Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(July 20, 2017 at 3:09 pm)mordant Wrote: Funny, I'd have said the same things about YOUR pink elephant deity of choice. Are you suggesting that if I provided a message and backstory and made up an explanation, as you have, that it would be worthy of consideration? Really?
What causal effect on the natural world do angels and God have? Other than just that you assert that they have?
If you made up something about your pink elephant, no it would still not be worthy of consideration--because you made it up.
Well in 2000 years I suppose the fact that was made up will seem less relevant to you somehow but it is still just a claim and you haven't demonstrated how the claim would be distinguished from human imagination -- yours, others, the church's, whatever.
(July 20, 2017 at 4:57 pm)SteveII Wrote: What causal effect on the natural world do angels and God have? Well, Jesus was a pretty big one--you know, dying for all of humanity. People have given testimony (which is evidence) that they have received messages or assistance in time of crisis from angels. You can choose to believe them or not. Your belief has nothing to do with the truth of the matter. Whether a person can 'substantiate' their claim or not have nothing to do with the truth of the matter. There is no evidential, logical, nor scientific reason you can stand behind and make the counterclaim: "that didn't happen.
My contention is not that it didn't happen, though it's highly unlikely for various reasons that I've elucidated elsewhere. My contention is that there isn't good reason to afford belief to it.
(July 20, 2017 at 4:57 pm)SteveII Wrote:
Quote:That a movement resulted and spread in a short time is evidence that people found the movement interesting / compelling.
What authentication are you talking about? The church councils? That was just the early church picking what scriptures it wanted to run with.
No, it is evidence they believed the claims. They either were eyewitnesses or believed the eyewitnesses. They were either the evidence or believed the evidence presented to them. Since many were Jewish, their belief represented a 180 degree turn from the faith of their community families. So to characterize it as "interesting/compelling" does not capture the
Looks like your thought got cut off there, but let me just say that people throughout history believe all sorts of things and that's no evidence at all that it's true. Reference my discussion of bleeding with leeches.
(July 20, 2017 at 4:57 pm)SteveII Wrote: Even the famed Bart Ehrman believes that the NT is better than 99% of what it was originally. The dating of every one of the letters/gospels has been established long before any formal church.
Unlike many unbelievers I have no issue with this statement about the fidelity of the manuscripts. I used to be an evangelical Christian and I have some formal training in matters theological (not much, but more than most -- a year at Bible Institute) and so I understand how manuscripts are compared and what can be deduced from that and so forth. I do not advance the argument that the Bible as we have it today in the original languages is substantially off the rails from the original manuscripts. I feel there are far more serious problems with the content than there is with whether we can be sure of the content.
(July 20, 2017 at 4:57 pm)SteveII Wrote: Read the 27 letters and histories of the NT. If you think that is not evidence, than you have to deny that any historical account anywhere in the world at any time before electronic recordings were possible as 'not evidence'.
If you are making a special case for the NT, well, that's just special pleading.
Historians will tell you that to determine the accuracy of an account, many factors must be taken into account and many sources compared. The more fantastical the account and the more unknown the authors and so forth, the more corroboration is needed. I'm not making a special argument for scripture other than to the extent it's making special claims ... like any other document it has to be independently corroborated, preferably by sources with no skin in the game. For example, if an earthquake struck Jerusalem after the crucifixion and resurrected corpses roamed Jerusalem, it would be nice if secular historians and/or government sources documented this remarkable event. You know, an account of the repair of the temple veil, an account of the un-inheritance of the descendants of dead people who are no longer dead, a receipt for masonry for earthquake repairs, anything would help. Yet there is ... nothing.
I suspect you may keep referring to the NT as "the 27 letters and histories" because you're going to claim they corroborate each other, which is a slippery slope for you to go down considering the many inconsistencies between them.
(July 20, 2017 at 4:57 pm)SteveII Wrote: Further, if you are saying because of the content of the NT (extraordinary claims and all) you don't believe them to be evidence, that is simply circular reasoning: there is no evidence for miracles, the NT does not count because it contains miracles.
The NT contains claims that miracles happen. That does not constitute evidence or contribute to proof. The Pali Canon attributes miracles to the Buddha; it contains miracles; yet I very much doubt you believe them just because they're there.
(July 20, 2017 at 4:57 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. Three points on the New Testament not being the claim:
1.1- The claim is that the events outlined in the gospels really happened--one in particular: that Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth to redeem humanity and provide a way for people to have a relationship with God.
