Where's God?

[POI]

Does he pop up in my dreams? Is he the one whom produces my goose-bumps? Is He the one giving me my "moral compass"? Is he only experienced during deep meditation? If I have enough faith, will he appear to me? But seriously. Where is he? I was a Christian for decades. I earnestly prayed for him to reach me, to no avail.

For debate: Why have I not felt his presence?

A) I never tried hard enough; lack faith
B) He does not want to reveal Himself to me (yet)
C) Evil is blocking the request(s)
D) I'm too dumb to realize he's reaching me
E) He's not really there at all <- Current conclusion

Do not answer yet. This topic has spawned from another unrelated topic. I decided to devote this large topic to itself. Below are some premises:

P1) does god exist? (dunno)
P2) does god want a relationship with all, especially the ones who seek him (apparently so)
P3) is god capable of communicating (apparently so)
P4) can god communicate his message in a way in which the recipient could no longer deny (apparently so)
P5) have I asked for this communication earnestly and repetitively (YES)
P6) does the Bible state god answers the call to all who seek him (YES)

At best, god has opted not to contact me YET. And this would be after decades of actively seeking him. Without any emotion, I'm logically left with 2 options.

A) God is not really there <- Current conclusion.
B) God is not adhering to his promise (yet).

[POI]

[Replying to BruceLeiter in post #465]

Because in some spots, Luke 'borrows' from Mark, virtually word-for-word, and in on other spots, it instead attempts to (correct/fix/augment/modify) the account(s) from Mark. Luke is the 'alternative facts' account, when compared to Mark.

[SiNcE_1985]

To the contrary, you're conflating things you don't understand. The "fine-tuning" argument of the Intelligent Design movement has a particular definition that applies specifically to the formation of life. The cosmological questions presented by Penrose have nothing to do with the fine-tuning argument. They're analogous in that both are used by theists to craft god-of-the-gaps arguments, but they're otherwise not related.

Quote from..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

The first dang on paragraph..

"The fine-tuned universe is the hypothesis that, because "life as we know it" could not exist if the constants of nature—such as the electron charge or the gravitational constant—had been even slightly different, the universe must be tuned specifically for life.[1"

The constants of nature^ it mentions, involves the cosmos...which is precisely what you said Penrose doesn't cover in his cosmological questions...which obviously, it doesn't.

If you're going to be able to give probability ratios about how life permitting the universe is/isn't, you might wanna have some information about the universe, in general...which is how fine-tuning is measured...based on certain facts about the universe (cosmos), such as the cosmological constant.

That is what Penrose did.

So, you are either shamefully wrong, or shamefully intellectually dishonest.

I'm gonna go with the latter.

No point in responding to the rest, considering you can't be honest about what fine-tuning even is.

[Difflugia]

Quote from..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

The first dang on paragraph..

"The fine-tuned universe is the hypothesis that, because "life as we know it" could not exist if the constants of nature—such as the electron charge or the gravitational constant—had been even slightly different, the universe must be tuned specifically for life.[1"

Exactly. Now, which "constants of nature" govern the entropic state of the universe prior to universal inflation?

The constants of nature^ it mentions, involves the cosmos...which is precisely what you said Penrose doesn't cover in his cosmological questions...which obviously, it doesn't.

What?

If you're going to be able to give probability ratios about how life permitting the universe is/isn't, you might wanna have some information about the universe, in general...

'Twas brillig and the slithy toves...

which is how fine-tuning is measured...based on certain facts about the universe (cosmos), such as the cosmological constant.

...did gyre and gimble in the wabe.

That is what Penrose did.

What Penrose really did in The Emperor's New Mind, at least in relation to the number you're fond of, is argue that given a random initial state of the universe and all of its matter, the number of states with low enough entropy to be our universe are vastly outnumbered by higher entropy states. What Penrose did in Cycles of Time is propose a way that expanding universes like ours eventually evolve the conditions necessary for another low entropy starting point for the next universe. That means that one of the premises of his earlier claim was wrong; the initial low entropy state leading to a universe like ours isn't random, so it isn't competing with 10¹⁰¹²³ incompatible entropy states. In fact inevitable, so your 10¹⁰¹²³ is now a 1¹¹. That has nothing to do with any of your PC or whatever, including even the cosmological constant. See, according to the fine tuning argument, the cosmological constant must be "nonzero but profoundly small in value," regardless of whether it's positive or negative. Penrose' cosmology requires is that the cosmological constant is positive, regardless of how large or small it is. They're unrelated conditions, because they're unrelated arguments!

