Uncaused Cause Proof

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1309030539' post='2258675']
The problem is then the question, "what would a thing need to be to be an uncaused cause?" A thing would need to be eternal and seemingly unmoved, while being able to move or cause without being caused itself. This means that there is nothing higher than it that can move it. Its being would necessarily be eternal, and thus not be material since matter is what accounts for individuation and is necessary for change. It is only in this sense can one understand an unmoved mover. If the unmoved mover were material, it could be moved, hurt, changed etc necessarily as per the definition of matter. However, if the unmoved mover were not material then such a causer or mover could cause or allow matter to change by introducing something new into it. One has to think vertically not horizontally when thinking of the uncaused cause. It is the only way to escape the idea of something causing it. However, then one raises a slew of new questions, what type of "mode of being" would such a thing necessarily have to be able to introduce new objects/change into matter (in a manner similar to the way I have described above)? If there is nothing greater than it that can move it or has caused it, one begins to move into the questions that St. Thomas and St. Anselm and even Aristotle and Plato asked about such a being and the answers they arrived at.
[/quote]

"However, then one raises a slew of new questions, what type of "mode of being" would such a thing necessarily have to be able to introduce new objects/change into matter (in a manner similar to the way I have described above)?"

Exactly. Assuming that this universe is in fact just one step away from the beginning of infinite regress, how does the complex and intricate theology of theistic (interventionalist and non indifferent one god) religions follow from there?

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309033305' post='2258697']
"However, then one raises a slew of new questions, what type of "mode of being" would such a thing necessarily have to be able to introduce new objects/change into matter (in a manner similar to the way I have described above)?"

Exactly. Assuming that this universe is in fact just one step away from the beginning of infinite regress, how does the complex and intricate theology of theistic (interventionalist and non indifferent one god) religions follow from there?
[/quote]

If one posits everything has a cause then one has an infinite regress, but to avoid the regress one does not need a complex intricate theology. One simply needs an understanding of "the Nous" or the Platonic one. I would highly recommend reading some Aristotle on the topic. One gets a robust theology only after having deduced through reason that such a being exists and then believing that such a God reveals himself to humanity. One can know "that" God exists through reason; however, one can only know "who" God is through His self-revelation.

We had a previous exchange on the "If God is all powerful, can He make a rock" thread ([url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=113257&st=0&p=2250727&#entry2250727"]the link[/url]). My post was number 21 about God being without limit on his act of being or [i]esse[/i], basically to be that which is uncaused and cannot be caused. To have that though, you have a being with infinite qualities, including no limit on life. We note that things are inferior when they are lifeless and this is a constraint on them since they do not move of their own accord and cannot rightly be said to introduce things from the outside but rather just affect other objects. If one is being true to the language used to describe the introduction of change into matter than you in some way has to say the "uncaused one" does in fact have life and act eternally in accord with such a nature. Since to say he is without life is to impose an essence and therefore limitation on the limitless being.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1309036419' post='2258727']
If one posits everything has a cause then one has an infinite regress, but to avoid the regress one does not need a complex intricate theology. One simply needs an understanding of "the Nous" or the Platonic one. I would highly recommend reading some Aristotle on the topic. One gets a robust theology only after having deduced through reason that such a being exists and then believing that such a God reveals himself to humanity. One can know "that" God exists through reason; however, one can only know "who" God is through His self-revelation.[/quote]

Yeah, Aquinas' unmoved mover does that very well, and reaches an answer (or rather the beginning) but from that you can only really conclude a few consequences such as such a beginning [i]must[/i] be simple, otherwise it is made of parts, and parts come from somewhere and interacted with eachother somehow to make that being and so something with parts or the result of interaction could not be the beginning. It's a necessary conclusion to the idea.

But what doesn't follow is that that simple beginning is consciously capable of designing and creating a universe which works, at least for us to observe, and that's the basis for both theism and deism, though theism then goes on to say that the cause intervenes consciously and intelligently in the universe with purpose. To me it just doesn't follow and is made even more counter intuitive because intellgience requires parts (I may be making the same mistake I'm accusing people who don't seem to go outside their own experience when making claims about god's nature but a simple uber intelligence just doesn't make sense to me).

There is also a possibility that we were created by intelligent beings who were themselves created, and I don't reject that either.

As for god revealing himself, I believe that people project their own minds (anthropomorphized) onto the universe and call it god. Though to compare with the image of an old man in the sky, just as that old man is very powerful (superman), the god mind is as well (supermind) tied in with logical conclusions and necessary conditions. That's my conception of the theistic conception, at least.

[quote]We had a previous exchange on the "If God is all powerful, can He make a rock" thread ([url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=113257&st=0&p=2250727&#entry2250727"]the link[/url]). My post was number 21 about God being without limit on his act of being or [i]esse[/i], basically to be that which is uncaused and cannot be caused. To have that though, you have a being with infinite qualities, including no limit on life. We note that things are inferior when they are lifeless and this is a constraint on them since they do not move of their own accord and cannot rightly be said to introduce things from the outside but rather just affect other objects. If one is being true to the language used to describe the introduction of change into matter than you in some way has to say the "uncaused one" does in fact have life and act eternally in accord with such a nature. Since to say he is without life is to impose an essence and therefore limitation on the limitless being.
[/quote]

Now it's about definitions and the meanings that we attach to them. "Intelligence" is one such word IMO, and so is "life". In what sense exactly? Because at least in this universe without physical cause, life couldn't exist, unless you already believe in immaterial ghosts as such. There are also different levels of life, going from things such as viruses (whether they're alive or not is disputed, though most seem to say that they are, but not in the same sense that we and other forms such as bacteria are.) How would you recognise life from non life? If you were to stumble on some alien form, with no prior experience or knowledge, how would you know, especially if it were way more advanced than us, just as we are way more advanced than a bacteria?

A bacteria is alive, but would you say that it interacts with it's environment of its own accord? At least in the same sense we do? How do you separate the appearance of intelligence (what we would see as it) from actual intelligence?

Edited June 25, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[Mr.Cat]

1. Assumption of causality is questionable.
2. Special pleading for uncaused cause.
3. Identity of uncaused cause questionable.
4. Not testable or demonstrable.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309032764' post='2258694']
I must say this is the first time I've ever seen anybody say "Non-God of the gaps". LOL

I would say that my position is one of complete ignorance. I entertain different hypotheses, god being among them, but ultimately know that at least from my perspective that nothing can be really known about any of them if they can't be reached. [/quote]

That's what it comes down to. We can't reach God, or another universe, so the only way to come to a conclusion at this point would be if one was somehow revealed to us.

But wait-that's already happened. God had revealed Himself to mankind in the person of Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead. That's incontrovertible evidence of His deity. (I know this is an unqualified statement-I'll back this up further on)


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309032764' post='2258694']
I wouldn't put it that way. Sure it takes an unfounded belief for these hypotheses, but this argument is more in line with deism, which is simpler than any theistic religion from which attributes and characteristics of this uncaused cause follow. I don't have faith for theism. Deism is more valid IMO.

I also don't see the Bible as sound historical evidence for extraordinary claims such as Jesus' resurrection and miracles. [/quote]

Once we agree that there's an uncaused cause existing outside of our Universe, and outside of time, space, and matter, we don't need to go further with this proof. It proves that there is for certain a "something" powerful enough to create the universe. Since we can't observe this "something, " it's at least reasonable to believe that it is rational. From this point, we get to the rational part through other arguments.