1.2- The gospels and Acts catalog the claim. The balance are letters discussing and applying the claim.[/quote]
I never said there isn't a lot of exposition based on the claims, but the exposition means nothing if the claims aren't worthy of belief because they aren't properly substantiated.
(July 20, 2017 at 4:57 pm)SteveII Wrote: It is not as if the gospel writers wrote an essay on what people were saying and gave no opinion on the facts. They were testifying to its truthfulness (as evidenced by their own experience or by interviewing eyewitnesses as they wrote it).
The gospels were written anonymously beginning some 35 years (and, in the case of John, some 65 years) after the alleged events. They disagree with each other and even fare more so with the Pauline writings, which are much older. They are not eyewitness accounts, although they claim to rely on eyewitness accounts. Again, though, the claims are extraordinary and I'm sorry but the burden of proof is far greater than someone writing about, I don't know, the edicts of Caesar or something.
(July 20, 2017 at 4:57 pm)SteveII Wrote: 2. Christianity is better evidenced, internally consistent, and addresses the major questions of life better than any other religion, ever. And each and every year, a vast number of people freely choose Christianity as adult--more than do any other religion and atheism.
You really do like to make assertions ... do you have any citations?
My take is that Christianity has had 2,000 years to present its supposedly compelling value proposition and has, even by the most charitable standards (cultural Christians) less than one third penetration worldwide, and has ceded the title of fastest-growing religion to Islam, which is set to overtake it in this century. So if this "more people switch to Christianity than any other religion" business is true, it is ignoring the vast numbers BORN INTO religions, rather than simply converting; this is far and away the main source of new adherents, and that goes for Christianity as well.
July 20, 2017 at 7:51 pm (This post was last modified: July 20, 2017 at 7:57 pm by RoadRunner79.)
(July 20, 2017 at 3:33 pm)Jehanne Wrote:
(July 20, 2017 at 3:18 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: As I had already said, I don't know (however something going on within that vacuum seems plausible). What testimony or reason do you give, that I should stop here, and think that nothing is on the otherside? Personally, I think that something has a lot more potential than nothing, and is a wiser assumption. You need a pretty good reason for me to abandon the principle of causality in science.
You need to realize that a quantum oscillator is different than a classical one:
Quote:This energy spectrum is noteworthy for three reasons. First, the energies are quantized, meaning that only discrete energy values (integer-plus-half multiples of ħω) are possible; this is a general feature of quantum-mechanical systems when a particle is confined. Second, these discrete energy levels are equally spaced, unlike in the Bohr model of the atom, or the particle in a box. Third, the lowest achievable energy (the energy of the n = 0 state, called the ground state) is not equal to the minimum of the potential well, but ħω/2 above it; this is called zero-point energy. Because of the zero-point energy, the position and momentum of the oscillator in the ground state are not fixed (as they would be in a classical oscillator), but have a small range of variance, in accordance with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
The ground state probability density is concentrated at the origin, which means the particle spends most of its time at the bottom of the potential well, as one would expect for a state with little energy. As the energy increases, the probability density becomes peaked at the classical "turning points", where the state's energy coincides with the potential energy. (See the discussion below of the highly excited states.) This is consistent with the classical harmonic oscillator, in which the particle spends more of its time (and is therefore more likely to be found) near the turning points, where it is moving the slowest. The correspondence principle is thus satisfied. Moreover, special nondispersive wave packets, with minimum uncertainty, called coherent states oscillate very much like classical objects, as illustrated in the figure; they are not eigenstates of the Hamiltonian.
Ok... this to me, points towards a cause for the effect we see. What is it, that leads you to believe that nothing was a cause. How do you come to this conclusion?
(July 20, 2017 at 6:15 pm)SteveII Wrote:
(July 20, 2017 at 12:31 pm)Jehanne Wrote: You might want to read The Physical Universe by Professor Frank Shu:
I have read it several times, and in it, Professor Shu discusses a Universe that is infinite in spatial extent. But, here's another website for you:
LOL. What happened to the other 3 points? Abandoning Morrison after just one post!! Your hatred of WLC leads you to believe that people have answers to his arguments and all you have to do is post a link and your done. It seems you don't even understand them.
