Comments by LeeC
401. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #29474 by LeeC on April 3, 2007 at 3:47 am
RE: 886. Comment #29436 by Mark Taunton
Hi Mark,
For information, last night I opened my bible again and started to read Daniel... the introduction in my version I found rather interesting, I will type it out in full if you would like me to, however the bit I found interesting was this:-
… it was not until Porphyry's day (ca. AD 260) that doubt was cast upon the traditional view. Many critical scholars object to a sixth century date, claiming that the book must have been written after the events described took place, not before, since the predictions were so specifically fulfilled by the time of the Maccabean struggle for independence (165 BC).
(Study Bible: Revised Standard Version. Cambridge)
And these words remember are not from an atheist website, but from a published version of the bible as an introduction to the Book of Daniel – interesting I am sure you would admit.
As for the book of Daniel itself, I have to admit I am finding it hard going, but will still give it a go, not sure what all these "rich meals" and name changes are all about…. It seems to say that a diet of vegetables can get you "fatter in flesh" than the rich foods. No more cabbage for me then… I am on a rich diet of curry from here on in? But, I guess these are political statements rather than religious (or dietary) ones.
Which leads me back to my earlier point…
The problem, as I said before, is that the reader needs to know the context and history of the writing to make sense of it. Reading any article or passage out of context can be misleading– (which I guess is one of your points that I should read the whole book).
However the couple of web links, which I have re-posted, try and put each passage in context… in a historical sense, and this is when Daniel (to them at least) falls apart.
Thanks though for answering one of my questions, but I did state "clear and precise" prophecies, so I think you missed my point…
So quoting myself from 883.
My problem with these, and all the "true" prophecies (that is, ones that really try to predict the future – not that their predictions are true.) is that they are too vague…
… (edited) …
The very fact these "clear and precise" prophecies have been debated in such depth though proves to me that they are anything but clear.
And this is my problem…if god wrote the bible, why are the prophecies not clearer, and not open to ANY debate.
God could have chosen any prophecy and one that was not a self-fulfilling one on the part of the religious followers.
I also gave an example of what I thought would be a good prophecy god could have used….
Have to go… I need to read the earlier posts which I missed since I jumped to the end.
See ya
Lee
402. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #29208 by LeeC on April 2, 2007 at 5:03 am
RE: 882. Comment #29048 by Mark Taunton
Hi Mark,
You may find it hard to believe (maybe not) that I actually have my copy of the bible on my bedside table at the moment, and I do try and read it at night.
Unfortunately I have too many other books on the go, and so at the moment it is under 4 other books (QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter by Richard Feynman; The Wars Of the Roses - The Soldiers' Experience; Peter Kay Autobiography - The sound of Laugher and just given to me today Douglas Adams - Salmon of doubt.)
Also I find myself on this web site most days so I have a lot of Internet reading to do.
The fact is though; I am trying to read around the subject, I never trust one source, even if it is the bible… (As proof of my thinking, I can find 5 books on my shelf all called "The Wars of the Roses" by different authors… everybody has a different view on the subject – so I have to read them all - it is the same on the bible)
The problem with the book of Daniel has been discussed at some depth already on this thread…. Most seem to be between yourself, Shaun and "BillySands".
A pointer for anyone joining the debate late…
Comment entries: 253. 335. 345. 356. 398. 505. 525. 579. 607….
I do not recall though anyone accepting a conclusion, which is summed up on the atheist camp by the following comment
610. Comment #16553 by briancoughlanworldcitizen
Gee ... are you guys still at this.
(I edited this comment, to remove the "worthless" content.)
I did discover another useful website though, going back over these threads, but I trust you have already read it: -
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/daniel.html
As a "neutral", from reading your discussions with BillySands and others, the evidence for the book of Daniel being written around 160 BC and NOT the sixth century BC the book claims, seems to support a strong case.
However, the reader needs to know the history of the period well, which I do not. So I need to "trust" the historian (or the bible?). This is a problem – who to trust and why?
To quote from the web site I just posted above with regards to dating the book of Daniel.
"To summarize, he made errors regarding events in the distant past (6th century BCE), was remarkably accurate in describing details of the events leading to the desecration of temple in 167BCE and then made errors about events after that. Thus it is obvious that Daniel must have been written at a time after the temple desecration but before the death of Antiochus IV. In short between 167 and 164BCE"
Back however to your post.
I believe there is really a binary choice to be made. Either Daniel is a forgery, written in 165 BC, in which case the sceptic seems to win the case (except that he still can't explain why Daniel's prophecies of yet later times came true in such detail!).
Erm… what are these clear and precise prophecies?
If it is the state of Israel post WWII, then this too has already been discussed on this thread.
My problem with these, and all the "true" prophecies (that is, ones that really try to predict the future – not that their predictions are true.) is that they are too vague…
I have read your earlier posting on the subject (More comment entries? 696, 698 … it goes on. It is hard to search this web-site so I know I have missed many - sorry. If you can point me to some more, I will re-read old postings.)
The very fact these "clear and precise" prophecies have been debated in such depth though proves to me that they are anything but clear.
And this is my problem…if god wrote the bible, why are the prophecies not clearer, and not open to ANY debate.
God could have chosen any prophecy and one that was not a self-fulfilling one on the part of the religious followers.
How about if he predicted the structure of the atom, or the number of moons around a planet (not the Earth, this would be too easy – or maybe not… http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/second_moon_991029.html)
"So god said to Bob, soon your people will discover that the planet called Mars has two moons… but you will not be able to see them until your sons discover the way of optics… oh… first you have to discover the planet… then the moon Oops"
How about that?? Pretty clear? The writers of the bible could not see the moons, so it would be a good prediction. Of course, I could say it was just a lucky case, but if God followed up this pretty good and simple prediction with others, then I would believe… REALLY believe.
So the question remains…. Why are the prophecies written about the future (after the bible was really written, say After 400 AD?) vague at best, or plain wrong at worst?
Lots of reading to do… must go.
Thanks
Lee
403. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #28966 by LeeC on April 1, 2007 at 12:40 am
RE: 878. Comment #28774 by LeeC
880. Comment #28801 by Mark Taunton
Hi Mark,
Thanks for reading the link…
I can of course only read such links and judge them with my current knowledge. So a lot on the site seems reasonable to me.
The reason I posted the link was mainly to prove that there are other opinions out there, and that I am the type of person to read both sides. I try and question everything given to me, even if "deep down inside" I may actually believe it. Since just because I believe in something does not necessarily make it right.
If I cannot be given "100% proof" on a subject then I try and find which answer is "more likely" and more probably.
I am not saying that the web-site I posted is correct, but the site did raise an important question to me.
That is, (according to the web-site's evidence) the accuracy of the book of Daniel is not very good on the details that should be "known" as recent historical events to the writers… yet the book is very "precise" on the details of "future" events, closer to the proposed time the web-site states the book of Daniel was written.
The conclusion being that the book of Daniel was not written when the it suggests it was and so therefore the "prophecies" mentioned are in fact a report of history.
Still, I have much to read on the subject…
Thanks again.
Lee
404. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #28781 by LeeC on March 30, 2007 at 7:29 pm
RE: 876. Comment #28705 by Helian
AHA!! The British "incipient theocracy" is on the march. And you don't even have a firewall against it in your Constitution. Why, correct me if I'm wrong, but you still have an established church, don't you. When religion becomes the fashion again in Britain, as in the days of Cromwell, you'll be as sheep led to the slaughter. The "British Taliban" will just step into their accustomed and tradition-hallowed role in their very own established church. Then it will be a mere matter of finding another Queen Mary (and, perhaps, a King Philip) to "restore order" among the atheists.
I take it you are from America? You do not say… why is that?
I do not worry about Christian church's in England… the C of E are very good at keeping order. More happy for tea and biscuits than revolution… besides this all been tried before.
You blindly quote 3 names out of history. All have something in common, they failed to establish their beliefs onto the country.
Elizabeth followed Mary, no more Catholic church in power – ever!
Philip failed in his attacks against England. (The seas and god must have been on England's side that day?)
As for Cromwell, I like him, you know parliament actually offered him the position of King of England to try and reduce his control and power? Anyway, he died and the rest is history. The good old Church of England survives…
It is interesting though that indeed England does not have a constitution to keep church out of government (That I am aware, although I do not think we can have a Roman Catholic as prime minister?),
Even so, the church has little political power in the UK.
Yet in the US, there is a constitution to keep church and state separate… but the church's power there is over whelming and scares the rest of the world (at least it scares the hell out of me…)
Church and religion should not have power in government; America knew this when it's founding fathers created its constitution. Yet every religion seems to want to control; be it the minds, the souls or the government. After all, it is the government who tax the people and have the money. This is where the true power is.
Are the Christadelphian's different? Mark says they do not take any interest in the government of countries, only the kingdom of god… this then is good and I believe him.
Does a Christadelphian try and convert other people to their belief?
Is this another form of control – the mind?
Am I trying to convert people to atheistism? Can an atheist control the mind of another?
This is a different discussion... I wish I did not say anything now.
Anyway… I am not here to talk politics that much I am sure of. I believe your comment was merely shouted at this site without much thought of who you were talking to.
I suppose your reply (if any) will prove this one way or another.
