Faith and 'proof'

[Sister_G]

I’m sorry
It was hard for me to be patient I guess!

 

[MegaTherion]

the validity of any theory in the sciences is judged by how closely it predicts reality. in this case there are some very specific prophecies that closely predicted the name, birth place, and specific activities of Christ, 500-1100 years prior to His birth.

Refutation: The anonymous people who wrote the Jesus Christ legends knew the prophecies. It’s not hard to write a story about a prophecy being fulfilled after the fact. Hence, the Star Wars comparison.

Or do you think that Star Wars is real because the prophecy of the One who will bring balance to the force came true?

[Note: this particular question is off topic. If you’d like to make the case for this silly idea about “prophecy,” do it in another thread.]

predictive power is the test of validity in the sciences, it is no different here.

Refutation: Predicting elements of a story doesn’t prove anything.

nothing physical can cause itself. that leaves as the only possibility a non-physical first cause.

Refutation: Even if I accept that “nothing physical can cause itself,” I don’t assert that whatever natural thing that preceded the Big Bang was “caused.”

I think there is a good possibility that it was uncaused. It always existed in a quantum state, without time. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. It always was.

for what reason should one assume that ‘cause’ is not required in the case of the universe, when it applies to every constituent part of it?

Refutation: For clarity’s sake, I don’t think the quantum state that preceded the universe was caused. It might have always existed.

The question then becomes: what caused the expansion of the matter/energy that always existed? Since I think the matter/energy was in a quantum system (without time), I don’t think the answer is clear. It’s certainly not known to us now.

At the quantum level, “cause” and “effect” appear to break down. We’re still studying this. Also, causality needs time in order to function (the cause must happen before the effect).

Before the Big Bang, there was no time; hence, there might not have been causality.

In short, we don’t know – but the point is that there are lots of possible explanations. Without further evidence, we have no reason to accept “god did it” as the answer.

we know that the first cause, must necessarily be non-physical as nothing physical can cause itself.

You’re repeating yourself.

Refutation: I am not claiming that the universe was caused. The universe (in its quantum state) could have always existed.

 

[MegaTherion]

if you mean a quantum system, there is no evidence of one preceding the BB. there is only a theory. one among many on the discovery channel.

Refutation: Right. We don’t have evidence. It could have been the universe in a quantum system (that always existed, without time); or it could have been a supernatural being that always existed.

This has been my point all along, and I’m going to bold it here so you don’t miss it: we don’t know what preceded the universe – but the point is that there are lots of possible explanations. (For example: it could be that matter has always existed, uncaused, in a quantum state without time and that it began to expand for natural reasons currently unknown to us) Without further evidence, we have no reason to accept “god did it” as the answer.

Please respond to that bolded section.

I don’t have any evidence that an uncaused quantum system preceded the universe – but I’m not asserting that as the truth.

I’m saying that there’s no reason to accept that a supernatural being had to cause the universe – because there are other conceivable explanations and without evidence, we can’t choose between them.

In fact, if the choice is between something supernatural (for which there is no evidence) and something natural, I would side with the natural explanation since there is at least evidence that natural things exist.

Again, I’m not asserting that that is the truth of the matter.

But what is the evidence, apart from the “logic” you’ve been spewing all over these threads, that would impel us to think a supernatural beingexists?

If you have evidence (independently verifiable, repeatedly confirmable data) that you think suggests that we should choose the god idea, please present it.

However, if that evidence is not compelling, I’m going to reject your god idea and continue with my “I don’t know” position.

And incidentally, I have read Aquinas. I’m not convinced by his “arguments” in the slightest, and I have to wonder at an intellect that blindly worships him and continually appeals to his authority (“You would dare question something taught at medieval universities!!” The horror!")

I await your refutations.

 

[Dameedna]

The only possible result of your view is to deny all religions that claim to have had truths revealed supernaturally, whether or not the supernatural, itself, is denied. And I find no reason to accept that.

Yes I deny every claim to supernatural truth.

Do YOU deny every claim to supernatural truth?

