Ok, back to this thread.
animal wrote:Sorry for such a delayed response - I've recently moved and things have been hectic in the past few days to say the least...
No worries, As you can see I'm taking my time too. Between new projects at work and family/home obligations and dealing with a few unruly posters here, very little time is left.
animal wrote:It is interesting how you frame the begging of the question as to 'who' created all these universes - as to assume that 'someone' must be responsible. I suppose you could replace 'who' with 'what' and 'someone' for 'something' but even then - the question still begs as to 'what' or 'who' was responsible for developing that 'thing' or 'person' being assumed or asserted does it not? Enter infinite regress. Perhaps it is because I am satisfied with simply saying 'I don't know', but I choose not to assume things simply because we can invoke that every effect must have a cause (and then put up a double standard and make your assertion that 'god' or the universe is eternal or the beginning or the 'zero point'). You don't know, I don't know, we (human beings collectively) do not know for certain... so why assume such things? Because it helps your argument? If so, I think its based on a false premise - or at least disingenuous at best as it rests, essentially, upon your 'best guess'.
Animal, please settle down. The topics we are discussing here are nothing short of ginormous so I doubt we're going to come to some sort of conclusion other than the usual
we'll have to agree to disagree. What I'm hoping for is that I can shed some positive light on Christianity so that at the end of the day you may be able to say 'you know what, I still disagree with this guy Byblos but I can see why he believes what he does'. That is what I'm trying to get out of you as well, so that also at the end of the day, I can say 'I still disagree with this guy (gal) animal but I can see why he(she) believes what he does'.
No supposition was meant by my use of the word 'who' but I guess the same thing could be said of any other word you suggested. I'm not disagreeing with you; any of these options could've been used; I chose the word 'who' but not to the exclusion of all others. I even readily acknowledged that the multi-verse (including parallel universes now that you've explained it further, thank you) is a viable alternative to an all-powerful deity. So let's not get bogged down by semantics; these topics are far too complicated to do that. It is not my style to use specific language to convey a hidden meaning nor is it my style to score cheap points by word use or implication. If I want to say something it will be explicitly said. If you do the same and you agree then let's move on.
animal wrote:That being said, to help identify what I meant when I stated the parallel universe theory -
here is a link.
Based on that discovery, the implications allow the conception that somewhere in another (parallel) universe, people like you or me do not exist, in another ideas like Allah, Zeus or Yahweh are unheard of, in another leaders like Hitler or Genghis Khan never came into power, in another religions like Christianity, Islam or Buddhism never popularized, in another discoveries by Newton, Franklin or Einstein were never made, in another the branch of homeo-sapiens on the evolutionary tree did not grow, in another the planet earth never originated life and so on...
Now, although both the multi-verse and parallel universe theories are quite plausible - I certainly wouldn't defend them as established science; but surely - if you are to entertain them, I find it hard to argue for whatever deity you're willing to posit as its 'maker' or 'beginner' based on such implications...
I guess the point I am trying to draw here is; I am willing to concede my ignorance on the matters of 'first cause' to any of these scenarios/theorums - why aren't you? If you do - then why posit a deity in place of this ignorance?
But that's exactly the point I was trying to make in the first place. Of course one can plead ignorance to not just unproven theories as of yet, but theories that have virtually no hope of being proven whatsoever. The fact is that we can only prove that which we can discern, that which we can observe, that which can impact our senses in one way or another. Now of course you will turn around and say the same thing about God but then it is not the same thing, is it? It's not the same thing precisely because we contend God has in fact interacted with our physical world (from the creation account on), has left his mark in numerous, historically verifiable places. The contention is even more than that. The core of it is that God has in fact incarnated in bodily form and walked among us, has indeed impacted us in a direct manner. So it is not out of
ignorance or blind faith that we choose to believe in God, quite the opposite. It is that we see convincing evidence of his existence. That is why this whole argument, in my opinion, will eventually come down to the authenticity of the Bible and the historicity of Christ.
animal wrote:A bit clearer, but more problematic.
Even if 'god' is infinite or eternal (I get what you mean when you imply infinity, but do consider that this concept really applies only to mathematics...) how does one go from 'god is its creator' to 'therefore god must be outside of it'?
If I were to create a painting, am I not contingent to that paintings existence? Based on contingency alone, it is necessary for me to exist 'in the same plane, space, existence, what have you,' in order for the painting to exist or be created... An artist doesn't create something and simply vanish or 'step back' or 'outside' into non-existence...
