The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

851. Comment #34067 by Mark Taunton on April 23, 2007 at 6:07 am

Same goes for the Mercury comment, but (assuming God did do it), why would he regularise Mercury and not Earth, the planet that we actually live on?

That assumes it was me who was making the argument that such effects are proof of God. But I have never done so!

It was Stevie B who proposed that an earth with a year which was (by his reckoning) a more "convenient" length would be a better "proof" of God's existence than what he termed "a few vague prophecies".

As I said, the Bible has many (not just a few) detailed (not vague) prophecies, and these are indeed the relevant things to consider. Yahweh asserts that the fulfillment of his prophets' words is (one) means by which he demonstrates his reality and supremacy over what human beings imagine about the world.

For now I will shut up (hooray, you cry!) and get on with installment 2.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

852. Comment #34085 by Graeme on April 23, 2007 at 7:11 am

Hi gang..
This isnt really relavent to the tread but as I recall some of you guys were quoting Hebrew (and Greek?) earlier I'd like to run this past you if I may.
Its the chapter in "The selfish Gene"...
The Replicators (page 18) where Richard writes

"We tend to regard erratic copying as a bad thing, and in the case of human documents it is hard to think of examples where errors can be described as improvements. I suppose the scholars of the septuagint could at least be said to have started something big when they mistranslated the the hebrew word for 'young woman' into the greek word for 'virgin', coming up with the prophecy: 'Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son....'

Basically I just wondered if you scholarly types were entirely happy with that statement?

I must say that when I first read the TSG it was my first introduction to RD (a few years ago now) it was a bit of a jaw dropping moment... a little gem that I really wasnt expecting in a book about genetics.

but does it go unchallenged?
any takers?
Graeme

Other Comments by Graeme

853. Comment #34094 by J.C. Samuelson on April 23, 2007 at 7:48 am

@ 988. Comment #32587 by Mark Taunton on April 17, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Mark,

I trust this posting finds you rested and in good health.

Yes, thanks.

It is at the juncture where you moved away significantly from your starting position (that Ezekiel was just plain wrong in what he said in ch.26), and instead you were prepared to allow Ezekiel to be in fact correct...

I do admit that I shifted gears rather abruptly. This wasn't intentional, and in fact I'd hoped to approach the problem of literal vs. historical interpretations from the start, but as I said, I lost track of my train of thought. But anyway...

My understanding of hyperbole is that it is a form of exaggeration: concerned with degree, with questions of relative scale or quantity, and not with absolutes, of truth versus falsehood.

The simplest definition of hyperbole is, "extravagant exaggeration." While it can be a matter of degrees, some of the most common hyperbolic language uses absolutes to illustrate. For example:

1. This book weighs a ton.
2. I died laughing.
3. They completely crushed the competition.
4. He's got a silver tongue.
5. He'll never amount to anything.

In other words, it's figurative. The degree to which any of these is an exaggeration is a matter of subjective opinion, but the hyperbole is unmistakeable.

But in saying that Ezekiel 29 doesn't contradict your reading of chapter 26, you are going beyond what hyperbole would cover.

In your opinion, perhaps. Hyperbole is marked by extravagant overstatement, and as I mentioned it is well-known among biblical scholars that hyperbolic/figurative language was quite common among ANE authors, including those who composed the Bible.

It is far beyond hyperbole to say that Nebuchadnezzar both did take the spoil and prey of Tyre (on the basis that 26:12's "they" refers to him and his forces as you say), and yet had no wages from it – it is a flat out contradiction!

Only if you take the literalist PoV. By the way, hyperbole has nothing to do with the pronoun issue.

I tried to outline this in my last post, but I'm apparently not a very good communicator. Ok, here's a good example from my own life...

About 8 years ago, I worked for a tire company and took a position as a store manager. The job was overwhelming, and ultimately I withdrew from the position (for a number of personal, as well as professional, reasons). When I returned to my former position (assistant manager at a different store), my old boss commented on the fact that the District Manager never paid me a bonus I had earned. In his view, if I'd gotten something for my trouble, I might've wanted to stay. In spite of the fact that I had been drawing a salary, and I'd learned a great deal, his comments centered around the idea that I'd walked away with nothing to show for it, though this was based on his subjective judgment that bonuses were what it's all about.

It would be patently ridiculous for Ezekiel to state that Nebuchadnezzar literally recieved "no wages" even if the prophecy only referred to the mainland villages. The mainland villages were themselves part of the prosperous city of Tyre, as even you have agreed. It would also be ridiculous considering the fact that he also extorted tax money from the city. The only way it is not a ridiculous statement is if we consider it as a figure of speech - a hyperbolic statement - which is perfectly in keeping with ANE literary convention.

So, in the earlier verses (before Neb's siege of Tyre) 'Zeke says to the city, "You're in deep doo-doo now! This is what's going to happen to you." Then, 13 years later, 'Zeke hears that Neb's moving on, and isn't entirely pleased about the amount of treasure he picked up during a costly siege (which probably just barely paid for the siege). Then 'Zeke hears that Neb is moving on to Egypt, and so 'Zeke says that now Neb is finally going to get his proper reward, but from the Egyptians this time. Unfortunately, the book ends without saying whatever happened to Neb in Egypt (but we know he didn't leave it desolate for 40 years the way it's 'prophesied' to be by 'Zeke - more hyperbole).

So you must come off the fence: was Ezekiel wrong as you initially said, or not?

It's not fence-sitting at all. I don't think 'Zeke was a prophet. Everything that he writes about can be tied to events contemporary to his composition. I do think that if you read it from a literalist standpoint (as you do), it makes things far more problematic, and is contradictory, requiring equivocal statements (which is certainly possible given the text) in order to reconcile the text.

My point is simply that, if taken in his historical context, 'Zeke is just fine as an ANE author.

If Ezekiel was wrong (i.e. if you revert to your first stance), then you still have the problem, as you already acknowledged, as to why some later supposed redactor did not correct an embarrassing and obvious mistake by Ezekiel...

Absolutely. But this applies equally to your position. Keep in mind that this is if we both argue from a literalist interpretation.

On the other hand, if Ezekiel was correct (as you more recently have allowed), you must somehow explain how the spoil and prey of Egypt would count as wages for Nebuchadnezzar and his army, whereas the spoil and prey of Tyre (a very wealthy city, one definitely worth spending time and effort attacking, as he clearly thought) would be considered "no wages" at all.

Accounted for. See above.

It is this: that Ezekiel was indeed correct, in every detail, not just about what Nebuchadnezzar ("he") was going to do to Tyre, but also in distinguishing his heavy but unrewarding onslaught from the ultimately successful warfare made subsequently against Tyre by the other nations ("they") of whom Ezekiel also prophesied.

Once again, this requires equivocation on the blanket term, "they," and requires taking 'Zeke out of his historical context, and makes the 'prophecy' as yet still unfulfilled.

In re: 1 Sam 15:8 -

Your assertion that this is hyperbole in a historical account is simply not justified. Do you have another case that you think does hold up?

Come now, Mark. You're actually going to tell me that "utterly destroyed all the people" is not an example of hyperbole? The Amalekite territory - the only one according to the Bible - is the very territory Saul invaded.

Havilah to Shur is the major clue that this is hyperbolic. Havilah is usually associated with Yemen, and most Bible maps place Havilah on the southwest tip of the Arabian peninsula. If the Amalekite territory extended from there to Shur (usually the northern Sinai and the northeastern border of Egypt), and this squares with accounts elswhere in the Bible (Gen. 25:18, for example), this means Saul would've campaigned for roughly 600-800 miles to his south, not to mention whatever the breadth of Amalekite territory was. Since the Bible account centers around Saul's capture of Agag, and the known ANE literary conventions, the account is best understood that Saul broke the Amalekite's back, so to speak, or that he struck a mortal blow to Amalekite power.