Or do you deny every claim…except one…

I just believe…in one less …truth than you

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Refutation: The anonymous people who wrote the Jesus Christ legends knew the prophecies. It’s not hard to write a story about a prophecy being fulfilled after the fact. Hence, the Star Wars comparison.

refutation.

the people who wrote the gospels arent anonymous, each one is signed. they state their name in the first few verses.

the rest of your argument seems to be that they conspired together to fake the gospels.

refutation.

lets look at it like a criminal investigation. motive, means, and oppurtunity.

1. motive

what would their motive be? they were jailed, laughed at, scorned, beaten, deprived of goods, tortured, and finally tortured to death. they gained nothing from telling fantastic stories about some galilean criminal that was crucified like thousands of other common criminals. in fact it cost them everything to do so.

there was no motive to do so.

1. means

how could they have done so, seperated by hundreds of miles and decades of time? passenger pigeon?

1. oppurtunity

when would they have had the oppurtunity to carry this out, and why then dont we have nearly identical gospels?

the most damning evidence against this argument is motivation. they had every possible motivation to stay quiet, but they didn’t, knowing that it would cost them their lives, they still preached.

its hard to buy the faked gospel idea, indeed its only in atheist circles that the idea is even seriously considered.

for every one you have that says they are fake, i can bring 2 who say its not.

Refutation: Predicting elements of a story doesn’t prove anything.

this is a statement, not an argument. there is no rational reason given to support it.

that said, predicting activities that occurred centuries later, is next to mathematically impossible, and therefor, an extrememly good indicator of validity.

if you mean that all the gospels are fictional, once again what is the motive?

would you write a story you would be tortured to death for after a lifetime of being laughed at and jailed, and beaten?

no, i wouldnt either.

Refutation: Even if I accept that “nothing physical can cause itself,” I don’t assert that whatever natural thing that preceded the Big Bang was “caused.”

I think there is a good possibility that it was uncaused. It always existed in a quantum state, without time. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. It always was.

refutation.

more statements, with no arguments.

why do you think the universe needs no cause? everything in the universe needs a cause, why not the universe as a whole?

do you have a rational argument to support that statement? or is it just an opinion?

do you have a rational argument to support an uncaused quantum system?

here are the arguments against your statements.

1. the universe not needing a cause while its constituents do, has no rational basis. no argument supports it. its just unsupported opinion.
2. an uncaused quantum system, is saying that something physical doesn’t need a cause. where did the vacuum come from for these fluctuations occur?

the quantum system is contingent on a vacuum, that needs a cause.

further, the fluctuation itself is a cause. uncertainty, does not mean, no cause, it means uncertain as to the specific interaction that is the cause.

Refutation: For clarity’s sake, I don’t think the quantum state that preceded the universe was caused. It might have always existed.

i know what you mean, but you are just stating it, not offering any support for ity, or refutation of my counter arguments. opinion alone is unacceptable, you need to have a rational support for that opinion at the very least.

The question then becomes: what caused the expansion of the matter/energy that always existed? Since I think the matter/energy was in a quantum system (without time), I don’t think the answer is clear. It’s certainly not known to us now.

as ive refuted the idea of always existing matter, please give a rational argument against that refutation above.

At the quantum level, “cause” and “effect” appear to break down. We’re still studying this. Also, causality needs time in order to function (the cause must happen before the effect).

yes, QM is and has been a revolving door of favored theories for several decades now.

Before the Big Bang, there was no time; hence, there might not have been causality.

if causality needed time then no cause woud be possible, hence the universe wouldn’t be possible. your going in circles here, because you havent given a rational argument as to why the universe needs no cause, but all its constituent parts do.

In short, we don’t know – but the point is that there are lots of possible explanations. Without further evidence, we have no reason to accept “god did it” as the answer.

refutation.

the only counter explanation you have offered is a timeless quantum state, which has been refuted, because it relies on an uncaused vacuum, (which we know was created in the BB).

You’re repeating yourself.

Refutation: I am not claiming that the universe was caused. The universe (in its quantum state) could have always existed.

i know, you keep insisting that there is something that doesn’t need a cause, a quantum state, yet you arent giving a rational arguement for it.

one of the rational arguments against it is its contingency on an uncaused vacuum. a dimensionally defined area of space.

you seem to be saying that doesnt need a cause, it can just be.

i need a rational argument for it.

thats why i keep repeating the refutation.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Refutation: Right. We don’t have evidence. It could

have been the universe in a quantum system (that always existed, without time); or it could have been a supernatural being that always existed.

