Uncaused Cause Proof

[Aragonn]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308974508' post='2258406']
I don't see any problems with it, other than "there must be a [i]being[/i] that exists outside of time, and has the power to call the universe into being."

I would call the uncaused cause the uncaused cause, and not god.
[/quote]

You reason back from the effects to discover the nature of the cause. The planets operate according to certain rules, the laws of nature allow life to come into existence, and the universe is intelligible.

Design comes from a designer, laws from a law giver and intelligibility from an intelligence. Now we know that the uncaused cause is eternal, exists outside of space and time and exhibits intelligence and intentionality. Starting to sound more and more like a God to me...

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309168813' post='2259030']
I have not stated what has happened but merely offered a couple of possibilities from the enormously large amounts of possibilities to consider. I find it a lot of fun and very thought provoking to try and come up with ideas on what might of happened. Of course they are all valid (including the god possibility) until some contrary proof is discovered. I don't believe in any of them as they are not fact. I am certainly keeping my eyes open with regards to scientific and cosmological discoveries. Very exciting stuff indeed. [/quote]

I pretty much agree with you. I find this stuff fun, too. My only disagreement would be that I think philosophy shows that God is the logical conclusion, but I'll argue that further down.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309168813' post='2259030']
I am not assuming a multiverse, I actually don't like the term multiverse as it implies that the universes relate to each other in some way. Maybe like how planets relate to each other as they travel around stars (solar system) or how solar systems relate to each other as they travel around a black hole (galaxies). I certainly would not term all the universes in space as being within one big multiverse. Of, course it is possible that some universes do rotate around within a multiverse and that possibly there are many multiverses. It really is amazing to think about the possibilities.

With regards to infinite regress, I don't think you understood what I was talking about with regards to it being impossible to have nothing and that existence in inevitable given the nature of space and the phenomena of quantum fluctuations. Anyway, there might be other natural phenomena that creates energy/matter as well, it does seem likely to me, given the data that scientists and cosmologists have presented, that energy/matter is an inevitable consequence of "nothing".
[/quote]

Glad to see someone else who doesn't like the idea of a multiverse. :-)

You clearly have more expertise in this field than I...however, I'll do my best to reply, but that said, if I make a scientific error, I'm not being shoddy with my science, I just don't know it very well.

That said, there's some serious problems with using quantum fluctuations to explain the Big Bang. Quantum fluctuations need something to fluctuate in: spacetime. However, spacetime doesn't come into existence until after the Big Bang:

[quote name='apologetics-notes blog']
The fact that we are relying on something called a “fluctuation” should give us a hint that there’s something more than nothing going on. You see a fluctuation implies that at the very least something is changing. But a proper definition of time is the change in some state of affairs. If you have any set of circumstances and then those circumstances are somehow different, you can know that time has elapsed. You have a “before” and an “after”. So the fact that there are quantum fluctuations means that [b]by definition time is already in existence[/b].

Also, although most physicists agree that matter and energy do not need to exist at the quantum level, a quantum fluctuation happens in space. The [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state"]Wikipedia article[/url] gets a quantum vacuum state right when it states

[indent][i]"According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space", and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."[/i][/indent]
Even in Johann Rafelski and Berndt Mueller’s little book [url="http://www.physics.arizona.edu/%7Erafelski/Books/StructVacuumE.pdf"][i]The Structured Vacuum[/i][/url] they define the vacuum as “space without matter”.

Herein lies the problem. If the beginning of the universe we mean that all matter, energy, space and time came into existence, but quantum fluctuations require space and time to already exist, then how can they explain the beginning of the universe? The answer is: they can’t. While quantum fluctuations are a theoretical construct, they really can’t explain why the universe is here at all, because two of the universe’s conditions must already exist for the quantum fluctuations to exist.
[/quote]

I also think you're violating the law of conservation of mass/energy. Note that there's a distinction between this law being violated and appearing to be violated. If during a quantum fluctuation, some matter passed into or out of existence, into some kind of quasi-nothingness, then the amount of matter in the universe has changed. I think you are misinterpreting (or using a non-standard interpretation of) quantum mechanics:

[quote name='Wikipedia']
In [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_physics"]quantum physics[/url], a [b]quantum fluctuation[/b] is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation#cite_note-0"][1][/url][/sup] arising from [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg"]Werner Heisenberg[/url]'s [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle"]uncertainty principle[/url].

According to one formulation of the principle, energy and time can be related by the relation[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation#cite_note-1"][2][/url][/sup]

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/d/1/bd1bb25a5159f9c74803afca6ad65935.png[/img] That means that [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy"]conservation of energy[/url] can appear to be violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation of particle-[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle"]antiparticle[/url] pairs of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle"]virtual particles[/url]. The effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in the effective charge of the electron, different from its "naked" charge.

In the modern view, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy"]energy[/url] is always [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law"]conserved[/url], but the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenstate"]eigenstates[/url] of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_%28quantum_mechanics%29"]Hamiltonian[/url] ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy"]energy[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable"]observable[/url]) are not the same as (i.e. the Hamiltonian doesn't [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutative_operation"]commute[/url] with) the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_number_operator"]particle number operators[/url].

[/quote]

[quote name='wikipedia']


[b]Quantum theory[/b]
In [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics"]quantum mechanics[/url], energy of a quantum system is described by a self-adjoint (Hermite) operator called Hamiltonian, which acts on the Hilbert space (or a space of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_functions"]wave functions[/url] ) of the system. If the Hamiltonian is a time independent operator, emergence probability of the measurement result does not change in time over the evolution of the system. Thus the expectation value of energy is also time independent. The local energy conservation in quantum field theory is ensured by the quantum [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem"]Noether's theorem[/url] for energy-momentum tensor operator. Note that due to the lack of the (universal) time operator in quantum theory, the uncertainty relations for time and energy are not fundamental in contrast to the position momentum uncertainty principle, and merely holds in specific cases (See [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle"]Uncertainty principle[/url]). Energy at each fixed time can be precisely measured in principle without any problem caused by the time energy uncertainty relations. Thus the conservation of energy in time is a well defined concept even in quantum mechanics.

