Why I question Christian beliefs

[WillP]

1. I fully appreciate the Thomistic arguments for the existence of a “god” so heavily relied upon by Christians. At the end of all of the discourse, however, it seems to me that you have presented a plausable argument for why there must be a starting point. That starting point, of course, Thomas calls god.

I don’t think this elegant set of arguments, however, by any means closes the book on the issue because, there may, in fact, not be any “starting point”. See for example Lawrence Krauss’ work and others similarly inclined who have postulated theories which exclude the traditional cause/effect premise upon which Thomistic proofs are based.

1. Even if one allows for the presuasive power of Thomas’ arguments, how does one thme migrate to a biblical god which metes out punishment, ordains a code of conduct and otherwise behaves in the manner of the biblical god, demanding sacrafice and being placated by prayer and worship? Particularly when the N.T. is added to the mix? There are, afterall, many similar paridigmns throughout history. Pagan beliefs and the mystery cults, for example, were at least similar to the Christian description of the man/god and the concept of a redemptive death. (see for example, works of Kenneth Harl and Bart Ehrman)
2. A diety which inspires literature fraught with the ambiguity and mixed messages as the bible? The notion seems contrived to me, and, the premise upon which it is held in such high esteem (i.e. that God himself ordained it) seems more than bizarre to me.
3. I most certainly agree, however, that it is good and condusive to civility to “turn the other cheek”, to respect one another, to do good works, to be kind and to honor and respect one’s vows and promises to one another, but, these teachings predate christianity by a thousand years and more. They are found in the Tao and among earlier cultures, and formulated by men–not gods.
4. I also agree that a good deal of western society today is mired in an out of control and corrupt consumerism, a materialistic mode of existence that ultimately will doom our civilization if conditions continue to manifest. But, the antedote is not to turn more toward religion. Religion itself is to large extent a commercial enterprise, selling relics, bartering for ndulgences, televised solicitation, rife with its own corruption and decadence, always resorting to fanciful and magical thinking, constantly turning attention from substantive issues for self preservation, myoptic focus on abortion while ignorant of far larger problems created by having 7 billion of us on this planet. There is grinding poverty in parts of the world and in our own cities. Our climate is even in peril and we are all a step away from destruction. Yet, while we fought a needless war in Iraq, crime enguled our city streets and dysfunction and drug use spread like a virus. Instead of fashioning morality on ritualistic practices and religion, we need values which enhance the wellness of humanity. We need more education, attention to the well being of all of us, conservation of our resources. Better use of our resources. It is time we gave attention to real solutions and based decisions along rational lines and not on an antiquated set of mystical beliefs.

 

[Actaeon]

1. I fully appreciate the Thomistic arguments for the existence of a “god” so heavily relied upon by Christians. At the end of all of the discourse, however, it seems to me that you have presented a plausable argument for why there must be a starting point. That starting point, of course, Thomas calls god.

I don’t think this elegant set of arguments, however, by any means closes the book on the issue because, there may, in fact, not be any “starting point”. See for example Lawrence Krauss’ work and others similarly inclined who have postulated theories which exclude the traditional cause/effect premise upon which Thomistic proofs are based.

You’re correct, there is no necessary proof that prior to the big bang there was only God… and unfortunately for science and due to the limited constraints of our universe, we will NEVER be able to see into the area outside our universe so we will never know for sure. That is the point of saying I believe in God… if we had emperical proof we wouldn’t say we believe there is a God, we would say that we KNOW there is a God (just as I don’t say I believe I have a sister, I say I have a sister because I know, I talked to her on the phone the other day!)

So some theologians GUESS that before the universe there is a God. They do this on the basis of their experience of the universe and the apparent rules that govern it. They may also do it from a collection of personal experiences, such as the observation of miracles, etc.

Likewise some scientists GUESS that before the universe there were other universes, or that there are actually many universes right now! They do this on the basis of… well… presenting alternative theories to religion, apparently… and they can only do this because the constraints of the universe mean that no emperical data from ANYWHERE outside the universe can be gathered… so all the theories of multi-verses are based on simple conjecture. In other words, to be an atheistic cosmologist requires more guesswork and less reliance on the physical evidence than faith in God does.

Somewhere along the line, someone got in their head that the scientific method demands 100% proof that is emperical such that it cannot be refuted in any way before someone can believe something… and that is patently false. There are HUNDREDS of things which we cannot and will never be able to prove 100%, but we BELIEVE them because there is enough compelling evidence that we CAN choose to believe something, even that which is not emperically possible to prove (the existance of consciences other than our own, for example, or even the existance of the noumenon world)

1. Even if one allows for the presuasive power of Thomas’ arguments, how does one thme migrate to a biblical god which metes out punishment, ordains a code of conduct and otherwise behaves in the manner of the biblical god, demanding sacrafice and being placated by prayer and worship? Particularly when the N.T. is added to the mix?

The arguments you reference are merely arguments for the existance of God. They have nothing to do with the nature of God at all. The point is that if we can argue that God exists, then we can begin to ask what is the nature of that God… and we understand that nature through phenoumenon: experience of it.

There are, afterall, many similar paridigmns throughout history. Pagan beliefs and the mystery cults, for example, were at least similar to the Christian description of the man/god and the concept of a redemptive death. (see for example, works of Kenneth Harl and Bart Ehrman)

The greeks, romans, etc, were prolific story tellers. At a certain point, every possible story has been told (and authors estimate that that point was about 3,000 years ago) and all stories become iterations of the same themes. Sure, there are SOME variations, but all in all, there will be MANY common themes and conceptions.

And with the hundreds of thousands of years of human history, that is a LOT of time for the literally THOUSANDS of pagan sects with their literally THOUSANDS of pagan gods, to make up hundreds of thousands of stories about those “gods”… some of which, by mere chance, will happen to resemble thematic elements of Christianity. That does not mean that there is a positive connection between the two, only that a similarity exists (and arguments from this standpoint attack a weakness in your brain: your brain likes to categorize things causally, so when someone tells you “these two things are similar therefore the one was caused by the other” your brain is inclined to agree with them EVEN THOUGH THEY OFFERED NO PROOF).

1. A diety which inspires literature fraught with the ambiguity and mixed messages as the bible? The notion seems contrived to me, and, the premise upon which it is held in such high esteem (i.e. that God himself ordained it) seems more than bizarre to me.

