That’s a poll on Christianity Today — and I’m afraid “none” wasn’t one of the options. Instead, readers got to pick from insipid nonsense like “the reliability of the Scriptures,” “The exquisiteness of the physical world,” and the winner, “The life and character of Jesus.” As Ophelia notes, those aren’t even arguments. Isn’t it rather pathetic that this is all they can dredge up for their readers, platitudes and errors?
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Your scientific inquiry seems contrived here, Myers. Why let imaginary beliefs this far under your skin?
It’s sort of curious that Jesus gets such a large percentage of the votes when you very rarely hear about him from all the pastors, preachers, and pious that flood out airwaves.
I guess to invoke Jesus is to remind people of that inconvenient stuff like rendering unto Caesar, carrying a person’s load five miles instead of one, and how blessed the poor and the peacemakers are.
Perhaps I wouldn’t mind religion in my face quite so much if the people putting it there actually started paying attention to some of what Jesus had to say.
I disagree. They are not evidences, and they may indeed be weak points of debate but if you take the viewpoint that the question is to contrast christianity against some other religion, say islam, then one may view at least some of the points as valid arguments (although I would agree that its a bit like debating who is best, Aragorn or Hans Solo).
Taken in that context the answer that won – “the life and character of Jesus” is a reasonable point (since its christians who are voting we can assume that they take the gospels as ‘gospel’). Most of the legends about Jesus in the bible indicate a decent caring character who was not a bigot and actually tried to help the poor and the golden rule is something almost everyone, religious or not agrees with.
Now I realize there is no historical evidence for any of this (and certainly not for any of the magical stuff associated with him) but that is not the point, the character and life story of Jesus as represented in the gospels IS indeed the best choice of all the ones listed.
Damn! I can’t believe my drinking late has me led to be one of the first on this hallowed blog! “The life and character of Jesus” seems pretty default for: “what my parents told me”.
Your scientific inquiry seems contrived here, Myers. Why let imaginary beliefs this far under your skin?
In language even you can understand:
YOU STARTED IT. If idiots like yourself had never undertaken measures to shove your patent silliness into legislative and educational arenas, nobody who actually knows what they’re talking about would have taken notice of your idiocy.
We, however long it takes, are gonna finish it though.
you have only yourself to blame.
Quite obviously the answer would be different for every person. I believe ‘argument’ is the wrong word, it should be ‘reason’.
One very real option is ‘because my parent/guardian drilled it into me’. My own reason for christianity is that the story of Jesus spoke to me somehow and that I decided to go stand in that tradition. Others will have other reasons.
I would really like someone to respond to my basic problem: theists tell people they exist after death. Atheists tell them then do not. Which would you choose?
In fairness, there was a “something else”, and they were asking for a comparative judgement.
I did think it was unfortunate that this came last:
Bob
I think “at least it’s not Scientology” falls under Something Else.
Oh crap, I hear my lawyer calling.
Ones they left out:
It’s a great excuse to subjugate women.
Easy money…if you know how.
Lets me take out my frustrations by hitting children.
and don’t forget the real clincher…wetsuits.
“I would really like someone to respond to my basic problem: theists tell people they exist after death. Atheists tell them then do not. Which would you choose?”
The one that is true.
Believing it doesn’t make it true.
…Argumentum ad baculum?
Taz (#7),
Of course I’d love to go to heaven with a beer volcano and a stripper factory. However, wanting something to be true doesn’t make it true. Atheists place value on logic and reason over selfish human desires. Theists want to bury their heads in the nice warm sand.
I didn’t look at the silly poll, but I’d have to say the most compelling argument would be “You’ll burn in hell for all eternity if you don’t join up”.
‘Course that presupposes a belief in 1) hell, 2) the eternity of yourself and 3) an evil god. Also, you’d have to ignore the question in the back of your mind of “Who really benefits from all this (tax-free!) religion?”
Taz (#7),
Of course I’d love to go to heaven with a beer volcano and a stripper factory. However, wanting something to be true doesn’t make it true. Atheists place value on logic and reason over selfish human desires. If theists were content to bury their heads in the nice warm sand and suffocate, that’s their choice, but they’re trying to drag everyone else under with them.
The good thing is, if those are the most compelling arguments, there’s a guaranteed 87% that don’t have a valid reason to be a Christian.
Taz: I’m among those (few?) who’d rather there not be an afterlife. When I was a kid and took that stuff seriously, the concept of eternity (even in heaven) scared the crap out of me.
…Think I’d prefer reincarnation to either of those, though.
Er, what exactly do you expect them to come up with to prop up a platitudinous and erroneous system of myths?
Ah, but that sand is so inviting! Forget beer volcanoes and stripper factories. The promise of religion is some form of existence. We offer none. I agree with you, but from a PR standpoint, how do you make your position salable?
Tough one. The “reason” that takes one mental step to understand has an edge over the one that takes two steps.
The two-step reason, in this case, is something like “There is no afterlife, so when we die we’ll just be dead. Therefore, it’s better to live your life NOW as if true things matter.”
That’ll have a tough time comparing to “Be good and Jesus will take you up to Heaven when you die.”
Kinda moot in a way, though, since so far atheists don’t really do much PR. I wonder if any big ad company would consider taking on atheists as a client?
Heh. It would be fun to have an online contest for it’s-good-to-be-an-atheist advertising. Put all our brilliant iconoclasts to work figuring out great print and video media spots. Use the contest itself as the meat of a viral campaign, the way the successful Blasphemy Challenge did.
My god’s heaven has stripper volcanos and beer factories!
It’s true that Jesus was (by the crappy accounts we have left) a fairly decent character for most of his life, but he did lose it big style towards the end. However, the asshole that we have to blame for Christianity is not Jesus of Nazareth, but Saul of Tarsus. In some ways, I find myself leaning towards “Christian atheism”, which although a contradiction in some ways (Jesus wasn’t an atheist, although I like to think that if he’d been born nowadays he would have been), sums up the life and teaching of Jesus himself. He just made one small error at the start – assuming that there is a god.
If you take the story of the Good Samaritan, it’s clear that Jesus does not regard ethical behaviour as being confined to one religion, and that actual *obedience* to god’s law (which is what the priest and levite were doing) can be *immoral*. There are plenty more examples of where Jesus was miles ahead of the “evangelists” and apostles (which is why I think that the gospel accounts probably do have elements of truth – inconveniently for Christians). The gospel that probably gives the most rounded (though ludicrous in places) account of the life of Jesus is Matthew – I would really advise all atheists to read it and get familiar with it – it contains some of the clearest evidences that Christianity is bollocks, and that Jesus is not a/ a “son of god” (whatever that means), b/ a “Messiah” (ditto), or c/ coming back (you’ll need to compare the 4 resurrection stories to see this most clearly – they are hopelessly muddled).
But leaving all that babble aside, I’m with Dawkins in this. I think Jesus would have been for atheists. If he *is* sitting at the right hand of an anthropomorphic pixie (PIC-C: Primary Intelligent Cosmic Creator) in the sky, then boy oh boy are the creationists going to get a surprise.
Read your bible, kids – it is a brilliant arsenal for atheists and rational thinkers, and most Christians haven’t a clue what’s in it. They see as through a glass darkly – what they don’t realise is that it’s *their* mucky fingerprints all over the glass, and all they have to do is apply a little Windolene, and they’ll see just fine.
One of the most compelling arguments for Christianity is that it is so completely different to any man-made religion, that it can’t be man made.
