How do I turn the table on atheists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Imago_Dei3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, the laws of nature that we have are incredibly improbable, since they are precisely fine-tuned. As atheist cosmologist Suesskind puts it, the laws of nature are “balanced on a knife’s edge”. The laws are so special that they loudly shout out for design. Atheist cosmologists admit that, but offer the multiverse as a solution. Problem is, in order for a multiverse to be able to randomly crank out so many trillions over trillions over trillions of variations of universes that our own, unlikely as it is, becomes statistically inevitable, it would have to have very special properties. These would loudly shout out for design as well. The multiverse would solve the design problem of our own local universe, but it would not solve the overall design problem.

Charlemagne,

this should also answer your question. It is enormously improbable that the laws of nature are accidental.
How does one know that the laws of this universe are improbable, without having lots of other universes to compare ours to? That is how probability works, no?

If the laws are precisely fine-tuned and indicative of design, why has this Goldilocks planet already been hit by a devastating meteorite which likely killed off the dinosaurs et al? Why will the sun, designed for our benefit, expand and swallow the earth?
 
I appreciate your beliefs will differ from this Anglican’s, and no doubt that influences where you see him, spiritually, but does it count for nothing that some of the most devoted, intelligent and senior Christians think that God’s nature is actually fundamentally mysterious? It is not just Tom Honey being given pause over such devastating suffering, but others who do not explicitly refer to anything of the sort. The (UK) Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, made this well-remembered comment that his faith was ‘silent waiting on the truth, pure sitting and breathing in the presence of the question mark’.

I personally think questions of the divine are not answerable, even devout religious people hold similar views, and I dislike the certainty other believers exhibit - above all when it impacts on the few things we do know about first-hand, like our fellow humans and society.
There is no necessary conflict between:
  1. The belief that God’s nature is fundamentally mysterious
  2. The belief that devastating suffering can be explained
 
There is no necessary conflict between:
  1. The belief that God’s nature is fundamentally mysterious
  2. The belief that devastating suffering can be explained
God’s nature is regarded as the nature of morality. Is that, too, mysterious? I also doubt that suffering can be explained without recourse to God’s intentions, which are also mysterious. Put those two together and you explode the resolution of the problem of evil.
 
Hi, Bobber09,

Actually, I do not believe the public doctrines Anglicans profess about the Triune Nature of God and the realities of Evil differ from that held by the Catholic Faith. My comments were directed exclusively on the presentation of Rev Honey. Maybe I was not clear aobut what I really meant.

All of have had a ‘bad day’ … the alarm was not set and you wake up late, you stub your toe getting out of bed, break your shoe lace, you have a flat tire in your drive way and after fixing it you back out and hit your mail box… and, you haven’t even entered traffic yet! :eek: Now just then a survey taker comes up and knocks on your car window and asks you if he can ask you some questions about the nature of the universe. I am confident that your expressed views at this time would probably be influenced by your most recent and very negative experiences… 😃 Now, take a look back at Rev Honey.

One of the things that really alerted me was the body language he used in expressing his ideas. This guy has had a very long series of bad days - and it shows. Using this presentation he made as the basis for anything of substance is not very meaningful in my opinion.😃 I think this man has allowed his feelings to run away with him - and trying to prove anything by his display is sad turn of events.

It appears you did not read the link I provided. Check out this link: equip.org/articles/how-sh…roblem-of-evil Rather than continue to beat Rev Honey’s depressed performance, why not latch onto this link and tackle the ideas here?

Looking forward to hearing back from you on this matter.

God bless
I appreciate your beliefs will differ from this Anglican’s, and no doubt that influences where you see him, spiritually, but does it count for nothing that some of the most devoted, intelligent and senior Christians think that God’s nature is actually fundamentally mysterious? It is not just Tom Honey being given pause over such devastating suffering, but others who do not explicitly refer to anything of the sort. The (UK) Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, made this well-remembered comment that his faith was ‘silent waiting on the truth, pure sitting and breathing in the presence of the question mark’.

I personally think questions of the divine are not answerable, even devout religious people hold similar views, and I dislike the certainty other believers exhibit - above all when it impacts on the few things we do know about first-hand, like our fellow humans and society.
 