I’m catholic. The source of God’s truth is the Church, not the Bible… and the church wrote the Bible. Is it inerrant? Sure… but ONLY when so interpreted within the framework of the church and in her God given authority. This argument could only be used on protestants that believe the bible was just plunked down here by God for anyone to interpret (and somehow interpret it perfectly)

1. I most certainly agree, however, that it is good and condusive to civility to “turn the other cheek”, to respect one another, to do good works, to be kind and to honor and respect one’s vows and promises to one another, but, these teachings predate christianity by a thousand years and more. They are found in the Tao and among earlier cultures, and formulated by men–not gods.

The real revolutionary teaching of Christianity is not the strictures of doing good. After all, the law is written into the hearts of all men, and is rational, therefore it is rationally discoverable through intellectual reflection. Atheists have this big idea that we believe Jesus needed to come to give us some revelation of moral law and that somehow before that the jews were all chopping off heads because they didn’t know right from wrong… that isn’t the case!

The real revolutionary teaching is the REASON why we do good works, not what those good works should be…

I’m going to respond to your next point in another post…

 

[Actaeon]

1. I also agree that a good deal of western society today is mired in an out of control and corrupt consumerism, a materialistic mode of existence that ultimately will doom our civilization if conditions continue to manifest.

Today? America is where the materialist heresy was born… HUNDREDS of years ago. And don’t attach too much importance to just one heresy… any heresy that is allowed to flourish can potentially destroy civilization. It just so happens that at this point in time, materialism is in vogue and being pushed as an acceptable lifestyle on people who don’t take the time to educate themselves on what is really valuable.

700 years ago, that was almost the opposite when the cathars were promulgating their heresy that all material was evil and therefore no one should have children because creating children brought more material into the world… and it was an insidious movement that almost brought down the kingdom of France… requiring several wars and the inquisition to finally root out it’s dangerous followers.

But, the antedote is not to turn more toward religion.

The antidote for heresy is NOT to turn to the source of teachings against that heresy? That seems a rather odd assertion to make…

Religion itself is to large extent a commercial enterprise, selling relics, bartering for ndulgences, televised solicitation, rife with its own corruption and decadence,

If the catholic church is a commercial enterprise, it is the worst business model in history. The vast majority of our spending goes towards building houses of worship that all are free to enjoy regardless of race, class, gender, etc… combined with the fact that we give away more money to charity than any other organization in the world. In fact, our main product is charity. Any company that operated on the concept that they’re going to only spend on publicly accessable facilities and give away most of their income to charity would fail. We, on the other hand, have no shareholders, and no one is making a profit. What the church owns in endowment is used to pay the costs of maintaining some of the greatest resources on human history in the world, as well as paying charities. The church owns an endowment because it is a goose that lays golden eggs to give to the poor… but as far as personal profit goes, you don’t join the clergy to get rich.

always resorting to fanciful and magical thinking

I can’t think of anything more fanciful than postulating with ZERO evidence whatsoever that there are millions of universes (as Stephen Hawking does) or that life was brought to earth by aliens in spaceships (as Dawkins did).

constantly turning attention from substantive issues for self preservation

The right to freedom of religion is one of the three primary rights of mankind… you’d better believe that the freedom of conscience takes precedence over a lot of other temporal issues. When a government feels that it can compel through force your actions despite your moral will, then that is a government that is founded on violence against its people… and will lead to a lot MORE problems than just a few people who can’t afford cellular phones.

myoptic focus on abortion while ignorant of far larger problems created by having 7 billion of us on this planet.

If abortion is truly the ending of a life, as the church says, then it is far and away the largest atrocity in the history of the human race. In America alone it makes the holocaust look like child’s play.

As to the old overpopulation argument, this world is capable of sustaining 50 billion people (based on the energy from the sun). The problem is distribution and production of energy, not the number of people.

Yet, while we fought a needless war in Iraq, crime enguled our city streets and dysfunction and drug use spread like a virus.

This is in error. The crime rate has actually dropped and continued to drop, as has the drug use. We are living in a historically low crime era.

Instead of fashioning morality on ritualistic practices and religion, we need values which enhance the wellness of humanity. We need more education, attention to the well being of all of us, conservation of our resources. Better use of our resources. It is time we gave attention to real solutions and based decisions along rational lines and not on an antiquated set of mystical beliefs.

I’m going to come out and say that it doesn’t appear you’ve read very much of Catholic teachings, because our teachings on human rights and wellness are the model on which most governments of the world base their programs…

 

[St_Francis]

Will,
Some of your comments make it sound like you think Catholics and Protestants are pretty much alike, but this is not the case. The best way to find out more about what the Catholic Church teaches is to read about Her teachings and to read the writings of saints.

I will just briefly say why I am a practicing Catholic now, having been baptized but not really raised Catholic. I grew up hearing more about why the Church was wrong than I did about actual Church teachings, so I was pretty much a secularist or practical atheist. There didn’t seem to be a point to anything: we were all just fancy animals who rose up willy-nilly from slime and ooze, and there was nothing in the future. I was “good,” in that I had been taught the same good habits that my parents had been raised with by their Catholic and Christian forebears, but I wasn’t good in the sense that I strove to increase in virtue or anything like that.

My first step was to realize that evolution could not have occurred without guidance. It just didn’t make any sense that animals would constantly evolve *upward *into increased capability and intelligence when the natural tendency of things is to fall apart, not to mention that beauty exists and can be appreciated and other non-survival aspects of our species.

So I believed in God, and then a friend encouraged me to pray to Him (because I was very angry with someone). So I did that, and that was good. In fact, a few months later, I realized that my angry tendencies had disappeared!

Later, I realized that I would not be able to love my family as I wanted to without God, so I really committed myself to Christianity in general, and still later, came upon a book which explained the difference between the various Christian ways of thinking and I returned to the Catholic Church.

The thing about Christianity is that it is not based on a system of some sort, which is what we are used to. Catholicism is based on *loving God, and loving God in the person of His Son, Why gave up His life for us. *Catholicism is *interaction *with this incredibly huge and incredibly loving Being!

In the same way that when we love someone we are more into the person and the relationship in their entireties, our Faith is more about the entirety of God and our relationship with Him. We are good not because of the rules, which merely clarify how we can better please Him, but because of our love for Him.

The best way to find out about God is to get to know Him, and the best way to get to know Him is through prayer. Reading is good, certainly, but notice that we don’t think we have a relationship with a person just because we have read about him, even if we have read a lot! We think we have relationships with people with whom we interact, and we interact with God through prayer. Praying is what gives us the relationship, and reading gives us knowledge about God.