– I don’t get to have my sins forgiven and go to heaven because of my efforts at “goodness” (sorry Catholics!)
– Who would have thought of making God become a man and be punished for my sins? That can’t be right? How can I be let off so easily? It’s grace. No other religion has it – the others all require you to earn salvation, and usually not know whether you have done enough.
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Hey look rank ignorance and blind bigotry. Totally different to any other man-made religion.
Ross, are you joking? This is a serious question; I actually don’t know if you’re joking. There’ve been stories about gods dying and coming back to life for reasons of fertility, enlightenment, and the sun rising since the dawn of time. Osiris and Dionysus, to name two. “Divine grace” isn’t altogether remarkable, either.
There is a compelling argument?
Really?
Cosmology + Biology = Deism at the most. Implying all that superficial and camp crap on top of it is frankly just stupid.
Yours rationally
Steven
I think “We’ll burn you at stake if you don’t” has historically been one of the strongest arguments for accepting Christianity.
OK, let me see if I have this straight…
Christianity is too *stupid* to have been intelligently designed. Therefore it was designed by god.
Where does that leave ID then?
[Sorry Catholics, Protestants, Hindus, Muslims, Zoroastrians, Pastafarians, etc etc.]
wnelson wrote:
…because some of those imaginary beliefs are implacably hostile to science and determined to gain the sort of political power that would enable them to suppress anything that contradicts those beliefs.
Ross is, sadly, not joking. I used to hear that “argument” myself when I was deep in the Baptist church. It’s a very easy sell to people who don’t know anything at all about other religions. It’s only if you actually look and find out how many others that predate Christianity have the exact same redemption arc that the statement falls apart, and most people aren’t willing to do any work to research it.
Religious “argument” in a nutshell:
[insert any premise]
[insert any inference]
Therefore, Jesus.
Kind of OT, but I got this bizarre argument for creationism from a friend over lunch recently:
1) The Bible says we can only be saved by faith.
2) God knew when he created man that man was intelligent and would investigate the world through science.
3) The Genesis account of creation is true, but if the evidence for it could be found then God could be proven, and blind faith would be impossible.
4) Therefore, God had no choice but to place misleading evidence for evolution in the form of fossils, etc., so that faith and salvation would still be possible.
So, first God created a universe with 100 billion galaxies, each with 100 billion stars. Then he got busy playing petty, spiteful games with one species on one planet near one of those 10^22 stars. Makes perfect sense to me.
LOL!
Wait a little. Salvation by faith alone is indeed in the Bible. But so is salvation by faith and good works. Even salvation by good works alone is in the Bible (that one’s in Revelation).
Oh, look. Contradictions between three books written hundreds of km and hundreds of years apart. How surprising.
Says the one with the least imagination in the room.
BTW, salvation doesn’t exist at all in most religions. Take the good old Sumerian underworld, where the shadows of the dead eat mud and live in depressing darkness for all eternity — no matter what they’ve done and no matter what they’ve believed in.
LOL!
Wait a little. Salvation by faith alone is indeed in the Bible. But so is salvation by faith and good works. Even salvation by good works alone is in the Bible (that one’s in Revelation).
Oh, look. Contradictions between three books written hundreds of km and hundreds of years apart. How surprising.
Says the one with the least imagination in the room.
BTW, salvation doesn’t exist at all in most religions. Take the good old Sumerian underworld, where the shadows of the dead eat mud and live in depressing darkness for all eternity — no matter what they’ve done and no matter what they’ve believed in.
“the life and character of Jesus” Are you kidding? When I read about him in the book of Mark, I just see a manipulative, self-aggrandizing SOB. Maybe someone would lie and say Jesus walked on water, but why paint him as such a rotten human being, unless maybe that was the way he was? With the kind of PR success that Jesus has had, David Koresh could be a great messiah one day. Dubya could be the great science president.
Charley, the logical corollary of that is that *of course* all the evidence points away from Christianity being true, and *of course* there is no evidence of the resurrection or virgin birth or any of the miracles, because if there *were* we would all believe, and that would be too easy. Not through brains are ye saved, but through dumb-ass stupidity, lest any man should boast.
But it is indeed a logical corollary of any viewpoint that places a virtue on faith, as opposed to evidence. Sam Harris is right on that – even “moderates” need to have this faith-fix robustly challenged.
How was that again about omnipotence and omniscience?
Never mind… which of the two Genesis accounts is true? Man first or man last? Sun early or sun last?
How was that again about omnipotence and omniscience?
Never mind… which of the two Genesis accounts is true? Man first or man last? Sun early or sun last?
When I was a kid I was more impressed by the life and character of Valentine Michael Smith, the hero of Heinlein’s A Stranger In A Strange Land.
Maybe somebody should put Jesus and Valentine, two fictional characters, together in a story and see how they fare together.
That’s not an argument for creationism at all. It’s an excuse for not having any arguments for creationism.
Wow… like..
Catholics ARE christians v1.0.
Ross’s explanation of how “special” “christianity” is makes me hate it even more!
AWESOME!
Oh, how silly. Of course they’re arguments for Christianity. Don’t we see them used by christianists on blogs and forums all the time??? That means they must be arguments for Christianity.
Heck, they re-define words all the time, why not this one, too?
You guys need to go back and read the Gospels again. My first impression on reading them that Jesus was a gigantic delusional dickhead. His message was mainly: “my way or the highway. — and by highway I mean eternal torment.” He wasn’t a nice guy, he was a jackass. Go read the stupid Gospels again.
Actually, this sounds pretty indistinguishable from submission behaviour in social animals – roll on your back and expose your belly to the alpha male. No need to do anything concrete to earn forgiveness or “salvation” or your place in the social order – just send out the right submissive signals.
So Christianity is true because it elevates a fairly basic behavioural trait into an authoritarian virtue? Not the most compelling of arguments.
John Wilkins over on Evolving Thoughts has a nice take on religion and social dominance:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/2007/11/explaining_religion_4_wolves_a.php
I would really like someone to respond to my basic problem: theists tell people they exist after death. Atheists tell them then do not. Which would you choose?
Gotta choosethe ending of life. Don’t get me wrong, I like living, hope to do it a long time, but live FOREVER? Eternity. Trillions of years. Trillions of trillions. So many years that you could do everything possible to do in the universe billions of times and still have eternity in front of you. Now THAT’S a scary thought. Of course some god could force you to he happy no matter what. But what’s the use in living then? No free will then, no ability to take any pride in accomplishment or feel anything, just the same eternity of inescapable drugged out bliss. What kind of a twisted god would force that on his creation? No thanks. Eternal life sounds good until you actually look at it. I’ll take my years and then be what I was before I was born. The alternative sounds like a never ending nightmare.
That rather depends on what form one’s aferlife existence takes, no? If offered the choice between a) eternity in, say, the Christian hell, or b) non-existence, I imagine most would choose non-existence.
And unless you’re a raving egomaniac, you have to consider the fate of others. Suppose you’re offered the choice between a) heaven for you, hell for someone else, or b) non-existence for both of you, which would you pick? Does it matter who the other person is?
Of course, you could restrict your question to nice afterlives, but then it becomes rather more obvious that the question is really why reality is better than wishful thinking.
