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.

___________________
1+1=10

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.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

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?

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

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.

___________________
1+1=10

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.

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

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.

___________________
1+1=10