Now, accepting your "the universe was created exactly how it is," premise, can we please do some work? Oh, that's right. You're back to needing science to do anything useful. It's almost like you refuse to hear the argument:
Who said I was pitting the two against each other? Most of my arguments rely on logical deduction and rational thought, which are prerequisites to science. I see no need to separate the two, since both are concerned with universal truth and both are concerned with the cause of all things.
I would argue, only partly in jest, that if my beliefs are correct, you are back to needing God in order to accomplish anything useful;) After all, science doesnt "do" anything; it is a systematic approach to gaining knowledge. It is God, if I am correct, that perpetuates all things.
If you are looking for more classical arguments, Thomas Aquinas is rather famous for his Summa Theoligica-- this appears to be what you are looking for (in english, too).
There is also the quite old argument that Paul made, that the existence of a conscience in the human heart (or mind, or however you wish to term it) is proof of some higher moral standard to which we all find ourselves accountable to. CS Lewis sums this up quite nicely in Mere Christianity-- the first 20 or so pages sum the argument up quite nicely, and regardless of your religious views Lewis makes a very pleasant read. The first chapter can be found here, and the complete book as well as audio here.
If random musings by a brilliant mathematician are more your thing, I highly recommend Pascal's Pensees. There are a number of things that I could probably take issue with in his writings, but on the whole he gives some rather good arguments for both the existence for God, and for belief in him. Full work
Also of note would be Anselm of Canterbury, who is probably most famous for his ontological argument. I am not sure I grasp the full weight of his argument, as I have never found it compelling, but nevertheless it is significant; he also argues in Monologion and Proslogion (according to wikipedia) apparently along the same lines as Lewis (or perhaps it is the reverse)-- that our qualitative assesments of "good" and "right" and "evil" imply some higher standard to which we must be appealing, of which we are all innately aware.
RC Sproul has a wonderful series that walks through a "classical", rational approach to the question of "why is belief in God logically defensible". It is, unfortunately, not free, but I mention it because he covers most of the relevant material from the others (excepting Lewis), and well beyond.
If you can only pick one, and dont wish to spend money, I would probably go with either lewis or Aquinas; I have not really looked into Aquinas much, but some of Lewis's stuff is not quite so airtight as it could be (not that the arguments are wrong, but I think he leaves some avenues unexplored before arriving at a conclusion).
He defended the positions they take on highly spurious grounds
Did I now? Looking at my initial post, it rather seems to me I was defending the replublican core belief-- that big government and excess regulation are bad.
I do not recall endorsing Glenn Beck, OReilly, the moral majority, McCain, Bush, or any of the others in my post. All such inferences have come from your own mind.
I was being somewhat tongue in cheek. One of the two lines had been down for several weeks due to a tree branch. However, you expect me to disregard eyewitness accounts...on what basis again?
When I pointed out how bad the chargesheet against them really is - you say you can't defend these actions as they are inconsistent with your beliefs.
I should have couched my meaning less tactfully: I mean to say, I think a good many "religious right" folks might not actually be christians; and that a good many "christians" today might not be christians.
First John starts by saying that "if anyone says he is in the light, and yet walks in darkness, he is a liar and the truth is not in him". This is why I do not mean to defend those who are characterized (key word) by evil.
There's a really simple answer to the "first cause" question, and that's that there was no first time. There is no time zero. There is no minimum time. In math-speak, it's an open set. Every instant was preceded by another instant--note that this does NOT require an infinite number of seconds, just an infinite resolution. That avoids the problem with first cause.
Seconds are irrelevant; time is a state of change, and you are postulating an infinite (or immeasurable, to be precise) amount of change from whenever until now; but if that is the case, then uncountable uncountables have occured, and I would ask why this perpetual motion machine has not reached equilibrium yet.
As another poster points out, even if you do postulate a god as a creator, you have the question what created the creator
If I postulated that God was both a cause and an event, you are right, the entire model would crumble. But what I am postulating is that God is the prime cause, and not an effect at all-- that he is unchanging and eternal.
It depends on how you define universe. The two most common I have heard (paraphrased) are "all that is", in which case God would be included, and the "natural universe', which as I understand is sort of a "domain" of information; the boundary outside of which no information can cross by means within the universe.
I am probably paraphrasing it badly, but in either definition it would seem that gathering information about its formation or what is outside it is impossible from human perspective.
This isnt about doing anyone favors or sticking it to the other guy. I, and I assume the others in this discussion, are concerned with truth, not wielding words like a bludgeon. If you are concerned with "doing the religious guys a favor", perhaps you have exactly the wrong view of reason, science, and philosophy.
Why do you suppose the greek ending "sophia" is in "philosophy", I might ask?
You would do better to ask how chaos can avoid organizing itself into a stable state for the big bang. By definition, anything that can happen in a chaotic system must eventually happen, no?
That is a good reply; but it seems to create a new problem-- perfectly organized stable states dont "big bang", and if they do they are not stable states. This is the bigger problem I would like to hear an answer to-- what caused the "bang"?
he reason is known as the law of parsimony or Occam's Razor [wikipedia.org]. We can either have a prime mover that has always existed (with a universe that has a definite beginning), or a universe that has always existed (with no prime mover). It's bad enough to violate causation (each scenario does that- either the prime mover or the universe are assumed to have no antecedent), but the existence of a prime mover is an additional assumption that has no explicative power.