Please join in the discussion, it has changed a little over the course of time, but I believe it is still discussing the existence of god, the evidence for and against him, and is the bible the true word of god.
The religious view is mainly that of the Christadelphian, since this is how the thread started.
(Am I right on this? - Maybe I am on the wrong web site? Correct me if I am wrong)
Not sure if we have room for the politics of nations or a History of England (although I personally like to add a little history when I can), and since this thread was started under the banner of Christadelphians, their position on politics has already been stated and therefore has little scope for further discussion.
Good day to you
Lee
405. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #28774 by LeeC on March 30, 2007 at 6:21 pm
RE: 874. Comment #28334 by Mark Taunton
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the posting…
I will need to do some reading on this matter, since as you know I am not that well read on the bible… more focused on science.
However, I will be open-minded and look for the evidence…
It is common for critics to reject that dating and place the book's writing some 400 years later, making Daniel a pure invention, not a historical figure.
This could be a HUGE issue with the book's prophecies if it was merely a "history" book.
But they do so without any substantial evidence to justify their claims
Erm… but do you have proof that the book was written when you think it was?
OK, I will now go off and start doing some reading.
I found a web site with a different view…
http://www.atheists.org/christianity/daniel.html
it states that the book of Daniel is merely a history book, so it seems I have much to read.
See ya
Lee
406. Creation Science 101
Comment #28111 by LeeC on March 28, 2007 at 3:52 am
Creation Science 101... very good.
But who is this guy? Never heard of him, but good luck to him though.
407. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #28109 by LeeC on March 28, 2007 at 3:22 am
RE: 872. Comment #27955 by Mark Taunton
Hi Mark,
I was getting worried that no one was out there...
With Theo and his exams it has gone all quiet, thought it was something I said.
Take your time; as long as this thread is open I just cannot stop coming back to it.
Look forward to your reply to Quetz.
Lee
408. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #27048 by LeeC on March 23, 2007 at 3:18 am
Hi Theo,
Aah… finals… I remember those…
Well take your time with the reply… sorry it was so long.
No jobs where I am from in Physics either… I graduated with Physics and Astrophysics, hence for the purpose of this web site I called myself a physicist, but it is not my job. I did do a PGCE so I could teach science at High school, but the stupid thing was I was teaching more biology then Physics… go figure? Now that is the British education system for you???
So now I am in IT like most of the people I graduated with, including those who went on to complete PhD's…
Good luck again.
See ya
Lee
409. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #26854 by LeeC on March 22, 2007 at 2:33 am
Responding to 856. Comment #25863 by Theo
Hello again Theo,
As promised...
Sorry I have been so long in replying, but you have noticed I have started up a new discussion so I got busy with that.
I will be happy to continue this discussion, but I think we are coming to a natural close anyway
How could I provide proof for something that I clearly stated was outside the scope of science?
How about reasoning?
This is what religion is all about, right? Science provides the how, and religion provides the why?
I have never asked for proof (Oops – it looks like I did, but it was an off the cuff remark. Sorry about that…)
The whole point of my discussion with you is that I would not ask for proof, I was obviously tired when I wrote it that remark. Sorry.
I agreed that you could not have 100% proof for a god, the same way I could not prove 100% SG.
The point of my discussion was this: -
Which is more likely and probable.
You know where my money is…
However you never really answered this question. You statement has always been "God exists, therefore more likely"
However the question was meant for us to think about the situation if neither god nor life existed at a point in time (what ever that means), which would be more likely to come into existence by chance…?
Think as if it is a theoretical question, which it is.
"disbelieve" for a moment about your faith in god….
So, which is more likely to come into existence by chance and probability…
A complex God or simple life?
It has to be simple life every time… in this theoretical question… the details will have to follow.
But back to your point, if your strongest proof for god is creation, then I would say is that all?
You know that I am happy with science's theories of breaking down the steps of life into smaller and smaller pieces until it is "probably" by chance alone that life came into existence.
The reason I believe in science is that it has answered (or at least can put a theory on) almost all that I can see, hear, smell and touch.
Now I know not all these theories will be 100% correct (I bet I know more "incorrect" theories than most that are still taught in high school – light, atoms, Newton's laws etc etc.) but they can explain a hell of a lot – even if they are only "estimates" and I am confident given time science will learn more and answer more fully the unknowns.
The hope that you are not holding onto the "gaps" in science's knowledge.
History has shown this is not a good place to hold your hope…
Now answer me this: where did the singularity come from? And whatever produced the singularity, where did that come from? And so the question goes on to infinity. The concept of the singularity also raises more questions than answers, but is the concept of the singularity dismissed because of infinite regress as creation? Of course not! But infinite regress does give us an important answer concerning reality, and that answer is that something must have always existed.
Which singularity? For there are many…
As for raising more questions, well I would agree it shows we have more to understand, but I disagree that it gives more questions than answers… the questions were always there before science suggested the "big bang". (Is this what you meant when you spoke of a singularity and infinite regress?)
However the big bang theory answers many questions, and fits better to observations than the "Infinite Universe Theory" (or Steady state theory) suggested by Fred Hoyle. This theory stated that the universe was "always there" and never had a beginning… nobody in science believes this… the expanding universe observed by Hubble is one simple reason.
And to your last point…. Why must something always exist?
I rather believe that everything had a beginning…. Time will tell if I am right…
Shall I go onto singularities now?
There are many theories on these… you could call it a "gap" in our knowledge if you like, so I am glad you are consistent and always focus on the cutting edge of science.
I assume you are not just interested in simple blackholes?
That would be too easy right?
If you are interested, lookup the physics of white dwarves and neutron stars and you may began to understand blackholes and singularities.
To try and put it simply in my own words, when a star can no longer "burn" its nuclear fire, it in a way becomes a "dead" star. The nuclear fusion that was stopping the star collapsing under the weight of gravity disappears… so the star collapses…. (jumping a few steps in the life cycle of a star here about super giants and supernovas)… until another force is able to stop this further collapse of the star.
If the star is not too massive that the "electron degeneracy pressure" can stop the collapse (white dwarf)…
If it is too massive then this force is too weak, because the gravity is too strong, and the star continues to collapse… until the "degenerate neutron pressure" is able to stop the collapse (neutron star)…
however if the dead star is too massive, then the neutron pressure will not be strong enough to stop the gravitational collapse of the star. Unfortunately we have no known physics to stop the collapse and so a black hole is formed with a theoretical singularity at its centre. I say theoretical since we cannot see within.
We have "seen" these in our own galaxy…
There are also super blackholes at the centre of many galaxies, but I assume you are not interested in these either? Although they are another potential source of singularities which you speak of.
I guess the singularity of interest is the theoretical singularity that started off the whole universe…?
Well, we have moved on a bit from the "creation" of life and SG… this is more like cosmology. Not that I am complaining.
Well, there are many theories on this also… do you really want me to go on?
You know that as I do the theories become more "unproven" since it is at the cutting edge of science… the gaps you're so happy to find.
However before I go down this path… since a theist sometimes likes to highlight the gaps of science and use it as some form of "proof" for god… A brief history lesson in physics if I may…
In the 19th Century Physics had no idea how to explain the age of rocks found on earth or for the number of years required for evolution to create man…
The oldest age Physics could explain for the sun with the best science of the day was 20 million years….
That's it….
Physics told geologists that they were wrong on the age of the rocks, and told biologists that evolution only had 20 million years to play with… and that was not long enough for Darwin's theory.
However, pride comes before a fall, and Physics was wrong…
there were "unknown" physics to be discovered…. Nuclear physics… this gave the power to the sun… Physics could again re-explain the sun and this time with greater understanding, with Nuclear Physics they could date the rocks to be 4.5 billion years old.
Gone was a huge gap in science…
This history lesson is just one of the many chapters on the history of science. Always science learns more, it does not stand still. A gap today will just become a history story tomorrow.
So back to the big bang… (with a hint of inflation…?)
Did this come from a single singularity? Possibly… maybe it spawned from a singularity from one of the black holes I just described? So each black hole could form another universe outside our own… who knows? This could mean Universes could evolve?? Scary stuff…
Maybe no singularity, just imaginary time after a big crunch (ask Stephen Hawking – in the brief history of time – I never agreed with it myself…)
Maybe energy and matter just "appeared" from nothing… and started off the big bang – energy and matter coming into and out of existence happens all the time… negative energy is great… and the uncertainty principle actually allows for it.
I will not go into great detail here, unless you really want me too.
I have many of my university books on the subject and I could copy out of them some chapters if you like… I have to admit though, it has been a while since I have done the maths, and so it will be heavy going for me too.
Anyway. this reply is getting long enough as it is…
Can you describe to me exactly how I made up the rules? Note well that atheists cannot prove that S.G. took place (they have faith for that also)
Not you personally, but the theist in general.
You have stated that God is outside science… making it impossible for science to prove to you that he does not exist.
My rule is that everything can be explained by Physical laws and theories… just that we do not know them all yet.
However I still stand by the "fact" that the god you described is very, very unlikely.
As for faith… you call it faith, I do not.
I BELIEVE in SG and know that science will try like hell to prove it…
You have FAITH in god, and there you stop.
