Book Plunge: Why Science Does Not Disprove God

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Are you claiming that your post was an attempt at irony; and that you don't actually stand behind the things which you said, but rather mean them only to illustrate the problems inherent to your opposition's style of argumentation? If so, it seems you did a rather poor job of it.

Disclaimer: I think the user Gary is an idiot too.

I don't think he's an idiot, necessarily. Just that he's unnecessarily vitriolic, and as a result, not thinking through his statements fully.

I simply don't care for this kind of reasoning. If one takes the account of the Exodus story as history then one has to ignore the screaming silence that shows how unlikely it is. It is not necessary to "prove" anything by history in the sense that we can be absolutely certain of what took place. It's just like we can't prove Jesus, John The Baptist, or the Apostle Paul lived, but that doesn't stop Jesus mythers from their theories. Why? Because history is never certain. We can be pretty certain that based on the available evidence, Jesus was an historical person. By that same standard we can write the Exodus off as being mostly ( if not entirely) a mythological tale.

I actually completely agree with you. In fact, the historical and archaeological silence on the Exodus was a very large part of the realization which led me to abandon Christianity. I wasn't attempting to say that belief in the historicity of the Exodus account is reasonable. I was simply warning against inaccurate language.

I'm an amateur mathematician, so forgive the math example, but there's a good analogy available. A great many mathematicians strongly suspect that the Twin Primes Conjecture (the idea that there are an infinite number of Twin Primes) is true. However, if someone were to simply presume that there exist an infinite number of Twin Primes, without acknowledging the conjectural nature of that claim, those very same mathematicians would quickly jump on this mistaken presumption.

There's a very grand difference between demonstrating that something is almost certainly true and demonstrating that it is certainly true.

This is just silly. Modern neurology and medical science do construct theories on death, and none of them include resurrections.

This is precisely what I said. We do not know of any manner in which Resurrection can occur. It is not included in any of those theories on death. This is precisely why it is an Argument from Ignorance fallacy to claim that, since we do not know of any manner in which Resurrection can occur, we can therefore conclude that Resurrection cannot occur.

I do not believe that Resurrection can occur or has occurred. However, this is a very different statement from claiming to know that Resurrection cannot occur.

Let me add this: You should be ashamed of yourself for your chummy relationship with the members of this cult; throwing softballs to them (for how many years?) instead of hardballs; refusing to challenge them head on, with no holds barred, regarding the discrimination-inciting indoctrination and downright insanity of their belief system; a belief system that will teach yet another generation of young children to view an ancient superstition as a higher authority than reason and science; teaching little children that if they refuse to love and obey the ghost of a 2,000 year old dead man, that this "loving, perfect, compassionate" ghost will hurl them into a dark pit to be horrifically tortured, in some fashion, for all eternity.

SHAME
ON
YOU.

Seriously? You don't seem to be very familiar with Sea of Red's post history. Also, you seem to think that it is impossible to disagree with people-- event to think that those people are entirely mistaken in their beliefs-- while still maintaining a respectful and friendly discourse.

I don't know about you, but even while I was still a Christian, I figured out that treating people with contempt and vitriol is not the best way to convince them of anything. That doesn't change suddenly just because I no longer believe that deity exists.

What is your goal in posting on TWeb? Is it to actually have meaningful dialogue with those who hold to different views, to seek out the truth, and to encourage others to do the same? Or is your goal to parade your perceived superiority for having abandoned religion, to spout arrogantly at theists, and to troll? If it's the former, I would suggest that you re-evaluate your method of discourse, as it does not seem well-suited to your goal. If it's the latter, let me know so that you can be the first person I've ever put on my Ignore list.

[tabibito]

In fact, the historical and archaeological silence on the Exodus was a very large part of the realization which led me to abandon Christianity.

Is there silence, or is the sound drowned out by surrounding noise. Jericho fell pretty much as the Bible describes, but there are major differences of opinion among archaeologists about whether the time-frame of the fall is right. Given that there is no record in the any of the competing time-frames, save that of the Hebrews, for the of the fall of Jericho, the possibility increases that the Biblical record is accurate. Of course, even if findings do show that Jericho fell during the Biblical time frame, it would not prove that the Hebrews did it - it would simply be unreasonable to doubt it sans competing evidence. Then there is the wholly inexplicable behaviour of Akhenaten - the unexpected Pharaoh - and his mother's role in the whole Egyptian experiment with monotheism. Again, the time-frame is a reasonable fit with the Biblical record. Akenhaten's father is the "Pharaoh most likely" to have slugged it out with God.

This is precisely what I said. We do not know of any manner in which Resurrection can occur. It is not included in any of those theories on death. This is precisely why it is an Argument from Ignorance fallacy to claim that, since we do not know of any manner in which Resurrection can occur, we can therefore conclude that Resurrection cannot occur. I do not believe that Resurrection can occur or has occurred. However, this is a very different statement from claiming to know that Resurrection cannot occur.