Im aware of Occam's Razor, and it is a part of my argument;) The issue I have with a self-existent universe, is that eternal things tend to not change; if they did, they would not be eternal. At the very least, every observation of the universe I am aware of is plagued by the law of thermodynamics which implicitly denies the possiblity of something that is BOTH eternal AND changing (ie, perpetual motion machines). I have heard other, better, more classically trained arguments for why it makes no sense, but not being a philosopher (and not wanting to bore you with a much much lengthier argument) I will stick with that.
I do appreciate the thoughtful answer, and look forward to your reply.
No, the general thought is not that God ever just came into existence; the entire argument is that he is eternal.
The reason that same argument cannot be applied to the universe, according to my above argument, is that the universe is in a state of change, and systems in a state of change always (so far as we have ever been able to tell) seek an equilibrium; if they do not, you simply need to widen your scope to capture more of the universe, and you will see that principle in action.
As the universe is now in a state of change, it must eventually reach a state of equilibrium; and if it has been around "forever", it should have already done so, since an immeasurable ("infinite") amount of time would have already passed.
This problem seems to require one of 4 conclusions: 1) reality is an illusion, and nothing exists (ruled out by Decartes' famous "I think, therefore I am") 2) The universe is self creating (which makes no sense in any language you formulate the thought in; a non-existent thing cannot act or create) 3) the universe is eternal (same problem I mentioned above) 4) something within or without the universe is eternal; and is necessarily self-existent, and unchanging (if not, it is not eternal)
a God that never changes (and therefore is permitted to "exist" without "causation") is a God that cannot make a decision, and therefore may never act (and therefore cannot create the universe)
Unless of course such a God does not make decisions in the temporal way we do, and is simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient, AND self-existent. I am not aware of any class of reformed thought which thinks that God is suprised by new events and must then make a decision; he is described as having had a plan from the beginning.
And tbqh, I cannot see how that statement is less reasonable than many of the alternative theories (spontaneous generation, self creation, etc).
Introducing a new cause (god) does not solve this problem. This is not an argument for the existence of god.
By the context, I assume you meant to write "a new effect". But the law of causation does not say that every THING has a cause, merely that every effect has a cause. That is, anything in a state of change must have a cause. God is understood to be unchanging-- outside of "time" if you will (understanding "time" as "state of change").
The second law of thermodynamics captures the evolution of the universe. It really doesn't say anything about the initial conditions. Again, you are asking questions about what caused the big bang. Quite frankly, the energy scale immediately following the big bang is so huge that we will probably never be able to understand the behavior of physics immediately following the big bang, much less before.
I do not think it is unreasonable for one to ask "what caused the 'initial state' to enter a state of change", nor to try to reason out whether it is logically possible for such a state to have come into being unaided. I understand that these are difficult questions, and I do not mean to say "if you cant answer now, then you must be wrong" (for there are a good many questions you could likely ask me about my faith that I am simply unprepared to answer; that doesnt mean I will never have an answer); but when people like Stephen Hawking make statements regarding the universe spontaneously generating itself, or unfalsifiable theories about multiple worlds being posited, I think it is fair to ask if Occams razor does not demand a simple, eternal, cause.
The second law of thermo is kind of weird, but only from a theoretical perspective. Look into the ergodic theorem. In particular, we actually expect cyclic behavior from a mathematical perspective (Did I just blow your mind? This mathematical fact blows mine every time I hear it).
That is interesting, and I will look into it-- thanks for the tip. But surely you do see the immediate objections that spring to mind? I will be quite interested to see why it is not necessary that objects in a state of change eventually reach a state of equilibrium-- have there been observations of systems that run indefinitely? I had understood that perpetual motion machines were commonly discredited in scientific communities.
This is as good an argument against god as it is against the big bang.
God is described as self existent; he has no creator and knows no change. This solves the issues of "how can something be perpetually in a state of change, and why would it not eventually find an equilibrium?"
The classical argument I outlined above is not necessarially sufficient to account for God, but is used to arrive at the premise "there must be SOME unchanging, eternal, 'prime mover'". I merely added some of my own questions regarding entropy.
The arguments for the big bang are that it DOES explain phenomena. Whereas a god or FSM does not.
I would argue that in the absence of proof or data, it would be equally rational to consider, in turn, an FSM, infinite bigbang cycles, a God, and possibly other scenarios. Assuming as you say it will never be possible to gather information of "pre-big-bang" (which I agree with, due to definition of "universe"), one would have to approach it deductively and ask "which scenario best describes what we see".
I do not think, with those criteria, God as the cause is unreasonable, especially when some of our most reliable historical documents give eyewitness accounts of events that must otherwise be discarded as "legend".
Thank you for your well thought out reply, however, it is nice to have someone actually give a reasoned reply, and I will look into ergodic theory.
There are indeed rational reasons for anyone who cares to look, and there have been for thousands of years. If you cared to hear such arguments (and honestly, it would look rather bad if after such statements you refused to let yourself hear them), I would be happy you to point you in the right direction.