I like the way they worded the question, because “compelling” has the same root (and meaning, apart from a slightly different grammatical role) as “compulsion”. And compulsion is indeed the best reason there is to choose Christianity: If you don’t, your parents will beat you up, your peers will bully you, your neighbors will shun you and throw rocks at your windows, the Guy In The Sky will fling you to hell… And all you have against such compelling reasons is some pathetic thing called rational thought??? ;)
An argument I would have voted for:
“The fact that you were born into a Christian family.”
Not that this argument works for me, but I would say that it would be accurate for most Christians
This may be a little off-topic but I went to the American Atheists website and low and behold… and Expelled google ad in their right bar. WOW
Ross Nixon’s argument is insane. It’s basically that his religion is so improbable, absurd, and unthinkably phony that it must be true.
If that logic applied, then I’ve got a fairy tale about an omnipotent squid who scattered humanity across the earth as a kind of chum to draw in hungry aliens for its breakfast that is even truthier than his fantasy, so I win.
Today’s poll at that site is “Do ministers at your church understand and honor secular work?” And one of the answers is “I don’t go to church.” That answer is currently at 21%. Squid bounce?
What kind of aliens?
It better be the RIGHT kind of aliens or, buddy, you’ve got a schism on your hands.
Louis
P.S. The aliens told me that I have to go to the doctor for immunisations now. Does this mean the immunisations will work better?
Jesus got the crap beat out of him one day, gave up the ghost, then (allegedly) went to spent eternity at the right hand of God.
Admittedly, he was tortured and died unpleasantly, but I contend that we’ve all known people whose cumulative sufferings over long periods of time exceed what Jesus went through. I contend that anyone ever burned at the stake by Christian zealots or tortured by Inquisitors, anyone who lost a prolonged battle with cancer or other debilitating disease, anyone who has struggled with psychosis of schizophrenia for most of their lives, and anyone who has had to watch their own children suffer and die – all have suffered more than Jesus did on that single day.
It only takes a minute of objective thinking to realize that whole premise is ludicrous. But most people won’t do it. They can’t. It was deeply imprinted on their minds when they were too young to doubt: Jesus Suffered for Our Sins and Died For Our Salvation, therefore Jesus suffered more and died…uh… more… than anyone else, ever. It’s an idea that’s still imprinted on my mind. But I doubt everything now.
I recommend Christianity because its two biggest holidays are kinda fun! Hey, I like sparkly things and jelly-beans! I like Christmas music! Solstice is coming! Saturnalia rocks! It’s a nice chance to get together with family. Too bad people get so crazy about it, though. The pressure to be happy, the pressure to be close, the pressure to come up with the perfect gifts… sigh.
</soapbox>
Who would have thought of making God become a man and be punished for my sins?
Er…isn’t the sacred scapegoat one of the classic archetypes? Certainly the dying god appears in several pre-Christian European religions as well as (IIRC) the Aztec religion, sometimes as a person who was sacrificed while representing the god.
At least he’s consistent. :-)
Yeah, didn’t that Odin fellow do something with an eye?
Or am I missing the point?
Louis
Am I wrong in thinking that with zero evidence, there is no rational argument, and that all possible arguments are based on appeal to emotion?
Why do people believe this garbage after all this time?
ken (#34):
SteveC (#41):
I agree. Readers who are curious about the texts that lead the three of us (and plenty of other nonbelievers) to conclude that the Jesus character in the Gospels is a jerk can consult my comments in these two recent Pharyngula threads.
Well, there’s always Boccaccio’s argument from the second story of the Decameron.
Quick summary: The people in charge of the Christian religion are so vile and hypocritical that we’d expect their followers to get fed up and leave…and yet Christianity somehow manages to survive. The only possible explanation for this is Divine Intervention.
And Boccaccio wrote that 700 years ago, so the argument is even more persuasive today.
(I keep forgetting I can’t do HREF links here. The story from the Decameron is at: http://www.stg.brown.edu/projects/decameron/engDecShowText.php?myID=nov0102&expand=day01
“Read your bible, kids ”
I know, I know, I picked up a free one at a filling station in Lowman this summer and I’ve been meaning to read it. Just like I’ve been meaning to write that 50-page term paper on the Battle of the Bulge. OOGH…
Dahan @ #43: Even if one is charitable enough to not call heaven a neverending nightmare, it still seems to me functionally indifferent from eternal nothingness for pretty much the same reasons you mentioned.
zero @ #47: Google ads are like that. The ads on Russel’s Teapot are always pretty evenly mixed between atheist resources and those BS “faith tests”. The topic, I’m sure, is “religion”.
Ross Nixon’s argument is insane. It’s basically that his religion is so improbable, absurd, and unthinkably phony that it must be true.
Improbable and absurd, eh? So by Ross’s logic, Scientology must be evendouble-plus truer than Christianity!
I have been lurking on this blog for some time, hoping to hear some intelligent scientific discussion. Yet, I only hear whining about Christians and how they stole your toys. I don’t care who started it. Be the bigger man and be the science blogger that you are supposed to be.
Kseniya makes an interesting point back there in comment #51. Leaving aside all of the people in history who have suffered acutely and for protracted periods there were a few others crucified by the Romans, as I recall (even some other victims on “good friday”, who may have questioned that descriptor). A nasty ending, but hardly unique.
Oh no doubt, google ads are silly. I just thought it was hilarious. It’s kind of like running into a pro-choice google ad on a pro-life website because they get lumped together in the abortion category by google.
#37:
I can’t believe that hasn’t been done — at minimum, in a high school literary magazine (and I don’t mean that disparagingly at all).
I can’t make much of an argument for ‘Christianity’, but two compelling scientific arguments that seem to lead to the Creationism concept:
(1) James Lovelock’s GAII hypothesis. The basic idea is that biological and environmental processes evolved together. While the Darwinian view accounts for biological evolution, it does not account for the symbiotic evolution of the environment and life. As an example, Darwinian evolution doesn’t explain much about the fact that we would not have evolved had it not been for some (Cosmic) “fluke” mutation in anaerobic prokaryotic cells some 2.5 billion years ago leading to an increase in earth’s oxygen concentration. I find this argument also compelling as it concerns the symbiotic relationship between plants (i.e., photosynthesis) and animals (i.e., respiration) and the end (gas) products of those processes; and how this could be explained (following Occam’s razor principle) as a consequence of random Darwinian processes.
(2) The other is a physics perspective that suggests that an old tenet of Creationism (age of the earth: 4000 years and/or created in 7 days) could be technically correct as it concerns Einstein’s relativity theory. From an article I read:
“By comparing dates from the King James Bible, and fossil records and applying the logic of the singularity and Einstein’s general theory of relativity, four relativistic data points–the Biblical days three, five, six (Genesis) and 12.2 (Psalms)–formed a straight line along a decelerating hypothetical time line that spanned nearly a trillion years…There is a high correlation (r=-.987) between the story of Creation…Scientific theory has to be testable, and the Biblical theory about creation now touches the real world at one point–the fossil record.”…Their perspective suggests that “life didn’t just spontaneously generate out of nothing and turn from exploding rock into living beings as evolutionists have previously claimed. Life on our planet was engineered (by an outside force, namely God).”
More details can be found here:
Einsteinian Creationism
KT:
Science on Pharyngula. Knock yourself out.
KT, the goals of this blog not only include promoting science, but exposing the absurdity of superstition. If you don’t like it, leave. It’s that simple. But demanding that PZ write only things you like on his own blog is pretty damn futile, though. Not very clear thinker, are you?