First as to infinity and mathematics, who (and I really do mean 'who' here
) put this rule that infinite can only apply to mathematics? How about language, is it finite? Show me the finite set of permutations for thought, emotion, even chemistry (as in compound elements).
Second, the painting and the painter is a bad analogy animal, it just doesn't fit but let's look at it anyway. If you're equating the painting with the universe then where within the confines of that painting do you see the painter? Unless of course you look at the signature at the bottom, in which case you can posit that someone painted it. Incidentally that is the very same fine tuning, irreducible complexity arguments we put forward and atheists are always hitting us with as being non-scientific. You're not using the same analogy in your defense now are you?
animal wrote:Even your connection to multi-verses in relation to 'god' breaks down with this respect because in spite of these infinite amount of universes which occupy this 'ultimate super-universe' you postulate, they (the infinite universes) would still depend on the contingency of the same existence as this 'super-universe' with which they occupy... You also have a begging the question with respect to this idea of a 'super-universe' and once again we fall into infinite regression... I see more problems and questions than I do answers with your contention.
Animal, remember, I'm not the one advancing the idea of parallel universes, you are. All I'm saying is that if I am to accept this idea which you are proposing as an axiom, then you must accept the idea that 'something' can exist outside our universe because to deny such is to deny that even one additional universe (parallel or otherwise) can exist to begin with. In other words, you would be contradicting your own theory. So we go back to the same question, since by definition we both know (or should know) that 'something' can exist outside of our universe, and since your version of this 'something' (i.e. other parallel universes) cannot be proven, and since our 'something' (i.e. God) has in fact been
proven to exist
as per our claim, then the only thing left is to explore that claim. Please let me know if I've explained myself adequately enough or I should try again.
animal wrote:Also, I don't see parallel universe theorem (based on the discovery I linked) implying 'outside existence' (what does this even mean, this still hasn't been explained). If universes 'split', than it implies they run parallel, ie 'next to'...
'next to' is not 'within'. We cannot see what is 'next to' our universe. We can only see what's within (and very limited at that).
animal wrote:no cause can be part of the ensuing reaction, it is its trigger
Give me an example of something like this. What cause ISN'T contingent to the ensuing reaction?
Please go back to the painter/painting analogy.
animal wrote:Now you're saying things I did not mention. I did not appeal to the length of time in order to justify my argument as you claim, it was only to indicate that the concept of a deity (any deity) has been studied and explored longer than recently proposed theories. Theories impossible to prove (as of yet of course
).
I was only pointing it out as referring to how long something has been around or how many copies of something have been made (an argument ad numerum, if you will) seems to be a popular concept in some of the threads in this board and website when supporting Christianity or the Bible. My mistake in context if you took that directly, I was just emphasizing a point to readers...
Understood.
animal wrote:Also, I find it hard to believe that any of these 'long studied and explored concepts' (especially in regards to deities) have reached the kind of 'apex' of intellect to which recent theories have been developed... That is - it is difficult to argue that anything can compare to the past, say, 200 years when it comes to human enlightenment, intelligence, literacy, the sciences, et cetera than any amount of time before that... Do you not agree?
I agree but I don't see the relevance. I am referring to the parallel universes theory and the fact that it is just that, an unproven theory not likely to go anywhere. I wasn't referring to the whole branch of the sciences.
animal wrote:I don't dismiss this 'ace in the hole' which is used to support Christianity out of hand. I have and continue to investigate and research it/them.
Firstly, supposed 'fulfilled' prophecies are NOT unique to Christianity in any way. Have you ever read the Qu'ran? Nostradamus? Are you familiar with ancient cultures such as the Greeks, Indian or Roman with stories of prophecy (many of which self-fulfilling)?
