Could you believe that your current religion is wrong?

[JimL]

I largely agree with this statement. IMO, you inevitably come to a point in science that says either there is a God or there isn't. Science itself cannot comment on which option is the correct one. If you keep going back far enough in time, you get to a point of having to decide where you think that it is either a completely natural phenomenon or if there is a deity involved. Again, IMO, at that point you have to make a choice as to what you are going to believe. For me, there has to be an eternal "substance" and the options are limited to "mind" or "matter". Due to the laws of thermodynamics, I choose to side with "mind" being eternal. "Mind" can also be linked to "information" as a basic component of reality. Some of the more advanced quantum suggests that "information" may be a fundamental property of all matter. This sounds a lot like John 1 to me (In the beginning was the Word,...). But again, there is no proof either way...this is my choice.

Information concerning the nature of things exists whether a mind exists or not. Information is that which informs a mind and whether a mind exists or not, the existing world would still contain information. As for science, it kind of can come to the conclusion that there is no god, i.e. that there is no entity distinct from the world. What science tells us is that the effect is in its cause and vice versa, i.e. that nothing comes from nothing. That isn't proof of course, perhaps the natural world could have just been thought into existence, just puffed into existence out of nothing, but we have no real logical reason that supports that notion, nor reason to believe it.

I don't agree at all. If they did require an initial assumption of God, then they would be begging the question. I have heard a lot of rebuttals to common philosophical and logical arguments for Gods existence...begging the question isn't typically one of them.

Since, as you agree, that there is no way to know whether a god exists or not, science can't prove it, then you have no choice but to assume it.

[stfoskey15]

Within 40-years of an event is extremely close in time for an ancient writing, significant because many eyewitnesses who could have disputed the accounts were still alive, yet we don't see any push-back against the gospels from other sources. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that the oral tradition on which the gospels are based was begun within a few years of the resurrection which is hardly sufficient time for an historical event to gain mythical elements. Most myths develop over centuries and not within a few years. As for being written by eyewitnesses? It's pretty widely accepted that Matthew and John were eyewitnesses, being part of Jesus' inner circle, and there are scraps of genuine eyewitness testimony contained in the other gospels (Mark, for instance, being based on the teachings of Peter).

I know citing Wikipedia is frowned upon, but...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Author
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel....2C_and_origin

Regarding the supposed "contradictions", suppose you have three witnesses to a robbery. One eyewitness says the suspect was a thin man wearing a ball cap and light colored jeans and that he was working alone. Another eyewitness says that he was of average build and wearing a hoodie and slacks but can't remember what color his pants were. A third eyewitness says that the suspect had an accomplice. Is it reasonable to look at these apparent (but reconcilable) contradictions and conclude that the robbery must have never happened?

No. And in a similar way, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody or multiple people hallucinated and thought they saw Jesus. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and robberies are much more common than resurrections.

Point is, each gospel account is written from the unique perspective of its author, and nobody will see the same event the exact same way. We sometimes notice different things, or we understand things differently, or what is significant to us won't be significant to others, or our memories can become distorted as we try and reconcile what we've heard from others with what we witnessed ourselves. But that doesn't mean we can't truthfully report an event with reasonable accuracy even if our testimony ostensibly contradicts another.

I'm not saying it was all made up. I'm just saying it's not inerrant and should be taken with a grain (or even a spoonful) of salt. I can easily imagine the stories being exaggerated over the decades.

I just find it odd that skeptics demand absolute agreement among the gospel writers, but when it's pointed out that they unanimously agree on the most critical point of the narrative -- that the tomb was found empty -- they idly dismiss it.

The empty tomb doesn't mean Jesus rose from the dead. It just means some women saw an empty tomb. Maybe something else happened (eg. someone else removed the body, they found the wrong tomb, etc.).

Unlikely, given the thickness of the wood and the fact that the myrrh exudes from the entire surface front and back.

They were anointed with myrrh from the icon.

