TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Religious debate on Jews/Passion of the Christ
Pages (24): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 [23] 24 »

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX That's not what it's about. It reminds the the Christians what Jesus went through as our savior.. and therefore this movie re-captures and reminds the christians of the pain and everything else, all to give the christians the chance to repent and have the opportunity to be saved. So is not about been happy watching our savior be tortured.. no one is happy to it, is the other way around, it shocks the believer and it has, in some cases, meditate and look at the way of life differently, for those that have never thought, nor read about what jesus went through. But yes, you are not a believer, therefore you just see it differently, but what you described is totally out of the context really

I think understand now. It isn't millions of sadistic assholes who are praising this movie, it's millions of "believers" who have "never thought, nor read about what jesus went through."

So, these believers (who do not, apparently, actually know what they believe in) enjoy watching the movie because it "shocks" them and "reminds them of the pain and everything else" that Jesus needlessly went through so that Christians would have "the chance to repent and have the opportunity to be saved."

Well that makes perfect sense. But I have a couple of questions:

• How are these people believers if they don't even know what Jesus went through? That's pretty damn fundamental to the religion.
  
• Why don't they just read about it instead of watching gory, ad nauseum scenes depicting brutal torture?
  
• Why would it please them to watch someone be tortured, when, if only their God were a little more benevolent, it could have easily been avoided altogether?
  

Fresh meat!

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX this movie is based on the bible, the oldest historic book in the world..

What?

Firstly, the bible is hardly historical, most of the events it contains are wholly fictional. Secondly, there are numerous books that are far older than the bible, and are actually historic.

quote:

Originally posted by MezzicanTrancEr Sorry man! I just didn't find the current thread discussing "whether or not Lindsay Loham skanks herself" worthwhile. ...i must have missed the memo on the rules regarding "thread bumping". My bad! Oh and I almost forgot to mention, I'll try my hardest to run my next post by you. Cool? Great!!! HAHA sorry I had to...and another thing if posts like this bother you please move on, sooooo simple.

It's not the thread bumping per say, it's the misdirecting Jesus threads. These Jesus threads have a habit of coming back from the dead � as DrUg_Tit0 kindly pointed out for us.

quote:

Originally posted by djsubsonik and if there is no God, then where did the universe come from.. according to the laws of physics.. energy is not created, it is transferred.. so .. where did all the energy in the universe come from? it cant just appear.. something had to make it appear.. which is why God is supernatural.. he has powers beyond the laws of our world, because he created it all..

The Kalam cosmological argument is problematic for you (as a theist) to utilize because;

A) There's no empirical evidence to suggest that the universe was divinely created � you're reduced to 'the god of the gaps' line of reasoning, which is utterly illogical and unscientific.
B) The argument can be turned around and used on the theist, because god too would have had to have had a cause.

quote:

now this is just my outlook on that aspect... believe what you want.. but i was mainly trying to point out the error in your statement about Jesus coming back in the year 2000...

DrUg_TiTo is the expert on this area, but as far as I know, there's a air amount of evidence to suggest that the early orthodox Christians thought that Jesus would return in their lifetimes. Ever since Christianity was created Christians have been setting dates or Jesus' second coming. Honestly, we've been in the 'end-times' for over 2000 years now. Surely there comes a time when you've speculated enough?

quote:

Originally posted by djsubsonik and if there is no God, then where did the universe come from.. according to the laws of physics.. energy is not created, it is transferred.. so .. where did all the energy in the universe come from? it cant just appear.. something had to make it appear.. which is why God is supernatural.. he has powers beyond the laws of our world, because he created it all..

I hate to pick on your argument, as I am generally with you on the rejection of atheism, but your reasoning is fundamentally flawed: "appear" is a word that we use to describe the conjunction of the lack of something at some point in time and the existence of it a little while later. The trouble is that "time" (and thus "appear") is a defining part of what we call the universe, and therefore, you cannot talk about the universe itself "appearing". There was (is?) no "before" the universe.

If you want to hit on atheists, go for the version of the design argument that praises the "beauty" and simplicity of the physical laws. As far as I know, they have yet to find a solid counter argument. Otherwise, Pascal's argument that we should choose to believe in God due to the higher expected utility of this strategy than that of not believing, is an option.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic If you want to hit on atheists, go for the version of the design argument that praises the "beauty" and simplicity of the physical laws. As far as I know, they have yet to find a solid counter argument. Otherwise, Pascal's argument that we should choose to believe in God due to the higher expected utility of this strategy than that of not believing, is an option.

Stephen Hawking posed an argument about chaos / beauty / simplicity in his 'a brief history of time' books. although the argument does not try to prove or disprove God (there are only vague references to theology and God in the whole book)

quote:

Originally posted by arctic DrUg_TiTo is the expert on this area, but as far as I know, there's a air amount of evidence to suggest that the early orthodox Christians thought that Jesus would return in their lifetimes. Ever since Christianity was created Christians have been setting dates or Jesus' second coming. Honestly, we've been in the 'end-times' for over 2000 years now. Surely there comes a time when you've speculated enough?

Well, let's see...