There is no necessary conflict between:
Divine morality cannot be completely understood or equated with human morality.
I also doubt that suffering can be explained without recourse to God’s intentions, which are also mysterious.
God’s intentions are not entirely mysterious. The immense value of life is evidence that we exist in order to develop, choose what to believe and how to live.
 
Divine morality cannot be completely understood or equated with human morality.

God’s intentions are not entirely mysterious. The immense value of life is evidence that we exist in order to develop, choose what to believe and how to live.
As far as I’ve ever heard, divine morality is morality, so that is an interesting distinction!

If God was mysterious, we cannot presume that we are supposed to develop, choose what to believe and how to live. We cannot presume anything! Perhaps God doesn’t think in the ways Christians expect Him to.
 
Hi, Bobber90,

Let me commend you on your faithfulness. Your question is truly classic agnostic - one can not know all there is (all universes) so a decision is simply not possible until this knowledge becomes available to examine. Unfortunately, if this were systematically applied, life itself would be impossible. In reality, what we have with statistics and probability is decision making under conditions of uncertainty. Take life insurance as an example.

The entire basis for all insurance is that you have a risk that you want to prevent from happening - and there is a company who, for a price, will provide financial coverage should this risk become a reality. Even agnostics know that everyone will die … 😃 Yet life insurnace is sold!! The issue, however, is not will someone eventually die - but, will they die during the term of the policy? A lot of data analysis goes into this - but, note, the life of every human being who ever lived is not needed. Given a person’s age, sex, and personal habits (smoking, drinking alcohol, riding motocycles, sky diving, etc) the insurance company can say that for a given amount of money (the cash pay out of the claim) the odds of this individual dying are very low (but never non-existent), low, medium or high. This is just one practical example of how probability works - everything does not have to be known, yet decisions are made. And, sure enough, every year the insurance company comparies their actual experience with their insureds with their statistical predictions to see how they did: did they collect enough in premimums to cover claims and their business expenses.

Our so-called ‘Goldilocks planet’ has had an interesting history - as far as we can tell from the various records available in the history of the Earth. Science predicts even more interesting events as we project long into the future. But, I submit that the real take home message is not only are we here - but, nothing has happened that God has not already forseen. I appreciate that such a response is problematic for atheists and agnostics (two sides of same coin… :D) But, it really does fit together.

Go back to the Patterns argument. In all of the universe there is a constant feature that can be applied: there is development, birth, maturity and then death. So, if we are looking at the birth of a stellar galaxy or the death of a star as a supernova - we can observe the pattern over very long time periods. If we are looking at a bacterial culture - we have the same pattern, just over a very short time period. Earth is part of the Milky Way and our universe has this pattern. And, sure enough there is the evidence of the Master Pattern Maker - everything following this basic arrangment witin the unique as pects of their existence.

There is no argument from nature of a Loving God Who sent His Son to die for our sins - this really does take Faith to believe. But, there is an abundance of evidence that a Supreme Being created all we see and gave us the capacity to see that He exists. There really is no “Why” question that can be answer about this, except that while God did not have to create anything, He freely chose to create - and we are part of His creative act.

So, in answer to your first question, as we use both the Hubble Space Telescope and the electron microscope we find that nature behaves in very certain ways - and we have examined deviations (yet they too have some predictable elements). There really are natural laws. It is the existence of natural laws that allow us to learn about the patterns that are present and from these to learn about the item under study. If there were no predictability - if all were chaos - we would know very little (assuming we lived to get that far).

God bless
How does one know that the laws of this universe are improbable, without having lots of other universes to compare ours to? That is how probability works, no?

If the laws are precisely fine-tuned and indicative of design, why has this Goldilocks planet already been hit by a devastating meteorite which likely killed off the dinosaurs et al? Why will the sun, designed for our benefit, expand and swallow the earth?
 
Hi, Bobber90,

What is going on … 😃 I just complemented you on your almost unfailing consistency … and, here you are talking about the existence of God - and only couching it in one ‘if’! :eek: While I am confident I will recover from this shock (not having information on all possible gods) I just thought I would point this out…😉 But, enough teasing… and on to the business at hand.