So, you are either shamefully wrong, or shamefully intellectually dishonest.

Or there's something much, much more personally unsettling going on that might keep you from sleeping. If you thought about it. At all.

I'm gonna go with the latter.

And still gonna rock with Hovind, no doubt.

No point in responding to the rest, considering you can't be honest about what fine-tuning even is.

Good night, sweet prince!

[SiNcE_1985]

Exactly. Now, which "constants of nature" govern the entropic state of the universe prior to universal inflation?

You wouldn't have the nerve to ask that question, if you knew about the initial conditions of the early universe.

When I brought up that point earlier, you agreed.

But the fact that you're now asking this^ question, shows that you didn't even know what you were agreeing to.

Tsk, tsk.

Sounds like someone doesn't know what is going on, and is just arguing for the sake of arguing.

What?

I meant "which obviously, it does".

What Penrose really did in The Emperor's New Mind, at least in relation to the number you're fond of, is argue that given a random initial state of the universe and all of its matter, the number of states with low enough entropy to be our universe are vastly outnumbered by higher entropy states. What Penrose did in Cycles of Time is propose a way that expanding universes like ours eventually evolve the conditions necessary for another low entropy starting point for the next universe. That means that one of the premises of his earlier claim was wrong; the initial low entropy state leading to a universe like ours isn't random, so it isn't competing with 10¹⁰¹²³ incompatible entropy states. In fact inevitable, so your 10¹⁰¹²³ is now a 1¹¹. That has nothing to do with any of your PC or whatever, including even the cosmological constant. See, according to the fine tuning argument, the cosmological constant must be "nonzero but profoundly small in value," regardless of whether it's positive or negative. Penrose' cosmology requires is that the cosmological constant is positive, regardless of how large or small it is. They're unrelated conditions, because they're unrelated arguments!

Sorry, Charlie.

I showed the fine-tuning wiki-article, and it said exactly what I've been saying.

Fine-tuning is used (in context), to refer to the astronomically precise PC needed (beginning in the cosmo) for the universe to be life-permitting..with very little room for error.

According to Penrose's equations, there was a 1 chance in 10^10^123 for our universe to be life-permitting, as opposed to life-prohibiting.

Which means that the odds were astronomically stacked against us ..but somehow, by some miracle, those astronomical odds were defied.

So, all of that nonsense you're saying, I ain't hearing it.

You're gaslighting... causing inaccurate confusion..and if I have to do some digging by pulling up an old Penrose interview of him discussing this stuff, I will.

But then, I'll have to put you on ignore..because my tolerance for dishonesty/lying is low...and I don't like engaging with that kind of negative energy.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to BruceLeiter in post #465]

Because in some spots, Luke 'borrows' from Mark, virtually word-for-word, and in on other spots, it instead attempts to (correct/fix/augment/modify) the account(s) from Mark. Luke is the 'alternative facts' account, when compared to Mark.

Um, no.

If Luke felt that Mark was a credible source during his journalistic investigation, then it should come to no surprise that he would use the source.

Isn't that what good journalists do? They find credible sources to use for their report(s), right?

When any other journalists do this, it is good journalism.

But when this happens as it pertains to the Bible, then it becomes a journalistic abomination.

Taxicab fallacy.

Quick to discredit the Bible, but when the same thing happens in things unrelated to the Bible, it is welcomed with open arms.

Second, in order to prove that Luke corrected or fixed anything in Mark...you would have identify the error(s) in Mark that needed to be fixed.

Which, you can't.

But it just sounds good to people who already have preconceived notions that the Bible is unreliable in the first place.

You're just using the old, played-out, skeptical talking points that Biblical skeptics have been using for years..which never worked.

Luke expanded/expounded on what Mark was saying...he didn't fix anything.