Now you want me to follow you down a theoretical rabbit trail and redefine infinity so we can somehow go back and apply it to something else entirely to prop up your theory? You couldn't even quote mine something that would even suggest this is a productive mode of inquiry into the question of a past infinite number of cause/effects. No thanks!
Last year, during a debate, I heard an interesting concept, that I would like to investigate more fully. The idea was that physical things are by definition bound. They can be measured and quantified. Therefore, they cannot be infinite. In contrast, the only things that can be infinite our necessarily non-physical. If anyone knows what this philosophy is called, or has search terms I might look for, I would appreciate.
This is a little different, than an actual infinite set of things; but seemed to fit here, and as we are talking about space being infinite, and if this premise is correct, means that it cannot be physical. That and I have been wanting to look into it more; for a while now.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
LOL. What happened to the other 3 points? Abandoning Morrison after just one post!! Your hatred of WLC leads you to believe that people have answers to his arguments and all you have to do is post a link and your done. It seems you don't even understand them.
Now you want me to follow you down a theoretical rabbit trail and redefine infinity so we can somehow go back and apply it to something else entirely to prop up your theory? You couldn't even quote mine something that would even suggest this is a productive mode of inquiry into the question of a past infinite number of cause/effects. No thanks!
Professor Morriston can speak for himself; I am not his apologist. I think that he makes very good arguments but I am not about to beat a dead horse with you. I suggest that you read the following from Professor Kenneth Krane, his textbook Modern Physics, 3rd edition (typically taught in the second semester of the sophomore year for physics majors); note what he says about the Universe being infinite in spatial extent:
(July 20, 2017 at 7:51 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
(July 20, 2017 at 3:33 pm)Jehanne Wrote: You need to realize that a quantum oscillator is different than a classical one:
Ok... this to me, points towards a cause for the effect we see. What is it, that leads you to believe that nothing was a cause. How do you come to this conclusion?
(July 20, 2017 at 6:15 pm)SteveII Wrote: LOL. What happened to the other 3 points? Abandoning Morrison after just one post!! Your hatred of WLC leads you to believe that people have answers to his arguments and all you have to do is post a link and your done. It seems you don't even understand them.
Now you want me to follow you down a theoretical rabbit trail and redefine infinity so we can somehow go back and apply it to something else entirely to prop up your theory? You couldn't even quote mine something that would even suggest this is a productive mode of inquiry into the question of a past infinite number of cause/effects. No thanks!
Professor Morriston can speak for himself; I am not his apologist. I think that he makes very good arguments but I am not about to beat a dead horse with you. I suggest that you read the following from Professor Kenneth Krane, his textbook Modern Physics, 3rd edition (typically taught in the second semester of the sophomore year for physics majors); note what he says about the Universe being infinite in spatial extent:
(July 20, 2017 at 7:51 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Ok... this to me, points towards a cause for the effect we see. What is it, that leads you to believe that nothing was a cause. How do you come to this conclusion?
Can you explain those, and show where you start with nothing, which causes something.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
July 20, 2017 at 10:06 pm (This post was last modified: July 20, 2017 at 10:11 pm by Jehanne.)
(July 20, 2017 at 9:53 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
Can you explain those, and show where you start with nothing, which causes something.
You simply can't have it "both ways". Either the Universe is spatially infinite, which means that actual infinities exist (per the above), or, the Universe is finite in spatial extent, which means that there is nothing "outside" of it, which means that it is expanding into nothing. From the following Wikipedia article (which is completely accurate -- verified myself through Griffiths):
Quote:Zero-point energy is fundamentally related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.[93] Roughly speaking, the uncertainty principle states that complementary variables (such as a particle's position and momentum, or a field's value and derivative at a point in space) cannot simultaneously be specified precisely by any given quantum state. In particular, there cannot exist a state in which the system simply sits motionless at the bottom of its potential well: for, then, its position and momentum would both be completely determined to arbitrarily great precision. Therefore, instead, the lowest-energy state (the ground state) of the system must have a distribution in position and momentum that satisfies the uncertainty principle−−which implies its energy must be greater than the minimum of the potential well.
In other words, it is impossible to have a zero-energy state anywhere in the Universe, which means that the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is equivalent to asking, "What color is Saturday?" and then arbitrarily assigning Saturday the color "blue" as opposed to pink, red, orange, or saying that Saturday is "Chevy day," etc., etc.