You do not think any further and in fact have closed your mind to observations that contradict your god theory. (The age of the earth is one area we have now started to discuss in another thread. The list however is much longer than that…)
Actually Lee the more science discovers, the more we theists appreciate the intelligence and power of the Creator. You keep forgetting Lee that theists are not anti science! God going into hiding? From where?
Not so… you ignore all the science that disagrees with your viewpoint. (Evolution and the age of the earth are just two that pop into my mind for some reason.)
You are anti-science when it proves the likelihood of a god is less and less likely.
God is going into hiding because there are less areas we need a god to explain the "unexplained".
If you are saying that clever people accept that there are things existing beyond observation while fools do not, then I agree with your analogy.
The story of the "Emperor's New Clothes" seemed to fit our discussion.
Would you like me to break it down for you….?
The king called his subjects fools, but they could see he was naked… it was the king who was the fool for what he believed in what was not there because he believed only in what he was told and did not think for himself. He chose to ignore the plain observation that he was naked…
You surely know the story… anyway, not important..
I am really glad that you could acknowledge that an atheists faith rests on a scientifically meaningless claim. Therefore the discussion now is which faith is more probable. .
Erm… I missed where I said this…
However, the WHOLE point of my discussion with you has ALWAYS been which "belief" is more probable.
I have ignored the word faith because I do not have faith in my theories… I believe in them and will go out to prove (or disprove) them at every opportunity.
Faith, as I have said, stops thinking since it has come to its conclusion that they are correct. No one with faith goes out to disprove their faith… how could they, it is faith.
I can only speak for myself, though I would consider it foolish for a theist to believe in a theory that has been proven wrong.
Glad to hear it…
erm, but you have since stated that the Earth is 6,000 years old… this has been proven to be very, very wrong. Let's come back to this in my new discussion.
If it is seen that the origin of life points to a Designer, how can someone possibly conclude that this is evidence for spontaneous generation?! . . . now I have a headache!
This is was your conclusion, not mine. "I see life… therefore creator"
The point is, I can look at the same evidence and make a similar claim.
"I see life on Earth as proof of SG…" but my point is though I do not see it as the only proof.
It does not point to a designer… the odds of a designer are far more unlikely then SG.
I say this point a lot… but I guess I am just not hitting home with it.
Here is an excerpt from the Blind Watchmaker:….
You are lucky I have lost my copy of this book…
I know I read it over 10 years ago but I do not remember Richard making any statement like the one you quoted without then going on to prove where the original statement had errors in the assumptions or proving how much smaller steps can answers the bigger problem. Richard would have solved this problem in the book with an explanation… you seem to have missed this out.
I believe therefore you are misquoting from the book… do I need to purchase another copy of the book to prove this or can someone else on this site help me out on this please?
Thanks
Yes, it is generally accepted in the scientific community that the first cell was prokaryotic.
You have found a gap in my knowledge…. I believe I am right, but I do not have the knowledge to back it up… I need to do more reading.
Right now I am occupied with the Blind Watchmaker; I will start the G.D. when I am through.
I would put the Blind Watchmaker down, and read GD for this web site…it is why the site was created I believe… but I can wait.
Now if such is the complex machinery of the first and simplest cell, it certainly points to a Creator! I just cannot find the foolishness within myself to dismiss such overwhelming evidence
On second thoughts… keep reading the Blind Watchmaker… I remember Richard explaining the simple steps from a very basic life form to today's life…
See ya
Lee
410. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #26849 by LeeC on March 22, 2007 at 2:01 am
Hi Theo,
I have not forgotton about our earlier discussion, I have dafted a long reply. I just wanted to proof read it before I post it.
However, I will just post it and then you can tell me where I went wrong.
As for the new discussion, I think it does have a lot to do about god... but more about the bible I guess and the Christadelphian point of view.
We have agreed though that disproving the bible does not disprove god... this is why I do not go out of my way to try and do so.
Good luck with the exams and may I ask what is the subject?
Lee
411. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #26514 by LeeC on March 20, 2007 at 3:43 am
Re: Comment #26473 by Quetzalcoatl
Hi Q,
I am glad you have joined the debate, please help me on my "gaps in knowledge" since theists loves those gaps…
Since LeeC is a physicist, he'll obviously be able to talk about these things with a great degree of expertise
Thanks for the compliment, I hope I can live up to that, on the physics I can talk with some confidence, however with some of the other Earth ageing techniques I may know just as much as you (or less).
And this I suppose is my point, there are so many different ageing techniques and not all are in the field of physics (I gave a link to radioactive dating which is a good physics method to dating rocks)
I would not claim to know all the possible Earth ageing techniques, I doubt any single atheist can or will, but the ones I know of all point to an Earth very much older than the bible – why is this?
(Oh and thanks for the new ageing method - I did not know that one.)
I hope Mark, Theo and Co (?) will help answer some of our questions because I do not know how to answer the age difference between science and the bible… it is a puzzle to me. Why all these pointers to an older Earth and Universe?
(Oh, and I will come back to Theo's story a little further down…)
Just to say though, I am not out to disprove the bible; I said before there is no point in doing this. I merely want to know as much about the truth as possible.
If the bible matches the "truth" then great… if not, well this is for others to answer.
Re: 863. Comment #26425 by Theo
Theo,
Thanks for joining in as well… hope you do not mind me starting another debate, I do not want to close our earlier one yet if you do not want to, so I will come back to it shortly.
At least I now know where we stand on the scientific debate… I have a lot of work to do I can see.
As for your little story/parable…
Seems to work fine for people leaving candles burning in houses… you just can not trust them… too many variables as your story pointed out. Worth a go though… I think it is good that Chris and Lucy like to use their brains, but it does not mean when you do you are always right.
However, it does not answer my question… why do we have so many pointers stating an older Earth, it is not just one burning candle we are talking about here…
Manuel replied, "…I never intended for you to conduct some silly experiment measuring wax dripping off of a candle to figure out when I left. I put the candle there so you guys would have some light"
Erm… since this is a parable as you put it (having only one meaning) and not just a story lets break this down a little.
"Manuel replied"…. Should be read as God replied…
"I never intended for you to conduct some silly experiment…" implies that God never intended for man to think about anything he has written down, do not question Manuel's word (sorry – god's word)
Interesting parable you have given me here Theo… what should I make of it? It does sound like a parable about the bible to me?
As for silly experiments… well, the one you describe is a little childish I agree, but it is a bit of fun, I may have even played the same game while I was waiting for Manuel.
But a game it would have been.
It is not a scientific experiment… please read the link I provided for radioactivity dating earlier… This is how a physicist dates rocks... please read it and come back to me where you think it is wrong.
Do not compare it to a candle experiment you just wrote about, unless you can point out as to where they are similar.
One is a controlled experiment in a closed environment (a rock is quite enclosed you know for an atom.) with a scientifically proven theory with radioactive half-life decay. (It is possible to actually do a experiment in a lab and prove this method - do your own counting and draw your own graphs – I did when I was at college - hey why not try it your self, this is a link to an experiment kids can do (OK big college kids) http://chemistry.binghamton.edu/ilc/labs/radiochem/sims/radioChem_lab3.html#safe_precaution
http://chemistry.binghamton.edu/ilc/labs/radiochem/sims/radioChem_result.html
Once you have done that, how about thinking about all the other dating methods I have mentioned, do you really think they are all wrong? Why?
And if so why did god leave all these pointers for us to find that give us a wrong age of the earth… this is not a candle in the room question here… not sure why god would leave in rocks isotopes that decay in a predictable manner and leave them underground for the scientist to find that "just so happen" to point to an age of 4.5 billion years… these rocks do not light up rooms like your candle did…
Thanks
Lee
412. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #26384 by LeeC on March 19, 2007 at 3:54 am
860. Comment #26340 by Mark Taunton
Mark,
Thank you for your honest reply, I will respond now, but I am also getting out of order with responses since I am still to reply to Theo on singularities.
You say you are a "scientifically minded" man but I may question your understanding of science.
Are you looking at the same evidence?
Where do you feel is science getting the ageing process wrong?
Sorry, 3 questions straight away without a response from me….
My understanding of radioactivity dating is pretty good as you may well expect (?) and this gives an age much closer to the 4.5 billion years I stated.
(For those who would like further information on the techniques, a quick search on the Internet has found me a good page: - http://www.fsteiger.com/radioact.html)
However, this is just one of many different ageing methods a scientist could use, one that a physicist like myself understands the most about.
For the sake of argument though (as you have put it) I will for the moment accept your age of the Earth (you mentioned heavens, can I take that to be the universe?)
OK… God created it all 6,000 years ago…
I take your point about Adam, if this one man was my foundation of ageing the Earth I could be wrong…
I would agree that I could be making a mistake by "guessing" his age just by looking at him (let alone if he was created or not – some people just look older or younger than others.)
However, now my question for you, Mark, is this…
Why did God leave around so many "puzzles and clues" pointing to a much older Earth and Universe?
For example?
Fossils, radioactive dating, continental drift, the Australian Aborigines ? (Just a few puzzles for the Earth's age – not all of them),
An expanding universe, a cooling universe now at 3K, distant galaxies, ageing stars, globular clusters, quasars so distant that the light has taken billions of years to reach us… shall I go on?
So to repeat, why so many pointers to an older Earth and universe…?