If Saul had "utterly destroyed all the people" in Amalekite territory, why do they show up later to plague David in the same region? The best explanation is that this is a literary device common to the period, partly because the Amalekites did cease to be a significant power following this campaign.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

854. Comment #34224 by Mark Taunton on April 23, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Graeme:

Hi, and welcome to this seemingly endless thread!

I would willingly deal with your (i.e. RD's) criticism in relation to the prophecy in question. His aparent casual adoption of the views of other critics of the Bible texts at issue (Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23 - the "septuagint" he mentions is in fact irrelevant) is both a mistake, and surprisingly unscientific in its substance, for one who (by the title of his professorship) should surely exemplify the methods of science in regard to any subject he deals with. (I could go further and complain at the absence of scientific method in "The God Delusion", despite him saying (something along the lines) that the existence of God is logically open to scientific investigation.)

However, for the moment, I feel compelled to defer tackling the issue you raise: (a) Quetz will begin to think (if he's not doing so already!) that I'm dodging doing what I promised to him; (b) JCS will also suspect I can't answer his arguments about Ezekiel and Tyre (though I believe I can) and am looking for something to divert attention from them. So my apologies. Remind me once I've posted my last instalment on prophecies that show the Bible to be true, and I'll have a go then.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

855. Comment #34240 by Mark Taunton on April 23, 2007 at 3:35 pm

JCS:

On Saul, the Amalekites, and hyperbole, briefly -

Samuel's (i.e. Yahweh's) complaint at Saul makes no mention of any other Amalekites being left alive (bar Agag). Instead it concerns the fact that he had failed to destroy all the livestock also. So I see no reason to suppose that Saul had not done exactly what the text says, i.e. that he killed all the Amalekites in that region except for Agag (or "the Agag" – from the Hebrew formulation, it may be a title, like "Pharaoh").

Contrary to your suggestion, David did not destroy every Amalekite then alive on earth, so finishing off the nation for good. Just as with Saul – the text does not claim he did, only those in the area of land identified:
(a) 1 Sam 29 says Amalekites caused him big trouble even after his raids into their homeland. Those individual raids had been, of necessity, 100% locally destructive – see 27:11 for why. So the text is emphatically not hyperbolic there – it would have been no good to David if it were!
(b) An Agagite (i.e. presumably one from the Amalekite royal line), as ever, an enemy of the Jews, appears in Persia in the time of Esther, hundreds of years after David.
(c) Exodus 17:16 implies that conflict with Amalek would not soon be over, and Psalm 83:7 lists that nation as one of several perennial enemies; Exodus 17:4 nonetheless determines God's ultimate intentions, as does Numbers 24:20.



Other Comments by Mark Taunton

856. Comment #34256 by J.C. Samuelson on April 23, 2007 at 4:45 pm

Mark,

No offense, but is this really worth arguing over? Besides, you're really reaching here.

Instead it concerns the fact that he had failed to destroy all the livestock also. So I see no reason to suppose that Saul had not done exactly what the text says, i.e. that he killed all the Amalekites in that region except for Agag (or "the Agag" – from the Hebrew formulation, it's more likely a title, like "Pharaoh").

If Saul killed all the Amalekites in that region (one at least 600-800 miles running North to South, with a breadth somewhere between Egypt and the Euphrates), then not only would David not had a problem with them, but neither would the Simeonites in 1 Chronicles. And no, these other verses didn't have anything to do with animals.

The region in question is the entire Amalekite "nation," such as there was one (they were nomadic). Saul did not kill everyone, because David (and later the Simeonites) had to attack them again in the same region! Saul's expedition from "Havilah to Shur" includes the Negev, which is where David went (specifically Ziklag, located in the Negev). The Simeonites:

1 Chron. 4:42 And five hundred of these Simeonites, led by Pelatiah, Neariah, Rephaiah and Uzziel, the sons of Ishi, invaded the hill country of Seir. 43 They killed the remaining Amalekites who had escaped, and they have lived there to this day.

And Seir is either in Judah (unlikely by the time this was written, and would be problematic for Saul & David too, assuming a non-hyperbolic account of Saul's campaign), or was the mountainous region described thus:

"It had the Arabah on the west...it extended as far south as the head of the Gulf of Akabah...its eastern border ran along the base of the mountain range where the plateau of Arabia begins. Its northern, order is not so accurately determined. There is a line of "naked" white hills or cliffs which run across the great valley about eight miles south of the Dead Sea, the highest eminence being Mount Hor, which is 4800 feet high." (Smith's Bible Dictionary)

Attempting to read Saul's campaign literally raises a host of unnecessary questions and problems. Why is it so hard for you to accept hyperbole?

Contrary to your suggestion, David did not destroy every Amalekite then alive on earth, so finishing off the nation for good.

I never said any such thing. I said that they became David's problem, or that they "plagued" him.

Exodus 17:16 implies that conflict with Amalek would not soon be over, and Psalm 83:7 lists that nation as one of several perennial enemies; Exodus 17:4 nonetheless determines God's ultimate intentions, as does Numbers 24:20.

Frankly, I'm trying really hard to see what this has to do with the price of crumpets in London. I never said anything about how long it was meant to take, and that's not relevant to the verses in question. Nor do I have a problem with how long it is supposed to take.

You're much smarter than this, Mark.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

857. Comment #34259 by Mark Taunton on April 23, 2007 at 4:52 pm

JCS:

Just to answer:

If Saul had "utterly destroyed all the people" in Amalekite territory, why do they show up later to plague David in the same region?

On exactly the same basis I argued before. While a particular region is clearly their homeland, they were at various times found also in other parts of the middle east. In the case of Saul's attack, perhaps some in the area took note of the sudden removal of the Kenites (because of Saul's warning to them), and thought it wise to follow, escaping before the onslaught began. Or, as I said, there could readily be ex-pat Amalekites living elsewhere, who would simply not come under the description of 1 Sam 15:7.

There is a somewhat similar case with the Edomites (1 Kings 11:14-22): while the text is explicit that every male in the land of Edom was killed, this was not true of Hadad the Edomite, for the simple reason that he had been taken out of that territory and into Egypt...

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

858. Comment #34264 by Mark Taunton on April 23, 2007 at 4:54 pm

JCS: your posting appeared while I was composing mine (so I didn't see it). On the price of crumpets, I agree. Let's get back to Ezekiel and Tyre. But another day (for me, at least!).

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

859. Comment #34306 by Mark Taunton on April 23, 2007 at 7:05 pm

JCS:
I must apologise. You indeed did not say David destroyed the Amalekites. I had mis-remembered your comment, and failed to check the detail. I will try to be more careful.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

860. Comment #34403 by Mark Taunton on April 24, 2007 at 1:25 am

Hi again JCS.

Without again going down the long side-track we followed most recently, I just want to answer one question you posed:

Attempting to read Saul's campaign literally raises a host of unnecessary questions and problems. Why is it so hard for you to accept hyperbole?

Because to do so, in regard to what is presented in the Bible as straightforward historical detail, opens the floodgates to a far greater set of "questions and problems" than arise from taking God at his word.

I seek strongly to avoid equivocation; you said Ezekiel did not engage in it, and I agree. However if one is free (as clearly you think) to consider any particular statement as not really meaning what it says, being instead hyperbole that (from your claims w.r.t. Ezekiel 26,29) allows just about any interpretation you like, no matter how apparently contradictory, then equivocation really is the only game in town.