First the Revelation says that things will shortly come to pass and that time is at hand. At several occasions John quotes Jesus saying "Behold, I come quickly!". Then in 20:3 it says that god locked up satan for a 1000 years. After those 1000 years, he was supposed to rule the world for 42 months, and then he'd be killed. Surprisingly, that didn't happen, so Jesus' second coming was supposed to be in 1914:

quote:

The "times of the Gentiles" in Lk.21:24 begin with the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar in 607 BCE. The "seven times" of Dan.4:16, 23 tell us how long the gentile times will last. Rev.12:6 and Dan.12:7 mention "a time, times, and a half time" and Rev.12:14 says this is equal to 1260 days. So 7 times is 2520 days. (See also Rev.11:2-3 where 42 months is reckoned as 1260 days) Applying the year-day principle of Num.14:34 and Ezek.4:6, the Gentile times end 2520 years after 607 BCE, which is 1914. That is the year that Jesus returned and set up his kingdom, which is now being run by the governing body. Dan.7:13-14

Well, that didn't happen either, so then it was supposed to be 1975:

quote:

Rev.20:6-7 says that the millennium will be a 1000 year reign with Christ. Since Ps.90:4 and 2 Pt.3:8 say that a day with the Lord is 1000 years, the millennium will be Jehovah's 1000 year day of rest after the creation. Hmm... If so, then this Sabbath day must have been preceded by six 1000 year days since the creation of Adam and Eve at the end of the sixth day creative day. (We are now in the last "day" of the seventh day of creation. It's a 1000-year day within a day kind of thing.) Gen.1:27 Since the last creative day will last 7000 years, the other creative days must have also been periods of 7000 years. So from the beginning of the first creative day to the creation of Adam and Eve was 42,000 years. And since "reliable Bible chronology" establishes 4026 BCE as the date of Adam's creation, we know that the first day of creation occurred 48,026 years ago. (And Armageddon and the millennium are 26 years overdue.) Jehovah ends his sixth day of creation by fashioning Eve from Adam's rib. The seventh day of creation began in 4026 BCE and will last 7,000 years. Armageddon will occur in "the autumn of 1975, fully 6000 years into God's seventh day, his rest day." (April 1, 1968, Watchtower) Gen.2:22

After that there are some other interpretations which have postponed the day to 2000, 2001, 2004, 2006, 2012, 2026 and so on...anyway, as the time goes by, these interpretations make less and less sense. The year 1000AD, however, was supposed to be the year of the coming of Jesus.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I think understand now. It isn't millions of sadistic assholes who are praising this movie, it's millions of "believers" who have "never thought, nor read about what jesus went through." So, these believers (who do not, apparently, actually know what they believe in) enjoy watching the movie because it "shocks" them and "reminds them of the pain and everything else" that Jesus needlessly went through so that Christians would have "the chance to repent and have the opportunity to be saved." Well that makes perfect sense. But I have a couple of questions: How are these people believers if they don't even know what Jesus went through? That's pretty damn fundamental to the religion. Why don't they just read about it instead of watching gory, ad nauseum scenes depicting brutal torture? Why would it please them to watch someone be tortured, when, if only their God were a little more benevolent, it could have easily been avoided altogether?

You dont have to be a believer to have praised this movie. To make it short. People today, are not as fond to religion as they were before. TOday people are more worried about their money, to have an M3 or just to have fun, or, just be worried about all the bad things currently happening around the world. This movie, portraits what our savior ( for christians.. ) went through. Jesus is one of the most important characters in the lifes of christians, and just by watching this movie, it reminds us, and has made many people reflectionate about their lifes, style of lifes they are going through.. and more on times like this, when people actually are in need of spiritual things, and this movie, in my opinion, did a good job on reminding us who we are, and who are we to be thankfull for, and why. And seen those horrendous scenes, it really hurts one to see that, but, like any person.. one has to see to really appreciate.. is much different then reading.
I will give you an example of how it has had en effect on people. My girlfriend, who is all into tatoos and piercings, and was sort of in drugs and such, and was careless if jesus existed or not. She watched the movie, cried, and after so.. I dont know why, but she told me that she now believes in him, and she felt guilty of what she was doing, seen that jesus died for us, to be saved and be able to repent, and that made her reflectionate to the style of life she was having. This is the most direct situation I can tell you of how it has affected in the good side people.

The other points you are trying to ask or reach, it contains a whole religious discussion as to why it happened. Jesus HAD to be crucified in order for us to be saved. In other words, Jesus knew he was going to be crucified. I know you will make a whole argument, but really, if you havent read the bible, then it's sort of long to explain really.

Damnit, why are all the good posts done AFTER I leave my cpu?!? Ahh well, fuck it.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic If you want to hit on atheists, go for the version of the design argument that praises the "beauty" and simplicity of the physical laws. As far as I know, they have yet to find a solid counter argument.

I'm game. Could you clarify this design argument a little more?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I'm game. Could you clarify this design argument a little more?

I'm neither the inventor nor a strong proponent of it, and you should really go and read it in some philosophy book, but it goes something like this:
Nature seems to follow the "Laws of Nature". These can be described by mathematics in a relatively simple manner. This is a "beautiful" state of affairs, as opposed to Nature exhibiting a highly complicated or random pattern. The likelihood of this happening by chance, is deemed to be low, whereas the likelihood of it happening given that a Creator has *designed* the universe is much higher. Therefore, it is more "probable" that a Creator exists than the universe happening by chance.
In some sense, the reasoning relies on the idea of Occam's Razor and the maximum likelihood principle, which are both principles used extensively by science btw. Hope I am being clear here

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX You dont have to be a believer to have praised this movie.

I finally got around to watching it, and I have to say it was absolutely dispicable, but yet I would have expected nothing less from Mel "show my guts spilled on the ground" Gibson. Of all the things to portray about the life of Jesus, Mel's masochism side came out to portray the gruesome aspect of His suffering.