The key here is that we can't observe this "something" unless He reveals Himself to us. But as I said in the previous segment of this post, He has, in the person of Jesus Christ. I'm not sure why you don't believe the Bible-it's the single most verifiable document from antiquity.

At the risk of starting a long debate on a tangential topic, let's go through just some of the supporting evidence in favor of the Gospels:

1. Independent corroboration of Jesus' life by non-Christian historians of the time. In particular, Flavius Josephus, a Romanized Jew, wrote the following in one of his history books:

[quote name='http://life.liegeman.org']
Born in 37 AD to a Jewish priestly family, Josephus was later adopted into the family of the Roman Emperor Vespasian. His writings contain references to [url="http://life.liegeman.org/historymaker/extern3.html#James"]James the Just[/url] and [url="http://life.liegeman.org/historymaker/extern3.html#John"]John the Baptist[/url]. But the most famous is the [url="http://life.liegeman.org/historymaker/extern3.html#Testimonium"]'Testimonium Flavianum'[/url], concerning Jesus. Most scholars accept that this passage has been altered by a later Christian hand; but even if we strike out the suspect portions completely, we are still left with this, acknowledged as authentic by the vast majority of scholars:

"At this time there was Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who performed (surprising / wonderful) works, and a teacher of people who received the (truth / unusual) with pleasure. He stirred up both many Jews and many Greeks. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the leading men among us, those who had loved him from the first did not desist. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not extinct."[/quote]

[quote name='my high school religion book']
"The Talmud contains 12 references to Christ. All of them are filled with hatred of the very name of Jesus. Christ's miracles are not denied but ascribed to magical arts which he had brought from Egypt. His death by crucifixion is placed 'on the eve of passover.' "
"In a letter of exhortation addressed by a certain Syrian named Mara to his son Serapion (between A.D. 73 and 160) Christ is called the 'wise king of the Jews' who was murdered by His own people."
[/quote]

In no documents of the time are there any contradiction of the Gospel accounts.

Most non-Christians wouldn't admit to the genuineness of Jesus' miracles, but these references show that Jesus was a real person whose Gospel references fit the verifiable facts in secular sources.

2. The gospel writers were eyewitnesses who died for what they wrote. No one would die for a lie.

3. The gospels exist unaltered. The earliest nearly complete Gospel, the Papyrus Bodmer II (containing John's gospel) agrees with current manuscripts.

4. The gospels are free from obviously fabulous or legendary material. Though the Gospels describe miracles and supernatural events, they do so in a matter-of-fact way, without the fabulous or legendary material common to Greek and Roman myths. The authors clearly make no attempt to make the apostles look heroic, as any legendary work would have, but describe them with all their human faults and failings. (I copied this point from my religion textbook)

I would love to have a big debate on the genuineness of the Gospels, but I'll leave it at that for now.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309032764' post='2258694']
True, it would just be one step away from us on the infinitely long chain of infinite regress (which I think is the ultimate problem here). Is there good reason to think that we weren't created by something that was itself created and had a beginning?
[/quote]

Logically, there's no problem with believing that we were created by something else that was created, in the same way that humans have created new species through genetic modification. However, we know from the testimony of Jesus that we were created by God.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309032764' post='2258694']
Going into speculation here: how do you know this omnipotent uncaused cause is [i]consciously capable[/i] of creating a universe?
[/quote]

From Divine revelation.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309032764' post='2258694']
Just to make my points clearer, I perfectly accept that there could be an uncaused cause (infinite regress doesn't sit well in the mind) but it's really the attributes of this cause that I don't accept so easily.
[/quote]

Consider your points clarified.

Edited June 26, 2011 by dells_of_bittersweet

[stevil]

This is basically the cosmological argument.

Three major issues I have with it:
1. Over simplification
2. Unproven, untested, assumption
3. The conclustion exactly equals the assumption

When ithe cosmological argument states that the universe was caused or had a beginning there is an over simplification of the term universe. This over simplification confuses the result of the big bang with all of the enrgy, time and space that is in existence and it assumes that all of the energy was created during the big bang.
Scientists know what happened from now up until a few split seconds after the big bang (about 14 billion years ago). They do not know what happened before the big bang. The don't know where the energy that made up the big bang came from. It is possible that the big bang came from a massive black hole. It is even possible that the big bang was a result of two black holes colliding.
Scietnists and cosmologists know that the space/time of our universe (that which is expanding from the big bang) is flat, this means that our universe will not go into a perpetual expand and contract cycle. Our universe will continue to expand away from the big bang and will dissipate into virtual nothingness.
It is possible that space itself is infinite in nature, with space being simply a 3 dimentional coordinate system. It is possible that our big bang is simply one of many that occur in the vastness of space and given that space could be infinite in nature then there is likely an infinite amount of big bangs that have happened (e.g. an infinite amount of universes)

Scientest and cosmonlogists now understand nothing to not be nothing at all. In actual fact it appears that nothing is impossible. Quantum fluctuations are occuring all the time, everywhere, this phenomonon has been detected and measured. It essentially means that particles and energy come into existence and out of existence spontaneously all the time. It is yet to be discovered how a stable state of existence of a particle occurs from this phenomonon. What this means is that "empty space" might well be a breeding ground for existence and that existence iwould be inevitable, would not require a creator or cause and would not require any intelligence.

The assumptions of the cosmological argument assume that there is an uncaused intelligent being, that knows everything before anything existed, that exists without a requirement for existence of itself, is not bound to the contraints of existence (spacial, temporal, and material). This assumption goes further to assume that there is only one being of ths type and that this being is what would be classified as a god.
It then assumes that energy requires a cause, thus far, apart from the observed quantum fluctuations, humans have not worked out how energy can be created via any cause or if it indeed requires a cause.

With the conclusion of the Cosmological argument being exactly equal to the assumption of the argument we could simply replace the injection of god with anything (say X) and our conclusion using the Cosmological argument will be anything (i.e. X)

Atheists, most Scientists and most Cosmologists tend to put unknowns into the unknown basket and continue their search for the truth rather than to assume a theological answer based on unprovable stories.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[media]http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/files/pdfs/magis_factsheet.pdf[/media]

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309060704' post='2258824']
This is basically the cosmological argument.

Three major issues I have with it:
1. Over simplification
2. Unproven, untested, assumption
3. The conclustion exactly equals the assumption

When ithe cosmological argument states that the universe was caused or had a beginning there is an over simplification of the term universe. This over simplification confuses the result of the big bang with all of the enrgy, time and space that is in existence and it assumes that all of the energy was created during the big bang.
Scientists know what happened from now up until a few split seconds after the big bang (about 14 billion years ago). They do not know what happened before the big bang. The don't know where the energy that made up the big bang came from. It is possible that the big bang came from a massive black hole. It is even possible that the big bang was a result of two black holes colliding.
Scietnists and cosmologists know that the space/time of our universe (that which is expanding from the big bang) is flat, this means that our universe will not go into a perpetual expand and contract cycle. Our universe will continue to expand away from the big bang and will dissipate into virtual nothingness.
It is possible that space itself is infinite in nature, with space being simply a 3 dimentional coordinate system. It is possible that our big bang is simply one of many that occur in the vastness of space and given that space could be infinite in nature then there is likely an infinite amount of big bangs that have happened (e.g. an infinite amount of universes)

Scientest and cosmonlogists now understand nothing to not be nothing at all. In actual fact it appears that nothing is impossible. Quantum fluctuations are occuring all the time, everywhere, this phenomonon has been detected and measured. It essentially means that particles and energy come into existence and out of existence spontaneously all the time. It is yet to be discovered how a stable state of existence of a particle occurs from this phenomonon. What this means is that "empty space" might well be a breeding ground for existence and that existence iwould be inevitable, would not require a creator or cause and would not require any intelligence.
[/quote]

As soon as we get into events that could have happened before the Big Bang, we are working with unproven, untested, assumptions. Is it theoretically possible that our universe was created by a collision of black holes? Yes. Do you have any evidence of that? No. Is it the most likely explanation based on the current data? No. You're putting religious faith in something that you can not come to an informed conclusion on-in other words, blind faith.