Terms like "impossible" are, I think, reasonable where the chances of occurrence demonstrably negligible and no known means can produce it. (Within the disciplines of the science in question excepted, of course.) However - if it isn't impossible, it isn't a miracle.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Is there silence, or is the sound drowned out by surrounding noise. Jericho fell pretty much as the Bible describes, but there are major differences of opinion among archaeologists about whether the time-frame of the fall is right. Given that there is no record in the any of the competing time-frames, save that of the Hebrews, for the of the fall of Jericho, the possibility increases that the Biblical record is accurate. Of course, even if findings do show that Jericho fell during the Biblical time frame, it would not prove that the Hebrews did it - it would simply be unreasonable to doubt it sans competing evidence. Then there is the wholly inexplicable behaviour of Akhenaten - the unexpected Pharaoh - and his mother's role in the whole Egyptian experiment with monotheism. Again, the time-frame is a reasonable fit with the Biblical record. Akenhaten's father is the "Pharaoh most likely" to have slugged it out with God.

This is getting a bit off topic, but if you want to discuss the questions over the historicity of the Exodus, and how that topic was a catalyst for my loss of faith, I'm more than willing to do so in private messages or in another thread.

Terms like "impossible" are, I think, reasonable where the chances of occurrence demonstrably negligible and no known means can produce it. (Within the disciplines of the science in question excepted, of course.) However - if it isn't impossible, it isn't a miracle.

In my very humblest of opinions, the word "impossible" should be reserved for things which are known to actually be not possible, rather than being applied to things which are possible but exceedingly unlikely, or things whose possibility is uncertain. It seems rather disingenuous to call a thing "impossible" when it is or may be possible.

[William]

The issue is, the existence of God is not a scientific question. It's a philosophical question, and has to be discussed on those grounds.

this I sort of get, but sort of get confused by.

I can get this when talking about a creator or creators in general, but what confuses me is when Christians will go this route and say, "so, there must have been a creator, therefore Jesus." Paraphrased, of course.

How does philosophy (or anything) take one from the possibility of intelligent design to the God of the Bible?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

How does philosophy (or anything) take one from the possibility of intelligent design to the God of the Bible?

This might be a bit off-topic for this particular thread. I don't believe Dr. Aczel's book discusses any deity in particular. It is an interesting question to be sure, and one which hosts of philosophers have attempted to elucidate (Aquinas being a favorite of many theists with whom I've spoken); but perhaps it deserves its own thread.

[Adrift]

this I sort of get, but sort of get confused by.

I can get this when talking about a creator or creators in general, but what confuses me is when Christians will go this route and say, "so, there must have been a creator, therefore Jesus." Paraphrased, of course.

I've been a Christian for a very long time and I don't think I've ever heard any Christian make any sort of argument like that. Do you have an example.

How does philosophy (or anything) take one from the possibility of intelligent design to the God of the Bible?

I don't think philosophy does this with intelligent design alone. Natural theology uses a number arguments (intelligent design being only one of those possible arguments) to define the characteristics of a divine being that we may identify in certain religious writings like the Bible. Usually this is done through some sort of inductive or deductive reasoning. Reading books on natural theology will probably help you make the most sense of it. I suggest checking out JP Moreland's Scaling the Secular City. It's a little dated now, but it's got some great stuff in it. Then there's Craig's Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. You could also check out Tim O'Conner's Theism and Ultimate Explanation, and Stephen Davis' God, Reason and Theistic Proofs.

[William]

I've been a Christian for a very long time and I don't think I've ever heard any Christian make any sort of argument like that. Do you have an example.

an example? only anecdotal. Nothing written on threads or posts... although I believe I run across such on at least one particular blog, but nothing I care enough about to look through and copy and paste here.

I don't think philosophy does this with intelligent design alone. Natural theology uses a number arguments (intelligent design being only one of those possible arguments) to define the characteristics of a divine being that we may identify in certain religious writings like the Bible. Usually this is done through some sort of inductive or deductive reasoning. Reading books on natural theology will probably help you make the most sense of it. I suggest checking out JP Moreland's Scaling the Secular City. It's a little dated now, but it's got some great stuff in it. Then there's Craig's Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. You could also check out Tim O'Conner's Theism and Ultimate Explanation, and Stephen Davis' God, Reason and Theistic Proofs.

...but this is the point anyhow. Yeah, I'll add those my growing list of books, thanks.