As a former Christian, I fail to see the true gratification in this, esp. when there are so many other powerful messages one can gain from the story of Jesus' life.

quote:

To make it short. People today, are not as fond to religion as they were before. TOday people are more worried about their money, to have an M3 or just to have fun, or, just be worried about all the bad things currently happening around the world.

That has a great deal to do with the lesser influence of the Church over the government and the people. Most people, even Conservatives, tend to believe this is a good thing. Or do you wish to persecute non-believers and hang more women because they are witches? Or how about throw scientific discoveries and research out the window because they do not coincide with the Church's interpretation of the Bible?

quote:

This movie, portraits what our savior ( for christians.. ) went through.

Well, if you want to believe Gibson selecting parts of the 4 Gospels of his own choosing that best fit his particular strict Roman Catholic views (mostly from the Book of John, however), then I guess I would agree with you. Additionally, much of the extrabiblical material was based on the work from a looney 18th century German Nun Sister Anne Emmerich, a proclaimed "prophet" by the Roman Catholic church (what she prophesized that came true remains to be seen, but I digress).

quote:

Jesus is one of the most important characters in the lifes of christians, and just by watching this movie, it reminds us, and has made many people reflectionate about their lifes, style of lifes they are going through..

Seeing a man getting tortured for 90 minutes, and having more blood spilled than Kill Bill just didn't quite give me a reflection on my life, other than I thought it really sucks to be Him. I fail to see how seeing this disgusting portrayal of Jesus' last minutes on earth could give any reflection on my life, even if I still was a Christian. Perhaps you could elaborate on this a little more?

quote:

and more on times like this, when people actually are in need of spiritual things, and this movie, in my opinion, did a good job on reminding us who we are, and who are we to be thankfull for, and why.

So seeing the blood and guts of Jesus in such a gory, gruesome manner reminded you of who you are and what you're thankful for?

Okay, I'll bite - who are you and what are you thankful for, based on this disgusting Braveheartesque gore-like, pick-and-choose what you please out of the Gospels movie?

quote:

And seen those horrendous scenes, it really hurts one to see that,

Why? Have you been crucified lately?

quote:

but, like any person.. one has to see to really appreciate.. is much different then reading.

Well I often found that books were usually better than the movies, but each to his/her own. I could only surmise, however, that if one appreciates the movie more it is because they have similar masochistic features within. But if it�s merely �different�, then you�ll have no argument from me.

quote:

I will give you an example of how it has had en effect on people. My girlfriend, who is all into tatoos and piercings, and was sort of in drugs and such, and was careless if jesus existed or not. She watched the movie, cried, and after so.. I dont know why, but she told me that she now believes in him, and she felt guilty of what she was doing, seen that jesus died for us, to be saved and be able to repent, and that made her reflectionate to the style of life she was having. This is the most direct situation I can tell you of how it has affected in the good side people.

Congratulations to her (I think). Will she have her tattoos removed now? It is against your religion, ya know.

quote:

The other points you are trying to ask or reach, it contains a whole religious discussion as to why it happened. Jesus HAD to be crucified in order for us to be saved.

Why? Are you going to tell me that his life was a replacement of sacrificing animals for our repentance from our sins? I always thought that was kinda ridiculous, let alone really barbaric in the first place. Oh well, people thought a lot of dumb things back then.

Is there another reason that I am not grasping?

quote:

In other words, Jesus knew he was going to be crucified. I know you will make a whole argument, but really, if you havent read the bible, then it's sort of long to explain really.

What makes you think he or any other Bible critic here hasn�t read the Bible? I would venture to guess our knowledge of the Bible is pretty good, if not better than your own.

I think the argument about Jesus knowing, or more specifically prophesizing, that he was going to die is weak at best. Jesus was willingly going against the Jewish grain at the time, and was a known renegade. IOW, he was simply asking for his own death as a means of martyrdom. Was this really prophetic? Would anyone willfully breaking the law for all to see believe they are NOT going to suffer the consequences? Umm, not really.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I'm neither the inventor nor a strong proponent of it, and you should really go and read it in some philosophy book, but it goes something like this: Nature seems to follow the "Laws of Nature". These can be described by mathematics in a relatively simple manner. This is a "beautiful" state of affairs, as opposed to Nature exhibiting a highly complicated or random pattern. The likelihood of this happening by chance, is deemed to be low, whereas the likelihood of it happening given that a Creator has *designed* the universe is much higher. Therefore, it is more "probable" that a Creator exists than the universe happening by chance. In some sense, the reasoning relies on the idea of Occam's Razor and the maximum likelihood principle, which are both principles used extensively by science btw. Hope I am being clear here

This sounds dangerously close, actually it is spot on with the logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam, or argument from incredulity. It also falls in line with the logical fallacy of untestability. Furthermore, arguing the likelihood of an event occurring ex post facto is also quite fallacious. It happened, that's that.

Now let me explain a tad bit further. Let us assume that the likelihood of an event occurring is higher if a designer created or started the event versus randomness. Philosophically speaking, I may actually grant you this. But moving from a philosophical standpoint to actual evidence of existence of design vs. randomness gives us a much different story. We have strong support via evidence of random events creating designed phenomena in nature. What support do we have of a Designer deliberately starting or designing natural phenomena? None. Therefore arguing from a standpoint that an event couldn't possibly have happened as a result of a random event is fallacious because we have evidence of exactly this type of phenomena occurring. However, even if we did not have strong evidence of an event occurring randomly, does that automatically give credence to a deliberate design, without evidence to support such a deliberate act? Logically, the answer is no. We need positive, verifiable evidence of an event occurring, rather than a false positive that would supposedly support such a notion.