This has been my point all along, and I’m going to bold it here so you don’t miss it: we don’t know what preceded the universe – but the point is that there are lots of possible explanations. (For example: it could be that matter has always existed, uncaused, in a quantum state without time and that it began to expand for natural reasons currently unknown to us) Without further evidence, we have no reason to accept “god did it” as the answer.

Please respond to that bolded section.

i didnt miss it the first few time you said it, its not a new idea either. we have dealt with it a number of times.

ive refuted every one of them, again to be clear

a quantum system, is still contingent on a vacuum, which requires a cause. its that simple.

there are logical arguments for G-d, specifically the Christain G-d.

to wit.

1. as physical things cannot cause themselves, only a non-physical thing can be first cause.
2. the cause is almost certainly intelligent, as the mathematics to support this particular universe being created from among all the possible universes, are nearly impossible
3. convergent prophecy over the course of centuries, fulfilled in Christ, provide mathematical proof of Christianities validity

yes, i know you think Christianity is a conspiracy, but i refuted your reasoning in the previous post.

further that idea is by far the minority view.

I don’t have any evidence that an uncaused quantum system preceded the universe – but I’m not asserting that as the truth.

 

[fhansen]

Yes I deny every claim to supernatural truth.

Do YOU deny every claim to supernatural truth?

Or do you deny every claim…except one…

I just believe…in one less …truth than you

Would you go to any doctor, regardless of her qualifications, or might you exclude some?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Seems a fair and friendly approach. Out of interest, what kind of replies to you get when asking them what they would constitute as proof?

In the thoughtful discussions i’ve had with atheists, i cannot recall anyone taking me up on the offer. The reply is usually an assertion that there is no proof.

I wonder why the atheists i’ve met are so slow to take a good look at the reasons why they do not believe.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Let’s assume I know .00000000000001% of all there is to know – feel free to plug in a few google zeros extra if you’d like.

Might there be sound evidence that god exists out there in the rest of the universe? Sure. There might be. There also might be sound evidence that the Hindu gods exist, that the Zoroastrian gods exist, that leprechauns exist, that zombies exist, that there is a Grand Unification Theory.

But I won’t accept any of those things until I see the evidence for one of them.

We’re not discussing the possibility of any of those things (any of them is possible) – we’re discussing whether we should believe in them, whether there is sufficient evidence to compel belief.

There’s not.
…

It’s refreshing Mega to read the thoughts of someone so confident in one’s beliefs. Perhaps you’ve found something in the vast body of knowledge of which i myself know nothing about that is compelling demonstration against the existence of God? If you have such proof, please do not withhold it from me. (I’m not being sarcastic when i ask this. I’m sincerely interested in what evidence you’ve discovered that results in your great faith.)

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… I would accept the same kind of evidence I would accept for anything whatsoever that exists – independently verifiable, repeatedly confirmable data that compels belief.

For example, I believe in electrons. There is plenty of independently verifiable, repeatedly confirmable data (i.e. evidence) that compels belief in electrons. It doesn’t matter what I think about electrons – I can’t look at the evidence and not agree that electrons are real.

Things that are objectively real are real for everybody, regardless of belief. Things that are real for everybody manifest in some way that is measurable and confirmable for everybody.

If you claim that something exists for everybody yet you have no independently verifiable, repeatedly confirmable data to support it, then your claim is indistinguishable from imagination or fantasy.

If you want others to believe in your god, present the evidence.

Do you believe in Julius Caesar, that he existed and became the first Roman emperor? If so, why?

 

[MegaTherion]

This is getting very annoying now because we’re just going to keep saying the same things to each other.

The point about the gospels (which were anonymously written…John possibly not written until after 100 CE!) I should leave to another thread. But since you asked for a motvie, it’s rather simple – the early Christian community had an oral tradition. People wrote down this oral tradition.

Now on to the show:

why do you think the universe needs no cause? everything in the universe needs a cause, why not the universe as a whole?

Refutation: First law of thermodynamics: Matter and Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

It is possible that matter and energy always existed.

the only counter explanation you have offered is a timeless quantum state, which has been refuted, because it relies on an uncaused vacuum, (which we know was created in the BB).