In relation to that, I find a problem with your word "literally", in any case. What does it mean? I prefer to say that I understand the Bible in exactly the terms it presents, where the meaning is defined by scriptural usage of the (original) words and phrases that comprise any particular statement under consideration. That is why a good concordance is such an essential tool for accurate understanding.

Some would say that words mean what a dictionary says they mean; but any authoritative dictionary defines words' meanings from their usage in context of actual spoken or written language. It is the same with the Bible: by reading and re-reading it, I and many others have found that it really does explain itself, consistently, based on this approach.

I could bring a number of passages to bear on this, but the lesson Israel had to learn, as expressed in Deuteronomy 8:3 and quoted by Jesus in Matthew 4:4, is the foundation. Going further, Proverbs 30:5-6 tells us that every word of God is pure, while warning against adding to those words. To layer an interpretation upon any Biblical sentence that in effect removes its contextually related sense and replaces it with a very different one, seems to me to be doing just that.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

861. Comment #34513 by J.C. Samuelson on April 24, 2007 at 10:09 am

Mark,

Very briefly just to tie up loose ends...

While a particular region is clearly their homeland, they were at various times found also in other parts of the middle east.

The only problem I see with this is that it is ultimately an argument from ignorance. While we know where the Amalekite nation was (south & southwest of Judah, going as far south as Havilah along the Gulf of Aqaba and the Red Sea to the tip of the Arabian peninsula, and at least to Egypt to the west, including the Negev & Sinai), we don't know if there were any 'ex-pats,' as you say. To my mind, it is much simpler to account for the disparity based on what scholars do know about the literature of the period, and a verse's historical context. This, at least, has an evidentiary basis.

On to the main course...

Because [accepting hyperbole], in regard to what is presented in the Bible as straightforward historical detail, opens the floodgates to a far greater set of "questions and problems" than arise from taking God at his word.

I'll concede that it does open the door to questions concerning divine authorship, and by extension questions concerning the very existence of God. At least from your perspective, since you use the Bible to confirm God and God to confirm the Bible, or the Bible to confirm the Bible (which I hardly need to mention is circular logic). But isn't this as it should be?

If we never challenge our beliefs, if we never test them to see if they are true, then we've chosen willful ignorance. While there is a degree of anxious uncertainty attendant to examining our core beliefs, this is most certainly a better course to take. The answers we find are more likely to mirror an objective reality, even if we never achieve certitude. And testing our beliefs involves much more than simply checking our most cherished documents against themselves.

Imagine applying medical practice in today's world based on ancient Sumerian clay tablets that claimed to be the product of divine authorship. One would hope we would not so quickly allow such practices into hospitals and clinics, not without doing some fact checking against external evidence. Yet we are willing to do that very thing to our cultures, giving our holy books far too much latitude in determining what's best for not only ourselves, but our societies, all without considering for whom it was written and when.

I seek strongly to avoid equivocation; you said Ezekiel did not engage in it, and I agree.

While I don't doubt you try to avoid it, there is really no way around it if you approach the text the way you do. We do agree, but on different terms. Ezekiel doesn't equivocate, provided he is read in his original context and accounting for ANE rhetoric. When folks choose to assign a different meaning to the text, by asserting that an ambiguous "they" and "many nations" refers to specific players in a distant future Ezekiel couldn't have imagined, they equivocate for him. As I mentioned before, it creates a situation in which God is a trickster, deceiving the writer, the original audience, the modern audience, or everyone.

There is really no way around this; if Ezekiel (or any other prophet you might choose) was writing of the Greeks, or the Romans, or the Muslims, his original audience had no way of knowing from the text, and the author exhibits no sign of being aware of these future players. If he was, it stands to reason that he could've written specifically about them (i.e., named names) in terms he could've understood (see the re-write of part of the prophecy in #952). This means that this alleged 'prophecy' has no predictive value. We are thus compelled to shoehorn events into our preconceived ideas of what the 'prophecy' means (e.g., vaticinium ex eventu, or postdiction). In fact, under this model there is the potential that we will never witness the fulfillment of the alleged 'prophecy.' After all, the final destruction of Tyre 'prophesied' by Ezekiel lies yet in the future, under your model.

These problems (and more) are solved reading the Bible according to its contextual framework.

However if one is free (as clearly you think) to consider any particular statement as not really meaning what it says, being instead hyperbole that (from your claims w.r.t. Ezekiel 26,29) allows just about any interpretation you like, no matter how apparently contradictory, then equivocation really is the only game in town.

We have the conventions of ANE literature to thank for our problems here. However, it isn't necessarily "any interpretation you like," because it involves much more than simply saying something is hyperbole and therefore means something different. The context, not just of the verse, but of the entire account, along with additional evidence from the historical and literary contexts of the day, is considered to determine what a passage like 29:18 means in light of its predecessors in 26.

This is very different from the mental gymnastics performed by biblical inerrantists or literalists. For example, to make the verses in question work, you have to say that "they" does apply to Neb & Co. in 29:18, but that the same players are completely excluded from the "they" in 26:12. Why? Because if you read it literally (as you do), and Neb received "no wages," then 26:12 cannot apply to him at all, even to the taxes he collects. In other words, his nation cannot be one of the "many nations" described in the first part of that chapter, though clearly Babylonia is meant as one of these "many nations" Ezekiel is referring to. Then, you have to somehow account for the taxes he extorted, because obviously this is some sort of "wages," and unless Ezekiel was exaggerating (i.e., hyperbole), there is a blatant contradiction between the facts of the case and the text in question.

And this is just the beginning! It is far more sensible to allow Ezekiel to be read in his appropriate contextual framework, which has been established by extensive scholarship, rather than introduce those notions that make Ezekiel into a fool; a dupe in part of a whimsical god's plan to build an elaborate puzzle for some 21st century amateur theologians and philosophers to debate about on richarddawkins.net.

In relation to that, I find a problem with your word "literally", in any case. What does it mean? I prefer to say that I understand the Bible in exactly the terms it presents, where the meaning is defined by scriptural usage of the (original) words and phrases that comprise any particular statement under consideration. That is why a good concordance is such an essential tool for accurate understanding.

By "literal" I simply mean taking the English to mean just what it appears to mean at face value, along with applying common English syntactical and rhetorical conventions that are anachronistic to the text. The problem here is manifold due to the potential loss during translation of the original sense. First of all, the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic lexicons rarely translate directly into English. Second, there are significant differences in syntax that make it very difficult for English translators to capture the full (or even the correct) meaning. Third, the tools of rhetoric used by ANE authors also differ significantly from what has become common today. Inevitably we're going to make mistakes, even using our best tools.

This is not to say that Bible translators don't do an admirable job, and I have no problem with the idea that the text has come down through the ages mostly intact (though there are problems here too). And, as I mentioned before, the casual reader who may be interested in the Bible as an object of historical literature, even someone looking to extract a few good moral teachings as a part of his/her practice of faith, needn't worry too much about these problems. However, when the Bible is asserted as the literal, inerrant, divine word of God passed down with a message just for us, reliable and applicable to everyone (and every culture) in today's world, these issues do become extremely important.

The bottom line is that the Bible wasn't written for English speakers in any century. It is a book written in now dead languages that were best understood by the dead cultures that used them. Traditionalists who insist that the Bible is meant for all people in all ages are partly right, but mostly wrong. They are right in the sense that we can still gain some worthwhile knowledge from it, historically and even (with some cherry-picking) some moral gems. Where they go wrong is in assuming, as you do, that the Bible can be taken at face value regardless of which age or culture one is raised in.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

862. Comment #34516 by Mark Taunton on April 24, 2007 at 10:21 am

I know it's going back a bit, but in answer to Stevie B's comment (936):

... if having prophecies that come true is a mark (sorry no pun intended) of divine inspiration, what are we to make of the Aztec prophecy that in the year 1519, their god would return from the east in the shape of a white man. This proved to be spectacularly precise, even down to the year, far more precise than anything in the bible. By your logic, you should accept that this proves the correctness of the Aztecs faith, and should start worshipping Queztlcoatl immediately. If not, why not?

