In the Beginning...which one are you?

[Max Byzantium]

1. God created the Universe in 6, 24 hour days. (Young Earth view)

2. God created the Universe over billions of years. (Old Earth view)

3. God is behind the Big Bang, but allows the Universe to evolve based on the laws of physics and biology. (Theistic Evolution).

4. There is no God, he is construct of man. The Universe is a mathimatical probability. (Athiestic view).

Personally, I am number 3 guy.

[Pentecostal]

Nyril:

Prove that there is a god. If I told you that there was a magical pink unicorn that required worshipping, you would ask me to prove the existence of the unicorn, and would be insulted if I demanded you prove that my invisible pink unicorn didn't exist.

Well, let’s consider

The Holy Bible – Old and New Testaments – Translated out of the original tongues; with the former translations diligently compared and revised – Conformable to the edition of 1611, commonly known as the authorized or “King James” version – World Publishing Company – New York.

Numbers 23:22 “God brought them our of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an “UNICORN”.

Numbers 24:8 “God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an “UNICORN”: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.”

Job 39:9-10 “Will the “UNICORN” be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the “UNICORN” with his band in the furrow? Or will he harrow the valleys after thee.”


Now to your challenge

http://www.scripturessay.com/cev1.html
Historic Christianity
When we move through the New Testament back to the Christian faith as defined by those men who originally preached it, it emerges as God's own devised system of redemption from sin and death and certain judgment. For proof, men were pointed toward what they evidently considered to be contemporary facts: the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To them, Christianity was eminently more than a moral system since the resurrection proved that Christ was more than a man.

While ancient Oriental cults linked the annual cycle of winter and summer to the death and resurrection of the mythical Adonis, Christianity deals with no such mythology. It offers a real historical founder, plus accounts of his remarkable death, burial, and resurrection in well-written documents which have passed the most severe tests known to us today for historical accuracy and authenticity (which we will elaborate on in the next two chapters). Christianity exists now because of what happened to the historical Jesus. It is not the result of doctrines and principles, but of events in the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

The Nature of Christianity
Apart from this truly historical base, the real Christian religion cannot exist. Its nature is historical and redemptive, not simply moral. Morality is certainly inherent in its nature, but its great thrust is redemption from the death penalty. Its promise is eternal life. No social gospel or moralistic doctrine can make good on promises like that. Only Christ's own sinless life, substitutionary death, and resurrection has power to bring that about. It is essential, therefore, that a truly sinless life, a real death by crucifixion, and a resurrection back to life in his own body be experienced by a genuinely historic Jesus in order to give power to Christianity's claim to a future life without end. Here is the beginning place for an investigation into the genuineness of Christianity. It must begin with a real, historic, space-time Jesus; for apart from his own historical existence, neither redemption nor resurrection could amount to any more than pie-in-the sky-by-and-by.

EVIDENCE FOR THE HISTORICAL JESUS
Commenting on the uniqueness of the New Testament's claim for Jesus, Micahel Green has observed,
It is all about the Jesus of history. Remove him from Christianity and nothing distinctive is left. Once disprove the historicity of Jesus Christ, and Christianity will collapse like a pack of cards. For it all depends on this fundamental conviction, that God was made manifest in human flesh. And that is a matter not of ideology or mythology but history. 1
Just how well founded the claim for the historical Jesus is will be seen in the evidence as follows.

1. Micahel Green Runaway World, Inter-Varsity Press, p. 12.
From Pagan Sources
Palestine of the first century has been referred to as an unimportant frontier province in the Roman Empire. Those provincial governors assigned to that region of the world were often thought to have received hardship posts. Too, those who wrote the history of Rome were in the upper strata of Roman society and usually had a personal dislike of Orientals, disapproved of their religions and looked upon their superstitions as very un-Roman.2 This partially accounts for the little trickles of information that comes from their pens about the Christian religion. They wrote about it only as it forced its way into the mainstream of their view. Yet what they did write is proof positive that Jesus Christ was both a real person and that he had made such an impact upon society that the Roman world found it increasingly difficult to disregard him.