[/quote]


Unqualified statements, etc:
[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309168813' post='2259030']
The issue with this is that you are ignoring the fact that it is impossible to have nothing and that quantum fluctuations occur all the time and everywhere.

You are also trying to ignore the problem of proving that something spiritual exists and that it is capable of creating energy/matter.
[/quote]

'It's impossible to have nothing" is an unqualified statement. You say it's impossible, I say it's possible-that's the kind of argument it boils down to when you don't back up your claims.

But let's grant for a minute that there really is some state of quasi-nothingness that quantum objects can enter and leave. Then it really isn't nothing, because there's stuff there. This state could be very different from observable reality, but it wouldn't be truly nothing. Also, just because a this state exists doesn't disprove the possibility that a state of true nothingness did exist prior to the Big Bang (or prior first event in the cosmos).

Since you haven't given scientific evidence for the impossibility of nothing, I can't disprove your science, but I can show that philosophically nothing isn't impossible.
[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309168813' post='2259030']Of course they are all valid (including the god possibility) until some contrary proof is discovered. [/quote]
I'm assuming from that quote that you believe that God is philosophically possible, just not likely. If God is philosophically possible, then it's philosophically possible that God would exist prior to any material reality, and there would be absolute nothing.

Not denying that quantum flucuations are real-they just require space time, meaning that they can't cause the Big Bang.

I'm not ignoring the problem of proving that something spiritual exists-I've outlined a proof for that in previous posts. For your sake, I'll repeat myself: If space, time, and matter came into existence at a point in time known as the Big Bang, then the cause of the Big Bang must exist outside these dimensions. Something existing with no material properties is a spirit.

We know that it's capable of creating energy/matter because we can look back in time and see that it did. The big bang requires a cause, either a material one or a spiritual one. I know we'll still disagree on this, but I think philosophy and science can show that this cause must be a spirit. If it's a spiritual cause, and it caused the Big Bang, it's empirically capable of doing it, because it did.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309168813' post='2259030']Of course they are all valid (including the god possibility) until some contrary proof is discovered. [/quote]

Here's what you are ignoring: We can't know for certain which one of these possibilities is true until we can observe one of them. However, God has revealed himself to us through Jesus Christ. The Resurrection is definitive proof that the God possibility is the only one that is true. You've now posted twice without mentioning it, after I've posted it as a proof. You appear to be intentionally ignoring it.

[stevil]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309280457' post='2259718']
You clearly have more expertise in this field than I...however, I'll do my best to reply, but that said, if I make a scientific error, I'm not being shoddy with my science, I just don't know it very well.
[/quote]
Lawrence Krauss is much more qualified than most people on the planet. It is his job to find answers (the truth) and to make sure they are correct by proving them with recreatable tests. He doesn't have all the answers and is not trying to fit the evidence into preconcieved answers. He is searching and learning.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo[/media]
In particular pay attention to 19minutes 30 seconds in

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309280457' post='2259718']
That said, there's some serious problems with using quantum fluctuations to explain the Big Bang. Quantum fluctuations need something to fluctuate in: spacetime. However, spacetime doesn't come into existence until after the Big Bang:
[/quote]
Space is everywhere, it has no boundaries. Quantum fluctuations create time.

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309280457' post='2259718']
I also think you're violating the law of conservation of mass/energy.
[/quote]
The sum total of all the energy in our universe is exactly equal to zero, always has, always will

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309280457' post='2259718']
I'm assuming from that quote that you believe that God is philosophically possible, just not likely.
[/quote]
Depends on the definition of a god. I am yet to see a concise definition.
If you posit that god is made of nothing and exists outside of existence e.g. has no requirement for time, space and energy then I am leaning very strongly towards the possiblity that this god does not exist.
It would be a huge breakthrough if someone could prove that something can exist without time, space and energy.
If you posit that god is unchanging and knows everything then I would ask how can knowledge and intelligence be present when there is no time, space and energy, no data, no information. You would go a long way if you could prove that knowledge and intelligence are independant of information.


[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309280457' post='2259718']
Not denying that quantum flucuations are real-they just require space time, meaning that they can't cause the Big Bang.
[/quote]
We don't know what caused the big bang, we don't know if spacetime was present before the big bang, my guess is that spacetime was most likely there prior. I don't think that our Universe came into being in an instant, I don't think that the big bang was the cause, it was only an expansion of the energy that was already there, likely in a huge black hole.
But this is not my belief, only a guess, one possibility of many.

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309280457' post='2259718']
I'm not ignoring the problem of proving that something spiritual exists-I've outlined a proof for that in previous posts. For your sake, I'll repeat myself: If space, time, and matter came into existence at a point in time known as the Big Bang, then the cause of the Big Bang must exist outside these dimensions. Something existing with no material properties is a spirit.
[/quote]
This is what would be called god of the gaps. We don't know what caused the big bang, we don't know that space, time and matter came into existence at the begining of the big bang, we don't know if anything spiritual exists, we don't know of anything without material properties that can exist.

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309280457' post='2259718']
We know that it's capable of creating energy/matter because we can look back in time and see that it did. The big bang requires a cause, either a material one or a spiritual one. I know we'll still disagree on this, but I think philosophy and science can show that this cause must be a spirit. If it's a spiritual cause, and it caused the Big Bang, it's empirically capable of doing it, because it did.
[/quote]
Philosophy can not show anything, it can only ask questions. Science has not shown what the cause of the big bang is. Noone has shown that a spirit exists.