 

[danserr]

1. The Thomist set of arguments are only one possible group of arguments for God. The philosopher William Lane Craig discusses 5 others ones here, while the Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga lists 26 here.
   And there is clear evidence to get one from a deistic God to the Christian God in historical evidence for the Resurrection.

I admit to not finding L. Krauss persuasive at all. In his book, he was harshly criticized for claiming that something can come from nothing, but he only made this work by redefining “nothing” to mean the quantum vacuum, which is not nothing. You can see his debate with WL Craig here.

So, we are not only working from Thomist arguments, but others as well.

1. I’m not entirely clear on what your second point is. The Resurrection is an important way to get from the deistic god to the Christian God. There are fewer similarities to other religions than are generally supposed-- one must take historical context into account, but so what if there are some similarities? All that proves is that Christianity is not wholly unlike the rest of humanity, which is hardly shocking.

Bart Ehrman is a former fundamentalist Protestant who was so traumatized when he found that the Bible might contain some scribal errors that he became a skeptic.

1. I’m not sure exactly what you are referring to, since you could be referring to many things here. The Bible is an inspired book, but God allowed for the free participation of human authors. It is an Islamic belief that God essentially dictated word for word to Muhammad in the Koran, but this is not how Christians (except fundamentalists) see the Bible. We allow that God inspired human authors and co-operated with them.

Second, if you refer to the difficulties some people have understanding the OT, then I would point out that the OT must be understood in light on the New. Also see Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?.

1. Agreed, actually, it is good you understand this since many non-Christians do not. The main point of Christianity is not to give us rules of conduct as if we did not know them before (though as Arthur Books has shown, Christianity does have a positive effect on people’s conduct), the main point is to give us redemption from our sins. Jesus came to bring redemption, not rules.

As to other cultures knowing moral rules before, this is not surprising. Christians have always held that God’s moral law is written on the hearts of all men. (Though I would still say that Christianity did bring some advances)

1. I agree with some of your assessment on the state of the world and think you have given an excellent argument for why we need Christianity. (Actually, you seem to be arguing along similar lines as Brad Gregory in his big book). Obviously, if man is made in the image of a God who suffered and died for him, then we have a strong basis for human dignity. For this reason, the Church has for so long been one of the most important charitable institutions in the world, and even atheists recognize the positive impact of Christianity on the third world challenges you mention. Here is a famous article by Matthew Parris, “As an Atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God.”

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

1. The Thomist set of arguments are only one possible group of arguments for God. The philosopher William Lane Craig discusses 5 others ones here, while the Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga lists 26 here.
   And there is clear evidence to get one from a deistic God to the Christian God in historical evidence for the Resurrection.

Very few of those arguments are strictly speaking arguments for God. Most of them boil down to: “I can’t explain x without God, therefore God exists.” This has two problems:

1. It may actually be possible to explain x without God, but if your goal is to prove God exists then you have plenty of incentive to not look very hard for that explanation.
2. The conception of x derived from the existence of God may be incorrect.

As for the historical evidence, I think we will have to agree that it is not sufficiently compelling on its own to prove anything. If you gave an impartial observer (e.g. an intelligent alien) a copy of the bible and access to all our modern archeological research, I seriously doubt that the observer would conclude the bible was a collection of anything more than ancient mythology.

 

[danserr]

Very few of those arguments are strictly speaking arguments for God. Most of them boil down to: “I can’t explain x without God, therefore God exists.” This has two problems:

1. It may actually be possible to explain x without God, but if your goal is to prove God exists then you have plenty of incentive to not look very hard for that explanation.
2. The conception of x derived from the existence of God may be incorrect.

As for the historical evidence, I think we will have to agree that it is not sufficiently compelling on its own to prove anything. If you gave an impartial observer (e.g. an intelligent alien) a copy of the bible and access to all our modern archeological research, I seriously doubt that the observer would conclude the bible was a collection of anything more than ancient mythology.

If we have certain facts (the beginning of the universe) and those facts are improbable unless a certain hypothesis is true (God exists), then this is a very good reason to accept that hypothesis. Scientists and historians use such reasoning all the time in their professional work.

For example, suppose a scientist does an experiment where he find that 95% of people with a disease who take drug A are cured within 1 week, as compared to a group who takes a placebo in which only 10% of the group are cured in a week. Well, the scientist would conclude that the facts (higher cure rates in group A than group B) is improbable unless the hypothesis (drug A will cure the disease) is true. Hence, he rationally concludes that the hypothesis is true.

1. It may actually be possible to explain x without God, but if your goal is to prove God exists then you have plenty of incentive to not look very hard for that explanation.

This does not show any of those arguments are bad arguments, only questions the motivation of the Christian (which risks turning into an ad hominem fallacy). Well, I don’t deny that some people will be biased to wanting to find evidence that supports their hypothesis. But surely there are also atheists who want Christianity not to be true, so this seems to balance out. Second, there are people who have been neutral or biased against Christianity who have been convinced by these arguments (like Lee Strobel).

But really, so what? Scientists can also be biased in favor of their hypotheses. What matters is that they test it honestly. And, of course, Christians have strong motivation to be honest in our work since to do otherwise would be to, as Bacon says, “offer to the author of truth, the unclean sacrifice of a lie.”

1. The conception of x derived from the existence of God may be incorrect.

I don’t understand what you are saying, even when I plug in an example.

For example:
It is very improbable that we should have the scientific and philosophical evidence for the beginning of the universe that we do (x), unless God exists. Hence, that evidence gives strong reason to think that God exists. Now you seem to be objecting:

“The conception of x (the scientific and philosophical evidence for the existence for the beginning of the universe) derived from the existence of God may be incorrect.”

I don’t see that this makes any sense. We are inferring God’s existence from the evidence (x) not the other way around. We don’t begin with God and move to x as you seem to be saying; rather, we begin with x and move to God.

As for the historical evidence, I think we will have to agree that it is not sufficiently compelling on its own to prove anything. If you gave an impartial observer (e.g. an intelligent alien) a copy of the bible and access to all our modern archeological research, I seriously doubt that the observer would conclude the bible was a collection of anything more than ancient mythology.

Well, that’s an interesting speculation, but it’s not really an argument. I think an impartial and trained observer (enough to understand the historical method) would conclude that the evidence for the Resurrection is excellent. I would simply say that the evidence for the Resurrection is very good and makes the Resurrection highly probable.