Since with all of our advanced sciences we are still learning more and more about the natural world - it is safe to say that there are still items we have yet to discover - not only about outside reality but about ourselves, too. As far as we know, stars or bacteria do not have free will. Only man can chose to believe in God or to reject Him through sin.

There is no doubt that free will is mysterious - I have freely chosen to disagree with the postions you have put forth … and you have freely chosen to disagree with mine…🙂 I submit that the God Who gave us free will is even more mysterious - we can not even begin to plumb His depths. It isn’t that there is a disconnect between God and how Christians think of Him - rather Christians will never know all there is to know about God - and that is what Heaven is all about.

I would not be concerned about not knowing all there is to know about God. In my judgment, the concern is to ignore the informaton He has provided about Himself and the minds He gave us to give Him this acknowledgement, recognition and worship. 🙂

God bless
As far as I’ve ever heard, divine morality is morality, so that is an interesting distinction!

If God was mysterious, we cannot presume that we are supposed to develop, choose what to believe and how to live. We cannot presume anything! Perhaps God doesn’t think in the ways Christians expect Him to.
 
*Divine morality cannot be completely understood or equated with human morality.
God is Love, i.e. goodness in action. Morality is a human category.
If God was mysterious, we cannot presume that we are supposed to develop, choose what to believe and how to live. We cannot presume anything! Perhaps God doesn’t think in the ways Christians expect Him to.
Reason and revelation give us good cause to believe we exist to develop, choose what to believe and how to live. That is precisely what you and I and everyone else are doing. 🙂
 
The thing for me also is, as far as I know, there’s not a single contemporanious (sp?) account either, outside of the Gospels.
Have you looked? Please research the Jewish historian Josephus.

Keep searching but please search with an objective heart and mind. May I recommend Frank Morrison’s ‘Who moved the Stone?’ - a book he intended to write to disprove the resurrection but instead converted him (he was an atheist) and had to rewrite the book.
 
How does one know that the laws of this universe are improbable, without having lots of other universes to compare ours to? That is how probability works, no?
Physicists can make precise calculations of what would happen if physical constants were just slightly changed. This is completely uncontroversial among physicists. For this, see also the link by cosmologist Luke Barnes:

letterstonature.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/fishing-while-the-world-burns-a-fine-tuned-critique-of-p-z-myers/
If the laws are precisely fine-tuned and indicative of design, why has this Goldilocks planet already been hit by a devastating meteorite which likely killed off the dinosaurs et al? Why will the sun, designed for our benefit, expand and swallow the earth?
The fine-tuning of the laws of nature concerns the universe as a whole, why there is any life possible at all, not our particular planet Earth.

I am afraid you have not sufficiently informed yourself about the issue. I ask you to read my link,

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

carefully and in its entirety (I am aware this may take some time). It also answers all kinds of objections. Given that I have answered them already there, I would appreciate not to have to answer them again in this discussion.
 
Physicists can make precise calculations of what would happen if physical constants were just slightly changed. This is completely uncontroversial among physicists. For this, see also the link by cosmologist Luke Barnes:

letterstonature.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/fishing-while-the-world-burns-a-fine-tuned-critique-of-p-z-myers/

The fine-tuning of the laws of nature concerns the universe as a whole, why there is any life possible at all, not our particular planet Earth.

I am afraid you have not sufficiently informed yourself about the issue. I ask you to read my link,

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

carefully and in its entirety (I am aware this may take some time). It also answers all kinds of objections. Given that I have answered them already there, I would appreciate not to have to answer them again in this discussion.
Actually, right here I think you have not answered the objection. Perhaps you have elsewhere, but if you had before, wouldn’t you briefly make the case again?

The issue is simple: how can you say that the current conditions of this universe are improbable, when you do not know whether there are any other universes able to provide a comparison?

Say I have a bag of 100 balls, and I take ball after ball out. I find that all the balls are yellow, and come to the conclusion that it must be very improbable for this bag to contain only yellow balls, because after all there are 100 balls, and each ball could be different, or indeed some of the objects inside might not be balls. Then my agnostic friend comes along with another bag, and another, and points to crates and crates of bags in a huge shipment. They all contain 100 yellow balls! Turns out, it was very probable that the bag I picked contained 100 yellow balls.

We do not have the data set to proclaim that it is unlikely that our universe is capable of supporting life.