Principle of causation, that for every effect (my existance), there is a cause, combined with the fact that we know that we exist (our very postulating it proves it, as a non-entity can not have rational thought), and the fact that the universe can manifestly not create itself (to do so would be to invoke nonsense).
Throw in a dose of entropy (how can chaos organize itself into a stable state for the big bang?), and the question of why a stable state such as the "big bang ball" would proceed without some causative agent into a non-stable state (rapidly expanding universe)?
And a further dose of "if there is neither a causative agent, nor an initial ball, why has the eternity that must therefore have already passed not violated the laws of thermodynamics through cyclical crunch-bangs?"
I would also point out that, unless I am massively missing something, Stephen Hawking's latest statement about "gravity...[causing] the universe to create itself" is manifestly irrational-- it defies reason. How can something create itself, when an act of creation requires that said target not already exist?
Incidentally, I am not trolling. I would love if someone could provide answers to these, I have never had the chance to ask why rationally arriving at the belief that there MUST have been a prime mover is less credible than the multiple-worlds theorems out there or the infinite crunch-bang cycles, or else spontaneous generation. No matter what angle I look at it from, it seems to me that there must be at least SOMETHING that is self-existent and eternal in order for us to exist now.
In case you are feeling particularly pedantic, that "67 books of the Bible" was an off the top of my head attempt to recall the precise number. Forgive me if it is off by one or two.
If anything that makes it MORE imperative. These were orders given by your god, which makes perfect economic sense then and now. Demanding that your government structures society to see these as rights is no less sensible than demanding your government give you holy days as hollydays
Were that the case, the risen Christ might have made the case for sunday to be a day off; he did not, and for centuries Christians met early in the morning prior to the work day. That makes a rather poor case for your argument.
or restrict access to material you find objectionable
Most of the commands I can recall from Christ are directed at individuals, not governments. Nevertheless, with this particular point, as we are now discussing what is "ethical", there is possibly some case to be made.
However, it utterly fails to consider whether such laws would be efficacious or whether they would make the problem worse (or else introduce worse evils), which I think is relevant if you view the role of government as "restraining evil".
You keep saying that these rules of moral economic behavior and loving your neighbour doesn't apply because we have governments now - I say they apply just as much and that government or no government god's laws must remain the same. Did your own Jesus not tell you to give the king his due ?
This seems to sum up the crux of the disagreement-- you think that such commands somehow indicate that we need governments to mandate love. Most of my argument is that were that our imperative from God, it would have been said somewhere in the 67 odd books of the Bible.
The other point Im trying very hard to communicate here is that things arent black and white. Example: prostitution-- should it be outlawed?
Some would say "it is clearly wrong, so yes". But what if it could be shown clearly, unambiguously, and unarguably, that to outlaw it would triple the number of murders, and have negligible effect on prostitution?
At this point, it depends on what you think the purpose of government is. If you think it is to simply pass laws that reflect what God views as righteous, the answer is yes-- whatever the results, an evil is an evil. If however you think its purpose is to restrain evil, then you would argue for decriminalization, or restriction, in order to prevent worse evils from going rampant.
Honest and faithful christians disagree about such issues; it is of course important that their reasoning be solid and grounded in what scripture says and commands.
And once more I call you on inconsistency. If you cannot mandate a tithe for non-believers then you cannot mandate ANYTHING for non-believers at all.
If it wasnt established as a government mandate for non-Jews in the Bible, where on earth do you get the idea that God wanted it to be a government mandate for non-jews?
But you're contradicting your own statements. I think it's fine to let your opinions (including those related to faith) indfluence your vote. In fact I think it would be impossible not to, but it is NOT fine to let your faith be a reason to vote for morality to become legislature.
That person was an idiot. He was thinking in broad terms I suppose but he was wrong even there. A government that actively wants to harm it's citizens can be incredibly terrible and there are such governments out there today - just look at what they do and tell me that's is somehow BETTER than a government whose worst crime is taking a bit of your salary and using it to give a hungry single mother a foodstamp.
That isnt what I said, and thats a terrible strawman. The point was only that a government that is tyrannical for what it believes to be a good has resulted in Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, etc. All of those were doing what they were for the betterment of their countries and their people; in Germany's case they began
That was a PLURAL "you" not a singular you. I critisized the religious right as being inconsistent with their own religious views in the issues they campaign for. He defended the positions they take on highly spurious grounds, and I knocked those grounds down
Please explain by what authority or on what basis you expect me to defend the actions of others? If they are characterized by inconsistency with Christ's teachings I have no defense to offer for them
That's a cop-out. Israel was by no means saintly or without it's share of greedy people who would abuse the system.
The operative phrase was "was to be". The books of 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles pretty neatly illustrate that as you mention, they were no saints (I think the phrases "and everyone did what was right in their own eyes" and "and he was worse than his fathers" is repeated quite a lot in those books). Nevertheless, that was Israel's role and expectation, pretty explicitly. Read Leviticus or Deuteronomy or Joshua, and its pretty clear that it wasnt a king that Israel was to be subservient to, it was God.
They only instituted a central government when they utterly rejected God and demanded a king to be "like the nations around them". Trying to piece together from that some Biblical approval of a strong central government that enforces tithes is ridiculous; Israel was severely rebuked for their rejection and insistence on a king, and was warned of the evils of having a single human point of authority.