[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309060704' post='2258824']
When ithe cosmological argument states that the universe was caused or had a beginning there is an over simplification of the term universe. This over simplification confuses the result of the big bang with all of the enrgy, time and space that is in existence and it assumes that all of the energy was created during the big bang. [/quote]

It assumes that we live in a universe and not a multiverse. This is an assumption and not an oversimplification. We can't verify the existence of other universes without visiting them. Assuming a universe is just as valid of an assumption as assuming a multiverse.

Even if there is a multiverse, the first event in the history of the cosmos requires a cause.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309060704' post='2258824']
The assumptions of the cosmological argument assume that there is an uncaused intelligent being, that knows everything before anything existed, that exists without a requirement for existence of itself, is not bound to the contraints of existence (spacial, temporal, and material). This assumption goes further to assume that there is only one being of ths type and that this being is what would be classified as a god.
It then assumes that energy requires a cause, thus far, apart from the observed quantum fluctuations, humans have not worked out how energy can be created via any cause or if it indeed requires a cause.

With the conclusion of the Cosmological argument being exactly equal to the assumption of the argument we could simply replace the injection of god with anything (say X) and our conclusion using the Cosmological argument will be anything (i.e. X) [/quote]

In other words, you're accusing the cosmological argument of begging the question, which is a serious accusation. However, I think you've confused the assumptions with the conclusions, and the conclusions of the cosmological argument with the conclusions of other arguments.

The assumption of the cosmological argument is not that there is an uncaused intelligent being-that's the conclusion if you take it several steps further than the version posted on page 1. The only assumption of this argument is causality. Basically, we're arguing that if you follow all causes back in time, you eventually get to the Big Bang, which itself requires a cause.

At this point, you essentially have two options. 1: the Bang Bang was caused by something material. 2: the Big Bang was caused by something spritual. The issue with 1 is that if your cause is matter/energy (which relativity says is the same), you have a problem with an infinite regress, which is irrational. Whenever you have matter/energy, you create time. If matter/energy have always existed, then time has always existed, and you have an infinite regress. As argued in a previous post, if the big bang (or whatever prior event was the very first event in the multiverse) was caused by something spiritual, infinite time is no longer an issue.

Other posters may be using advanced versions of this argument to get to an intelligent creator, but that's not really what this argument is designed to do. As seen in previous posts, this shows that the uncaused cause is an omnipotent spirit (all powerful, and has no material parts). If an omnipotent spirit is the cause of the universe, it's at least reasonable to believe that this cause is intelligent, but we can use other arguments to prove this. We're not assuming what we have to prove.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309060704' post='2258824']Atheists, most Scientists and most Cosmologists tend to put unknowns into the unknown basket and continue their search for the truth rather than to assume a theological answer based on unprovable stories.
[/quote]

Are you really on a search for truth? Are you really putting the unknown in the unknown basket? Atheist or theist, our lives should be a search for the truth, and as a Catholic I believe that I've found the fullness of the truth in my faith. My faith is in complete harmony with reason, and I believe that the Catholic Church has the answers to the unknowns. I'm not assuming that the Church is true be because I'm a member of the Church, to the contrary, I'm a member of the Church because through reason I've found that the Church possesses the fullness of the truth in its answers to what remain to you unknowns.

On the other hand, you give the appearance of not being on a quest for truth, but on a quest for any theory that results in atheism-pure, blind, irrational faith. Your atheism requires to to believe in scientific theories that we will never be able to observe, test, verifty, etc. In fact, they don't meet the definition of a theory because a theory is a hypothesis with evidence backing it up. Your blind faith is faith in a mere hypothesis.

By referring to unprovable stories, I assume that means the Bible. Forgetting momentarily about everything outside the 4 Gospels, how do you deny what's in them? See my previous post.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[size="4"][size="2"]I thought I would quote a small portion of the link I posted earlier...now you'll actually read it. This is actually just a small selection. It's by Fr. Robert Spitzer, a Jesuit Priest and Physicist. See [url="http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/files/pdfs/magis_factsheet.pdf"][url="http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/files/pdfs/magis_factsheet.pdf"]http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/files/pdfs/magis_factsheet.pdf [/url][/url][/size][u]
[b]
Three pre-Big Bang models[/b][/u][/size]
Since the Big Bang has not been proven to be the beginning of the universe, some physicists have postulated some models of a pre-Big-Bang era with the potential for infinite duration (which could avert the need for a beginning and a creation). Three wellknown models are:
• An infinitely bouncing universe
• An eternally inflating multiverse; and
• An eternal universe in higher dimensional space (superstring theory).
There is substantial evidence to indicate the need for a beginning in each of these three hypothetical pre-Big-Bang models (as well as other possible pre-Big Bang models). This evidence for a beginning of the universe (or any multiverse in which it may be situated) will be given in two parts: three pieces of evidence from the law of entropy (Section V) and three pieces of evidence from space-time geometry (Section VI).

[size="4"][u][b]V. Evidence for a beginning from the law of entropy[/b][/u][/size]
There are three mutually corroborating pieces of evidence of a beginning of bouncing universes (assuming both three-dimensional and higher-dimensional space) that come from the law of entropy. We will first describe the law of entropy and then examine each of the three pieces of evidence.
[b]Definition of the law of entropy[/b]
Isolated energetic systems move from states of organized complexity to disorganized states; they do not move from disorganized states to organized complex ones (because the probability of disorganized states is far greater than that of organized complex ones). For this reason, isolated energetic systems run
down. Examples: billiard balls move from a racked state to a scattered, disorganized state when struck, but not vice versa; a cup of coffee moves from hot state to cool state, but not vice versa; gas moves out of an uncorked bottle but does not flow back into it, etc… Inasmuch as the universe is an isolated system, it too will run down (increase in entropy).

[b]First indication of finite bouncing from law ofentropy ratio of starlight to CMB radiation.[/b]
There are two kinds of electromagnetic energy in the universe: starlight (organized complex spectrum), and cosmic microwave background radiation
(diffuse, homogeneous radiation). Every hypothetical bounce of the universe would convert all starlight into cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. Therefore, if the universe bounced a million times, then the CMB radiation would be a million times greater than starlight. Similarly, if the universe bounced a billion times, then the CMB radiation would be a billion times greater than starlight. If the universe bounced an infinite number of times, then all electromagnetic radiation would be CMB radiation, and there would be no starlight. This is not the case in our universe where CMB radiation is only one hundred times greater than starlight indicating an upper limit of one hundred bounces, if, indeed, the universe bounced at all.

