Contradictory Religions Can’t All Be True

[OurLadyofSorrows]

And you never stated in your original claim that it was about a closed system.

Lets start here, is the universe a closed system. Bit we really should start a new thread and not derail this one.

@rossum, I feel pur discussion is going off topic too and should be held over to an appropriate thread , so as not to derail this one on the OP.

 

[Gab123]

The only cosmological evidence the cosmos provides is that it exists

The cosmos is made up of systems governed by rational laws comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics. That it is logically comprehensible is proof of a logical source.

No, it’s proof that the universe that followed from the big bang had laws.
You can thank electromagnetism for most of it.

That’s like thanking a dictionary for all the words of the English language. The Big Bang did not cause itself, nor did electromagnetism bubble up laws., There are multiple intellectual proofs for the necessity of an Eternal Rational Cause.

Demonstrated as a medieval forgery over and over again…

Not so. Today, all the evidence points to the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. Though the 1988 radiocarbon dating aged the relic to the Middle Ages, other studies have shown that the shroud dates to the 1st century, calling into question the accuracy of the carbón dating. Furthermore, scientists at the Geological Laboratory of Columbia University found that some estimates of age based on carbon analyses were wrong by as much as 3,000 years. (search: Carbon14 errors)

70,000 devout Catholics saw what they wanted to see, exaggerating a local weather phenomenon like a parhelion or a dust cloud.

It was nothing like a dust cloud or parhelion and tens of thousands of people, including journalists and atheists witnessed the event. Furthermore they were all gathered there to witness the promised miracle, which happened on the day the children seers said it would.

If a god exists and is solely Christian, makes me wonder about the miracles performed by non-Christians like Hindu guru Sathya Sai Baba, who performed many of the same “miracles” performed by Jesus of Nazareth, complete with witnesses - who have the distinct advantage of still being alive to testify to his supposed divine power.

God is not “Christian”; God is the Eternal Rational Being and Cause of the universe, who created all human beings, and He loves all peoples regardless of religion, as human beings are made in His Image and Likeness. As for miracles, not everything that claims to be a miracle is one; while supernatural events are real, all do not come from God, as diabolical manifestations are real, and a testament of the reality of a realm beyond the physical and visible. As for religions, no historical figure other than Jesus Christ was pre-announced, fulfilled hundreds of prophecies and performed miracles witnessed by thousands; Himself dying and resurrecting from the dead.

Be sure - to an atheist, you’re not competing solely against the idea of there probably not being a god.

The probability of harmony and the cosmos popping into existence accidentally is zero. The main problem is the psychological condition bent on denying all the evidence for God. I recommend the book The Psychology of Atheism by Paul Vitz.

 

[rossum]

@rossum, I feel pur discussion is going off topic too and should be held over to an appropriate thread , so as not to derail this one on the OP.

Agreed…

 

[Hume]

The cosmos is made up of systems governed by rational laws comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics. That it is logically comprehensible is proof of a logical source.

No. This is yet more “Look at the sunrise! It must mean there’s a God!”

In order for you to defend your claim, you have to actually demonstrate how the universe would look without your preferred god.

I wish you the very best of luck with that.

Not so. Today, all the evidence points to the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. Though the 1988 radiocarbon dating aged the relic to the Middle Ages, other studies have shown that the shroud dates to the 1st century,

Not a single credible scientific study has dated the shroud to the 1st century. Not one.

It was nothing like a dust cloud or parhelion and tens of thousands of people, including journalists and atheists witnessed the event. Furthermore they were all gathered there to witness the promised miracle, which happened on the day the children seers said it would.

And oddly happened nowhere else…

If the sun ever dances a jig, it’ll be world news literally everywhere under the sun. It was just a local weather phenomenon.

The probability of harmony and the cosmos popping into existence accidentally is zero.

What is “harmony”??? Matter and energy behave in accordance with the rules apparently inherent to them.

As above, I wish you the very, very best of luck proving that energy and matter would behave in another way without your preferred god.

“Look at the sunrise electromagnetism, son. That must mean there’s a God!”

 

[stoplooklisten]

In order for you to defend your claim, you have to actually demonstrate how the universe would look without your preferred god.

In order for you to support your doubts about the existence of a Creator, you would need to demonstrate how the universe would exist without a Creator God. Without the Creator God, there would be no universe to look at and no eye to view with.

Reminder: The Creator God can also uncreate. This would mean no more physical ground to stand on.

Jesus: “Heaven and earth will pass away.”

What if, the body dies but the soul lives on?

 

[Hume]

In order for you to support your doubts about the existence of a Creator, you would need to demonstrate how the universe would exist without a Creator God. Without the Creator God, there would be no universe to look at and no eye to view with.

Gently, yours is a misunderstanding of the basic rules of arguments.

The hypothetical, statistical and philosophical null is “undefined”. It’s uncertainty. “We don’t know”.
What this means is that Mr. “There’s a God” and Mr. “There are no gods” both have claims they must prove. For the last several thousand years, we’ve failed to prove such. I doubt our luck will change in the next several thousand.

I don’t posit that there is no god. Proving negatives is famously difficult-to-impossible work.