I find it quite persuasive, btw, that so many humanists would insist that we only need the right leader, while the Bible reitierates time and time again that man is fallen and corruptible-- and history continues to prove the Bible right on this count (see: Catholic church, last 100 years, Rome, etc etc etc).
More-over these rules clearly PREDATE the institution of the Israel monarchy so Israel's king is beside the point. These rules were established when Israel was a Theocracy and the only civil government was the priesthood.
Not really relevant, the tithe and a number of other aspects werent to be enforced by a human authority, IIRC. It being a theocracy means that God was the authority of the government, which isnt really relevant to the situation we have today at all.
Christians cannot say "we don't need to consider the right to eat because circumstances are different" when they refuse to make the same acknowledgement for other rules such as homosexuality and adultery (interestingly - one of the few direct mentions of homosexuality occurs just one chapter later in the same book! It came from the EXACT same set of rules).
There is a lot of misunderstanding on Leviticus 18(?) and Acts 10, etc, and most of it comes from folks who havent done serious study of the Bible-- they read 5 verses in Acts 10, and then 5 verses in Lev 18, and throw up their hands and declare "it doesnt make sense".
Leviticus set forth a number of rules-- some of them were indicative of universal ethical truths (prohibition on adultery, murder, theft), which can be understood by numerous other passages in the Bible both OT and NT; and some were more along the lines of duties-- partly to distinguish Israel from the nations around it, and partly to demonstrate (as Romans explains) that no man is capable of fulfilling all the law except for Jesus.
Those portions of the Law were fulfilled in Jesus, as he met all the law's demands and yet died a sinner's death. We no longer perform the sacrifice or send out the scape-goat, for example, because no further sacrifice for sin is necessary-- to continue them would be to declare Christ's death insufficient.
The food laws likewise were a part of that second type of law, and were explicitly declared fulfilled in Acts 10 when God declared all foods clean.
you were ALSO expected to give a share of your actual production to others, based on their need: to the widows and orphans the last of the grape harvest, to a hungry man walking over your fields -as much as he could eat.
And ONCE AGAIN, those were NOT enforced by some kind of Tithe- or Widow- police. And REGARDLESS we do NOT have a theocracy these days, nor does it make sense to do so since our national identity is NOT as a chosen people of God.
Well at the time this was written (and again, it has NOTHING to do with the tith
You Americans really are easily brainwashed sheep, aren't you?
Yes, and those reports of Verizon employees cutting thru fiber lines is totally something I should ignore.
Honestly, even though I dont recommend them anyways-- If I found Verizon negotiating with people who sabatoged their customers, I would never work with them again. That sort of "protest" is never acceptable, and I really cant believe people are defending it.
>Finally, the parable of the moneychangers is utterly irrelevant. It was NOT a parable, it was an EVENT. Parables are stories Jesus told to explain things by analogy. Things he actually DID do no qualify. How are we supposed to take your points on theology seriously if you don't even know THAT ?
Theres a difference between not knowing and mistyping at 1:30 in the morning. "incident" was what I was looking for.
. Beyond the tithes which were meant for charity what the bible says of property law sets a specific measurement of everybody's production aside to care for the needy - and that measurement is "as much as they need".
Israel was to be a holy nation in a way that no nation ever was; to try to base our governmental principles on Israel when we do NOT have a king who necessarily believes in and attempts to carry out God's will, doesnt work. We're not OT Israel, and trying to draw a parallel there doesnt work. And you will note a few things:
A) Many christians and jews still tithe (though with christians the percent may vary-- not sure about Jews, but I understand that is traditionally 10%). B) More importantly, this is not generally not mandated by the government, nor has it ever been, even in the Bible, as far as I am aware (I may be wrong, and would like to see a passage if I am). The tithe has always AFAIK been a matter between the person and God. C) I am not aware of any of the kings ever passing a law that institutes the jubilee year; that has always been something that was held as God's law. If there are people in this country who are not Christian / Jewish, what sense does it make to impose an OT law meant for God's people (specifically as a way of distinguishing themselves from the surrounding nations) on a minority Christian/Jewish (practicing, at least) country that utterly rejects the idea that God should influence politics?
I think only an absolutely idiot would think that these items literally apply only to farmers, they must be adapted to all professions if they have any meaning at all surely ?
Christ never pushed for political reform; he focused on the individual's actions and relationship to God. We derive a great number of political ideas from Judeo-Christian ideas, but for the most part this is because it informs our ethics, not because we think all OT laws are relevant.
Edit: You mention things like "memory slots" (my probook has 2, one is filled with a stock 4gb ram), and battery (my probook gets 4.5 hrs, their upper end $900-1000 laptops support massive battery expansions thru a bottom port), etc. Im not really convinced here.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, accepting your "the universe was created exactly how it is," premise, can we please do some work? Oh, that's right. You're back to needing science to do anything useful. It's almost like you refuse to hear the argument:
Who said I was pitting the two against each other? Most of my arguments rely on logical deduction and rational thought, which are prerequisites to science. I see no need to separate the two, since both are concerned with universal truth and both are concerned with the cause of all things.