[b]Second indication of finite bouncing from law of entropy – Tolman’s limit[/b]
Every bounce produces increased radiation in the universe; this increased radiation produces increased outward pressure. This increased outward pressure, in turn, produces longer and larger cycles (bounces). Therefore, if one goes back in time from today’s finitely large and finitely long cycle, then one will reach an infinitely short cycle with an infinitely small radius (a beginning) in the finite past. This would constitute a beginning of bouncing, and a beginning of the universe.

[b]Third indication of finite bouncing from law of entropy –low entropy of our Big Bang.[/b]
If the universe were to collapse, there would be a tremendous increase in entropy (as independently calculated by Roger Penrose, Willy Fischler, and Thomas Banks). Therefore, if the universe had oscillated an infinite number of times prior to our Big Bang, entropy should have been at its highest possible level at the Big Bang. In point of fact, the entropy of the universe at the Big Bang was very low, indicating that it did not oscillate an infinite number of times. Indeed it does not seem likely that the universe bounced at all because the odds against our universe having its low entropy at the Big Bang (as calculated by Roger Penrose) is already 1010 to one (which is exceedingly, exceedingly improbable); and if there were a previous bounce, the entropy of the universe at the previous bounce would have been much lower (meaning that the odds against its occurrence would have been higher – if that can be imagined).

The above three pieces of evidence show the exceedingly high improbability of an infinitely bouncing universe (including those conceived to occur in higher dimensional space). It is reasonable to conclude from this that if the universe bounced at all, it did not bounce an infinite number of times, and therefore, had a beginning.

[stevil]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309145768' post='2258976']
As soon as we get into events that could have happened before the Big Bang, we are working with unproven, untested, assumptions. Is it theoretically possible that our universe was created by a collision of black holes? Yes. Do you have any evidence of that? No. Is it the most likely explanation based on the current data? No. You're putting religious faith in something that you can not come to an informed conclusion on-in other words, blind faith.
[/quote]
I have not stated what has happened but merely offered a couple of possibilities from the enormously large amounts of possibilities to consider. I find it a lot of fun and very thought provoking to try and come up with ideas on what might of happened. Of course they are all valid (including the god possibility) until some contrary proof is discovered. I don't believe in any of them as they are not fact. I am certainly keeping my eyes open with regards to scientific and cosmological discoveries. Very exciting stuff indeed.

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309145768' post='2258976']
It assumes that we live in a universe and not a multiverse. This is an assumption and not an oversimplification. We can't verify the existence of other universes without visiting them. Assuming a universe is just as valid of an assumption as assuming a multiverse.

Even if there is a multiverse, the first event in the history of the cosmos requires a cause.
[/quote]
I am not assuming a multiverse, I actually don't like the term multiverse as it implies that the universes relate to each other in some way. Maybe like how planets relate to each other as they travel around stars (solar system) or how solar systems relate to each other as they travel around a black hole (galaxies). I certainly would not term all the universes in space as being within one big multiverse. Of, course it is possible that some universes do rotate around within a multiverse and that possibly there are many multiverses. It really is amazing to think about the possibilities.

With regards to infinite regress, I don't think you understood what I was talking about with regards to it being impossible to have nothing and that existence in inevitable given the nature of space and the phenomena of quantum fluctuations. Anyway, there might be other natural phenomena that creates energy/matter as well, it does seem likely to me, given the data that scientists and cosmologists have presented, that energy/matter is an inevitable consequence of “nothing”.


[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309145768' post='2258976']
At this point, you essentially have two options. 1: the Bang Bang was caused by something material. 2: the Big Bang was caused by something spritual. The issue with 1 is that if your cause is matter/energy (which relativity says is the same), you have a problem with an infinite regress, which is irrational. Whenever you have matter/energy, you create time. If matter/energy have always existed, then time has always existed, and you have an infinite regress. As argued in a previous post, if the big bang (or whatever prior event was the very first event in the multiverse) was caused by something spiritual, infinite time is no longer an issue.
[/quote]

The issue with this is that you are ignoring the fact that it is impossible to have nothing and that quantum fluctuations occur all the time and everywhere.

You are also trying to ignore the problem of proving that something spiritual exists and that it is capable of creating energy/matter.



[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309145768' post='2258976']
Are you really on a search for truth? Are you really putting the unknown in the unknown basket? Atheist or theist, our lives should be a search for the truth, and as a Catholic I believe that I've found the fullness of the truth in my faith
[/quote]

I am continuing to search and so is science.

But as you have stated that you have found the fullness of the truth, hence I would assume you have stopped searching.

[Aragonn]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308974508' post='2258406']
I don't see any problems with it, other than "there must be a [i]being[/i] that exists outside of time, and has the power to call the universe into being."

I would call the uncaused cause the uncaused cause, and not god.
[/quote]

You reason back from the effects to discover the nature of the cause. The planets operate according to certain rules, the laws of nature allow life to come into existence, and the universe is intelligible.

Design comes from a designer, laws from a law giver and intelligibility from an intelligence. Now we know that the uncaused cause is eternal, exists outside of space and time and exhibits intelligence and intentionality. Starting to sound more and more like a God to me...

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309168813' post='2259030']
I have not stated what has happened but merely offered a couple of possibilities from the enormously large amounts of possibilities to consider. I find it a lot of fun and very thought provoking to try and come up with ideas on what might of happened. Of course they are all valid (including the god possibility) until some contrary proof is discovered. I don't believe in any of them as they are not fact. I am certainly keeping my eyes open with regards to scientific and cosmological discoveries. Very exciting stuff indeed. [/quote]

I pretty much agree with you. I find this stuff fun, too. My only disagreement would be that I think philosophy shows that God is the logical conclusion, but I'll argue that further down.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309168813' post='2259030']
I am not assuming a multiverse, I actually don't like the term multiverse as it implies that the universes relate to each other in some way. Maybe like how planets relate to each other as they travel around stars (solar system) or how solar systems relate to each other as they travel around a black hole (galaxies). I certainly would not term all the universes in space as being within one big multiverse. Of, course it is possible that some universes do rotate around within a multiverse and that possibly there are many multiverses. It really is amazing to think about the possibilities.

With regards to infinite regress, I don't think you understood what I was talking about with regards to it being impossible to have nothing and that existence in inevitable given the nature of space and the phenomena of quantum fluctuations. Anyway, there might be other natural phenomena that creates energy/matter as well, it does seem likely to me, given the data that scientists and cosmologists have presented, that energy/matter is an inevitable consequence of "nothing".
[/quote]

Glad to see someone else who doesn't like the idea of a multiverse. :-)

You clearly have more expertise in this field than I...however, I'll do my best to reply, but that said, if I make a scientific error, I'm not being shoddy with my science, I just don't know it very well.

That said, there's some serious problems with using quantum fluctuations to explain the Big Bang. Quantum fluctuations need something to fluctuate in: spacetime. However, spacetime doesn't come into existence until after the Big Bang:

[quote name='apologetics-notes blog']
The fact that we are relying on something called a “fluctuation” should give us a hint that there’s something more than nothing going on. You see a fluctuation implies that at the very least something is changing. But a proper definition of time is the change in some state of affairs. If you have any set of circumstances and then those circumstances are somehow different, you can know that time has elapsed. You have a “before” and an “after”. So the fact that there are quantum fluctuations means that [b]by definition time is already in existence[/b].