2. Ibid., p. 12.
1. Thallus
Our initial witness makes a contribution of a unique sort inasmuch as he had no
intention of making Christianity to appear genuine. To the contrary, Thallus, a Samaritan-born historian who lived and worked in Rome about A.D. 52, wrote to offset the supernatural element which accompanied the crucifixion. Though the writings of Thallus are lost to us, Julius Africanus, a Christian chronographer of the late second century, was familiar with them and quotes from them. In a comment on the darkness that fell upon the land during the crucifixion (Mark 15:33), Africanus says that "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun."3 Africanus stated his objection to the report arguing that an eclipse of the sun cannot occur during the full moon, as was the case when Jesus died at Passover time. The force of the reference to Thallus is that the circumstances of Jesus' death were known and discussed in the Imperial City as early as the middle of the first century. The fact of Jesus' crucifixion must have been fairly well known by that time, to the extent that unbelievers like Thallus thought it necessary to explain the matter of the darkness as a natural phenomenon. Will Durant observed that Thallus' "argument took the existence of Christ for granted."4 Neither Jesus nor the darkness at his death were ever denied as factual. Durant summed up the matter of Christ's historical existence for himself by saying that it never occured to the early opponents of Christianity to deny the existence of Jesus.5 Ironically, Thallus' efforts have been turned into the mainstream of historical proof for Jesus and for the reliability of Mark's account of the darkness at his death.

3. F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents, Eerdmens, p. 113.
4. Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, Simon and Schuster, p. 555.
5. Ibid.

I can provide numerous other sources if you so wish – however, would you mind very much in proving that God does not exist :2gun:

[Amphigorey]

Actually, the reason I mentioned God was purely to 'test the waters' of your commitment to a materialist philosophy. It seems, though, that your rejection of God is not due to a conflict with any materialist philosophy, it seems rather that your view is that God cannot manipulate the universe as a metaphysical entity? Is that right?

harvey1, what I reject is the notion of a God as postulated by theists. The whole notion of any anthropomorphic, personalized, "in our image", deity that hears prayer, attends to our needs, etc. Even the way you've phrased that sentence - "God cannot manipulate the universe" - has an anthropomorphic sense to it. What do you mean by "manipulate"? Why is God manipulating anything? "Metaphysical Entity" implies some separate existence apart from that which is being manipulated. What human-like qualities does your Metaphysical entity have?

I can only conceptualize there being a force that may exert an influence (manipulation implies intent) as mindlessly, as impersonally and as inexorably as gravity. To be truly godlike in scale, that force would be inherent to every particle of the universe and its influence would be indistinguishable from the particle's natural behavior. To conceive of that force's influence as distinct from the particle's natural behavior implies an anthropomorphic intent and purpose. To describe such a force as an "entity" would be ascribing too many "sentient-centric" qualities to it.


If you've got a DSL line you can watch this. Have you seen Wolfgang Ketterle's lecture on Bose-Einstein Condensates? I think you might like it.
http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/77/

[Nyril]

For proof, men were pointed toward what they evidently considered to be contemporary facts: the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To them, Christianity was eminently more than a moral system since the resurrection proved that Christ was more than a man.

The culpability of a primitive culture is not evidence for a god, but rather evidence that they believed in all sorts of things we know to be nonsense, dragons, unicorns, etc... Some things take longer then others to expunge.

While ancient Oriental cults linked the annual cycle of winter and summer to the death and resurrection of the mythical Adonis, Christianity deals with no such mythology.

What about not eating meat on Fridays? I went to catholic school, we had to eat fish every friday. And that lent thing, 40 days of fasting because some mythical figure fasted for that period of time. Also, the entire bit of sacraments.

It offers a real historical founder, plus accounts of his remarkable death, burial, and resurrection in well-written documents which have passed the most severe tests known to us today for historical accuracy and authenticity (which we will elaborate on in the next two chapters).

These are lies. And I will defend that statement, before you all call ad hom on me. Until very recently, the punishment for speaking out against the church was death. The church could do whatever it wanted with people that it felt harmed it, and as such I am not shocked to learn that for a good part of history it was not questioned.

As for the accounts of his death, can you examine the 4 gospels and come out with a single timeline that they all agree with? Each of the gospels disagrees with one another in a good number of places. This is not a consistent front from which to launch a crusader.

Finally, what tests? People who believed in it looked over it and found that they still weren't wrong?

I can provide numerous other sources if you so wish – however, would you mind very much in proving that God does not exist

Provide them.

Secondly,

Make him do something, make him do anything. Show that god has any effect at all on the Universe.

[juliod]

however, would you mind very much in proving that God does not exist

Sure, it's easy.

God's not here. He's not over there. He's not in my closet nor under my bed. I've checked the trunk of my car, under the rocks in my garden, and in the refrigerator in the break room at work. After such an exhaustive search I have concluded that god is a figment of your imagination.

Your turn...