The claim that the Resurrection accounts are myths is especially weak, they are simply not of that genre of writing.

 

[greylorn]

1. I fully appreciate the Thomistic arguments for the existence of a “god” so heavily relied upon by Christians. At the end of all of the discourse, however, it seems to me that you have presented a plausable argument for why there must be a starting point. That starting point, of course, Thomas calls god.

I don’t think this elegant set of arguments, however, by any means closes the book on the issue because, there may, in fact, not be any “starting point”. See for example Lawrence Krauss’ work and others similarly inclined who have postulated theories which exclude the traditional cause/effect premise upon which Thomistic proofs are based.

1. Even if one allows for the presuasive power of Thomas’ arguments, how does one thme migrate to a biblical god which metes out punishment, ordains a code of conduct and otherwise behaves in the manner of the biblical god, demanding sacrafice and being placated by prayer and worship? Particularly when the N.T. is added to the mix? There are, afterall, many similar paridigmns throughout history. Pagan beliefs and the mystery cults, for example, were at least similar to the Christian description of the man/god and the concept of a redemptive death. (see for example, works of Kenneth Harl and Bart Ehrman)
2. A diety which inspires literature fraught with the ambiguity and mixed messages as the bible? The notion seems contrived to me, and, the premise upon which it is held in such high esteem (i.e. that God himself ordained it) seems more than bizarre to me.
3. I most certainly agree, however, that it is good and condusive to civility to “turn the other cheek”, to respect one another, to do good works, to be kind and to honor and respect one’s vows and promises to one another, but, these teachings predate christianity by a thousand years and more. They are found in the Tao and among earlier cultures, and formulated by men–not gods.
4. I also agree that a good deal of western society today is mired in an out of control and corrupt consumerism, a materialistic mode of existence that ultimately will doom our civilization if conditions continue to manifest. But, the antedote is not to turn more toward religion. Religion itself is to large extent a commercial enterprise, selling relics, bartering for ndulgences, televised solicitation, rife with its own corruption and decadence, always resorting to fanciful and magical thinking, constantly turning attention from substantive issues for self preservation, myoptic focus on abortion while ignorant of far larger problems created by having 7 billion of us on this planet. There is grinding poverty in parts of the world and in our own cities. Our climate is even in peril and we are all a step away from destruction. Yet, while we fought a needless war in Iraq, crime enguled our city streets and dysfunction and drug use spread like a virus. Instead of fashioning morality on ritualistic practices and religion, we need values which enhance the wellness of humanity. We need more education, attention to the well being of all of us, conservation of our resources. Better use of our resources. It is time we gave attention to real solutions and based decisions along rational lines and not on an antiquated set of mystical beliefs.

Perhaps you should expand your range of skepticism.

The Thomistic (Catholic) God-concept is that of a mysterious entity which existed forever, then suddenly chose to create a universe. Reasons? No good ones.

God’s properties? Infinite, omnipotent, omniscient-- in other words, not accessible to mere human beings.

In other words, God is a single-entity with no origin, who created a universe without cause. It is not difficult to be skeptical of such a concept.

But consider the scientific take on the issue of creation. Cosmologists hypothesize the absurd notion that a physical singularity (which cannot exist in reality and cannot be defined mathematically) suddenly appeared out of nothing,

without cause,

and blew up, thus creating our universe.

Might not a competent mind find something to be skeptical about in both of these concepts?

 

[empther]

Perhaps you should expand your range of skepticism.

The Thomistic (Catholic) God-concept is that of a mysterious entity which existed forever, then suddenly chose to create a universe. Reasons? No good ones.

1. He didn’t exist forever, because that would be existence in time. God is outside of time because he is unchanging.
2. God had a good reason to create the universe. He’s good and wanted to share his life with human beings.

God’s properties? Infinite, omnipotent, omniscient-- in other words, not accessible to mere human beings.

Not accessible to mere human beings through their own efforts alone, but God invites us to participate in his divine life.

In other words, God is a single-entity with no origin, who created a universe without cause. It is not difficult to be skeptical of such a concept.

Unless you consider that there is no God. Then you have many problems explaining the universe.
Scientists may speculate that there were universes before the Big Bang, and they could be right. But ultimately it all had to have a beginning because there is no infinite past.

 

[chataranga]

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” St. Thomas Aquinas

“Do not preach; practice.” Sathya Sai

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

In other words, God is a single-entity with no origin, who created a universe without cause. It is not difficult to be skeptical of such a concept.

If God needed an origin, He would not be God. If He created the Universe from something else, He would not be God. The logic seems very straight-forward to me.

But consider the scientific take on the issue of creation. Cosmologists hypothesize the absurd notion that a physical singularity (which cannot exist in reality and cannot be defined mathematically) suddenly appeared out of nothing,

What is curious is that you are bringing up the big bang theory (in what seems to be a rather shallow hope of changing peoples’ opinion about one of the more rigorously tested and confirmed theories known to man), yet you have not stepped forward to the charges I laid before you in your “Physics & Theology” thread.

You still seem to be harboring a disdain over the terminology ‘singularity.’ You keep thinking ‘divide by zero’ when it really means, ‘we do not know what is going on.’ Two very distinct ideas that you keep (on purpose?) messing up. You further muddle this by throwing in the word ‘hypothesize’ in there; the big bang theory is not much of a hypothesis, so much as it is a given fact of more-or-less what happened. The Planck-scale effects of the big bang are still debated, but the event did very much so occur, as shown by the data (something that does not back up your non-BBT model that you have yet to present to anyone)

without cause,

and blew up, thus creating our universe.

Might not a competent mind find something to be skeptical about in both of these concepts?

I believe I am possessing a competent mind and I find neither concept hard to chew.

 

[farpinho]

I’m yet to see some good argument refuting the cosmological argument.

Even Krauss’ book is misleading and disappointing. It does not answer the basic question that its title suggests: why there is something rather than nothing? As the physicist put the question: where did the stuff that “banged” in the big bang come from? Instead of addressing this philosophical question, Dr. Krauss addresses the scientific question of why that stuff is structured (“something”) rather than unstructured (“nothing”). He may answer why there is a structured universe and not empty space. Not being a Ph.D. in physics I could not follow all the references in answer to that question, so I don’t think the book succeeds if it is addressed to the general public. But he definitely misses the real issue that his title suggests.