I am familiar with them and none of them come even close. Not only were the Bible prophecies fulfilled but they were fulfilled in the manner in which they were prophesied. Not one of those can make such a claim and to such degree of accuracy. Like I said before, this discussion will invariably lead to a discussion on the authenticity of the Bible. I think we need to shift in that direction.
animal wrote:In any case, consider; I have my birthday coming up in a couple of months, I state today that it will rain on my birthday. I have, definitively, made a prophecy - will it be fulfilled? If it rains on my birthday, does it make me a prophet? Does it verify me as a great prophet? People may tell me I am a fraud because here we are, on my birthday and it is not raining where we stand - yet, weathermen say it is raining somewhere to the south, north, east or west of where we are. My prophecy can be seen as fulfilled. Is it mere coincidence? Is it to be written off as too vague? My point is; does it mean anything at all?
no, the Bible prophecies were a
little more precise than that. I tend to doubt you can equate the above with 'destroy this temple and I will rebuild in 3 days', then he is destroyed and is resurrected in 3 days. If you want to dispute the fact that he was resurrected then let's specifically talk about that.
animal wrote:In terms of the Bible prophecy... from what I have studied and researched on my own so far, I have concluded that 'fulfilled prophecies', especially in the NT, are really created prophecies by the NT authors using OT sources. Scholars especially see this most from the Gospel of Mark, which I agree is midrash. To which John, Luke and Mathew's Gospels are also 'effected' as it can be marked that they use Mark as a source. There is also an issue of translations from Hebrew to Greek texts - especially with regards to the Septuagint - a Greek version of the Torah. Just a couple of the kind of problems we face when we 'rely' on the bible for accuracy.
We see this sort of 'lifting' going on an awful lot in Mark. Consider the following example:
Mark 14
2 Samuel 15-16
Jesus is about to be rejected and executed
David has been rejected by the people in favor Absalom
Jesus heads for the Mount of Olives accompanied by disciplines
David makes for the Mount of Olives, accompanied by retainers
Jesus leaves 8 disciples behind and takes two with him a little way, and then leaves them
David leaves his retainers behind and sends three of his men back to Jerusalem
Jesus is sorrowful unto death
David is weeping for his horrible fate
Someone cuts off the servant of the High Priest's ear
Abishai asks David's permission to behead Shimei, who has mocked David, but David refuses.
Jesus says Peter will deny him
David says Shimei was sent by God to revile him
A young man betrays Jesus by running away
A young man betrays David by informing on his followers
Notice in the parallel of the High Priest's ear (Mark) and the permission to seek beheading (2 Samuel), the violence goes unresolved in Mark's text, where one might expect Jesus, like David to refuse the would-be assassin's request. You might expect one of the other Gospels to finish the parallel - and sure enough, Matthew and John have the attacker put away his sword, whereas Luke posits that Jesus restores the ear miraculously - most likely misunderstanding the text to focus on the severed ear, rather than the sword drawn from its sheath. This example I gave was to demonstrate how revealing this sort of lifting of earlier texts and sources is, as it seems that there was originally a line in Mark, now missing, that must have said 'put it back' (the sword). The concept of creation from the parallels helps predict that.
I can refer you to further research on this, if you'd like - but my going into detail here was to dismiss the idea that I myself simply consider prophecy in the Bible 'mere coincidence' or 'out of hand'. I've looked into it - I don't see biblical prophecies as simply 'coincidence', but rather 'created' by the intent of the authors. It is, of course, easy to fulfill a prophecy of you are the one simply writing its fulfillment... especially when a reader hundreds or thousands of years later reads it and supports it actually happened as was written.
You can read anything you like into any text but the simple fact is that parallels between the OT and the NT are there not due to any
lifting but precisely because prophecies were being fulfilled as such. Many of these so-called Bible contradictions have been soundly refuted many times over; I'm sure you've come across some in your research. A good source I recommend reading is Hugh Ross'
Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible.
As to the apparent difference between the gospel accounts of the severing of the servant's ear, it goes without saying that the gospels were not meant to record the exact same things in exactly the same manner. The books in general were written for different purposes and do recount their respective sides from their own, unique perspectives. While Matthew's book centers on the prophesied Messiah of the Jews, Mark's is geared towards Jesus' more human, obedient side. Luke's, on the other hand, is occupied with Jesus as the Savior of all mankind, while John's theme is Jesus as God incarnate. It is always important to look at the book's purpose in order to see the bigger picture in terms of historical accuracy. The books complement, rather than contradict one another in any way.
animal wrote: Again, what separates the story of Jesus in the Bible from all other ancient traditions and religions that came before him is the fact that it was prophesied in detail in the OT and it came to pass exactly as it did. There were multiple eyewitnesses to these events, some of whom weren't even Christian converts (who didn't have any vested interest in perpetuating a myth) that attested to his life, death, and resurrection. We can also get into the details if you wish.