Tony Jeremiah:
What about day 2? Spacetime post-photon is a direct contradiction of Einsteinian relativity, and all of modern physics. What about day 3? Earth post-ocean is a direct contradiction of all of planetary formation. What about birds appearing after reptiles on day 6? And so on. Finally, it is very easy to draw a curve through four data points, if you are regressing arbitarily. Drastic variation of physical constants, while not strictly rule-outtable, are very hard to reconcile with evidence. For example, you would be forced to change physical constants like c, which would change stuff like solar reactions. You can’t just magic your way into something like that without the sun exploding.
Gaia hypothesis (more a cognitive framework or a metaphor really has nothing to do with whatever you are talking about.
…
Still, this doesn’t mean there are no compelling arguments from Christianity, *provided that ‘compelling’ is defined subjectively.* For plenty of believers, faith is an important core to their lives, and faith does motivate good actions in some. (Yeah whatever you can do a moral accounting of religion and so on, but that sort of analysis is silly for the same reason we reject that the soviet union’s crimes were due to atheism) Speaking on an individual level, there is no genuine reason to believe that for all theists, removing their faith would make them better people. Hence, the most compelling argument for christianity, for me as an atheist, is that for some people it inspires them in a positive way, and has changed their lives in a good way. Of course, in others, it makes them total assholes, but you can’t be sure they wouldn’t be an asshole otherwise anyways.
The argument that your reading of Jesus makes him an asshole sucks. It totally misses the point, and plays right into the fundie hands of there being a special canonical reading.
Ummm… whatver whackjob.
Demented godbot.
You mean to tell me that jesus isn’t real? Oh, man. I’ve wasted my life! Now I’ll have to find some other deity to worship. Is Odin still around? I wonder if Odin is as strict as the god of Abraham, with all the stoning and guilt and stuff. I’d like less guilt…
That was for TJ.
I think PZ is saying removing their faith couldn’t hurt, FZ.
There are arguments for belief in Christianity under those topic headings, only the link doesn’t take us to the poll.
The link to Ophelia provides this quote, “Christianity Today did a survey asking ‘What do you think is the most compelling argument for Christianity? ‘ The choices are: 1) The exquisiteness of the physical world; 2) The reliability of the Scriptures; 3) The life and character of Jesus; 4) Christianity’s positive influence on culture and individuals; 5) The experiences of individuals; 6) Something else.”
I’ve been trying to report my views on evolution and Christianity (please read my webpage) for over 12 years, but I still haven’t been able to get published. I guess that I would say that one of the most compelling arguments for Christianity is “rejection.” Rejection by intellectuals, rejection of the concept of argument in the philosophical sense, and rejection of honest labor.
People voice their problems to you and you reject them on the basis of a word’s definition. What fun!!
You can also read my blog at
http://community.myfoxla.com/blogs/Brendatucker
where I ask you to consider Christ’s being “forsaken” and now would like to add that many problems existing in the world today could be addressed “in harmony” if we as a group would only make an effort to “make God happy”. If we recognize the plan of evolution that has been given to us (but largely ignored), wouldn’t that make us more prone to ask for more information and to voice demands for greater knowledge (rather than use trial and error)?
The prospect of life after death is a benefit and if you try to read my webpage and understand the Seven Race Theory it may even help you to understand why it is possible to life after other humans have died.
If the girasas is at the point in their evolutionary cycle that requires them to “ascend” the human in a manner similar to that which we used to ascend the “animal,” then they are beginning to make themselves felt in our lives.
The girasas kingdom invades the human (in a sense) and the two for a time coexist in one body. This must be uncomfortable for a being so higher evolutionarily than the human – as high as the human is above dinosaur. In order for the girasas to enjoy more his life within the human, the human can make attempts to purify their life and body to the point that it is slightly more similar to what the girasas is used to. We can change basic habits that people take for granted such as eating meat, drinking alcohol, thinking freely, etc., and allow ourselves to be drawn into and under the influence of the girasas so that while the girasas lives and operates in the human body, they are aided rather than obstructed.
After death, when humans act as host to the girasas, it is only fair play that there may be times when we can consciously coexist in the ethereal form that the girasas has for use.
However, once we learn about the evolutionary plan as given in THE SECRET DOCTRINE by H.P. Blavatsky, we may wish to waylay the concept that we are going into an extremely new and wonderful existence (inside the girasas body) and concentrate on how we can induce the girasas into greater activity and life on earth. To have them active, known, and loved here on earth would be a much greater treasure than heaven life even.
So, how many of us ares supposed to fly planes into skyscrapers, exactly?
Sorry, Brenda. There’s no such thing as an “evolutionary plan”. Nor an “evolutionary cycle”. Nor evolutionary levels. Three strikes, you’re out.
This article is a nice counterbalance to the pablum of that list. It details xian journalists’ loss of faith after dealing with xian behaviour. It’s an interesting read.
Oh, and Brenda please also tell us about your timecube collection.
What is there to explain here? It just happened. There’s no reason why it shouldn’t have.
Very simple. Cyanobacteria changed from using hydrogen or hydrogen sulfide in photosynthesis to using water, which is a lot more abundant. Big advantage. Instead of nothing or sulfur, the waste product is oxygen. Being a waste product, it accumulated in the ocean (and the air). Result? Organisms that not only tolerated the presence of oxygen but were able to harness its power by oxidizing stuff (instad of breathing sulfate or nitrate, for example) had a big advantage. The cycle didn’t arise all at once; oxygenic photosynthesis is older than oxygen respiration.
There has not been any trillion years. The universe is only 13.7 billion years old.
The correlation is negative? Interesting.
No evolutionary biologist has ever claimed that. The people you cite don’t know what they are talking about, as usual.
Explain stupid design.
What is there to explain here? It just happened. There’s no reason why it shouldn’t have.
Very simple. Cyanobacteria changed from using hydrogen or hydrogen sulfide in photosynthesis to using water, which is a lot more abundant. Big advantage. Instead of nothing or sulfur, the waste product is oxygen. Being a waste product, it accumulated in the ocean (and the air). Result? Organisms that not only tolerated the presence of oxygen but were able to harness its power by oxidizing stuff (instad of breathing sulfate or nitrate, for example) had a big advantage. The cycle didn’t arise all at once; oxygenic photosynthesis is older than oxygen respiration.
There has not been any trillion years. The universe is only 13.7 billion years old.
The correlation is negative? Interesting.
No evolutionary biologist has ever claimed that. The people you cite don’t know what they are talking about, as usual.
Explain stupid design.
This one is attracting the whackjobs today.
Egads, Madame Blavatsky’s theosophy being presented as a sort of “scientific fact” on Pharyngula. It will reconcile science and religion, and make all into peaceful harmony. Not.
Blavatsky was a con artist and nut case. Her views have been “rejected” because they’re really, really bad views. What you’re calling “evolution” has no relation to actual evolution. Find some other guru, something blander and more recent, Brenda. She is not doing your head any good.
I find it interesting that I tell you about what I read in THE SECRET DOCTRINE and rather than look into it and appreciate the serious thinking that has been done into the subject, you reject it.
This is a compromise that is not intended to curtail scientific endeavor. Rather, we are only just reflecting a bit on what has transpired and what could be.
If you won’t delve headlong into this experiment on yourself, at least you could treat those who do have the gall to attempt this endeavor as if you’d like to learn more about it. OPEN YOUR MIND TO NEW THINGS.
Let’s hear what commands you would like me to do for you?
Something rather than taking care of me.