Also, although most physicists agree that matter and energy do not need to exist at the quantum level, a quantum fluctuation happens in space. The [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state"]Wikipedia article[/url] gets a quantum vacuum state right when it states

[indent][i]"According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is "by no means a simple empty space", and again: "it is a mistake to think of any physical vacuum as some absolutely empty void."[/i][/indent]
Even in Johann Rafelski and Berndt Mueller’s little book [url="http://www.physics.arizona.edu/%7Erafelski/Books/StructVacuumE.pdf"][i]The Structured Vacuum[/i][/url] they define the vacuum as “space without matter”.

Herein lies the problem. If the beginning of the universe we mean that all matter, energy, space and time came into existence, but quantum fluctuations require space and time to already exist, then how can they explain the beginning of the universe? The answer is: they can’t. While quantum fluctuations are a theoretical construct, they really can’t explain why the universe is here at all, because two of the universe’s conditions must already exist for the quantum fluctuations to exist.
[/quote]

I also think you're violating the law of conservation of mass/energy. Note that there's a distinction between this law being violated and appearing to be violated. If during a quantum fluctuation, some matter passed into or out of existence, into some kind of quasi-nothingness, then the amount of matter in the universe has changed. I think you are misinterpreting (or using a non-standard interpretation of) quantum mechanics:

[quote name='Wikipedia']
In [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_physics"]quantum physics[/url], a [b]quantum fluctuation[/b] is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation#cite_note-0"][1][/url][/sup] arising from [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg"]Werner Heisenberg[/url]'s [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle"]uncertainty principle[/url].

According to one formulation of the principle, energy and time can be related by the relation[sup][url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation#cite_note-1"][2][/url][/sup]

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/b/d/1/bd1bb25a5159f9c74803afca6ad65935.png[/img] That means that [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy"]conservation of energy[/url] can appear to be violated, but only for small times. This allows the creation of particle-[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiparticle"]antiparticle[/url] pairs of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle"]virtual particles[/url]. The effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in the effective charge of the electron, different from its "naked" charge.

In the modern view, [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy"]energy[/url] is always [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law"]conserved[/url], but the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenstate"]eigenstates[/url] of the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamiltonian_%28quantum_mechanics%29"]Hamiltonian[/url] ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy"]energy[/url] [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable"]observable[/url]) are not the same as (i.e. the Hamiltonian doesn't [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commutative_operation"]commute[/url] with) the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_number_operator"]particle number operators[/url].

[/quote]

[quote name='wikipedia']


[b]Quantum theory[/b]
In [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics"]quantum mechanics[/url], energy of a quantum system is described by a self-adjoint (Hermite) operator called Hamiltonian, which acts on the Hilbert space (or a space of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_functions"]wave functions[/url] ) of the system. If the Hamiltonian is a time independent operator, emergence probability of the measurement result does not change in time over the evolution of the system. Thus the expectation value of energy is also time independent. The local energy conservation in quantum field theory is ensured by the quantum [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem"]Noether's theorem[/url] for energy-momentum tensor operator. Note that due to the lack of the (universal) time operator in quantum theory, the uncertainty relations for time and energy are not fundamental in contrast to the position momentum uncertainty principle, and merely holds in specific cases (See [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle"]Uncertainty principle[/url]). Energy at each fixed time can be precisely measured in principle without any problem caused by the time energy uncertainty relations. Thus the conservation of energy in time is a well defined concept even in quantum mechanics.

[/quote]


Unqualified statements, etc:
[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309168813' post='2259030']
The issue with this is that you are ignoring the fact that it is impossible to have nothing and that quantum fluctuations occur all the time and everywhere.

You are also trying to ignore the problem of proving that something spiritual exists and that it is capable of creating energy/matter.
[/quote]

'It's impossible to have nothing" is an unqualified statement. You say it's impossible, I say it's possible-that's the kind of argument it boils down to when you don't back up your claims.

But let's grant for a minute that there really is some state of quasi-nothingness that quantum objects can enter and leave. Then it really isn't nothing, because there's stuff there. This state could be very different from observable reality, but it wouldn't be truly nothing. Also, just because a this state exists doesn't disprove the possibility that a state of true nothingness did exist prior to the Big Bang (or prior first event in the cosmos).

Since you haven't given scientific evidence for the impossibility of nothing, I can't disprove your science, but I can show that philosophically nothing isn't impossible.
[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309168813' post='2259030']Of course they are all valid (including the god possibility) until some contrary proof is discovered. [/quote]
I'm assuming from that quote that you believe that God is philosophically possible, just not likely. If God is philosophically possible, then it's philosophically possible that God would exist prior to any material reality, and there would be absolute nothing.

Not denying that quantum flucuations are real-they just require space time, meaning that they can't cause the Big Bang.

I'm not ignoring the problem of proving that something spiritual exists-I've outlined a proof for that in previous posts. For your sake, I'll repeat myself: If space, time, and matter came into existence at a point in time known as the Big Bang, then the cause of the Big Bang must exist outside these dimensions. Something existing with no material properties is a spirit.

We know that it's capable of creating energy/matter because we can look back in time and see that it did. The big bang requires a cause, either a material one or a spiritual one. I know we'll still disagree on this, but I think philosophy and science can show that this cause must be a spirit. If it's a spiritual cause, and it caused the Big Bang, it's empirically capable of doing it, because it did.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309168813' post='2259030']Of course they are all valid (including the god possibility) until some contrary proof is discovered. [/quote]

Here's what you are ignoring: We can't know for certain which one of these possibilities is true until we can observe one of them. However, God has revealed himself to us through Jesus Christ. The Resurrection is definitive proof that the God possibility is the only one that is true. You've now posted twice without mentioning it, after I've posted it as a proof. You appear to be intentionally ignoring it.

[stevil]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309280457' post='2259718']
You clearly have more expertise in this field than I...however, I'll do my best to reply, but that said, if I make a scientific error, I'm not being shoddy with my science, I just don't know it very well.
[/quote]
Lawrence Krauss is much more qualified than most people on the planet. It is his job to find answers (the truth) and to make sure they are correct by proving them with recreatable tests. He doesn't have all the answers and is not trying to fit the evidence into preconcieved answers. He is searching and learning.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo[/media]
In particular pay attention to 19minutes 30 seconds in

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309280457' post='2259718']
That said, there's some serious problems with using quantum fluctuations to explain the Big Bang. Quantum fluctuations need something to fluctuate in: spacetime. However, spacetime doesn't come into existence until after the Big Bang:
[/quote]
Space is everywhere, it has no boundaries. Quantum fluctuations create time.

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309280457' post='2259718']
I also think you're violating the law of conservation of mass/energy.
[/quote]
The sum total of all the energy in our universe is exactly equal to zero, always has, always will

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309280457' post='2259718']
I'm assuming from that quote that you believe that God is philosophically possible, just not likely.
[/quote]
Depends on the definition of a god. I am yet to see a concise definition.
If you posit that god is made of nothing and exists outside of existence e.g. has no requirement for time, space and energy then I am leaning very strongly towards the possiblity that this god does not exist.
It would be a huge breakthrough if someone could prove that something can exist without time, space and energy.
If you posit that god is unchanging and knows everything then I would ask how can knowledge and intelligence be present when there is no time, space and energy, no data, no information. You would go a long way if you could prove that knowledge and intelligence are independant of information.