Are you saying that god created "life, the universe and everything" 6,000 years ago, but just made it look older (a LOT older) even with all the different ageing techniques God left for us to discover 2,000 years after the bible was written? (Bit odd that – none of these ageing techniques were known at the time of the bible – could the bible writers be wrong?)
Or -
Do you want to say that science is wrong on ALL these different pointers and ageing methods… every one? Not one of the techniques or methods is correct?
Is there a 3rd option?
Mark, you mention other interesting points in your response but I feel that I have gone on long enough for now. I may come back to some of these points later.
Cheers
Lee
413. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #26254 by LeeC on March 18, 2007 at 4:07 am
New question to all theists
How old is planet Earth, the Sun and the solar system?
I am stating up front the whole point of this reply I have written below.
It is a simple question to which the response could be
"I agree with modern science and their belief it is 4.5 billion years old"
or
"I believe in the bible and feel it is 10,000 years old"
(If that what the bible says?)
or another response - in years?
I am asking this question to all theists (assuming that an atheist will agree with modern science – unless they state otherwise)
This question came out of my discussions with Theo, to which my reply is below.
It is a simple question.
I am curious only because I hear that some theists in America believe the planet and life upon it are only 10,000 years old?
Also, since this thread has spawned from a Christadelphian pamphlet, what is their view?
Mark,
You have clearly spoken on the views of the Christadelphian with regards to the bible so maybe you could answer my question?
Many thanks
Lee
(Theo please read on... and anybody else who wishes)
851. Comment #25432 by LeeC
Responding to 856. Comment #25863 by Theo
Hi Theo,
Before I reply in full to your response (of which I am in the process of drafting at the moment) I do feel the need to focus on one of your comments. It may have been a throwaway question by myself, but its answer is very important.
I asked you rather simple question, which I admit was not part of the original debate so I have now separated the question in a new discussion.
This debate should be a simple one so your reply was an interesting one to me.
My simple question was "How old do you think the Earth is?", and to ensure I am being specific now, I am asking how old is the planet Earth, the Sun and the solar system.
You have already stated that God is outside the scope of science, do you also feel that the age of planet Earth is also outside science?
So to your answer given by you in "856. Comment #25863" was: -
There is no need to answer this question; it would only take away attention from the issue at hand. I will reveal that If however, rocks did form in a closed environment and if it was formed without daughter isotopes, then the earth must be about 4.5 billion years old!
I take the point of it will be moving the attention at hand, but since you raised the question on singularities (of which I will be replying more shortly) I thought you will allow me this simple question, at least now I have moved it in a separate debate here.
I am also not sure if you are just playing with me to see if I bite (which I know I have by writing this reply and starting a new debate), or are seriously saying you doubt the age of 4.5 billion years given by modern science?
If so, by how much to you doubt the age given and why?
Now to your actual answer… well, you have not actually given a personally answer to anything have you – you have crossed your fingers while you answered with your use of "if" – Basically stating "IF science is right, then it is the age is 4.5 billions years"
I could also happily make the statement "IF god exists, then god created planet Earth and man… IF god exits… the Earth is 10,000 years old IF science is wrong"
This statement in itself does not state whether I actually believe in god. It answers nothing – but with such an answer you would question if I actually believe in god.
So Theo, all I wanted was a simple clear response on your view on how old the Earth is.
Can you please answer me this?
It is a simple question to which the response could be
"I agree with modern science and their belief it is 4.5 billion years old"
or
"I believe in the bible and feel it is 10,000 years old"
(If that what the bible says?)
or another response - in years?
Many thanks
Lee
414. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #25999 by LeeC on March 16, 2007 at 2:45 am
Responding to 840. Comment #25032 by Mark Taunton
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the detailed response. I am glad you are able to highlight the good and bad of the bible. It is a credit to you.
Your brief summary of Bible morality is a poor caricature of what it actually says. You say you don't know the Bible well, and I have to agree with you! It
Sorry about that… I have apologised for the comment (846. Comment #25317)
My original comment, however poorly made, was/is that the bible, in particular the OT, has people and god(?) doing a lot of bad things which morally, in today's eyes, would seem evil, yet back when it was written it was of course "morally correct".
This to me proves that it was man who wrote the bible since, as we know and seen, our morals change and "evolve" over time.
If god has the power to see the future, why does his morals change? He should have learnt already (sorry known already), by seeing the future, what his morals should be when the bible was written. (This past, present and future writing is difficult for me – hope that made sense?)
For example, early in their history as a nation, Israel were instructed to destroy the peoples living in the land of Canaan, …
…They are not to do with racism, brutality, or "religious extremism". They are to do with false religion, particularly in regard to sex and its misuse.
I will not labour on this point yet, as you can imagine the idea to me of killing in the name of religion (the statement "false religion" implies this to me) is surely has to be seen today as a bad thing…
…But you are evidently unaware of the logic behind those cases…
I will read on and learn…
The Canaanites' religion and sexual excesses were strongly linked, as is clear from the Biblical accounts…
For the sake of argument at this point I will take your evidence as "true" since I do not have the means to check your sources at this time… however, I will also keep in mind the history of mankind – did not the Nazi's vilify the Jews for their own purpose? Of course I would not suggest you (or the bible) are doing this but it does sound all too familiar with our recent history.
But God said that the Canaanites must all be killed. Harsh and drastic though it appears to us (it would no doubt be classed as ethnic cleansing and genocide)
You are not wrong there… it is sounding more like Nazi's, but I will hold back on commenting yet… but I think you are highlighting the bad points of the OT that I mentioned earlier (but could not quote off hand)
…it was something God required to be done. It was intended not only to prevent Israel adopting their religious practices which used sex as a means of control and subordination; it would also rid the land of a huge pool of sexually transmitted disease
This would be seen as pure evil in modern eyes…it is the bible that is stating the Canaanites are evil – just as Hitler did with regards to the Jews and Hitler is not seen as a very nice man. If I put these bible quotes next to the history of Nazi Germany they both would seem pretty evil to me.
It does sound to my "untrained eye" that the bible is suggesting that these other religions (and practices) are bad (a bit of an understatement) and that the god of the bible is the one true god… and that the Canaanites with the wrong religion should be killed??
Sorry… you objected to this summary of the OT that I made "follow me, your one true god… kill the non-believer…"? How would you summarise in a sentence the paragraphs you have written?
To come back to another point you raised, "it would also rid the land of a huge pool of sexually transmitted disease"
Now isn't god seen by you as an all-powerful being? Why does he need man to do all the dirty work then? Could he just not cure them and remove this STD from the face of the planet… you never know, it may convince the Canaanites' that they are following the wrong god?
Or if god thinks they are so evil, why did he invent a disease that did not kill them out right (or did he have to wait 3,000 years for HIV and Aids to do that… took a bit of thinking did it?)
I take absolutely no practical precedent from it, for my own actions today. Nor is there justification for anyone else in thinking that they could equally plan to wipe out a whole people, or just one man, for their own self-determined reasons, in other circumstances
Glad to here it… so this proves that today we can not take our morals purely from the bible? You yourself have selected your previous quote as "evil" (I assume?) or have at least distanced yourself from it morally.
How are you able to select which bits of the bible are good and should be followed, and which bits are bad and should be ignored?
I find it hard to identify a time in history when the Bible's legal and moral stance would suit the political aims of any particular person or group over the nation of Israel, as you propose. In particular, the idea that the Bible was written as a means to allow some elite to keep the people in their place by threatening them with God's wrath, doesn't seem to match the detail of the text at all
I stated the bible was used to control people; I did not say it was a state or country.
The bible did at least control the people of Israel – your quotes shows that – the bible said "kill such and such they are evil" (sorry, I summarised your earlier quotes please tell me I have gone to far again), and off the believers of the bible go and kill. This sounds like control to me. Very scary type of control.
Surely you will agree to this… they attacked and killed whomever they were told by god to kill – and without questioning, as you said.
The bible also gives reason for other evils, belittling women for a start?
And what about the worse sin of all – the people tried to think and change religions… the bible I has strong words to say about that… or am I mistaken again?
Again I ask: who invented the law of Moses? Who invented the writings of the prophets? Who could gain control over others by means of these - according to the sceptic, invented and fraudulent - words?
I though Moses wrote them down? Not sure if he did it alone or by committee.
Whoever it was, I am sure the people who wrote these laws "believed" and had "faith" but this does not mean god exists or that He wrote them.
The prophets have already been discussed at great length on this thread by people who can quote the bible better than me. It would seem no one was converted either way.
They only seem to work for those who want to believe them. They are too vague for a sceptic… which begs a question. Why didn't god "predict" something that could not be debated… a very clear prediction in plain and easy to understand language. Not something vague as the ones discussed on this website.
Thanks
Lee
415. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #25546 by LeeC on March 14, 2007 at 4:11 am
Hi Mark,
Glad you took no offence... I was worried.
I have read your comments with interest, I am now in the middle of writing a reply to your comments (840. Comment #25032 )
But no more from me today...
See ya
Lee
416. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #25433 by LeeC on March 13, 2007 at 5:01 am
848. Comment #25325 by Quetzalcoatl on March 12, 2007 at 6:07 am
Hi Quetzalcoatl
Glad to hear another voice out there… I really did believe I was alone.
I am waiting for Bruce's reply before I write more… I cannot wait to read it…
Oh… and as for the age of the universe… it depends on how you try and measure it, each having a very wide margin of errors.