Finally, let me give an example of the error of ex post facto reasoning: consider the probability of your own existence, and since we are in a Biblical thread, let's suppose the Earth is as young as many creationists say it is, about 5000 years old. What then is the probability that you would have been born? Let's generously assume that the average length of a generation over the last 5000 years has been 30 years. Let's also assume, very generously, that the average probability of an individual living long enough to have children and then to actually have them is 95%. The probability that all of your great-great-grandfathers and great-great-grandmothers survived and had children leading to you (or to anyone) would then be about 1 in 25 million! Now if you believe in a much older earth, replace 5,000 years with a 4 billion or so years, and then watch just how unbelievably high the probability of your existence soars! Somehow we all won the lottery, but according to probability, you shouldn't even be alive. IOW, the probability of an event occurring, after it has already occurred, is exactly 100%.

Perhaps you were just speaking philosophically, and probability-wise you might just be correct. But philosophically, the designer could be my Great Cookie Monster from the Planet Zoinks, just as easily as the designer being a Biblical God. Moving from a philosophical standpoint to a more scientific standpoint, however, gives the design theory a few gaping logical holes. Demski's Design Theory more or less attempts to move this philosophy into mainstream science, but he's run into the logical fallacy walls that I've mentioned above. Of course his alternative is to come up with a bogus Explanatory Filter, which in essence immediately infers design upon everything until proven otherwise (which is a fallacious starting point to begin with), but I digress.

As for Occam's Razor, the design theory perverts this logical principle completely. Occam's Razor excludes anything which doesn't have evidence that can be explained by existing mainstream models. IOW, it is entirely based on observed phenomena. If this were not the case, Occam would essentially give way to anything and everything that we could fathom outside the realms of reality, because any unrealistic phenomena may be deemed the "simplest" from a set of actual observed phenomena.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Well, if you want to believe Gibson selecting parts of the 4 Gospels of his own choosing that best fit his particular strict Roman Catholic views (mostly from the Book of John, however), then I guess I would agree with you. Additionally, much of the extrabiblical material was based on the work from a looney 18th century German Nun Sister Anne Emmerich, a proclaimed "prophet" by the Roman Catholic church (what she prophesized that came true remains to be seen, but I digress).

Hmm, could you tell what exact extrabiblical references you have in mind? I stopped paying much attention to the movie after the first 10 minutes, so I guess I missed them.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 As for Occam's Razor, the design theory perverts this logical principle completely. Occam's Razor excludes anything which doesn't have evidence that can be explained by existing mainstream models. IOW, it is entirely based on observed phenomena. If this were not the case, Occam would essentially give way to anything and everything that we could fathom outside the realms of reality, because any unrealistic phenomena may be deemed the "simplest" from a set of actual observed phenomena.

First, I'm going to answer your post in a slightly skewed order, please bear with me. Second, the reliance on Occam's Razor is in the assumption that the "simple" mathematical statement of the Laws of Nature should be attributed any significance compared to any other, more complex, explanation of nature. I'm not a proponent of Occam's Razor, which was why I pointed out the connection between it and the design argument.
As to "Occam's Razor excludes anything which doesn't have evidence that can be explained by existing mainstream models", I guess you mean "cannot" instead of "can"? I would say that Occam's Razor usually is stated as "do not multiply beyond necessity" and I cannot see how the design argument should be rejected because of this. The competing hypothesis (that the universe happened by chance) cannot really be said to be simpler, and it certainly provides much less in terms of explanation IMO.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Now let me explain a tad bit further. Let us assume that the likelihood of an event occurring is higher if a designer created or started the event versus randomness. Philosophically speaking, I may actually grant you this. But moving from a philosophical standpoint to actual evidence of existence of design vs. randomness gives us a much different story. We have strong support via evidence of random events creating designed phenomena in nature. What support do we have of a Designer deliberately starting or designing natural phenomena? None. Therefore arguing from a standpoint that an event couldn't possibly have happened as a result of a random event is fallacious because we have evidence of exactly this type of phenomena occurring. However, even if we did not have strong evidence of an event occurring randomly, does that automatically give credence to a deliberate design, without evidence to support such a deliberate act? Logically, the answer is no. We need positive, verifiable evidence of an event occurring, rather than a false positive that would supposedly support such a notion.

First of all, I am not arguing that an event "couldn't possibly happened as a result of a random event". The design argument argues that it is less likely to happen than given a design. On this we have plenty of evidence. Take the probability of "me hearing a coin dropping on the floor". It is negligable in general, but if I told someone next to me to drop a coin, it would be much different.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Finally, let me give an example of the error of ex post facto reasoning: consider the probability of your own existence, and since we are in a Biblical thread, let's suppose the Earth is as young as many creationists say it is, about 5000 years old. What then is the probability that you would have been born? Let's generously assume that the average length of a generation over the last 5000 years has been 30 years. Let's also assume, very generously, that the average probability of an individual living long enough to have children and then to actually have them is 95%. The probability that all of your great-great-grandfathers and great-great-grandmothers survived and had children leading to you (or to anyone) would then be about 1 in 25 million! Now if you believe in a much older earth, replace 5,000 years with a 4 billion or so years, and then watch just how unbelievably high the probability of your existence soars! Somehow we all won the lottery, but according to probability, you shouldn't even be alive. IOW, the probability of an event occurring, after it has already occurred, is exactly 100%.