I would argue, only partly in jest, that if my beliefs are correct, you are back to needing God in order to accomplish anything useful ;) After all, science doesnt "do" anything; it is a systematic approach to gaining knowledge. It is God, if I am correct, that perpetuates all things.
If you are looking for more classical arguments, Thomas Aquinas is rather famous for his Summa Theoligica-- this appears to be what you are looking for (in english, too).
There is also the quite old argument that Paul made, that the existence of a conscience in the human heart (or mind, or however you wish to term it) is proof of some higher moral standard to which we all find ourselves accountable to. CS Lewis sums this up quite nicely in Mere Christianity-- the first 20 or so pages sum the argument up quite nicely, and regardless of your religious views Lewis makes a very pleasant read. The first chapter can be found here, and the complete book as well as audio here.
If random musings by a brilliant mathematician are more your thing, I highly recommend Pascal's Pensees. There are a number of things that I could probably take issue with in his writings, but on the whole he gives some rather good arguments for both the existence for God, and for belief in him. Full work
Also of note would be Anselm of Canterbury, who is probably most famous for his ontological argument. I am not sure I grasp the full weight of his argument, as I have never found it compelling, but nevertheless it is significant; he also argues in Monologion and Proslogion (according to wikipedia) apparently along the same lines as Lewis (or perhaps it is the reverse)-- that our qualitative assesments of "good" and "right" and "evil" imply some higher standard to which we must be appealing, of which we are all innately aware.
RC Sproul has a wonderful series that walks through a "classical", rational approach to the question of "why is belief in God logically defensible". It is, unfortunately, not free, but I mention it because he covers most of the relevant material from the others (excepting Lewis), and well beyond.
If you can only pick one, and dont wish to spend money, I would probably go with either lewis or Aquinas; I have not really looked into Aquinas much, but some of Lewis's stuff is not quite so airtight as it could be (not that the arguments are wrong, but I think he leaves some avenues unexplored before arriving at a conclusion).
He defended the positions they take on highly spurious grounds
Did I now? Looking at my initial post, it rather seems to me I was defending the replublican core belief-- that big government and excess regulation are bad.
I do not recall endorsing Glenn Beck, OReilly, the moral majority, McCain, Bush, or any of the others in my post. All such inferences have come from your own mind.
I was being somewhat tongue in cheek. One of the two lines had been down for several weeks due to a tree branch. However, you expect me to disregard eyewitness accounts...on what basis again?
Conspiracy theory alert....
When I pointed out how bad the chargesheet against them really is - you say you can't defend these actions as they are inconsistent with your beliefs.
I should have couched my meaning less tactfully: I mean to say, I think a good many "religious right" folks might not actually be christians; and that a good many "christians" today might not be christians.
First John starts by saying that "if anyone says he is in the light, and yet walks in darkness, he is a liar and the truth is not in him". This is why I do not mean to defend those who are characterized (key word) by evil.
There's a really simple answer to the "first cause" question, and that's that there was no first time. There is no time zero. There is no minimum time. In math-speak, it's an open set. Every instant was preceded by another instant--note that this does NOT require an infinite number of seconds, just an infinite resolution. That avoids the problem with first cause.
Seconds are irrelevant; time is a state of change, and you are postulating an infinite (or immeasurable, to be precise) amount of change from whenever until now; but if that is the case, then uncountable uncountables have occured, and I would ask why this perpetual motion machine has not reached equilibrium yet.
As another poster points out, even if you do postulate a god as a creator, you have the question what created the creator
If I postulated that God was both a cause and an event, you are right, the entire model would crumble. But what I am postulating is that God is the prime cause, and not an effect at all-- that he is unchanging and eternal.
An infinite amount of potential energy seething chaotically, timelessly.
I would ask why such a writhing mass does not eventually expend all of its potential energy by entering a state of equilibrium.
It depends on how you define universe. The two most common I have heard (paraphrased) are "all that is", in which case God would be included, and the "natural universe', which as I understand is sort of a "domain" of information; the boundary outside of which no information can cross by means within the universe.
I am probably paraphrasing it badly, but in either definition it would seem that gathering information about its formation or what is outside it is impossible from human perspective.
This isnt about doing anyone favors or sticking it to the other guy. I, and I assume the others in this discussion, are concerned with truth, not wielding words like a bludgeon. If you are concerned with "doing the religious guys a favor", perhaps you have exactly the wrong view of reason, science, and philosophy.
Why do you suppose the greek ending "sophia" is in "philosophy", I might ask?
You would do better to ask how chaos can avoid organizing itself into a stable state for the big bang. By definition, anything that can happen in a chaotic system must eventually happen, no?
That is a good reply; but it seems to create a new problem-- perfectly organized stable states dont "big bang", and if they do they are not stable states. This is the bigger problem I would like to hear an answer to-- what caused the "bang"?
he reason is known as the law of parsimony or Occam's Razor [wikipedia.org]. We can either have a prime mover that has always existed (with a universe that has a definite beginning), or a universe that has always existed (with no prime mover). It's bad enough to violate causation (each scenario does that- either the prime mover or the universe are assumed to have no antecedent), but the existence of a prime mover is an additional assumption that has no explicative power.
