin exists, one does not know whether more than one universe exists. Moreover, one will never gain the technological capacity to scientifically discover the existence of another universe. Once observers exist in universe A, the theory of general relativity indicates that the space-time manifold or envelope of that universe can never overlap the space-time manifold of any other possibly existing universe. In other words, even if God made ten universes, one would forever lack the scientific means to detect any universe but his or her own. Thus, the sample size of universes for humans is one and it always will be just one. Therefore, the only rational option for human beings right now and at any time in the future, regardless of the speculations of theoretical physicists, philosophers, and others, such as Merlin, is that there is only one universe and that God exquisitely designed the universe for the benefit of humanity. OK, were getting to the end... I think...

[Clanad]

(VIII)Returning to the gambler, one could argue that his greatest error upon witnessing 10,000 consecutive flips producing 10,000 consecutive heads was his failure to more carefully investigate the properties of the coin before placing his bet on the 10,001st flip. If he had done so, he would have seen additional evidence for purposeful coin design. For example, he might have discovered that the coin had heads imprinted on both sides, or he might have noted that it had been weighted so that the heads side would always land face up. Just like the gambler, astronomers and others can continue to make measurements on the universe. Such additional measurements will confirm the purposefulness of the universe for the support of physical life. Indeed, this already has been done. For the past forty years, the more astronomers have learned about the universe, the stronger has become the conclusion that it is exquisitely fine-tuned for the support of physical life and especially for the support of human beings. For any remaining skeptic, all she or he need do is wait a month or two. In that time period additional measurements probably will reveal whether the evidence for cosmic design has become weaker or stronger.