Subject:
|
Re: Mercy? (Was Re: My Prayer on this National Day of Prayer)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 22 Sep 2001 20:49:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1369 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > > In any case I stress once again that the mundane record is not sufficient
> > > evidence for miraculous events, especially considering the obvious problem
> > > of circularity, since the Gospels are the only "evidence" of these miracles,
> > > and only the Gospels report them.
> >
> > Well, the Old Testament predicts them, and the rest of the Bible expounds on
> > them, but this requires accepting the Bible as an authoritative source.
>
> That's not a bad point, but it is a fundamental sticking point for some
> people. The notion that the OT was a book predicting Christ's arrival is in
> many ways equivalent to historical revisionism--that is, a book about one
> thing is re-interpreted to apply to something else.
What about all the OT miracles, then? Leaving the NT aside for the moment,
the OT predicted many events that also took place in the OT.
<snip>
> > Interviews and painstaking research would seem to lend themselves naturally
> > to the creation of a reliable historical document.
>
> Not necessarily. Even assuming a good-faith effort on Luke's part, his
> good intentions are no guarantee of a reliable document. Further, the
> eyewitnesses he interviewed must themselves be considered; their memories
> were not fool-proof, nor were they credible interpreters of apparently
> supernatural events. Many people on TV are sure that David Blaine
> levitated, but that doesn't mean that he levitated.
>
> > Is five hundred eyewitnesses to a ressurection not proof enough? Any lawyer
> > would be overjoyed to have five hundred eyewitnesses for a case.
>
> Only if that case dealt in mundane and not supernatural events. Frankly,
> it is not sufficient proof. More than 500 people have claimed to see the
> Loch Ness Monster, and far more than that have claimed to have UFO
> experiences.
But Jesus's miracles are those which don't leave very much wiggle room. The
healing miracles, for example - He healed many crippled people, who, having
been unable to walk since birth, immediately jumped up and started walking
around. I don't see any slight-of-hand explanation for this. He didn't go
up to somebody random and say, "Okay, I'm going to give you your sight now.
On the count of three, you will be able to see everything!" On the
contrary, those in need of healing came to Him, requesting a specific miracle.
And the resurrection - Jesus was confirmed dead, and His tomb was sealed and
placed under guard. Pre-resurrection, the disciples would hardly have the
courage or resources to overpower the guards, unseal the tomb, and steal the
body. Post-resurrection, Jesus walked around in plain sight for 40 days.
He ate, drank, and was touched by the disciples. It's hard to interpret
this as anything other than what it was.
> > > > When they are compared with this in mind, the inconsistencies quickly
> > > > resolve themselves.
> > >
> > > I believe they do, but not in the way that I think you'd like them to.
> >
> > There are no inconsistencies in the Bible that cannot resolve themselves
> > from a different perspective.
>
> Ah! Now we're getting somewhere! I submit, as you'll probably agree, that
> the "correct" perspective is a matter of faith.
I suppose it is, but it must also be logically and scientifically sound.
> > Let me cite one: The death of Judas Iscariot is reported two different ways.
> > One, he threw the thirty silver coins into the temple and hung himself
> > (Matthew 27:5). Two, he bought a field with the money, where he fell
> > headlong and his body burst open (Acts 1:18-19). These two accounts can be
> > reconciled in the following series of events:
> > -Judas threw the money into the temple and hung himself
> > -The priests couldn't decide what to do with the money, so they bought a
> > field to bury strangers (Matthew 27:6-8). Judas therefore bought the field
> > indirectly. The money never entered the temple treasury.
> > -No one went to bury Judas, so after his body hung for a while, it became
> > detached from wherever it had been hanging, and fell. Since it had begun to
> > decay, it burst open.
>
> But don't you see this as an example of playing with the data to fit the
> hypothesis?
You could say that, but it hardly requires a logical leap to arrive at this
explanation. It's simple and it fits the facts.
> I recommend "Gospel Fictions" by Randle Helms for an elaborate
> and well-reasoned discussion of this very sort of issue, as well as a great
> examination of the Gospels as a succesion of revisions.
>
> > > You are, in essence, saying that since fundamentally simple particles
> > > cannot spontaneously arise (or cannot always have existed), then an
> > > infinitely complex Creator must have spontaneously arisen (or always
> > > existed). That's called the ontological argument, and it's a falacy.
> >
> > (I thought the ontological argument was that "God has placed within us a
> > knowledge that He exists and cares for us";
> > http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/godexist.html; but I don't have a
> > dictionary handy.)
>
> The ontological argument can be summed up as "A perfect being that does
> not exist is less perfect than a perfect being that *does* exist; therefore
> God, the Perfect Being, must by His very nature exist."
That's not what I said. That's a thought model, not a scientific model.
This was my argument:
> > I'm saying that, if you accept that fundamentally simple particles cannot
> > have always existed and cannot spontaneously generate, then something had to
> > have created them; and if that creator could not have always existed or
> > spontaneously generated, it had to have been created too. Confined to the
> > universe, this reduces to the chicken-and-the-egg problem. But the Bible
> > describes a God who has always existed and is outside the universal bounds
> > of space and time. A Creator of this nature is supported by the finite
> > universe model.