[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309280457' post='2259718']
Not denying that quantum flucuations are real-they just require space time, meaning that they can't cause the Big Bang.
[/quote]
We don't know what caused the big bang, we don't know if spacetime was present before the big bang, my guess is that spacetime was most likely there prior. I don't think that our Universe came into being in an instant, I don't think that the big bang was the cause, it was only an expansion of the energy that was already there, likely in a huge black hole.
But this is not my belief, only a guess, one possibility of many.

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309280457' post='2259718']
I'm not ignoring the problem of proving that something spiritual exists-I've outlined a proof for that in previous posts. For your sake, I'll repeat myself: If space, time, and matter came into existence at a point in time known as the Big Bang, then the cause of the Big Bang must exist outside these dimensions. Something existing with no material properties is a spirit.
[/quote]
This is what would be called god of the gaps. We don't know what caused the big bang, we don't know that space, time and matter came into existence at the begining of the big bang, we don't know if anything spiritual exists, we don't know of anything without material properties that can exist.

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309280457' post='2259718']
We know that it's capable of creating energy/matter because we can look back in time and see that it did. The big bang requires a cause, either a material one or a spiritual one. I know we'll still disagree on this, but I think philosophy and science can show that this cause must be a spirit. If it's a spiritual cause, and it caused the Big Bang, it's empirically capable of doing it, because it did.
[/quote]
Philosophy can not show anything, it can only ask questions. Science has not shown what the cause of the big bang is. Noone has shown that a spirit exists.

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309280457' post='2259718']
Here's what you are ignoring: We can't know for certain which one of these possibilities is true until we can observe one of them. However, God has revealed himself to us through Jesus Christ. The Resurrection is definitive proof that the God possibility is the only one that is true. You've now posted twice without mentioning it, after I've posted it as a proof. You appear to be intentionally ignoring it.
[/quote]
There are a collection of books describing the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The authenticity is highly questionable. There are many claims throughout history from opposing religions and non religions to instances of magic (miracles). The vast majority, if not all are false. Please don't tell me that Benny Hinn is the second coming.

Edited June 28, 2011 by stevil

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Aragonn' timestamp='1309253632' post='2259601']
You reason back from the effects to discover the nature of the cause. The planets operate according to certain rules, the laws of nature allow life to come into existence, and the universe is intelligible.

Design comes from a designer, laws from a law giver and intelligibility from an intelligence. Now we know that the uncaused cause is eternal, exists outside of space and time and exhibits intelligence and intentionality. Starting to sound more and more like a God to me...
[/quote]

"Design comes from a designer, laws from a law giver and intelligibility from an intelligence."

We know this is the case with humans, if something a designed by an intelligent human for a purpose then it has an intelligent human designer who intentionally designs things for a purpose, but saying that the universe has a designer because it looks designed does not follow.

Much less that the designer, if it exists, is intelligently capable of planning and creating a universe fit for a purpose. We could very well be the result of a universe and not the purpose. The problem is that as far as our knowledege goes, this is the only universe we know and so don't have a reference of what one that wouldn't be called intelligently designed looks like.

One case where known probability actually favours theists and deists.

[xSilverPhinx]

Dells of bittersweet, the historicity of the bible isn't that clear and known as you say it is. I've been listening to a few talks and interviews of the biblical scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman, who is not a theologian but a biblical historian and he says the originals of the bible, like most if not all ancient texts, are lost and that the earliest documents we have were not written by eyewitnesses. Not only that, but there are accumulated errors, small contradictions and entire parts that were added in later copies.

[mortify]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309389943' post='2260509']
Dells of bittersweet, the historicity of the bible isn't that clear and known as you say it is. I've been listening to a few talks and interviews of the biblical scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman, who is not a theologian but a biblical historian and he says the originals of the bible, like most if not all ancient texts, are lost and that the earliest documents we have were not written by eyewitnesses. Not only that, but there are accumulated errors, small contradictions and entire parts that were added in later copies.
[/quote]

This is already a separate topic, and it's one I'm investing some personal study. Bart Ehrman doesn't represent the whole of Biblical scholarship, he endorses the liberal side, and is generally pessimistic about history (i.e. he believes little can be known historically.) He's written a lot of popular works. Personally what I noticed about him is that he likes to make statements and then not qualify them. So for example, he'll mention the fact that there are thousands of textual variants between the bible manuscripts, but he wont mention that 90% of these variants fall under the minute and easily identifiable category (i.e. spelling errors, missing lines, and other common accidents caused by the slip of a pen.) Also, the way the number is calculated is based off incidence, and not category. So if you have a a text with an error called A, and error A is copied by another scribe, scholars will say 2 variants exist, even though categorically it is one. With holding information like this leads the lay reader into thinking the bible is totally unreliable. The reality is the exact opposite! Scholars recognize many works as reliable even though the earliest copy we have of them is CENTURIES later. Consider Tacitus' Annals of History, originally written in 115 AD, and the earliest copy we have is from circa 900! We have fragments of the gospels going much earlier than that. In fact, one particular fragment named P52 of John's Gospel, is dated some 40 years after John's gospel was traditionally written! Incredible!

As for specific claims that the Gospels werent written by eye witnesses, they have no basis and ultimately are founded on bias. I mean really, would an agnostic scholar like Ehrman ever admit that their is actual eye witness testimony of a man performing miracles? Heck no! Thats the difficulty with the gospels for the atheist, they simply CANT be true! For them to be eye witness testimony would require a repudiation of atheism! So for scholars like Ehrman, the Gospels MUST be the product of non witnesses who's sources were faulty. That's why you see these strange theories of the gospel tradition being passed on anonymously, by a christian community that is so creativity they are virtually creating the teachings of Jesus from thin air! What hogwash! These schoalrs essentially are trying to project a folklore model into the gospel transmission. The problem with this is that it requires a lengthy space of time, but the Gospels were written within LIVING MEMORY! Even a scholar like Ehrman will admit that the gospels were written between 60-90AD! Many people who witnesses Jesus were alive and accessible. Doesn't it make sense that a person familiar with helenistic histiorography like Luke, would utilize these witnesses? I mean HELLO! And in fact Luke does, he mentions it in his gospel:

[b]"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were [color="#FF0000"]eyewitnesses and servants of the word[/color]"[/b]

So Luke used not merely eyewitnesses but eyewitnesses who were essentially seen as authoritative figures. There's no reason to doube that he had access to such people, so why not believe him? Oh... yea... Luke has a plethora of recordings on Jesus performing miracles! Forgot that that doesn't fit an atheist paradigm!

As for additional parts that were added, what are you referring to? There's really only two such examples. One is the narration of prostitute, and the other is the ending in Mark's gospel. Niether of these substantially add anything new to the gospel tradition, and secondly, who's to say they aren't true? Many events and teachings of Jesus were passed down in a formal and controlled method even when the Gospels were being written. Who's to say a narration like the one involving the prostitute was not a piece of history that was added in later, under permission of an Apostle? I mean really, there are many alternative hypotheses that are just as likely, if not more likely.