I remember being at university when "Hubble" (the telescope team not the man) stated that the age of the universe was something like 12-14 billion years old… my lecturer at the time just laughed and said "They are wrong… I know of globular clusters older than that!!"
You have to laugh….
Lee
417. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #25432 by LeeC on March 13, 2007 at 5:00 am
Responding to 849. Comment #25382 by Theo
Hello again Theo,
Always a pleasure chatting to you…
Actually Lee, the ability of a theory to be falsified is a central concept in the scientific method. In fact so much so that theories that cannot be falsified are not considered scientific! Professor James Lett in his article: A Field Guide to Critical Thinking published in The Skeptical Inquirer Magazine (Winter 1990) stated: .
I thought I agreed with you that the stated theory of SG being used in this debate was/is a poor theory.
The reason I stated it was your theory was because it was you who first suggested it on this web-site. I was happy to go along with the definition of the theory – for good or bad so we could have a debate.
If it makes you happy, lets change the theory a little….
"SG is impossible"
So if I can prove it possible by making some life in the lab, then I have proved it false and my theory is good.
Hooray…
Only problem now is that I have a theory that is hard to disprove… a theist is not normally happy with such theories…
I still believe that SG is more likely to happen than a god, and now I have a theory that can falsify – happy?
Lets not play too much with words – for one I am not very good at it. It is true that it is sometimes easier to falsify a theory than prove it true, so a scientist can always change the wording of the theory so limit the possibilities.
Can you describe to me exactly how S.G. can be tested and proven wrong?
Just flip the question as I did above…
However, even though creation is not a "scientific" theory so to speak, it can be falsified. If life is created in the lab from raw chemicals, then that would mean that life could have arisen without the need for a creator. This would destroy the primary evidence of a creator thus falsifying special creation.
Is this all it would take for millions to lose their faith or just you to lose yours (you said you were an atheist once)?
Are you sure a theist would not just change the rules again… really?
If I did have life in a test tube, it would only be very simple life… you could claim that God made it better or something and the debate goes on. Or more likely claim the experiment false and not believe what you see.
Lets face it; this last one is more likely. Science has proved the Earth and the moon to be 4.5 billion years old… really proved it, yet some theist still hold onto the belief that the world is a few thousand years old. (Sorry Theo – have to ask now - How old do you think the Earth is by the way – just want to check which side of the fence you are on?)
Another point though, your statement means that the only reason for believing in god is the life you see around you… well didn't I previously use this evidence as proof of SG, but you were not convinced? (And why should you be on such an empty argument – but it works for you and god doesn't it)
Now Lee, we all know that more particles do not mean more complex; a brick may have more atoms than a microchip but does that mean it is more complex? What about nanotechnology?
True and good point. Could not have said it better myself.
However it was your analogy and I tried to run with it…
My point is that a simple life form with just a few thousand or millions of atoms is far more likely to "pop" into existence than 10^23 atoms all appearing in one place to form a pen-knife (or a god?). This is the problem with analogies…
To add to that, I do not think you understand the complexity of the simplest living reproducing prokaryotic cell.
You got me there… I have no idea of the complexity on the life that is still on planet Earth – I am sure I stated that I do not have any biology qualifications…
Anyway, always willing to learn… but before I read your link, since you know more than I do. This prokaryotic cell you speak of… is it the simplest possible living thing that the scientists agree on, or just the simplest around at the moment after all the early primitive stuff evolved or became extinct?
Have to check you know… since I am worried that we may be entering the evolution and natural selection debate….
Time would not permit me to speak in detail of the engineering of the flagellum motor
No need… Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion" pg 130-132 talks all about the flagellum motor…
Since you bring it up, could you please response to Richards's arguments? I assume you have read the book… if not please do; it will help with the debates on this site.
the intracellular membranes devoted to special metabolic properties, e. g. photosynthesis or chemolithotrophy, characteristics of the simplest form of life.
This is only the tip of the iceberg but we get the point,
However I don't actually see your point on this discussion– all what you have described is covered in the debate "Evolution and natural selection"… this is not what we were discussing. You pick me up on this before when I went off the argument…
From 838. Comment #24950
I am dealing with the first cell and therefore the principles of evolution do not apply here.
Are you wishing to change the debate from what is more likely and probably… Creator or SG?
Have to go, it is getting late... this is the second time I have posted this comment, it got lost somewhere... sorry if I have made any mistakes, I've not got time to correct it twice.
Lee
418. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #25421 by LeeC on March 13, 2007 at 3:03 am
Hi Theo,
I am in danger of taking too long to reply to some of your comments, and by only answering half your comments (as I have) means I have even more to reply to next day.
An atheist's work is never done…
Responding to 838. Comment #24950 by Theo
Sorry to burst your bubble Lee but you using my logic against me would have actually worked if the Creator had an origin, which you would have probably noticed later down.
I see we are at very different ends of the spectrum; it may be difficult to find common ground.
So god had no origin? Any proof on this?
You cried foul earlier about SG since it would be difficult to falsify, how can I test this theory of yours?
So where was god when the Universe began? Inside looking out or outside looking in? This is serious question.
Infinite regress is a term used to point out the so called problem creation would encounter in the scientific arena i.e. who created the creator? An Infinite Being would not be affected by infinite regress because He Himself would have no beginning. An Infinite Being by definition does not have beginning to relapse.
So basically, if you a theist can not prove god exists to themselves (they have faith for that), the theist will make it damn will impossible for anyone to prove god by making up rules…
You are merely trying to take god outside of physics… is a theist worried about what science can prove so much that they have to change the rules? Of course you would say you did not make the rules... which is a fair comment.
The problem though with your theory (as I have stated) is that as science learns more it does not matter where you hide your god. You see, the thing is, science is looking for god - we just have not found him yet and finding less and less need for him.
Out of interest, you never responded to my comment in 829. Comment #23820.
It just sounds like the "Emperor's New Clothes" – only clever people can see the fine clothes (or God), and fools like us can only see what there is (or not).
Is this a new theist response now that science has left so few hiding places for god? Maybe I just lowered the argument with such a comment - sorry but it is how I hear some of your logic some times.
Fundamental Flaw: you cannot create an infinite being, a created infinite being is paradoxical.
Where is this infinite being you talk about, I have never seen him, heard him or have any proof of him… not so infinite is he? Besides, the god of the bible does not sound so infinite to me and if he was why would he allow all these other false religions and need man to kill on his behalf to wipe them out (I talking about the wars not the individual sacrifices this god needs to make himself feel good? Why would an infinite being need mere humans to believe in him? This always got me as a strange one.
Anyway, you have moved the argument away from logic, away from observations and testing. (Away from science because you are worried that your god has little place to hide in the normal physical world.)
Don't hurt your head, just transfer the very same idea of the singularity and apply it to the Creator.
My head is OK now thanks… but I still miss your point again… any singularly in our universe has a beginning… you stated your god does not have a beginning (though you have not explained this to me how it works – apart from of course the emperors new clothes logic…)
It is only inside a singularity where known physics break down…(could be other places but we just do not know about it) but any thing inside a singularity cannot interact with the universe outside - we have laws against this sort of thing.
Is it in a singularity you suggest your god is hiding…?
If you really want to talk about singularities I will be more than happy… biology may be a weak subject of mine, but Astrophysics is not.
I will now read your new comments and reply to those...
Back soon…
Lee
419. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #25321 by LeeC on March 12, 2007 at 4:43 am
Hi Theo,
Sorry it is getting late again here, but I am in the middle of drafting a response to all your points, so please stick with me…
Will post again soon.
Responding to Comment #25305 by unclebooboo on March 12
Hi Bruce,
I will come back to you on your comment as well in more detail if you like... it sounds like the classic question "so why has no alien visited/talked to planet Earth?"
This is easily answered…
However you have changed the question a little, but you have a lot of BIG assumptions in your theory.
To give you a taste…. The time window for "contact" is small, and the timescales of the universe is huge.
You agree that the universe is 12 to 15 billion years old (give or take) but we as intelligent humans have only been around for a few thousand years, and only in the last 100 years have we been able to transmit any form of radio signals. In all this time we still have not been able to put a man on mars let alone sending anything to the nearest star…
"Time windows" for contact and the distance of the universe are the problems.
However your main point/statement: -
Arguing about the bible is a completely different argument than I am making. I just believe that proclaiming oneself an atheist is scientifically and logically inconsistent.
I would like you to expand on this… being an atheist of scientific upbringing I miss your argument. Can you explain why it is logically inconsistent?
See ya
Lee
420. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #25317 by LeeC on March 12, 2007 at 3:22 am
Responding to:-
837. Comment #24873 by LeeC
840. Comment #25032 by Mark Taunton
Mark,
Firstly, I am sorry if I caused any offence. I was tired and I made a throw away comment that may have been offensive to some eyes– my summary of the Old Testament was not meant to cause any offensive in anyway – just bad humour for a theist.
I thank you for your detailed reply, I will read your comments shortly carefully and reply where I can.
Sorry again
Lee
421. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #25314 by LeeC on March 12, 2007 at 3:11 am
Is it me or am I the only atheist on this thread at the moment?
I feel so alone in the Universe!!!
