True. But when there are literally millions of possible explanations for the universe and millions of possible creators – Zeus, Jehovah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Last Thursday Creator, the Great Green Arkleseizure, plus zillions of others – why, in the absence of any distinguishing evidence, pick any particular one?
Except maybe wishful thinking and prior indoctrination which seem rather weak reeds to be leaning on ….Literally millions of explanations for the universe? Millions of possible creators? I think you are getting a little carried away. You seem to have a habit of denying the possibility that A is true because it's likely that B-Z are false. It seems to be a slam dunk in your mind but I really don't get why this is a strong argument.In my opinion, you don't believe there is evidence so you don't give consideration to any. And rather consider that someone who does believe in God could actually have intellect, have thought it through and have reasoned conclusions, you stay in your comfort zone believing all theists are wishful thinkers, indoctrinated, etc. Sounds awfully familiar to the fundamentalists you criticize...just the other side of the coin.
Literally millions of explanations for the universe? Millions of possible creators? I think you are getting a little carried away. [Post #21]
You might want to take a brief look at the Wikipedia article on string theory. I don’t really understand much of it myself but a few general points seem comprehensible and relevant (you might want to take a look at Lee Smolin’s The Trouble with Physics which describes the theory in some detail and is reasonably readable for a popular audience):
String theory contains an infinite number of distinct meta-stable vacua, and perhaps 10520 of these or more correspond to a universe roughly similar to ours
That 10520 works out to be a great many more than a trillion-trillion-trillion possible universes and equations for them, each of which is presumably a possible explanation for this one, for each of the 1080 protons [trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion] in this one. While that might not be the case if it turns out that string theory is wrong, my impression is that that really wouldn’t change things substantially.
As for creators:
It is said that Hindus believe there are 330 million deities. In the Vedas, Thirty-three gods are listed. This is followed by the Sanskrit word koti, which is used for "class" but can also be used for a number equal to 10 million. According to one view, some scholars misinterpreted the word koti - which is meant to mean "class", claiming that there are 330 million gods within Hinduism. Another view contends that 330 million is a figure symbolizing infinity, indicating infinite forms of God.
Now whether any one of those – millions – were “responsible” for the creation of this particular universe is probably debatable. But absent some evidence the assertion of that is just as possible and plausible as asserting that “Jehovah did it”.
You seem to have a habit of denying the possibility that A is true because it's likely that B-Z are false. It seems to be a slam dunk in your mind but I really don't get why this is a strong argument.
No. My argument is that: because there is no evidence for B-Z and that most people, probably including you, think that B-Z are figments of the imagination and have been relegated to the class of fictional myths and fairy tales from the youth of our species; and because A shows a great many similarities with various features of B-Z; and because there is no evidence for A that can’t be used to justify other explanations; therefore it is most likely that A is of the same class as B-Z; i.e. a fictional myth and fairy tale. More colloquially: if it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck, then it is most probably a duck. But if you want to argue that A is a metaphorical or non-anthropomorphic concept then you might have a credible case; otherwise, no.
In my opinion, you don't believe there is evidence so you don't give consideration to any.
The only evidence that seems to have any factual basis, other than the entirely subjective variety of most Christians and Muslims, is the historical evidence on the types and natures of the supposed gods that humanity has worshipped over the millennia, the same evidence used in the above argument.
And rather consider that someone who does believe in God could actually have intellect, have thought it through and have reasoned conclusions, you stay in your comfort zone believing all theists are wishful thinkers, indoctrinated, etc.
Actually, I have taken a look at the arguments of various theologians, notably Edward Feser who wrote the book titled The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism [an admirable attempt but he fell well short of that goal – IMHO, although he made some interesting and reasonable points in the process]. But his arguments – the theism of Thomas Aquinas coupled with Aristotelian metaphysics – are based on a number of premises – notably Aristotle’s physics which has been proven to be bogus – for which there is absolutely nothing in the way of concrete evidence to justify. Really, a house of cards largely built on quicksand.
Sounds awfully familiar to the fundamentalists you criticize...just the other side of the coin.
Different kettle of fish, if not different species. Their argument is that Jehovah is the Man for which they provide and have no tangible evidence; mine is that there have been literally thousands if not millions of gods which have been tapped as the explanation for the existence of the universe, and the evidence – that everyone has given up on them (know anybody who still believes in Zeus or Thor?) – is written in the unbiased historical and archeological record.
Interesting article. It's amazing how far some people will stretch their belief on such far reaching hypotheses rather than to take in the evidence right in front of their eyes - the universe had a beginning point and a creator. It was all created, set in motion, and physical laws established by an omnipotent and omniscient God.
So many other scientists of the past with a greater intellect (and more wisdom) that most scientists today could so easily see the connection between creation and the Creator but I guess many today choose to be blind.
Interesting article. It's amazing how far some people will stretch their belief on such far reaching hypotheses rather than to take in the evidence right in front of their eyes - the universe had a beginning point and a creator. [Post #25]
And what evidence do you use to reach that conclusion? You’ve found some new particle, every one of which is stamped with “Made by Jehovah. 4004 BC”?
Or maybe you use the Bible? A researcher in the study of Islam – Patricia Crone – in the book Why I Am Not a Muslim – highly recommended – makes the following observation:
It is a peculiar habit of God’s that when he wishes to reveal himself to mankind, he will communicate only with a single person. The rest of mankind must learn the truth from that person and thus purchase their knowledge of the divine at the cost of subordination to another human being …. [pg 131]
Far more plausible are idiosyncratic delusions on the part of various individuals. And, on the same topic, Thomas Paine had been quoted as well:
But admitting for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it. [pg 130]
So it looks to me – and a great many others and to an increasing number – like the Bible, and the Quran, is hardly more than a collection of “hear-sayings” based on a supposed revelation to, and more likely a delusion of, one individual or, apparently in the case of Muhammad at least, cynical manipulations of a particularly gullible people.