How is it that you think this objection can be overcome?
 
One argument made for a creator god is this:

‘the huge improbability of life arising by chance’.

But actually, that is no argument at all!

This argument goes: “It’s so very fortunate that the universe has gone our way, we must think there is a creator kind enough to have designed it for us.” Well, let’s think about that. I put it to you that it is even more fortunate to have a creator god, and so by the above logic, that is even more improbable! Of all the possible universes, God walks into ours…
 
Have you looked? Please research the Jewish historian Josephus.

Keep searching but please search with an objective heart and mind. May I recommend Frank Morrison’s ‘Who moved the Stone?’ - a book he intended to write to disprove the resurrection but instead converted him (he was an atheist) and had to rewrite the book.
I’ve read a bit about Josephus, and stuff around him on catholic sites so I’m not just coming at this from one angle. And the fact remains his two entries regarding Jesus in the ‘Antiquities’ are highly disputed, and most biblical scholars now accept the references to Jesus as the Messiah were interpolations.

He was also born after Jesus died, so he was not a contemporary. Which leaves us right back to my original observation - not a single religious, civil, or Roman authority figure or historian thought to make a record of a man who was crucified as king of the jews, and who the romans’jewish authorities initially feared as a rebel rouser, returning from the dead. Never mind hundreds if not thousands of graves bursting open and the dead walking into the town and mingling with the living etc.

Not one person of any authority what so ever, civil or religious - at the time - saw fit to record this???

Sarah x 🙂
 
Actually, right here I think you have not answered the objection. Perhaps you have elsewhere, but if you had before, wouldn’t you briefly make the case again?

The issue is simple: how can you say that the current conditions of this universe are improbable, when you do not know whether there are any other universes able to provide a comparison?

Say I have a bag of 100 balls, and I take ball after ball out. I find that all the balls are yellow, and come to the conclusion that it must be very improbable for this bag to contain only yellow balls, because after all there are 100 balls, and each ball could be different, or indeed some of the objects inside might not be balls. Then my agnostic friend comes along with another bag, and another, and points to crates and crates of bags in a huge shipment. They all contain 100 yellow balls! Turns out, it was very probable that the bag I picked contained 100 yellow balls.
Obviously, you have not read the link by Luke Barnes that I gave you.
We do not have the data set to proclaim that it is unlikely that our universe is capable of supporting life.
How is it that you think this objection can be overcome?
Why don’t you read my article? Or are you here just to discuss things without really seriously intending to study them? If I had had that attitude I would still be discussing and defending Intelligent Design, instead of studying the issues and becoming not only a die-hard evolutionist, but also someone who wrote an in-depth article on the origin of life by natural causes on Talkorigins.org:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

(Talkorigins.org is a leading evolution website, if you google for origin of life, my article comes up on the first page.)
 
I’ve read a bit about Josephus, and stuff around him on catholic sites so I’m not just coming at this from one angle. And the fact remains his two entries regarding Jesus in the ‘Antiquities’ are highly disputed, and most biblical scholars now accept the references to Jesus as the Messiah were interpolations.

He was also born after Jesus died, so he was not a contemporary. Which leaves us right back to my original observation - not a single religious, civil, or Roman authority figure or historian thought to make a record of a man who was crucified as king of the jews, and who the romans’jewish authorities initially feared as a rebel rouser, returning from the dead. Never mind hundreds if not thousands of graves bursting open and the dead walking into the town and mingling with the living etc.

Not one person of any authority what so ever, civil or religious - at the time - saw fit to record this???

Sarah x 🙂
Was it not the Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus for blasphemy? And was it not the Roman prefect who ordered the execution of Jesus? Now if you were the supreme governing council or the appointed governor of Judea, would it be in your best interest to have anyone proclaim or write about this guy who you had condemned and executed rose from the dead? Would you not want to destroy the evidence? Would you agree that they persecuted and killed the early Christians (or was that a myth too)? And if they tried to destroy the people proclaiming these “falsities”, wouldn’t you agree that it would only follow that they would destroy any written document of the event?

I don’t understand this part: “Never mind hundreds if not thousands of graves bursting open and the dead walking into the town and mingling with the living etc.” There was a zombie apocalypse in the Bible??? :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top