What if we could command the girasas to do as we bid? Would it be worth your time then?
A true scientist is eager to investigate new things. A new kingdom? There would be nothing better on earth to the real scientist. Don’t pretend to be something you are not and I’ll try hard to pretend that I am not the girasas, but still I’d like to show you them if I could and I didn’t have to give up too much.
What the heck is that person in #74 talking about? Seems like a live one.
Isn’t it rather pathetic that this is all they can dredge up for their readers, platitudes and errors?
Makes perfect sense to me, since they don’t really believe in anything except the necessity to fake some kind of pietistic and devotional aura? Why they believe either the mass fakery or the mass delusion benefits anyone, (unless they’re directly involved in the soul trade) I’ll never know.
But since they don’t believe anything, they don’t know what they believe, or even what they are supposed to believe.
Uber,
If someone like myself with humble beginnings and education could BEST DARWIN, a well educated, upper classman with good breeding and writing skills, wouldn’t that truly be an American feat and confirmation that a higher kingdom can find its way into anyone willing to make the effort.
Don’t be so hard on the religious person who is trying to carryon in the face of extreme cynacism and criticism. We have something wonderful to share, but sharing this higher kingdom with other humans, means nearly having to kill the human that wants to exist also.
How to better balance the two is worth calculating.
Ross Nixon, Google “Mithras”.
Refresh my memory. Jesus is that guy who cursed a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season, right? Sounds like a guy would a tad too tight to me.
Wow. It appears that inmates at a psych hospital have gotten hold of the adminstrator’s computer. Nurse Ratched, where are you?
Fhnuzoag:
I haven’t tracked down the entire article to get the rest of the details. That info I quoted is from a newspaper article from sometime ago that I found interesting. So I can’t comment further on your critiques without further reading of the original article.
However…
***Re: What about day 3? Earth post-ocean is a direct contradiction of all of planetary formation. What about birds appearing after reptiles on day 6?
I’m not entirely sure to what extent Bibles get reinterpreted over time, but according to the NIV version (I’m not a Bible thumper, but am generally willing to read anything being the open-minded skeptic type), the sequence (using conventional science terminology) looks like this:
Day 1: big bang, first stars, solar system formation (15 bya)
Day 2: earth formation (ocean, sky) (5 bya)
Day 3: plants (425 mya)
Day 4: hmm…looks a bit like day 2
Day 5: birds (250-150 mya)
Day 6: reptiles (250-199 mya) and then man (2.5 mya)
Day 7: rest
It’s a toss up concerning the bird/reptile sequence depending on how you define reptiles, taking into consideration the pterodactyl (somewhat of a bird/reptile hybrid; 228 to 65 mya), and the overlapping time between the two. Actually the estimates seem to be pointing to birds after reptiles as you suggest–although it’s opposite in the version in the NIV bible I have as indicated.
*** Re: Spacetime post-photon is a direct contradiction of Einsteinian relativity, and all of modern physics.
From my understanding, the Bible is supposedly the written word of “God”. So presumably, everything is written from that perspective. Given Einstein’s theory that time slows down post light speed, it would not be suprising if “God” spoke about completing the works in Genesis in days rather than years. Post light speed, time slows down. So technically, one day from a “God” reference frame could be several billion years from an earth reference frame.
**Re: Gaia hypothesis (more a cognitive framework or a metaphor really has nothing to do with whatever you are talking about).
It doesn’t appear that Lovelock uses it as a metaphor given the experimental models he has used to test the ideas. My reason for bringing it up concerns the evolution of symbiotic mechanisms that seem difficult to explain solely from a Darwinian reference point as Lovelock suggests. My specific point was how it would be possible to explain using Darwinian principles, how plants evolved a mechanism whose end product is oxygen, and animals evolved a mechanism whose end product is carbon dioxide, and both end products are necessary for the other species to sustain life. It’s difficult to imagine that two seemingly independent biological evolutions could end up having such extensive symbiosis by pure chance.
Both topics are related to sequences of events that one would be hardpressed to believe arose simply by random processes (i.e., Big Bang and biological evolution). I assume that there’s some statistical proof to show that these events arose by chance?
**Re:Steve C; Ummm… whatver whackjob.
Demented godbot.
**I’d be very careful. You’re sounding like a ‘Christian’.
Before engaging with Ms. Tucker, you might want to check this thread at Panda’s Thumb to see what could happen…
Imagine–no one will publish her Theory!
“From my understanding, the Bible is supposedly the written word of “God”.”
You’re making one hell of an assumption there. If I was to tell you that my grocery list was divinely inspired (Tim’s Cascade Potato Chips, Hallelujah!), would you filter cosmological observations through it?
“(I’m not a Bible thumper, but am generally willing to read anything being the open-minded skeptic type)”
Then why don’t you try fitting scientific data to any other holy books? Hell, I hear Hindu has an eternal creation/destruction cycle that could fit well with certain cosmological models.
“taking into consideration the pterodactyl (somewhat of a bird/reptile hybrid; 228 to 65 mya)”
Except that it’s really no such thing, being an offshoot of early reptiles and a dead evolutionary branch separated by millions of years and likely thousands of other species branches from even the first proto-birds.
Tony Jeremiah, don’t ever call yourself a skeptic again. Ever.
And look up what an “ad hoc hypothesis” is.
http://www.skepdic.com/adhoc.html
Tony Jeremiah (#89) wrote:
So pure chance would have made it more likely that the elements in an ecosystem would not have evolved to work together? No, that would require miracles.
I suspect that you’re working backwards from what already is and assuming that these were therefore goals set in advance, ones which needed certain conditions which just seemed to fortuitously come about. That’s common with this kind of argument — which is, at least, an actual argument.
As for the poll “arguments” for Christianity not being arguments, I’ve found that moderates tend to be very smug on the “there is no compelling proof or evidence for God; that is where faith comes in.” As someone above pointed out, these are all just feel-good reasons to think they’re on the right path, not persuasive evidence used to convince others.
It bothers me, though, that this belief that “God wants faith” is supposed to be the humble, tolerant, science- and- reason- friendly stance. It’s okay you don’t believe, because the evidence really is bad. It’s not convincing or compelling, so you atheists are not being unreasonable.
But then again, it’s only okay on the epistemic level, isn’t it? If “having faith” and believing without sufficient evidence is the entire point of our existence or the ultimate goal of life, then the problem with nonbelievers is not in the mind, but in the heart. Wanting it to be true so much you make yourself believe it is the sign of an open, loving, sophisticated person who is achieving their purpose. Unlike you guys. But we completely understand and respect why you’re unconvinced. No, it doesn’t make sense, does it? Heh heh.
That’s the reasonable, moderate position we atheists are supposed to be soooo grateful for.
You haven’t even tried to best Darwin. And if you had, you wouldn’t notice, because you don’t have the faintest idea what it is that Darwin figured out.
That’s why we treat you, if at all, with contempt: because, unlike Socrates, you don’t know that you know nothing.
Bah. Apollonius of Tyana is more impressive.
No, the solar system is only 5 Ba old. The sun is a second- or third-generation star.
Firstly, birds are descended from “reptiles”, so “reptiles” have to come first, instead of birds and “fish” appearing at the same time and “reptiles” later.
Secondly, they did: oldest “reptiles” — 310 Ma ago; oldest birds — up to 155 Ma ago, depending on the definition.
You don’t know what you are talking about. Go back to square one.