I assert that there is no physical basis for faith. Some of the scientists of the past had great intellects but when they attributed nature to God they hindered rather than provided understanding. What they did was put God in the gaps of their personal understanding of nature. Then, lo and behold, someone finds how nature really works and God gets pushed out.
Scientists of today are not blind. They ask questions and probe for answers. If you want to poke at them you should consider that in many cases certain of their conclusions have come from mathematical solutions. When you have faith in an equation you will solve problems by adding more dimension; string theory has eleven dimensions for the arithmetic to work.
When I was in graduate school and the Prof would smear equations on the board then make his assertions, I would get up and circle points in his results and say; "Prove it".
And what evidence do you use to reach that conclusion? You’ve found some new particle, every one of which is stamped with “Made by Jehovah. 4004 BC”? ------------> There is no where in scripture that says God created the universe on a specific date.
==============
--------> Thanks but he's talking about being a Muslim & the Quran
===============
I assert that there is no physical basis for faith. Some of the scientists of the past had great intellects but when they attributed nature to God they hindered rather than provided understanding. What they did was put God in the gaps of their personal understanding of nature. Then, lo and behold, someone finds how nature really works and God gets pushed out. -------------> Many of the great scientists of the past were open-minded enough to see the interconnectedness of God to nature. Sadly many of today's scientists are blinded by their anti-God bias - some because of a personal dislike for religion in general and others out of fear of being ostracized by others.
============
Scientists of today are not blind. They ask questions and probe for answers. If you want to poke at them you should consider that in many cases certain of their conclusions have come from mathematical solutions.
--------> Yes, however if those answers begin to point towards a Creator or against the belief system of evolution then those answers are discarded and new answers are sought.
=============
When I was in graduate school and the Prof would smear equations on the board then make his assertions, I would get up and circle points in his results and say; "Prove it". ----------> That's a good thing. More scientists need to stand up to evolution and say the same thing. But too many are scared to do so for fear of losing their jobs, funding, or credibility.
There is nowhere in scripture that says God created the universe on a specific date. [Post #28]
The specific date was a jest, but, as you no doubt know, the general age is a deadly serious issue and belief. In which case one might reasonably ask, where did over 400 “American Protestant pastors” out of a 1000 surveyed get that idea, if not from scripture? Pulled it out of their nether regions?
NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Pastors overwhelmingly believe that God did not use evolution to create humans and think Adam and Eve were literal people, according to a recent survey by LifeWay Research.
The survey of 1,000 American Protestant pastors also found that ministers are almost evenly split on whether the earth is thousands of years old.
In response to the statement, "I believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old," 34 percent of pastors strongly disagree. However, 30 percent strongly agree. Nine percent somewhat disagree, and 16 percent somewhat agree.
Thanks but he's talking about being a Muslim & the Quran[Post #28]
How many people observed Moses receiving the tablets from Jehovah? Saw him part the Red Sea? Although it seems even the evidence for him as a real historical character to begin with apart from any revelations or supernatural powers is flimsy at best. Or, how about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon? Seems that such supposed revelations have played a role in various Abrahamic religions for a great many supposed individuals from Abraham with Isaac to Moses to Jesus to Muhammad to Joseph Smith.
it's really hard to believe that it's all "hear-say" that is able to manipulate gullible people.
So, of the 1000 pastors in the previously mentioned survey, which are the gullible ones? And how about all of their parishioners? Can’t see that you can reasonably argue that none of them are.
Many of the great scientists of the past were open-minded enough to see the interconnectedness of God to nature.
What you think is open-mindedness is shoving God in the gaps of their understanding.
anti-God bias - some because of a personal dislike for religion in general
What does religion have to do with God? Religion is one or two persons' religious experience past on to others who have not had a religious experience.
however if those answers begin to point towards a Creator or against the belief system of evolution then those answers are discarded and new answers are sought.
No such thing happens. If it were possible to test and find God; it would have happened long ago. The physical and spiritual universe are separate. If that separation were not true, then there would be no need for faith.
More scientists need to stand up to evolution and say the same thing. But too many are scared to do so for fear of losing their jobs, funding, or credibility.
What part of evolution is not provable? Because you reject evolution in an irrational manner does not mean that it is not proven many times over. Funny point here is that evolution doesn't scare me, you do.
----------> This probably comes from the Biblical chronology done in the 17th century by James Ussher. But again, there is no date in the Bible which says that creation began in year X. However there are many scientific evidences which do point towards a young earth & young universe.
--------------
------------> When you compare the historical accuracy and consistency of the Bible with any other historical document (Quran or Book of Mormon for example), you will see that they are worlds apart in terms of accuracy, consistency, and reliability. Can every single sentence be backed up and proven without any doubt? No. Is there support for most of it? Yes, in varying degrees.
------------------
---------------> Like I said, it's probably based on Ussher's chronology without much personal study on the matter.
No such thing happens.
==========
Then you may need to read some more. Often times logical assumptions are tossed out because they lead to something that is contrary to the accepted evolutionary model. If radiometric dating on something comes back with a younger date than expected, then it's tossed out since it "obviously" can't be that young. More dating and adjustments in assumptions continue until the results fall in line with the accepted evolutionary model.
What part of evolution is not provable? -----> tell me what part is? The biggest evidence AGAINST evolution is the fossil record. If evolution were true then the fossil record would have overwhelming numbers of examples of transitional fossils and intermediate forms. With all the millions of fossils already discovered and on display surely we'd be able to find some transitional forms. But the amazing lack of those points exactly to special creation as described in the Bible.