DanZ

[harvey1]

Actually, the reason I mentioned God was purely to 'test the waters' of your commitment to a materialist philosophy. It seems, though, that your rejection of God is not due to a conflict with any materialist philosophy, it seems rather that your view is that God cannot manipulate the universe as a metaphysical entity? Is that right?

what I reject is the notion of a God as postulated by theists. The whole notion of any anthropomorphic, personalized, "in our image", deity that hears prayer, attends to our needs, etc. Even the way you've phrased that sentence - "God cannot manipulate the universe" - has an anthropomorphic sense to it. What do you mean by "manipulate"? Why is God manipulating anything? "Metaphysical Entity" implies some separate existence apart from that which is being manipulated. What human-like qualities does your Metaphysical entity have? I can only conceptualize there being a force that may exert an influence (manipulation implies intent) as mindlessly, as impersonally and as inexorably as gravity. To be truly godlike in scale, that force would be inherent to every particle of the universe and its influence would be indistinguishable from the particle's natural behavior. To conceive of that force's influence as distinct from the particle's natural behavior implies an anthropomorphic intent and purpose. To describe such a force as an "entity" would be ascribing too many "sentient-centric" qualities to it.

If I get a chance, I'll look at that clip later. However, getting back to this notion of metaphysical influence, I understand that you reject God due to the 'sentient-centric' quality of a metaphysical influence, but speaking in more general terms, do you see all metaphysical influences as 'sentient-centric'? For example, let's say that there exist chaotic attractors that 'exist' (in ontological terms), and the chaotic attractors influence certain events to be instantiated (i.e., made to happen according to the structure of the attractor in question), in such a case, would you consider this metaphysical influence to be ruled out by your atheist philosophy?

[Amphigorey]

speaking in more general terms, do you see all metaphysical influences as 'sentient-centric'? For example, let's say that there exist chaotic attractors that 'exist' (in ontological terms), and the chaotic attractors influence certain events to be instantiated (i.e., made to happen according to the structure of the attractor in question), in such a case, would you consider this metaphysical influence to be ruled out by your atheist philosophy?

No I don't think of any metaphysical influences as sentient-centric. Seeing them as such is a sentient-centric construct. But speaking of chaotic attractors in particular, the pattern is a description of the event and not the cause of the event. That there are patterns found in disparate classes of previously believed "chaotic" events suggests that we're discovering some previously unknown properties. The modeling is enabled by recent computer technology. The last 15 years of Chaos Theory has been pretty exciting. But if a "pattern" were not so readily discernable in our modeling of the event, would we find it as interesting? Only patterns get reported. We aren't really connoisseurs of chaos or white noise (well, statisticians may differ). Isn't an interest in patterns inherently sentient-centric? The universe is an ordered place even within superficially chaotic events.

[harvey1]

But speaking of chaotic attractors in particular, the pattern is a description of the event and not the cause of the event.

So, are you saying that metaphysical references such as chaotic attractors are descriptions of an occurrence rather than causes of the occurrence?

[Amphigorey]

But speaking of chaotic attractors in particular, the pattern is a description of the event and not the cause of the event.

So, are you saying that metaphysical references such as chaotic attractors are descriptions of an occurrence rather than causes of the occurrence?

As I understand it, the reason the class of references were dubbed "chaotic attractors" was only after their distribution patterns were identified. A single attractor pattern can represent different physical phenomena, in the same way that populations of various things share a normal distribution or any other type of distribution. Its an interesting question, but I don't think similar distribution implies common causality.

[harvey1]

As I understand it, the reason the class of references were dubbed "chaotic attractors" was only after their distribution patterns were identified. A single attractor pattern can represent different physical phenomena, in the same way that populations of various things share a normal distribution or any other type of distribution. Its an interesting question, but I don't think similar distribution implies common causality.

Well, causation is implied because chaotic attactors can be simulated by mathematical functions to duplicate a phenomena in nature. In fact, the process is so real, that all the latest Hollywood animation flics are using fractal software to create the realistic scenery seen in the movie. These processes are only improving.

Which only increases the weight of the question, if simple mathematical functions can depict nature in terms of fractals, chaotic attractors, self-similarity, other related concepts, then doesn't it makes sense to say that mathematical equations actually cause the evolutionary patterns of our world? In other words, doesn't it seem compelling that our material realm is acting in response to some kind of mathematical realm?

[juliod]

In other words, doesn't it seem compelling that our material realm is acting in response to some kind of mathematical realm?

No!

Mathematics is used only to model the physical phenomena. The math may reveal something deeper about the underlying causes, but then again it may not.

To the physicist it doesn't matter whether the math reveals a fundemental reality, only whether the math gives a correct solution.

A good way to see this is to consider complex numbers. The imaginary component is a real number multiplied by the square root of negative one, or i.

Now, i doesn't exist. It is a meaningless expression. You might as well talk about the square root of the color blue. But in the realm of pure math, the concept of i has certain properties that are useful in representing things like electromagnetic waves. So imaginary numbers are commonly used in many areas.

But in terms of the underlying fundemental physical reality, the use of imaginary numbers is a nonsense. They really are imaginary, in the philosophical sense.

In sum, math has a utilitarian function, in representing reality, but does not necessarily have any existential relationship to reality.

DanZ