Again, its easy to see to it that an OT prophecy be fulfilled if you are the NT writer simply saying something happened (which 'just happened' to be an OT prophecy)... As for the eyewitnesses - thats speculation at best in my opinion, and in any case, such testimony was never written down till decades afterwards, placing questions as to the legitimacy of such oral testimony passed down. If you refer to the likes of Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny... among a couple others who are always referred to as the independent sources for the veracity of things like Jesus and such... we can examine them if you wish to see if what we can learn from one another, but I personally, at this time from what I have studied, do not find them compelling (even what isn't doctored of them by the Church in later years).
Please do a little more research on the subject of fulfilled Bible prophecies, a sample of which is in the link I provided above, and the full details of which are recorded in Hugh Ross' book (and so many others). The statistics of all that was prophesied to be fulfilled in the manner in which they were is nothing short of staggering. Now we're not talking about a crap shoot where it's a 50/50 hit-or-miss type of thing like the failed 'raining on your birthday' analogy. We're talking about
100% reliability of some 2,000 prophesies that already did come true and some 500 others that are future-related.
animal wrote: As to why all this? Well, there's this little thing called the after-life. Even the most ardent atheists must have this nagging thought in the back of their heads, 'just what if?'.
No more than a nagging thought of if reincarnation is true...
Of course, I agree. As it is no more than a mere possibility in the infinitely parallel universes. But then again, we go back to plausibility and authenticity, neither of which has any. The Bible does.
animal wrote: As for sin and what it is, we believe God formed us in his image and gave us a code of conduct of sorts (including yes, a moral code to live by, which incidentally is still the basis of most laws in every civilized and not so civilized nation).
How is such a blanket statement supported? This is more than debatable and I think misses the historical context of how civilizations have evolved. Would you say that the Greeks, Romans, Incas, Mayas, Egyptian, Persian, Chinese civilizations had no moral code to which to live by? Keep in mind, these were great civilizations who had no idea who Yahweh was, or the Bible... How do you think the founders of Christianity or the Church got there 'moral code' from? I again refer you to the influences of surrounding and earlier societies, religions, mythologies and traditions... This assertion is more of a turning a blind eye or just simply a misunderstanding of social sciences of human beings and our history.
There you go again, accusing me of things I never said. Please stop doing that, it is rather annoying at best and very disingenuous at worst. Where did I say these civilizations had no moral code or that they were not great civilizations? Our contention is that we, as humans and as beings created in the image of God, were actually
hard-wired with the knowledge of God's existence and whatever moral basis that entails. The fact that some choose to ignore it does not negate the fact that we all have it. That inner knowledge is the very source of absolute morality but it does tend to get distorted depending on one's acceptance or lack thereof of that source. That is why you see differences in the applicability of such (hence, free will).
animal wrote: There are such things as absolute truths and morality is certainly one of them.
Really? Than why can't everyone agree on what is right and wrong? How do you know absolute truths exist? Are you absolutely sure?
Oh, I am absolutely sure. Again, the fact that we do not agree on it does not negate its existence; on the contrary, it serves as its indicator. When we do disagree on issues of morality, who should, in your opinion, be the judge of who is right and who is wrong? I had a discussion with my nephew the other day who is in his last year of a PHD in acoustical engineering in Manchester (I only mention his background for perspective) and his view was that hey, every society makes their own set of moral laws and what is permissible in one may not be in another and that's perfectly acceptable. That, of course, is all fine and well, as long as societies are closed systems with no possibility of interaction. Alas, we live in an open world (from early on) and societies do interact, inter-mingle, inter-marry, exchange ideas and yes, they do clash on issues moral. Who in those cases decides who is right and who is wrong? Why can't pedophiles form their own closed-circuit society where pedophilia is a perfectly acceptable moral stance? Same goes for bestiality or cannibalism, why should they be left out? Indeed no, there must be a higher standard of judging that is above the localized societal definition of morality; a universal standard by which all of humanity can be deemed accountable. Our contention is that it is the Bible. Why is it not some other philosopher's ideas of morality, you will say? Well, see Bible authenticity and prophecies above.
animal wrote: We are not animals (no offense) and we do not operate by instinct.
Please research human psychology, social sciences and human history, than research specific aspects of the animal kingdom and review and analyze to see if there are any similarities. Be warned; you might be surprised on what you'll find...
I have and found nothing contradictory. I invite you to do the same on the authenticity of the Bible and the refutation of all objections (as to prophecies, geography, historicity, etc.).
animal wrote: There are consequences to everything, including ones in the after-life.
