Subject:
|
Re: Mercy? (Was Re: My Prayer on this National Day of Prayer)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 Sep 2001 18:02:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1509 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> What about all the OT miracles, then? Leaving the NT aside for the moment,
> the OT predicted many events that also took place in the OT.
That is, by definition, circular reasoning. I predict that I will attach
my name at the bottom of my post--that doesn't make it prophesy. My point
is that the Bible is *in no way* adequate confirmation of its own
supernatural claims, and there *is absolutely no* external confirmation
(that is, external to the vested interests of Christianity) of the miracles
reported in the Bible.
> And the resurrection - Jesus was confirmed dead, and His tomb was sealed and
> placed under guard. Pre-resurrection, the disciples would hardly have the
> courage or resources to overpower the guards, unseal the tomb, and steal the
> body. Post-resurrection, Jesus walked around in plain sight for 40 days.
> He ate, drank, and was touched by the disciples. It's hard to interpret
> this as anything other than what it was.
"What it was," as far as I'm concerned, is religious propaganda and the
mythic embellishment of the life of an individual. Again, there is no
confirmation whatsoever for any of Christ's miracles outside of the NT, and
testimony from within the NT is impeached.
> > The ontological argument can be summed up as "A perfect being that does
> > not exist is less perfect than a perfect being that *does* exist; therefore
> > God, the Perfect Being, must by His very nature exist."
>
> That's not what I said. That's a thought model, not a scientific model.
> This was my argument:
> > > I'm saying that, if you accept that fundamentally simple particles cannot
> > > have always existed and cannot spontaneously generate, then something had to
> > > have created them; and if that creator could not have always existed or
> > > spontaneously generated, it had to have been created too. Confined to the
> > > universe, this reduces to the chicken-and-the-egg problem. But the Bible
> > > describes a God who has always existed and is outside the universal bounds
> > > of space and time. A Creator of this nature is supported by the finite
> > > universe model.
> If the universe had an ultimate Creator, it must necessarily lead to one who
> was not created Himself and who is not confined by space and time like we are.
The reason that it is the ontological argument is that you are assuming
that, since fundamentally simple particles cannot spontaneously generate and
cannot always have existed, therefore some supreme Creator must by its very
nature either have spontaneously generated or must always have existed. You
are hypothesizing an infinitely complex being in order to explain a
fundamentally simple particle. If it is absurd to assume that a
fundamentally simple particle can self-generate or can always have existed,
it is infinitely more absurd to assume that an infinitely complex being can
self-generate or can always have existed.
> > Here's one discussion (and there are zillions) on the net:
> >
> > http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/ontology.htm
>
> This argument seems to be a logical leap - man attempting to "think" God
> into existence by fiat. I agree, it is not an argument I would want to
> build my faith on.
But millions have and continue to do so. Even your argument above is a
21st century retooling of the ontological argument.
> The God model is one explanation.
> The expansion/collapse model is a thought model and thus speculation.
Yes, but as in all science, it is a thought model based on and consistent
with observation and is subject to modification as more data become
available. Religious dogma (ie: Creationism) is not consistent with
observation and is not subject to modification.
> > But even that is irrelevant after-the-fact, even if it were 1:10^10000000.
> > We're here, so we're possible.
>
> Yes. But this ignores what the universe had to go through to get to this
> point. Suppose chance got us here. It had to go through so many flips and
> leaps along the way that it could be considered a miracle in and of itself.
Well, no, unless miracles are a great deal more mundane than is usually
reported. The universe as-is has resulted from initial governing
conditions. If the conditions had been different, the universe would be
different. If the conditions allow life to arise, life may arise. If the
conditions do not allow life to arise, life does not. There's nothing
miraculous about small odds; a miracle, to be of any miraculous value, must
by definition be nearly an impossibility. Or, as Hume eloquently put it:
"no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the
testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more
miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."
Show me a square circle, or show me two people who are simultaneously taller
than one another, or show me God lifting the proverbial
Rock-That-He-Can't-Lift, and then I'll consider the possibility of miracle.
> If you accept the Bible as authoritative, then all the miracles it descibes
> happened. Just because they happened doesn't deny that they were miraculous.
That's a colossal "if," though; I suppose you are by that statement
admitting (as you have done previously, I grant you) that one's acceptance
of the Bible is based on faith. Those who see the Bible instead as a
fictionalized work of propaganda do not accept its authority in reporting
miracles.
> > Your quote by Gould is especially interesting, since he is directly
> > opposed to the model of life's origin that you suggest.
>
> I was not agreeing with Gould's model by posting that quote. I was
> indicating that Gould conceded a point that backs up my argument,
> specifically, that generation of Homo sapiens from an a priori universe is
> extremely improbable.
>
> > Further, his quote may be paraphrased in this way:
> > If we traced backwards the evolutionary history of homo sapiens and then
> > replayed it, the likelihood of the exactly same environmental conditions
> > occurring a second time is remote.
>
> > Another organism would certainly have evolved in response to those
> > environmental conditions, but it wouldn't have been homo sapiens.
>
> The first sentence is a paraphrase. The second sentence is conjecture.
I was being imprecise and was assuming that time would only have been
'rewound' to some point prior to homo sapiens, but not prior to all life.
If any organism existed, it is likely that such an organism would have
evolved to adapt to the environment, but the likelihood of the same series
of minute genetic mutations leading to an organism identical to modern homo
sapiens is vanishingly small.
> There is no guarantee that *any* life could have arisen, as you yourself
> say: "I reject the notion that in the universal lottery 'somebody will win,'
> if by 'win' you mean that somebody will come into existence."
Again, though--I was taking as given the idea that something (in the Gould
model) had already come into existence. If, however, we rewound time back
to a point prior to life on Earth, then indeed there is no guarantee that
life would arise at all, and subsequently no guarantee that something would
evolve into homo sapiens' shoes.
Dave!
^ look! My prophesy came true!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
98 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