I’m not well-versed enough in cosmology to make many more statements about what was/is possible, but I doubt that you are as well.

For all of us, origins are a question mark with many possible explanations. It is certainly possible that an uncaused supernatural being caused the expansion of matter and energy through unknown means. It is certainly possible that uncaused matter and energy began to expand through unknown means.

What is the evidence that impels you to choose the former over the latter?

 

[MegaTherion]

as physical things cannot cause themselves, first cause must necessarily be non-physical

it doesn’t get any more basic than that.

Unless matter and energy always existed (as the first law of thermodynamics states that they cannot be created or destroyed). In that case, something physical (currently unknown to us) could be the cause of the expansion of said matter and energy.

there are logical arguments for G-d

I asked for evidence (physical data) that would make me choose god over some other possibility.

You don’t have any.

The first cause does not have to be non-physical because it is possible that some part of the matter/energy that always existed caused the Big Bang.

EDIT: I’m also very aware that there are theists who claim that the first law of thermodynamics proves that god exists. It’s very tiring and silly. I realize I’m setting myself up for that nonsense, but I suppose I’ll have to live with that.

Also, I realize that your only response is going to be continuing to bleet “But everything needs a cause! You are claiming the universe does not need a cause!” And I’m going to keep saying, “Matter and energy in some form may have always existed.”

If you can assert, without evidence, that there’s a transcendent spirit that doesn’t have to play by the rules, I can assert, without evidence, that whatever came before the Big Bang doesn’t have to play by the rules.

 

[MegaTherion]

It’s refreshing Mega to read the thoughts of someone so confident in one’s beliefs. Perhaps you’ve found something in the vast body of knowledge of which i myself know nothing about that is compelling demonstration against the existence of God? If you have such proof, please do not withhold it from me. (I’m not being sarcastic when i ask this. I’m sincerely interested in what evidence you’ve discovered that results in your great faith.)

As I stated above, if you bothered to read my post, I don’t have any evidence for or against your god – or any other god. Yet I do not believe in gods because I need evidence before I will accept a claim.

When any claim is made, the default position is nonbelief until sufficient evidence is presented. It’s the same with leprechauns, dragons, zombies, ghosts. It’s the same with every claim.

I’m not saying that god doesn’t exist. I’m saying that I won’t believe in god until I see sufficient evidence.

Do you believe in Julius Caesar, that he existed and became the first Roman emperor? If so, why?

I do believe that claim because there is a massive amount of evidence to support it. In the first place, we have documents written by Caesar in his own hand. We have contemporary sources (his contemporaries, I mean) writing about him. We have records of him from his enemies as well as allies dating from the time period in which he lived. And also, being Roman general and then emperor, we have all the evidence of his military actions, policies, political maneuvers, all of which can be confirmed with archeology, documents, letters, proclamations.

In short, there is so much evidence that Caesar existed that to not believe it would be ludicrous.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

As I stated above, if you bothered to read my post, I don’t have any evidence for or against your god – or any other god. Yet I do not believe in gods because I need evidence before I will accept a claim.

When any claim is made, the default position is nonbelief until sufficient evidence is presented. It’s the same with leprechauns, dragons, zombies, ghosts. It’s the same with every claim.

I’m not saying that god doesn’t exist. I’m saying that I won’t believe in god until I see sufficient evidence.

…

Fair enough.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…
I do believe that claim because there is a massive amount of evidence to support it. In the first place, we have documents written by Caesar in his own hand. We have contemporary sources (his contemporaries, I mean) writing about him. We have records of him from his enemies as well as allies dating from the time period in which he lived. And also, being Roman general and then emperor, we have all the evidence of his military actions, policies, political maneuvers, all of which can be confirmed with archeology, documents, letters, proclamations.

In short, there is so much evidence that Caesar existed that to not believe it would be ludicrous.

Sounds reasonable to me. If someone doubted the existence of Julius Caesar, would you point this skeptic to the historical evidence you mentioned as proof of his existence?

 

[MegaTherion]

Sounds reasonable to me. If someone doubted the existence of Julius Caesar, would you point this skeptic to the historical evidence you mentioned as proof of his existence?

Of course.

If the questions of Caesar’s existence ever became really important, I could go inspect the evidence personally and show it to anyone who wanted to see it.