So yea, basic points are the Bible is reliable and atheism smells of elderberries.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1309405470' post='2260633']
This is already a separate topic, and it's one I'm investing some personal study. Bart Ehrman doesn't represent the whole of Biblical scholarship, he endorses the liberal side, and is generally pessimistic about history (i.e. he believes little can be known historically.) He's written a lot of popular works. Personally what I noticed about him is that he likes to make statements and then not qualify them. So for example, he'll mention the fact that there are thousands of textual variants between the bible manuscripts, but he wont mention that 90% of these variants fall under the minute and easily identifiable category (i.e. spelling errors, missing lines, and other common accidents caused by the slip of a pen.) Also, the way the number is calculated is based off incidence, and not category. So if you have a a text with an error called A, and error A is copied by another scribe, scholars will say 2 variants exist, even though categorically it is one. With holding information like this leads the lay reader into thinking the bible is totally unreliable. The reality is the exact opposite! Scholars recognize many works as reliable even though the earliest copy we have of them is CENTURIES later. Consider Tacitus' Annals of History, originally written in 115 AD, and the earliest copy we have is from circa 900! We have fragments of the gospels going much earlier than that. In fact, one particular fragment named P52 of John's Gospel, is dated some 40 years after John's gospel was traditionally written! Incredible! [/quote]

Actually in his interviews he does qualify the errors in the bible and most of them at least are what I consider to be normal (spelling mistakes, copying errors etc.), so I don't use them to fit into my close minded atheist paradigm. Mistranslations are common, and even poor translations given the sometimes linguistic disconnect between two languages or literal translations while dealing with symbolic words such as metaphors and such; or lack of context to determine whether the meaning of a word with more than one usage is such or such.

He mentioned the first copies we have (even of Paul) are written in Greek and by erudite people. Chances that they're eyewitnesses are slim.

He also mentioned while talking about his book "Forged" that sometimes people would submit a document as someone else in order to gain credibility. I'd have to listen to it again to see the particulars and details.



[quote]As for specific claims that the Gospels werent written by eye witnesses, they have no basis and ultimately are founded on bias. I mean really, would an agnostic scholar like Ehrman ever admit that their is actual eye witness testimony of a man performing miracles? Heck no! Thats the difficulty with the gospels for the atheist, they simply CANT be true! For them to be eye witness testimony would require a repudiation of atheism! So for scholars like Ehrman, the Gospels MUST be the product of non witnesses who's sources were faulty. That's why you see these strange theories of the gospel tradition being passed on anonymously, by a christian community that is so creativity they are virtually creating the teachings of Jesus from thin air! What hogwash! These schoalrs essentially are trying to project a folklore model into the gospel transmission. The problem with this is that it requires a lengthy space of time, but the Gospels were written within LIVING MEMORY! Even a scholar like Ehrman will admit that the gospels were written between 60-90AD! Many people who witnesses Jesus were alive and accessible. Doesn't it make sense that a person familiar with helenistic histiorography like Luke, would utilize these witnesses? I mean HELLO! And in fact Luke does, he mentions it in his gospel:

[b]"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were [color="#FF0000"]eyewitnesses and servants of the word[/color]"[/b]

So Luke used not merely eyewitnesses but eyewitnesses who were essentially seen as authoritative figures. There's no reason to doube that he had access to such people, so why not believe him? Oh... yea... Luke has a plethora of recordings on Jesus performing miracles! Forgot that that doesn't fit an atheist paradigm![/quote]

Miracles would need more proof than simply being written down in a book during a time when people were immersed in magical and superstitious thinking. It's not the bible that would convince me of its veracity without much more to back it up and I see no more reason to believe its claims about miracles than I have to see the Greek gods taking sides and how they would intervene during Homer's Illiad. Why don't the other gospels have more miracles in them? What about all the other gospels that didn't make it into the bible?

[quote]As for additional parts that were added, what are you referring to? There's really only two such examples. One is the narration of prostitute, and the other is the ending in Mark's gospel. Niether of these substantially add anything new to the gospel tradition, and secondly, who's to say they aren't true? Many events and teachings of Jesus were passed down in a formal and controlled method even when the Gospels were being written. Who's to say a narration like the one involving the prostitute was not a piece of history that was added in later, under permission of an Apostle? I mean really, there are many alternative hypotheses that are just as likely, if not more likely.[/quote]

Those two parts mainly, and if I do recall the main point he used to support this were also linguistic, that they could tell based on variants more or less what time it was written. The documents that make up bible are a collage, and no one gospel was written by one person during one time.

[quote]So yea, basic points are the Bible is reliable and atheism smells of elderberries.[/quote]

[mortify]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309408408' post='2260656']
Actually in his interviews he does qualify the errors in the bible and most of them at least are what I consider to be normal (spelling mistakes, copying errors etc.), so I don't use them to fit into my close minded atheist paradigm. Mistranslations are common, and even poor translations given the sometimes linguistic disconnect between two languages or literal translations while dealing with symbolic words such as metaphors and such; or lack of context to determine whether the meaning of a word with more than one usage is such or such. [/quote]

What's strange about Ehrman is that he believes textual scholars has restored the NT. In other words, scholars have identified the variants, and using sound methodologies have identified which of the variants are original. So what's the beef? Clearly he has an axe to grind.


[quote]He mentioned the first copies we have (even of Paul) are written in Greek and by erudite people. Chances that they're eyewitnesses are slim. [/quote]

Umm, Paul was an educated man and a Roman citizen. What is so unlikely about him writing in Greek? As for a Gospel like St John's, what if a Greek disciple of John recorded the words from his mouth? It's visibly evident that the source for the Fourth Gospel was solidly familiar with Jerusalem prior to 70AD, Jewish customs and feasts, and the lectionary used in the synagogues. Is it really hard to image that a scribe recorded the memories of a living Apostles? I mean really, why is the hypothesis least favorable towards the Bible's integrity always taken? Hmm, bias anyone?

[quote]He also mentioned while talking about his book "Forged" that sometimes people would submit a document as someone else in order to gain credibility. I'd have to listen to it again to see the particulars and details. [/quote]

If that's the case, why would they choose nobodies like Mark, Luke, and Matthew? Only John fits this hypothesis, he was a well known Apostle. But the fact is, attaching names like Mark and Luke to a gospel only make it more believable that these were the folks who wrote it.

[quote]Miracles would need more proof than simply being written down in a book during a time when people were immersed in magical and superstitious thinking. It's not the bible that would convince me of its veracity without much more to back it up and I see no more reason to believe its claims about miracles than I have to see the Greek gods taking sides and how they would intervene during Homer's Illiad. Why don't the other gospels have more miracles in them? What about all the other gospels that didn't make it into the bible? [/quote]

We're not proving the concept of miracles here, but let's at least admit that some strange phenomena was attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. Even the Jews didn't hesitate associating supernatural powers to him, and textual scholars generally agree that this was an aspect of his ministry. Using their own textual critical principles, they prove such is true! So for example, when the gospels record the Jews attributing Jesus' power to the Devil, this is considered a true recording, since a Christian scribe making up the life of Jesus, wouldn't attribute something like this to his master! Such a claim must have been made against Jesus, and so it was recorded. The point is, we have to take in the fact that "miracles" were associated with the historical Jesus. What we make of these phenomena is another story. Some scholars like to attribute natural explanations for them. So when Jesus walked on water, there really was sheet of ice he walked on. When he multiplied the loaves and fishes, it was really the "miracle of sharing" (pheh!) Whatever you choose to believe, such stories are attached to his person. Now if you are truly an open minded person, wouldnt you consider the possibility of miracles? I mean really, have scientists identified all known phenomena? What is some phenomena occur only once and are non repeatable? Then they are outside the scope of science! Only a person who holds materialism and naturalism as dogmatta would outright reject the existence of miracles, and such people are not trully open minded!