For the simplest possible reason - the prophecy was clearly false. In the relevant year, the Aztecs' god did not return. Instead, the white man (who was not Quetzalcoatl) arrived...

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

863. Comment #34619 by J.C. Samuelson on April 24, 2007 at 5:44 pm

For the simplest possible reason - the prophecy was clearly false. In the relevant year, the Aztecs' god did not return. Instead, the white man (who was not Quetzalcoatl) arrived...

So, by this logic, at least two of Ezekiel's alleged 'prophecies' fail for the simplest possible reason - they are clearly false. In the relevant time frame provided by Mark, the city of Tyre and the nation of Egypt did not cease to exist. Instead, Tyre was rebuilt time and again (and still exists today), and Egypt had an unbroken line of kings and active trade with Greece through the period it was supposed to have been completely desolate and devoid of life.

Sorry, Mark. Couldn't resist. ;)

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

864. Comment #34687 by Mark Taunton on April 24, 2007 at 11:09 pm

I'll not respond to JCS's little dig now, but be aware that it is far from unanswerable!

The next comment from me should be instalment #2 for Quetz.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

865. Comment #35041 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 4:12 am

Got a lot of catching up to do.

For the simplest possible reason - the prophecy was clearly false. In the relevant year, the Aztecs' god did not return. Instead, the white man (who was not Quetzalcoatl) arrived...

In much the same way, Jesus never returned when he said he would (in the lifetime of his generation)
eg Matt 26: 64 Jesus replied, "You have said it. And in the future you will see the Son of Man seated in the place of power at God's right hand and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Surely that failed for the same reason above. Mark Can I ask why you say the Aztec prophecy failed but the tyre and second comming didn't. Should the same logic not apply to these as well?

Other Comments by BillySands

866. Comment #35048 by Mark Taunton on April 26, 2007 at 4:49 am

Here I go, breaking my word (in 1018) again :-(.

Billy:

The high priest and others who heard Jesus say those words will indeed witness his taking power over this world, when he comes again. They will be raised from the dead to see it and (as he was judged by them) face his judgment upon themselves. (See e.g. Daniel 12:2 for one supportive passage.) Just to make the point explicit: the prophecy hasn't been fulfilled yet.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

867. Comment #35049 by J.C. Samuelson on April 26, 2007 at 5:01 am

The high priest and others who heard Jesus say those words will indeed witness his taking power over this world, when he comes again. They will be raised from the dead to see it and (as he was judged by them) face his judgment upon themselves.

Which means it is yet to come. Always yet to come...

And Ezekiel's prophecies are much the same. Their fruition lies yet to come. Tyre still stands, and Egypt has never been desolate...

Dig, dig, dig, dig...

[...]

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

868. Comment #35051 by Quetzalcoatl on April 26, 2007 at 5:03 am

Re comment 35048: Mark Taunton-

Here I go, breaking my word (in 1018) again :-(

Big fat liar. Sniff, sniff.

On a separate note- why then did the disciples believe that Jesus would return in their lifetimes? Being raised up again is one thing, but they seemed to think it would happen before they died.

In particular, Paul (yes, I know he's not a disciple) and John seemed convinced that Jesus' return was imminent, and their writings attested to that conviction. 2000 years later....

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

869. Comment #35052 by Mark Taunton on April 26, 2007 at 5:07 am

JCS wrote:

Which means it is yet to come. Always yet to come...

No. Not always "yet to come": things have been happening. Some things that were "yet to come" when my father was born - things that my grandfather looked forward to - had happened by the time I was. Israel is once more a nation, in its own land, having control over Jerusalem, as Jesus and so many of the prophets predicted. The rest will follow just as surely. I will have much to say about this in installment #4. Which reminds me...

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

870. Comment #35069 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 6:04 am

Hi Mark I knew I could Taunt (forgive the pun) you into making your own prophecy fail (all in good humour :-) ).

Hovever, the problem with the prophecy is that if yo read revelation, the first resurrection (the good guys) happens after the return, so the preist can hardly see jesus returning on the clouds - he has already returned. I think you are going way beyond the justification of the text here. There are many other werses that hint at an early return. eg Mark 9:1 "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power."
There are others i can fish out later if need be

incidentally, Matthew 12:40 says jesus will rise again after 3 days and nights. He was buried late friday and had risen by early sunday. Also, in Luke 23:43 Jesus said to the thief on the cross, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise." This could not be possible if he was in the bowels of the earth. This suggests that gospel accounts are far from acurate representations of things alledged to have happened.

Other Comments by BillySands

871. Comment #35072 by Mark Taunton on April 26, 2007 at 6:13 am

Billy, do read Daniel 12 again, please. That Rev 20 talks about those who are raised to live and reign with Christ for 1000 years does not mean that a resurrection of unjust ones does not also happen.

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

872. Comment #35081 by Philip1978 on April 26, 2007 at 6:45 am

Prophesies are a waste of time as far as I am concerned, the bible was a 1st century book written by 1st century idiots. What were the chances some monkey picked up the book at some point later on, thought, "I could do that!" and thus low and behold its a miracle. Wiffle! Nostradamus said the world was going to end in 1999, guess what I am still typing! To paraphrase Douglas Adams you have about as much knowledge of your destiny as a tea bag knows the history of the East India Company!

Other Comments by Philip1978

873. Comment #35090 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 7:14 am

Mark,
I was not meaning to imply that there was no resurrection of the "unjust". I was pointing out that this is the first resurrection. Therefore, the "unjust" must be resurrected after this - which is after the return - which they would be unable to see.
Would you agree that Daniel 12 is also incredibly vague, and that the end of the daily sacrifice could refer to Antiochus IV banning it and the abomination could easily refer to his practice of sacrificing pigs to Zeus in the temple?

Other Comments by BillySands

874. Comment #35095 by Mark Taunton on April 26, 2007 at 7:27 am

Billy, Eh? I do mean Daniel 12 (vv1-3), not chapter 11 that you seem to be thinking of!

Other Comments by Mark Taunton

875. Comment #35101 by BillySands on April 26, 2007 at 7:56 am

Hi Mark, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you sure you mean daniel 12? although it would appear so.

1 "At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.

I dont see the disagreement. We both agree the bible says that god and bad will both be resurrected. My point is that even the first ressurection - that of the "good" occurs after the return of Jesus, so neither the good or the bad (the priest in this instance) can ever see jesus return. The logical conclusion is that jesus meant his return was to occur shortly after his death. Eitherway, the prophecy has to fail. If you accept jesus meant an early return, it failed. If you assert that it is yet to be fulfilled, then the events of revelation prevent this from happening, so it can not be fulfilled - otherwise Revelation is wrong - eitherway something is wrong. The most plausable interpretation is that the original prophecy is wrong. I don't think it is reasonable to conclude otherwise. Do you see my point? By saying it needs more interpretation, you are confirming what others have said here that interpretation of prophecy is subjective. It is not allways clear. Therefore it is not strong evidence. We have to remember that this is supposedly the word of the all knowing creator of the universe, but he is not able to make himself crystal clear (actually the cyrus "prophecy" isaiah 42 is crystal clear - why aren't they all?) If he wanted us to know him why would he make it so difficult? You are after all arguening that your faith is based in reason, so it should be obvious if that were true (dont get big headed now, but you are the only theist on this site who actually tries to provide something testable:-) )and it is refreshing, but I do feel you see it the way you want to see it because of your faith. Are these the arguements that made you believe, or do you believe them because you already have faith?