And the thing that makes the evidence so compelling is that we have multiple corroborating pieces of evidence from contemporary (contemporary to Caesar, that is) sources.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Of course.

If the questions of Caesar’s existence ever became really important, I could go inspect the evidence personally and show it to anyone who wanted to see it.

And the thing that makes the evidence so compelling is that we have multiple corroborating pieces of evidence from contemporary (contemporary to Caesar, that is) sources.

Agreed.

But what if the skeptic scoffed at your evidence? What if she pointed out that we have no original autograph of Gaius Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars, and all we have are fewer than a dozen extant copies of the work alleged to be written by him (only 10, to be exact).

What if the skeptic were to smirk as she gave what she believed to be further damning evidence, explaining that the Caesar was alleged to have written the original autograph between 100 - 44 B.C., and the earliest extant copy we have of the Gallic Wars was penned in 900 A.D. (nearly 1,000 years after the events)!

How would you answer her?

 

[MegaTherion]

Agreed.

But what if the skeptic scoffed at your evidence? What if she pointed out that we have no original autograph of Gaius Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars, and all we have are fewer than a dozen extant copies of the work alleged to be written by him (only 10, to be exact).

What if the skeptic were to smirk as she gave what she believed to be further damning evidence, explaining that the Caesar was alleged to have written the original autograph between 100 - 44 B.C., and the earliest extant copy we have of the Gallic Wars was penned in 900 A.D. (nearly 1,000 years after the events)!

How would you answer her?

Well, first I would point her to all of the contemporary sources (dating from that time period) that document Caesar’s existence, both those that praise him and those that speak ill of him.

I mean, this man was a general and an emperor; there are countless firsthand, contemporary accounts from people who saw him and interacted with him. The evidence doesn’t stand or fall on the items he himself wrote – the evidence includes a vast, vast array of firsthand, eyewitness, contemporary accounts, archeological corroboration of claims made in such sources, the accounts from people in other countries, military opponents, contemporary documents and decrees, etc.

If a person still did not accept all of that (which I would consider very odd), it actually wouldn’t matter – whether Caesar existed or not is somewhat of a pointless question. There was a person who did the things attributed to Caesar, whether it was Caesar or not.

I mean, we’re 99.9999999% sure that Caesar existed, but if we suddenly discovered that he didn’t, we would adjust our understanding of history and life would go on.

But of course, since the evidence for Caesar’s existence is quite extensive, it would take some incredible new evidence to reverse current thinking on the matter.

So that’s how evidence works. If you want me to believe a claim, you’re going to need evidence.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Well, first I would point her to all of the contemporary sources (dating from that time period) that document Caesar’s existence, both those that praise him and those that speak ill of him.

I mean, this man was a general and an emperor; there are countless firsthand, contemporary accounts from people who saw him and interacted with him. The evidence doesn’t stand or fall on the items he himself wrote – the evidence includes a vast, vast array of firsthand, eyewitness, contemporary accounts, archeological corroboration of claims made in such sources, the accounts from people in other countries, military opponents, contemporary documents and decrees, etc.

If a person still did not accept all of that (which I would consider very odd), it actually wouldn’t matter – whether Caesar existed or not is somewhat of a pointless question. There was a person who did the things attributed to Caesar, whether it was Caesar or not.

I mean, we’re 99.9999999% sure that Caesar existed, but if we suddenly discovered that he didn’t, we would adjust our understanding of history and life would go on.

But of course, since the evidence for Caesar’s existence is quite extensive, it would take some incredible new evidence to reverse current thinking on the matter.

So that’s how evidence works. If you want me to believe a claim, you’re going to need evidence.

I think it might be extremely odd! But when you say you would use contemporaries of Julius Caesar, are you referring to those such Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus (c. AD 46 – 120) commonly known in English as Plutarch? Would you use this ancient historian as proof of the life, conquests and death of Julius Caesar, pointing out that he wrote of the emperor in his Parallel Lives?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Or perhaps you are speaking contemporaries such as Livy who wrote his History of Rome (c. 59 BC - AD 17), or Tacitus who wrote his Annals (c. AD 100), or Pliny Secundus who wrote his Natural History (AD 61-113)?

Are these some of the esteemed ancient historians you might use to prove the existence and events of the life of Julius Caesar?