On the other side, you don’t seem to have noticed that there isn’t just one creation story in Genesis. There are two, and they contradict each other.
May I suggest that you don’t know what you’re talking about?
(Hint: birds are dinosaurs, not pterosaurs.)
May I suggest that you don’t know what you’re talking about?
(Hint: you aren’t even making sense.)
That is his problem and maybe Margulis’s. Not anyone else’s.
For billions of years, the Earth’s atmosphere contained lots and lots of carbon dioxide. That’s the normal state of affairs; compare Venus and Mars. So oxygen breathing and organic-matter eating doesn’t need to exist for photosynthesis to evolve.
Oxygen-breathing seems to be just nitrate-breathing with somewhat modified enzymes. Also, never mind facultative anaerobes. Like the Escherichia coli in your gut: when the oxygen runs out, they breathe nitrate, and when the nitrate runs out, they stop breathing altogether and ferment instead.
Learn some basic biochemistry and some basic historical geology. Learn the basics.
You haven’t even tried to best Darwin. And if you had, you wouldn’t notice, because you don’t have the faintest idea what it is that Darwin figured out.
That’s why we treat you, if at all, with contempt: because, unlike Socrates, you don’t know that you know nothing.
Bah. Apollonius of Tyana is more impressive.
No, the solar system is only 5 Ba old. The sun is a second- or third-generation star.
Firstly, birds are descended from “reptiles”, so “reptiles” have to come first, instead of birds and “fish” appearing at the same time and “reptiles” later.
Secondly, they did: oldest “reptiles” — 310 Ma ago; oldest birds — up to 155 Ma ago, depending on the definition.
You don’t know what you are talking about. Go back to square one.
On the other side, you don’t seem to have noticed that there isn’t just one creation story in Genesis. There are two, and they contradict each other.
May I suggest that you don’t know what you’re talking about?
(Hint: birds are dinosaurs, not pterosaurs.)
May I suggest that you don’t know what you’re talking about?
(Hint: you aren’t even making sense.)
That is his problem and maybe Margulis’s. Not anyone else’s.
For billions of years, the Earth’s atmosphere contained lots and lots of carbon dioxide. That’s the normal state of affairs; compare Venus and Mars. So oxygen breathing and organic-matter eating doesn’t need to exist for photosynthesis to evolve.
Oxygen-breathing seems to be just nitrate-breathing with somewhat modified enzymes. Also, never mind facultative anaerobes. Like the Escherichia coli in your gut: when the oxygen runs out, they breathe nitrate, and when the nitrate runs out, they stop breathing altogether and ferment instead.
Learn some basic biochemistry and some basic historical geology. Learn the basics.
Do you mean HER theory?
Well, this is what it is – her theory that she has, that is to say, which is hers, is hers. Ahhhhhhemmmmmhhhhmmmmmmm.
That theory?
Perhaps some atheistic website (I would have no idea which one…no idea whatsoever…perhaps one that rhymes with Flaryngula?) could turn this poll around, giving the exact same answers, but asking the question “What is the FEEBLEST reason for becoming a Christian?”
@Robin: Feeblest reason? I vote, “She was religious and wouldn’t marry me unless I did it in her church, and the minister wouldn’t perform the ceremony unless I joined it.”
You got that right.
phat
Oh, come on, this is nothing compared to what would happen if PZ said, “There’s this stupid poll at Christianity Today, almost as stupid as Scott Adams talking about Intelligent Design.”
Yeah, Blake.
BTW, I still subscribe to the Dilbert newsletter. Turns out he’s publishing a book on his “philosotainment” or whatever called “Stick to cartoons, monkey!” or something like that.
The first bit of his gross PHBish stupidity got me to vow not to buy anything Dilbert-related for a year (not that I bought anything within a couple years anyway), but it seems like I won’t be able to buy anything Dilbert until the anniversary of his death.
Re: So pure chance would have made it more likely that the elements in an ecosystem would not have evolved to work together? No, that would require miracles.
I suspect that you’re working backwards from what already is and assuming that these were therefore goals set in advance, ones which needed certain conditions which just seemed to fortuitously come about. That’s common with this kind of argument — which is, at least, an actual argument.
******************************
That’s the idea I was going for, and it seems that if you’re attempting to derive the nature of a “God” entity (and play Devil’s advocate), you can only produce a reverse engineering argument.
What I really want to know if someone’s come up with, or addressed the following question:
Given the universe’ 15 billion year age, and, all of the sequence of events leading to life on earth, what is the statistical probability of having the universe and life evolve on earth evolve to its current state and current point in time, assuming no divine intervention and/or prior organizing source?
Tony, how do you do that statistical analysis exactly? Would you include some variable for no-god? How do you quantify the non-existence of god?
Sheesh.
phat
“Given the universe’ 15 billion year age, and, all of the sequence of events leading to life on earth, what is the statistical probability of having the universe and life evolve on earth evolve to its current state and current point in time, assuming no divine intervention and/or prior organizing source?”
23.
How about —
“I just love the communion wine; they don’t seem to carry it in any stores, though.”
A nun might say, “It’s just a habit with me.”
But a statement by President John Adams got me thinking:
“But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?”
— John Adams, letter to FA Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816
Maybe, just maybe, joining a Christian Church allows one to do all sorts of mischief in the name of a god.
100%
Now stop asking stupid questions.
More cowbell.
Also, Tony, I hope you don’t put much stock in what is completely illogical.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
Applies on back to the creation of the universe, but most creationists use it to attack “evolution,” even though evolution is not concerned with abiogenesis.
Argument by “statistical probability” is a complete canard.
I have a deck of cards. I take the first card off the top.
It’s a ten of hearts. The odds of that one card coming up are 1 in 52.
Next card: a 3 of clubs. The odds of those two cards coming up in that order are 1 in 2704.
(deals entire deck)
The odds of all these cards coming up in this exact order are 1.70676555 × 10^89. And yet it just happpened here! Truly we have just witnessed a miraculous event.
If you want to argue that it is more likely that goddidit than not can you present us with some figures on the probability of that being the case, so we can compare them with the odds of life arising without divine intervention?
Christians make such a big deal out of Jesus’ alleged physical ordeal at the hands of the Romans. Jesus had it easy compared with the trauma endured by victims of modern warfare. How would christians view Jesus if he “rose from the dead” minus a limb or two and with burns that made him look like Dr. Phibes for the rest of his existence?
Here’s some feeble ideas that I’ve actually been responded to when I ask them “seriously, why are you a Christian?”
1.) “Because that’s how I was raised.”
2.) “Why not?”
3.) “All my friends are Christians.”
4.) “Well, just in case the Bible’s true.”
5.) “I never thought of that.”
6.) “Because Jesus is Lord!”
7.) “So I don’t go to Hell”
Pretty lame if you ask me, but no where witty as they could be.
42.
23 is heresy.
42.
23 is heresy.
“Because I never thought about it.”
That is the truth for the vast majority of christians.
I miss some Idaho things.
“That’s how my parents raised me to think.”
Sadly, this also works for politics.
Re:I have a deck of cards. I take the first card off the top.
It’s a ten of hearts. The odds of that one card coming up are 1 in 52.
Next card: a 3 of clubs. The odds of those two cards coming up in that order are 1 in 2704.
(deals entire deck)
The odds of all these cards coming up in this exact order are 1.70676555 × 10^89. And yet it just happpened here! Truly we have just witnessed a miraculous event.