Maybe there are special holes in the wood. Have people tried to collect this myrrh and use it on others elsewhere? Magic healing myrrh would be of great medical value. Where can I find this pained panel with myrrh flowing from it? Are there other sources where I can read about it? Your story is interesting, but I'm afraid I'll have to repeat that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Also, as a notice to everyone, I'm going to be traveling to and starting to attend college over the next week or two, so I may be slow to respond.

[Kbertsche]

Information concerning the nature of things exists whether a mind exists or not. Information is that which informs a mind and whether a mind exists or not, the existing world would still contain information.

I don't think this is true. The amount of information (and the existence of information itself) depends on a priori definitions and probability distributions.

Let's restrict ourselves to Shannon information (This is a specific type of information which is amenable to mathematics, but is NOT the same as biological or philosophical "information".). How much (Shannon) information is contained in the sequence "CAT"? It depends. Is this a sequence of three random letters, coming from the set of all capital letters, each equally likely? Or is it a sequence of three random characters, coming from the set of all ASCII characters, each equally likely? (In which case it contains much more information). Or is it a three-letter word, coming from the set of all English-language three-letter words, appearing in the probability of their occurrence in all of English literature? (In which case it contains much LESS information).

My point is that "information" does not and cannot exist independently of external definitions. And I believe these definitions depend on a mind.

As for science, it kind of can come to the conclusion that there is no god, i.e. that there is no entity distinct from the world.

How so? How can science conclude that there is nothing outside of science?

Science can only discuss what is within its own realm. It is impotent to say anything about the existence or non-existence of anything outside its own realm.

What science tells us is that the effect is in its cause and vice versa, i.e. that nothing comes from nothing.

What do you mean that "the effect is in its cause and vice versa"?

That isn't proof of course, perhaps the natural world could have just been thought into existence, just puffed into existence out of nothing, but we have no real logical reason that supports that notion, nor reason to believe it.

Since, as you agree, that there is no way to know whether a god exists or not, science can't prove it, then you have no choice but to assume it.

Not so. Science itself cannot and does not prove ANYTHING. Does this mean that we "have no choice but to assume" its claims? Of course not. Science presents evidence, some very compelling, and some only suggestive. We believe gravity, and the Big Bang, not because they are "proven", but because we find the evidence for them compelling.

It's the same with the existence of God. We can't prove His existence, but there is evidence for it. Some find this evidence compelling, but others argue against it.

[element771]

Information concerning the nature of things exists whether a mind exists or not. Information is that which informs a mind and whether a mind exists or not, the existing world would still contain information. As for science, it kind of can come to the conclusion that there is no god, i.e. that there is no entity distinct from the world. What science tells us is that the effect is in its cause and vice versa, i.e. that nothing comes from nothing. That isn't proof of course, perhaps the natural world could have just been thought into existence, just puffed into existence out of nothing, but we have no real logical reason that supports that notion, nor reason to believe it.


Since, as you agree, that there is no way to know whether a god exists or not, science can't prove it, then you have no choice but to assume it.

Science is philosophically neutral. Science cannot and does not disprove or prove Gods existence.

Information was a bad choice of words. Let's stick to mind.

[element771]

My point still stands. Even such a document 'attributed to one of the gospel writers' (likely after 50-70 AD) would remain so highly questionable since it is described in the NT that there were conspiracies at the time to discredit the Christians claim.

Ok! Your choice, but I do not see how it could be based on science. Even the Laws of Thermodynamics do not support you, first the Law is specific Energy and matter cannot be created nor destroyed.

1. How does your point stand?!? The question is what would make ME change my mind. I'm telling you what it would take. I don't care if you or anyone would be affected by my answer, it's supposed to be what it would take for me to change my mind...not anyone else. You may as well say I don't believe you.

The laws do support my assertion that it's more likely that matter isn't eternal. That being said, it could be that these laws are flawed but that is what I currently have to work with.

[shunyadragon]

The laws do support my assertion that it's more likely that matter isn't eternal. That being said, it could be that these laws are flawed but that is what I currently have to work with.