Im aware of Occam's Razor, and it is a part of my argument ;) The issue I have with a self-existent universe, is that eternal things tend to not change; if they did, they would not be eternal. At the very least, every observation of the universe I am aware of is plagued by the law of thermodynamics which implicitly denies the possiblity of something that is BOTH eternal AND changing (ie, perpetual motion machines). I have heard other, better, more classically trained arguments for why it makes no sense, but not being a philosopher (and not wanting to bore you with a much much lengthier argument) I will stick with that.
I do appreciate the thoughtful answer, and look forward to your reply.
No, the general thought is not that God ever just came into existence; the entire argument is that he is eternal.
The reason that same argument cannot be applied to the universe, according to my above argument, is that the universe is in a state of change, and systems in a state of change always (so far as we have ever been able to tell) seek an equilibrium; if they do not, you simply need to widen your scope to capture more of the universe, and you will see that principle in action.
As the universe is now in a state of change, it must eventually reach a state of equilibrium; and if it has been around "forever", it should have already done so, since an immeasurable ("infinite") amount of time would have already passed.
This problem seems to require one of 4 conclusions:
1) reality is an illusion, and nothing exists (ruled out by Decartes' famous "I think, therefore I am")
2) The universe is self creating (which makes no sense in any language you formulate the thought in; a non-existent thing cannot act or create)
3) the universe is eternal (same problem I mentioned above)
4) something within or without the universe is eternal; and is necessarily self-existent, and unchanging (if not, it is not eternal)
And I obviously fall to number 4 as a conclusion.
a God that never changes (and therefore is permitted to "exist" without "causation") is a God that cannot make a decision, and therefore may never act (and therefore cannot create the universe)
Unless of course such a God does not make decisions in the temporal way we do, and is simultaneously omnipotent, omniscient, AND self-existent. I am not aware of any class of reformed thought which thinks that God is suprised by new events and must then make a decision; he is described as having had a plan from the beginning.
And tbqh, I cannot see how that statement is less reasonable than many of the alternative theories (spontaneous generation, self creation, etc).
Introducing a new cause (god) does not solve this problem. This is not an argument for the existence of god.
By the context, I assume you meant to write "a new effect". But the law of causation does not say that every THING has a cause, merely that every effect has a cause. That is, anything in a state of change must have a cause. God is understood to be unchanging-- outside of "time" if you will (understanding "time" as "state of change").
The second law of thermodynamics captures the evolution of the universe. It really doesn't say anything about the initial conditions. Again, you are asking questions about what caused the big bang. Quite frankly, the energy scale immediately following the big bang is so huge that we will probably never be able to understand the behavior of physics immediately following the big bang, much less before.
I do not think it is unreasonable for one to ask "what caused the 'initial state' to enter a state of change", nor to try to reason out whether it is logically possible for such a state to have come into being unaided. I understand that these are difficult questions, and I do not mean to say "if you cant answer now, then you must be wrong" (for there are a good many questions you could likely ask me about my faith that I am simply unprepared to answer; that doesnt mean I will never have an answer); but when people like Stephen Hawking make statements regarding the universe spontaneously generating itself, or unfalsifiable theories about multiple worlds being posited, I think it is fair to ask if Occams razor does not demand a simple, eternal, cause.
The second law of thermo is kind of weird, but only from a theoretical perspective. Look into the ergodic theorem. In particular, we actually expect cyclic behavior from a mathematical perspective (Did I just blow your mind? This mathematical fact blows mine every time I hear it).
That is interesting, and I will look into it-- thanks for the tip. But surely you do see the immediate objections that spring to mind? I will be quite interested to see why it is not necessary that objects in a state of change eventually reach a state of equilibrium-- have there been observations of systems that run indefinitely? I had understood that perpetual motion machines were commonly discredited in scientific communities.
This is as good an argument against god as it is against the big bang.
God is described as self existent; he has no creator and knows no change. This solves the issues of "how can something be perpetually in a state of change, and why would it not eventually find an equilibrium?"
The classical argument I outlined above is not necessarially sufficient to account for God, but is used to arrive at the premise "there must be SOME unchanging, eternal, 'prime mover'". I merely added some of my own questions regarding entropy.
The arguments for the big bang are that it DOES explain phenomena. Whereas a god or FSM does not.
I would argue that in the absence of proof or data, it would be equally rational to consider, in turn, an FSM, infinite bigbang cycles, a God, and possibly other scenarios. Assuming as you say it will never be possible to gather information of "pre-big-bang" (which I agree with, due to definition of "universe"), one would have to approach it deductively and ask "which scenario best describes what we see".
I do not think, with those criteria, God as the cause is unreasonable, especially when some of our most reliable historical documents give eyewitness accounts of events that must otherwise be discarded as "legend".
Thank you for your well thought out reply, however, it is nice to have someone actually give a reasoned reply, and I will look into ergodic theory.
Who says theists never change their beliefs? I have corrected them many times when I have been shown to be incorrect.
I would hazard that anyone who is unwilling to be corrected is unable to even read the Bible correctly.
There are indeed rational reasons for anyone who cares to look, and there have been for thousands of years. If you cared to hear such arguments (and honestly, it would look rather bad if after such statements you refused to let yourself hear them), I would be happy you to point you in the right direction.