And, science has built a new myth that “recent discoveries on quantum physics have destroyed the traditional definition of cause and effect”. They just decided to impose that "quantum fluctuations in the vacuum make particles pop out of nothing, without any cause. Don’t these “quantum fluctuations” also have a cause? It’s not because they “apparently” seem to have no cause that they actually have none…

If you want some good scientific book regarding Quantum Physics I would recommend amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-Finding-Hidden-Key/dp/089385042X .

 

[Sair]

I’m inclined to agree with the OP, except in regard to the “turning the other cheek” aspect. Yes, it is certainly civil to avoid overreaction to perceived offences - and I have read that the admonition in the Bible to take “an eye for an eye”, etc, was intended to discourage people from seeking vengeance beyond the crime. However, to simply accept an offence passively completely overturns one of the key features of human morality, which is reciprocity. If people are taught that it is acceptable to transgress against others - or at least, that their transgressions will go unpunished - what motivation could they have to behave more socially?

 

[danserr]

I’m inclined to agree with the OP, except in regard to the “turning the other cheek” aspect. Yes, it is certainly civil to avoid overreaction to perceived offences - and I have read that the admonition in the Bible to take “an eye for an eye”, etc, was intended to discourage people from seeking vengeance beyond the crime. However, to simply accept an offence passively completely overturns one of the key features of human morality, which is reciprocity. If people are taught that it is acceptable to transgress against others - or at least, that their transgressions will go unpunished - what motivation could they have to behave more socially?

God help us if you are right and human morality is based on reciprocity. That seems like an excellent reason to adopt the principle of “might makes right.”

If my decision not to strike another person was based mostly the fear that he might strike me back, then I imagine my fear of striking him would be much less if I were much bigger than him, or had a big gang behind me, or was better armed. Is this really something you are proposing as a positive basis for respecting others? (a sort of cold-war/arms race mentality in our daily lives?)

Actually, you highlight well one of the problems with morality without God. In the absence of God human beings are simply the result of evolution, a random product of time plus matter plus chance. On this, it is hard to see that there is any basis for morality beyond, as you say, “I won’t hit you if you don’t hit me.”

what motivation could they have to behave more socially

If you mean, in the absence of the lex talionis, what motivation would people have to behave morally, then I would say that on Christianity people are made in the image and likeness of a loving and impartial God who sacrificed Himself to give them eternal life. This seems a good basis to provide human beings with a very high dignity and value, and hence it becomes important to respect others dignity and value.

Many Christians may not always live up to these principles, but that is not because the principles are bad, but because we are simply human and make mistakes likes everyone else.

So, what principle provides a basis for morality besides the lext talionis? That would be a recognition of the dignity of the human person.

This may mean that I do strike back in some cases. For instance, if a man attacks my sister, my recognition of her dignity means that I would be obligated to strike the man in return, but there would also be circumstances were it would be right to mortify my own (possible even justified) anger and hold my tongue or even fist because it would be better for the person who was hostile to me. This because I recognize his human dignity.

 

[WillP]

1. The Thomist set of arguments are only one possible group of arguments for God. The philosopher William Lane Craig discusses 5 others ones here, while the Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga lists 26 here.
   And there is clear evidence to get one from a deistic God to the Christian God in historical evidence for the Resurrection.

I admit to not finding L. Krauss persuasive at all. In his book, he was harshly criticized for claiming that something can come from nothing, but he only made this work by redefining “nothing” to mean the quantum vacuum, which is not nothing. You can see his debate with WL Craig here.

So, we are not only working from Thomist arguments, but others as well.

1. I’m not entirely clear on what your second point is. The Resurrection is an important way to get from the deistic god to the Christian God. There are fewer similarities to other religions than are generally supposed-- one must take historical context into account, but so what if there are some similarities? All that proves is that Christianity is not wholly unlike the rest of humanity, which is hardly shocking.

Bart Ehrman is a former fundamentalist Protestant who was so traumatized when he found that the Bible might contain some scribal errors that he became a skeptic.

1. I’m not sure exactly what you are referring to, since you could be referring to many things here. The Bible is an inspired book, but God allowed for the free participation of human authors. It is an Islamic belief that God essentially dictated word for word to Muhammad in the Koran, but this is not how Christians (except fundamentalists) see the Bible. We allow that God inspired human authors and co-operated with them.

Second, if you refer to the difficulties some people have understanding the OT, then I would point out that the OT must be understood in light on the New. Also see Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster?.

1. Agreed, actually, it is good you understand this since many non-Christians do not. The main point of Christianity is not to give us rules of conduct as if we did not know them before (though as Arthur Books has shown, Christianity does have a positive effect on people’s conduct), the main point is to give us redemption from our sins. Jesus came to bring redemption, not rules.

As to other cultures knowing moral rules before, this is not surprising. Christians have always held that God’s moral law is written on the hearts of all men. (Though I would still say that Christianity did bring some advances)

1. I agree with some of your assessment on the state of the world and think you have given an excellent argument for why we need Christianity. (Actually, you seem to be arguing along similar lines as Brad Gregory in his big book). Obviously, if man is made in the image of a God who suffered and died for him, then we have a strong basis for human dignity. For this reason, the Church has for so long been one of the most important charitable institutions in the world, and even atheists recognize the positive impact of Christianity on the third world challenges you mention. Here is a famous article by Matthew Parris, “As an Atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God.”

Don’t you have to agree, however, that in its totality, the christian beliefs are bizarre? To slightly restate, don’t you concede, at least, in the abstract, that it defies your sense of what’s rational to accept a proposition that the cosmos was engineered by a Being with a definite plan for salvation because of some human “screw up” and this required the universe’s designer to assume human form, suffer and, then die–but, rise again. Don’t you allow that virgins giving birth to man/gods and wine really, underneath the molecular and atomic substances, really being blood of a specfic human from the first century only because of some arcane phrases, or any of dozens of doctrines of the faith—isn’t all of that a little bit of a reach? Kraus can’t possibly be more of a reach, can he?

Bart was traumatized by picking up the bible one day and seeing that it contradicts itself? I suppose–who knows. But, he makes sense when I read him regardless of what psychic damage he might have sustained.

Even if I throw up my hands and surrender to the concept that “I simply don’t know–but, alas, anything is possible”, why should one accept christianity’s contrived amalgam of non sequitur’s over any other? And, there are lots in this world, aren’t there? Should I accept this set of belief’s on something like Pascal’ wager? Afterall I was raised RC and hence my open defiance of these teachings likely doom me to roast in Hades, if your theology is right. I am actually proud to say that I would derive so much satisfaction with having maintained my intellectual honesty that I would actually accept the consequence, and, indeed, I would expect a just diety to acknowledge that I lived my life with the courage of my convictions.