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309280457' post='2259718']
Here's what you are ignoring: We can't know for certain which one of these possibilities is true until we can observe one of them. However, God has revealed himself to us through Jesus Christ. The Resurrection is definitive proof that the God possibility is the only one that is true. You've now posted twice without mentioning it, after I've posted it as a proof. You appear to be intentionally ignoring it.
[/quote]
There are a collection of books describing the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The authenticity is highly questionable. There are many claims throughout history from opposing religions and non religions to instances of magic (miracles). The vast majority, if not all are false. Please don't tell me that Benny Hinn is the second coming.

Edited June 28, 2011 by stevil

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Aragonn' timestamp='1309253632' post='2259601']
You reason back from the effects to discover the nature of the cause. The planets operate according to certain rules, the laws of nature allow life to come into existence, and the universe is intelligible.

Design comes from a designer, laws from a law giver and intelligibility from an intelligence. Now we know that the uncaused cause is eternal, exists outside of space and time and exhibits intelligence and intentionality. Starting to sound more and more like a God to me...
[/quote]

"Design comes from a designer, laws from a law giver and intelligibility from an intelligence."

We know this is the case with humans, if something a designed by an intelligent human for a purpose then it has an intelligent human designer who intentionally designs things for a purpose, but saying that the universe has a designer because it looks designed does not follow.

Much less that the designer, if it exists, is intelligently capable of planning and creating a universe fit for a purpose. We could very well be the result of a universe and not the purpose. The problem is that as far as our knowledege goes, this is the only universe we know and so don't have a reference of what one that wouldn't be called intelligently designed looks like.

One case where known probability actually favours theists and deists.

[xSilverPhinx]

Dells of bittersweet, the historicity of the bible isn't that clear and known as you say it is. I've been listening to a few talks and interviews of the biblical scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman, who is not a theologian but a biblical historian and he says the originals of the bible, like most if not all ancient texts, are lost and that the earliest documents we have were not written by eyewitnesses. Not only that, but there are accumulated errors, small contradictions and entire parts that were added in later copies.

[mortify]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309389943' post='2260509']
Dells of bittersweet, the historicity of the bible isn't that clear and known as you say it is. I've been listening to a few talks and interviews of the biblical scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman, who is not a theologian but a biblical historian and he says the originals of the bible, like most if not all ancient texts, are lost and that the earliest documents we have were not written by eyewitnesses. Not only that, but there are accumulated errors, small contradictions and entire parts that were added in later copies.
[/quote]

This is already a separate topic, and it's one I'm investing some personal study. Bart Ehrman doesn't represent the whole of Biblical scholarship, he endorses the liberal side, and is generally pessimistic about history (i.e. he believes little can be known historically.) He's written a lot of popular works. Personally what I noticed about him is that he likes to make statements and then not qualify them. So for example, he'll mention the fact that there are thousands of textual variants between the bible manuscripts, but he wont mention that 90% of these variants fall under the minute and easily identifiable category (i.e. spelling errors, missing lines, and other common accidents caused by the slip of a pen.) Also, the way the number is calculated is based off incidence, and not category. So if you have a a text with an error called A, and error A is copied by another scribe, scholars will say 2 variants exist, even though categorically it is one. With holding information like this leads the lay reader into thinking the bible is totally unreliable. The reality is the exact opposite! Scholars recognize many works as reliable even though the earliest copy we have of them is CENTURIES later. Consider Tacitus' Annals of History, originally written in 115 AD, and the earliest copy we have is from circa 900! We have fragments of the gospels going much earlier than that. In fact, one particular fragment named P52 of John's Gospel, is dated some 40 years after John's gospel was traditionally written! Incredible!

As for specific claims that the Gospels werent written by eye witnesses, they have no basis and ultimately are founded on bias. I mean really, would an agnostic scholar like Ehrman ever admit that their is actual eye witness testimony of a man performing miracles? Heck no! Thats the difficulty with the gospels for the atheist, they simply CANT be true! For them to be eye witness testimony would require a repudiation of atheism! So for scholars like Ehrman, the Gospels MUST be the product of non witnesses who's sources were faulty. That's why you see these strange theories of the gospel tradition being passed on anonymously, by a christian community that is so creativity they are virtually creating the teachings of Jesus from thin air! What hogwash! These schoalrs essentially are trying to project a folklore model into the gospel transmission. The problem with this is that it requires a lengthy space of time, but the Gospels were written within LIVING MEMORY! Even a scholar like Ehrman will admit that the gospels were written between 60-90AD! Many people who witnesses Jesus were alive and accessible. Doesn't it make sense that a person familiar with helenistic histiorography like Luke, would utilize these witnesses? I mean HELLO! And in fact Luke does, he mentions it in his gospel:

[b]"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were [color="#FF0000"]eyewitnesses and servants of the word[/color]"[/b]

So Luke used not merely eyewitnesses but eyewitnesses who were essentially seen as authoritative figures. There's no reason to doube that he had access to such people, so why not believe him? Oh... yea... Luke has a plethora of recordings on Jesus performing miracles! Forgot that that doesn't fit an atheist paradigm!

As for additional parts that were added, what are you referring to? There's really only two such examples. One is the narration of prostitute, and the other is the ending in Mark's gospel. Niether of these substantially add anything new to the gospel tradition, and secondly, who's to say they aren't true? Many events and teachings of Jesus were passed down in a formal and controlled method even when the Gospels were being written. Who's to say a narration like the one involving the prostitute was not a piece of history that was added in later, under permission of an Apostle? I mean really, there are many alternative hypotheses that are just as likely, if not more likely.