If Luke did what you allege, then the early Christian movement (Church) wouldn't have had viewed both books as sacred and divinely inspired texts, if they thought one was more superior than that other.

They felt that both was equally sacred and inspired, which is why both books were included in the Biblical canon.

[POI]

Taxicab fallacy. Quick to discredit the Bible, but when the same thing happens in things unrelated to the Bible, it is welcomed with open arms.

This is just more baseless rubberstamping. What other 'historical' publication(s) from ancient antiquity, (which claim to have multiple independent eyewitness sources), have I instead accepted as valid, which does the same thing(s) as the Bible?

For the record, all ancient writings which assert magic, are not only all unbelievable, but also all wildly inconsistent in one way or other(s). This makes me quite consistent. You, on the other hand, hold a special place for this one collection of inconsistent assertions -- asserting magic, while rejecting all competitors as lies. What's ironic, is you mention the taxicab fallacy quite often, while not realizing you are the prime offender of this fallacious reasoning.

Second, in order to prove that Luke corrected or fixed anything in Mark...you would have identify the error(s) in Mark that needed to be fixed. Which, you can't. But it just sounds good to people who already have preconceived notions that the Bible is unreliable in the first place.

Mark 16:6-7 (vs) Luke 24.

Mark puts a risen Jesus in Galilee, then ends at Mark 16:8. But hey, we're only talking about a very minor detail, in the resurrection sightings, (which is the most important event in human history). I'm sure 'Mark' just figured it was not important to mention that he <also> went to Jerusalem. Luke 'corrects' this, by instead putting Jesus directly in Jerusalem, (and skipping sighting(s) in Galilee). Again, minor details omitted. Not really that important at all.... I mean, it's only where he "appeared" to folks after rotting for 2-3 days in a guarded tomb.

The preference for resurrection sightings in (Jerusalem over Galilee) is primarily theological and symbolic. Placing these foundational events in the heart of the Jewish religious establishment, rather than in the rural north, (in which early Mark completely OMITS), established Jerusalem as the central, authoritative hub for the early Christian church and the launching point for the global mission.

***********************

You skipped my last response to you. Just curious... Did you ever pray to Jesus and ask him for my VIN number? Yet again, we can end all these shenanigans immediately, if you would just do this one tiny thing-- which would completely ROCK my world. Until then, let's continue to play 'footsies'.

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to POI in post #471]

As my studies have shown me, @POI, Luke and Mark choose different details and events to show their different audiences, but I would be interested to know the specific passages in both Luke and Mark to which your words refer. Then, we can discuss the verses.

[SiNcE_1985]

This is just more baseless rubberstamping. What other 'historical' publication(s) from ancient antiquity, (which claim to have multiple independent eyewitness sources), have I instead accepted as valid, which does the same thing(s) as the Bible?

I said the biographies of Alexander the Great.

They are considered reliable sources for his life, despite being written centuries later, after his death.

Yet, here you are, emphasizing decades later, with the Gospels.

That is the point.

For the record, all ancient writings which assert magic, are not only all unbelievable, but also all wildly inconsistent in one way or other(s). This makes me quite consistent. You, on the other hand, hold a special place for this one collection of inconsistent assertions -- asserting magic, while rejecting all competitors as lies. What's ironic, is you mention the taxicab fallacy quite often, while not realizing you are the prime offender of this fallacious reasoning.

Yeah..

1. Abiogenesis
2. Macroevolution
3. A universe from nothing
4. Cosmic fine-tuning
5. Infinity traversal

Take your pick of either of those 5.

You call my belief magical...but any of those 5 (especially taken altogether), is even worse than magic.

With my belief, at least we can say there's a magician (God), performing the magical tricks.

But on your belief, magical tricks were occuring, without a magician.

Which makes it^ all even worse than magic...so much so, that words can't even describe just how wacky it all is.

So, before you go pointing the finger at how wacky or foolish our (believers) belief system is...we point fingers back at you, and yours.

Mark 16:6-7 (vs) Luke 24.