 

[danserr]

Don’t you have to agree, however, that in its totality, the christian beliefs are bizarre? To slightly restate, don’t you concede, at least, in the abstract, that it defies your sense of what’s rational to accept a proposition that the cosmos was engineered by a Being with a definite plan for salvation because of some human “screw up” and this required the universe’s designer to assume human form, suffer and, then die–but, rise again. … Kraus can’t possibly be more of a reach, can he?

Since you phrase it that way, I can’t resist sharing a quotation from G.K. Chesterton who once commented:

"A thing may be too sad to be believed or too wicked to be believed or too good to be believed; but it cannot be too absurd to be believed in this planet of frogs and elephants, of crocodiles and cuttle-fish.” – G.K. Chesterton

And why does a thing being strange or surprising mean that it is irrational? I was once talking to a friend who is a physicist about how weird and unbelievable I found multi-verse theory. She told me that it might be problematic for other reasons, but I shouldn’t not believe it because it sounds weird since a lot of accepted stuff in physics can sound weird at first.

So maybe Christianity can sound strange to someone at first, I have no problem admitting that, but I think the more we understand and consider the evidence, the more we decide that it is perfectly rational to believe in it.

I would say then that Christianity does not at all strike me as irrational. Looking over some of the points that you list, I don’t see any reason to change my mind on this either.

1. The creation of the universe and man by God- I don’t see that this is at all irrational to believe. I mentioned in my post (#5), that there is good evidence for this including scientific evidence for the beginning of the universe and its fine-tuning for life (Lee Strobel is a useful pop. level book on it- see esp chaps 5 and 6). I think when we consider the evidence, it is perfectly reasonable to believe in a creator of the universe who made man.
2. The fall of man- Is is really surprising that man should fall through sin? Again, I don’t see that this is an irrational belief. Given free will, there is nothing irrational about believing that man chose to abuse that free will.
3. The redemption- Given that God created man and that man fell, is it surprising or strange to think that God would want to redeem man? It may be incredible in the sense of being awe-inspiring, but I can’t see that it is irrational. A good and loving God would surely want to redeem man after he fell and bring man back to the good of knowing and loving God.

If God were to reveal Himself to man, then, is it really surprising that He would choose to reveal Himself at least in part as a fellow man? Again, maybe it’s incredible in the sense of being awe-inspiring (as I think it is), but it is hardly irrational. Actually, Dorothy Sayers once responded to a critic who claimed that if horses could imagine God, they would imagine God as a horse, by saying, “duh.” Obviously, if God would reveal Himself to horses, He would reveal himself as a perfect horse. Is it irrational to think that if God wanted to reveal Himself to man, He would do it as a sinless man? I don’t see that it is.

4- The redemption II- Think about it this way. A boy is playing in the yard with his children’s bike and he rides it through his mother’s garden, tearing it up in disobedience to her rule not to. Why is this a problem? Well, the mother is sad because the boy doesn’t love her as he should, and he doesn’t love the garden as he should.

What to do? Well, the boy is not sorry and goes off unrepentant. But suppose his older brother came to him and helped convince him to be sorry. He explains how much he has hurt is mother and how much his mother loves him. And his older brother convinces him to be sorry. Even better, since the boy is unable to replant the garden by himself, his older brother offers to drive him to home depot. His brother does this, helps him buy replacement flowers (since he can’t pay them back on his own) and helps him replant the garden. This helps to reconcile the boy with the mother and repair their relationship. It is not that the mother would not have forgiven the boy. Rather he was not properly disposed to be forgiven without the help of his older brother.

This is a little like how God redeemed us by becoming man. Jesus, by his love and obedience helped to give us a model to follow to help repair our relationship with God, which we can do if we accept Jesus’ redeeming work on our behalf.

Again, this is certainly amazing, but not irrational.

1. The Resurrection- Again, this seems perfectly rational to believe when one considers the evidence for it. I have posted other threads on this, but I think that the evidence for the Resurrection is so good that it is far more probable than not.
2. Virgin birth, Eucharist etc.- Are these unusual, well yes. But think of it this way. I have already pointed out that there is excellent reason to think that God created the universe and rose from the dead. Once you accept a God who can do this, something like the virgin birth or being present in the communion host is child’s play.

As to Kraus, the problem is that he claims he will solve a couple serious problems. He says he will explain:

1. How the universe came to be
2. Why there is something rather than nothing.
   But he only makes this work by changing the definition of nothing to mean “something.” Well, that hardly solves the problem. So, because his ideas do not even solve the problem, but Christianity does and is supported by good evidence, I would have to say that Christianity is far more plausible.

Even if I throw up my hands and surrender to the concept that “I simply don’t know–but, alas, anything is possible”, why should one accept christianity’s contrived amalgam of non sequitur’s over any other? And, there are lots in this world, aren’t there? Should I accept this set of belief’s on something like Pascal’ wager? Afterall I was raised RC and hence my open defiance of these teachings likely doom me to roast in Hades, if your theology is right…

I am not asking you to surrender to nothing. I am asking you to accept that good evidence shows that Christianity is indeed both rational and probable on the evidence. It doesn’t sound as if you were familiar with this previously, so maybe now it would be worth exploring. You could accept it on Pascal’s wager, that would be rational. But, you don’t have to because I think there is good evidence and you can accept Christianity on the basis of that. Why not other religions? Again, because the evidence for Christianity (including the Resurrection) is better than any evidence for other religions.

I am actually proud to say that I would derive so much satisfaction with having maintained my intellectual honesty that I would actually accept the consequence, and, indeed, I would expect a just diety to acknowledge that I lived my life with the courage of my convictions

Well, intellectual sincerity is not enough. Just as an example, I am sure that Hitler sincerely believed that everything he did was right. I hardly expect God to reward him for the courage of his convictions. C.S. Lewis actually deals with this question in an interesting way in chapter 5 of his The Great Divorce. The fact is that people can be held responsible even for things they sincerely believe. And anyway, how can you be sure that you really have fairly considered the case? You have read Kraus and Ehrman, but have you balanced this out by reading, NT Wright, Mike Licona, Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig etc.?

 

[lynnvinc]

1. I fully appreciate the Thomistic arguments for the existence of a “god” so heavily relied upon by Christians. At the end of all of the discourse, however, it seems to me that you have presented a plausable argument for why there must be a starting point. That starting point, of course, Thomas calls god.