**Yeah. This is along the lines I was thinking. Similar to some calculation I saw sometime ago concerning the probability of having life on other planets. Each one of those cards would represent a universal event (e.g., Big Bang, star formations, biological evolution). I’m more interested in the combination of the probability of such events, and, the time in which they occurred. So based on your 3-card-selection example, the previous question would be something like assuming the specific parameters (e.g., those 3 specific card sets), what would be the mean length of time it took to select those 3 specific cards assuming they are chosen randomly vs. the mean length of time if they were chosen systematically.
Uh, not to be a complete and total nerd here, but the odds of a 52-card deck dealing out a particular way is only 1 in 8.06×10^67. See, you did 52^52, but when you are removing cards from the deck each draw has one less card to choose from. So it’s 52x51x50…x1. In other words, 52!. You’d use 52^52 if you were replacing the cards, and it would allow for the possibility, for instance, of getting the ace of spades 52 times in a row.
Because my pastor says there’s overwhelming evidence. I don’t know what that evidence might be and I’m getting kind of annoyed you keep asking that but I know that some of the places in the Bible actually exist.
Jared, it wasn’t nerdy at all to point it out. It’s pretty basic.
What was nerdy is that you looked at those numbers and either recognized off the bat that they were wrong, or went and double-checked it to see for yourself. Nerd! =)
For me, the most compelling argument for Christianity was the fact that I was taught that allowing myself to doubt (the tenets of Christianity) was in itself evil/bad — I was made to believe that by using my sense of reason, (i.e. in doubting that which was not proven), I was engaging in morally corrupt behavior and was therefore a bad person. As children, we want to please our loved ones by being the “good” children we are convinced we must be. Doubt had to be suppressed in order to accomplish this. Some of us never grow up; hence, Christianity endures.
Because the cake is a lie. Obviously.
I hesitate to call this a feeble reason, if only because it was given by a close family member, but
“I just really like stained glass”.
“I hesitate to call this a feeble reason, if only because it was given by a close family member, but
“I just really like stained glass”.”
That’s among the reasons I’ll go into a church. It’s not a reason for me to believe something. So I guess it’s feeble, but I can’t help but feel people who answer with these kind of reasonings aren’t really Christians. They’re just atheists/agnostics in denial.
That’s how I was until I went away to uni. Then I didn’t have to go to church, and no one forced me, so I never bothered going. While the community is nice, I found other communities. Of course, my church was special in that respect (from what I hear of others).
funny thing…
PZ plus over 100 comments
get obsessed in an irrational and rude way
about how irrational and rude christianity is….
don’t you guys have anything better to do with your time?
You’re now a part of it, heretic.
commenting on a blog is “excessive” and “rude”?
i guess if the comments were about cross stitching and off topic, that would be obsessive and rude. but since everyone seems to be on-topic…err…what’s rude? sorry, i just amm surprised that you’d say it’s rude to have a long comment thread about something that was square on topic. isn’t what people do with their time their own business? Don’t you have something better to do with your time? come now.
I like the idea of a feeblest reason list. Some suggestions:
Because my parents told me so.
Because my church leader told me so.
Because the stars and the rest of nature are so amazing.
Because I don’t want to think we came from monkeys.
“Given the universe’ 15 billion year age, and, all of the sequence of events leading to life on earth, what is the statistical probability of having the universe and life evolve on earth evolve to its current state and current point in time, assuming no divine intervention and/or prior organizing source?”
I’m a college dropout, and not too smart, but wouldn’t the answer be – 1:1?
How about: Because it is relatively harmless and it gives the Christian a sense of community that few atheists have?
the feeblest reason to believe in christianity is:because pretty people on american tv talk shows and award shows give thanks to jesus and they say it is true!! and if they are pretty,then it must be true!!
I find it funny that even the good reasonable atheists here are showing a tremendous amount of faith in assuming there was a historical Jesus. I see no compelling evidence that Jesus was any more historical than Heracles, Dionysus or Apollonius of Tyana (although he has more evidence than Jesus). Critical scholarship is going in the direction of mythicism as it it is being recognized by many critical scholars that they have give historicism a special break from the sort of evidence we require of other historical claims. The mythicist case is pretty strong and well argues in Dr. Robert Price’s ‘The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man”. The Gospels read exactly like a conflation of other myths and Greco-Roman novels, as Price points out, copying verbatim many plot elements.
Personally I love the tasty snacks they offer during the services! yum!
(What do you mean, it’s symbolic cannibalism?)
I’m really, deep down inside, just a pragmatist. I go with science because it works. I go with math because it’s beatiful. And, if it comes to that, I’ll go with christianity if it keeps me from being killed by an angry mob.
Other than immediate and painful death from a bunch of wackos, I can’t see any good reason for believing any of that nonsense. But, as Giordano Bruno, Galileo and others have found, physical violence can be a very good reason to at least pretend to believe.
**Re: “Given the universe’ 15 billion year age, and, all of the sequence of events leading to life on earth, what is the statistical probability of having the universe and life evolve on earth evolve to its current state and current point in time, assuming no divine intervention and/or prior organizing source?”
I’m a college dropout, and not too smart, but wouldn’t the answer be – 1:1?
*********************************************************
The question is really more of a thought experiment and I don’t really have a particular answer myself. However, a controversial math equation was proposed along the same lines as my thoughts for bringing up the question. It’s called the Drake Equation, and is an attempt to estimate the number of other earth-like planets in our galaxy for which we might be able to communicate.
I personally believe that while the Darwinian view is an admirable theoretical perspective for explaining how life evolved on earth, it is nonetheless a limiting one for explaining the nature of existence. As an example, let’s go with the assumption that life evolved on earth through Darwinian processes. From this perspective, it’s fairly easy to describe life on earth as a fluke. However, let’s consider the possibility that earth is the only planet in the universe with life.
From this Cosmological viewpoint, it’s a toss up concerning whether it would be more accurate to call life on earth a fluke/random chance, or, a miraculous event. Which one it is, ultimately, will likely depend on one’s spiritual predilection.
117
Can someone explain this to me? Because I can’t follow it at all. Tony Jeremiah wants to figure out… how long the history the universe must have been, had it been created rather than developed naturally? Or something?.
I once saw a TV interview (Charlie Rose?) with Quentin Tarantino (of ‘Pulp Fiction fame). He claimed that he (QT) ‘has a God-given talent’ (sic) and that therefore there must be a God. How much more logical can you get?
Indeed. It makes no claims or predictions about “the nature of existence” at all.
Why is that “fairly easy” as opposed to “completely arbitrary”?
Let’s consider that that is a very slim possibility indeed. Consider this, as long as we’re making arbitrary assumptions:
Given the estimated number of stars in the known universe, and assuming that only 1 in 1 billion is host to a planet that could support life as we know it, and that only 1 in 1 billion of those planets actually does support life as we know it, there would still be roughly half a million inhabited planets out there.
Yes – even given the vanishingly unlikely odds (1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000) of a star hosting an inhabited planet, there would still be hundreds of thousands – perhaps a million – planets crawling with life.
Really, though, I don’t think it’s been established what the likelihoods are. Michael Martin wrote in 1990:
This single datapoint – Earth – isn’t much use in arriving at answer to this question through induction.
True enough. But as someone already pointed out, the miracle wouldn’t be that there was life on Earth – it would be that there was life ONLY on Earth. If you’re going to attribute that miracle to a god, the likelihood is that he’s a cosmic genocidist who’s been going around stamping out life on those 499,999 other planets.