And, so, "nothing" exists as being "outside" the Universe (if it is finite), or the Universe is spatially infinite, which means that actual infinities exist. You can't have it both ways.
As for virtual particles arising without a cause, they do that because they can, which means that they must. There is nothing that "causes" them; if there was, that would require energy that was greater than the zero-point energy demanded by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which means that there would have to be infinite energy everywhere in the Universe to accommodate the infinite regress that you would get if you claimed that virtual particles were "caused".
(July 20, 2017 at 4:57 pm)SteveII Wrote: Read the 27 letters and histories of the NT. If you think that is not evidence, than you have to deny that any historical account anywhere in the world at any time before electronic recordings were possible as 'not evidence'.
If you are making a special case for the NT, well, that's just special pleading.
Historians will tell you that to determine the accuracy of an account, many factors must be taken into account and many sources compared. [1] The more fantastical the account and the more unknown the authors and so forth, the more corroboration is needed. [2] I'm not making a special argument for scripture other than to the extent it's making special claims ... like any other document it has to be independently corroborated, preferably by sources with no skin in the game. For example, if an earthquake struck Jerusalem after the crucifixion and resurrected corpses roamed Jerusalem, it would be nice if secular historians and/or government sources documented this remarkable event. You know, an account of the repair of the temple veil, an account of the un-inheritance of the descendants of dead people who are no longer dead, a receipt for masonry for earthquake repairs, anything would help. Yet there is ... nothing. [3]
I suspect you may keep referring to the NT as "the 27 letters and histories" because you're going to claim they corroborate each other, which is a slippery slope for you to go down considering the many inconsistencies between them. [4]
1. I agree that the more evidence the merrier. There were churches spread across the Roman Empire prior to the gospels and the letters of Paul being written that believed the basic message that would later be cataloged in the gospels. The reason I keep bringing this up is that we are not just talking about "accounts". There is a body of evidence that not only explains the claim in detail (the Gospels), discusses practical living issues (the epistles), but there is also plenty of impact in the actual world that can be traced in an unbroken chain from today to within a few years of Jesus.
2. The better test is to discuss the probability of the evidence you see if the events had not transpired as reported. Also, there is no conflicting/rebutting evidence. No group of eyewitnesses ever came forward and reported that they were there and these things didn't happen and, no one ever mentions/refers such a group.
3. You are listing evidence that may or may not have existed--you don't know. Nearly all historical documents are lost to time. The reason the NT books have been preserved so well is that a group of people existed that cared greatly if they we preserved or not. Most ancient documents do not engender such feelings.
4. I would expect to see inconsistencies in the Gospels for two reasons. First, if they are all identical, it smacks of collusion or conspiracy. Second, in much of the ancient times, events and writings were not recorded with newspaper-like precision.
Regardless of your opinion on the evidence, you are talking about assessing the evidence needed to satisfy your personal threshold for proof. I understand that is not the case for you. But the evidence has been sufficient for billions of others.
Quote:
(July 20, 2017 at 4:57 pm)SteveII Wrote: Further, if you are saying because of the content of the NT (extraordinary claims and all) you don't believe them to be evidence, that is simply circular reasoning: there is no evidence for miracles, the NT does not count because it contains miracles.
The NT contains claims that miracles happen. That does not constitute evidence or contribute to proof. The Pali Canon attributes miracles to the Buddha; it contains miracles; yet I very much doubt you believe them just because they're there.
Well, since it was written 454 years after Buddha's death, you can hardly say that eyewitnesses were instrumental in the recording of those events.
Quote:
(July 20, 2017 at 4:57 pm)SteveII Wrote: 1. Three points on the New Testament not being the claim:
1.1- The claim is that the events outlined in the gospels really happened--one in particular: that Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth to redeem humanity and provide a way for people to have a relationship with God.
1.2- The gospels and Acts catalog the claim. The balance are letters discussing and applying the claim.
I never said there isn't a lot of exposition based on the claims, but the exposition means nothing if the claims aren't worthy of belief because they aren't properly substantiated.
Question begging. The only reason you are saying they are not 'properly substantiated' is because of the miraculous content.
Quote:
(July 20, 2017 at 4:57 pm)SteveII Wrote: It is not as if the gospel writers wrote an essay on what people were saying and gave no opinion on the facts. They were testifying to its truthfulness (as evidenced by their own experience or by interviewing eyewitnesses as they wrote it).