Principle of causation, that for every effect (my existance), there is a cause, combined with the fact that we know that we exist (our very postulating it proves it, as a non-entity can not have rational thought), and the fact that the universe can manifestly not create itself (to do so would be to invoke nonsense).
Throw in a dose of entropy (how can chaos organize itself into a stable state for the big bang?), and the question of why a stable state such as the "big bang ball" would proceed without some causative agent into a non-stable state (rapidly expanding universe)?
And a further dose of "if there is neither a causative agent, nor an initial ball, why has the eternity that must therefore have already passed not violated the laws of thermodynamics through cyclical crunch-bangs?"
I would also point out that, unless I am massively missing something, Stephen Hawking's latest statement about "gravity...[causing] the universe to create itself" is manifestly irrational-- it defies reason. How can something create itself, when an act of creation requires that said target not already exist?
Incidentally, I am not trolling. I would love if someone could provide answers to these, I have never had the chance to ask why rationally arriving at the belief that there MUST have been a prime mover is less credible than the multiple-worlds theorems out there or the infinite crunch-bang cycles, or else spontaneous generation. No matter what angle I look at it from, it seems to me that there must be at least SOMETHING that is self-existent and eternal in order for us to exist now.
In case you are feeling particularly pedantic, that "67 books of the Bible" was an off the top of my head attempt to recall the precise number. Forgive me if it is off by one or two.
If anything that makes it MORE imperative. These were orders given by your god, which makes perfect economic sense then and now. Demanding that your government structures society to see these as rights is no less sensible than demanding your government give you holy days as hollydays
Were that the case, the risen Christ might have made the case for sunday to be a day off; he did not, and for centuries Christians met early in the morning prior to the work day. That makes a rather poor case for your argument.
or restrict access to material you find objectionable
Most of the commands I can recall from Christ are directed at individuals, not governments. Nevertheless, with this particular point, as we are now discussing what is "ethical", there is possibly some case to be made.
However, it utterly fails to consider whether such laws would be efficacious or whether they would make the problem worse (or else introduce worse evils), which I think is relevant if you view the role of government as "restraining evil".
You keep saying that these rules of moral economic behavior and loving your neighbour doesn't apply because we have governments now - I say they apply just as much and that government or no government god's laws must remain the same. Did your own Jesus not tell you to give the king his due ?
This seems to sum up the crux of the disagreement-- you think that such commands somehow indicate that we need governments to mandate love. Most of my argument is that were that our imperative from God, it would have been said somewhere in the 67 odd books of the Bible.
The other point Im trying very hard to communicate here is that things arent black and white. Example: prostitution-- should it be outlawed?
Some would say "it is clearly wrong, so yes". But what if it could be shown clearly, unambiguously, and unarguably, that to outlaw it would triple the number of murders, and have negligible effect on prostitution?
At this point, it depends on what you think the purpose of government is. If you think it is to simply pass laws that reflect what God views as righteous, the answer is yes-- whatever the results, an evil is an evil.
If however you think its purpose is to restrain evil, then you would argue for decriminalization, or restriction, in order to prevent worse evils from going rampant.
Honest and faithful christians disagree about such issues; it is of course important that their reasoning be solid and grounded in what scripture says and commands.
And once more I call you on inconsistency. If you cannot mandate a tithe for non-believers then you cannot mandate ANYTHING for non-believers at all.
If it wasnt established as a government mandate for non-Jews in the Bible, where on earth do you get the idea that God wanted it to be a government mandate for non-jews?
But you're contradicting your own statements. I think it's fine to let your opinions (including those related to faith) indfluence your vote. In fact I think it would be impossible not to, but it is NOT fine to let your faith be a reason to vote for morality to become legislature.
That person was an idiot. He was thinking in broad terms I suppose but he was wrong even there. A government that actively wants to harm it's citizens can be incredibly terrible and there are such governments out there today - just look at what they do and tell me that's is somehow BETTER than a government whose worst crime is taking a bit of your salary and using it to give a hungry single mother a foodstamp.
That isnt what I said, and thats a terrible strawman. The point was only that a government that is tyrannical for what it believes to be a good has resulted in Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, etc. All of those were doing what they were for the betterment of their countries and their people; in Germany's case they began
That was a PLURAL "you" not a singular you. I critisized the religious right as being inconsistent with their own religious views in the issues they campaign for. He defended the positions they take on highly spurious grounds, and I knocked those grounds down
Please explain by what authority or on what basis you expect me to defend the actions of others? If they are characterized by inconsistency with Christ's teachings I have no defense to offer for them
You think so, but if you take TTY1 out of full screen mode, youll see yahoo toolbar sitting there right above your shell prompt.
That's a cop-out. Israel was by no means saintly or without it's share of greedy people who would abuse the system.
The operative phrase was "was to be". The books of 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles pretty neatly illustrate that as you mention, they were no saints (I think the phrases "and everyone did what was right in their own eyes" and "and he was worse than his fathers" is repeated quite a lot in those books). Nevertheless, that was Israel's role and expectation, pretty explicitly. Read Leviticus or Deuteronomy or Joshua, and its pretty clear that it wasnt a king that Israel was to be subservient to, it was God.