If the universe had an ultimate Creator, it must necessarily lead to one who
was not created Himself and who is not confined by space and time like we are.
> Here's one discussion (and there are zillions) on the net:
>
> http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/ontology.htm
This argument seems to be a logical leap - man attempting to "think" God
into existence by fiat. I agree, it is not an argument I would want to
build my faith on.
> > > In addition, if you're able to say that "God always existed, nuff said,"
> > > then I can say that the universe always existed, nuff said.
> >
> > But modern science argues for a finite universe that had a beginning.
>
> Not all of modern science. Hawking, for instance, has postulated (though
> not made much effort to prove it--it's more of a thought model) that the
> universe may go through countless expansion/collapse loops. In other words,
> the current universe is finite, but what about before and after the current
> universe?
The God model is one explanation. The expansion/collapse model is a thought
model and thus speculation.
> Recent data does indeed suggest that the universe is on an endless
> expansion. I'm not an astrophysicist, though, so I can't give you a
> technical response.
Endless expansion in the future, yes. So this universe does not seem to be
collapsing, as would be necessary to fit Hawking's model. And this does not
negate the possibility of a definite beginning.
> > > > -The anthropic principle. Science has found that the laws of physics and
> > > > chemistry are extroardinarily convenient for matter, let along life, to
> > > > exist as it does. The degree of precision is astronomical. Even one
> > > > parameter were to be different by as little as 10^-5, life could not exist.
> >
> > (I apparently was going too fast when I wrote this. 10^-5 isn't nearly as
> > small as some of the other tolerances such as the 1:10^120 tolerance, and
> > some are even smaller.)
>
> But even that is irrelevant after-the-fact, even if it were 1:10^10000000.
> We're here, so we're possible.
Yes. But this ignores what the universe had to go through to get to this
point. Suppose chance got us here. It had to go through so many flips and
leaps along the way that it could be considered a miracle in and of itself.
> > > > This leads to the conclusion that a Creator had His hands meddling in the
> > > > works.
> > >
> > > Actually, that leads to a conclusion that the postultor of such an argument
> > > does not understand statistics, as Lindsay has also ably demonstrated.
> >
> > "Leads to" does not mean "proves".
>
> Well, that applies to your argument as well as mine! 8^)
:)
> > Naturally, the existence of a Creator cannot be proven with 100% certainty
> > from the confines of the universe. But if you establish the probability of
> > all the necessary conditions being randomly satisfied for the universe to
> > exist as it does, it is extremely small. But from the confines of this
> > universe, the existence of a multiverse cannot be proven and must be
> > accepted on faith, just as the existence of God.
>
> But again, the multiverse (even the "omniverse") is irrelevant. *This*
> universe has spawned life, so conjecture about the likelihood makes no
> difference.
> If, however, someone had set out by saying "I want life to arise with this
> set of characteristics," then the chances of the universe being compatible
> with that proposed life would indeed have been vanishingly small. However,
> we have arisen in direct response to the strictures and conditions of the
> universe as-is; we have, in effect, been tailored to our environment. The
> chance of our existence (as you have previously agreed) is 100%, so the
> initial unlikelihood (if such it may be called) makes no difference.
True, it doesn't make any difference. But as I said before, it would be a
miracle in and of itself.
If you accept the Bible as authoritative, then all the miracles it descibes
happened. Just because they happened doesn't deny that they were miraculous.
> > On the other hand, if you are referring to the "lottery" scenario, or the
> > "drawing 8 cards in a row" scenario, see my previous response at
> > http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=12941.
>
> I reject the notion that in the universal lottery "somebody will win," if
> by "win" you mean that somebody will come into existence. Somebody (namely,
> us) did win in that way, but that doesn't have anything to do with the proof
> of a Creator.
The paragraph you are referring to is this:
> And the existence in the universe is not like drawing cards or playing the
> lottery, anyway. The rules mandate that *somebody* will win. There is no
> such mandate if you assume the nonexistence of a Creator, because there
> would be no outside authority setting the rules. The lottery would have to
> play itself.
I meant that in the regular lottery - the quotidian lottery, which you buy
tickets for - has rules that mandate a winner. As you say, there is no such
mandate in the universal lottery, which means there is no guarantee that
somebody will win.
> Your quote by Gould is especially interesting, since he is directly
> opposed to the model of life's origin that you suggest.
I was not agreeing with Gould's model by posting that quote. I was
indicating that Gould conceded a point that backs up my argument,
specifically, that generation of Homo sapiens from an a priori universe is
extremely improbable.
> Further, his quote may be paraphrased in this way:
> If we traced backwards the evolutionary history of homo sapiens and then
> replayed it, the likelihood of the exactly same environmental conditions
> occurring a second time is remote.
> Another organism would certainly have evolved in response to those
> environmental conditions, but it wouldn't have been homo sapiens.
The first sentence is a paraphrase. The second sentence is conjecture.
There is no guarantee that *any* life could have arisen, as you yourself say: "I
reject the notion that in the universal lottery 'somebody will win,' if by
'win' you mean that somebody will come into existence."
>
> Dave!
--Ian
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
98 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