Back to replies, so many to do
Lee
422. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #25313 by LeeC on March 12, 2007 at 3:09 am
Sorry, still catching up, so much has been written, it is difficult to reply line by line.
From 838. Comment #24950 by Theo
No it has not been answered already. The classic reply is given as natural selection, but I am dealing with the first cell and therefore the principles of evolution do not apply here. Hence the penknife analogy still stands Lee.
Sorry, I missed point on first reading… I thought we were going down the classic "watchmaker" path to prove a creator and not evolution (it is to this that I replied I am sure that it has already been written). However, now you pointed out the difference in your argument – it probably has not have been answered before… So I will respond here…
To me the penknife is, in one important way, more complex than the simplest form of chemistry we can call life…
It's size, the number of atoms that needed to be in the right place at the right time.
Remember I am only talking about the chance of certain atoms, molecules being in the right place at the right time, under the right conditions.
The number of atoms in a simple life form is far less than a penknife – so statistically speaking; the simple life form is more likely to happen by chance.
Numbers?? Well, if we say a penknife is mainly made of iron and is around 55g in weight – this is about 1 mole of iron… (Chemistry sorry) 1 mole of iron contains 6x10^23 atoms (not sure how you write 10 to the power of 23 - this is a 6 followed by 23 zeros… a lot of atoms!!!
Now I have kept it simple since I am just looking for a very simple pen-knife just made of iron… I am not looking for the paint, plastic or more complex alloys or any thing really complex…nothing like a Swiss army knife.
Now, my simple life form will only contain several thousand different atoms in it's molecules… may a few million if you like, this would be a fairly complex polymer
Now there will be millions of these molecules just waiting to bump into the right take of molecule that will form our life cell… the simplest form of life.
Once life has been made… it can then grow… in time to form men who can make penknives…
What are the chances that two halves of penknives are floating around in a pool of solution and just bump into one another to form a complete penknife? Not likely…too many atoms need to be in the right place, in the right form at the right time… besides, what type of conditions do you need to have two halves of pen knives to form one penknife?? This is not going to happen.
Nope, your analogy does not stand to me… simple life is still more likely than a penknife. I am not looking for eyes, ears and noses… nothing too complex, this takes evolution and natural selection.
423. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #25312 by LeeC on March 12, 2007 at 3:03 am
Theo,
Sorry for the delay, so to continue from my comments earlier (834. Comment #24678)
If you disagree, the main point is this: if S.G. is wrong, then it has been placed in a truly unassailable position, i.e. it would never be falsified. Because even after a "billion years" there would always be one more experiment, and this would go on ad infinitum. It may be the only scientifically accepted theory that cannot be falsified.
I mentioned already I disagree… mainly because you could prove SG to be true an any point in time in the future, so it is a testable theory…
However I take your point that it may be difficult to falsify – who can say how long it may take to prove true but this makes it only a poor theory – one that should be re-written, not totally wrong.
But lets not forget this definition of SG is your theory, it is a very simple theory, and it can be tested and proved wrong. So as I stated, I am happy to discuss this theory of SG.
So to repeat, the theory can be tested and proved wrong, but we will agree the SG theory you have described is not a great theory – but that is only because we have kept the theory simple for our discussion. You did not want to talk science and we do not need a complex theory for our discussions.
Question though, if this SG theory is so poor, what about the other theory, god? How can I prove that god does not exist? What tests are there for his existence? If you want to talk about the quality of a theory, lets talk about this god theory.
Lee
424. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #24873 by LeeC on March 9, 2007 at 2:20 am
Responding to Mark (832. Comment #24428)
Hi Mark,
I promised myself I would not get involved in discussions about the bible (nothing personal, just I do not know enough about the bible to quote it and it proves nothing to me about the existence of god) but I have to reply to a comment you made.
That the Bible presents a God who is substantially out of step with humanist ideas, and what is commonly considered acceptable and appropriate behaviour on the part of men and women, seems to me good reason to question the atheistic assumption, that the God of the Bible is merely a delusion, a human invention. Surely if that were so, mankind would be more likely to invent a God who conforms to, and commends, natural human preferences and desires
Not sure I can agree with your argument.
I think the type of god described in the bible was perfect for the time it was written. "You must follow me, your one true god… kill the non-believer…"
(A brief summary – As I said I can not quote the bible as well as yourself.)
This proves that the book was a historical book, written long ago.
Morals and opinions on right and wrong have just changed… the bible – being "faithfully copied" from a point in time long ago – has not changed
You can find examples of this in English history (and probably most other cultures)… E.g. Henry V is a favourite King of mine and Agincourt probably the most famous battle in English history, yet if you read original texts describing what he did and ordered on that day with 21st century eyes he was a cold blooded barbarian. Not so by the writers at the time though, and this included French writers. He did what he had to do.
The bible is not showing us an example of an evil god to prove he is not a human invention. It is the very opposite… the people at that time needed an evil blood thirsty god to control their people (You must not change your god etc etc) and maybe also to put fear into others… this to me proves he was a human invention of 3,000+ years ago.
It also shows me, that the Bible and the Old Testament is a bad place to look for morals for the modern day.
The bible is stuck in it's view – but of course man has be reinterpreting it and picking out the "good bits" (or is that bad bits?) for his own personal gain ever since.
Lee
425. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #24680 by LeeC on March 8, 2007 at 3:24 am
Firstly let me add my welcome to Lee. It's nice to see someone new around here, even though it's clear you and I have rather different points of view!
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the welcome… I am glad you are back on-line.
I feared that you might have stopped writing because some atheists on this thread have been rather rude to the theist.
They can give us atheists' a bad name…
I may have different views but I have enjoyed your responses and I look forward to reading more. I am after all only 99% certain there is no god, you must like the odds in that.
Have to go now… tired.
See ya
Lee
426. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #24678 by LeeC on March 8, 2007 at 3:11 am
Thanks for the response Theo,
Sorry if my first reply went on a bit – I am not use to such web sites yet, so I made an effort to comment on each of your points. I will try and be more precise here.
Your position is (and correct me if I am wrong): the probability of life having a natural origin is greater than the probability of it arising supernaturally.
Pretty much – but I would like to fine-tune it if I may.
My point is that the probability of the simplest form of chemistry that we may define as life is more likely to have a natural origin then a supernaturally being. This supernaturally being is the person who you claim created life – this being is far more complex than this simple form of life I describe.
Which is more probable, a penknife being assembled by blundering chance or a penknife being assembled by an intelligent designer?
…
…the origin of life on earth points to a designer rather than blind chance
This is a classic reply, as you know, to the creation Vs evolution and has, I am sure, had a reply already. So I will not repeat earlier responses. Merely that I disagree with the logic (I will expand on this only if you need me to repeat others)
I will however turn the logic back on you – as I have before.
Is this single cell more complex than your god?
Which is more likely to come out of a blundering chance experiment? A complex god or the simplest form of life?
I have offered no science or explanation to how this simplest form of life could come into existence other than statistics (keeping science out of it) and neither have you explained how god came into existence (well actually you have tried – re: infinite regress – see below) so the only valid solution is random chance for both.
The more complex you make an entity, the more unlikely it is to come into existence by chance I am sure you would agree. (This is your point with the penknife is it not after all?
So onto your explanation on how god came into being… (or at least your reply to who created god?)
Creation is therefore not rejected because evidence does not point to a designer (for we know it does), but it is rejected because of the type of designer it points to . Infinite Regress stalls at an Infinite Being, and that would be outside the scope of science.
This hurt my head I have to tell you… thinking about infinity has that affect on me.
So to try and use merely the logic of words as you have…
(Please forgive me though, I am a physicist after all, not a philosopher of words… I am just trying to keep the science out of the argument since you have stated you believe god is outside science)
An infinite regress does not, by definition stop anywhere… it goes on indefinitely – it is impossible to say therefore something came before it - the creator of the creator just goes on and on and on – forever. It never has a beginning, there is never a first creator because with "Infinite Regress" something created it.
To create your god on this logic would require an infinite amount of time… I can not wait that long to find out… erm, but I am here asking the question so an infinite amount of time has not passed…. So therefore, with your logic – god cannot exist!
No science used here again to explain anything (so why did I go to university?)
I do believe that S.G. has been given special license…
It is getting late here I have to go – I will answer this final comment in more detail later.
However, simply put, I see nothing wrong myself. The theory could be proven tomorrow – with the right piece of luck, knowledge and skill. More than I could say for the creation theory.
Lee
PS I am glad you used a physics equation – interestingly it is a classical equation…
427. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #23822 by LeeC on March 3, 2007 at 2:34 am
Responding to gimlibengloin (Comment #23476 820.)
I agreetotally that our definition is important. In answer to your query I refer you to the first link I gave above (818) ie spetner1.asp
Can you please give me your definition of evolution?
The web site you redirected me too has two definitions, and have been written by people with PhD's. I do not have any such PhD and so need it nice and simple and one that you (and everyone) can agree to.
I think this thread requires a definition to be included on this web-site before any debate so it is clear to anyone joining the discussion.
I do not believe it should be two pages long on a different web site.
So you please add just a couple of sentences to explain your definition of evolution.
I have already tried to do this:-
evolution is the change in a population's inherited characteristics, or traits, from generation to generation
Thanks
Lee
428. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #23820 by LeeC on March 3, 2007 at 2:15 am
Responding to Theo's comments( 822. Comment #23528)
Theo, thanks for the reply.