Did I ever ask you what it would take to make you not believe?

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree though. It's sunny, I should be having my afternoon tea outside (i'm not addicted)

Other Comments by BillySands

876. Comment #35403 by LeeC on April 27, 2007 at 4:25 am

What happened?

For days nothing… I kept coming back to this page to find no new posts… I nearly gave up… now I have nearly 40 posts to read…

Oh well… careful what you wish for – it will take me ages to catch up…

I am glad we have finally (?) moved onto the New Testament area (at least a little) since for a Christian this is the over-riding book. Find an "evil" statement from god in the Old Testament and a Christian just says "ah yes well, Jesus changed all that – we no longer think like that…"

I think the New Testament is just as poorly written as the Old – if not worse. For a start the writers had to "twist" the truth (or at least there stories) to fit the Old Testament…

Also I wonder if Jesus' disciples would recognise the Jesus described in the bible? It was Paul after all who "created" Christianity and he never knew Jesus…

Anyway – I have many questions (don't we all) about the bible and also I am repeating myself with what I have already written in post 964 and 966.

So on with the show… time to catch up.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

877. Comment #35412 by LeeC on April 27, 2007 at 4:50 am

Time for one quick response since I was asked a question…

Not that any of the following has anything to do with disproving god…

RE: 1004. Comment #34064 by BillySands

I may be wrong here, but does the part of the moon facing the earth not change over very long periods of time anyway?)

Have to admit; from the top of my head, you got me there… Planets/moons did not (maybe surprisingly) play a major part of my degree – when I started my degree the total number of planets around other stars was zero so planets had little interest to Astrophysics...

I feel you are probably correct on this – but I have no proof or reference to hand to quote from… and I could find little on the Internet with my brief searches, so just a quick brief theory of my own that I will outline for fun below.

Of course, being just a theory I will be happy to be shown wrong – isn't that a great thing about science. We actually like to be proved wrong so we can learn more… shame the theist cannot say the same thing.

Pope says: "You know, I think you are right about this book in the bible – it is wrong, I can see that now with all this new science… lets remove it…"

Anyway…

As I mentioned (well – cut and pasted actually I was lazy at the time) the moon got "stuck" in its current rotation due to the gravitational forces of the Earth on the moon.

It obviously took a long time for the moon to have its rotation "locked in" this way, and if it was only the Earth and the moon we were talking about I would say (more than likely) that the side of the moon we see now will be the same "forever" or at least a very long time…

However, the reasons why I do not believe this – and hence I think you are correct Billy, is that the Earth and Moon is of course not a closed system.

It was the gravitational tidal forces of the Earth on the moon that caused this interesting rotation of the moon, but the sun also pulls on the Earth and the moon – which I suspect will "nudge" our little Earth-Moon system just enough to change the rotation of the moon a little.

The moon will still be "locked in" but maybe just rotated a little more so we see another "side" of the moon.

Also, the moon is moving away from the earth at a break-neck speed of something like 3 or 4 cm per year… (This next bit may take sometime) so obviously at some point in the future the moon could actually move far enough away so not be as strongly influenced by the Earth's gravity and so it's rotation may change…

I have ignored libration "of course" which is a different story - this was summarised very well by Mark in comment 1002.

BTW - Found some pretty pictures on the Internet that are "animated" to help illustrate libration - if any one is interested
http://www.pixheaven.net/geant/041200.html

See ya

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

878. Comment #36388 by LeeC on May 1, 2007 at 3:03 am

Is it something I said? Still no posts?

Erm... guess I will just have to start talking to myself.

No worries

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

879. Comment #36618 by Theo on May 1, 2007 at 6:42 pm

Hi Guys I'm back
Hey Lee jus curious, how did u do the avatar?

Other Comments by Theo

880. Comment #36624 by Theo on May 1, 2007 at 7:15 pm

Hi Lee,

I have boiled down your post to the main points.

Which is more likely and probable . . . However you never really answered this question. You statement has always been "God exists, therefore more likely"

I totally agree that if everything had a beginning, God would indeed be less probable than simple life. I believe we can both agree to this. And using this logic, even if evolution is proven false tomorrow, it can still be said that it is more probable that human bodies were assembled by chance in one moment rather than being created, because God will always be "too complex" to be "more probable".

But back to your point, if your strongest proof for god is creation, then I would say is that all?

You know that I am happy with science's theories of breaking down the steps of life into smaller and smaller pieces until it is "probably" by chance alone that life came into existence.

I quite agree, for I understand that almost anything can happen in theory. But because someone creates a computer program to show that when a pen and paper interacts with the wind my full name can be written, does not mean that it happened or will happen. A computer program that explores all the ways a laptop can form by chance would not make me hope that one would form in my lap!

The king called his subjects fools, but they could see he was naked… it was the king who was the fool for what he believed in what was not there because he believed only in what he was told and did not think for himself. He chose to ignore the plain observation that he was naked…

This illustration is based on the assumption that the truth was he was indeed naked. It works well for clothes but not God simply because of the fact that God cannot be directly observed

Maybe energy and matter just "appeared" from nothing… and started off the big bang – energy and matter coming into and out of existence happens all the time… negative energy is great… and the uncertainty principle actually allows for it.

Firstly, this is the first time I am hearing someone using negative energy as a cause for the singularity, but I will go along. Secondly, doesn't negative energy occur due to fluctuations of an already existing field at zero energy? So where did that field come from?

My rule is that everything can be explained by Physical laws and theories… just that we do not know them all yet.

When I said that a materialist is someone who believes that all reality is within the scope of science, you disagreed . . . Why?

I know I read it over 10 years ago but I do not remember Richard making any statement like the one you quoted without then going on to prove where the original statement had errors in the assumptions or proving how much smaller steps can answers the bigger problem. Richard would have solved this problem in the book with an explanation… you seem to have missed this out.

You seem to have missed out when I said that the explanation given was cumulative selection (a mechanism of evolution)

I believe therefore you are misquoting from the book

Sorry, I am not misquoting (ch 3 pgs44 – 45).

Other Comments by Theo

881. Comment #36626 by Theo on May 1, 2007 at 7:18 pm

J.C. Samuelson,

As the atheism vs. theism debate raged on, some theists found it fit to argue the point that one cannot disprove the existence of God. This argument was later destroyed by the teapot analogy: Can someone disprove the claim that there is a teapot floating somewhere in space? From this analogy, many similar forms arose, such as the fact that you cannot disprove Thor and the other gods, fairies at the bottom of the garden and the flying spaghetti monster. These illustrations all have one thing in common; they cannot be scientifically proven false. In order to deal with such supernatural claims, the Skeptical Inquirer Magazine stated that one of the main criteria used to verify whether a claim is scientific or not is its ability to be falsified:

"It may sound paradoxical, but in order for any claim to be true, it must be falsifiable. The rule of falsifiability is a guarantee that if the claim is false, the evidence will prove it false; and if the claim is true, the evidence will not disprove it (in which case the claim can be tentatively accepted as true until such time as evidence is brought forth that does disprove it). The rule of falsifiability, in short, says that the evidence must matter, and as such it is the first and most important and most fundamental rule of evidential reasoning.
The rule of falsifiability is essential for this reason: If nothing conceivable could ever disprove the claim, then the evidence that does exist would not matter; it would be pointless to even examine the evidence, because the conclusion is already known -- the claim is invulnerable to any possible evidence. This would not mean, however, that the claim is true; instead it would mean that the claim is meaningless. This is so because it is impossible -- logically impossible -- for any claim to be true no matter what. For every true claim, you can always conceive of evidence that would make the claim untrue -- in other words, again, every true claim is falsifiable.
For example, the true claim that the life span of human beings is less than 200 years is falsifiable; it would be falsified if a single human being were to live to be 200 years old. Similarly, the true claim that water freezes at 32° F is falsifiable; it would be falsified if water were to freeze at, say, 34° F. Each of these claims is firmly established as scientific "fact," and we do not expect either claim ever to be falsified; however, the point is that either could be. Any claim that could not be falsified would be devoid of any propositional content; that is, it would not be making a factual assertion -- it would instead be making an emotive statement, a declaration of the way the claimant feels about the world. Nonfalsifiable claims do communicate information, but what they describe is the claimant's value orientation. They communicate nothing whatsoever of a factual nature, and hence are neither true nor false. Nonfalsifiable statements are propositionally vacuous." (Winter 1990 edition)

(This was copied from a previous comment). These standards disqualified many claims from being scientific, including the God hypothesis and thus atheism reigned supreme. That was until I questioned the very foundation of atheism – S.G. . I then realized during this debate that this hypothesis too did not meet the standards of science it too could not be falsified.