So yea, basic points are the Bible is reliable and atheism smells of elderberries.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1309405470' post='2260633']
This is already a separate topic, and it's one I'm investing some personal study. Bart Ehrman doesn't represent the whole of Biblical scholarship, he endorses the liberal side, and is generally pessimistic about history (i.e. he believes little can be known historically.) He's written a lot of popular works. Personally what I noticed about him is that he likes to make statements and then not qualify them. So for example, he'll mention the fact that there are thousands of textual variants between the bible manuscripts, but he wont mention that 90% of these variants fall under the minute and easily identifiable category (i.e. spelling errors, missing lines, and other common accidents caused by the slip of a pen.) Also, the way the number is calculated is based off incidence, and not category. So if you have a a text with an error called A, and error A is copied by another scribe, scholars will say 2 variants exist, even though categorically it is one. With holding information like this leads the lay reader into thinking the bible is totally unreliable. The reality is the exact opposite! Scholars recognize many works as reliable even though the earliest copy we have of them is CENTURIES later. Consider Tacitus' Annals of History, originally written in 115 AD, and the earliest copy we have is from circa 900! We have fragments of the gospels going much earlier than that. In fact, one particular fragment named P52 of John's Gospel, is dated some 40 years after John's gospel was traditionally written! Incredible! [/quote]

Actually in his interviews he does qualify the errors in the bible and most of them at least are what I consider to be normal (spelling mistakes, copying errors etc.), so I don't use them to fit into my close minded atheist paradigm. Mistranslations are common, and even poor translations given the sometimes linguistic disconnect between two languages or literal translations while dealing with symbolic words such as metaphors and such; or lack of context to determine whether the meaning of a word with more than one usage is such or such.

He mentioned the first copies we have (even of Paul) are written in Greek and by erudite people. Chances that they're eyewitnesses are slim.

He also mentioned while talking about his book "Forged" that sometimes people would submit a document as someone else in order to gain credibility. I'd have to listen to it again to see the particulars and details.



[quote]As for specific claims that the Gospels werent written by eye witnesses, they have no basis and ultimately are founded on bias. I mean really, would an agnostic scholar like Ehrman ever admit that their is actual eye witness testimony of a man performing miracles? Heck no! Thats the difficulty with the gospels for the atheist, they simply CANT be true! For them to be eye witness testimony would require a repudiation of atheism! So for scholars like Ehrman, the Gospels MUST be the product of non witnesses who's sources were faulty. That's why you see these strange theories of the gospel tradition being passed on anonymously, by a christian community that is so creativity they are virtually creating the teachings of Jesus from thin air! What hogwash! These schoalrs essentially are trying to project a folklore model into the gospel transmission. The problem with this is that it requires a lengthy space of time, but the Gospels were written within LIVING MEMORY! Even a scholar like Ehrman will admit that the gospels were written between 60-90AD! Many people who witnesses Jesus were alive and accessible. Doesn't it make sense that a person familiar with helenistic histiorography like Luke, would utilize these witnesses? I mean HELLO! And in fact Luke does, he mentions it in his gospel:

[b]"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were [color="#FF0000"]eyewitnesses and servants of the word[/color]"[/b]

So Luke used not merely eyewitnesses but eyewitnesses who were essentially seen as authoritative figures. There's no reason to doube that he had access to such people, so why not believe him? Oh... yea... Luke has a plethora of recordings on Jesus performing miracles! Forgot that that doesn't fit an atheist paradigm![/quote]

Miracles would need more proof than simply being written down in a book during a time when people were immersed in magical and superstitious thinking. It's not the bible that would convince me of its veracity without much more to back it up and I see no more reason to believe its claims about miracles than I have to see the Greek gods taking sides and how they would intervene during Homer's Illiad. Why don't the other gospels have more miracles in them? What about all the other gospels that didn't make it into the bible?

[quote]As for additional parts that were added, what are you referring to? There's really only two such examples. One is the narration of prostitute, and the other is the ending in Mark's gospel. Niether of these substantially add anything new to the gospel tradition, and secondly, who's to say they aren't true? Many events and teachings of Jesus were passed down in a formal and controlled method even when the Gospels were being written. Who's to say a narration like the one involving the prostitute was not a piece of history that was added in later, under permission of an Apostle? I mean really, there are many alternative hypotheses that are just as likely, if not more likely.[/quote]

Those two parts mainly, and if I do recall the main point he used to support this were also linguistic, that they could tell based on variants more or less what time it was written. The documents that make up bible are a collage, and no one gospel was written by one person during one time.

[quote]So yea, basic points are the Bible is reliable and atheism smells of elderberries.[/quote]

[mortify]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309408408' post='2260656']
Actually in his interviews he does qualify the errors in the bible and most of them at least are what I consider to be normal (spelling mistakes, copying errors etc.), so I don't use them to fit into my close minded atheist paradigm. Mistranslations are common, and even poor translations given the sometimes linguistic disconnect between two languages or literal translations while dealing with symbolic words such as metaphors and such; or lack of context to determine whether the meaning of a word with more than one usage is such or such. [/quote]

What's strange about Ehrman is that he believes textual scholars has restored the NT. In other words, scholars have identified the variants, and using sound methodologies have identified which of the variants are original. So what's the beef? Clearly he has an axe to grind.


[quote]He mentioned the first copies we have (even of Paul) are written in Greek and by erudite people. Chances that they're eyewitnesses are slim. [/quote]

Umm, Paul was an educated man and a Roman citizen. What is so unlikely about him writing in Greek? As for a Gospel like St John's, what if a Greek disciple of John recorded the words from his mouth? It's visibly evident that the source for the Fourth Gospel was solidly familiar with Jerusalem prior to 70AD, Jewish customs and feasts, and the lectionary used in the synagogues. Is it really hard to image that a scribe recorded the memories of a living Apostles? I mean really, why is the hypothesis least favorable towards the Bible's integrity always taken? Hmm, bias anyone?