I don’t think this elegant set of arguments, however, by any means closes the book on the issue because, there may, in fact, not be any “starting point”. See for example Lawrence Krauss’ work and others similarly inclined who have postulated theories which exclude the traditional cause/effect premise upon which Thomistic proofs are based.

Not sure what the Thomistic arguments are, but my personal belief is mainly founded on the prophets and apostles account of things. If a man does so many miracles, including bringing people back to life and resurrecting, and his words melt my heart, then I believe what that man says, or rather the reports of the Apostles who knew that man and witnessed his miracles and words – esp since they were just a bunch of peasants, not elites with an agenda.

Likewise, I believe working/publishing climate scientists when they say there is a link between our GHG emissions and climate change, over what Exxon/Koch/Scaife-funded institutes and hacks have to say, or what some weathermen (like Anthony Watts) might have to say.

1. Even if one allows for the presuasive power of Thomas’ arguments, how does one thme migrate to a biblical god which metes out punishment, ordains a code of conduct and otherwise behaves in the manner of the biblical god, demanding sacrafice and being placated by prayer and worship? Particularly when the N.T. is added to the mix? There are, afterall, many similar paridigmns throughout history. Pagan beliefs and the mystery cults, for example, were at least similar to the Christian description of the man/god and the concept of a redemptive death. (see for example, works of Kenneth Harl and Bart Ehrman)

1. A diety which inspires literature fraught with the ambiguity and mixed messages as the bible? The notion seems contrived to me, and, the premise upon which it is held in such high esteem (i.e. that God himself ordained it) seems more than bizarre to me.

No one really has a handle on God. The God of Jesus (all-loving & merciful) is probably more correct than the angry God of the OT, since Jesus is just far beyond the prophets even, and I trust him more.

However, St. John of the Cross (16 c Spanish saint & mystic, well educated at the U. of Salamanca) said (and I badly paraphrase), “If you have some conception of God, you’re wrong.”

I guess it sort of like the finite trying to understand the infinite, or some cell in our body trying to understand us.

1. I most certainly agree, however, that it is good and condusive to civility to “turn the other cheek”, to respect one another, to do good works, to be kind and to honor and respect one’s vows and promises to one another, but, these teachings predate christianity by a thousand years and more. They are found in the Tao and among earlier cultures, and formulated by men–not gods.

Which does not mean the ideas of Jesus are invalid. Heck, there are even animals apparently that show some primitive level of morality. Even natural selection, biological and cultural – which works on populations/societies, not individuals for social aninmals & humans – might be able to explain some of our morality, without which the species would be doomed. Doesn’t disprove God in the least, but only shows how truly awesome God is, way way beyond our comprehension.

1. I also agree that a good deal of western society today is mired in an out of control and corrupt consumerism, a materialistic mode of existence that ultimately will doom our civilization if conditions continue to manifest. But, the antedote is not to turn more toward religion. Religion itself is to large extent a commercial enterprise, selling relics, bartering for ndulgences, televised solicitation, rife with its own corruption and decadence, always resorting to fanciful and magical thinking, constantly turning attention from substantive issues for self preservation, myoptic focus on abortion while ignorant of far larger problems created by having 7 billion of us on this planet. There is grinding poverty in parts of the world and in our own cities. Our climate is even in peril and we are all a step away from destruction. Yet, while we fought a needless war in Iraq, crime enguled our city streets and dysfunction and drug use spread like a virus. Instead of fashioning morality on ritualistic practices and religion, we need values which enhance the wellness of humanity. We need more education, attention to the well being of all of us, conservation of our resources. Better use of our resources. It is time we gave attention to real solutions and based decisions along rational lines and not on an antiquated set of mystical beliefs.

I’m sure God is exceedingly displeased by profligate abusers of people and the rest of His creation. The Catholic Church, for one, has been striving to advise people to cease and desist from that behavior, but to little avail (tho I think it does make some difference, than merely remaining silent on these issues).

Which brings up Hell.

So, okay, suppose we have an afterlife of eternal bliss with God called Heaven (tho it probably is not a place, as we think of physical places), so again, we really don’t know much about it, except what Jesus and the prophets and mystics have told us, and even then we’re not completely sure. It’s a matter of faith, not scientifically proven facts, like anthropogenic global warming and ocean acidification, etc.

Now if Heaven is as good as they say it is, then admitting unrepentant bad, rotten, and evil people and criminals who have made it really rough for us on earth into Heaven would spoil it for those in Heaven. Heaven would then be just like our hellish earthly experiences. At least Catholics have this idea of purgatory, where the imperfect can be perfected, keeping Heaven that really great “place” that we would all want to be.

Just my 2 bits.

 

[empther]

Don’t you have to agree, however, that in its totality, the christian beliefs are bizarre?

Nothing could be more bizarre than to find out the universe came into existence by itself without a God.

In fact, it’s impossible.

 

[fhansen]

1. I fully appreciate the Thomistic arguments for the existence of a “god” so heavily relied upon by Christians. At the end of all of the discourse, however, it seems to me that you have presented a plausable argument for why there must be a starting point. That starting point, of course, Thomas calls god.

I don’t think this elegant set of arguments, however, by any means closes the book on the issue because, there may, in fact, not be any “starting point”. See for example Lawrence Krauss’ work and others similarly inclined who have postulated theories which exclude the traditional cause/effect premise upon which Thomistic proofs are based.