At this juncture, some atheists would either downplay falsifiability or find excuses as to how SG can be falsified. Seeing that the importance of falsifiability has already been published, I believe that the latter move would be resorted to. Therefore, the argument may be made that only when all avenues have been exhausted for SG, only then will it be considered falsified. You and I both know that this is simply not true; SG will not be disproved merely because someones personal belief is that all avenues have been exhausted. The excuse that all possibilities have not been explored yet will always be a "valid argument" for all seasons; someone will always be willing to do one more experiment (which will go on ad infinitum) and so there will ALWAYS be an unexplored possibility thus SG will never be disproven. It is here that I understand Lee C when he said,"I believe in SG"; that atheism does not rest on science but on belief.

Other Comments by Theo

882. Comment #36703 by LeeC on May 2, 2007 at 3:37 am

RE 1033. Comment #36618 by Theo

Hi Theo,

Glad you are back... hope the exams went well.

I guess this could mean I will be busy for a while…

The pretty picture?

You can do it by editing your profile.

Go to your profile (just click on your name from this page and it takes you to your profile…)

Now log in… (User/name stuff)… click profile, you can now edit.

The "Avatar control panel" is some way down the page…

I assume you can guess the rest…

Any trouble just ask…

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

883. Comment #36706 by Richard Morgan on May 2, 2007 at 3:57 am

How sad and senseless all of this.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

884. Comment #36707 by Quetzalcoatl on May 2, 2007 at 4:01 am

Re comment 36626: Theo-

The thread has come back to life! Welcome back, hope the exams went well.

Re the avatar thing- if you have a picture you want as an avatar, you may have to shrink it first so that it will fit in the area provided. That's what I had to do with mine.

Also- I know it's been a while, but any thouughts on the points I raised in comment 864?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

885. Comment #36710 by epeeist on May 2, 2007 at 4:25 am

Comment #36626 by Theo

Karl Popper was the person who put forward the idea of falsifiability, based on scientific theories being hypothetico-deductive and using the classical Modus Tollens.

However there is another way of arguing, namely using induction. Without an axiomatic base this only gives you probabilistic results. The classic example is the premmiss that there are no black swans.

For the moment assume that black swans do not actually exist. Every swan you see would add to the probability that your supposition was correct, even though you could never prove it absolutely.

While one can never prove that god does or does not exist it is not necessarily a 50:50 chance either way. The fact that there is no evidence (the bible, or nuns being cured by repeating the ex-pope's name hardly count) is the thing that pushes the probability in the atheists favour.

Other Comments by epeeist

886. Comment #36714 by LeeC on May 2, 2007 at 4:43 am

RE: 1034. Comment #36624 by Theo

And so it begins… again.

I totally agree that if everything had a beginning, God would indeed be less probable than simple life. I believe we can both agree to this.

Hooray!!! We agree on something… the exams did you good.

Oh, there was a clause in your statement… damn.

We will work on this… I will come back to it later.

I quite agree, for I understand that almost anything can happen in theory.

Two agreements so soon? Oh there's more…

But because someone creates a computer program to show that when a pen and paper interacts with the wind my full name can be written, does not mean that it happened or will happen. A computer program that explores all the ways a laptop can form by chance would not make me hope that one would form in my lap!

So are you saying, "Just because we can calculate the odds on something to happen, does not mean it will happen…"?

I think the chances of a laptop forming out of "thin air" is remote enough to not even to have to think about it… although we probably could calculate the odds of it happening, I doubt it ever will.

The point of my argument has always been that the simplest possible form of life to form "by chance" is more likely than god forming by change.

To which you have agreed...

Even though life starting may be "unlikely", with a billion-billion galaxies, with a billion-billion stars in each, given 14 billion years…. We may… just have that chance… the proof for me is life on Earth.

The chances of winning the national lottery is/was something like 13 million to one. Now I could go out and buy 13 millions tickets, and I may win – should win in fact.

However, I could also just go out and buy one ticket… and hit the jackpot.

So even though the odds are high it is possible, and therefore could happen tomorrow.

Life only has to start once…(although it probably happened more than once.)

To get something complex by chance would really be dreaming for the fanciful, however the most basic form of replicating chemistry is all I need… from there on in evolution and natural selection can kick in and get me to complex life forms…

On to the Emperor's new clothes… after I gave this as an example of how the theist's explains why science cannot describe god, it seems that Dawkins and others had already beaten me to it. No such thing as an original thought and all that…

Standing on the shoulder's of giants…?

http://richarddawkins.net/article,463,The-Courtiers-Reply,PZ-Myers

Firstly, this is the first time I am hearing someone using negative energy as a cause for the singularity, but I will go along.

I did not mean to use negative energy it to explain a singularity… not sure how it can?

Black holes exist… we can see them… (in a way) and at the centre of a black hole? While – I do not really know, we can not look inside - with the known physics you get a singularity.

All you need is enough matter in the one place and you get a black hole - easy! So what is the point of the question again?

Anyway, all I was saying is that something can come from nothing in Physics hence the "the energy in a vacuum" – particles coming in and out of existence.

Secondly, doesn't negative energy occur due to fluctuations of an already existing field at zero energy? So where did that field come from?

OK, my example was talking about particles within space… so the field is a physical quantity in space.

We are going deep into quantum theory (of which I am more than a little rusty – I just looked at an old text book of mine and I have no idea what the maths means any more – oh dear)

As you know we have not got all the physics yet to explain everything… although QFT (Quantum Field Theory) and QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) are very good.

They still do not answer everything… however a theory that can predict an experiment result down to 1 part in 10 billion is good enough to prove we are on the right track.

How about that for a prediction?

How is god and the bible on predictions compared to that?
(Sorry, you do not want to talk about the bible… it has been a while)

When I said that a materialist is someone who believes that all reality is within the scope of science, you disagreed . . . Why?

Simple… I am not very good with words, and did not know what you meant by it.

I believe it is the aim of physics is to be able to calculate everything (or is that hope?)… Although we are way off actually doing this right now.

If we cannot calculate it now, then we do not know all the answers yet… it does not mean we will not be able to do it one day.

As for the blind watchmaker… I do not have the book anymore so I cannot confirm or deny… would be strange if Dawkins wrote something that went against his believes and evolution. Not his style.

So… do you still believe the age of the Universe is less than 10,000 years?

See ya

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

887. Comment #36716 by LeeC on May 2, 2007 at 4:47 am

WOW... more posts?

I will be busy.



Other Comments by LeeC

888. Comment #36724 by LeeC on May 2, 2007 at 5:15 am

RE 1035. Comment #36626 by Theo

Theo,

I have not got the time to fully reply to your post, I've only just notice my name got a mention.