The gospels were written anonymously beginning some 35 years (and, in the case of John, some 65 years) after the alleged events. They disagree with each other and even fare more so with the Pauline writings, which are much older. They are not eyewitness accounts, although they claim to rely on eyewitness accounts. Again, though, the claims are extraordinary and I'm sorry but the burden of proof is far greater than someone writing about, I don't know, the edicts of Caesar or something.
Who said the gospels were anonymously written? Do you think that the person who wrote it out the first time was not known to the recipients of the written document? The fact that we do not know the editors' names simply means the editors were not considered important to the matter. What was important was the original disciple (and his disciples) that provided some or all of the content. Luke was clear where he was coming from. If the editors wrote down eyewitness accounts, what we have are eyewitness accounts.
If you actually study systematic theology, the gospels do not disagree with each other and with Paul on matters of theology.
Quote:
(July 20, 2017 at 4:57 pm)SteveII Wrote: 2. Christianity is better evidenced, internally consistent, and addresses the major questions of life better than any other religion, ever. And each and every year, a vast number of people freely choose Christianity as adult--more than do any other religion and atheism.
You really do like to make assertions ... do you have any citations?
My take is that Christianity has had 2,000 years to present its supposedly compelling value proposition and has, even by the most charitable standards (cultural Christians) less than one third penetration worldwide, and has ceded the title of fastest-growing religion to Islam, which is set to overtake it in this century. So if this "more people switch to Christianity than any other religion" business is true, it is ignoring the vast numbers BORN INTO religions, rather than simply converting; this is far and away the main source of new adherents, and that goes for Christianity as well.
Christianity is better evidenced than any other religion. In addition to the 27 books of the NT, there are hundreds of other documents that have survived from within 2 generations of Jesus. Tell me another religions that had even a 10th of the real-world evidence/effect immediately following it's founder, individual writings from contemporaries (other than the founder), and unbroken chain of written history going back 2000 years.
Islam is a poor comparison. Entire cultures/countries/people groups are required on pain of death/imprisonment/family banishment to adhere to Islam. My point was and is that vast numbers of adults find the message and evidence of Christianity compelling. You are not getting your message out!!
July 21, 2017 at 2:23 pm (This post was last modified: July 21, 2017 at 2:23 pm by Jehanne.)
(July 21, 2017 at 1:12 pm)SteveII Wrote: [quote pid='1589348' dateline='1500592705']
Christianity is better evidenced than any other religion. In addition to the 27 books of the NT, there are hundreds of other documents that have survived from within 2 generations of Jesus. Tell me another religions that had even a 10th of the real-world evidence/effect immediately following it's founder, individual writings from contemporaries (other than the founder), and unbroken chain of written history going back 2000 years.
Islam is a poor comparison. Entire cultures/countries/people groups are required on pain of death/imprisonment/family banishment to adhere to Islam. My point was and is that vast numbers of adults find the message and evidence of Christianity compelling. You are not getting your message out!!
Steve,
There was not one "Christianity" but many; here are the last verses from the Gospel of Thomas:
Quote:(113) His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"
<Jesus said,> "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is.' Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."
(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."
(July 21, 2017 at 1:12 pm)SteveII Wrote: 2. The better test is to discuss the probability of the evidence you see if the events had not transpired as reported. Also, there is no conflicting/rebutting evidence. No group of eyewitnesses ever came forward and reported that they were there and these things didn't happen and, no one ever mentions/refers such a group.
Well we don't think that a three-legged squid descended from heaven 3000 years ago to enlighten humanity, despite that no one ever came forward and said it DIDN'T happen.
In any case you may be surprised to find out that I contend that we are living in a world where these events DIDN'T transpire as reported. Unlike you I am not in the least impressed that people believe something that is concocted. Happens all the time. Leeches my friend, leeches. Common belief is no evidence that the belief is true. Even the canard that people are willing to die for a belief is no evidence that it's true (witness Islamic suicide bombers).
(July 21, 2017 at 1:12 pm)SteveII Wrote: 3. You are listing evidence that may or may not have existed--you don't know. Nearly all historical documents are lost to time. The reason the NT books have been preserved so well is that a group of people existed that cared greatly if they we preserved or not. Most ancient documents do not engender such feelings.
On the other hand the same group of people would have been delighted to preserve any corroborating evidence from others to help their cause. Funny that they didn't.