This is the more productive issue to discuss. I believe the Laws of Thermodynamics are decidedly neutral concerning the potential infinite nature of our physical existence. The potential infinite nature of our physical existence lies in the nature of the Quantum World and Quantum Zero-point energy. There is at present no viable scientific basis for proposing that the Quantum World has a beginning nor ending in time. The only viable beginnings and endings are the time/space nature of matter and energy of all possible universes, which may or may not be temporal, depending how you view the relationship with the Quantum World.

The first two Laws of Thermodynamics only assume the nature of energy and matter in an isolated system. They do not assume our physical existence is an isolated system.

The third law relates to concept of matter and energy proposes that the 'entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches absolute zero.'https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/...mics-496-3601/

The assumption that our physical existence must have a beginning in cosmological arguments, is 'begging the question,' because science at present has insufficient knowledge to determine this with any certainty.

[One Bad Pig]

Maybe there are special holes in the wood.

They'd have to be pretty small to be undetectable by the naked eye.

Have people tried to collect this myrrh and use it on others elsewhere? Magic healing myrrh would be of great medical value.

The myrrh is collected in cotton, and is all given away for people to take with them. Many of the miracles associated with the myrrh have taken place well away from the icon itself.

Where can I find this pained panel with myrrh flowing from it? Are there other sources where I can read about it? Your story is interesting, but I'm afraid I'll have to repeat that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

here] and here are accounts from the Huffington Post and the local paper, respectively. I've also seen this icon a number of times. Of course, the best evidence would be for you to see it for yourself, but I can understand how that could be difficult.

[JimL]

I don't think this is true. The amount of information (and the existence of information itself) depends on a priori definitions and probability distributions.

Let's restrict ourselves to Shannon information (This is a specific type of information which is amenable to mathematics, but is NOT the same as biological or philosophical "information".). How much (Shannon) information is contained in the sequence "CAT"? It depends. Is this a sequence of three random letters, coming from the set of all capital letters, each equally likely? Or is it a sequence of three random characters, coming from the set of all ASCII characters, each equally likely? (In which case it contains much more information). Or is it a three-letter word, coming from the set of all English-language three-letter words, appearing in the probability of their occurrence in all of English literature? (In which case it contains much LESS information).

My point is that "information" does not and cannot exist independently of external definitions. And I believe these definitions depend on a mind.

I'm not familiar with your philosophical explanation, but if in the end if information is dependent upon external definitions, then in what sense is a mind necessary for the information defining nature to exist. The nature of existence is what it is whether a mind is informed of it or not. In the end, you are arguing that information, aka as you understand it, a mind, need exist before a any "thing" exists. I'm not seeing that. Perhaps you can elaborate.

How so? How can science conclude that there is nothing outside of science?

Well to go outside the realm of science, to completely disregard evidence empirically derived, is to base ones assumptions on absolutely nothing.

Science can only discuss what is within its own realm. It is impotent to say anything about the existence or non-existence of anything outside its own realm.

Exactly, so it is impotent to disregard science as if its realm is limited and come to completely unscientific conclusions.

What do you mean that "the effect is in its cause and vice versa"?

What I mean is that the substance of all effects are in their cause, effects, contrary to the idea of creation, do not come from nothing.

Not so. Science itself cannot and does not prove ANYTHING. Does this mean that we "have no choice but to assume" its claims? Of course not. Science presents evidence, some very compelling, and some only suggestive. We believe gravity, and the Big Bang, not because they are "proven", but because we find the evidence for them compelling.

Evidence is the key word, and the scientific, or empirical evidence, is that "nothing comes from nothing." This is contrary to the notion of creation wherin the material world is thought into existence from out of absolutely nothing.

It's the same with the existence of God. We can't prove His existence, but there is evidence for it. Some find this evidence compelling, but others argue against it.

Fact is that there is no empirical evidence of god.