The fame… the fame!!!

It is here that I understand Lee C when he said,"I believe in SG"; that atheism does not rest on science but on belief.

Sounds like something I would say…

I believe in SG (Damn – I said it again!!) but "believe" is just a word to me.

I think SG is correct…
I suggest that SG is correct.
SG could be correct.
Maybe SG is correct
I believe SG is correct

I believe in many things…

I believe when I throw an apple into the air it will come down…
I believe I will soon get shouted at by my wife for being on this computer for too long.

I have past experience to suggest that such things will happen. I can also make predictions.

The fact is though; I question this "belief" but have not found a simpler answer…

God?

Whose god? Which god? Why god? Which religion? Why so many religions? Could not god be clear on which religion?

If the bible, why the bible? Why not another holy book?

You said the theory of SG was not falsifiable, so I turned the question around.
i.e. SG did not happen!!!

So now it fits in with your theory that everything should be falsifiable.

So, if we can make life in the lab or find "alien" life on Mars that this means that SG did happen…

What is your test for God?

I see no reason for him… but of course, reason and questions have no place in religion.

Faith is all you need… and the more crazy the belief, the more faith, and the more faith the closer you are to god…

Wow… where do I sign up? I will just leave my brain at the door.

Have to go… I have the wife calling…

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

889. Comment #36815 by Theo on May 2, 2007 at 12:06 pm

hi Lee,
Thanks for the avatar info


Quetz,
Thanks for the avatar info also.Concerning your comment,its not that i don't want to comment on your points, its just that i thought i should wrap up the first debate before we start another (not doing this was the main cause of debaters going around in circles). That is why I was reluctant in the first place to answer Lee's question on the age of the earth, because I knew another debate would have started. therefore i will comment on it when the "age of the earth debate" begins. Do you understand where I am coming from?

epeeist,

If we are looking at this from a probabilistic point of view, then it would be seen that a designer is more probable since even the simplest life form is incredibly sophisticated and cannot be satisfactorily explained by chance

Other Comments by Theo

890. Comment #36945 by Theo on May 2, 2007 at 9:40 pm

Hi Lee,

So are you saying, "Just because we can calculate the odds on something to happen, does not mean it will happen…"?

Yup, probabilities can reach to such absurd points that you can term them as impossible.

I think the chances of a laptop forming out of "thin air" is remote enough to not even to have to think about it… although we probably could calculate the odds of it happening, I doubt it ever will.

I hold the same view of even the "earliest" and simplest form of life. BTW did you study the info on DNA replication? It reeks of design.

OK, my example was talking about particles within space… so the field is a physical quantity in space.

We are going deep into quantum theory (of which I am more than a little rusty – I just looked at an old text book of mine and I have no idea what the maths means any more – oh dear)

As you know we have not got all the physics yet to explain everything… although QFT (Quantum Field Theory) and QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) are very good.

They still do not answer everything… however a theory that can predict an experiment result down to 1 part in 10 billion is good enough to prove we are on the right track.

In the beginning there was nothing….which exploded…. but you do not know exactly how… I am sure you would understand if I am a wee bit skeptical about this. Well anyway let's go back to logic; something cannot come from nothing therefore, since something exists, something must have always existed. If there is design in life then there must have always been a designer since intelligence cannot come from nothing.

Even though life starting may be "unlikely", with a billion-billion galaxies, with a billion-billion stars in each, given 14 billion years…. We may… just have that chance… the proof for me is life on Earth.

Question: if the simplest life form was indeed designed, what would it look like?

The chances of winning the national lottery is/was something like 13 million to one. Now I could go out and buy 13 millions tickets, and I may win – should win in fact.

If the possibility of life was as likely as 13 million to 1, SG would have been plausible. But it's more like 1 with 13 million zeroes after it to one. It is much easier to look at the probability of something existing outside the scope of science than to push logic until breaks at absurd values of probabilities

As for the blind watchmaker… I do not have the book anymore so I cannot confirm or deny… would be strange if Dawkins wrote something that went against his believes and evolution. Not his style.

Well I am comfortable because I have it before my very eyes; therefore I know what probabilities termed impossible by even R.D.

BTW, if (science forbid!) evolution was proven false tomorrow, what would the probability of Humans spontaneously forming in a snap?

Other Comments by Theo

891. Comment #36989 by BillySands on May 3, 2007 at 4:22 am

Welcome back Theo.
Perhaps you could explain how you calculate the probability of life and how you would calculate the probability of god.
I have problems with all such calculations and dont believe they are realistic.
Also, assuming the eternal existence of a creator proves nothing. You have to prove he exists first.
Got to have lunch. Catch you later.

Other Comments by BillySands

892. Comment #36999 by epeeist on May 3, 2007 at 5:18 am

Comment #36945 by Theo

Yup, probabilities can reach to such absurd points that you can term them as impossible.

They may disappear towards the asymptotic limit, but that doesn't mean to say they are zero.

And as Aristotle said "Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities."

Other Comments by epeeist

893. Comment #37006 by LeeC on May 3, 2007 at 5:47 am

So much to say… and so little time.

If we are looking at this from a probabilistic point of view, then it would be seen that a designer is more probable since even the simplest life form is incredibly sophisticated and cannot be satisfactorily explained by chance

I of course disagree… you know this. Unless you are saying that god is less complex than the simplest form of life, but what kind of god would that be.

I find it difficult to accept the idea that god is just there, was always there… to me this is just not answering the question of where did god come from.

You think this is not a valid question to ask where did god come from?

However, my problem with the god idea is not just his creation… it's the lack of evidence for him… Please feel free to give me some that I can test or observe.

In the beginning there was nothing….which exploded…. but you do not know exactly how… I am sure you would understand if I am a wee bit skeptical about this.

So science does not know 100% all the answers, maybe only 90% or 80%… so because of this little gap… it must be god?

Come on, you can do better than that.

And history is on my side if you play the "gap in knowledge game"… almost funny.

Go back just over 100 years and you could have had the pleasure of laughing at science with regards to the age of the earth and the problem with Geophysics saying they had rocks older than 1 billions years, and the evolutionists saying they need a few billion years for their theory.

Physics could not explain a sun older an a few million years… and that was it.

No Physics of the day could explain an older sun in the order of billions of years. So what happened? Did everyone say "That's it, it must be god?"

No, there is not good logic for that… no - science just said there must be another answer, and within a few years they discovered nuclear physics… do you want more examples of where the theist was wrong to trust in the gaps?

This is just one example… I could write a whole book on the stuff, and at every point in history you have a theist saying… "See, this is proof of god!!!"

How silly they look now… how silly do you think the theist of today will look in 50 years?

Although, maybe the theist is use to this now…

Well anyway let's go back to logic; something cannot come from nothing therefore, since something exists, something must have always existed. If there is design in life then there must have always been a designer since intelligence cannot come from nothing.

Can you prove or test anything in this statement of yours?

I gave you examples of particles coming into existence in a vacuum… at the quantum level a lot is possible so long as the time is short – the uncertainty of it all?

Maybe the universe has just always existed?
Maybe the universe starts with a bang and ends in a crunch and just "bangs again"… Maybe universes are spawned from other universes… so we have an infinite number of universes… maybe many things.

Look physics has a good explanation of the universe from the fractions of a second after the bang and give a very good picture for the next 14 billion years.

No god required in any of these theories… OK they are not complete theories, but I know where I will put my money…

I see no god… you have not given me any proof of a god… other than "You can not explain this 100%, so therefore it is god"

what rubbish… sorry, it is true, this is childish logic at best… no logic at all some would say.

If there is design in the universe and life, then it is a crap design and I want my money back.

Life is crap, life is poorly made and man is badly designed, and our DNA is mainly full of junk.