Below are your original comments and my reply to each.
Look forward to hearing your response.
Lee
the discussion on evolution is fruitless also; there are many theists who believe in evolution (because you do not have to be Christian to be theist). As this is an atheist site, the most pertinent question that must be discussed is,"Does God Exist?"
I agree, to a point. However the same way a Christian will quote their holy book in response to questions about god, an atheist when questioned has to quote science in discussing how the universe came into being. A theist will say God created it, and an atheist would say "What god?" However I am happy to discuss god with as little science as possible in this response.
It must be pointed out that both atheist and theist rely on the same data, it is the interpretation of this data that causes the clash.
Agreed.
For example you cannot directly observe reptiles turning into mammals, but scientist can look at the fossil record and infer that evolution has taken place. In the same light theists cannot directly observe God, but they look at life on earth and infer a creator.
So far so good… I will accept this as part of this discussion.
Therefore, just as scientists cannot show an observable transformation from reptile to mammal to prove evolution, it is the very same way a theist cannot show a visible God to prove creation, they both rely on evidence
I think it is here we start to move into the debate…
A scientist may not have found enough fossils (yet but more than likely he never will) to show every step of evolution to "prove 100%" to a theist that evolution by natural selection enabled the development of life on Earth. So I will accept your point as made, and that in a discussion like this it may be difficult for a theist to "prove" god 100%. So I will not ask for such proof, merely evidence that a god solution is statistically more likely and therefore a more probable solution than what science can give as an answer.
I, and probably most atheists on this web site, do not believe 100% that god does not exist; merely that a god is very, very unlikely and science is offering a more likely solution, even if it is not a complete solution yet.
However, let us not forget though, we are talking about a god here… surely a god could give us such evidence? – but lets leave this point for another time.
The question now becomes, "is there evidence for Gods existence?" the answer is yes, the evidence - life on earth.
Now you must know Theo this statement is not proof in god.
Our existence on Earth is as much proof for the scientific solution on how life was "created" as it is for god theory.
I could say - "Look science is right – life on earth is the evidence for it"
Very weak if left as the only statement, as I am sure you will agree?
The difference is that science has then tried to explain their statement in further detail. Stating how from this initial form of life in its simplest of states could "evolve" (I wish I could think of a different word – advance?) from this simple life form into all the complex and diverse life we see on Earth.
The God solution stops there…. We are to question no more. God did it all… no questions asked?
But now it comes back to which solution is more likely and probable, for an atheist at least. Some theists as we know stop thinking at this point, I hope you are not one of those…
I will expand on this later in this thread…
There are two competing theories regarding the origin of life on earth: Spontaneous Generation (S.G.) and Creation.
If you say so, seems reasonable if I understand your theory on SG to mean:-
"Life, it just started right? In a very simple and basic form – as simple as you can get and call it life. Not sure on the details yet, science will come back to us on this – just like it did to explain how the Sun and the stars work"
If this is SG – then I think I am happy with it as a theory for now for our discussions. It is nice and simple and I think we can all understand it.
In other words, life either occurred naturally or supernaturally, there is no third alternative that logic can supply.
Personally I cannot think of a good 3rd option… so agreed
The problem that some have with creation is that it is not scientifically testable (it cannot be proven nor unproven).
This is a problem for some, but not my major reason to be against it as a solution.
The problem I have is that the "creation solution" gives more questions than it answers. For a scientist this means it is a very weak solution.
The creation recipe in summary –
"To create a very, very simple life form – just add one very complex god. Easy. Oh and God then creates all the other complex life forms as well… the end."
You know the question now Theo – "What created this very complex god?"
If your answer is "God is just there – he always has been etc etc" then I can not be happy with this answer – I have to question any solution given. Who created god?
So the question we are left to answer is which is more probably and statistical more likely.
That a god powerful enough to create the galaxies, stars, planets, and all the complex life just came "randomly" into being?
Or that a very simple, basic life form – when given a little luck in the right environment in the billions of possible planets in the universe. Just "randomly" came into being?
I know which I prefer… the simple bet. Option two. The second option is the simple option and requires less faith.
However S.G. is testable, in 1952 the Miller Urey experiment yielded some organic compounds, which we all know is light years away from an actual living cell. From that one experiment it was seen that life did not arise naturally. However numerous S.G. experiments were conducted in its various forms (clay theory etc) for over 50 years until now, but still no life
Does this prove that it is very difficult to create life, or that we do not yet fully understand how it is done?
It does not prove there is a god though… or that god is more likely a solution.
It is just a science experiment which shows life is difficult to create in the lab.
… and these experiments will go on in indefinitely until the desire of the experimenters is achieved.
The desire is to create life in the lab, so you accept that science will, in time, be able to create life in the lab?
Interesting – would this make man a god?
Or did you mean that man would never create life in the lab? Science may in a few billion years… this is how long life had to create itself, if not longer…
Therefore current data shows that life did not arise naturally, and this will remain so until a living cell is actually produced.
No it doesn't… it only shows that it is statistical improbability or we do not yet know all the answers to make it work.
It does not prove it is impossible…. How could it.
However, to paraphrase your earlier argument … "proof that life started naturally is all around us… life on Earth proves that life occurs naturally!!!"
Good argument I am sure you will agree???
Let's not go there – I do not think it is a good argument, I am just using it to show how weak an argument – on its own – it actually is.
So we see that:
1. Life originated EITHER naturally OR supernaturally.
2. Current data shows that life did not arise naturally.
3. Life exists.
The conclusion is obvious.
Point 1 - Agree
Point 2 - Disagree - it only shows life is unlikely and difficult to "start". A billion to one you could say. Good odds in the universe this size.
Point 3 - Agree - isn't life great?
Sorry though, I missed the obvious conclusion out of this... Maybe point two needs some work before anything is obvious.
However, an atheist would cry foul saying that this is a "God of the Gap" argument and that we should remain agnostic (not atheistic?) on the matter.
I do feel that theists are always looking for the gaps in science knowledge as proof of god and yes, I think you are walking on thin ice. Just look at the history of science.
As science learns (and proves) more we have less and less hiding places for god. I have made points on this before. In other words, science becomes more likely to know the solution.
(A few examples in history where a theist was "certain" on a solution until science came along are:-
Earth centric universe…
Flat Earth…
The age of the Earth… I'm sure there are more if I thought about it)
This objection would have carried some weight if there was a third alternative, meaning: if it is not A and we cannot test B, then it might be C. but this is not the case, it is an either A or B situation.
I have accepted it is either A or B… but you can not proved 100% it was god anymore than I can prove it is 100% SG.
I have also accepted that you can not prove 100% the existence of god, so you should also agree that I should not need to prove 100% it is SG.
So at worst you can say we are 50/50… still either A or B - Although no one would be happy with that conclusion.
So we can start to look at probability… which solution is more probable.
SG and science to me is more probable… god is too complex to be likely. The more complex you make him, the more unlikely he is.
For that reason, when an atheist claims that it does not have to be creation, it is really a sugar coated way of saying, "life arose by S.G., we just cannot prove it yet!"
Yep… but again, you have not proved it was a god either. So which solution is more probably?
We must understand that for the materialist, S.G is embraced as a philosophical necessity rather than being because it is true. Why?
Because anything other than S.G is outside the scope of science.
You mean God is outside science and man's understanding?
Now this is one of my gripes with materialism where in order for something to exist or be true, it must be limited to the scope of science which is quite disturbing.
Not sure why this is disturbing to you - maybe you could expand on it later, but here I'm just looking at statistics to answer the original question… which is more probable, SG or God? I'm not talking science yet...
This "disturbing aspect" though sounds like a new and long discussion and I want to clear this debate up first before moving onto a new one.
I do believe there are truths that are independent of scientific discovery, truth is not subject to science but rather science is subject to truth.
Truth is truth? OK?…
But why is it not subject to science? Have you an example ? God I suppose?
Again – I am merely looking at statistics, not aiming to actually put "science" into understanding god and his existence.
Just let's discuss which is more likely.
I am repeating myself again now… I will stop - sorry.
Theists are not anti - science, we just have a healthy respect for what it is: a growing body of knowledge that is limited to repeatable and observable phenomena.
Glad to hear it… but I do not agree. It just sounds like the "Emperor's New Clothes" – only clever people can see the fine clothes (or God), and fools like us can only see what there is (or not).
The atheist on the other hand seems to be of the viewpoint that all reality is within the scope of science. e.g. "God does not exist because He is not testable."
I like to think I have just explained my view, and you now know I do not agree with this statement for the reasons already given.
Of course theists are labeled anti science when objecting to this view point.
Not yet by me – time will tell. I think you are just mistaken and have not "seen the light".
Therefore, contrary to atheistic propaganda, the burden of proof lies on the atheist himself because he has to prove that life arose without the need for a Creator, and until such evidence is produced, reason constrains me to remain a theist.
No I do not… I merely have to prove it is more probable – this is your misunderstanding. If you do not need to prove 100% of a god (or indeed can not) why should I have to prove 100% that he does not exist or that my solution is 100% correct?
I merely will argue that science's solution is more likely and probable.
The theist has to explain why we should accept a very improbable and unlikely existing god.