[Kbertsche]

I'm not familiar with your philosophical explanation, but if in the end if information is dependent upon external definitions, then in what sense is a mind necessary for the information defining nature to exist. The nature of existence is what it is whether a mind is informed of it or not. In the end, you are arguing that information, aka as you understand it, a mind, need exist before a any "thing" exists. I'm not seeing that. Perhaps you can elaborate.

My explanation was physical (from the field of information theory), not philosophical.

My point is that information cannot be defined or quantified apart from external definitions. Something or someone must impose these external definitions for information to exist at all. I believe this will ultimately lead back to a "mind".

Well to go outside the realm of science, to completely disregard evidence empirically derived, is to base ones assumptions on absolutely nothing.

What a bunch of nonsense! Going outside the realm of science is simply that: appealing to evidence and argumentation which are outside the realm of science. Such evidence is not contradictory to science, it is orthogonal to it. Going outside the realm of science does NOT require one to completely disregard ANY scientific evidence.

You seem to think that going "outside the realm of science" is "to completely disregard evidence empirically derived". This is completely false. Most non-science fields rely on empirical evidence, it's just not SCIENTIFIC evidence.

You also seem to think that going "outside the realm of science" is "to base ones assumptions on absolutely nothing". This is also completely false. Most non-science fields have bases for their claims, it's just not a SCIENTIFIC basis.

You are implicitly working from a position of "scientism": science is the only way to knowledge; there is no valid truth or knowledge outside the realm of science. This is a philosophical position, not a scientific position.

Exactly, so it is impotent to disregard science as if its realm is limited and come to completely unscientific conclusions.

But its realm IS limited! Most scientists and philosophers of science understand this. As Erwin Schroedinger said:

There are lots of things in our daily experience which are not amenable to science. Science is extremely good and effective in what it can address, but it cannot address everything.

What I mean is that the substance of all effects are in their cause, effects, contrary to the idea of creation, do not come from nothing.

OK, If you are just saying that effects stem from causes, I agree with you.

Evidence is the key word, and the scientific, or empirical evidence, is that "nothing comes from nothing." This is contrary to the notion of creation wherin the material world is thought into existence from out of absolutely nothing.

Fact is that there is no empirical evidence of god.

I disagree.

[seanD]

In the same manner as Leonhard's thread from 2014 on if one can be convinced of the existence of God, I'm curious as to what it would take for the theists on here to be convinced of the wrongness of their religion or the nonexistence of God. I eventually decided Christianity was false, and I'm sure others on here have changed their views as well, so I'm curious of your opinions.

Before I had a clear and thorough understanding of the history of Judeo-Christianity, a combination of a skeptic such as Carrier coupled with the ugly and embarrassing antics displayed on channels like TBN might have shaken my faith to the point I would have abandoned it. Now there isn't a chance. But even assuming I could have fallen from Christianity, I still would have believed certain things about the bible were true. Contrary to most people, the very state of humanity and evil in the world actually proves to me at least aspects of the bible are true about fallen man.

[JimL]

My explanation was physical (from the field of information theory), not philosophical.

My point is that information cannot be defined or quantified apart from external definitions. Something or someone must impose these external definitions for information to exist at all. I believe this will ultimately lead back to a "mind".

But the existing "thing" is what it is and thus the information that defines it is in itself. Why must someone or something be needed to impose information about the thing onto the "thing itself"? I think you are making an assertion here without explanation, i.e. that information about an existing thing must exist prior to the existence of the thing itself. Why?

What a bunch of nonsense! Going outside the realm of science is simply that: appealing to evidence and argumentation which are outside the realm of science. Such evidence is not contradictory to science, it is orthogonal to it. Going outside the realm of science does NOT require one to completely disregard ANY scientific evidence.
But there is no evidence of anything outside the realm of science to appeal to.
You seem to think that going "outside the realm of science" is "to completely disregard evidence empirically derived". This is completely false. Most non-science fields rely on empirical evidence, it's just not SCIENTIFIC evidence.

The idea of God is completely outside the realm of science, the idea that the material world was created out of nothing is completely outside the realm of science, so to posit such is to completely disregard science. If we actually believe in the fundemental truth of science then the conclusion we would come to in this case is that the material world did not come from nothing, i.e that it is of the same substance as its cause.