1. Even if one allows for the presuasive power of Thomas’ arguments, how does one thme migrate to a biblical god which metes out punishment, ordains a code of conduct and otherwise behaves in the manner of the biblical god, demanding sacrafice and being placated by prayer and worship? Particularly when the N.T. is added to the mix? There are, afterall, many similar paridigmns throughout history. Pagan beliefs and the mystery cults, for example, were at least similar to the Christian description of the man/god and the concept of a redemptive death. (see for example, works of Kenneth Harl and Bart Ehrman)
2. A diety which inspires literature fraught with the ambiguity and mixed messages as the bible? The notion seems contrived to me, and, the premise upon which it is held in such high esteem (i.e. that God himself ordained it) seems more than bizarre to me.
3. I most certainly agree, however, that it is good and condusive to civility to “turn the other cheek”, to respect one another, to do good works, to be kind and to honor and respect one’s vows and promises to one another, but, these teachings predate christianity by a thousand years and more. They are found in the Tao and among earlier cultures, and formulated by men–not gods.
4. I also agree that a good deal of western society today is mired in an out of control and corrupt consumerism, a materialistic mode of existence that ultimately will doom our civilization if conditions continue to manifest. But, the antedote is not to turn more toward religion. Religion itself is to large extent a commercial enterprise, selling relics, bartering for ndulgences, televised solicitation, rife with its own corruption and decadence, always resorting to fanciful and magical thinking, constantly turning attention from substantive issues for self preservation, myoptic focus on abortion while ignorant of far larger problems created by having 7 billion of us on this planet. There is grinding poverty in parts of the world and in our own cities. Our climate is even in peril and we are all a step away from destruction. Yet, while we fought a needless war in Iraq, crime enguled our city streets and dysfunction and drug use spread like a virus. Instead of fashioning morality on ritualistic practices and religion, we need values which enhance the wellness of humanity. We need more education, attention to the well being of all of us, conservation of our resources. Better use of our resources. It is time we gave attention to real solutions and based decisions along rational lines and not on an antiquated set of mystical beliefs.

Whatever else the Christian religion may be, it offers hope to an otherwise pretty hopeless world. We can come up with all kinds of social programs-which Catholicism itself has always done anyway as part of her idealism or belief system; we can feed the poor, clothe the naked, heal the sick but every poor, naked, or sick person will someday die-so where is anything approaching a definitive answer for the sense of futility that death carries with it-besides simple denial?

If we’re willing to pare the Christian religion down to it’s essential parts, we find that it’s a voice calling out in this wilderness that Love, as a personal being, exists-and is pre-existent to any of us-that it’s somehow foundational to and of the highest value in this universe-nothing else counts in comparison-and that eternal life is the fate of those who love as well. I couldn’t argue with that once I found it to be true.

 

[Touchstone]

You’re correct, there is no necessary proof that prior to the big bang there was only God… and unfortunately for science and due to the limited constraints of our universe, we will NEVER be able to see into the area outside our universe so we will never know for sure. That is the point of saying I believe in God… if we had emperical proof we wouldn’t say we believe there is a God, we would say that we KNOW there is a God (just as I don’t say I believe I have a sister, I say I have a sister because I know, I talked to her on the phone the other day!)

Empirical evidence is the basis for knowledge, but it is not a binary switch between naked conjecture and certain knowlege. Evidence supports more confidence in our beliefs, or more precisely, models that make more of the available evidence in terms of explanation, precise and novel predictions, while being falsifiable and economical generate the most “yield” from our increasing body of evidence to judge. “Proof” is a problematic term for empiricists – that’s more a math concept, something organic to tautologies and analytic propositions.

If we discover evidence for the existence of large bodies of water on Mars, say, which exist due to thermal energy from the planet’s core in liquid form, we would not prove (by any stretch) that life forms on Mars exist or existed. But such evidence would bolster our confidence that it does, or did.

This is a disciplined epistemic process though. “Believing” to some greater degree in the plausibility or likelihood of life on Mars is NOT like what you are using “believe” to point at in your paragraph above. Your usage appears to be a simple appeal to intuition.

So some theologians GUESS that before the universe there is a God. They do this on the basis of their experience of the universe and the apparent rules that govern it. They may also do it from a collection of personal experiences, such as the observation of miracles, etc.

Likewise some scientists GUESS that before the universe there were other universes, or that there are actually many universes right now! They do this on the basis of… well… presenting alternative theories to religion, apparently… and they can only do this because the constraints of the universe mean that no emperical data from ANYWHERE outside the universe can be gathered… so all the theories of multi-verses are based on simple conjecture. In other words, to be an atheistic cosmologist requires more guesswork and less reliance on the physical evidence than faith in God does.

This is a long form of equivocation on “guess”. Both the theologian and the scientist work from uncertain knowledge and offer conjecture, true, but the scientist is applying working models for this world outward. Extrapolating what is known here, outward. It may not obtain, and be mistaken. And, crucially, it’s fundamentally unfalsifiable, which means such conjectures really can’t ever amount to much, or really be more than theology, which is a pretty damning problem. But even so, there is a rationale and discipline in the scientific ideas. These are the implications of the maths that work in this universe.

Theological “guessing” isn’t so bound by any discipline or method. It’s just completely unaccountable to anything but our intuitions/superstition. Those superstitions, where they exist, may obtain, and be correct, but they are correct, if so, by superstitious means, not a disciplined method.

Somewhere along the line, someone got in their head that the scientific method demands 100% proof that is emperical such that it cannot be refuted in any way before someone can believe something… and that is patently false. There are HUNDREDS of things which we cannot and will never be able to prove 100%, but we BELIEVE them because there is enough compelling evidence that we CAN choose to believe something, even that which is not emperically possible to prove (the existance of consciences other than our own, for example, or even the existance of the noumenon world)

Science never establishes ANYTHING 100%. It’s not a feature of the epistemology (and, again, “prove” is a kind of signal that one is out in left field when speaking on the subject of science). Science builds models, and thus knowledge (from performative models) from available evidence. Scientifically speaking, no evidence, no models, and thus no knowledge. But like I said concerning water on Mars, if we were to discover vast reservoirs of liquid water on Mars, we would not have established the existence of life on Mars, nor would we have falsified the idea; we would just understand that the presence of liquid water gives us a basis for supposing that the life-on-Mars hypothesis is more plausible than we previously had judged it.

This is not at all like the thinking about “God beyond the universe”. That kind of thinking is not corrigible by evidence – consider: what would the evidence need to be to be “compelling” toward the conclusion that there is no God or gods or supernatural beings?

I understand that you’d like to suggest that as long as some question is uncertain in its answer, that any and all conjectures, no matter how wild or superstitious, are just as cogent as any other, but I don’t see any basis for “flattening all hypotheses” that way. Anyone can believe what they like, but if you are next to another player at the BlackJack table, and you both have 18, you might be right that the next card is a 3 and you should hit for a 21 to beat the dealer’s face card up (ostensibly a 20). That might be right. But it’s not a reasonable guess based on the available information. If you can understand why “Stay” on 18 is not the same as “Hit” on 18 in BlackJack, then you can understand why the theological conjecture does not match up with a scientific one, bearing in mind all the while that the scientific conjecture might be wrong, just as I might be wrong on that particular hand to “stay” on 18, while you “hit” on 18, and get 21 to win, and I lose to the Dealer’s 20.

-TS