According to regular scientific practice, when we are asked to choose between two models with equal a priori probability based on a set of data, we compute the likelihood of obtaining the data given the first model is correct, and then the likelihood of obtaining it given the second model is correct. This is one of the cornerstones of science, but (philosophically speaking) I find it highly questionable. However, as arguments for God's existence is usually presented for believers in science, it suffices in this setting. If you reject it, you are rejecting the "facts" of science as well.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Perhaps you were just speaking philosophically, and probability-wise you might just be correct. But philosophically, the designer could be my Great Cookie Monster from the Planet Zoinks, just as easily as the designer being a Biblical God.

I was speaking philosophically. I do not believe that science can "prove" God's existence. I also agree with you that the creator could be anything - not only the Biblical God. I am not a religious Christian, but an agnostic.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Moving from a philosophical standpoint to a more scientific standpoint, however, gives the design theory a few gaping logical holes. Demski's Design Theory more or less attempts to move this philosophy into mainstream science, but he's run into the logical fallacy walls that I've mentioned above. Of course his alternative is to come up with a bogus Explanatory Filter, which in essence immediately infers design upon everything until proven otherwise (which is a fallacious starting point to begin with), but I digress.

This made no sense to me, but I would like to hear more about it?

First off, I'd like to say that this is an excellent discussion (between trancaholic & MisterOpus), as I've never seen anyone attempt the defence of this particular form of the argument from design before. FYI, as such I may make some errors, so bear with me if at all possible.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic First of all, I am not arguing that an event "couldn't possibly happened as a result of a random event". The design argument argues that it is less likely to happen than given a design. On this we have plenty of evidence. Take the probability of "me hearing a coin dropping on the floor". It is negligable in general, but if I told someone next to me to drop a coin, it would be much different.

When calculating the probability of the universe arising out of design as opposed to it coming into existence from a 'random' event - isn't one forced to assume that the universe is designed first? Let's operate on the premise that the evidence points to the fact that the universe isn't designed (which I believe it does). Running with this line of reasoning, surely then any statistical analysis is nothing short of meaningless? Irrespective of how likely something is, shouldn't we be looking at the evidence rather than the probability of the event in question?

Furthermore, once the evidence points to the universe not being designed, or even in the absence of any evidence pointing to a designed universe - wouldn't the probability of the universe being designed lower in accordance with the evidence?

Forgetting the above argument for a minute, I'm still yet to be convinced that the universe arising from a divine, perfect, all-loving, all-powerful being is indeed more probable than a naturalistic explanation of things. Couldn't it be argued that, considering what we know about the world today, the likelihood of a god existing is somewhat minute? Since the probability of god's existence is relatively low, wouldn't it logically follow that the probability of the universe being created by god is intern lowered? It's probably worth noting that I don't necessarily believe the argument above is valid, I just thought it up then - so it's probably full of holes.

First of all, there's no reason to believe that this is the only existing universe. Secondly, it is more likely that humans appeared in a somewhat organized universe like this one than a completely random one where natural laws aren't constant. There could be thousands of other universes with different properties than this one which could make life impossible.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic When calculating the probability of the universe arising out of design as opposed to it coming into existence from a 'random' event - isn't one forced to assume that the universe is designed first? Let's operate on the premise that the evidence points to the fact that the universe isn't designed (which I believe it does). Running with this line of reasoning, surely then any statistical analysis is nothing short of meaningless? Irrespective of how likely something is, shouldn't we be looking at the evidence rather than the probability of the event in question?

I'm not totally sure of what you are saying, but in probability theoretical terms I guess it is that we should condition our prior probability of design vs. random by the evidence we have. That I would agree on, but I do not see what evidence would possibly classify in this manner? What evidence do you think that we have which suggests the universe the result of a random event and not a design?

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Forgetting the above argument for a minute, I'm still yet to be convinced that the universe arising from a divine, perfect, all-loving, all-powerful being is indeed more probable than a naturalistic explanation of things.

But what do you mean by a "naturalistic explanation"? Nature and its laws *are* the universe, and hence cannot be used to reason about its existence.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Couldn't it be argued that, considering what we know about the world today, the likelihood of a god existing is somewhat minute?

Possibly, I do not see the argument myself though. When we specify probabilities or likelihoods they are either based on explicitly or implicitly recorded data. I am not aware of any data on God's existence though.

quote:

Originally posted by arctic Since the probability of god's existence is relatively low, wouldn't it logically follow that the probability of the universe being created by god is intern lowered??

It would imply that the joint event of God existing and him creating the universe is lowered, yes. If you furthermore demonstrate a link between the evidence we have and the existence of God, then we have a solid argument.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 First of all, there's no reason to believe that this is the only existing universe. Secondly, it is more likely that humans appeared in a somewhat organized universe like this one than a completely random one where natural laws aren't constant. There could be thousands of other universes with different properties than this one which could make life impossible.

I do not like this argument as it replaces one supernatural entity (a Creator) with a lot more (lots of universes we cannot know about). That is, even if it would destroy the design argument I'm not sure that atheist would really believe in its assumption.
I have some other problem with it, but I cannot put my finger on it presently. I'll write some more when/if I get it

I think the most telling problem with creation arguments is that they generally rest upon a false premise: that if something exists, it must have had a genesis of some sort inside of objective "time."