What I posit is that the existence/need/whatever for a god is unproven. I can go to physics class and learn about the laws of the universe without the need to add some sort of star-god or other deity to govern it.

 

[stoplooklisten]

What I posit is that the existence/need/whatever for a god is unproven.

Thanks for your reply. The existence of God may remain unproven until we such a time and place as we see God. Then, the opportunity for “walk by faith, not by sight” will be gone.

In a court trial, there are four acknowledged standards of proof for making a decision:

• Substantial evidence
• Preponderance of evidence
• Clear and convincing evidence
• Beyond a reasonable doubt

While proof of God may be unavailable until the sight of God becomes available, we should be able to reason together.

 

[Gab123]

This is yet more “Look at the sunrise! It must mean there’s a God!” In order for you to defend your claim, you have to actually demonstrate how the universe would look without your preferred god.

Why are you not addressing the points being made? That the cosmos is made up of systems, governed by rational laws, comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics; why is that not evidence of a rational source?

Not a single credible scientific study has dated the shroud to the 1st century. Not one.

If you watch the OJ Simpson trial on YouTube and see his Famous “dream team” of lawyers at work, dismissing and debunking all the obvious evidence against their client, you will get a glimpse of what atheism does with the evidence nice; it’s not that the evidence is not there, it’s that they are not interested in the evidence nor the truth. Instead they are interested not losing an argument, thus no evidence is ever sufficient. In the case of atheism vs God, the problem is that the atheism is not built on logic, but rooted in a psychological condition built on emotion and the darkening of the intellect.

Again, I recommend the book The Psychology of Atheism, by DrPaul Vitz. It helps people realize that atheism is rooted not in reason, but in emotional life experiences. One of the observations Dr. Vitz exposes is the cavalier attitude that Is prevalent in the complex. The dismissal of evidence is not grounded in considering facts but rather in shutting down any evidence.

If the sun ever dances a jig, it’ll be world news literally everywhere under the sun. It was just a local weather phenomenon.

Again, the 70,000 people showed up to the location to see if the promised miracle was going to happen or not. To simply say that a weather phenomenon happened as a coincidence is an astounding conclusion; how could the children know there was going to be a “weather phenomenon” on that day and time, weeks in advance?

As for the sun dancing in the sky, realize that it doesn’t mean the physical star we call the sun was dancing a jig far away in space 94,000 miles away from earth; if that were the case, the entire solar system would have been compromised and the earth would have been incinerated. The whole point of the promised miracle was to make believers out of the skeptics who had come to see. Among the witnesses were atheists, skeptics, journalists and scientists. Thus it was not an astronomical movement of the solar system, but rather a supernatural event observed locally by those who came to see. But the event was seen 25 miles away by people who were not gathered for the miracle.

 

[Gab123]

What is “harmony”??? Matter and energy behave in accordance with the rules apparently inherent to them.

Yes, that’s the point; harmony has to follow rational rules; thus the need for a Rational Source behind the rules, for example, in order for a musical orchestra to be in tune and play harmonious sounds they must follow the rational laws of music—and even you Naturally can tell when a musical instrument or note is out of key. This applies to all of your senses. You love the beautiful scent of flowers and recoil at the stench of a rotting fish; likewise God made us for Himself. We are drawn to goodness, love, beauty and truth. That is why those who do evil, live a lie, reject the truth and destroy beauty are only hurting themselves. After all, God is The Source if Goodness and Truth itself. To miss the purpose of one’s existence is the greatest tragedy that can befall a human being.

 

[Hume]

Why are you not addressing the points being made? That the cosmos is made up of systems, governed by rational laws, comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics; why is that not evidence of a rational source?

Because a rational source is not evident. The laws that govern their interactions appear to be inherent to themselves.

the problem is that the atheism is not built on logic, but rooted in a psychological condition built on emotion and the darkening of the intellect.

Ho boy…

Are you familiar with ad hominems? A logical error involving attacks on the person instead of the point their making?

As for the sun dancing in the sky, realize that it doesn’t mean the physical star we call the sun was dancing a jig far away in space 94,000 miles away from earth; if that were the case, the entire solar system would have been compromised and the earth would have been incinerated.

Right. So local weather phenomenon.

To miss the purpose of one’s existence is the greatest tragedy that can befall a human being.

The purpose of life seems to be life itself.

When you can produce some actual evidence for a discreet god or gods, do be sure to let me know.

 

[Niblo]

…No ladder…

I’m not at all surprised. Many thanks for your time.

Very best regards.

 

[Niblo]

…There here must be some sort of literacy issue here… seriously.

You have overlooked the fact that an Arabic word may have a range of meanings depending on the context. Indeed, context is everything.

Yes, miʿrāj can mean ‘ladder’ or ‘stairs’; but also ‘ascent’, ‘route of ascent’, and ‘place of ascent’.

There is a sūrah entitled ‘The Ways of Ascent’ (l-maʿāriji); and it contains these verses:

‘A man (mockingly) demanded the punishment. It will fall on the disbelievers – none can deflect it – from God, the Lord of the Ways of Ascent (l-maʿāriji), by which the angels and the Spirit ascend (taʿruju) to Him, on a Day whose length is fifty thousand years.’ (Verses 1-4).