[quote]He also mentioned while talking about his book "Forged" that sometimes people would submit a document as someone else in order to gain credibility. I'd have to listen to it again to see the particulars and details. [/quote]

If that's the case, why would they choose nobodies like Mark, Luke, and Matthew? Only John fits this hypothesis, he was a well known Apostle. But the fact is, attaching names like Mark and Luke to a gospel only make it more believable that these were the folks who wrote it.

[quote]Miracles would need more proof than simply being written down in a book during a time when people were immersed in magical and superstitious thinking. It's not the bible that would convince me of its veracity without much more to back it up and I see no more reason to believe its claims about miracles than I have to see the Greek gods taking sides and how they would intervene during Homer's Illiad. Why don't the other gospels have more miracles in them? What about all the other gospels that didn't make it into the bible? [/quote]

We're not proving the concept of miracles here, but let's at least admit that some strange phenomena was attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. Even the Jews didn't hesitate associating supernatural powers to him, and textual scholars generally agree that this was an aspect of his ministry. Using their own textual critical principles, they prove such is true! So for example, when the gospels record the Jews attributing Jesus' power to the Devil, this is considered a true recording, since a Christian scribe making up the life of Jesus, wouldn't attribute something like this to his master! Such a claim must have been made against Jesus, and so it was recorded. The point is, we have to take in the fact that "miracles" were associated with the historical Jesus. What we make of these phenomena is another story. Some scholars like to attribute natural explanations for them. So when Jesus walked on water, there really was sheet of ice he walked on. When he multiplied the loaves and fishes, it was really the "miracle of sharing" (pheh!) Whatever you choose to believe, such stories are attached to his person. Now if you are truly an open minded person, wouldnt you consider the possibility of miracles? I mean really, have scientists identified all known phenomena? What is some phenomena occur only once and are non repeatable? Then they are outside the scope of science! Only a person who holds materialism and naturalism as dogmatta would outright reject the existence of miracles, and such people are not trully open minded!

Now as for Homer's Illiad, all I can say is, REALLY? You're comparing the tales of an ancient Greek *epic* to the Gospels? You're not factoring genre into the equation. Homer wasn't a historian, he was a master of prose and created a great story. He never intended the Illiad to be taken as a historical account, nor did his readers take it as history. On the other hand, the Gospels fall under the category of ancient biography. Their authors intended to write a historical account of Christ, even though its not history in the modern sense of the word. Likewise, readers of the gospels understood they were reading what was actually recorded of Jesus' life and teaching. So the two are not comparable. And please, don't try to compare Greek myth to the Gospels. As mentioned earlier, the Gospels were written within LIVING MEMORY of Jesus' Life. In the ancient world HISTORY could only be written within LIVING MEMORY. When all the witnesses were dead, you no longer had history, you had tradition! Other than the 12 Apostles, Jesus had numerous disciples, many of whom became Elders in the church decades after His resurrection. Now do you really suppose that the Apostles and Elders just dissapeared from history? Heck no! They were teaching about Jesus day in and day out! The were still teaching when the Evangelists were writing down their gospels!

So yea... comparing the authenticity of the Gospels to some legend about Zeus just aint gonna fly!

[quote]Those two parts mainly, and if I do recall the main point he used to support this were also linguistic, that they could tell based on variants more or less what time it was written. The documents that make up bible are a collage, and no one gospel was written by one person during one time. [/quote]

That last part of your sentence sounds like you're getting into form criticism. Criticizing the criticism would be too long for this post. Suffice to say that the major points of form criticism has been refuted by most scholars.

[quote]

[/quote]

Basically what Im saying is that atheism is lame

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1309412026' post='2260686']
What's strange about Ehrman is that he believes textual scholars has restored the NT. In other words, scholars have identified the variants, and using sound methodologies have identified which of the variants are original. So what's the beef? Clearly he has an axe to grind. [/quote]

I trust his judgement more than I would an apologist, because he claims to be an agnostic. Contrary to some other agnostic scholars, he claims that Jesus was actually a historical figure and not a myth so he doesn't look like someone on either extreme to me.

[quote]Umm, Paul was an educated man and a Roman citizen. What is so unlikely about him writing in Greek? As for a Gospel like St John's, what if a Greek disciple of John recorded the words from his mouth? It's visibly evident that the source for the Fourth Gospel was solidly familiar with Jerusalem prior to 70AD, Jewish customs and feasts, and the lectionary used in the synagogues. Is it really hard to image that a scribe recorded the memories of a living Apostles? I mean really, why is the hypothesis least favorable towards the Bible's integrity always taken? Hmm, bias anyone?[/quote]

Did Paul mention the miracles of Jesus? Though really, it's not a point I want to get into right now.


[quote]If that's the case, why would they choose nobodies like Mark, Luke, and Matthew? Only John fits this hypothesis, he was a well known Apostle. But the fact is, attaching names like Mark and Luke to a gospel only make it more believable that these were the folks who wrote it. [/quote]

I don't know. But he based it on criticism, and once again, I'm more inclined to take his word for it than somebody else's who claims that each gospel was written by the person whose name it is under. Biblical collage seems to be an established fact.