But the very existence of such an objective time is, in my view, very questionable. To me it seems rather like the notion of up and down. I know that what is "down" for me would be the ground. But if I were to tunnel through the mantle and the core, I would eventually emerge on the other side of the planet. Is this location down from my position? And am I down from the position where I emerge? If so, then both directions are down, and the concept itself is reduced to absurdity.

The property of "down-ness" exists only relative to a given perspective, and I see no compelling evidence to suggest that temporal relationships do not follow the same rules as spatial ones. That is, we only say that yesterday is "before" insofar as we live today.

But there is no ultimate foundation upon which all the Earth rests. The soil lies upon the bedrock, which lies upon the mantle, which lies upon the core which cannot genuinely be said to lie upon anything but perhaps itself. To to expect some point in time upon which all known existence rests seems to me to be quite an unsubstantiated leap in reasoning (and, incidentally, the introduction of an unnecessary entity vis-a-vis Occam's Razor).

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I do not like this argument as it replaces one supernatural entity (a Creator) with a lot more (lots of universes we cannot know about). That is, even if it would destroy the design argument I'm not sure that atheist would really believe in its assumption. I have some other problem with it, but I cannot put my finger on it presently. I'll write some more when/if I get it

No it doesn't, it replaces one supernatural entity with many natural entities, which is quite different. And unlike god, the theory could be tested in the future. It's not far from the theory that there are other planets orbiting other stars, except that we have luckily moved on and propagators of this one will not end up as barbecue meat. Unlike god, which has no proof of existance whatsoever, it is not unreasonable to consider the existance of other universes simply because one is proven to exist, and we're all eyewitnesses. So far we know of 0 gods and 1 universe that are out there and we can assume that universes are more likely to exist than gods. If I'd be betting on what's on the "outside", I'd put my bet on another universe.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic First, I'm going to answer your post in a slightly skewed order, please bear with me. Second, the reliance on Occam's Razor is in the assumption that the "simple" mathematical statement of the Laws of Nature should be attributed any significance compared to any other, more complex, explanation of nature. I'm not a proponent of Occam's Razor, which was why I pointed out the connection between it and the design argument.

Well now I�m really confused as to this interpretation of Occam�s Razor. Could you maybe clarify this a little more for me?

quote:

As to "Occam's Razor excludes anything which doesn't have evidence that can be explained by existing mainstream models", I guess you mean "cannot" instead of "can"? I would say that Occam's Razor usually is stated as "do not multiply beyond necessity" and I cannot see how the design argument should be rejected because of this. The competing hypothesis (that the universe happened by chance) cannot really be said to be simpler, and it certainly provides much less in terms of explanation IMO.

Again, on the most elementary level you�re right � no, randomness is not the most �simplest� means of an event creating a complex designed structure or phenomena. However, applying Occam�s Sword metaphysically directly involves the Conservation of Energy � this is essentially why entities or phenomena in an ontological sense can neither be multiplied, reduced, or eliminated because matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed (www.wikipedia.org). Agreed?

Given this maxim for Occam, how can we apply a design argument, if by definition a designed entity or phenomena directly implies a designer, which at present cannot be detected in any manner? If matter cannot be created nor destroyed, how can we apply a conservation of energy principle that demands energy present and detected in some manner, yet this is exactly what we cannot do with a designer who designed a given entity, phenomena, or event?

quote:

First of all, I am not arguing that an event "couldn't possibly happened as a result of a random event". The design argument argues that it is less likely to happen than given a design.

Yes, but how does one detect design? We have a myriad of evidence that demonstrates random events creating complex designs, yet we have no evidence for a designer deliberately creating a complex designed event in the natural world and universe. This is my problem with design theory utilizing, or rather abusing probability. We could argue any given random event (E) is highly unlikely to create complexity, despite the known evidence that demonstrates otherwise. But why must we therefore conclude a designed E as a result of random E being highly improbable without positive evidence to support a designed E occurring? IOW, why must we conclude a false positive for design, esp. when that is logically fallacious to do so?

quote:

On this we have plenty of evidence. Take the probability of "me hearing a coin dropping on the floor". It is negligible in general, but if I told someone next to me to drop a coin, it would be much different.

I don�t think I�m quite grasping your analogy. Could you maybe elaborate on this a little more?

quote:

According to regular scientific practice, when we are asked to choose between two models with equal a priori probability based on a set of data, we compute the likelihood of obtaining the data given the first model is correct, and then the likelihood of obtaining it given the second model is correct. This is one of the cornerstones of science, but (philosophically speaking) I find it highly questionable. However, as arguments for God's existence is usually presented for believers in science, it suffices in this setting. If you reject it, you are rejecting the "facts" of science as well.

But where and how did we start with an equal a priori probability based on data to begin with? To my knowledge, there is no data to support any detection of a designed E in the first place, so why would I give that equal footing to a random E?

quote:

I was speaking philosophically. I do not believe that science can "prove" God's existence. I also agree with you that the creator could be anything - not only the Biblical God. I am not a religious Christian, but an agnostic.

This might be a communication problem between us, and I freely admit my lack of depth in philosophical issues. If I am misunderstanding you, it is likely a result of my knowledge in science overtaking my ineptitude in philosophy, so I apologize if I am mixing the two up in advance. It is clearly unintentional.

quote:

This made no sense to me, but I would like to hear more about it?