Ask any biologist to design a better version of man and they will give a far better version than the one we have today. You think man was designed by god, how than could man design a better version?

(I am saying design – not create – just a blue print.)

You want some examples of bad design?

Question: if the simplest life form was indeed designed, what would it look like?

Interesting question, you tell me?

If I were god, I would first write a little "Made by God" in the DNA code… I am god, so I could do this… most of the DNA in man is "junk" DNA, so he could use some of this to make his trademark.

I would not give the impression that life was just evolved. I would make each life form unique and different as proof that evolution could not do this.

Why not you give me some proof it was designed… every time a theist has tried, evolution can answer… so go on – try something new.

If the possibility of life was as likely as 13 million to 1, SG would have been plausible. But it's more like 1 with 13 million zeroes after it to one.

And you calculated these odds by what method?

You just made it up… You do not need real evidence when you can make up ideas to prove something to yourself. However, you are only fooling yourself.

It is much easier to look at the probability of something existing outside the scope of science than to push logic until breaks at absurd values of probabilities

Back to the beginning of our circle with this argument…. We have to move on to something new.

You have not got any evidence of anything outside the scope of science… maybe a singularity, but that is only within one, and by definition this cannot interact with our universe anymore… (The black hole can, but not the singularity within)

So lets look for some proof or evidence of god?

If you can not give me any, than without evidence god is nothing.

We do not have to prove god 100%, but lets just make he more likely then say the Physics solution.

Erm… shall we start with the age of the Earth? You have proof that it is 10,000 years old how?

Maybe you can show me something outside the scope of science - just point to it please – anything in the universe…

Also, as an aside - do you believe everything in the bible word for word…? Sorry, you do not want to talk about the bible… so do you have any other evidence for god.

Come on, this is all I want, some evidence…. it does not have to be 100% proof.

In all our discussion you have not given me any proof, merely "you can not explain this – so it must be god"

Maybe this IS your evidence? Hasn't history shown this is foolish logic?

But lets not point to gaps in science knowledge as proof, I freely admit we do not know everything… yet we can explain a lot.

Playing the gaps game as history has shown is silly.

No, please give me evidence…. Anything you like…. A holy book maybe? A prediction?

Hey, if you believe in god, I assume he has spoken to you? So what did he have to say?

Have to go now - tired, not time to proof read this, so I hope you forgive my typos

Look forward to hearing from you.

Lee

PS Cool picture you have Theo BTW

Other Comments by LeeC

894. Comment #37008 by BillySands on May 3, 2007 at 6:06 am

BTW, if (science forbid!) evolution was proven false tomorrow, what would the probability of Humans spontaneously forming in a snap?

Very little, but that is not how evolution works. It works through gradual change.

Well anyway let's go back to logic; something cannot come from nothing therefore, since something exists, something must have always existed. If there is design in life then there must have always been a designer since intelligence cannot come from nothing.

If you claim this is logic, then it must also be used on god. To do otherwise is to resort to special pleading it is not evidence . To do otherwise is also to say that you only accept logic as long as it agrees with your belief. If you are going to use logic, then you have to cnclude that either something can come from nothing, or that god has to come from something - you are not being consistent here. If you want to assert that god has always existed, then you have neither evidence for that - or his existence. This gives you no rational starting point for your arguement on the existence of God.
You may want to check some of the comments on this thread, as they are relevant to some of the things you have said in the past. http://richarddawkins.net/article,912,Pope-abolishes-limbo,The-Daily-Telegraph-Waterstones

Other Comments by BillySands

895. Comment #37020 by J.C. Samuelson on May 3, 2007 at 6:58 am

Hi Theo, welcome back.

With regard to your reply, please re-read #905 to #909. I'm pretty sure I addressed your complaints in one or more of these posts.

The thing is, something isn't "falsified" until it's proven true. It's falsified when it's proven false. Aristotlian SG, which was indeed proven false (by Louis Pasteur, no less), is not the same as modern SG, which hasn't even reached the point of being testable. It's not about "one more experiment," though truth be told I don't really have a problem with that.

Once again, science does not work by fiat. When some scientific claim is found to be lacking, usually by the introduction of a newer idea, more correct information, and so on, it is revised and revisited. Even scientific laws are, in principle, subject to falsifiability. This means that yes, there is always one more experiment. However, it isn't quite that simple, and when a scientific hypothesis or theory is actually falsified, that means it joins hundreds of others on the dust heap of history, and is generally not revisited.

With regard to SG, I've learned a great deal more about it since we last engaged, and tried to express this in the aforementioned posts, and can say with confidence that modern SG is not falsified, because it hasn't even reached the point of having been tested. Indeed, work is still ongoing into its tributary lines of scientific inquiry. So, to claim SG is falsified is to misuse or misunderstand the term.

Having said that, I don't see any problem with your skepticism of SG, panspermia, or any other particular component of the young science of abiogenesis. The fact is that no one really knows. The present state of abiogenesis as a field is such that all we have are clues pointing toward the possibility of natural origins. This is, once again, technical agnosticism. However, as I mentioned before you are claiming much more than technical agnosticism, and in fact have proposed that God is the most logical and reasonable explanation. Paradoxically, you criticize a lack of evidence for natural origins, yet offer none in favor of your hypothesis.

As for your probability arguments, they have been shown by RD and others to be vacuous. Part of the enormous problem (for you) is that by positing an extreme improbability for complex life, you simultaneously posit an even more extreme improbability for your chosen designer. It makes absolutely no logical sense whatsoever to apply different standards simply because it makes you happy. It's just another form of confirmation bias.

You may wish for science to be more absolute in its claims, or find satisfaction in the notion that religion gives you the absolutes you desire. Having been there myself, it's easy to understand the appeal. However, whether one likes it or not science will go on as it always has - incrementally.

Look, Theo. All you have to do is provide some evidence, if you can. That's it! No, really! Pointing to this thing or that and saying, "Wow! That looks designed," is not evidence. Probability arguments are not evidence, and shoots your own hypothesis in the foot. Skepticism of existing or future science is not evidence. It's really not that hard to understand.

Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson

896. Comment #37193 by Theo on May 3, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Billy,

Also, assuming the eternal existence of a creator proves nothing. You have to prove he exists first.

I am trying to figure out the possibility of a living replicating cell forming just like that. How molecules came together to form the phospholipid layer and ribosomes while other molecules came together to form RNA/DNA which just so happen to have formed in such a way as to be chemically encoded with information on how to build phospholipid layers and ribosomes. It just so happen also that this advanced information storage system was assembled with replicating machinery as well as energy harnessing machinery. It's a good thing that science has provided proof that this really happened, otherwise someone would have been free to disagree!

Epeeist,

They may disappear towards the asymptotic limit, but that doesn't mean to say they are zero.

And as Aristotle said "Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities."

With atheism nothing is impossible, I understand.

LeeC,

However, my problem with the god idea is not just his creation… it's the lack of evidence for him… Please feel free to give me some that I can test or observe.

Again I ask, did you read the information I linked to you?

So science does not know 100% all the answers, maybe only 90% or 80%… so because of this little gap… it must be god?

Come on, you can do better than that.

And history is on my side if you play the "gap in knowledge game"… almost funny.

A gap in science is really when you do not have enough evidence to back up your claims, that's it, nothing more. Therefore when a gap in science is encountered it does not mean that you win the argument. An atheist, rather than scold the theist for not accepting insufficient or no evidence, should wait until sufficient evidence is amassed before engaging the theist. Anything other than this is to expect that a theist will simply accept weak atheistic arguments.

BTW, it is not the theist who trusts in gaps in science, it is the atheist. The problem arises when the theist does not hold trust in those gaps as much as the athei