:-)
Re:Can someone explain this to me? Because I can’t follow it at all. Tony Jeremiah wants to figure out… how long the history the universe must have been, had it been created rather than developed naturally? Or something?.
**I’m thinking off the top of my head and trying to formulate the idea as I type, so that’s why it’s not lucid at the moment. But yes, I’m trying to conceive whether one could (or has) mathematically deduced the existence of a creating force (or lack thereof) by determining how long it would take to create this universe (with the most significant event being life on earth), if one assumes the known physical parameters converged randomly vs. deliberately.
The simplest analogy would be with the deck of cards (fontor @109). The total number of existing relevant physical parameters would be equivalent to the 52 cards. The exact parameters for recreating the universe would be a subset of the 52 cards (e.g., the three that fontor selected). The question I’m particularly curious about, is if you had those cards facing down, what would be the average amount of time it would take to select those 3 cards if you did not know the 3 cards that would create the universe as we know it (random selection) vs. knowing the cards that do (systematic selection)?
So the idea is that if one can somehow workout an equation (such as the Drake Equation) to test this idea, and, find that the known age of the universe is closer to the mean random selection time, that would suggest a non-created universe. On the other hand, if the mean is closer to systematic selection, that would suggest a created universe.
I suspect some of these ideas could be addressed by a combination of the Drake Equation and the Rare Earth Hypothesis.
Re: True enough. But as someone already pointed out, the miracle wouldn’t be that there was life on Earth – it would be that there was life ONLY on Earth.
**No argument here.
Re: If you’re going to attribute that miracle to a god, the likelihood is that he’s a cosmic genocidist who’s been going around stamping out life on those 499,999 other planets.
**Or, if you go with the godless universe view, that humanoid civilizations have genocidic tendencies that outweigh technological sophistication (e.g., the current potential of nuclear weapons).
Dear Dr:
I know that evolution is wrong. Because new mothers don’t grow an extra set of arms.
Kb
I’ve got a fairy tale about an omnipotent squid who scattered humanity across the earth as a kind of chum to draw in hungry aliens for its breakfast that is even truthier than his fantasy, so I win.
Throw in the strippers and the beer volcano as reward for being chum, (salvation by being chum alone, and not through any good works, including squid husbandry) and I imagine you could get plenty of followers.
Hmm. I think I’ll hit the road preaching the gospel of Squidianity with a tent, a hat to pass, and a portable wurlitzer.
Then, on to cable TV, and then I’ll found PZ Myers University… and The Cephalopod Cathedral…
If we play things just so, we might be able to make even more bank on the inevitable squid schism (squism?) that will arise..
@#66 & #90:
QUOTE
*** Re: Spacetime post-photon is a direct contradiction of Einsteinian relativity, and all of modern physics.
From my understanding, the Bible is supposedly the written word of “God”. So presumably, everything is written from that perspective. Given Einstein’s theory that time slows down post light speed, it would not be surprising if “God” spoke about completing the works in Genesis in days rather than years. Post light speed, time slows down. So technically, one day from a “God” reference frame could be several billion years from an earth reference frame.
/QUOTE
It’s very popular for religious people to evoke science when it appears to support their point of view. Usually, people making claims to this effect don’t understand what the science really is about, as the commenter in post#76 (see end of post) already indicated. I’ve heard people tell me that quantum mechanics supports some religious claim. The person telling me this, however, had not the slightest idea what quantum mechanics is about. Einstein’s theories are also very popular in that respect since most people don’t know what they are about and it always sounds so impressive. What you cite in your original post regarding Einstein’s general theory allegedly supporting the notion that the earth was really created a couple of thousands years ago, is simply scientific sounding but completely unintelligible gibberish, indicating that, whoever wrote this, had no clue what he was talking about. Also, you seem to confuse Einstein’s special theory of relativity with his general theory of relativity. The notion that “time goes slower” when approaching the speed of light (not “post light speed” as you wrote; nothing can move faster than light) is the subject of Einstein’s special theory, the general theory is about gravitation. But, even if one takes this argument seriously, it doesn’t explain what it purports to. Imagine, God created in his rest-frame (moving with almost light speed relative to earth), an instable particle, like a muon and measured its mean life time to be 2.197 microsecs. Measured from earth, the lifetime of the muon appears to be much longer (i.e. God’s time appears to be slower). However, if a muon is created on earth and decays (on average) after 2.197 microsecs, the average decay time God measures is longer. Now the earth’s time appears to be slower. There seems to be a paradox. However, Einstein’s theory of special relativity provides a way to make this paradox go away by providing transformation laws that allow both observers to use their measurements to calculate the lifetime of the muon in the other observer’s rest frame, and miraculously, both agree that the mean muon lifetime is 2.197 microseconds! This is a natural, but not very intuitive consequence of Einstein’s basic assumptions that physical laws are independent of the reference frame they are measured in (the muon’s lifetime is such a physical law) and the existence of an upper limit of speed (the speed of light).
Also, for God to create earth he must necessarily be in its rest frame (or moving slowly with respect to it), thus his time and earth’s time would be ticking at almost the same rate anyway.
In short, the ‘time slows down at higher speeds’ argument only appears to work if one avoids to go into the details.
And also, let’s not forget: religious people are first to attack science when science provides answers that seem to make God unnecessary.
@ Comment 143
I’m still trying to wrap my head around relativity theory and the Twin Paradox (and probably never will), so can’t provide any detailed counterarguments. However, I thought the following would be a very simple, non-Darwinian, “evolutionary” argument for the existence of God from a secular perspective:
*Invention of writing: 4000 BC (assuming Egyptian Papyrus as the starting point)
*Invention of Paper: 3500 BC (again assuming Egyptian Papyrus) – 2 AD (first paper press invention by the Chinese)
*Dead Sea Scrolls: 335 BC – 1 AD (speculated time range for writing the original Biblical text)
*Invention of Gutenberg Press: 1450 (Mass production of Bible and other books)
***********************************************************
So presumably, discussion of God and other ideas would be mute without the invention of paper and writing.
The only really compelling argument for Christianity is Pascal’s wager. Trouble is, it’s also an argument for the Norse gods, the Hindu gods, various and sundry Polynesian gods………..
The only really compelling argument for Christianity is Pascal’s wager. Trouble is, it’s also an argument for the Norse gods, the Hindu gods, various and sundry Polynesian gods………..
Not necessarily, not all of those gods are such emotional blackmailers as the Christian one.
For example, Pascal’s wager is not an argument to believe in Conan’s Crom, since Crom doesn’t give a damn whether you believe or not.
Following from BaldApe at 145, even Pascal’s Wager is not an argument for Christianity, only for believing/pretending to believe what is not shown to be true and is equally likely to be true as every other similarly postulated mythological lightning bolt-chucker.
And?
Where is your point?
And?
Where is your point?
@148
“neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted … by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.” (Albert Einstein, 1940, On Science and Religion, pp. 605-607)
and let’s see what Einstein says right after that quote:
@150
And then after that he wrote…
*****************************************************
About God, I cannot accept any concept based on the authority of the Church. As long as I can remember, I have resented mass indocrination. I do not believe in the fear of life, in the fear of death, in blind faith. I cannot prove to you that there is no personal God, but if I were to speak of him, I would be a liar. I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. My God created laws that take care of that. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws.
*****************************************************
So Einstein is either speaking about God metaphorically, or, is an Agnostic theist.