(July 21, 2017 at 1:12 pm)SteveII Wrote: Regardless of your opinion on the evidence, you are talking about assessing the evidence needed to satisfy your personal threshold for proof. I understand that is not the case for you. But the evidence has been sufficient for billions of others.
It is insufficient for tens of millions of others too. Neither fact speaks to the validity of the evidence or the arguments pro and con.
(July 21, 2017 at 1:12 pm)SteveII Wrote: Well, since [the Pali Canon] was written 454 years after Buddha's death, you can hardly say that eyewitnesses were instrumental in the recording of those events.
Absent your low bar of what constitutes an "eyewitness" neither can you.
(July 21, 2017 at 1:12 pm)SteveII Wrote:
Quote:I never said there isn't a lot of exposition based on the claims, but the exposition means nothing if the claims aren't worthy of belief because they aren't properly substantiated.
Question begging. The only reason you are saying they are not 'properly substantiated' is because of the miraculous content.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary substantiation. That is a basic principle. If I claim to be married, that's not extraordinary and you're inclined to accept it as fact unless and until you know something that argues against it. But if I claim to be married to a woman who turns water into wine and rose from the dead, you'd be disinclined to believe it until you know something that argues FOR it.
(July 21, 2017 at 1:12 pm)SteveII Wrote: Who said the gospels were anonymously written? Do you think that the person who wrote it out the first time was not known to the recipients of the written document?
Other than by traditional attribution we have no idea who wrote the gospels. That's a simple fact. They aren't known to US who are examining the claims NOW.
(July 21, 2017 at 1:12 pm)SteveII Wrote: If you actually study systematic theology, the gospels do not disagree with each other and with Paul on matters of theology.
I was raised on Lewis Sperry Chafer's Systematic Theology and I know all the circumlocutions around the disagreements of FACT. As to disagreements of theology, there are enough disagreements between Paul and the gospels alone to drive a truck through. Read the oldest of Paul's writings and then work through the NT chronologically and pretend while reading Paul, that you're a contemporary reader who is unaware of the gospels (because they don't exist yet). Here you have Paul appealing, not to eyewitnesses that (unlike later when the gospels appeared) were still mostly alive and yet to who or what does Paul appeal to "authenticate" his claims? A personal subjective experience, a heavenly vision. Odd. And how does he describe Jesus? As "seated in the heavenlies" No mention of the later mythos of the flesh-and-blood god-man working miracles. It's almost like Paul was promulgating the gnostic heresy and a different orthodoxy later won out over it. These contrasts between Paul and the gospel accounts would have been confusing to people in the 1st century but when the canon of scripture was eventually organized, by the simple device of putting the gospels first, front, and center, Paul can be interpreted in the "context" of the much later gospel writings and thus "harmonized" with them based on assumptions that didn't exist for Paul's original readers.
(July 21, 2017 at 1:12 pm)SteveII Wrote: Islam is a poor comparison. Entire cultures/countries/people groups are required on pain of death/imprisonment/family banishment to adhere to Islam. My point was and is that vast numbers of adults find the message and evidence of Christianity compelling. You are not getting your message out!!
That wasn't my point. Islam will overtake your religion in the next couple of generations or less. It isn't a matter of how many adults are converting, but of how many children are born into it. Muslims are breeding faster, pure and simple. That's what governs the hegemony of religious ideas. Islam will likely bury you to become the first majority religion on the basis of worldwide population -- something that Christianity never achieved.
The only antidote to both Christianity AND Islam is education, science, and financial prosperity so people aren't so far down the hierarchy of needs that they're desperate for quick fixes.
(July 20, 2017 at 9:53 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:
Can you explain those, and show where you start with nothing, which causes something.
You simply can't have it "both ways". Either the Universe is spatially infinite, which means that actual infinities exist (per the above), or, the Universe is finite in spatial extent, which means that there is nothing "outside" of it, which means that it is expanding into nothing. From the following Wikipedia article (which is completely accurate -- verified myself through Griffiths):
Quote:Zero-point energy is fundamentally related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.[93] Roughly speaking, the uncertainty principle states that complementary variables (such as a particle's position and momentum, or a field's value and derivative at a point in space) cannot simultaneously be specified precisely by any given quantum state. In particular, there cannot exist a state in which the system simply sits motionless at the bottom of its potential well: for, then, its position and momentum would both be completely determined to arbitrarily great precision. Therefore, instead, the lowest-energy state (the ground state) of the system must have a distribution in position and momentum that satisfies the uncertainty principle−−which implies its energy must be greater than the minimum of the potential well.
