I think that is explained more by the fact that people who are in great need, grab on to what they think can help them. My church was packed after 9-11. It’s not something I’m proud of, but I am guilty of spending more time talking to God when something is wrong, than when everything is going good. That’s human nature. There have been some really good points made here, that I’ve never thought about. Still keeping God around though.
TVAA:
Oh? And in what way did I misunderstand it (that is, the first law, as per your correction)? Does that law not mean that nothing can come from nothing?
Chaim Mattis Keller
Perhaps. Either way though, the point is that this refutes Lumpy’s hypothesis. Lumpy’s conjecture was that people believe God because they happened to be more fortunate than others, and so credit this good fortune to God. If anything, we’ve seen that people who are more fortunate tend to reject God, rather than embrace him.
I’m glad you admit that, as I feel the same way. It also provides one explanation for why God allows suffering in the world. If God places a premium on our character, our salvation and our eternal relationship with Him, then it is perfectly reasonable that He would permit temporary earthly suffering for the sake of eternity. Little wonder then that the greatest revivals have been occurring in places where the persecution of believers has been the most intense!
Hm. Seems to me that there’s considerable circular reasoning involved there.
[/QUOTE]
Show me.
Okay, I have to agree with you on that as far as prosperity goes. But I would also agree that if only certain people were allowed to reproduce, eventually there would be either a religious slant as in “God’s chosen” or some sort of superiority agenda or maybe somehow smug and self-righteous. Talk about run on sentence.
True. I’m still learning patience. It can be a tough lesson. Hey, you were witnessing to me on that other thread!!!
Okay, I have an odd sense of humor. You’ll either get used to it or hate me. Would still like an aswer on the “did Jesus sin” thread. I promise I’ll be nicer if you promise never to say “Well, golly” to me again. Truce.
I thought the Watchmaker “analogy” has been rebuked to death, and then some.
First of all, there is no analogy. It is obvious to us that a watch is made (see below), but there is no such clue about this world.
Secondly, we know a watch is made and not grown out of stone <em>because of prior experience</em>. Show a watch to somebody who does not have this experience, perhaps a Bushman, and he will not be able to tell you that it is a manufactured object.
Theory and no opinion? Isn’t my theory essentially my opinion? What part of “my theory” don’t you consider an opinion. Or do you consider something an opinion only if expressed in words with 5 letters or less?
“Rebuked”?
It certainly has been criticized, but never adequately IMO.
This may be related in some way to Lumpy’s “Survivor’s Perspective” but it is another odd trait of human reasoning which fascinates me.
A plane crashes in a corn field. 311 people die horribly but there is one survivor. What is his perspective? “It is a miracle!” He exclaims, “I prayed to God to protect me and He answered my prayers.”
But what about the 311 prayers that weren’t answered and the 311 perspectives of the dead?
This is one way in which belief is a self-fulfilling prophecy. No matter the outcome of any event, in the mind of a believer it can’t disprove the existence of a “Creator.”
Scam artists like those who claim to speak to the dead use that same propensity of the human intellect to deceive. Any positive event is magnified and any negative event is disregarded (as in the plane crash.)
The winner of the lottery, the survivor of the crash, and the consciousness that comes into being all have something in common. They have the perspective of being in a position which defied very long odds. But odds don’t mean much when there is a near infinity of permutations.
It means that the creation of mass-energy is not allowed, which is only a problem if you insist on considering the universe to have been “created” in the first place. If it had any relevance to religious belief at all, it would be an argument against a Creator.
Smacking you with a third rolleyes: :rolleyes
Drat, drat, drat! I’ve forgotten the ending colon yet again.
Well, here you are: :rolleyes:
Only one believer out of 312? Hmmmm…That sound’s like about the right ratio.
You look at our events and beliefs and come up with rational reasons why the belief is faulty. We look at the same thing and come up with reasons why that same belief must be true. I think both are odd traits of human reasoning. I can understand why it is so important, from my perspective, for me to be right. If I’m not, I lose something. I am still trying to figure out why it is so important, from your perspective, for you to be right? Or is it just more important not to be wrong? Could non-belief be simply an illusion of perspective? What do you lose if you’re wrong?
It’s not possible that the universe was created. There is no such thing as “nothing”. Since it has always been, in some form or another, some event or process eventually got our little corner cooking. The only question is did God put the pot on to boil or did the pot put itself on to boil?
Actually, that is more or less my position. Nice work, IWLN.
Thanks. God told me.(straight face)
TVAA:
Sorry, but I think that your position defies logic.
-
How exactly do you consider the universe to have not been “created” in the first place? Whether by atheistic accident or by intelligent design, it exists, doesn’t it?
-
Assuming that the Creator in the religious belief at issue is a being beyond the laws that we consider nature and has no physical essence (which is true, at least, of the Judeo-Christian understanding of the Creator), how can ANY law of physics be an argument against it?
Chaim Mattis Keller
** And your positions are the epitome of reason, eh? Let’s take a look:
** Things that are timeless cannot be said to be created. You believe God exists, yes? Do you also believe that He was created? If yes, you’re throwing out what I understand to be one of the key tenets of traditional Judaic religous thought. If no, why are you asking this question?
** Any and all the laws of physics are against it, because that description is inherently self-contradictory. The “physical world” is defined by interaction. Thus, if it can interact with the world, it’s physical. A non-physical deity who interacts with the world isn’t possible – it’s ruled out by the mere idea of physical laws, much less the specific ones we accept at the moment.
Quote modified to the intention of the author (I hope):
The conservation of energy is confined to processes which are necessarily conservative. There is no reason to believe that a creation had to have such a property. Violation of conservation laws can occur as long as they are done within the confines of physical norms. This is where, for example, the “quantum mechanical” explanation for creation comes into play. There is a small probability that energy is not conserved in some processes, thus we get such effects of “quantum tunneling” and the like. The universe could have quantum tunneled from nothingness and not violated the conservation of energy because it doesn’t apply in a situation where violation occurs. This is a totally physical explanation. Is it the way things happened? We cannot know at this point because we don’t have enough evidence. Yet, the theory is out there and doesn’t require a “creator” at all.
There is a tremendous danger in trying to use scientific descriptions to explain non-scientific postulates. Creationists get into this problem a lot when they try to say that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution. That particular conceit DOES deserve an eye-roll, but since it was not made, I will refrain.
There are solutions to this that allow the universe to travel back in time and self-consistently create itself. In other words, it has no creation point, just simply a time-like loop that it travels on at about the Planck limit boundary until some instability (quantum fluctuation maybe?) allows it to “Big Bang”.
I think that it’s true that the laws of physics do not argue for or against a particular kind of theism (the kind that doesn’t make any claim as to the scientific observability of a god), but the laws of physics do have a lot to say about gods that act in physically observable ways: namely that they have never been observed to do so.
So you’re saying, it’s impossible for any entity to exist which can influence the physical universe without being subject to reciprocal influence.