Now as for Homer's Illiad, all I can say is, REALLY? You're comparing the tales of an ancient Greek *epic* to the Gospels? You're not factoring genre into the equation. Homer wasn't a historian, he was a master of prose and created a great story. He never intended the Illiad to be taken as a historical account, nor did his readers take it as history. On the other hand, the Gospels fall under the category of ancient biography. Their authors intended to write a historical account of Christ, even though its not history in the modern sense of the word. Likewise, readers of the gospels understood they were reading what was actually recorded of Jesus' life and teaching. So the two are not comparable. And please, don't try to compare Greek myth to the Gospels. As mentioned earlier, the Gospels were written within LIVING MEMORY of Jesus' Life. In the ancient world HISTORY could only be written within LIVING MEMORY. When all the witnesses were dead, you no longer had history, you had tradition! Other than the 12 Apostles, Jesus had numerous disciples, many of whom became Elders in the church decades after His resurrection. Now do you really suppose that the Apostles and Elders just dissapeared from history? Heck no! They were teaching about Jesus day in and day out! The were still teaching when the Evangelists were writing down their gospels!

So yea... comparing the authenticity of the Gospels to some legend about Zeus just aint gonna fly!

[quote]Those two parts mainly, and if I do recall the main point he used to support this were also linguistic, that they could tell based on variants more or less what time it was written. The documents that make up bible are a collage, and no one gospel was written by one person during one time. [/quote]

That last part of your sentence sounds like you're getting into form criticism. Criticizing the criticism would be too long for this post. Suffice to say that the major points of form criticism has been refuted by most scholars.

[quote]

[/quote]

Basically what Im saying is that atheism is lame

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1309412026' post='2260686']
What's strange about Ehrman is that he believes textual scholars has restored the NT. In other words, scholars have identified the variants, and using sound methodologies have identified which of the variants are original. So what's the beef? Clearly he has an axe to grind. [/quote]

I trust his judgement more than I would an apologist, because he claims to be an agnostic. Contrary to some other agnostic scholars, he claims that Jesus was actually a historical figure and not a myth so he doesn't look like someone on either extreme to me.

[quote]Umm, Paul was an educated man and a Roman citizen. What is so unlikely about him writing in Greek? As for a Gospel like St John's, what if a Greek disciple of John recorded the words from his mouth? It's visibly evident that the source for the Fourth Gospel was solidly familiar with Jerusalem prior to 70AD, Jewish customs and feasts, and the lectionary used in the synagogues. Is it really hard to image that a scribe recorded the memories of a living Apostles? I mean really, why is the hypothesis least favorable towards the Bible's integrity always taken? Hmm, bias anyone?[/quote]

Did Paul mention the miracles of Jesus? Though really, it's not a point I want to get into right now.


[quote]If that's the case, why would they choose nobodies like Mark, Luke, and Matthew? Only John fits this hypothesis, he was a well known Apostle. But the fact is, attaching names like Mark and Luke to a gospel only make it more believable that these were the folks who wrote it. [/quote]

I don't know. But he based it on criticism, and once again, I'm more inclined to take his word for it than somebody else's who claims that each gospel was written by the person whose name it is under. Biblical collage seems to be an established fact.

[quote]We're not proving the concept of miracles here, but let's at least admit that some strange phenomena was attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. Even the Jews didn't hesitate associating supernatural powers to him, and textual scholars generally agree that this was an aspect of his ministry. Using their own textual critical principles, they prove such is true! So for example, when the gospels record the Jews attributing Jesus' power to the Devil, this is considered a true recording, since a Christian scribe making up the life of Jesus, wouldn't attribute something like this to his master! Such a claim must have been made against Jesus, and so it was recorded. The point is, we have to take in the fact that "miracles" were associated with the historical Jesus. What we make of these phenomena is another story. Some scholars like to attribute natural explanations for them. So when Jesus walked on water, there really was sheet of ice he walked on. When he multiplied the loaves and fishes, it was really the "miracle of sharing" (pheh!) Whatever you choose to believe, such stories are attached to his person. Now if you are truly an open minded person, wouldnt you consider the possibility of miracles? I mean really, have scientists identified all known phenomena? What is some phenomena occur only once and are non repeatable? Then they are outside the scope of science! Only a person who holds materialism and naturalism as dogmatta would outright reject the existence of miracles, and such people are not trully open minded![/quote]

You know what they say...strive to be open minded but not so open minded that your brain falls out.

Those Biblical miracles do go against known natural phenomena. How could Jesus walk on water if there wasn't another force at play? Claiming that it was god really does nothing for someone not so willing to take it on pure faith. How did he divide a loaf of bread beyond its initial mass? Did he transform the hydrogen atoms in the air to make and array of other atoms and combine them into bread (without needing to create a special nuclear reactor first)? In nature, new and heavier atoms are created inside stars and when stars explode. That's a lot of energy. Did he take non organic carbon and make it combine into organic forms to form more bread? Don't say that it's dogmatic science when such claims fly in the face of credibility. I need way more than an ancient book (once again: written by people who were immersed in magical and superstitious thinking, as was normal in a pre scientific age) to convince me. Good illusionists can pull off some "miracles" these days.

[quote]Now as for Homer's Illiad, all I can say is, REALLY? You're comparing the tales of an ancient Greek *epic* to the Gospels? You're not factoring genre into the equation. Homer wasn't a historian, he was a master of prose and created a great story. He never intended the Illiad to be taken as a historical account, nor did his readers take it as history. On the other hand, the Gospels fall under the category of ancient biography. Their authors intended to write a historical account of Christ, even though its not history in the modern sense of the word. Likewise, readers of the gospels understood they were reading what was actually recorded of Jesus' life and teaching. So the two are not comparable. And please, don't try to compare Greek myth to the Gospels. As mentioned earlier, the Gospels were written within LIVING MEMORY of Jesus' Life. In the ancient world HISTORY could only be written within LIVING MEMORY. When all the witnesses were dead, you no longer had history, you had tradition! Other than the 12 Apostles, Jesus had numerous disciples, many of whom became Elders in the church decades after His resurrection. Now do you really suppose that the Apostles and Elders just dissapeared from history? Heck no! They were teaching about Jesus day in and day out! The were still teaching when the Evangelists were writing down their gospels!

So yea... comparing the authenticity of the Gospels to some legend about Zeus just aint gonna fly![/quote]

They both have gods in them. And I'm going to have to look more indepth on the historicity of the bible.

[quote]That last part of your sentence sounds like you're getting into form criticism. Criticizing the criticism would be too long for this post. Suffice to say that the major points of form criticism has been refuted by most scholars.[/quote]



[quote]Basically what Im saying is that atheism is lame[/quote]

To accept and incorporate parts of religious philosophies is one thing, but to believe in miracles is gullibility. My atheism is a result of my skepticism, and I really don't see it as lame.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309415851' post='2260713']
They both have gods in them. And I'm going to have to look more indepth on the historicity of the bible.
[/quote]

Hey I don't have time for a long reply here because I'm at work, but I thought I'd mention that you need to read The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. The author is a crime reporter and investigated the claims of Jesus in the way that he would have in a court of law. Great read.