The Qur’an uses a different word (in two forms) for ‘ladder’: ‘sullaman ’, in sūrah Al-An‘am, verse 35; and ‘sullamun ’, in sūrah Al-Tur, verse 38; both from the Arabic ‘sullam ’ (‘ladder’), of course.

In the context of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)’s night journey, and of his ascension into Heaven (al-Isra’ wal-M iʿrāj), the most appropriate translation of ‘miʿrāj’ is, of course, ‘ascent’.

You will be familiar with the Biblical story of Jacob’s dream (Genesis 28:10-19). Muslim scholars consider his vision (the ladder) to be one of the many symbols of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta’āla). I know of no Muslim scholar who claims that the ‘ladder’ is – or was ever – a physical object.

Anyway, I reckon this wee sub-topic has run its course. Thank you for your time.

Very best regards.

 

[Michaelangelo]

The cosmos is made up of systems governed by rational laws comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics. That it is logically comprehensible is proof of a logical source.

No, scientific laws does not govern anything. This is a misunderstanding of what the term law means in natural science. In a society we have specifically written laws which regulate what the memebers of society are and aren’t allowed to do. Now you apply this use of behavioral regulation on nature and claim:

“Look, we have discoverd laws in nature too. Therefore someone must have written those laws like we have written the laws of society”

Perhaps you could stop extrapolating like that and check if the term scientific law actually has the meaning you assume?

 

[Michaelangelo]

Huh.

I’ve had a few years of chem and phys at university but was by no means a major.

Is this one of those things that doesn’t get sprung on you until junior or senior classes (which I never took, as a non-major)?

The finer details are usually only explored when the fundamentals has been cemented. Before that the finer details tend to confuse students. First learn the big concepts and the math needed to explore those. Then gradually divide those concepts into smaller pieces and dig deeper into the details and the monstrous math needed.

 

[openmind77]

…When you can produce some actual evidence for a discreet god or gods, do be sure to let me know.

I am curious - what would you accept as evidence for a god? For instance, what if the Christ returned in a few months time and performed some miracles, but physically he still looked like a human. Would that be sufficient evidence?

 

[Michaelangelo]

Michaelangelo:

If you start using relativistic definitions then all all of a sudden photons will have mass

Oh so do you claim that photons do not have any mass at all?
Even a very small amount?

Indeed I do. Photons move a c which is a property only associated with massless objects (and no, the phenomenon known as Cherenkov radiation does not violate this). Relativistic mass is a concept no longer in favor becaue we have had a century to get familar with general and special relativity. Thus the concept of mass is not as mystical as it once was. Sadly it can still be found in introductionary courses.

How do you explain the supercooled rubidium experiment?

I have no idea. Which one are you referring to?

And you did not answer as to whether or not you accept the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is important, because according to the Copenhagen interpretation the theory involves bringing people into the measurement process. If there is nothing, how would you bring someone into the measurement process and obtain quantum fluctuations because no one is there if there is nothing around so nothing can be measured. IOW, does it not contradict the Copenhagen interpretation of QM to say that there are non zero quantum fluctuations when no one is there.

To start with, there is no consesus about what actually constitutes “the Copenhagen interpreation”. Not even the key figures were in agreement. Then there is no support for the idea that a consciousness is involved in any interaction.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

…When you can produce some actual evidence for a discreet god or gods, do be sure to let me know.

I am curious - what would you accept as evidence for a god? For instance, what if the Christ returned in a few months time and performed some miracles, but physically he still looked like a human. Would that be sufficient evidence?

If a man descends from the sky with fire in his eyes or whatever it is Revelation describes him as doing and we’ve documentation of it occurring, you’ve got me. Sign me up.

 

[Hume]

I know of no Muslim scholar who claims that the ‘ladder’ is – or was ever – a physical object.

The hadith being called “Ladder” is common enough that on my first google search of it a few days back there was a modern book of Muslim poetry called “Muhammad’s Ladder”, so to say that it’s not in use in that context doesn’t seem to bear much weight.

But hey. Cool with me man. The ladder is figurative.

What he actually rode was something described as white donkey with wings. If you think that’s an improvement on the rational discourse… uh… fine. I guess.

 

[Hume]

Hume:

Huh.

I’ve had a few years of chem and phys at university but was by no means a major.

Is this one of those things that doesn’t get sprung on you until junior or senior classes (which I never took, as a non-major)?

The finer details are usually only explored when the fundamentals has been cemented. Before that the finer details tend to confuse students. First learn the big concepts and the math needed to explore those. Then gradually divide those concepts into smaller pieces and dig deeper into the details and the monstrous math needed.

I understand. As a non-major, I’m sure I was confined to the kiddie pool on the subject. Might even got as far as the rope-float that signifies where the deep-end starts.

 

[openmind77]

If a man descends from the sky with fire in his eyes or whatever it is Revelation describes him as doing and we’ve documentation of it occurring , you’ve got me. Sign me up.

I doubt that he will descend from the skies. But he will perform well documented miracles. I think when that happens many atheists will be in for a shock.