One thing about philosophy though, is that there are several competing philosophies about all sorts of topics. With science, you can test and retest, and philosophy doesnt work quite that way. it uses logic, sure, but i am sure you see the difference.

so is there no generic way of paraphrasing anything in those books you mentioned that would take us from intelligent design to the God of the Bible? and intelligent design isnt even "proven," as you know it's much disputed still, all sides using logic.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Philosophy alone cannot prove Christianity. How could it? Christianity relies on historical events. You can't get there by philosophy alone any more than you can get to in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue by philosophy alone. Philosophy can get you to a deity that is consistent with Christianity, but is also consistent with other religions. That's when you do the work of history to see how God has revealed Himself.

[Adrift]

so is there no generic way of paraphrasing anything in those books you mentioned that would take us from intelligent design to the God of the Bible?

A generic way of paraphrasing it? Not that I can think of, no.

and intelligent design isnt even "proven," as you know it's much disputed still, all sides using logic.

I don't really know what you mean by intelligent design here. Are you referring to the movement that theorizes on evolution and talks about things like irriducible and specified complexity, and whose main proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, or are you speaking more generally about teleological arguments for design in the greater known universe?

[William]

I don't really know what you mean by intelligent design here. Are you referring to the movement that theorizes on evolution and talks about things like irriducible and specified complexity, and whose main proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, or are you speaking more generally about teleological arguments for design in the greater known universe?

just instead of saying "God." as in the outlook that there was a creation, designed by something(s) intelligent. Nothing else intended to be read into it. You know? why one God? Why perfect and all powerful? why eternal? why wouldn't that creator or creators also have a creator?

[tabibito]

just instead of saying "God." as in the outlook that there was a creation, designed by something(s) intelligent. Nothing else intended to be read into it. You know? why one God? Why perfect and all powerful? why eternal? why wouldn't that creator or creators also have a creator?

Eventually you would trace it back to something eternal. If that something eternal happened to have intelligence, you would have a god (or some gods).

The evidence now to hand indicates scant chance of the universe being eternal. Even the most staunch and educated of scientists who previously held that the universe is eternal have now stated that they are satisfied that they were wrong.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

The evidence now to hand indicates scant chance of the universe being eternal. Even the most staunch and educated of scientists who previously held that the universe is eternal have now stated that they are satisfied that they were wrong.

This is not accurate. The question of whether the universe is past-finite or past-infinite is still very much open, in cosmology.

Further, if by saying the universe is not "eternal," you mean to imply that there is evidence that there was once a state in which the universe did not exist, you would be entirely incorrect.

[William]

Eventually you would trace it back to something eternal. If that something eternal happened to have intelligence, you would have a god (or some gods).

The evidence now to hand indicates scant chance of the universe being eternal. Even the most staunch and educated of scientists who previously held that the universe is eternal have now stated that they are satisfied that they were wrong.

I agree that at some point we'd hit something eternal and that if that something turned out to be intelligent, then I suppose we could call it a god, although it or they may be nothing like we imagine.

[Gary]

I agree that at some point we'd hit something eternal and that if that something turned out to be intelligent, then I suppose we could call it a god, although it or they may be nothing like we imagine.

There may well be a Creator, but it could very well also be the case that their are CREATORS. The point is that the jump from the existence of a Creator(s) is massive to arrive at the claim that Yahweh-Jesus is that Creator. A reading of the OT clearly demonstrates that the ancient Canaanite god Yahweh was a blood-thirsty, vindictive, baby-slaughtering monster. To believe that he and Jesus are one and the same person is no different than claiming that Hitler and Pope Frances are one and the same. It's preposterous. And, Jesus never claimed to be the god Yahweh. Christians can claim that Jesus claimed to be one "with his Father" but that doesn't mean Jesus claimed to be Yahweh.

Yahweh could not pass a modern sixth grade science quiz. Yahweh is no more real than Zeus or Jupiter.

Jesus was a great man, but just like all great men, they eventually die, and Jesus died 2,000 years ago. The only evidence to suggest that he is still alive is based on anonymous first century writings written decades after his death, the testimony of one vision-prone rabbi, and the alleged behavior patterns of people living 20 centuries ago. He's dead folks. I know it is painful to accept, but Jesus is dead. The probabilities of him being alive are no better than Julius Caesar still being alive.

[Adrift]

just instead of saying "God." as in the outlook that there was a creation, designed by something(s) intelligent. Nothing else intended to be read into it. You know? why one God? Why perfect and all powerful? why eternal? why wouldn't that creator or creators also have a creator?

Oh, okay. Yeah, I don't know a generic way of paraphrasing an answer for you other than to say that it has to do with a deeper discussion on ontology, and that a being (or beings) that has the ability to create a universe and everything in it (including space time and matter) would have to be immensely powerful, timeless, immaterial, likely uncaused, and changeless, and personal. A lot of these traits share traits that coincide with various religious interpretations of divine beings, specifically the Judeo-Christian one. Pick up the books I mentioned for a more indepth look into the subject.