In other words, it is impossible to have a zero-energy state anywhere in the Universe, which means that the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is equivalent to asking, "What color is Saturday?" and then arbitrarily assigning Saturday the color "blue" as opposed to pink, red, orange, or saying that Saturday is "Chevy day," etc., etc.
And, so, "nothing" exists as being "outside" the Universe (if it is finite), or the Universe is spatially infinite, which means that actual infinities exist. You can't have it both ways.
As for virtual particles arising without a cause, they do that because they can, which means that they must. There is nothing that "causes" them; if there was, that would require energy that was greater than the zero-point energy demanded by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which means that there would have to be infinite energy everywhere in the Universe to accommodate the infinite regress that you would get if you claimed that virtual particles were "caused".
I find it interesting, that following a conversation so focused on everyone being able to see, we are discussing virtual particles, which to my knowledge no one has detected directly. It's further a bit ironic, that they are inferred as a cause for the effects that are seen, but then some want to stop, and say that this effect doesn't have a cause.
Once we get into this area of science, there are a lot of assumptions being made. Necessarily so, because we are talking about the very small and at this time it is at the limits of what we can detect. Now I'm not saying that it is wrong, to infer the best explanation here, but I get a little leery when assumptions are built on top of each other and treated as dogmatic as they move further beyond their foundation. I don't understand your insinuation, that I am trying to have it both ways. When you invoke the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, and zero point energy, it seems, that you are trying to say that there is something which has momentum and position, and yet call it nothing. I can agree, that if there is something, then it must be moving. When I am looking at an analog signal in a control, if it is not moving, then either my equipment/program has failed, or I don't have enough resolution. So if we have something, it is moving, and has a position. There is a noise, and it cannot be absolute zero. However; can we say that there cannot be absolutely nothing? Was this something prior to, or as a result of the universe? I think these are assumptions, which are difficult to support.
I do agree, that if the universe is spatially infinite, then we do have actual infinity (where you not making an argument against actual infinities a short time ago). There are no dimensions, it has infinite energy, infinite mass, it is non-physical. The other alternative, is that the universe is finite and a physical thing. It has dimensions, an age, it can be expanding, and has limits it can be measured. And if you truly have nothing outside, I don't see where the uncertainty principle and thus zero point energy apply. Even then, you are basing this assumption on a very small sample, surrounded by matter, energy, and a lot of somethings.
In your last point, you say that the zero point energy is insufficient to be a cause for virtual particles (which again, are an inference from an effect themselves). You apply the principle of causality here. However from this, I come to the conclusion, that either our assumptions are incorrect, or that there needs to be something else, which is supplying the necessary energy. There are a lot of different views on virtual particles. To the other extreme, some say that they are just a useful mathematical tool and our not real at all. Others say that the perhaps the word "particle" while somewhat useful in picturing what is happening, leads people to misconceptions.
There are a number of reasons, that I am a bit skeptical when someone says that these virtual particles poof into existence from nothing. I agree, that that there is a problem with an infinite regress, but do not think that you can scientifically determine it the stopping point. I would say that the end of the infinite regress is an uncaused cause, not an uncaused effect. Something which always existed. But this is based on logic and metaphysics, and apart from our knowledge or ability to detect it. On the other hand, if something poofs into existence, then it is an effect, that requires a cause. It requires a reason for it's sudden existence or change which is external to the effect.
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
(July 22, 2017 at 12:53 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: The other alternative, is that the universe is finite and a physical thing. It has dimensions, an age, it can be expanding, and has limits it can be measured. And if you truly have nothing outside, I don't see where the uncertainty principle and thus zero point energy apply. Even then, you are basing this assumption on a very small sample, surrounded by matter, energy, and a lot of somethings.
If the Universe is finite and expanding, what is it that it is expanding into it?
![[Image: vHvyLNO.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/vHvyLNO.jpg)
![[Image: 7e9065879de607f1975a504d12fa8bb23452e040]](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/7e9065879de607f1975a504d12fa8bb23452e040)
![[Image: d8c6b3084fb7bd47ffb6914acb98b8d02596ba69]](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/d8c6b3084fb7bd47ffb6914acb98b8d02596ba69)