You also seem to think that going "outside the realm of science" is "to base ones assumptions on absolutely nothing". This is also completely false. Most non-science fields have bases for their claims, it's just not a SCIENTIFIC basis.

Well the basis for belief in things completely outside the realm of science is our ignorance. Multi-verse for instance is not completely outside the realm of science, it may be false, but the idea is not based on ignorance, the idea of the multi-verse was derived of science, schrodingers equation, but for god there is no scientific evidence, that idea is completely outside the realm of science.

You are implicitly working from a position of "scientism": science is the only way to knowledge; there is no valid truth or knowledge outside the realm of science. This is a philosophical position, not a scientific position.

Thats true, I am, but why should we not assume that science is applicable to whatever is beyond our observational horizon, externally as well as internally applicable to the world of our experience. I mean we can do that, we can posit that science doesn't apply to that which is external, because we can't know what we can't see, but not knowing is not a positive based assumption to make, its a wild guess.

But its realm IS limited! Most scientists and philosophers of science understand this. As Erwin Schroedinger said:

There are lots of things in our daily experience which are not amenable to science. Science is extremely good and effective in what it can address, but it cannot address everything.

That speaks as if science has run its course and that there are certain things about existence that science has no answer/explanation for. I'm not at all certain that is true..

OK, If you are just saying that effects stem from causes, I agree with you.

No that is not what I'm saying, things don't just stem from there causes, they are of one and the same substance as their cause, if not, then they came into existence from out of nothing. In other words unless that which formed the universe is of the same substance as that of the universe itself, then the universe came into existence out of nothing. Puff!

I disagree.

Okay.

[shunyadragon]

My explanation was physical (from the field of information theory), not philosophical.

My point is that information cannot be defined or quantified apart from external definitions. Something or someone must impose these external definitions for information to exist at all. I believe this will ultimately lead back to a "mind".

The conclusion that the information leads ultimately back to a "mind," you first have to assume such a "mind" exists. This represents 'Begging the Question.' In other words a circular argument.

You may further explain this to justify the nature of this 'information' that would justify such a conclusion of the existence of another "mind" other than the obvious human minds.

[element771]

It turns out that the timeless nature of the quantum world may only be theoretically true but not practically.

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract...ett.115.190601

[shunyadragon]

It turns out that the timeless nature of the quantum world may only be theoretically true but not practically.

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract...ett.115.190601

I do not believe your reference confirms your view of questioning the practicality of the timeless nature of the quantum world.

Source: http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.190601

Entropy production, a quantity associated with the emergence of the arrow of time, has been successfully measured in a microscopic quantum system.

© Copyright Original Source

The irreversibility of arrow of time observed in the Quantum world is momentary as a result of quantum fluctuations, and does not represent an irreversible continuous arrow of time described in the space time continuum of our universe. The logical conclusion is the momentary Quantum fluctuation is not reversible the momentary arrow of time is not reversible. No irreversible continuous time arrow has been observed in the Quantum World.

[element771]

I do not believe your reference confirms your view of questioning the practicality of the timeless nature of the quantum world.

Source: http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.190601

Entropy production, a quantity associated with the emergence of the arrow of time, has been successfully measured in a microscopic quantum system.

© Copyright Original Source

The irreversibility of arrow of time observed in the Quantum world is momentary as a result of quantum fluctuations, and does not represent an irreversible continuous arrow of time described in the space time continuum of our universe. The logical conclusion is the momentary Quantum fluctuation is not reversible the momentary arrow of time is not reversible. No irreversible continuous time arrow has been observed in the Quantum World.

Source: http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.190601

The dynamics can only be fully reversible for a genuine equilibrium process for which the entropy production vanishes at all times.

© Copyright Original Source

This article showed that, at least for this instance, this did not occur. This indicates that quantum processes may not be reversible in a practical sense even if they are in a theoretical sense.