[quote]We're not proving the concept of miracles here, but let's at least admit that some strange phenomena was attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. Even the Jews didn't hesitate associating supernatural powers to him, and textual scholars generally agree that this was an aspect of his ministry. Using their own textual critical principles, they prove such is true! So for example, when the gospels record the Jews attributing Jesus' power to the Devil, this is considered a true recording, since a Christian scribe making up the life of Jesus, wouldn't attribute something like this to his master! Such a claim must have been made against Jesus, and so it was recorded. The point is, we have to take in the fact that "miracles" were associated with the historical Jesus. What we make of these phenomena is another story. Some scholars like to attribute natural explanations for them. So when Jesus walked on water, there really was sheet of ice he walked on. When he multiplied the loaves and fishes, it was really the "miracle of sharing" (pheh!) Whatever you choose to believe, such stories are attached to his person. Now if you are truly an open minded person, wouldnt you consider the possibility of miracles? I mean really, have scientists identified all known phenomena? What is some phenomena occur only once and are non repeatable? Then they are outside the scope of science! Only a person who holds materialism and naturalism as dogmatta would outright reject the existence of miracles, and such people are not trully open minded![/quote]

You know what they say...strive to be open minded but not so open minded that your brain falls out.

Those Biblical miracles do go against known natural phenomena. How could Jesus walk on water if there wasn't another force at play? Claiming that it was god really does nothing for someone not so willing to take it on pure faith. How did he divide a loaf of bread beyond its initial mass? Did he transform the hydrogen atoms in the air to make and array of other atoms and combine them into bread (without needing to create a special nuclear reactor first)? In nature, new and heavier atoms are created inside stars and when stars explode. That's a lot of energy. Did he take non organic carbon and make it combine into organic forms to form more bread? Don't say that it's dogmatic science when such claims fly in the face of credibility. I need way more than an ancient book (once again: written by people who were immersed in magical and superstitious thinking, as was normal in a pre scientific age) to convince me. Good illusionists can pull off some "miracles" these days.

[quote]Now as for Homer's Illiad, all I can say is, REALLY? You're comparing the tales of an ancient Greek *epic* to the Gospels? You're not factoring genre into the equation. Homer wasn't a historian, he was a master of prose and created a great story. He never intended the Illiad to be taken as a historical account, nor did his readers take it as history. On the other hand, the Gospels fall under the category of ancient biography. Their authors intended to write a historical account of Christ, even though its not history in the modern sense of the word. Likewise, readers of the gospels understood they were reading what was actually recorded of Jesus' life and teaching. So the two are not comparable. And please, don't try to compare Greek myth to the Gospels. As mentioned earlier, the Gospels were written within LIVING MEMORY of Jesus' Life. In the ancient world HISTORY could only be written within LIVING MEMORY. When all the witnesses were dead, you no longer had history, you had tradition! Other than the 12 Apostles, Jesus had numerous disciples, many of whom became Elders in the church decades after His resurrection. Now do you really suppose that the Apostles and Elders just dissapeared from history? Heck no! They were teaching about Jesus day in and day out! The were still teaching when the Evangelists were writing down their gospels!

So yea... comparing the authenticity of the Gospels to some legend about Zeus just aint gonna fly![/quote]

They both have gods in them. And I'm going to have to look more indepth on the historicity of the bible.

[quote]That last part of your sentence sounds like you're getting into form criticism. Criticizing the criticism would be too long for this post. Suffice to say that the major points of form criticism has been refuted by most scholars.[/quote]



[quote]Basically what Im saying is that atheism is lame[/quote]

To accept and incorporate parts of religious philosophies is one thing, but to believe in miracles is gullibility. My atheism is a result of my skepticism, and I really don't see it as lame.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309415851' post='2260713']
They both have gods in them. And I'm going to have to look more indepth on the historicity of the bible.
[/quote]

Hey I don't have time for a long reply here because I'm at work, but I thought I'd mention that you need to read The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. The author is a crime reporter and investigated the claims of Jesus in the way that he would have in a court of law. Great read.

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308975643' post='2258425']
Yes, but why would that uncaused cause need to be intelligent and consciously capable of designing a universe? To prove that there's an uncaused cause is one thing, but to prove that it's intelligent is another.

Stephen Hawking in his latest book "The Grand Design" talked about the universe coming into existence uncaused. I don't have the knowledge necessary to know criticise it but uncaused causes aren't so out there.
[/quote]
Some time in the past year, I say a clip from an interview with Hawking, in which he said that he believed the universe came into being as the result of eternal physical laws which allowed the universe to exist, but he didn't believe these laws were the result of an intelligent personal God.

I found that interesting that he acknowledged the existence of the laws that make our functional intelligible universe possible, yet denied the existence of a Law-giver. If any one of the physical laws were even slightly altered, our universe in which intelligent life is able to exist, would simply not be able to exist.

To me the idea of a set of intelligent laws which are necessary for our universe's functioning without an intelligent Law-giver is rather absurd.

I'd say it's like looking at an incredibly advanced and sophisticated computer simulation, and looking at the source code which allows it to operate, but denying the existence of a programmer, and saying the code must have simply always existed by itself, and that nobody wrote it.

Or like acknowledging that the Constitution is the basis for the system of law and government of the US, but denying that it had any Framers, but simply always existed on its own. (Assume we're talking aliens with no knowledge of American history.)


As for the universe bringing itself into existence from nothing uncaused, that position is philosophically absurd. Nothing can be the cause of its own being unless it is Pure Act (aka God). But I'd have to take that up with Dr. Hawking (if that is really his position.)

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309451950' post='2260860']
Hey I don't have time for a long reply here because I'm at work, but I thought I'd mention that you need to read The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. The author is a crime reporter and investigated the claims of Jesus in the way that he would have in a court of law. Great read.[/quote]

Okay, I'll look into it. Though a crime reporter...

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1309455668' post='2260916']
Some time in the past year, I say a clip from an interview with Hawking, in which he said that he believed the universe came into being as the result of eternal physical laws which allowed the universe to exist, but he didn't believe these laws were the result of an intelligent personal God.