Mark puts a risen Jesus in Galilee, then ends at Mark 16:8. But hey, we're only talking about a very minor detail, in the resurrection sightings, (which is the most important event in human history). I'm sure 'Mark' just figured it was not important to mention that he <also> went to Jerusalem. Luke 'corrects' this, by instead putting Jesus directly in Jerusalem, (and skipping sighting(s) in Galilee). Again, minor details omitted. Not really that important at all.... I mean, it's only where he "appeared" to folks after rotting for 2-3 days in a guarded tomb.

Um, 1 Corinth was written before both Mark and Luke...and in the epistle, Paul was already preaching a resurrected Jesus...so the belief in Jesus' resurrection was already in existent before both Gospel.

The story doesn't begin in Mark, or Luke...and early believers were already believing in a resurrected and appearing Jesus before Mark...so we don't need the book of Mark to say "he appeared to them"...since the belief in those appearances were part of the pre-Gospel, Pre-Pauline creed.

So, that objection has failed you.

Second, you said Luke fixed/corrected Mark.

But Luke expanding/expounding on what Mark had already said, is not an example of him fixing an error.

You continue to make these bogus, disingenuous claims..which is why I'm glad I came back to the forum, as other apologists may not be as equipped to identify, expose, and call you out on such nonsense...and you would be able to just run amuck around here, with the nonsense.

And that need not happen...lies, confusion, dishonesty, bad-faith inquiries, unnecessary threads, probing, questions...all needs to be put in check.

The preference for resurrection sightings in (Jerusalem over Galilee) is primarily theological and symbolic. Placing these foundational events in the heart of the Jewish religious establishment, rather than in the rural north, (in which early Mark completely OMITS), established Jerusalem as the central, authoritative hub for the early Christian church and the launching point for the global mission.

Again, if this was such an issue, both books wouldn't have been chosen for Biblical canon.

And the Jerusalem/Galilee thing isn't an issue, after all.

You skipped my last response to you. Just curious... Did you ever pray to Jesus and ask him for my VIN number? Yet again, we can end all these shenanigans immediately, if you would just do this one tiny thing-- which would completely ROCK my world. Until then, let's continue to play 'footsies'.

You: I don't believe in Jesus, or the power of prayer.

Also you..

You: Pray to Jesus, on my behalf.

Makes no sense.

Leave...Christianity....ALONE.

Oh, I get it. Christianity is like that one song that you can't STAND...but for whatever reason, the song is stuck in your head?

Is that what it is?

[BruceLeiter]

[Replying to POI in post #476]

@POI, I'm curious. What I'm eager to know is why you must rule out the possibility of the miraculous happening in history like the miracles that defy the laws of the universe described in the Bible.

I believe in the all-powerful Creator of that same universe, who certainly has the power to create miracles in the universe that he has made.

Is your position that miracles are not according to your reasoning in rationalism, or is it naturalism in which you think the laws of nature cannot be changed? If either of these options is yours, why? If not, why not?

[POI]

I said the biographies of Alexander the Great. They are considered reliable sources for his life, despite being written centuries later, after his death. Yet, here you are, emphasizing decades later, with the Gospels. That is the point.

I looked through your last response, and you mentioned nothing about him. Further, when do I use the biographies of "Alexander the great" as an example of good journalism? The only time I've ever really mentioned AtG, in this forum, is to elaborate in that one needs to take the ancient claims with a grain of salt. (Rinse/repeat): It is not far-fetched to believe there was once a "great" leader who fought for new territories and later died of fever. However, I reject the additional claim(s) that he was the "son of Zeus" or anything else magical. I too have little problem believing there was once a homeless preacher who was later killed for "treason." However, I also reject the claims that his rotting corpse rose again and went on a 40-day resurrection tour. And here is the part in question. Did he or didn't he 'rise' again'? And here is where we can focus below...

Yeah..

1. Abiogenesis
2. Macroevolution
3. A universe from nothing
4. Cosmic fine-tuning
5. Infinity traversal

You just can't help yourself Venom, by rising/repeating with your canned apologetics for which I've addressed ad nauseam, (and some of these were even addressed in the last response for which you skipped). Yet again, for the others following along, you came into this thread emphasizing the important of being 1) contemporary and having 2) corroboration. However, when I demonstrate another magical claim, with more of both 1) and 2), you reject it as a lie. All of a sudden, 1) and 2) are no longer important. All of a sudden, it's just a lie.