My pleasure. William Dembski is a mathematician and philosopher who teaches at Baylor University (surprise, a Christian school). He expounded the design theory that was revived most famously by Michael Behe�s 1994 Book, �Darwin�s Black Box� by applying mathematical probability. His two most famous books are �No Free Lunch� (1996?), and �The Design Inference� (1998). In the former he lays his argument that design (the action of a conscious agent) was involved in the process of biological evolution. He then utilizes probability theorems which in essence is what you are referring to that rules out random chance (mutations in this instance), and then concludes that we must therefore infer design. Aside of the fact that this is nothing shy of the argument from ignorance (God of the gaps) logical fallacy, and aside of the fact that his theorems and use of universal probability bound are highly suspect (see http://www.talkreason.org/articles/revolution.cfm#2, and http://www.talkreason.org/articles/jello.cfm, the second link is a critique of one of the originators of the theorems Dembski erroneously uses), what�s clear is Dembski�s idea of evolutionary processes, and his attempts to apply mathmatical theorems to these processes (and thereby ignoring well known and established evolutionary algorithms) is highly questionable at best. In fact, I feel pretty confident to say that he is deliberately misleading.

The latter book, �Design Inference�, Dembski comes out with his mathmatical inferential method of detecting design through a process he calls the �Explanatory Filter�. In essence, the breakdown is as follows:

1. If an event E has high probability, accept Regularity as an explanation; otherwise move to the next step.
2. If the Chance hypothesis assigns E a high probability or E is not specified, then accept Chance; otherwise move down the list.
3. Having eliminated Regularity and Chance, accept Design.

You take an event E and move it through this filter one step at a time. Of course there is a great deal of probability numbers and calculations involved throughout the way, esp. utilizing the Universal Probability Bound (10 ^-150, I believe), but you eventually move down to point 3 where you must concluded Design, if you didn�t drop off somewhere on 1 or 2. Talk origins has a good counterargument shown here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CI/CI110.html) if you�re interested as well as some links, and I�ll be repeating some of their points with my argument that follows:

First, according to Dembski, we're supposed to gauge the probability that this phenomenon was the product of chance alone. Then we assess the probability that the phenomenon is the result of physical laws or natural mechanisms. If it cannot be determined to be the result of 'chance' or 'necessity,' we are led to the conclusion of design, meaning intelligent agency.

However, why is design the default? Shouldn't the probability that the phenomenon is the direct product of intelligent agency be assessed independently, just like chance and necessity? It only looks like Dembski is trying to make it harder to conclude design by assessing the other possibilities first; in fact he's ensuring that by the time we make it to step three, no probability for design need be assigned.

In addition, the second step of the explanatory filter assumes that we know all the natural forces or mechanisms that could conceivably exist. Historically, it's plain to see that with scientific progress comes a better understanding of the power of natural mechanisms. It certainly does depend on our ignorance of possible natural mechanisms to assume that no such mechanisms exist or will ever be discovered and understood.

Lastly, there is no reason to exclude the possibility that a combination of chance and natural mechanisms could give rise to a certain phenomenon. This is exactly what Darwinism claims is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth: time, chance mutation, and the deterministic process of cumulative natural selection. It seems Dembski wants people to think that no such combination of forces exists, and it may be in his best interests if they believe him.

And finally, the 2 questions that will continue to plague design theorists is as follows:

How do we tell the difference between an ID system and a natural one which we
1) don't understand yet, or
2) don't have the intelligence to ever understand?

I�d say that the ID argument should logically be dead and buried, but yet it still finds its way into our school systems, which clearly irks the crap out of me. They almost pulled it off here in Kansas, and they�ve successfully pulled it off in places like Georgia, and most recently Ohio. People just want to believe what they want to believe, despite reality�s nutsack slapping them in the face.
(Uhh, I�m not sure where that last statement came from, sorry.)


If you want more information on Dembski and other design theorists, a Google search will give you more than what you'll ever ask for.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King I just have to let this out There is no God There is no Heaven There was no supernatural Jesus When we die, we rot. We become one with existence itself in another form (creamation, burial, organ donar, frozen..etc..) Do you beleive in the tooth fairy...santa clause...elves, magical wizards, dragons, ghosts, the sandman....if not.. what makes you beleive such a similar character?? Jesus was supposed to return in 2000 wasnt he???? 2000 years after his death? To judge us? WHERE WAS HE?? I know.. i know.. you are going to give me some bullshit excuse or explanation about why or how he came or didnt come... If God was all powerful.. WHY WONT HE PROVE HIMSELF????? oh yes.. i forgot... we are a test!

+1, Don't be offended by the movie, because it's all made up bullshit

Good discussion guys.

I'll jump in head-first later on, but while I'm here (I'm at uni so I can't really get into everything I want to discuss) I'll just say something about Occam's Razor.

Trancaholic:

quote:

I would say that Occam's Razor usually is stated as "do not multiply beyond necessity" and I cannot see how the design argument should be rejected because of this. The competing hypothesis (that the universe happened by chance) cannot really be said to be simpler, and it certainly provides much less in terms of explanation IMO.

Your first definition of the Razor there (about "multiplication beyond necessity") is more or less accurate but I don't think you've applied it correctly to the issue at hand. The most important thing to remember about Occam's Razor is that it concerns parsimony not simplicity. Elsewhere I have defined Occam's method as:

"In deciding between two competing theories - ceteris paribus - the theory invoking the least number of pluralities takes precedence."

Now the point here is that Occam's Razor is only a valid tool assuming that the two competing theories are more or less equally valid - that is, they explain the observed phenomena equally well. Assuming that they do, then Occam's Razor may be applied, and the theory invoking the lesser number of pluralities takes precedence.