I found that interesting that he acknowledged the existence of the laws that make our functional intelligible universe possible, yet denied the existence of a Law-giver. If any one of the physical laws were even slightly altered, our universe in which intelligent life is able to exist, would simply not be able to exist.

To me the idea of a set of intelligent laws which are necessary for our universe's functioning without an intelligent Law-giver is rather absurd.

I'd say it's like looking at an incredibly advanced and sophisticated computer simulation, and looking at the source code which allows it to operate, but denying the existence of a programmer, and saying the code must have simply always existed by itself, and that nobody wrote it.

Or like acknowledging that the Constitution is the basis for the system of law and government of the US, but denying that it had any Framers, but simply always existed on its own. (Assume we're talking aliens with no knowledge of American history.)


As for the universe bringing itself into existence from nothing uncaused, that position is philosophically absurd. Nothing can be the cause of its own being unless it is Pure Act (aka God). But I'd have to take that up with Dr. Hawking (if that is really his position.)
[/quote]

The cosmological constant is one that has to be accurate to quite a few decimal places, otherwise not even stars would form out of dust clouds, which would mean no other heavier atoms and consequently us. All serious cosmologists and physicists I've watched on YouTube or read about say that the universe is fine tuned, but it has a slightly different meaning than how apologists use it. Hawkings would be one of them (who recently publicly "came out" as an atheist.)

I think it's complicated for science to be able to find evidence for a creator, and so maybe that's why Hawkings didn't venture into that then. God of the gaps isn't really an answer unless it can be shown.

As for your example, when you put it that way, yes, but you're using human designs that we know have been designed and have a purpose, and the same logic that applies to those might not apply to the universe. Complex things can self organise by themselves without external intervention, such as snowflakes. As for the rules that make that configuration possible, it's a big question mark to me, I don't know. The universe could be like a big [url="http://www.google.com/search?q=medieval+map&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=614&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=YvYMTq_ABoO6tgf5ls3wDQ&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBUQ_AUoAQ#hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=Mandelbrot+set&oq=Mandelbrot+set&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=undefined&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=375l832l0l1l1l0l0l0l0l225l225l2-1l1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e8a3dd5a2924e8f5&biw=1024&bih=614"]Mandelbrot set[/url], in which a complex thing comes from a very simple equation, but set up in such a way that complex results are possible.

[mortify]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309473689' post='2261244']
As for your example, when you put it that way, yes, but you're using human designs that we know have been designed and have a purpose, and the same logic that applies to those might not apply to the universe. Complex things can self organise by themselves without external intervention, such as snowflakes. As for the rules that make that configuration possible, it's a big question mark to me, I don't know. The universe could be like a big [url="http://www.google.com/search?q=medieval+map&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=614&prmd=ivns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=YvYMTq_ABoO6tgf5ls3wDQ&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBUQ_AUoAQ#hl=en&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=Mandelbrot+set&oq=Mandelbrot+set&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=undefined&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=375l832l0l1l1l0l0l0l0l225l225l2-1l1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=e8a3dd5a2924e8f5&biw=1024&bih=614"]Mandelbrot set[/url], in which a complex thing comes from a very simple equation, but set up in such a way that complex results are possible.
[/quote]

Sure, there are natural forces that account for molecules organizing themselves into the form of a crystal or snowflake. But there are no laws that account for snowflakes organizing themselves into blocks of snow, and those blocks of snow into an igloo. Likewise, there are natural forces that compound molecules into stone, but no natural force can create the pyramids of Giza. At a certain point, natural causes can't explain what we see, and we must admit an external force is involved. Let us look at something far more complex than a snowflake, the human body. And since so much can be said about the human body, lets take only a specific part of it, the cardiovascular system. And since even the complexities of this particular system are so incredible, let us only look at one particular aspect of it. Let us look at the valves in veins that help propel blood. Ah, of all things I have chosen valves! Yes, valves, if youd didn't have them, you'd be dead! The heart is an incredibly powerful organ, yet even so, by the time the arteries carry oxygenated blood through all your tissue, and begin to cycle back towards your heart, the pressure is significantly lowered. The veins in our legs have valves that only permit blood flow to travel in one direction. When you use your legs, i.e. walking, the muscles squeeze against the veins and help propel the blood against gravity back into your heart. Isn't this such a cool topic! Now, is there a law that says veins must have valves, and arteries must be without them? No. So what accounts for this? If your arteries had valves, then they would inhibit the flow of blood, and you'd be dead sooner than you know it! So organized things in such a way that we would be lucky enough to have these wonderful aids to our survival in just the right spot? I suppose the classic trifecta answer is: variation, natural selection, and reproduction. But really? Does it really make sense mutation got it right on the first try? One really needs to think about this. And keep in mind, this is only ONE, SMALL aspect of a much more complex system, which is iteself part of a much more complex body! I mean we haven't even touched the really complex stuff, like the different compositions between veins and arteries, the latter being more elastic to help propel blood, and then of course there is that masterpiece of engineering, the human heart! I mean my god, who dares to call it anything otherwise! Imagine cardiac muscle was no different than the muscle in your bicepts, which tires after a little exercise! Reflecting on human physiology can easily make one a believer. It's for this reason I always recomment college students take a course in it!

It's for reasons like this I find evolution deficient. Sure, mutations occur, reproduction is a reality, and natural selection makes sense. But is that all it takes for the slime that existed millions upon millions of years ago to turn into a mammal? I think not! Mathmetecians have played around with the probability of evolution. They developed numerous models calculating estimating the amount of time necessary for a single celled organism to evolve into something like a mammal. The most favorable model results in a time that is greater than the age of our solar system!! Clearly, something is missing. Perhaps Darwin got the components right, but missed a key element, perhaps even several key elements. Whatever it is, it resulted in jumpstarting the evolutionary process of our species. Now, to any Catholic it's quite easy to see this Element is what we call God (to use an expression of St Thomas!)