Take your pick of either of those 5.

I would talk about the big 'E' (yet again), as that one is probably the easiest example to expose your blatant handwaving to proven and testable science. But you already admitted that you would just pivot anyways if you then accepted the big 'E'. Further, you clearly are either purposefully misrepresenting what peer review actually is, or you lack basic understanding of its principles. Either way, coupling the misrepresentation of peer review with the fact that you would also just pivot anyways, or move the goalposts to retain belief, would be sheer lunacy on my part to continue (yet again).

You call my belief magical...but any of those 5 (especially taken altogether), is even worse than magic.

Again, peer review is the antithesis of 'magical'.

With my belief, at least we can say there's a magician (God), performing the magical tricks. But on your belief, magical tricks were occurring, without a magician. Which makes it^ all even worse than magic...so much so, that words can't even describe just how wacky it all is.

Venom: I don't understand how science works. Therefore, invisible, magical, and prayer-answering sky carcass

1) Um, 1 Corinth was written before both Mark and Luke...and in the epistle, Paul was already preaching a resurrected Jesus...so the belief in Jesus' resurrection was already in existent before both Gospel. The story doesn't begin in Mark, or Luke...and early believers were already believing in a resurrected and appearing Jesus before Mark...so we don't need the book of Mark to say "he appeared to them"...since the belief in those appearances were part of the pre-Gospel, Pre-Pauline creed.

So, that objection has failed you.

2) Second, you said Luke fixed/corrected Mark. But Luke expanding/expounding on what Mark had already said, is not an example of him fixing an error.

1) I've already spoke to this... Paul makes the claim(s) and the Gospels are there, much later, to 'back' them up. Luke's Gospel, in particular, is meant to gain favor with the Romans.

2) Please take note of what you said, and what I'm responding to: "in order to prove that Luke corrected or fixed anything in Mark...you would have identify the error(s) in Mark that needed to be fixed. Which, you can't."

(Rinse/repeat) - Mark puts a risen Jesus in Galilee, then ends at Mark 16:8. But hey, we're only talking about a very minor detail, in the resurrection sightings, (which is the most important event in human history). I'm sure 'Mark' just figured it was not important to mention that he <also> went to Jerusalem. Luke 'corrects' this, by instead putting Jesus directly in Jerusalem, (and skipping sighting(s) in Galilee). Again, minor details omitted. Not really that important at all.... I mean, it's only where he "appeared" to folks after rotting for 2-3 days in a guarded tomb.

You continue to make these bogus, disingenuous claims..which is why I'm glad I came back to the forum, as other apologists may not be as equipped to identify, expose, and call you out on such nonsense...and you would be able to just run amuck around here, with the nonsense. And that need not happen...lies, confusion, dishonesty, bad-faith inquiries, unnecessary threads, probing, questions...all needs to be put in check.

As I stated in the last response, for which you completely skipped; the observed self-deception by you continues to be both fascinating and entertaining.

Again, if this was such an issue, both books wouldn't have been chosen for Biblical canon.

After Constantine legalized Christianity, pointing out textual inconsistencies was not okay. As the church merged with imperial power, questioning official scripture became synonymous with heresy, which was increasingly treated as a crime against the state.

Further, I really doubt these folks thought that these books would really be looked at that close, by most, anyways.

Further still, most were illiterate. Identifying inconsistencies would first require actually reading the damn thing.

Further still-still, most thought that the end times was right around the corner anyways.

And the Jerusalem/Galilee thing isn't an issue, after all.

Blank assertion/handwave

You: I don't believe in Jesus, or the power of prayer.

Also you..

You: Pray to Jesus, on my behalf.

Makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense... I'm asking you to put your money where your mouth is, since you state Jesus not only answers prayer, but your answer(s). Further, you want me converted. Further still, Jesus wants me to believe and worship him. We could have been done weeks ago Venom. But you refuse, and we all continue to know why.

All-together-now... Prayer is talking to yourself.

Oh, I get it.

No Venom, you don't. That's the problem here. See my response directly above...