They only instituted a central government when they utterly rejected God and demanded a king to be "like the nations around them". Trying to piece together from that some Biblical approval of a strong central government that enforces tithes is ridiculous; Israel was severely rebuked for their rejection and insistence on a king, and was warned of the evils of having a single human point of authority.
I find it quite persuasive, btw, that so many humanists would insist that we only need the right leader, while the Bible reitierates time and time again that man is fallen and corruptible-- and history continues to prove the Bible right on this count (see: Catholic church, last 100 years, Rome, etc etc etc).
More-over these rules clearly PREDATE the institution of the Israel monarchy so Israel's king is beside the point. These rules were established when Israel was a Theocracy and the only civil government was the priesthood.
Not really relevant, the tithe and a number of other aspects werent to be enforced by a human authority, IIRC. It being a theocracy means that God was the authority of the government, which isnt really relevant to the situation we have today at all.
Christians cannot say "we don't need to consider the right to eat because circumstances are different" when they refuse to make the same acknowledgement for other rules such as homosexuality and adultery (interestingly - one of the few direct mentions of homosexuality occurs just one chapter later in the same book! It came from the EXACT same set of rules).
There is a lot of misunderstanding on Leviticus 18(?) and Acts 10, etc, and most of it comes from folks who havent done serious study of the Bible-- they read 5 verses in Acts 10, and then 5 verses in Lev 18, and throw up their hands and declare "it doesnt make sense".
Leviticus set forth a number of rules-- some of them were indicative of universal ethical truths (prohibition on adultery, murder, theft), which can be understood by numerous other passages in the Bible both OT and NT; and some were more along the lines of duties-- partly to distinguish Israel from the nations around it, and partly to demonstrate (as Romans explains) that no man is capable of fulfilling all the law except for Jesus.
Those portions of the Law were fulfilled in Jesus, as he met all the law's demands and yet died a sinner's death. We no longer perform the sacrifice or send out the scape-goat, for example, because no further sacrifice for sin is necessary-- to continue them would be to declare Christ's death insufficient.
The food laws likewise were a part of that second type of law, and were explicitly declared fulfilled in Acts 10 when God declared all foods clean.
you were ALSO expected to give a share of your actual production to others, based on their need: to the widows and orphans the last of the grape harvest, to a hungry man walking over your fields -as much as he could eat.
And ONCE AGAIN, those were NOT enforced by some kind of Tithe- or Widow- police. And REGARDLESS we do NOT have a theocracy these days, nor does it make sense to do so since our national identity is NOT as a chosen people of God.
Well at the time this was written (and again, it has NOTHING to do with the tith
The Yahoo! toolbar used to come with Java
In Soviet Russia, Java comes with Yahoo toolbar!
Oh wait, and in the US too.
You Americans really are easily brainwashed sheep, aren't you?
Yes, and those reports of Verizon employees cutting thru fiber lines is totally something I should ignore.
Honestly, even though I dont recommend them anyways-- If I found Verizon negotiating with people who sabatoged their customers, I would never work with them again. That sort of "protest" is never acceptable, and I really cant believe people are defending it.
>Finally, the parable of the moneychangers is utterly irrelevant.
It was NOT a parable, it was an EVENT. Parables are stories Jesus told to explain things by analogy. Things he actually DID do no qualify. How are we supposed to take your points on theology seriously if you don't even know THAT ?
Theres a difference between not knowing and mistyping at 1:30 in the morning. "incident" was what I was looking for.
. Beyond the tithes which were meant for charity what the bible says of property law sets a specific measurement of everybody's production aside to care for the needy - and that measurement is "as much as they need".
Israel was to be a holy nation in a way that no nation ever was; to try to base our governmental principles on Israel when we do NOT have a king who necessarily believes in and attempts to carry out God's will, doesnt work. We're not OT Israel, and trying to draw a parallel there doesnt work. And you will note a few things:
A) Many christians and jews still tithe (though with christians the percent may vary-- not sure about Jews, but I understand that is traditionally 10%).
B) More importantly, this is not generally not mandated by the government, nor has it ever been, even in the Bible, as far as I am aware (I may be wrong, and would like to see a passage if I am). The tithe has always AFAIK been a matter between the person and God.
C) I am not aware of any of the kings ever passing a law that institutes the jubilee year; that has always been something that was held as God's law. If there are people in this country who are not Christian / Jewish, what sense does it make to impose an OT law meant for God's people (specifically as a way of distinguishing themselves from the surrounding nations) on a minority Christian/Jewish (practicing, at least) country that utterly rejects the idea that God should influence politics?
I think only an absolutely idiot would think that these items literally apply only to farmers, they must be adapted to all professions if they have any meaning at all surely ?
Christ never pushed for political reform; he focused on the individual's actions and relationship to God. We derive a great number of political ideas from Judeo-Christian ideas, but for the most part this is because it informs our ethics, not because we think all OT laws are relevant.
Edit:
You mention things like "memory slots" (my probook has 2, one is filled with a stock 4gb ram), and battery (my probook gets 4.5 hrs, their upper end $900-1000 laptops support massive battery expansions thru a bottom port), etc. Im not really convinced here.