Lee
429. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #23776 by LeeC on March 2, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Billy,
Sorry to here it will be your last posting, I have now read all the posts and I personally appreciate your contribution (and others of course) discussing the bible, I learnt a lot.
I believe some theists may have left the discussion because of your strong and valid points. Normally when they quote the bible people just agree and not question.
So to repeat myself again, I never said I did not like the discussion of the bible, I actually enjoy it – but the only positive outcome is that you prove the bible false and not god. As Theo has agreed.
I feel much that is written in the bible is a joke, but all that happens if we discuss these issues is theist changes their interpretation of the passage or ignores it altogether.
I, and hopefully others, will continue the discussion on science and hope do as well as yourself for the atheist cause.
Although with your comment stating that we should be wary of some comments "especially physicists" worries me a little, since my degree is in Physics and Astrophysics, however I hope if I make any errors in discussing evolution someone will correct me. I certainly do not have all the facts and a full understanding of evolution but know enough of it to prefer it over the god solution.
Thanks again Billy and I hope you change your mind and stay tunned.
Lee
430. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #23472 by LeeC on March 1, 2007 at 2:18 am
Mr gimlibengloin,
It is interesting to me that you are able to make such a statement as "no evolution doesn't happen".
I was of the understanding that evolution was widely accepted in the scientific community.
Of course, you may know more than me on the subject (I do not mean to be sarcastic here – I do not have even an o-level in biology so I could be wrong on evolution.
(an O-level is a school exam for 16 year olds if you are not from the UK)
But before we enter into this debate, if you will welcome into it of course, can we first agree on a definition of evolution that you state does not happen so strongly. I do not wish to prove (or disprove) a form of evolution that you did not mean to say "doesn't happen". No point wasting our time proving something we already agree upon.
A simple definition I have is: -
"evolution is the change in a population's inherited characteristics, or traits, from generation to generation"
Would you agree this is a fair and simple definition, or do you feel evolution means something else to you?
This definition setting is open to anyone else, so long as we all agree to it. As I said, I am no biologist I merely want to know what it is you are so certain "doesn't happen"
The problem I find debating sometimes with people is that the statement "I didn't mean that, I meant this..." often arises, so please define your meaning of evolution, and then we have a clear objective of discussion. That is, if you wish to debate evolution?
Thanks
Lee
431. Der Digitale Planet (lecture)
Comment #23341 by LeeC on February 28, 2007 at 2:13 am
Anyone know a site we can actually download this movie. Streaming is rather slow and the pictures are jerky...
Thanks
432. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #23218 by LeeC on February 27, 2007 at 1:27 am
Hi Billy
I think I understand the bible chatter now, I have read more of the "history" on this thread. I previously only read the last 50 posts, I've now read up to comment 600 and odd… and I am very impressed with my atheist colleagues.
My problem now is to actually to say something new and bring something to the debate since so much has already been said (and repeated)
My reason to try and stay clear of the bible discussion is that I just see it as fighting the debate in an area the theist have an unfair (and meaningless) advantage
Firstly, they have been studying the bible as a matter of life and death all their lives so are more familiar with the text than any "hobbyist" like myself (OK this 1st point is not actually unfair- I just can not be bothered to read the bible from cover to cover. I have tried but I find myself laughing too much it hurts. It is as if my 10 year old nephew had written the story),
Secondly (and unfairly?), the theist have throughout "recent" history changed the rules –
"Oh you should read this bit of text with this understanding now… not like we use to…" or
"That is what church A believes, the silly people, we of church B are far more cleverer and read it to mean something else now " or
"The sun moves around the Earth, the bible says so – sorry I meant to say, the Earth moves around sun – sorry my mistake I just misunderstood the meaning of the text" or
"The Earth is only 6,000 years old – what's that, the radioactive decay of Uranium proves that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old?? – blast that moon rock, OK I meant to say was the bible tells us is the Earth is very old and god creative it a long time ago" ….
ARGH!!! The list goes on and on… as you know.
It is hard to hit a moving target… so what bother… prove them wrong on one piece of text the theist just ignores it or re-words it. This type of debate has being going on for years.
Meaningless? – Well it is only one of many holy books, why this one and not any other holy book? (This has also been asked before.)
The atheist agrees that this bible is just a book. With words (no pictures? always found that odd myself…) This book and all the many different holy books are interesting in many ways. They can say a lot about man and their desire to believe when they do not understand the world. They are a very important part of mankind's history. However, it is only a historical book (not a history book.)
No proof of god… and from what I have read now of this thread we are not going to get any proof from the God camp. But I hope the comments keep coming
Lee
PS I assume you were not asking me about the fossils… or are you testing me?
433. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
Comment #23041 by LeeC on February 26, 2007 at 2:51 am
I think the number of contributions to this thread seems to be dieing a little, so I may be too late to join the "learning". I wish I found the site sooner since I seemed to have missed a lot.
There is a risk then in posting this that I will be talking to myself…
It seems that the debate has varied a little over time, but I believe the main points seems to be to discuss two key points,
"Does God exist?
and
"Was man and the universe creative by God?"
Also rather a lot of bible study (but since I do not have a degree in this area, and I notice some rather clever wordsmiths, I may be out of my depth.) This does though make me curious why there are so many quotes from the bible since I do not see how this moves the debate about god in general forward (Insert your comment here…)
I for one do not want to get into a debate here regarding the teaching or words of the bible or any other holy book for that matter, since this is different debate and will only cloud what I hope is the main discussion (as I see it). Who is God?
(Although it would be a topic I personally find interesting if we can start another thread since it is a big topic.)
I believe in the bible (that is the book, the pages and the ink). I can go down my local book shop and buy many different versions of the bible if I wanted. I could ask 3 or more independent observers to do the same and I am sure they will confirm that the bible does actually exist. They could buy a copy and actually hit me over the head with it; this would be more than enough proof for the existence of the bible for me.
However a printing of a book written over 2000 years ago is not proof for the existence of the god written within. I am yet to see any reference from the bible that can act as real proof for his existence. (I would love to see it though, I mean real proof, not just some quotes from the bible that are either written after the event, or so simple a prediction even I a mere human like me could make it. So please give me the reference from the bible but also tell me how I can test what is written is proof of a god and so it can be confirmed to be true.)
The bible contains words written by men stating "And god said to such and such" and "God did this or that". This is not proof of the existence of god any more than if I publish a book that has written: -
"Behold the spaghetti monster, creator of the Spag Bog, he spoke to his believers and said he is the one true god. Believe in me and only me".
Would such a book with these words prove the existence of the spaghetti monster as a god? Answer No; I just made it up… does Harry Potter exist as he is written about in a book too?
How about if I put my book in my time machine and take it back 3000 years to a little tribe in the desert? Would the book today have any more proof on the spaghetti monster?
Most of the so called predictions have never been accepted by any non-religious people, they have even been shown to be written after the fact, so misleading and unclear it was bound to happen anyway, or just plain wrong.
No, so there seems little value quoting words from the bible on the matter of proof and they should only be used if they are backed up with independent references from non-biblical sources. If the "god believing" contributors to this website did this then they could prove that certain events that are written about in the bible – a battle here, and city there – did happen or exist but I challenge these contributors to be able to give proof for the existence of god from these words.
I know another line in the threads previous to this, it has been said before by a contributor who stated along the lines of – "I do not need to prove my god – it is enough that I believe - it is you (the atheist) who need to prove God does not exist"
My answer has also been repeated before. It is religion that needs to prove God's existence. It is they who claim they know him best. I could be looking in the wrong places…
The scientific community are trying to prove God's existence… they really are. This is what science does, they try and find the answers to the how and why of the universe.
It is just over the years they have not found a god or the need in one, only less and less areas where god could be "hiding" (that is, areas where science is still working on theories to explain the observed.)
Example? - Look at Newton (he's come up many times before, an old friend of many – he loved god and said so, but I'm sure he knew he did not have all the answers, hence looked to god to help with the unexplained. Einstein moved physics on; he improved on Newton's theories and only spoke of god in a "literal" manner not as any supreme being. The more science has learnt the less the need for a god to answer the questions such as "How did Earth and the universe come into being?"
To repeat another question on this debate on the existence of god that has yet to be answered satisfactory by the "believers" (And I believe this question has always been ignored and never acknowledge by any believer, that is:-
If man is so complex that evolution or science could not possibly answer how he came into being, and then according to the "believers" I should accept (without proof?) that god created man (and the universe?) then who created God, since surely he is even more complex a being than simple man?
I have heard the answer "God was always here, is always here, will always be here" before and it is not an answer that helps in the proof of the existence of god. Since, I could, with the same logic, reply that "the universe was always here, is always here, will always be here" no need for a god. Since scientific theories are pretty good from the beginning of the universe and beyond… I see no hiding place for god. If I cannot see him, hear him, touch him, sense him in any way, and the natural physical processes described by science can form the universe and life within, then I begin to "believe" god does not exist at all. The same way I "believe" the spaghetti monster is just a made up story to put along side Harry Potter and Luke Skywalker.
Well, had to get that off my chest, I feel better know…
Is there anybody out there who can reply and prove God… doubt it, this thread has been going on for months and the questions have started to repeat themselves, of which I am guilty also….
Publish and be damned!!!!
See ya
Lee
More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9