But yea, much to think about!

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1309478265' post='2261298']
Sure, there are natural forces that account for molecules organizing themselves into the form of a crystal or snowflake. But there are no laws that account for snowflakes organizing themselves into blocks of snow, and those blocks of snow into an igloo. Likewise, there are natural forces that compound molecules into stone, but no natural force can create the pyramids of Giza. At a certain point, natural causes can't explain what we see, and we must admit an external force is involved. Let us look at something far more complex than a snowflake, the human body. And since so much can be said about the human body, lets take only a specific part of it, the cardiovascular system. And since even the complexities of this particular system are so incredible, let us only look at one particular aspect of it. Let us look at the valves in veins that help propel blood. Ah, of all things I have chosen valves! Yes, valves, if youd didn't have them, you'd be dead! The heart is an incredibly powerful organ, yet even so, by the time the arteries carry oxygenated blood through all your tissue, and begin to cycle back towards your heart, the pressure is significantly lowered. The veins in our legs have valves that only permit blood flow to travel in one direction. When you use your legs, i.e. walking, the muscles squeeze against the veins and help propel the blood against gravity back into your heart. Isn't this such a cool topic! Now, is there a law that says veins must have valves, and arteries must be without them? No. So what accounts for this? If your arteries had valves, then they would inhibit the flow of blood, and you'd be dead sooner than you know it! So organized things in such a way that we would be lucky enough to have these wonderful aids to our survival in just the right spot? I suppose the classic trifecta answer is: variation, natural selection, and reproduction. But really? Does it really make sense mutation got it right on the first try? One really needs to think about this. And keep in mind, this is only ONE, SMALL aspect of a much more complex system, which is iteself part of a much more complex body! I mean we haven't even touched the really complex stuff, like the different compositions between veins and arteries, the latter being more elastic to help propel blood, and then of course there is that masterpiece of engineering, the human heart! I mean my god, who dares to call it anything otherwise! Imagine cardiac muscle was no different than the muscle in your bicepts, which tires after a little exercise! Reflecting on human physiology can easily make one a believer. It's for this reason I always recomment college students take a course in it!

It's for reasons like this I find evolution deficient. Sure, mutations occur, reproduction is a reality, and natural selection makes sense. But is that all it takes for the slime that existed millions upon millions of years ago to turn into a mammal? I think not! Mathmetecians have played around with the probability of evolution. They developed numerous models calculating estimating the amount of time necessary for a single celled organism to evolve into something like a mammal. The most favorable model results in a time that is greater than the age of our solar system!! Clearly, something is missing. Perhaps Darwin got the components right, but missed a key element, perhaps even several key elements. Whatever it is, it resulted in jumpstarting the evolutionary process of our species. Now, to any Catholic it's quite easy to see this Element is what we call God (to use an expression of St Thomas!)

But yea, much to think about!
[/quote]

I really suggest you study evolution a bit more in depth before you look at an already complex system and say that it couldn't have evolved. You have to look at it from the bottom up, not the other way round. There isn't even a theory of abiogenesis yet (which evolutionary theory does not cover - it's only about what happens once life got started), so it is dishonest to say the least that it's impossible. I suggest you look into the hypotheses in the field more closely before dismissing that a bunch or organic molecules couldn't have organised itself into the first self replicating "organisms" that would mutate and compete for the edge.

And I would dismiss what people like Dembsky (a mathematician who tried to calculate the odds) without even looking at what he has to say. The Boeing in the junkyard argument has been refuted ages ago, and people who insist on it have close to no knowledge of biology or chemistry.

Dawkins explains it well in his videos or in his book the Blind Watchmaker.

[mortify]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309482010' post='2261333']
I really suggest you study evolution a bit more in depth before you look at an already complex system and say that it couldn't have evolved. You have to look at it from the bottom up, not the other way round. There isn't even a theory of abiogenesis yet (which evolutionary theory does not cover - it's only about what happens once life got started), so it is dishonest to say the least that it's impossible. I suggest you look into the hypotheses in the field more closely before dismissing that a bunch or organic molecules couldn't have organised itself into the first self replicating "organisms" that would mutate and compete for the edge.[/quote]

Umm, organic molecules don't just organize themselves into self replicating organisms that mutate for the edge. Molecules organizing into an ice cube is VERY different from the molecules organizing a single celled organism. There are many problems with the idea. For one, reproduction is essential to evolution (you need replication for the naturally selected variants to pass on!) and yet, reproduction had to evolve. Interesting! And then their is the issue that the organic slime we all supposedly originate from was photosynthesizing (it's how we explain the oxygen in the atmosphere.) But photosynthesis is a very complex chemical process. It's not like you can have 50% of the chemical equation, because the chemical product at that point is useless. The entire complex process had to be there from the beginning. But how can this be? Very interesting indeed!

I'm no dissing evolution per se. It is after all the best model that fits a materialist and naturalist paradigm, and so naturally atheists will defend it. All I'm saying is that it's deficient. Variation, mutation, and natural selection dont explain everything... and can't explain everything...

[quote]And I would dismiss what people like Dembsky (a mathematician who tried to calculate the odds) without even looking at what he has to say. The Boeing in the junkyard argument has been refuted ages ago, and people who insist on it have close to no knowledge of biology or chemistry.[/quote]

I don't know who that is. I'm referring to the work of a South African Philosopher of Science and Metaphysics, Errol E. Harris. He wrote an interesting book some 50 years ago called _The Metaphysics in Science_. He's by no means a Christian, and certainly accepts the theory of evolution, but simply say's it's deficient. There is an element it doesn't account for which is necessary to explain reality as we know it. For the dogmatic materialist this will certainly be a problem!

Thank God Catholics have an open mind : )