Is there? How do you know? Is this absolute? Or could this be a relation to a Freudian concept between one and an authority figure - a relationship programmed into us since childhood by our parents or guardians (who are also authority figures)?
It is programmed into us, I agree. Where we disagree is that we attribute the programming to a
higher authority .
animal wrote: What is the meaning of free will if one is not held accountable for it? Is one free to kill their mother? Of course they are but they must face the consequences. Now before Jesus, believers had to follow the law and the result was ample proof that man is not capable of following the law, as, by his own nature, man will always drift to sin. God sent us his Son to relieve us of the burden of following the law and to tell us there's something even more beautiful that awaits us after death and the way there is through Christ himself. Christ's 'bloody, sadistic' death was not the point of his coming. It was his resurrection. We most certainly have the free will not to believe that but we must also recognize the real possibility of consequences to follow.
This last concept and its line of logic, if any, is hard to follow. We either have free-will, or we do not. You can't have it both ways. You claim we do have free will.... but, we are in a way forced to make choices that ensures us into an afterlife with Jesus. Its kind of like you're seeking special pleading on the behalf of Christianity in order to establish that people need to be morally responsible (using only Christianity as a guide) so that there isn't chaos... frankly, it seems that past, great civilizations like the Greeks, Babylonians, Egyptians and even groups like Samurai did very well in upholding them (each had a different version if it according to each societies social structure, but nevertheless) considering they had no concept of the Bible or Jesus...
You said above: 'We either have free will, or we do not. You can't have it both ways'. If by free will you decide to jump to the moon unassisted, do you think your free will will allow you to do so? Of course not. Why? Because our free will is severely limited. First it is limited by the laws of physics, then by our five senses, then by our moral and ethical values, etc. Our free will certainly serves us in making choices and that is the choice God is putting before you. And again, I'm not pleading anything for Christianity (well, at least not in this post
) as what we're discussing really pertains to the idea of God's existence in general and not just the God of the Bible or Christianity.
animal wrote: Also, how does one have free will if god exists? If god knows all - he knows what choices you'll make and what consequences follow, he even knew you'd be born to hold this very conversation with me... that's called fatalism - the anti-thesis of free will...
If God knew beforehand that you will end up in hell (not you per se, of course, but a figure of speech) how does that invalidate the choices you make today? Do you think you can
change where you're going to be 10 years from now? How do you know where you're going to be isn't exactly what God knew, irrespective (or respective, depending on how you look at it) of the choices you make with your free will? I see no contradiction whatsoever in God's omniscience and our ability to choose.
animal wrote: Of course Christianity has roots mainly in the Jewish religion and was somewhat influenced by others but I've already addressed what sets it apart from all other religions. As for logical proof, please define what a 'logical' proof is and how that can be applied to 'prove' the non-existence of a deity, and more to the point, how it can be applied to 'prove' the existence of multiple or parallel universes.
I don't think Christianity is unique in anyway as per some of the points I've addressed - specifically prophecy, or I at least have not been convinced otherwise...
Then please do read Hugh Ross' book. If nothing else, it will give you a unique, and yes, Christian, perspective on how the Bible is viewed and more importantly why.
animal wrote: As far as logical proof is concerned I think we can both agree we use logic (probably on a daily basis in one way or another) to determine what is valid or what is false, what is wrong and what is right, what makes sense and what doesn't.. et cetera... a lot of the problems and questions I have (a lot of which are being talked about and broached in our very discussion) I don't think are leaving Christianity in any 'logical' conclusion - especially when either you have to assume or assert certain things (or take them as faith) or come across information which lead to more problems and questions then they do answers...
I think the article I gave concerning the discovery of parallel universes (answered through mathematics) could suffice with respect to your last question. (as mathematics is a form of logic)
I look forward to your response - I think this is a great discussion.
You take it on faith that macro-evolution is a foregone conclusion when the theory in its entirety is an a priori conclusion. You take it on faith that the parallel universe so-called theory is a proven fact when it's nothing more than a figment of someone's imagination, opposed by some of the same peers that are putting the theory forward (like
physicist Lawrence Krauss or physicist Peter Woit, author of a book titled
Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory And the Search for Unity in Physical Law.
All of that you take on faith but you do not take on faith that a 'god' exists even when faced with insurmountable evidence? It's really a rhetorical question as I already know the answer.
And I agree, it is a great discussion.