So, to use an example, take competing theories for the movement of bodies: Newtonian physics and modern quantum physics. If we were to blindly apply Occam's Razor then we would see that Newtonian physics is both the most simple explantion (it's obviously easier to understand) and the most parsimonious (it invokes less "pluralities" - i.e. it doesn't depend on a plethora of subatomic factors / entities as the quantum theory does). However, in applying the Razor this way, we are overlooking the fact that Newton's theory doesn't actually explain the observed phenomena as well as the quantum theory - if you apply Newtonian physics to the movement of the planets, for instance, you will notice that it imperfectly describes their motion. Although the difference may be minute, the Newtonian interpretation of the movement of bodies is innaccurate - or, at least, less accurate than than the interpretation offered by quantum physics - and so applying a doctrine of empirical parsimony as the primary factor in deciding between these two theories would be a fallicious application of the doctrine. In other words, if one theory offers a better description of the observed phenomena than the other (and the Razor only concerns observed phenemena - it's a doctrine of empirical parsimony) then Occam's Razor is inapplicable.

On the other hand, let's use another example. Say that these are these facts:

- A ball is seen to be heading towards a window.
- The window is seen to smash.
- The ball is seen on the other side of the window amongst the broken glass.

There are then two competing theories explaining the chain of events:

- The first says that the ball hit the window, causing it to smash, allowing it pass through into the room.
- The second says that just before the ball hit the window, an invisible ghost smashed the glass and allowed the ball to pass through.

(It's a pretty dumb scenario, I know, but bear with me.)

Now assuming that the only facts are the ones described (i.e. we don't have vision that we can play in slow motion to see the ball break the window, or we can't find any ghostly footprints in the flower bed etc.) then both theories, technically, explain the events equally well. If we forgo any other methods in deciding between the theories (i.e. we discount the likelihood that ghosts do not exist rendering the second theory invalid, or that the glass is exremely hard or the ball extremely soft, rendering the first theory invalid) then we can apply Occam's Razor and suggest that the first theory will take precedence, simply because it is the most empirically parsimonious. The reason we can say this is because the second theory relies on one more plurality (namely the ghost) than the first theory does to render it valid. Unless the necessity of this additional plurality can be justified (i.e. if lots of people saw the ghost smash the window before the ball arrived, or something along those lines) then the application of Occam's Razor will favour the first explanation.

But note, also, just how difficult it is to apply. It isn't particularly helpful unless you can find two competing theories that explain the totality of observed phenomena equally well - how often does that occur in science? Its application to the origin of the universe is similarly questionable, but let's give it a try:

Theory #1: God is the uncaused cause of the big-bang, which in turn is the cause of the universe.

God -> Big Bang -> Universe (3 steps/pluralities)

Theory #2: The big-bang is the uncaused cause of the universe.

Big Bang -> Universe (2 steps/pluralities)

Assuming the two theories are equally valid (they describe what we can observe equally well) and identical evidence has been used in the formation of each (neither is including or excluding evidence that other isn't) then we may invoke Occam's Razor and suggest that Theory #2 is the more preferable, because, all other things being equal, it requires the invokation of fewer pluralities.

However, as I said, applying Occam's Razor like this requires a pinch of salt, because it can quite easily be argued that the theories are not equally valid and that they are not drawing upon the same set of (which should be the totality of) observed evidence.

I'm very tired, so I hope that made sense. More to come when I get the chance.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I think the most telling problem with creation arguments is that they generally rest upon a false premise: that if something exists, it must have had a genesis of some sort inside of objective "time." But the very existence of such an objective time is, in my view, very questionable. To me it seems rather like the notion of up and down. I know that what is "down" for me would be the ground. But if I were to tunnel through the mantle and the core, I would eventually emerge on the other side of the planet. Is this location down from my position? And am I down from the position where I emerge? If so, then both directions are down, and the concept itself is reduced to absurdity. The property of "down-ness" exists only relative to a given perspective, and I see no compelling evidence to suggest that temporal relationships do not follow the same rules as spatial ones. That is, we only say that yesterday is "before" insofar as we live today. But there is no ultimate foundation upon which all the Earth rests. The soil lies upon the bedrock, which lies upon the mantle, which lies upon the core which cannot genuinely be said to lie upon anything but perhaps itself. To to expect some point in time upon which all known existence rests seems to me to be quite an unsubstantiated leap in reasoning (and, incidentally, the introduction of an unnecessary entity vis-a-vis Occam's Razor).

Good example Arbiter. It's already well established in physics that time is hardly an independant dimension. Space-time is exactly as the name implies, two entities in dependant co-existence. We already have observed instances of elements in our universe where combinations of space-time result in the non-existence of time as we know it (black holes for instance). Therefore it boggles the mind how creationists continually attempt to separate space and time into two distinct, independant entities in an effort to prove the existence of God on the merits of circular reasoning and a simplistic timeline.

Ok. Quite a bit of reading there. You guys should apply Occam's Razor to your posts.
I'll try to see if I can get to read and answer tonight, but I doubt it. Otherwise I'll be back friday night or saturday morning.

Excellent description and examples, Renegade. My compliments!

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 No it doesn't, it replaces one supernatural entity with many natural entities, which is quite different.

I have a feeling that we disagree fundamentally on the meaning of the words "natural" and "supernatural". Could you please tell me your definition of these two concepts? I have a lot of comments to the rest of your post, but if the problem is a radical distance in understanding of these two terms, then I feel that they will be useless.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.